Ladies and gentlemen, testing one two, RNA cannot pandemic, intramuscular injections are not a form of medicine, transfection is a crime, and the pandemic, sorry, the population pyramids are real.
Hello, everybody.
Welcome to the show.
Good to see you.
SolarFire number one in the Twitch chat.
Please don't forget to go to JC in the Woods to see if you can subscribe to that channel and make sure that we're a little more resilient on that incredibly lame platform called YouTube.
They have put some restrictions on the JC on a bike channel and I consider that thing almost a a national historic document that I don't really want to Further risk losing so I'm gonna start streaming on a couple other channels And of course, I'm always on stream dot giga ohm dot bio You're always welcome to watch there and definitely welcome to a download there the main memory and the main message of this stream is of course
that the background signal was never differentiated from and in fact there was no requirement for anyone to demonstrate anything worked in the real world just in a lab bench just when compared to a distilled water control
or maybe a rigged control that had no chance of overlapping with the primers that were supposedly specific for something else.
And this illusion is now permanently sustained by the FDA not questioning it.
The FDA should have regulated every one of these PCR tests individually as a new occurrence of a unique medical device.
And they didn't because of the emergency of the pandemic.
And one way or another, it's very difficult for me at this point not to see the primary outcome of the pandemic to be the establishment of PCR as an accepted gold standard of diagnostic for a wide variety and actually for anything.
We are now using it to do measles as
As ironically as it sounds, we were using PCR to do measles already back when Andrew Wakefield was doing measles.
And it's only now as we pull back and start to see it from different time horizons that you can really see that this is one malevolent hamster wheel and different parts of this story have been repeatedly given to us in little bits over time.
And then they come back in the form of somebody else's book or in the form of somebody else's shtick.
And at the end, we are still where we were when Mary Holland went on Democracy Now in 2015 and kind of argued with Paul Offit that some portion of these multi-antigen, multi-adjuvant tests, sorry, vaccines damaged her son.
And he went on to say that she was nuts for the last 15 years.
This is a staged,
nonsense argument that is being sustained by the same nonsense actors.
And if America cannot wake up to this, our grandchildren will not have an America anymore.
They are going to destroy our country from within by dividing the populace on these nonsense narratives that are based on using their tests to find their ghosts and then declaring ourselves on their social media ghostbusters.
That's what's happening here.
We are pretending that we are in the real world when the vast majority of whatever we're doing is on social media.
And so effectively, we are not only using their tests to find their ghosts and calling ourselves a ghostbuster, making their ghosts real, but we're doing it on their stage, arguing with their words, arguing with their experts, debating their questions,
And that's not happening anymore on GigaOM Biological.
It's not happening anymore on Heucytonic Live.
It's now clear that the entire foundational biology that this pandemic is based on is the same ridiculous biology that has been perpetuated by the Human Genomes Project's endless announcements of its extended accomplishments.
that Francis Collins himself often jokes about.
The truth is is that RNA can't do that.
The truth is intramuscular injection is not a form of medicine.
The truth is that transfecting healthy people was always a crime.
They knew it wouldn't work, but they had to start somewhere because testing things on animals only finds out whether and how it works on animals.
which is part of the reality of the Bad Biology 101, the assumption is that we all have this common ancestor, and so we all have this common set of molecular tools that we're all trapped by and we all use.
And that allows us to argue that evolution is real and that we're all a consequence of like a bacteria that just kept dividing and kept adding complexity.
And this is absolute nonsense and does not adequately describe the pattern integrity that bacteria represent, never mind the
the whole of creation that they claim to understand because DNA and evolution.
It's remarkable how little progress has been made actually in understanding better the irreducible complexity of life on earth, but instead, so much progress has been made in not understanding, purposefully not understanding it, and putting thousands of
of smart thinking people answering questions that make no progress in understanding the irreducible complexity of life on earth.
One thing I am confident of from everything I've read is that this RNA exists, you can capture it, you can sequence it, you can move it to other cells and recapitulate disease.
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 autism, I don't like the word autism, he was vaccine damaged.
He was neurologically damaged.
In condition that we... It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones.
Until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, and it's measles plus.
Okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles, because not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end.
No, when we have this new pandemic that 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.
The company that originally produced it knows that.
They've chosen a short sequence that they think is relevant.
It is a short sequence that just comes from one of the open reading frame one proteins.
We are being duped by a non-specific test and we would have gotten these numbers or numbers very similar to them with or without this pandemic because we've never looked for SARS viruses as they are spread through our population.
We've just never looked.
Nobody sampled for it until this year.
That's a huge point to make.
because the SARS virus originally appeared in 2003 and disappeared in 2004.
But it didn't really disappear, it just became not a problem.
Descendants of that virus, of various virulence and infectivity have circulated in the time since.
They didn't disappear.
Now keep in mind that I've made a lot of progress since July of 2020 in my understanding of what virology is and isn't.
And I've come to understand virology as almost exclusively transfection experiments in cell culture.
Transfection experiments that involve cloned sequences, sequences that are grown up in high pure quantity and then applied to a cell culture or applied to an animal model and said to replicate the natural infection that is blamed on these full sequences that cannot be, that repeat, cannot be found in the wild.
except with metagenomic sequencing or some other, what could be best called as like a surrogate signal.
If we find a football in the backyard, that means that you have an NFL team in your house.
And so we're gonna go buy an NFL team and bring them over for dinner.
And that is a simulation of what we think happens at dinnertime.
Although it's really hard to make it happen if we just find a football in the backyard and we try to grow a football team.
But when we find a football team in the backyard, we just, or sorry, a football in the backyard, we just assume that an NFL football team has been here.
And so it's totally okay if you want to study how NFL football teams could wreck your house or how NFL football teams could really ruin a dinner, then the way you start is you buy yourself an NFL football team and you put it in somebody's house.
Even though the only signal you have in nature is that every once in a while you find a football in somebody's backyard.
And you put Peter Daszak on the 60 Minutes saying that, wow, you know, I find footballs everywhere.
These football teams are just waiting to come out of any jungle or bat cave and kick your ass and ruin your family dinner.
Maybe that's not a very good analogy, but it's pretty close to the kind of leaps of faith that are made with regard to the molecular biology of coronaviruses, the molecular biology of any virus in a mammal.
where you just have to assume that there's no bacteria or no bacteriophage anywhere in there that might be providing the signal that you purport is this mammalian virus.
And more importantly, the main signal, that genetic signal that they claim to have found is only ever a fragment.
It's only ever a football in the backyard.
It's never the whole football team.
At best, at best, they find somebody at your barbecue that played college football, and then they say, see, there was an NFL football team here.
Or at least we know for sure that there is the possibility that NFL football teams could come out of your backyard.
And this test is not specific for any one of them.
And no one has ever done a study about how many descendants there are, how many people are infected, how many animals have been infected by it, etc.
So, the next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of America, of the American people, is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us, to ruin
You know, the thing is, the average football team, if it was just a high school football team, it's totally fine.
If a high school football team comes over to your house and has pizza and watches a movie with your sons, it's totally okay.
They'll be a mess, but they'll probably even help you clean it up.
And they'll say, thanks, Mrs. Cooey, when they go off with their moms, you know, their moms come and pick them up and they drive away.
But if it's an NFL football team,
You know, a team that was put together carefully by a bunch of scouts that were picking the baddest of badasses for defensive ends, and almost criminally violent people in the secondary of the defense, and getting some guy who used steroids right up until his senior year of college to be the running back, then you could call that a gain-of-function football team.
You wouldn't want an NFL football team in your house, because man, oh man, they are really dangerous.
Man alive, holy cow.
Maybe America, I don't know.
Crash the dollar, I don't know.
Steal the rest of our, what limited treasury value we have left, I don't know.
but I know for sure that they are combining.
And the thing is, only NFL football teams have a leather football.
So if you find a plastic football in your backyard, those are really common.
Those are everywhere.
But if you find a leather football and one that's not too weathered, you better be scared because that's a sign that there might be a zoonosis about to happen and a football team is about to hammer you.
Our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of
good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary and more importantly never be possible.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm excited to be here.
It's a good day.
It's gonna be a very good day.
Mark already put out a nice show.
Mark's work has just, our gears are meshing right now.
And, you know, just anything, anywhere you look, you're looking in the right place now because you're asking the right questions.
And it feels,
It feels really special to be where we are.
I'm not getting choked up.
I'm trying not to burp from my coffee, I apologize.
It's really fantastic where we are.
I wake up in the morning, I'm excited and I'm optimistic and I think it's not for nothing.
And I'm very thankful.
I feel very grateful to be in the place that I am.
I'm really thankful for a lot of people that have made this possible.
There's some really special,
people that have taken a huge risk on me and believing in me, even when, yeah, I don't know, maybe I was less than optimistic.
And I probably will be less than optimistic again.
But it's this unwavering level of support that makes this little ship float.
And I'm just really glad to be here.
I'm really proud to be here after so many years.
So see you in a few minutes.
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!
I guess I'm going to be here already right now.
I wasn't going to disappear anywhere.
But this is GigaOM Biological High Resistance Low Noise Information Brief brought to you by a biologist.
It is an extraordinary place that we find ourselves.
I don't know what to say other than I do think it's a very, very smart strategy to stay focused on learning biology as much as you can.
And stay focused on learning things, reading things.
Spending your time on thoughts that you choose and don't take their bait on social media.
You can waste a lot of time and develop a lot of stress just by reading fake messages on social media.
And that's a big risk that you take now.
and using social media and your grind requires you to have neighbors that you trust, neighbors that you love.
You need friends.
You need to court and cultivate real relationships.
And the relationship you have with me, I guess, is kind of a real relationship, but I really mean people that you can sit down with on your back porch and hug when they come over and hug when they leave.
I'm missing a lot of that myself.
And I'm working very hard to find a way to get off of social media while still using it against them.
But right now I don't know if I'm accomplishing that.
CHD has blocked me now, finally, on X. As have a few other people that have taken a long time to do it.
And so now it just kind of seems more and more like, you know, you can be in the shouting part of the audience, but it doesn't really, really matter anymore.
Because it's a fake place.
Social media is a fake place.
Ladies and gentlemen, autism spectrum disorder is a myth used to make sure that intramuscular injection is never questioned as a methodology, that virology is never questioned as a science, and that public health is never questioned as a reason.
Same goes for pandemics and gain-of-function.
They're just turning up the heat with regard to protecting these myths.
solidifying these myths and making sure that under duress we would pass these myths on to our children.
So if you don't understand the trap, and that is that you are supposed to tell your children this, and then you will not understand why the cheese yet remains free.
The way out is biology.
We need to teach our kids this biology so that frauds like Kevin McKernan and Kevin McCairn are never ever
allowed to sort of pass this stuff on using social media.
They're going to be there.
Social media is going to have them there.
And we've got to stop that.
We've got to make sure to stop that.
And that's what GigaOM Biological is going to try to do.
I guess I got to hit this.
I think that's the best way to do it.
I didn't think about that.
Michiel, up in heaven, probably still really happy that I'm using his mix.
Michiel is a friend of mine from Amsterdam, passed away at age 38.
Nothing to do with COVID, but this is his mix that I often use in his honor.
Great friend.
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jonathan Cooey.
I'm Chief Biologist at Gig Owen Biological.
I'm coming to you live out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the back of my garage.
You can find my ideas sometimes obfuscated and half-represented here on a substack called Woodhouse 76.
Woodhouse 76 is written by a trader in Chicago by the name of Jessica Hockett who meddled with myself and my family for a few months in 2023 and 24 along with some members of Panda including Nick Hudson and
and Jonathan Engler, and they use my arguments poorly to have fake arguments with Claire Craig and Pierre Corey and Mike Eden and even Jay Bhattacharya, my former barbecue buddy.
Yeah, it's remarkable where we are, but it's not to be.
I don't think it's a bad thing.
I think it's just where we are.
I used to be a staff scientist for Children's Health Defense.
I got that job because I helped Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
write the Wuhan cover-up book.
I taught myself a lot of virology and biology during that time.
And as a result, I've come to the conclusion that virology is a hoax, but not the hoax that the no-virus people have been telling us.
The no-virus people are actually on the same team as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's advisors like Robert Malone and Meryl Nass and Mary Holland.
You don't need to separate Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman and the Baileys from
CHD, you just have to see them as part of the same show.
It's all one Lollapalooza of liars, they're just all on different platforms.
That's the reason why YouTube says that I don't have a sufficient channel history, but Sam Bailey is welcome to put as much content on YouTube as she wants to, because she is part of this bullshit narrative that is really essentially at the heart of the controlled demolition of America.
And that's why I come to you as a multiracial American.
And I oftentimes remind everybody that this is an American stream.
If you are here for a while, you are at the top of the wave.
And if not, you might be down there at the bottom with skilled TV watchers, skilled social media users.
But definitely the message of GigaOM Biological is to stay focused on the biology we can know.
Not take their bait on social media because it's awful.
And to love your neighbor.
I mean, actually, know who they are.
And talk to them, even if they don't like Trump.
Because actually, you're under a spell not that dissimilar to what people who don't like Trump.
That's the same kind of spell, just a different side of it.
It's just that magical.
because it was put on you for that long.
It's been years now that this enchantment has been cast and remains sustained.
It's being cast all the time, even by some of us who don't know that by reading the script of a lab leak, we were enchanting people.
The way that Gigo and Biological works is that this is really fueled by about 110 people.
about 105 subscribers and three or four people that not only subscribe but also give larger monthly donations that I just I don't know what to say other than thank you very much.
If you want to be a part of that team go to gigahomebiological.com you can find a support Giga Home button right there in the middle.
Also there's a whole row of links at the top
that include a link called Stuff, where you can find a lot of the things that I talk about.
They're always there just in a chronological order.
There's a schedule that...
Not really following yet.
There's ways to find us, and then there's of course ways to support us there.
And every single one of you that is helping with that, I just can't thank you enough.
This is really an amazing privilege to be a part of the independent bright web that we are establishing.
I guess I'm the only channel so far.
Mark has not officially adopted the moniker yet, because I guess he's actually my handler, so he's never gonna do that.
But anyway.
All joking aside, I'm gonna fade this out, try and get myself on screen here.
I guess I already have that set up, so I could just go...
So I have accused over the past week or so, and over the past years, a number of people of being basically scripted bullshit and reading scripted bullshit, even if it's just a small bit, some pieces of talking points and a few third rail words that you're not supposed to use or third rail people you're not supposed to mention.
Brett Weinstein is my favorite example because he exhibits a lot of this sort of,
overconfidence and certainty in himself and in his conclusions that leads me to believe that he has for a while been working on a script that he believes is part of the real plan the real narrative or
a national security narrative that he has been entrusted to enforce.
And either way, you would exhibit this sort of confident, you know, prison guard-like mentality that I know what's best for you and I know what's going on because I have all the keys.
And so, without a doubt, both of these people are, to a certain extent, read in on the idea that they're important to America.
They're important to Donald Trump.
They're important to Elon Musk.
They're important to somebody at Rumble.
They're a valued Rumble producer, a valued locals customer.
Our sponsors really like us.
You know, something like that, that as a whole equation just kind of adds up to them thinking that they're actually doing something good.
I don't necessarily think they're entirely evil.
However,
I do think that Brett knows that he has gotten in the way of and stolen the ideas of many people in the course of this five years.
And on purpose, sort of given that job, almost like they took him aside, you know, like Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.
and Robert Malone and Peter Thiel.
And they all sat him down on a boat somewhere and said, hey, you know what we need you to do?
We need you to steal the ideas that we feed you to represent them as your own and keep this narrative on trail and on track because we've got a pretty big problem.
And we got this anti-vax movement and we thought we had it under control with Bobby Kennedy, but actually we don't.
That's that's where we were.
That's the reason why Sam Harris was on Joe Rogan, you know, Joe Rogan on on Brett Weinstein's eighth podcast, eighth podcast.
You see, they realized very quickly at the start of, let's say, 2019.
that they were in a position not to run a pandemic.
They didn't have everything ready to go yet.
Everything was not going very smoothly.
So they started putting a bunch of people in place in 2019 in a way that can only be seen as a military operation.
The people, the way that they started podcasting, the way they knew they had to podcast, identified the podcast, the podcast, identified the podcast,
as the medium by which the narrative would need to be controlled once the narrative was in need of controlling.
It's not by accident, okay, that that happened.
Now, on the other hand, you're going to have to believe that my track record on YouTube is by accident.
And I'm asking you to believe that.
That is the truth.
But the difference would be that my appearance on YouTube and conversion to the LabLeak discussion and the LabLeak mystery solving exercise had a lot to do with the reaction to my speculation about it by my own university.
In no way, shape or form can Brett Weinstein claim that he was doing something else on YouTube when the pandemic started.
He just started, it was his eighth podcast.
I already had 20 plus podcasts that all had one theme.
I was riding my bike to work, doing journal club on my bike about neuroscience papers.
And so I was,
innocently enough trying to do something on social media that used my bike ride that I could maybe argue made my CV somewhat interesting from a tenure perspective, from a teaching perspective, from a teaching faculty perspective.
I'd already given in to the idea that I wasn't gonna be some kind of R01 grant administering soon to be associate professor.
I was looking for a way to transition into kind of like
permanent research assistant professor where I could do, you know, microscope work and teach and supervise grad students while I taught a few courses for money.
Like, extra money.
That's the highest goals that I had at that point, and I thought YouTube would be a cool way to do it.
Now, I enjoyed it.
I liked it a lot.
I edited all my own videos.
What you see here and what you see on YouTube is a trap.
It is no different than cable TV with 400 channels.
It is an elaborate team of performers with costumes all on the same basic script, or at least a script provided by the same sources with the same underlying motivations.
And it's not just a few of these guys, it's hundreds of them.
They can make you believe anything.
including that they need help stopping and starting the train.
Please grab a pair of gloves and help us.
That's the illusion that they are able to cast using social media in any context.
They want you to vote Republican.
They want you to oppose the World Health Organization.
They want you to buy Jordan shoes.
It's all the same show.
And they can put YouTube channels out there that just happen to cover that shoes, those shoes, and cut them in half and say how amazing this new pair of Jordans is.
And at the same time, there can be some random podcast about football that also says, hey, by the way, did you see those new Jordans?
Those are crazy.
And so by the time you've been on social media for a week, it seems like everybody's decided to buy the new Jordans.
Or it seems like everybody is worried about the people that are falling down in China.
On the sidewalk, did you see that?
One was in the mall.
That's how they pulled the pandemic off.
And one of the reasons why they pulled this off was because the FDA needs getting rid of.
And so one of the main goals of the pandemic was to fully discredit the FDA as an institution, fully discredit its mandate to provide safe and effective products that the labels are correct, and the claims that are made on the labels are correct.
They need to get rid of that organization because that organization and its mandate over medical devices essentially is one of the ways that the entire pandemic narrative could be erased.
If the authority of the FDA was used to reinvestigate, to open all of the files about all of the PCR tests that were used in 2020, we could dispel the mythology that there was ever anything and realize that, holy shit, we gave 220 EUAs to PCR tests, many of which were produced in China, that could have never been specific for any one
like genetic signal because they only had one amplicon in them and that amplicon was only 300 amino acids long and that could be from anything because there's an irreducibly complex background of bacterial signals.
that many of which could have that small segment of genetic code in them somewhere, or one close enough related to it that the primers will pull up a fluorescent signal that you'll call positive because these are all proprietary tests with no controls.
And at the time during the pandemic, when these guys were doing streams together for three years, 21, 22,
They never questioned the PCR once, just in the same way that Kevin McCairn and Jessica Rose never questioned the PCR once.
And the only people that did question the PCR talked about overcycling over and over and over again, as if overcycling was the only way that PCR could be used nefariously.
And so we are here right now where two of the three of these clowns are directly at the top of the FDA.
Maybe the FDA doesn't need to be destroyed if you just put people who will do what they're told at the top of the FDA and only regulate the things that they are told to regulate at the top of the FDA.
Wouldn't it be really strange if the head of the FDA hired somebody to be the head of the Biologics Evaluation and Research Group, you know, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, that guy, if he put that guy in charge of that stuff, and that guy actually thought that we would be better off without the FDA, wouldn't that be weird?
I think that would be pretty weird.
Look, I think there's a really good explanation for why these people are where they are, why these people were where they are in my life for the last five years, why some of them paid me, why some of them lied about me.
why some of them stole my ideas, why some of them have ridiculed me even up until today on X. I don't know if it's visible to anybody else but me, but this guy in Jikki Leaks were actually making fun of me today, asking me where the canisters for the clones were sprayed are.
I shit you not.
And that is only because we have them dead on, balls accurate, exactly where they are.
They are traders, or at least in my mind, they are traders.
They are probably national security agents working for some part of the government or some part of NATO that has a international mandate to go around the world and make sure that everybody believes in viruses, gain-of-function viruses, and DNA contamination.
And that nobody in the world ever uses transfection to describe what these products always were.
But he's related to them makes it really weird, doesn't it?
The idea that this is all one malevolent show that seems to be a really easy way to unite the extremists from all the different sides into one weird conservative movement that we could use to do it.
It's like herding cats.
It's just like herding cats.
So most people know me as a US presidential candidate.
You probably hadn't heard of me before that, most of you at least.
But actually before that, my prior career, I had started an asset management firm called Strive to compete against BlackRock.
But before that, I was a biotech entrepreneur.
Okay, so what you're supposed to believe is that before he started a hedge fund that was supposed to compete with BlackRock, he was a biotech entrepreneur.
And so basically, he just works harder than you.
Money happens a lot more often and much bigger for him than for you.
Despite all, you know, you just don't put the hours in that this billionaire does.
That's the thing.
He's just gonna say, you know, it's tough.
You know, some people are just good at stuff and I'm just good at stuff.
And I ran for president in America.
And that, what that really is, is just making fun of you.
Making fun of me, making fun of Mark, making fun of all Americans because this guy ran for president.
He's much better than us.
He's a billionaire.
He's like 10,000 times more successful on average per day than any of us are.
Think about that.
On average, he's 10,000 times more successful per day than we are.
And that's just because he's really smart, really hardworking, and he showed up more than you did.
Kept his arms much straighter than you.
Founded a biotech company called Royven.
I led it as CEO for seven years.
Founded it in 2014.
Today, the company just had its 10 year anniversary.
More recently, earlier this month, I've overseen the development of five medicines, five of which went on to become FDA approved.
He's overseen the development of five medicines.
You know, it's like the guy who says that I oversee the company that digs tunnels and the company that flies rockets and the company that floats satellites and the company that
builds electric cars and really, really dumb stainless steel trucks.
Like, come on!
The only idea, I believe, is actually Elon Musk's is the electric stainless steel truck.
That thing has Elon Musk written all over it.
Many more which failed along the way, but I have interacted with the FDA, and I know something about the FDA, like most people in the pharmaceutical industry do, but they're not allowed to talk about it.
Here's what one of the dirtiest little secrets is in the pharmaceutical industry is an old adage that goes FDA never forgets.
If you criticize the FDA, you know you can expect adverse consequences in response.
Does that mean they're not going to approve your drug when it comes up to the time of approval?
Actually, it's far more insidious than that.
Most people don't understand this.
It's not like the FDA just makes a decision on the back end after you've done all of your trial work, deciding on the back end of whether or not it gets approved.
Now remember, what we're saying is that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's father was involved in the formation of the FDA.
and that the formation of the FDA even revolved around the original thalidomide scandal in Denmark, so much so that Brett Weinstein's father actually seems to have gone to Denmark at that time as part of this whole investigation.
A guy by the name of Estes Kieffhofer was a senior senator at the time, also a major driver in the formation of the FDA.
One might be able to argue, depending on how you read history, that Estes Kieffhofer wanted the FDA to be a much more
strict and powerful organization that it ended up being, but nevertheless, Les Weinstein, the father of Brett and Eric Weinstein, Eric Weinstein being a financial advisor to Peter Thiel, these guys
are now on the dark web, on the internet, telling us what to think, arguing about what to think, leading the way, rescuing the republic from the conservative side, I guess.
And at the same time being made fun of by the other side, being pointed at as obvious goofballs by the other side, just like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is being pointed at as an obvious goofball recovering addict, not to be taken seriously, is very, very well done.
on the other side now maybe if you think about may 29th 2024 this guy doing a podcast why do billionaires do podcasts
If I was a billionaire, I assure you, I wouldn't be doing this anymore.
I would find lots of other people to do this stuff and script them and tell them what to do.
I wouldn't myself be a podcaster as a billionaire, unless I was paid to do it, told to do it, a government agent doing it as part of using social media, making social media relevant enough so that it becomes the new mainstream media.
That's what you see here.
Somebody trying to do his best for the ruling class, the overclass that wants this power shift to occur.
And he's gonna get all the benefits of the programming of these platforms that he's on, because again, as long as you're with him, then you're with him.
Otherwise, you can't explain why somebody like this would do a podcast in the first place.
Does he really love being on camera so much?
Does he really believe he has such a message that, you know, talking about the FDA and explaining how corrupt of an organization it is is so important that he can't pay somebody else to do it?
He's got to do it himself?
After failing to run for president, why would he do what?
He ran for president.
I mean, it's, when you think about it now, when you see it,
As Mark Kulak has, where, where did all these Indians come from?
proved or not.
It's not a binary question.
Turns out the entire process, all the way from the conception of your idea in a lab, your preclinical testing, all the way to testing in animals, all the way to the early human testing in healthy volunteers, to patients, all of that, every little microstep, is actually gatekept by the FDA.
So if you do something the FDA doesn't like, they will actually blackball you at every step along the way in a manner that will never be visible to the public.
It's not going to be some sort of politically palpable
approval decision at the end to say they rejected your drug.
That's not how it works.
And this is a perfect example of how the deep state works more broadly.
Works not through a bang, but through a whimper, through the boring motions of the administrative process.
So now he's using the term deep state to talk about what?
To talk about the U.S.
government?
See how this imprecision actually works against us?
because if you realize how many people, 700,000 subscribers on YouTube, 500,000 people seeing his videos, that's a lot of people that are allowing him to put dumb thoughts in their head for 20 minutes.
through the technocracy, they bore you into actually effectuating their own agenda.
Now, what could criticizing the FDA include?
Here's one example.
President Trump actually saw through a law and saw it through into passage that expanded the right to try, the idea that you as a patient had a right to try a therapy, even if it wasn't approved.
I believe in this.
This is part of medical choice.
We've talked a lot about medical choice in the last several years.
Medical choice is an illusion.
It's a mythology used to make sure that nobody ever usefully questions the public health as a reason or an answer, that nobody ever questions virology as a science, and that nobody ever questions intramuscular injection as a methodology.
It's so easy to see, it's kind of brutal.
in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID vaccines.
And in that context, medical choice means that I shouldn't have to take something just because the FDA has approved it.
But the mirror image of medical choice, which I also believe in equally, is that just because the FDA hasn't approved something doesn't mean that you shouldn't be able to take it if you want to make a decision for yourself about what the health consequences are or aren't to you, especially for life-saving therapies or potentially life-saving therapies that people are otherwise desperately denied if they haven't been through the FDA process.
What if I tell you this, for example?
I just want to throw this out there because it's an interesting debate to have, but maybe something you can have with your friends.
Sit at the fire and realize that in some states in America, it's not required to wear a motorcycle helmet.
And in other states, it's required to wear a motorcycle helmet.
Imagine the idea that you're allowed to make that choice or you're not allowed to make that choice and what arguments you might make about the choice or not the choice.
And then later on in the program, remind me about motorcycle helmets and I'll see if I can remember these arguments that I'm thinking in my head right now because they're useful.
But first, digest that problem.
While we're listening to this, think about the idea of mandating motorcycle helmets and why you would do it.
Because I have a good reason why you should mandate motorcycle helmets that have nothing to do with protecting the rider and the rider's head.
How about that?
At least not directly.
That's not the reason why you protect the motorcycle rider's head is not for the motorcycle rider himself or herself.
Think about that for a minute.
So President Trump, I think, correctly passed and signed into law a statute that expanded the right to try.
But then there's something mysterious.
Is this guy running for a governor of Ohio?
Holy shit, that would be terrible to happen.
None of the biotech companies, none of the pharmaceutical companies were actually making their therapies available for the right to try, even for patients who wanted to try them.
Why?
The dirty little secret is the FDA hates this law.
They hate the existence of this law because it creates an alternative road, an alternative path that allows patients and innovators to sidestep the FDA.
And they hate that, so effectively what they, through the back door, transmitted subliminally and indirectly
and perhaps even directly to industry, was the idea that if you use this to make your therapy available, you will face the consequences, not only when you try to get approval for that very therapy through the main process, but even for any other therapy that comes in through the IND, the Investigational New Drug Application process in the first place.
That is the retribution of the administrative state, such as the FDA.
You see it in three-letter agencies across the board.
And so now he's got a whole list of questions that you should be asking, a whole list of potential corruption you're supposed to be considering, a whole complex web of things that include IND, the independent new drug.
It's all an elaborate mythology.
It's all an elaborate enchantment.
In this case, this is the stupid complicated version where he's going to try and bombard you with data and with names and with acronyms to make you feel like you can't understand.
This is just an ugly administrative process.
The FDA's freaking mandate is very, very simple.
Primarily, they're supposed to make sure that what's on the label is in the bottle and that what's claimed on the label is actually true.
That's not the perfect way to say it, but that's pretty close.
And so if you don't want an organization whose primary mandate is that, and instead you're arguing about all these other issues about the approval process and how long it takes and whatever, the main thing you're getting approved is what are you putting on the label?
What are you claiming it can do?
What are you claiming it does?
That's what the approval process is about.
So think about that as we move forward with regard to this video and what they say.
Countless other three-letter agencies that will come after you if you dare to sue them for questioning one of their regulations.
But today we're gonna actually focus on the, what I call failed drug administration, the FDA.
and ask a question that I think is obvious and ought to be asked.
It's at least a question that deserves to be debated.
Are we or are we not better off?
Are Americans actually better off today because of the existence of the FDA?
They could fill in the blank.
You should be able to ask the same question of the CDC, of the NIH.
You could ask it of countless other administrative agencies too.
But for today's topic, we're gonna focus on the health-focused agencies, particularly with a special focus on the FDA.
Are American patients better off or are they worse off because of the existence and the mandate of the FDA?
Are prescription drug prices higher today because of the FDA?
The answer to that question is absolutely yes.
I mean, there's no doubt about that fact.
The FDA is a gatekeeper to competition.
The fact that they're a gatekeeper to competition is used, you could say exploited, but I'll just say used by the pharmaceutical industry to be able to forestall further competition to their own drug.
This does not have to be untrue.
This could be true as part of his 90% true stuff that he's saying here, but in the end,
remember this is a charlatan and we're going to hear a lot of bullshit that mostly will be big ideas about why the FDA he's already told you that maybe the FDA is something we don't need in the law maybe it's worse for us and in certain categories where they know the payers are going to pay for it even when there is competition then they'll use the FDA in those categories say in the category of cancer drugs to be able to shepherd drugs through because there they're going to get the minimal price it's paid for anyway
But in other areas, they actually use the FDA as a gatekeeper to make sure that they're insulated from competition from drugs that can be made by compounding pharmacies or even generics providers, that the FDA is able to serve as a regulatory technocratically stamped
regulatorily accepted gatekeeper to preserving the absence of competition, which actually drives up prescription drug prices.
So prices are higher, but what are we getting in return?
They say the thing we get is that we have the gold standard in the world.
The FDA approval, that seal of approval, means that we can actually trust what's behind that medicine, and that's worth those higher prices.
That's worth those delays.
That's how the argument goes.
But it's fascinating then that the same agency that has said for years that you cannot have a safely developed drug or vaccine, unless it has been through 10 years of testing, on average, a billion dollars or more for the development of each of those drugs or vaccines, that you cannot even have the right to try that medication or that vaccine for yourself.
It would be too dangerous if it hadn't gone through that process, that that same agency is the one that shepherded right through the process of X.
How does the stream look on Twitch?
It looked like the chat disconnected for a second.
Am I still okay on timing?
I think people are messing with us.
We're gonna keep going.
...scene that was developed in a matter of nine months, which then the federal government not only made available and said that you have an opportunity to use, despite the fact that it only was developed in nine months, but that you have no choice but not to take after it was developed for just nine months.
You can't believe... Can you believe what he's doing here?
The list of dumb questions and the combination in which he's applying them?
Now he's suggesting that the FDA approving the vaccines is what made them possible to be mandated.
It has nothing to do with the murder in hospitals being misconstrued as an ongoing, perhaps worst case scenario that could result in a billion people dead.
It is crazy to think that now, just like Kevin McKernan tried to blame the lack of PCR testing on the FDA in 2020 and made the EUA 10-page application just a lead weight on, we could have already solved this pandemic if the FDA weren't in the way.
And six years later, this is five years later, I guess, you have a former candidate for president
super clown, Vivek, telling you that you need to consider whether or not the FDA is even helping us anymore.
How more dead on balls accurate could Mark and I be when we said that, wow, maybe this is a lot about the FDA.
Maybe it has something to do with intellectual property.
Maybe that explains why Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan and Steve Bannon and Aaron Seery are all involved in this.
Hmm.
and Brett Weinstein's frigging dad.
Come on.
Both of these things at the same time.
And the reason I'm so fascinated by the FDA is not only because it's an industry that I've dealt with, it's an agency that I've dealt with firsthand.
But even more deeply, it's an emblem of how the administrative state works.
Wrapping around fundamentally political questions, normative questions, questions relating to values, actually.
What are the trade-offs of making a therapy available or not?
What is the proper role for an expert in adjudicating the way a doctor treats a patient?
To wrap those fundamentally normative questions, questions of values,
with a technocratic veneer to say that there is one scientific answer to that question.
And there are a few things that bother me more than the bastardization of science by using it as a cloak to advance what is fundamentally a political or normative choice.
Wow, I've never heard him so clearly as a massive bullshitter that I'm hearing right now.
This is shocking.
There are certain questions that are answered by science through the empirical process, through the scientific method, that are the kinds of questions that are answered empirically.
But the question of whether or not drug prices should or should not be higher in favor of consumer choice, those are questions of trade-offs.
Those are policy questions that are not answered by science, but are supposed to be in our country answered by the people.
And the rise of this three-letter technocracy, the modern administrative state, including the alphabet soup from CDC to NIH to FDA, is the rise of a new class of quasi-monarch technocrats who... You see there's some subtle neuro-linguistic programming tricks and language tricks that he uses in there.
Not that dissimilar to the speech pattern of somebody like Tucker Carlson.
The NIH, the FDA, the CDC.
it's very it's very disturbing how rehearsed this is and it's gross because now what you should see is a traitor what you should see is a purposeful fraud somebody who accepted a role a character to play with nefarious
you know, traitorous goals.
There's no way.
There's no way to argue that this guy is a patriotic American.
There's absolutely no way to argue that.
This is a traitor.
If he's an American, he's a traitor.
And if he's a foreigner, then he is a saboteur and a conspirator and somebody who needs to be in jail.
Reject the idea that we, the people, are supposed to create the policies that govern ourselves.
And so for that discussion today, we're going to talk about other agencies in other episodes.
But for today, with that focus on the FDA, and a little bit of the CDC, I've brought on somebody who I haven't actually met before directly.
But I've been following him on social media for some time.
He caught my attention during the presidential campaign.
I liked a lot of what he had to say about the FDA.
It was brave.
He's a physician.
He's a trained reader of the scientific literature and is unafraid to talk about it.
Dr. Vinay Prasad.
Binet, it's great to have you on the podcast.
Welcome, and I'm excited to hear what you have to say today.
The only thing I would say is, and I know I don't need to tell you this, but we're talking about a subject that most people are very careful to dance around, especially from the medical profession, especially from scientific backgrounds.
And all I would say is, don't worry about couching what you have to say.
Open up and tell us what you think.
So good to have you on, and I'm excited to have this conversation.
It's great to be here.
Thanks for having me.
And I just want to bolster one of the points you were making, which I think was a very good point about right to try.
Now, one of the ways in which FDA actually, I think, prevented companies from being willing to participate in right to try was that they told companies that if you were to make your products available to people through the right to try pathway, and if something subsequently bad happened to those people, whether it was attributable to your product or not, we're going to hold those safety signals
potentially against your application in the future.
So they really gave them a huge disincentive to participate in Right to Try, which has effectively, as you point out, prevented the passage and the implementation of Right to Try.
Now, I think people can debate whether or not you ought to have Right to Try, but as you point out, it was passed through a political process, and it's being subverted by the administrative states.
I think that is accurate.
I think it's worth people knowing who they're hearing from.
I think that you're a trained physician.
You have a detailed, I think, respectable background.
But why don't you just share a bit of your background?
You're not a political actor.
And I think it's worth people understanding where you're coming from first before we dive into some thorny questions.
Sure, so by way of background, I'm a professor here at the University of California, San Francisco.
I'm actually a professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and I run a research laboratory where we study drug policy, drug regulation, evidence-based medicine, clinical trials through a purely, I think, scientific lens.
Okay, so he doesn't actually do science science.
Maybe he practices some form of oncology, which might just mean poisoning people to see if you can make them better by killing their cancer before you kill them.
But he works in a biostatistics department, which is not that dissimilar to like, you know, say Jessica Rose, who's a biostatistician.
It's not that dissimilar to a lot of these people who are pretending that somehow or another, a combination of modeling and AI will get us past a lot of these problems.
This is an actor.
who's now at the head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA.
I'm also a practicing doctor.
I happen to be a hematologist oncologist.
I work here at the County Hospital, which is our safety net hospital where we take care of pretty much anyone who walks through the door here in San Francisco, San Francisco General Hospital.
And I've been in academic medicine since I finished my training about 10 years ago.
Yeah, so what is it that made you as outspoken as you've been, especially in the wake of the COVID policy backlash that we saw?
I'd love to understand what got a guy like you to be a much more public-facing figure that you- A public-facing figure taking no risks at all, in fact, put in place and encouraged to take those risks on YouTube with ZDogg because there was an opportunity to be placed at the FDA
and help ruin it.
That's what you see right here, right now, and I can tell you, you will be surprised at how right we were.
Well, I mean, I think I sort of share your core philosophy that in America right now, it's important for people to just state and articulate your view.
If you feel something and you believe in it and you have a point of view and you have some basis for your point of view, we don't want people to suppress those point of view.
We don't want people to feel stigmatized for expressing that.
We'll be better off if everyone just expresses their point of view and articulates it and tries to defend it.
I think we'd have a more vibrant discussion.
And the center point, I think, of public discourse will move from where the elites want us to be
to where I think the body politic actually is.
And I think that's important.
Now, I just wanna tell your listeners a little bit.
So the elites do exist, even in the mind of Vinay Prasad, and we are fighting them, which is really just.
Stop lying.
Gosh, this is just gross already, but we've gotta do it.
This is work we have to do.
This guy is at one of the highest posts and most important posts in the FDA with regard to the possibility of using whatever's left of the FDA and its mandate
to finally roll back history on the absolute fraud that occurred in 2020, 21, and 22.
These guys are at the FDA right now with the intent purpose of not doing that, I assure you.
little bit.
Some of the issues on COVID-19 policy that I was outspoken about to me are just such basic common sense, it would be ridiculous for a doctor not to be outspoken about it.
One example I think is I was extremely critical of the CDC's policy decision to make two-year-olds wear cloth masks, which was done in the United States, but not done anywhere else in the world, not done in Europe, not done in Australia.
To me, that struck me as a extremely reckless decision that's based on poor evidence and runs counter to common sense when you see a two-year-old wearing a cloth mask.
This guy has his shtick down very well.
He is very confident of where he's going.
And if you can see it relative to his earlier performances with ZDogg when he wasn't very sure and had to look at the producers off camera all the time for assurances that he was doing okay, this guy is now very confident and his head is bouncing up and down and he's doing the same shtick that he always does.
He is an absolute fraud.
He is a traitor to America's children, and he's probably been a fraud for the last 10 or 15 years, actively understanding that he was being put in place for some future role in our governance.
This is a monster, and he needs to be identified as such.
That, to me, somehow created a lot of controversy to be opposed to something which I think is obviously silly.
But, you know, I think you have to say it and you have to articulate the evidence.
And so that's my point.
What exactly did you say?
And what was some of the backlash?
Now that we have some distance from it, we can reflect on this a little bit.
I mean, in 2021, in the Atlantic Magazine, which is by no means a right-leaning magazine, if anything, it's a liberal bastion, I wrote an article called, The Case Against Masking Young Children.
And it was extremely critical of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which I think has been- In 2021, after we closed schools for a whole year, after the college kids were allowed to go back to school in the fall of 2020 under full testing and mocked down mandates, masking mandates,
You see, they all spoke up like a year too late.
After they had already presided as a faculty member over a whole year of on-campus bullshit charade.
He finally spoke up about masking two-year-olds.
And now this is supposed to be somebody who took a risk.
Somebody we should respect for his principles and outspoken amongst people that wouldn't speak out.
What a tremendous joke.
Captured by some of this kind of groupthink and extremely critical of the policy decision to mask kids between the ages of two and five, which runs counter again to any nation globally.
That article created such a backlash.
I think there were hundreds, perhaps thousands of emails sent to the university that I should be fired, that I was sort of a misinformation peddler.
For merely being in line with the policies of the European CDC and other nations, I think we forget how hot it was back in the COVID policy debates, how much people lost their sanity and lost their cool and made, I think, a number of bad decisions from school closure to the mandates to masking young kids, et cetera.
And what do you think we should learn from that?
I mean, I think you're absolutely right to ask the question of whether or not these agencies deserve the powers that they have been granted.
If there's anybody up in the control room, I need some more coffee.
Granted, I mean, should the CDC be a 40,000 person agency and not have a single person in the agency with the common sense to say, you know, if we tell the public that you should make a two-year-old wear a cloth mask,
in daycare, except for the two hours a day when they're all napped side by side, if you tell the public that, that that's a policy that makes sense and the CDC endorses that, you might not be surprised when a few years later they don't trust any single thing you say because what you said was patently absurd, right?
So to me, I think it does raise questions about these institutions,
whether or not they should be as big as they are, what kind of oversight.
What he's not gonna question as a guy on the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
Currently one of the heads of the FDA, he's never going to question the absurdity of using PCR with a single set of primers to find a novel virus as part of an ongoing pandemic.
He's never going to question it.
Never going to even come close to questioning the further use of PCR in any context has a diagnostic with a single set of primers and a probe.
Never, ever, ever, ever, ever are they going to regulate that sector of the market again until the FDA is effectively gone.
I can tell you that for sure.
And that's the reason why this conversation is about to go off the rails.
They have, who do they actually work for?
Do they work for the people or do they work for their own intrinsic interests?
And I think the questions you're asking about FDA, I think are important and the correct questions that go beyond COVID.
I mean, I think they extend to, we could talk about Alzheimer's drugs and cancer drugs, which I think we will.
The question of whether or not the FDA is serving the public's interest or merely a hurdle that justifies high drug prices.
So I think you're absolutely spot on that the indisputable fact is that the FDA regulation is a key gatekeeper to the price of drugs in this country.
It increases the administrative.
So the main problem is, is that with the FDA, drugs are more expensive.
So that's their main, that's the only thing that they can really articulate.
They haven't really even told you what the FDA is supposed to be doing.
They haven't really even told you what the FDA's mandate really is.
And by not doing that, they're being really, really malevolent by following the script that they've been given, most likely by Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan.
burden to bring a drug to market.
The question is, as a result of that, do we get better and safer and more effective drugs?
And I think that's really come under question in the last few years.
Wow.
Yeah, but I think I want to set the question up even fairly, right?
Because I think that's the way they would set it up is, do we get better, safer, more effective drugs?
I mean, at the margin, certainly, if you're going to require jumping through all kinds of hurdles that would
take 10 years and billions of dollars to scale, you would hope that it has some at least infinitesimal improvement in the level of certainty you have and the safety and efficacy and giving doctors the ability to weigh the trade-offs between those two things.
Maybe you could even question that, but at least it would be some infinitesimal contribution to it.
The question is, is that worth the cost?
Is that worth the cost not just to innovation, but even to actual prescription drug costs that are passed on to consumers?
And I come from a place where I think it's far from clear that the United States of America is better off for the FDA ever having existed in the first place.
It's gonna make a lot of people mad to hear that.
People point to thalidomide, people point to a lot of other examples.
First of all, those are examples that were in the face of the existence of the FDA in the first place.
So let's just not forget that fact.
But I think the deeper fact is,
Do we have some level of, there are trade-offs to any policy choice, but do we have a level of commitment to medical choice that actually would believe that you would have private institutions that would backfill the role played by the FDA as trusted gatekeepers to consumers, but without being... He is suggesting that do we have the commitment to the free market that a private group of people would replace the FDA just because that's how the market forces work?
Holy shit, it gets worse.
Centrally as prone to capture as the FDA actually is.
And I think that's where I start.
I'd love to hear your views on that.
I mean, I think it's a deep question and there's just so many places to jump off there.
Maybe we could start by talking about the capture part.
I mean, the capture part of the FDA is that, you know, while talking about FDA, I think are important and the correct questions that go beyond COVID.
I mean, I think they extend to, you know, we could talk about Alzheimer's drugs and cancer drugs, which I think we will.
The question of whether or not the FDA is serving the public's interest or merely a hurdle that justifies high drug prices.
So I think you're absolutely spot on that the indisputable fact is that the FDA regulation is a key gatekeeper to the price of drugs in this country.
It increases the administrative burden to bring a drug to market.
The question is, as a result of that, do we get better and safer and more effective drugs?
And I think that's really come under question in the last few years.
Yeah, I mean, I think I want to set the question up even fairly, right?
Because I think that's the way they would set it up is do we get better, safer, more effective drugs?
I mean, at the margin, certainly, if you're going to require jumping through all kinds of hurdles that, you know, would
take 10 years and billions of dollars to scale, you would hope that it has some at least infinitesimal improvement in the level of certainty you have and the safety and efficacy and giving doctors the ability to weigh the trade-offs between those two things.
Maybe you could even question that, but at least it would be some infinitesimal contribution to it.
The question is, is that worth the cost?
Is that worth the cost not just to innovation, but even to actual prescription drug costs that are passed on to consumers?
And I come from a place where I think it's far from clear that the United States of America is better off for the FDA ever having existed in the first place.
It's gonna make a lot of people mad to hear that.
People point to thalidomide, people point to a lot of other examples.
First of all, those are examples that were in the face of the existence of the FDA in the first place.
So let's just not forget that fact.
But I think the deeper fact is,
Do we have some level of, there are trade-offs to any policy choice, but do we have a level of commitment to medical choice that actually would believe that you would have private institutions that would backfill the role played by the FDA as trusted gatekeepers to consumers, but without being centrally as prone to capture as the FDA actually is?
And I think that's where I start.
I'd love to hear your views on that.
I mean, I think it's a deep question and there's just so many places to jump off there.
Maybe we could start by talking about the capture part.
I mean, the capture part of the FDA is that, you know, while the FDA employees work at the FDA, they are technically prohibited from working for consulting for pharmaceutical firms.
But when they leave the FDA, you know, 60 or 70 percent of people end up working for consulting for the pharmaceutical firms.
And I believe in the primaries, you were critical of Governor Haley for this particular thing, this kind of revolving door politics where, you know, you set out to do good, you stay to do well for yourself.
And so that raises the fundamental question of whether or not the FDA employees, is there real motivation to regulate these drug products in a way that's best for the American people?
Or is there real motivation in an audition, an audition to some way work across the table and take that
bureaucratic technical expertise and sell it to the companies to create the hurdles that they themselves know how to jump over and sell that expertise to the companies later?
I think that's an open question.
And so that's one of the ways in which they're being captured.
The other way they're being captured is, I think, the extreme lobbying efforts that are being placed on politicians and the political pressure on them.
The other thing that you said that I think is quite interesting is, what do we get for all their regulation?
And I think we have to acknowledge that
Well, actually, maybe let me talk about the choice for a second.
The choice to me is an interesting one, because as you point out, that there's two types of errors being made here.
One, they can coerce you to get a medical product, maybe if that's not in your best interest.
And the other thing is they can prevent you from getting a medical product that you might want to try, knowing fully well that we don't understand the safety signals and we don't understand the full information there, but you have a- Think about how much effort they are making to cloud your understanding of what the FDA's mandate actually is.
In contrast to the overuse of the phrase safe and effective by Tony Fauci and everyone on TV for five years, starting in 2020, safe and effective, 2021, safe and effective, 2022, safe and effective, repeated over and over and over and over again.
Now we're talking to somebody who is about to go and become the head of one of the most important wings of the FDA,
never ever saying what the actual mandate of the FDA is.
And they happen to be both, I don't know, not Russian and not Chinese and not Jewish.
Terminal illness.
You may feel like, what do I have to lose by trying?
So they're preventing both things and they've made errors on both ends.
I mean, I think the vaccine mandates
particularly around young men who are in college, which were implemented from the White House down and by many universities, clearly led to net harm because a college man who received dose two and beyond of the mRNA vaccines had greater harm from the risk of myocarditis than they could possibly have from the benefit in COVID-19 outcomes because they're young and healthy.
And so that's an example of the administrative state, actually, I think, FDA plus White House, plus, you know, OSHA, plus the pressure they placed on colleges, actually causing harm to the American people by forcing them to take a product that they may not have wanted.
Now, how many people didn't get access to a product that might have helped them?
I think that's a tougher question to answer.
And, you know, we could talk more about that.
I'm not aware of any sort of really good studies that get at that, but that's sort of what you're getting at.
They're blocking both kinds of choice.
And then the question is, are they in the sweet spot?
Could they shift the dial a little bit?
We don't know much about that.
Yeah.
I think that, I mean, the alternative question is,
Are we sure?
I mean, the bar's got to be high to say that they are going to be in the sweet spot.
If not, the market, all else equal, would be a better arbiter of what that sweet spot actually is, including physicians, customers, patients, relying on other intermediary institutions to tell them what they can and cannot trust.
So you'd have JD Power and Associates rating cars that people used to buy, certainly in the 1990s.
You'd have equivalent institutions rating
And even many of the payer organizations are beginning to have them for themselves, rating the value of different drugs and risks and benefits and trade-offs.
Rating the value of different things is going to be done using what?
That's right.
It's going to be used.
You're doing blockchain.
Now you hear it.
Every time they say rating systems and public rating systems and public, you know, that's all blockchain.
So against that backdrop, what role does the FDA play?
And I think part of what's happened is that the existence of an institution like the FDA has actually crowded out the rise of those alternative intermediary institutions.
So you can't just measure it against the status quo, but what the status quo... Having a public institution to enforce the safe and effective mandate that it's given has driven out the private competition to regulating safe and effective... Oh my gosh, wow, that is...
so disingenuously argued it's pathetic.
And I think you hit the nail on the head here.
That blanket of security is indeed a false blanket of security.
People talk about the effects of thalidomide many years ago.
You're actually not going to hear as much in the press probably for the next 15 years.
Eventually, it'll come around to it 20 years from now.
But for the next 15 years, you're probably not going to hear about the adverse consequences by way of myocarditis or otherwise of an FDA-approved and government-mandated program, which is even worse than just a government-allowed program, which is what you had in the case of thalidomide and birth defects.
which is the telltale example that they used to justify the existence of the FDA.
And so my view, I guess my question, I share with my views, I'm curious for you is, it's hard to know, but what is your hypothesis of whether or not, on balance, the American health system and the patients who are the most important stakeholder in that system would be better, worse, or at least arguably unknown as to whether they'd be better off
if there wasn't an FDA in the first place.
Sorry, it's a low D, I forget.
The last three keys are gunshots and then the low D is a... I mean, what in the world is going on here?
This guy, his answer,
now should really scare you because remember, he's at the head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
The very place that regulates vaccines, mRNAs, everything that we're worried about right now is under the purview of this super trader, this super fraud, who's being promoted by this super fraud.
You see this problem here?
This is a very, very big problem because he is in government right now.
I think if you're talking about FDA 2024, I think that they'd probably be better off as a result of not having the FDA.
And let's unpack that a little bit.
You alluded to that the FDA is the be-all end-all.
He should have to explain this on every podcast of the FDA that he does with Marty McCary, because how does he have that job then?
He thinks right now in 2025 or four, as this was, that America would be better off without the FDA.
He just said that.
And now he works there.
This is a red alert for all Americans to understand how important it is to get our streams and our news out because the rest of the shit on YouTube and on X is not real.
Many ways they are.
So let me just talk a little bit about my field, cancer medicine, you know, through a number of different provisions.
When the FDA approves a cancer drug, it is often mandated coverage by Medicare and Medicaid that we have to pay for it as well.
And so what you do as you point out, you crowd out anybody's ability to say, Hey, you know, maybe we could have this available to people, but maybe there needs to be, uh, you know, some, some, uh, some serious copays for that.
Maybe there needs to be, um, some restrictions on who should get access to it because there's a lot of uncertainty.
Are you feeling how complicated it's going to get now and how many details they're going to talk about?
Because he's a cancer researcher.
He knows about all this stuff.
He said we would be better off without the FDA with having never said what the FDA even does.
He doesn't even know what the FDA's mandate is.
be a free-for-all.
There'll just be tons of products coming on the market and we won't know what's better.
In many ways, it might be like the way the cellular phone market is.
There's still fierce competition.
There's a number of websites that are rating phones all the time.
When you're thinking about buying a phone, particularly an Android phone, all these sites are rating them.
All these supplement producers would sure like it if the FDA went away so that they could put whatever they wanted to on the outside of their bottles without having to say that this is not an FDA-approved claim.
They would all love that.
There may be different groups of people who rate cancer drugs differently.
I think I'm a very sort of a purist of evidence-based medicine.
We would put out, you know, we could arguably put out a set of guidelines.
Some insurance companies may decide to go with me because they think, you know, Prasad's guidelines are more evidence-based.
They lead to more cost-effective healthcare.
Other insurance companies might go with different guidelines, but you would get competition in the marketplace, and then you would allow people to see who's winning.
Can't you hear all the business opportunities that are gonna be available to all of these people?
Can't you hear it?
our new healthcare system in America is gonna be one giant cluster F.
When we imagine a world without the FDA, it's easy to envision the boogeyman of just a free-for-all.
That might not be what it is.
And the last thing about thalidomide, I'd just say to your point, what was the story of thalidomide for the listeners in the 1950s, late 1950s?
Thalidomide was approved in the United Kingdom, but notably there was one FDA reviewer who famously did not want that product available in the U.S.
market, and it was approved as a morning sickness medicine for pregnant women.
In the U.K., unfortunately, thalidomide does cause, it's a teratogen, it causes serious birth defects like the prevention of the development of the
And so you had a lot of children born without like their upper arms developed in the United Kingdom.
The United States, since we didn't approve it, we didn't have that phenomenon.
Now, many people in response to that felt like that was a great example of why we need to strengthen the FDA.
It led to the passage of the Kiefer-Harris amendments in the early 60s, and it gave FDA more authority in regulating drug products.
But strictly speaking, it wasn't an example
where the regulation, had it been in place prior, would have prevented thalidomide from coming on the market because it was an efficacy requirement that they added, and this was really a safety concern.
So I think you're right about the story.
It's not always told in the crispest way possible.
I think there's more nuance to that story, as you note.
More nuance to that story, as you note.
He got some of that OK.
Some of that, he mentioned, you know, the Kefauver Amendment.
That's interesting.
But I don't think he understands how bad his position is.
I don't think he understands how exposed he is and how easy it is to see that he is a liar and a traitor.
because that story right there was also just mentioned as part of a script to make sure that it seems pretty believable.
Don't mention that Estes Kefauver was killed in the Senate floor three weeks before John F. Kennedy was shot.
Don't mention that.
Don't mention Les Weinstein.
Don't mention Robert F. Kennedy appointing Les Weinstein as the first Department of Justice intellectual property lawyer ever
Don't mention that he's still the most, the highest paid arbitrator of biotech patent law in America.
Don't mention any of that.
Just say that we'd be better off without the FDA.
And by the way, he's going to be the head of CBER in another six months.
How extraordinary is this?
Yeah, and I think a lot of those, you know, stories that are designed, there's only a couple of them really, but that's the one that's a classic case that any... If we take this a step farther and look for more scripted bullshit, I'm sure we're going to find it.
These guys represent that kind of scripted bullshit, right?
You know that that's what they did.
You can see that that's what they did.
You can just go on YouTube and watch their videos.
from 2021 and 2022, and you can see that these guys are malevolent actors on a script with a lot of confidence that it's okay to laugh.
A lot of confidence that it's okay to joke because they have been told what the safe subjects are, what the safe questions are to ask, and what the topics that they don't need to know, they probably don't know because they're that bad.
that they're that dependent on the script that they're given.
They're actually no different than Peter Hotez explaining that at the start of the anthrax attacks, he was just sitting at his desk with two books open to the anthrax chapter and reading to journalists.
And that's how he rose to such prominence as a microbiologist.
It's really a joke.
This whole thing is a joke.
It's a joke because there was a biological phenomenon that they have misconstrued as a spreading pathogen.
And they did it with two things.
They did it first by sculpting this old population and its murder.
using protocols and stuff like that.
But also they sculpted the younger people's death here.
They got a little bit of this out of the way using the similar techniques, including supplementary oxygen and other things that led to ARDS that could be blamed for COVID.
They used PCR to do that, nonspecific PCR tests, all in an effort to create the illusion
that the pandemic was a biological phenomenon that could be blamed exclusively on a virus instead of on murder.
instead of on an expected rise in all-cause mortality.
That's why the McKinsey Global Institute's population dependency and depopulation, this whole report came out in 2025 and not in 2020.
Because if it came out in 2020, the population pyramids would have had this lopsided top on them that everybody would have been able to see, hey, wait a minute, where'd that go?
because that's not in this one anymore because those people are all dead.
The people who died in the last five years, roughly 3 million people per year in America alone, they're all off the pyramid now.
It's almost like you came after the guy that trimmed the hedges came in.
And so what was an overgrown jungle at the top has now become a very nice trimmed hedge at the top.
Yeah, that's great because of this.
And so we have a list of ways that they did it.
It might be an incomplete list, but it's a hell of a lot more complete list than the people who say there are no virus or the people who say that it's a gain of function virus or the people that are complaining that there was no real rise in all cause mortality until the shots rolled out.
That's just bullshit.
And so we do have one case that supposedly is pushing the idea that protocols were murder, but we've got to be very, very careful and vigilant to make sure that all of the aspects of Grace's protocol are put to scrutiny because
It used to be that the main story was that she was put on supplementary oxygen because her pulse ox was a little low.
Not that dissimilar to how FLCCC told us at the beginning of the pandemic we should go to the hospital if our pulse ox is below 96%.
So now they're talking about all the other things that killed people, all the other combinations of drugs that killed people.
But remember, Mark and I are the only people on the internet who are trying to point out that supplementary oxygen would be an easy and virtually foolproof way to turn a knob in every hospital to make sure that a certain percentage of people inevitably developed ARDS.
I will say it more and more and more and more often, you don't need to kill particular people.
You just need to encourage people to act in a way where a larger percentage of people will die of a similar cause.
That's all they had to do.
If they sign of willy nilly encouraged people to use supplementary oxygen, if you don't have enough ventilators, that
recommendation alone would be enough to significantly change the mortality in hospitals especially when people were insisting that such a thing as viral pneumonia existed and that viral pneumonia would be inappropriate to treat with antibiotics stop
That is the single most important thing to see here because that's also how people often went septic and it became this multi-system inflammatory syndrome.
Because what's happening there is that people with an infection are not being treated.
Like for example, if you have a urinary tract infection and people blame it on a viral syndrome and don't treat you, you will go septic.
You will die a very painful death.
If they give you supplementary oxygen until you develop pneumonia, and then they don't treat it with antibiotics because, you know, antibiotics are inappropriate for pneumonia, you will have people die.
And that's exactly what you see right there.
Now you use the opioid deaths in all ages, but especially under 40.
And now you have a reduction in life expectancy that seems to coincide with the pandemic.
And as long as nobody talks about an incoming anticipated rise in all-cause mortality, and nobody talks about this huge list of ways that all-cause mortality could be mixed up with a decrease in life expectancy, and misconstrued has a total representation of a crisis about a novel virus, it's really hard.
This is as good as it gets right here.
This is American history.
This is world history.
And everything else on the internet is basically bullshit.
So good luck to Grace's dad, Scott Shara.
I hope the case goes well.
The reason why we are where we are has a lot to do with Mark Kulak.
If you don't follow him, Mark is at HousatonicITS.com.
Housatomic is kind of a joke.
It's Housatonic.
I am very, very excited to be able to be the guy at this point who feels pretty confident that this is a group of liars.
This is a group of liars given a script by McKernan and by Malone.
It's a group of people that work very hard on social media.
They're a group of people that only has power because we use social media.
And so the moment we stop using social media is the moment that all of these people become irrelevant.
And so that's why I think
It's more important for you to get off of social media than it is for you to be on it.
I might stay on it because I'm still trying to fight them using it, but I'm definitely not trying to usefully use social media to get my message out.
I'm using email for that and text messaging for that and my websites for that.
So, this is all they ever had.
Um, people like McCairn, um, this is all they ever had is people put in place to lie about a worst case scenario for five years.
This guy was on a script provided to him by Kevin McKernan and by Robert Malone.
And he might've not known all the details, but he definitely can.
only be explained by that.
The reason why he's not streaming right now for the past month or so is because we've made him irrelevant.
Because Steve Kirsch has made him irrelevant by having him on his podcast and revealing that he's nothing but a script reading clown.
Otherwise, he wouldn't find himself where he was.
He wouldn't have found himself on the Vajon Health podcast about a year ago with Christine Grace and Charles Rixey.
He wouldn't have found himself on streams in March of 2020 with two associates of George Webb.
And he wouldn't be having to be replaced by this clown.
Jordan Vaughn and a second stream at VSRF, who's now doing all the podcasts that I guess Kevin McCarron was supposed to do about prions and amyloid, but now this guy's doing it.
His auditions have finally paid off.
And more importantly, this guy's ties to me for five years have finally cost him his little career as a podcaster.
Hopefully very soon, Brian Hooker is gonna confess that he could have said this in 2013 and stuck to it.
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 autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
What you need to understand is that autism is a myth.
Autism is a myth that encompasses as many unrelated conditions in children as possible in order to make sure a message like Brian Hooker's never actually surfaces and has any headway, that intramuscular injection can just damage kids.
The same exact message that Brandy Vaughn put out until she was killed.
in condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
Why use the word autism to describe poisoning?
Why use the word autism to describe neurological damage?
Because it's a myth.
And that's why Brian Hooker uses that word now, but in 2013 did not.
He's been co-opted by the same mythology that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
has been co-opted by, that Mary Holland lies about, that Pauly Tommy lies about, that Andrew Wakefield lies about, that Meryl Nass lies about, that they all lie about.
He was neurologically damaged, in condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
Why did Brian Hooker stop saying that?
Everybody that follows Brian Hooker should only be asking him that question for the rest of his life.
Why did you start saying autism?
And the reason why is because he's a witting or unwitting traitor to our grandchildren.
The same way that Suzanne Humphreys is a witting traitor to our grandchildren, because since her book in 2013, she hasn't made any intellectual progress at all.
Unlike Brandy Vaughn, who made all kinds of intellectual progress documented from 2015 to 2019,
But none of these people have made progress, especially this one.
Especially this one.
This one is especially special.
On over 90 billboards in her bra more than 15 years ago, ladies and gentlemen, swaying votes for prime ministers on autism.
We gotta have autism awareness.
We need more programs in schools.
That's how we got here.
He might be an unwitting victim of the worst intelligence scam ever.
I don't know.
I don't care.
He's not real.
His claims were not real.
His motivations were not real.
His actions are not real anymore.
And Jay Bhattacharya and Marty Makkari standing in front is not real.
It is a purposefully designed
controlled demolition of America or some parts of the American government.
And the script they're following was designed by Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan, provided to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and provided to people like Brett Weinstein.
And it's all one malevolent network that includes Piper Stover, the lady who first got me in connected with Brett Weinstein, the first person that really got me to start writing stuff down for five months before it was gonna be published in the Wall Street Journal or something.
Stop lying!
trying to get my wife to tutor her daughter.
This is a, in a very elaborate intelligence operation that unfortunately I was one of the main victims of, but I can tell you this fake anti-vax movement is really fake and they have fake actors all around like this fake and like, like Jack Cruz is a fake and they have unwitting participants who have been so surrounded by fakes on so many trips and so many conferences with these fakes that she is unaware of how she's been played.
you
Welcome back to Face the Nation.
We're joined now by FDA Commissioner, Dr. Marty Makary.
Good morning.
Good to have you here in person.
Good to be here.
So I want to get through a lot here, but one of the things we've noticed is this new COVID variant that seems to be circulating in Asia.
I believe it's NB1.8.1.
It's a variant under monitoring.
What do we need to know?
Yeah, so this appears to be a sub-variant of JN1, which has been the dominant strain, so it's believed that there is... So you can test for it, and you can sequence it, and then you can map it back to the other 18 million sequences that we have and judge the evolutionary position in the phylogenetic tree.
How quickly did he get all of the assumptions of the novel virus that killed millions of people, that millions more were saved from, that might go endemic, that's probably gained a function, but who cares, because it's there now.
Endemicity is the main illusion here with regard to virology.
The idea that a virus can go from a mud puddle to be just present in the background forever.
is a primary illusion of the pandemic, and this is the FDA director.
Cross-immunity protection.
The COVID virus is gonna continue to mutate, and it's behaving like a common cold virus.
It's now gonna become the fifth coronavirus that's seasonal that causes about 25% of the cases of the common cold.
Robert Malone said the worst case scenario in an event like this is that something would go endemic.
That journalist Garrett said it in a CNN movie.
You know, the worst case scenario is if something like this goes endemic, then it's just contributing to the all-cause mortality forever.
Because RNA molecules with the right combination of bases, they can just become background signals forever.
He doesn't know Jack about Diddley and could never explain that other than the script that he's been given by McKernan and Malone.
or thinking of it as like a flu type variant, just a normal fluctuation.
The flu mutates about 34 times more frequently than COVID.
So get ready, because biologically speaking, the flu is definitely better positioned for the next pandemic.
Just get ready.
COVID variant mutation rate appears to be a little more stable, but the international bodies that have provided some guidance on which strain to target have suggested that either JN1 or any of these sub-variants would be reasonable strains to target.
So you don't seem overly concerned about that.
I want to get now into some of the recommendations that have been very specific this week from the CDC and you with the HHS secretary in this video announcement on Tuesday, where Secretary Kennedy said the CDC was removing the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women from its recommended immunization schedule.
He then had a memo
to the CDC rescinding recommendations for kids vaccines, saying the known risks do not outweigh the benefits.
Then late Thursday, the CDC said, quote, shared clinical decision making, which I think is just talking to your doctor, should determine whether kids get vaccinated.
Can you clearly state what the policy is?
Because this is confusing.
Yeah, we believe the recommendation should be with a patient and their doctor.
So we're gonna get away from these blanket recommendations in healthy young Americans because we don't wanna see, we don't, well, on the COVID vaccine schedule, we don't wanna see kids kicked out of school because a 12-year-old girl is not getting her fifth COVID booster shot.
We don't see the data there to support a young, healthy child getting a repeat infinite annual COVID vaccine.
Who's advocating for that?
That's a strange straw man to put out there because I don't think there's anybody advocating for high schoolers to get their fifth COVID shot or they can't attend school.
I don't know what he's talking about there.
That seems like bullshit to me.
There's a theory that we should sort of blindly approve the new COVID boosters in young healthy kids every year in perpetuity, and a young girl born today should get 80 COVID mRNA.
Exactly what Jeff from Earth is saying right there.
Sorry, my ear itches.
But it is not questioning their needing of two.
And that's how you can see this is a malevolent lie and the worst kind of malevolent lie.
It's gross.
It's very gross.
Nice spot there, Jeff.
Nice spot.
Good to see you.
Shots or other COVID shots in her average lifespan.
We're saying that's a theory and we'd like to check in and get some randomized controlled data.
It's been about four years since the original randomized trials.
So we'd like an evidence-based approach.
Dr. Prasad and I published this in the New England Journal of Medicine last week.
And we're basically saying we'd like to bring some confidence back to the public around this repeat booster strategy theory because... Your statement was not about repeat boosters.
It says the vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women.
The vaccine is not recommended for healthy children.
That's different than annual boosters.
Yeah, at this point, we're dealing, you know, it is a booster strategy.
People would be getting the updated shot.
So, whether or not a young healthy child... Well, what about kids who haven't gotten a shot?
So, we'd like to see the data.
We'd love to see that data doesn't exist.
No, no, no, but on a practical level, for a parent at home hearing you and trying to make sense of you... We're saying take it back to your doctor.
If their child has not been vaccinated, are you recommending that their first encounter with COVID be an actual infection?
We're not going to push the COVID shot in young healthy kids without any clinical trial data supporting it.
That is a decision between a parent and their doctor.
And just so you, I don't know if you know these statistics, but 80 for 88% of American kids, their parents have said no to the COVID shot last season.
So America, the vast majority of Americans are saying no, maybe they want to see some clinical data as well.
Maybe they have concerns about
crowdsource my health guidance.
I want a clear thing, right?
You don't go with popularity.
You go with, as you're saying, data.
And when we look at that data.
Yeah, so let's see the data.
Okay.
So the CDC data said 41% of children aged six months to 17 years hospitalized with COVID between 2022 and 2024 did not have a known underlying condition.
In other words, they looked healthy.
So she didn't make any argument about whether they were vaccinated or not.
And remember, those numbers come from the fact that everybody that goes to a hospital is tested.
Everybody that goes to a hospital is tested.
So the numbers are generated by the testing.
And so are the remnants.
Everybody is paying money for these tests to be out there.
The only question is, what pot of fake money is it coming from?
We know the CDC data is contaminated with a lot of false positives from incidental positive COVID tests with routine testing of every kid that walks in the hospital.
When I go to the ICU... Oh my gosh, they're testing everybody.
And sometimes there's incidental positives.
So not fake positives, not false positives, not nonspecific positives, but real positives that aren't causing any disease.
Because remember, just as Brian Hooker told us in 2020, right after Brandy died,
It's COVID and other things spread by asymptomatic spread.
When I walk to the peak, we know that data historically under the Biden administration did not distinguish being sick from COVID or an incidental positive COVID test.
When you go to an ICU in America and you ask how many people are in the ICU that are healthy, that are sick with COVID,
The answer I get again and again is we haven't seen that in a year or years.
And so, the worst thing you can do in public health is to put out an absolute universal recommendation in young healthy kids, and the vast majority of Americans are saying, no, we want to see some data.
And you say, forget about the data, just get it anyway.
Okay, so on data and transparency, for decades, since 1964, it was the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, ACIP, that went through this panel recommendation.
I mean, people watched these things during COVID.
The report was then handed up.
It offered debate, it offered transparency, and it offered data points.
One of the best public comments at the ACIP meeting that was ever done was me in 2022.
In case you haven't seen it, it's in the Batcave on my channel.
Why did you bypass all of this and just come down with a decision before the panel could meet?
and make that data.
That panel has been a kangaroo court where they just rubber stamp every single vaccine put in front of them.
If you look at the minutes of the report, they even say we generally want to move towards a risk stratified approach.
So why not let them do that in June?
So in the meantime, we don't want an absolute recommendation for healthy kids to get it.
They can do it, and that committee will meet and make recommendations.
But you look at the minutes of the last couple of years, they say, we want a simple message for everybody just so they can understand it.
It was not a data-based conversation.
It was a conversation based on marketing and ease.
And I've written an article titled, Why the People Don't Trust the CDC, and it's in part from that
We're saying it's going to be between a doctor and a patient until that committee meets or more experts weigh in or we get some clinical data.
If there's zero clinical data, you're all pining.
I mean, you're just, it's a theory.
And so we don't want to put out an abstinence.
Don't forget, this is 2025.
This is last Sunday.
It's like yesterday.
This is really, really crazy gross.
recommendation for kids with no clinical data.
So you made this pronouncement as well on pregnant women.
There is data.
Researchers in the UK analyzed a series of 67 studies, which included 1.8 million women, and the journal BMJ Global Health published it.
People can Google it at home.
And it says the COVID vaccine in pregnant women is highly effective in reducing the odds of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission, and improves pregnancy outcomes with no serious safety concerns.
This is data that shows that it is recommended
or could be advised for pregnant women to take this vaccine.
Why do you find other?
Now, so let's just make sure that you see where GigaOM Biological is on this.
This is a woman who thinks that knowledge is created by scientific papers and that if you find a scientific paper with the right combination of words and it's abstract in its discussion or even in its title, then whatever it says is real.
This is data.
And so that is how gain-of-function was created.
That's how the proofreading enzyme XON was created for coronaviruses.
That's how this whole narrative of lab leaks is created, by creating scientific papers that apparently make it seem like these whole things are real and possible.
We're finding viruses.
We're spraying things.
It's just all written on papers.
and claimed in discussions, and then normies and people who are given a script are told that these are just bricks in a wall.
And they're not bricks in a wall.
This is not even a, it's crazy.
There's no randomized control trial.
That's the gold standard.
Those 67 studies are mixed.
The data in pregnant women is different for healthy versus women with a comorbid condition.
So it's a very- And so no discussion of general biology can happen.
No discussion of common sense can happen.
No discussion of big picture stuff.
It's only insistence that any knowledge that we have must be based on papers, must be based on evidence-based something.
There is no big truth.
There is no larger understanding.
There are no, you know, baseline foundational understanding of anything.
Everything is just based on what paper you can cite.
And they're both reinforcing this trap.
And it is a very malevolent trap.
very mixed bags.
So we're saying your obstetrician, your primary care doctor, and the pregnant woman should together decide whether or not to get it.
12% of pregnant women last year got the COVID shot.
So we're not talking about any of the shots relative to birthday, or relative to developmental period or relative to, to their efficacy.
We're talking only about COVID shots.
So we're, we're not at all anywhere near where
supposedly once Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
was head
head of HHS, we would make progress in these arenas.
And there's no progress being made, because that was never gonna happen.
He was always a Truman Show puppet.
People have serious concerns, and it's probably because they wanna see a randomized trial data.
The randomized trial- In the meantime, the world moves on.
And you published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 20th,
Oh, oh.
In the New England Journal of Medicine, we simply list what the CDC has traditionally defined as high risk.
And we're just saying, decide with your doctor.
We're not saying one way or the other.
And the randomized trial... It's almost like he would rather use AI to decide who to bomb in Gaza, because then we don't have to really worry about it anymore.
It sounds like he would rather have AI decide who should get the vaccines, because then we don't have to worry about who dies anymore.
Just make the decision with your doctor.
That's what health freedom means.
I don't have any recommendations.
I don't have any opinions about how this shit works.
I'm just the FDA head.
I'm a surgeon.
So here's the data on pregnant women.
A randomized control trial was set up and it was closed without any explanation.
We wanted to see that trial complete so women can have information that in a randomized control trial, which is the gold standard, this is what the data shows.
We don't have those data.
All right.
It is still unclear what pregnant women now should do until they get the data that you say talk to their doctor.
When do they get the data you're promising?
All these controlled studies in the absence of data, they should talk to their doctor and their doctor will use their best wisdom and judgment.
FDA Commissioner, thank you for trying to help clear this up.
Up next, the potential impact of those new policies regarding foreign student visas will be right back.
Now who are they going to have talk about foreign student visas and why would foreign student visas be a problem?
There's a number of reasons why foreign student visas would be a problem.
The first one is, is that you can start a company about bullshit and then apply for people to come to America and they could get an EB1 visa or something like that.
There are a lot of people I think that are in America just because some bullshit company is made and then they are brought here under a E1B visa or whatever the visa is.
There are also visas for foreign students like Chinese students that come over here and apparently do postdocs for free and then steal all our intellectual property.
I just want you to realize where we're at here because remember my friend, supposedly Piper Stover, spoke in front of Congress in a session that was organized by some guy from India, from Illinois.
That guy has long time connections to Barack Obama.
That guy's the head of the Communist Party of China, anti something or other in the House of Representatives.
He's also kind of in charge of our opinions or investigating any Russian things.
And he's got a very, you know, unique position in my mind, in the sense that there's a Senate position that might open up in Illinois soon, and he would be in a unique place to take it over.
Again, remember, we're supposed to be conservatives, not Democrats, yet a Democrat like Piper Stover
is and a Democrat like, I don't know, like Jay Bhattacharya who worked for the Obama administration.
Like, I don't know how he would get there if, and how he would get into the Trump administration unless it was kind of an orchestrated show, largely bullshit.
And a lot of people are not Russian or Chinese, but they seem to be from another country.
We turn now to the top Democrat on the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.
That's Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi.
He's in Illinois.
Good morning to you.
I want to get straight to it.
You heard from the Secretary of State this week that the State Department is going to work with Homeland Security to aggressively revoke visas.
for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party, or setting in critical fields.
There are like 300,000 Chinese students with visas in this country.
The U.S.
government already has a heightened level of vetting.
What's going to change?
I don't know.
There's not enough details.
But what it looks like is they're targeting all people of Chinese origin who are on international student visas, because he's not limiting it to just people who might have ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
And if they do have those ties, they don't belong here, especially if they're committing nefarious acts.
However, this appears to be much broader, and it's terribly misguided, and it appears prejudicial and discriminatory.
My own father came here on an international student visa, and I believe that these people are vital for our economy and for entrepreneurship in this country, and I think this is going to harm America more than help.
But you said if someone has ties to the Chinese Communist Party, they shouldn't be here.
Does that mean all the students who are children of leaders, for example, Xi Jinping's own daughter, shouldn't have been allowed here?
Well, if they were engaged in nefarious activities, and if they are somehow deeply connected to the CCP, I think that we should be very careful.
But in this particular case, they're not only going after people who might fall in that category, but it's anybody who is from China, including Hong Kong, by the way, where people are actually persecuted
for various freedoms they're trying to exercise and who come here seeking to exercise those freedoms.
So this is a terribly misguided policy.
The Biden administration did conduct heightened vetting, as you know, of Chinese students.
Do you think that there is a legitimate argument for expanding this, that certain areas should just be off limits?
I think that you should definitely have heightened vetting, especially in certain critical areas, because we know- Maybe we should vet all foreign students.
What about the Indians that come over here?
Why are we worried so much about the Chinese?
It's strange.
that the CCP tries to steal, for instance, intellectual property or worse, but... Do the Indians never steal intellectual property?
They're real good.
They're real honest dudes.
Is that the way that is?
The way that this is currently structured looks very, very suspicious.
And you have to remember that
The people that are cheering for this policy, what Marco Rubio had called for, is the Chinese Communist Party.
Why?
Because they want these people back.
They want the scientists and the entrepreneurs and the engineers who can come and help their economy.
And so we are probably helping them as well as other countries more than helping ourselves with this policy.
The Defense Secretary is traveling in Asia right now and he said in a defense forum speech that Beijing is quote Concretely incredibly preparing to use military force.
He said their military is rehearsing.
Take a listen Any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan by force Would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world
There's no reason to sugarcoat it.
The threat China poses is real and it could be imminent.
He did not say what the consequences would be.
Are you encouraged by what appears to be a statement of support for allies?
I am.
I think what he's saying is largely correct.
But I think the problem is, at the same time he says that, either Donald Trump or even him or others say other things that push away our friends, partners and allies in the region and cause confusion.
And so we need to be consistent and thoughtful with regard to our statements.
And we need to be also very methodical about our actions in trying to curb
military aggression by the Chinese Communist Party in the South China Sea and with regard to Taiwan.
Since you track U.S.
intelligence, I wanted to ask you if you have any insight into what appears to be the swarm of Ukrainian drones that has destroyed 40 Russian military aircraft deep inside Russian territory overnight.
Sources are- He's also an authority on the Russian-Ukraine conflict and the intelligence from it.
which in my humble opinion makes this a setup like they're setting him up to be an elder statesman with his gray hair he's going to be a senator soon this guy could be a presidential candidate in a couple years this is frighteningly dead on balls accurate for us this is ridiculous if if piper stover spoke in his in his session
telling our Jennifer Jacobs that the White House wasn't aware that this attack was planned.
What can you tell us about the level of U.S.
intelligence sharing with Ukraine right now and helping them with their targets?
I don't want to get into classified information, but what I can say is that it's a little bit more strange.
He might not know any classified information.
If I say I don't want to get into any classified information, does that mean I really know it?
Same with Robert Malone.
Some of that's classified.
I can't really tell you.
Can that also be a lie?
Of course it can be a lie.
in light of what Donald Trump has said recently.
The one thing that I can also say is that Trump was right the other day to say that Putin is crazy in the way that he's going after civilian areas in Ukraine repeatedly.
And so the Ukrainians are striking back.
At the end of the day, the only way that we can bring these hostilities to an end is by strengthening the hand of the Ukrainians.
Trump should, at this point, realize that Putin is playing him and aid the Ukrainians in their battlefield efforts.
That's the best way to get to some type of armistice or truce at the negotiating table, sooner rather than later.
All right.
Congressman Krishnamoorthi, thank you for your time.
Unbelievable stuff.
Scripted bullshit, ladies and gentlemen, and scripted, scripted, scripted bullshit readers.
That's what all these people are, just scripted bullshit readers.
And the script is because there are murder and lies that need to be covered up as we are coerced into teaching our children this bad biology evolution because DNA, you're one in a 10 billion population full of useless eaters.
Nonsense.
Nonsense, ladies and gentlemen.
It's been a long, strange trip.
I don't think I'm going to watch the Jay Bhattacharya video that I had queued up.
I'm going to wait until tomorrow because it's a long one and it's going to take a lot out of me.
This is about the bad biology though.
It really is.
I can't stress enough how important it is to be aware of that.
I'm going to play a tune and we're going to watch the beginning of that video and then we'll save the rest of it for tomorrow.
I'll see you in a few minutes.
I can't remember.
Oh yeah, I do remember.
Many times I tried to tell you.
Many times I cried alone.
Always I'm surprised how well you cut my feelings to the bone.
Don't want to leave you really.
I've lost too much time.
To give you up that easy.
We belong, we belong, we belong together Maybe it's a sign of weakness When I don't know what to say Maybe I just wouldn't know What to do with my strength anyway Have we become a habit?
Do we disturb the flow?
Now there's no looking forward Now there's no turning back When you say we belong to the light We belong to the thunder We belong to the sound of the words We've both fallen under
Try to sleep now.
Close your eyes and try to dream.
Clear your mind and do your best to try and watch the ballet gleam.
We can't begin to know it, how much we really care.
I hear your voice inside me.
I see your face.
The sound of the world and people falling under Whatever we deny or embrace The world's all for better We belong
Isolate, what was it?
Of the virus?
Well you isolate a virus by
finding the virus which causes a disease.
You purify a virus by making a lot of, I mean, just by purifying it so you get a pure virus.
I don't understand what the issue is.
I see.
No, it depends on how they use it.
Well, didn't Dr. Gallo do that?
I mean, he actually isolated it, so... I mean, why should I do all of this?
This is all textbook stuff you're asking me.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the show.
This is the second half of the show.
GigaOM Biological is a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
Good to see everybody.
Welcome to it.
I do want to remind you that this is funded only by viewers like you.
If you want to support the stream, please go to GigaOMBiological.com and find a way to do so.
We are going to become more productive in the coming months, but right now it's still just
a holding pattern, trying to document and capture and archive the amount of treachery that's currently going on in the American government and the people that have come into contact with me over the last five years who I think are instrumental in putting those people in place to destroy the FDA, to
weaponize the CDC to effectively undermine any remaining democracy of America and really invert our status to something else.
It's very striking to me right now how bad it is, but this all has to do with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
being a puppet
and the people who are behind him, and we need to identify the people who are behind him.
I think Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan are good places to start, but I think there's an operator like Steve Bannon as well, who thought maybe he could even get Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
further
But there is a malevolent group of people that is interacting with Indians and Chinese and and no Russians as far as I can tell except for maybe Yuri Dagan.
It's a really weird place that we are where these people exist, where people like Kevin McCairn exist, where people like Andrew Kaufman and Tom Cowan and Mark and Sam Bailey exist.
These are all
fraudulent fake people that were put in place to curate a narrative that would make sure that we would never teach our way out.
We would never teach our children the illusion of pandemics.
Literally turning into worst case scenario.
That's why this guy said it was worst case scenario in 2020 with a group of people that included me and a bunch of George Webb associates.
but also in 2024 when he said the same thing on a stream with Charles Rixey and with Matt Crawford, also Robert Malone associates.
So you basically have one malevolent team of anti-vax skeptics that has been put in place on the internet, given books before the pandemic so that no useful resistance would ever come together
to oppose the pandemic, more importantly, to oppose PCR as a diagnostic.
Because essentially, these people have effectively run out the clock, apparently, on the FDA and the United States government turning back and saying, hey, wait a minute, what happened in 2020?
And that's by design.
That's by malevolent design.
This script, in that sense, was very successful from the very beginning because they're still there now.
And that's why I think that Brett Weinstein and Heather Haying are a great way to see through it.
I was connected with them very early by Piper Stover, and I taught them everything that I knew and more, and they went on to ignore it and absorb it and obfuscate it for five years.
And they are now still grifting as thought leaders, when in reality, they are part of this malevolent governance by social media mythology and by social media performance.
They deserve the worst kind of treatment if they're in public.
They deserve to have rotten vegetables thrown at their car.
They deserve to have rotten vegetables thrown at them when they get out of their car.
They deserve to have pie, cream pies in their face, like Brett Weinstein.
All of these people deserve that.
I think people like Pierre Kory deserve a cream pie in his face.
I think that somebody like Jessica Rose deserves a pie in her face every time she decides to go public somewhere.
And I think Robert Malone deserves the same thing.
So let's see what's going on with- Today, I have a special guest.
Look, I moved back to the Bay Area so I could talk to smart people at places like UC.
We are saying that this is scripted bullshit.
We are saying that these people are on a script.
We are saying that these people were put in place in order to undermine the authority of the FDA, maybe without having to change a thing or to write a law.
They would just put people in place to make sure that the FDA never looked back
and exercised its authority over medical devices and specifically over PCR diagnostics and sequencing.
This is the malevolent show.
And if you see the kinds of things that they talk about, the kinds of things that they agree on in this podcast in 2020, you will see why this is a traitorous group of men.
A traitorous group.
Yes, in Stanford and in the Bay Area.
And I was all excited and then COVID hit.
And it was Zoom, Zoom, Zoom.
And I hate Zoom.
So today I have someone I've been wanting to talk to since this pandemic started.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is a Stanford professor of medicine and he has training and specialty in economics.
Actually tell me Jay, Jay, who are you, man?
I am going to read the letter from J.E.
in Connecticut, and Susan in California, and Alexia in Colorado.
I won't say any more names, but those are the letters that I'm opening up now that Phila just brought back from the P.O.
Box.
Thanks guys.
Well, okay, so... Not in a metaphysical sense.
Exactly.
So, I am a professor of medicine as you said at Stanford University.
I've been at Stanford on the faculty for about 20 years.
I have an MD and a PhD in economics and I study health policy and health economics.
I've been working on infectious disease economics and epidemiology for 20 some years now.
So the reason I wanted to have you on the show was what you just said.
You have the MD, Stanford trained, and a PhD in economics, which means you can see in a way that many frontline healthcare people, including public health people, aren't able to see the bigger picture.
Now, you came to prominence during the pandemic.
I'm a hippocampus expert in the brain, or at least I was.
And the hippocampus is, of course, seahorse.
So a lot of times people,
who study the hippocampus will open their talk with a seahorse.
I don't know if you knew that or not, but it's a nice card.
as one of the co-authors of the Stanford seroprevalence study, which raised all kinds of interesting.
I mean, tell me about that experience because I was talking about your piece early on saying, hey, this is true.
The actual infection fatality rate of this disease is actually much lower than we thought.
It's still higher than flu, but it's not as high as they've been saying in China.
I mean, what was that experience like?
I mean, that was incredible.
Just an amazing, in some ways dispiriting, but also exciting experience.
So, can I go back just a little bit?
Absolutely.
So, what got me into it was I had done some work during the H1N1 flu epidemic in 2009.
I remember that one.
I mean, it was a big deal at the time, right?
But luckily it didn't turn out to be as bad as COVID, but it was, especially at the beginning, people were really, really panicked over the high fatality rates, the case fatality rates that were coming up out of all around the world.
I remember, I was a practicing hospitalist at Stanford and everybody was like, we're all going to die.
It was a kind of a catastrophization.
Yeah, no, it's actually in the early days, there was a good reason.
There were these case fatality rates that looked like, you know, Ebola.
I mean, it just looked terrible.
In the months that followed, what happened was people did seroprevalence studies and found that there were many times more cases of infections than there had been cases.
in H1N1 and the infection fatality rate, which turned out to be about a hundred times less than the initial case fatality rates in the H1N1 case.
So let me- Oh, so, you know, originally we thought it was really deadly, but once we started testing the background, we found out that lots more people had it.
And so then it makes the case fatality rate go down.
So again, once we get the numbers, we can make proper decisions.
Stop lying!
Stop!
remember that this guy named Jay Bhattacharya was on my stream years from now and deferred to me as a biologist repeatedly because he didn't understand any of this but in this podcast with this bald jackass he's a biologist in an economy he's a polymath and he's got an answer for everything
Let me reiterate that for people who don't understand some of that terminology.
So case fatality rate is when someone is actually tested for a disease, presents to care, and is diagnosed with the disease, and then how many people die out of that group.
Infection fatality rate is, well, of all the infections that exist, including ones that we weren't able to openly diagnose, what's the rate of fatality in that group?
And it was 100X different in H1N1.
And so this got you interested then when COVID came around, I imagine.
It looked like a repeat to me, right?
So it looked like the people were finding enormously high case fatality rates.
I think like World Health Organization said 3.4%.
There was a piece published in JAMA in February that said, you know, Journal of American Medical Association, we're gonna be eating sardines and it's gonna be cheap and you're gonna like it.
Nice article, that's awesome.
Association that said 2.2%.
And these are terrible numbers.
These are horrifying numbers.
These are the kind of numbers that would cause you to lock down the entire planet instantly because you're gonna lose that percentage of your population if everybody gets infected.
Millions and millions of people dead.
Lock down the population and millions of people dead.
Sounds kind of like Kevin McCarran.
Cool.
Right.
If that number is, in the United States alone.
Alone, right.
If the number is right.
But that was what happened at H1N1.
I thought, okay, well, do we really know how many people actually have it?
And at the same time, we're worried about how much testing resources we had.
Remember, there was a shortage of tests.
So we're holding onto the test to look at people who actually have serious disease, which is what you ought to do from a clinical perspective.
But then from an epidemiological perspective, can you extrapolate that to say, okay, the population at large is going to, 3% of us are all going to die if we get it.
And we don't know the answer to that.
So that's what led to the Stanford seroprevalence study.
Yeah, yeah.
And the other seroprevalence studies I've worked on.
So it was this- So he's worked on several seroprevalence studies.
And the whole idea was to get the case vitality numbers right.
I don't know what to say, Alexia.
And I don't know what to say, Susan.
Other than I'm never gonna stop.
And I'm only gonna get better.
And the biology that I teach is only going to get better.
And there's only going to be less of this, not more.
But right now, this is work we have to do.
These are people we need to expose and histories we need to archive.
But as soon as this show lets up just a little bit, as soon as I can get just a little grasp on how awful it is,
I will be back to teaching biology and I can't thank you enough for this support.
Three letters in the P.O.
box from three Americans is already almost enough to get the wind back in my... I mean, I don't even know what to say.
Thank you very much, that's all I can really say.
There's this hypothesis, like how many people actually have it?
How deadly actually is it?
And so how did you do this study?
Because there was a ton of controversy around the methods and the actual sensitivity, specificity of the assay that you use and all that.
Yeah, so that was a lot of like confusion around that, right?
So we wanted to do a study that could be done very, very quickly, put in the field very, very quickly.
At the time of the study, the FDA had approved for use some of these, they're called lateral flow assays.
They look like pregnancy tests, like little pregnancy kits.
Lateral flow assays that were produced in China.
Lateral flow assays are how they defined the pandemic also in the UK.
Lateral flow assays are about multiple antibodies specific for something.
Lateral flow assays are based on patent technology that is now considered obsolete and not biologically relevant.
Lateral flow tests, he doesn't know how they work.
He didn't design it.
He just ordered one and used it.
This is a very malevolent actor put in place
You can almost see the whole pandemic as being an Indian intelligence operation in cooperation with some very traitorous Americans.
And it wouldn't be that far off.
It's definitely not a bunch of Chinese people or a bunch of Russians.
I certainly don't see any, a bunch of Ukrainian biolab scientists all running around now.
So, and the one we used had pretty good error properties.
You know, every medical test has errors.
I mean, there's just not a... And you can't avoid that.
That's just the nature of... We don't have a tricorder that can automatically tell you exactly what's wrong with you, right?
We need to look at the numbers and interpret them.
At the time, the FDA had put together a, you know, had approved for use these little lateral flow assay tests, including the one we used, for sale, but they hadn't approved them for general use in the population.
Right?
We use them for research purposes, but not for clinical purposes.
So we use one of those.
The reason it was very simple.
There are two kinds of tests to do antibody testing.
There's these ELISA tests, which are pretty accurate.
And then these lateral fluorescence.
For the ELISA, you have to draw venous blood.
So I just got a text message from plus 63.
Where is plus 63?
This is really remarkable.
So plus 63, country code 63.
Philippines.
So I got a Philippine, a call from the Philippines that says that I have a outstanding traffic ticket with the Pennsylvania State and I should go to a www, no, no, it's not a www.pa.gov, it's pa.gov slash jkaw.win.
Wow.
That's incredible.
Holy shit.
That's pretty funny.
Well done, dorks.
Anyway, here we go.
Back to the show.
But it's really hard in the middle of a pandemic to go out and find, you know, can I draw venous blood from you, a big vial of it, or I can just do a little finger stick.
The nice thing about epidemiologic work is you can correct for the errors, which is what we did.
Now, actually, I've run three seroprevalence studies, one in Santa Clara County, one in LA County, and one with Major League Baseball.
Did you get to meet a lot of baseball players?
I got to meet a lot of the, no baseball players, but I met, I mean, it was sort of- They sent Jay Bhattacharya to a owner's meeting to convince people that testing was appropriate.
See what's happening here.
He acted as a national security agent and went and helped to bamboozle a bunch of baseball owners about things that he's not an expert in.
I got to be in a meeting with all the owners, it was just fantastic.
I had to contain myself when I met the Yankees owner, but that's another thing.
So I ran three different studies and the interesting thing about the studies was we used very different methods to try to disseminate them.
So the Santa Clara study was the first one.
It was a big study, 2,000 some people in the Bay Area, actually in Santa Clara County.
We wrote the study very quickly and we released it through an open science process.
Like a pre-print.
A pre-print, right, exactly.
So now the traditional path involves sending it to a journal.
The journal then sends it to three anonymous reviewers.
No one will hear about it except me, and that's how I spend my life dealing with this.
three anonymous reviewers, all of whom always hate me.
So you're not used to the whole planet hating you at once.
Yeah, no, that was interesting.
So we sent it and I got 10,000 peer reviews in one day.
Oh my gosh.
And it was, I mean, you know what, actually it was kind of interesting, exciting.
I learned a lot, right?
So we'd made a, what I would characterize as a relatively minor error in standard error calculation, which we corrected within a week.
Right.
And you know,
But making an error allowed there to be a little fuss on social media about how he doesn't know what he's talking about.
And don't underestimate the orchestration of that either.
He can say, oh, we made a little error and we corrected it right away.
But at the time, that was part of the little fuel.
The day after this was released, Charles Rixey did a post about it on Prometheus Shrugged.
And Tim Poole talked about this shit on his podcast.
So.
Don't mess around here, this is serious.
The number that we got was absolutely stunning.
What we found was that the disease was 50 times more prevalent than people thought based on just the case numbers.
So people thought in Santa Clara County, there were a thousand cases as of April 3rd, I think it was.
Remember what he said in his introduction, maybe I missed it already because I was reading the mail.
But in his introduction, if I recall correctly, he says that he worked on flu before this, he worked on Ebola, and he worked on HIV.
So he's done the epidemiology of previously orchestrated mythologies before and contributed to them under the banner of Obama's administration.
This is a Democratic operative.
Just like Donald Trump is just a Democratic operative who's playing the same role that he's playing a role for Hillary Clinton.
Now Hillary Clinton doesn't have to do anything.
But in fact, based on the study, you could tell 50,000 people had had some antibody evidence of it at the same time.
Right, which would correspond to an infection fatality rate at that time of what?
About 2 in 1,000.
So that means out of 1,000 people who got the infection, 998 survived.
So 0.2% fatality, so double what we think the mortality is.
for flu.
Yeah, although I'm not 100% sure I know what the flu, I know that.
So it was still double than what flu is, but he's not sure what flu mortality is, but he worked on flu before the pandemic.
So I don't really understand why he's playing dumb here.
The evidence is unclear.
No one's done the same kind of infection fatality rate numbers that they've done for COVID, they've done with the flu.
So in many ways, we're comparing apples to oranges when we're comparing flu.
Yeah, so let's come back to that flu comparison, because it is interesting and important.
But I think the key thing is,
How much would you change your life for a 200,000 risk?
And there's a couple other things we learned.
So one is that the- So the risk is real and if it was different, it would kill a lot more people.
But right now we estimate that it's not gonna kill that many people.
So what would you risk?
And now you see the malevolence of the trap.
They all accept the novel virus.
If you're older, it's much higher.
It's probably much worse than the flu, actually, if you're older.
Order of magnitude.
Yeah.
So if you're over 70 versus if you're, let's say you're under 15 or under 10, it's on the order of a thousand to one difference in mortality probability.
My guess is that supplementary oxygen is just as dangerous to old people relative to young people, and that old people are more likely to develop ARDS earlier, maybe even with lower concentrations or application level of supplementary oxygen.
Figure that one out.
Flu is much more deadly if you're older, if you're over 65, let's say 65 or 70.
And if you're under- The flu or COVID you were talking about?
I'm sorry.
Oops, that should... What happened there?
What is this?
That should work.
Oh, there we go.
But it's now crashing.
I'm just going to start it over again.
Sorry about that.
and we'll just fast forward it.
Hey everyone, Dr. Z. Welcome to the ZDoggMD show.
Today I have a special guest.
Look.
Exactly.
So now the traditional path involves sending it to a journal.
The journal then sends it to three, there's just not a, but there's, and you can't avoid that.
That's just the nature of, we don't have a tricorder that can automatically tell you.
It's, what it is, is a few things.
One is the set of people that are getting infected are less vulnerable to it.
They tend to be younger.
And so they just don't die at high rates from it.
The second, we were better at managing, better at treating it.
Right?
So the- Dexamethasone.
Exactly.
Not intubating everyone.
Not killing people with ventilators, right?
I mean, that seems like a really good idea.
Yeah.
Not killing people with ventilators, ha ha ha.
Dexamethasone was described on a podcast by Robert Malone with Paul Cuttrell as a hammer for the immune system and a way for them to clear out ICUs of old people and send them back to care homes where they could die of pneumonia.
So it's a weird thing for them to mention dexamethasone when about, I don't know, six months or a year later in August, Robert Malone's going to joke about dexamethasone as a hammer for the immune system in a way that they got the fatality rate to go up in old people in New York.
Crazy, huh?
They all know the script.
It's almost like the same guy's writing it.
Which by the way, wasn't clear in the beginning at all.
So not to disparage people who are intubating everyone, but we just didn't know.
Yeah, no, look, I have a lot of sympathy and people were really brave going in when we don't know the numbers.
I honor that, absolutely.
But it is absolutely the case.
We've learned a lot about how to treat the disease and we're much better at managing it than once were.
I think that kind of news ought to get out more.
We learned to treat the disease is such a lie.
And of course, it has to do with also ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and the proper pressure in the ventilators and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
This is all a lie because it presumed that there was something to learn.
It presumes that there was something to learn instead of something to unlearn.
That seems like an important fact.
Our understanding of the disease shouldn't be frozen in amber in March.
So you're preaching to the choir because I just did a video on this on the cases up, deaths down.
I actually think that there is a lot of catastrophization and misunderstanding and there's been a polarity that I've not seen in science ever.
And it shouldn't be, it should be looking.
I am gonna say that we have a big problem on our hands.
Oh, I think I left the pause button in there.
That's what this is.
I see it now.
I have to remove that and then this would work, right?
Because then this will just play.
But I'm not gonna watch this one anymore.
Because I need to go to the gym and everyone dr. Z welcome to the show Hey, I have a special guest look I move back it is scripted bullshit but it's really important to see how scripted it is and what they talk about because It will reveal without us beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was scripted from the beginning and that's the reason why he bumped into me a couple times at barbecues, but
did deferred to me all the time as the biologist and eventually just resorted to telling me to shut up about Robert Malone because that's who's behind him.
That's who's providing the script.
And these people are on a script provided by Robert Malone.
I would be willing to bet dollars to donuts that Marty McCary is too.
It's all is that this RNA exists.
You can capture it.
You can sequence it.
You can move it to other cells and recapitulate disease.
It's all one script.
They're all on the same script.
The Human Genome Project is the script and they want you to blame the bad guys like, you know, Gavi and J&J and Pfizer when it's much bigger than that.
It's so big that they had to kill somebody like Brandy Vaughn.
It's so big that they had to convince Brian Hooker to use the word autism even though he didn't.
It's so big that they had to have somebody like Andrew Wakefield and Pauly Tommy come over to the United States and recycle their show.
It's so big that they needed a lot of platforms to divide people on and they've rolled out even more platforms to divide people on because it's so big they need us to teach this bad biology to our children.
It's so big they can't do it themselves.
We have to accept endemicity.
We have to accept
public health as an answer.
We have to accept virology as a science or this whole thing falls apart.
For all the marbles, that's why there is a fake anti-vax movement that has captured America and the rest of the Western world.
They've done it by turning an irreducibly complex background into something spreading with non-specific PCR tests.
Ladies and gentlemen, RNA cannot do that.
If you use PCR to find their ghosts, the ghosts don't become real.
You just become dumb.
Ladies and gentlemen, please share this stream as far as you can.
We'll be on all week.
Usually I'm going to try and start at 10.10, but it's looking like 11.11 is more like it, but 10.10 is my target.
Harney cannot pandemic intramuscular injection is dumb.
Transfecting healthy people was always a crime and the population pyramids are a problem that you need to understand in order to see how they did this.
why it was a biological opportunity that just need to be lied about.
Thanks very much for being here.
I love you all very much.
From everything I've read is that this RNA exists.
You can capture it.
You can sequence it.
You can move it to other cells and recapitulate disease.
We will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
Um, he was actually damaged.
He was neuro.
1111 works for you.
It works for me.
I just I'm gonna pull the trigger when I'm ready to go and a lot of times I just need an extra hour.
So We'll just keep it there.
Thank you very much for being here.
Thank you very much to David to Susan and to Alexia an incredible amount of generosity in those three envelopes.
Thank you very much I assure you my family will will use it very wisely You're putting sandwiches on the table, thank you very much.
Yeah