BEEP BEEP
Good morning, everybody I had to update a couple computers suddenly and I wanted to make sure that all was set up and then it does get to Be always there's one more thing needs to happen It looks like everything's back in sync and all the drivers like each other again.
So I think I'm on the air You can confirm that in the chat if you want to it looks to me like after the restart delay.
I
Left-hand Monkey Wrench was original in the chat at 1119, but I do see Tazik's Cube as being the guy who was the number one.
5x5s, he says.
V says it's all good.
How was the movie last night, Hatari Mama?
Let me know in the chat while we watch this first absolutely awesome clip.
Welcome to the show, everybody.
We could call them peasants or poor people or they're jungle people coming out of native cultures that haven't had the benefit of a Western education, choosing my words.
And so they would have these vaccine campaigns for yellow fever.
These people would go get their yellow fever shot.
And then they would say, well, if one is good, two is better.
They get back in line.
Wow.
And they get another shot, they kill them.
Okay, that's the nature of these hotter live attenuated vaccines is it's just a question like everything of getting the dose right.
And if you exceed it, it'll get you.
So the idea was you get the benefits without some of those risks.
What's not to like?
And what's overlooked is that one of the other key discoveries that were made right about the same time, I think I was 29, maybe 30 at that point,
at this company called Vykel, was the negative control.
Yes, I used to do negative controls, like much of the industry.
And the negative control of the RNA without the fat part, without the positively charged fat globs,
actually worked better for producing protein in a mouse model.
And- Did you hear that, Mark?
So that gave rise to this seminal science paper that at the time it was published about the same time, remember Cold Fusion?
Yeah.
So Cold Fusion was out and everybody's like, nah, that's not going to happen.
But they made a big deal about it and then it turned out to be
misinterpretation of their data.
And everybody thought that this naked DNA and naked RNA paper that we put out was going to be another one of those that was a flash in the pan and turns out that we just didn't know what we were doing.
But it's been reproduced all over the world and has a huge number of citations and it works.
And there was a company that was advancing this tech.
in particular, not using pseudo-uridine, that was funded by an obscure investor named Elon Musk called CureVac.
And in the race for the COVID genetic vaccine product, CureVac, to my eyes, did it right.
They did more rigorous, methodical dose escalation studies.
And BioNTech now sold their stuff to Pfizer, so it's BioNTech-Pfizer.
And Moderna kind of went for the grand slam.
And they dosed their animal models initially and then their human trials with really quite high doses of this stuff.
That's been one of the problems is they overdosed it.
Whereas, CureVac kind of did it more methodical, dose escalation.
Found the sweet spot.
And, well, they never got there because they disclosed their initial results at a lower dose.
and everybody else at the same time came out with their high dose results.
And the antibodies, now you're now at a point where you understand that just because you got antibodies, it ain't necessarily saying that it works.
Right.
Okay, but that was another one of the lies that were sold to us.
Yeah.
And the antibody titers were higher when you got the dose higher.
Now, if you adjusted
I'll just interrupt here to point out that he is making these two guys, by listening to them, you are made to accept that antibodies are real and that they can be measured by the commercial devices that are used to measure them in the context that these guys are talking about, which is all a series of assumptions layered on one another.
that we now understand from the Antibody Patent Paradox Law Review article is based on biology that's not quite as specific and as well understood as was previously implied, especially in a lot of this intellectual property.
And so that same intellectual property is the intellectual property that underpins
These lateral flow tests and these PCR exams and all of these notions of immunity are based on measuring and quantifying specific titers of antibody, which
These guys still accept.
They also, without question, accept PCR as a way of tracking the virus, as a way of testing whether or not you have a lot of virus or a little virus.
And this is also something that none of these people in this joke on America ever question because that is the actual foundation.
of the actual narrative.
These guys are still talking about the Scooby-Doo, where they've figured out a mystery about a novel virus that's probably actually from a laboratory all along.
And so that makes the spike protein really dangerous.
So we were really dumb to have made a vaccine to it.
I mean, a vaccine to it.
You see, they always use the word.
They've never gotten past the slave speak.
It's remarkable.
For Dose, they're about the same.
OK, but in the in the kind of media narrative... Look at his smile.
Guided government decision-making and big money.
It's a bit like getting in line for the yellow fever vaccine twice.
It's just more is better.
But what could possibly go wrong, right?
And so that remains an undeveloped thread, and CureVac tried to fight the patent battle
And they've largely lost.
And they're going to be constrained to the dustbin of history.
Is there a place for mRNA?
Because it looks like there's this tidal wave.
Everyone wants it in vaccines.
I've had this question so many times.
The first time I had it was- Well, let me move to a quite different question.
I don't want to be boring here.
Well, let me just give you the- because I've come up with a glib answer that is my go-to now.
And the usual version is, can mRNA be safe?
Yep.
Okay.
As a technology.
And my answer is pigs could fly if they only had wings.
We can speculate that this could be done or that could be done.
And then you would have to do the studies and see if that's the case.
Uh, but, um, you know, anything's possible.
So I would kind of argue that this is a genuinely flat out admission that he has no principles at all, because in theory, he didn't learn anything.
He didn't already know.
in 2020.
But in 2021, when he finally spoke out on the Bret Weinstein podcast, he did not say this.
Pigs could fly.
He did not say that at all.
He told everybody that he took two because he had to travel, even though he knew that there's no way for it to be safe.
I just,
These stories are incongruent.
This joyous man here is not a man who has been injured by a technology that he thought in 2020 was worth him using two of in order to travel internationally.
with Stephen Hatfield, who joked on the Tommy podcast that both he and Robert Malone had forgotten their vaccine cards or didn't have one when they went to Rome.
So it's strange because he tells a story about having taken the vaccine in order to travel, and Stephen Hatfield, a now special advisor to HHS on pandemics, tells a story to Tommy on the Tommy podcast
that actually when he went to Rome with Robert Malone, neither of them had a vaccine passport, and it didn't matter.
Because Robert forgot his, I think is what actually he says, which is, again, it's a narrative.
They're on together.
They're working together.
What's the word?
They're in cahoots.
It is.
It's real.
And this is a joke on America.
It's scary.
It gets worse.
Vaccines for bird flu.
And the statement was made that these current round of vaccines were using traditional mRNA technology.
And I just gagged at that.
So we've already got, you know, modern and traditional.
Do you believe, you know, because I mean,
Do you still, do you believe that some vaccines are good?
I think that, so for instance, some of these, like yellow fever is an example.
I think that another one of my cute little phrases, you give a three-year-old a hammer and everything becomes a nail.
And there has developed, I mean, do you still, do you believe that some vaccines are good?
I think that, so for instance, some of these, like yellow fever is an example.
I think that another one of my cute little phrases, you give a three-year-old a hammer and everything becomes a nail.
Yes.
Do you believe that some vaccines are good?
I think that, so for instance, some of these, like yellow fever is an example.
I think that another one of my cute little phrases, you give a three-year-old a hammer and everything becomes a nail.
Yes.
And there has developed this kind of vaccine cabal cohort.
I could name a couple of prominent names of academics.
Peter Hotez comes to mind, Bill Offit comes to mind.
Yeah.
People that have vested financial interests and career interests in the logic that
He just lists people who are part of the hamster wheel.
Peter Hotez and now, see if you can drink the amount of whiskey that you would be required to drink if you had to drink every time he said Paul Offit's name in the next two minutes.
that, and there's many of them, they just are the tip of the iceberg.
People that have bought into the idea that the, as Tony Fauci said, when presented with data on vitamin D and influenza, he said, no, we treat flu with vaccines.
There is a logic that it relates to the Overton window, the range of acceptable dialogue in this space, that you shall not talk about certain things.
And there are certain truisms that everybody that is an insider on the cool kids club,
gets all the money and controls the decisions and sits on the advisory committee on immunization practices and the FDA advisory committees, et cetera, et cetera.
They all have to kind of buy in to be part of the club in certain assumptions.
And one of them is that you treat infectious disease with vaccines.
That's the way it is.
And it is so stupid because I think there are places
for certain cohorts, you know, I think you really have to age stratify, you have to stratify by pre-existing conditions, and you have to look at the context, you know, but this, do you still, do you believe that some vaccines are good?
certain cohorts, I think you really have to age stratify, you have to stratify by preexisting conditions, and you have to look at the context.
But this idea of everything becomes a nail.
And we recently had Paul Offit come out on a podcast, I don't know if you caught that.
Paul Offit is busy trying to throw Tony Fauci into the bus at the moment and say that it was Tony Fauci who was responsible for the decision.
to jab everybody as opposed to age stratify it.
Kind of did the same thing with AIDS, by the way, too.
He really wanted, you know what I mean?
Everyone's at risk.
And Remdesivir and AZT, and he's got this long history of, you know, hitting everything with the same hammer and not respecting the nuance.
And when you unpack what Offit reports, whether or not it's, you know, it's very convenient for Paul Offit to say.
Do you still, do you believe that some vaccines are good?
Uh, I think that, uh, so for instance, some of these like yellow fever, um, is an example.
Uh, I think that the, the, the, another one of my cute little phrases, you give a three-year-old a hammer and everything becomes a nail.
Yes.
And there has developed this kind of vaccine cabal cohort.
Uh, um, I could, I could name a couple of prominent names of academics.
Uh, um, Peter Hotez comes to mind, Bill Offit comes to mind.
Uh, people that have, uh, vested financial interests and career interests in the logic that, uh, and there's many of them.
They just are the tip of the iceberg.
people that have bought into the idea that the, as Tony Fauci said, when presented with data on vitamin D and influenza, he said, no, we treat flu with vaccines.
There is a logic that it relates to the Overton window, the range of acceptable dialogue in this space.
Do you still, do you believe that some vaccines are good?
it relates to the Overton window, the range of acceptable dialogue in this space, that you should, I mean, do you still, do you believe that some vaccines are good, that, and there's many of them, they just are the tip of the iceberg, people that have bought into the idea that the, as Tony Fauci said, when presented with data on vitamin D and influenza, he said, no, we treat flu with vaccines.
I mean, do you believe that some vaccines are good?
It's to the Overton window, the range of acceptable dialogue in this space, that you shall not talk about certain things.
And there are certain truisms that everybody that is an insider on the kind of the cool kids club.
that gets all the money and controls the decisions and sits on the advisory committee on immunization practices and the FDA advisory committees, et cetera, et cetera.
They all have to kind of buy in to be part of the club in certain assumptions.
And one of them is that you treat infectious disease with vaccines.
That's the way it is.
And it is so stupid because I think there are places
For certain cohorts, I think you really have to age stratify, you have to stratify by preexisting conditions, and you have to look at the context.
But this idea of everything becomes a nail.
And we recently had Paul Offit come out on a podcast.
I don't know if you caught that.
Paul Offit is busy trying to throw Tony Fauci into the bus at the moment and say that it was Tony Fauci who was responsible for the decision to jab everybody as opposed to age stratify it.
He kind of did the same thing with AIDS, by the way, too.
Just kind of?
You know what I mean?
Everyone's at risk.
And Rem Disappear and AZT, and he's got this long history of hitting everything with the same hammer and not respecting the nuance.
And when you unpack what Offit reports, whether or not it's very convenient for Paul Offit to say this, he wasn't busy objecting back in the day.
But, and I'm sure he could pick up his phone and talk to Tony Fauci any day of the week at any point in time as one of the most important vaccinologists in the United States, because he basically redid
a vaccine that was causing intussusception.
And, you know, a case can be made that what they really did was cook the data so that they didn't get the adverse event that they picked up.
By the way, I mean, you're talking about the rotavirus vaccine.
Intussusception is sort of like your intestines, you know.
Fold onto it.
Fold onto themselves.
Onto themselves.
It can be deadly.
Yeah, you get obstruction.
And Paul Offit was on the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices for the CDC that approves and recommends the vaccines.
for the childhood schedule.
He was on that committee, did not recuse himself for getting a rotavirus vaccine onto the schedule while he was making one, had a multi-million dollar deal.
It's one of the greatest examples of- Pretty much in your face.
Pretty much in your face.
All right.
Good morning, everybody.
Welcome to the show.
I hope I made my point with that video.
That was just very recently.
I don't know exactly how recent it could have been a couple months ago or a couple weeks ago.
I don't know.
Does it really matter?
That's not the Robert Malone that we saw in 2021.
And that's not the message.
So there were principles that he didn't have.
I think there were lots of lies that he told.
And I think if you want to see them, you can go look up his work with the George Webb associate, Paul Cottrell.
You can go look up his work with the podcast from 2023 or two with Jay Bhattacharya is really remarkable.
And it's still on Spotify.
It's just a real gem of a list of admissions.
I will be back in a second.
I still gotta figure out what song I'm gonna play here.
I don't care how you get there.
I don't care what you do to get there.
The goal is to win.
It's nine o'clock on a Saturday
Regular crowd shuffles in There's an old man sitting next to me Making love to his tonic and gin
He says, son, can you play me a memory?
I'm not really sure how it goes.
But it's sad and it's sweet, and I knew it complete when I wore a young man's clothes.
Sing us a song, you're the piano man.
Sing us a song tonight.
Well, we're all in the mood for a melody.
And you've got us feeling all right.
Now John at the bar is a friend of mine He gets me my drinks for free And he's quick with a joke or to light up your smoke But there's some place that he'd rather be
He says, Bill, I believe this is killing me, as a smile ran away from his face.
Well, I'm sure that I could be a movie star if I could get out of this place.
Oh, la, la, la, dee, dee, da.
La, la, dee, dee, da.
Now Paul is a real estate novelist Who never had time for a wife And he's talking with David Who's still in the Navy And probably will be flying
The waitress is practicing politics As the businessmen slowly get stoned Yes, they're sharing a drink they call loneliness But it's better than drinking alone
You're the piano man.
Sing us a song tonight.
Well, we're all in the mood for a melody.
And you've got us feeling all right.
It's a pretty good crowd for a Saturday And the manager gives me a smile Cause he knows that it's me they've been coming to see To forget about life for a while
And the microphone smells like a beer And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar And say, man, what are you doing here?
You're a piano man Sing us a song tonight Well, we're all in the mood for a melody And you got us feeling all right
asking ye shall receive something like that um there's a zoom link in the chat if you want to join now i won't put your face on you don't have to put your face on but i guess that was the whole idea of the zoom link so there is one in the chat if you want to join it
You'll be able to see the stream there as well, because I am streaming to the Zoom meeting.
I really just pulled that song out of my basketball playlist, which is actually quite a long playlist.
Welcome to the show, everybody.
Good to see everyone.
I'll be here in a second.
The End
I don't know, I don't know if we'll leave that zoom link open forever if nobody joins it and I'm not suggesting that you need to.
I just wanted to show you how easy it would be to do that.
to have a little Zoom meeting of GigaOM Biological fans and viewers, to put faces to names in the chat.
I'm all about that.
I like to build a community, even if it's from people from far away.
Ladies and gentlemen, the voice you hear is that of Jonathan Cui.
I'm Chief Biologist at GigaOM Biological, coming to you live.
from my garage in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I helped Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current Health and Human Services Secretary of the United States of America, write the book, The Wuhan Cover-Up, and afterward was hired as a staff scientist by Children's Health Defense, who later fired me for talking about Robert Malone.
And that's why I regularly feature Robert Malone as a timeline, because I do think that Robert Malone is essentially an insider, somebody operating for the larger weaponized piles of money
that run this show and I think Jay Bhattacharya is more or less an unwitting participant who's agreed to do what he's told and and and order people around based on what he's told and you know be this middle manager guy I guess I don't know he was my friend at one point there's not any
You know, there's not any nefarious reason why these these photos exist.
We we met a couple times couple three times during the pandemic and he seemed like a reasonable guy when I met him and a funny dude and etc.
I'm trying to bring this to the basketball court.
It's taken me a long time.
to get in shape enough so that I'm not embarrassed like I kind of am of the first few episodes of JAC on the hardwood.
My ideas are also kind of misrepresented, but represented, obfuscated, diluted on a substack called Woodhouse 76, which is primarily written by an American by the name of Jessica Hockett, although it's kind of a brainchild, I assume, of
Nick Hudson and just Jonathan Engler where they have conversations with these people like Claire Craig and Pierre Corey Mike Eden and even Jay Bhattacharya apparently Using my ideas, but a watered-down version of them, but you know, that's how this works That's why after presenting to Panda so many times they still haven't managed to find any of those videos I guess they didn't record them something like that.
Oh, I hear somebody in that in that in
in that thing you gotta you gotta mute yourself in your in your zoomie zoomer oh my goodness is that welcome to eagle holy buckets there's some people in the chat in there i see you guys wow nice cool um there's some people in the zoom meeting ah i didn't expect that that's nice
Yeah, so this is GigaOM Biological.
If you want to share the stream, please share it from stream.gigaom.bio.
I'm going to bounce out of here for a second.
Actually, I probably can't do that during the live stream because I'm living to YouTube.
But it's really quite extraordinary how impossible it is for GigaOM to grow on any of these platforms.
That's why we've
decided to try this PeerTube instance, which is stream.gigaom.bio.
It seems to work really well for me most of the time, but if you have any complaints during the live stream or replay, please let me know so that I can decide whether it's working well enough or not.
I do think I just transition right away here to another video before I go to my main
Before I go to my main video, I want to start out with this just to let you know that I believe, and I think I have a lot of
evidence from my interaction with them that Robert Malone is part of a group of people behind these would-be mystery solvers.
That's the best way to describe them.
Because everybody that has risen to a point of prominence in the Trump administration on this side of the narrative, on the MAHA side, the Health Freedom Movement narrative, has risen on this sort of
amorphous objection to something about vaccines, an amorphous understanding of what autism is, an amorphous understanding of the importance of the microbiome for something, and kind of being convinced that this is a pivotal moment in this truth movement.
And I think that this is an elaborate hoax, which has been perpetrated on America over the course of almost two decades, but certainly in the last decade, it has been carefully orchestrated by a number of key players and behind them,
I think are people related to the Human Genome Project, to the Department of Energy, to the Department of Defense.
And one of those people that has been put in front of us on the sort of conservative social media bubble that we're in is Robert Malone.
And Robert Malone is a crucial sort of landmark to look at through this timeline to see that it's impossible for his
fingerprints to be in all of these places over this long of a time period and then have him just be a innocent emu farmer and horse breeder who's come out of retirement to save the world and consults for the Vatican now.
So I am thrilled to have.
And so that's how we have Jay Bhattacharya at the head of NIH telling us the gain of function is real.
Bringing science back into the NIH.
There was a lab leak, and I want to get to that here in a second, but I've got to touch on the news of the day, and it's not really his area of expertise, but the president just signed an executive order to lower drug costs.
Doctor, welcome to the program, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
Any comment on that as we get started here?
Sure, it's actually something I studied in a past life.
Just ask yourself the question, what would happen if Donald Trump put out an executive order that fireworks were not to be sold in the United States anymore?
What would happen then?
What happens?
What's the enforcement mechanism?
Who's gonna start stopping all that?
How does that work?
Do they send the ATF in?
What's going on here?
It's just trying to get you to ask the real questions like, so what?
And a good friend of mine has often coached me recently to make sure that I'm answering the question, so what?
as a counterpoint, asking the question, so what?
Make sure you don't allow people on these podcasts to say things without justifying with the so what.
Like they can't just tell you that, you know, A is a bad guy because B has been oppressed.
and then not explain the so what of it.
That's just getting you to accept something.
And here, we are being made to accept a lab leak, the potential for more lab leaks, the terrifying nature of it.
Not that dissimilar to Kim.com two years ago on Twitter talking about how they're much better than nuclear bombs.
The difference in drug prices between the United States and Europe is sharp and alarming, and it's been persistent for decades.
The Americans pay... So wait, they just state that there was a lab leak, but first we're going to talk about drug prices.
That is the kind of malevolent,
It's neuro-linguistic programming.
Start with three assumptions, then not talk about them for 10 minutes, and then come back to those assumptions.
It's not even a magic trick.
It's neuro-linguistic programming.
It's well-tested language tricks that have been used in advertising and in movies.
and now can be used in a military fashion on social media because we have acquiesced to its ubiquitous use in place of real thinking.
between two to five times, sometimes as high as 10 times the price of the same drug.
I mean, if I could show you what my studio looks like, it's a hell of a lot better than that.
And Verla behind the glass with the three kids up on the, on the control deck.
Can you guys, um, signal in for a minute?
There we go.
See, there we go.
That's it.
Nice.
As Europeans do.
And, uh, you know, as a professor who has a,
you know, as a PhD in economics, I'll tell you, when you see persistent price differences like that, that indicates a very unhealthy market.
And in this particular case, what it means is that American consumers essentially are being taken advantage of.
American patients are paying through the nose for drugs that Europeans pay for.
I mean, he's not so I am thrilled to have he's nothing but a mouthpiece for the administration.
He's not doing anything at NIH.
I mean, quite frankly, you could think of him as the opposite of Francis Collins, who I'm sure had a very, very well thought out agenda for a very long time as he was at the head of NIH, you could almost see this as potentially an outward signal that NIH is just unmoored.
They've, they've
detached all the boats from the harbor.
They're just letting them float away.
It's, it's actually kind of scary.
I mean, if you know what you're seeing here and you understand how we flipped from somebody like Francis Collins with a 20 or 30 year time plan that he had 20 or 30 years to make excuses about and claim multiple times that the Human Genome Project had reached a new landmark, what kind of director is Jay Bhattacharya gonna be?
Think about that as you listen to this video.
This cannot be good.
Especially when you realize that for some odd reason, this guy spent a weird amount of time around me.
He's on my phone.
We're in trouble, ladies and gentlemen.
And unfortunately, I'm one of the few people who's seen this alien from so many different angles.
So I gotta give this up while I can give it up.
I gotta make sure that as many people hear it as possible because this, for me, this is just wacky.
The kind of stuff that's happening right now, I could not have predicted a year ago because it would have been essentially like, okay, take all the people on your chalkboard
and then put them in places that you least expect them to get to.
Boom.
Right?
At some point, I didn't even think of the idea that Bobby Kennedy would ever run for office.
I thought he was an anti-vax guy and an environmentalist who called me because he wanted help and he wanted to help me.
I was like fooled when he said he was going to run for office.
I thought, Oh my goodness, this is amazing.
Like, could this really be the, the start of something that nobody imagined?
Then I stumbled on this, this Jesse Ventura book from Skyhorse publishing.
And it's still, it still took years to sink in, in reality, like maybe even
and maybe even two full years before I understood the depth of the play.
But this is a long con, ladies and gentlemen, with a number of people recruited a number of years ago.
And then they have wittingly and unwitting recruits that they're using, that they're not grooming is the wrong word, but sort of training along.
And the ones that are, you know, they are naive enough or busy enough to be useful, they've used them.
But the vast majority of them, they just get stood in front of.
Very few like Brandy Vaughn get killed.
But this, this is remarkable because this is exactly where we are right now in American history.
And you have to wonder what's actually going on at the FBI.
If Comey thinks that it's okay to do what he did and they're making all this big fuss about the fact that it's a numerical threat to the president, maybe it's just an obvious statement about what's possible.
That a statement like that is protected by free speech, that there's nothing Trump can do about it, that Trump will do nothing about it.
that the FBI has nobody to do anything about it.
They're talking about the Secret Service should do something about it.
I mean, think about this for a minute.
This is a theater, ladies and gentlemen.
It's a very interesting theater.
I wonder what, I don't know, Bill Barr would think about this and what his response would be.
Because this is the funny part of the theater on the internet right now.
And I think, quite frankly, it's very important for us to, as a country, to get off of X. X is only going to get worse.
X is gonna be the place where AI is gonna be allowed to run rampant and that we're gonna ask Elon Musk to clean it up or to save us from the fakes or anything like, all of that's gonna happen on X if we continue to use that platform and continue to acquiesce to it because all of these people insist on using it.
It's not for nothing that Nicole Shanahan, a billionaire owner of Google, said something like, oh yeah, my account on X is just thoughts that come from my head right to the phone, because that's what you should think of everything on Twitter as.
OK, so let's see if this is worth going for a little while.
No, not.
Oh, it's over?
What?
Did I start?
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on with us.
He's from the... There won't be any R&D on drugs.
but the president's executive order does that help europeans look this is not fair to americans this is actually lowering the investment that we ought to be making on are at the for drug uh... and so that uh... the that they should be paying prices that are equal to a level of americans pay in america to playing might much lower prices that we do pay much closer to competitive prices uh... it's a huge move forward and i would like to have to be at what they what you're at what you're going to do and what the drug companies do in response but uh...
To me, I've been hearing about this problem for decades.
It's the first time I've seen a president really take a big step forward to try to address it.
I mean, as somebody who is in, you know, research for a very long time, doesn't the promise of AI, AGI, ASI,
lessen this whole thing of we need gobs of money to be able to do R&D, because that should, you know, maybe five years from now, begin to cut those costs dramatically to take that chair away from the table, or put that chair back into the table, if you will.
Yeah, no, that is actually a quite promising thing.
So, I mean, just to give one example, there's this technology called AlphaFold that allows
scientists to much more easily understand how proteins will fold on each fold and how, and as a result, hopefully, and he was dramatically reduced broad development expenditures.
This guy has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.
Alpha fold was given to him on his script, which he can freely hold in his hands and read because he's not on camera.
Wow, I mean, this is shocking.
Glenn Beck says, what about AI, JGSI, ASI, GI?
What about all the abbreviations for machine learning that just basically try to exaggerate its usefulness and it's differentiated from brute force computing instead of, you know, and make people believe that it's about to wake up and take over.
This is a massive joke.
You can't see it with this Marlboro Man picture, you know?
Come on, the head of the NIH is on a podcast with a guy with that studio who uses this graphic and we're supposed to take this seriously.
But that's what social media says is reality.
This is the good part of the internet, right?
We have to wake up to where we are.
We have to wake up to where our friends are.
We have to wake up to where our family is, because some of our family members think that this is the shizzle.
that these guys are, man, Jay Bhattacharya is one of the few guys we can all agree on, right?
Says Krauss and Kali Means.
I mean, it's... Drug development is always gonna be expensive, so you still have to run randomized, large-scale clinical trials, and those are gonna be expensive.
But the initial steps of drug development with AI, and as well, the clinical trials are gonna be much more efficiently run over time.
I don't think it's worth dismissing the fact that Robert Malone supposedly at the beginning of the pandemic was using AI to screen all of the known drugs and pharmaceuticals in the FDA catalog for potential interactions with the 3C protease of the
and some other proteins of the virus using computer generated or a computer model of x-ray crystallography of those proteins.
And on a Tommy podcast, he also said he was using laser scanning confocal microscopy, which kind of implied that he was doing a lot of cell cultures with fluorescence and then just reading them in bulk.
And so he was feeding those results into AI, or he was using laser scanning confocal microscopy to test candidates that the AI picked out.
But anyway, that was all three weeks in January.
And by then he was already treating himself with funmotidine, albeit a very, very much higher dose than you use when you use Pepsin.
But you know, this is experimental.
And so it's not very ethical for him to tell that, that he did that to himself.
But he did, and that's part of the same story as him taking the mRNA to travel and then being also vaccine injured for a while.
And so that guy, Robert Malone, is actually seminal in this guy making NIH director.
And I can only assume that because before the election, I saw Jay Bhattacharya at a barbecue
And he told me at the barbecue and then also at a dinner and then also at the hotel the next day when I was waiting to get my whatever ride to the airport that I should just stop naming names and just teach the biology because you're so good at it.
But just stop saying Robert Malone's name.
Now, unfortunately, if Jay Bhattacharya was put up to that by a very, very smart intelligence agent, and I'm now being played into saying Robert Malone's name for the rest of my life, I guess then I am a victim.
However, I am not stopping saying Robert Malone's name.
I will continue to say Robert Malone's name because I think he's central to this narrative, very similar to the Spars pandemic narrative, but with many more players, many more layers, and a many much, much more thorough script
with many little convoluted traps inside of it so that there's lots of places for people to argue independently of each other and never step on anybody's toes and everybody gets a substack and it's all well and good.
That you need to have trillions of dollars, tens of billions of dollars to develop a single drug, we hope will become a thing of the past.
In any case, there's no reason why Americans should be shouldering the burden for the whole rest of the world.
The developed world should be bearing this burden together.
Let me switch, you know, I originally reached out to you because I wanted to talk to you about the HHS halting work at high-risk infectious disease labs.
Now that's exactly the same kind of neurolinguistic programming that they use in a comedy routine.
I'm going to give you an example of it.
One of the best, so you can sort of map out, what is that?
Please tell me, okay, shit.
I thought I saw something else in my backyard.
If you watch a really well done comedy routine, you will see that certain jokes come back about 10 minutes later.
They come back about eight minutes later.
And the way that they come back as a reference, which ties back to the original thing.
One of the best examples I have is this,
episode with the golf balls and Kramer comes in and he's got a bucket full of balls and he says let's go to the ocean and hit these in it'll be the best thing ever and then all the way through the thing there's all kinds of jokes about golf balls and stuff like that and there's a there's a whale that gets that gets beached and and and and
and George always wanted to be a marine biologist and at the very end of the the show George is telling this story about the sea was angry that day and he gets swept up on top of the whale and he looks down into the blowhole and there's a golf ball in it and that's the end of the episode and it's a
This tactic can be applied in a podcast where you start out the podcast with assumption, assumption, assumption.
There was a virus.
Millions of people died from it.
And it was probably from gain of function.
But let's talk about this executive order from Trump on on lowering drug prices and tell me what you think that means relative to the EU.
And then 10 minutes later, we come back to this.
And so you're all your brain is almost like, oh, yeah, that's that's right.
Oh, great.
Thank you.
That feels good.
Good.
It's very similar to how it feels when the story comes and you're almost like, oh my gosh, is George going to pull out a golf ball?
But it's more subtle.
It's more malevolent.
But it's just as effective.
But instead of laughing, what happens is this assumption of a gain-of-function virus and virology and the fact that they can make these things and design them is accepted.
and one magic bingo around the world.
And I can't believe this is true, but you tell me.
So there was an incident that... There you go.
Callback.
That's what it is in improv.
That's what it is in comedy.
And
and and priming the mark would be another way to think about it in a longer con excellent gentlemen thank you if or ma'am if that's what it is at supposed to be all cat ladies in the chat according to a bio lab i don't know that apparently
what happened is there was a, I don't know, a personal squabble between people and a contractor actually punched a hole in the other person's bio lab suit.
I don't know to get them sick or whatever, but it, it was, I mean, is that what happened at that bio lab?
I think it was at Fort Dietrich.
That is exactly what happened.
I learned.
Yeah.
It was, it was, I haven't been scared about anything in the shop except for that one
I learned about this about three weeks into the job.
I haven't been scared about anything on this job except this.
I learned about it about three weeks after I was on the job.
Stop lying!
Oh, no, actually, I shouldn't say that.
Jay's not lying there.
I'm sure he's actually... This script was given to me three weeks after I got on the job.
That's how it should have been said.
No way, did Kevin Spacey have a hole in the suit?
Are you kidding me?
That's awesome.
Wow.
Yeah, positive pressure.
There you go.
Excellent point.
Well done.
Bing, bang, boom.
Also, man, my chat is sharp.
My chat is sharp today.
Since the beginning of April, it turns out that there had been a incident a few weeks before.
Right before I joined as the NIH director,
at Fort Detrick, a part of the lab is run by the National Institute of Health, and it's a DSL-4 lab, which is the highest biosecurity level lab.
I mean, the lab, the experiments done there are on some really nasty bugs.
I mean, you know, Ebola, a whole bunch of like
viruses and pathogens that if it gets out in the population or if it infects lab workers, it's just feeling quite deadly.
There is no possible way he's doing anything but saying what he's told because this guy doesn't know anything.
He, I have him saying on my podcast about nine different times.
I really don't know Jay, you're the biologist.
I don't know, Jay, you're the biologist.
I defer to you, Jay, because you're the biologist.
And now he's an absolute expert in bioweapons and the contents of Fort Detrick.
I guess because at NIH, once you get the directorship, they just take you around to all the facilities, show you the room, make sure you know how to get in the parking garage, that kind of stuff.
And what I'd learned was that there'd been this incident just a couple weeks before I joined as director of the NIH where a lab worker had cut a hole in a biocontainment suit of a fellow worker with the express intention of getting that worker infected.
That sounds like a great place to work.
Maybe that's, Oh, wow.
You know, I mean, Bruce Ivins was probably doing that to people.
He just never got caught.
If that, if that, if that, and apparently it was over some lovers that are, or I'm not sure exactly the full details.
There's an ongoing investigation of that.
Um, uh, what I learned was that, that, that, that the, uh, not just that this incident had happened,
which actually has a threat, not just to the worker, but also if that gets out.
Yeah.
I mean, it's just, I mean, I was actually, I mean, I was absolutely livid.
Um, and so, uh, what I did is like, I got mad.
So what I did was, Oh, I can't wait to hear what Jay Bhattacharya does when he's mad first, he straightens up his spine lab on an operational shutdown.
secured all of the vials of the nasty bugs in a safe environment, made sure that the animals were cared for, that they're in the lab, and we're not going to open that up until the safety environment of the lab is absolutely solid.
The contractor that was overseeing this, I think, did a very lax job.
What I learned is that this goes back to the Biden administration, that the safety environment in the lab essentially downplayed these kinds of security problems.
If you're going to run experiments on these bugs, and I'm not, personally, I'm not
sold that all of you can confirm that we're doing but in any case if you're going to run them you have a absolute responsibility to have zero tolerance for safety problems right is that uh... it's but but but the uh... the issue here was just a one-off thing it was something
That was problematic in the safety culture of this lab where I don't like I cannot guarantee That if we reopen the lab right now, that would be a safe environment.
I won't reopen the lab.
Thank you.
That's the case Thank you.
Thank you.
I mean shouldn't that person be punished?
I mean that really is attempted murder and maybe even on a mass scale and
I mean, there's an ongoing investigation, so I shouldn't say much more about this, but it's one of those things where I was actually actively scared when I first heard it.
Yeah, I mean, I think Americans are actively scared because none of this stuff should be happening.
I mean, we are just, we're just an accident or a stupid move or an intentional leak away from mass death.
And you know, you keep hearing people like Bill Gates say,
We're on the verge of another pandemic.
Why?
I mean, why are we on the verge of another pandemic?
Do you think we are?
I mean, you know, pandemics happen.
That's happened all throughout history.
The key thing to me, though, Glenn, is we don't want, we don't want to cause one.
We don't want to increase the risk of them.
The irony of this past pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic,
is that it was very likely caused by actions aimed at stopping pandemics from happening.
There was almost a hubris, but it is hubris.
There was this idea that we could somehow, if we go into the bat caves of China and all the wild places, bring all of those viruses that we find there and pathogens that we find there into the lab, catalog them,
we can somehow prevent all pandemics from happening, make them more transmissible, more dangerous to humans.
We can somehow, as a result of that exercise, make it less likely to have pandemics happening.
But of course, what we found out is the opposite is true, that you can't do this kind of work entirely safely.
And actually, even if you fully accomplish what was the aim of that research program, which is to go out in the wild places and find the pathogens,
you wouldn't protect anybody against the pathogen.
Because what would happen is, when and if the outbreak happens, whatever countermeasures you designed for them would already be out of date, because the evolutionary biology of these viruses is that they mutate very rapidly.
And so when they got into the population, the countermeasures you prepared for, which you never tested any humans, very likely would not work.
Have we stopped all of the gain-of-function stuff now?
Are you convinced it's done?
Yeah, so last week, President Trump signed an absolutely historic executive order that puts a full pause on all gain-of-function work throughout the government.
And we implemented that pause at the NIH, and I'm sure the rest of the government has done the same.
Over the next 90 days, we're going to develop a framework.
And here's how the framework's going to work, right?
So you have to be a little careful here.
So gain-of-function can mean many things.
So for instance,
Insulin is produced via a gain-of-function exercise.
There's no risk of a pandemic being caused by it, but you take a bacteria, E. coli, you change so they can produce insulin, and that's how you produce human insulin.
There's a completely safe thing to do.
On the other hand, you take a virus, like a bat virus, a virus that has these sort of coronavirus-like properties, add a purine cleavage site, and manipulate it so they can infect human cells more easily.
Well, now you have the potential to cause a pandemic.
If you're gonna do an experiment like that, you, the scientist alone, or scientists alone, should not get to decide whether that risk is worth taking.
The public should have a say.
The public should be able to say, no matter what knowledge you think you're going to gain from that, it's not worth the risk of causing a worldwide pandemic that's going to kill 20 million people and cost $25 trillion or something.
And that's exactly what the framework's going to do.
It's going to say, if I, the scientist, wants to run this project, the public will have a veto over that, say, no, you're not allowed to do it because it's not worth it.
Most science won't be affected by this.
Most science has no chance of causing a pandemic.
But any science that does,
is going to be subject to this very, very strict regulatory framework.
We're on with Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who is... I think you should be very upset as an American.
You should be very, a little bit concerned that the NIH has been unmoored.
And wonder who else has been appointed, who else is being hired, who else is being fired, and how this huge budget... What's happening?
How is it being rearranged?
What is occurring here?
Because you should be very concerned.
And the social media themes that are going around right now with AI babies and fake AI videos are not anything to do with the possible sabotage of our government from inside.
I'm very, very concerned because this sounds like incredible incompetence.
This guy's way over his head.
And now he's circulating exclusively on what I can only consider to be the corners of the internet where most US citizens will never hear him.
And that's by design.
Those people are being shown a completely different image of America and American politics, a completely different set of ideas to argue about, and a completely separate
list of questions to ask while we are being herded into this trap where we're supposed to be really focused on the COVID shots and forget about 2020.
The premiere of this, uh, you know, silence the silence or whatever.
completely focuses on the COVID shot and forgets about the fact that there were Americans that were murdered as part of an operation to create an illusion of an ongoing pandemic around the world and point at America as a country that failed to take heed.
And none of these pseudo-patriots, these false patriots,
seem to be aware that actually that's when the crucial parts of the narrative were laid down, including the PCR testing, the full sequencing of the virus.
The existence of the virus was established in 2020.
accepted in 2020.
More importantly, the establishment of the PCR as the gold standard for tracking and finding and measuring its presence was established in 2020.
And so never mind whether there are viruses or not.
If there are no viruses, then PCR is bullshit and they're still using it.
If there are no viruses, then vaccines are bullshit.
And that's the argument that they trapped you in, you see?
If there are no viruses, if there are no viruses, and that's not the way that you should have been thinking about it.
You should have been thinking about the idea that intramuscular injection is good for what reason?
You should have been thinking about a healthy child needs augmentation for what reason?
And we should have been encouraged to think very deeply about it.
And there should be a number of people on earth that have thought very deeply about it.
But it turns out that apparently there's only a couple people who have ever thought deeply about it and they've failed to really think deeply enough.
Like Suzanne Humphries and Mary Holland and Meryl Nass and Brian Hooker, who just, after all these years, have just been unable to come to the, you know what, maybe just injecting shit with metal tubes is dumb.
It might not even matter where you put it.
It just is kind of dumb because it's, you know, a few steps away from any natural interaction with whatever our biology is.
You know, it's like a chainsaw for a tree.
I mean, I guess you can, I guess, you know, it probably won't always kill the tree, but it's hard to argue that you needed to have a chainsaw for it to have a healthy tree.
It's a pretty hard argument to make and yet we make the argument about intramuscular injection and we make it especially absurdly in America.
And that difference in absurdity is never pointed out by anybody that purports to be fighting for this as part of Maha because it's actually a joke on America.
is a hero in my book, now the director of the National Institutes of Health.
Is an apology good enough for the National Institute of Health?
I mean, should anybody go to jail for what has happened?
And what is that like to walk into that building when you were, you know, enemy number one to many in that building, you know, during the pandemic?
You know, it's been interesting.
It's certainly a big turn of fate where I was sort of the
uh i mean subject of devastating takedowns and called all kinds of names by folks who were in the well you got to repeat exactly what the newspapers and the social media memes were right a devastating takedown that was the email that circulated and released by francis collins but that was by accident
just like the main victim in the movie that they just premiered last night, just happened to have multiple interactions with Peter Marks from the FDA on camera, on Zoom, so that we could use it in our feature length film about how this woman was injured by the vaccine, although you can't really see it when she's on camera anymore.
And we can occasionally drop in some of these people, you know, like the guy that lost his hockey playing son, but we'll give him like five minutes and we'll just keep the focus on this lady.
and her many interactions with Peter Marks, because Peter Marks is a bad guy.
You know, I had a professor from the University of Pittsburgh meet me for coffee in 2022 to tell me a story about how Peter Marks was the bad guy, and that he, this guy from the University of Pittsburgh, had published a paper where he showed that there was a reversed sequence from Moderna that was patented in 2000-whatever and now was found in the coronavirus sequence.
And he told Peter Marks, and so Peter Marks knows that there's evidence it's a lab leak.
That guy met me for coffee.
I can't tell you his name because I'm afraid he'll sue me.
But you can look up that paper, and he's the last author.
He's still a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
And he actually met with me in 2022 to try and make sure I understood that he was taking a big risk by publishing that paper about there being a high probability that this sequence could never have come together by accident.
I hate it.
I hate the fact that I have so many personal stories that point to these people being one orchestrated, malevolent group of actors performing in elaborate theater so that America and the world believes that something that happened that didn't.
It's just the management of the population pyramid and the using of the population pyramid to their advantage.
sculpting it with murder and lies, and then putting a bunch of people on the internet, clueless or not, on a script that will never free anyone from this huge, ridiculous mythology.
in this building where I now lead.
But at the same time, I found many, many excellent scientists, many people devoted to advancing human knowledge for the benefit of all people.
I mean, most scientists are like that.
They're not trying to create havoc.
And so I've been trying to find allies, and I found a lot of allies in the building.
You asked what should happen regarding pathologies.
I mean, to me, apologies.
I mean, I think the key thing, I personally, I'm very, very happy to apologize on behalf of American public health to the American people for the failures during COVID.
But the key thing going forward is a reform.
How do we change the institution so that it's focused on the health needs of the American people rather than these utopian schemes to like end all pandemics without any heed whatsoever to the risk that they take?
Science is a very, very powerful kind of idea and institution, but it needs to be focused on real human needs, real health, in particular for the NIH, real human health needs.
And there have to be guardrails so that scientists understand that they operate in the context of public support.
We function on taxpayer money.
We have to answer the taxpayers.
And so that's been the challenge is trying to keep the light of science alive while still reminding scientists that we are not acting just as
So I have made the point many times on my stream that the way they got away with it is that they use placebos to make it safe, besides the non-specific PCR tests on a background and they just misconstrued a spread.
They made the
these transfections safe because most of them were placebo and of course there's an elaborate hoax out there about there's all these different dosing and we heard Robert Malone in the beginning here saying that that the Conpertys were doing all kinds of different dosing and it's just all absurd.
What they were doing is most of it was placebo because that made it cheap, it made it safe, it made it reliable, it made it not need to be stored, and it made it very easy to manufacture.
I mean that's a pretty good scam.
for companies that don't make that much money.
This was a great way to make some money.
Yes, that's true.
But the real companies that were making money were a lot more valuable than these companies.
Now, placebos made it safe, it made it cheap, it made the profit higher, sure.
But I want you to understand also what placebos do.
Because placebos also made it possible.
Because placebos actually work.
This is a remarkable little pill.
It comes in all shapes and sizes.
It can relieve pain, treat depression, and has even helped ease the symptoms of Parkinson's disease.
And yet, it isn't a wonder drug.
In fact, there isn't anything in it.
As a scientist, it's unbelievable.
These pills are placebos.
Dummy pills.
Sugar pills.
I'm thinking, he wants me to take sugar pills?
This isn't going to work.
But the latest research is starting to show why placebos do work.
And how you could make the most of them.
At the home of British cycling, at the Manchester Velodrome, some of the country's top cyclists have gathered together.
They're elite.
Many are national champions, past or present.
They've been brought together by Dr. Chris Beattie.
He wants to see if he can give them some pills to help them do something that would normally take months of training.
He wants to see if he can make them cycle faster than ever before.
We're going to get all the riders onto the track to do a sprint time trial.
And we're going to get an idea from that how fast they are, their baseline speed.
Then four hours later, we're going to give them a couple of these.
and we're expecting these to have an effect on their performance.
The cyclists have been invited to take part in an experiment looking at the effect of legal performance-enhancing supplements.
Yes, you must believe!
You must believe!
We will be testing a new ergogenic aid.
Half of you will be getting what we'd call a standard ergogenic aid, which is caffeine.
The other half will be getting caffeine with some nitrate and some bicarbonate in those capsules.
And we're expecting that to do slightly better.
So to evaluate this, we need two time trials from you, absolutely 100%, absolutely everything you've got in both time trials.
The cyclists baseline performance is measured to get a sense of their natural competitive time.
And then it's time for the pills.
Okay, we've got the baseline performance.
We now are going to give them some of these and see what effect these have.
One by one, the cyclists receive their performance enhancing capsules from members of Chris's team.
Hi Lisa, you've been randomised today to receive the caffeine.
Today you've been randomised to take the mixed supplements.
Hannah, today you've been randomised to receive the pure caffeine.
Today you've been randomised to receive the new supplements.
But nothing about today is quite as it seems.
Both sets of pills are exactly the same.
The cyclists are actually taking part in a very different experiment.
These are the capsules we're going to be using today.
We've got a couple of red ones and a couple of red and white ones.
They're fairly large and they look like they mean business.
They are, however, filled with cornflour.
Cornflour.
not sugar, so that's better.
Chris wants to see if the cornflour can improve the cyclist's times, even though they already do all they can to be as fast as possible.
But having raced just a couple of hours ago, the riders are tired.
The thought of doing two in one day, it'd never happen.
You'd normally race one and then a day or so, you'd start again, but two in one day is going to be interesting.
It's fair to expect that their second race of the day would be slower.
It's time to see what the pills can do.
Okay, so first of all, I would point out that that's not actually good.
If they never race twice a day, then they don't know what happens if they race and then wait four hours and then race again.
And I can speak from experience that if I work out in the morning, jumping rope, doing calf raises and free squats, and then go to the gym like five hours later, I can feel the difference that if I don't do it.
And sometimes the difference is better.
It's warming up becomes easier and I'm bouncier for longer than if I didn't work out in the morning.
And so I'm not sure it's perfect control, but okay, whatever, let's see.
I'm not trying to rip on it.
The whole show is great.
This is not the only example.
I think if the transfection was just a live dose of the spike protein RNA, perfect and ready to go as they claim it is on the brochure, that the vast majority of people that got that would probably die in the next five years.
That's what I think.
I don't think that that is a very bad prediction.
The only reason why it's not coming true is because the vast majority were placebo.
I actually said that to my friend, Nathan, on my porch in October of 2020.
I can't even remember anymore.
I think it's 2024.
I guess it would know 2023.
2022, 2023.
He was here for another reason and he was pretty flabbergasted.
The book hadn't come out yet.
If the book had come out, I would have given him one.
So the book hadn't come out yet.
It was October 2023 and he was here for another reason and he came to the house and we hung out on the porch and I explained what I was doing with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and how I was making a living in the basement and he says, you really think that you can
that you can keep going.
And I'm like, but, but this is the, yeah, absolutely.
And then later in the same conversation, he said, so you still think that there's a possibility that I could die from the COVID shot?
I said, absolutely.
I do.
And he actually died a month later, an aneurysm.
He was able to say to his wife that he's going to be fine when they got in, when he got in the ambulance.
And when they got to the hospital, he was gone, brain dead.
So it's not funny.
This is not a joke.
And what's happening here, what they pulled off, the only reason why they could pull it off is because placebo works.
It's real.
Do you feel that the second ride felt easier?
The first one, it got progressively harder during the ride.
The second ride, after about a lap and a half out of the four laps, it kind of got to a point where it was hurting, but then it never got any worse.
The second ride felt better, yes.
I went, like, half a second quicker, which is quite a lot over that distance.
Yeah.
I felt as if I was a little bit quicker the second time around.
I felt really tired before I took it.
I think it may have started to kick in whilst I was warming up and I got a bit of a burst of energy and felt ready to go again.
In spite of the fact that the riders were tired from their earlier race, analysis of today's times shows that more than half of them were quicker with the cornflower.
The placebo has even helped one cyclist to ride faster than ever before.
I think it's very conspicuous that that rider said that they never do it twice.
It never happens.
They never do it twice in a day.
I really think you can't discount that.
That's a huge flaw in this first illustration.
I'm kind of disappointed in that.
It was really, really good.
Really surprised to go quicker in the second run.
Really pleased.
And a personal best as well by two tenths of a second.
And to beat a couple of lads that are in today that normally beat me.
Now what he should come to the conclusion of is that since it's a placebo, it couldn't have been the mental part of it.
It might have been the physical change of having exercise done the same thing four hours before, but he won't.
And that's pretty remarkable, actually, if you see it.
Big surprise, yeah.
Really happy.
So, I mean, you did a PB.
You felt the effects of the substance.
The capture we gave you was a placebo.
All right, OK.
Really?
Wow.
Today's trial is just a demonstration of what placebos can do.
but it's typical of what Dr. Beattie has found in over a decade of experiments with hundreds of athletes.
It's really, I'm sure that he's done the experiment more often, but this particular experimental design is bad.
They should have just done the run the next day, or they should have shown us a video without that guy saying that we never do two in one day because that blew it.
Every study we've done, we've found a mean placebo effect.
In sports performance generally, we can see improvements quite frequently of 2-3%.
Well, 3% in many sports is probably the difference between first place in the Olympics and not being in the top 10.
So we're talking quite a substantial difference.
It's a little bit like your car's going a little bit faster, but you're not using any more petrol.
Why that's happening, however, is still open to question.
It seems the pills that the cyclist took have the potential to make a real difference.
And it's clearly nothing to do with the corn flour in them.
So how can a pill with nothing in it help someone to cycle faster than ever before?
While they're hammering it home.
Since the advent of modern medicine, placebos have been treated with skepticism.
It has been assumed that they can do nothing.
They've been used only as dummy pills that new drugs have to beat to be considered effective.
But in recent years, a number of studies have shown that there may be more to a placebo than we thought.
A few years ago, Dr. David Kalmes decided to do a rather controversial experiment.
For 15 years, he's been fixing broken backs by injecting them with a special kind of surgical cement.
That looks something you need some skill for.
But then, Dr. Kalmes noticed something that made him question how effective the procedure was.
I was aware of some rare cases where, believe it or not, the wrong vertebral body was treated for whatever reason, and patients seemed to get some relief from that.
So there was some reason to suspect that there were numerous factors at play in the apparent effectiveness of the cement.
He decided to do something unusual.
All right.
He decided to put this established procedure to the test.
He designed a trial in which some patients would be given the real procedure, and some would be given a placebo.
But in this case, the placebo couldn't be a dummy pill.
It would have to be a fake operation.
There was skepticism from many people about whether this was worth doing.
I recall being at a meeting that I remember being screamed at.
at that and then later on being called a heretic for raising the specter of the placebo effect in interventional procedures.
Nevertheless.
Okay, already students in the chat, is there a placebo effect possible here?
Have they designed this experiment right or not?
If they're gonna do a fake operation, that means they're gonna use deep anesthesia.
And if they use deep anesthesia, I'm not sure what that does for back pain.
I've had back pain for the last like three weeks because I jumped wrong about three weeks ago and then it moved from vertebrae to vertebrae all the way down until the last couple days it was actually making my hips hurt and now it's gone.
But I don't know how fast that would happen if I was put under muscle relaxants and deeply anesthetized for a couple hours and then woken up.
And so they're completely discounting the possibility that narcosis and anesthesia in a situation where you have muscle and nerve pain could result in, you know, a changed situation.
It's really remarkable and they're presenting it as placebo.
He went ahead with the trial.
All he needed was to recruit some patients.
A few years ago, Bonnie Anderson had an accident that led her to join the trial.
Well, when I slipped on the tile floor in the kitchen here, my feet went off underneath me.
I went flat on my back.
I could not move.
And I thought, oh dear, I told Donna, I'm afraid I broke my back.
One question you could ask yourself, DOTUS in the chat, you could ask yourself, have they shown you any evidence that the cancer is in only people who took the shots?
because if not, then that would be one very good argument against the shots are not responsible for an increase in cancer.
There could be just the fact that we have a lot of aging out old people in the population that if they didn't die from COVID or from the protocols by going to the hospital, then maybe what they have done is just become unhealthy like they would expect to be and contribute to rising numbers of cancer in America.
The young examples,
Examples of young people with cancer, that's a completely different story.
And if they've been transfected, it's very possible that the hot doses were sent to college groups because of course they knew, of course they knew that a hot dose of a transfection in a frail old person would result or could result in an immediate death.
They killed old people with oxygen and other things.
They didn't kill old people with live transfections.
And what would they really learn from transfecting adults anyway?
If they did it, they did it just to get rid of them.
They're collecting data.
Think about what happens if they transfect an entire university population with all of their medical records surrendered as part of their admissions process.
And then a certain percentage of them get sick after the pandemic.
Well, then they have a perfect fricking experiment on a young group of experimental animals.
And they have them for four years and they have them beyond that.
If they're not aware that they are in this list.
And so if they, cancer goes up in those people, they're getting prime data, the best kind of data, even on these, all these different, very small examples, because it's not going to be one thing, but they're getting data on everything.
The prevalence of myocarditis, the prevalence of long COVID, the prevalence of, of cancers, the prevalence of any medical calamity after the injection of live RNA.
and they don't have to do it to anybody else, nobody on the street, nobody at CVS, because you wouldn't want somebody at CVS to take a shot from some random person and then just pass out.
You got to do that stuff, you know, in a controlled setting, like at a university where everybody's on board, where the health department could be linked to a huge conglomerate of corporate health providers, and ultimately linked to a database like Epic.
so that somebody like Nicole Shanahan could get a hold of all that data and use AI to interface it back with the genetic data collected from the monthly or weekly PCR required testing that was also done on the same campuses.
Isn't that a easier explanation for why they would only put the hot doses where they had access to all the data?
There are probably a lot of hot doses in Israel too.
And that would be great because they could track them with that beautiful,
that beautiful health care system database.
Maybe they did the same thing in the NHS with certain places.
I don't know.
But I assure you, anywhere where they weren't going to bother, anywhere where it might get out, everything controlled very well.
Otherwise, you can't explain how it's possible that they bottled so much of it.
It broke my back.
The pain was just very, very severe.
I couldn't stand up straight.
I'd have to, you know, just kind of hold on to something.
She was in pain all the time.
She could do very little.
Well, I'd help him with the dishes, but he did all the vacuuming.
He really did more of the work for me.
That part hasn't really changed that much.
When Bonnie saw the doctor, a vertebral fracture was confirmed.
She was enrolled on the trial.
On a cold October morning, Bonnie arrived at the hospital ready for her operation.
But she has a fracture!
She could know whether she was having a vertebroplasty or the pretend procedure, the placebo.
Dr. Kalm has developed an elaborate ruse to ensure that patients wouldn't work out which group they were in.
If they induce her, that's pretty incredible because not everybody takes to anesthesia very well.
That's a pretty, wow, that's incredible.
Given medication by vein, was sterilely prepped and local anesthesia was given.
And only after the anesthesia was given onto the bone did we press the button to see whether the patient was randomized to the full vertebroplasty or to the placebo.
In both cases, no matter how they were randomized, we then opened the cement, which has a very strong odor like nail polish remover, to really simulate it for everybody in the room.
And if they were randomized to vertebroplasty, we then inject cement down into the bone.
If they were randomized to placebo, we opened the cement.
We had a script that we followed.
We pressed on the back and said, OK, ma'am, the cement is going in now.
Everything's going fine.
Things are going well.
A few more minutes here.
OK, we're all done.
So we really simulated the procedure for the patient.
OK, I mean, it's local anesthesia only.
I guess I can buy it.
The surgery did work very, very well for me.
It did so much for me.
I was really active.
The procedure transformed her life.
Within a week of the injection, I was able to play golf and I took it a little bit easy, but I was able to play golf almost every day.
That's pretty remarkable.
But did the bone heal?
Because like he said, she had a vertebra fracture.
Now she's playing golf with a vertebra fracture because the placebo worked?
Something about this story is not right yet.
It's weird.
Return to some of my duties.
As far as, yeah.
Well, I don't vacuum, but I fire his dishes and stuff.
He won't say that, but it's true.
Interesting.
That's... Strike two, really, I think.
Something doesn't ring right about that, but whatever.
I thought they were both so successful that I just could go ahead and do what I wanted to do without any problem.
Wow.
And it wasn't just Bonnie that responded so well to the placebo.
When the results of the other 130 patients on the trial came in, they surprised everyone.
There was no statistically significant difference in degree of pain relief between the patients who underwent verteoplasty and placebo.
And more importantly, there was no statistically significant difference in improvement in function between the patients who underwent verteoplasty and placebo.
This study and another in Australia both suggest that a pretend procedure can be as effective as vertebroplasty, which has been carried out on over a million people.
Wow.
Both the real thing and the placebo made patients better than if they'd received no treatment.
So how could a pretend procedure be so effective?
Also realize that a pretend diagnostic could be as effective in the sense of, oh my gosh, I tested positive for it.
I feel strange.
Oh my gosh, I tested positive for it.
I can't taste anything anymore.
Is this gum real?
Around the world, scientists are investigating how a placebo works.
They're trying to find out what's happening inside your body and brain when you experience a placebo effect.
Yes, of course.
I do think that that's a good point to push out there, that the sameness should be significant, not the difference not significant.
So that's, again, using p-values to prove yourself or call something an observation is already failing.
it's a public holiday in the Italian Alps.
Tourists are heading up the mountain to spend a day skiing in the shadow of the Matterhorn.
I still think you can't discount the possibility that a complete and local
anesthesia that included muscle relaxers on the spot, applied needle-wise to your spine, might actually fix a great number of back problems.
Because, again, my limited experience with a long back and how the pain can move over time, over a week or two, from wherever it happens in the middle of your back, all the way down to your sacrum, and it's happened a number of times in my life, that there's some kind of, you know,
elaborate symphony of bone and muscle and sinew that gets out of alignment.
And then that kink has to go all the way down that system until it comes out the end in my experience.
And if you could just relax everything, all those nerves and autonomic muscles that are designed to protect your spinal cord have gotten triggered and are out of balance in their contractions.
So if you just loosened everything up, forced everything to release, and then brought it all back online, the balance is there again.
And so even a fractured vertebrae doesn't hurt as much as it did, as when you kinked your back, fracturing that thing and then setting those
those proprioceptors off of balance.
The proprioception is what causes all those muscles to cramp.
It's the receptors that sense, holy shit, you're about to set your spine off of balance and it could result in paralysis.
So I'm going to cause extreme pain.
It's not that dissimilar to why neck hurts a lot.
It's not that dissimilar to why if your neck moves in two different directions at the same time too far, your consciousness, your whole body's going to go limp because you don't want to fight it anymore.
You want to drop or you might break your neck.
This is very, very, very interesting.
I love this.
But for Fabrizio Benedetti, it's just another day in the office.
Instead of driving to the lab, or instead of taking a bus or a train, we take a cable car.
The landscape is beautiful.
It's a beautiful day.
But Fabrizio's laboratory isn't at the top of the mountain just for the sake of a pleasant commute.
He's using the low oxygen levels at high altitude to conduct an unusual experiment.
He's trying to find out whether a placebo effect is imagined or whether somehow a placebo can cause real changes in our bodies.
Okay, so here we are inside the station.
There are a couple of labs.
We have a living area.
We have two bedrooms, the kitchen, the bathroom.
Italian-Swiss border is more or less here.
We work in Switzerland, we sleep in Italy.
For the past few years, Fabrizio has been bringing volunteers like Marco to his mountaintop laboratory to be studied.
He's conducting an experiment to see if anything happens to people when they expect extra oxygen but don't actually get it.
So what we do is we give real oxygen or placebo oxygen.
The tank of the oxygen is empty.
And we compare the effect of real oxygen with placebo oxygen.
Interesting.
I like this one.
Fabrizio gives Marco a canister of what he's told is oxygen and sets him off on a 30-minute hike.
Wow, cool.
I want to do this experiment.
Now, this is right up my alley.
I would love to do this.
Even mild exercise, that's pretty tiring and difficult.
That's the reason why we are here, of course.
Fabrizio wants to know as much as possible about what's going on inside Marco's body and brain.
his heart rate, brain activity, and even the neurotransmitters.
I mean, I see it in the chat, brain symbiotic action.
The opposite is also true.
Bad thoughts make you feel ill.
I would go so far as to say that the FLCCC telling people that if their pulse ox was below 96, they should go to the hospital.
There were probably lots of Americans.
And when their pulse ox went below 96, they started to panic.
put on a mask, isolate and watch it go lower as they put on another mask.
And then finally, you know, gave in and said, I better go to the hospital because I think I might be having, I might have it.
Absolutely.
It works in the negative direction.
And Smith is in his system are all being monitored at this altitude.
Extra oxygen would be a great help.
If there is extra oxygen, of course, the muscles get more oxygen, so their performance improves.
Sounds like Kitchen Nightmares from Gordon Ramsay.
As they hike further, Marco is easily able to outpace Fabrizio's team of scientists.
You can see I cannot see him anymore, actually.
But of course Marco doesn't have any extra oxygen.
So, has the fake oxygen just given him some kind of psychological boost?
Or has it changed something in his body?
By analyzing the data he's gathered from Marco and the other subjects he's studied, Fabrizio has the answer.
It's all to do with the level of a neurotransmitter called PGE2.
Interesting.
I know that.
When we get up to high altitude, the low oxygen levels cause our blood oxygen levels to fall.
This makes our PGE2 levels go up.
And that leads us to feel some of the familiar symptoms of altitude sickness, like pain.
But extra oxygen can ease the problems.
When we give oxygen, there is a dramatic decrease in PGE2.
This is the typical response after oxygen administration with real oxygen.
The lower PGE2 level that comes from giving oxygen helps us to feel less pain and therefore work harder.
But if you give someone fake oxygen, you wouldn't expect the PGE2 levels to change.
But in this case, we give fake oxygen, which means placebo oxygen, and there is no change in blood oxygen saturation.
You see, we have 84% of blood oxygen saturation, but there is a decrease in PGE2 anyway.
This means that this decrease is not due to oxygen in the body, but... I'm starting to feel something really weird here.
But this is also bullshit unless he can show us that when he doesn't use oxygen, his PGE levels don't drop, they go up.
They didn't tell us that.
They didn't show us that data because that would be the control, right?
Go hike 10 times over the course of 10 days, the same track, you know, get in shape.
And while you're doing it, let's see your oxygen deprivation occur and see the compensation that occurs.
And now let's give you oxygen.
and see what markers change.
And then let's give you placebo oxygen and show that your brain can make some of those markers change, but not all of them or something.
And then you'd have a story, but instead we have one marker and we're only shown that we expect it to go down.
If we give people oxygen, this is what it looks like.
And when we give him fake oxygen, it also goes down, but we haven't actually been shown that it doesn't go down or that it goes up when he doesn't have oxygen.
That's a very crucial piece of data that's missing here.
That is due to expectation to a placebo effect.
The fake oxygen is causing real physiological changes in Fabrizio's subjects, decreasing their levels of PGE2, causing them to feel less pain and allowing them to work harder.
It's not imagination, you know, it's not a pure psychological effect.
It's a real neurobiological effect.
Somehow.
But he says that they worked harder.
So did we also see a higher performance than without oxygen?
You see, that's, they haven't shown us that data and that's not, that's not normal.
This is the third time they've done that to us.
Because one thing I can assure you placebo will work for is to make the total number of adverse events from intramuscular injection of a combination of substances with the intent of augmenting a healthy human, a healthy person.
You can make that number of events go way down if most of them are saline placebo injections.
You still could have something from that, but I'm telling you,
This is a very interesting thing if they've convinced us all these years that placebos can work as well as they can, when maybe they can't.
Maybe there is something to do with mind over matter, but none of these are examples of that yet.
I didn't see any proof of any mind over matter in either any of these three so far, except for maybe the lady
with a fractured vertebra, but we don't have any time course of when the vertebra fractured versus when they did the surgery versus when the pain went away, you see, because she has pain while she has the broken vertebra.
Maybe they let it heal to a certain extent.
Then they do the fake surgery with complete local anesthesia to release all those painful muscles.
She wakes up and it's fine.
And you know, the healing process of the vertebra has continued.
And so now she can play golf and it wasn't placebo effect at all, which is really interesting.
Fake oxygen is producing real chemical changes in people's bodies.
It shows us just how real and measurable the placebo effect can be.
What it doesn't tell us is how that's happening.
Boulder, Colorado, in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains.
Thorweger is trying to figure out how a placebo can change the chemicals in our bodies.
He's getting ready for another day, inflicting... Holy shit!
You know, in a way, you could see this video as trying to make people believe that placebos really work, almost to the point where they're so working that they're not really useful as controls.
Whoa.
I didn't think I was going to come to that conclusion while watching this video, but I'm starting to come to that conclusion now.
Because again, none of these examples are very convincing to me, even with the slightest amount of analysis.
We do the thermal pain test a lot because it's not damaging and safe, but it is painful.
Jake, come on in.
You can have a seat right here.
Tor is hoping to fool Jake into believing that a standard moisturizer is a powerful pain relief cream.
He begins by applying some moisturizer to Jake's arm and tells him what it is.
It won't provide any pain relief and will serve as a control.
On a different spot, he applies some lidocaine, a local anesthetic, which will dampen the pain that Jake feels.
We already know that it blocks pain, but we're just gonna look and see whether it changes pain in your brain.
Okay?
And finally, there's more moisturizer.
But Jake is told that it's also a local anesthetic.
We'll do the analgesic on both of these spots.
I mean... Hey, we'll just wait just a minute for that to... This is not that surprising when you've seen those videos where they have a mannequin hand and you put your hand in a mirror box and it looks like it's kind of your hand and then they hit the hand with the hammer.
It's very similar.
So we're going to give you a series of your level 8 temperatures, Jake, and just use the trackball there and just write what you feel moment by moment and track your pain continuously.
Okay, so we're ready to go in.
And so the whole study has data taken from this guy as he tracks his pain with a mouse ball.
This is the pain rating scale.
It's rating his pain continuously.
And the anchors here are no sensation to strongest imaginable sensation.
Jake's first heat treatment is on the control area.
All right, Jake, we've got it tuned and ready to go for the first task here, OK?
With no anesthetic, it's not a pleasant experience.
It's going up.
And it's just about very strong.
Very strong.
That's good.
That was the control.
This is with the lidocaine.
Just rate what you feel.
We'll be scanning.
On the lidocaine site, the pain is noticeably reduced.
So with the control cream, they were between very strong and strongest imaginable.
So they're pretty high.
And with the actual lidocaine cream, they're between strong and very strong.
So there's a substantial drop.
Substantial drop.
And over several patients, it became significant.
But how will Jake fare when the same heat is applied on the moisturizer that Thor has said is lidocaine?
Last one, lidocaine number two.
When he felt this temperature on the control area, he rated his pain above very strong.
Let's see what happens.
Oh, this one is the lowest so far, actually.
So that trial is lower than any of his lidocaine trials, actually.
The basic conclusion is that here, the placebo response for him is about as large as the lidocaine response is.
OK, Jake.
OK, so students in the chat, what's retarded about this?
I can tell you one example of what's retarded about this.
You can take two pins.
And you can put them on the, on a, take two pins.
and put them on a ruler like this so that they're different distances apart.
And you will find that on different parts of your body, you can tell that the pins are apart or not.
So if you put them about an inch apart, for example, and put that on your leg or on your back, you can find places on your body where you can't tell the difference between two pins and one pin if they're an inch apart.
But on your finger and your hand, of course you can.
And so that is also probably playing into this if they're not using his hands, if they're not using something as a control, or they haven't established a control, then they could have just serendipitously placed the test spot in between two, you know,
in between two regions of the skin that are only served by two different nerves.
And that's, we already know how that anatomy works.
So the idea that they didn't adequately control for that by explaining to you why they chose where they chose and how they chose it.
Again, this is kind of sketch to me.
Wow.
So how did that feel by the way?
It feels less painful.
So I told you before that we're applying the real lidocaine on all four sites, right?
But actually, we didn't apply the lidocaine on all the sites.
So what we actually did is we applied the control here.
So these were where your pain readings were highest.
These two were both the real lidocaine.
And these two were the placebo.
See, that's the perfect place for that.
That's the perfect place for that experiment to happen.
And I'm not saying that they planned it, but I'm just saying that that's where that sensitivity is different.
I'm not saying, this is just, I just, you know, they could have done better trying to prove to us that they did something like that.
Like.
Do you feel like it worked or do you feel like... The lidocaine or the placebo?
The placebo.
Definitely, yeah.
The significance of Tor's work is that by scanning the brains of people as they experience a placebo effect, he's revealed clues about how a placebo works.
Wow.
This is also extremely sketchy if he's using MRI as evidence.
Extremely sketchy.
As a neuroscientist, I can tell you that there's so much bullshit out there that's created by these rainbow pictures, and it's not good.
People at placebo treatment, what we see is the release of endogenous opioids, which is the brain's own morphine, in a number of brain areas, including this area here, which is the periaqueductal gray, which is really a critical site for opioid-mediated pain control.
What about, what about, sorry, what about when they just give him, give him the pain?
Does that also release the opioids?
Because then again, what are we talking about here?
They're not showing us the control.
They're not teaching us.
What that means is that the placebo effect is tapping into some of the pain, same pain control circuitry as opiate drugs, like morphine.
What about what happens when you just feel pain?
Do we tap into our opioids then too?
I bet we do.
And then what?
Is the pain inducing it more in the placebo situation or less, but still enough?
Do you see what's missing here?
This is a ridiculous, wow.
This is the fourth time they're doing it.
What Thor has shown goes to the heart of the mechanism of how a placebo works.
A dummy pill.
And of course now you have to accept that the MRI data is real and that MRI can be used to discern different conditions in the brain and we've accepted that and now it's revealing that
It's opioids and PGE that are released or not released as a result of the placebo.
And that's what's happening in your mind.
And so then now they're really bamboozling you into thinking that we've also figured out some working parts of the human mind as well.
We could hijack those with some kind of nanoparticle from James Giordano.
Or cream or surgery can release the naturally occurring painkillers in our brains.
And it isn't just painkillers that a placebo can activate.
Our brains are capable of producing countless chemicals that we need to stop pain or to feel it.
Countless chemicals seems to imply an irreducible complexity.
I don't know if they meant that.
To energize us or to help us sleep.
And a placebo can mimic many of them, from aspirin to alcohol.
The placebo effect taps into our natural pharmacy.
Drugs work because we have receptors for the drugs.
Ah, I'm getting it now.
They really want you to believe that chemicals, chemicals, chemicals.
Your consciousness is just chemicals.
And if we fool your consciousness, you'll release the same chemicals.
And so far, I haven't really seen evidence of that.
And I certainly haven't seen evidence that convinces me that it's not much more complex than these bullshit simple stories that they're telling you here.
And that means that there's some endogenous chemicals that our brains are producing that act on those receptors.
See?
Receptors evolve to respond to those natural- Receptors have evolved to respond to- Oh my gosh, wow, why don't you use all the bad words?
Holy shit.
Chemicals.
So a placebo can produce real results by tapping into the chemical systems that our bodies have evolved.
Just like modern medicines, a placebo effect relies on chemicals.
The chemicals in our brains.
Wow, I mean, we are going all the way back to this.
We are just physics and chemistry.
Holy crap.
Isn't it awesome?
I did not think it was going to be like this.
I thought it was going to be like placebos and prove it.
And then I could say like, you know, see why they would, but placebos work in the context that I'm saying that they work in because placebos allow all the adverse events from poisoning to go away.
That's why it's almost certain that even the, the vaccine schedule in America, as it stands is probably a lot of placebo.
Otherwise there'd be a lot more damaged children in America.
I'll go to my grave thinking that especially with regard to these these transfections It was an enormous number of placebo the most the most hot doses went to the healthiest Americans because they would get the most data from them and You know possibly identify the genetic vulnerabilities to transfection I
Scientists want to know just how much a sugar pill can do.
Can it only affect conditions which rely on self-reporting, like pain?
Or could it do much more?
Paul Patterson lives on the outskirts of Vancouver.
It gives him easy access to the woods and mountains on the edge of the city.
But 12 years ago, life took a turn for the worse when he started to develop some unsettling symptoms.
I started to notice my stride wasn't right.
My doctor referred me to a podiatrist, something wrong with my ankle, my foot, whatever.
So the podiatrist had me in a couple weeks later and he goes, oh my gosh, you don't need a podiatrist, you need a neurologist.
So I went back to my GP and got referred to a neurologist and he wouldn't look at me and he said, okay, you have Parkinson's.
Well, holy smoke, that was quite traumatic.
I was in tears for sure.
It came as a complete shock to Paul and his family.
and eventually forced him to give up his job.
Parkinson's is caused by an inability of the brain to release dopamine.
As well as affecting our mood, dopamine helps to regulate our movement.
With medication, Paul can get the dopamine he needs to keep his symptoms under control.
So I take Sinemet CR.
Control release is the pink one.
And the two white ones are two and a half milligrams each of bromocryptins.
And as you see, I'm upright.
I'm mobile.
My shoulders are back.
A few years ago, Parkinson's researcher, Professor John Stosel, decided to test this effective medication against a placebo.
We've always known that how people do when they have a serious condition has a lot to do with their attitude.
And that's intriguing to me.
Paul was recruited onto John's trial.
It would require him to stop taking his medication.
Without it, even walking can be difficult.
about a year and a half ago, I guess, I was about 50 feet from my house.
I could literally see the front door.
I was sitting on the sidewalk, on the curb, and I couldn't get home.
That was something else.
It took me about a half hour to get home from 100 feet.
Yeah.
Paul headed into hospital for the trial.
Without having had his medication, his Parkinson's symptoms in full flare up.
And that's when they gave me this capsule.
And they give you a half hour, 45 minutes, you know, normal period of time for the meds to kick in.
And boom, I was thinking, this is pretty good.
My body becomes erect.
My shoulders go back and I needed to go to the bathroom.
So I said, well, I don't need any help.
I'm fine.
And he all struck my way down the hall and went to the bathroom.
That Paul hadn't been given any active medication.
He'd been given a placebo.
I would ask the question if he hadn't been on medication in the first place with this work, because he could have set up a situation where the
The balance or the circuit in his brain that needs DOPA, L-DOPA, I think is what they said there he was taking.
was stimulated into producing DOPA because of the fact that its receptors, you know, these are pretty complex feedback loops that if disrupted, getting them started again, you know, you can think of it kind of like a water wheel.
I mean, if you've been dumping water on the water wheel enough, and it's turning, then you might not need very much water to come and keep it going.
And so you can imagine a scenario where the daily dosing of DOPA had created a lot of circuitry in his brain that expected certain things to happen when he took it.
And so when he took a placebo after that previous experience, his brain had sufficient water flowing so that the water wheel turned anyway.
Now I know that's a pretty weak example, but I'm trying to point out that this is not a perfect placebo.
It's not even close.
Oh, I was shocked.
There's no way I could have done that.
I fully understand the effects of my medicine, so how could a nothing create those same feelings?
I was, yeah, I was really shocked.
Brain scans of patients with Parkinson's that were responding to the placebo helped to explain how Paul's symptoms had faded.
This slide shows three scans all taken from the same person with Parkinson's disease.
So now you see the activity at baseline.
They are pushing MRI scans again, which really, really are.
They have been really widely discredited as the high fidelity measuring instrument that they were once lauded as during this, the early 2000s, right when the Human Genome Project became really important, they started looking at, you know, it's crazy how much, this is so much snake oil.
And they come in with no medication.
Their Parkinson's is not well controlled.
There's a loss of dopamine in the brain.
So we see lots of activity here.
With so little dopamine, someone with Parkinson's would be struggling to- Lots of activity there.
I'm not sure that's right.
I see why he says there's lots of activity there, but I'm not sure why there's a lot of activity there with the dopamine.
We'll have to see if that's right.
I thought the basal ganglia went away in Parkinson's, which would mean less production.
It would mean less activity.
Move and function.
Now we look at the middle slide, and this is after the person is told that they're going to get active drug, but in fact they receive placebo.
And you can see a striking reduction in activity here, which indicates that their brains- But where is that?
What part of the brain is this?
What resolution are we looking at?
You see how much chicanery is going on?
This guy knows exactly what he's doing.
He's getting grant money because he's featured on the BBC.
It's going to help him a lot.
Have released a lot of dopamine.
The intense red colors in the striatum area of the brain show how little dopamine is present at baseline.
The decrease in the red coloring shows how the placebo can release dopamine just like the real drugs.
What we found is that it's very interesting because I don't think that's how those color codes work.
Red is the, it's weird.
Okay, whatever.
Somebody with Parkinson's disease, a placebo can release as much dopamine as amphetamine or speed can.
What an awesome question in the chat right now.
That is the winning question.
We're going to end on that question.
Do they ever tell a patient they got placebo and then see them regress?
Now that is the best question that could have ever come in the chat.
Well done.
Gold star for the weekend.
Holy man, that's a home run.
Thank you very much for thinking along, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you very, very much for thinking along.
Wow, that's kick-ass.
I'm very, very happy with that one.
Wow.
Nice work.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is for all the marbles.
That's why there's a fake anti-vax movement in America.
Please make sure you understand that they took a non-specific background, and they made non-specific tests that could find it, and they told us it was evidence of spread, and the way they got away with it is with placebo.
Don't accept PCR as a diagnostic.
It's nonsense, and finding their ghost using their test does not make the ghost real, nor does it make you a Ghostbuster.
Thank you very much for being here.
Thank you very much for making it all the way to Friday.
Five days in a row again.
Boy, am I tired.
I might be taking the weekend off unless... Nah, I'm gonna probably take the weekend off.
We'll see.
Intramuscular injection is not a valid way of administering medicine.
Transpecting healthy people was always a crime and Robert Malone knew it.
And the population pyramid is a problem they've been actively managing with murder and lies.
Thank you very much for being here.
I'll see you guys again soon.
One thing I am confident of from everything I've read is that this RNA exists, you can capture it, you can sequence it,