You
Stop
You
He is scheduled for 16 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
So much clear.
So damn hot.
Now
Well, what started out as a fishing trip sure ended in a dandy mystery.
What school be doing?
Oh, he's still fishing.
Oh come on, schools.
Give up.
You're not going to catch anything in that water.
Right.
That's one best story no one will believe.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen this is Giga Ohm Biological, a high resistance low noise
information brought to you by a biologist since the 15th of November 2023.
Let's read this one out loud.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but allow a very lively debate within that spectrum.
Even encourage the more critical and dissident views.
That gives people the sense that there is free thinking going on while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
That's what these people have done to us.
That's what the intellectual dark web was set up to do to us.
And I believe if you take the time to investigate their opinions in 2019 through the transition to 2020.
Before this.
Before this record is wiped clean or.
I cleansed.
I assure you that you will see that this was not some happenstance accident.
That these people were where they were when they were at the start of the pandemic.
Brett Weinstein on his eighth podcast.
Sorry.
So we need to learn the history.
That's what Mark is good for at this stage and boys.
He good for it.
And that's what I really like about his atomic life and his coverage.
Thank you very much for that Mark.
Because he has been looking at the historical connections between these charlatans.
And that's a really.
That turns out to be a very very rich gold mine.
A very very rich gold mine.
And in fact I think the bricks are even more visible in the history of these people than it is right now.
We should call them operatives.
That's true.
We should call them operatives.
And the brick wall that's visible at the back of the theater is often a historical one.
But if we look at what happened in the last three years there are also certain things that we can say.
And look at the last three years there are certain things that we learn.
And we can pretty much say with certainty that there was no spread in New York City.
There was no spread in lots of places.
It was death respected borders.
And spreading pathogens don't do that.
Infectious clones are the only real threat is a question that I think we've answered.
Placebo batches were likely distributed is also a question that seems to have been answered by the Danish study and others.
And transfection and healthy mammals is dumb.
Well that's being proved every day.
The protocols were definitely murder although nobody really wants to talk about it.
And the question is a mythology that many people are pushing because gain of function is part of this Scooby-Doo mystery.
One of the monsters that were unmasking is this gain of function.
Monster.
And the players are committed to that lie in the lies about the protocols or let's just say lying by omission about the protocols.
And yeah, this is the lie that they have their utmost faith in.
There was a novel virus that millions died and millions more were saved.
Gain of function is real and a virus will come again.
That's it.
And so Gigo and biological is arranged nightly against this narrative and trying to dissect it with common sense and biology that we can verify that has been verified.
Let's say it that way.
Biological models of biology have biological models of biology.
Biological models that have been verified by real world biology.
And when the models don't work then the models are discarded.
That's how actual science is done.
But with virology and and vaccinology there seem to be some presumptions that irrespective of how the biology ends up lining up.
We don't seem to want to give in to.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
This is Gigo and biological.
My name is Jonathan Cooley.
I'm coming to you from the back of my garage in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
It is 916 local time on the 15th of November.
And this is another broadcast.
I don't know how long we're going to keep going like this, but I plan to do it for a while.
It's a lot of fun to kind of have a reason to keep myself busy at night and put my energy into something that otherwise I would be pulling my hair out at least now.
And I'm clipping all these things and taking all these notes.
At least I'm using them for something.
And I always start out with the same message.
So if you're here for the first time, these might sound snappy.
But actually for a lot of people these are snooze material.
So let's go really quick.
Don't take the bait on TV and social media because it's not a matter of what counts.
It's not a matter of what's true.
It's counts.
But a matter of what is perceived to be true.
The reason why that's written in that way is because it is presumed by me to be a quote of Henry Kissinger.
So it's not necessarily the way that I would write it.
But it's the way he's quoted as having said it.
So if I can't read it, it's not because it's my words that I can't read.
But these are my words.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
And transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent.
Those are my words.
And I can read those.
So we looked at a video.
Maybe I should just shift over already to the other side of things.
And I will get rid of the music here.
We watched this video yesterday.
A gentleman by the name of Brzofsky, I believe, related to cancer and the NIH and the Cancer Vaccines Branch.
And we've listened to this video a couple times, both on my stream and also on Mark's stream.
And it is a video where basically he makes the statement that vaccination is a methodology that will eventually work on everything for diseases that our immune system doesn't respond adequately enough.
There should be some way to train it.
He's also the author, the co-author of a paper that we've been discussing, which revealed some of the lies and the knowledge that they've had.
This is a paper again from 2004.
We've read this opening paragraph a couple times about the fact that the markets for vaccines is driven by perception, not by actual need and that the funding after September 11th went way up.
Because bioterrorism in several years of sustained increases in government funding have had a stimulatory effect on vaccine development as well as AIDS research has.
And of course we know that almost all of these people who are involved in this narrative right now cut their teeth at some point in their career through the laboratory of somebody who was involved in anything from the actual delineation and definition of the AIDS virus
and the syndromes that it causes all the way down to, let's say, treatment and fundraising and basic research like Walensky was involved in.
So it's really very, very extraordinary how many of these red threads run through all of these characters, their mentors run back all through the human genome project all the way back to this special cancer virus program.
Special virus cancer program and to laboratories like Bob Gallo and Murray Gardner and David Baltimore.
All the way back to the very place where retroviruses and other viruses were first defined and first thought to be the bringing humanity to the cusp of being able to manipulate our own genome.
We were people like Robert Malone have described it that way as the buzz in these labs and the excitement over the discovery of retroviruses and PCR and all this other stuff really made people start to think that wow, we're about to have a giant breakthrough.
And so he was really concerned that he make the right choice of who's lab to work in and what technology to work on.
Anyway, this is in 2004 that that guy that we just saw in that video was again talking and advocating for the idea that vaccines as a methodology can be applied to a lot of different quote unquote diseases.
And I find it very interesting that this entire paper is basically packed with truth. And so if you wouldn't mind, I'd just like to read a couple paragraphs here from section two, which is titled genome to proteome to immune
the suffix O M E sort of designating library or catalog or or golden grimoire. And so you have the genome, you have the proteomes of the proteins of that whole living thing.
And the idea, the concept is an almost an infinite one. So it, when they first started throwing out the word proteome, I used to get really frustrated with it.
But I kind of just rolled with it after five years. It's like, okay, everybody's going to keep saying it, whatever, but it's kind of dumb because the genome is essentially the genetic code of an organism.
So the proteome then would be all the possible proteins that can be produced from the genome. And so if you study the proteome, it's like trying to say that, well, I study the English language and so I study the language
and you study books. So you study the book home, and I'm going to study all the possible books that can be made from the English language. And it's like, okay, but that's
that's kind of a different thing than saying you're going to study the English language. You're going to study all the books that can be written by the English language is like what?
That's that's incredible.
And so from a biological perspective, and I know that at least Mark and I, if we were sitting at a campfire and it was late night with, well, I don't know, I guess he doesn't drink, but I would have to have rum or something like that.
We would be talking late night into this idea of how these, the biological possibility space just expands infinitesimally when you go from here are all the genes and we think we can read all these proteins.
And so these proteins are these proteins is so ridiculously simplistic given the way that the way that mRNA is regulated, the way that mRNA is differentially translated by ribosomes in different places in the cell.
Never mind different tissues. Never mind different people with different genetic background. It's just, it's mind blowing how much variation is possible from genome to proteome.
And then to talk about proteome to the immune home is also this, you know, trying to get people to think about some kind of big amorphous concept.
And in this case, it's talking about what parts of proteins are attractive to the immune system such that the immune system will choose to make memory to those epitopes and not all the other epitopes that are found.
And why are there some consistent patterns in the way that somebody like me who has a mixed race background of Filipino and all kinds of other things.
And someone else with a mixed race background of Native American and other things would still sometimes respond to the same epitopes on the same proteins of a pathogen.
And so there has to be some kind of commonality there. And I think one of the things that we're going to explore over the next couple months is something that was also sort of stumbled on by the help of Mark Gulak
is this idea of the immune system looking for molecular motifs that are associated with damage.
And so that could be molecular motifs in a protein that are hydrophobic so that they cause, they can cause proteins to stick to membranes or disrupt membranes.
I'm just trying to imagine some other examples. It might be combinations of anions or cationic chains that cause the immune system to recognize something as being potentially damage causing.
And that's an interesting theory that quite a few immunologists have had over the years, but has remained very obscure in terms of the discussions in textbooks and all this other things.
But it's actually just an alternative way to try and explain how the immune system might select the epitopes that it does.
And there are lots of patterns, apparent patterns in the way that people of different genetic backgrounds still zero in on the same epitopes that suggest there might be such a selectivity thing where you're looking for patterns that have already in evolution
been identified as potentially dangerous or not useful for us.
Anyway, so if you read this thing, it says, selecting the correct antigen or antigens has always been a major stumbling block for black scene development.
New genome analysis tools based on bioinformatics and immunoinformatics, so that's just bioinformatics, immunoinformatics.
These are all giant words that just mean we're going to take lots and lots of measurements and try to find patterns in them.
Are now making it possible to derive proteins or antigens of interest directly from the genomes of pathogens and are contributing to the development of new concepts in vaccine designs such as genome or immune or derived vaccines.
So what they're suggesting is that they can use the data that they get from lots and lots of screening of activated T cells and small protein fragments to start to predict.
What of these epitopes are capable of activating the immune system now there.
The beautiful thing about this paragraph is how much of their motivation gets revealed by this because they are very distinctly talking about vaccine design.
And again, you and I both know, because we've been working on it for years, that vaccine design then implies a correlate of immunity 99.9% of the time is going to be B cell output antibodies.
So in general, host immune response to a pathogen is thought to be mediated by several arms of the immune system.
Wow, that's surprising.
They actually seem like they're telling the truth here. Antibodies come first though, which is not right, T helper cells, which drive antibody response and cytotoxic T lymphocytes for intracellular pathogens.
So intracellular pathogens, it's not really clear whether that means viral infected cells or not.
T cell responses, both T helper and cytotoxic T lymphocytes, are stimulated by the presence of short peptides bound on the surface of antigen presenting cells.
And so those are the MHC molecules, also called HLA molecules. MHC is major histocompatibility complex. HLA is human lymphocyte antigen, actually.
These epitopes are derived from antigens of the pathogen by a series of steps that include proteolytic processing of antigenic proteins.
So proteolytic is proteolytic cutting, so they're going to cut the proteins up and process their antigenic characters.
It's kind of a lot of hand-waving to say, yeah, the antigenic cells are antigen-presenting cells take in parts of the pathogen and process the proteins that they find and then choose by some magic selection process a small epitope or epitopes to present on MHC to the T cells.
And the T cells that can recognize it will be activated, will divide and proliferate and then spread out and hopefully try to cooperate with B cells that are detecting floating antigens themselves.
It is the T cell epitope that drives protective immune response to vaccines because T cell help is required for the orchestration of immune memory, whether humoral or cellular.
That's fantastic.
How many times have you heard that from Brett Weinstein?
We've never heard that.
The T cells are the most important thing and why are they most important because they are the ones that coordinate and allow the other cells to do their thing to proliferate, to produce plasma cells, memory cells for cytotoxic T cells to also proliferate.
And also, the T helper cells are necessary to help the cytotoxic T cells cross the endothelium out of the blood and into the tissue.
Otherwise, the cytotoxic T cells just float around in the blood all the time.
So, a whole host of things has to happen so that the T cells know where to stop.
There have to be endothelial cells near the infection that start to express adhesion molecules so that the T cells can actually land on them.
And then the T helper cells chemically encourage the endothelial cells to release the connective proteins between them so there's a little bit of a gap for the cytotoxic T cells to amebically go in to the site of the infection, be it the lungs
or somewhere in your skin.
This is a well understood process that's orchestrated by all sorts of concentration gradients that require there to be a site of infection at a barrier.
And so, as they describe it so succinctly in a few sentences, it's kind of remarkable that in the three years of the pandemic, the PBS NewsHour or Ben Shapiro or Sam Harris or, you know, Brett Weinstein Joe Rogan couldn't have read any one of these papers and found out, wow, that's crazy.
We don't need vaccines.
And, you know, we're kind of paying a lot of money to encourage people to get them and to have them and to make them.
We're not going to use them.
Why would they make them?
We've got to buy them.
What are we doing with them?
You know, you could ask all kinds of questions about this.
And then the second, second section of the paper is, you know, pretty succinct to me.
Protective immune responses may be generated based on a single immunodominant epitope or many epitopes.
As it turns out, the generation of this response does not appear to require the development of B and T cell memory to every possible peptide.
Well, no kidding.
Derived from every protein antigen in the entire pathogen only selected peptides passed through the processing and binding steps and successfully stimulated T cell response.
Thus, T cell responses to a selected set of peptides and an ensemble of epitopes.
See if I have the rest over here so I can just quickly read it.
Do I have it over here?
Did I really not?
It doesn't matter. They say that is a selective ensemble of epitopes is sufficient to develop immunity to the pathogen, just a few.
And so then they make the argument that if we could predict or find the epitopes that do this reliably, then we can just use those in the vaccine.
Now, what I need you to see here is how dangerous that is because.
I'm not moving it. Oh, sorry.
How dangerous that is. I guess I can stay over there. How dangerous that is because they aren't interested in whether the immune response that they are stimulating is functionally relevant to.
Preventing the disease so much as they are interested in it being reliably able to activate the immune system.
Now, why am I making this point? Because I'm starting to learn in my work during the day.
What is in a lot of these vaccines that we're giving to children and.
I'm afraid that a lot of people that watch my stream and a lot of people that I know in the adult world have no concept of.
The strategies that are used.
In the making of these vaccines.
But I want you to imagine the possibility.
That.
You found out that disease a.
Had a protein in it and that protein was really highly immunogenic.
And you wanted to make a vaccine to.
To a different virus.
Okay.
But you already have this protein from the other virus that that really reliably activates your immune system.
So quite a few vaccines are actually a diphtheria toxin which we know a diphtheria protein.
Which we know can activate the immune system really well.
And then they just stick another piece of the protein of the new targeted.
You know.
The thing that they want you to develop antibodies to they stick into that toxin.
And they call it a vaccine for the second.
The second virus, but actually it's a diphtheria toxin protein.
With some sequence derived from the secondary.
Vaccine target.
And what you might be really shocked by is how many how many vaccines are actually designed that way.
They use an edge evented protein.
A protein that also has some kind of chemical flag on it that makes it even more annoying or biologically alien.
And they conjugate that to something that is related to the vaccine target.
And if they get a reliable immune response because you know there's no real.
Confirmation on whether or not the actual.
Pathogen or the infection of the pathogen is prevented because that's not how they test these things.
They test them for the correlate of immunity.
Then they walk a very fine line here between.
Identifying small sequences that are reliable activators of the immune system and small sequences that are reliable trainers of the immune system relative to a particular pathogen.
And that becomes very very special because if you can add a small short amino acid sequence to another sequence.
And pretend that that sequence and the immune response to it now is relevant to the thing you added it to.
And call that a vaccine to the thing that you added it to.
You can make products that that meet all the check all the boxes of your vaccine model.
Does it produce antibodies? Yes, very robustly.
Can you detect for him? Yeah, of course we can.
You have a test already works.
And so.
You don't have to provide proof that it provides protection.
And now you are giving children multiple injections of toxins conjugated to other sequences purported to be from.
We're giving them protein toxins that are conjugated to other sequences that are from viruses or from.
I guess, infective bacteria or whatever.
And that's a vaccine for that thing that we add to the toxin.
Because it's a vaccine it can be done anyway and they don't they don't have to find out.
What what can go wrong there's there there and completely not liable at all.
And they should be held to strict liability.
But think about.
Maybe I'm wasting too much time on this but think about how close it would be.
If.
If you're looking for.
Here you go. I got one for you. I got an analogy. I'm the king of analogies.
You're looking for you go to a basketball game and you're you tell your little kid.
Okay, listen for the cheers.
And whatever cheers you hear, we're going to write them down. We're going to keep track of them.
And we're going to figure out which one is the one that gets the best reaction.
And whichever one gets the best reaction is the one we're going to use. It's the most appropriate cheer.
Because it's the one that gets the most reaction.
So your little kids go all through the the basketball game the whole night the whole night they're keeping track and when you come back.
They have a list and the list that they decide is is that.
The the the cheer that got the most reaction and they all agree because they got the most, you know, whatever data from the all these people.
Was the one the ref beats his wife the ref beats his wife every time they the college cheer that they all say when the ref makes a bad call.
And that's the one.
Cheer that everybody does together the most.
And so that is that the most appropriate cheer or is it just the one that's guaranteed to get the most people to react to it in the crowd.
And so if you look through using bio informatics or immuno informatics through a protein and you find that this eight or nine or 10 protein or 10 amino acid sequence seems to really piss off T cells.
Are you finding the key to a vaccine for for pertussis.
Or are you finding a way to annoy the immune system very, very well and and and repeatedly.
And so.
The assumption that's made on this track of discovery is a very big one.
And I, I want you to understand that from the perspective of damage versus immune activation, because it is possible that there are a few quirky protein sequences that for whatever reason shouldn't or don't very often exist.
But when they do exist there, especially, you know, hard for some immune systems to ignore.
It goes from a fine line between being a useful adjuvant, which is what they're really looking for here they're not looking for for an epitope, which is good at making for a vaccine for one thing they're looking for epitopes which activate T cells.
And they're saying it right out loud here, you know, immuno immunom derived vaccines that that's just saying that we can activate the immune system, make it do things.
And so when it does things we're in control of it.
And that's not how this works, but this is the motivation. This is what they're doing.
This is what they think they can do. This is what a lot of them have told each other they're doing. That's why Peter Cullis said that when the results came back.
They celebrated just like, like Borla did.
Oh, we have a vaccine. We have a vaccine.
And so we've been pushing hard on this idea that the intellectual dark web is really asserted at the beginning of the pandemic and played a role throughout to kind of slow roll this scooby do this argument or this exposure of gain of function research and the likely that this was a lab leak.
And whose fault is it and I was ahead of saying all of that and were the most important voices and without our voices, we would all be enslaved.
That's what we're supposed to believe, even though Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein and all these people were totally on narrative until at least at least June of 2021 one and a half years on narrative.
And so, you know, as you dig into these networks, you find out that a lot of the people that you like or listen to are all just, you know, it's not a bunch of cool people hanging out together. This is an organized performance.
That's why guests go from one show to the next show to the next show message message message message.
And I'm sure that that these guys are soon going to make their rounds right if they don't make their rounds it will because.
Yeah.
I don't know.
So they also tried to talk about the idea that it's hilarious to think that they're part of the plan and they feel really silly and that people think that it's, you know, some big conspiracy theory between Peter Teal and.
And then he even made made very light of the idea that somehow he was implicated in the plot to kill Jeff K or something like that and has absolutely nothing to do with that, of course, it has to do with.
The intellectual property of of antibodies, intellectual property space that the FDA governs the kinds of powers that the FDA has and understanding how they they govern.
You know, all of these drugs and pharmaceuticals in America.
Well, I was on the board of my kids school during COVID.
I wanted a harsher lockdown policy and in retrospect, I was wrong.
The damage to kids of keeping them out of school longer was greater than the risk.
But here's the bottom line.
Myself are great people to CDC.
I'd like to think the governor.
We were all operating with imperfect information and we were doing our best.
It's.
But let's learn from that.
Let's learn from that.
Let's hold each other accountable.
But let's bring a little bit of grace and forgiveness in the shit show that was.
And I can assure you that this is going to be the story that they're going to push going forward.
The people, the people clapping in the audience were probably a lot of them.
The same people that were agreeing with, you know, you shouldn't be allowed back to college and you people are endangering everybody and all this other garbage.
And it is, it is unfortunate that that some of this is going to be at your Thanksgiving dinner table.
It's unfortunate that some of us are going to have to deal with, with this, you know, mealy mouth, sorry kind of thing.
When they should be ashamed of themselves.
But the TV and skillful TV watching allows them to sustain this cognitive dissonance where.
Where they know they were 100% wrong, but the TV doesn't say that I was 100% wrong.
The TV forgives me.
And that's why this Scooby Doo is still rolling on and it's really frustrating because, you know, the author of this book right here.
Was just on a TV show like a day ago telling the story and selling his book.
And in another month or a month and a half, I think Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is going to be on program selling this book.
Books about the laboratory leak of an RNA with properties that RNA has never had before.
The high fidelity spread of like no molecule ever seen in the history of modern biology.
And we were right ready poised to track it with a fidelity like we've never tracked a molecule before.
It's really quite extraordinary.
And it would be interesting to hear.
One of my college's friends trying to do a calculation about how much RNA has been made since the start of the pandemic when we had no SARS-CoV-2 tell when we spilled it in the in the wet market and then it went went replicating all around the world there must be like we must have gone from.
Like grams in that in that raccoon dog to you know tons and tons of it by now it's so cool.
So this is important to understand how this was already predicted right we were talking about this year and a half ago or two years ago that they're going to start to push for push for everybody not to be able to be anonymous on the Internet anymore.
Some of it's going to be unfortunately to protect our children.
They might even hurt some kids or put somebody in front of Congress that says that their kids were hurt or kidnapped by somebody who was interacting with them anonymously on the Internet and she's begging Congress to help her by requiring people who use certain websites like to have digital ID or somebody's going to lose their bank account and it's because they lost their ID so they want digital ID for that.
There's going to be something and then the EU is going to put it in place for travel and for flying and then after that you're going to pretty much have to do it anyway and then oh surprise there's already an RFID chip in your passport.
If you have a passport you already have all the necessary equipment for a digital ID all you got to do is let them load the data onto it.
If you have a driver's license in Florida or a real ID driver's license anywhere else in the United States you already have the hardware in your pocket for a digital ID.
It's not like you need four or five gigabytes of storage to have a digital ID.
It's all in the cloud baby.
So I just wanted to play this one because this is an example of how the how the skilled TV watchers on the market zoonosis side the Batcave virus side have been led to believe that the lab leak story is something of a misinformation
campaign and it's not possible that the zoonosis market theory is a elaborate campaign of messaging it's not it's only possible that obviously the lab leak is a
misinformation media campaign. Now what's interesting about this is this is implied this was implied very early.
And so this is part of the way that they baited people into trying to figure out what was really going on and then you know you'd follow Lehman Yann for a while and then this video came out and people were like oh man you were following Lehman Yann she's totally fake dude check it out.
So I just wanted to show you very quickly how this information and botnet works work together to create bus.
What you see here is Dr. Lehman Yann the bio weapon whistleblower and as you can see when you scroll down here but just looking her name there are hundreds of bots that are identical user profile user message.
Retreat her posts all just to increase the disinformation that the main account is spreading so you are very odd very inauthentic this is not real but it was very effective in spreading the myth in 2020.
So it's an interesting.
So I just wanted to show you.
It's an interesting way to think about.
How multi layered this illusion I apologize illusion of consensus is.
Because they've even fooled us in the ways that we have been brought to doubt certain parts of the story so that.
Other parts of the story seem to then fit more logically if we start to doubt this part of that part.
And what's really crazy is that most likely a lot of these things were were what is the right they were simulated or they were gained so that the story is.
Is being steered in a way either actively or or pre ordained in a way so that it's going to come together in a certain.
Next step.
And so in order for us to really succeed here what we need to do is figure out what those next steps are and try to avoid them try to try to hamper their progress toward those goals and so.
Definitely digital ideas one of those things definitely.
I presume central bank digital currency is one of those things and we need we need to pay more attention to this.
And in some way or another.
Start to organize on a more grassroots level make a network of people which.
By email or or even lower tech are in touch with one another in contact with one another locally.
We've got a lot of work to do to break this illusion of consensus in a way that's going to really matter.
And then the other issue as as we are with the virus is communication and disinformation and this is such a complex issue.
There are many media people here who exactly know what I'm speaking about.
This is really the intervention in the beginning of a pandemic.
So there are two interventions that are really efficient before we have a drug or vaccine.
This is diagnostic testing and then it's political decision making.
And once this political decision making is influenced and contorted by disinformation and propaganda we are lost.
And there are roles that are not being fulfilled by the media themselves.
They really have to look in the mirror and there is another role that some sometimes ignored a little bit which is the role of science itself.
So we shouldn't have anybody who has some academic degree talking about the heart of the issue in the middle of a pandemic.
We have to address the institutions of science to make some selection to set up panels of experts who are really experts and who wouldn't push into the media but who are somehow qualified to summarize the state of knowledge.
And this can only happen via the institutions of science.
These institutions have to offer this function to society.
And these institutions of science they are actually consisting of scientists of top scientists.
And it's really about being a little bit less opportunistic as a scientist being a little bit more of service to society.
That's my point.
Wow.
I mean if you think about this is the guy who got his PCR protocol reviewed in less than 24 hours.
This is a guy whose PhD document apparently isn't even available anymore.
And that's actually very curious because in the Netherlands and in Germany it's often very customary for you to publish your thesis.
And your dissertation so what that means is yes you're going to submit something to the university but.
You would also make like a real nice printed glossy copy of it and distribute that to your family and friends.
And so you have this boxes and boxes of books after your thesis is done.
And you usually give quite a few of them to the library because if someone requests them at least for the first few years they like to be able to send them out because you made them right you spent your own money.
So in the Netherlands some people make you know I can make hundreds of copies of their dissertation with a nice.
I think it's over on the other I can show you mine it's not impressive but.
It is an example of how this is done so I think it might be the same in Germany so it's very strange that nobody can find a copy of it.
Including the library that's supposedly supposed to hold it which is definitely not really right.
Anyway this guy lecturing people about you know not letting it be your ego and stuff like that remember he was around for the first one.
He was around for the first stars he was around for the testing for the first stars.
He has been a toady for these guys for a very long time and so it's pretty rich that in October of 2023.
He's talking about making sure that we shut other people up and that the university select who we listen to during the first stages of such an emergency like this.
It's absolutely absurd that anybody would be allowed to say something like that and get an applause for it but that's the state of our world.
There are a lot of sleepers.
There are a lot of people who cannot be made to see even when you show it to them.
And so to a certain extent unfortunately it may be time for us to try and make a more formal arrangements to just have a parallel system.
Of communication, of social media you know no offense to them but if they want our help sorting out the false narratives on Fox and MSNBC well no thanks.
That's kind of how I feel.
So we mentioned that it's just a little chocolate because it coats my throat.
That's my excuse.
The show must go on but everybody keeps ignoring Denny Rancor.
I noticed that actually Matthew Crawford was on the defender in depth podcast this morning and he did a presentation about all cause mortality and some other stuff.
I haven't watched it yet.
I will watch it but I know they didn't mention Denny.
I know that Matt hasn't really written about Denny yet.
And I find it very strange that these people are all ignoring Denny Rancor but you know maybe Denny's a Looney tune.
I mean he is from Canada you know so I mean he's probably a little Looney.
I don't know.
I don't know what to say other than I really think that this diagram really sums up what's going on right now.
Wittingly or unwittingly most of the people that purport to be dissidents to purport to be the people that have saved us from enslavement that saved us from mandates that saved us from you know real long term harm.
Have basically misled the young in the world all around the world to believe that the United States was involved in this novel virus pandemic.
The millions of people died from.
The millions more were saved by the RNA even though it was rushed and this was probably from gain of function.
And it's proof that gain of function is frickin dangerous and the virus will definitely come again if we don't put strict regulations on this stuff.
But again even if that's not true it's definitely what people perceive to be true right now.
And so that's why we keep talking to these guys.
That's why this program the other day was so important and I really like you to check it out if you haven't checked it out.
Because on this program.
Dixon in the upper right corner is is really pushing back on the idea that a lot of these ecological principles and paradigms and concepts are applicable to RNA or DNA virus.
And it's extraordinary to watch the hardcore virologist Vincent Vinny and the other guy down here Alan.
Just almost laugh at Dixon's objections like come on man what are you saying that not every biological concept applies to viruses G whiz man I mean sorry very sensitive huh.
And it should not be taken lightly how important it is that at some point Vincent Rancin yellow said well let's just let's just redefine the word ecosystem.
Let's redefine the word ecology let's redefine the word niche.
Let's redefine the word infection let's redefine the word replication let's redefine the word isolation let's redefine the word purify.
Let's redefine these words so that words that apply in other biological context can also be applied to viruses even if we're not applying in the same way.
And all we got to do is write a few papers about the pandemic potential found in caves and voila the pandemic potential is in caves it's that simple.
That simple we got to make myself tiny if we're going to watch something here let me see if this is it.
And so yes these you know you've seen these slides you know what I'm saying the illusion of consensus is this worst case scenario that was so important for the intellectual dark web and these people to lay down this worst case scenario that holy crap.
Maybe maybe a bio weapon could kill like a billion people and you know who I'm talking about and it wasn't just one person saying this.
And it wasn't one person implying it just by calling it a bio weapon you're implying that just by calling it an ethnic bio weapon you're implying that just by calling it.
A bio weapon you're implying the worst case scenario is much worse than a flu.
And there was a concerted effort to lay this down as a consensus.
What are we on here my.
And so this consensus right is the is the who declared a pandemic and everybody said yep there's a consensus that that's correct whatever the who says we do.
And so we guess we can use this PCR yep everybody agrees everybody agrees that this PCR is a great way to follow this thing.
Holy cow everybody agrees that the same virus was found in like four different places man oh man everybody agrees that everybody's dying from the same thing must be a pandemic.
Activate the plan.
Sir but the plan is like a five year plan activate the plan but once we activate the plan sir we can't really to activate the plan.
Now the only question you have to ask yourself is is would there be enough money and power at stake for that plan to be activated.
In a controlled way or is it really an emergency that we just planned for and now we're responding to it.
Or can you imagine a scenario.
Where there would be enough money and power at stake that you don't wait for mother nature to give you a bad cave zoonosis pandemic.
Can you create one.
Because I believe that's what's happened.
What's happened.
And there's lots of different ways that it could have happened from from one end of the spectrum it could be an incredible lie.
About a conflated background signal.
On the other end of the spectrum it could be a a widespread.
Deployment of a transfection agent an infectious clone RNA.
Using maybe a wide variety of dispersion and carrying mechanisms.
From loaded vapes.
To aerosolized or even water based.
Planting in the sewers just for testing there.
And created this illusion of a molecular signal that.
Were led to believe wasn't there before 2020 but you know unfortunately we weren't testing anything for anything ever then.
Best best we can do is go back to 2019 and there seems to be some of the same signals there so maybe it was earlier.
But if there was enough money and enough power at stake.
Can you imagine a scenario where they wouldn't have waited for mother nature to give us a bat cave zoneosis and they would have created it on their own.
A theater.
A theater with real molecular biology.
In order to make everybody willingly maybe even beg.
To turn in their individual sovereignty for a medical ID that made them feel comfortable traveling on a plane again.
A digital currency that made them feel safe using their money in the street again.
That's what this is about why didn't that play what was that why isn't that playing.
That should play.
It says cannot play media I don't understand why that is hold on let me escape and come out.
Let's start again.
I need to clear that thing or what.
Hey there it goes.
That's what this new world order is that's why I like this symbol so much.
They want you to believe that we are in a new age where the threat to public health represented by gain of function viruses and by zoonotic viruses because of population and climate change.
Requires us to fundamentally reorganize how our children think about themselves about their sovereignty about their responsibility of their own bodies and the bodies of their children.
And also what obligations they have to society because of this perceived threat that originates in bat caves mostly.
And that's what this illusion of consensus about a novel virus is all about all the college kids are sure that millions of people were died from the virus and all the college kids are sure that it was probably a lab leak.
And that means we've misled the arm and the way that they did it was not doing the math so these are all being need to be subtracted from the excess deaths before you can understand what's left for the mystery virus.
And unfortunately if you do that math correctly there's really nothing left for the mystery virus to have done.
Because the protocols were murdered.
The virus didn't really kill anybody because PCR fraud lateral test flow lateral flow test fraud.
The variants and sequences and all the stories they've told about those they're complete abject ignoring the ubiquitous nature of infectious clones in the coronavirus and RNA virus literature in general.
And then we never talk about any of these other things to do with our potential mechanistic immunity to these RNA signals.
Nothing to do with how they might overlap with others of them.
And so you can have this illusion of consensus if as long as nobody questions the novel virus, nobody questions that millions of people died, nobody questions gain a function being real and that the virus will come again.
You can even mention protocols were murdering the background.
It's okay.
Sometimes they say it every once in a while.
Not very often.
And certainly not to the state where they've done the math.
They preserve the faith to the novel virus.
That's mainly what they do.
And that's mainly what I think we're going to find a complete story of right where they want us to be.
And now you got to imagine that this guy is the guy who got in front of the Senate or in front of the house or wherever he is and was yelling at Tony Fauci and Tony Fauci turned red and fired back.
And depending on whether you had a Fox editor edit it or a CNN editor edit it, it could be twisted into wow Tony Fauci really took him to school.
Or man, Rand Paul really freaking dunked on Fauci.
And it was extraordinary because both clips were being shared as the one side shredding the other side.
Both sides had memes with the little graphic sunglasses and cigar out of his mouth like cat.
I mean, it's actually kind of a joke that over these past three years it's still those two characters pretending to argue with each other.
It's so definitely a Scooby-Doo performance. It's hard.
I almost want to celebrate it.
So let's watch it.
Hey, where'd it go?
What the heck?
Oh, there it is.
I got to move my head for a second and put this back here.
Ah.
Put this back here.
Here we go.
Make sure you wear a mask.
Remember how some government officials handled the pandemic?
One of the ways you could do it if you would like to is put a cloth mask over the so-called experts and the media made lots of mistakes.
Hollywood Beach shutting down the city is closing the beach and the broadway.
An expert told us no way COVID leaked from a laugh.
We've all heard the conspiracy theories at the lab leak.
One rare politician who pushed back against the experts was Senator Rand Paul.
He claimed our government-funded research might have created COVID.
NIH money went to the Wuhan Virology Institute.
Now it turns out Rand Paul was right.
His new book, Deception, The Great COVID Coverup reveals details about the origins of COVID and the government's deceit.
Here's my full interview with Senator Paul.
One of the things you point out is that government often made mistakes that made the COVID experience worse.
Yeah, I think there's been one set of truths in private and another set of truths for the whole people who aren't smart enough to make their decision.
Oh, come on, don't fool with me here.
What the hell?
I tried to find an old video of Amy Goodman and Meryl Nast.
I couldn't find it.
I'll go back again.
N95 masks may work.
Even the Cochrane analysis looks at the N95 and found they didn't work very well.
And there's a couple reasons for this.
And I would say this with a caveat.
If you're 75 years old and your spouse is sick with COVID the first time around when it was very deadly,
I would have suggested, yes, where gloves in a mask when you go in to take them food, come out, throw them away,
and have a brand new pair every time you go in.
That's what the doctors are going to do.
It's not full food, but it might work to some extent.
They do know that the N95 mask, which do have small pores,
after you wear them for three or four hours.
So we're just into this interview and you can already see that we're not at all going to question that there was a novel virus.
We're not going to question that it might help a little bit.
Maybe wearing gloves would be a good idea.
Throw them away right away afterward.
I mean, come on.
Are you kidding?
We aren't even in ten seconds and we're already reciting the faith.
We're going to go right down the list now.
We're going to make sure we say that a lot of people died.
We're going to make sure we saved a lot of people.
We're going to make sure that gain of function is real and we're going to make sure that the advice is not going to come again unless we are dumb.
We're going to go right down the faith list in the next 34 minutes.
I might have to speed this up.
Holy buckets.
That's impressive.
Can you tell?
I haven't watched this really yet.
The mixture of what you exhale, your exhaled air gets rid of the electrostatic charge and they don't filter as well.
They really need this electrostatic charge.
There's a lot of reasons they don't work as well.
But they also know that they're so tight that everybody's fidgeting with them.
So you and I shake hands and I was like, my damn mask is pressing on my face and I do this.
So really, I'm just probably bringing things actually to my face.
But there's nothing wrong with people trying, but I think what we did was the opposite.
So Anthony Fauci wears a Washington National cloth, a piece of cut up shirt on his face.
That's teaching you the wrong thing.
So if you are at risk, an elderly person or an overweight person and you're taking care of a family member, if you wear a cloth mask in there, you're actually being told the wrong thing to do.
You're being told that I'll be safe and you're encouraging bad behavior.
So it's the opposite of public health.
Anthony Fauci was actually telling people to do things that would put their life at risk.
And there's a picture of him wearing a cloth mask?
Two, three cloth masks.
He showed up in one committee hearing.
It's not a vaccine and you're wearing two masks.
Isn't that theater?
No, he would go again with the theater.
He got all bent out of shape.
But presumably three protects more than one.
Maybe, but maybe not at all.
You know, the other thing is is most of the masks don't work if there's air going outside of the mask.
So you have to have a perfect seal on your face.
And a beer isn't so.
And then the question is, and this is the whole problem of public advice.
This disease, not for the first time, but probably more so than almost any disease in recent history,
had a real difference between ages.
What you should tell children is wear nothing, go to school.
It's less than getting the chicken box.
It really was.
For the elderly, you should say take precautions.
Maybe avoid crowds.
Maybe do this.
And the advice was different, but they just made everything the same.
It's the same with the vaccine.
Everybody take the same per car.
But that's government medicine.
That's a centralization of control.
And this is why I say that Dr. Fauci would be less of a menace if he were a fan.
I will note that actually this position sounds most parallel to the position.
Of the Great Barrington Declaration.
Now, the reason why I think it's interesting that it's similar to the Great Barrington Declaration is because I do think we're going to have the opportunity to talk one on one with Jay Bhattacharya on Monday.
And so I won't make any promises yet, but I do think that it has been scheduled now, finally.
And so I'm trying to get together a succinct set of questions that I want to ask Jay and discuss with him in the hour that we can talk.
But I think what we're basically describing here is the idea that not chocolate on my face, I think.
I'm going to confess to you.
I have a little shoebox full of, well, it's not full, but it's got Halloween candy in it.
And I've been kind of keeping it back there by my drum set, and I forgot about it, and I remembered it the other day.
And so since my appetite is back after I can breathe again, I've been sneaking some very bad things, but actually I'm so low on weight that right now, I'm just not going to really worry about it too much.
I'm not going crazy.
It's just keeping me awake.
So the point is here, as I just confess to you, that I'm not some angel either.
At least when it regards to what I eat all the time, I eat so well throughout the day because of my best friend and wife that having a couple small pieces of butter fingers is probably not going to kill me at this time.
So what I'm trying to say here, long story short, is that I think this sounds very much like, well, we can mask around old people and we can isolate the old people and maybe, you know, we have to make some changes in public, you know, if we have to mask in certain public places, that's okay, masking
and maybe we'll mask in hospitals.
Maybe we need to mask in schools, but we're only going to do certain things depending on what's really necessary.
We can't just mandate it everywhere.
And so we're starting to kind of talk in this way where it says, you know, if the vaccines were, were subject to randomized control trials with placebo's, I would be fine with mandating them.
So we're almost starting to say these things that aren't really saying what they, they purport to be saying.
Kind of really not talking as tough as we're supposed to be.
We think that they're talking.
And I think already here, if you listen very carefully, he's not actually saying that, well, masks don't work, but, you know, if we have to require them someplace is okay.
And yeah, they leak everywhere, but, but, but, well, not but, but, but.
And so it's not as, yeah, it's just not as impressive as you would want it to be if you really knew that these people were fighting for us.
Family doctor in Peoria, because you could take or leave his advice.
But because it became so centralized, and he'll argue, I didn't, I didn't force any mandates.
Well, once it becomes the dogma of the CDC and of NIH, what happens is if I own a private hotel, best practices, according to Dr. Fauci, everybody should wear a mask and we should only have 25% occupancy.
So some of the mandates rolled off of best practices, but it all flowed downhill from Fauci and his, I think, mistaken advice.
And for saying this, YouTube banned you.
I have been censored up and kicked out of, you know, a lot of good places, but I take that as a badge of honor.
And I think the real problem is not so much that YouTube censored me or Twitter or Facebook, Facebook censored people for a year and a half on the COVID origins, but it's that the government's coordinating with them.
And that's my real objection to it is that weekly FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are actually meeting with journalists, Twitter, et cetera, and saying, you know, this is stuff we want you to take down.
You've decided not to go back to YouTube.
I'm on Rumble, and I think that's part of the libertarian or free market answer this.
You don't like somebody, you don't use them.
If you don't like their policy, you don't use them.
Go somewhere else.
Then you reach fewer people.
Maybe, maybe not.
YouTube probably is still a lot bigger than Rumble.
I don't make any money off of doing it, so I just am having to go where I can get my views out.
And I want to try to put my product or my content where people are actually open to freedom of speech.
But I am of the belief that we should stop government from coordinating with these people.
I don't think the First Amendment allows government to stop Twitter from banning me or YouTube from banning me.
I think the First Amendment does allow for me to regulate the FBI and say the FBI cannot have routine meetings.
And it's amazing how people don't get this.
Like, I'll have an interview with a broadcast journalist, and I'll say to them, what would you think if after our interview you had a meeting, the FBI college and said we'd like to meet, and then we're going to look at your footage.
We want to see what would be misinformation that you brought out of Randfall, and it shouldn't be aired.
Well, people would be horrified by that, yet there's little outrage about this.
What amazes me is how the outrage is only on one side anymore.
I've been trying to get a Democrat on my bill to say that the government shouldn't be involved with censorship, and I cannot find one Democrat.
And I lecture them, you know, relentlessly saying you guys used to be the good guys.
In the 1960s, it was the left that criticized Hoover.
It was the left that said Civil War protesters, you shouldn't be censoring their speech and investigating them.
It was the left that says you shouldn't be looking at Martin Luther King's private phone calls, and you shouldn't be threatening Mark Luke King.
The left was the defender of the First Amendment, the right wasn't so good.
Now it's sort of completely flipped, and I'm hard pressed to find anybody on the left or some.
But those people are now renegade to the left, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Teiby.
These were people who probably would tell you they came from the left, but are still defenders of the First Amendment, but they're so very few.
The silence is deafening.
Staying on the topic of mistakes, the beginning of the pandemic.
Government officials closed beaches.
The closed sign staggered on the sidewalk paints a clear picture.
The beaches will remain closed.
One of my favorite images is in California, the Coast Guard.
Coast Guard Cutter facing a guy down paddleboarding by himself in the Pacific Ocean, as if he's somehow a threat.
And the ridiculousness of that makes people distrust government.
My other favorite image is a guy was jogging on the beach in California, and you can tell he's very light-footed, and he's just cruising along the beach.
And a policeman's coming up to try to stop him from being on the beach by himself.
And the policeman's being heavy boots on.
He's trying to get closer.
And the guy sees him at the corner of his eye, and just sort of picks up his face.
And you can just see this guy running, and he never gets caught into like, hooray for freedom.
A guy's on the beach running, leaving the hell alone.
Vaccine mandates.
They were trying to protect people.
Good intentions don't excuse bad behavior.
It goes back to the supposition, are people too stupid to make their own mind up?
I'd like to go back to the sort of beginning with vaccines to Smallpox.
When Smallpox came out, the vaccine was like 1720s.
It was very, very controversial.
It was a live vaccine.
They took some pus from somebody who had Smallpox, unroofed it, and stuck it in somebody's arm who didn't have Smallpox.
They gave you Smallpox.
And yet the public, by and large, pretty much accepted it.
It had a death rate of 1 in 50.
But the death rate from Smallpox was 30%.
People aren't stupid.
When Smallpox came to town, people lined up and took this vaccine.
The doctors who started doing it vaccinated their kids first.
They didn't mandate it.
They showed, look, I'm proud of this.
I'm vaccinating my kids.
And it took off.
George Washington, a bit.
It should be called very, very elating, right?
If they scratch it into the skin.
Which is, of course, inoculation at a barrier.
Which is definitely not intramuscular injection of a combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system.
It's an injection at a barrier.
It's an exposure to a barrier exactly how I would advocate to at least attempt to augment the immune system.
Actually, tell Martha she can't come to the camps until she's had a Smallpox vaccine and she does.
But here's the interesting point about it.
When we put this in the book as well.
George Washington didn't take the vaccination.
He was like, why?
Was he a vaccine anti-vaxxer?
Why didn't he take the vaccine?
Because he had Smallpox scars on his face.
He had Smallpox.
So we used to believe and know that when you had something, it provided immunity.
Not always perfect immunity.
Smallpox is pretty much complete immunity.
But most time people knew if you had something, if you got it again, you'd have less of a reaction the second time around.
Because you probably already knew it.
The vaccine didn't provide perfect immunity.
Probably actually less so.
We now, through a million person study, know that getting it naturally was twice as good.
But if you tell this to a left wing reporter, they'll say, oh, you just want people to get sick and dying.
If they don't die, they have immunity.
It's like, well, no, I'm just acknowledging that a lot of people got sick.
Some did die.
I was tragic.
But the ones who got sick give them the information so they know what to do.
Do they need 10 more vaccines or is it protected?
See, the CDC knows this.
The CDC will not reveal this information.
So instead of your government helping you make decisions, the CDC will not tell us.
If you're 60, let's say you're 75 years old and you've got two vaccines.
You took the advice in the beginning.
And then you've had COVID once.
What are your chances of dying again?
I think they may be zero or very close to zero.
It may not need your third, fourth, and fifth one, but you should be given the information the government has.
So we're not talking about whether or not any of those old people are dying at a higher rate after their vaccine.
We're talking about what do they need another one?
What an interestingly irrelevant debate.
What an interestingly irrelevant discussion to sound intelligent about.
Well, I mean, how do we know if these old people only needed two shots?
We don't need to be pushing four and five shots if they only needed two shots.
How come we don't?
The CDC doesn't tell us this.
Is he not worried about whether or not the CDC is covering up people dying from the vaccine?
Of course, he's not worried about it.
Millions of people were saved by it.
It's part of the faith.
I hope you can see this.
Got to see it for what it is.
It's really bad because we are solidifying this in the minds of the young.
They can't see through this lie.
They can't imagine that people would lie about a virus.
They can't imagine that he doesn't know what he's talking about, that he's just reading.
Governing power, talking points.
Wittingly or unwittingly, he is playing us right into their hands.
Shoot.
I thought I had that cut up.
To whether or not you believe there's something nefarious and monetary incentive involved
and whether or not they're doing this to make money for big pharma.
I'm not so proud of this to believe that.
I think these probably are good people that aren't doing it for it, but I've asked questions.
Is anybody on the committees to approve the vaccine?
Do any of them receive money from the vaccine manufacturers?
They won't answer me.
Dr. Fauci told me it was none of my business.
He said that a law prevented him from revealing that to me.
That's not an acceptable response.
When they approved the third vaccine for children, the first committee was the FDA committee.
It's full of all scientists that are pro-vaccine.
In fact, they don't have a problem with mandates at all.
They came out with the advice 65 and older.
Nobody else for the booster.
CDC had another vaccine committee.
Scientists, all pro-vaccine, fine with mandates.
They said the same thing, 65 and older.
Rochelle Walensky, a political appointee of Biden,
overrode both scientific committees and said the vaccine booster should be given to six months and up.
Most of the countries of Europe don't do this.
Almost every country of Europe, it's 12 and over and it's advice.
Why? What's the motivation?
That's the question.
Get more people frightened and then they'll take the vaccine and that will save America.
I think most of them are not very smart and they just blind like they take the damn vaccine, shut up and take it.
It's good for you.
I don't think about it.
And maybe on the margins, it doesn't do much for kids, but probably not going to hurt you.
The problem with the vaccine turns out that there is some risk of a hard inflammation for young people.
We've advised people to take it.
If you're older, take the vaccine, even take the boosters.
Probably not going to hurt you.
Have you?
My wife got vaccinated.
We're not against the advice.
It's actually inoculated, meaning you had COVID.
I had COVID.
So I have immunity and some immunity.
Yeah.
Well, I'm got it again that I know of.
I've had a cold once and that could have been COVID.
I don't know.
It should be a personal decision.
Aren't there people that say you should say your body, your choice?
My body, my choice.
Except for vaccines, I guess, you know, in Sweden.
And so.
Please understand how the biology of a novel virus that we were all vulnerable to.
Is not being challenged here.
He's actually arguing for the idea that he doesn't need to get vaccinated because he
got the novel virus and was infected by it and survived.
Just like George Washington had smallpox scars on his face, he got infected.
So God gave him his vaccine.
Why doesn't he argue for his wife not needing a vaccine because she was in the
same household as him.
She would have developed immunity because you develop T cell immunity, even if you
don't develop all the symptoms, we have many papers that show that, including
nature papers that I think he's even been sent by me or a viewer of ours.
So again, we are talking about selective.
They, they aren't listening.
We've sent them this, this biology over the course of the last three years and
they are not listening.
We have tried to put this biology into different books and those authors don't
listen because the story of a novel virus needs to be told.
The story of millions of people dying needs to be told.
The story of millions of people being saved needs to be told.
The story of gain of function and the possibility of killing half the planet
needs to be told.
And the possibility of the virus coming again needs to exist so that they can
force the next things upon us.
And it could even be that while we talk about, you know, these viruses don't exist
or, or this danger doesn't exist, that we're still wasting our time because
what we should really be saying is they're about to make us have digital ID on the
internet.
And once we have digital ID on the internet, we basically have digital ID for money.
And once we have that, well, then we're done.
Slowly but surely we're done anyway, I guess.
I don't know how else to say it because not enough people are waking up now,
not enough people want to wake up.
But at least we can try and show them that this biological mythology is exactly that.
And we knew that they were taking us here for the last two years.
We knew that they were taking us right here for the left and the right to come to the
conclusion that holy cow, it's a lab leak.
That is crazy.
No wonder it was such a nutty pandemic.
Unbelievable.
That means their Jenny died of a, of a bio weapon.
Can you believe it?
Where they did say natural and unity was helpful.
They were tracked.
And it turns out they did as well or better than most parts of Europe.
And they also didn't mandate masks in schools.
They also didn't close the schools.
So everything we did in this country is wrong.
And that's why the debates, this isn't just looking back in the rearview mirror just for
the hell of it.
This is to make sure we actually learn something and don't do this kind of lockdown mentality
again.
On balance, the vaccines were a good thing.
If you were at risk.
Yeah.
So I would say that you base it on risk.
If you say, are they a good thing for a 75 year old?
I think we save lives.
If you say, did they save any five year old's life?
No.
And we know now that it's about two to three kids out of 15,000 will get a heart inflammation,
which may lead to permanent damage to their heart.
So people just need to know that.
If you're a parent want to take that risk for your 15 year old,
it's perfectly healthy.
Fine.
But there are a lot of parents with a healthy 15 year old who are told that the mortality
is zero that will take their chances with COVID rather than two or three chances out of 15,000
of a heart inflammation.
Since it works for older people, people my age, the Republican messaging may have killed people.
There's data that shows that more Republicans died.
I think it's actually the opposite.
I think what happened is vaccine hesitancy comes from people's disability.
Holy cow.
So if the government comes, it works for people like me, where they did say.
Wow.
It was helpful.
They were tracked.
And it turns out they did as well or better than most parts of Europe.
And they also didn't mandate masks in schools.
They also didn't close the schools.
So everything we did in this country is wrong.
And that's why the debates, this isn't just looking back in the rearview mirror just for the hell of it.
This is to make sure we actually learn something and don't do this kind of lockdown mentality again.
On balance, the vaccines were a good thing.
If you were at risk.
Yeah.
So I would say that you base it on risk.
If you say, are they a good thing for a 75 year old?
I think we save lives.
If you say, did they save any five year old's life?
No.
And we know now that it's about two to three kids out of 15,000 will get a heart inflammation,
which may lead to permanent damage to their heart.
So people just need to know that.
If you're a parent want to take that risk for your 15 year old who's perfectly healthy, fine,
but there are a lot of parents with a healthy 15 year old who are told that the mortality is zero,
that we'll take their chances with COVID rather than two or three chances out of 15,000 of a heart inflammation.
Take your chances with COVID that somebody like Paul Offit will tell you is much, much better at causing heart inflammation
and heart damage than the vaccine is.
That your own doctor will tell you the habit the virus is much, much better at causing heart damage than the vaccine is.
I've heard hundreds of them say it, tweet it, post it on Facebook.
Are you kidding me?
He's walking everyone right into the wood chipper of being called.
Wow, you're really an idiot, aren't you?
Don't you know that this novel virus is so much worse.
The spike protein of this virus is so much.
I mean, are you crazy?
Who told you that?
Rand Paul.
And here is Rand Paul so calmly just rattling it off the same.
The same stick that he was saying way back in 2020, basically with some more details, but it's basically the same garbage.
It's a lab leak.
And the vaccine saved old people and people like his age.
We probably just shouldn't have given it to kids.
I mean, that's all, you know, that's really it.
We only kind of overstepped.
I mean, it's still great for old people.
Old people should still take it.
Holy man.
Imagine since it works for older people, people my age, the Republican messaging may have killed people.
There's data that shows that more Republicans died.
I think it's actually the opposite.
I think what happened is vaccine hesitancy comes from people's disbelief in government.
So if the government comes to you and says everybody needs to have a vaccine including your six-month-old,
and you know either instinctively or through the evidence that they're lying to you about the six-month-old,
that they really don't need it, then you start to distrust them.
You sound 75, but if they're lying to me about the kids, maybe they're lying to me about this.
So I would say that some vaccine hesitancy came from people's distrust, just overwhelming distrust of government period,
but I think government made it worse.
It made vaccine hesitancy worse by telling you things that weren't true.
Everybody in the news, this was a disease of elderly.
But here's a fact.
For the most part, vaccines were voluntary.
Separate people worked in the government, firemen, policemen, things like that, hospital workers.
But for the vast majority of the public over 65, you could make your choice.
Over age 65, over 97% of people chose to be vaccinated.
So this whole idea, you know, Anthony Fauci will interview the New York Times and they'll be like,
oh, if we didn't have such a vaccine hesitancy, billions of people died.
People at risk are not stupid.
People read the newspaper.
They saw this on the news.
And no matter what they kept telling us about young people getting sick, that was extraordinary.
This was a disease almost entirely of the elderly.
The elderly got it and they all got vaccinated.
Now if you want to look at 30-year-old, tell me I'm going to have a vaccine, it's like 20 or 30%.
Well, guess what?
Very few 30-year-olds died.
And most of that was associated with obesity.
And they should have promoted that.
Instead, they said it had racial origins, and this and that.
No, overweight people were significantly risk.
And I know several people who died in their 30s and 40s were who got very sick.
And obesity was a huge factor in this disease.
One other Republican policy to ask you about.
Governor, no mention of the fact that all the people are dying in the hospital.
No mention of hospital protocols, just fat people.
Francis in Florida, I think, did a great job.
He kept the state open.
Kids in school did better than other states.
But he also, in his venom against vaccine mandates and mask mandates, said,
you're not allowed in your store to require customers to have a mask.
No, that's wrong.
And I think he went too far.
He did the same thing with the commercial cruisers, you know, the cruise lines.
He said to them, oh, you can't have a vaccine mandate.
In mistakes, and this is a real problem between public and private.
Libertarians believe that the government should enforce you to do things,
but we have no problem with a private entity.
So if you have a restaurant and you are all in on the mask and all in on the vaccines,
nothing should ever stop you.
You can demand 10 vaccines and 10 masks if you want.
The only other problem on the side of, well, is this government or not,
is that the government best practices sort of push some of this down.
So when Fauci says it and the CDC makes it their official plan and you have a private restaurant,
and you want to do no masks and no vaccines, you worry about being sued then.
So there is this pressure from government, but I don't think the answer is to then regulate you
as a private business and say, you can't do it.
The answer is to tell people at the top, you need to quit putting out these pronouncements
that are not scientific and are not certain because you're making a liability problem
for businesses who feel like, you know, they don't want to follow your mandates,
but they've eventually become mandates these edicts.
I used to think that for public, we'd learn from these government mistakes and say,
maybe I'm not going to be so trusting next time.
But I don't think they will.
I don't know.
I think you'd be surprised.
I think people have learned from this.
And I think people learned what to trust and what not to trust and to be skeptical.
So I think people will be smarter the next time around.
And my hope is that people are smart enough not to do the lockdowns.
I mean, if you look at the lockdowns, pretty much some people got it.
And unfortunately, it is somewhat partisan.
The Republican states had less severe lockdowns and more quickly got out of it.
The Democrat states didn't.
I think it was Rasmussen did a poll of people.
And it's amazing.
If you poll people who identify as Democrats, a good half of them believe maybe you should
put people in jail for not being vaccinated or they should be forcibly kept in their homes.
So the authoritarianism or what I call the impulse to authoritarianism is strong.
This seems to be divided between the parties.
The sad thing is the left used to be good about civil rights.
They used to be good about, you know, free spirit, free ideas, not having things be censored
and unified by some kind of government authority.
But we've really gotten away from that.
Republicans are authoritarians about other things.
I'm not saying the party is perfect.
In fact, sometimes the pox on both parties may be the best answer.
But on the COVID, I think it has been that the Republicans have tended to be more right
than wrong and the Democrats have tended to be more restrictive on personal behavior.
The big point in deception.
I believed it when they, everybody was saying, came from animals, from bats.
That's gathered in China for food.
Probably 90% confident that the new coronavirus came from bats.
I initially was there too.
For New Alec, probably a lot of 2020.
I did not spend a lot of time thinking about the origin because I knew the first SARS virus,
which came out in 2003, 2004, came from animals, came from civits.
When they tested the thing is the left used to be good about civil rights.
They used to be good about, you know, free spirit, free ideas, not having things be censored
and unified by some kind of government authority.
But we've really gotten away from that.
Republicans are authoritarians about other things.
I'm not saying the party is perfect.
In fact, sometimes the pox on both parties may be the best answer.
But on the COVID, I think it has been that the Republicans have tended to be more right
than wrong and the Democrats have tended to be more restrictive on personal behavior.
The big point in deception.
I believed it when they, everybody was saying, came from animals, from bats.
That's gathered in China for food.
Probably 90% confident that the new coronavirus came from bats.
I initially was there too for the ballot.
Probably a lot of 2020.
I did not spend a lot of time thinking about the origin because I knew the first SARS virus,
which came out in 2003, 2004, came from animals, came from civits.
When they tested the handlers of the civits, they found an increased number of them had antibodies.
They'd been having infections.
MERS was another SARS virus.
It came out and they found it in camels and they found a source.
Each time they found the source though, within a few months.
So after a few months in 2020, they didn't find an animal source.
Then the big game reports of 80,000 animals being tested, no animals with it.
Tested by China all over China because they were looking for an animal source.
And you have to realize that the Chinese, while they may not always be honest,
and they may not always be forthright, they had an incentive to try to find it if it was in animals
because now the theory is that it came from a lab.
So now it's sort of government sponsored, accidental, likely, but more related to the government.
So if you're the Chinese government, you're looking for blame.
Everybody knows it's starting to move on.
You'd really want it to come from the wet market.
But pretty much within three or four months, the CDC in China said it didn't.
They were pretty certain it did not come from the wet market.
So some other experts say, we're not sure.
It may have come from animals.
There's not a smoking gun that we can say with 100% certainty.
There's a lot of evidence on both sides of the ledger.
But the lack of an animal host, the lack of antibodies in animal handlers,
the lack of diversity in the genetics of this.
When an animal virus comes to healers, the lack of an animal host,
the lack of antibodies in animal handlers, the lack of an animal host,
the lack of antibodies in animal handlers,
the lack of diversity in the genetics of this.
When an animal virus comes to humans, it's not very infectious initially.
So if it's in civits, it's very infectious in civits,
because it's been circulating in this animal for a while.
When it infects a human, it's more prone to be in the civits.
So it's not very good at infecting other humans.
So it does it again and again until it gets lucky.
When it gets lucky, it gets in someone's body and it mutates
and then becomes infectious to other humans.
So what you find is diversity.
You find all these leaps from animals to human.
And so your original genetic diversity will be like one of your 30 different
genetic sequences of viruses.
What do we find with COVID?
The original strain, it's single source.
It's one genetic variety, wasn't mutating.
When you have a single genetic homogenous genetic code for a virus,
it looks like it came from one source.
It looks like it came from the lab.
It will have come from one clone.
And that's the trick.
If it comes from a wild source, it will have a diversity of sequences
that can be summarized by a consensus sequence.
But the consensus sequence may not actually exist in a complete form.
And then they understand this.
More importantly, they understand it well.
They understand it with nanopore sequencing.
They understand it from many experiments that have shown how these self-replicating
RNA entities work in culture.
The only way to get the purity level that we saw in these different places around the
world is for it to have started from a single clone source.
And then they had to make quantities of it, which is actually not that hard.
And that's what makes the infectious clone ideas so wonderful.
It doesn't require magic.
It doesn't require new technology.
It requires very little other than a sequence that you want to put somewhere.
Maybe with your special epitopes that epivacs or someone else found as they worked for
the DOD trying to find universal epitopes that stimulated T cells via the MHC presentation
process.
And they put a few of those epitopes into a hypothetical coronavirus that they put in a
few different people that they knew they were going to sequence.
And then they said, well, we found this spike protein.
I guess we'll use the spike protein for our vaccine.
Isn't it great how it works for like a five shots in a row?
That's pretty special, isn't it?
Maybe it's because there's a universal T cell epitope that they found back in 2005.
It's been inserted into a relatively benign coronavirus that's in the background all over
the world so that when they found it in certain places, they'd find that sequence.
Can you imagine a scenario where there would be so much power and so much money at stake
that instead of waiting for a pandemic to come, that they would have orchestrated one?
So evil Chinese scientists in a lab funded by America?
America funded it and I think it was maybe not done it with evil intentions.
It was done with misguided notion that gain-of-function research was safe.
And so many people explain gain-of-function research.
Gain-of-function is when you take a virus that exists in nature and another virus in nature
and you take part of one virus and stick it on to the other.
So one of the things that they can do with coronavirus, they take an S protein, they
stick it on another virus.
But then they say, well, then let's see what it does to humans.
Well, the thing is they sometimes create viruses that don't exist in nature that are now more
infectious.
They've gained the function of lethality or infectiousness by being combined in a lab.
We know they were doing this and this is one of the things that we discover in the book
and one of the things that we put out there, Fauci admits on February 1st of 2020 at the
very beginning that they're doing gain-of-function research in the Wuhan labs and that we funded it.
And the purpose of it is to let the virus thrive and then develop a vaccine, find a way to kill it.
Probably.
Just probably.
But this is they were working on something like that.
They were working on a vaccine, what they call a pan-coronav vaccine for all different types of
coronaviruses, which is what COVID is.
They were working on this vaccine and that it must have leaked out.
Other information that supports this is we know that three people in the Wuhan lab run by Dr.
She, three of her co-workers, got sick with the virus of unknown origin in November of 2019.
So this would make sense if they were inserting epitopes into a clone of a coronavirus to try
and increase its immunogenicity, to increase the likelihood that you would develop antibodies
to the receptor binding domain of the spike protein and prevent its binding to its receptor,
maybe.
If we go along with all the elaborate details of the purported biology of the spike protein
on this coronavirus, then we could tell that story.
But it's a story that's a lot more complicated and yet a lot more simple than some magic virus
that they were cutting and pasting together that got out in a laboratory and went from a few hundred
million copies to trillions and trillions and trillions of copies over three years.
Because the presumption is that there were a few people that were infected in Wuhan at some point
and now there are a few million people infected every day.
So how is that not possible if we didn't go from a few million viruses to trillions and trillions
and trillions and trillions of this virus?
The same sequence that wasn't there before, but it's there now.
In your neighbors and in your school and in your doctor's office and at the mall
and at the basketball game, but it wasn't there in 2019, not at all.
It wasn't there at all.
This signal was completely absent and then it got out at the Wuhan lab and a few people
that did something, either they went to a Wuhan market and they got unlucky or they took
a laboratory animal and sold it at the market or they made some soup out of a laboratory
animal and then sold it at the market or they got sick in the lab and then they went
to the market.
But whatever story you're telling, it starts with a single group, even one infection.
And then that lowly little swarm of RNA molecules coated in a lipid protein coat with spike
proteins on the outside, managed to copy itself enough so that billions, billions of
people were contacted by it, are continued to be contacted by its ancestors today, every
day, and we can use PCR to test for them.
And people still use lateral flow tests to test for them.
And people still stay home because they say they got infected with them.
Something made of RNA that leaked in Wuhan and then coated the planet.
It's not possible, ladies and gentlemen, it's just not possible.
These stories of fantastic biology are just stories.
They are mythology.
And Rand Paul may not be sophisticated enough to know how ridiculous it is to attribute these
superpowers to an RNA in lipid.
But that's what he's doing.
You see, the thing is, is that all of these principles of a species like ecology and
niche and pathogen and parasite and all these terms that we use to describe different kinds
of animals and different niches and different ecological relationships like predator and
prey, none of these biological concepts apply to viruses because viruses do not rise to
the sophistication of species.
Viruses are a phenomenon that are not well understood.
They are a phenomenon that is not understood at the fidelity of a species like gray squirrel
or a particular mosquito.
And they don't have the same biological attributes as a pathogen in a insect pathogen on a squirrel
like a tick.
These are RNA and DNA-based phenomenon, molecular phenomenon, that as best we can discern are
able to use our own cellular machinery to replicate themselves in the right circumstances.
But our immune system has a wide variety of cells which are bent on destroying these
short-lived patterned integrities.
There are erroneous patterned integrities in the best characterization.
But they cannot be considered something that has the fidelity and capability of something
like a mosquito that can have babies and more babies and more babies until everybody's
got mosquitoes everywhere.
And even we know that if a mosquito was released in Wuhan and it could breed as fast as possible
the mosquitoes that made it to Italy would not be the same mosquitoes that made it to
America.
They would have already diversified.
And mosquitoes replicate with a lot higher fidelity than an RNA virus does.
It makes a complete new genome every time it successfully manages to copy itself,
which it doesn't do very often.
Because as the virologist will say, well, we need a lot more of the subgenomic RNA than
we do the genomic RNA.
That's why we can barely find any genomic RNA.
And we find all these extra subgenomic RNAs because all these other proteins need to be
made a lot more.
We need to make a lot more spike protein and a lot more N protein.
That's why we have 600,000 copies of the N protein RNA and 100,000 copies of the spike
protein RNA and only 11 genomes.
Because we need a lot more spike protein than we need whole genomes.
So that's why they're really hard to detect.
We barely find any anywhere ever.
These are the kinds of excuses that they make and the kinds of stories that they tell about
the fidelity of a virus that can possibly start in one city in the world and manage to coat
the universe, coat the known world with itself.
That's some pretty extraordinary molecular biology right there.
And Rand Paul is pretty extraordinarily certain that it happened.
They never revealed this, but it's been found out through some intelligence means.
We do know now that the virus actually started and the first case is patient zero basically
is in her lab.
And that was more than a thousand kilometers away from where bats live.
Exactly. It's six to eight hours by car south when you find the bats.
But this gets back to the question of evil versus just bad sense or bad judgment.
If viruses exist, let's say they exist 300 feet below the level in guano in a cave.
The likelihood that that virus 300 feet under the ground in a remote air of China is going to
interact with a lot of people and cause a pandemic, virtually zero.
But what if we send virus hunters 300 feet down into the cave, they extract the virus,
bring it back to a metropolitan area of 15 million people.
There's a chance that somewhere in that transmission, the virus leaks out that never
would have encountered man, but it's worse.
They take this unknown virus, they bring it back to Wuhan 15 million people and they say,
yeah, this is a new virus, a new coronavirus.
What would happen if we mixed it with this other coronavirus?
So the whole virus identification project, which has been going on for life.
So the viruses have the potential to do the evil.
It's not making lots of copies of this RNA that can't copy itself with eye fidelity.
And then letting that copy out, it wouldn't be transfecting people with some of these
viral proteins and seeing what happens in large quantities.
It wouldn't be making large copies, at large quantities of these RNAs that they find at
the bottom of the bat cave.
It's just taking that RNA out of the cave because the RNA itself is magic.
It has nothing to do with the fact that the people have to make a large quantity of it
or they can do anything with it in the laboratory.
There's nothing to do with that so much so that we don't even have to use the term clone.
Even though that's how they work with these RNA entities, they have to make a clone of it.
You can't grow it.
And so here we are talking about finding viruses in a bat cave, coming back and sewing them
into different parts and not admitting that if we're going to sew two parts of a virus
together, a virus sequence together.
And the only way we can find out how that work is to make a clone.
You can't sew it together unless you make a clone.
It's literally the way you would do it.
You would make a DNA construct of the RNA that you thought you found in the wild, which is called a clone.
And then you can grow that DNA clone into huge quantities in commercial processes that were the same
commercial processes that are used to make monoclonal antibodies and were used to make the spike protein
RNA for the shots and used to make the spike protein for the protein.
I mean, it's all the same crap.
Bacteria will copy circular DNA.
You encode the RNA that you want to make in the circular DNA.
Let the Bacteria make lots of copies of the DNA, had relatively high fidelity because DNA
copying is high fidelity.
Then you take all that DNA out of the bacteria, has best you can, and convert it via enzyme to RNA.
That conversion is not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better and a hell of a lot more quantity
of any RNA approximating the original protein or the original genome that you want to have,
the stitch together, gain a function genome in more quantities than you could ever make in any other
fashion.
In fact, this is the only way that we know how we could make it in any quantity this fashion.
Infectious clones.
Otherwise, it's not dangerous at all.
Otherwise, at best, the infectious clone will make somebody sick.
And that person will shed some RNA on somebody else and they'll get sick.
And then by that time, that RNA isn't copying itself well enough anymore.
And there ends the pandemic.
That's probably what happened with SARS-1.
It was an infectious clone, a certain quantity of it.
It got out, and those people were able to carry it and spread it around and spread it around a little bit.
Why not?
And every time it went from a different person, it changed at least 50 amino acids in the sequence they could detect.
It's not the variation he's talking about.
The variation should have been from patient to patient to patient, and it wasn't.
There wasn't any variation from patient to patient, which tells you one thing and one thing only.
It had to be a clone.
Because it was a naturally replicating virus, every patient would have had a pretty different signal.
And that would have petered out very quickly.
It would have gone in a million different directions genetically, very quickly, and petered out because that's what SARS-CoV-1 did.
The story is so full of holes, they have to simplify it to a cartoon.
And that cartoon is what Rand Paul has learned to recite.
About ten years or more, hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into this US dollars has been not just to identify every virus on the planet,
but to identify it and then do gain-of-function research to manipulate it to see what happens.
And there are legitimate scientists.
There's Kevin Esvelte, who we quote in the book from MIT, who says that basically this is a risk to civilization.
So Kevin Esvelte of MIT has written the gate-of-function research looks like a gamble that civilization can't afford to risk.
Kevin Esvelte, the guy who working for MIT Media Labs and working for the Department of Defense through various connections has developed the gene drive,
is saying that gain-of-function research looks like a gamble that civilization can't afford to risk.
I'm going to tell you right now that this is the best confirmation that gain-of-function research is a mythology that they could have ever rolled out
and that he could have ever accentuated by highlighting it in his book.
Because Kevin Esvelte is the perfecter of the gene drive.
So the gene drive was actually invented by somebody else, but Kevin Esvelte got his brain around it
and was able to perfect it in a way that basically allows them to change species.
Now they are sort of limited by the replication rate, the reproductive rate of a species, but they can create genes that really edit themselves in
and are very aggressive in that sense, hyper-dominant.
And I've been trying to slowly but surely teach myself the biology of these things in a cartoon form so that I can teach you.
And so either by the end of the year or in the coming, you know, after the new year, some of the subjects that we're going to cover are these interesting biotechnology applications
like directed evolution for enzymes, which is also coincidentally another technology which Kevin Esvelte has been really a leader and a pioneer in conceiving the ways that bacterial, metabolic enzyme pathways
and genetic antibiotic resistance and culture techniques can be combined in very clever ways to use the power of bacterial evolution essentially
to create enzymes with attributes that we want them to have and to do it very, very well.
So Kevin Esvelte is an incredibly interesting person to quote and to get on this senatorial committee in 2020 along with Richard Ebright, who is a magnificent tool of this narrative.
Richard Ebright is the guy who said if we opened colleges in 2020 that we would kill a quarter million people and Richard Ebright is really one of the worst of the narrative holders of this gain of function research is going to kill the world.
And him and Kevin Esvelte testified in front of Congress about this super danger of gain of function research all the while both knowing that Kevin Esvelte was like the master, the Jedi master of dark arts of biology, the directed evolution and gene drives,
which is just extraordinary. It's really, really can only be seen as some kind of intellectual warfare to use him as this messenger is really like using a serial killer to say that the, I don't know that the vaccine schedules dangerous for kids.
I mean, it's, it's crazy for him to say that gain of function research is a gamble that civilization can't afford to risk while he's working on gene drives.
Like it's just extraordinary to me. And now I'm sure that we're about to say that Kevin Esvelte would say that billions of people could be killed by the next virus.
We could wind up with a virus that's 50% lethal that leaks out of a lab. There it is. Holy cow and like one second. Look at that.
MIT who says that basically this is a risk civilization because we could wind up with a virus that's 50% lethal that leaks out of a lab and kills half of the planet that literally is a possibility.
That's literally not a possibility. It's literally not a possibility. The only possibility is that we could make enough of an RNA that was toxic that would do that.
That we could make enough of a toxin that would do that. We could make enough of a protein toxin and RNA toxin. Maybe there's even a DNA sequence or application that DNA could also be used to do this.
Like an adenovirus.
I'm sure we could make enough, but there is not a small, you know, little vial of this 50% deadly virus is enough to kill the whole planet.
That's just that's just complete immunomethology. And it is nothing. It's not even immunomethology with regards to that's not how viruses work.
You know, they kill their host and then it won't spread. That argument is dumb. The real argument is that RNA doesn't have the fidelity to do that.
If mother nature were to stumble upon a super deadly RNA, it wouldn't last long enough to kill that many people.
It might kill. I don't know. I could imagine.
If I really run my simulator in my head to the fullest, I can imagine a scenario where a whole village of people might be killed by a virus that was in a monkey that somebody ate.
Maybe 30 people. But unless there was a quantity of it, a quantity of it, then it's not possible for an RNA virus to do that, to accomplish it.
It's just not possible. The human immune system is not that kind of a, it's not.
It's just extraordinary that we have been led to believe this, that they are trying to mislead our children to believe this and we cannot let it happen because they are essentially, they are desecrating the image of our body.
The image in our own minds about our body and its weaknesses and its strengths and its sacredness, they are just absolutely ruining this for our children and it's wrong.
It's wrong to the deepest core and the fact that they're having this discussion pretending that they're having a real, this is the worst kind of sacrilege that there is because they have not once acknowledged the lying.
It's mistakes, they didn't mean it. I think they all meant well.
These are all things that they said. It's not very much different than that college professor that said I was also really down for the lockdowns, but we got to have some, you know, whatever sympathy going forward or some crap like that.
Liars don't deserve sympathy. People that were absolute monsters don't deserve sympathy unless they're really apologizing, not kind of sorry.
They're trying to find ways to stop disease, but many scientists have now looked at this and said that we haven't found it.
The other argument against this is that when you create viruses in the lab, evolution is random, and so when a virus or a dangerous virus evolves, it does it through random mutation, and then something we get an unlucky one and it takes off.
If you create it in the virus in the lab, it's not random, it's man-made, and you say I'm doing this so I can discover what's going to come from nature.
Well, because it's random and there are millions of different combinations that could happen, the likelihood that you create something that creates a vaccine that's going to help anybody is pretty slim to none.
Not if you're looking for universal epitopes that activate T cells just in general, and then you're putting it in other proteins so that you can make other vaccines.
I mean, activating the immune system is a multi-billion dollar industry every year that's completely free of strict liability. It's the best business on the planet.
So the more risk that we can create perceived in nature for the requirement of vaccines, the more danger that Mother Nature poses to us, the more danger that gain a function in a laboratory, the more danger that gain a function in a garage.
Poses to us the more likely we are to accept the idea that vaccines are a cure for these things.
Antibodies. Yada yada yada.
This is the trap, ladies and gentlemen, it is being laid right before you by the guy who started laying it in 2020 just like he was meant to do.
We are being governed by lies.
And it's probably pretty likely that he knows.
It's probably pretty likely that he knows.
For COVID, it really started in 2010 with the avian flu. The avian flu is from chickens and birds, and it's very deadly when it gets into humans 50% mortality, but it's not very contagious.
So a guy in the Netherlands said, why don't we see if we can aerosolize it, make it transmitted by air, even though it's not normally transmitted that way.
And people said, that's crazy. And he did it. And then there was a discussion over whether the knowledge should be published because it might become a roadmap for chair.
In 2011, and we're talking about Carriaca, or whatever his name was at the University of Madison in Wisconsin, University of Wisconsin in Madison, that supposedly enriched avian flu to be aerosolized, but one did it.
And again, this was a controversy. This was a thing that in the Netherlands and in America, they made a big stink about it.
But it was also the perfect theater, again, to remind people that this potential is there, that this work is being done. Don't forget, we're going to make a big show about it now. We're going to have a few secret meetings.
We're going to get a bunch of people to do a conference. We're going to invite everybody over the Netherlands and we're going to have a big argument and discussion about it.
We're going to bring big Tony Fauci over to the Netherlands and he's going to be on stage.
And all of that pomp and circumstance creates an illusion of consensus that, holy man, we're really walking on a prep of precipice here. What if they create a bird flu that's also aerosolized.
I can fly around the world and kill 50% of the people it infects. Oh my gosh.
What if they make a little tiny bit of a bunch of RNAs and what if that little tiny bit of RNA gets out?
That little tiny bit of RNA might copy itself and go all around the world and kill 50% of the people that it copies itself in.
Except that's not how RNA works. That's not how RNA copying works and that's not how immune systems work.
But with a little bit of showmanship and a little bit of news flash and a little bit of headlines and a lot of air travel and hot air on stage.
You can create the illusion that in these bad caves and in these laboratories exists the possibility of killing 50% of the people of everyone that this RNA replicates in.
And that the RNA can replicate in anything that it touches.
And if you have never seen it before, you can't fight it.
These are all proclamations of a faith that is false.
These are all proclamations of a biology that doesn't exist.
These are all proclamations of a faith that is based on lies.
Stop lying!
To create this kind of virus.
And so Anthony Fauci was on one side.
And Richard E. Bright and the other scientist from the other side had a big war on Anthony Fauci won, like he's won so many times.
And he said 2012, even if a pandemic occurs, if a scientist becomes infected and the community becomes infected, the knowledge is worth it.
Well that's a judgment call and I would say there's probably 16 million families around the world who might disagree with that now.
But this is a real debate that has to be had.
It's all funded by government.
Whether government should have some regulations on what they find.
I think without question we should regulate government more to have more scrutiny over this.
There's still funding, gain and function research.
Yeah, absolutely.
There's 12 different places in the United States that we do this.
There are some labs that we're not even allowed to go into that we're petitioning to try to find out about this.
But there's one other important thing that happened in this and it adds to the culpability.
It wasn't just a bad decision of Anthony Fauci.
There was a Paul.
It's between 2014 and 16.
This was so dangerous.
They said no more gain and function research.
And yet it kept happening.
How did they get these agencies?
Our government stopped the funding of gain and function research from 2014 to 16.
And yet many of these things that we were on were still going on through this who approved them.
But they also set up a committee.
In 2017, they turned the spigot back on.
In January of 2017, gain and function is now going to be funded once again.
But as they turn it on, it's like they set up a committee.
And this committee is supposed to see all dangerous research and say,
is it dangerous?
Should we let it happen?
None of the Wuhan research went before there.
So when I question Fauci and committee, he says, all my people, up and down,
all 12 dozens of experts tell me it's not gain and function.
It's like, where's the discussion?
Have you ever heard of a government discussion where there's no paperwork?
And why didn't it go before the committee?
And then I'm at the person who's in charge of the safety committee.
He said he only looked at three studies over like a four-year period.
And I said, why?
He says, I didn't have the ability to go out and look at studies.
It had to be self-referred.
People had to volunteer.
I think I'm doing gain and function research.
Would you look at it?
And he looked at three and I think they turned down one or two out of three.
But this was exempted from the safety committee.
It could have only been done with Anthony Fauci's permission.
I think we are eventually going to find paperwork.
We haven't got it yet.
We're going to find paperwork that shows Anthony Fauci gave permission for the
research to happen in Wuhan without scrutiny by the safety committee.
The media is weird.
It's perplexing.
Democrats in Congress and the allies in the media are always curious about things killing people.
You know, danger, safety.
So I've been to at least a dozen hearings on whether a chemical in plastic causes cancer,
which I think probably isn't true.
But the Democrats are gaga over.
It's like, I can't remember the name of the chemical now, but it's like in baby bottles.
It's in milk, but it's in all this plastic.
And they think it causes cancer.
But may or may not, and I'm not against studying whether it does.
But at the same time, they're curious about this.
Now we have a disease that killed maybe 16 million people worldwide, about a million people.
16 million people worldwide were killed by this disease.
And he's making fun of the Democrats because they're worried about chemicals in plastic,
but they're not worried about this disease that killed millions of people around the world.
Tell me this is not about a faith.
Tell me this is not about preserving a narrative about a novel virus that killed millions of people
that we save millions more and that is likely from gain of function and therefore could come again
if we don't do something drastic.
But we don't want to lock down or anything like that unless, of course, maybe it's 50% lethal,
and we might have to.
This is the narrative.
This is the trap.
This is not someone trying to save us.
This is the person and part of the narrative trap that we were led into from the very beginning
when he was first arguing with Fauci in Congress.
A million people in America.
Charles Rixi's been saying that for more than a year and a half, a million people in America,
and they're not curious as to how we got it and whether it could happen again.
But that is one of my goals is to create legislation that more strictly regulates gain of function research
being funded by our government.
This company, EcoHealth Alliance, most Americans haven't heard of it.
They were able to accumulate maybe over a hundred million dollars in U.S. taxpayer dollars
and a lot of it was funneled to Wuhan.
Interestingly, in 2020, when the virus comes out and the pandemic starting to spread,
within a month or two, there's a letter to Lancet.
And in the letter, they say that anybody that's saying that this was a, could have come from the lab
as a conspiracy theorist and not to be trusted and 20 people signed it.
But it was led by a guy named Peter Desak who ran EcoHealth.
He never admitted that he had a conflict of interest.
Eventually, Lancet caught him and there was an apology made.
But from the very beginning, and I've never heard of before.
But it's just so sad because Stanley Perlman was on that.
Jeremy Ferrar was on that.
They all knew that it was a lab leak was possible.
It's not, it isn't, they all knew that they were working with Peter Desak.
They all knew who Peter Desak was.
It's not like Peter Desak is the guy who gets busted here.
It's all those people on that paper should be busted.
All those people had a vested interest in this not being a lab leak.
Stanley Perlman knew it was a lab leak if it was anything.
He knew it had to come from a lab the way that people were acting.
And the only reason why he would say that it's not a lab leak is because he knew that probably nothing was actually in circulation.
And a lot of those people probably knew that there wasn't actually anything in circulation.
And so the reason why you write a denial like that is so that people will argue about the denial instead of arguing about the fact that there might not be anything in circulation.
It might just be a conflated background signal.
And so if it's a conflated background signal, are you really lying if you say it's not a lab leak?
No, you're not.
And that's why all those people signed it because it was a national security event.
It's a national security theater.
And maybe we're double crossing our allies.
Maybe our allies are double crossing us in this global theater.
Maybe we're still trying to figure out which of our allies have double crossed us in this theater.
Maybe we still think we're double crossing one of our allies, but we're not.
We're actually getting double crossed and we haven't figured it out yet.
It could be a lot more complicated than just Chinese people lying about American people lying about embezzling money for gain of function research and back cave viruses.
And it's certainly a lot more complicated than a back cave virus being brought back to a laboratory and then leaked into a market and then spreading around the world all by itself.
This scientist talking about a conspiracy theory, and it turns out that probably the scientific community is either 50-50 towards the lab leak now or more.
And initially though, they squelched all dissent and said you're a conspiracy theorist if you're saying this, but they didn't reveal this.
I do have it on high speed though here. Don't think he's so smart.
How many of the people in the US government are so comfortable having Chinese researchers who are working for the Chinese government, which they're terrified of, just throwing this money at them?
Well, you know, Anthony Fauci said that he is the science, but they're really criticizing science because I represent science.
I think he is the defender of the funding of science, the business of science. There's billions of dollars.
These are not just people that are, you know, cloistered up in some kind of monastery wanting to try to find the cure for cancer.
These are people receiving billions of dollars, millions of dollars.
So I think that there is a self-interest there that was never revealed, and I think that that's part of the problem.
You said Peter Dazzack was running eco-health, but he's still running it, being paid half a million dollars.
Yeah, they had to talk to people about this.
He won't reveal his notes. So the Lancet Commission, when they felt that he had taken advantage of them, they started a commission, the Lancet Commission to look into this.
And Jeffrey Sachs was in charge of this. He initially had Peter Dazzack on the committee until he discovered how dishonest he was being with things.
But Peter Dazzack has refused to reveal his notes. Ultimately, there is a great deal of culpability on his part.
And to give you an example of who he is and how the money changes hand, he was like, oh, I'm going to cure the world from cancer of this disease.
Now, this is a guy who has $15,000 cocktail parties at the Cosmo Club, NDC, invites Anthony Fauci and others there for cocktails.
This is a guy who's been schmoozing, you know, how some people schmooze politicians.
Their whole organization is now set up to schmooze bureaucrats.
And part of the problem that made it worse, Anthony Fauci was there for 40 years.
Anthony Fauci became the J. Edgar Hoover of the NIH.
Too much power, too much longevity.
And it was also greatly expanded after 9-11 because they got involved with bio-weapons and a huge amount of defense money started flowing in.
So Anthony Fauci used to be 127th of the NIH.
He became so big and so powerful that it became more powerful than the head of all of NIH, but billions of dollars flowed through him.
And we're still scratching the surface.
So we're actually could reference that, right? We could go right back to the paper that we were reading at the beginning.
And we can look at this.
Oops.
This idea, this odd perception, this odd effect that perception has on demand is best illustrated by the funding trends for vaccine development following the events of September 11, 2001.
Now, I don't know why they cite September 11 because vaccine developments following the events of September 11 events must refer to the anthrax attacks that came after as if they're all related, which I don't think that they necessarily are in the way that it is.
Concerns about bioterror have amplified public demand for vaccines against pathogens for which the actual risk of illness and exposure is minute amplified the public demand.
Is that a story they're telling or is that real? It's probably a story.
Nevertheless, bioterrorism in several years of sustained increases in government funding have had a stimulatory effect on vaccine development aids has also driven vaccine research.
Now, it's interesting that we hear Rand Paul telling almost the exact same story 23 years later.
Oh, I sorry, 20 years later. This is a 2004 paper.
20 years later, he's selling the same story about where the funding's coming from, why it's coming from there.
And its effects are that there is a giant amount of money and a giant amount of power pent up behind this experimental.
Emergency plan coordinate a response to a pandemic.
So the question becomes, would these powers that stand to gain money and power and prestige and everything from a pandemic?
Would there be any national security imperative to actually make sure that that event, that black swan event occurred completely under their control?
So that it would be a successful response perceived as a successful response and achieve the outcomes that were desired,
which might be, for example, to normalize the use of transfection as a therapeutic even before it has been or ever tested under the guise of an investigational vaccine,
exactly described as in this editorial from 2004 by one of the leaders inside of the NIH at the time and still.
Just saying a lot of things are lining up here.
A lot of things are lining up.
The purpose is for us trying to determine the classified stuff that's going on.
We're having trouble getting the unclassified information, but I think there's a great deal more if we can ever get into the classified projects that they're doing.
Well, you eventually want the media trashed you all the way through.
Rand Paul, stop it.
You look like an idiot.
But some now have changed vanity.
Headline.
That was pretty good.
I didn't see that one before.
To call Rand Paul the sniveling mora.
Two months later, the headline is major shift.
Now, is this any different than the shtick that we heard from Brett Weinstein yesterday, where people were writing bad reviews about his podcast being dangerous,
and that people are criticizing him, that he might be a tool of Peter Thiel?
Is this any different?
It's the exact same shtick.
They're all doing exactly the same act for their audience, for their constituents, for their followers, and the shtick is the same for all of them.
Robert Malone does this shtick.
Anybody that lost their job does this shtick, I was doing this shtick.
But the point is, is that the people who are doing it with the most prominence and making the most gains and comfort from it are actually there artificially as part of a limited spectrum of debate and a lively discussion within it.
It's all fake, and it's all designed to make sure that every single possible person on the planet that is skillfully watching television or skillfully using social media will come to the conclusion that there was a novel virus that killed millions of people,
that we also saved millions of people from, that likely originated and gained a function research and therefore a virus like it will come again in the future.
This is the narrative, the spell, the enchantment that they are casting on the planet with the intention of raising your children's children under this mythology.
Plain and simple.
No more Santa Claus, no more religion, we're going to use mother nature and biology and myths about it.
Not your sacred biology, not your body is a temple, not your perfect at birth, but that you're darn lucky to have public health or otherwise you'd all be dead.
Admits funding, risky research and woo-huh.
Paul might have been on to something.
Yeah, I think that ultimately they're going to have to admit to this, but to me it's not so much about them admitting or apologizing or their culpability.
It's really about trying to prevent this from happening again in the future.
I mean the big goal for me is some sort of bipartisan legislation that will prevent this from happening again.
Did you write this book by yourself?
Well, I had some help from my wife and so what I usually say is it was a big, huge, maybe not that interesting book and then my wife, Kelly, got a hold of it and added a lot of interesting color to the book.
971 footnotes, given all the stupid stuff you have to do as a politician.
Yeah.
I can't believe you have the time to read 900 sources.
I got really intrigued by this when I saw the very first conversations on January 31st of Anthony Fauci.
He sends emails back and forth till three in the morning.
He's obviously petrified that it's going to come out that he funded this time.
Wow.
And so those emails intrigued me because we see all the way through till three in the morning.
The last email at three in the morning is to a guy named Bob Cadlak.
I didn't know who that was at first.
But I discovered in doing the research for this book that Bob Cadlak who receives an email at three in the morning, he's head of the safety committee that's supposed to oversee this research.
So why is Anthony Fauci emailing him at three in the morning saying nothing to see here probably came from animals because he knows that Bob Cadlak's committee should have reviewed this.
And the only reason they didn't is because Anthony Fauci prevented this research from getting the proper safety review.
Thank you, Senator Paul.
Thanks for having me.
Wow.
Thanks for watching this video.
I'm not really sure what to say other than that's a very, very impressive summary of the Scooby-Doo.
A very impressive commitment to the Scooby-Doo.
And I'm kind of frightened by the fact that he was so committed to the Scooby-Doo.
So let me just wrap it up real quick.
Oh, shoot.
Let me just wrap it up really quick here, guys.
So there's an illusion of consensus that's been created by the television and by social media that we had to figure out whether this was a lab leak of a batcave zoneosis virus or a batcave zoneosis or whether this was a lab leak of a batcave virus or, or whether it was a modified virus for that matter.
And maybe the fear and cleavage site is the reason why it went around the earth so well for three years.
Many people believe that the fear and cleavage site is the reason why this virus was so infectious and that it could start out in a point in Wuhan and spread around a planet, which is just not possible, an RNA molecule can't do that.
Just like if I spill paint outside of my house, there's no possible way no matter how many people walk through my backyard, it's not possible to cover the earth and blue paint by dumping it in my backyard.
Oh, but the RNA replicates with your own cells. It uses your own cells to copy.
Yeah, right.
And it can't make a single good copy of itself.
Every copy has errors. Most of the time the RNA dependent RNA polymerase makes an incomplete sub genomic RNA copy.
So much so that when they do a high fidelity nanopore sequencing experiment, they can only find a few, a handful of full genome sequences and the rest are fragmented.
They have no explanation for it other than likely the vast majority of viral particles don't have a full genome in them, which is part of this quasi species swarm.
This part of the fraction of that swarm that is incompetent replication incompetent exactly as none other than Robert Malone explained in June of 2021.
This faith in a novel virus has not been tarnished by anyone has not been challenged by anyone except for the people that say there's no viruses at all that measles is made up.
And the reason why is because this faith is the trap this faith is the faith that doesn't allow you to see that it's a conflated background signal that these tests don't test for anything that a pan coronavirus set of primers doesn't find anything.
And the metagenomic sequencing doesn't find anything hasn't found anything but putting together signals.
And the best example that I have for this is the library example.
I've told this one before, but maybe I shouldn't tell it now.
I won't tell it now.
Protocols are murder and transfection.
They're not medicine.
Infectious colon release.
You can call it that it's still the same.
Protocols are murder and transfection is a medicine.
It doesn't really matter what you call it as long as you realize that the signal that we're detecting with PC are testing the signal that they say they're getting when they culture this virus is most likely alive.
Because of the way that they do it.
It is most likely a lie.
And it's a lie not because the signals aren't there but because the signals are a conflated background signal they're telling you they're finding something that isn't there.
I want you to think of this example.
I'm going to try to explain it and see if this works.
Of course this wasn't right.
This is the read.
I hate that one but this one.
Let's say that you sat down and we set you down on the couch and we say that well Jonathan Cooley wrote a book about Scooby Doo.
And it's a book with 15 pages.
It's pretty short.
It's only got two chapters.
It's a kid's book like a Dr. Seuss book but it's about Scooby Doo.
And we're going to look in this library for it.
And I'm going to prove to you that in the Pittsburgh Carnegie Library my Scooby Doo book is in there.
But the way that we're going to look for it is we're going to use a random search engine to go look for pieces of my book in the library.
And if we find three pieces of my book in the library then I've proven to you that my book is in the library.
The pieces we're going to look for are once upon a time.
The end.
And suddenly a screen came from the hallway.
Now those are all parts of my book.
But if I tell you the story correctly or I make an argument to you correctly I could argue that those are unique to my book.
So if you find these in the library I have proven to you that my book is in that library and now you owe me you know you lost the bet.
And so if the coronavirus biology is like that and I suspect that it is that there are RNA and DNA signals in the background everywhere that include viruses and exosomes and whatever else noise that's there.
So if you start to draw random small signals from that with particular patterns and then say that if enough of these show up that it's evidence of something you can find a lot of things down there.
And that's exactly what Nathan wolf and metagenomic sequencing and metal biota did is that they said they were looking at the dark matter of life the noise and they were looking for new life forms in that that genetic noise.
A genetic noise is a lot like a giant shredded library of genetic noise from which you can almost find anything in small quantities.
Then it would be pretty easy to use a series of PCR reactions to claim that look I wrote a book it's in the library.
There's a conflated background signal back there that's composed of RNA dependent RNA polymerases and end proteins and and e proteins and all kinds of other viral proteins that are related to RNA sequences or something like that.
And if we use the light molecular techniques we can find once upon a time and the end and suddenly there was a scream in the hallway.
That novel book that brand new book is there look that book wasn't there before well how do you know well we weren't testing for it so obviously it wasn't there.
It's a brand new book in the library and it's traveling everywhere everywhere we look for it we find the book.
Holy crap.
Well we took the same test over to to England and we looked for once upon a time and the end and there was a scream in the hallway and we found those sentences so it was in it was in England too.
Holy cow really did you look in India.
Yeah we did and we found an English library there and lo and behold we found those sentences in that English library too.
That book must be a best seller.
It's the best selling book ever every freaking library we look in we find those sentences.
Now it's not a perfect analogy but it's damn close because the genetic alphabet is actually only 20 words with a few synonyms.
It's only composed of four letters.
Every words only three letters.
Uh oh.
Is it now getting easier for you to imagine that you could conflate a background signal with the right testing.
If the words are only three letters wrong and there's only four letters and there are only 20 possible words.
Oh my gosh ladies and gentlemen.
I think you're starting to understand why that conflated background signal might just be the source of this pandemic.
It's faith in a novel virus ladies and gentlemen.
It's faith in a novel virus.
It's faith that that background signal is really a new source of death that's never existed before and spread around the world more rapidly than any mRNA ever in history.
It's just ridiculous.
Protocols were murder and transfection is not medicine and the players that won't play the game won't talk about the PCR fraud anymore.
They won't talk about any of this stuff.
Natural immunity, transfection in general.
They got to talk about certain things but not in general.
If we're going to talk to you about protein folding or the RNA not being pure or the death certificates being fraudulent because of massive financial fraud, not going to talk about any of this lying.
They don't want to talk about it because then it dispels the idea of a novel virus that killed millions of people which is a tenant of the faith.
And why are they doing this because we are at a time point when there won't be 10 billion humans forever.
There won't be 10 billion humans having children forever.
And so if we want to get that genetic data from these children while we still have enough of them to feed the AI lifetimes of data, then we've got to invert sovereignty of people right now so that they turn their kids data over to the government.
It can't be this voluntary thing called all of us at the NIH where nobody's going to participate except for people that are paid.
They want it to be mandatory.
And first they're going to do it with money.
First they're going to do it with scary viruses but eventually it's just going to be because you owe it to us.
It's your duty to society to give your babies to us.
The genetic data.
Why are you so selfish?
Stop all transfections and humans ladies and gentlemen.
Stop all transfections full stop.
I've stayed up way too late again.
I wanted to be asleep when my wife was asleep tonight.
That's really annoying.
But it was good and I'm glad you guys stayed here.
You know, they're trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary so don't let them do it.
Don't let them do it.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb and transfection and healthy animal.
And healthy humans is criminally negligent.
Thanks very much for joining me.
I'll see you again tomorrow night.
Don't forget I am not teasing J body about a charia I think is going to join us on Monday morning.
So I'm probably going to do a live show on Monday morning which will actually I think be it's his morning.
So it'll actually be about one o'clock in the afternoon on Monday.
I'll throw it up on the schedule once I have confirmation from Jay that he's coming.
I think it's going to be real nice.
We have some good questions and of course we're going to take him as close as we can to questioning this mythology because he's an epidemiologist.
And so he I think he stays safely on his little island and I think I have the right kind of relationship with him to be in the broken science initiative that I can I can make him test his border a little bit so we're going to take him to the woods shed.
See you guys.