Testing 1-2, I am a little bit late.
Testing, test, test, testing, testing.
That's better.
Testing 1-2, test.
Good to see everybody.
As usual, left-hand monkey wrench pulling in first.
Wanted to start the stream today with a little bit of an immediate an immediate segment first segment here Let me just pop in here and let me see if I can do This yes I finished reading this book the other day And it's an interesting book the book is from I
It is from 1968.
The first printing was in May 1968 and there have been 13 printings before 1970 apparently.
It's an interesting book because one of the contentions that myself and others in my immediate circle have been making is this is about more than money.
This is about more than pharmaceutical profits.
This is about something much bigger than that.
A second, third order human genome project kind of thing might be part of it, but just a total governance of the world by a sort of network of thought control, a network of preconceived notions, a network of theaters that
that essentially can govern people because they have defaulted to that.
We have accepted social media, and by accepting social media we are using it now.
So instead of getting our news from cable TV, which might have been bad, we are now getting our news from social media, which can be tailored to show each of us a different image of reality.
And that means that essentially with
the proper tuning and training, it is possible that that these basic programs could see patterns in behavior and human behavior that could be weaponized against us.
And these patterns won't be very complex.
And so this idea of what is it really is it all for all the marbles, what does that really mean?
And I feel like I've often not backed my statement up with with
Well, recently gained knowledge.
I mean, I've had this notion in my head for a while as somebody who understood that 9-11 wasn't what they told us it was.
But I think taking it seriously now for the last five years as the state of the world, taking it as seriously as a heart attack, I've been reading a lot.
Because as I said on my bike a long time ago,
That's about all I can do.
I mean, I love biology and I can read stuff.
So I'm gonna put on a pair of readers and I'm gonna read you chapter 3.
of this book because I think it's pretty relevant.
Oh, these are dirty, but I don't want to waste time cleaning them right now.
So I should be able to just slide this over here.
Yes.
This is chapter three.
What is being done?
Um, I think this is interesting, uh, because I want you to again, take, take this from the idea that
at these tables, at these dinners, at these campouts, at the Bohemian Grove, at Bilderberg group meetings, at all of these places, the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations, they have all talked about the management of the population problem.
and talked about it in a way that I don't think that many young kids are really used to thinking about it or hearing people think about it and certainly a lot of us even aren't really aware of how it was talked about in the 50s and in the 40s and in the 30s.
It was a, I mean,
This is describing what is not being done about the population bomb.
Remember, that's the name of this book, The Population Bomb.
And the idea is that only kids are dying of starvation.
The idea is that we're spending all of our time on mid-age diseases, and we don't care anything about kids, and the population is exploding, and we're running out of
So it's a really, really dark narrative about the Earth being overrun by people if we don't do something about it.
So the ship has hit the rocks and is sinking.
The passengers scream for help.
Some jump overboard and are devoured by circling sharks.
A group of distinguished scientists is on board.
One of their numbers suggests that they go help man the pumps.
Oh no, shout the others.
That might hurt the captain's feelings.
Besides, pumping is not our business.
It's outside of our field of competence.
Well, that's an interesting...
you can guess what they do.
They appoint a committee to study the problem, the subcommittees on marine engineering and navigation, they announce that the passengers that in two or three years the committee will produce a wonderful report which will be acceptable to the passengers, the captain, and the streamline ship.
stream steamship line not so passive are the politicians some jump up to say that the passengers don't understand the political realities of the situation you know like the 5d chess others more progressive politicians
Sorry, I can't read this morning.
What I decided to do is read the screen and then I don't really need these.
Other more progressive politicians grab thimbles and start bailing, stopping every few seconds to accept praise for their valiant efforts.
That about sums up the situation on the population control front in the United States and the rest of the world.
People in positions of power have either ignored the problem or have recommended solutions that are inadequate in scope or proven failures.
The Catholic Church recommends the rhythm method of contraception.
Unfortunately, people who practice this method of contraception are commonly called parents.
Even under the most carefully controlled conditions, women using this technique run a 15% risk of pregnancy each year they use it.
With the pill, comparable rates are less than 1%.
Of course, there's no downsides to the pill.
Of course, under normal conditions, the failure rate is much higher, about 25%.
In short, the rhythm method doesn't work.
The irrelevant description of it as a Vatican roulette is, alas, accurate.
As Vatican roulette is to family planning, so family planning is to population control.
Family planning doesn't work either.
So that's another interesting thing.
I don't know where my phone is, but I can hear it making noise.
I should probably find it.
The failure of family planning in the field of population control is brilliantly outlined by Kinsey Davis, Kingsley Davis, in a recent article in the magazine Science.
He points out that things that make family planning acceptable are the very things that make it ineffective for population control.
By stressing the right of parents to have the number of children they want, it evades the basic question of population policy, which is how to give societies the number of children they need.
By offering only the means of couples to control fertility, it neglects the means for society to do so.
Or, as Justin Blackwell once said, family planning means, among other things, that if we're going to multiply like rabbits, we should do it on purpose.
One couple may plan to have three children.
Another couple may plan seven.
In both cases, they are a cause of the population problem, not a solution to it.
Above all, remember that planned, well-spaced children will starve or vaporize in a thermonuclear war or die of plague just as well as unplanned children.
This book was so awesome, I couldn't hardly put it down.
Like, I started reading it and I ate it up like a sandwich.
It's hilarious.
The story in the UDCs, that's, I think, I want to read that last one again.
Or as Justin Blackwelder once said, family planning means, among other things, that if we're going to
We are going to multiply like rabbits.
We should do it on purpose.
One couple may plan to have three children.
Another couple may plan seven.
In both cases, they are a cause of the population problem, not a solution to it.
Above all, remember that planned, well-spaced children will starve or vaporize in a thermonuclear war or die of a plague just as well as unplanned children.
This is a great book.
The story in the UDCs is depressingly same everywhere.
People want large families.
They want families of a size that will keep the population growing.
Family planning is all too often used to lock the barn door after the horse is stolen.
Davis reports that among 5,196 women seeking assistance in rural Punjab, India, two-thirds were over 30.
Since many were married before they were 15, it is hardly surprising that more than half of them already had six or more children.
Similarly, the president of Hong Kong Family Planning Association pointed out that at least in the early years of their program, the patients who received assistance were usually about 31 years of age and had six children.
It is important to remember that even if a woman in the UDCs had actually the number of children they wanted, the results would still be demographic catastrophe.
See, they describe it very clearly in this book over and over and over again.
that we are gonna have a demographic catastrophe if we don't stop having this many kids.
Family planning is important from the point of view of health and welfare of individuals, but it does not control population.
Is that where it stopped?
Yeah, populations, period, yes.
I think it gets a little better yet.
I think UDCs is underdeveloped countries in case you didn't catch on to that.
The current birth control programs in the underdeveloped countries have their base in family planning.
Their goals are expressed in almost all cases in lowered birth rates.
Pakistan aims to reduce its birth rate from 50 to 40 per thousand in 1970.
India aims, there's my phone.
Thank you very much.
Can't see who's giving me the, thank you very much.
But remember the critical thing is the balance between birth and death rates.
With death rates around 10 to 20, I guess that's percent, it is clear
10 to 20 per thousand probably.
It is clear that even achieving these goals could not by any stretch of the imagination be called population control.
People would still be multiplying like rabbits and the population doubling every 30 to 40 years.
So they use this laboratory animal analogy all the time, multiplying by rabbits.
Let's take a look at family planning in India, a country whose government has been more than a decade ahead of ours.
in recognizing that population size is a matter for governmental concern and action.
The Indian government has had an official birth control program since 1951.
Interesting.
In the early years of their program, they did a lot of experimenting with the rhythm method, although millions of Catholic couples could have given them the word on its efficiency, but recently they've gotten down to business.
When I was in Delhi in 1966, posters said that use loop for family planning were much in evidence.
The kind of loop, of course, refers to different kinds of plastic devices which are inserted into the womb to prevent conception.
These inner uterine devices, IUDs, not to be confused with UDCs, are one of the main tools of family planning in India.
Others are the simple and harmless marrow sterilization operation, the vasectomy,
and the distribution of rubber sheaths.
I guess they didn't use condoms as a word back then.
In early 1968, Joseph Lieveld reported that only a small number of Indians, 335 districts, had on hand a complete task force for birth control.
And one of the few districts is Karya, an area in which each family village has assigned to it a family planning worker.
But after having active family planning workers in the district for eight years, the birth rate is higher than the national average.
Nice work.
I wanted to, there was something else in here.
I just want to screw through the, move the Indian women, India.
What about vasectomies?
Recently, there was talk in India of compulsory sterilization for all males who are fathers of three or more children.
See, India is way ahead on this stuff.
That's kind of cool.
They might make a good partner if, you know, if you wanted to pull off an operation where you were going to try and, you know, get some population control in a place where there is none.
Can you imagine the pick-a-bob attempt to sterilize 40 million males?
What the hell is he talking about?
Can you picture the probable results of a government attempt to sterilize 40 million males?
What a problem it would be in our country with its relatively informed populace and efficient transport and communication system.
Huh?
Imagine such an attempt in India where the difference between castration and sterilization would almost be impossible to explain.
As one might expect, the principal Indian official thinking in such tough-minded terms has recently ended up in a less influential position in a government shuffle.
So they have a big problem because Hindu people say it's a sin to prevent children from being born.
Oh boy, they have a problem in India then.
Anyway, I'm gonna let you get a copy of this book and read it because it's really good I wanted to see there's Japan and that's what I wanted to see it is often quoted the off-quote examples of Taiwan and Korea are countries undergoing a Demographic transition where the whole of family planning programs was at most very small furthermore their growth rates have been slowed not brought to zero and
Japan lowered its growth rate dramatically, but not through conventional family planning.
A modern industrialized nation with a highly efficient agriculture, Japan was faced after World War II with a series of cramped islands with no opportunity to expand.
Both government and industry in Japan supported the program of population control.
Its dramatic halving of the birth rate was achieved originally through sanctioning of abortion.
Abortion is a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.
It is condemned by many family planning groups which are notorious for pussyfooting around about methab...
which are notorious for puss of footing about methodology, despite their beginning 60 years ago as revolutionary social pioneers.
The United Nations, for instance, does not include abortion in family planning.
Quite the contrary, UN justifies family planning as a method of combating abortion.
Recently, Japan's industry, feeling the competition from other Asian countries with cheap labor pools, has withdrawn its support from the population control picture.
Japan's growth rate is now rising again.
At any rate, the situation in Taiwan, Korea, and Japan are in no way equivalent to those in underdeveloped countries.
We would be foolish in the extreme to count on similar sequences of events taking place in other parts of Asia, Africa, or Latin America.
Here we go.
What is the government of the United States doing in the area of population control?
It is bailing the sinking ship with a very small and leaky thimble.
Six federal agencies are involved in one way or another with family planning.
It would be interesting to trace what these agencies have become, because the Department of Health and Education and Welfare, I guess, got split up.
Office of Economic Opportunity, National Science Foundation we know of, Department of Interior, Department of State, and the agency fellows that we all know of.
Agency for International Development maybe became USAID, I don't know.
The total spent by the agencies in 1967 for birth control and family planning activities was $33 million.
$18 million by those, 9, 5, 1.
These expenditures may seem impressive, but they can be put into perspective easily.
For 1968, the entire proposed budget of the health, education, and welfare is about $13.2 billion, and the birth control planning part is less than one quarter of 1%.
Again, the population budget of all the agencies would not buy more than a dozen sophisticated military jets.
It's roughly the same amount as the government appropriation for rat control.
Listen to the language here.
Listen to the way that these people think about the problem, the severity of the issue.
They really want you to see that there's only one choice.
We gotta stop this.
So it's less than a drop in the bucket, not even a good micro drop since so much of it is frittered away in family planning.
Little is done on population control on a world scale.
Here's what Senator Gruning from Alaska had to say before the Senate, May 3rd, 1967.
At my request, Executive Agency spokesman reported to the Government Operations Subcommittee on Financial Foreign Aid Expenditures concerning their activities and efforts to implement President Johnson's mandate.
Their reports were disappointing and in no respect implemented President Johnson's mandate for new ways to use our knowledge to help deal with the explosion in world population and the growing scarcity in world resources.
They revealed that progress in implementing any programs was painfully slow, and that existing programs were inadequately funded and staffed.
For example, the subcommittee found that even
that while 1,100 persons in the Agency for International Development worked on food problems, no more than 11 worked on population problems.
Nevertheless, there has been some slight progress.
And so you can see what this book is all about.
This is just a, you know, they're talking about organ transplants and harvesting, you know, there's not enough organ transplants.
It might become history unless action is taken on the population front soon.
Human organ transplants will become a historical curiosity.
This book's crazy.
They've been thinking like this for a really, really long time.
Their excuse is that this is a crisis that needs averting.
The crisis, of course, is the population problem.
The crisis is this thing that they made up this mythology about endemicity in order to manage.
They rolled out fake tests or useless tests.
They rolled out a lot of placebo.
not a lot of transfections but a lot of placebo.
That's how they made the manufacturing quota and the entire illusion is still sustained on all sides because they're still finding their ghosts with their tests and we're still playing Ghostbuster like that.
All the people on our side are still playing
Ghostbuster just like they did in 2020.
And you got to wake up and see it or our children will be enslaved by them and their show.
Not doing very well here.
There's crap on the table.
I don't know what's going on.
There's sand on the table.
So there was like a background signal of irreducible complexity that's there every day, everywhere, that they want you to ignore and believe that their test finds something.
And in reality, it is as simple as this cartoon.
If the background is represented as black, and you don't know what that background is, and then they tell you, oh, we found something.
and it's that black thing, but they tell you it's the red thing.
And the red thing has a fear and cleavage site, and the red thing has HIV inserts.
The red thing is the most infectious thing ever.
And then they start tracking it all around.
All they did was, in this cartoon, change what was black to red, and it's only changed to red because you chose to use their tests.
And the thing about it is, is this was timed perfectly with a biological phenomenon that they all knew was coming.
They've looked at this chart, the population pyramid of every country in the West, every country in Africa, they're watching this all the time.
Because if we have just enough hospital beds in America to serve this population from top to bottom,
then when this little bump here ages out and shifts from being a very good, high tax paying group of individuals to a very sick, very lazy, very low tax paying, drawing down type population,
the economics, the socioeconomic structure of America will change quite drastically, especially if these younger adults aren't making comparative salaries to these crazy people with five houses and, you know, drinking $12,000 bottles of wine.
And so you just need to see that even in this pyramid in 2010, you could see this disaster coming.
You could see that what is a, you know, a 3 million male bar, it looks like 5 million or 4 million female bar here at 75 to 79 could potentially be as high as 8 or 9 million if we keep all these people alive that long.
If we manage, if they manage to stay alive and enjoy their pontoon boat for that long, enjoy their vacation houses for that long, where are we then?
How much Medicare is spent?
How much social security gets paid out?
That is the inflection point that was conveniently right around 2019, 20, 21, 22, just conveniently.
And so you can just let it play out.
You can just see these bars growing.
You can see them growing.
That is an expected rise in all-cause mortality.
It's right there.
It's happening.
You can see them growing.
That expected rise in all-cause mortality was the biological signal that they misconstrued as a crisis.
And the special, special, special thing about this anticipated rise in all-cause mortality is it didn't need to be that dramatic.
In order to get this signal right here that you see in America, and I would assure you, I assure you, I assure you, please check this yourself.
There are very few countries in the world that have a signal like America does.
And the reason that is, is because this happened in America.
The murder, the lies, the murder and lies that are belied by this graph happened almost exclusively in America and a couple other key places.
One of them being Scotland.
Anywhere where their population pyramid had an especially special signal or they had some ulterior malevolent motives for wanting to get rid of the old people.
But they did it, and they did it in a lot of places, but in America in particular, and then told everybody around the world that your lockdown is going better than ours because we can't figure it out here in America.
And there were Americans and international meddlers online making sure that that murder and lies, that sculpting of an anticipated rise in all cause mortality, you can actually see it in this graph.
was sculpted using murder and lies.
And those murder and lies, after hard work and study, you can figure it out.
Doctors should have been able to figure it out by now.
But for some reason, at least on social media, it seems like doctors can't figure this out at all.
They just can't get to the point where they understand that simply giving people supplementary oxygen under the fear that they might need it, that it might help if they have a pulse ox of 96 or below like the FLCCC recommended.
And again, remember, it's a list.
It's a long list of things that if you send these messages out into the ether, into corporate hospitals, and you get even a majority of doctors to follow along with this general idea, especially the one that you don't use antibiotics on a viral syndrome, and right now, most of the things that'll probably come in here are viral, we will have murder and lies.
And now you add all these other things in here and it is just an absolute mess.
And nobody's looking back on it.
Nobody is gonna turn around and look in the rear view mirror because that is the goal.
To teach this to our kids that pandemics are real, that vaccines can save us, that these questions are all worth asking and they are not.
There are better questions to ask.
There's better biology to research.
And I don't know what to tell you.
I think it's very, very simple.
RNA cannot pandemic.
Intramuscular injection is not a form of medicine.
Transfecting healthy people was never a good idea.
And they definitely knew better.
And the population pyramids are actually the biology, the signal that they took advantage of.
It's that simple.
Once you understand that, you don't need to ask where the flu went.
But this is all scripted, right?
These people are all scripted.
And it's not like they got a book and they're just following it.
They get little hints, they get little tips, they get little, you know, here's another sponsor.
And by the way, don't say that again.
And also, there are more malevolent people out there that are more malevolently scripted.
Otherwise, there would be a better explanation.
There's no better explanation for that if you see this man wasting so much time with this woman on a podcast like this.
This can only be explained by these two being some form of government NATO agent.
I don't really know because she's Canadian and Israeli.
I don't really know because he's worked for the Department of Energy since he dropped out of college.
So it's hard to say, you know, but he's had clearance for a while.
This lady clearly has an interesting set of passports.
And that guy's a clown, right?
So the only way to explain this and all the others, right?
Because Tommy has had Robert Malone on his podcast alone and together with other people like countless, I don't even know how many times for sure.
And at least twice he was on there with Stephen Hatfield.
Those are some of the most remarkable videos I've ever downloaded from Rumble.
It's all scripted bullshit.
All scripted bullshitters.
And we are now having really scripted bullshitters at the head of the FDA.
And it is terrifying for the simple fact that we saw this coming.
Mark Kulak in Boston, Massachusetts of Housatonic ITS and I have seen this weird signal.
in the background and then in the foreground about intellectual property, about the FDA.
It just became weirder and weirder.
And at some point we had this, I felt the need to send an email to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and say, dude, did you know that Bret Weinstein recorded a podcast with you and then didn't release it for 14 months?
Did you know that Bret Weinstein's dad worked with your dad?
Could it be that Bret Weinstein is meddling with you because he didn't release that podcast for 14 months?
Did you know that?
That's crazy.
And for me, that was a really big deal because I still believed that Bobby Kennedy was a good guy.
I still believed that I was having an impact on the book and that I was figuring things out.
And when I saw that Bret Weinstein had kept this recording until February of 2023, having recorded it in November of 2021, when I was in a signal chat with him, you see?
So I was really pissed.
I was like, man, Bret Weinstein was in the signal chat with me and I was teaching him all this stuff.
And that guy interviewed you and he didn't even tell me.
And then he didn't release it until 14 months later.
And so I tried to explain all of this to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
in an email, and he replied in about an hour after I sent the email with, thank you.
It's all scripted bullshit, ladies and gentlemen.
It's all scripted bullshitters with scripted bullshitters.
It's horrible.
But it's also great because now we can finally see it and the realization can come.
You don't have to, you know, you don't have to make any leaps of faith.
You just have to do the research on your own to look at the patterns, make a calendar for yourself and see what they were up to and how their rhetoric did not change in the way it would if you were genuine.
You will see the same pattern as I see.
You will see scripted bullshit.
And so where did that scripted bullshit get us by design?
Well, it got us to accept PCR as a diagnostic standard all around the world, and that was achieved.
It got us to accept sequencing as a high-fidelity measurement.
And so there are very few professionals that would be willing to argue if somebody said, well, I found this sequence in your laboratory.
Intramuscular injection has been proven beyond question as a great methodology in medicine, and that's quite terrifying, I have to say.
The RNA has obviously huge military potential, of course, more than a nuclear bomb.
RNA could potentially wipe out billions of people, and even somebody as intelligent, as bright as Sam Harris is definitely convinced.
And solving America's health problems is going to be complicated because it's not just intramuscular injection.
It's also you know petroleum-based dyes and and glyphosate and and and all the toxins in in
in the food and processed food.
And so, you know, RFK Jr.
as Health and Human Services Secretary, already a huge win.
And that's really where they've gotten us.
That's what we believe, right?
And I am now very convinced that the United States was the victim of a Trojan horse.
And that Trojan horse was scripted by these two guys, Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan, probably both working for the same weaponized piles of money or government agencies, or maybe they're double or triple agents for all I know.
Brett Weinstein is a bit of a clown in this, but he's definitely a great example of the kind of people that they have used throughout the pandemic.
And it would explain a lot of the roster of the people that
currently playing for this team.
It is a team of go-getters and it's a team of people who want certain things and that's independent of you know whatever the truth is or whatever justice is or whatever a future with freedom and justice means to them.
They have some other goals and that might be a farm or a
or a, I don't know, fame or, you know, to be as big as Joe Rogan or whatever these people want.
So, it's all different things.
You know, some people probably also just needed a girl or a guy and that solved all their problems too.
But whatever it was, I just want to point out a couple things, okay?
I just want to be really frank about it.
The vast majority of Americans
believed that Trump was actually shot at by a guy who went to the same high school as my son goes, and I think that's a lie.
I don't know what parts of it are true and what parts of it are fake, but I know that their absolute disinterest in Matthew Crooks
who lives four blocks away or supposedly lived four blocks away from my house, who had a video, a BlackRock video at the high school that was supposedly on social media or Discord or something like that.
We know nothing.
We know nothing about the surgeon who fixed Trump's ear to perfection.
And we know nothing about a scar.
We know nothing at all because Trump wasn't shot.
That was a social media orchestrated stunt.
and they were demonstrating the power of social media and how easily they control a narrative like that.
And one of the ways they did it was they had people like Brett Weinstein do a few podcasts about multiple shooters and had a few other, you know, Bush League level people do some stuff about multiple shooters.
And then that climbed up the chain.
And before you know it, you have people on the left laughing about the idea that they're talking about multiple shooters or that maybe the Secret Service was in on it.
That's ridiculous.
to the right saying that there were even people in a hangar somewhere far away with a drone or something like that.
And so
The thing you need to see is that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as a Health and Human Services Secretary, is a massive distraction, not only for you on the right or us on the right or us on the conservative populist right, but the people on the left that are into trans rights and think that some of these trans high school kids are legit and should be throwing a softball for nine games straight or something like that.
Like, look, it's a distraction.
And how do you know it's a distraction?
Because Trump's administration did not submit a budget this fall.
Please understand how absurd that is.
Not only is it absurd, but think about how absurd that is that the media hasn't even covered it.
He's not a first term president.
He's had four years to plan his triumphant return.
He's had four years to scout out who he wants in what places or to get people who know and plan it out so that when he got in, he could hit the ground running.
Yet they did not submit a budget.
Instead, you heard a lot about Elon Musk and, and, and, and Donald Trump, you know, having some kind of bromance problems or whatever.
You heard a lot about Israel.
You heard a lot about everything else.
but the simple fact that the Trump administration did not submit a budget.
That is just rank incompetence.
That's like saying, I need to take over the ship.
I need to take over the ship.
And so then, yeah, you know, they, they let you take over the ship.
Okay.
What are you going to do?
Steady as she goes.
You don't have any better.
Nope.
Steady as she goes.
I'll be at the captain's table at 18... 1800 hours.
I expect steak.
And yet, what are we fighting about?
Whose case he means?
Are we fighting about the mRNA or whether we shouldn't do the... This is the problem.
The ship is still going to be run into the rocks.
America is still going to be controlled, demolished.
Nobody is taking the foot off the pedal at all.
And we are still trying to debate whether there's something good happening?
Our Secretary of Defense is a mega joke.
And the only reason why anybody watching this show might not be aware of it is because of your skillful use of social media.
Because the rest of the world knows.
and the rest of the world is being shown.
And so while we lounge around in our little bubble on X or on Telegram or on Locals or listening to the Bret Weinstein podcast and typing into the chat, way to go Bret, you just are such a great guy.
The Trump administration did submit a budget and also Bret Weinstein doesn't seem to be aware of that either.
So what kind of citizen is this asshole really anyway?
Does he even know anything about how the government works?
Do any of these people understand what happens when the National Guard is sent somewhere?
Are they just allowed to do whatever?
Do they just fall under the command of local police?
What has the media told you about the use of National Guard in particular states in those deployments?
What have they told you about that?
Have they informed you at all about what the Guard can do and can't do and under whose orders they're under?
Because if they haven't, then what are they really doing?
Other than showing you pictures and telling you stories,
Even Nicole Shanahan says it's the CIA on our streets.
How come it's always the CIA?
On every slide, the first slide, I have quotes, and I know that you don't read them.
at all, because you don't need to read them to pass or get a good grade.
But this one is pretty cool.
The quote from Alice in Wonderland.
One can't believe impossible things, said Alice.
I dare say you haven't had much practice, said the queen.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
So that's totally suitable for this lecture.
A lot of impossible things are going to happen today.
the masks, or behind, you know, proper testing, or behind the six-foot distancing, the two-meter distancing, or behind these shots, right, this technology that has never been used widely.
None of that is over.
And as Sasha Lateefa pointed out this morning, you know, these were
military operations, but they were global military operations, right?
Every country had exactly the same narrative.
I was fortunate to be able to travel during COVID because I had natural immunity.
Having had it for two days, I took ivermectin, I was fine.
And so I saw, you know, two meters, masks, you know, be afraid, stay at home, lockdown, you know, schools closed, businesses tanked.
All of that was on a global basis.
But you can tell if someone's lying.
You know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
So the thing about that slide is, I want to play that again.
the masks or behind, you know, proper testing.
If you listen to what Mary Holland is saying here, she said this this year.
She's number one.
She's reciting the entire narrative, including the fact that she had it.
And since she had it, she could travel.
She was only sick for two days.
She took ivermectin, giggle, giggle, and she was fine, but that gave her natural immunity.
And since she could travel, she's actually implying that she tested positive for seroprevalence and that allowed her to travel, even though she took ivermectin.
And so supposedly the virus didn't replicate or something like that.
The other thing that you need to hear and make sure you hear it, because I was trying to say it earlier in my introduction,
People were not murdered everywhere.
This idea that there was a narrative that was everywhere is true.
But that narrative was a little different depending on where you were.
And in America, we were told that people were dying because of Donald Trump, that because of people were dying because the FDA was in the way of testing.
We didn't have enough tests.
That's why people were dying.
So people that had it were spreading it around.
All of these narratives were told.
And then the results,
that I've shown you in those CDC's own numbers, those results where they just seem to have lost control of pneumonia for a couple of years, those results, and especially the beginning of them in 2020 and 21, were shown around the world as how not to do it.
And where those numbers weren't found, it was said that masks were effective, or their lockdowns were effective, or they had tests before us, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And if you remember, there was only one exception to that hamster wheel, and that was Sweden.
Everywhere else, it was just obvious that there was a pandemic or that the lockdowns worked.
And so Mary Holland is telling you a story
implying that people died everywhere, but people were only really murdered in America and in Scotland and in a couple other places, but none of which have been documented so easily and well as Scotland and America.
And those two places may have been enough to terrify the rest of the UK, to terrify the rest of the English-speaking world, to terrify everyone.
And so now you really need to reconsider, would Mary Holland really say all of these words out loud in front of a crowd of people if she wasn't scripted to do so?
or behind the six foot distancing, the two meter distancing, or behind these shots, right?
This technology that has never been used widely.
None of that is over.
And as Sasha Lateefa pointed out this morning, you know, these were military operations, but they were global military operations, right?
Every country had exactly the same narrative.
I was fortunate to be able to travel during COVID because I had natural immunity having had it for two days.
I took ivermectin, I was fine.
Um, and so I saw, you know, two meters, masks, you know, be afraid, stay at home, lockdown, you know, schools closed, businesses tanked.
All of that was on a global basis.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
You know, I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
uh from where i'm sitting there's a whole bunch of covid in condition that we will not call autism i don't like the word autism um he was vaccine damaged he was neurologically damaged
condition that we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
He was vaccine damaged.
I think, but you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
You know, I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
But one thing I am confident of from everything I've read is that this RNA exists, you can capture it, you can sequence it, you can move it to other cells and recapitulate disease.
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones.
You know, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, you know, 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.
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.
Actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
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!
Hoo!
Hey, good morning, everybody.
Welcome to the show.
We're going to get right to it.
This is GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
I know I'm coming in the middle of your day, and I apologize for that.
I know that we're all trying to figure this out as our dollar is worth less every day.
I know we're trying to figure this out.
One of the ways you can get some more time back is to get off of social media
That's one of the only forms of non-compliance that really matters.
So much of this narrative was only possible because we were on social media, and I really, really regret not seeing that earlier.
In tradition, we will not call autism.
I don't like the word autism.
I know.
Brian.
...vaccine damage.
Brian, Brian, Brian.
Autism spectrum disorder is a myth used to make sure that intramuscular injection is never questioned as a methodology.
Virology is never questioned as a science and public health is never questioned as a reason or an answer.
And you could say the same thing for pandemics and gain of function and a lot of other things.
And if you don't start to understand this trap, understand why the cheese is free on social media, your children will be enslaved.
That's the best I can put it.
There's lots of illusions out there, including that Google Fold thing that doesn't really seem to know anything about prions yet.
Gigabomb Biological is the biology that they ignore they being the people that seem to have
I've decided they want to be part of the ruling elite, and so they've sold out our grandkids.
Gigo Home Biological and my family is not part of that.
We are not doing anything here but putting it all on the line, and that's what we do here at Gigo Home Biological.
This is a
family of five in America, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
It's a stream for America and for the world.
We have family in the Netherlands that are also trapped inside of a more advanced version of the same trap.
If you are here, you are at the top of the wave.
You've been here for a while.
If not, you might really need to be reminded on how to stay focused on the biology, not take their bait on social media and love your neighbor.
The voice that you hear is that of Jonathan Cui.
I come to you live out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
You can find me on PubMed.
You can find me in the Wuhan cover-up book.
You used to be able to find me around Jay Bhattacharya at some barbecues, but not anymore.
You used to see me on a YouTube channel called JC on a Bike, but for now I've kind of put that to rest.
They gave me a strike.
I want to make sure I don't
endanger that catalog of videos and so I'm now streaming under a moniker called JC in the woods which is a channel that I opened up during the pandemic but never put any put any videos on it and so you could find me there on YouTube if you're lucky and look for it I'd appreciate if you do that I make this a little bit more resilient even inside of their own network
And again, I've said it before, how this works is I've got about 110 subscribers.
They have given me a monthly donation and you can do that on the website giggleandbiological.com.
I also have a few people that give me a larger donation every month that basically makes those ends meet.
And if you're interested in downloading some of the things to help you think about this stuff, including our biology 101 recommended textbooks, please go to the link stuff at gigaombiological.com and find that.
And there are other links there.
We won't talk about those for now.
I also want to give a shout out to my friend Mark Kulak.
at houstatonicits.com.
Great work, great website, always a new link there.
He's been working hard to catalog the people that are involved in this, and I think he's done a pretty good job.
Certainly he's done a lot better than anybody else.
And that makes him part of what I call an independent bright web.
a group of Americans that's out to figure it out.
A group of Americans that is willing to call each other out, to help each other out, to check each other out, to back each other up, and also working on their own thing.
In no way, shape, or form am I trying to say that what I do would ever cover what Joe's does or would ever cover what Mark does, but it's a spontaneous sort of harmonizing.
A lot like bluegrass music, I think.
Independent Brightweb could be thought of as really good bluegrass music.
just a bunch of good musicians getting together and jamming.
And we don't even really need to get together because our work stands out in contrast to a team of performers with elaborate costumes and effects all on the same script.
It's not just a few of these guys, it's hundreds of them.
And once you realize that, it starts to become obvious who Joe Marshall is, who Mark Kulak is, and I think who Jonathan Cooley is as well.
We are all Americans, and we are all free of a script.
Free of a script, at least given to us by sponsors.
Free of a script given to us by Rumble.
Free of a script given to us by Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan.
That's where I think we are.
Free of a script that these people were all obviously on.
Very free of a script.
Very, very free of a script.
And that's why we've fallen out of the control of these people.
That's why it really seems as though they've lost control.
Because they actually have.
um today i want to look at i don't know why that's so loud sorry about that i uh i really want to look at this this podcast um the number seven podcast of the FDA which was three or four days ago two days ago i don't know when it was but
It is quite extraordinary because as I've said, and Mark has said before, there's this myth.
I haven't said it as a myth yet, but I'm going to say it today.
It's the title of this show.
Personalized medicine is a myth, and it's always been a myth.
And they've been talking about personalized medicine for a long time in the context of genetics.
So fixing people's genes problems.
That's why they interchange the idea of rare diseases are
They use the word disease to describe rare diseases, which are actually genetic.
I don't know what the right word would be.
I'm gonna turn this music down.
They use the word, the words rare disease to describe things where a single protein is missing or malforms or, and that, that is an enchantment.
That is a semantic enchantment.
You have to see that because it is disguising the idea that they are interested primarily in genetic abnormalities.
Because genetic abnormalities are one of the few perhaps legitimate handholds that they can get on the irreducible complexity that is our genome or polygenome or whatever it is that we have in ourselves.
And if you've never heard me use the word polygenome before, well, there we go.
Now we're making some progress here.
And so before I do this, though, I think somebody gave me some homework a while ago, and I think I want to work on that homework first.
So I'm going to go to a video from 2013.
And for some reason, I couldn't get this video to insert directly into my slide deck.
So I'm going to briefly step out of
PowerPoint and I'm going to open this video separately over here.
And then put it on the screen over there.
Now the video that I'm going to watch is a video of Tony Bark.
And Tony Bark is a, let me just get that up there quick.
What?
I just want to open it.
Oh, I see, I dragged it.
I'm speaking today with Dr. Toni Bark, who practices family medicine in Chicago.
I learned about Dr. Bark after hearing her speak at Autism One in Chicago this past May.
I was very eager to interview her about her talk at A1.
Dr. Bark has been- Okay, so A1, Autism 1, some kind of meeting about autism in 2013.
This is an interview from July 26th.
An outraged academic.
Now, the thing that I find so cool about Tony Bark
is that actually Tony Bark was the head of Rush Medical School's ER.
So Rush Hospital, Rush Medical Center is attached to Rush Medical School in Chicago.
Chicago's an interesting city because it has five medical schools in it.
It has University of Illinois Chicago, it has Loyola,
University, it has Rush Medical Center, which is Rush University, it has Northwestern University, and it has the University of Chicago on the south side.
All of those are fairly decent schools and certainly from a perspective of local
local reputation, none of them have a bad one.
It's not like they're the same as going to the Caribbean or something like that.
And nobody that was applying to med school, maybe you might say that UIC is the least competitive of those, and that might have changed since I applied.
But all of those schools were on my radar.
I just didn't apply to the University of Chicago or to Northwestern.
I didn't think I could get in the University of Chicago.
I didn't want to go to Northwestern.
So I was primarily focused on Loyola and on Rush and on UIC because I thought those were schools that I could get into.
And it cost a lot of money back then to apply.
And so you couldn't just throw your application out to 10 schools every year.
But I know Rush.
And actually, my first choice would have been Rush.
I got interviewed at Rush.
And for her to be the head of their ER means that she was absolutely a badass.
Like not a TV doctor.
This is not a backcountry doctor who claims to be an expert in anthrax because she wrote a blog or because she trekked through Africa.
Because Rush Medical Center is very, very close to Cook County Hospital.
And if you know anything about TV,
And you know anything about the show ER, where all these handsome, beautiful, famous people made their debut on television?
ER is made in the theme of, or under the pretense that it's Cook County Hospital.
Rush Medical Center is right across the street as far as I remember the map.
It's very, very close.
It's a very, very, very, very, very busy place.
You cannot be at all, even remotely faking it to make it, which I am arguing a lot of the people that have been put in front of us over the last five years are exclusively doing, that Vinay Prasad is exclusively doing, that Marty Makary is exclusive.
They are faking it to make it.
And in 2013, I believe this video is going to, beyond a shadow of doubt, prove to me that Tony Bark was not faking it to make it.
Tony Bark was a giant.
And to have her become skeptical of vaccines was a major problem.
So let's see what we got here in this interview.
Note, don't forget that Tony Bark was eventually interviewed by Infowars and then died soon after.
Not that dissimilar to Brandy Vaughn.
In fact, I think in this video, I'm gonna be listening for cues on why Brandy Vaughn's unique background as a Merck pharmaceutical representative
would have jived really well with Tony Barks already.
You can see 2013, this is going to be a couple, three years before Brandy really hits her stride.
I think Mark is exactly right when he makes the conjecture that Brandy Vaughn only really became dangerous after she met Tony Bark.
And Tony Bark died in March of 2020.
She maintained a private practice in homeopathy for more than 15 years, and she also teaches in a master's program in medical disaster planning at Boston University.
In 2012, Dr. Bark became the second vice president of the American Institute of Homeopathy.
And so I'm really excited to hear what you have to say.
And A, one, you described yourself as an outraged academic because of the full control, not just influence, the pharmaceutical industry has over our health care.
I don't even really think that was that good of an introduction because I think she should have said that she was in attending at an ER.
I think you should have started there.
If you start with, she's the president of homeopathy, you don't get the idea that she's put her hands inside of gunshot wounds.
And I don't think that's a, I mean, it's not that lady's fault maybe, and maybe she's just really humble, but for me,
That one dot, even if it was just for two years, that one dot as a professional just blows my mind.
It just really does.
It blows my mind because an ER is a very, very special place to be a doctor.
And my guess is, is that Pierre Corey's never done it.
My guess is, is that a lot of these doctors have never done ER work.
And there's a reason.
I really do think there's a reason.
And it ain't because they didn't watch ER when they were teenagers.
And because of this massive power and wealth that the pharmaceutical industry has, how likely is it that government officials would even acknowledge that this is true, let alone do anything to stop it?
And in that same regard, is there any real oversight when it comes to medicine in America?
Uh, big, big question.
So, um, I have to say, I'm going to start backwards.
Is there any real oversight?
Theoretically, there's some oversight and I, and I suppose with enough death caused by one drug.
The sink will go in and out because this is 2013 when, you know, we didn't have all this fancy stuff we have now.
So, but it's not me and it's not the video.
You'll see.
One procedure at some point,
There's oversight, but we know that it can take 100,000 deaths, right?
I mean, we know what happened with Vioxx and Avandia.
The biggest problem is that the
the agencies which are supposed to be looking at the industry.
And you know, and this isn't just in the pharmaceutical industry, this is in gas and oil, this is in banking, this is in the food, food chain, you know.
So she already mentioned Vioxx there, right?
Now remember that Brandy worked for Merck selling Vioxx.
I'm just saying.
that controls our food, again, going back to the FDA.
I'm sure it's in other industries, but anything that there's a regulatory body, there's going to be corruption at a very high level and in a very big way, because there's billions of dollars at stake in these industries.
that I just mentioned, all of them.
But my concern and my focus, of course, is looking at the pharmaceutical industry, although food relates quite closely.
I've heard whistleblowers from the FDA speak, and it certainly sounds like the FDA is basically a rubber stamp machine for the pharmaceutical industry to approve new drugs that are going to make a lot of money.
We know that it takes whistleblowers to come forth and say, look,
you know the FDA has been approving we know that from studies and post surveillance there's been many many deaths but one of the key issues is that
There's a whistleblower protection for federal workers.
I mean, yes, there was a law passed last December in 2012 that finally, finally gave whistleblower protection to federal workers with the caveat of federal workers that have to do with any of the health regulatory agencies.
So while we're all excited that finally there's going to be some whistleblower protection for people in the federal government, it wasn't whistleblower protection for people at the FDA, CDC, NIH, HHS.
They only got military whistleblower protection, which is very little, if any.
And so we don't have whistleblower protection, so it's very tough for somebody, a government official, to come forward at the HHS and any of its bodies, including the FDA, and say that this kind of monkey business is going on, there's been so many deaths.
And so that's a problem, that creates a big impediment, and that's there for a reason.
Those whistleblower protections are not there for that very purpose.
to make it more difficult for people at the regulatory agencies to come forward with news that there are some malfeasance going on.
And, you know, so is there a regulatory, I don't really know how much regulation there really is.
I think there's more politics.
We know in order to get a drug approved.
Now, I just want you to think about something for a second.
Mark showed us a few pictures of Tony Bark and pictures with,
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and Mary Holland.
And I've shown you videos of Mary Holland in 2015 on Democracy Now!
arguing that one or more of the components untested in the MMR injured her son.
And so she's not anti-vaccine, she just wants vaccines properly tested.
Does it sound like Tony Bark is ahead of her at all in 2013 here just already about how the FDA could have been corrupted by all the money that's available and then corrupting the FDA could destroy the FDA?
because destroying the FDA is required in order to get personalized medicine through.
You have to neutralize the FDA.
You have to put people in the FDA that will no longer act on its mandate of regulating medical devices and food and whatever as safe and effective and what's on the label is what's in the box.
If you put people in charge of the FDA that no longer enforce that,
or create exceptions to that, then you don't need to ruin the FDA.
You don't need to destroy it.
But they were creating skepticism in the FDA by corrupting it, by genuinely corrupting it on purpose.
Everybody hates the FDA.
You either hate it because it's corrupt or you hate it because whatever it makes you do is in your way.
It's too many papers.
And now, I don't know if you can imagine it or not, but I heard somewhere that like some of these applications to the FDA can be 800,000 pages long.
And this is getting into like, you know, the push to get vitamins and supplements into the FDA approval process, which means, you know, you have a vitamin, you want 6 million minimum to get approved.
And, you know, this is basically making it so sperm owns the market share of everything.
And so there's a lot of politics involved.
Will government officials come forward to say that there's problems and that we have a problem, that vaccines could be causing a problem?
It's very tough for any kind of government official to do it.
We've seen senators, we've seen congressmen come forward and say we have a problem, but we also know that they're not going to get funding from the pharma consortium
if they create problems for pharma, right?
So if you're from New Jersey, let's say, or Illinois, anywhere where there's a headquarters of Merck or Glaxo or Abbott or Baxter, any of these companies, and you're making a problem for them, you're not going to get funding in your campaign, you know, and they'll make it really clear to you.
So it's very hard
for our legislators to come forward.
It's even harder for people in the FDA, CDC, NIH to come forward, because they'll lose their job.
They don't have whistleblower protection.
It's their life.
It's their life, you know, the way they make their living at stake.
And we know that, especially looking at Peter Doshi's work at Johns Hopkins, you know, there was an article about Peter Doshi and his whole consortium at the university, and he's a postdoc fellow, very brilliant.
In 2013?
I don't know if you know who Peter Doshi is, but this is definitely a very, very big red flag that she was murdered.
Peter Doshi was a very big problem at the beginning of the pandemic because he had a platform, he had respect, and he said some things that shouldn't have been said, but he didn't question the real narrative.
but just the fact that she mentions Peter Doshi means I have homework to do.
Wow, that's cool.
Who's saying that why do we allow drug companies to, you know, when they come forward to try to get a drug approved, to just present whatever they want out of their research, just the positive notes out of their research for their drug.
They don't have to present the whole picture.
So there could be numerous studies with many deaths and many problems, but they don't.
Just remember, right, this is 2013, which makes it roughly
It's a long time ago.
It's a long time ago, guys.
All they have to do is present what they want.
It's not obligatory to present everything, all their research.
And Peter Doshi is trying to change that, which would help.
Thank you.
Now, you make it very clear that there is no science behind the claim that studies show no link between vaccines and autism.
And I'd just like you to explain what you mean by that.
Yeah, I mean, anybody with a master's in statistics, in public health, in any medical science has to know
that there's a definition of the term attributable rate.
And what those studies and what the CDC said and the AAP that published that paper, the claim was, now we have another study showing no link between autism and vaccines, which means they're saying the attributable rate of autism to vaccines is zero.
That's what they're saying, that the attributable rate, that's a term, it's got a definition.
The definition has a mathematical equation.
The mathematical equation- Oh my gosh, you see a problem.
I'm almost breaking down right now because I did not expect it to be this good.
I am freaking out a little bit because you see what this is.
She says there is no science.
There is no science.
You know that that's exactly the line that Robert F. Kennedy uses to say there is no science saying that vaccines are safe and effective.
She says there is no science supporting the idea that vaccines don't cause autism and she's using a statistic or a term called attributable rate.
I've never heard Jessica Rose or Matt Crawford or Chris Martinson or Brett Weinstein or Dowd or Malone or meh, nah, I've never heard any of them.
Mary Holland Never heard Brian hooker say that Attributable rate For attributable rates is the the Rate of the disease or the impediments that but let's say the disease or syndrome in the exposed group minus
the rate of that disease, the same disease, in the unexposed group.
And that's the numerator part of the equation.
The denominator is something else.
But in the numerator, it's the rate of the disease of the exposed minus the rate of the disease in the unexposed, right?
Well, that means you have to have a study that looked at the rate of autism in the unexposed, meaning vaccine unexposed.
You can make other claims.
So that study, that last study that came out, can make a claim such as
you know, increasing antigens does not increase likelihood, increasing exposure to different antigens does not increase likelihood of autism.
They can make that claim because that's what they looked at.
They cannot make the claim that vaccines are not related to autism.
They didn't look at that.
They can't, it's, you know, this is a definition that is set in, it's a standard.
You can't wiggle, there's no wiggle room for that.
Does that sound like a lot of what James Lyons-Weiler says or,
or or or no right it doesn't at all this is nothing like what does Suzanne Humphries ever no no that's it the AI says no um i just have it plugged into the microphone what about Robert Malone has he ever said no oh man it's it's really it's crazy i i i can't think of anybody else who's said wow nuts stop lying
definition.
And anyone who's got a master's or a PhD, who studies statistics, public health, will tell you that's true.
There's no balloon.
This is the definition.
You have to meet the definition to make that claim.
The problem is if people read it, the media picks up on the news, which is, oh, another study that proves there's no link between autism and vaccines.
They don't bother to look at what it is.
And so people in research might read it and just believe
you know they don't bother to read the study but if they read the study they'd be like oh well they didn't really look at that they didn't look at the unexposed so they can't make a claim about attributable rate of autism to vaccines you can't attribute zero autism to vaccines because you didn't look at the rate of autism to the non-vaccinated you just can't make that claim it is it is it violates basic very basic rule of public health statistics okay thank you
I'm speaking with Dr. Tony Bark, who has a private practice in homeopathy in Chicago.
And I would just like, first of all, to ask you, how does your practice of medicine differ from most conventional medical doctors?
Well, first of all, you wait 10 minutes to see me and then spend two hours with me, as opposed to waiting two hours for the doctor and spending 10 minutes with them if you're lucky.
And I just want to preface it.
I'm an MD.
I'm a licensed medical doctor.
My focus is classical homeopathy and nutrition.
And I do something called Schiena, which is a reflex biofeedback looking at the autonomic nervous system and actually balancing the autonomic nervous system.
My initial appointments are two hours.
They often go over, sometimes two and a half to three hours.
My follow-up appointments are typically an hour to an hour and a half.
And I focus on looking at what is going on with the patient, what was going on in their life when their illness or disease started, and figuring out what pushed their system out of whack, out of balance.
The goal is to get them off their medications.
They come to my office, usually on a lot of drugs, not doing any better, because they're on all these meds, and they're still anxious, or they're still depressed, or they have severe autoimmune disorders.
And they're not any better on all the suppressive medication.
And so I get people off their medication.
We have to wean.
A lot of that is weaning carefully, because some drugs you can't just stop.
But it's looking at the patient, and no stone goes
I look at what the emotional thing was, you know, what was going on in your life emotionally, socially, environmentally, nutritionally, what kind of meds were given to you, what was going on when you developed this disease or this illness.
If it's a kid, you know, I talked to the, you know, if they adopted a child, what do they know about the prenatal care or the,
parents of genetic origin, if it was a mother, if I see a mother who carried the child, what was your pregnancy like?
What was the child like initially?
Did they receive vaccines day one of life?
Did you get a vaccine while you were pregnant?
You know, what kind of drugs were you exposed to?
So I call myself a medical investigator.
I, you know, I'm investigating what's going on.
That's fantastic.
And underneath chronic, all chronic disease and all chronic pain is
some amount of autonomic dysfunction.
And I can address the autonomic dysfunction very first day in my office with my scanner device.
So if they're in a hyper fight and flight and there's insomnia and anxiety associated with it or numbness and tingling, I can get rid of that pretty quickly.
And then what I do is I do homeopathy.
I figure out something, a remedy specific for that person based on the whole picture.
And I look at their diet.
Because I look at, a lot of times, if you're taking certain medications, it's going to make you deficient in certain minerals.
It's going to make you deficient in or require higher doses of certain vitamins for certain reactions in the body.
And it can also, if you've got autoimmunity, chances are you've got very open, tight junctions.
Uh, leaking, you know, it could be leaking some thyroid.
Wow.
Open tight junctions.
And then she doesn't focus on the gut right away, but she tells you there are other tight junctions that could be leaky and causing problems.
Dang.
This is wicked bad.
Wow.
The blood brain barrier could be breached by the lack of vitamin D can do that exposure to heavy metals like mercury, lead, aluminum, some of which we get in our environment on a daily basis, some of which we get from vaccines and drugs.
And so I look at the whole picture.
So two hours often isn't even enough time.
And a lot of people who come in from out of town to see me will schedule a daily appointment for three days in a row and then leave.
And so when they leave, they've left.
They're a whole lot better already by the time they leave.
And we follow up in Skype, or they fly back in.
So that's how I practice.
It's very holistic, but it's also very personalized because no two patients are the same.
Now, you might think that, oh, wow, but she's saying personalized medicine.
But you need to draw back and realize that the
multi-decade long human genome project operation had a forward-facing brochure level that they showed you on mainstream media and that Francis Collins played the primary face up for a while and then it had the national security part of it
And the national security part of it is still rolling on long after they've declared, well, we finished it, or we finished it, or we really finished it this time, or now we're really finishing it.
It's still rolling on because it is a national security priority.
Because they're looking at the population pyramid and they're seeing that around the world, there is a once in a multi, multi, multi-generational opportunity to collect
an unprecedented amount of data if we can build the infrastructure to collect it, if we can build the social and economic network to collect it, to mandate collecting it.
And this was already 13 years or at least 10 years after the Human Genome Project was declared done.
And then I guess Craig Ventner bought a sailboat and went collecting DNA in the ocean.
This is a very dangerous person that when meeting with Brandy Vaughn, I guess made a very, very dangerous little
I don't know, I don't know, but I know this lady's dead and I know Brandy Vaughn's dead.
I know they were both on InfoWars.
I know they were in lots of pictures with Bobby Kennedy and with Mary Holland and with James Lyons-Weiler.
I know James Lyons-Weiler made a memorial video for Tony and said at the end of the video, I love you, Tony.
It's very dark where we are right now, but it's also dark in the sense of we're coming to the opening in the tunnel, finally.
If you allow this, your brain to come to the logical conclusion of what happened here and how we got here.
American history is available for you.
It's right there.
It's right there in front of you.
...are exactly alike.
While they might have certain underlying commonalities, they all have their own individual story and react differently to stress.
Okay, that sounds wonderful.
Along the same lines, there's been huge coverage everywhere in the media about Paul Offit's latest book, Do You Believe in Magic?, in which he attacks alternative and complementary medicine, which I find so funny.
You know, how many people?
I don't have that one.
Oh, do you believe in magic?
I'll have to get that book.
Die on a daily basis from prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs.
And we have no deaths.
You know, like in the last few years, there's been zero deaths from the things he's talking about.
And hundreds of thousands of deaths from prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications.
Are you telling me that Paul Offit in 2013 was already on everybody's radar as the opposite of, I don't know,
alternative medicine, that's pretty remarkable.
And procedures, you know, I mean, my God, procedures that are never approved.
But of course, remember, Paul Offit was in front of Congress.
Wow.
So long ago.
procedures aren't approved by the FDA, you know, but they're done all the time.
Doctors do all kinds of surgical procedures, even if there's no controlled studies.
So, do you believe in magic is a great title for talking about Western pharmaceutical medicine.
Do you believe in magic?
They all come with the side effect of the very things they're trying to achieve.
So, an anxiolytic causes anxiety with long-term use.
and that causes depression with longterm use.
You know, um, statins will drive your LDL particle size smaller and denser, which increases your likelihood for a heart attack.
Oh, she knew about statins in 2013.
You gotta be shitting me.
Oh my gosh.
That is fricking remarkable.
You know, all these drugs that,
that do one thing, actually.
I mean, Aseem Malhotra, the advisor for Maha, who was like, you know, a cardiologist, didn't even know about statins.
have the same side effect.
Look at these.
Bisphenates come with a risk of fracture, of jaw and thigh fracture.
You're taking it for osteoporosis, which has been marketed as this new disease in the last 30 years, and it's causing an outbreak of spontaneous fractures.
I love that.
I love that Paul Offit did this.
It brought such attention to it.
I think it's backfiring on him.
I mean, he is not an industry outsider.
He's an industry insider.
He wants to sell his book.
He's had the luxury of having these jobs where he's going to pay huge amounts of money for being a spokesperson for the industry.
And I think people who kind of didn't know who he was and
Maybe he thought he was a good guy.
He's promoting vaccines.
And read his stuff and say, who the hell is this guy?
I mean, my father, who is pretty sharp.
I mean, my father's really sharp in terms of health care and stuff.
But he'd never heard of him.
And he's like, oh my god, I read this article from this doctor.
He's so way off base.
He's talking about vitamins and minerals killing people.
He said, my dad's been taking vitamins.
My dad's 88.
My mom's 86.
Phenomenal.
They have very, you know, hypertension.
That's it.
They both have hypertension.
My dad takes the lowest amount of meds, you know, because of his hypertension.
It's kind of a little frightening, right?
Because we know that right before she died, I think her parents died.
I don't know the exact time frame.
It's, this is crazy.
They have their own homeopathic kit.
They use their own vitamins.
My dad's been taking vitamins since he was 16.
I know this is anecdotal, but I have to tell you that
I measure people's intracellular levels of vitamins, minerals, and cofactors.
And there are people who are deficient.
We see iodine deficiency all the time, B12, vitamin D, glutathione, low glutathione, especially in kids on the spectrum.
And they do much better.
Oh, and magnesium and potassium.
I mean, I have a lot of patients who do so much better with the addition of vitamins or minerals or supplements.
And he is so outrageous that good, good for him.
Because honestly, I think he brought a flashing neon sign over his name and people are looking at him and going, really?
Huh?
What's your background?
Oh, you're an industry insider.
You might have something to gain from this.
So she's been slapping him around since 2013.
That's pretty remarkable.
I need a Tony Bark t-shirt or something.
Okay, I'm continuing my talk here with Dr. Bark.
And finally, I would just like to ask, as a physician, knowing the doctors that you know, do doctors really believe everything is fine?
Or do they privately acknowledge that medical decisions, including what vaccinations are given, are being dictated by the companies making a profit from them?
That's a good question.
And
You know, I don't know the answer other than there are certainly doctors who I see their belief in medicine, in modern medicine and the pharmaceutical industry as a religion, because they take things at face value.
And I talked to enough doctors to know that they'll say things adamantly.
And then when I question them, they actually don't know the research.
They don't understand how the drug works.
I'll point that out to them.
And when I tell them that there is this level of corruption, they actually, a lot of doctors are very clueless about that.
Now, there's plenty of doctors who are sharp, who see the corruption, who get it.
But I would say a lot of doctors, a lot of people go into medicine because they want a nice, steady, consistent job.
They don't want to have to think too much.
The practice of medicine, if you're a clinician and you have a busy clinic, and especially if you specialize, it's a lot of reflex behavior on the part of the doctor.
You have this, you get this drug.
You have this, oh, you have this, it doesn't follow that flow chart, so we'll do this instead.
Now, of course, there's creative doctors and there's doctors who think, but you don't have to think to be a doctor.
You don't have to analyze and have critical thought.
She is very big problem.
She is a giant problem.
And I mean that really seriously.
You don't have to have critical thought.
You have to have a very good memory in order to pass medical school and boards, but you don't have to have much in the way of critical thought.
And, um,
A lot of doctors don't have to.
You actually don't have to have a lot of critical thought either.
If Robert Malone and other people have been providing a script with a couple different alternatives to discuss and a couple dumb questions to repeat, you don't have to have any critical thought either.
critical thought.
They order a lot of tests for anything that comes their way.
They can't discern what's going on and they don't want to know what's going on in terms of corruption with drug companies and studies because if they knew, they would have to do something to change the way they practice or they'd be ego dystonic, right?
They would be like, oh, I can't continue to practice this way because
It's wrong.
And if they admit that, that means they have to make changes.
And there's just a lot of people who can't change.
You know, they can't make changes.
It's too disruptive.
It's too stressful.
They don't, you know, if for them change is scary and it's just too much work.
I've literally had doctors tell me, I don't want to know.
I don't want to know the whole thing about the vaccines.
Cause if I knew I had to change the way I practice and I don't.
There you go.
What a horrible truth that is to realize that adults are like that.
You want to believe that they're not, but they are.
That's the real truth.
In 2013, she was already wiping the floor with these people.
I've had other doctors tell me, you know, I know there's problems, but I don't have the time to get involved.
So those are the people that don't connect.
how you eat affects how you feel.
They don't believe that what you put in your body affects you, except unless, oh, of course, unless it's a patented pharmaceutical drug, then they believe in it.
So there's a lot of disconnection going on, but people in our society are disconnected.
I think doctors- How's that for a nice explanation for why they're disconnected?
You think that a pill can have effects, but you don't think the food that you put in your mouth in the same hole has any effects?
you know, probably represent the same amount of disconnection as somebody who's in the corporate world.
I think in order to work in large corporate entities, you know, where anything that big loses its moral compass, you have to be disconnected.
You have to be, or you'd be egotistonic.
You would have a problem with how you behave in the world.
that you're contributing to problems.
I don't think anyone consciously wants to contribute to problems but they can remain unconscious because if they're man would this lady be a problem if she had like a popular podcast or something you know if she was like Sam Bailey and all over the internet with a great camera
And good lighting, boy, she would really fricking be a problem.
They'd have to change how they practice and they don't want to have to do it.
So I think like any other field, especially in the groups of people who like comfort and maybe don't want to be too analytical and think out of the box, so it might be even a higher percentage, we're going to have a lot of doctors
who don't want to know.
They don't know.
They don't want to know.
And then you're going to have the radicals who went in because they wanted to change the world and help the world.
And they know.
And they're very frustrated with the system.
And they think the system sucks.
But those are the more radical types of personalities in medicine.
And they're not as common.
And I think that maybe you tend to see them more in certain places than others and in certain practices than others.
But they're certainly not the cushy specialists.
I can tell you that much.
They're more, you know, the primary care, and they're maybe at the county hospitals, and they know the problems.
I mean, there's plenty of doctors who get that the pharmaceutical industry is really who's footing all the bill for research at institutions these days.
It's not the government like it used to be 30 years ago.
Yes, there are NIH grants, and there are less and less available.
And it's drug company money that funds departments.
And if you don't produce what they want you to produce, you don't get funded.
So it's a problem.
We have a big problem.
We have a big problem in our system.
It's bad.
And it's leading to the illness, the chronic illness.
We're colluding.
The industry is colluding.
Doctors and hospitals are colluding with the industry.
and the chemical industry and the food industry to create constant and long-term patients.
Now I'd just like to ask Dr. Bark a little bit specifically about autism.
Autism seems to be just one factor in the decline of our children's health.
Do we need to stop talking about it as a separate issue, but also raise attention for the alarming increases in so many conditions from diabetes, seizure disorder, asthma, allergies, bowel disease, all the things that are plaguing our children.
Do we need to look at all of these things as one issue?
I think we should look at all of these things
as one issue.
And the reason I say that, there's power in numbers.
That's one reason.
But it's becoming a thicker and thicker society, right?
So we've got a lot of autoimmune disease.
I mean, the immune community is mind-boggling, in fact.
Why is there such a trend?
And I see autism and
You know, it's on the same spectrum as for an obsessive-compulsive disorder, sensory, and a great of issues and pervasive, right?
And so it really behooves us to band together as concerned parents, concerned academics, concerned people in the society.
Why do we have such a sick society?
You know, this isn't, you know, it's not, um,
You don't have genetic outcomes like this statistically overnight.
That's ridiculous.
There are genetic predispositions to how you express being toxic, right?
So, you know, there might be a genetic predisposition to how you express autoimmunity.
Some families will all have colitis, you know, also colitis or Crohn's.
Other families will have asthma and eczema and psoriasis.
And other families might have, you know, rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.
So there's genetic, you know, predispositions.
It almost seems like she's kind of hypothesizing that everything is basically an autoimmune disease, which I don't think is too far off.
But you can still tell that from a biological perspective, she's not talking about a holobiont yet.
She's not talking about polygenomic, you know,
animals or talking about the idea that we're bigger than just our body or more complicated than just our genes.
She's still kind of stuck there, which is okay.
It's okay.
It's 2013.
And I don't think very many people in 2013 were free of that place, that bad biology.
So even in the context of that bad biology, she is pointing out so many of the things that if you don't see, these are all parts of the hamster wheel we're still in.
Statins, and toxins, and vaccines, and the corrupt regulatory agencies.
It's the exact same hamster wheel, but it ain't her anymore.
Forget that.
You need to have environmental triggers.
Why do we have to have environmental triggers?
You know, the environment including not just the air and the water and the soil, but definition, things that are injected into us that have all kinds of crap in them that aren't studied with true placebos.
We can't make a risk-benefit assessment because, you know, the risk, you can't make a risk-benefit assessment.
And vaccines don't ever get compared to real placebos, right?
So how can you make a risk assessment in that?
Drugs that are- So she was saying the placebo argument in 2013, that means it goes even back farther, that nobody came up with the 30-day short-term trial to make sure that nobody is, you know, having an abrupt change from being healthy to not being healthy from vaccines.
I find that pretty shocking.
I find that absolutely amazing because it sounds like that sounds like a talking point that we can use and stand on for a long time.
So we'll take that one, Tony.
Thank you.
We're not talking about GMOs and make America healthy again, are we?
No, we're definitely not.
that mice and rat models are not good with GMO.
It's not just the, it's not the pesticide.
It's actually the GMO grain itself is much worse for these laboratory animals.
Oh, so it's not the pesticides.
It's that's so interesting.
So that's so interesting.
The pesticide laden food.
So we have, um,
We have a lot of what I would call microglial activation, probably from vaccination, but probably... Microglial activation, that's the immune system in the brain.
Vaccination and a combination of things, but...
and can cause inflammation and activation of the microglial, which is the brain's immune cells.
And when they're chronically activated, there's a lot of destruction and oxidative damage that happens in neurons.
And oxidative damage, the reason that the brain cells and the nervous system in general is so predisposed to oxidative damage is that it's 60% fat.
And fat's very susceptible to oxidative damage.
You get lipid peroxidase.
So,
That is why the neurological system is so sensitive and declines in people that are exposed to environmental toxins that are greater degree than other systems in the body.
This is 2013.
By definition, it seems she couldn't have met Brandy until 2014 or 15.
This lady has it all in her bag already.
She's already got such a successful practice that people fly in for three days.
Because the government is embedded with the industry, with the food industry, with the gas and oil, the fracking industry.
This is who is our government.
You know, the government, we elect our official
Whether it's at the, you know, it's your local hill, or if you don't push this bill through.
There next election cycle, so it comes down to.
are basically representing, they're not representing our voice, they're representing industry's voice.
And industry's voice is very happy with having a sick society because that makes those chronic customers, right?
We are captive audience.
You know, if people eat GMO and they become chronically ill, then they need medication and they need it chronically.
That's a win-win situation for investors and the board, right?
For whatever company, especially if you happen to have subsidiaries of your company, which is involved in food and it's involved in drugs and chemicals.
I mean, it's really a win-win for the industry.
And it's a lose-lose for society.
And society is asleep.
Either they feel like they can't change this or they're asleep and are very unaware of the
control that all these industries have in running our government at the state and federal level.
But a lot of us aren't asleep, and a lot of us aren't aware, and that's why I feel, you know, the Canary Party, some of these organizations, the Canary Party is a political party, it's great, and we need to get everybody involved and say we're going to elect our own officials to run for office, and they're not going to kowtow to
to the pharmaceutical industry, or to Monsanto, or to the... She was gonna have people run for office?
Well, that'll surely get her killed.
You know, they're not.
They're gonna work for us.
Can you imagine if she ran for office?
The people who are tired of being indentured servants to the pharmaceutical industry.
That's who they're going to work for.
And that's really what we need to do.
So it's beneficial for all these chronic diseases that are becoming more and more prevalent, that are new, of the autoimmune disease that we see our children suffer from.
It's really beneficial that we look at all of them under an umbrella and say, these are man-made diseases.
They're being caused by our industry's interests and not our own interests.
And so we need to change something.
And that's the only way we're going to get at it.
And you know, that's a lot different than a big top tent of health freedom, isn't it?
That's a lot different than rise and resist people over profits, truth over lies, and courage over fear, isn't it?
And this is in 2013.
She's dead.
And she's in photos with them.
She was on stage with them.
And when they took photos with her, she was in the middle.
Her Instagram ends with pictures with these meddlers that I have declared to be meddlers before I ever thought of or knew of Tony Bark or Brandy Vaughn.
I think they were both killed.
Kind of along the same line as far as we are in an epidemic of autism, as much as officials won't admit it and how dire this is for society.
Well, how can they not admit it?
I mean, if you're a boy in New Jersey, it's one out of, what, 27?
One boy out of 27 has autism.
How do officials not, who doesn't admit we're in an epidemic?
I mean, that makes no sense to me.
When I was a child, it was one in 20,000.
In the 60s, it was like one in 20,000, then it went to one in 10.
Why is she still on the same, saying the same things that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
said in his confirmation hearing, unless this is by design?
It's a hamster wheel.
You run really hard in it, and it doesn't go anywhere.
If you don't run in their hamster wheel, or they can't make you a part of their hamster wheel, you get killed.
Or at least they try to kill you.
10,000.
And then we had this huge jump after the happy was introduced day one of life into one in, what, 2000.
I mean, that was that first giant jump that we saw, like, in the early, late 80s, early 90s.
Who can say this is not an epidemic?
To say that it's recognized better, really?
Then where's all the autistic adults walking around?
Really, if it's recognized better, and there's always been one in 27 men in New Jersey who are autistic, where are all those adults?
You know that he ran for president on that.
Where are all the adults?
Ladies and gentlemen, I think they killed Tony Bark and I think they killed Brandy Vaughn.
That's what I think.
I'll be back in a second.
Thanks for joining me.
This is GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
Thanks for being here.
See you soon.
You might get hurt in New York I'll keep it here in my heart
I'm going to Rochdale, take my rider by my side.
Built that whole house because it's on the riverside, yeah.
Oh, my baby, Lord, I said, you better stop me driving.
Ž My baby good boy Ž Ž See my baby Ž Ž Tell her hurry up Ž Ž Ž I ain't yet known my right mind Ž Ž Since my bride Ž
I'll keep them satisfied
Yeah!
See me
Squeeze my lemon till the juice runs down my leg.
Squeeze it so hard I fall right out of bed.
Just squeeze my lemon till the juice runs down my leg.
I wonder if you know what I'm talking about.
Now, Dr. Gallo and Dr. Fauci talked a lot about isolation and purification.
Can you tell me what the difference is between the two?
Isolation, what was it?
Isolation and purification.
Of the virus?
Yes.
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.
Well, they interchanged the two and I wasn't sure if it was the same thing or if it was two totally different.
No, it depends on how they used it.
Okay.
Can you explain the process of HIV isolation?
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.
And we are on the back half.
This is the second half of the show.
Welcome to it.
It is GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
My name is Jonathan Couey, coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Happy to be here.
If you don't know, my website is gigaombiological.com.
You can find a way to support the stream.
You can also send an email to gigaomhq at proton.me.
And my wife will send you a notification that will be somewhat timely in the sense of either there's going to be a stream or not.
But generally speaking, I'm trying really hard to make a 10.10.
It doesn't really happen.
Then I try to make 11.11 and that usually doesn't happen either.
But I get in before 12.
And if you can share, please share stream.gigaom.bio.
because that is the website and host that we pay for.
And also you can download lower resolutions of the stream and even an audio, I think.
And if not, you can download a 480p version.
It'll download really quick and then you can watch it offline, which is, I think, the way that this should be done.
More importantly, you can find a particular episode that you really like, download that one and send that to your family and friends over email without ever having to send them to YouTube or Rumble or any of these other hellholes.
Thank you very much for being here.
I told you I wanted to look at this today, so I'm going to take it over over there.
Busy week at the FDA.
Yeah, we're going to talk about the three big panels.
We heard from cell and gene therapy experts, patients, advocates.
We heard from experts in infant formula and what things FDA should know about infant formula.
And finally, we actually held our first CEO listening session.
And you and I are going to go on the road next week.
We're going to be in California and the week after in Boston.
and we're gonna listen to CEOs to hear their concerns.
So today- So the confidence with which this guy talks suggests that he was put in place.
The confidence with which all three of these people talk suggests that they were put in place.
These are not serious professionals in serious professional positions.
These are not serious people with serious visions for the post that they purport to occupy.
These are magnificent posers.
And they are the same kind of magnificent poser that you must see occupies the White House because otherwise he would have spent four years of the Biden administration planning for the budget that he was going to submit when he got into office.
But instead he submitted no budget, which means that the budget that the government is currently running on is exactly the same as the budget ran on last year.
you know, when the Biden administration was in charge and spending was at record levels.
And if you don't see that for the malevolent, the malevolent lack of professionalism, a malevolent lack of foresight, a malevolent lack of actually any, any skills at all in the administration, you should, you, you really, I mean, you're just lost.
because it's irrelevant who the surgeon general is.
It's irrelevant if Elon Musk is gonna go to Mar-a-Lago for a barbecue now or ever again.
If we have a president and an administration that can occupy the White House for five months and not submit a budget in their second elected term.
We have a guy who's talking about cryptocurrency, but didn't submit a budget.
It's supposedly a guy who likes knows all about business and a Mashner negotiator and has had all kinds of successful real estate and other business, you know, but he didn't submit a budget.
His chief of staff is one of the most successful lobbyists ever to perform in Congress, and yet they didn't submit a budget.
Supposedly, the last administration was occupied by a zombie guy who might be a, I don't know, a robot or a clone or something like that.
And instead of submitting a budget, they just let Congress default on what that zombified president had proposed.
You know, the one that had a vice president named Harris.
And right now, these people are at the head of the FDA.
And what are they gonna do?
They're gonna tell you a story about how personalized medicine is already here.
I guess we're gonna talk about all three of these things.
Yeah, this is a listening FDA.
We are on a listening tour and we're getting some really good ideas.
It was a really energizing week.
I just have to say, I mean, just to see all the great energy and ideas.
I mean, I'm really excited about it.
And this place run.
An energizing week, like stop lying.
I mean, stop faking it.
These people have faked it until they made it.
And now they're going to fake it because they made it.
You gotta be angry about this.
You gotta be upset about this.
There was a Trojan horse exercise worked on us, an operation.
And now we have a drug addict Truman show at the head of HHS.
We have a DARPA employee at the head of CDC.
We have a bunch of other people in government that we don't even know their names.
And then we have these two people.
Plus,
a guy from Turkey at the head of CMS and a guy from India at the head of NIH.
I need like a siren sound, an air raid siren.
It's like 24 seven, like new announcements come out, you know, new approvals get released.
And so it's just so energizing to be here.
Beautiful day on the campus today.
So great to be with you guys.
Yeah.
So let's start with maybe cell gene therapy because I think, you know, Vinay did a great job moderating that.
There were a lot of great people in the room.
We had the entire HHS leadership there as well, which is
So powerful to see all the agencies talking about this issue together.
You don't really see that often.
But what were some of your takeaways?
Well, the first success was we had 25 speakers and we stuck to time.
So that was always a success.
But we had, you know, 23 experts and we had our internal speakers.
who came in and they basically told us different perspectives of cell and gene therapy.
You have researchers who are doing the laboratory science.
Now remember, cell and gene therapy essentially came to a screeching halt when a whistleblower by the name of Robert Wallace Malone blew the whistle with some chick by the name of Stolberg at the New York Times.
How about Jessie Gelsinger?
And if you're following Mark Kulak's work, you already know that Stolberg was in front of Robert F. Kennedy not too long ago asking questions.
It's all like it's one big show.
Robert Malone.
And now after the pandemic, of course, you know, this is all just normal because lipid nanoparticles are great.
But don't worry, they're going to cover all of that in this wonderfully insightful podcast episode.
It's crazy.
Absolutely crazy.
That underpins chimeric antigen receptor T cells.
You have Carl June and Crystal McCall.
You've also got this gentleman came from UC Berkeley who is one of the pioneers of individual patient bespoke, like custom tailored for that patient, gene editing delivered to a baby with a particular deficiency.
And there was a big milestone announced this week, a big milestone day for the FDA and for this family and for gene therapy.
Baby- KJ.
KJ.
So baby KJ was discharged from CHOP Hospital in Philadelphia after a custom- What hospital in Philadelphia?
CHOP?
Is that the same place where Paul Offit's been working?
Is that the place where that billboard went up outside of CHOP?
And then he kind of pissed off
Paul Offit had some fake anti-vaxxer come and knock on the window of ZDogg's frickin' show in 2018.
Isn't that weird?
This timing is all strange.
The people that are in the play are all strange.
It's all like the same show.
Gene editing therapy for a very rare genetic defect-based disease.
in infancy, and it's really the first ever.
It's the first ever.
And the FDA was able to tailor the regulatory policy to enable this to happen.
Tailored the regulatory process in order to enable this to happen.
Stop lying!
Tailored the approval process.
What in the hell is he talking about?
Oh my gosh.
I mean, Marty, you've talked a lot about this idea of plausible mechanisms and pathways.
Custom gene editing therapy for a very rare genetic defect-based disease in infancy, and it's really the first ever.
It's the first ever, and the FDA was able to tailor the regulatory policy.
And so again, we are talking about, oh shoot, rare genetic disorders, right?
That's the whole point here.
It's what Mark did a little story about
Where are we?
I'm Marty Makary, Vinay Prasad.
What Mark did a little talk about a couple of days ago, and I tried to add on to that, that this idea of a rare disease, I understand especially well, because a lot of neuroscience is motivated under the pretense that there are certain rare diseases and disorders in childhood, most of them result in kids that die very early, that have some
potential to contribute to our understanding of kids who don't die.
So if I can be so bold as to say that autism is, interestingly enough, kids that don't die.
And so that's why we focus on kids with autism, because we don't want to focus on the kids that die
because then we'll figure out that intramuscular injection is just a dumb idea.
Then we'll figure out that a certain percentage of people actually die from it.
Instead, what these people have been exclusively focused on for a very long time is of course autism without ever being able to define it, without even bothering to define it, without ever suggesting that autism is not a specific enough term to describe acute injection injury.
And so now we've gone through the whole spectrum now where the predictions that we made a couple of years ago about the FDA being the target, we just thought they were gonna burn everything down to the studs because that's what all these people were saying a couple of years ago.
It turns out they were just gonna put foreign invaders into these posts and to change the very way that these agencies enact or enforce their mandates.
And so now safe and effective isn't even part of the mandate.
Why?
Because it's an individual thing.
We couldn't judge.
There is no safe and effective for an individual medicine.
And of course, these two traders, these two foreign placed meddlers, saboteurs, liars are gonna say exactly that.
I just have to say, I mean, just to see all the great energy and ideas.
I mean, I'm really excited about it.
And this place runs, like, 24-7.
Like, new announcements come out, you know, new approvals get released, and so it's just so energizing to be here.
Beautiful day on the campus today, so great to be with you guys.
Yeah, so let's start with maybe Celgene Therapy, because I think, you know, Vinay did a great job moderating that.
There were a lot of great people in the room.
We had the entire HHS leadership there as well, which is
so powerful to see all the agencies talking about this issue together.
You don't really see that often.
But what were some of your takeaways?
Well, the first success was we had 25 speakers, and we stuck to time.
So that was always a success.
But we had 23 experts, and we had our internal speakers who came in, and they basically told us different perspectives of cellogene therapy.
You have researchers who are doing the laboratory science that underpins chimeric antigen receptor T cells.
You have Carl June and Crystal McCall.
You've also got this gentleman, came from UC Berkeley.
So one of his gifts is that he can remember things and he can remember people's names.
He can remember lists of things.
Again, like Brandy, or sorry, Tony Barks said, you just need to be able to remember things to be a doctor.
You don't need any critical thinking.
And this guy seems to be very good at that.
And that might be a very beneficial thing for someone who's required to stay on a script.
who is one of the pioneers of individual patient bespoke, like custom tailored for that patient, gene editing, delivered to a baby with a particular deficiency.
And there was a big milestone announced this week, a big milestone day for the FDA and for this family and for gene therapy.
Baby... KJ.
KJ.
So baby KJ was discharged from CHOP hospital in Philadelphia after a custom gene editing therapy for a very rare... So this is really gross because again, remember we mentioned Jesse Gelsinger.
Jesse Gelsinger was also attempting, they were attempting to edit a gene in his liver.
And the reason why they're attempting to edit a gene in his liver is because that's apparently where the enzyme is.
No.
It's because that's where the lipid nanoparticles reliably go.
And so unfortunately, many, many years later, after Jesse Gelsinger has long been dead, they're going to tell you exactly the same lie that they told you back then, which is that, you know, lipid nanoparticles and transfection might be pretty handy for a liver based disease because that's where they end up going anywhere, anyway.
genetic defect-based disease in infancy, and it's really the first ever.
It's the first ever.
And the FDA was able to tailor the regulatory policy to enable this to happen.
I mean, Marty, you've talked a lot about this idea of plausible mechanisms and pathways.
So tell us, is this an example of that?
Yeah, it's basically the spirit of the plausible mechanism pathway.
You can't expect to do a trial.
You can come up with a mechanism of action that is plausible and also suggests safety based on the mechanism and based on other studies that can be extrapolated to this particular gene.
So we are actually just telling you what we are, they are telling you what we already told you.
I just didn't understand that they were just going to do it.
I didn't understand that they would just do it.
I thought they would have to discredit the FDA and destroy the FDA.
But actually, of course they didn't.
They just had to put their people in there and change the discourse.
Bespoke.
What did he say the other day?
Oh, there's that one word that he used the other day.
I can't remember.
Maybe somebody can remember.
It was so ridiculous.
An editing tool in this location.
And the result is a pretty impressive.
And the FDA was able to tailor the regulatory policy to enable this to happen.
I mean, Marty, you've talked a lot about this idea of plausible mechanisms and pathways.
So tell us, is this an example of that?
Yeah, it's basically the spirit of the plausible mechanism pathway.
You can't expect it to... That's... Oh, damn it.
Sorry.
Sorry, sorry, sorry.
I'm annoyed because I have it now in.
And before, the other video I didn't have in, so then it wasn't really working.
I'm Marty Makary, Vinay Prasad, Sanjala, Jane, Nagpal, great to see you.
So what I'm trying to say is that this isn't any different than the basic ethics that they used with Jesse Gelsinger.
It was a plausible idea.
His life was shitty enough that I guess it's plausible.
We might as well try this because worst case scenario, he's not gonna die.
And yet that's exactly the same rationale that you use in extreme cases.
Now we're talking about a baby.
And they're really happy that they finally get to play with babies.
Maybe because one of the arguments they made to the parents was that Jesse died because he was old.
And if we could have got to Jesse early enough, the edit would have taken.
I, yeah, that's right.
Equipoise.
Related to this particular gene editing tool in this location.
And the result is a pretty impressive outcome where the baby went home after.
A pretty impressive outcome that the baby went home alive.
We'll have to check in on him again in a few years and see if he's still alive and kicking.
Maybe he'll be a chess player.
That sometimes can be fatal because of this gene defect.
So my understanding is this baby is born and by all accounts, the delivery is normal and the parents didn't suspect anything.
But a few days after the baby's born,
The baby is lethargic.
I'm Marty Makary, Vinay Prasad, Sangela, Jane.
I don't know why that happened.
Great to see you guys.
Busy week at the FDA.
Yeah, we're going to talk about the three big things, quite healthy and normal.
Doctors start to draw blood tests and they find that the ammonia level is off the charts high, suggesting a problem with protein breakdown.
in the liver.
They actually sequence the baby and they discover he has a carbamoyl phosphatase deficiency and they have a particular genetic mutation in the baby that's responsible for this condition.
He remembers scripts.
He's really good at it.
In a world just a year ago, what do you do for a baby?
You restrict the protein intake, you follow the ammonia level, you gradually try to wean him up on protein, you give him nitrogen scavenging drugs.
I mean, you really just kind of treat the... These are three people that are paid six-figure salaries.
This might be her primary job besides coordinating the farmer's market every week.
the symptoms of the disease.
You don't treat the root cause.
And... With a big risk of liver failure along the way.
And even with that, 50% of the babies are dead in a month.
You know, it's a terrible condition, you know, even with those things.
Yeah, and the liver failure will inevitably proceed.
What these researchers did... Inevitably proceed.
You see, this is a script that he's running, and now that's why he's got his hands on his knees.
This is gross.
antibodies against the gene delivery system because it is a sort of a virus derived product.
But this lipophilic delivery, we don't have, we've not yet seen evidence of autoimmunity against it.
So you can... But that's absolutely absurd because phospholipid autoimmunity is a disease.
It's a known thing.
You can also develop autoimmunity to the peg.
That's freaking bullshit.
And the fact that he quantified, qualified it by saying we have not yet seen... Stop lying!
Stop lying!
That's crazy.
That is some crazy shit.
He is on a script.
This guy is a malevolent player in a place in the government where he should not be because we are under attack.
dose a kid many many times with different doses so that i think that's one advance it goes presumably to the liver edits the gene and now the baby he has declared that we can dose children multiple times with phospholipids and rna inside of them because of this
He's saying that's an advance, but you just got through telling us that you had tailored the approval process because there can be no studies here.
You can't learn anything because this is a bespoke tailored specifically for this patient.
Then how the hell do we gain all this general knowledge about the non immunogenicity of the carrier?
This guy is the head of the Center for Biologics Evaluations and Research at the FDA, and he is a lying, incompetent, traitorous fool.
the baby's able to tolerate a lot more protein, and the ammonia level has fallen, the baby's healthy and discharged, and we see good clinical outcomes.
What we don't have yet is this baby has been very vulnerable, so we haven't yet done a liver biopsy to prove that the gene is edited.
I suspect at some point they will want to do that when the baby's healthy and strong, just to confirm that what we're seeing is in fact the reality that the gene has been properly edited.
Now, what are the lessons here?
One, FDA rapidly made available this product to this baby and the family.
This product to the baby and the family.
The FDA made this product available.
The FDA, the FDA, the FDA.
If this kid dies, then what?
If this kid dies, he won't die from this.
He'll die of the flu or he'll die of something else because he was immunocompromised, I assure you.
And they're going to get all the data they can possibly get from this kid after he dies.
We have allowed a drug to be given that can only be given to this baby.
It is like a suit you had a tailor make.
Speaking of which, we should talk about suits.
It's a suit you had a tailor make for one person.
And the question that we're going to face at FDA is how can we do this for many, many kids, everyone getting an individual therapy, and the usual regulatory thinking has to go out the window.
That's right.
The usual regulatory thinking has to go out the window.
I mean, can I get an amen?
Can I get a long distance high five from my brother, from another mother in Boston?
Because this is exactly what we both predicted was gonna be done.
We just thought they were gonna burn it down to the studs.
No, they're just gonna have farmer's markets and put an Indian and an Englishman in charge.
Did I hear correctly that it took about a week to approve this therapy?
Yeah, I mean, we accelerated this as rapidly as possible.
I think one of the reassuring things... I mean, he was looking at it under his, you know, he got the, he got his little microphone.
It took me a whole week to figure it out, but I got it figured out now.
Wow.
That I heard at the meeting was that the FDA got a lot of praise for bringing this very quickly to the patient.
And kudos to the career staff here that were hand-holding the family and the researchers along the way and involved and doing what we want to see more of at the FDA and that is
custom tailoring a regulatory process to the condition based on the need, the unmet need in particular, and the individual situation and the relative safety profile of the intervention.
And treating root causes rather than just masking the symptoms, which is a philosophy that you extend across all sorts of regulatory thinking.
Oh my gosh, do you hear what he just said?
Rare diseases
treating them the symptoms of them is so old school it's so dumb we should instead try to treat the problem which is the genetic problem there's no moral discussion here at all this is now being like with a with a with a cognitive shell game trying to equate
you know, like treating symptoms, you know, like they do with a lot of people when they're, when they're mid middle age adults, where they don't try to treat the underlying cause, you know, like lack of exercise or poor diet or whatever, you know, they just treat this symptoms.
Now he goes all the way to saying that we do that with babies too.
You know, these babies with these genetic syndromes, we just treat the symptoms.
We never try to change the genes.
stop lying wow i'm gonna play that again because i don't know if it's made an impression on you like it made on me but that is a freaking remarkably shitty thing for him to say being at fda including food and and the issues that are more discussed in the
Kind of a big win for medical science, custom tailoring a regulatory process to the condition based on the need, the unmet need in particular, and the individual situation and the relative safety profile of the intervention.
And treating root causes rather than just masking the symptoms, which is a philosophy that you extend across all sorts of regulatory thinking at FDA, including
Treat the root causes, finally.
Why would we let these genetic experiments go to waste?
We have the opportunity to fuck around and see if it'll work.
Food and the issues that are more discussed in the news.
Kind of a big win for medical science.
Yeah, absolutely.
And so that's just.
It's not a win for medical science, ladies and gentlemen.
It's a win for bad biology.
This is the most malevolent thing I ever thought I would see on a Tuesday.
I have goosebumps all over my legs right now because I was so stupid.
I didn't watch enough of this video.
I already thought it was pretty good.
One of the stories we heard yesterday.
And then we hear from people who are developing CAR T cell therapies that have resulted in the cure for historically incurable leukemias.
Oh yeah, leukemias and stuff like that to completely different things where you can pull bone marrow cells out and play with them in addition and put them back into a body.
Not talking about gene therapy for a fricking baby!
But you know, he just juggles all these things because that's how he does it.
It's just a big web of stupid simple and stupid complex and dumb simple.
And because he's so good at memorizing a script, you know, you know, like somebody who's got like 20 years experience working on the robotics of molecular biology might be able to just spit out a bunch of terms and a bunch of collaborators and a bunch of papers and a bunch of discoveries and make it seem like it would be a hopeless task.
for you to try and figure out how much of a lie the Human Genome Project is.
This guy can also spray around a bunch of terms and make it seem like he's just a really precocious expert in everything, when in reality he is scripted by Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan to destroy the mandate of the FDA.
from people whose own children or loved ones suffer from genetic diseases for which there is not yet a cure, but they're in vigorous pursuit of the cure.
And I think we learned a lot at FDA about things that we could perhaps improve upon.
We also got some reassurance that we had been going in the right direction, I think, on some of these issues.
We at the FDA?
You just joined the FDA.
How is it already we, this kind of shit?
You know what's really sort of shaped some of my thinking, if I'm being very honest in sort of how I think about regulation is, you know, the real question you need to ask is if they use CRISPR to insert this, how do they know that it accidentally didn't insert somewhere else in some of those liver cells and then knock out a gene that wasn't already knocked out?
How do they know that some other change hasn't been made?
I,
I have a couple different ideas.
One is that this story is bullshit.
That they didn't actually do what they said that they did, but they're trying to tell you that they did so that they can claim it was successful.
You know, it could have been a mosaic liver, for example.
The kid could have had the phenotype, but it could have been mosaic, so that some of the cells are expressing the good gene from an X chromosome, and some of them are expressing a bad gene from the other X chromosome.
And so, some of his liver cells are deficient in the enzyme, and some of his liver cells aren't.
And so then maybe in that scenario, you have the disease, but you don't really have the disease.
And so then, you know, the editing of a disease, you know, there, there are lots of ways that this could be trickery.
There's also lots of ways that that kid could live to be six years old and then die.
And they could just tell you it had nothing to do with this, which I think is far more likely the case.
When you have to break bad news to a family and the person comes back with a response of, gosh, is there anything that we can do?
When you have to give that bad news and you don't have any tools in the toolbox to be able to offer.
So it just is so heartbreaking.
It's the hardest thing about being a doctor is giving bad news to parents.
If we just had gene therapy, if we had, at every hospital, somebody like Robert Malone using retroviruses to cure genetic diseases, that would just be kick-ass.
It has an impact on you.
I mean, emotionally, it, I mean, there's no training in medical school for this.
It's the hardest part of being a doctor, I think, is breaking bad news, especially when it's surprise bad news.
And you can't help but ask yourself, is there anything in the world that can be done
still maintaining our mission to safeguard public safety that we should be thinking about.
Why does it take 10 years or more on average for a drug to come to market?
These are questions I think that we are asking as we ask ourselves, what processes here can we rethink and do smarter?
Well, Marty and I are both oncologists, so we both had a lot of these kind of discussions.
exactly as you say, it is heartbreaking for the doctor.
Cancer is one of the shittiest fields in medicine.
The idea that there are different groups of cancers with different, you know, causes and all that stuff is what allows all of that money to be spent on something that is probably just the dysregulation of cell division by toxic exposure or something like that.
I'm pretty sure it's not parasites.
Although I could be wrong, I'm open to that.
I guess these guys don't think it's parasites and I'm sure they don't think that ivermectin and something else can cure all the cancers that it's apparently curing in our little circle.
And for the patient and the family.
when you get in situations where they'd be willing to try, you know, whatever options are out there.
And I guess one other point to make here is that, you know, sometimes I see people say, how do you reconcile your philosophy on the COVID-19 booster shots where we've written about the need for randomized studies, but also a baby like baby KJ, where we're saying you're never gonna get a randomized study and it's okay.
And the answer is just look at the differences.
One, a healthy 20 year old kid.
He's using his stance on
randomized control trials for the COVID booster shot as an argument for his understanding of the nuance of approving or facilitating the approval process for this unique bespoke therapy.
Stop lying.
healthy person who has no medical problems, the burden of proof for such a kid is very high that they would benefit from an additional dose of a product.
And sample size, right?
And sample size.
And there's many, many millions of these healthy, you know, millions of people are healthy.
Baby KJ, just one, you know, up 50% mortality rate.
No ability to do a randomized.
It's not even possible.
Did anyone suggest, oh, you really should have done a randomized controlled trial for, you know, this gene therapy before you gave it to baby KJ?
Thankfully, no one did.
But I guess I just want to explain our philosophy.
We're going to be flexible based on the condition, the frequency, how dire things are, how unique the situation is.
That's not a departure.
That's not an inconsistency.
That's just medicine 101.
And I think it's a good harmonization of common sense and the gold standard of science, right?
It just makes sense.
Yeah, big theme, common sense.
And so hopefully we can see more.
It just makes sense.
More innovation in that space.
We'd like to move it along.
I think it's an amazing expert panel that I just absolutely loved and soaked every minute of.
So I would encourage people to look at that FDA expert panel.
Maybe just add one more thing about the expert panel before we move to the next topic, is that we also had the secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., came.
We had Mehmet Oz come from CMS.
We had Jay Bhattacharya come from NIH.
I think I have never seen at FDA the NIH director, the CMS director,
and the HHS secretary and the FDA commissioner all in the same place at once.
So advocates not only got to say what they thought.
Think about how much of a poser this guy is.
He's been paying attention to the FDA for 20 years and I've never seen anything like this before.
It's like never before.
We're really doing a great job here.
I have to say for myself, I think I'm doing a really great job.
So great job that I'm willing to sit with my legs crossed and crush my balls.
We should do better at FDA, but also what CMS could do about making payment for gene therapies where
The gene therapy may cost $2 million, but that condition will be cured, and the health care system may save $4 or $5 million in lifetime health care expenditure.
How do we pay for that in a regulatory environment?
Dr. Oz was able to comment.
What about somebody brought up the issue of organ transplant?
How do we... Dr. Oz was able to comment?
I mean, what does that even mean?
What does that even mean?
Former Turkish military commander was able to comment.
What the... Increase organ supply.
Well, of course, you know, tissues falls under FDA, but organs falls elsewhere.
But we had Bobby Kennedy to listen to that.
So we really assembled, you know, the audience you most want if you are somebody who's concerned about these things, so people could directly appeal to the relevant stakeholders.
And I love that approach, right, a coordinated research, approval and payment strategy around a new therapy, because it's been so clunky.
It's been so sort of, you know, parsed out and not streamlined that you have these situations where you have this great irony of
a health care system that spends over $4 trillion, and yet a kid with a rare condition will be told, there is a treatment, but you can't have it because it's not covered.
And so that makes no sense, right?
In a modern world, we should be able to fix that problem.
And it's not a matter of simply, oh, the insurance company is bad, they need to pay.
Well, it's a broader strategy of how we make sure that there's access.
And that includes financial affordability to a lot of these therapies.
So that was a part of the expert panel yesterday, a great expert panel.
I loved it.
Learned a lot.
This is sort of the exciting, fast growing area right now.
And I think laboratory life sciences.
So I got a lot out of it, and I'm glad we did it.
Laboratory life sciences, what is that?
That was a weird little comment.
Hopefully, it lets people know this is a priority area for us, for you, for CBER, and hopefully we'll see more cool stuff coming, not just Baby KJ.
And I think the secretary spoke with Baby KJ's parents, and maybe the doc, and the doctor.
And the doctor, Chop.
Yeah, and shared some of that conversation.
And he had to say Chop again.
Conversation at the expert panel.
That was cool.
That's amazing.
Well speaking of babies, I think we should talk about infant formula
That's why we love Sangela.
So this is part of a broader initiative we have across kind of HHS around Operation Stork Speed.
But Marty, maybe share a little bit about kind of why we're even talking about baby formula.
Well, there's been I don't know why we're talking about baby formula either other than it's poison and that the whole idea of baby formula is just retarded.
I understand that there are people who might need it.
But I had, was fortunate that my wife and I gave, my wife gave birth to our boys in Norway.
And the way Norway does it, in order to make it possible for most women to become successful breastfeeding moms, which of course is the most convenient way to be a mom, because then you don't need to make bottles.
You don't need to carry a bunch of shit around.
And also you bond with your baby in a way that
quite frankly, I don't think any man could ever even imagine.
And so that bond is completely not present if you're bottle feeding from birth.
And so in Norway, just to give a good segue here, they have what is effectively a very nice hotel attached to every hospital.
And after your first baby, they give you three days in that hotel with
double room bed with enough beds for your kids to stay with you if you have a kid but no you wouldn't but that's what happened the next time because we asked for it but the first time for our first baby for Cherka we were in this hotel for three days now that meant that 24 hours a day
If you had to change the diaper, if the baby wouldn't stop crying, if you couldn't get the baby to latch onto your breast, if there was any problem at all, you could pull a string and a nurse or a midwife would come to the room.
And the most important thing was is that when those nurses and midwives came to the room, they taught the dad as much as they taught the mother.
And for breastfeeding, that's actually really important because when a mom is all alone trying to figure out how to get it to work,
If there's nobody in the room that has any coaching at all, has been told anything about what they're looking at or how to help, then how can they be expected to help?
Are you supposed to watch a YouTube video and find out how to help your wife breastfeed?
Given the fact that your wife might have giant breasts for the first time in her life, or might have the same breasts she's always had.
You don't know.
And so every woman is different.
Every child is different.
And for the first three days of that,
Pretty terrifying adventure.
Where they're having this little black kind of oily poop that comes out before they start the regular milk pooping.
You have a nurse there to tell you what it is.
And to hold your hand and to show you how hard you can push on a little baby.
And the reason why I'm getting so caught up in it is because it was awesome.
The only reason why I was such a good dad was because of that.
Because I could also help my wife.
I could see whether the baby was latched or not, and whether the breast was far enough into the mouth.
You can't learn that without a nurse teaching it to you.
And so, this, this breaks my heart.
almost no innovation in the baby formula space since 1998.
With the exception of adding selenium, the FDA has not updated its recipe for what you must include in baby formula for it to come and get sort of.
And there's one recipe?
There's one recipe.
The government issues a recipe.
I see.
This is what needs to be, you know, these are the criteria of the ingredients.
When you say recipe, you mean kind of like you need to have X amount of this vitamin or these nutrients in these quantities?
Is that a fact?
It gets very wonky into the complexity.
But yes, exactly, the ingredients.
And so that is called a monograph, technically.
And that's been sort of this system of regulatory approval.
Well, if you have an idea to use a different fatty acid or a different non-seed oil alternative, then you
you don't meet the recipe and so therefore it's very hard to come to market you have to almost submit it as a new drug and run a like a phase three clinical trial and run the whole thing so it's like we have got to promote and you know that's why i really like sixth girl in the chat because that is also something that
It's just heartbreaking to think that women are coached and even economically motivated by, the doctors might be economically motivated by their hospital administration to encourage a C-section.
And as Six Girls so wonderfully points out, if you have a C-section, then all the changes that occur during birth, they don't happen.
And instead, you're the victim of an incredibly invasive and powerfully damaging surgery where they cut through your abdominal wall.
And so, it is just an absolute abomination that a C-section is done for any other reason than the acute danger of a live birth.
America is broken, ladies and gentlemen, broken in a very, very severe way.
And we need to come to terms with it.
These people are not going to, these people are put in place to make sure that we never even see it.
more innovation, so there's more competition, there's more types of baby formula, and we can meet the demand that moms have in America to have baby formula with no seed oil, baby formula without corn syrup, baby formula without added sugar, baby formula without heavy metals.
There is now an increased awareness.
not just in the nutrition science community that we heard about, that we heard from in that FDA expert panel.
Maybe a broader point here is that, you know, there are definitely probably ways to make a baby formula that's not good.
Baby's not going to gain weight, not going to grow healthy.
So there are lots of ways to mess it up.
but we are not even close to having the audacity, like we have the audacity to claim that we have the perfect recipe.
We don't know that to be true.
It's very plausible that we can improve baby formula in many different ways through these sorts of substitutions.
FDA doesn't know, you know, so I think we do have to allow that.
Well, and we're also seeing that moms are buying baby formula from other countries because they feel those products are healthier or don't have some of these ingredients, and so I think there's a lot of desire for us to...
He's what, the associate director of what?
To think about this, and I don't know, I learned, I think there's a lot of desire for us to think about this.
And I don't know, I learned so much.
I mean, the fact that, you know, there were studies presented from the 1980s that were really compelling, and yet we really haven't acted on some of those findings.
I saw that, it was like, oh my gosh, this study's amazing.
And then it was like 1984 or something.
It's like, how do we not, I assumed it just came out because it was so mind boggling, but I don't know if you're referring to the study on visual acuity.
Yeah, it was a visual acuity study done with rhesus monkeys, and it looked at the seed oils, right, and it compared.
It wouldn't surprise me if Vinay is gay.
I mean, that's a lot of these people.
That's Peter Thiel.
I mean, you know, it doesn't seem to bother Elon Musk at all.
I mean, it doesn't seem to bother Donald Trump at all.
He hangs out with all kinds of gay people.
It's fine.
Not that I have any issue with gay people, but I mean, if you're going to pretend to be this macho whatever, why hide it?
What about Peter Thiel is not hiding it.
He's always hiding it that he's a gay man.
All these people are hiding that they're gay men.
And yet what is this rainbow shit all about?
I'm sorry, I'm going to go off here a little bit.
What is this rainbow shit all about?
Let's think about it for a second.
It's about whether or not you like penis.
It's about your opinion about penises.
Either you like them or you don't.
You would like to have one or you would like to play with one.
That's it.
That's what that's all about.
The rainbow flag with the little corner, you know, that's got the pink and the black shit in there.
It's all about that because that's the same with trans, right?
You're either, you think you're supposed to have one or you think you're not supposed to have one.
And so you make it, they make it all about this, you know, it's gender and no, it's really not.
It's just about one thing.
It's about your preference for or about penis.
That's it.
So for me, this is starting to become beyond disingenuous now, when we have these kinds of people posing as biologists, posing as moral authorities, posing as really having thoughtful questions, when we can't even get down to brass tacks and actually talk about what these things are really about.
And that's what that is really about.
That's the biology of it.
These people are magnificent frauds.
Oil, to see how that impacted visual acuity.
And you saw that safflower oil actually had kind of lower visual acuity than the soy oil.
And so there's a lot of discussion about the right kind of fats and seed oils.
And my takeaway was, well, you know, not all seed oils are equal, right?
So there's different compositions of the fats and have different impacts.
And there's the ratio of the omega-3s and the omega-6s.
And so, I mean, there's a lot we can learn from that.
It's amazing that the visual acuity... It's definitely not about families and kids.
That's the most important thing to see about this fake rainbow flagship.
It's not about families and kids.
Pride is about yourself.
And you're having pride about what?
You're having pride primarily about your opinion about penises.
And it doesn't matter what your opinion is.
You have pride about it.
You like them.
You want one.
You collect them.
You wish you had one.
You wish you didn't have one.
That's it.
That's what pride is.
You have pride in your stance about penises.
say on an eye chart, was lower for the primates fed when their mothers in pregnancy were eating safflower oil, low in omega-3s.
And when the babies had the same safflower oil, low in omega-3s, and so one of the experts said, think of omega-3 as important for brain health, and omega-6 is more important for body health.
And so there's actually this incredible data that shows that the types of fats consumed in pregnancy and in childhood affect your visual acuity.
And there's a whole science to it.
And when I read the paper about the photoreceptors in the retina,
And, you know, one of the precursors of one of those molecules is linoleic acid.
But I mean, how do I how did I not learn about that in medical school?
We I mean, never once did we talk about seed.
How did I not learn about that in medical school?
Not once did we talk about seed oils.
It sounds like the same shtick that Casey and Callie Means are pushing.
It's almost like they're all on the same malevolent, shitty script, oils.
And how have we not tried to improve upon formula development and giving people, and giving consumer different options that are all, you know, safe?
Because these regulatory guidelines have been pretty rigid, right?
And just kind of putting out that monograph to your point, but there's so much more evidence now that we can build off of, right?
So seed oil was a big piece of it, talking about the sugars.
And so lactose came up, you know, I know lactose is
kind of used a lot.
There are a lot of infant formulas out there that are lactose reduced or lactose free.
You know, what surprised me was that the expert, I think it's a war on the sacredness of life.
I mean, you can say it's a war on God, but what is God other than the sacredness of life?
You can go to an extreme and not step on bugs, like a Buddhist does.
And I don't think that's crazy.
Try not to harm anything through your whole life.
I don't think that's nuts.
I think that's an extreme view, but I don't think it's crazy.
It's a lot better than whatever bullshit is happening here.
It's a war on the sacredness of life.
Life is now expendable.
Life is just, it's just, it's nothing.
And it's certainly not irreducibly complex.
It's said that there are more infants who are consuming lactose-reduced or lactose-free formula than maybe what is medically necessary.
And I think some of that comes out of how these products are being marketed to families to say, hey, this is gentler on the stomach.
And so you have babies out there that- Which is not a substantiated claim.
Right.
Yeah.
Right.
So there's babies out there getting a lactose-free formula who probably could get a lactose formula.
They've been, in some ways, a bit captured by the narrative that lactose-free is better, but it likely is not better, particularly if you can tolerate lactose, right?
Correct.
A lot of experts had commented, I think, that lactose is a very good, powerful, complex carbohydrate, important for infants in their development.
And so you've got to get carbohydrates somehow, right?
So I mean, fat, it can be a source.
But also, a lot of people do not like the idea of corn syrup.
This is not natural, right?
This is not how in cavemen, you know, delivered babies, they didn't immediately give the babies corn syrup, right?
So we have to think about what did they give their babies?
It's despicable.
not just what makes sense in a maturing nutrition science field.
We didn't get the recipe perfect in 1998.
And it's like, OK, we don't need to touch it now.
We're good for the next 1,000 years.
No, the field is evolving.
We have a lot of learnings in that space.
We heard from those experts at the infant formula roundtable.
And the corn syrup piece is interesting, right, because as you know very well, you know, the impact on those added sugars early in life sets you up in the trajectory for a longer term chronic conditions, obesity, diabetes, all of that.
And that was a lot of what the panelists were talking about is we have to get this right early on, that early nutrition is really important.
And I just, the marketing piece of it on the labeling and the guide.
Early nutrition is very important because you are a pattern integrative of the trajectory across time.
And the earlier you get knocked off trajectory, the worse the outcome will be over time.
And they're not, they're simply not saying that we have a biological mechanism for the passing along of nutrition and microbiota.
Yes, bacteria are also passed along via breast milk.
These people are monsters.
They're either unwitting participants and absolute gunners just trying to do what they're told, because it's great to have a job at the FDA and I don't give a shit because I'm just climbing the ladder, or they're much worse because they know that they're engaged in an elaborate lie.
They know they're engaged in sabotaging the FDA's
long-standing mandate of evaluating whether something is safe and effective.
What it says on the label is what it actually does.
They're not talking about that at all.
They're talking about all the times when, you know, that's not really possible.
And all those times are genetic examples because this is the next stage of the human genome project.
I mean, sea oils is one part, the lactose is another piece.
Another thing that surprised me was this, they were saying there were claims that this is basically equivalent to human breast milk, right?
And some of these things are not actually, well, substantiated, or there were other claims around this formula can stop your baby from crying in 24 hours, right?
Things that have no basis in kind of what the, in science or anything that's in the formula.
That's right, most experts say that.
She might be a dupe.
It looked like they weren't very comfortable with that comment about breastfeeding.
Didn't you see that in Prasad's eyes?
That was cool.
That breast milk is better for a baby than formula.
And of course, that needs to come with the important footnote that some women cannot produce breast milk physiologically or for other reasons are not able to breast feed their babies.
And so that's when we need to acknowledge that we need good infant formula options out there.
Breastfeeding should be encouraged and supported, but can't be mandated, obviously.
And that's what the CDC has been doing for a long time.
Actually, in the CDC, I think it's the Healthy People 2030 goals.
There are goals for increasing breastfeeding rates in the United States.
That's been a longstanding sort of goal of the CDC.
There's also the issue of the supply chain getting, when you have fewer options and less product competition,
You can run into infant formula shortages.
Exactly, and of course that's what happened a few years ago.
I think you have about four major players who control about 70 to 80% of the market.
And so we need to see more options.
See more options.
At the same time, we want to encourage those companies to keep producing high quality infant formula because we don't want to see another shortage.
Because there's a saying I know we use in the operating room a lot.
You've heard it.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
So if we create these very stringent- Do they say that in the operating room?
That doesn't sound great.
standards by which now that infant formula issue, the shortage, there was also a contamination issue.
Of course, that's serious and separate.
When you have a just you don't have a lot of competition on the market and you have this supply chain that's sort of narrow, what you could see is that it becomes flimsy where it can be disrupted.
with a single, you know, event.
But the real story is, why don't we have more infant formula products on the market?
Yeah, I mean, a misuse of government and regulation is always to overregulate a space where you're not really sure you're optimized.
You know, that's always a misuse.
That's right.
Perfect could be the enemy of good.
Of course, when people didn't have infant formula, they were using things that were terrible for babies, right?
I don't even want to say them, but they were alternatives that no baby should be getting.
And every year, there's some babies who suffer because the infant formula, people dilute the powder too much, for instance, and that can be quite dangerous.
So there are clearly some important safeguards that need to be in place.
But also, we can't pretend that we have, as Marty says, the perfect infant formula in 1998, and it can never be improved upon.
Great points.
Great panel.
Encourage everybody to watch it.
Again, FDA expert panel on infant formula.
And this should be up now.
I think we just posted it on our social media accounts.
It's called Operation Stork Speed, by the way.
YouTube good.
Stork Speed.
Now the CEOs.
And they were the last to enter the room.
They were just here last night.
So this is our third event this week, and it was a CEO... I mean, they're patting themselves on the back for having three events and a podcast.
Wow, they're busy.
Roundtable sort of listening session with CEOs from pharmaceutical manufacturers big and small I mean we had the big some of the big players were in the room But some of the small players in the room people usually from the DC, New York area next week We're gonna on the west coast and then we're gonna go back to the northeast in Boston and then we might go to Atlanta by the end of the summer and We had how many people were there like 55 or 60 people like more seem like more.
Yeah, maybe it's close to 70.
I
70 people.
And we, you know, met with everyone there.
We let everyone have the microphone, went around the room, and everyone gave one or two points that they thought the FDA could do a better job.
Now, what were the ground rules?
Of course, no one was about to talk about their specific medical product or their specific thing that they're working with the FDA on.
It was about high-level, you know, pan-company kind of concerns.
And we heard a lot of things in different domains.
communication, ways in which it could be improved between the FDA and between the reviewers and then the company.
And a lot of those points, I thought, were fair points.
Yeah, they said like a five-minute call could save them two months of back and forth with letters or uncertainty or how do we do the application or what do you want in this clinical trial design.
Very good points about increased communication could help innovation.
But I want to double click into that because I think we experience this every day, right?
Does anyone else gag a little bit when she says I want to double click into that?
Do you want to stand up from your chair and kind of just like, I don't know, put your palm quite hard into her forehead so that maybe that chair tips over and falls out of the window?
if I have a question, instead of me emailing you, I'm just gonna walk down to your office and it's much faster, right?
And so I didn't realize that you have this interaction where sponsors are waiting, I think that, I can't remember the number now, but it was- Up to 90 days.
Up to 90 days.
There's a tiered system of communication.
Yeah, where just, you know, they have a clarifying question that, to your point, could have been answered in two minutes, five minutes, and then 90 days goes by.
And then to your ultimate question about why does it take 10 years, it's these little incremental kind of steps that they add up over time.
They add up.
So companies and developers deserve an instant response to their questions.
And of course, we can't let them abuse it where they're calling five times a day with every little detail.
But a couple quick response communications would go a long way.
So we're going to work.
So it doesn't sound like they're going to address any of the problems that, you know, Tony Bark identified in 2013.
They're just going to make things work faster.
Work on that.
We're going to work on that.
And then another
big theme that came up was the CMC, Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls processes.
Now, this is sort of the nitty-gritty of how things are actually made and the quality testing that goes into FDA.
And, you know, there's a depth of quality testing here that I don't think I fully appreciated.
For instance, when you take a pill and you split it, you assume that half the active ingredient is in both halves of the pill.
But we have people here whose job is to ensure that that's true, even if it's split in a different direction, that, you know, the active ingredient didn't precipitate to one corner or the other.
So he didn't know anything about how the FDA worked?
He didn't know anything about how the FDA worked.
The products that we have in this country have to be the highest quality, sterility when necessary.
We need to take these things into account.
They are important.
At the same time, I'm sure the industry has a point that our paperwork is at times overly bureaucratic.
Too many forms and too much, you know.
Pages and pages of forms.
100,000 pages sometimes.
Some applications have been 100,000 pages.
And people say that's the reason why we can't review fast, because it's 100,000 pages.
But then you say, well, why does it have to be 100,000 pages?
We have to introduce a radical, innovative concept called the page limit.
Yeah, we really do.
I mean, I think that it's important to be, to have information available if you want to dig deeper, but to routinely read, you know, you say 100,000, but I've heard some applications are 800,000 pages.
800,000 page applications to the FDA says this traitor.
Not 100,000.
I've heard 800,000 page application to the FDA.
I want these people in jail.
I want them run out on a rail.
I want them to be the victim of repeated rotten vegetable rain.
This is gross.
And it's this crazy perpetual dog chasing its own tail because the companies don't want to be stuck in a gotcha moment where a reviewer might say, oh, where's this information?
So they figure just include 100 percent of every single thing they have.
You know, it's like a medical chart, really.
You know, sometimes when you get when you get the medical chart from the outside hospital and it tells you all these notes on what have you.
Have you ever thought about the possibility, Vinay, that they would submit an 800,000-page application so that the FDA couldn't review it?
And that if the FDA put a rubber stamp on an 800,000-page application, then that could set up a system where, effectively, applications couldn't be evaluated?
And so that might not have anything to do with the FDA and their onerous requirements.
But you seem to be very convinced, despite your lack of experience in what the FDA does, you seem to be very freaking convinced that it's all the FDA's fault.
Stop lying!
America, we are under attack.
or she may have eaten six weeks ago and the blood pressure was on a Tuesday.
It's not usable, it's just too much information.
That's right, yeah.
It's like the presentation in the emergency department where they take you all the way around the barn at the very end and has pancreatitis.
You're like, okay, you could have started off like that, yeah.
I think that's why I heard some of the CEOs are really supportive of us using AI in some of those administrative review kind of tasks where you can kind of help summarize many of those 100,000 pages.
And of course, this week was the big rollout.
For Elsa, yeah.
So Elsa is our AI powered scientific review tool that the scientific reviewers use, food inspectors.
And so they use that to help them with the scientific review.
And sometimes it's summarizing a lot of that background information.
Also, you know, our reviewers.
It means that our experts are training in AI is what it means.
It's probably not a private, it's probably a privately contracted AI.
It's so, oh my goodness is it so malevolent.
are very good at double-checking, sometimes triple-checking all of the data and making sure it is formatted or they reformat it into certain tables.
And that was another piece of feedback we got in the CEO forum is the data in the tables could benefit from a standardized format where they are not spending a tremendous amount of time taking data and putting it in an FDA format when we have a tool that can do that.
And then I think the third big category that came up was endpoints, control arms, randomization, when you need it, when you don't.
And earlier in this video, we talked about baby KJ.
And let's say, hypothetically, you have a child with an enzymatic deficiency.
You know exactly what the gene is that's implicated in that.
you deliver targeted gene editing, you see that the enzymes are corrected, the levels all start to normalize, and then later you biopsy the tissue and show the gene is edited.
I think in those cases, we're gonna be complete.
He's talking about a hypothetical situation that has never happened, but it might soon happen with baby KJ.
And if other people are able to do this, then this is the script.
This is the Robert Malone, Kevin McKernan, human genome script.
This is how they get rid of the FDA.
By making this argument, by making this argument with these scripted bullshitters.
America is under attack.
...satisfied that scientifically you've proven that this baby is better off as a result of the therapy.
N of one equals approval.
But there are also cases, to push back a little bit on the industry, where some people went a little too far and told anecdotal stories about products, where somebody has a disease that deteriorates slowly.
But of course, there's a range of presentations.
Of course, some people will deteriorate faster and some slower.
They administer a product that they say is responsible for a slower deterioration.
But in that case, it's very difficult to know.
Is it the product?
Did you just happen to find somebody whose disease is progressing?
So this is fake pushing back because this still presumes that there are cases where this is 100% valid.
These people are monsters.
They're liars.
They're put in place with a script that's probably written by Kevin McKernan.
and Robert Mueller.
The same script writers that got Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and the fake health freedom movement as far as it's gotten.
But that was all the farther they're gonna go.
This is the real Trojan horse.
biological correlates along the way, it's harder for us to know.
And maybe in those cases, N of one isn't enough.
So this is sort of the nuance of science and regulation and understanding cause and effect.
You got me thinking, if when I deteriorate, if I wanted to.
It's certainly not, it's definitely not the subtleties of safe and effectiveness, right?
It's definitely not the subtleties of safe and effective.
We are at three hours, ladies and gentlemen.
Mary Holland is a liar and her spectacular commitment to lies is all that's required.
Or behind, you know, proper testing or behind the six foot distancing, the two meter distance, or behind these shots, right?
This technology that has never been used widely.
None of that is over.
And as Sasha Lateefa pointed out this morning, you know, these were military operations, but they were global military operations, right?
Every country had exactly the same narrative.
I was fortunate to be able to travel during COVID because I had natural immunity.
Having had it for two days, I took ivermectin.
I was fine.
And so I saw, you know, two meters, masks, you know, be afraid, stay at home, lockdown, you know, schools closed, businesses tanked.
All of that was on a global basis.
All of that was not on a global basis.
All the murder was in America.
A lot of the economic destruction was in America.
Mary Holland is a traitor to our grandchildren, without a doubt.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist where using their tests to find their ghost doesn't make you their ghost's real or you a ghostbuster.
Thanks very much for joining me.
I will see you again tomorrow.
RNA cannot pandemic intramuscular injection is dumb.
Transfection in healthy people was always a crime and the population pyramid is.
It is the biological effect that you were not aware of.
This is for all the marbles, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't give up.
Don't stop.
I won't either.
See you soon.