I have to tell you that I'm more interested in substance than slogans.
I'm getting a little lost in the MAGA, the MAHA.
Now there's AHA.
I don't know where we're going with this.
I want to talk about the substance.
And in this case, something very personal to me is the issue of addiction and mental health.
And I know what you care deeply about these issues.
I know you have been honest about your own recovery, your own struggle with addiction.
In my family, my middle son Harry is now 12 and a half years in recovery from opioid addiction.
It was a long road.
It was a hard road.
In active addiction, you know how difficult it is and it's difficult to bring a family member back.
I give Harry great credit.
He now works in the area of addiction.
That's why I'm very, very worried about what is going on with SAMHSA.
If you take a look at the data, the numbers, we were getting somewhere.
Two years ago, three years ago, we were losing 110,000 people a year to overdose.
That's 300 people a day.
I call that a jetliner a day of souls crashing to this country.
Just last year, the second half of 23 and the first half of 24, 12 months, that number went down 27%.
81,000 deaths of overdose.
Don't let me minimize 81,000 deaths.
That's still 220 people a day.
Today, tomorrow, yesterday, 365 days a year.
But a 27% reduction in overdose deaths in this country?
Overdose is still stealing a generation in this country.
So why in God's name are we shuttering SAMHSA?
We are not shuddering, Samson.
I share your concerns and I'm anxious to work with you on this problem.
I'm fully committed to it.
Because of my own history, I lost a brother to overdose.
I lost one of my nieces during the pandemic to overdose.
Like every family in this country has somebody that was lost.
As you point out, we were losing, I think, two years, three years ago, 106,000 American kids.
It's double the number that we lost during the 20 year Vietnam War and we ought to be applying.
I think he said 106,000 kids, which gosh, darn it.
I don't, I don't know if that's accurate.
I don't have all these numbers, but I'm sure he's going to fumble the ball here and it's frustrating.
I'm very, very, very, very sorry about that.
Why the cuts to SAMHSA and why are you shifting?
We're not, we are not shuttering SAMHSA.
We are still running 500 addiction centers.
You've already cut SAMHSA and the budget proposal is to shutter it and shift it to an AHA program, which I don't know what AHA means.
To shift it to the Administration for Healthy America.
We're shifting a lot of the chronic disease programs out of CDC into a center that will address chronic disease.
And you and I agree that overdose is a public health epidemic in this country.
Yes.
And why would we, when we are finally seeing some success, bury that success, put it in an AHA program, which, by the way, logically doesn't make any sense.
We have to now rehire people and figure out what their roles will be within AHA.
Why wouldn't we analyze?
I would also point out, I guess Mark would agree with me, hi Mark in the chat, that the deaths going down doesn't mean that the opioids are ruining any fewer lives.
Just like when deaths from gunshot wounds go down in Chicago, that doesn't mean that guns are being fired less or people are being shot less.
It can just mean that the ER is getting better and better at treating gunshot wounds.
And in this case, if you're putting Narcan in everybody's purse so that people don't die of acute overdose, I guess you're kind of reducing that number, but I don't really know if that's
If that's a use, I don't know.
You know, see what I'm saying?
I'm just kind of pessimistic about this whole argument.
The data that shows we just saved 20 plus thousand lives in the course of one year.
This matters in my district.
I have buried way too many kids to overdose, to fentanyl poisoning, by the way.
You don't have to be an addict.
This was like this week.
You can just be poisoned.
Yesterday or the day before.
Why in God's name are this this administration wants to shutter it?
We know that and shift it into aha.
Why would you do that?
They don't want to shutter.
What we want to do is we want to shift that function into a place where we're going to be able to administrate it more efficiently.
And that's all.
What analysis was done?
Can you show us the study that led you to the decision, shutter SAMHSA, shift it.
We call that shift and shaft in my old days as an appropriator in Pennsylvania.
Shift it over here, throw it in a block grant program, and good luck.
What's the analysis that you did that said whatever SAMHSA was doing with harm reduction, by the way, with making naloxone available, with training for naloxone, I literally carry this with me every day.
I want to normalize the life-saving capacity of naloxone and you guys want to bury it in AHA.
Oh, we want to provide Naloxone, Narcon.
We want to make sure that addicts have every option.
You're eliminating the training for that.
Suboxone to methadone and to 12-step programs to inpatient, outpatient.
You're zeroing them out.
We run 500 addiction centers.
We're not going to stop doing that.
My agency will still do it.
It's shifting to a subdivision where we can operate it more efficiently with other chronic diseases.
But do you realize that- CDC is going to do infectious disease, which is why we created it.
How can he really be doing any of this if he spends all of his time talking to cameras or standing behind Trump while Trump talks to cameras?
It's just-
I mean, obviously now, given where we are in America, I want to be very clear with my messaging.
I'm afraid.
I'm, I'm afraid in a, in a adult, mature and realistic way.
I'm worried that our country is somehow, you know, like the, the cruise ship is going way too fast into the Harbor and everybody is arguing about the,
the lack of top shelf whiskey on the fourth floor bar, and about the ruckus that's being created in the pool, instead of worrying about what's going on with the ship as a whole.
And this show, as it gets more and more malevolent, really starts to eat at me.
And I'm sure it eats at you, but the most important thing to understand is that it is designed
to eat at us.
And the trick is, can we understand it correctly so that it motivates us in the right way, that it points us in the right direction, that it suggests the correct actions?
Because if we interpret this in the way that the militarized social media and our skillful use of it would like us to, then we will
We will panic ourselves into a trap.
I don't know exactly what the trap is I'm not going to call it some kind of digital prison because I think that's a That's a that's a myth the real prison is the acceptance of social media as as The new norm as the new way to like we didn't already like email didn't already work And so we're
and, and, you know, having your own website and maintaining your own website.
These are all things that worked just fine.
And now we are, we are surrendering our consciousness.
And more importantly, we are surrendering our children's consciousness to social media programs.
And that is incredibly dangerous because again, remember what's really happening there is we are allowing our use of language
and infinite examples of it to be produced and given to an AI, if you want to call it that.
But it's really just a machine learning algorithm that can see patterns that we can't, identify patterns that we can't.
I shouldn't say it can see, but it can be used to identify patterns in language that when put together,
can mimic human speech.
And that's not magical.
That's just the application of computing power already to a solved problem.
And this transition that's happening where computers are gonna start to produce more and more of this language, and we're gonna have to understand that, that language can be weaponized against us because language is not as complicated as we imagine it to be.
And so if you are not sufficiently adept at using the correct word at the correct time and aware of how the misuse of words can be weaponized and has been weaponized against all of us since we were kids,
then you won't really be able to see how malevolent it is on social media where this has taken on a couple layers of acting, couple layers of actors.
Now instead of, if you have one principled Tom Brokaw who has authority to choose his staff and he chooses principled people, then it's gonna be pretty hard for you to get Tom Brokaw to read fake stories.
unless you produce them, unless you make them happen and provide the characters.
And so on social media, unfortunately, our use of it provides the opportunity for a government or a military or a private weaponized pile of money to provide you with bad guys and good guys, opinions and crazy people
and even provides the means by which a malevolent actor, a person with ulterior motives could use a combination of messages to create an illusion that you would never be able to see through because the default assumption when you pick up your phone and you open up one of these apps is that you're getting a representation of your follower list.
And that's not true.
It's absolutely not true.
What you're getting is a representation of the theater that this social media, i.e., weaponized military social control suite, is giving you.
And if they want you to be concerned about Israel today, because there was a bomb that exploded in
some capital city, then they'll tell you all about it.
And all kinds of personalities will tell you about it.
And all kinds of personalities will tell you that they're also concerned about it.
Just like on some days on this media, you can see a lot of TikTok videos with AI, and sometimes you see none.
Sometimes you see the same kind of video, like babies was it the other day, baby AI videos.
And everybody was sharing one funny one or another one.
I think even Nicole Shanahan shared one the other day.
And so if you think about that phenomenon happening on a platform like X, and because you scroll through it for 20 minutes, and so that means you see, what, 100 posts?
They already understand very well.
Number one, how to keep you on there as long as possible.
Number two, how many ads you'll tolerate.
Number three, how fast you read.
Number four, whether or not you look at boobs or not.
They know all those things.
And they've known it for a long time.
And the more that you've used it, the more that they've learned about all of us.
And as I've come to understand this,
Malevolent platform more and more I've come to understand it as a place also where people are paid to to pretend You know to be a certain character and a lot of anonymous people there are paid to be certain characters and maybe paid to be several characters and
Those pictures that they show you of a bunch of phones on a rack with one or two Chinese people working that, what they're showing you that for is for you to imagine, oh, the Chinese are very wicked.
Would they make a bunch of fake accounts and then try to control their people?
But of course we know that Britain and America would do that just as well.
That's why they blame it on the Russians or the Chinese.
And so the trick is to understand that
maybe a lot like and this is important maybe a lot like how Epstein and the story of Epstein was likely a story maybe with some reality in it that was a homegrown um
Operation they want you to believe it's you know Mossad or something like that, but just imagine that the United States Had some kind of you know safe
safe sort of, you know, compromise or operation.
So that, you know, if you're going to do this kind of stuff, you're going to do it with Jeffrey Epstein and all these clowns.
And at least then you'll be doing it with other Americans and under the supervision of the FBI and not under the supervision of, you know, whatever the KGB or MI6 or whatever they're called.
And
maybe just maybe that's that's what you have here with regard to social media is it gives it gives a sort of you know private provided option for governments to potentially control the opinion of the masses you almost can kind of sell it to them
You know, you could almost see maybe even that that's exactly what Elon Musk is doing all around the world.
That's why he's paying all of these people to keep saying that on X and on X, I post this.
That's why Nicole Shanahan, who some, Mark enlightened me.
You know, I was just kind of casually commenting yesterday on, wow, I'm just going crazy here.
Casually commenting on Nicole's, I don't know how much she's worth, but
I guess I kind of forgot that she was married to the guy that created Google.
Google's worth like, you know, I don't know, 10 or 100 times more than a pharmaceutical company's worth.
Like, so we're talking about Pfizer wanting to make all this money.
But I mean, there are companies that are orders of magnitude larger than Pfizer.
And
potentially worth more because they are selling their services, can sell their services to the highest bidders around the world, the largest weaponized piles of money around the world.
And I don't think we can underestimate how much of that is central to what's going on here.
And while we're arguing about fluoride in the water or Froot Loops,
And, you know, Pfizer, these people are operating companies on orders of magnitude larger than that with objectives that are much bigger.
And that is controlling how people know things.
Absolutely it is.
It is more or less, I think, creating an electronic alternate reality that they can flip on a dime.
It may already basically exist in the form of the internet as we use it.
And unless we get decentralized in a serious way, unless we start really building and taking over this infrastructure in a decentralized way, we really may be in trouble.
I don't even know as a, I'm not a computer engineer, so I don't even know if building a decentralized internet of peer tubes and soap boxes will even solve the problem if in the end all those servers can be turned off too.
All of those websites can just be erased or IP not found or whatever it is.
Something is wrong.
And they are running out the clock with this theater.
This is a theater.
It is a big show that we're supposed to get engaged with.
We're supposed to wave the waitress over and get more drinks.
And we're supposed to not want this to stop because our guy's on stage.
He's finally there.
We got him on stage and now he's going to do something, right?
It's very, very, very, very, very important to understand how crucial a time point in American history I think this is.
You've got to change your perspective.
You've got to start thinking in longer time horizons.
You've got to think about planting trees under whose shade you will not shelter by trying to get our kids out of this trap.
And it is a very, very, very deep,
multi-layered trap, but it is essentially constructed of people who have a spectacular commitment to lying.
It's that simple.
They have decided not to look behind the curtain,
If you want to use that analogy to say what he's and Donald Trump are doing with respect to Israel, you could say that.
But honestly, I don't know enough about what's going on in Israel to know if what's going on in Israel is going on.
I don't wanna say anything that'll make anybody mad, but I just wanna say that most people only know what they see on social media.
And it is possible, however unlikely, that they clear everybody out all the time, all the time, all the time, before they bomb things.
And then they show people and they pay people to do this because they're all trying to create a narrative.
It could be,
And you don't know.
And it's not because I think that that guy on Joe Rogan was right, you have to go there to know.
I'm saying that you don't even know what's going on on the north side of Pittsburgh right now.
I don't either.
And so there's a reason why on our phone and on my phone, there's nothing about the north side of Pittsburgh, but there's always something about Israel.
There's nothing about Egypt.
There's almost nothing about Jordan.
And only recently did I hear that Donald Trump went to Saudi Arabia.
So then there was something about Saudi Arabia.
But most of the time, the only thing I hear about is this, how many ever square miles of relatively poor country.
I mean, what is the biggest GDP and some of the biggest portion of GDP in Israel is pharmaceuticals and research and development in pharmaceuticals.
I don't really understand how that economy works, but it's not amazing.
It's not like a super productive population of people that are paying taxes into a government that has a surplus or something like that.
At least that's what I can glean off of my phone and off of the internet.
The thing about it is that frustrates me the most about this whole, this whole show is that no one on either side can claim to be winning.
And I don't get it.
The only people that can be, that can claim that the Trump
3D chess is working are people that are absolutely positively paid to say that.
No one in a rational, no one with their rational right mind would say that things are going great, that they got what they voted for, that he's doing exactly what I thought he would do, that prices are going down, that I'm so happy with my cheap eggs, that I can't believe that gas went so cheap.
None of these things are happening.
because they were never gonna happen.
They just had to happen under somebody so that the people that were, you see, they got us riled up in a ball and we're just rolling around, but we're rolling in the exact same direction we were before.
And if you see it as a ball and realize that sometimes you're on the bottom and sometimes you're on the top, and these people are just absolutely excited to be part of the people that are pushing the ball.
This giant ball of confused people that's arguing with each other over years about the same thing, you know, like MMR.
And I think we should have separate vaccines.
And Andrew Wakefield's a hero.
And oh my goodness, my son was injured by MMR.
I cured him.
And 25 years later, we're here.
with this guy who basically got where he is because he took a video at the beach of himself swinging on chains with no shirt on and dropping to the floor and doing a few push-ups.
I mean, he certainly didn't get to that chair by putting a dead bear in a bicycle in Central Park as a joke.
I'm
I'm motivated now.
I really feel like it's time.
And I really feel like our kids can win.
Our kids can end this.
Our kids can change fundamentally how people build and think about communities in society.
I really do.
And that's really what needs to happen.
We need to come together under a new
you know, renewed sense of who we are, and who we are as people, and what we want for our children, what we want for our grandkids.
And none of what these people want is what we want.
They pretend, they pretended very well for nearly 10 years straight, I think a lot of these people have been knowing this was coming.
Maybe some of them even expected it to happen a little earlier.
Maybe some of them even expected it to happen in 2001 or 2002.
I think that's actually possible.
Some of them thought it was going to happen in 2008 and it didn't.
And now that it's happening now, they're so excited.
All the signs are there.
Everything I was told was going to happen is happening.
So that's why I'm putting all my eggs in the basket of these people.
That's what these people are thinking.
I know it.
It's a really, really pivotal moment in American history.
I can't believe it.
How excited I am about how of a pivotal moment in history this is.
And I think that by really learning
a different interpretation of basic biology and realizing, realizing that the anti-vax movement, the fake health freedom movement made no progress since its inception whenever that was.
And that all the players that are in the upper echelon of that movement now, including Del Bigtree and Robert Malone and Meryl Nass and Mary Holland,
and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Pierre Kory, and Peter McCullough.
These people are all there because they accepted the script in 2020.
Wittingly or unwittingly, or under duress or not, they accepted the script.
if it was because they were read into a national security operation and somebody said, well, if you don't do it, someone else is going to do it.
We really need your help.
This is a national security priority.
And then they got in over their head.
They still didn't have the principles they should have had.
And they still don't have the principles that they should have now, knowing what they obviously know now, which is that they were lied to.
that it was just murder, that it was just a anticipated rise in all-cause mortality seen in the population pyramid for decades, because even Ted Turner talked about it on TNT.
I think he talked about it with Carl Sagan even.
The one child policy in China created an inverted population pyramid in China too.
They have this exact same problem that the rest of the West has, and maybe even more exacerbated in China.
That's why we don't need as many elementary schools as we have.
We won't need as many universities as we have right now.
And so people are all scrambling for seats on a sinking ship.
And I think that once you can see on that longer time horizon, then you can also see why fumbling the ball for a few years with opioids and fumbling the ball for a few years with carfentanil on the streets and other drugs would be a one real easy way to create a bunch of excess death all across the board.
And then also, you know, put a bunch of people in place and tell a nice story about public health and how public health is a reason all the time.
And virology is a science that you'll never understand.
And intramuscular injection is absolutely the best way to administer medicine.
And that's what this is really about.
It's about turning your grandchildren into experimental farm animals.
That's all it is.
Because there will never be this much genetic diversity available on Earth again.
And they know that.
So it's a multigenerational, species-wide priority.
Like, don't screw this up, says great-great-grandfather to great-great-grandson, who's thinking about his great-great-grandsons as being princes of the Earth generations from now.
always destined to rule because you know it's the survival of the wisest okay i probably just ruined the beginning of this i probably should stop the video and start again but i won't i'll do the introduction now thanks for being here let's listen to a tune that i have no i have no reason to justify um i i
I forgot I had another tune to play.
Sorry.
I was gonna make a joke, but it's not a joke Actually, I have a really good song to play and it's got a really good story.
I forgot about that.
Nice.
Okay, here we go I don't care how you get there.
I don't care what you do to get there The goal is to win What time is it
The End
Okay, let's start this thing right.
Good morning, everybody.
Welcome to the show.
This is GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
That biologist is Jonathan Cooley.
I come to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the back of my garage.
You can find the work that I did at the University of Pittsburgh, as well as in Norway and in the Netherlands at the
Sorry, National Library of Medicine website PubMed.
You can also find some of my work and commentary and some of my ideas in the Wuhan cover-up, A Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race, a book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now the Health and Human Services Secretary of the United States of America.
I'm also a good friend of Jay Bhattacharya, although
Darn seems to have lost my number since he got at the head of the NIH, but I forgive him.
And I also was a staff scientist at Children's Health Defense under Brian Hooker before Mary Holland fired me for talking too much about Robert Malone.
Anyway, this is the show that's also misrepresented on this sub stack called Woodhouse 76.
This is a sort of conglomeration creation under the moniker Jessica Hockett.
This is an American apparently from Chicago, but she collaborates with Nick Hudson and Jonathan Engler on this little work where they then have fake arguments with the geneticist Claire Craig and the respiratory enthusiast
opioid expert Pierre Cory, Mike Eden, the retired pharma guy who doesn't know how biologics are made, and of course Jay Bhattacharya, the head of NIH, who ever since the last barbecue we were at, he seems to have lost my number.
Anyway, there's my new little
My little icon there.
I don't think we're gonna call him Chief Woohoo anymore, but anyway.
Welcome to the show.
This is GigaOM Biological.
We do stream to stream.gigaom.bio.
I'm not so sure how playback goes there.
I was having a little problem with it on my iPad this morning.
So if you've got any feedback about my own websites there, gigaom.bio or stream.gigaom.bio, please give it to me because if I need to invest a little more money in a better server or something like that, I will.
And finally add yourself to that list and my wife will send you an email and alert you to the fact that I'm going live.
So yesterday and the day before we have been covering the topic of what is autism really?
And we've been bouncing around from current
thought leaders in America back to a 1968 proceedings of an Indiana University colloquium on infantile autism.
And there seemed to be some striking differences between, number one, the relative frequency of finding it in children in the 60s and 70s was much lower, of course, and agreed upon
an agreed upon pattern by both the current purveyors of this mythology, as I call it, autism spectrum disorder, and what I think is reality.
I think they're telling us a story because intramuscular injection is not medicine.
I think they're telling us a story that RNA can do things that it cannot.
I think they're telling us a story so that we will allow our kids to essentially be subjects to transfection in the future.
And I think that the population pyramid is a real problem that all of these people, wittingly or unwittingly,
have omitted from their explanation of what happened when in reality this is a primary mover for why the murder and lies needed to be where they were, in what age groups, etc.
And so again, just trying to, you know, stay on the ball, keep summarizing things every day, but also stay focused.
And so let me just make sure I know which one is coming here.
Oh yeah, we're gonna do that first.
Am I gonna do that first?
Yeah.
So I really think this is short introduction.
Oh, look, JC on a bike was timed out by Risa.
Oh, time out, JC on a bike.
Although this is no laughing matter, of course, somebody like ZDogg thinks it's a laughing matter.
He's fine with dressing up as Doc Darth Vader.
He's fine with making jokes with this dude for many, many, many podcasts for many, many, many years, lining him up to be taken into this Maha movement.
that everybody insists is the biggest movement on earth, but it's a joke.
It's only a big movement because X says it is, because on X it's made to look like that, but it's not.
And that's what I find remarkable, is I think if you just look at how these people use podcasts on YouTube, Rumble, Rockfin, Locals, to create the illusion that Maha is big,
You know, put the camera below the people, don't show the crowd, put in fake clapping, anything you need to do to make things look like it is as big as whatever Trump was doing, or a part of it, or adding to it.
And that illusion now is stuck on the conservative side, and quite frankly, stuck on the liberal side, or whatever the other side is called, because they also kind of see it on social media as, wow, these people all are really crazy.
and they have agreed with each other on these podcasts.
And wow, they really are all crazy.
And so this is a very, very dangerous place that this fake health freedom movement has brought us.
And it's people like Brett Weinstein and his very naive wife are part of it.
Because in 2021, I already had taught them that the PCR can't be as specific as they say.
So they're misconstruing a background with spread and that transfection would cause autoimmune, it would be devastating.
So I don't know how they're going to do it, but do not do it.
And they shouldn't do it.
And it's inappropriate.
And I wrote a review that's on my website at the link Scooby.
And that review supposedly is the whole reason why Brett Weinstein called me in the first place.
And that review already said, lab leak, it already said, you know, the virus will evolve into more dangerous viruses if we transfect people to this protein.
So I was totally in.
and totally understood what Geert van den Bosch was saying and what Marek's disease in chickens meant.
But I was right about one thing.
These are transfections and they should have always been called transfections because then everybody would just understand that they're not special, they're not investigational vaccines, they're not worthy of a Nobel Prize.
We've been using them on our bench in plants and in animals for decades.
actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
And so that is really absolutely remarkable because I can tell a story like that about him, about him, about him, about, well, he's a good guy, about these guys, about all these people.
They all know me.
They've all had contact with me.
They've all either been afraid or attempted to befriend me.
and then disappeared, and then not published my podcast, and then had Sasha Latupova on three times afterward, or then instead went on to promote Jessica Hockett and Nick Hudson, or argue with Jiki Leaks instead of promoting GigaOM Biological, just some American family in Pittsburgh trying to fight for the truth.
And imagine that somebody like Mary Holland would get somebody like me on her team, a biologist that could teach that all intramuscular injections don't make sense, and she fired me because I was talking about this guy.
This guy.
Who is this guy?
How is it possible that a subsect of America thinks that this dude is some kind of emu-raising, horse-breeding patriot?
How is it possible that this traitor, whose family has allegiances not to America, but to the crown, is not on a list somewhere?
And instead, these people are behind this man.
They are behind this man.
And I make that accusation with authority, knowing what it might do for my five,
my five member family, knowing what kind of position that puts us in, but I don't know what else to say.
No one else can say it.
And so I feel obliged to do so.
I feel obliged to say that something is going drastically wrong, and that's why Kevin McKernan and Jessica Rose were in front of a Senate hearing with Ron Johnson a couple, three times, and not me.
That's why it's very dangerous that these guys are getting multiple books published by Skyhorse Publishing, you know, the brilliant Tony Lyons.
And I can't stress enough, it is not by accident that in 2008, Sky Horse publishes a book with an epilogue that suggests that an independent candidate named Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
could help someone get to the White House.
And then that someone could get shot in 2008.
And then two years later, a book by Andrew Wakefield
not a book by Heather Frazier, not a book by Brian Hooker, a book by Andrew Wakefield.
Then in 2012, they did another book by Andrew Wakefield, not a book by Heather Frazier, not a book by, you know,
Paul Thomas about unvaccinated kids or a book by Brandy Vaughn about unvaccinated kids or a book by Brian Hooker about unvaccinated, no, no, another book by Andrew Wakefield.
Then in 2016, they published a book not with Brian Hooker, no, not with Brandy Vaughn, no, no, not with James Lyons Weiler.
The guy who called it COVID like Robert Malone in 2020.
The guy who knew about the fear and cleavage site before anybody else on the internet.
The guy who in 2019 was saying that vaccine preventable diseases circulate asymptomatically among the vaccinated.
Essentially setting up the narrative in the anti-vax movement in America
that there is asymptomatic spreading of viruses everywhere.
And so it will be plausible, not only plausible, but obvious that COVID could do that too.
SARS-CoV-2, you know, the one that he was an expert on and staged that ridiculous thing in Pittsburgh where he stepped up to a podium and pretended to be talking to a large crowd when he was actually in the parking lot of a historic hotel that just happened to have a, you know, a really big covering.
a concrete building above it that it could echo like that.
Oh my gosh.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., this guy, in like, what, April or March, was promoting Judy Mikovits, who descends from the same collection of mentors that Robert Malone descends from, the same collection of mentors that all these AIDS-believing retrovirus people
Robert Malone thought that there would be a geneticist in every hospital using retroviruses to cure genetic diseases in 10 years when he was a postdoc.
That's the kind of clown he is.
So it's been a long strange trip to realize that I'm one of the few people who can actually figure it out.
But I honestly, hearing Brian Hooker say what he said in 2013 on a recording really hit me in the head.
Because this recording reveals
that Brian Hooker is part of this.
It reveals that every interaction that I had with him at CHD was kind of pretending not to know what I was talking about with transfection.
We should do a podcast about that because, I don't know, I only have 16 years experience transforming and transfecting plants to make medicine.
I won't mention that to you, Jay.
A condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
A condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
And so that's why we're here.
One thing I am confident of, from everything I've read, is that this RNA exists, you can capture it, you can sequence it, you can move it to other cells and recapitulate disease.
But one thing I am confident of, from everything I've read, is that this RNA exists, you can capture it, you can sequence it, you can move it to other cells and recapitulate disease.
So I know I promise not to do my introduction all the time, but I'm doing it today.
That's Kevin McKernan saying that there is an RNA, you can find it, you can sequence it, you can move it around in cell culture and recapitulate disease.
That's him just testifying that there is a novel virus that killed billions of people.
It might be gain of function and therefore it could come again.
It's just a statement of faith.
And it's no different than when we see that recording of David Baltimore and he says, yeah, but didn't Gallo isolate it?
So then why don't you ask him?
This is just textbook stuff.
Textbook stuff is the reason we are here.
Textbook bullshit.
And we need to come to terms with that.
that the biology that we were taught in high school and college, it's wrong.
It's essentially wrong.
It's not that those chemicals don't exist or those proteins don't exist or those ion channels don't exist.
It's that the interpretation of what those observations imply about the foundational principles underlying the pattern integrity.
And they want you to believe that genes mean that evolution occurred and that evolution is a process that we should try to take hold of and control of.
And even Joshua Lederberg down here, Joshua Lederberg already knew that this was ridiculous because how could we take control of a
a written plan when we don't understand how the written plan is implemented over time and whether we have optimized that implementation or not.
Maybe we should first work on figuring out how to optimize the development of a human before we start messing with the code of how development occurs when we don't even understand it.
You see, I think Joshua Lederberg was much smarter than he's given credit for and a lot of times just to make sure
I guess they had to keep him in these circles.
They had to ask him in.
And I think he was clever enough to know that most of the people in the room were not going to listen to him, even if he did.
I don't know.
It's a very interesting place to be.
I know that I, at this, at knowing what we know now, I wonder what, where Joshua Lederberg would be.
I still think he would be part of the ruling class.
I still think he would be part of this group of people that thinks that, you know, the vast majority of people need to be told what to believe.
And if we tell them the truth, it'll be way too complicated to explain to them.
So we might as well just tell them some, you know, ridiculously simple version of the truth that gets us basically what we want and gives them, you know, a bunch of scary stories to tell their kids.
And then we can get on with this.
And they're all happy to do it.
It just requires lying.
It just requires, you know, surfing on four continents.
It just requires accepting money for your farm.
It just accepting a horse or two.
Just accepting a house on the Atlantic Ocean.
And $10,000 cats.
That's all.
That's all it means.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
spent the day testifying on Capitol Hill where he faced a grilling as lawmakers.
I want you to see how they can weaponize this against us because this is the problem right here.
Because while we're on the conservative side thinking that autism means, you know, severe vaccine injury, shitting against the wall, headbanging and whatever.
You know, because when I was on Zoom meetings with Brian Hooker, his adult son was walking in the background with a shirt off.
So I guess that means that he's never gonna get better, permanently damaged, like Paula Aitken's son.
And yet PBS NewsHour and the neuroscience community and the psychiatric societies and psychologists
And teachers think a very different thing about autism.
And if this rift in understanding is exploited, there are going to be some pissed off people in the world, some really ridiculously pissed off people in the world.
And they're going to be believing things that are incongruent with one another.
They won't be able to talk to each other.
You see, I can't reason with my parents if they think this.
And my dad was a special ed teacher, so I'm not even sure that he doesn't think this.
He probably does.
And so this revelation of the history of infantile autism and the thinking around it, and the understanding that the definition was so important.
Otherwise they would lose control of even being able to figure it out if they couldn't define it and then agree about it in the same way.
And that has been weaponized in a way that I cannot describe how ugly it is.
To disguise that intramuscular injection is a terrible methodology, to disguise the fact that virology is a hoax of a science, and to describe the fact, to disguise the fact rather that public health is never
a good reason to do anything.
Yet public health right now, as I explained about these lawyers, public health right now, and in this case Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is allowed, an unelected official is allowed to suspend many fundamental rights on a whim.
And a whim in
Legal speak in America is called the rational basis test.
You just have to have a reasonable explanation.
You know, like you heard some stuff, you have a feeling.
I just, I have a feeling something's going to go wrong, so I'm going to declare an emergency and it's totally okay.
And there is a legal principle in American law called strict scrutiny, which means a good explanation, a good set of reasons, and a specific set of reasons.
And if you hold the government to strict scrutiny when suspending fundamental rights, what you do is you essentially require the government to have a very strict list of circumstances and reasons why to justify suspending fundamental rights.
It can't just be because some unelected official has a feather.
It's gotta be a list of reasons, you know, like a thousand people have died in a day or, you know, whatever.
And so this makes the PrEP Act unconstitutional.
And any federal judge could, in theory, if put in the face of the right trial, where, oh, the PrEP Act doesn't allow you to sue.
Well, yeah, it doesn't allow you to sue, but that's a fundamental right.
You can't suspend that without strict scrutiny.
So the law is struck and this would be done.
Aaron Seery must understand that, or he's incompetent.
Mary Holland must understand that, or she's incompetent.
He, as a lawyer, must understand that, or he is essentially incompetent.
And you can take this clip and play it to any lawyer you know, and either they can explain to you why I got the language kinda wrong, or they will explain to you that they also don't know, and therefore you know your friend is incompetent.
Now listen to how awful the PBS NewsHour was with regard to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and autism just a couple days ago, maybe even yesterday.
It's pressed him on the Trump administration's overhaul of federal health agencies and billions in cuts to the multiple agencies he oversees.
House Democrats in particular raised concerns about whether Kennedy was violating the law in cutting funding appropriated by Congress for medical research this year.
Kennedy said he's streamlining some funds.
Excuse me, but that's BS.
You are not rescaling NIH research.
You are proposing to cut it by $20 billion.
I want my questions answered on are you freezing and withholding funding that Congress- So your programming is so good that the PBS NewsHour is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect to see.
So they show you this lady as a, you know,
sharp and attacking and holding his feet to the fire kind of lady.
And they're going to show Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
as kind of a bumbling idiot.
And it's amazing how a combination of editing and clip choice and setup can use the same clips to create the absolute opposite feeling.
And it is remarkable how good they are at doing it.
And this is not AI
This is just very, very clever decades of advertising work being weaponized against you to control a narrative.
Appropriated in 2025 for life-saving NIH research.
We are not withholding any funding for life-saving research.
Do you commit to following the law?
Of course.
I would just point out, and this is in the chat, Reginald says that PBS viewership is way down as a result of all this.
It's not like it used to be.
That just underscores the potential malevolence of the pivot.
to instead of having something like PBS NewsHour being a news source that everybody pays attention to and holds their feet to the fire from all sides, now we have social media networks that can provide safe bubbles for everybody to think in where they never really have to be challenged like that.
And when they step outside of their bubble, it's so
It's so incongruent with what they understand that they see it clearly as the bubble that it is.
But over here, they're so familiar with it that it feels normal.
Almost like when a city kid comes to Kadat, Wisconsin for Neighbor Days and goes to the carnival in the park and is like, wow, is this lame.
And then you have a beer tent up there and that's it?
That's it?
That's the whole thing?
And a parade on Sunday with only two marching bands?
Are you kidding?
Wow.
I mean, this is kind of sad.
And if you grew up in Kadat, Wisconsin, you would think it was the perfect thing, like Grady in Doc Hollywood, that movie with Michael J. Fox.
It's like this small town versus big city thing.
And then it's crazy how on social media they've created that with the left and the right and a million other little fractions of that.
So that no matter how you attempt to wander outside of your little bubble of discourse, it just feels so alien.
And that's why I think it's really important to watch PBS NewsHour, because you can see how distorted your view is, or our view is, by using X and Instagram and Soapbox and whatever else I use, versus PBS News and MSNBC, or I don't know what else you would do, watch The View.
I mean, remember, there are people who still watch TV.
And it's this transition to people who are watching what they think or treat as TV, but really watching social media.
And that transition is, is putting this power of how people know things.
It's putting that power into other people's hands and that power is worth a lot of money.
That's why Google is valued the way it's valued.
That's why all these companies are valued the way they're valued and much higher than pharmaceutical companies that we're all being told to argue about right now.
I really, I can't stress enough how I really think this is the issue.
And so the no sphere that Desjardins is talking about is this network of computers and communication devices that would allow essentially everybody to, to more or less think the same thing.
And how that would help us with the evolution of the species, because it would put all of us on the same page with regard to what we imagined we wanted in the future.
and how we imagined we'd get there.
Sounds like a really altruistic goal.
Could also be a very easy way to get everybody in the world to agree that being a farm animal is great.
Let's see what they do with this.
Sorry, I don't know what's going on today.
I can't shut up.
fully obligating funding that Congress appropriated.
We appropriated, it is the law of the land for NIH research, and to obligate those funds by September 30th of this year.
Or are you planning to break the law by impounding congressionally appropriated funds?
If you appropriate me the funds, I'm going to spend them.
Kennedy's approach to the measles outbreak also came under scrutiny.
He defended the CDC's response, but was pressed by Democrats about his stance on vaccines.
If you had a child today, would you vaccinate that child for measles?
For measles?
Ooh.
Probably for measles, I, you know, what I would say is my opinions about vaccines are irrelevant.
I have directed Jay Bhattacharya.
Sure, no, like I said, I don't want to.
So that everybody can make that decision.
But I, you know, I don't want to seem like I'm being evasive.
Yeah.
But I don't think people should be taking advice, medical advice from me.
Kennedy has also been vocal about autism.
Look at this.
Don't forget one of the predictions that I've made is that at some point there's going to be an announcement where Brian Hooker will be able to say, Hey, I always knew it was black boys because William Thompson covered up the data about black boys.
And so it's going to be, there's going to be a racial tint to this too.
Um, and it's probably bullshit.
Um,
It's probably bullshit for a number of reasons.
It probably more has to do with something physiological, not genetic.
Unless it's genetic by you mean like less fat, thinner skin, more muscle.
Okay, so then you're more likely not to do a subcutaneous injection of MMR.
You're more likely to do an intramuscular injection and so then maybe they are more vulnerable.
That's one of the things that we're not talking about yet because I'm not sure how this figures in.
But the MMR shot is one of the few subcutaneous shots on the schedule.
I almost think it's not by accident that MMR was the shot that they chose in the UK with Wakefield.
Because they may have even planned to declare
that subcutaneous vaccination was dangerous and that we should go exclusively intramuscular.
That may be something that they were intending to do there.
And the number of papers in the last, let's say 10 years since that originally started in the UK where people are advocating for needle gauge and direct, you know, how long the needle should be for good intramuscular injection without hitting any bones is pretty amazing.
I don't know who in their right mind thinks to write a paper about how great intermuscular injection is as long as you use the right size needle.
But apparently, quite a few people thought that that would help their career.
And so I'm again arguing that the discussion of autism, the definition of autism has been militarized against us to make sure that our children and the parents of the coming generations don't realize that intramuscular injection is an invalid way of administering medicine in any context.
And we can keep saying that until proven otherwise.
database to find, as he says, the causes of autism.
His agenda has won praise from some, including those whose loved ones have severe complications.
But his rhetoric, others say, fails to accurately portray the variety of people on the spectrum and the contributions they make.
Our Ali Rogin has our look at how leaders in the autism community are advocating for themselves.
But let's start with the perspectives of viewers with autism and their caregivers on how they see this moment.
Here's some of what they told us.
OK, so remember, we're going to now talk to people with autism.
So one of these kids could be could be Brian's son, right?
As far as I understand, Brian's son could not do an interview.
It could be Paula Aitken's son, right?
No, as far as I know, her son can't really do interviews like this either.
But now we're going to hear a bunch of people say that not only are they autistic, but they're pissed that they're going to throw a lot of words at you.
It's a semantic enchantment.
And if you don't know the definition of the words or the new words have some weird meaning in your head when you hear them, you'll understand what's going on here.
It's not that dissimilar to, you know, defining all these different genders and challenging people to learn all these different pronouns under the pretense of accepting them in the first place.
It's no different than talking about ma-ha-ha-ha-a-ha.
other than getting everybody listening to accept them in the first place.
And now on PBS NewsHour, as has been going on for a very long time, because you can see the evidence in 2007 or eight from Jenny McCarthy that she cured her autistic kid.
But in 2011, in the Los Angeles Times Parade Magazine, autism is a lost generation.
And Harvard Magazine calls it a devastating disorder in 2008.
Mind blindness, mind blindness, the understanding autism in 2002.
I mean, no, this is in 2000.
Weird, right?
That autism, the idea of what it was, was being seeded right before, right at the same time that all this ramp up and talk about bioterror.
Joe Biden is on ABC News saying that, you know, somebody with a little tiny container and talking down to the lady about bioweapons, bioweapons.
It's a very interesting place we are in in American history.
If we can see it correctly, I think we can save our grandkids, maybe even save a lot of grandkids around the world.
My name is Cody Clifford.
I'm on the autism spectrum.
As somebody who's late diagnosed, it's a new prospect.
Autism is not liking fairy ears and fairy wings.
That's not autism at all.
for me to be thinking about is how other people see me, how other people are, like, talking about autism issues in the media.
I'm gonna try not to get too emotional about it, because it is, I think, overall really hurtful.
My name is Doris Smith.
I have a son, a 30-year-old son named Jacob, who has been diagnosed with autistic behavior.
We see the scratching, the biting, the inability to sleep.
I've got holes in my walls that, you know, I'm tired of doing drywall.
So does that other girl do drywall damage and stuff?
That kid couldn't be on camera.
I mean, do you see the problem we have here?
Because they're not all the same problem.
It's not all the same phenomenon.
But these people have been somehow convinced to tell you that it is all the same phenomenon.
It's just remarkable.
We're talking about the human brain and human behavior and human cognition and language skills.
And, and, and these people are saying it's a spectrum.
My name is Shamira Chaney and I have three beautiful, beautiful, awesome sons.
who are all on the autism spectrum.
I do believe that all of my boys will be contributing members of society.
They're all on the spectrum.
I mean, this is crazy shit right here.
People have been told this.
She believes it.
I'm sure she believes it.
I'm not blaming her, but this is a dangerous place for America to be.
You know, there was some comments made about, oh, they won't be able to play baseball.
My son Eli runs track, a gold medalist, may I add, in track.
He is a basketball player.
I think he just recently told me I'm signing him up for soccer.
I'm sorry, but just the boys fits right into Brian Hooker's narrative.
It fits right into the script that I think Brian Hooker's gonna read at some point.
Three boys, black boys, it fits perfect.
I don't know what to tell you.
and baseball this summer.
So like he's thriving.
My name is Michael Wilson and I am neurodivergent.
First of all, vaccines do not cause no divergence.
We need to end that myth once and for all.
I am neurodivergent.
I can't play stop lying because I don't think he's lying, but he's, he's wrong.
I mean, neurodivergent is a new word designed to confuse.
It's designed to bunch a bunch of developmental trajectories gone wrong into one bundle, and then justify spending a bunch of money on that bundle, justify all kinds of remedies for that one bundle.
And it's all meaningless.
Because we don't understand how his particular pattern integrity was disrupted when he was younger that resulted in what he calls neurodivergent.
but let's just pretend for a second that they did.
The fact that people would rather have a child die from a preventable disease than to have a neurodivergent child, it's just really heartbreaking to me.
My name is Ciel Kiefer-Neal, and I am autistic, and I've also been diagnosed with ADHD.
For someone to try and put a cap on our limitations and tell us what we are capable of doing,
It's insulting, it's dehumanizing.
All of the language we've heard in the last couple of weeks from RFK Jr., it- She has a tattoo on her clavicle of a clavicle, which as far as I know as a skinny guy and I have a tattoo, I cannot imagine a worse place to choose to tattoo and nevermind the worst shape to choose.
I'm going to tattoo the shape of my clavicle over my clavicle.
Isn't this the clavicle?
I hope it is.
I'm sorry.
I'm not an anatomy expert.
That's remarkable.
I don't know very many autistic people that could handle getting a tattoo.
That's... Wow.
I don't even know what to say.
Can you play that last guy again?
I guess I can play the last guy again.
Yeah.
It has echoed.
If you are advocating that I'm up for something, it should.
But let's just pretend it's Michael Wilson and I am no divergent.
First of all, vaccines do not cause no divergence.
We need to end that myth once and for all.
But let's just pretend for a second that they did.
The fact that
people would rather have a child die from a preventable disease and to have a neurodivergent child.
There you go.
I didn't, I missed that.
So the choice is they either die of measles or they're retarded.
So if you're, you'd rather have a dead kid versus a retarded kid, well, that's pretty lame because I'm retarded.
It's like,
I'm sorry, we're going to use that word because that's the only way that this works.
Like, come on, come on, come on.
This is silly.
And we're letting this neurodivergent guy tell us what the trade-offs are?
Give me a break.
Wow.
It's just really heartbreaking to me.
My name is Ciel Kiefer Nail, and I am autistic, and I've also been diagnosed with ADHD.
And she reads a shit ton of books.
For someone to try and put a cap on our limitations and tell us what we are capable of doing, it's insulting.
It's dehumanizing.
All of the language we've heard in the last... Sorry, I had to allow that comment.
Wow, that's crazy.
A couple of weeks from RFK Jr.
It has echoes of Nazi Germany and wanting to make a list of us.
It's frightening.
He wants to make a list of us.
Well, Nicole Shanahan wants to make a detailed list.
She wants the medical records of everybody.
I think it's really important to consider the possibility that they actually want the medical records of everyone because without the medical records of everyone, then they won't actually have what they need.
They don't just need a list of people with autism.
They need a list of people with those problems so that they can remove them from the control group.
Does that make sense?
You have to remove those people from the control group.
And they need the control group too.
The healthier you are, the more valuable you are as a control group.
I don't think anybody understands that anymore.
They may have already collected the data of the control group.
They may have already all the control data they think they need.
We're in a very dark place, ladies and gentlemen.
So many of us are terrified, both for ourselves, for our family members.
He has certain places he likes to go.
He's Mr. GPS.
So we have to go to those places in a certain way.
God forbid if there's an accident or something is blocked off, then we get a rise in behavior.
And that rise in behavior can be everything from having a tantrum, to throwing things, to scratching.
to repeating things over and over again, to even biting in some cases.
Both of our cars have
damage on the inside.
There are so many ways that we could be supporting people with autism rather than focusing our energy on, like, do you see that over there?
You don't want your kid to be like that.
See, so that was the argument that Polly Tommy and her daughter made for the first 10 or 12 years of their campaign after their son supposedly got autism.
They didn't try to warn anybody about how to avoid it or what might have caused it.
They've spent most of their time trying to raise awareness
and to create job training programs and to make sure that teachers understood what autism was.
And in fact, she was in a newspaper claiming that she cured her son's autism with secretin injections with Andrew Wakefield.
So I don't really understand how it is that she's still a central player at CHD when somebody like Brian Hooker actually has a kid that is permanently damaged, like Paula Aitken has a kid that's permanently damaged.
Paula Aitken
is a parent that was in the original group of 12 children in the original Lancet paper that was also featured in this book, Callous Disregard, published by CHD's publisher, Sky Horse Publishing.
Essentially, CHD is like the front group of this publisher.
That's it.
It's just like a joke to me now.
I feel really just like a used
used piece of garbage at this point.
I was such a dupe.
So duped.
I don't know what the right word, way to say that is.
How do we research and find out how to never have that happen again?
That just seems really counterproductive to me.
My daughter.
Wow.
So why spend any time researching how to never have that happen again?
Instead, we should waste all of our time providing for these people.
She just said that.
Why would we waste any time trying to figure out how to make this not happen again?
We should just try to find ways to deal with these people.
It seems like very similar actually to what Peter McCullough said the other day with regard to febrile seizures and maybe if we just knew how to treat febrile seizures better that this autism epidemic would go down.
Let's hear from this mom who's auditioning for future shows.
Raelynn, she's not on the autism spectrum, but she is just so good with her brothers.
I overheard a conversation that she was having with her friends and they were like, so, okay, so all your brothers have autism?
And she's like, yeah.
And the friends are asking like, oh, so what exactly is it?
And she's like, they just do things differently.
They do things their own way.
And, you know, she spoke about it.
I would almost be willing to bet dollars to donuts that I could take my daughter to one of those doctors and they would diagnose her as on the spectrum.
I wonder how many kids can go into their office and not be on the spectrum.
In such a positive light.
And so I'm like, if an 11 year old girl can do it, come on.
What, what the politicians, this administration, like, I need y'all to get it together.
I am very excited at this initiative by Mr. Kennedy.
This has been a long time coming.
We've got a whole generation now going into a second generation that has been lost.
And if this were any other concern, there would be programs, you know, somebody would be looking into it.
We're made to accept that these things happen.
It's genetic.
You might argue in some ways that the opioid epidemic has been much more recently devastating than the autism epidemic, whatever it is.
I mean, just to be frank.
I think the reason why that is is because they use placebo a lot.
Again, because the goal is to permanently
put in place public health as a reason, virology and PCR diagnostics as a science, and intramuscular injection as a methodology.
So these people are not arguing their way out, they're arguing their way in.
Medics, it's the environment, it's this, it's that, well show us.
There's research that needs to be done into
the differences between autistic people and neurotypical people, especially in the way of like health care.
Because I have noticed that in my own journey, no one's doing research on that kind of stuff.
And I think they need to be.
Instead, they're doing research into what causes autism.
I want neurotypical people to know that neurodivergent people have beautiful, productive, and fulfilling lives.
Our brains are wired differently.
We think differently.
We look at the world differently.
Our senses are different.
I mean, that's the big difference.
And for them to think that we are a problem that needs to be solved, it, no, this is my life.
And to be looked at this way by society, it's insane.
for a look at how members of the autism community.
That is extraordinary.
Because if my parents think that I'm a wacko because I'm in this book, having worked for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., if they think I'm a wacko because I worked for CHD, and they are basing it on news programs like this, think about that.
Think about that.
To see this moment, I'm joined by Zoe Gross, Director of Advocacy at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, a non-profit organization run by and for autistic individuals.
Zoe, thank you so much for being here.
Thank you for having me.
When you hear those voices, do they represent part of the range of responses that you and your colleagues are hearing from members of the autistic community?
Absolutely.
I think people have been really upset by the comments that they've been hearing.
Things about autistic people not being able to do certain things.
Talk like autism destroys families.
No one wants their disability to be stigmatized.
No one wants to be blamed for things going wrong in their family.
or in society, it's very distressing to hear that kind of thing.
And there's a lot of mistrust of the data collection effort that's going to be going forward.
Yeah.
And let's take a step back, though, and talk about just what is autism spectrum disorder.
This is a wide spectrum we're talking about.
Sure.
So autism is a disability that we're born with, and it affects us our whole lives.
It affects how we think, how we move, how we learn, how we see the world, how we process sensory information.
And that is a very curiously close to exactly the interpretation of infantile autism, but it was an incredibly rare thing.
They all agreed it was an incredibly rare thing.
And it had nothing to do with shitting on walls, or headbanging, or screaming, or no sleep, incontinence, violence, biting, nothing of that.
Self-harm, none of that.
That's the point you need to see here, and they're not talking about that either.
They're not talking about SIDS.
They're not talking about acute neurological damage hours or days after a set of intramuscular injections.
And they specifically seeded that one guy in there to say, even if it was, I can't believe people would choose between having a retarded kid and a dead kid.
That's what this message boils down to, and this is by design.
It is exactly the same script, but it's the other half of the script.
And this script is designed to rip.
It's designed to tear America in half.
This might only be one part of the momentum that could tear America in half.
If my neighbors are watching this, or my neighbors hear the social media version of this,
And when we try to have a conversation about autism, and I start with, you know, autism spectrum disorder is kind of a myth.
They're just going to think right away, stop lying.
And then I'm lost.
And that is how effective this military
industrialized, you know, media control.
It's bad, ladies and gentlemen.
They have really got us.
Because social media is a free-for-all, and mainstream media is gone.
So, we are in big trouble, and if we acquiesce to letting our kids inherit this system, we're screwed.
We need people like me, like Joe, like Mark, like anybody that's willing to go out there and speak their mind and try to figure out what's really going on, despite
the militarized program social control suites that have been deployed on our civilization.
It affects the way our brains organize information.
It affects our communication.
We may not speak or we may speak using scripts or a device.
It affects the way we socialize with other people.
I mean, imagine saying that autism can range from a series of awkwardness and from awkwardness and extreme intelligence all the way to incontinence and psychotic behavior and inability to learn at a toddler level.
And I'm on that spectrum.
I'm the same as them and I'm the same as them.
Imagine thinking that.
That would be like me saying that, you know, being fat is a spectrum and I'm also fat.
I'm just not as fat as everybody else is, but I'm also fat.
I got the same fat that you have.
So I deserve the same amount of sympathy as somebody who's 400 pounds.
I know that's kind of a weak analogy, but you see my point.
The spectrum of overweight, the spectrum of autism, this is an absurdity beyond absurd with a lack of specificity that should constantly have a laugh track behind it.
And that's the point I want to make with the fat versus skinny thing.
It's a lack of specificity if you say that everybody's on the fat spectrum.
Everybody's obese.
Or anyone can potentially be obese.
It depends how they feel.
I mean, they have no justification for their classification as on the spectrum, except for some highly unscientific pseudo professional has told them they are.
That's the remarkable thing.
And somebody like Nicole Shanahan is arguing for certain
solutions that include highly technical and specific diagnostic tests, which are glorified genetic screens.
And here you have the slippery slope.
Well, I don't want you to make that list.
I want to make a list.
Don't make the data.
Don't collect the data.
I want the data.
And we're going to argue and argue and argue and never really identify what's actually happening.
It's already done.
They're already collecting it.
The PCR test allowed them to collect it from everybody that submitted.
And it's still going on today.
It's an accepted gold standard diagnostic and that is just... That's one of the biggest jokes on our kids right now is PCR diagnostics being accepted in the medical community as working and valid and real and not just generating a remnant stream that the Human Genome Project is finally technically capable of using.
And it affects that we may need help day to day with things like dressing, bathing or daily routines.
Does she need help dressing or bathing or daily routines?
Does she need help wiping her ass?
Because I don't understand how she can think she's on the same spectrum as people who do.
That's fucked up.
I'm sorry, I got to use that word, but that's really screwed up.
That is really screwed up if she thinks she's on the same spectrum as Brian Hooker's kid or Paula Aitken's kid, because that's gross.
And I don't think that it's right that our society has weaponized this idea to the point where these people believe that.
That's terrible.
And HHS Secretary Kennedy said recently, and I'm quoting from him now, most cases now are severe.
25% of the kids who are diagnosed with autism are nonverbal, non-toilet trained, and have other stereotypical features.
Does that match what your organization tracks on this level?
And also,
Does it represent the perception and the experience of some parts of the autism community?
And I'm wondering if you can speak to that as well.
So what he's referring to is that the CDC did a study which showed that of all autistic people, 25% either are non-speaking, are minimally speaking, or have a measured IQ that's under 50.
Now, it's very difficult to measure the IQ of many autistic people reliably, so take all this with a grain of salt.
It's that group of three different populations that he's grouping together.
And when he says no one in that group is toilet trained, there's no studies to back that up.
And to make other generalizations about that group I think would be unwise.
All we know about them is those three things.
That is so awful.
Essentially, what they are doing is the same thing that CHD is doing.
They're bundling all this together when there are incredibly devastating examples that include dead babies.
That's the part that autism makes so screwed up, is because if we are right at GigaOM Biological and at Heucytonic ITS and at the Liberty Perspective, and these three guys at least seem to agree with me that intramuscular injection might actually just be dumb.
then SIDS is the same as a damaged child in the same category of crime.
Some die, some don't.
And the fact is, is that when we start talking to these people about autism in this way about autism and start confounding this autism with a bunch of other conditions and developmental trajectories,
then we really, really, really are being lied to in the most malevolent way possible by people who don't have a damn clue about how the pattern integrity that is your mind and body develops.
ideally through time.
And that is an argument that Joshua Lederberg made already a long time ago, that we can't possibly think that understanding the genetic code could yield any useful information if we have no idea how to optimize the development of the pattern integrity from, you know, conception to adult.
The optimization of that trajectory would be necessarily relevant to understanding what the genome encoded.
I mean, just imagine the worst case scenario where because we're not eating the right food, none of the men grow horns.
And if we suddenly ate the right food and did the right exercise from very early on, most men would grow horns.
Well, that would be a pretty exceptional discovery to find that our genes could change their expression and their trajectory across time just by treating the trajectory across time differently.
training kids younger at different things or whatever the case may be.
Now, I understand that that's a little bit of a ridiculous thing, but the subtle differences in the way a child might develop into adult with given one thing or another thing, another one set of circumstances or another, would necessarily be a prerequisite to understanding what potentially could be coded in whatever thing you think you're decoding.
And as I pointed out many times before, we have never found a hint of coding for how the thing is built and how it is developed across time.
So understanding that some of this DNA codes for proteins, or at least it seems to, is an elaborate illusion in terms of understanding.
The implications are not that now evolution is real and we can all go rest assured that scientists in the future are going to crack this puzzle, because that's not the way it is.
What he's trying to do is to inspire panic and fear and make people very worried about the possibility of autism in their family or just, you know, about autism in society.
And that doesn't help autistic people.
We are in a moment where there's a lot of talk about what the government can and should do when it comes to autism.
So where do you come down on this?
What should the federal government be doing?
Where are there more resources needed and where can government
play a role in your view?
So one of the biggest ways that the government could help autistic people today is by expanding Medicaid home and community-based services.
This is a waiver service through Medicaid.
States are not required to provide it, so when there are cuts to Medicaid, this is the first thing to go.
But these are the services that help people live their daily lives, help people
you know, live in the community, do things they need, like transportation, help with daily routines, shopping, cooking, other stuff that means that they can live in their own home instead of in an institution.
Without these services, either people are forced to go into an institution or someone is forced to leave their job to care for them unpaid, which can really strain many families financially.
So these are life-saving services, and right now they're on the chopping block.
One thing the government could do is protect these services.
A lot of people moved to Pennsylvania because we have a lot more public services dedicated to autistic kids in our school system.
I know that for sure.
I see something in the chat from Catherine Organic that micro RNA expressed in waves changing expression through time is where a lot of research is ongoing right now.
I just want to expand that thought a little bit in the sense of thinking about having reached the limit of what we can really understand from a molecular biological perspective from our previously used models.
I'm just riffing today, man.
I don't care anymore.
I'm just riffing.
So if you think about evolution and you think about where we are and you just give them that maybe there were animals before us.
I don't, I don't, I don't want to
How do I say it?
I don't want to debate evolution right now.
I'm just going to make a really short phylogenetic tree.
We all started from, you know, one thing apparently.
And then we all got together and now there's animals A, B, C, D, E, and F. And one of them is, you know, this is bacteria and this is yeast.
And then these are insects.
And these are reptiles, I guess, or something like that.
I don't know.
And amphibians.
And then we have mammals up here.
How do we do mammals?
Like a mouse?
I don't know.
What is a mouse?
How do you draw a mouse?
Shouldn't they have like a... Anyway, I can't do it on the camera.
So you have this phylogenetic tree and the reality is that this phylogenetic tree has been weaponized against us.
And how is it weaponized against us?
Because they want you to believe that molecular techniques that are found down here
apply to animals that are up here because we're all connected by this tree.
But if this tree doesn't really exist, if this Darwinian evolutionary process that started from a mud puddle and then reaches all the way to here is not an explanation for creation,
for whatever it is our existence is, then this presupposition, which is that molecular biology that we can learn here applies to molecular biology here because the same chemicals are in a cat.
Cat has DNA and a bacteria has DNA.
So anything that we do with bacteria and DNA must obviously apply, or in bacteria must obviously apply to the DNA in a cat.
And that is only
Presupposed because the evolutionary tree is presupposed And so evolution because DNA right that's the that's the thing I keep repeating evolution evolution
Right?
Evolution because DNA.
And that is where this phylogenetic tree comes from.
That's where this comes from.
And that's also where what Mark and I have been kind of exploring independently and parallel is where all this nonce... Oh, I took the book back upstairs because I'm still reading it.
Where this stuff comes from, where all of these physicists converted to biology after the Manhattan Project and brought all of their assumptions
all of their techniques, all of their preconceived notions about how life must emerge from sort of this particle probability type thing.
And a lot of these people who went into phage biology actually went into it after reading this book.
In fact, the book that I showed you yesterday where Leo Szilard is going to University of Chicago with this other person and they're converting to biology in that book, they're talking about it.
One of the essays that I just read yesterday starts out with the idea that this book inspired this person as a physicist to convert to biology, this book right here.
That's what brought him to work with Delbruck and all these guys that were working on phages.
It's remarkable that this biological history and this sort of mentor chain is completely lost in the American consciousness.
And if it wasn't for my friend, Mark Kulak, I don't know if I would have found it so easily.
But I'm definitely there now and I'm very excited about it.
And I do think this is a wonderful way to think about why so much of what we've found in this
area of our study is being weaponized against us by assuming that what we find here is applicable here.
And it's not.
More importantly, if we take DNA that we make here, and we put it up here, and we get proteins, that doesn't mean that we understand what's happening in this animal.
But we do know that that works.
That's called transformation and transfection.
We also know that we can make RNA down here, and we can take that and we can put it up here, and we'll get protein.
And that's called transfection for sure, and we've been doing it for a long time.
But it doesn't mean that we understand
what a cat is as a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time because we can sequence some of its DNA, or we can amplify some of its DNA using molecular tools from this toolbox, which is all we can do.
All the Human Genome Project did was industrialize the toolbox of molecular enzymes that were found and identified in E. coli and other targeted molecular organisms.
That's it.
Nothing more.
It's restriction enzymes.
All are enzymes that are found.
The no-see-um technique of Barak is all based on stuff down here.
Prion disease is based on stuff that is done in yeast and assumed to recapitulate something that supposedly occurs in higher animals, but there's no recapitulating happening.
It's just a myth.
Again, the reason why that myth exists is because all the biologists in academia accept the phylogenetic tree that goes back to a mud puddle and a lightning bolt.
And because they accept that, then they also accept the presupposition that the molecular basis of the existence of life is the same for all branches of the tree.
The molecular rules that govern bacteria are the same molecular rules that govern the inheritance in higher animals.
And that might not be true if you see that the definition of a pattern integrity is not yeast or a bacteria.
and that everything above this, including plants, require a symbiosis with these type of organisms in order to exist.
And so, the pattern integrities that we think about as biology, mammals, insects, birds, are complex pattern integrities that have a hyper symbiosis with bacteria that include mitochondria in their cells.
Mitochondria have their own ribosomes.
I don't know if you knew that before.
They have their own DNA.
and the bacteria in the gut, the bacteria in the soil.
And that symbiosis is what allows these organisms to exist.
And so the molecular rules and the hereditary rules that govern these animals are obviously much more complex.
And the molecular limitations are much different than what we would find when studying these organisms, which are just a small part of the symbiosis that makes this possible.
And again, remember, this whole concept is lost if you see all of these life forms as having descended from a common ancestor and therefore sharing common molecular mechanisms instead of seeing them as emergent properties.
Insects are emergent properties of bacteria.
And plants are emergent properties, emergent phenomenon from the existence of bacteria.
And an abundant and diverse bacterial flora is the foundation of all of these pattern integrities.
If there is an advance that you can see in land-based pattern integrities, then it would be that they can carry around this compost heap inside of them instead of needing to be embedded in it like a plant is.
But the same nutrient exchange between the external, if you will, bacterial components and the nutrient exchange there, the symbiosis is the same in the roots as it is in our gut.
And of course, plants also have this extra sort of symbiont, these chloroplasts, which are also derived from a bacterial construction.
So again, we're looking at a sort of hyper symbiosis that allows us to exist that therefore does not support the idea of this phylogenetic tree.
And once you throw this phylogenetic tree away, then you can reorganize your understanding of how this biology emerges from the layers.
But what's interesting is that what else reinforced this molecular phylogenetic tree of evolution was, of course, SARS-CoV-2.
And the huge story that they told us for the last five years about its molecular evolution and how that is the foundation of all evolution.
Of course, you have to accept it because evolution is real because we found DNA.
Wow, this is completely impromptu.
I didn't expect this to come out of my brain right now.
So, you know, thank somebody else, not me.
Here we go.
What do you want people to know about living with autism?
How has it affected your life?
Yeah, so what I want people to know is that autistic people may need different supports than non-autistic people.
It's very important that we have those supports, those accommodations.
That can mean the difference between whether or not we can live in the community, whether or not we can go to school with our peers, whether or not we can work a job in the community as opposed to in a sheltered workshop.
Making those accommodations for us is the difference between including and excluding us.
So if you see someone, for example, wearing headphones in a crowded area or someone at a job with a job coat,
Yes, Christy, this person talking is on the spectrum.
Or if someone asks for accommodations in housing or at work, I want you to think about that as the way that autistic people are included in society.
Zoe Gross at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
Thank you so much for joining us.
Thank you for having me.
She had a real hard time looking at, not looking at the camera.
She broke that, she broke it like four times.
So anyway, that's what I see coming.
And this would be about injection versus ingestion, right?
It would be about intramuscular injection not being medicine.
And I think they put a lot of these people in place to tell us that the who was important and that the COVID vaccines are bad, but to make sure that the murder
and lies that was happening in 2020 and 2021 that was used to convince the rest of the world of the pandemic coming, those are covered up by these traitorous organizations.
And they include foreign organizations like Heart, this is one of the worst ones, Panda, also terrible.
Just a bunch of real posers here.
And we're told to focus on all these people,
Even the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a front group for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundational Trust.
That's the real weaponized pile of money that nobody talks about.
All of these companies are tiny.
compared to the tech conglomerates that are now controlling social media and the potential that they have for controlling world governments, selling to the highest bidder their ability to control the narrative.
And it's all because we gave it to them.
We are acquiescing to the use of these platforms.
We're producing content on these platforms and allowing them to decide what's seen
And so if you want to beat them, you got to start using email again and emailing people with real links and telling them, watch this and nothing else.
And if I have to, I mean, to make the PeerTube better so that it plays better, that people can download easier.
But remember, PeerTube allows you to download, so you can even download it, put it in the background, and when it's done downloading, watch it offline.
In fact, I encourage you to do that.
I encourage you to download it and then open your own YouTube channel called Giga Ohm Mirror and start putting up the stream after I do somewhere else on the internet.
Why not?
Because that's the only way we will beat them is if we make it so that
What they are now weaponizing against us is weaponized against them.
I don't know exactly how to do it yet.
Maybe there's a way we can use AI against them, I don't know.
So what I've got here is a video that I think I'm gonna leave until tomorrow because it's 1.47 in the stream here and I don't wanna, but it is the title of the video.
The title of the show today was Harvard Does Belmont and that's the Belmont Report.
And that is a pretty seminal bioethics document that is the result of a lot of funding and a lot of meetings and many years of meetings and discussions.
And it is essentially one of the more important bioethics documents in American
literature, let's say.
And I've done several streams about it, especially in 2020 and 2021 in the context of Christine Grady and how she does a lot of ethics presentations without ever mentioning the Belmont Report as being important.
And so don't get the Belmont Report confused with the Belford Declaration, but the Belmont Report
is the ethics report that I think it came out in the 70s, but it might even be the 80s.
And it is really fundamental to understanding what I think is the legal basis for getting rid of the PrEP Act, the legal basis for, you know, calling people what they are, which is murderers.
but they're not gonna talk about it that way.
Harvard's might not even tell you what the document actually is.
So maybe I'll just watch the first five or 10 minutes of it to see if I'm correct about my feeling of what's gonna happen here.
And then if it's significant enough, maybe we'll watch it tomorrow.
Otherwise, we're just gonna move on to more important things tomorrow.
Let's just see how it works.
Welcome.
I'm Rebecca Brindel, Director of the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School.
I'll be your moderator today for this critical and timely discussion on trust and ethics in public health.
Joining me today are David Augustin-Hodge, the Interim Director and Associate Professor of the National Center for Bioethics in Research and Healthcare at Tuskegee University, Evelyn Hammonds,
Barbara Gutmann Rosenkranz, professor of the history of science and professor of African and African American studies at Harvard University.
Professor of the history of science.
I bet she doesn't know jack all about the the mentor chain that goes from the Manhattan Project into molecular biology and bacteriophages right into AIDS and chronic fatigue and the vaccine agronomy right up into Robert Malone and
and Judy Mikovits and Mary Holland and Stephen Hatfield, which is actually, I think, who we're going to watch tomorrow as the study hall because he's done this recent interview that's just extraordinary.
University and professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Harvard Chan School of Public Health.
and Alan Brandt, Professor of the History of Science and Annaleigh Moses Cass Professor of the History of Medicine at Harvard University.
Thank you all for being here.
I wanna start with some important framing for our audience, some of whom may be learning this material for the first time.
It goes back to 1978, well, actually before, but we'll put ourselves in 1978.
It was before because I think it's the result of like five years or four years of meetings.
After four years of work, a National Commission of Physicians, Lawyers, and Scientists released what is now known as the Belmont Report, laying out ethical principles for research with human participants.
One catalyst for this work was the revelation that for more than 40 years, the United States Public Health Service and the CDC had conducted a study in which researchers observed the effects of untreated syphilis in nearly 400 African American men.
Wow, so after all of this malfeasance, they took four years to outline the ethics of using human subjects in experimentation, and instead of talking about what they found and the conclusions they came to,
This poser is starting with the bullshit that brought about the whole thing in the first place.
The only reason why the Belmont Commission was established and the Belmont Report was produced was because of that bullshit.
It's not in the report.
The report exists because of crap like that.
And she's not really saying that correctly if I hear her right.
This, despite the easy availability of medicine to treat them,
The men who were enticed to participate in the study with the promise of free medical care were never informed of their diagnosis.
By the time the study was shut down in 1972, more than 100 patients had died of syphilis or its complications.
She reads about as well as Casey means.
And dozens of their wives became infected.
19 children were born with congenital syphilis.
Now, close to five decades after the Belmont Report was published, it's time to look back at what it has meant for ethics and trust in public health and medicine, and to consider the work that's still left to do.
David, you've been spending a lot of time thinking about research ethics and healthcare ethics.
crazy.
I really hope they don't blow it, because I'm going to get pissed.
And you've been working to create a Tuskegee response to the Belmont Report.
Tell us what that means and what it's all about.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Good afternoon, family.
And it's just so good to be here.
Thank you, Becca.
Thank you, Emily.
Good afternoon, family.
and all of those who worked together to make this opportunity possible.
So we can have a conversation on this very amazing question.
The Belmont Report did and was supposed to do a remarkable job in responding to not just those men in the syphilis study, but in terms of research,
in terms of human subjects and how they should be cared for and cared about.
That was its responsibility.
Here we are 50 years later and we see that excess deaths categories are still ruled by the same pigmentation of those who were in the syphilis study.
black men and black people are still dying at a faster rate in every one of the excess deaths categories.
It terrifies me to think that this, what he's saying right now, could be distorted by the claims of William Thompson and Brian Hooker into the idea that the vaccine schedule is the result of this.
or rather this is the result of the vaccine schedule because it harms black people, black boys in particular.
And so we have to wonder to what extent the Belmont Report, as excellent as a project it was, doesn't it need to be interrogated to ensure that we get closer to where we need to be?
So we have to actually question whether the Belmont Report is where we need it to be, whether it got us where we need it to be, without actually thinking about what the Belmont Report says?
Wow.
Trials, for example, we still have low participation.
And though there's low participation, I am really wondering are the factors or the actions that are being done to increase participation in clinical trials, are they considering all of the nuances that may be involved in why many will not be participatory?
So even though good actions are present, one wonders whether or not those good actions are missing some critical points, like what kind of access are present for the good actions.
For example, if we live in, if we want to do critical trials with people who live in rural communities.
Clinical trials with people who live in rural communities, is he not talking about turning the entire population into test subjects and how we can ethically do it?
Is he not directly talking about that?
And what?
He's from what?
Gonna write a response from who?
For the what?
What is happening here other than the exact same bullshit that Tony Fauci's wife does when she gives a presentation about community medicine or communal medicine or communal ethics in public health?
This is extremely terrifying because this is the other side, right?
This is the side that wore the masks.
This is the side that believes in the systemic racism.
This is the side that would put us in a camp, quite frankly.
Yikes.
And a large population of black people, particularly those that live in rural communities.
If you want to do clinical trials, have we given due consideration to what access means?
Like access to transportation, access to child care, access to food and food securities.
So these are stuff that they deal with on a regular basis.
So if there is no access, then to what extent can we say that the action is legitimate?
So we have to raise questions about the kinds of things that on the GERD
what we think is good morality in access.
So we know about the social political health, we know about political determinants of health, and my dear brother Lachlan right here, I've been talking for quite a bit on moral determinants of health.
To what extent are we serious about the moral determinants?
The moral determinants of health.
is a frighteningly aspecific phrase.
I don't know what any of the word combinations he said for the last minute means.
Tuskegee Report is what I would call a black bioethics approach to interrogate the Belmont Report to see to what extent the factors and the features in the Belmont Report are consistent with the kinds of things we need to be considering.
for example.
It's ridiculous.
They are questioning a document that forms the foundation of bioethics as we know it without addressing what specific little tweaks it needs to be made.
That would be like going and just saying willy-nilly that the Nuremberg Accord is something that we need to reconsider.
Maybe we didn't quite get to the finish line with the Nuremberg Accord because we're interested in testing rural populations.
How does that make sense?
but that's an equivalent statement.
I think we need to reconsider whether we got to the finish line with the Nuremberg Accord, because if we think in the future about testing rural populations, we have to know more about access and equity and whether or not these ethical principles are being met as we think about our moral determinants of public health.
Stop lying.
Holy shit.
No, it's really not.
If we read the justice part, who ought to receive the benefits of the research and bear its burdens?
This is the question of justice and the sense of fairness of distribution or what is deserved.
And injustice occurs when some benefit to which a person is entitled is denied without good reason or when some burden is imposed unduly.
Another way of conceiving the principle, sorry, I'm doing that to you.
Another way of conceiving the principle of justice is that equals is that equals ought to be treated equally.
However, this
This statement requires explication.
Who is equal and who is unequal?
What considerations justify departure from equal distribution?
Almost all commentators allow that distinctions between experience, age, deprivation, competence, merit, and position do sometimes constitute criteria justifying differential treatment.
There are several widely accepted formulations of just ways to distribute burdens and benefits.
Each formulation mentions some relevant property on the basis of which burdens and benefits should be distributed.
These formulations are to each person an equal share, to each person according to their individual need, to each person according to individual effort, to each person according to societal contribution, to each person according to merit.
Questions of justice have long been associated with social practices such as punishment, taxation, and political representation.
Until recently, these questions have not been associated with scientific research.
However, they are foreshadowed even in the earliest reflections of the ethics of research involving human subjects.
For example, during the 19th and 20th centuries, the burdens of serving as research subjects fell largely on poor ward patients, while the benefits of improved medical care flowed primarily to private patients.
Subsequently, the exploitation of unwilling prisoners as research subjects in the Nazi concentration camps was condemned as a particularly flagrant injustice.
In this country in the 1940s, the Tuskegee syphilis study used disadvantaged rural black men to study the untreated course of a disease that is by no means confined to that population.
These subjects were deprived of demonstrably effective treatment in order not to interrupt the project,
long after such treatment became generally available.
Against this background, it can be seen how conceptions of justice are relevant to research involving human subjects.
For example, the selection of research subjects needs to be scrutinized in order to determine whether some classes are being systematically selected simply because of their ease of availability, their compromised position, or their manipulability, rather than for reasons directly related to the problem being studied.
Finally, whenever research supported by public funds leads to the development of a therapeutic device and procedure, justice demands both that these not provide advantages only to those who can afford them and that such research should not unduly involve persons from groups unlikely to be among the beneficiaries of the subsequent applications of the research.
I think they were pretty specific about what they meant by justice.
just like they were specific about what they meant about beneficence, and just like they were specific about respect for persons, not humans.
Respect for persons.
First, that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents, and second, that persons with diminished autonomy are entitled to protection.
You see, so the less you know,
the more protection you should be afforded.
The principle of respect for persons thus divides into two separate moral requirements.
The requirement to acknowledge autonomy, that's a person, not a human.
Humans aren't autonomous.
Humans are part of a species that they owe a lot to and should be thinking about the evolution of.
Persons are autonomous agents given a very limited time on earth to do with what they can.
to contribute to trees under whose shade they will never shelter.
This autonomous person is an individual capable of deliberation about personal goals and of acting under the directive of such deliberation.
To respect autonomy is to give weight to autonomous persons' considered opinions and choices while refraining from obstructing their actions unless they are clearly detrimental to others.
to show lack of respect for an autonomous agent is to repudiate that person's considered judgments, to deny an individual the freedom to act on those considered judgments, or to withhold information necessary to make a considered judgment when there is no compelling reason to do so.
So for example, to call something an investigational vaccine when it should have been called a transfection or transformation.
that would be withholding necessary information to make a considered judgment.
And I tried desperately to get people to understand that, you know, like the jackass Brett Weinstein or the poser Chris Martinson, both of whom are now supported by Brownstone and IMA and whatever else they're taking fellowships from.
These people are traitors because they violated the principles of the Belmont Report.
The principles of respects for persons was primary.
And that's what the people on the internet are doing to you now.
They are withholding information for their handlers on purpose for money and fame.
Slow rolling us to a truth that we will never realize a lot like Lucy in the football.
That's what you see here.
This is such malevolent bullshit.
It hurts me.
When have we ever achieved justice?
What does justice look like?
Now, if we talk about social justice, we could actually put some measure... Imagine that they took four years to write that summary paragraph about what they meant by justice, and this would-be scholar, academician, gave it less than two sentences.
I mean, that is some serious...
combined with some serious, stop lying.
Yikes.
Bring on it.
We could put some, we could put, we could level the field somewhat because we could actually look at pieces and see how critical they are.
For example, if, if there's only a Piggly Wiggly in Macon County,
And that Piggly Wiggly represents the best of the fruits and vegetables that you're going to get.
How then can you support your children and give them a healthy diet?
Now, the strange thing is that right up the street in Auburn, or down the street in Montgomery, which is about 15, 20 miles in each direction, you have Kroger, you have Publix, you have all of these different places.
But now you have transportation as an issue again.
And you have funds.
There's no city bus that runs in rural communities.
So now we're struggling.
So the Tuskegee report.
Sorry, I had to allow that comment.
Is the National Center's attempt to respond to the Belmont Report with practical ideologies, practical thought, to really interrogate what we need to do to ensure that we can have a better playing ground?
So there's a lot of time.
That has shit all to do with what the Belmont Report is.
It's remarkable.
What are these monkeys doing?
Oh, I shouldn't have used that word.
But you know what I mean.
I mean all of them.
She's a monkey too.
They're all just grinding it out.
I don't even know what's going on here.
It's remarkable.
What is she again?
She's an ethics, like the head of an ethics department this monkey is.
My goodness.
But really what you're suggesting is that we need to look from the perspective of a black bioethics from those who have been systematically left out even after we've made moral commitments in the Belmont report.
He can't even look at her.
I mean, they're supposed to be having a conversation.
He can't even look at her.
Hello, family.
And I ain't talking to this white girl.
It's gross.
What you see here is very, very much set up malevolence that is part of the controlled demolition of America.
And we have to reject it wholeheartedly.
This theater and these unwitting participants need to be rejected wholeheartedly.
because they are taking what is a foundational American document in science and ethics and making a laughingstock of it by talking about piggly wiggly.
50 years later to... Yes, she said black bioethics.
That didn't happen again.
Evelyn, I'm wondering if you can put this in context for us about what that looks like in terms of health disparities, thinking about, for example- Change of perspective, people.
Morbidity, mortality crisis, and how this all fits together to where we find ourselves today.
Well, first, thank you all for inviting me.
And I'm happy to be here on this panel with people I have a great deal of respect for and the work that they do all the time.
So the answer to that question is a very long one, historically.
The way I put it is that we've not had a time since Africans were first brought here and became enslaved in the United States.
We've never had a period of time when there weren't health disparities.
And the distinction between what was health for those who were enslaved versus the health of those who enslaved them is something that
began to be noticed as... It's really interesting because there's a guy in my childhood who was on TV who lost his job on TV because he argued that the really big black dudes in basketball and in the NFL were so big because they descend from slaves that were bred to be really big.
So it's not really fair sometimes if you have to compete against somebody who descends from people that were bred to be giants.
you know, super strong and fast and whatever.
Like seriously, he lost his job.
His name is Jimmy the Greek for saying something like that.
And so this woman wants you to accept some portion of the history of the American slave.
And for sure, forget about generations of slavery where the color of the skin did not matter at all who was enslaved.
But let's just focus on the recent, recent, recent, recent, recent,
sort of manifestation of slavery in America and then talk about very specific aspects of it with the Belmont Report behind her.
Yikes, I mean it's really yucky.
as early as the first time black people arrived here as slaves.
So we have to think about it's been a long story.
In that sense, that means that there are ways in which we've accepted.
I think you need to think about it from a really hardcore biological perspective, like only the really, really badass, strong genes, strong immune systems made it through two months of being in the bottom of a slave ship.
all the weak constitutions, all the weak immune systems, all the, I mean, they all died.
And then you had generation or two of, you know, I mean, come on, ladies and gentlemen, let's, let's be honest here.
This is not a accurate reckoning of
recent or deep human history at all.
This is not an accurate sort of, you know, updating of our understanding of the Belmont Report, even though they say we have to update our understanding of it.
Why would we need to update our understanding of the U.S.
Constitution unless there might be a reason to destroy it?
Why would we need to update something as beautiful as something that took four years to decide on how to write?
with just some willy-nilly discussion about the distribution of Piggly Wigglies.
This is a mockery to all of academia in the world, a mockery of all academia in the West, and that's on purpose.
to in this society that there will be health disparities.
And so for certainly for me and those of us who've studied African-American history and my colleagues here on the panel, what happened.
I mean, only black people live in poor neighborhoods, right?
Only black people live there.
So only black people have these disparities.
That's the actual story they're telling.
There's no poor people in Appalachia except for black people.
And only poor people everywhere are black.
and that the Belmont report is a response to was something that we had been struggling with in this country through public health infrastructure as well as the medical establishment to try to address.
But certainly Tuskegee became this sort of flashpoint of bringing all of what we had been aware of in the past to the fore.
And so one of the major issues, as David just talked about, certainly was issues of access.
that certainly deserved much more extensive discussion than what... So they're saying access all over and over again when in the Belmont Report, it would be about beneficence and it would be about equity and they listed it all.
They listed equals get equals and to each their, to their need and they listed principles.
The old principles, the ways you could think about it, they didn't take it lightly.
It was a scholarly work that took four years to produce.
And these shitheads are ad-libbing about ideas they haven't even read.
They're Harvard people.
Come on.
They're supposed to be, you know, ivory tower learned people.
You couldn't even have a conversation with this lady for more than five minutes before everything would break down.
She would consider you an unlearned, unwashed, oh my gosh.
In the Belmont Report.
Secondly, the ways in which we want to talk about not just what happens to individuals, but what was happening to black communities throughout this long history.
And of course, this period of time, 1619 to the president is a long period of time.
Many, many things have changed, but there are some aspects that
I think, are persistent across time.
And the one that I would point to is if you think about the black maternal and morbidity crisis as it's now defined.
One of the first things I said about it when it was first called a crisis, I said, how long?
It's been going on for like two and a half centuries.
Why is it a crisis now?
I mean, it's always been a crisis.
But one of the things that reproductive health advocates and scholars have been writing about is that something seems to have
made this crisis, this situation, into a crisis in the late 20th century for some observers.
And one of the issues that has emerged from that is how to determine what is the cause of it.
And that's where the health disparities work is coming in.
How do we figure out what causes it?
What causes it?
And there are rooms full of studies trying to figure this out.
But I think there's something very important
here, that we do take this time right now to try to figure it out and hopefully, once and for all, come to terms with the kinds of factors that have led to high rates of black women's death and their infants' death.
debts as well, that we can really begin to make a shift in the ways in which it's both at the individual level, it's at the community level.
I think it's a legitimate point to make that one of the, or two of the strategies that were listed as possible ways to determine what equal is were essentially communist ideas.
They absolutely are, but they didn't list all communist ideas.
They also said equals get equals and what else did they say?
I might've put it away already, so it doesn't matter.
But I see your point, I do.
Unity level and it's at the level of systems and institutions in this country.
I think we can mark all those things, but we still haven't been able to come up with a coherent.
Now imagine what I see and what Mark sees and what you probably see if you've been here long enough is that all these words and all this discussion and all these terms
They don't address any of the very simple points that it's about the human genome and we need to convert everybody to human test subjects because we can't learn anything about ourselves anymore from studying these organisms with which we are symbiotically in existence with.
There is no molecular phylogenetic tree that connects us and justifies
these molecular observations as being taken as either evidence of the existence of that tree or evidence of our understanding these higher order pattern integrities of which we are one.
And we have to understand that, that the biology of bacteria and the molecular biology of bacteria has been
weaponized against us in all aspects, including of our understanding of ourselves, so that we have been led to believe that we are descended from bacteria instead of an emergent property of the symbiosis with bacteria.
Dang, every once in a while I nail it.
What a story.
And back to the point of access.
One of the things we do know, if you just think about trying to understand this crisis in terms of race, you get up to a point, you get some clear factors.
But then if you add socioeconomic class, then you get other issues come up.
And so one of the consistent things that have recently been discussed
It's crazy because they are contributing to this public health is the answer.
Public health is the answer.
We have to be able to test rural, you know, disparities.
And they wanna do all this stuff just under the, they're coming at it with a different angle.
And it's a gross and malevolent angle if you're not there, just like I described earlier in the stream, how if you're not in this circle, it seems crazy.
And you can easily imagine how this woman would think I was crazy
for suggesting that public health is an illusion.
That this whole idea of virology is an illusion.
This whole idea of we've sequenced the human genome and now we're moving forward is a ridiculous mythology.
She is not aware of that.
She's just really happy that it takes seven and a half minutes to read all of her accolades before they say her name.
Many black women, no matter their educational level, no matter their class status, are still reporting that they are engaged, they have to deal with health practitioners who do not listen to them.
I think I'm going to move on now because I think it's time to end.
It is two hours and 20 minutes.
It's bad biology.
Evolution because DNA.
I think I nailed this little impromptu discussion of why that molecular phylogenetic tree is a myth.
And that myth facilitates this juggling of this means that, evolution because DNA.
And that's all bullshit.
And they have put this myth in place for a long time.
They've insisted that this myth
be there even though they now know that it's an irreducible complexity.
They have no chance of digesting it.
They still are on this script and they have taken advantage of an anticipated rise in all-cause mortality.
They murdered a few people in America by briefly losing control of how they treated pneumonia.
And they misconstrued that as a spreading novel pathogen.
And Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
played his role because Robert Malone gave him a good script, because Kevin McKernan gave him a good script, because Merrill Nass was in his ear already years ago, because Brett Weinstein and his father are part of the script, because Steve Bannon is aware of the script.
and probably was aware of Andrew Wakefield and Pauly Tommy being brought over America for this script.
It's probably why the great Tony Lyons, as Steve Bannon called him the other day, was clever enough to get Jesse Ventura to write a book like this that kind of presaged the idea that an independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
would help somebody win the White House and then they'd get shot.
So that's not by accident, ladies and gentlemen, because this is for all the marbles.
This is for grandchildren of earth.
That's why there's a fake anti-vax movement in America that helped lay down this myth of a novel pathogen on what is an irreducibly complex background.
And so that irreducibly complex background using nonspecific PCR tests was told to us as evidence of spread.
And since RNA cannot pandemic, we know that's bullshit.
The only way they got away with it is placebos made it safe.
And so using PCR to find their ghost doesn't make their ghost real.
And it doesn't make you a ghostbuster either.
Okay.
I think tomorrow we're going to watch this video, but I have a special video for you, uh, from BBC.
Um, it's called placebo.
Um, it's a really good video.
Um, and we'll watch that one tomorrow.
So thanks very much for being here.
And tomorrow, I think we're also going to probably watch, um, the,
the recent interview that everybody's getting all excited about with Stephen Hadfield.
We'll probably watch it at one and a half speed because I can't stand the guy, but we will watch it and then we'll watch this placebo thing because I think once you see this video, you'll realize why my claim that the US vaccine schedule can only be
possible because of placebo.
And the rollout of billions of doses of mRNA can only be possible because of placebo.
You'll understand why they had shitheads like Sasha Latupova running around the world saying the different batches are different.
And they had a big paper in Denmark that said different batches are different.
No, a lot of them are placebo.
Thanks very much for being here.
And I definitely will see you again tomorrow.
Yes, tomorrow.
Thanks.
Thanks
But one thing I am confident of from everything I've read is that this RNA exists, you can capture it, you can sequence it, you can move it to other cells and recapitulate disease.