It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone.
It's measles plus.
Okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles because not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end.
when we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality and it's not, it's, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs.
It'll be a moral emergency because it has to be.
Hi, this is JC on a Bike.
I'm going to start a new series called JC in the Woods.
This series is going to be a storytelling series.
It's a little bit of American history and a little bit of modern history.
And the idea is to try and relay some of the things that I've been studying and reading about since I was a teenager.
A lot of these things in history are called conspiracy theories, but actually what they are are real history.
So what does the New World Order want?
They want to end nation states.
They've always wanted to end nation states and bring in one world government.
That one world government has always been spookily attached to the United Nations.
And so it wouldn't surprise me if that's in the end the way that we go.
We will crash the euro, a fiat currency, newly instituted about 20 years ago.
We will crash the American dollar, because that's also a fiat currency.
And then we will have most of the population of the Western world asking for a solution.
And that solution will be a one world government with a new one world currency.
Let's talk about it in the woods.
So I want to tell you this story about my roommate, the conspiracy theorist.
He told me a story about the New World Order.
The New World Order is a cabal of loosely organized groups
which use the power of fractional reserve banking to control governments around the world.
Fractional reserve banking is the idea that a bank only needs to have X amount of money in its vaults in order to loan out X times 10 amount of money to people in charge interest.
If you're not familiar with how fractional reserve banking works, I suggest you google it before you watch the rest of this film, simply because the whole story that I'm about to tell you is based on the idea that governments around the world are controlled by fractional reserve banking.
I want to tell you guys a story.
And it's a story about a roommate of mine that I had in college in the early 90s.
I graduated from high school in 1990.
And so I met this guy in Chicago when I went to university there.
And this guy was already a very big conspiracy theorist at 18 years old.
And he got me really into trying to read about alternative interpretations of modern political events.
He got me into JFK, into the Oklahoma City bombing.
He introduced me to Ted Gunderson and guys like Mike Rupert who were
Guys that seem pretty credible sources that had either worked for the FBI or in Mike Rupert's case had worked for the LAPD for a long time and had come out as sort of anti-government conspiracy people that were suggesting that law enforcement and the FBI and the government were working together to sort of
control society by alternative means.
Mostly by using fractional reserve banking and other means of control like drugs and sex and this kind of thing to control Congress and to control the government.
Where this story begins is with things like the Bilderberg Group.
and the Bohemian Grove.
These kinds of conspiracy theories that revolved around a pyramid of groups that a lot of times ended with the Illuminati at the top.
These groups, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, these groups exist.
And they exist in some sort of organizational structure which has for a long time been documented by a number of different people in a number of different books.
And these have always been labeled as kind of crazy, but the interesting thing is, and through all of these conspiracy theories, it's a it's a cabal of people that are controlling the left and the right.
And so all the conspiracy theories that I knew when I was younger, and including the one that this roommate of mine told me about, were conspiracy theories that involved
group of people controlling the left and the right.
And so conspiracy theorists were outside of the dichotomy that was the functioning, you know, United States government theater that we all are sort of bamboozled by at the moment.
All of these things get me thinking about, you know, what would my old roommate have said was going on right now if he were experiencing the coronavirus quarantine?
And I think it has to come back to the NWO.
What is the New World Order?
What was the New World Order?
And by the New World Order, we're talking about the thing that George H.W.
Bush spoke about in front of the United Nations way back when.
It might have been 1996 already.
And as we think about this stuff, you really need to remember your history.
If you don't remember your history, then none of this stuff will make sense.
But if you remember your history, and you go back, piece by piece, this stuff just falls together.
And the most parsimonious explanation is that the theater is still in business.
And it's the same theater.
Now you can go back 20 or 40 years and find books which talk about the step-by-step process by which they were going to introduce the New World Order.
And it started a long time ago with putting the dollar as a fiat currency rather than having it tied to gold.
One of the parts of this story that's really interesting is that for a long time people have claimed that one of the reasons why Kennedy was shot was because he was trying to put the dollar back on a silver standard and they didn't want that.
Anyway, the point is that back in the 90s, they were telling all kinds of stories about how this cabal of rich people, connected people, were controlling governments using a combination of pedophilia, sex, drugs, and money, and that through bribery and blackmail, most of the U.S.
Congress was controlled.
This was the conspiracy theory that was going around in the 1990s and this was tied together with the Oklahoma City bombing as being largely staged and later on has 9-11 being largely staged.
A number of people don't know some of those details about 9-11 that still strike us all as odd to this day because we don't talk about them anymore.
There's no footage of the plane that hit the Pentagon.
There's no evidence that a plane did hit the Pentagon because there were no seats or no engines removed from the crash, even though these are things that usually don't get destroyed when a plane hits the ground.
And furthermore, there was this Building 7 problem that no one ever really talks about anymore, but Building 7 is one of the best examples of a part of a story that gets eliminated the moment that it doesn't really jive
with the intended narrative.
And Building 7 is probably one of the more interesting structural failures ever caught on film.
So if you haven't seen it, Google it.
It's really fun.
If you're not really familiar with the 9-11 conspiracy theories, I'm not really going to rehash those here.
But if you want to get started with it, you want to look for the plane at the Pentagon, and you want to look for what happened with Building 7.
Most of the current accounts of 9-11 don't really talk about Building 7 anymore, and Building 7 is the one where really
the laws of physics are broken.
If you want to search it, specifically look for the size of the steel beams that were used in that building and why they were used and what was underneath that building and why that building was so strongly built.
Like it or not, the effects of 9-11 were a very big boon for all of those industries that Eisenhower warned us about all those years ago.
Then you say to yourself, well, Jay, come on.
That's not a very scary conspiracy.
That rich people use money to control politicians?
That's no big deal.
But it's not just controlling politicians.
The story in the conspiracy theory is that they control governments, and by governments then they control society.
Societies are the world.
So global governance in this NWO conspiracy model has a group of people not connected to the Democrats or the Republicans or the Labor Party or the Tories, but that work above and beyond these silly divisions that we fight about.
And the thing that is really creepy about this is that the New World Order, as it was codified in the 80s and 90s when I was into this when I was younger,
The New World Order wanted a few things already back then.
I think one of the things that you can really look up if you haven't seen it is Aaron Russo's movie.
If you don't know who Aaron Russo is, he's a director from the 90s and made a lot of movies for Hollywood before he became friends with one of the Rockefellers.
And the Rockefeller boy told him the plan.
And that plan is to chip us all, to get rid of cash, and to have us have a chip under our skin that is our identification chip, that also has our money on it, with the idea that if they wanted to make us drop out of society, if they wanted to turn us off, they could.
This is in that movie.
I can't remember what it's called.
America... I'm flashing it up on the screen now because, of course, I looked it up before I posted this video.
And coronavirus easily fits into this narrative.
It's one of the things that was suggested already 10 years ago as a method of ushering in the last two bits of the New World Order.
And the last two bits of the New World Order are the craziest ones.
The last two bits are a cashless economy.
And of course they want to get rid of end-to-end encryption.
That's what the EARN IT Act is.
If you look up the EARN IT Act right now, you already find that Congress is working on it right now to get rid of end-to-end encryption on our phones so that they can read and monitor your messages all the time.
But the other thing that the New World Order wants is a cashless economy, and they want to get rid of nation states.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait.
Now you're talking about the United Nations conspiracy.
Yeah, yeah, that's the same one.
The one that we've been talking about for 40 years, that the United Nations was going to be called in to take over America, and we would surrender our sovereignty to the United Nations.
Well, imagine a scenario where a global pandemic takes down the EU and America all at once, and we're begging them for a global government led by the United Nations.
They're going to get rid of the elections, because of course we can't have an election now.
It's already happening.
The primaries are being cancelled.
And so I think it started.
I mean, what a wonderful, exciting time to be in America when this kind of stuff, when everything aligns so well with the history conspiracy theory that people have been telling for 40 or 80 years about how the Federal Reserve Bank is just actually a cabal of privately owned banks controlled by privately owned banks.
And these private owners of our banks control all the world's governments with a combination of money, drugs, and women.
Now, they've let out a nice, convenient biocontagion, and they are amplifying the panic of it as much as they possibly can.
And we will be left
with China and Russia against the rest of the world.
If you don't think it's happening, just watch and make sure it doesn't.
I hope it doesn't happen.
But I'm telling you, that's what they want to happen.
They want... We'll actually be left with India.
But that was one definitely wrong thing there.
Whoops.
to chip you.
They want to put a chip in your hand so that they can scan you whenever they want to scan you, and your medical records will be there, your behavior records will be there.
They will be able to track where you go, follow your movements, and turn off your money and contact with society whenever they want to.
That's their plan.
That's the big scary part of the NWO.
Now, if you don't think that's happening, then you don't have to worry about the coronavirus being a hoax.
It's probably just a virus, and we need to be terrified.
Hi, this is JC on a bike, called in to take over a can.
And we will be left with China and Russia against the rest of the world.
If you don't think it's happening, just watch and make sure it doesn't.
I hope it doesn't happen.
But I'm telling you, that's what they want to happen.
They want to chip you.
They want to put a chip in your hand so that they can scan you whenever they want to scan you.
And your medical records will be there.
Your behavior records will be there.
They will be able to track where you go, follow your movements, and turn off your money and contact with society whenever they want to.
That's their plan.
That's the big scary part of the NWO.
Now, if you don't think that's happening, then you don't have to worry about the coronavirus being a hoax.
It's probably just a virus, and we need to be terrified.
But what if it's not?
What if this is a plan?
What if this is the final stage of that plan?
The plan that people have been talking about since the 50s and 60s.
The plan that people have been talking about since Kennedy was shot.
The plan that people have been talking about since the Oklahoma City bombing.
The plan that people have been talking about since the League of Nations was instituted, followed by the United Nations.
The plan that people have been talking about since the IMF was first instituted.
And the World Bank.
The plan that everybody's been talking about that originated with the Rothschilds.
What if this plan is real?
And what if the coronavirus is a part of it?
That's the scary story of real human history.
Not everything perfect there, but it wasn't too bad.
I would have to say that's not too bad.
Welcome to the show, ladies and gentlemen.
This is GigaOM Biological.
It's a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
I'll see you in a few minutes.
Honestly, I agree with the person in the chat who said that the cell phone is the chip in your hand because in reality, we're all happily carrying it already, I think.
I don't care how you get there.
I don't care what you do to get there.
The goal is to win.
What time is it?
Game time!
Woo!
Yeah, ladies and gentlemen, it's an interesting battle we're in right now.
We do need to keep our wits about us.
We do need to love our neighbors, stay focused on the biology, and definitely not take the bait on social media as we struggle through our daily ride.
The daily grind is never going to go away.
And I think the best way we can think about it is what Solar Fire said, you have to think of the cell phone as already basically a chip in your hand.
It can already be measuring an awful lot, especially with regard to what you're thinking every day and how you react to thoughts that are put in front of you.
And that's why I keep saying we got to get our kids off of social media before they completely acquiesce to that programming.
before we lose control of what's in front of them.
We've already lost control of what's in front of their eyes.
And so please understand how imperative this is, how important it is that this is the most important non-compliance.
Ladies and gentlemen, autism spectrum disorder is a mythology used to make sure that intramuscular injection is never questioned as a methodology, that virology is never questioned as a science, and public health is never questioned as a reason nor an answer.
And you can say the same thing about pandemics and gain-of-function, that we've been fooled into believing, into teaching our kids if we don't get out of this trap.
That is the trick.
We have to teach this stuff to our kids so we can still choose to opt out by teaching them a new model of biology which precludes this nonsense.
And that's why GigaOM is the biology they choose to ignore, because we have, I think, a monopoly on that idea, a monopoly on that new model, because they can't afford to take it from us.
It's the truth that will set you free, I think.
And we're in the process of making it into a high school slash freshman biology course.
And at that point, we'll roll it out publicly and all of you will be able to enjoy it, share it, and push it around.
The voice that you hear is that of Jonathan Cooley.
I'm chief biologist at Gigoloan Biological.
I come to you live out of the back of my garage in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The occasional bouncing you hear is the working out of my son in the garage with a basketball or two.
You can find the work of my academic career on the National Library of Medicine's website, PubMed, using my last name, my first two initials.
You can also find a lot of my ideas contorted and distorted by a traitorous American author on Substack called Jessica Hockett, writing under the Substack Woodhouse 76.
She has fake dialogues with Claire Craig of Heart and Pierre Corey, formerly of FLCCC, now the IMA, and also with Mike Yeadon, the guy from Pfizer, and Jay Bhattacharya, our current Health and Human Services Secretary, who claimed many times to have learned more biology from me than anyone else during the pandemic, and now
Doesn't seem to need to call me.
By the way, the YouTube channel JC on a Bike is currently under a strike and has been suddenly limited because apparently I don't have sufficient channel history.
And so uh because of that reason I'm now streaming on my second channel JC in the woods and so if you would do me a favor and go ahead and go to youtube and and subscribe to that channel because that will also help me there because there's only like 170 who have found that and then while you're at it you can look up JC on the hardwood
And also subscribe to that channel because that's where a lot of the new biology is going to show up very, very soon.
We seem to have to spread it a little around and let me just say it very clearly from the corner here.
Hopefully I did this already.
No, I didn't.
Darn.
Let me set that up quick.
I didn't do it on either computer.
Now that's really some serious, some serious negligent production here.
I apologize for that.
I do need to lower this to A. Then at least this one should work while I goof around.
Nope.
It's not either.
Focus.
Darn it.
Sorry about this guys.
I'm really just not at my game here.
Let me see if I can switch this on and then focus again.
on my hand.
So, yeah, what was I saying there?
I don't even remember anymore.
Anyway, this is all a work in progress.
I've helped Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
write his Wuhan cover-up book.
If you look in that book, in the acknowledgments page, you can find my name.
along with a lot of other names of people, especially at the first paragraph of the acknowledgements page, that know that most or all of the stuff that I teach regularly on my stream, I was already teaching everybody at Children's Health Defense at the end of 2023.
So there are just a few rock solid home runs contained in that book, just from the perspective of the acknowledgements page and all of that being basically a witness list.
And number two, just the contents of the book and especially the kinds of things that I added in there.
And again, a good friend of mine is Jay Bhattacharya, although
He often defers to me as the biologist in the last interview I did with him and has told me many times over the course of the pandemic that he's learned more biology from me than anybody else.
He just can't really tell you what that is.
It's kind of like how Panda and Woodhouse 76 and Nick Hudson all behave with regard to
to what they've learned from me.
This is really unfortunately a stream from an American out of America and so a lot of times it's going to be hard for you as a foreigner to really hear what I'm saying because you will inevitably see an incredibly distorted picture of what's happening in America and an overemphasis and relevance of Donald Trump and his many minions
and the show that they put on.
They are very good at putting on a show.
And I'm sure that social media around the world is very good at amplifying that show as part of an ongoing breakdown of the American democracy.
And I assure you, that is an intentional illusion.
And if so, if you're from the Netherlands, from the UK, from Australia,
know that they murdered people in America in 2020 and they told you that it was a coming pandemic in the same way they're now sort of smearing the American democracy on all sides and then telling you that it's the collapse of America when in fact it's much more complicated than that.
This is a plan that's been long on the way, and it has a lot to do with the national security priority around the Human Genome Project.
So please remember that the advice of this stream, I'm glad you found yourself here, is to stay focused on the biology and what we can know and what they can't.
Don't take the bait on social media, which is more and more transforming into a message of get off of social media.
And finally, love your neighbor, and that means
and getting to know them, getting to understand their values, getting to understand who they are so that we can start to take stock of what communities we live in.
And if it's not possible for you to do that, you might consider the fact that you might be in a tragically dangerous situation should there be even a brief interruption of the power, water, or supply chain.
Because these are all relatively
reasonable possibilities at this stage.
If for no other reason, then we are slowly transitioning into a period where the kind of beehive level of activity and consumerism is going to be no longer possible simply because a lot of those links in the chain are going to become weaker.
And so our economies are going to necessarily have to become smaller and more local and our systems in terms of the United States are going to have to become more local.
And the idea that we have to make iPhones in America is kind of a ridiculous concept for the simple fact that we don't even need iPhones in America.
I mean, we don't need to make them, period.
And I think that's kind of the, once you realize that, then why do we need to worry about all the manufacturing that's in China when we don't even need most things that are made in China?
We might like them.
Our kids might like them.
They might sell if we put them on shelves, but in no way, shape or form do they benefit us as a society.
Maybe they make our garage sales more interesting or they give people in America a lot more things to collect.
But I mean, in the grand scheme of things, I think there's a very easy way out.
It's not a tragic thing at all what we see ourselves faced with.
And so the way this works is that people Support this stream and I mean there's a couple people that just hit home runs every month that I'm not even really allowed to say their names but together with with a few people my family's able to make it and so, you know the reason why a thousand
subscribers isn't even necessary is because of those people.
And in reality, if you think about, you know, I only really need 500 subscribers on Sendowl giving me $10 a month for whatever PDF about biology I would start to put out soon.
And that would already cover everything for my family.
And we wouldn't need to complain about anything anymore.
Just say, thank you.
And in fact, right now I'm in a position, quite frankly, because of the 120 people that are subscribed, plus these king producer donor people that give me, some of them give me $1,000 a month.
Think about that.
So that's the actual math, right?
If you have three of those people giving you somewhere between five and a thousand a month,
500 and a thousand a month.
And then you have a hundred people giving you $10 a month.
That's pretty much rent and bills.
If you make it fit hard, occasionally cover a gap with a credit card.
That's the magic of this stream.
There's nothing else here.
No wellness company, no commercial about some oil.
I'm not selling gold.
I don't have any solutions for your long-term monetary problems.
I'm never gonna tell you to buy Bitcoin.
All I'm going to try and do is develop a high school biology course that can contribute to a new direction for our children, which is a pretty bold statement, but I don't think it is.
I think all of these ideas have been out there and available and just crushed.
And now is the time when, you know, standing on the shoulders of giants and using the tools of the slavers
I think we can invert the tables.
And it is by empowering people to understand, not to tell them they're wrong, but to show them a better idea.
That's exactly what Buckminster Fuller said.
You can't tell people that their model is wrong.
You have to offer them a better one.
And that's what I really am asking for your support to do.
So if you have a way or a possibility, please go to GigaOMBiological.com.
and find a way to do that.
If you go to gigaohmbiological.com, I think that's there, yeah.
You can see there's a live stream link.
There's the Scooby-Doo link there is the one where I wrote this review in 2021 with that Piper Stover lady.
And why isn't it playing anymore?
Anyway, if you scroll down on this website, you can see a schedule that I will start to follow again.
I'm trying to do five days a week.
And then now I'm going to try and get back on that schedule with some of the things.
And yeah, this is an independent bright web.
presentation.
It's one of the few just grassroots, you know, grinding it out one man shows.
There's Mark Housatonic, Mark Kulak out of Boston, there's a guy out of New York by the name of Joe Marshall, and then I don't know really anybody else.
Everybody else has got a rumble contract or a sponsor or several sponsors or just does a podcast on I can or blaze TV or some other bullshit No one else is trying to do what Mark and I and Joe are doing and and we are all just Americans And Joe sends me bushmeat.
That's about all I you know, that's the interactions I've had with Joe, but Joe did come for the
for the in-person GigaOM meeting and I have absolutely no doubts about him as an American patriot.
And the same as the same way that I feel for Mark Kulak, I've met him several times in person.
He has stayed a consistent man of honesty and integrity and
I don't have any other people to compare him to because the people that I know that had the kind of integrity that Mark and Joe have shown me over the last couple years, especially Mark, the only one I knew is Nathan and he's dead.
And so these are very rare individuals in a world full of performers.
And that's why I think the concept of an independent bright web is very important.
You need to understand that everyone on the internet save a very, very, very select few.
are are are performers they are paid to do it they are set up not to fail they have a probably even heard us say as this understanding don and so i wanted to pick up where we left off yesterday by just showing a few more minutes of this shit show as they admit with their
with their shit-rolling beetle here.
These people, of course, I've said many times, are masquerading as some kind of intellectual hero couple, when in reality, at best, to save their family any long-term suffering, we could say that they are scripted fools.
They have been asked to talk about certain things at certain times and not ask questions, and they have chosen to do that.
And here we are,
five years later with the vast majority of young adults transfected at least twice because they effectively ruined any resistance to the narrative of a novel virus, maybe from a laboratory, possibly with odd laboratory adjustments or inserts.
All of these narratives were perpetuated by these people and allowed the college kids to be fully bamboozled that something was happening.
that something happened and that they had to take measures to protect their grandparents.
These people, Naomi Wolf, all of CHD, they're all responsible for it because they all did not save people from it.
They all believed in the asymptomatic transmission, the novel signal, the PCR testing, the overcycling, they all amplified the same bullshit script.
And that's not by accident in the same way that it's not by accident that every government in the world was saying build back better on camera.
It's just that the build back better on camera made you think that that was the script when in reality, the entire narrative on social media was scripted
by a multinational security, national security organization, a military organization to try and get maximum compliance.
It was another reiteration of a similar operation, but scaled up on a global scale.
And it includes actors on social media, witting and unwitting, witting and unwitting actors.
on that injecting a vaccine or a pseudo vaccine in this case into your arm was likely to be a pseudo vaccine.
This is like four days ago.
So this is the jackass that in 2021, I described very succinctly the problem and I'm going to do it again here.
Okay.
It's him in there.
The problem is, is that
There was an opportunity, and there still remains an opportunity to, wow.
Kidda!
I gotta close the door.
I didn't think he was gonna do double-weighted balls.
Honestly, I never thought I would say double-weighted balls on live streaming.
But anyway, the door's closed now.
So, what I wanted to do was point out that these
This script cannot be explained any other way because I had explained to them why it was so important to say transfection.
And the reason is very, very important for all of my viewers to understand.
I don't know if I've said it enough times in all the repetition that I do, but I want to make it very clear.
There are hundreds, more likely there are probably tens of thousands
Listen to that number carefully.
Tens of thousands of professional, academic, actively working professional biologists and biochemists that use one form of transformation or transfection, many perhaps, in their daily, weekly, monthly experiments.
That means that there are potentially tens of thousands of academic,
professionals that should have known that using lipid nanoparticles to transfect humans via intramuscular injection was one of the most absurd methodological concepts to ever be proposed as a
Let's say, well, we have no choice but to just do it because this is such an emergency.
There were tens of thousands and there remain tens of thousands of academic biologists that could listen to me talk and say what I'm saying and repeat it in their head and go, holy shit, he's right.
It wouldn't take them very long.
Almost every neuroscientist that works on an animal model is transfecting it in some way or another to put optogenetics in their head, to upregulate the expression of a protein, to make certain neurons glow in the dark so that they can look at them later, or even glow in the dark in real time so that they can image their calcium signals.
And all of these experiments are terminal.
They do damage.
And they require transfection.
And the only difference between those experiments and what was done with the mRNA is that they put it in the muscle.
There is no magic Peter Cullis special formulation of lipid nanoparticle that's safe because that is a lie.
But it's just one of the lies.
because it was always transfection.
It was always transformation with the adenovirus.
And there is no joke here.
These people could have helped me get this out to the entire community of academic biologists.
And I still believe that the vast majority of them, if they heard it in the right way, would go, wow, I never thought about it like that.
At the time, at the University of Pittsburgh, I couldn't get anyone to hear it, so maybe I'm wrong.
But I'm telling you, this is the kink in the armor that had to be prevented and protected and paneled over with this performance, and specifically with Brett Weinstein, who was hooked up with me by Piper Stover.
who no one cares about, who Kevin McCairn didn't care about, Kevin McKernan never bothered to care about.
They all just kind of ignored the fact that I wrote a review with Piper Stover.
I mean, the whole reason why I got connected with Brett Weinstein was because I wrote the review and he read it.
I mean, it's crazy this, it's crazy what we're dealing with here.
These people are imposters.
imposters of the highest order because they haven't even become the cat herders that they are with the apparent social reach that they have by merit.
They have been given it.
They have had it programmed for them in the same way that YouTube is now just programmed against me, I guess, because I have not sufficient channel history.
So let's listen to what these geniuses said after the, you know, it's the spike protein.
I got a prediction.
It's going to be the spike protein.
They're going to blame it on the spike protein instead of all the things that I thought of myself about the, about the vaccines or these pseudo vaccines.
This is a pseudo adult and his pseudo adult wife.
be very low quality in terms of creating immunity to the disease because what you really want is immunity on your surface, on your mucosal surfaces where you contract the disease.
But what I came to understand is that actually what they delivered was guaranteed not to work in the way that they claimed that it did work.
It was guaranteed not to control the spread of the disease.
because by injecting it into your arm rather than having you inhale it onto your mucosa or something along those lines,
It can only prevent the virus from moving between your cells, which means... And so now understand very, very distinctly that what this is, is the exact immunology that I was teaching him in 2021, which I've now through further study and review, have refuted.
Further inspection of the whole idea of what viruses are and aren't and how these signals are derived and how they are reproduced led me to understand that virology is largely just transfection and transformation in animal models and cell culture.
And they pretend that these are self-replicating constructs, but they don't ever really able to show that.
But what I do know and what I've learned very, very well is that they do have the ability to make large quantities of pure DNA.
And they can take those pure DNA quantities and clean them up pretty well and then use a commercial enzyme to convert them to fairly reliable concentration of RNA.
And that RNA would be sufficient to do a lot of the experiments that I understood I was doing as a neuroscientist.
It would also be more than sufficient to accomplish what they claim to have accomplished, which is produce this transfection for billions of people.
The trouble is, had they done that and done it faithfully, then a lot more people would be noticeably ill, sick, or dead.
And so the only explanation for that is that they, of course, met this ridiculous manufacturing quota and provided it so quickly because, of course, it's easy.
They use placebo.
But what Brett Weinstein is going to do here is say nothing about anything to do with the novel virus, the sequencing of it, the PCR used to detect it, nor is he going to question anything to do with its existence, the functionality of these other drugs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine on solving the novel virus.
But he's also not going to question the idea that there are lots of other respiratory viruses.
including other gain-of-function viruses.
Listen carefully, because this is scripted bullshit.
It's after you've already got an infection.
Now, on the one hand, you could say, oh, my God, how did they miss that?
Do they really understand immunology this poorly?
And the answer is no.
This is a feature, not a bug.
So this is your consideration?
putting together what I now understand, having come to learn about mucosal surfaces having separate immunity, the fact that an injection is not in a position to prevent contraction of a respiratory virus, and every time they tell you.
I mean, is he going to have Joe Leon to tell us that the antibodies can't cross the
the lung-blood barrier, and so since they can't cross the lung-blood barrier and reach the mucus, then it's stupid to have antibodies in your blood.
Is he actually gonna have Joe Leon really soon to talk about the linkage theory and how that explains everything?
Maybe he'll have Marc Giraudoux on first.
Who knows?
Oh, there's a respiratory virus.
Get this injection.
You should ask them.
Why would you be delivering me the antigen or whatever else in this form if my mucosa is where I'm supposed to become immune?
Show me that that can even work because it can't.
So the point is,
He can't keep it straight in his head without looking down at his notebook all the time, because these thoughts aren't even his own.
You know, he might have scribbled it down after somebody was on the phone with him, but this is such a level of bullshittery.
It's remarkable.
He hasn't even mastered this shit yet.
People who are longtime listeners of Dark Horse will remember that we had multiple discussions on what I called the game of Pharma.
that we learned during COVID, that there were certain moves that were happening, but there are moves that pharma has been developing for decades, where how often does pharma have a... So in this narrative, it's pharma.
In Sasha Lantupova's narrative, it's the DOD that wants to kill us.
In this one, it's pharma that wants to make us as sick as possible to make as much money off of us as possible.
Can you hear the kind of, you know, dumb, simple,
explanation that this is like how little progress he's actually made in understanding what's going on here if he if he still doesn't understand that pharmaceutical companies really like they make a fraction a tiny it's an order of magnitude even two orders of magnitude less than the most powerful companies in the world and you're worried about pharma and that pharma is orchestrating all of this stuff i mean this is a full-blown
Wow.
I mean, what a joke.
A patent on some molecule that has some plausible benefit.
Okay.
Oh, great.
You've got a drug.
Cool.
What now?
Well, let's look at the competing drugs.
We're going to have to make it seem like those competing drugs are less effective than our drugs.
We have to make our drug look more effective than it is.
Those drugs look less effective than they are.
He's actually telling a story about drugs here, but what he's really saying is how a vaccine could come to market.
Drugs don't have to show they're better than other drugs.
They just have to get approved for safety.
And they say that they do what they do.
They don't have to be better than something else.
I mean, that is absolutely preposterous.
The only thing that is held to that standard is a vaccine.
And then, of course, it's held to that standard from the perspective of antibodies or some measurable immune, what do they call it?
Immune surrogate immunity, you know, some surrogate marker of immunity.
This is really an interesting and remarkable script that he's on, and I think he's actually not sophisticated enough to understand that this is just wrong.
It's just dumb.
And we need to see his reading.
Look at him make our drug look safer than it is.
We need to make those drugs look dangerous than they are.
So there's just sort of a sort of set of moves that you have to be able to accomplish.
And pharma has mechanisms for doing each of these.
So, for example, how do you how do you make your drug look safe?
Well, here's one way you don't do the test yourself.
that seems like that would remove control.
Well, no, what it does is it removes your fingerprints.
You've got a group of companies that will run your safety test for you.
So here they're going to tell us now that what the Pfizer's safety trials went weak because it was farmed out to a different firm and so that's not fair or that's how it happened?
Is that really where he's going to go with this?
It's not that dissimilar to what Brian Hooker was saying in 2020 about, you know, they're not doing enough trials.
They're not doing enough people.
It's under tested.
Isn't that what they're saying right now?
That the mRNAs just weren't tested well enough.
We just don't know enough.
We just need more data.
Holy cow, I gotta just roll this back just a little bit because I think I had something in my head and I lost it for a second.
I wanna find it.
Right, contractors.
Here's one way.
You don't do the test yourself.
Oh, yeah.
That seems like that would remove control.
So it's interesting that Sasha Latupova, this what I would I would probably characterize as an abusive mom for her allowing the use of her daughter while she was underage to make her into some kind of Internet phenomenon or allow her to become one that would eventually be
Promoted on Alex Jones in 2019 There are some really awful gross videos that she made when she was underage apparently with the permission of and even funding or or assistance from the mom and some Monetarily way because she has a narrator and an editor and it would take me weeks to make the kinds of videos that she was making when she was in high school and so it's really diabolical that someone as
as certifiably nasty as Sasha Latapova would be promoted by the Epoch Times and CHD with multiple interviews on CHD with Polly and Meryl, as well as on the Defender podcast twice with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
himself.
wittingly or unwittingly promoting the mom of somebody who's clearly some kind of agent who, by her own daughter's admission, voted for Clinton.
And the interesting thing about her is the reason why she's a retired pharma executive is because she sold a company to Pfizer, not that dissimilar to Mike Eden, actually.
The reason why he was retired is because Pfizer bought his company.
I mean, it's a...
Maybe I'm wrong about Mike Eden, I don't even care.
The point is, is that Sasha Latupova is this absolute huge kink in their armor because she's a Ukrainian who funded a company that developed a way to screen people for a cardiac signal that would make trials, make clinical trials more successful for pharmaceutical companies.
And she sold that technology that she developed with taxpayer money
on taxpayer dime using public data from the University of Rochester with funding she got from Democrats.
and sold it to Pfizer.
That's exactly what they're describing right here.
The despicable nature of how pharmaceutical companies work.
Give me a fricking break.
They're all one show.
They're all one little on line only.
Substack, Rumble, Locals, and X. That's where these people exist.
The moment you stop paying attention to those places as relevant, especially X,
Just get off of it.
The only reason why I go there is to subvert it.
And at some point in time, no one's gonna be able to, maybe it's already now that no one can see me and I shouldn't waste another minute on that stupid platform, but you definitely shouldn't.
Well, no, what it does is it removes your fingerprints.
You've got a group of companies that will run your safety test for you, right?
Contractors.
And they know that in order to survive in their business, which is doing experiments on behalf of some large pharma corporation, the pharma corporation has to get the answer that it wants.
So they're in competition with each other to figure out ways to deliver the answer that pharma wants.
So, any company that doesn't, any company that does the test straight and comes back with evidence that the drug is dangerous, they're not getting hired again.
So, you can expect an entire little industry that always spits out the result that pharma pays for, right?
Okay.
So, giving a shot in the arm to prevent a respiratory virus.
Well, guaranteed to fail, which means
there will be no control of the spread of the virus that causes people to want the shot that reduces the severity.
Virus, virus, virus.
The virus exists.
Transmission exists.
Viruses exist.
RNA can pandemic.
It killed millions of people.
We should wear woodshop goggles and bandanas.
Seriously, this is a monster and it is a monster on a script.
And if he's not a monster, he's a moron.
Right?
That's the simple fact.
If they're selling a product, which when you and I talked a bit about this earlier this week, you correctly said not a vaccine.
It's a treatment, right?
It's a treatment that you take in advance.
It's not a vaccine.
It's a transfection.
Heather, you agreed with me in 2022, a year after I taught you this on signal, you treacherous coward.
a phylactic treatment, but it's a treatment, right?
What you're doing is you're just reducing, you know, your symptoms of the disease.
You're not reducing the fact that he is saying that it works.
He is actually saying that it works.
Please see this.
You had an infection or that you will pass it on to somebody else, which is exactly what pharma would want.
So anyway, I thought that was, you know, it's,
But symptom reduction doesn't tend to be behind a prescription wall.
Well, and we tend to have that just available on the shelves and there's a lot of competition.
And if if only your doctor can tell you, OK, you can you can get this, get this now.
And, you know, of course, everything they were widely and forcibly available, these these covid shots.
But many people are much more likely to say, yes, that's for me.
if it comes with the imprimatur of a doctor as opposed to, well, I was at Rite Aid and I chose this thing among seven possible treatments because I just feel awful and I wanted to feel better.
Right.
It also isn't going to be... It's very hard to make the argument for a mandate, right?
You have to reach... For treatment, yes.
Right.
For treatment.
What's more, what other battle did we end up fighting?
Well, we fought a battle over ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, which were both very effective at reducing the severity of disease.
Now, ivermectin, at least, and probably hydroxychloroquine as well,
have utility in preventing infection also, but imagine that you actually allowed the marketplace to work.
And you had some people who had a newfangled shot based on an unproven technology that could only ever reduce symptoms.
And then you had some tried and true drugs that had a great safety profile.
Can you imagine that this is really May 30?
We are at the end of May, almost the beginning of June 2025.
five years after Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch would come on his podcast and almost say the same bullshit.
If he doesn't say we have to mandate ivermectin here, that would be the only thing he would leave out, right?
But he's probably going to say that too.
that um you know that actually resulted in people who got sick not getting very sick or other people avoiding the disease altogether if you were going to mandate something you'd mandate ivermectin anyway i told you holy shit
I guess I'm just coming to realize the elaborate nature of the racket.
And I also was prone to, or I was led to revisit a conversation that you and I have talked about before between a former member of parliament, this was back when he was a member of parliament, Rob Ruse,
who had a famous interaction with a Pfizer exec.
Can you play that one for us, Jan?
Was the Pfizer COVID vaccine tested on stopping the transmission of the virus before it entered the market?
If not, please say it clearly.
If yes, are you willing to share the data with this committee?
And I really want straight answer, yes or no.
And I'm looking forward to it.
Thank you.
That's a Dutch guy.
Thank you very much.
Maybe Belgium.
Regarding the question around, did we know about stopping immunization before it's entered the market?
She said stopping immunization before it entered the market.
So I don't really know what this, this is weird.
No.
These, you know, we had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market.
And from that point of view, we had to do everything at risk.
So she's a bit unclear there and quite tone deaf.
But what she says is, no, they didn't know whether or not it blocked transmission.
In fact, they hadn't even looked because they were moving at the speed of science.
When the real translation and response and specifically responsive to the market.
I remember this.
We talked about it at the time, I believe.
The speed of science bit is extraordinary.
That's akin to follow the science.
Like, okay, you just revealed that you're using science as a political battering ram rather than as an actual tool of human understanding.
But they're also prioritizing the market over the actual science.
Right.
In fact, the market is all there is.
And if you think about what she says, oh no, we didn't even test it.
Because think about it from their perspective.
This is the central narrative that I was hitting at before.
And I just want to make sure that I keep hitting at it here.
The idea that this needed testing, that's wrong.
The idea that, wow, we didn't test it enough.
That's also wrong.
And the reason why, and there are tens of thousands of academic biologists around the Western world, and some probably in China too, if they can understand English, that should have known better.
Because once they heard that they were using a proprietary lipid nanoparticle to transfect people to a spike protein or any protein, all the alarm bells in your general biology head should have gone off and you should have said, well, how in the hell is that going to work?
And there are a million questions that you should have had based on your experiences with the limitations of it on your own experimental bench.
But unfortunately, these two jackasses are not people who can do that because they didn't do research that used transfection or transformation.
They barely did any research at all.
They did, you know, they did ecology trips.
and specimen collection.
It's a different kind of research than the kind of research where you're looking at the role of a molecule in a metabolic pathway, or you're trying to look at the role of a protein in the function of a cell.
These are very different questions that are on a different level of analysis, and a different level of methodological tool set, and a different level of understanding of the biological complexities that we face.
And so these clowns, while they pretend to be, you know, the only systems people, or complex systems are different than complicated systems, or some other bullshit that they say, they have no concept
of where this rubber meets the road with regard to molecular biology and genetics and biology and the whole idea of what I'm trying to transmit which is that we are a pattern integrity that involves a complex levels of symbiosis that cannot be distilled down to we all have a molecular ancestor and therefore everybody is just molecules in chemistry which is what this book insists is true.
We just haven't figured out the rules of how physics and chemistry work out into the homecoming queen loving the homecoming king.
I may spend a significant amount of the remaining of my life trying to bring to the attention of the rest of the world the extent to which this guy is a charlatan.
and deserves a punch in the mouth.
It deserves rotten fruit thrown at him anytime he goes in public.
He should be the victim of jeers and boos when he goes in public.
That's the kind of fake fraud.
This is the worst kind of intellectual pseudo-adult.
And one of the worst examples on the internet.
He should be ashamed of himself.
His whole family should be ashamed of what he is and basically what he's made of his marriage.
This is a farce.
Well, A, it's not going to work.
So what's the test going to be?
If they do a test that investigates whether or not it blocks transmission, what they're going to find out is that it doesn't.
And if that's what they find out, that erodes their argument or governmental mandates.
So they would much rather not.
So it's governmental mandates.
It's testing whether or not it's transmission or not.
We are talking about the exact same bullshit that these people convinced us to talk about in 2020.
And once you see it, you should be very angry.
Once you see it, you should be very apologetic to your kids because if you ever believed in this guy or that woman or children's health defense list of heroes, and now it's this visible and you're not going to do something pretty amazing.
You're not going to turn around your social media accounts.
You're not going to start calling these people out or sending them emails or start to, you know, really show people that you know what's going on.
Because that's the way you do it.
It's not as simple as Trump good or Trump bad.
It's not as simple as RFK good or RFK bad.
It's about understanding that a much of modern American history is bent around a mythology that hides the fact that they are trying and preparing to invert our children from sovereign individuals into experimental animals.
know the answer to that question when privately, I'm betting they did know the answer to that question because they designed a shot that couldn't possibly work.
Why did they do that?
They designed a shot that couldn't possibly work because it's great for business.
So it's all about the Benjamins, he says.
It's all about the Benjamins.
What a joke.
So no question about the PCR, no question about establishing PCR as an entire set of medical diagnostics that's never gonna come under the scrutiny of the FDA, which probably should evaluate every one of them as an individual medical device.
That sound refers to the fact that that means that everybody in the United States is basically losing the FDA's
supervision over an entire body of medical diagnostics, all of which provide income, and more importantly, provide an endless remnant stream that is primarily composed of DNA of the person that got tested.
It's exactly what the Human Genome Project would need once the sequencing technology had become sufficiently cheap and high enough resolution
And number two, once they had the data infrastructure to store that data in a common data set, common data format, then they could proceed with telling everybody that you need to test and proceed with this using an emergency to establish a gold standard that has never been established.
The gold standard of identifying a virus remains PCR tests, which are all proprietary bullshit.
And these people are not going to say anything about it because his dad, his part of the original conception and removing of the teeth of whatever the FDA would have been had Estes Kefauver had his way.
His brother is an IP advisor to Peter Thiel.
They are in cooperation with IP experts Robert Malone, Kevin McKernan, and Goldman Sachs operatives Steve Bannon and Aaron Seery.
It's all one malevolent show designed to take down the FDA
or to neuter it in a way where effectively the diagnostic standard of PCR would be established without anybody realizing it.
Now we're even tracking measles with PCR and nobody gives a shit, especially the FDA run by Marty Makary.
Especially the FDA run by with Vinay Prasad.
And, you know, many of us have intuited this on other topics.
Do these people really want to cure diseases?
Well, that reduces the market for their products.
So it seems fairly clear that evolution itself is going to shape an industry.
Here he is again, trying to portray it as an evolutionary process, which means it's basically out of our control.
How can we stop it?
How could we ever stop it if it's just a natural phenomenon?
It looks like evolution is just going to work.
It's almost like the market is just a natural phenomenon, right?
An evolutionary thing that you can't control.
that fails to cure diseases and comes up with a, you know, proliferating arsenal of treatments that plausibly work at arbitrary risk to your health, right?
In fact, especially since we have a relatively small number of these pharma giants,
If they cause health problems, then chances are that the drug your doctor gives you for the side effect is going to be from one of them, too.
So, you know, it's a racket from one end to the other.
This is a this is the most it would be funny to contrast this discussion right here with the discussion that Joe Rogan and Alex Alex Berenson had about pharma, because they Joe Rogan and Alex Berenson agreed that
Pharma has done so much good stuff.
They've cured so many diseases.
They make so many good drugs.
I mean, they have done so much good for us.
It's a remarkable little clip.
Organized of organized crimes.
and uh anyway it's painful to be trying to understand the way this works as a biologist or presumably as a doctor right because you so hard realize you have to translate what they're saying oh it's so hard give us a you know a needle borne uh inoculant a needle borne inoculant
Wow, I mean that's...
for a respiratory disease.
It's not like inhaled vaccines don't exist.
They do, right?
And it's not as if there aren't things for which you would vaccinate with a needle, you know?
Rabies.
Rabies gets introduced into your tissue by an animal that bites you.
So you don't want the immunity on your mucosal surface.
You want the immunity in your tissues.
So there's all kinds of arguments for different modes, but why would they have chosen the wrong mode?
That's the thing.
They chose the wrong mode because, well, the purpose of a system is what it does.
And the purpose of pharma is to sell pharmaceuticals.
And pharmaceuticals get sold when you have a plausible argument for governmental mandates and recommendations, not when you're actually effective.
In fact, if you were actually effective at doing what vaccines are supposed to do,
then you'd put yourself out of that part of the market.
There's your own market.
And of course, they weren't going to do that because they're not on our team.
No, they weren't.
They're not on our team, he says.
What an interesting choice of words for this jackass.
Well, you prompted me to think a number of things there.
One is we deserve, at the very least, a taxonomy of what would be the right mode of delivery for an actually safe and effective vaccine for all of the lists of diseases for which we are hoping to have a safe and effective vaccine.
And I think anything that's vectored by a biting insect, probably an injection in the arm is the right thing.
So we don't have, as far as I know, a dengue vaccine, or malaria vaccine, but yellow fever.
That, you know, a shot in the arm.
A shot in the arm is still, my friend Heather Haying, so aspecific and so dumb, shows how little understanding she still has.
Because there are subcutaneous injections.
You could even imagine a cutaneous injection.
And yes, you can imagine an intramuscular injection.
And all of those, curiously enough, qualify as a shot in the arm.
You dumb ass.
I mean, this is so remarkable to think that their rhetoric, that their specific use of terms, their ability to explain things clearly, their vocabulary choice has not gotten better, hasn't gotten more consistent, hasn't gotten closer to accurate.
Instead, it's gotten worse and worse and dumber and dumber.
I mean, they are running out of script.
Something is going wrong here because this is awful.
I mean, if they were to play this back and listen to themselves, they can't think, you know, let's high five.
That was a great episode.
I mean,
if it were safe and effective, put that aside for the moment, would be the right mechanism of delivery.
But anything respiratory, flu, any coronaviruses, COVID-19, is not.
Simply is not.
And then another thing, and I did not plan to talk about this today, and I'm not going to read any of it, but speaking of ivermectin, ivermectin came up for me in a totally different context this week.
I'm not even going to let that go.
But speaking of Ivermectin, holy cow, what a bunch of dorks.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think there's a better explanation for why governments behave the way they do and why leaders say the things that they say into the camera.
And that is because we are at a pivotal moment in the history of humankind, of people on Earth.
And it is most aptly understood if you can start to think in terms of population pyramids and the consequences of a healthy versus unhealthy population pyramid.
We may even need to do a whole program about that.
But first find on my website under the link stuff, which is at the top of the page and also at the bottom of every page, where you can download this PDF from McKinsey Global Institute about the population pyramids around the world and why they present such a problem.
Why would they need to murder all these old people in Scotland?
Why would they do that?
Why would they need to murder old people in America?
Why would they do that?
And the reason is very, very clear if you see the population data from the 90s, and then as the time moves forward, because what you will see is an anticipated rise in all cause mortality that was clearly visible in the population pyramid on both sides after World War II, because this is when they had big families.
And then they spent decades discouraging us from having children.
They spent decades telling us that there was a problem about, you know, we're gonna run out of resources and we're gonna eat the planet and we're gonna burn it up.
And so they spent decades, decades messaging against that.
Now, what you see here, of course, is although there is a population here, it's not as bad as it could be.
It could be like this.
but it's gonna get there as we move up this pyramid, or sorry, as we get it playing again, you're gonna see that this bar doesn't move out too much.
Stays right about there.
And so our population, ooh, now it's going down.
See it?
See it's going down.
Oh, that's not good.
That's not good.
That right there is already, we are already in 2000, I think 15 below replacement population growth.
And so knowing that, it makes more sense than why they would be bringing immigrants in, because the economy is gonna require that they have a replacement population.
Otherwise, the beehive won't have bees in all parts of it.
That's all you need.
That's the only analogy you need to have in it.
And think if you have this giant beehive that's the size of your backyard, and then you take half the bees out of it, well, what's gonna happen?
There's not going to be honey in all the cells anymore.
There's not going to be little pupae in all the cells anymore.
And half of the beehive will go to waste.
And that's not that dissimilar to what will happen in China to all those giant cities that they built for nothing.
All those buildings that they have right now that might be full, aren't going to be full forever because they don't have the kids to replace those.
And a very similar phenomenon is happening in Russia, that's happening in Canada, that's happening all around in Europe.
And so immigration is part of the solution to that problem on their paperwork, but it's actually a terrible alternative because what that does, of course, is ruins the fabric of society from a cultural perspective, but they knew that too.
That was all part of this global plan that I was talking about in the woods as well.
What is very difficult is to attribute.
a name to the people that are doing this because of course the whole idea is to hide behind all of these front groups so that you think oh it's the Zionists or oh it's the it's the uh i don't know the the globalists or whatever they call them the the satanists or the luciferian people or the illuminati or they have all these different faces that they put on this but it just has to be a bunch of of ruthless rich people who understand how to think in that time frame
understand how to think in terms of, well, who's going to be here in 100 years and have privy to that data so that they can sit people down at a table and say, look,
We need to cooperate with India and make an alliance with India because they're going to be the dominant global population, maybe the global consumer population.
We're going to want to ship stuff to them in 20 or 40 years.
We're going to be asking for them to come to our country to work.
And so we want to have a good relationship with them.
And we don't need China anymore because in 50 years, China is not going to be able to do all the manufacturing that they're doing now.
and their system is going to fall apart.
So, you know, this whole idea that nobody sees this coming, nobody thought about this, this is the lie that social media is perpetuating because there was a huge biological signal coming and all they had to do was lie to us about it.
And the way that they lied to us about it was put performers on social media.
And not just one, not just many, but groups of them with a coordinated script.
And sometimes multiple groups coordinated together.
Sometimes, you know, accounts from other countries appear on the internet to resemble some kind of illusion of consensus which spans countries' borders.
But that's just an illusion.
that's created on social media because you think social media is some kind of global representation of reality when it's not.
It's a military program designed to control the thoughts that you think as long as you're on the platform.
And that is how they were able to take this list of ways that they murdered people and obfuscated the population pyramid biology and
created the illusion of a pandemic, which all of these people believe in still, including woodshop goggles bandana man, Brett Weinstein.
That is a presentation from this week.
And so, I do think that Grace's dad is making progress.
I do think that he's gonna maybe win some decision about the fact that the protocols were murdered.
Will we go back and review how many people are murdered?
Will it be a giant class action lawsuit?
I doubt it.
I think this is...
Worst case scenario, it's much worse than that, that this is going to fail, that it's being sabotaged by people like Mendenhall, who I've had a conversation with before, and I'm not really convinced that he's a total good guy, but maybe he's just one of these dudes who doesn't get it.
Maybe he doesn't know what strict scrutiny is.
Anyway, I think if you're going to watch anybody else on the internet, you should try to watch Mark Kulak of Housatonic ITS, Housatonic Live.
I think his archive on the internet is bar none.
One of the best tools to try and figure out how this team of performers is organized and under whose mentorship they have been brought to us.
I think that's one of the most important contributions that
Mark has made to my understanding is that I really understand the common ancestry of this thinking.
I have read quite a few of the books that these people say are good.
I have read quite a few of the philosophers that these people follow, like Teilhard de Chardin, and I really do think that
there is starting to become a good crystal picture of the distortion that's possible just based on this teaching kids that DNA and evolution are real things with real consequences.
You know, like evolution plus DNA means that's all you are.
So you got to get off social media.
You got to get your kids off of social media.
I know that this is going to be a long process
but I am already running a soapbox.
You could run a soapbox.
I'm already running a peer tube.
You could run a peer tube.
And I think more importantly, we need other people to take that lead so that I can link my peer tube to their peer tube.
We can link our soapbox to theirs, et cetera.
And it doesn't necessarily need to be soapbox.
Just remember, this is all they had.
This is one of the most damning pieces of evidence out there right now, the existence of this man.
because this man engaged in years and years of meddling with my family by producing content on rumble sometimes three or four hours long often in cooperation with another American trader named Charles Rixey and these guys are part of the same show that Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan and
and Dr. Jordan Vaughn are all one malevolent show.
Dr. Jordan Vaughn, I think, was just on Dr. Drew.
It's all one big joke at this stage.
The only thing they have now is your continued use of social media platforms where the only people you will see are the ones they want you to see.
But these are damning pieces of evidence if you see a timeline like this and can't draw conclusions about how they control the narrative.
Because ending this would have been as simple as telling people that it wasn't appropriate for healthy humans, and we knew that, and that tens of thousands of academic biologists could have done known that.
because of social media apparently are unable to learn what I've learned by myself that Brian Hooker knew already in 2013.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged in condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged in condition that we will not call
Think, but you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
You know, I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
Think, but you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's really important not to be a liar.
I am not lying when I say that I think that this Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
at HHS secretary was the culmination of a long-standing plan and script that was put together by Tony Lyons and Steve Bannon a while ago, orchestrated biologically by Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan and Merrill Nass, and orchestrated legally by people like
Bret Weinstein's father and Mary Holland and the other lawyers that are doing nothing at Children's Health Defense and ICANN, like fellow Goldman Sachs man Aaron Seery.
And so Bret Weinstein's position as a clown in service to this
just has to do with his family ties to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and their father's work to define the FDA despite Estes Kefauver's desires.
This is for all the marbles.
That's why there's a fake anti-vax movement.
And I actually think that we might have
We might have Mary Talley Bowden's attention on X right now so I'm going to repost the interview that I did with her on the Batcave and then I might do a study hall of it tomorrow depending on what it is.
I honestly don't remember what we talked about because it was so long ago.
It was in the same
I think it was in the same year, just after I talked to Kevin McKernan.
And so she's on Twitter right now, pretending that she doesn't know who I am or complaining that I'm anonymous on Twitter, which is kind of funny.
So anyway, we've got her attention.
We're gonna try and send her a couple links.
So I'm gonna upload that in a little while, after I get off the stream here.
And remember that- And me and Mary are out there saying,
Me and Mary are out there saying, this guy's a clown.
He's definitely part of the performance.
That's why he's out there at Bitcoin conferences and stuff like that.
There's no doubt in my mind that he's been given a script and he's following it.
That's why he's promoting all the same people that I have been lambasting as traitors.
The scripted bullshit that he put on this stream included Robert Malone and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
And this clown, one of the guys that
I mean, this has so many layers of clown, it's not even funny.
And he was just recruited by Robert Malone in the UK.
And then this dude, Kevin McKernan, you know, the former Research and Development Director of the Human Genome Project.
They're all part of the same show, I assure you.
And the scripted bullshit for what?
Well, it's for the Human Genome Project.
It's to preserve the bad biology 101 that we're supposed to teach to our kids.
That you are nothing but the consequence of your genes and that evolution is real.
And yes, it's been a long, strange trip.
I've tried very, very hard to make friends and colleagues with these people to try and understand what they're thinking.
and help them progress in their own thinking and they haven't been able to do it.
And that's why I find myself all alone here trying to offer you a new bottle of Biology 101 and asking for your support while my former best friend, I guess, good buddy, super nice guy is the head of the NIH, which is kind of scary.
The best place to find my guest today would have been in the office he had occupied for more than two decades in an out-of-the-way corner of the Stanford campus.
And when he came to the door, he would have been wearing his favorite item of clothing, a Stanford hoodie.
Today, that man is the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on Uncommon Knowledge Now.
Isn't it a shame that they've used Thomas Sowell to kind of make this like a, it's almost like you have a Pavlovian response to this music and you think, oh my gosh, I'm finally going to hear a good interview.
Welcome to Uncommon Knowledge.
I'm Peter Robinson, a native of India, Jayanta Bhattacharya.
Did I get that close?
I can't pronounce it myself.
He can't pronounce it himself.
Shit.
Jayanta Bhattacharya moved to the United States with his family when he was a child.
After growing up in Southern California, Dr. Bhattacharya enrolled in Stanford University, where he earned his undergraduate degree, his master's degree, his MD, and his doctorate in economics, and then- I'm not even sure that's possible.
Every university I've ever been at, every program I've ever applied to, everything I've ever heard as advice was that you gotta go somewhere else.
He can't stay here, but he stayed there for everything?
It doesn't even really make sense.
became a member of the Stanford faculty.
During the COVID lockdown, Dr. Bhattacharya helped to write the Great Barrington Declaration, a document that opposed the lockdowns, calling instead for focus protection, that is concentrating efforts on those most at risk while reopening schools and places of work.
So he wanted to punish the old people and he wanted to inject the old people and let everybody else run.
Taking this position, Dr. Bhattacharya found himself censored on social media and under attack from public health officials.
The then director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, referred to Dr. Bhattacharya as, direct quotation, a fringe epidemiologist, close quote.
Could have just redacted that under national security, you know, just don't want them to know what I said.
They could have redacted that, but they didn't.
That's the thing you need to see.
There is nothing stopping anyone from redacting anything from a FOIA because nobody's checking afterward.
It's not like there's this whole committee and they can do a replay and say, okay, is it fair that they did this?
Come on.
Stop lying.
This is all part of the show.
This is as dumb as saying that the diffuse proposal is obviously a real leak and we learned something from it.
Come on.
This is the kind of stupid shit that they have laid down for five years that everybody has bought into as part of the Scooby-Doo.
Then came the election of Donald Trump and the new director of the National Institutes of Health is the fringe epidemiologist, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.
Jay, welcome back to Uncommon Knowledge.
Thank you for having me, Peter.
In the interest of full disclosure, I suppose we may as well admit that we've been friends for a quarter of a century.
A little longer than that.
Oh, stop.
Stop there.
We're both old, Peter.
Stop there.
And for that matter, that you and I, I was with you when you picked out that very suit.
For your information, five days before Jay left
Palo Alto to move to Washington.
We had a conversation, and I discovered that he owned exactly two suits, and that one was a suit his mother had bought for him when he was on the high school debate team.
So we went to a shop and bought some suits.
OK, so Jay, this leads to my very first overarching question.
You arrived at Stanford University in 1985 at the age of 17.
Aside from a couple of very brief stints, you ran for a while.
But aside from a couple of brief stints at Rand, holy shit, you spent your entire life at Stanford University.
I once asked you what was the biggest outfit you had ever overseen.
And you thought for a moment and said, I had six researchers working on a project once.
Here you sit in a suit.
Director of the National Institutes of Health, an agency with over 20,000 employees, and a budget of $48 billion.
Jerry, I say this as a friend.
What do you think you're doing?
You know, Peter, the key thing I've learned since I've taken office is you have to get help.
You have to get people who know how to do the things that I know I know I don't know how to do.
I wonder if Robert Malone's helping him with anything.
And that's been probably the best surprise for me is the number of amazing, excellent people that I've found to help me accomplish the impossible.
So step one in running an organization that large is to find good people and learn how to delegate.
Yeah.
Okay, and that's been easy for you, somehow.
You have no choice.
When you're running an organization with 20,000 people, you have to delegate.
But the key thing, I think, is to provide a vision, a clear direction about where I would like to see the organization go.
And there are real challenges.
I'm sure you're going to ask me about that.
Yes, I will.
That the NIH faces in light of what happened during the pandemic.
And so I view that as my primary job, to convey both to the organization, but also it's not just a corporation or something like that.
It's a government.
It's the most important biomedical research institute in the world.
It's a part of the federal government.
It answers to the American people.
So I have to convey not just to the people who work there, but to the American taxpayers who
So we have a surgeon general who went to Stanford Medical School and dropped out of a residency.
That's also something here.
We have Vivek Murthy.
Murthy was also an Indian guy.
Yeah, there's a lot of things connecting now.
We have to defend that $48 billion to the American people.
You and I have talked on this show half a dozen times about the COVID experience.
So we needn't go into that at great length now.
but it forms the background of, as I understand it, but it forms the background of all you're thinking about the NIH.
So what I take as the central lessons of the lockdown is that the lockdown itself was an overreach.
But why is the NIH responsible for that?
I don't understand what this even means.
What is he talking about?
What is this bullshit?
Am I wrong?
What has the NIH got to do with this?
That the public health officials
were acting at least in large measure on political calculation and not entirely on science, that much of what they portrayed as science wasn't science, and that they got one big thing after another wrong.
So you put up on X, you put up a post shortly after you were nominated.
I am honored and humbled by President Donald Trump's nomination of the next NIH director
We will reform American scientific institutions so that they are worthy of trust.
So who are those scientific institutions?
Is he talking about universities?
Because that's, I don't get it.
What is he talking about?
What institutions can he reform as NIH director?
Can you put anything in the chat?
What can he do?
How's the project going?
We've made some progress, but there's still a long way to go.
Let's just say, I had actually been studying the NIH as a matter of my own research.
for a long while before the pandemic.
And so I had identified some problems.
I mean, this is not all that novel because a lot of people identified the same problems.
The fact that the NIH is responsible for addressing a crisis in the scientific community of people being unable to replicate basic work.
Okay, so we've already moved on from reforming the scientific agencies or institutions.
What
These are magic words.
These are enchantments that mean nothing.
But they're big words that for the average American in their daily grind, it's just like, OK, whatever.
OK, that's fine.
He's a dude.
I'd worked on measuring the sort of inherent risk aversion of the NIH research portfolio, which often avoided
investments in things that would potentially have enormous benefits but risk becoming failed projects.
The goal is to have every single project succeed.
If you have that, the whole portfolio as a whole is a failure.
because you haven't made the big advances.
This is all stuff I've worked on before the pandemic.
So he's talking kind of like the EU, you got to take more risks.
You got to fund more projects that fail.
Oh boy, here we go.
This is even worse.
I want to come to all of that.
Could I also, this is the layman here.
This is the layman sitting back in California watching NIH and watching you.
But before we depart from the COVID experience altogether, one of the things that always struck me, I don't think I ever asked you about this actually, but you conducted a study
You've got some donor to give you $5,000.
The princely sum, as I recall, of five grand.
Wasn't that what it was?
You're talking about the seroprevalence?
Yes, yes.
So you conducted a study in March of 2020 asking, wait a minute, let's see if we can find out just how infectious this thing is.
Oh, so Jay Bhattacharya is the final author on that.
Let's find out how infectious it is.
Let's measure seroprevalence.
Let's tell everybody and agree with everybody that seroprevalence is a evidence of infection, evidence of spread, evidence of a novel virus.
Look at this carefully and see it for the treachery that it is.
He is on a script.
He's going with the script.
They're reading the script.
So you tested people in Santa Clara County and you discovered that it was
more infectious, but less lethal than the public health authorities understood.
And it has always struck me.
Look at that face.
He knows he's lying.
That whole study was probably bullshit and probably he was put there to do it.
It was part of the whole operation from the very beginning.
that this whole line of trajectory through all of this pandemic was absolutely scripted, very, very scripted.
Not that dissimilar to how Vinay Prasad and ZDogg and Marty McCarty were scripted for those four years.
Took a year off and then started running for office in 2024 once the opportunity was there.
It's really gross.
Right there, this strange,
failing NIH, CDC, we are talking about budgets of tens of billions of dollars a year.
And yet it fell to Jay Bhattacharya and some donor who was willing to pop five grand to conduct the first such study.
I don't remember it being so obvious as it is right now to me that Jay Bhattacharya is nothing more than a guy on a script.
It is absolutely spectacular.
Why wasn't NIH conducting studies all over the country?
Why didn't they have good data by that point?
That was a failure of the public health establishment in this country.
They should have conducted that study.
Immediately, shouldn't they?
In February 2020.
They should have had measures of how widespread the disease was much earlier.
I wrote an op-ed, which actually you helped me design, because I'd never written an op-ed before, to say that in the Wall Street Journal in March of 2020.
To say, look, we don't know how widespread the disease is.
It's a vitally important fact that we need to know to design the right policy.
Yes.
And let's immediately learn that.
Let's conduct a study to do that.
That $5,000, by the way, it was to Stanford, not to me.
I saw $0 of it myself.
The fact that the public health establishment failed it.
I mean, he had to go back to the funding part again, right?
The $5,000 part.
Oh, my gosh.
It should have been a signal that there was something deeply wrong with how the public health.
From the get-go.
From the beginning.
All right.
Replication.
This is one of the three big initiatives that you've spoken about that you intend to undertake at NIH.
A couple of quotations.
Again, this is me.
You know what a layman I am.
I'm just trying to figure out what is this business about replication?
Here's quotation number one.
This comes from a 2005 paper.
This is 20 years ago by your Stanford colleague and friend, John Ioannidis.
Quote, it can be proven
that most claimed research findings are false.
Notice that that guy is the other author on the paper of seroprevalence.
So both of them published that paper.
They were both put in place at the beginning, wittingly or unwittingly, absolutely for certain.
Maybe Jay Bhattacharya's job was to rope this guy in.
Let me repeat that.
It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.
Close quote.
From a 2021 article in Science, the Reproducibility Project Cancer Biology set out to reproduce experiments from 53 high-profile papers published between 2010 and 2012
Consistent with replication efforts in other areas of science, original positive results could only be replicated 40% of the time.
Only 5 of the 53 papers had results that could be fully reproduced."
Let me make one statement here just to make sure you understand what's going on.
There are different ways of reproducing things and there are different levels of
of this problem.
And I'm going to toot my own horn here and say that I was able to accomplish a methodology and measurements that very few people were able to accomplish.
Even if I was to tell you all the equipment that I used and all the tricks that I had, you would need to train with me.
in order to do the experiments that I did in the same way that I did them.
Because if you didn't, you would inevitably probably fail.
And that's true for a lot of neurobiological experiments because the experiments are and the parameters of how they measure it and what they're measuring and how they train the animals is extremely relevant to the results that they get.
And so the replication crisis is a problem.
I agree, it's a problem.
But it is a problem that exists in certain parts of science, in certain sections of science.
There are large swaths of biology that are still producing useful data about useful questions.
It's just that these people aren't making any money off of those questions.
And those questions can't be used to enslave people.
the answers to those questions.
And so make it very clear, this is a, the replication crisis is a crisis that's not quite the same as what they're going to make it up to be.
It's mostly a crisis of using probability
to show something is true when it's not.
And that's something that my friend Matt Briggs works on all the time and is teaching a course about that we were gonna audit, but we didn't because these people haven't stopped.
And Bobby got HHS and this guy got on at the head of NIH.
So I don't know how I can stop.
So Ioannidis says, 20 years ago,
The scientific establishment is letting colleagues get away with it.
Nobody's repeating anybody else's experiments.
And then a dozen, 15 years later, we get more studies saying, you know what?
We've tried 53 studies.
These results are all over the place.
We can't replicate them.
This is the most basic work that the scientific establishment does, science.
Testing results, making sure that we know what we think we know.
Am I losing my mind?
This strikes me as obvious.
And it takes you to say so?
Well, I mean, brilliant people like John Ioannidis have been saying this, as you say, for decades.
Let me describe the fundamental problem.
There's some very flashy things having to do with scientific fraud.
that are part of the problem but are not the root problem.
So that Alzheimer's research is... For instance, or the... That's obviously... Remember, this is a guy who's a member of the broken science group.
I met him at several broken science meetings where Matt Briggs or William Briggs is the statistician guy there, spoke many times.
This guy knows exactly what's wrong with academic science, and he knows its p-values.
He knows that it's hypothesis testing the null hypothesis illusion.
Be fraudulent.
Yes, there's scientific fraud.
But the root problem is that we have a scientific culture that doesn't recognize how difficult science actually is.
And it punishes failure too sharply and has the wrong standards of truth.
Those are the fundamental reasons.
So let me just tease that apart in just a bit.
So first, let's start with the standards of truth.
A paper that is published in a peer-reviewed journal, folks think that that means that if it's published in a top peer-reviewed journal, therefore, it must be true.
That's what I've always thought.
And that's actually inaccurate.
So the peer-reviewed process
What happens is I write a paper.
Everybody in science has known that for decades.
I was told that over half of nature papers get proven wrong in the five years following it.
So it's not like we didn't know this already.
And again, it's a hamster wheel.
We knew this in the 90s for shit's sake.
I'll send it to a journal.
If I'm lucky, the journal editor will send it out to two or three peer reviewers chosen by the editor.
There's games played to try to influence the editor.
If they're friendly with the editor, they'll send it to friendly peer reviewers.
The peer reviewers themselves might read the paper, look for logical errors, maybe have some questions that they want addressed, but they won't actually replicate the results of the paper.
They won't have the data to produce the paper.
They're just reading the paper.
They're not looking at the actual data.
It's very, very rare, almost unheard of in biomedicine.
There's nothing wrong with that in theory.
If the paper is written well, the experiments are done well, and I can give you countless examples of it in neuroscience where papers are done well, the results are not exaggerated or extrapolated beyond their significance, and a little tiny progress is made in understanding what a protein might do in this little experimental model.
They're not necessarily making any great gains in understanding, but I do think they're producing little pieces of knowledge that help us understand a little bit better how irreducibly complex we are.
It's the research that purports to solve big mysteries, purports to answer big questions, purports to have solved very complex concepts.
Those are the kinds of things that are not reproducible and are totally bullshit.
And again, they don't seem to be able to distinguish those differences.
This is really, really sad.
For the peer reviewers to review the data themselves.
And so then if the peer reviewer signs off, the editor signs off, you get to publish in a peer review journal, that doesn't mean that the result is right.
It just means it's passed through this peer review process, which doesn't check to see if the results are reproducible.
It doesn't mean the results are correct.
It just means that the establishment has signed off on it.
Wow.
It's funny because Frontiers in Neuroscience is a journal started by Henry Markram in Switzerland, the Blue Brain Project guy.
Who you're probably not familiar with but at some point in time that was a really big deal a billion euro project funded by the EU and that guy actually What it what was I shoot now I would thought of something else
I actually thought of a cafe.
You get a CV filled with peer-reviewed papers.
Oh, yeah.
That's right.
That's what I was going to say.
I started thinking of a cafe called The Chateau in Lausanne, Switzerland, which if you ever have the chance to be in Switzerland and go to Lausanne and just walk around and find The Chateau and have a pizza and have the Neapolitano pizza,
and tell me that for a brief period of time, you're not just in the perfect place.
Like, it'll feel like that.
It's a mountain village with mountain people and young people.
And if you have a beer and a pizza in that place, I don't know if there's a more
I just, one of the best places that I've ever been and some of the best memories I've ever had are in Lausanne, Switzerland.
And anyway, that's...
Actually, I asked my wife to marry me in Lausanne, Switzerland with a shitty ring.
But what was I going to say?
Yes.
Henry Markram, this guy, started this journal, Frontiers in Neuroscience, because he wanted to have a journal where replication could be done and would be published.
Not funded, of course, but at least it would be published.
I don't know if that's ever actually where it went.
Frontiers in Neuroscience just became another journal, I think, although the peer review was supposed to be better and they were trying to improve on it as well.
And don't forget that one of the things that Kevin McKernan has in his back pocket is a Bitcoin slash crypto slash, what is it called?
Blockchain solution to peer review.
and peer review publishing under blockchain review.
Don't forget that Matt Crawford and Kevin McKernan have presented that idea in multiple ways.
It's filled with peer-reviewed papers.
That's why I have a position at Stanford, or had a position at Stanford University.
So you're telling me I should be much less impressed by your work?
You absolutely should be much less impressed by it.
Not just my work, but by everything.
Now, fundamentally, the scientific process is hard.
the published peer-reviewed literature then will have some results that are false positives.
And when I say that, what I mean is that they're published, you think they're true because they're published, but they're not true.
And that paper that you cited by John Enidis.
But see, that's not how science works.
This is a very disingenuous way to describe how academics read other academics' papers.
All academics are aware that exaggeration occurs.
All academics are aware that you try to tie your research to the most important things.
You know, if you're gonna do nicotine research, you almost inevitably are gonna start every abstract or every introduction or every grant proposal with the idea that the WHO says that tobacco is the number one cause of health related blah, blah, blah, and costs billions of dollars every year.
I know because I used to do it.
If you're going to work on Angelman syndrome and you're going to work on a mouse model of Angelman syndrome, you're not going to say that you're trying to save Angelman syndrome kids.
You're going to try and tell them that this has ramifications for everything from Parkinson's disease to autism, to spectrum disorder, to ADHD.
And so my research on, on Angelman's disease is important for all of these problems of humanity.
And so when scientists read other scientists' work, not only are they scrutinizing the experimental results, but they're scrutinizing the claims that these scientists make about the experimental results, ramifications.
And we all take each other with a grain of salt, especially the review articles, especially these nature articles where people are just trying to make their new lab or their new name.
So yes, it's a problem, but it's not the same problem that he's describing here.
And it's remarkable.
It makes a very convincing claim, just based on the standards of how we decide what scientific research can get published, that a large chunk of the published peer-reviewed literature is probably false.
Not intentionally, it's just hard to do science.
I may have a result, and I think it's true.
I've done some investigation into it.
I've done some statistics on it, which is what he should have said.
Big failure there.
It might not be true, because maybe I made some error that I didn't realize.
No, it's because you use p-values to declare it true.
You are part of the broken science initiative.
You ought to know this.
Wow.
I mean, that is like, what do you want?
What was he invited to all those barbecues for?
What did he sit there and listen to all those lectures for if he didn't absorb the big simple message that using p-values to prove things or create facts is bullshit?
We need to have models and then they need to be verified.
And we're not doing that in science.
Wow.
Holy cow.
Maybe the thing is just a lot of things just happen and you haven't thought of everything.
The right standard of truth in science then isn't
is one paper making a claim, and it's peer-reviewed, and it's published in a top journal.
The right standard of truth is, do other independent research teams, asking the same question, using different methodology, do they arrive at the same conclusion?
And if lots and lots of research teams arrive at the same conclusion, then we just have something.
Yeah.
So you mentioned, for instance, that Santa Clara syrup problem study that I conducted.
It was a very controversial result, very early in the pandemic.
But dozens of other research teams around the world asking the same question in different settings, in different places, found results that are roughly congruent with that result.
Roughly congruent, asking the same bad question.
Make sure you understand that.
Asking the same bad question based on the same bad assumptions.
He's not telling you the truth here.
He's narrative control master play right here.
The fact that the paper was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, I mean, I was glad it was published, but that's not what makes it true.
What makes it true is the independent replication by dozens of other research teams that found very similar results in places where people are older, they tend to get higher death rates.
In places where people are younger, they tend to get lower death rates.
We were kind of right in the middle, because we were looking at people who weren't in nursing homes.
I like the point that SixGirl is making in the chat.
You see, peer review is actually much more dangerous for what it probably doesn't allow to be published than what gets published.
And that part of the problem is much more dangerous than what he's talking about.
And think about that point.
That is an excellent, excellent point in the chat.
Well done.
It's a thing where everybody learns science and
you know, they first introduced the science in fourth grade, they learned about replication.
But the entirety of the scientific infrastructure is set up to not have that as the standard of truth.
Okay, so that strikes me as mad, and it makes me, I mean,
this is, I'm here to represent the angry American public, that billions upon billions of dollars get spent on this year in and year out, and nobody does double checking, is essentially what you're saying.
But you're also saying to me, American public, calm down.
Science is hard.
Scientists are in some way or another, you could almost describe them as victims of a process, of a procedure, and we need to change the institutional approach
of the research project.
Now, my argument would be that we need to change the way that we apprentice science.
The whole postdoc system is stupid.
The only person who apparently benefits from having five postdocs is Jessica Rose because she's allowed to go around for the last five years and claim that we're five degrees as opposed to five consecutive failures to get tenure track.
That's the extent to which this lie is occurring.
That dude is promoted by people like Jessica Rose who have masqueraded as an academic gone rogue.
When in reality, she's a failed academic who couldn't have gotten tenure if she tried.
That's the reality of where we are.
This guy is as big a fraud as Jessica Rose and probably as manufactured.
throughout the country.
Is that correct?
That's correct.
How are you going to do that?
So a few things.
I like you so much, Jay.
I almost believe that if anybody were going to do it, you're going to do it.
How can you take this on?
It sounds huge.
I think first, if there's going to be an institution that does it, it's got to be the National Institute of Health.
So you're sitting in the right chair.
Yeah, so it funds a tremendous amount of science.
And I don't want to paint a too bleak a picture.
There are real advances that science has made, funded by the NIH, for instance, that have improved human health.
Yes.
Behold!
Within the pool of scientific papers, not everything is false.
We just have systems that don't necessarily distinguish true from false often enough.
That's the fundamental problem.
So here's what you do.
First, you have to make it so that replication is a viable path for a career.
Every scientist does that.
A real paper is supposedly doing the replication as part of the experiment.
So this is really wacky.
are just selling a lie here, an absolute lie.
This is where your doctorate in economics comes in.
Yeah, it's just incentive structures.
You create systems that... He has a doctorate in the science of economics.
I mean, seriously, this is...
And that makes him an MD, PhD, which is really unbelievable.
Provide the incentives in the right direction, you'll get the results in the right direction.
That's basic economics, I guess.
So you have to award.
high-profile research grants to scientists who creatively do replication work.
They identify what are the key claims in the literature that need replication.
By the way, if you talk to drug developers, they'll tell you this, that they do this, they do private replication, because they don't trust the published biomedical literature.
So they'll privately replicate.
Are you telling me that the drug people are much more, like, they're much...
Oh my gosh, what is happening?
The key results before they decide to invest tens of millions of dollars in development.
So replication is taking place, but it's in a haphazard and private way.
Yes.
OK.
OK, so that's one.
You have to incentivize replication by rewarding it with high profile grants from an institution with prestige like the NIH.
And you can do that at NIH?
I'm going to do that.
OK.
Second, you have to have a place to publish the replication work.
Because right now, if you send your replication work to a top journal, there's no chance of it being published.
They'll say it's not original.
So you have to have a high-profile place where people can publish the replication work, where it's easily searchable so that people can, like, get a... Isn't it weird that Henry Markram had this idea, like, really back in 2003?
That's weird.
Sense of like how many of these, I have a result in the literature I think is, I would hope is true.
I can go check the journal or the literature and they'll give me a report back of how often it's been tested for replication, how often it's been replicated.
So you can fund, can you establish the American Replication Review?
Yeah, we'll think about it.
And if this is in every medical library across the country.
Yeah, and we'll make it searchable using these new AI methods that allow us to pull together what the literature is actually saying.
It's a huge search engine, is what it turned out to be.
And then third, and this is probably the most important, when scientists now are approached by somebody who wants to replicate their result, they view it as a threat.
They say, oh my gosh, they're trying to undermine my reputation by trying to check my work.
But it's not a threat, it's actually... No, they never think that way.
Most of the time they do things like what Max Delbruck did, was that they host a workshop every year to teach everybody what they're doing so that people do replicate it, so that people do use their methods.
That's why you do a postdoc, is you're going to study with somebody so that you can build on and replicate their work.
This is another just absolute jackassery mythology he's laying down here.
This is just wrong.
It's wrong.
This is not how science is done.
This is not how academics behave.
This is bullshit.
This is extraordinary.
in honor.
You have an idea that is worthy of some other scientist checking you.
That's a mark of honor for you because you're making a claim that's important for science.
This is not how this works.
Understand that science is much more about methodology.
That's what molecular biology is all about, doing it the best way, getting the high fidelity results.
That's what neuroscience is about.
That's what all science is about.
It's about new methodologies and using them correctly.
That's what drives science.
And to think that it's any other way, it just means that you've never done science because at some point when you do science, you're going to have to choose a set of methodological tools and then become a master in them.
Otherwise, what are you going to do?
Just send out little, little, do little samples using, using, I don't know, a seroprevalence test and then claim you're doing science.
Ah, now you see it.
He didn't do any science.
He got $5,000 to do a survey that included a blood test.
And then he's pretending he did science.
There's no methodology that he's developed.
He hasn't become a master of anything like electrophysiology or biophysics at the cellular level or measuring individual ion channels, which are all skills that I built over a 20-year career of being a biologist.
And therefore, I have a skill set that I can apply to a whole plethora of questions in a whole plethora of experimental models.
That's how science works.
It's not some MD-PhD economist buying a bunch of seroprevalence tests that are really just proprietary versions of a pregnancy test and then going out and asking everybody to give a sample.
That's not science.
That's bullshittery and performance art.
for a national security operation that ultimately put him in control of, or as a puppet, as a dude in a mouse suit in front of what now is the NIH slash frickin...
Chuck E. Cheese's.
Look at me, for example.
People have tried to copy you all the time, Peter.
They just all fail.
That's the problem.
It's not worth it.
So how do you change those?
That's a mindset.
Yeah, so they're what you do.
So let's just talk about baseball, right?
So suppose- This is not a problem that needs solving, but now he's going to give an analogy for the problem that he's going to solve.
Oh my gosh.
Suppose that all we measured was stolen bases.
Right.
What you'd have is slow runners trying to steal bases all the time and get caught stealing in the hopes that they could have a few stolen bases.
If that's what you get paid on.
Exactly.
But if you measure caught stealings and stolen bases, it'll only be the good.
So the people who are really fast, they'll try to steal bases.
Got it.
I guess this guy is not a threat to my reigning king as the king of analogies.
This guy is not a threat at all.
What is this shit?
Yikes.
Right now, the way it measures productivity for scientists are on two bases.
How many papers you've published and how many citations you got to the papers you published.
If you think about they are, it's like how much volume of science do you produce and how much influence do you have in the scientific community.
So to put it crudely, that's rewarding pure self-promotion.
I mean, it does produce some... No, because those metrics don't include the times when you cite your own paper, dumbass.
This is an H-factor discussion, and H-factor is a pretty interesting metric of your contributions to science, and my H-factor wipes the floor with anybody on that map.
Compare my H-factor to somebody like Jessica Rose.
Compare my H-factor to somebody like Kevin McCairn.
Scientists are excellent, they produce real work that advances, but it doesn't aim the incentives in the right direction.
So if you measure pro-social behavior, like if you approach me to do replication, replicate my work, and I share my data with you.
You should get credit for that.
There should be like a, okay, I've hit a home run, right?
Do you see what he's laying down here?
He's laying down a social credit system for peer review, a social credit system for scientific publication.
It sounds very much like he's laying the ideological framework for maybe, I don't know, some kind of
blockchain monitoring of scientific progress?
Interesting.
Is my work being approached for application at all?
That's an honor.
Let's measure that.
Is my work actually replicated?
That's another thing we potentially could measure.
He is on a script provided by Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan.
I have no doubt in my mind.
Now that he's talking like this, this is exactly what I predicted 10 minutes ago.
This is the blockchain peer-review solution that Kevin McKernan has been parading around.
This is it.
You can see it very clearly.
He's reading a script from Robert Malone and McKernan.
We were right.
100% right.
If you make measures like that,
And you reward that kind of pro-social behavior, you'll get it.
You reward the effort.
You reward the scientists who have the courage to take on hard problems and conduct experiments.
We're going to use blockchain to determine who gets funding.
You're going to see it.
It's going to be awesome.
Even if it's wrong, that's the other flip side.
I assume you're going to ask me about innovation because that's the flip side.
It's common in Silicon Valley for people to start a company that fails.
Failure is rewarded in Silicon Valley.
That is the key to the success of Silicon Valley, right?
We punish failure too much in science.
The flip side of the replication problem.
Okay, so let's go on and talk about this.
Here's another of your big three initiatives, as I understand it, is keeping NIH right at the scientific frontier.
from a May, 2023 paper by Paula Steven and Chiara Franzoni to whom I apologize.
I mean, that first paper that he published as Housatonic has dropped in the chat a couple of times, it's $5,000.
We need to find out where that came from and whether or not it's associated with Robert Malone or any of his associates, because that paper was promoted by his associates as it was released.
And this guy asked me to not talk about Robert Malone anymore.
three times in person in 2020, three.
Please tell me someone in America is hearing me.
And I don't care if you vote left or right or center or don't vote at all.
Please just tell me you hear me and you understand that we are in a very malevolent trap.
I'm sure I mispronounced both names.
For the building a better NIH project, quote,
A number of scientists have expressed concern that the National Institutes of Health is risk averse and becoming increasingly so.
Some think the heavy emphasis placed on demonstrating feasibility of the proposed research is responsible for the risk aversion.
More generally, there is the perception that the probability of success plays an important role in the evaluation process."
Close quote.
OK.
So in other words, as the American public has gotten sicker and sicker, we'll come to that increase in chronic disease, NIH has become more and more risk averse.
People only put studies forward for funding that they're pretty sure will work.
So what are you going to do about that?
Right.
So that's going to take a culture change in science.
There's some concrete things you can do.
So for instance, you mentioned how we evaluate grants, right?
So in the 2000 teens, the NIH would have... Don't forget that one of the CV bullet points that Robert Malone regularly put out during his coming out parties on the internet for COVID was that he was responsible for like $50 billion in grant funding because he sits on all of these grant review committees.
as a requirement to evaluate grants, you had to have an active grant.
Now you say to yourself, oh, well, why not?
You have people with lots of expertise.
You have to demonstrate expertise to evaluate grants.
If you think about it, what that does is it makes people who have a vested interest in the current way of thinking into the position for deciding whether challenges to that way of thinking will be funded or not.
make you no sense.
What you want is regular turnover in ideas in science.
Most of the ideas are going to be wrong.
Science is hard.
But if you don't have that regular turnover and the ability for early career investigators with bright new ideas to try their ideas out early, try their ideas out at all, you're not going to make progress in science.
Jay, I'm very struck.
You and I both live, in some ways, neither you nor I, well, neither you nor I is a venture capitalist, but we both live surrounded by Silicon Valley.
And your comparison to Silicon Valley a moment ago, I found very striking.
So in the valley right now, what's happening is AI.
And we have a new crop of Stanford students graduating.
You and I both have friends among the students.
We live and work among these kids.
And I'm struck at how astonishingly easy it is for some bright kid to get a degree in computer science.
If you've got a doctorate in computer science and an idea, you can get $100,000 like that from a VC firm.
They're just saying, go ahead.
You're smart.
Take a whack at it.
Give it a try.
Now, that may be the wrong way to approach science, but the notion of youth constantly being funded to develop technological ways of monitoring or wasting people's time.
That's it.
Yes, they get funded, but they don't get funded to teach people.
They don't get funded to free people.
They don't get funded to empower people.
They get funded to monitor and enslave them.
And you have to have an idea of a way to monitor people's time or occupy people's time.
And then, sure, you can get funding.
Remember, funding is essentially monopoly money to begin with because banks can create it out of thin air using fractional reserve banking.
In March of 2020, the biologist that would eventually figure out the biology of the pandemic was already cued in on the finances of it all, or at least aware that this illusion was happening, and a long-standing illusion that money is something that describes merit.
You know, because Elon Musk is rich because he's smart.
Jeff Bezos is rich because he's smart.
Steve Kirsch is rich because he's smart.
Jay Bhattacharya is NIH director because he's smart.
Portfolios of ideas being undertaken, modest funding, but enough funding to get them, enough funding to find out an answer.
Will this idea work?
If that idea works, come back to us for more money.
Knowing that 90% of any investment portfolio will go belly up.
So,
So that's because Silicon Valley makes a lot of money that way.
That's because the incentives are quite clearly set up to, how do you do that in science?
I mean, just to put a fine point on what you just said, if you have a portfolio of 50 projects that you funded, and 49 of them fail utterly.
No, we're talking about NIH now.
I'm talking about both science and Silicon Valley.
And 49 of them failed.
It's weird, right?
Because how do they fail when Kevin McKernan went on the Danny Jones podcast and said that, you know, most scientific grants are already done when they're submitted because they have to be, otherwise they wouldn't get funded.
Wow, that's weird because he's saying that most of the grants fail.
Like, but if they already were done before they were funded, then how could they fail?
It's really like this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, but he's just reading a bullshit script.
from the 50th Cures Type 2 Diabetes.
That's a successful portfolio.
You've done something for humanity.
Yes.
I don't care that the 49 projects failed.
They were ex ante good ideas.
In fact, congratulations to them for trying.
Exactly.
They will have learned something.
Yeah.
Right now what happens is the evaluation of grants, you have to demonstrate with preliminary data.
If you're going to get a big investment from the NIH, you have to demonstrate preliminary data that the idea that you're proposing is likely to work.
How do you do that in advance before you actually do the work?
They do it with previous grant money and institutional funds and foundation money.
They scrounge it together with their startup funds.
This guy has no idea what he's talking about because he's never tried to do it.
I did.
I was trying to do it at the beginning of the pandemic.
I was working on my own R01 grant.
I was trying to get the attention of the faculty to give my own room.
I got almost a half a million dollars of free equipment by asking people for it.
After I had bought all of this equipment with lots of grants around the world, they gave it to me.
Yes, me, at the beginning of the pandemic.
All they would have had to do was just give me an extra room and a student and I would have never been here.
They really blew it with me.
So what happens is scientists, and this is something I learned as part of the grantsmanship tools of becoming a successful scientist, do some- The grantsmanship tools of becoming a successful scientist.
Holy shit.
This guy is such an imposter.
He is such an imposter, it makes me ill to think that I took pictures with him and thought that he was going to help me at some point.
Work.
that you know that ends up working.
How did that happen?
Then propose to do that work.
Get the funding support for that proposed work.
Hey, there's somebody in the chat over there.
Nice to see you.
And then try to work on the next project with the funding you get.
It's fundamentally a system designed to reward incremental progress at best.
Its aim is to say, look, all 50 projects I funded worked.
and therefore it's a successful portfolio.
But a portfolio where all 50 projects you funded work... How do they work?
Because they find a significant p-value.
You see, this broken science student doesn't seem to get it, or he's purposefully obfuscating the simple truth.
That the way that we do science, with null hypotheses that are bullshit to begin with, is the fundamental failure.
And it's not all science.
It's just an awful lot of it.
is not a successful portfolio, even though every single project worked.
It's a failed portfolio in the sense that you ex ante didn't take sufficient, you were too risk averse in what you invested in.
And so you have to have a tolerance for failure.
And for young scientists, contrary to Silicon Valley, where you said, like you said, young, early career people can get investments early to test their ideas out.
In biomedical sciences, it is commonplace for a researcher to be.
It is not possible for someone to wander into a biology department, do a PhD, and in four years have sufficient understanding in order to develop their own research line.
That is not possible.
It never happens.
Nobody comes into a grad school saying, I've got a list of questions that I want to ask because I've been reading since I was four.
You inevitably must apprentice.
you might have an interest, you might have a general idea that you'd rather study the brain as opposed to the GI tract, but that does not fundamentally change you need to apprentice.
So now he's gonna say, we should end the apprentice system and just give people their own money to buy whatever shit they want and teach themselves whatever they need to learn.
in their mid-40s before they can have any chance of getting a large NIH grant.
You have mid-40s?
How about the beginning of my 50s, you asshole?
He knows me.
He knows that I got fired from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine after working with a Nobel Prize winner a few years earlier.
He knows that I got fired by CHD after working with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
for a whole year earlier than that.
And he just ignores me and my family because he's exactly where he's supposed to be from the moment he was recruited to do the Santa Clara study.
Postdoc after postdoc after postdoc, where you're essentially doing the bidding of a senior scientist for a decade or more of your youth.
It wasn't always like this.
It's an apprenticeship.
That's how it works.
You think you can just go to tech school and then get out and start making knives and sell them for $3,000 each because you're a custom knife maker?
That's not how this works.
This is just a guy who doesn't, any clue what he's talking about.
Just talking bullshit right now.
I'm sorry, but this is, again, I'm just being the layman.
That sounds like a medieval guild.
That sounds like a closed shop protecting itself.
I'm sorry to say, protecting itself.
It's broken.
And I want to fix it.
And people have recognized this is broken for a long time.
But I think the NIH- There have to be all kinds of good people within the system who, in some sense, know better.
Yeah.
I mean, but again, the incentives are set up.
And they take really good care of their postdocs.
And they pay their postdocs really well.
And they fight for their postdocs to get extra space.
Yes, there are a lot of faculty members who take very good care of their apprentices.
It doesn't look like it on paper.
They can't pay them as much as they would like to.
But it's not what they're saying here.
It's a terrible system.
It doesn't work very well.
People need to be paid more at the lower levels.
But the way that they train people is not wrong.
What they fund is wrong.
How much money they spend on bad null hypotheses.
Yes, that's all wrong.
But he's not really describing the problem in an honest way.
He's characterizing it very, very ineptly.
to reward a successful project rather than to reward successful portfolios.
It's set up to create a vast, you know, sort of high.
And so if you don't understand project and portfolio in this context, I guess he's just talking over your head.
I mean, come on, this is just jackassery.
Hierarchies where people at the bottom of the hierarchy are feeding into your ideas rather than
I need to get lunch, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't forget that your consciousness is prime real estate.
If you let people like Jay Bhattacharya determine what you're thinking about and really think that he's saying something profound, you are already enslaved.
Get off of Rumble, get off of X, get off of these more perverted places where you have no idea who you're talking to, like Telegram and Signal, big Signal chats.
Just get rid of all of it.
You know, you can send emails to me and your family and friends.
It works great.
Ladies and gentlemen, bad biology is the trap that we're in.
Evolution because DNA is the central lie.
Endemicity is one of these myths that based on that lie.
It's for all the marbles.
That's why there's a fake anti-vax movement in America.
If you want to see through it, understand there's an irreducible complex background composed of genetic signals that come from bacteria and the phages they produce.
And that irreducibly complex background could have been distorted as a novel spread simply using a nonspecific set of PCR tests, which they most certainly used and put out over 200 of them in the USA alone.
200 EUA tests all off the market now.
And if you use their tests to find their ghosts, you weren't finding real ghosts and you were never a ghostbuster.
Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for being here.
Intramuscular injection is still dumb.
RNA still can't pandemic and transfecting heavy people is still a crime because
The population pyramids are real.
Thanks for being here.
I hope you have a great weekend.
I don't think I'm streaming this weekend, but you never know.
There might be a surprise and otherwise I'll be back on Monday for another thunderous week.
And maybe some Biology 101 finally again.
I think I kind of pounded this nail deep enough into the wall.
I don't know if it's going to come back out or not though.
That's what keeps happening.
The nails, I'm pounding all the nails into the deck on one side and then I walk over to the other side of the deck and all those nails are out again.
And so as long as this show of traders who I have a personal relationship with, and incidentally a personal vendetta with many of them, this show's never going away.
I hope your family is well.
I hope you have a great weekend.
And I hope you stay off of social media as much as possible.
Thanks for being here.
Love you all very much.
See you soon.
But one thing I am confident of, from everything I've read, is that this RNA exists, you can capture it, you can sequence it, you can move it to other cells and recapitulate the disease.
In condition that we will not call autism, I don't like the word autism, he was vaccine damaged.