Can you thank you very much?
That should be it.
Dang it, dang it, dang it.
How did I screw this time up again?
Always the same crap.
It's no problem.
So, Kooti, yes.
Well, it's okay for you.
Yeah, the sound here is fine for me, as long as you can.
Okay, good, fine.
So, maybe I'm going to begin with the reynion,
as it's still the reynion.
Okay, I'm going to start with the reynion.
I'm going to start with the reynion.
Okay, I'll start with the reynion.
Same, nine, ark, seven, six, fune, fier, tri, swy, eyns.
Yeah, I'm turning for the reynion.
So, I'm going to start with the reynion.
I know, I'm excited to see the reynion.
I'm going to start with the reynion.
Hello, JJ.
I'm glad you're with us.
We had a little bit of a mix up with regards to timing,
but that's no problem.
We are very excited to talk to you.
It would be great if maybe you could introduce yourself.
Yeah, and then we can take it from there.
Thanks very much for having me.
My name is Jonathan Couey, and I am a recovering academic
neurobiologist.
I had about a, I don't know, a 15 or 20 year career
as an academic biologist before the pandemic started.
And after speaking out against measures and mandates,
I was told to go home from my position
at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
as a research assistant professor.
And I continued to speak out against the,
I don't know what I would characterize it as,
other than nonsense, the biological nonsense
that was being characterized as a pandemic.
I didn't figure it out right away.
I don't want anybody to think that I came to where I am now
after a few days of thinking about it.
For a very long time in 2020, I was still convinced
that there was a lab leak that was being covered up
and that this was what was happening.
And as my understanding of virology and the biology
underlying the idea of a pandemic started to clarify a little bit,
or I started to clarify it a little bit,
I've come to realize that that's probably not what happened.
And so I've spent my last three years
basically trying to learn enough immunology and virology.
And the biology that I didn't know previous to the pandemic
so that I could understand what really happened.
And so I found myself, how can I say it,
crossing paths with a lot of people.
A lot of people have come to my house in Pittsburgh
to visit and talk to me about this stuff.
And most of the people that have come to visit me
have turned out to be medlers in the sense
that they didn't really have my or my family's best interest in mind.
And so over the last three years, I've come to understand
that most of the people who have stepped up to speak out
have in some way or another been well, been compromised.
And I don't think it's to say that there are bad people.
I think it's to say that something very serious
occurred across the globe, across these Western countries
that involves a government operation.
And that government operation gives a priority to a narrative.
And so people who are in control of this theater
have perpetuated this narrative that a pandemic occurred
and that it's actually not a very bad one.
And it could be much worse in the future.
And I think this is a mythology that they've been trying to install
for a number of years so that our children or the so even worse
that we will teach this mythology to our children
and that they can be governed by it forever.
And I think that's the crossroads that all of humanity is at right now.
And it sounds a bit maybe overdramatic or overdramatic,
but it's really not.
It's really where we are right now.
We need to reevaluate our basic understanding of who we are
as a species and where we fit in the natural world.
And I think we need to start to really introspectively think
about what the idea of a pandemic really is
and what the biology that they claim really is
and then investigate whether or not this biology has
any foundation in reality.
Because I think we will find that a lot of what
is misconstrued as public health is actually
a large mythology that's been thrown on us.
It sounds very scary and it sounds very daunting
to try and penetrate this.
But I think in reality, a lot of people
have felt this inside for a long time.
A lot of academic biologists have the tool set
to understand this deception and just have chosen not
to apply their critical thinking to this particular problem.
And I think that's one of the magics of where I am.
I used to be an academic biologist so I understand
exactly how focused one has to be in order
to succeed in that environment.
And that extreme focus and specialization
has created a bunch of really smart thinkers
that are so hyper focused on one biological problem
that they have essentially undermined themselves
and as responsible adults.
And they can't apply their unique skill set to reality.
They just apply it to this one academic pursuit.
And they take everything else for granted.
And I think that mistake has been made by so many hundreds
of thousands of biologists that have this inherent love
of biology, this inherent, inherent respect
for the sacredness of life.
They have this inherent understanding
of the irreducible complexity that they are knocking
against all the time.
And yet some reason or another because of the way
the academic environment is set up,
people like me who have this intense love of everything
alive can be put in a laboratory.
And that fascination and that love for everything sacred
can be sort of compartmentalized to answer one question.
And in that extreme focus, monastery style focus,
you lose touch with the rest of the world.
And this has resulted in, I think,
the biology of public health being
contorted into what it is today.
And there are no biologists that are in love with biology
that are curating this public health mythology.
None of these people are there for that reason.
They're all there for power, for greed,
for intellectual property, for money.
None of these individuals that have led us
through the last four years are children who
grew up as biologists and teachers who
grew up as biologists and lovers of the natural world.
These are not who we are being led by right now.
We are being led by individuals who,
by wittingly or unwittingly, have given up
the understanding of what it means to be a human
and what it means to understand where
that line of sacredness starts.
When a baby comes out of the womb, it's pretty much perfect.
That idea has been wholly discarded
by our academic biologists.
And that's really a tragedy from which this all comes.
And so it has a really long introduction
that I would say I'm a lifelong biologist who
wandered his way through life trying
to figure out what to do with this extreme fascination
and love for the living world.
And I found myself in academic biology
for a long time asking questions about the brain
and being very happy with that job.
I actually thought it was the most amazing job
because I got to use high-powered electron,
or not electron, but a high-powered microscopes,
high-powered confocal microscopy.
It's a lot of photography.
It's a lot of high-precision measurements.
It's a lot of very interesting things
that include surgery and all this other stuff
that you get to do.
And so it's a really wonderful pursuit
because you really are monastery-style,
focused on a question.
But now the question becomes, is that the right question?
Are you pursuing an avenue which is expanding
our understanding of who we are as a species?
And I believed personally what I was doing
in neuroscience was doing that.
But I also was keenly aware that there were many, many,
many avenues of investigation that we're not doing that.
And not just in neuroscience, but across the board
in the biological sciences in general.
And that's really the unique perspective I think I bring
to this is that I've had my feet on the floor
of a laboratory where grant money is important
for a very long time.
I watched how this, what this does to intelligent people
and how rewarding it feels for them
to succeed in this environment,
but also how isolating it is
and how it takes away the power
that they would have as a leader in their community,
for example.
Most of these people, I'm just babbling here.
Most of these people who are professors
at universities should probably also be community leaders
where maybe they're a mayor or they're a board member
or they influence decision in their community.
But because this academic job is so all encompassing
and so borders on obsession,
they have no extra energy for their children
or for their wife or their marriage.
Nevermind for contributing to the governance
of their community.
So one of the amazing things that this academic,
you know, the ivory tower has done to the way that our,
we govern our communities is that some of the,
who probably would be some of the more respectable leaders,
some of the more articulate leaders
have been taken out of that arena
and put into this, you know,
this rat race ladder climbing exercise
which feels very good to them
because they get to ask these,
what they feel are interesting questions,
but the way that the funding has been used to sculpt
that pursuit for the last 40 years has resulted
in a lot of wasted money, a lot of wasted pursuit
and a lot of bad assumptions
upon which public health is now based.
And so we have many, many years of work
to try to reverse this and the pandemic,
I hope has given us some open windows
with which to show people what's really going on
and what's really happening.
And so I'm hoping that we can maintain this momentum enough
so that we can start to get to a lot of these academic biologists
who as I said earlier have the tool set to crack this puzzle
but haven't yet put any of their critical thinking faculties
toward reality again.
They're still super focused on their,
their academic pursuits because that's what they've told
is the way that they're supposed to contribute to the world.
So that, I don't know how that,
that's the worst introduction I've ever given,
but there it is.
That's all right.
I think it's right on the point basically.
So would you think that because,
I mean, since there's a lot of grant money involved,
so people, you say it's maybe also limiting their,
you know, the approach they take
to what they, the field that they maybe do research in
because there's money only for this kind of research and so on.
So that also makes a limits, you know, the fields where you,
and maybe it's also an incentive,
an incentive for maybe even coming out with like say,
fraudulent or like manipulated statistics and so on
because you, you think, oh, it has to be,
there's more, more grants coming up if I say,
oh, there's long COVID and I have,
we have to do this and that or so.
That's also a distortion.
It's definitely spot on.
I think that, that, that I can give you several examples
where this is actually the primary mechanism
by which these, these idea spaces are, are sculpted.
And so one example might be the genetic causes of autism.
If you fund $1 billion to investigate genetic correlations
with autism and you, you, you use these grants
to do a couple different things.
Number one, you use these grants to tell people like me
what the right question to ask is.
Now, if I'm an academic biologist, I need to find money.
And so I've got to look for grant calls
and every grant call has a specific little limited window
of investigation that your question should fall under.
And in this respect of genetic causes of autism
has caused an entire field of neuroscience
to almost completely transform into the assumption
that autism is caused exclusively by genes.
And so there has been so much investigation
into correlation in animal models of autism,
which are another thing that get,
that get, essentially they get codified or,
or canonized by these grant calls
because after five years of funding research
into the genetic causes of autism,
you've also funded five years of research
into animal models of autism.
And by, by no fault of their own
have made these legitimate models,
legitimate models because all these papers
from the previous years have come out.
And so now there's a whole field that has precedence.
And these models have precedence so that you can say,
well, this guy did this study and this guy
and this lady did this study.
And so I'm following on the footsteps of their work.
And so this pattern of building up
the scientific literature has resulted in whole fields
which are essentially probably working
on the wrong assumption set,
but have perpetuated because there is this literature
foundation that they can use to justify what they're doing
and what they're doing still fits
within these grant research calls
and these broad, not broad,
but very limited spectrums of investigation
that are established by the grant calls.
And so it is of utmost importance to understand
that the vast majority of academic neuroscientists,
academic biologists, anybody that's investigating
a medical thing is investigating a question
that has been, they have been pigeonholed
into asking because of who they studied with,
what they did in their PhD, why they did their postdoc,
these things already start to limit the sliver of biology
that people can investigate.
And then once they start trying to solicit their own money,
they almost are forced to work on things
that they worked on in the past
in order to justify their expertise.
And then lo and behold, you've got a whole world
full of academic biologists that specialize
in a sliver of knowledge and a sliver of investigation.
And by definition, are very careful
about not stepping outside of that
so that nobody can criticize them.
And so this is...
There's also a lot of angst involved.
Absolutely there is.
And in fact, that's a lot of how these fields work
is that you become an expert in your sub-field,
of this sub-field and then everybody cites you
and they need to cite that thing,
but they don't investigate it
because they know that you're doing it.
And so as long as this little, you know,
monastery system of biology continues,
then with certain funding streams
and with certain priorities,
they can perpetuate the idea that public health is X, Y, and Z,
that pandemic potential can be measured with X, Y, and Z.
And after 10 years, they have a literature foundation
which can be pointed to as pandemic potential.
And I think that's one of the tricks
that has been pulled on us since about,
I would say 2002, where they have slowly
but surely led academic biologists,
led bureaucrats and led the common populace
into believing that RNA,
if it has the right combination of bases,
can perpetuate itself around the world
with high fidelity for many years.
And that's just biologically not true.
RNA cannot make a protein
and then copy itself and then jump from people to people
without changing its sequence for hundreds of infections
over millions of, the story that they've told us
is not possible using RNA.
It's just not, you can't leak RNA in a puddle
and then have it get into one person's lungs
and then some mechanism by which that RNA copies itself
with high enough fidelity to be found
in several places around the world with few changes.
And then a few months later,
many more places around the world with very few changes.
This level of fidelity,
there is no support for this in the biological literature.
There is support for signals in this size scale.
There is support for genetic signals of DNA and RNA
in the background, but what they've done
is essentially turned up the volume on a ham radio
that's picking up noise from the atmosphere
and then turned it up loud enough
so that they could use an algorithm to say in that noise,
there's some order.
And we have been allowed,
they have been allowed to get away with it
because of the way that academic biology
is in this monastery style, hyperspecialized.
And then they've controlled that specialization.
How many people work on coronaviruses?
How many people work on RNA viruses?
Not very many.
And the ones that work on the ones that matter
for purposes of pandemic
and purposes of establishing pandemic potential,
the list is extremely short.
And the same people have-
How many people?
Sorry.
I mean, it's less than 20.
It's less than 15.
Like worldwide, you think it's like 20 scientists
to control this narrative?
I mean, it's certainly less than 20 scientists
that control the clones.
And so that's the part of this
that I think everybody essentially is missing
and the part that I feel as though I want to be challenged on.
I want some molecular biologist to come and say that I'm wrong.
But essentially, what I feel like has ruined my life
is not coming out against the lab leak
or saying it's a lab leak.
It's not coming out and saying the natural immunity
to previous RNAs is more than adequate
to protect us from this new one, if there is a new one.
And that didn't ruin my life either.
What ruined my life was when I started to say out loud
that RNA can't pandemic,
that RNA can't copy itself even once,
it can't copy itself perfectly.
DNA, because it's double-stranded,
has this built-in ability to,
it shows its errors because the double helix doesn't complete.
At least that's how the cartoon is told to us.
And there are other accessory enzymes
that can come along and repair those errors.
And so copying DNA into more DNA is thought to be
from a biology perspective, a very high fidelity process.
But copying RNA is actually something
that isn't done very often.
And so when it is done in the context
of the virology cartoon, it is done in two different contexts.
One is the negative strand RNA virus
where they have to have an enzyme along with them.
Because a negative strand RNA, like in a measles virus,
can't be immediately converted into a protein
by hijacking our machinery.
Because it's a negative strand RNA, it doesn't work.
So they need to have built into the viral a protein
that can copy that RNA into a positive strand RNA
which can run through our ribosome.
So it's an interesting cartoon already.
When you contrast the cartoon of a flu virus
there are a measles virus which needs to have
a built in protein enzyme already present
in every variant that's gonna be infectious
versus a coronavirus that actually doesn't
because it's a positive strand, single stranded RNA
and it actually, supposedly contains an RNA code
for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase.
And so it doesn't have one in the viral
but instead it makes one.
And then that enzyme is supposed to copy
and make new viruses.
So in these two sort of illustrations,
what you don't hear and what you don't see
is that every single time the RNA dependent RNA polymerase
makes a copy of that RNA by definition there are errors.
It has to be, that is the foundational understanding
of how this works.
There's can't be proofreading.
There is a accessory protein called exon exon
that supposedly can increase the fidelity
of coronavirus genome replication
but it's not proofreading.
It can't be proofreading because there's a very,
it's not even really well understood
but there's ever a double stranded RNA moment
during the copying of the RNA in these things
because we don't understand very well how this works.
But the point would be that what they have described to us
is a phenomenon where an RNA with a 30,000 base pair genome
could be found in Iran, in Wuhan, in Washington state
and in Italy and that a few months later
it could be found in New York and in Florida
and in Oklahoma and that relatively speaking
that RNA signal would be almost identical
across 30,000 bases, across all these different measurements
and that has no precedence in the history of biology.
There's no, not one paper that has ever demonstrated
that this is even remotely possible
and we have to understand what they've implied.
They've implied millions of infections
by the same RNA virus that originated from a point
and that's just, it's the unfathomability,
it's just so beyond absurd
and then the spectacular commitment to this is what happened,
it just reveals the thing for what it is.
And so here's where we go full circle that I apologize,
I almost lost track of my thoughts.
If RNA can't do this, then what's really going on?
Well, for the last 30 years,
RNA viruses have been very difficult,
if not impossible, to grow in culture.
I'm not an expert on flu virus,
but it does seem to be that flu viruses,
flu virologists say that they can grow flu virus in cultures
and in eggs and then they get a lot more flu virus.
So I can't argue and I won't argue,
I'm not sophisticated enough to argue with that,
but what I will argue with is that what they grow there
is a very heterogeneous, very mixed bag of RNA exosomes
or RNA particles, it's not a high fidelity version
of the flu and that's because of the way
that these genes are copied
and the way they sort themselves out.
But it may be something that's useful
for exposing your immune system,
but my point is that when they study these viruses
and it includes the flu,
that a very standard procedure for these RNA signals
is to convert them to DNA
so that you can always go back to that sequence.
And why is that important?
Well, because it's not natural.
If you sample whatever these RNA signals are
from a bat or from a pangolin,
you are basically using a very tiny PCR amplicon
to be a flag for the existence
of what you assume to be a 30,000 base pair genome.
Once you get that very small amplicon flag,
you say, oh yeah, there it is.
And so then you use a fishing method to turn up the noise
and then you look for a signal that fits
a preconceived notion of what a coronavirus is.
When you find it, you can't do anything about it.
You can't grow that in a dish.
You can't put it in a cell culture
and grow enough of it to send all around the world
because that's really not how they work.
And instead, and they're trying to blame it on Ralph Barrick,
but I think that's a little bit of a fudge
in the sense of this molecular biology
has been around for a very long time
and applying it to these particular sequences
is not that big a deal.
We have known how to take different DNA pieces
and stitch them together using endonucleases.
We've known this for a very long time.
Molecular biologists have been putting together
different sequences of DNA for decades now.
And so using this to make a 30,000 base pair genome
of a coronavirus and then grow a lot of that DNA
is a very normal baking procedure
in pharmaceutical companies when they make antibodies.
They have to do a very similar thing.
Making biologic oftentimes involves making a DNA construct
and then the protein comes from it.
But the intermediate there is an RNA.
And so the way that they've made this shot for everybody,
the transfection shot is just simply a bacterial culture
that makes the DNA and the DNA is,
they lice the culture, they take the DNA out
and then they put an RNA polymerase on it,
they make the RNA, they purify the RNA as best they can
and then they injected that into people
after they combined it with a lipid nanoparticle.
The point is is that the only way,
the only way they've been able to study coronaviruses
is if they start from a DNA construct
that they make RNA clones from.
And so all of these papers that have ever studied SARS-1,
for example, you can look this up,
a lot of these papers start with SARS-Urbani.
SARS-Urbani is a sequence of SARS-1
taken from a guy named Urbani in 2003 or 2002
and they constructed a DNA clone of it.
And then they generated RNA from that DNA clone.
And now if you think very carefully about what happens
when the natural virus is put into a cell culture
or natural viruses sampled in nature,
you have an RNA that's being copied by an RNA polymerase.
When they make clones, they have a DNA
that's being translated into RNA by an RNA polymerase,
not an RNA dependent RNA polymerase,
but an RNA polymerase that's designed to work
or has evolved to work from DNA to RNA.
And so that copying process is a little bit higher fidelity
and more importantly, the template is higher fidelity.
The enzyme doesn't jump off of DNA
when it's making the RNA because that would make,
that would be a big problem for us and making proteins.
But the RNA dependent RNA polymerase is already well known
to have a propensity to make many, many, many short genomic
sequences of RNA as it copies the genome
and almost never makes it from beginning to end
of the original RNA and that can be seen in experiments
from the 70s all the way up until now.
No matter how they measurement,
the full genome almost never gets copied
and hundreds of thousands of copies
of the sub-genomic RNAs are present after this happens.
So again, the point is, is that whenever they've tried
to sample these RNA signals from the wild,
they peter out, they disappear, they collapse,
there might have been a signal in the animal,
there might have been a signal in the sick person,
but they're never able to reconstruct
and sustain this signal in any laboratory preparation
because of the nature of RNA copying its lack of fidelity
and the sort of erroneous nature of RNA dependent RNA polymerases
the way that they work.
And so they bypass this whole problem
by taking whatever signal they purport to find in nature
and making an RNA construct and always starting from there
because then when they inject that infectious RNA
into the animal, they are injecting a concentration
and purity of full genome RNAs that could never,
ever, ever, ever, ever be found in nature,
could never occur in nature, could never exist in nature
because again, RNA dependent RNA polymerase
can't copy RNA like that.
But if you take a DNA copy of it
and then use a commercial version of RNA polymerase,
you can make a very, very large, relatively pure amount
of self-replicating RNA that you can put in an animal,
you can send around the world,
you can put on cell culture and the cell culture
will make lots more RNA.
And so all of the basic biology of virology
can be of coronavirus virology can be recreated
using these clones, but these clones, I'm arguing,
are nowhere near related to whatever RNA signal
they purport to be finding in nature.
It just can't be possible, it's not.
And this is, on the other hand,
I hope that eventually I can shut up,
is that this is the easy right in front of our hand,
right in front of our face explanation
for how this sequence could have been found
in so many places at the same time.
Because this is how coronavirus biology is done.
If you wanted five labs in the world
to work on your new coronavirus,
the way that Ralph Barrick would do it
is he would make a CDNA clone of it,
he would produce enough infectious RNA
to send around to all these labs
and they'd all get a perfect sample.
And that's indeed what they've done with SARS-CoV-2
and some of these variants,
that's what they've done with Omicron,
that's what they do with a pangolin virus
that they're now saying was 100% lethal
in the ACE2, or human ACE2 mice that they put it in,
they are confounding all of these different assumptions
together and the result is a mythology
that we're supposed to teach our kids,
which is that RNA can pandemic
and this was an easy one
and the next one could be much worse.
I don't even remember what the question was anymore,
holy cow, Wolfgang, can I just say
that you probably saved my life and the life of my family
because you spoke out in 2020,
you were the first guy I saw your work in 2009,
is heroic, I also heard a presentation by Mark von Braunst,
the guy from Belgium a few years later
where he trashed you and said that,
oh, he was a terrible guy for speaking out in 2009
and I just can't thank you enough
for the rest of the earth for having done what you did
and I hope I'm doing a little bit
of justice to your work
because I'm really only inspired by you
and Mike Eden and a couple other heroes, seriously.
I'm so much fascinated because you know the details
and you know the many people who know many details
and you have an overview of all those specialists
you have met and you know how they think
and it's great for me.
I'm just a practitioner.
I'm just someone having being responsible for human lives
as a public health guy who wanted to do the best he can
and I'm a critical man
and this is the only, you know this,
when we enter this region of molecules,
when we start to explain what we experience
and what life is concentrated on molecules,
I get lost, I get really lost
and I go back and I say, what can we observe?
What's happening?
How long, what is the virus?
Did they exist 100 years ago already?
What function does viruses have in life
and life is a very, very perfect thing?
I'm a fan of Maturama, you know him, I think.
Yes, and so I know about this communication process
is in life theoretically.
I'm not interested in the details of molecules.
I cannot manage, it's too much
but I think there is, life is so much more
I think there is, life is so much more clever
than only human beings can be.
So we, you said something very, very important for me,
this was a gift already.
You said the in irreducible complexity of life,
this is what you said.
And I think this is a great word.
And if you think this irreducibility of complexity,
we just have to step back and have to,
why do we, what do we need for having a good life?
What do we need?
Do we need all those details?
Can we have a manage?
What is with artificial intelligence?
It's not artificial, it's stunned by man,
this is artificial.
And this, those weak part of biology,
like we are human beings,
it's a very small part of biology, we live.
When I look out of the window, there is,
there is the sea, there is the trees,
there is so many living varieties,
I will never catch, I will never understand.
And we just go to work, we just learn something,
we use this something, we have our attention in,
this makes me very, take back my mind,
I don't know, you, how do you say it?
I'm cautious that I don't know so much,
but I know there is something very well functioning.
And when we think we can make it better,
we do many mistakes for sure.
Oh yes, and I think that's a perfect segue
into what I was gonna say is that,
I've been trying to come up with a few messages
that non-biologists can understand,
and one of the ones that I think is resonating
with a lot of people right now is intramuscular injection
of any combination of substances,
with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
And the reason why I love that phrase so much
is because it gets back to the idea of what they are implying
when they say that they can give, you know,
30 injections to my kid before age six months.
And they are implying that this incredibly complex,
irreducibly complex system, that is the immune system,
has sufficiently understood that they can put
a combination of things in the muscle of your child
to augment that system.
And that is the level of audacity there,
and arrogance is really extraordinary,
but that's really where we are right now.
And then the worst part is,
is that it's now not even a combination of substances,
but it's an actual genetic signal.
And in a toxic envelope that we have even had the audacity
to say is relatively equivalent
to the previous combinations of terrible substances
that we've been injecting,
when in reality it's nowhere near equivalent.
And in fact, it probably makes these previous concoctions
look relatively benign,
because they are just, you know, some heavy metals
or some toxins that your body has challenged
and your immune system is confused by.
But this, where you start to make your biology behave
differently and really potentially confuse your immune system,
that I don't think the immune system is ever confused
by an intramuscular injection of aluminum
plus some proteins that all that crap
is not supposed to be here.
But once you've transfected random cells in your body
to express a protein,
it becomes a very much more, in my humble opinion,
diabolical signal that is much more challenging
for the immune system to sort out without making a mistake.
And this is...
I was so much interested when I was working
with a group of biologists or human genetic geneticists
genetic geneticists,
and they were advising people with inborn defects,
genetic defects.
So they are the children that cannot produce certain proteins
they need for their life,
and they tried to genetically modify those children
so that they can build the protein they needed.
And they found out that after two years
or after some time, they...
Before they started producing the protein, they needed.
It was okay, but after some time,
after some months or some years,
this process was stopped again.
It just didn't work anymore.
So there must be something within the human being
they tried to treat, which repaired.
There must be some plan of this human being
how it was born.
It said, no, this doesn't fit to me.
This is a strange thing, and erase it again.
So my hope is, when they do this genetic operation now
with billions of people,
that after two or three years,
the bodies will have, if they survive it,
the bodies may repair it in many, many cases.
I don't know it, but I think this is a chance.
We can...
This is some hope also.
We can wait for it.
Yeah, I am cautiously optimistic myself.
I'm also cautiously optimistic that the people
that did this who were aware,
at least vaguely aware of the potential advantage
they could gain if they put some placebo doses out there,
so that the populace would be fooled into believing
that the safety was higher than it was.
And so I think there are a number of possible ways
that this technology,
and I do think that's one of the things
we have to acknowledge is that there was a concerted effort
to bamboozle much of the free world
into believing that transfection has been proven
to be useful, and that now we just have to figure out
what protein and how exactly to do it.
Maybe we need a better lip and nanoparticle,
or maybe we need to inhale some of these things,
but the basic methodology is on TV already checked out
and is already a miracle.
And this, I think, is so much of the goal here,
is to get people to accept this.
And then maybe the old adage
that all of these people have been saying for 20 years
that mice lie and monkeys deceive,
and the only thing that tells you the truth are humans,
maybe this is part of a move toward getting people to accept
that the only way we're gonna make personalized medicine
is to use you as a guinea pig.
And so there's so many frightening aspects of this
that, again, assume that we've conquered
the irreducible complexity of biology,
that we've figured it all out,
that we're just a few years away from having the data set
to put into the AI, and then the AI will spit out the answer.
And this is all an illusion.
It's all an illusion that they've told rich people
and they've told bureaucrats that the cheaper
that we can make DNA and the cheaper it is to sequence it
is just the same as the easier it's gonna be
that we're gonna understand it.
And that's just not, they're not equivalent things.
That we can make DNA cheaper.
It doesn't mean we understand what we're making
or how it contributes to the pattern integrity of life.
And so that still is this thing
that we're telling our college kids
and we're telling our high school kids
that we have this mastery that we don't have
and that we have this understanding that we don't have
and we're robbing them of this reverence for life.
We're robbing them of this reverence for the living world
and instead replacing it with this arrogance
and with this, it's terrible.
I really see it as a fundamental attack
on who we are as humanity.
I think there may be, there are those people
who finance all this and you say,
yes, I need what you do.
I take it and I use it in seven billion people.
Those people, why do they do that?
They are part of biology too.
Yeah, it's hard to say.
I mean, I think number one, we have to admit
that there gotta be a number of unwitting participants
because I was an unwitting participant in 2020.
I still, when you and Mike Eden were saying
that, you know, whatever these are,
the variants are probably baloney
and there were lots of signals like this
when we were working before.
I still was fighting for this idea that no,
but a laboratory virus could have heretofore unseen possibilities
and laboratory virus could be much more infectious
because it's got a fear and cleavage site.
And so I was totally fooled.
I totally bought in to the idea
that they were covering something up
and that because it was a laboratory virus
that it could potentially have biology that wasn't natural
and that idea sucked me in and sucked a lot of people in.
I think that was intentional
because that scared people into taking something
that they otherwise would have never taken.
And here we are three years later
and I'm really late to the party.
Like you and Mike had seen through it already in 2020.
And I, it's not so difficult to see it.
When you have a, I was very impressed by a map
where I could see it 24 hours short
where all the airplanes were yellow points
driving around the world with 10 million passengers a day.
Yes.
With all their viruses on their body, in their body,
everywhere traveling around 10 billion a day.
Yes.
And spreading everything of every variation of life,
spreading that can live with human beings, spreading each day.
And I was, I was thinking of that.
And then I was thinking, Wuhan,
there was such a high,
a legal thing there in Guangdong, in Guangdong in the SARS-1.
I was thinking, where has it disappeared?
Why does it disappear so quickly?
And with all those passengers traveling around the world
and the virus is so contagious
and how can this be?
And we forgot SARS.
SARS didn't exist between 2005 and 2020.
It wasn't that wide.
This cannot be.
So it's such easy thoughts, you know?
It's so easy.
You don't have to know about molecular things.
You just have to, you just have to think,
well, if there are viruses and they go around the world,
they change every year a little bit.
We have the flu on Australia.
When I was with a swine flu,
my first call was to Australia, to a colleague in Australia.
How is it whether you do you have more cases than usual?
You should know.
So I knew what was going on.
It is, it's really easy
because when you know how those,
how those entities, those biological entities,
where they live, how they live normally,
you have recognized them and you can observe them.
And then you see the effects and you can,
you don't need molecules to understand.
And when you're from your experience as a doctor,
how often in his, when you were practicing,
how often did you actually make a molecular
or some kind of confirmation with a diagnostic
that you had a particular virus?
Or were you always just treating?
No, there was only flu.
Yeah, okay.
But there was one, I started doing some nonsense
when I started making the H-test, HIV test.
Because we were frightened.
I was also frightened.
I thought there was something very serious to move on.
And they gave me the HIV test in my ward
and they said, you can use it.
And I used it and I found some positive cases.
But they were all healthy.
And I never saw someone with an immune deficiency before
in my region, my whole region where I used to practice.
Never.
No, I never got it.
No, I didn't.
And suddenly there should be something very new.
So, but I was trapped then with this big propaganda HIV.
And I'm very sorry.
I did many wrong things because of that.
And I understood, many years later,
many years later I understood
that they made this test
and they produced those cases as they always do cases.
Isn't it fascinating?
Isn't that test an antibody test?
So actually for AIDS, it's an antibody test,
which is extraordinary because now they sold us antibodies
as immunity.
It's extraordinary.
Yes.
And it's very, you know what we have to do?
We have to change the education of doctors.
Yeah.
I mean, we do.
We need to teach them immunology.
We need to teach them how the immune system works
so that they come to this conclusion on their own.
If you, if you really, I mean, I have given a number
of what I consider to be very broad stroke immune lectures
that people have said that this is just the best lecture
I've ever heard because I've explained the immune system
in a way that that that that explains its organization.
And I think the one of the things that I stress a lot
is that the immune system is organized
from the inside out and it's designed to to maintain a barrier
between the inside of your body and the outside world.
And so the immune system is used to meeting challenges
on that barrier.
And so in history, if any of these previous immunizations
have worked, they have worked because they've immunized
at a barrier, oral vaccines are at a barrier, you know,
variation with smallpox was at a barrier.
So you were interacting with the immune system
and from the direction in which it expects
to be interacted with and with an intramuscular injection,
you are taking a signal and putting it
where the immune system least likely to find it.
And so it's extraordinary how absurd it is
that we've moved through this immunization of evolution
and gotten worse and worse.
This is what I said in this too.
But you know this, when it started with the swine flu also,
they started thinking of giving the flu shot,
not a flow shot, but giving the spray.
Oh yeah.
Because they were recognizing that this could be a way
they could sell the same nonsense before.
But what they didn't deal with is there's so much competition
between those informations we get.
Our immune system has to find out what is important,
what is not important.
So there has to be,
because there's a limited capacity of immune reaction.
And so you have to see our immune system has to select.
There's a really interesting phenomenon that occurred.
I think you'd find really fascinating as well,
that in the early 2000s or late 90s,
there were two basic schools of thought of immunology
that were funded by the NIH in America.
The one was pathogen-associated molecular patterns.
And the other one was damage-associated molecular patterns.
And now the difference between these two big theories
is really cool.
One, the pathogen-associated molecular patterns
is a theory where the immune system tries to make
a unique set of memories for every pathogen
that it comes in contact with.
The other one, damage-associated molecular patterns,
was the idea that the immune system tries to generalize
across challenges to find the molecular motifs
that are most dangerous.
Usually hydrophobic ones are charged motifs.
And so this theory then suggested that in one case,
the immune system is just making a profile
of the new things that it finds.
And in the other case,
it's trying to generalize across molecular signals,
and then essentially building a minimum amount of memory.
And I think there's so much of our understanding
of the immune system that really suggests
that minimizing the reaction to anything is ideal.
And overreaction is the heart of everything going wrong.
And so interestingly enough,
we were talking about this an hour ago,
the funding for damage-associated molecular pattern
investigation is gone.
It disappeared in 2005.
There is no funding of that idea anymore.
It is exclusively pathogen-associated molecular patterns
or specific memory, which of course means
that you need specific vaccines for every specific challenge.
And that's the extraordinary moment.
You can have a patent on viruses.
You can have a patent on the choice of your immune system.
Yeah.
It's extraordinary, man,
because I think this has exposed a very big scam
that we've all been under the enchantment of
for a very long time.
And so we can all just be very humble
and say we didn't get it for a long time
and just pull ourselves out.
Our discussion that reminds me of something
when we were discussing about the transportation law
in Germany, there were always those people who said,
the brain, this is our identity.
This is what we are, the brain.
They said, if the brain is dead,
you can take everything because then the guy is dead.
And I always think, no, there's something more complicated,
more identity, much more identity.
What I am is much more my immune system than my brain.
So this discussion, it has so many consequences.
Consequences in regulation, in human,
in what we think, what is the dignity of man.
So all this values our society is based on,
is based on pictures.
And this picture with the brain, in our thoughts,
is the thing which makes us the most.
And there is this other thing,
which makes us much more humble
because the immune system is something
you find everywhere in nature.
So it's a very good lesson we can learn now.
How our values are shaped and how they shape our culture
and our thinking, our living together,
and our respecting and respecting nature,
which is around us.
So I think there is, it's a big chance now
for developing new ideas.
I totally agree.
If the immune system functions well,
maybe the brain is also part of an immune system
like that enables you to understand
infiltration via deception.
Because if your thoughts function,
then you understand,
well, this is not really what I should believe.
This is bad for me, for my whole body.
I mean, what we just,
but people came to see during the crisis.
I have one question.
Irreusable complexity of life is reduced
by the very low possibilities
that human brain has to understand all this.
Yeah.
That's a really great question.
It's a really great way to put it.
Can I ask you, like, I mean,
I don't know if you're aware of the work of Dr. Sabina Steber.
She's been in the committee several times
and she's been investigating like everything
that's basically also put into the vaccines
and what they know,
what they knew about like the toxic results
or like the toxic effects that it might have, you know?
And like, for instance, in Germany,
we found out that our,
basically the authority that oversees the, you know,
the market release and so on of the vaccines,
the head of that authority, you know,
has actually published on a variety of issues
that we now find to be really damaging for people, you know,
from what we can see.
And so she has, she has said, you know,
it's kind of interesting because there's so many aspects put into these vaccines,
like from, or like the so-called vaccines,
like from all kinds of angles, like the nano lab lipids and, you know,
whatever these, these DNA aspects and so on, you know?
It's amazing.
And it seems that it's only, I mean,
you really have to put together such a cocktail of toxic aspects, you know,
that it's amazing.
This cannot be coincidence.
And this must have been worked on by, you know,
maybe just a few people, very specialized people,
who could oversee what was, what's going to come from that.
Maybe they do not have the full picture.
But I mean, they could see from a variety of studies that are already out there,
that there's, it's like a cocktail of horror, basically.
I mean, would you, would you share that opinion?
I would, I would share a little bit of expanded opinion in the sense that
I think that this, this operation was so diabolical,
that they have, they have planned already from the very beginning
to tell us a biological narrative about a gain-of-function virus
that actually includes specifically a gain-of-function protein
with lots of little intricate things that have been inserted in it by really
master chefs of, of virology.
And that protein is what we serendipitously decided to
transfect into everyone's body.
And so this story was not just by accident.
This story allows the confounding of the biological effects of the spike protein
with the biological effects of transfection.
And I think more than anything, we need to understand that biologically,
this is a disingenuous connection that was put there on purpose,
so that they would have a whole series of, of things that we could argue about,
a very limited but lively spectrum of debate where,
I'm sure it's the lipid nanoparticles.
And if we just fix those, it would be better.
I'm sure it's the spike protein, the spike protein was gain-of-function.
And so the spike protein is causing all of this.
And that, that was intentional.
That confounding was intentional.
And so this now discussion of were there, were there, uh, graphene particles,
or is the lipid nanoparticle the problem, or is the DNA contamination the problem?
I assure you that if the lipid nanoparticles were perfect
and the spike protein was perfect and everything was made to the finest of standards,
transfection would still be wholly inappropriate for healthy humans.
That's where we are.
And so we're being, they're shuffling all these things on the table
to try and make us choose which was the, what's responsible when in reality,
as you said, they've known from the very beginning that they couldn't get the results
that they said they were going to get.
Peter Cullis, the man who invented and, and whose research has developed
these lipid nanoparticles was accepting award, an award all across Canada
called the Gardineer Award.
It's like a pre-noble prize award.
And he was touring Canada, giving lectures about the lipid nanoparticles
and about how exciting it was that there was soon going to be a Nobel Prize
and maybe they would get it.
And he admitted that he killed the career of five postdocs
that he tried to get them to figure out how to target the lipid nanoparticles
to a particular place in the body.
And five postdocs never figured it out.
And the fifth one insisted that she do something else otherwise she was going to quit.
And he made a joke about that on stage in 2022,
knowing that a billion people had been injected with a lipid nanoparticle
that they were told would stay in the muscle and go disappear in a few weeks.
That's extraordinary because they burnt, they burnt Byron Bridal's career
and he revealed that information from a FOIA request from Japan.
They burnt his career only a year and a half later
to have the inventor of the frickin' technology go onstage and say it all out.
And they didn't burn his career.
They didn't throw him out of the university for admitting it.
But he admitted it on stage.
That's where we are.
It's extraordinary. It is really extraordinary.
It's all there for the learning and the knowing.
And it's now just a question of getting people to raise their chin off of their desk
and put their phone down and understand that we have really been deceived in a major way.
And I really think it's important to understand that their goal is for us to teach this to our children.
They don't care about us.
We have to understand that this goes already for 50 years.
Yes, absolutely it does.
And only we can save our children because if we don't,
our children will grow up having experienced this experience to this pandemic
and they're done forever.
It's really a disaster.
They call the whole thing pandemic preparedness.
And they prepared what they call a pandemic.
So it's sadistic.
The double meaning of pandemic preparedness is very interesting.
Yeah.
Can I ask you like in the beginning you said that you'd been after you spoke out
and then had these problems with the university and so on.
You said you were visited by people who you consider now to be like medallists.
I mean, what kind of experience did you make?
They tried to convince you to maybe give up your train of thought.
Yes.
Exactly.
So it mainly happened in 2021.
So I was a member of this loose organization called Drastic,
which was given credit for like solving the lab leak puzzle on Twitter in 2020.
And that group of people is still largely an anonymous group of medlers who refused,
literally refused.
So I'm a member from the very beginning.
I was the guy who I actually put my name and reviewed several of these papers,
which got published about the fear and cleavage site and thought I was doing a heroic act
by reviewing these papers and getting the lab leak hypothesis out there into public.
And so I was a bit taken hookline and sinker by these people.
But Drastic at some point refused, absolutely refused to discuss the idea that this
transfection to a spike protein could be a disaster.
That could be actually the real reason why this whole mythology was spun up to begin
with.
When I started saying that, Drastic split into two groups and both of those groups threw
me out.
And so after that happened, interestingly enough, and this is where it gets really
sketchy.
And I hope you'll know a little bit of these details so that you'll see why it's so important.
About two or three months later was when the first hints of the diffuse proposal leak started
to appear.
And at some moment, a member of Drastic was given a copy of the diffuse proposal.
Now the diffuse proposal is supposedly a grant proposal that was written in 2017 and submitted
by EcoHealth Alliance, the notorious gain of function funders in the United States.
They submitted this grant to DARPA in 2019 apparently.
And in this grant, curiously enough, is described an experiment that in the cartoon would be
exactly how this pandemic would have started complete with bad coronaviruses that were
molecularly altered to insert a fear and cleavage site at the S1, S2 junction.
And when this text was first shown to me, the very first thing that went off in my head
was, well, that's a convenient way of making it, making it real.
Isn't that a very convenient way of making it real leak a grant proposal that never
got funded?
Well, I will tell you that when I ignored that grant proposal, eventually that was intolerable
and somebody came to my house and physically convinced me to join Drastic again and to
pursue the origin of the virus because they are hiding this lab leak.
And so for a few more months, I was kind of in this hamster wheel again, trying to figure
out if this diffuse proposal was real, but in reality, I have now, I'm firmly on the
side of this being part of this worst case scenario narrative that they are trying to
spin up.
And in fact, the diffuse proposal is still being given wood for its fire.
There are still people that are doing foyas on the diffuse proposal and still doing analysis
of the experiments that were proposed in the diffuse proposal, all under the pretense that
this text, his further evidence that gain of function was happening, that they did it
and that they were arrogant about it, and that it will come again.
And so this has always been about that.
And so every person that has contacted me has been trying to keep me focused on the origin
and keep me off of transfection.
And so after a while, that pattern just broke me and I just stopped paying attention.
But it happened first for more than a year and a half.
Can you say something about the escape theory?
I just don't think it's it's I don't think that lab leaks and see and people getting
sick are not real.
No, I mean, I mean, the escape theory when you when the virus escapes when you haven't
ever.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
So this is one of those things that I think is also part of the the illusion.
So remember that one of the things that they convinced us of is that this virus wasn't
here before 2019 and then it was here in the end of 2019.
So what that means from the perspective of the of the phylogenetic tree is that the
final phylogenetic tree started at a point and then it grew over the last five years from
one point all over the world, one point all over the world.
Well, no other, no other points where viruses grow, right?
No other points from one.
Yes.
They can only grow from who?
Right.
And so the interesting thing about that is is that it assumes that as you've said before
that there's no other signal in the background that could be mixed with this one, that there
is no other signal that we could have been monitoring in 2019 or 2018 that we weren't
monitoring because we weren't.
We weren't doing any PCR surveillance.
We weren't doing any sequence surveillance of any coronavirus.
So as far as we know, there were 50 SARS viruses in circulation before the pandemic.
And then they came up with a test and said, now this is evidence of spread.
And so the important thing to for I think for us to now send as a message is that one
of the ways they trapped us in this was convincing us that arguing about what this
signal meant was so important.
And so arguing about whether whether it means that there's novel spread or whether it means
it's a background signal that that discussion never occurred.
The discussion that occurred was, are we using the right primers?
Are we overcycling these tests?
So the questions that we were primed to ask actually made us accept the fact that the
tests work had actually made us accept the fact that there was something to test for had
actually made us accept the fact that there was an emergency when in reality what we should
have been asking in the original is what would have happened if we use these tests six months
ago?
Would we find the same signal?
And if that's the case, then what are we all worried about?
But we never asked that question on purpose.
They did it on purpose.
They were very clever.
You know that they make monitoring of our of the risks we live in while while just examining
the wastewater.
And that's honestly that would be the easiest thing to spike ever.
You could spike the wastewater with DNA of any signal you wanted and then claim, look,
there's Marburg in the sewer.
I mean, it would be so easy to do it.
A joke.
This is why they do it.
And they invest a lot of money and all the cities in Germany, they all started.
They all make this.
They all follow this nonsense.
They give a lot of money for this.
Yeah, wow.
I don't even know what to say.
We have to be aware of new risks, they say.
And we have to have we have to monitor our sewer so so we can find out what's happening.
Oh, I mean, this is really a very, very slippery slope to just declaring whatever they want
to declare whenever they want to declare.
Yes.
And Robert Koch Institute is one of the first who says it and you have to do it.
We want to be safe.
Oh, my.
Oh, it's terrible.
Yes.
What I think is what's very interesting is that, you know, when you say there were also
certain stories or like trains of thought like presented with regards to the virus and
so on, there must have been someone thinking about how can we distract these people, you
know, like, how can we control also the scientific conversation, the discussion, you know,
like, I mean, as you said, like maybe with the, okay, maybe that was a coincidence with
the graphene idea.
I don't know, you know, maybe was just someone looking for the wrong ingredients or something
or had like a no, but I think it's actually more likely, I think it's actually more likely
to be true because if there was graphene in one particular lot that somebody could find
and show videos of, and it wasn't in any other lot so that they could debunk this all
around the world, it's a perfect argument that gets nobody anywhere.
And the longer you argue about it, the better.
Yes.
And the next time you do something into the job with where you can find something in the
G5, with some, with your iPhone, you can try and the magnetic, the story with the magnetic
...
Absolutely.
Yeah.
All those stories where we were discussing, which we were discussing, they could have
thought it in advance, they could have installed all these stories to distract us from what
they do.
Absolutely.
I think that also the effects and the dangers that I think are real of 5G have been purposely
confounded with the virus on purpose to try and, to try and again, get people to argue
about stuff that they can never figure out, instead of arguing about the very simple fact
that they are lying to us about a spreading risk, at the risk, additive pathogen.
Yeah.
And everything, those, everything which has, has a syllable smart in front, it's dangerous.
Oh, well, they're going to get us with convenience, right?
It's so convenient.
You'll never have to, you'll never have to enter a password again, it'll just be a chip
under your skin.
That's the, that's the convenience of it.
I am, I am absolutely thrilled that we have so much connection here and that we see it this
way.
I, what is it like to be a guy who saw this in 2009?
You've been trapped in this little hell for, for 15 or 20 years where most of us are just
recently waking up.
I only really figured it out in 2022 as well as I have.
I gave my kids their vaccinations before they went to their new school in 2022 and then watched
the movie vaxxed and realized that, wow, no problem, I'm a little bit older than you.
So I started a little bit before you.
Yeah, I see.
I mean, but it's, it must've been, I mean, I guess what I'm trying to get at is is that
when you spoke out in 2009, there wasn't this global awareness of anything.
It was very easy for them to kind of hide you in the noise.
And although I think locally it was important what you did, I don't think the story really
ever penetrated the, the media in America at all, whereas now this global thing has sort
of, I think made it possible in a way for, you know, people like me, I don't think I
would have been able to, to sustain speaking out in 2009 because there wouldn't have been
enough momentum.
There wouldn't have been enough feedback.
I would have felt like I was shouting into the breeze, whereas now, I mean, look, I get
to talk to you or I don't think in 2009 this would have even been possible.
So that's also a thing to be hopeful about.
So this is an advantage, you know.
Yeah.
I talk to so many people I would never, never been the chance to talk to is so I'm so happy
to experience all this for myself.
If I'm agristic, I learned so much in those last years.
I never learned so much before.
Yeah.
I think it is really wonderful.
I mean, that's definitely one of the, the more twisted things about this is, is that
it has been a superior learning experience indeed.
I haven't loved biology as much as I've loved it in the last three years because I feel
like I'm actually, I'm actually doing it again.
So that's really cool.
I'm happy about that, but, but it's getting rough.
I was working for Children's Health Defense for about, so I helped Bobby Kennedy with,
with his, with his book about the lab leak and I tried to get a little bit of this biology
in there.
There's some biology about how RNA can't pandemic in that book.
Then after the book, I got hired by Children's Health Defense, but I was only working there
for six months before they laid me off again, presumably because of the things that I'm
still saying.
It wasn't really clear exactly why, but it's been pretty disappointing because I thought
I had kind of a dream job and I'd figured it out and I'd got a better foundation under
me and I was going to push forward and then out of nowhere the first week of January,
they said they're going to part ways with me.
So I'm, I'm cautiously optimistic that that means I'm over the target and then I'm teaching
what I need to teach, but my family and, and our future is a little bit less, less solid
ground than we were a month ago.
So that's, that's unfortunate, but this is, this is high hope optimism to the 10th power
meeting you.
I mean, I don't, I know that you're a guy who doesn't see yourself that way, but from,
from my little life and my little corner of the world, you really are a giant among giants
and I can't thank you enough for, for talking to me.
I guess that's, that's too much of a, you know, nothing, nothing, I speak Dutch.
So I can understand that German.
Okay, well, I mean, thanks so much for all the work and, you know, also your courage to
really, you know, speak out and, and not be distracted, like from, from all these, you
know, these, these, whatever they present as a narrative for like aspects of that.
I have one last question.
The disease X that is now kind of hovering in the, in the near side.
That's also, I mean, in your point of view, I guess that's another story.
Well, again, remember that I'm not suggesting to you that they can't make a lot of it.
And so they can make a lot of, of an RNA and they could transfect hundreds or thousands
of people in any given place using any number of, of known methodologies of aerosolizing
the RNA or spraying it on people or droplets of it.
I don't know how they would do it.
They, they, they, they, can you eat it?
You could eat it.
Maybe.
I don't know.
But the point would be is that they can make this RNA, they can make this DNA in high
quantities and then put it in places.
Will it make people sick?
Maybe.
Will it make PCR test positive?
Absolutely.
Will it make sequencing high fidelity?
Absolutely.
They'd be able to find it in lots of places, absolutely.
And so what I think we need to understand is that although an RNA molecule can't become
disease X on its own with standard molecular biological techniques used in pharmaceutical
companies all around the world, they could make enough of DNA and RNA to create the illusion
of that.
And that's the dangerous part.
They can make a protein that's highly immunogenic and they could, they could put that protein
into something and they could use a toxin to and then lie about it.
Like there's lots of ways that they could make disease X show up that doesn't have anything
to do with an RNA molecule perpetuating itself for years.
That's, that's the biology we need to teach our kids because that's what disease X is.
It's just an extension of this mythology.
Yeah, that's right.
So we got to watch out.
Yeah.
Thanks so much for, for being with us today.
It's, yeah, it's been very inspirational also, I think on a lot of levels and I guess
we just have to continue speaking out about what's going on.
I agree.
If you could share the, if you could share the link when you have it, I would, I would
spread it out too.
Yeah, we will.
Thank you very much.
We will.
Thanks a lot and keep up the good work.
Okay, I will.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Thank you very much too.
Bye bye.
Thank you.
Bye bye.
Bye.
Yeah.
I don't even know what to say about that.
I'm, I'm going to, I'm going to hang up before I start crying.
Thank you very much for joining me.
Thanks for being here.
Live for that.
I'm probably going to stream later.
I got to decompress.
I need some lunch and I need a coffee.
That was just crazy.
I just, I didn't, I had a bunch of stuff written down, but I never really said any
of it.
And I just kind of shot from the hip.
So we'll see what it is on the replay and thank you very much for joining me.
Have a good afternoon and I'll see you later.
Thanks.