Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?
This guy's been talked about for years.
You're asking, we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things.
And are people still talking about this guy, this creep?
Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?
This guy's been talked about for years.
You're asking.
I think truth is good for kids.
We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in society.
We want everybody to feel good.
That's not the way life is.
I don't care how you get there.
I don't care what you do to get there.
The goal is to win.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Good morning, good morning, good morning.
Welcome to the show.
This is Giga Home Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
We stay focused on the biology.
We don't take the bait on social media, and we love our neighbors here.
It is really important to understand that one of our main messages is to try your best to get yourself off of social media.
Much more importantly, start to educate your kids about how social media can be used.
Liars can use social media in concert to market products, but also to really to market different political ideas and even different societal changes.
And so we've got to get off of social media and start using it more efficiently.
If you want to drop a bomb at the next barbecue you're at, drop the bomb that autism spectrum disorder is a myth used to make sure that intramuscular injection is never questioned as a methodology, that virology is never questioned as a science, and that public health is never questioned as a reason.
Same thing can be said for pandemics and gain-of-functions.
They are also mythologies used to make sure that these things are never questioned.
And they use it very effectively.
It's because it's a long con, and most importantly, it's because we have acquiesced to the use of social media as some kind of substitute for a normal social network, a normal printed medium.
It's really become obvious to me that if you are not required to put out a solid print magazine or even a PDF with a date on it, you are essentially allowed to change history.
And those people that hold the keys to those archives
can change history.
Even the Wayback Machine could in theory be seeded with a whole bunch of snapshots of a website that never existed to make people believe that something was leaked a long time ago or that somebody was ahead of things when in fact they were not.
I don't think you can underestimate how bad things have gotten with regard to the falseness on the internet.
And so I'm starting to really default to everything being false.
You can see here, this is in July 19th, 2020 on a Sunday.
I'm explaining how I think we have a lot of background noise and they are using a non-specific PCR test.
to dupe us.
I got better at explaining this, but this is pretty remarkable if you think about it.
This is six years ago now, essentially.
JC in the Woods, Coffee and Birdsong.
And nobody's really approached questioning this idea, not even the great Kevin McKernan of the Human Genome Project.
Don't forget to follow this substack and share this one with your family and friends.
The reason why you want to share this substack with your family and friends
is because, I'm sorry, I got that wrong, because the videos and the stories are so tragic and so obvious.
And I think it will bring into focus the idea that people are not aware of what happened to their own loved ones and they may want to look into the
the hospital records of how their loved ones were treated in the hospital in America to see if anything untoward actually occurred.
Now that you understand that this was largely a protocol disaster and that certain protocols are a problem,
You can just casually look up and see if Aunt Jo got some supplementary oxygen when she was taken to the hospital and then that somehow led to a viral pneumonia.
And if anybody in your doctor's office believes in a viral pneumonia, then you basically have a puppet there, a clown, a bamboozled person.
This is a message from an American to Americans.
I'm broadcasting to the world, CQCQDX.
But a lot of what I'm saying is particularly relevant to Americans where I live, where my kids live, where my kids play basketball.
And so I'm very keen to wake Americans up, just because I think even if America were to wake up and throw off the shackles of social media, you know, this is a graphic depiction of how social media was used to overwhelm people with the illusion of the pandemic.
And if you didn't see the pandemic as a wave that you had to avoid with masks and lockdowns and vaccines,
then you are probably a lot better off.
So you might be at the top of the wave now.
But Bret Weinstein would not have put you at the top of the wave by staying focused on the biology because he still isn't focused on the biology.
Somebody like, I don't know, Ryan Cole would not have got you to the top of the wave because he's taking a lot of the bait on social media.
And I don't think that Robert Malone would get you anywhere near loving your neighbor seeing as he's like a homesteader who shoots at his neighbors.
Anyway, the same could be said for Andrew Huff.
Andrew Huff has fired over 150 rounds in one day.
directed at what he thought were the Michigan State Police, according to testimony on the High Wire, one of America's leading news sources on the conservative side of the movement.
So, if you want to wake your family and friends up, one of the ways to do it might be to send them to this stream.
That's really how this works.
People spread the word, and then kapow!
People learn the biology and it suddenly makes sense.
It's kind of headquartered at GigaHomeBiological.com where you can find links to all the places where the stream can be found.
Rumble is my least favorite place, but it is there as well.
And then there's a link called Stuff there that you can find all of the important things that I think you should download and read, especially the book.
What is Life slash Mind and Matter by Mr. Schrodinger.
I'm going to find a copy of this book that I've started reading by Niels Bohr called Atomic Energy and Human Knowledge.
It's an interesting book.
It kind of, I think, is partly the inspiration for that Schrodinger book.
And so I'm excited about tearing into it.
It's a little less biology than I imagined.
It's actually really revealing in terms of what it tells us about how these physicists were thinking.
And if you're interested in following SolarFire9's advice in the chat, buying old physical books I think is an actually really, really good idea.
Hold on one second here.
And I do, you know, I can give away my secret.
eBay is a great place to do it.
The real trick with eBay is to browse.
The real trick with eBay is to not buy the first iteration of something that you see just because the description is really good, the pictures are nice.
and it seems to fit your imaginary price point of what you would pay for that book because you might be surprised that if now that you know the title of a book that you didn't know before by searching for for example I don't know books and phages you might look for bacteriophages books like that
You might see that the book that you want is named this and then search for that title and then find it You know public, you know, it could be anywhere from $45 with free shipping to $5 For free shipping.
I the other day I got you know, my wife laughs at me a lot about this, but the other day I
You know who really doesn't laugh about it is my mailman.
The other day I got a box that I bought on eBay for $35, which sounds like it's a lot.
But it had nine bird books in it.
And they were very, they're very, very, very nice bird books.
A couple of them old, the yada, yada, yada.
eBay is a really, really nice place.
And again, it's, if you're going to waste your time somewhere,
Right?
On the internet.
You're gonna scroll through YouTube, then you better know who you're looking for and you better go to somebody like, I don't know, maybe Lewis Rossman, although Joe Marshall has me thinking about Lewis Rossman and whether or not that fighting for this right to repair is kind of fighting at the wrong, sort of, uh, defending the wrong door maybe is the right way to describe it.
I don't know.
I've been trying to come up with an apt analogy for trying to describe some of the many ways that I think that social media can be used against us.
And I think one of the ways you might think about how social media can be used against us in the context of a Lollapalooza of liars, people going on social media and scripted wittingly or unwittingly kind of coordinating this
agreement across platforms and agreement across podcasts and even agreement across mainstream media that certain questions are the most important questions and if you think about it from the perspective of house defense and
And you think about the idea of advocating for your family to start defending the house by locking everybody into an interior bathroom and bringing all the guns into that room and then defending the door of the bathroom.
So, in other words, giving the thieves free run of your whole house, maybe even open up the garage door, I don't know.
So, social media can be used
very effectively if they put a, you know, a couple really well-spoken experts on guns to say that, you know, if you're going to be shooting a gun in your house, you want to know where your family is.
And so the only way I would ever shoot a gun in my house is make sure that I'm shooting a gun from a room where I know all my family members are, and then I can shoot through the wall.
I can do whatever I want to.
And then another guy might get on and say that, you know, he's been to Iraq and for him, you know, this is the way it works in special forces.
You can put the kids in the bathtub, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And so you have a whole series of people going talk shit on a podcast about how it's best to lock yourself in the bathroom and defend the bathroom door and give the thieves free run of the house.
Now,
I'm not an expert in these kinds of things.
That may very well be the smartest thing to do.
That may very well be what... But imagine that, on the other hand, they put videos up and say you should have security cameras, and you should get a dog, and you should teach your kids how to use a gun, and you should have good locks on your doors, and, you know, the windows should be X, Y, and Z, and whatever, and you can do this and that and the other.
and you shouldn't let anybody even on your property, that's a different, completely different thing.
And what I'm suggesting to you is, is that depending on what they wanted people to believe en masse, social media is capable of making people consider
the idea that that is a debate worth having and that a reasonable person thinks that it would be okay to bring their whole family into the interior, you know, whatever, and you see what I mean?
And so that analogy applies to anything.
That analogy could apply to how people are currently thinking while they skillfully use social media, how they are currently thinking about immigration.
Is the right answer that we're not stopping people at the borders?
Is that the right answer?
I don't know.
But they certainly want us to believe that that's the right answer.
Is the right answer that politicians are controlled by Jeffrey Epstein and so in order for this blackmail ring of control to go on, we can't reveal who's being blackmailed by Jeffrey Epstein?
Is that real or is that just an agreement that they've created by putting a bunch of people on podcasts and agreeing that that's really the thing?
Just like, are you sure the right idea is to put everybody in the bathroom and bring all the guns in the bathroom and defend the bathroom door?
Or is it just because a SEAL went on a podcast and told a story about Iraq and now you believe him?
And just because you saw another guy talking about it on a cooking show, and he also said the same thing, that at the restaurant, they're gonna do it like that.
And so then, you know, three weeks later, there's some, the same guy you saw before is now on Joe Rogan telling the detailed story about what he did in Iraq and why it was so important to go to an interior bathroom and defend the house.
And so, this is it.
Social media is the trap, and you are on their spaceship.
And they're in control of all the meters and all the screens you read.
And so you think you're running from comms over here to the science station and to the radar and the phasers and all the buttons work.
And it feels really good, but the whole thing is a set.
And even the people that come through the doors and interact with you on this set are mostly fake.
If you understand that, then you'll use social media in a very different way.
and you'll see the noise for what it is, and you'll start to become... Becoming Amish is the only solution is not far off.
It's not far off.
I think we can turn this to our advantage a little bit though.
If we start to manage our communities that we now have in that kind of independent way, and we start to think about our communities as needing to be managed in that kind of way cooperatively,
It might actually be okay, it's true.
But I'm not going to get into that right now.
I want to switch over here.
So this is for all the marbles.
This is for the grandchildren of Earth.
And I think this message has been, you know, I think it's pretty good that there is a fake anti-vaccine movement in America.
It's been there for a while.
And it's not the kind of anti-vax movement that is characterized by the description that is often recited by somebody like Paul Offit, where these people are grifters, they're just trying to make money, they're just trying to sell their nutraceuticals.
No, they are part of the same national security show that brought you this narrative about a laboratory leak that has gone endemic on Earth, that we have been shut down for six years, count them.
This narrative is only possible because we believe, as a society, a bunch of biological myths.
And if we pass these myths onto our children, they will be enslaved by those myths.
And part of the slavers, that's what I like to call them, part of the slavers intention of the COVID-19 narrative is to get us, to coerce us into teaching our grandchildren this nonsense so that they believe this is what happened, they believe it can happen again.
And if you hear what I'm saying to you, if you hear how I'm saying it, you can hear that it's a spell.
It's a magic spell that they've cast on us with coronavirus.
And so this is also best and most aptly characterized by being a future iteration of the Human Genome Project.
A future iteration of the Human Genome Project.
And so this whole, how can I say it?
charade about a pandemic is behind it are motivations which are driven by imperatives of the next iteration of the Human Genome Project.
The declaration of the Human Genome Project having been completed
and hitting milestone after milestone after milestone over the last, I don't know, how many, like two decades now, they've been basically having new ribbon cutting ceremonies all the time.
But essentially what we're talking about is this technology becoming better and better.
And the technology becoming cheaper and cheaper, but it's still the same technology.
We're still claiming to
be able to read a single molecule by making many, many, many, many, many copies of it so that then we can see it.
And that's the best way to think about it, right?
The single DNA molecule that gets sequenced by these technologies that occasionally get very,
They get offered to you very ham-fistedly.
There's a number of people in this show that will tell you that there are very high... There are these sequencing things that we can do now, you know, like... It's called Millipore.
And it's called, you know, nanopore sequencing.
And we can just put RNA and DNA right through the little hole and then we get a reading.
But what they don't tell you is, is that those readings are all probabilistic.
They only get one read.
And they're never certain.
The certainty is actually very low.
And so you can get a rough idea of what's there and what's not there based on gross homologies of sequences that you might expect related to bacteria because those background signals are plentiful and have many have been previously characterized especially with regard to humans and their microflora or microbiome.
And so what we're talking about here is getting at the heart of what we are as a pattern integrity without anybody knowing it, including a lot of the people who are participating in the illusion.
Because so many of these people, like for example, Brett Weinstein, or Alexandros Marinos, or even Chris Martinson, are not sophisticated enough to see through this biological mythology.
The illusion of viruses, the illusion of vaccines is too strong for these people.
And if you give them a semantic ladder out, like telling them, no, just think it's the intramuscular injection part, dude.
And then to think that all these pseudo-intellectuals on the internet were unable to get where Mark Kulak got in about a week.
after looking for, you know, to see if he could find some history of where this transition from scraping people's arms up with little metal forks and to inoculate people for smallpox to just, you know, using a needle.
And the literature that he's found so far is very, very striking.
Some of the latest stuff he found even suggests directly that you shouldn't put the needle into the muscle of the chicken, but insert it more shallow than that.
It's striking.
And so that's why this is also about ending the FDA.
That's why and what Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is ultimately doing in this picture.
I think that's the reason why the Weinstein brothers are intimately involved with it, while Peter Thiel and Elon Musk and all these nutraceutical people and all these people who want to sell things that the FDA is in the way of selling.
you know, fitness stuff, this kind of thing.
They're all in on this, we gotta get rid of the FDA because the FDA is in the way.
Because you've gotta, they regulate what's on the label.
You can't say something on the label if the FDA doesn't say you can't say it.
Otherwise you gotta say the FDA didn't say we could say it.
That's annoying.
So, let's be honest here.
There is a very easy sort of frame to put this in.
That in the context of sort of three or four large motivating factors, we have been bamboozled about a number of things.
Because this is about our freaking grandchildren and they need to grow up believing all of these myths.
And so it's full court press all the time and social media is the hardwood.
The price of synthesizing virus genomes get down to about five cents a base.
It's going to cost $1,500 to synthesize a coronavirus genome, which may scare the hell out of some of us.
But it does allow us to ask those questions in an affordable manner.
The other way to do it, even more cheaply, is to actually clone out the spike genes and make, in essence, recombinants, where you drop the spike gene of different bat coronaviruses that you think may have appropriate properties that could be emergent
pre-emergent strains and characterize their ability to replicate in human cells, both primary cells and other cells in culture.
So those types of questions are doable.
The spike, even the spike genome, for example, is only about 4 kb, so at 10 cents a base, it's a $400 experiment.
Now, maybe dual use experiments are a concern.
That's another issue.
Now, it's hard for me to take that and break it apart into the many pieces that it is.
But suffice it to say, the gigaohm biological is asserting that even this is a charade.
Even this is scripted bullshit.
I really think that what you have to see here is that the primary goal is to convince you that
Combinations of the wrong proteins can become very, very dangerous from a dual use perspective.
You know, it could be a dual use thing, but that's another.
He's even scripted to giggle and lie about that, to say that, because remember, it's about getting these ideas out there and creating an illusion of consensus that this is just what happens if you put the right things together.
It's not by accident that he says specifically the spike protein and that this is so long ago.
It's really not.
It's all part of the scam.
Just like the diffuse proposal is not leaked.
It's part of the same scam.
It may even be an adjusted part of the scam.
An added portion of the script when things started to go out of control at the end of 2021.
Who knows?
Maybe the diffuse proposal was released specifically because I was saying in 2021, the drastic was full of shit that they're focused on the, the, the origins of the virus and not stopping transfection.
Then that makes them a fraud.
And they didn't like that.
So they sent Charles Rixey to my house for goodness sakes, to convince me that the diffuse proposal was real and that me and him were the core of the American part of drastic.
And I'm free to admit that I was played because there were an enormous amount of human resources spent on me.
So it was very difficult for me to see through the lies.
There was a lot of coordinated lying around me.
Even coordinated, you know, rivalry and coordinated skepticism.
And so Ralph Baric's work stands as a basis for the idea that endemicity is real and that it can be a process by which a gain-of-function virus could spread and become everlasting.
And it is also the end point where the gain-of-function virus has become everlasting.
And so a lot of our family and friends might not say that they believe that happened, but they certainly understand that it's a possibility now, even in the most remote sense.
It's not absurd.
After six years of hearing people talk about it, and it go from a absurd idea to considered my most be well, yeah, I'll be even Fauci admitted it.
This is a pretty well ingrained idea.
I would be even willing to bet that my son in high school could explain this.
And so this is one of the things that we really need to target from the perspective of talking to people and thinking about
about trying to break people free.
This is one of the overarching myths.
Just like autism spectrum disorder is, endemicity as a process and an endpoint is also one of these overarching myths that allows us to PCR test for 16 viruses with one PCR test and think that that makes any sense.
Like Mary Talley Bowden explained on my podcast in 2022.
And so I want you to stay focused.
I want you to not take their bait, but if you're using social media, that focus, it's very hard to keep it.
And that's why this message is serious.
Like these people are not serious.
They are performers.
and they have performed in order to usurp or essentially take all the teeth out of the FDA.
That's what you see here right now.
Five years these guys were performing on YouTube together with the express purpose of being legitimized as people promoted to where they are now, taking over the one part of HHS.
which would have any authority to look back on the PCR testing during COVID to re-evaluate or publish all of the tests that were used and who used them and where they were sourced and let people sort it out.
and try to figure out who was killed and who wasn't and what did we count, nothing will ever be done.
And instead that whole methodology has basically passed right past FDA and they're not regulating at all as far as I can tell.
That's remarkable.
That is remarkable because these people are talking about all kinds of other things at the FDA that have nothing to do with PCR testing being regulated, sequencing being regulated, or the remnants of these tests being regulated as potential DNA samples that should be protected as part of your privacy rights.
That's definitely not gonna be something that the FDA worries about with these guys at the head.
Number of spots filled up within hours.
It was like a Taylor Swift concert.
And I think it speaks to just how important this topic is and how... This was two days ago, I believe.
And this is just the introductory little remarks from this foreigner and, I believe, scripted trader.
It resonates with everybody.
An effort that's meaningful with a clear roadmap to reduce animal testing.
And that has a lot of implications, as we're going to hear about this morning.
For one, it can help deliver cures and meaningful treatments faster to the public.
Number two, it can reduce R&D costs and potentially even translate into lower drug prices, which is an important agenda item for this administration.
It can also encourage more innovation.
It reduces the capital requirements for new drug development.
And finally, it's more humane and more ethical for animals.
God did not make animals on planet Earth for us to abuse and torture.
And so we have to respect animals.
And this workshop is aimed at reducing animal testing in every way we can.
That's a pretty remarkable statement because it seems to purport to indict, in a way, the abuse of animals throughout the system, as if everything that's done in the FDA in terms of toxicity and whatever is abuse of animals, that we might as well just do it in people, or we might as well just use AI to do it and then post-market monitor this stuff.
which is the meeting that they're having today with some kind of pediatric group with a bunch of other people that are paid too much to read things.
They are approving a bunch of pediatric medical devices and pediatric radiology, chemotherapy devices.
It's remarkable because essentially, you know, if you think about it, they're finding all kinds of excuses to try all kinds of drugs on humans directly because there's cancer.
And because they have these new things that they want to, it's,
It's all been flipped around now and the FDA does nothing that it used to do 10 years ago, nothing at all.
And I think that's all by design.
I think it's always been the plan from the perspective of their story, you know, to say that they didn't mean to hurt anybody is that, you know, some people are way more vulnerable to vaccine damage than others, you know, because that thimerosal aluminum,
you know, whatever it is that hurts people.
It really only hurts the people with the MTFR gene or without the FTMR gene or something like that.
It's just, there are so many myths that have been interwoven here.
And the only way to get rid of it is to throw the whole blanket out.
And the blanket is autism spectrum disorder is something real.
Because that's not what CHD and ICANN were supposed to be fighting about.
What they were supposed to be fighting about was that acute injury and death from intramuscular injection is real.
But think about how remarkable it is that these people, in more than 15 years of fighting, people like Suzanne Humphreys, have never been able to say that.
Even they got on Joe Rogan this year, and they couldn't just say that.
That what we're fighting for is the truth to get out.
That every year, thousands of kids are probably lifelong
damaged as a result of intramuscular injection, and even a smaller percentage, although very significant, is killed by intramuscular injection, and we've often called it SIDS.
It's just remarkable to me that these people have only gotten that far about the SIDS thing in 2025, that Pierre Kory went on Steve Kirsch's podcast about a month ago and claimed that he was blowing the lid off of this.
Are you telling me that somebody like Suzanne Humphries in 2018 who said that she didn't think there was a safe vaccine because it wasn't possible, because it was antithetical to our biology.
Are you saying that 2018 Suzanne Humphries would not have said that SIDS is vaccines?
Are you trying to tell me that Tony Bark wouldn't say that SIDS is vaccines?
I have at least one video.
where she's on stage with Brian Hooker, and with Del Bigtree, and with Judy Mikovits, and they all talk before her, and when she comes up, she says that this is true.
And then she died, and all these people got in front of her and never said it again.
Even when Suzanne Humphries got on Joe Rogan, she didn't say it again.
Because they are scripted traitors.
Some of them have guns to their heads.
Some of them have had their families threatened.
Some of them have been bought off.
And I don't care what the answer is.
At some point in time, we have to have the principles to stand up for this.
I don't think very many people have been coerced with a gun.
I'm going to be very honest with you.
Because coercion with a gun doesn't really work.
It makes people extremely desperate.
Once you leave their house, then what are they going to do?
They're processing this whole thing.
And they realize that, you know, that, that, that guy could come visit anytime he wants to, then that's no way to live.
And you're going to create like a badger in a corner.
And so I don't think very many of these people that are now in this show are actually, um,
I do want to hear that, so I'm going to let this play.
I don't think a lot of these people that are in the show have been coerced with violence.
I think a lot of them have been coerced with promises of books, promises of comfort, promises of travel, extra money, and that gives freedom.
You know, if you're a Brownstone fellow getting $4,000 a month, plus you get like, you know, $15,000 a month from your sub-stack, plus, I don't know, all travel expenses covered by the IMA because you're a fellow there too, and besides travel, they also give you $4,000.
That seems to add up to about $25,000 a month that a lot of these people could easily be pulling down just for writing a sub-stack, or even worse, using a chatbot to write sub-stacks because that's what everybody told me I should do
The last time I did a substack, they said, wow, this is shit.
You could at least use a chatbot to clean it up a little bit.
So I just assume that all these people are doing that all the time.
It's one of the reasons why somebody like Jessica Hockett can just put out, you know, a substack a week or five.
And Robert Malone can put out a substack a week or 12.
These are all frauds, ladies and gentlemen.
They're augmented frauds.
They are social media phenomenon being used against us.
And you're never going to figure it out if you keep using social media as if it's a level playing field where the programming is all randomly driven by some algorithm that nobody really knows how it works.
Then you're never going to get free.
More importantly, you're going to, you're going to,
You're gonna hand over your children to that same manipulation and they're gonna grow up knowing nothing, caring about nothing, wanting to pursue nothing, and worst, they're not gonna wanna create anything.
That's the reality.
We gotta get our kids out.
So I want to just say thank you to a lot of individuals.
I want to thank Tracy Beth Hogue, who has done an amazing job.
Tracy Beth Hogue was interacting with me in 2020 and then blocked me.
Nicole Kleinstrue, where are both of you?
Nicole.
That's impressive.
And Tracy Beth.
She's on her way.
Okay so Nicole has done an amazing job and even shuttling back and forth to the NIH and FDA and this she has been really a massive champion 15 years of work or so would you say Tracy that she has spent on this topic she's has an incredible career
And many of her goals are transpiring now with our new roadmap.
Now this is not going to happen overnight.
There are many steps.
What goals?
Goals of getting the FDA out of the way.
Goals of not having to do all kinds of expensive animal testing on nutraceuticals that we just want to sell.
To people that we don't care and can go to hell.
That's what they think.
I didn't mean that to rhyme.
to getting towards the ultimate goal, better computational modeling to predict toxicity of molecules.
But we already have a computational modeling system produced by DITRA called DOMAIN, which Robert Malone spun a team up to use to identify a lot of these heroic
repurposed drugs like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, silicoxib, and famotidine, which saved millions of lives despite the best efforts of the FDA and people like Janet Woodcock in 2020.
Or at least that's the story I'm told.
We're in big trouble, ladies and gentlemen.
We have been led to the slaughter by these people.
And we are being made to look like fools on the other side of the political equation.
And you don't see it because your social media doesn't show it to you.
Because it is carefully crafted to make sure you don't understand how bad we look.
how far it is gone, how far it has gone with regard to Bobby Kennedy and Donald Trump burning all of our reputations as free-thinking individuals and really labeled us as people that can be manipulated and lied to and we don't understand or care.
That's how the progressive left in America thinks about the conservative right in America.
And we need to redefine what the conservative
movement is in America.
It needs to be a citizen-oriented grassroots for real, not this freaking AstroTurf shit where we go billboard to billboard, you know, county by county, and let people know that America is in trouble.
America has been undermined and sold out.
And it was a long time ago.
That's the reason why all these old people will not retire and get off the screens.
That's why all these old people will not retire and are now starting podcasts.
That's why all these billionaires or rich people are also starting podcasts because the narrative is falling apart.
And there are people that are looking for answers.
And so there have to be a lot of bad answers out there.
This is never going to work.
A lot of attractive, bad answers, a lot of funny, bad answers, a lot of, of, you know, interesting, bad answers have to be out there in order to prevent the truth from getting out.
which is that our sovereignty is being inverted to experimental animal status because that's the next iteration of the human genome project.
Like it or not, this is a once in a multi-generational opportunity to collect this much genetic and medical data on the population of billions of people on earth.
The population is about to collapse and over the next generation and a half, the dynamics of the world are going to change and healthy population pyramids are going to remain and unhealthy population pyramids are going to go through a lot of struggle economically and societally.
And we can probably watch Japan to see what's happening.
We can probably watch China to get an idea of what's happening.
The unfortunate thing is I do think people are right.
The people that are trying to
take advantage of this known rise in all-cause mortality to change the way we think and to pass this mythology on to our children.
They are also very happy to accelerate it for us and to exacerbate it for us so that the suffering comes earlier but spread over a longer time so that maybe it's kind of, you know, in a similar way boiling the frog.
Organ-on-a-chip technology and organoid testing.
Organ-on-a-chip technology, organoid testing, this is all essentially development-oriented genetics in disguise.
inevitably in order to create an organoid on a dish or to, you know, grow a extracted organ that you get out of an animal in a dish.
They're talking about doing things that still require animals a lot of times.
So it's a little strange to me that all you're really talking about is not using live
whole animals anymore.
You know, like they make a big deal about this sewing skin on the back of a mouse or something like that.
But then all they would do is say, well, we'll take that fetal skin and we'll grow it on mouse skin that we're culturing using Ralph Baric's epithelial culture methods.
And so they say that they're not going to use animals, but what they're going to do is just, they're going to take the live animal out of the experiment, but they're still going to use animal material.
They're still going to clone and culture things that will require the butchering of animals in order to culture them.
And so it's still a very disingenuous representation of what's going on, except in the sense of they are admitting that the pivot is going to be to this machine learning algorithm, artificial life,
development oriented investigations to optimize these, you know, you're going to put in billions of dollars to optimize these experimental models of things that preserve animals, but really, you're just optimizing how we can do life in a dish to investigate smaller systems and, and make that ethically acceptable.
make it okay to genetically modify those things and to fool around in that dish because, you know, it's just genes in there and stuff.
And so that's all, it's part of the slippery slope and you can hear it happening right now.
All of these are important topics that'll be discussed today.
I want to thank Jacqueline Corrigan-Curry, who's right here in the front row, and you'll be hearing from her.
Hala Saber, who's with our oncology section.
Good to see you, Hala.
And so I'll just let this play, and then I'll turn the volume down.
So I'm going to show you another video that this was from earlier today.
And I want you to just hear, in their language, I want you to listen for a couple of things.
One, they're reading.
Two, the lady who reads the most stuff about
legality is about the conflicts of interest and how they are covered and what laws they are covered under.
So understand, like the ACIP, a lot of these meetings, these committees are actually part of the legislation and the outcome of these committees is essentially law in living law making.
It's like, you know, the committee decides this, but because the committee is part of the law, it essentially makes the committee's decision part
of the law now.
And so what you're listening to here is the FDA explaining that in a lot of terms read by an Indian lady.
And sharing your expertise with the PAC committee.
I'm now going to pass the meeting on to Shivana Srivastava to announce the FDA representatives who are joining us for today's meeting.
Next slide, please.
Hello, my name is Shabana Shabastava and I'm the designated federal officer for today's meeting.
In today's meeting, FDA speaks.
She's the designated federal officer for today's meeting and her job is to read this script, but I bet even dollars to donuts she had no role in processing it.
speakers will be Dr. Deanna Green from the Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, Mr. Scott Colburn from CDRH, Dr. Craig Zinderman from CBER, and Dr. Yvonne Kim from CDER.
They will briefly introduce themselves when they address the committee.
Additional FDA participants and representatives will introduce themselves when speaking throughout the meeting.
I will now read the conflict of interest statement.
Next slide.
I mean, imagine that we are in 2025 and we still have shitheads on Zoom saying, next slide.
Think about that.
The Food and Drug Administration is convening today, July 9, 2025, for a meeting of the Pediatric Advisory Committee under the authority of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2002, the Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007,
the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 and Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972.
That's a lot of laws.
That's a lot of laws she's citing that we don't have any idea what they do or what they allow or what they mean or what changes they made.
You see why it's so important we have a lawyer or two or three that care about anything?
Barry Holland doesn't know what those things do, what they, what they're contained within.
Think about that.
And think about her reading this shit.
This meeting is a particular matter involving specific parties, products, devices, and biologics for which the community can, for which the committee will discuss post-marketing safety events reported for these products.
With the exception of the industry representative, all standing members of the committee are special government employees from other agencies and are subject to federal conflict of interest laws and regulations.
The following information on the status of this committee's compliance with federal ethics and conflict of interest laws covered by, but not limited to, those found at 18 U.S.C.
Section 208 is being provided to participants at this meeting and to the public.
Related to the discussions of today's meeting, standing members and temporary voting members of the committee have been screened for potential financial conflicts of interest of their own, as well as those imputed to them, including those of their spouses or minor children and for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 208, their employers.
These interests may include investments, consulting, expert witness testimony, contracts, grants.
Is this reading something that's supposed to make all the conflicts of interest okay?
Is it supposed to be the radical transparency?
I mean...
I'll let our Indian friend continue.
Kratos, teaching, speaking, writing, patents, and royalties, and primary employment.
This may include interests that are current or under negotiation.
No regular government employees were added to the committee for this meeting.
Therefore, the conflicts of interest screening was limited to standing members and temporary voting members of the PAC.
FDA has determined that the members of this committee are in compliance with federal ethics and conflict of interest laws.
Under 18 U.S.C.
Section 208, Congress has authorized FDA to grant waivers to special government employees and regular government employees who have potential financial conflicts when it is determined that the agency's need for a particular individual's services outweighs his or her potential financial conflict of interest.
or when the interest of a regular government employee is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the government may expect from the employee.
Based on the agenda for today's session and all financial interests reported by the committee members, no conflict of interest waivers have been issued for this meeting.
With respect to the meeting's consumer representative, we would like to disclose that Ms.
Randy Oster is participating as a voting representative, acting on behalf of consumers, not on behalf of any organization, company, or product.
With respect to the meeting's patient representative, we would like to disclose that Dr. Gianna McMillan is participating.
I can guarantee you she's getting a six-figure salary for this job.
You know, what are they paying Vinay Prasad to read his scripts and talk about all the cancer stuff that he knows with?
I mean, what are they paying these people to run our FDA into the ground?
Very well is what they're doing.
participating as a voting representative, acting on behalf of patients, not on behalf of any organization, company, or product.
The consumer and patient representatives are special government employees and as such have been screened for conflicts of interest.
With respect to the meeting, Dr. Jennifer Goldman is participating in this meeting as the Pediatric Health Organization representative, and that is a non-voting position.
With respect to FDA's invited industry representative, we would like to disclose that Dr. Robert Nelson is participating in this meeting as a non-voting representative acting on behalf of regulated industry.
This representative is not a regular or special government employee and has not been screened for conflicts of interest.
Dr. Nelson's role at this meeting is to represent industry in general and not any company.
Dr. Nelson is employed by a firm that has a product that is coming before the committee.
In accordance with our regulations at 21 CFR 14.86C4, Dr. Nelson has been reminded that an industry representative may be present at a meeting even if a product sponsored by his employer or its subsidiary is coming before the committee.
However, his role as an industry representative is to represent all of industry and not... I hope my point is landing here, right?
There is no explanation for this long conflict of interest statement about each of these people and in general, except for this is their illusion of radical transparency.
This is the same stupid shit, different day, same channel.
You know, this is awful.
And it should not be dismissed that this is yet another foreign person with a particular ethnic bent.
And also at the FDA.
I mean, I'm very bewildered by this right now.
This pattern is bothering me a lot as an American who has been trying to
do what I think is my patriotic duty for six years now, to see this just Trojan horse style undermining of HHS from the top to the bottom.
any specific firm or product consistent with Kish commissioner McCary's April 17th, 2025 statement.
FDA is only including industry representatives in advisory committee meetings where required by statue FDA is required to include, include an industry.
Required by statue.
Do you see she is reading stuff?
She did not even write, does not understand.
And this is not the way our government should be running after 249 years of existence.
This is not the way the FDA should be running after, you know, 40 years since Estes Kefauver.
Wait.
Oh, sorry.
60 years after Estes Kefauver.
Come on.
This is a show.
This is ridiculous.
True representative in today's meeting under 21 USC, 355 and 3C.
Under FDA regulations, although a non-voting member serves in a representative capacity, the non-voting member shall exercise restraint in performing such functions and may not engage in unseemly advocacy or attempt to exert undue influence over the other members of the committee.
FDA encourages all meeting participants, including the industry representative and open public hearing speakers, to advise the committee of any financial relationships that they have with any affected firms, its products, and if known, its direct competitors.
I mean, have we heard any figures about how many members of the FDA took the early retirement, for example, that the super clown Elon Musk, absolute super fraud, offered everybody?
Because I think that's one of the things that on our side of the show, where everybody's cheering for Donald Trump and hoping that Peter McCullough gets an appointment eventually, these people are all bamboozled to the point where they can't see this.
They can't see this abject failure that the Donald Trump administration is with regard to Gaza, and Israel, and Iran, and tariffs, and insider trading on the tariffs, and the rumors of tariffs, and the negotiation of tariffs, and this whole, you know, Epstein has a file, doesn't have a file.
This is all scripted bullshit.
While the FDA is destroyed.
While the CDC moves forward under an ARPA-H director.
While the FDA shifts to AI for all of it.
You know, to replace the people that are gone.
To make the people that are left more efficient.
So that forms can be filled out and blanks can be filled out without a lot of research and scrutiny, but just let an AI put in the right references.
That's what they are actually doing.
We would like to remind the members that if the discussions involve any products or firm not already on the agenda for which an FDA participant has a personal or imputed financial interest, the participant needs to inform the DFO and exclude themselves from the discussion, and their exclusion will be noted for the record.
To ensure transparency, we encourage all standing committee members and temporary voting members to disclose any public statements that they have made concerning the product at issue.
We would like to remind members that if the discussions involve any other firms or products not already on the agenda for which a PAC member has a personal or imputed financial interest, the participant will need to exclude themselves from such discussion and their exclusion will be noted for the record.
FDA encourages all other participants to advise the committee of any financial relationships that they may have regarding the topics that could be affected by the committee's discussions.
Thank you.
I will now turn the meeting back to our chair.
Next slide.
Did you have any concept of what she told you and why she had to tell you all that other than CYA covering their ass?
All right, we will now proceed with opening remarks from Dr. Deanna Green, Director of the Office of Pediatric Therapeutics.
Thank you, Dr. Fisher.
Good morning, everyone.
I would like to welcome our committee members and guests who are joining us for today.
OK, so this is the director, an MD, and I don't know, FCP is.
Is that like a pharmacist or something maybe?
opening remarks from our Director of the Office of Pediatric Therapeutics.
Wow.
Okay, so let's decide.
Is she reading?
Is she an expert?
What is this person?
today's Pediatric Advisory Committee meeting.
I want to start by first thanking our committee members for their service and for the time you have taken to review the advanced materials and to prepare for today's meeting.
I would also like to thank the following groups.
The FDA staff who performed or contributed to the pediatric-focused post-market safety reviews that are the subject of today's meeting.
I would also like to thank the FDA staff members who are participating today and all who have contributed to the logistics and planning for the meeting.
We also want to thank the AV staff for all of their technical support today.
And last but not least, we want to thank the public for joining us today for our meeting.
Next slide, please.
many members for their service and for the time you have taken to review the advanced materials and to prepare for today's meeting.
I would also like to thank the following groups, the FDA staff who performed or contributed to the pediatric focused post-market safety reviews that are.
Pediatric post-market safety reviews.
They are talking about pediatric products which have been accelerated to market.
and monitored after they have been sent out.
Essentially, they're talking about what Vinay and Marty talked about a few weeks ago with regard to, you know, these kids are an opportunity to test things.
And at the same time, they're making the ethical argument that that's okay to test them on these kids because, you know, they're in the shit anyway.
And so this meeting is about an incredible thing.
And she's about to explain to you exactly what the meeting is about.
And if you are in a unstable chair or driving your car, please make sure that you maintain some attention to what you're doing so that you don't crash or fall out of your chair.
It might take a few, but I assure you this is worth it.
They're the subject of today's meeting.
I would also like to thank the FDA staff members who are participating today and all who have contributed to the logistics and planning for the meeting.
We also want to thank the AV staff for all of their technical support today.
And last but not least, we want to thank the public for joining us today for our meeting.
Next slide, please.
At today's meeting, the Pediatric Advisory Committee is convened to discuss pediatric focused post-market safety reviews as mandated by the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, the Pediatric Research Equity Act, and the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act.
So what we're doing here, you know, they can call it discuss, but what we're doing here is a legislated process, which will have effect on the
Enforcement and sort of expression of the legislation going forward.
I don't know if those are right terms or not because I'm not a lawyer but But what they're what you know, these recommendations are not nothing.
They are something that's the same thing with the ACIP.
That's the reason why They had to use parliamentary procedure all the time.
I second the motion all in favor yada yada.
I
And so we're still listening to where all these, you know, what about, what are the lawyers at CHD know about these acts?
We are just not, we have been led to the slaughter, my friends.
Next slide.
Before we proceed with the focus of today's meeting, I will first provide an update on the Pediatric Research Equity Act noncompliance letters as required by legislation.
Pediatric Research Equity Act noncompliance letters.
So these are people
who have tried to take advantage of a law that allows them to rush things to market, but then have not been in compliance with reporting the post-marketing frickin' results.
How many of them are there?
And how complicated can you say that you've not really effectively regulated anything?
We gotta send a letter to scold these people.
Hey, you're supposed to send in some shit.
Can you imagine this?
FDA issues PREA noncompliance letters to sponsors if they have failed to submit, within the time frame, a required pediatric assessment or report of a molecularly targeted pediatric cancer investigation as appropriate.
FDA has also issued- I think it's important for us to know what molecularly targeted is, but I don't know it right now.
But I think you can assure yourself that that is some kind of loaded term that has legal implications for what fits into this legislative structure.
Such a letter, if a sponsor failed to request approval for a pediatric formulation as described in section 505B of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Consistent with the Act, FDA has also made publicly available on the FDA website the PREA noncompliance letter and sponsors' response with certain redactions.
If a sponsor has requested a deferral extension or submitted a waiver request by the due date of the pediatric assessment or the report of the molecularly targeted pediatric cancer investigation, FDA has not issued a PREA noncompliance letter unless FDA subsequently denied the deferral extension or waiver request.
Next slide.
So since the last reporting on the noncompliance letters at the September 2024 Pediatric Advisory Committee meeting, there has been one new letter issued by CBER, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
Next slide.
They didn't read which, which thing.
So this is fricking unbelievable.
I'm telling you this happened this morning and I didn't watch it.
I just recorded it and came back after coffee.
Look, respiratory syncytial virus vaccine.
has not reported its post-marketing results.
And yet that vaccine was part of the recommendation of ACIP when they said that if a mom doesn't get this, then we should probably give the kid monoclonal antibodies afterward and one of these three should be recommended.
And they approved that too.
Retsit Levy said some kind of, you know, he has some skepticism as a papa.
but then in the end they approved it anyway.
This is absolutely freaking extraordinary if you see that her script actually does not contain her saying what pediatric product is currently out of compliance.
Stop lying!
I have no responsibility.
And there have been 15 new letters issued by Cedar, the center for drug evaluation and research.
The information related to these letters are listed on the previous slide.
Look at they have implants, implants, and injection emulsion.
I mean, come on, guys.
Come on, guys.
This slide and the following slide and can also be found on FDA's website.
Next slide.
So now in terms of the agenda for today's meeting, the meeting will proceed as follows.
We will first have an open public hearing.
Here it comes, here it comes.
Beginning at 10.30 a.m.
Eastern.
You're not going to believe it.
At 11.30 a.m.
there will be a listing and discussion of the products evaluated in the pediatric-focused post-market safety reviews completed by CDRH, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
This will be followed by a listing and discussion of the products evaluated by CBER.
There will be a lunch break that is scheduled for approximately 1 p.m., and the meeting will resume at 1.30 p.m.
for a listing and discussion of the products evaluated and the pediatric-focused postmarket safety reviews completed by CDER.
There is time allotted for clarifying questions and voting at specified times during the meeting.
We are scheduled to adjourn the meeting at approximately 3.30 PM.
However, please note that depending on the pace of the meeting and how it proceeds, it is possible that all of these times may shift next slide.
During today's meeting, there will be three separate voting sessions, one each for CDRH, CBER, and CDER.
The voting question and response choices will be the same for all centers and all products that are discussed today.
Voting by the Pediatric Advisory Committee will occur via the Zoom platform.
A separate ballot will be launched for each center's vote and will contain a series of the same voting question, one for each of the products listed on the ballots.
Please note that for certain CEDAW products, they were grouped into the same pediatric-focused post-market safety review, and therefore, those products will be grouped for voting purposes as well.
Next slide.
As was previously mentioned, FDA's review of adverse event reports for the products under discussion today did not identify any new pediatric safety concerns.
Therefore, the voting question for each product is as follows.
The FDA recommends continuing routine ongoing post-market safety monitoring of each of the CDER, CDRH, or CBER products under discussion.
Does the Pediatric Advisory Committee concur?
Voting members of the Pediatric Advisory Committee can vote yes, routine ongoing post-market monitoring should continue, or vote no, additional evaluation or surveillance should be considered,
Voting members can also choose to abstain from voting and some voting members will be recused from voting on certain products due to conflicts of interest.
So understand what she just said.
The vote is going to be whether they should continue to post safety monitor stuff or whether maybe we should consider adding a little more surveillance while we're still post marketing safety monitoring it.
Not pull it from the market, not, you know, think it over.
These are already out.
It's just a question of, you know, is it awesome?
Or, or, you know, should we, should we think?
It's all pro forma.
And, and this lady is pro forma.
She has no real role in the FDA, just like the last lady who was reading doesn't have any role in the FDA.
They're all scripted traders, witting and unwitting.
And I think she's an unwitting participant.
I think the last lady was an unwitting participant.
They are just barely smart enough to read what they're told and to show up looking professional on time.
Next slide.
Meeting attendees trying to join the meeting during the time of voting or vote tabulation will be placed in a waiting room until the meeting resumes.
Once the meeting resumes, the voting results will be displayed and read into the record by the designated federal officer, following which each voting member of the Pediatric Advisory Committee will be called upon to state their individual vote for the record.
Next slide.
Thank you for your attention, and I will now turn the meeting back to our chairperson, Dr. Fisher.
Thank you, Dr. Green, for your presentation.
We can go to the next slide.
Okay, we are going to open the public hearing session now.
Welcome to the open public hearing.
If you wish to speak, please state your name and your affiliation if it's relevant to this meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration believes that the agency and the public benefit from a transparent process that helps ensure the FDA decisions are well informed by the advice and information FDA receives from its advisory
I'm sorry, you missed it.
There were two presentations, one from an Indian lady and one from an African American lady.
You missed those presentations.
They were great.
They were awesome.
Next slide.
Committees to ensure such transparency at the open public hearing session of the advisory committee meeting.
FDA believes that it is important to understand the context of an individual's presentation.
For this reason, the FDA encourages you, the open public hearing speaker, at the beginning of your written or oral statement to advise the committee of any financial relationship that you may have with the sponsor, with its product, or, if known, any of its direct competitors.
For example, this financial information may include a company's or group's payment for your travel, lodging, or other expenses in connection with your attendance at this meeting, or grant money that your organization receives from the sponsor or competitor.
Likewise, the FDA encourages you at the beginning of your statement to advise the committee if you do not have any such financial relationships to which you may state for the record.
If you choose not to address this issue of financial relationships at the beginning of your statement, it will not preclude you from speaking.
The FDA and this committee place great importance in the open public hearing process.
The insights and comments provided can help the agency and this committee in their consideration of the issues before them.
That said, in many instances and for many topics, there will be a variety of opinions.
One of our goals for today is for this open public hearing to be conducted in a fair and open way where every participant is listened to carefully and treated with dignity, courtesy, and respect.
Therefore, please speak only when recognized by the chairperson.
Thank you for your cooperation.
We do not have any pre-registered speakers, I believe.
So if at this time, any member of the public wishes to speak, please raise your hand.
Pro forma, my friends.
Pro forma.
So please keep in mind that no one on our side is ever going to explain to you that this was just an irreducibly complex background that was made to seem like spread using non-specific PCR tests that the FDA did not regulate, still doesn't regulate, and now we've come to accept as gold standard in diagnostics.
You know, you heard Mary Talley Bowden say it in my stream.
in 2022 that she was testing for 17 different viruses with one test in her office.
That's why she's on Joe Rogan.
That's why she's on the podcast with Nicole Shanahan, because she's never going to question the specificity of these PCR tests or the fidelity of virology.
She accepts it.
Something strange.
None of these people are ever going to question the PCR test.
A lot of them were put in place specifically to make sure that people would ask any other question.
And they're also not going to tell you that they didn't risk transfecting everyone and that placebo made it safe.
Instead, they're going to tell you stories about batches and freezers and, you know, whatever.
And this is all bullshit.
And now we've gotten to the stage where there's contamination and that explains everything.
Or it's the overexpression of the spike that explains everything.
In reality,
All of these risks were known.
All of these potential downsides were known.
And probably a list of many others that hasn't widely circulated is probably already known.
They didn't risk transfecting everyone.
Placebo made it safe.
And that's why none of these people will tell you that and explain it to you.
They will only try to make you believe that everybody had good intentions but they screwed up or something like that.
The other thing that these people won't tell you is that there was a known anticipated rise in all-cause mortality to which this theater was timed.
In other words, they had an anticipated rise in all-cause mortality that they saw coming since I graduated from high school.
And they have been putting this narrative about coronavirus and endemicity as a process and an endpoint into place using people like Ralph Baric and others, even people like Peter Daszak and 60 Minutes and EcoHealth Alliance, so that perfectly timed with this anticipated rise in all-cause mortality, they would have an excuse for manslaughter.
And so an anticipated rise in all cause mortality was sculpted using manslaughter and lies on social media.
And it is specifically the orchestration on social media of this narrative that allowed it to happen.
And all of these people are present on and making their living on that social media today.
That's how you can see them.
They all won't tell you about this signal.
And they all won't ever build a list to explain what the virus did and what the murder did.
You know, they can say things like there was a lot of iatrogenic, you know, whatever, but that doesn't really get at the fact that they murdered people under the pretense that viral pneumonia was real.
Viral pneumonia that didn't exist until 2020 and then stopped existing in 2022, according to what I can see here in this figure.
And these numbers suggest that there was no viral pneumonia.
These numbers suggest that everybody that believes in viral pneumonia is an idiot and has been bamboozled by people like Daniel Griffin and Vincent Racaniello and Paul Offit and Tony Fauci and Ralph Baric.
and Peter Daszak and 60 Minutes because they all agree that these things exist and that these biological phenomenon are very easily measurable.
And that's why none of these people will ever tell you that supplementary oxygen is toxic or that not using antibiotics to treat something that is based in bacteria would be disastrous.
And none of those people will tell you that the opioid deaths took a few people out.
because then the math doesn't work anymore because all the white things are true too.
Sophisticated liars is what we have on the internet.
And these sophisticated liars were put in place to make sure that any and all damage from transfection could be effectively blamed on the process or the assumption or the virus.
The toxic spike protein with the fear and cleavage sites and the staphylococcal enterotoxin B homologies and the HIV inserts.
many of those things we learned through Indian people.
And then there are people who have inspired a lot of thought for me, people like J.J.
Cooey, you know, who's regarded by a few people as, by some people as sort of this kind of savant or idiot or something that his ideas are just... He's one of the worst people on the internet because he's a total fraud.
And the reason all you can know he's a total fraud is because he's cooperated with Jessica Hockett and Jonathan Engler and Martin Neal and the rest of Panda to obscure the fact that I gave three presentations to Panda in 2022, the same year that he went on a cruise off the coast of Turkey with Robert Malone and his wife for a week.
And all of those presentations have been lost and instead scoured through and sifted through for any little piecemeal ideas that they can use and represent as their own foresight or insight into the pandemic.
When in reality, these people are on the exact same script that all of them are on.
It's Robert Malone's script.
It's Kevin McKernan's script.
So that's why this- 2.5 years after mRNA vaccination.
So we have some of these coming out.
We have some excess mortality papers coming out.
We identified large increases in deaths after vaccination.
So a lot of the pipeline at the McCullough Foundation here- There's no way to describe how awful it is that the McCullough Foundation has Kermit the Frog working this spike protein story after six years.
After I have been fighting this spike protein story since I decided that Kevin McCairn and Jessica Rose and this guy Walter Chestnut and all these other people that were focused on the spike protein, even people like Richard Fleming,
These are all clowns, all on the same shitty script.
And it's like a hamster wheel because every couple years they introduce a new person and an old person together with the same story about a spike protein and cancer and cardiac problems, etc, etc, etc.
This is so malevolent and it's so gross and the only reason why it's effective for anybody is because we use social media.
Like Rumble, like X, like Locals, like Telegram, like Signal, like all this shit that they used against us.
We're now over our 20th study looking at the harms of these shots and we will continue to do so.
Now remember what this does is it ties together all kinds of things because remember, first of all, Pierre Corey, Robert Malone, Ryan Cole and Peter McCullough have basically been busy since the middle of 2020 and certainly the beginning of 2021 all around the United States.
And often at that time, they were present at different things, you know, like America's Frontline Doctors, they were there for a while, then they got out of that and made the FLCCC, and that's where Corey stayed.
But then Robert Malone was doing this International COVID Summit thing.
And Ryan Cole has been, you know, working kind of with CHD and with these other things.
But he toured the world with these,
these international COVID summits as well and Ryan Cole was actually on stage with all of them at the worst one in Romania in November of 2023.
So these guys are all one group and this with Dr. Drew is part of that same scripted bullshit on social media.
until the government finally does something about it.
Because unfortunately, our government did not look for any treatments for the vaccine injured.
They have been ignored.
There are millions of them, millions of vaccine injured Americans.
And so we have to start helping these people out.
So think about what I said earlier about the placebo and how this would sound to a family who had no symptoms because they got a placebo or a town
or a whole doctor's office.
Because that's what this sounds like.
If there are millions of people who are vaccine injured, then it shouldn't be very hard for this to go viral or for this to get out.
I think part of the illusion is, and this is again going back to my assertion that the vast majority were placebo, there aren't millions of vaccine injured people.
What do you think about them apples?
I don't know how many people, if you go ask any of your friends or family, usually somebody knows somebody that has either died or been terminally disabled.
I've got patients.
And it's really very striking when you see it.
It's not a rare thing.
He's got patients, it's very striking when you see it.
And then they list no symptoms, they say nothing about it because it's an illusion.
It's an illusion.
The McCullough Foundation is an illusion and yet they're taking donations and they're paying people and they're part of this.
He's also with the Wellness Company, right?
This is all a scripted malevolent show with players that acted out on a Lollapalooza stage, and that's all it is.
And they sucked us in, and we are being made fools of by everybody else in the world and in America.
You gotta wake up and realize that if you're using social media like they want you to, you are completely unaware of how bad it is.
Every cell in our body contains a molecule called DNA and that contains four much smaller blocks of molecules called A, C, T and G. These are repeated over and over again in various combinations to create a genetic code that amazingly makes us, us.
the human genome project enables scientists to read it just like a barcode but the new synthetic genome project will take this a giant leap further not only will they be able to read the dna you can know many vaccine injured but that's still not millions because they could only be in your little geographic region they could be in only your group
Millions is a lot of people.
Remember, remember, America has about 350 million people in it.
So if it's millions, then it's one or two or three out of every 300.
I mean, we've got to see it for what it is, right?
They transfected a lot of old people because none of those people were going to be seen through.
They, you know, whatever symptoms they had stroked out great.
Old people didn't get placebos.
Kids got placebos.
You know, young people got placebos.
Everybody that we could not have get an injury got placebos.
And the ones that did get injured, those are pretty rare.
And the ones that aren't rare, well, they were probably at university when they got their shot.
What do you think about them apples?
Because again, the hot shots would have been rolled out in places where the coercion was maximum and the questioning was made to be minimum.
So not at your doctor's office, but at a university.
And so I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of injured people, but the way that he says it is very dismissible.
And I think we have to be very accurate about it.
And so I'm not doubting that you know people who are injured.
I'm doubting his narrative there, his use of this.
So this is a BBC video.
talking about the human genome project and sequencing and what's possible and you know now they're gonna make a synthetic human genome but it sounds weird right because 25 years ago they already sequenced and it was already announced and so now it's become cheaper and cheaper to make viral genomes it's already told us that 15 years ago
with Ralph Baric, so why can't we just make it even longer and longer and longer and use the no-see-um technology to stitch together a whole human genome?
You mean they're just getting around to do that right now?
They hope to be able to write parts of it, maybe one day all of it, from scratch, molecule by molecule.
Oh, parts of it from scratch, not all of it from scratch.
You see, now they're slowly rolling out the idea that we need to start editing people, and the only way to do it is to edit people.
Now, keep in mind, one of the things that you may not be aware of if you're not a academic scientist and biologist, knockout rats.
Rare and they are very difficult to make knockout monkeys.
I don't even know if they exist Genetically altered monkeys.
I don't even know if they exist.
So something happens
in this hierarchy of pattern integrities between the rat and the mouse.
And at the inbred mouse level, it could also be that wild type mice are very difficult to genetically modify.
But inbred mice in laboratories, because they are so homogenous, have also opened up the opportunity to modify genes and then have
The animals survive.
And so we've done that in a lot of genetic models of mice.
And so that's given us this idea that we understand how genetics work.
But what is important to realize is that those same tricks that can be done now pretty reliably in mice and have been used for decades in mice don't work in higher animals.
They just don't work.
And there is no good, simple explanation, you know, like they have an enzyme that we don't, or we have an enzyme that they don't, or, you know.
They don't have an answer for that question, other than to say that there is a genetic simplicity at the level of a mouse, especially an inbred mouse strain, that isn't present in most other higher mammals.
It's just they're too genetically complex to just take a gene and knock it out and then put it back in and at zygote and have the zygote grow.
That doesn't work.
And that's very significant.
It's a very significant gap in our understanding and yet you know as we move through organoids is one of those things that will get us around that problem.
start for us to stop imagining that that problem and roadblock is even there.
If we were to progress on the current logical sort of, you know, progression of what we're doing here, we've already optimized over the last 20 years across a whole swath of biological sciences how to use and minimize the ethical use of animals.
We're not torturing animals anymore in most scenarios, even in neurobiology laboratories with monkeys.
Generally speaking, the people that work on those monkeys care an awful lot about them and try as best they can to minimize the pain and torture and whatever of it.
Is it good?
Is it right?
You can have that debate, but this idea that we're just butchering beagles to get products on the market is just absurd.
Now, are we using beagles to make weapons and stuff like that?
That could be, I don't know about that, but the FDA is not using beagles like that.
And so they're confusing everybody about the ethics of science, the ethic of investigation, but they're also confusing people about this barrier that we've come up against with regard to what we genetically understand in a dish with bacteria, what we genetically understand in a dish with a cell culture, and what we genetically understand in a mouse.
Because although many of those rules are fairly well understood, they don't apply to anything above.
All of these techniques, all of these shortcuts, all of these methodologies, they just fall short of being able to replicate in higher animals that same kind of technique or we would have already done it.
And so the bottom line is, is that there's no reason, they see no reason to climb that ladder if we spend another 40 years trying to develop genetically modified rats
only to find out that what we learned about a rat is specific to rats and mice only, and it didn't help us with primates, then in the end, we're going to be working up a ladder that doesn't reach to where we want to go.
And as Robert Malone said, and many other people have said, mice don't give you the truth.
Monkeys don't either.
The only truth you can really get about human genetics is using humans.
And so they needed a 20-year-long con to get our kids to accept using humans as the standard normal thing that modern medicine has to do because we've reached the end of the usefulness of the biology that we can discover about ourselves using animal models.
And the argument isn't completely hollow, and that's why it rings true to so many people.
I hope I'm not wasting my time here.
Sorry, next slide.
Isn't it?
I think so.
Yeah.
And so I'm going to play some music here, and then we'll get back to the show.
Oh wait, sorry, I completely blew that.
So what I wanted to show here is that this scripted bullshit can be seen through, okay?
I don't have, this next slide doesn't fly in, but it doesn't matter.
I've shown you this slide for a long time, and I just want to point out that all these people are now connected because of the fact that
Kevin McCairn has been on Steve Kirsch's podcast twice once with Kevin McKernan and Kevin McKernan was on a huge podcast Not too long ago I'm just gonna get out of this for a second not too long ago where he said that this guy was the guy who helped Robert F Kennedy jr.
With his book when in fact this guy was fired
while he was helping Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
write this book, because he streamed the discussion, which was behind an NDA, with this guy in the hotel room, and then didn't bother to call and explain it, and so CHD fired him.
And so I think at that time, the people that were in CHD and working for CHD didn't all know that CHD was fake.
And it may be that some of those people are still there, not really understanding that it's fake.
But at that time, they had very little thing they could do, because if they didn't fire him for streaming with this guy, they would be essentially admitting that they already knew who he was.
And of course, at that time, I was insisting, and I still do, that the only reason why this guy exists on Team Robert Malone is because of me.
They brought him in because he did some post-doc with some guy that I was working with,
at the University of Pittsburgh.
And so he could call me up in March of 2020 and say, hey dude, I used to work with this guy that you're working with now.
We should do a stream about coronavirus.
I saw your, your YouTube channel.
Oh really?
Wow.
Cool.
You're a neuroscientist too.
That's awesome.
And then, and then he brought me in with Paul Cottrell.
These two guys are all associated with George Webb, who of course is in some kind of lawsuit with Robert Malone, or used to be just like the Breggans.
It's one malevolent show.
And so if we move to the next slide, you can see, um, this, it's just crazy.
He has streamed with Andrew Kaufman.
He has streamed with this, this, this guy who Dr. Philip McMillan, he is one of the most amazing frauds from the UK.
Um, he has streamed with this Angus de Glesch, who's like a immunologist that streamed with, uh, with, um,
with John Campbell so often.
And then this guy who was on my stream very early with a bunch of skulls behind him and has now become this, you know, hurt guy because his Give Send Go has a quarter million dollars in it, but the Canadian government's taking it away.
And so he's really on stage.
He's getting to do all the Substack stuff and getting all the subscribers from Substack and also from Give Send Go, but has to whine about the fact that they're taking his PayPal money.
It's really remarkable.
And so remember he streamed with these two, this is just the most damning evidence there is besides the fact that he was also on with this Jordan Vaughn guy.
And Jordan Vaughn, the videos of him of 2021 are just extraordinary.
He's literally auditioning for the show.
I mean, up here in the corner, I don't know if you can see this, this Bruce Patterson is a guy who published with Robert Malone at the beginning of the pandemic.
Bruce Patterson on there is just ridiculous.
And I think Mark Kulak could tell you more about that guy.
And then Pierre Cory blowing the lid off SIDS.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
This is bullshit.
If these people were real, like Tony Bark was, if they were real, like Brandy Vaughn was, they would have blown the lid off of SIDS in the Vaxxed movie.
They would have blown the lid off of SIDS in the Vaxxed movie.
Or maybe in the Vaxxed 2 movie.
But, you know, they didn't even blow the lid off of SIDS in the Vaxxed 3 movie!
And so they're telling you the truth.
It's right out there.
They're collecting the DNA from the babies in these more already communal health services.
And they're telling you they're doing it.
In America, they're going to do it.
They're just going to de-identify the data first and use the algorithm to bring it in.
And they'll use any data that they need to.
where you attended school, where the tests were done, yada, yada, yada, and there it is.
Remember, they don't need to...
they don't need my data, they don't need your data, they need college age kids data, the ones that haven't had kids yet that are going to have kids.
That's the generation they're collecting now as best they can as kind of a practice exercise to see how much data there is and what kind of infrastructure is necessary to process it and how much storage they need and how many wires they need to connect to that computer or the other computer.
All of these things are being tested and reiterated and
and designed because they don't have a firm plan on how they're going to take billions of genomes and billions of medical records and feed them into a machine learning algorithm, what would you start with?
So there's a lot of optimizing and new takes that have to happen, but they got to start first and with a willing population that's already participating in anything they're told to do.
And so I was going to play this, but now I'm thinking, wow, I've really gone over.
It's 140.
And I want to do a musical break.
And then maybe I guess I'm going to go back to that.
So maybe I'm going to escape out of here.
And then I'm going to cut this and put it down here.
And then I'm going to tease you with what we're going to do tomorrow, because I guess I've got to move this forward then.
Okay, so now's the time if you want to, sorry, take a little break.
And I'll be back in about, let's see, when will I be back?
In five minutes and ten seconds.
Thanks very much for being here.
Thanks, thanks, thanks for being here, really.
It means a lot.
Yeah.
And then you sense a change Nothing feels the same All your dreams are strange Love comes walking in Some kind of alien Waits for the opening Simply pulls the string Another world Some other time
Familiar faces, familiar sights.
Reach back, remember with all your might.
Ooh, and there she stands in a silken gown.
Silver lights shining down.
A brand new sense of change.
Nothing feels the same.
All your dreams are strange.
Love, I'm walking in some kind of alien.
It's for the opening.
It's simply for the street.
Across a milky way
And can you sense a change?
Nothing feels the same.
All your dreams are strange.
Love comes walking in.
Some kind of alien.
It's for the old family.
It simply pulls the string.
Love comes walking in.
They are all scripted bullshitters on Robert Malone and Kevin McKernan's bullshit script.
What a long strange trip it has been ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the show's second half.
I do think that Suzanne Humphreys is a scripted liar.
There's no way to explain how when Tony Bark and Brandy Vaughn were alive she was able to so succinctly say
uh that there are no safe vaccines that she doesn't think it's possible because it's antithetical to our biology um and uh quite frankly i wish um i would have had that video and been where i was when i was working for chd at the
second CHD conference in Savannah, Georgia, because there I could have confronted her in person about why she just doesn't say that on stage anymore.
And I didn't because I wasn't aware of it and I was kept away from her by the rest of the organization.
Really remarkable, really remarkable place that we are in.
And I do feel a little bit like one of the few people who has seen the alien.
This is what it looks like from the other side.
a professor Debbie Switter who is a chair of global health at University of Edinburgh in Scotland.
I've had the chance to interview her.
She is a a person who is a head of something public health I believe in Scotland where the murder happened.
The real big murder that that that wonderful sub stack that I plug at the beginning here documents so well.
This guy's at Scripps
where I believe Christian Anderson now works, and he's the head of that place, and he's been on PBS NewsHour.
She was on social media like a demon, and on X like a demon in 2020 and 2021.
Every year once before, years back when she had her book Preventable, she has a new book out, which is just getting in the U.S.
A second book!
You know, they all are getting lucky with multi-generational wealth just by having a book and being able to plug it on these artificial platforms.
How Not to Die Too Soon, The Lies We've Been Told and the Policies That Can Save Us.
It's an extraordinary book, and the convergence with the book I recently had published, Super Ages, is also notable.
We look at it very differently.
I'm looking at it more from an individual level, and Debbie from the world level.
I mean, she has a planetary perspective, which we'll get into, which is quite remarkable.
So welcome, Debbie.
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Yeah, well it's such a treat to be able to talk to you about the insights you have because you really are the wizard for me in global health and one of the... A wizard in global health, holy shit!
...leading public health.
Her name is Devi and the last name is Sridhar.
I don't know if that makes her Indian.
faculty, professors, resources in the world.
So, first thing I wanted to get to is when you were putting DEVI, D-E-V-I, though, it's DEVI, together, what was the main premise about, you know, it wasn't, I don't think, longevity per se, but maybe you could get us straight now.
I guess I got to do it, right?
I'm going to do the Wikipedia.
A wiki, she's got a wiki.
Is an American born health researcher who now works in Scotland.
She's written several books.
She was a member of the SAGE committee at the university and the UK.
That's awesome.
Her father was Kazi Sridhar.
She was in Miami for an Indian family.
There you go.
I mean, I don't want to be a shit head, but this is another Indian.
This is another Indian family.
It's another Indian that went to Oxford.
I mean, come on, come on.
This is absurd.
This is freaking absurd.
Look at this person.
Come on.
I don't know if you noticed, but they had this new Star Trek that came out last year, the year before, the year before that.
I don't remember what it's called anymore.
New Worlds.
A lot of genetic modification.
And also, the really pretty Vulcan happens to be Indian.
It's fantastic.
I'm just nuts though.
You know, this is crazy talk.
Anyway, here we go.
Here we go.
Yeah, I guess it was looking at the gap between our knowledge of health and how to live longer and the amazing scientific research that's happened.
They research, but it's Americans.
Um, and yeah, Star Trek strange new worlds.
It's like they had,
They had like three or four episodes in a row where the main theme was something to do with genetic modification and whether, you know, talking about the ethics of it and whether we should change the environment to suit us or whether we should change us to suit the environment.
It's pretty awesome.
Anyway.
My son is giving me shit because I haven't fed the fish.
I mean, seriously, come on now.
Oh, they did get bikes.
That's nice.
Good.
They were out getting, trying to get bikes.
That's funny.
And life expectancy going backwards, especially since the pandemic and also seeing the rise of chronic disease in younger people like diabetes and cancers.
I'm trying to think why is there this gap?
Wow.
So she just is a wizard and she's going to solve the American health crisis just like Bobby Kennedy, but you know, from Scotland, I guess.
between our knowledge and actually what's happening.
And then in the course of it, I started looking at people like Brian Johnson, who I know you look at in your book, thinking, oh, wow, there are a lot of people thinking about this issue.
But the way I'm thinking about it was much more, I think, global.
I'm American, but I've lived in Britain.
I've lived in a bunch of different countries.
My team does research across the world.
And so trying to bring a global perspective to this, but also one where
We as individuals are much like social beings.
So actually, where you live, especially since the pandemic, and also seeing the rise of chronic disease in younger people, like diabetes and cancers, and trying to think, why is there this gap between our knowledge and actually what's happening?
I don't think longevity per se, but maybe you could get a straighten out on that.
Yeah, I guess it was looking at the gap between our knowledge of health and how to live longer and the amazing scientific research that's happened.
I should say research, but it's Americans.
And life expectancy going backwards, especially since the pandemic and also seeing the rise of chronic disease in younger people.
She has no idea why the life expectancy might've gone backwards since the pandemic, other than maybe murdering people?
other than maybe allowing manslaughter, encouraging it, scripting it, and then making sure it got covered up on social media by useful idiots like her?
Holy shit!
And of course, this is an American who can't be bothered to know what's happening in America because she's a faculty member in Scotland.
She used to live in the UK, you know, so I got a lot of global connections.
I see it from a global perspective, you know, because I'm always on a plane, like I'm not normal.
I'm kind of cool like that.
Well, like diabetes and cancers, I'm trying to think, why is there this gap between our knowledge and actually what's happening?
There is no gap in our knowledge except the gaps that are created by the idiots on social media because we understand.
Mark Housatonic, Mark Kulak in Boston understands.
Joe Marshall understands.
I thought at one point in time Scott Shara understood.
I'm not sure he does anymore.
Dang it, it's desperate, ladies and gentlemen.
I started looking at people like Brian Johnson, who I know you look at, and you're thinking, oh wow, there are a lot of people thinking about this issue.
Okay, so I'm gonna move on to the next slide, which has the video that I wanna watch with you tomorrow.
I thought I was gonna watch that video as the second part today, but we have no time.
I'm talking way too much.
I have too much to say, too much going on, and too much built up material that we have to cover.
So there's a lot of work to do.
I will be on tomorrow.
I don't know for sure if no days off really means no days off, but I'm thinking it does.
For a little while, I'm feeling the wind in my sails.
So tomorrow we're gonna do this video, but I'm gonna let this video start so that you can get an idea of where it will be.
It's much closer to what I would envision as a potential kind of study hall for Biology 101.
Not about the meddling, not about the pandemic, but about biology and life and talking about a new model
And I don't know if I'm going to agree with this lady or not.
I do know that it's going to be an interesting conversation, I think, that maybe I'm not completely qualified to even critique.
But I'm looking forward to it because I think it's better homework than this.
Good evening.
Welcome to our Long Nail Talk with Sarah Omari Walker.
I'm Rebecca Lendl, Executive Director here at the Long Now Foundation.
I'm excited to now introduce to you our guest host for the evening, Benjamin Bratton, Director of the Antikythera Program at the Berggruen Institute.
Benjamin and Sarah are longtime collaborators and they're working at the very edges of their respective disciplines.
What a great recommendation in the chat.
If you haven't seen it, Time Bandits is indeed a fabulous movie.
And yes, I feel kind of the same as Entropy Rider.
I probably should re-watch that because it is really a classic.
Wow.
I can still kind of remember the first time I saw it.
It was with Kevin and Billy.
I can remember that.
And we're fortunate to have them here with us tonight as kind of voyagers at these new frontiers of thought.
Yes, you see it correctly, Fletch.
It is the long now foundation.
It is the long perspective.
And that's why I was so curious about what this would be about.
Excellent, excellent catch.
Thank you for being with us and enjoy.
And over to you, Benjamin Bratton.
Thanks, Rebecca.
As you'll see, Sarah's talk is going to be quite a wild ride.
So what I have come up with is sort of like, let's say, some key concepts of Walkerism that if you can kind of hold on to, this may help give you a little bit of a menu of what you're in store for.
First, astrobiology.
We generally think of astrobiology as like the Martians have suffered from outer space.
No, it's also a way in which we think about us right here.
We are the astrobiology.
Astrobiology is how Joshua Lederberg thought about the possibility that a comet passing by the Earth would have the requisite water content to maybe seed an ocean.
or the requisite, you know, it could carry things from other places like viruses and bacteria to seed life on earth.
And so Joshua Lederberg was one of the first people to really think about that and to really codify it as an idea and came up with the word exobiology.
And incidentally, what we just mentioned a little while ago, Star Trek New Worlds, there's an episode where there's this comet that goes past a planet and sheds a little bit of its water and then, you know, takes a desert planet and turns it into a green one or something like that.
So it's all there.
It's all there.
And this narrative that we need to start thinking on longer timescales and
and give up our sovereignty to the benefit of the species or to the imperative of the species is all blended in here, I suspect.
But again, we're only gonna watch a few minutes and then I'm gonna retire for the day.
I've got a lot of things to do in the backyard that need to be done.
And then I'll be preparing for tomorrow morning again.
It's life in relationship to this.
Second, selection, what we think of as natural selection, begins before biology.
It's actually much deeper in time and deeper in process, which if you think about it actually sort of changes everything.
Life, which is the main sort of the topic of Sarah's work, is something that is different from being alive.
Alive and life are actually different things which she will explain in some detail that light as life Evolves and accrues it builds upon itself It's all about scaffolds and scaffolds building on scaffolds.
And so again, what he's enforcing is this idea that
From nothing came us, and it's a random process that we just need to understand.
The complexity comes from nowhere.
And that would be a very similar argument to saying that I found this watch on the ground, and the complexity that's found in the watch is generated from nature.
Right?
That's what we're talking about here.
It is.
It's made by men and women.
It's a man-made thing.
But what we find in a cell, we're supposed to believe, and these people believe, actually the right word should be assume.
These people assume that we are at the end of
infinitesimally long process of the accumulation of complexity just like this watch is the accumulation of complexity you know this is better than the other watches that were made before and they got better and better and the same thing happened spontaneously that resulted in us
And that's the thing.
They want you to believe that this has an intelligence behind it, but you do not.
There's no design.
It's just a natural process for whom the rules are for what the rules we still don't know, for which the rules are still unknown.
scaffolds building on scaffolds that becomes increasingly complex.
The newest thing is actually the oldest thing, as Sarah will explain.
So the amount of complexity in something also speaks to the amount of time it took for this to evolve.
The amount of time in something is the amount of complexity in it.
And so the most complex things in our universe, like our technosphere,
So you can hear already one of the problems is going to be where they define things, what they define as things and living things.
And so as Joshua Lederberg pointed out, it could be, and I've tried to hone this language and I think it will eventually be stolen by these people if I don't write the book about it.
But it's a pattern integrity with a trajectory across time.
And so this encapsulates both the ideas of
of Buckminster Fuller and the ideas of Joshua Lederberg with regard to euphenics and eugenics and also this idea of a pattern integrity and what it means and thinking about it in four-dimensional space.
So I'm very excited because I think that this is just going to be an absolute win, win, win.
It's going to be the world series of wins this whole year because they can't follow us where we're going.
They can't climb to the heights that we are going to climb and they can't really expound on the ideas that we are going to give to our kids.
They're gonna have to ignore us more aggressively than they've ever ignored us before.
And I know I'm making big statements here, but I'm very, very confident at this point.
I'm really excited because I need to devote time this afternoon to getting to the gym as part of this ongoing development month.
I intend to put quite a few extra hours in this month that I haven't been doing previously.
And so that involves a little bit of prioritizing.
So that's what I'm gonna do now.
And tomorrow morning I will be on, I hope at 1010, and I will start quickly with this woman's presentation, which is over an hour, but we'll watch it outside of PowerPoint so I can speed it up a little bit and pause and take notes.
And so if you want to find it, it's the Long Day Foundation, and I think her name was Sarah Amari something or other, you could find it and watch it ahead of time, maybe do some homework.
Ladies and gentlemen, don't forget that there was a background with an anticipated rise in all-cause mortality that was sculpted using murder and lies.
None of these people will ever tell you that because this is part of the illusion.
They also won't try to assemble a list to help you understand what actually happened.
They're just going to talk about it in amorphous terms.
And definitely not going to use any slides or any, you know, published lists like this.
Because endemicity is a myth that they need you to accept and they cannot challenge.
And that's why the PCR test will never be challenged and why the idea of placebo will never get out there.
Because they need their ghosts to remain real.
This is for all the marbles, ladies and gentlemen.
It's for the children of Earth.
I love you very much.
Sorry I missed you yesterday.
Don't forget that these people are just posers.
They are not real.
In the past months, I've had a lot of... They're not real.
And don't take their bait.
AI is probably just a bunch of Indian guys in a room with Photoshop and...
and Adobe Premiere, teaching the AI algorithm how to make these dumb pictures.
The endemicity is a myth, but collecting your genome and trying to use AI to decipher it is definitely not.
They have all their eggs in that basket.
And you can see these coordinated liars because they even put papers out together with Steve Hatfill and friends.
I can't tell you enough how important it is to understand that this picture is his criminal evidence.
This is the picture.
I love you guys very much.
See you again tomorrow.