Hope it's a good one. I'm not gonna try and talk too much. So I hope it's a good one.
You schedule for 60 minutes next.
It's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television. People everywhere are starting to listen to him. It's embarrassing.
I'm trying to get a Skype phone call with that guy. I've seen that dude before, and I know if there's something I can talk about.
We might hook that up. You might even come on the show. You never know. The tide is starting to turn.
Norman might even come on the show.
I don't know why everything's so hot.
Maybe it's just that one slide that I've got to just say about that.
Moderna, if you've got a link to that, sub stack drop it in.
Alright, well, we've got to talk to Jay about a chariot and about that.
We've got a street in the house a little bit. I'm excited about that. That's very exciting.
I like that challenge. Thanks for that.
I can't post links. How come? That's weird. I think I can post links.
I'll figure it out. I can't do it right now while I'm live, but I probably can't.
But if you can't post links, I don't know if that's your setting or everybody's setting. I'll try and figure it out.
There it is.
I thought so. I don't have very much too many controls set up.
This is Gigaohm Biological, a high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
It's the 16th of November, 2023. Welcome to the show.
Tonight, I wanted to watch a discussion. Jonathan Engler and Jessica Hockett had with Naomi Wolf really could be potentially very interesting depending on what part of this very lively debate
within that spectrum of acceptable opinion we're working on and how much we're really trying to give people a sense of pre-thinking or how much rethinking we're really doing.
We're going to stop misleading the young. That's the main goal of Gig Owen Biological is ending this misleading of the young by teaching the history, making sure we don't take part in this lie.
The simplest step of courage any individual can take is not taking part in the lie. Those are my words.
Many smarter people than me have already seen this people coming. Many smarter people than me have known how this is work in previous iterations.
So, yeah, I think the brick wall is visible and I think we can see it and I think the biology is the best way to show people more and more of the brick wall without terrifying them about the truth.
The biology shows us and there was no spread in New York City to affect his clones are the only real threat.
His emo batches were likely distributed in Transfection Healthy Mammals is dominant.
The protocols were murder, gain of function, and mythology. The Scooby-Doo is real. The Scooby-Doo is designed to protect the mystery.
To make it seem like you've solved the mystery. That's the best way to brainwash yourself is to think that you solved the puzzle
and have that answer to the puzzle be the trap itself. The players are committed to the lies and that's the trap.
And the lies they are committed to are on the screen right now.
These are the lies that everybody is committed to. There was a novel virus that millions of people died from maybe 16 million around the world, but even more were saved.
And gain of function is real and likely the source of this pandemic and even if it wasn't this one, it could be the next one and a virus will come again.
That's the deal.
And so gingo and biological is all about trying to break that faith and show why that is a whole mythology that has been constructed in order to govern us by it.
Thanks for noticing that my voice is still sounding really good. I actually got to tell you it's getting stronger every day.
I'm not yelling in the gym yet, but I could. And I don't know what to say other than it's getting stronger.
I don't I haven't had pain the whole time it's been recovering, but there has been different levels of of complete and I think it's getting really close to complete.
I mean, I still have this thing that I've always had where sometimes it just doesn't start, you know, and the voice just doesn't come out when I wanted to, but I've had that problem as far as I can remember.
So it's just kind of like, I don't know if the vocal cords are big and sometimes they don't they don't get started or whatever, but that's always been an issue.
But but the way that they're they're working right now, I'm just, you know, knock on wood. I hope I hope somehow or another.
My body's healed itself.
We'll see.
So don't take the bait on TV and social media and make sure that you understand again that what's perceived to be true is most important.
And that's what a lot of these people have always been about.
Not really so much about dissidents as they are about controlling the narrative and making sure that what's perceived to be true is that worst case scenario what's perceived to be true is maybe uncertainty.
And even though the possibility space is being controlled, it's the uncertainty within that possibility space that keeps everybody on shaky ground keeps everybody guessing.
And then as we went through this mystery solving exercise with Rand Paul and Tony Fauci arguing and emails being redacted.
We have been rushed right past the conclusion that we should have come to, which is that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb and specifically transfection and healthy humans is criminally negligent.
Oh yeah.
I split this up into two into two.
Why can't I talk while I'm doing this?
I split this up into two slideshows because I guess it's starting to take up too much memory with some of the background movies from bleeple that I'm using.
I don't know if you noticed that or not.
Those slides are from bleeple that some of those videos, let me switch over here.
So we have been telling this story of a Scooby-Doo and that one needs to go off for now.
Okay, I apologize.
I'm a little behind here with the with my tech.
You know, I don't have anybody in the background.
Everybody wants to send an email says tell your staff or tell your switcher when I don't have that.
It's all buttons in front of me.
We've been trying to explain to our family and friends into the new viewers that absolutely every once in a while join us right now.
I would guess that all 48 viewers are our old friends and family.
And so thanks very much for being here every night and making this not seem like I'm shouting into nowhere.
The Scooby-Doo is my best way of explaining how we've been fooled.
We have been fooled into believing we are akin to a group of teenagers that has been following clues and solving a puzzle where at the end we have to take the mask off of the bad guys and find out who the monsters are.
And we feel like that as a society that we've unmasked Tony Fauci and eco health alliance and the Wuhan laboratory as collaborators in this very hubaristic gain of function research, which is the most likely source of this pandemic, even if they got it out of a bad
wave, they tweaked it, they goofed around with it, they were making chimeric viruses.
And it's this argument of it, the the full cover up of it, the faux censorship of it.
That has resulted in the average mouth breathing.
Skilled TV watcher to feel as though they have successfully participated or followed along with a real time three year mystery solving exercise.
And that three year mystery solving exercise is the pandemic. What is going on with my tech here.
Let's go.
And so last night we watched a video of Rand Paul basically explaining where we are and they have us right where they want us with with with this Scooby-Doo believing that there was a novel virus for sure that killed 1 million people in America and 16 million people around the world is exactly
what Rand Paul said not three days ago on an ABC news program.
16 million people died and even more were saved by a combination of not so perfect choices and the spectacularly fast rollout of an almost completely perfect mRNA product.
But unfortunately what has been revealed by this three year pandemic is that gain of function is very real.
Not only that, but in this interview, it is none other than Kevin S felt the perfecter of the gene drive the perfecter of directed evolution saying that gain of function and viruses is the premier biological threat that could threaten 50 billion people in the universe.
So the viruses will definitely come again.
And this story this illusion of consensus across and around the globe across the spectrum of debate.
This illusion of consensus that this is more or less what had to have happened is how they want to trap our children.
And it is a faith based on nothing but mythology and wisps of biology concepts that are not that are too grand and and too well defined to be applied to.
I hear a little tiny bit of sound maybe that thing is just bleeding through our two grand and too defined to apply to something as constricted and well understood in limitations as an RNA or DNA virus.
And so the idea is to scare you into believing that an RNA molecule coated in a protein lipid nanopartin, a lipid lipoprotein coat is capable of circulating around the globe perpetually making copies of itself remember it started out as a very small quantity
and a few people unlucky at the market.
And it has expanded itself an RNA molecule coated in lipid lipoprotein has expanded itself to the point where oh that's what that is that's a four over here that one.
It has expanded itself into millions of people enough to kill 16 million people.
That's the story I'm sorry I'm telling if it's a broken.
This is really just my new some new buttons of change is not really working here.
Can I test this one? Is that working? I mean this is the whole idea of the thing.
It's a little bit delayed.
But this is really the joke that they played on us this three years of illusion of consensus where they they pretend to be revealing they pretend to be coming out they pretend to say hey this is my technology.
They pretend to say hey my you know I heard a whole bunch of stories about people got killed by the vaccine maybe it's not so good after all.
Did he take it? Yeah I took it. Did he take it? Yeah he took it.
No I didn't take it I'm taking Ivermectin.
And this story that was woven over these last three years has been so intricately designed to preserve the novel virus that killed millions of people from which millions more were saved and gain a function is likely source and the virus will come again.
And so I've been trying to make this diagram of people just to give you an idea of how we are trapped by this illusion of consensus because no matter where we turn we find somebody with a slightly different story in a slightly different, you know, stick.
But in the end all of these people's stick do not question the premises of a novel virus millions of people being killed by it millions more being saved from it gain a function being a real thing and a virus likely to come again.
None of these people will question it except for people like Nick Hudson and Denny Rancor, Jessica Hockett.
I mean I have Peter McCullough there because he's questioning the the childhood vaccine schedule but Peter McCullough actually doesn't question this part of the faith yet at all.
Certainly doesn't question gain a function certainly doesn't question the millions died.
We still have a lot of work to do this diagram is still far from complete it's kind of optimistic in a way.
And so I really need you to think of the Scooby-Doo as part of this thing that kept us focused cognitively focused on this imaginary journey.
In this case portrayed as some kind of weird subway tunnel with neon lights.
We're focused on this this solving this mystery figuring out what was going on.
And all these different accounts and stories all lined up.
Accounts from the United States accounts from from Australia accounts from people who worked for eco health alliance accounts for people who invented the mRNA accounts from people who worked in government and argued with people in government.
Soon we're going to have accounts from people who are running for president.
I already have it. That's right. I already have it. All the stuff that I wanted to get in the book is in the book. So stay tuned ladies and gentlemen. There's going to be some serious fireworks coming in the coming weeks.
But in this tunnel we still find ourselves in this tunnel certainly our family and friends are in this tunnel.
Certainly all the people that are skillfully watching television no matter what TV channel they choose they are in this tunnel.
Still believing that bad cave viruses have pandemic potential still believing that that pandemic potential can be accessed through cell culture or through animal passage and still believing that you can stitch these things together.
And if you stitch the wrong parts together away it'll go around the world. You shouldn't have spilled that paint outside your door. Holy cow. That's terrible.
Those squirrels are going to track that paint all over the world. It's never going to stop.
And this illusion of this potential worst case scenario being 5 billion people dead was just recently reiterated by Rand Paul citing Kevin Esfel the perfecter of the gene drive and perfected directed evolution in proteins.
We are talking about some serious obfuscation and misdirection of what the real biological dangers are what the real technologies we need to be afraid of are.
It's not gain a function in viruses and it's not gain a function in coronaviruses.
It is infectious clones produced in quantity in RNA viruses that's for sure.
And it is directed evolution and proteins for toxins for immunogens and enzymes and it is gene drives.
Why are they doing this because they plan to coerce a surrender of individual sovereignty and global fundamental inversion from human rights to freedom to fascism.
That's why.
And so I'm not really sure what this illusion of consent what role this illusion of consensus is supposed to play other than to make sure that we ask the wrong questions.
And you can ask any questions you want to ask that's why it feels a little bit less like a storyline in a tunnel and more like a cube or a trap now.
That we're looking out of it's kind of transparent.
And all these things are going on on the outside and all these people will tell us what we see.
But we're not actually seeing anything anymore we're seeing what the TV wants us to see what social media wants us to see and we have no way of verifying that what we think we are seeing is true.
And these people can go all around the world on podcasts all around the world and create the illusion of consensus that traps us in this very vivid seeming vivid debate and argument.
But it's actually just a cube that expands and contracts and we can't escape from it anymore.
They have us now.
They have us in this trap already where our children believe that pandemic potential exists in bad caves pandemic potential is being released on the world because of our ever increasing encroachment on nature our overpopulation and climate change.
So make no mistake about it we are already almost trapped in this cognitive prison.
That that circumvents language and culture and and traps us all in this narrative of of pandemic viruses.
And so that's why I think it's really important to start to figure out who we can trust and then to elevate their discourse so that no matter what the censorship is we have this network of of real people amplifying real people.
And somehow we've got to get this word out before digital ideas required on the internet before digital ID becomes adopted for air travel, which is probably inevitable at this stage.
Unfortunately, as I said last night you already have the software in your passport if you have one.
It just doesn't have the data on it yet.
If you have a real ID drivers license in the United States, you already have the chip. You just don't have it loaded yet.
So let's watch Jessica and Jonathan on this podcast and see what they have to say.
I think it should be a good one.
Hey, everyone. Welcome. It's Dr. Naomi Wolf and I'm honored to be joined today by Jessica pocket and Jonathan angler of the distinguished group.
So excited to have you. So we've got some bios. Mr Angler started life as a medical doctor. I'm sorry.
I should have said Dr Angler before moving into clinical industry where he gained experience in designing running and reporting clinical trials to regulatory standards.
After a few years of business using automation to streamline clinical trials.
And this was sold to us corporation a decade later.
He retrained as a lawyer because why, you know, why not make your Jewish mother incredibly happy.
Back to a short period before re entering the health care business world.
And he is the co chair with Claire Craig who I adore, by the way, I've never met her but I've admired her forever of the UK based heart group, which opposes UK government policies of the last few years.
He is also an executive committee of the international research group, Linda, where he works closely with Jessica.
Now Jessica pocket lives in the Chicago area and worked in the K 12 education sector for more than 20 years versus a teacher and then as a consultant to schools and agencies and policy organizations.
She's published many publications, including numerous articles and three books since 2020 she has used her research skills to push against government mandates censorship and false claims.
She publishes her investigative work on New York City's mass battalion event on Twitter at would underscore house 76 and her sub step would house 76 calm and is proud to be associated with the international group panda through which she collaborates with Jonathan,
and others. And so such distinguished guests for today again welcome welcome. The reason that we're speaking with Dr Engler and Miss pocket today is that panda panda their group reached out to let us know that they had reviewed the 2020 New York City
and they had some questions serious questions so overview please tell us what you found in your own research and again I just want to like underscore this is their independent research daily cloud has not evaluated our group is not evaluated.
It's so I'll just stop it right here.
And see if I can orchestrate this little bit here.
So first of all let's just outline what they said Jonathan angler is co chair of the heart group which is actually out of the UK.
And he's also part of the the board of panda panda is based in South Africa and it's actually Nick Hudson's
right.
I'm sorry for the messy pencil. I don't know why I'm using pencil tonight.
And Jessica Haka used to work in Chicago. I think she worked for Chicago public schools. She's also been a
student with the Hoover institution institute which is at Stanford. You might know that from also that's where people like Thomas soul are pointed.
And she came into panda actually maybe a year after I first presented to panda.
I think I presented to panda too or I think only twice if I presented to panda but maybe three times twice for sure.
And both of those times were before Jessica presented there.
And since Jessica came to panda they really have been working very hard to promote her ideas about New York City and I think they've been very successful at it.
And I do want to give at least a shout out to Jessica and and Jonathan right away at the start. They have been encouraging me to to write a
sub-stackish article explaining my ideas about clones and the PCR and just try to iron out some of the biology that I've been teaching.
And while I've had other people also encourage me to do that.
For me unlike people like Matt Crawford or or even Robert Malone or these other people that can put out 20 or 30 or 40 pages of sub stack every day.
And two or three articles sometimes every day. That's not me. That's not how I write.
It's sometimes how I talk. And so it's possible that at some point I will crack the code on how to.
Let's say turn on a stream and record and then translate that into an article or to a transcript later that is useful to edit.
And so for now just say it's on the to do list and now that book plug again now that this book is going to be coming out in about three weeks.
It's actually a very important time for me to have that article ready to go so that all of the biology that's encoded in this book with my name next to it can be adequately explained and questions can be answered as the book circulates.
It's pretty exciting ladies and gentlemen. It is actually going to happen.
I don't know. I'm I'm I'm cautiously optimistic that we're going to be able to get somewhere and I'm cautiously optimistic that when we do get somewhere Jonathan Engler.
Jessica Hockett and Nick Hudson and a few other people are going to be strategically ready to make sure that these ideas are ready to springboard into what might might become common knowledge, which is really what we need to happen.
In much the same way that people have come to realize that, wow, I think it might be a lab leak. We have to make people continue down this progression to realize that, wow, I may have been fooled purposefully fooled into believing that I was figuring out that it was a lab leak.
So that I would make sure that my children would believe in these these mythologies for their lives.
And that's pretty scary. But on the other hand, it's pretty exciting.
And you can have a whole boatload of hope once you start to realize that, wait, does that mean that we we stopped it?
Like once you realize that, oh, wait, if we just don't believe, then it's all gone. Yes.
Then suddenly it can become a very uplifting moment, especially for some of these people who have felt oppressively trapped by this for three years where the rest of us have at least been pushing back against it.
I don't I don't think you can underestimate how exciting of a moment this is potentially as this book comes out and as these ideas come out in real tangible form in a way that we can use as a springboard to get more detailed explanations about these ideas out there.
To get more attention to some extremely well done lectures that you can bet your bet your donuts I'm preparing so that when the time comes and when the viewers come in the coming weeks that we are ready to teach the basic biology of this Scooby-Doo once and for all while everybody is watching.
And have a published transcript to go along with it some graphics some some cards some slides you don't think I'm getting ready for that you got another thing coming ladies and gentlemen so let's have some fun let's listen to our allies Jonathan Engler and Jessica
Hockett talk with Naomi Wolf about the idea of whether or not there was a real pandemic or something that they kind of orchestrated and and so called something that it wasn't exciting it's their finding so over to you to tell us what you found.
Yeah, so I mean my first suspicions about the story that we were being told arose in a few years ago actually 2020-2021 when it looked like basically the COVID deaths which were claimed shot up in a peak.
And I thought that's a slightly strange thing for a spreading pathogen to do and of course the alternative theory to that which I developed in Panda with a very genius evolutionary biologist who was in Panda there was maybe it wasn't actually a spreading virus maybe it was the response to the idea that there might be a spreading virus in other
words the dystopian.
Now I really like Jonathan Engler but I think it's a little bit.
I'm a little I'm a little disappointed with this kind of explanation.
I have a hard time believing that there were very many people in March of 2020 who were already saying wow that's strange this peak is strange.
That that's a pretty bold claim you can look back at March 2020 from from a later time and say wow that peak looks strange but you can't look at that peak in March 20 and know that it's strange.
Unless you were in the hospitals and you knew what people were doing in there.
And the idea that he came up with this idea with one other evolutionary biologist in Panda is also a bit of a stretch because.
I don't know I just I wish that there people would be more humble and not say that I came I I I right away all the time when so many people suspected this so many people knew something was wrong.
And so many people brought confirmation in some way or another that allowed all of us to slowly and surely see.
None of us could have done this by ourselves if we were the only people we ever met who actually understood that something was going wrong if I never met anyone else who acknowledged that there's more light over there than there is over here.
Isn't there.
Then we would have all gone crazy and it frustrates me very much the same way it frustrates me when people say yeah but you know we didn't know what was going on we weren't sure we were all really afraid we just did the best we could.
It's so frustrating that people don't want to admit that they had no freakin clue in March 2020.
It's so freakin annoying darn it.
Healthcare response and how it affected the particularly elderly people at the time and so fast forward to 2022 when we discovered that we could download some information.
Find great information.
So from March 2020 to somewhere in 2022 you had nothing nothing happened you didn't talk to anybody nobody taught you anything about immunology nobody taught you anything about viruses.
Nobody gave you any confidence about your theory based on the fact that virology is as as a whole was a little weird.
You didn't get any courage or or or excitement from anybody else's ideas for two years until you got to download the data you always knew you needed.
Ah darn it Jonathan.
Come on.
There's just no reason for this level of of arrogance.
It's frustrating I'm going to play it again and I'm not going to interrupt him this time because I really want you to hear it.
Think about all the people who burnt their careers during 2020 2021 and 2022 trying to get some information out there to say hey something's wrong here.
How many doctors spoke up.
Come on man this is this is I get frustrated with this.
And others and so such distinguished there is questions being told arose it's it's their finding so over to you to tell us what you found.
Yeah so I mean my first suspicions about the story that we were being told arose in a few years ago actually 2020 2021 when it looked like.
See 2020 2021 that's pretty a specific if you weren't awake until 2021 then you missed the whole first year.
I mean I you know there's something fishy about this right away.
Darn it.
What is this?
Basically the COVID deaths which were claimed shot up in a peak as famously cross our United Kingdom at the same time with a few days in between.
And Dr. Adler around what month was that?
March 20th and I thought that's a slightly strange thing for a spreading pathogen to do.
And of course the alternative theory to that which I developed in Panda with a very genius evolutionary biologist who was in Panda there was maybe it wasn't actually a spreading virus maybe it was the response to the idea that there might be a spreading virus.
In other words the dystopian health care response and how it affected the particularly elderly people at the time.
And so fast forward to 2022 when we discovered that we could download some information from fine grade information from Northern Italy.
Basically daily death information.
What was the source of data?
This was the Italian Statistics Institute.
So the official government stats certificate Institute in Italy actually publishes a very fine grained death data for going right down into relatively small towns and villages in Northern Italy.
And so we actually analyzed the data trying to find the evidence of spread the whole critical part of the narrative is that something spread.
Something spreads and you should see evidence of it mathematically because what you get is you get clusterings and then you get things taking off in a small little fire somewhere.
And then that dies out and another one starts off somewhere else.
What you wouldn't expect to see would be the simultaneous destruction of the whole forest.
And that's really that's a powerful analogy.
So can we just jump in there?
I know you want to set the stage and I appreciate it.
But that's really a thought worth processing.
You're saying and do epidemiologists agree with you that the normal way a pathogen spreads is here and then here and then here rather than everywhere all at once.
Well, that's the that is the narrative I've claimed that it that it spread.
That was the whole basis upon lockdowns restrictions of movement.
I'm asking kind of a different question and I really want to get this right.
So please bear with me.
Yeah.
And again.
See now what I have a problem with here and I you know, like I said, Jonathan and I have been in contact for a long time through Panda.
And Jessica has been on my show and I consider Jessica a friend in the sense of we've we've had a lot of private messaging and a lot of, you know, she's she's promoted a lot of my my tweets and my work and given me a lot of compliments and been pretty helpful.
Definitely hasn't asked me to or told me to do anything or not say anything.
And the other people are not as as as supportive.
And I find it.
I find it.
Disappointing that Jonathan Engler is saying that he and one other person in Panda came up with an idea.
In 2020 about, you know, patterns of not spreading in the UK.
And he was already scratching his head about that for two years.
And then eventually got ahold of the data in Italy and then looked for spread.
The problem I have with this story, I got to be really honest with you, the problem that I have with this story is, is that it de accentuates the role of of protocols.
And it's it's like this.
So when are we going to get to saying that what we did was we killed people and that idea isn't his that idea can't be his because we know that so many other people were saying this from the very beginning so many people that spoke at Panda over those two years, including
Rancor, both of his big first publications came out in those years before they ever had the Italian data.
And so they already had confirmation that this was going on.
I already had given two presentations in front of Panda in 2022.
Maybe one of them was in 2021 where I was basically saying this that there is no real evidence of spread per se because that can't really happen.
And it's the fact of the matter is is that it's just it also kind of does a little bit of a disservice for what Panda was.
That Panda was really this place where people could come and present their ideas and people listened and had a critical discussion and once you presented, you could join every week and it became this really strong place where these ideas could grow and be hammered out.
And so it really does a disservice to the whole Panda organization in a way to say that I came up with the I noticed something funny in the UK and then me and another guy in Panda.
You know we came up with this idea and then we got this data eventually and then we tested our idea.
It's just it's so I don't know why why are we doing this.
You know you don't have to give a shout out to everybody but why not just at least say that Panda was a great place for these ideas to to blossom and fruit then then just say that you know I had this idea since March 2020.
What's Jessica doing on the show then.
What do you need her for.
She finally found what you always knew was going to be found in New York anyway I mean I don't know why I'm angry about this but I just don't like it because everybody's doing this Brett Weinstein is doing this.
If it wasn't if they shut me up boy it would be completely different it'd be the old global slave trade by now.
Lucky humanity had me.
I'll admit it I'm pretty frustrated because a lot of these people are doing just fine.
What did he say he was a doctor and a lawyer and all those other stuff so I'm sure he didn't lose his job and if he did well I'm sorry.
I don't know I just people whining about what they sacrificed people whining about what they lost.
This is a game for all the marbles.
This is for our children's children this is for our children being slaves or not.
This is about subcutaneous chipping of children.
When people are still playing the you know whose idea was this game and who gets credit for this.
Why are we playing this game like this.
It's just annoying.
I'm not a medical doctor so my famous reference is 400 years of English and American memoirs and novels and so on.
What you're saying really resonates with like accounts of the demonic plague right it wasn't everywhere all at once it was in this town and then it was in that town and then it was you know coming in the harbor.
Are you saying that epidemiologists agree with you that pathogens do not spread everywhere all at once they spread here in a cluster and then to their in a cluster and to their in a cluster that we should that's what they should do.
But of course what they've been trying to do with the data we've been presenting is is refit remake all their assumptions so that their perception of what happened which was a normal deadly virus spread from Wuhan across the world.
So that fits that but the more assumptions they have to change to make that model fit to the less credible it basically looks.
You just want to dig in here because what you're saying is kind of incredible. So you're saying that epidemiologists in the past agree that pathogens spread the way you just described from this place to this place to this place in clusters, but that currently
kind of institutional epidemiologists as opposed to our dissident friends or epidemiologists are now remaking their assumptions about how pathogens spread in order to align the expectations with the COVID narrative that everything spread all at once is that what you're saying.
Yeah, so for example they might have thought a few years ago is a classical spread of a packaging from person to person. If you isolate somebody will reduce the spread and we can model this using complex modeling and so on.
Now they're having to introduce the idea of triggers that they don't really understand to explain why why did it take off simultaneously in these different areas.
Oh, it must be a trigger that we don't understand. Now we would say that is not a virus. The trigger is the spread of fear, panic and dystopia.
But I should point out that there is somewhat of an omerta over the whole story about what happened in 2020 is even people who have worked out that the whole vaccine program is of dubious efficacy of safety.
And justification are unwilling to look deeply into what actually happened in spring 2020. Right, we're out on a limb, both within the skeptical and the non skeptical community.
Well, let's bracket that. Okay, and then move right into what do you say you found. I get your theory that the mass deaths may not have been a virus in this case, being kind of anomalously and being everywhere all at once and killing people everywhere all at once.
Right, that's not, I mean, I've studied the history of plagues, you know, back to Justinian and it wasn't like that. It was this core, this town. Right, it wasn't now it's the Roman Empire.
Now it's not to this border. That's left over to, you know, it's unfortunate that they're biologically equating the plague with potential viral spread. I think there's good reason to believe that.
Irrespective of what cartoon model is actually right, there's a different cartoon model for the plague and for a virus, regardless of what the real biology is, it's a different.
Well, I mean, that is really a very unusual thing about this virus is that it seems to know where all the national boundaries are. Right, exactly.
I'm not buying that. But anyway, I'm going to head over to Jessica in a minute, but just as a sort of segue into that, just to point out our Italy analysis, which is one of kind of the most commented papers actually is the paper that I wrote in.
In September, October last year, which raised the question of whether there was actually evidence of spread or rather simultaneous imposition of a set of conditions on the population.
There was only so far we could go in terms of the Italy analysis, mainly for language reasons. It's quite difficult as an outsider to dig into the what data you need where you might get it.
Make FOI requests for your as you call them for your requests and so on. This is where I'm going to hand over to Jessica because what we've basically done is we've repeated that analysis or part of that analysis for New York City.
Okay, because one thing I'm just wanting to just make sure I understand everything you're saying your thesis is that it's not, it may not be COVID that killed all those people simultaneously all at once in Italy and now you're, you're about to explain in New York City.
It might have been a lockdown conditions, meaning isolation, horrible protocols and hospitals, fear, multi-generational households, whether it do I have that correct.
You do, yeah. There's an additional twist in the New York situation, which may also pertain to the Northern Italy situation, but we don't have enough information to interrogate a property.
And the additional twist is that we are putting the authorities to proof.
Right.
So is that the people actually died, the numbers being claimed actually died.
I love that and we'll get to that. I just need to ask one question.
Forgive me for stopping you so often.
It's very important and I want to make, you know, if you're right, it's very important.
I want to make sure everyone watching fully understands what you're saying.
How could, if you're right, hypothetically, that it was the conditions of lockdown rather than the virus that suddenly killed all these people in Italy. And now we're going to talk about New York City in March of 2020.
How could that happen so fast? Because lockdowns only started on New York on March 8th of 2020.
Well, I mean, a lot of the Jessica will expand on this, but there are various different mechanisms. I mean, we've got two, two scenarios. One is that people died quickly.
It's a, it's a suggestion that she's making the conditions of the lockdown. It's not the conditions of the lockdown. It's specifically the conditions in the hospital, the financial incentive.
Administrative control of how to treat the novel virus.
And so it's very specifically this faith in a novel virus that could be detected by a non specific PCR test.
And a list of bad ideas that go along with those things.
And so we need to be very specific and very precise. And we're not being very specific and being precise right now. So I hope they get there soon.
And that is explainable. In some places, well, there may be not to the total extent of the number of death claim that is explainable by some of the policies implemented.
I mean, first of all, what do you mean, like, how could like lockdowns are not going to kill people in three weeks, remdesivir and ventilators.
Correct. So I was going to come on to say there are a variety of things that could well have claimed people's lives prematurely.
You've got to remember that within any health, with any system where particularly when you have elderly people who are basically maintained by quite a complex social care and health care environment, it doesn't take much to tip those people over the edge.
And generate a peak of deaths. I mean, we see it with, we see it with heat waves.
Right.
You see it with heat waves. So people are, if you view the whole social care apparatus around elderly people, including their relatives, if you view that as their life support system, disrupt that will die.
Oh my gosh. And so immediately what I'm thinking about being a New Yorker is that our governor, I believe in March and April moved people with code infections into nursing care homes, which is totally unheard of.
And then there was a rash of deaths in nursing care.
There she made a mistake. She said people were moved into nursing homes with COVID infections, most likely they were moved into nursing homes with already with pneumonia with bacterial pneumonia.
And they weren't given antibiotics.
And so it appears as though Naomi is still very much fighting for the faith that there was a novel virus that killed millions of people, or at least was around when millions of people died.
It was in the room. I mean, I guess we can agree that the virus didn't actually kill the old lady, but the virus was definitely here. Right.
And so I think you can see where giga ohm biologicals work is still far from done. In fact, it may be the Jessica and Jonathan and the rest of this panda team or whatever team this is with with Nick Hudson and and Martin Neil.
Maybe they're just missing this biology that we've been working on for the last three years and our contribution, you know, that's, that's in the book.
It's in the book. I'm going to keep showing it. It's one of the happiest days of my recent years here to have this book out and then to open to the pages and realize that this stuff that I really wanted to get in there all made it in.
And the best part is is that on the back, Robert Malone says this is an awesome book.
So Robert Malone actually endorsed me, which is pretty dope. Like he doesn't know who I am, but he says that the book's pretty cool and it's historic documents. So this biology is pretty important.
That's quite a review. You know what I mean?
So anyway, let's keep listening. I like this interview. I'm glad I'm getting fired up about it. I'm glad I got fired up and about it in the beginning.
And Jonathan Engler, if you saw it, then good. You know how fired up I am, but I'm sure you're going to pull it out and, and I'm just have overreacted. So let's go.
So your hypothesis is that, and this is makes human sense. It makes intuitive sense that very elderly people are kept alive by networks and making sure they're being looked after, making sure they're getting their medication, taking their spirits up.
And if you look, hydrating them, hydrating them, if you look very elderly people away in isolation, you don't even need to mentally or when necessary for a lot of them to simply give up.
And I'm just trying this with a data point that I'm sure you can take into account that one of our colleagues analyze the death data for Massachusetts and found that the average COVID death was two years older than the average death.
So they're counting people who are already as dying from COVID who are already at the end of their life spans, whereas I take your point, they may be hanging on by a thread, the thread that the extended if people love them and take care of them and can see them and keep them.
And so this is of course a very important time to bring in this idea that in the illusion of consensus is about a novel virus and that this effect that we see here that I'm circling with my, my arrow, this effect could only be a novel virus killing millions of people.
It can't possibly be the combination of protocols like the do not resuscitate orders and the ventilators and the lack of antibiotics and the poor use of steroids and remdesivir and opioid deaths and death certificate fraud.
It can't be any of that stuff.
It's just a novel virus, COVID.
And so we've got to roll back this idea by accurately accounting for what actually did take people out it does feel as though this is happening in this podcast.
And I hope that they can convert Naomi fully it'll be very interesting going and it may be cut together if you remove your support system.
So I will say have a saying that you know everything was COVID and COVID was everything in the sense that you know it's the every man's virus COVID so it's both sneaky and stealthy but then it explodes like a bomb.
It apparently is completely unique but then it causes every single symptom anybody can ever think.
Sorry, it's completely mad.
Thank you so much.
Please pick up and tell us what you found specifically about what you looked at me.
Sure. So the New York City's spring 2020 mass casualty event even though I live in Chicago I don't live in New York has troubled me deeply since 2021 for sure.
The data from New York and the casualty sustained in New York in 11 weeks 27,000 extra people died equivalent mortality wise of about 10, 911 events.
According to whom.
What were these?
According to data federal mortality database CDC wonder and according to data that I obtained directly from the New York City Department of health and mental hygiene their 2020 vital statistics report.
I've got a lot of data from from them and other New York City agencies, especially on a daily basis.
But you have about 2627,000 extra deaths in 11 weeks huge huge mortality event.
We do not have the names of the dead in fact journalistic efforts have only uncovered about that.
There are no death certificates.
There's no way in New York state to get death certificates so that we can simply verify that this event occurred.
And I want to be clear about that too about my my contention or my suspicion is that we have a major fraud event at work with New York City.
And not just in terms of a cause of death with noise.
It's a COVID death was not not a COVID death, but in so far as what the city and the federal government are claiming about the number of people actually died each day on the ground in real time in the settings, but they are claimed to have occurred that that is my
question.
I think.
All right.
Wow.
Strong words.
So let me again try to understand exactly what you're saying.
You looked at.
Data for New York City from two government sources. One was federal CDC managed database and one was municipal, a New York City health and mental health.
Yeah. So we have so that's where the all cause mortality, but then we have multiple what I've been doing, especially with the past year and a half or so in earnest is gathering multiple and different kinds of data, not just that's data.
But ambulance dispatch data, hospital occupancy data, emergency room data 911 call data to really try to understand what the heck happened here. Why doesn't anybody want to talk about it and do all these data points fit.
We have this massive spike that happened nowhere else in magnitude or speed.
When you say this massive spike, you're talking about the 27,000 extra deaths higher than expected in what time period in the time period.
In the time period of mid March, 2020 to the end of May, 2020, most of that, most of that mortality occurred within about four to five weeks, though, use that like a week period as the spring 2020 event.
Okay. So jumping in, do the municipal data about these 27,000 purported extra deaths match the CDC data about the purported action.
No, not exactly.
It's a little complicated to explain, but there are discrepancies.
I've written about them on my, on my sub stack on the order of maybe a thousand or so deaths. So it's not, it's a significant number, but it's not an explanation for the 27,000.
That important. All right. Moving on. You're saying that you're trying to identify these individuals by death certificate. Is that correct?
Well, no, I'm saying these individuals have not been identified.
Who hasn't identified them? Nobody has identified identified them.
It's not due to medical privacy laws.
No, no, no, no, not necessarily a vital record is different from a medical record. In many states, you can obtain that certificates via FOIA, even with names on them.
That's not the case with the names in every state, but with some, some people like Minnesota, I think somebody obtained every death certificate.
Just the basics, right. So in some died on this day, these are attributed causes and this is where they die.
You can't even get that in New York City.
But when it comes to jumping in, what is this an anomaly? Would you have been in the past?
Let me connect with you. This is the largest mass casualty event in New York City ever. And I would say almost in any, in any city in US history ever.
And there is no proof of these deaths. We have.
Again, I've got to jump in. I'm sorry.
I'm asking if that's an anomaly, meaning if you were to FOIA, the 3000 people who were said to have died in the Twin Towers on 9 11.
Would Jessica Pocket have been able to FOIA proof of all those individuals death?
Not so for 9 11, 9 11, they released the names.
No one verified them to my knowledge the way you are wanting. I'm asking if we need either names of all these people who are alleged to have died during this event and or death certificates preferably both.
So I've looked at the databases for these purported deaths from my book, The Bodies of Others. I saw what you saw, which is totally unverifiable because they are strings of numbers rather than any individual names.
What I'm saying is, is that a departure? Isn't that standard practice in a tech company? So I'm asking this cut from a nerdy point of view or data stats where you have to conceal people's identity for privacy reasons, you would as a coder assign them a number.
In Illinois, I could get every death certificate if I submitted a FOIA. So I'm saying it varies from state to state, and in New York state, current law does not permit me to get death certificates in the same way that John Baldwin did for Massachusetts.
But I think more broadly, and this is really important, is that the government should not be able to claim that an event occurred without especially one of this magnitude, especially when it was used to scare the world, lack of children and hurt people, force them to take a magazine and not have to prove the event.
It's true as the life and that the death certificates to my knowledge have not been attempted to be obtained, but we have a list of names at the very least.
All right, so now I understand. So you are balked by the fact that these data sets, which is indeed frustrating, are strings of numbers rather than names.
And you don't know if these are real people. You're saying that this death pattern departs from what you'd expect to see.
I understand that due to privacy laws in New York state, they don't have to release the names of these individuals to you, right, even with even with FOIA.
So I guess what I'm trying to understand is, therefore, this is the point you've reached where you're saying this is an anomaly. We can't confirm these people.
Now we're asking New York City authorities to verify that these people are real people who actually died. Is that correct?
Sure. Yeah, that's a big piece of it. And the different data sets and data points don't fit together. One example is that New York City hospitals claimed in the media claim that New York City hospitals were overrun with patients.
They were not overrun with patients visits to the emergency department plummeted 60%. And at the same time, we have an extra 20,000 or we had not extra 20,000 excuse me, extra maybe 16 or 17,000.
I'm pulling the number from my head of people who died during that period. If you're in City hospitals, put it differently. New York City shows an occupancy. So that means, you know, how many patients were in beds.
They show a peak occupancy in that period of 20,000.
Their data show about 20,000 inpatient died.
Wow.
It would be the biggest mass casualty event by far in a hospital system anywhere. Imagine just picture that.
Yeah.
No, I understand a little bit.
Just to correct something that you said, if you don't mind name, you gave the impression that we had access to kind of anonymized roles, role calls of the people died.
We don't even have that.
Okay.
It's not like you said strings of numbers replacing names. We don't have even that or we have our totals on especially.
That's not okay.
No, it's not okay.
The New York Times has more than that. Right. I mean, at a state level, they have.
Data sets where each individual reportedly has a line. So you really, so that that's really a smoking gun there because you really can't check line by line, right? You can't check that this individual who was said to have died in Queens on March 22 matches an individual matches a death in Queens.
Right.
So interesting. So is that the case for both sources of data that both the CDC and the municipal authorities are just giving totals and not individualized spreadsheets? Is that correct?
Yeah.
By individualized spreadsheet, you mean like line by line death. Right. I mean, CDC wonder, you cannot search individual CDC wonders the federal database. It's like where all the death certificates go or the data from them.
And you can't search necessarily individual deaths. Right.
See, to see what a death certificate says.
To be clear, we're not talking about releasing autopsies for everybody who had an autopsy.
That's not what I'm asking.
Just asking if every individual death has a line on a spreadsheet and we're getting it.
No, we do not.
We do not have that for New York state or New York city and it's not obtainable under under state law.
All right.
So let thank you for explaining.
So, um,
Dev is advocate.
People I knew who worked in pharmacies in high death areas said that a lot of people were being found dead at home and never meet into the hospital.
Could that help explain the anomalies that you're seeing?
Yep. And I'm going to be writing about that further in the coming weeks, but I'm really high percentage of a really high increase in deaths occurring at home very quickly in New York city.
And what I, what I found is that people did call 911 911 calls were they spiked crazy and immediately with the 15 days to slow this rent ambulance dispatch data.
We have some anomalies in that data that another associate and I are exploring.
We're getting a lot of run around from the fire department of New York on the anomalies that we see.
But ambulances were dispatched, but dispatches transporting patients from the point of pickup to somewhere else, like to the hospital.
We're down.
Whoa.
Down.
Ambulance is pronounced dispatches pronounce patient dead.
Yeah.
Holy cow.
So, I mean, arguably people would choose not to go into a hospital in New York at that time.
Trust me, I lived in New York.
Yeah.
Well, they were told to stay home.
They were told to stay home.
That doesn't explain.
Would that explain deaths at home?
Would those be people who would have died anyway, but chosen to go to the hospital.
And I think there's some of that.
And I used to think that that was almost entirely an explanation.
I mean, you think about a guy, even who lives in a rent control apartment on the upper east side.
You know, and you tell him to stay home and suddenly he's not going out.
He's petrified, right?
Like, could he have a health event?
Yes.
Absolutely.
But through our research, we found that ambulances and EMS was given, they were given orders that directed them away from bringing people to the hospital under two offices, one under the hospital.
And we have the orders themselves.
Two offices were hospitals are overrun and we don't want the hospitals to be overrun.
We want to control and we want to control spread.
So the specific directive that was given about a cardiac arrest, patients in cardiac arrest was basically, and I'm summarizing here, don't administer life saving measures.
It was basically what EMS were told.
And the orders that were given.
Yeah.
Don't administer them even in the person's home.
Right.
So not, not don't administer at all.
That's not quite what the orders say, but there's the directives are written in such a way where there's discouragement on administering full life saving procedures to cardiac arrest patients.
Almost a kind of DNR in the home or in or say, in the woman at the point of the pickup.
She's correct.
So, arguably, empty workers are being instructed not to do everything possible to help save someone dying of their sick with heart attack in your home.
Okay.
So make sure that you realize that we've had that, right?
We're there.
We are there with our little graph, right? Do not resuscitate orders are at the top of this graph because they are very important for, for the initial bomb going off in a lot of these places.
And the act of making one of the bombs go off in one of these places around the United States and around the world is a combination of fear, confusion, and a illusion of consensus about a novel virus that's very deadly.
Detectable with a PCR test.
And requiring of ridiculous protocols that are often deadly, or at least will be deadly because they make assumptions about respiratory disease that we've never made before.
That include ventilators, the lack of antibiotics and poor use of steroids and maybe even remdesivir.
And so that, that difference, I guess that's going to be tricky. I need a button for that one.
That difference is gigantic.
And now that we're telling this story correctly and now that we have Jessica to explain how did it happen in New York, because ladies and gentlemen, let's face it, if New York hadn't happened, people wouldn't have believed it.
If Italy hadn't happened, people wouldn't believe it. If whatever happened in Iran was not at least reported, people wouldn't believe it.
If those people, with those videos that went viral, people dropping onto the, onto the floor in all different places in China wouldn't have gone viral.
There wouldn't have been this worst case scenario potential at the beginning.
And it was so vital for there to be a worst case scenario potential at the beginning.
And it was created by this bump right there in New York.
And these bumps that are created by protocols.
By treating people as though they had something else.
A new cause of death, a novel virus.
Or some eyes, then is that classified as a COVID death? Like, how does this relate to COVID?
Well, yeah, we have that data to suggest that.
That some people who made who died of cardiac arrest or heart deaths in their home, if they were tested, if they tested positive, if the body tested positive, then it was counted as a COVID death.
And if not, it wasn't. But the biggest increase in those weeks in home deaths is is heart death.
Oh my gosh.
Basically, this is no series. So you're, this, now you've really got another smoking guy.
He's explaining and no wonder you're getting the run around from a department, pardon me.
People were given who are nearly would have saved people's lives were having cardiac symptoms and or brought them to the hospital.
We're being told essentially not to do everything possible to save their lives and not to bring them to the hospital.
Then these people died and that's part of the 27,000 spike and on the spike and death.
By the way, it's worth pointing out that there are studies that show that during periods of high stress and war.
So, for example, post 9-11, there are some, there are some studies showing that there were spike, there are definite spikes in acute cardiac episodes, my cardiolent options.
And that's just for a, you know, a relatively short sort of period of fear and dystopia. This went on for weeks and was relentless, the stress on people, absolutely relentless.
Right.
And let's not, let's not miss the ball here and make sure that we understand that all of those heart attacks were immediately attributed to the virus.
And may I point out that people like Paul Offit and people like Peter McCullough will both tell you that the virus, the Wuhan spike causes myocarditis and has caused heart attacks.
They will most certainly tell you that and we still need to dispel this enchantment that somehow there was a virus that did this because what Jessica Hockett has uncovered here is also this absolute enchantment that these young people and old people were having heart attacks due to this virus.
And why is that so diabolical, ladies and gentlemen?
It's diabolical because they knew that when they rolled out this transfection that heart problems would be one of the major signals.
And so they had to see a narrative about the virus already being able to cause that.
How many of you in the audience have heard that Ralph Barrick was developing a coronavirus that could cause myocarditis and rabbits?
How long have they been trying to get these lipid nanoparticles to go somewhere and been failing at it?
Five postdocs? Is that what Peter Callis said? What is that? 10 years? 20 years? 15 years?
He says we're still 20 to 40 years out.
So you don't think that they figured out some of the major problems of lipid nanoparticle transfection were?
You don't think that they tried to already maybe make up some other stories about where myocarditis might come from?
Oh, coronaviruses can cause myocarditis. Look at that.
Oh, isn't that interesting?
You gotta see it for what it is, ladies and gentlemen, and let it be like acid.
And let it dissolve everything that it can dissolve. These lies, once they go away, it's like cotton candy in the rain.
There's nothing left but a pink stain.
And once you see it for what it is, this theater was intricate, ladies and gentlemen, it was not random.
They knew what they were doing.
And they knew that they were going to plan to do a do not resuscitate drill.
And when they did that, do not resuscitate drill, and they financially incentivize these people to call that COVID.
You're dang right, they reported it on the news.
And why did they report it on the news? Because they wanted to tell you a story for a year and a half about how toxic the spike protein was.
Holy cow, it's a spike protein. It's dangerous. It's got all kinds of new things in it.
And it binds the ACE2 receptor.
Boy, we sure chose a dumb protein in 45 minutes, didn't we there?
Murdera scientists.
Boy, if we had to chose the end protein, everything would be fine now, wouldn't it?
Don't you see? We've got to spike this football. We've got to make this touchdown. We cannot just have fourth down and goal and not make it.
So we've got to go all the way through. You cannot get to the point where you say that we just didn't resuscitate people for heart attacks for a month.
And that contributed to the 27,000 people that died over 11 weeks and the 20,000 people that died in four weeks.
Without mentioning that that allowed them to tell a nationwide and global story about how a virus from Luhan was spreading in New York City and causing an abrupt rise in cardiac arrest.
Yeah, for sure. Okay. Well, that's a huge chunk.
One more piece to that that I did not know and discovered only within the past six weeks or so.
There were, I'll call them reimbursements that the federal government gave to ambulances for not, I'll say for not coming to the hospital.
So normally an ambulance company would get certain reimbursements or payments when you transport a patient to the hospital, right?
But these ambulances were being directed or encouraged to not bring people to the hospital, but they were still reimbursed as though they did.
Right. So that incentivizes them not really to make.
That's a pretty magnificent financial incentive. Now, isn't it?
Who are they giving those financial incentives to? Are people that ride around an ambulance is really well paid?
And so are they pretty easy to order a round or to incentivize during a perceived health care crisis?
And so look at how easy this circus was run. Look at how easy this was accomplished.
But they had the cruise ship and they had 10 set up.
But then they didn't bring anybody in.
It's just so wicked. It's just so absolutely wicked. It's it. It can't even believe it.
And we are three years out and we're just finally pulling our head out.
Holy man.
That's exactly right.
If you subsidize something, you get more of it.
Right. Of course. So, so hospitals, I mean, interesting questions were hospitals making more visits than usual because they would have had the chance to go here.
This person's dead. Go here. This person's dead. Go here.
Rather than spending two or three hours getting someone to the hospital and going back out.
Can you read, can you say that again? It's another question. It's just if hospital.
I'm wondering if the empty visits in a given day and up because they did not have to bring the patient to the hospital in order to make the same amount of money.
You mean the dispatches? The dispatches. Yeah. In other words, you can see 15 people in their homes in a day.
If you're not bringing them to the hospital, maybe seven in a day. If you're going back and forth to the hospital.
Sure. I mean, and from the hospital end, like we know that the ER's where the ER visits were down. Well, ambulance dispatches transporting patients will give you a certain percentage.
I think in New York, we figured out it was like at least 25% if you just do the ratios, you know, would be people brought by an ambulance.
Understand.
I have no doubt that people were staying away from the hospital. But again, when you look at the 911 call data, it goes way up.
People were calling for help. Help was coming, but help was not helping.
And help was incentivized not to help. That's really scary and disturbing. All right, do you have anything else that suggests that these.
This anomalous spike has something fishy about it.
You know, I think I think one thing and this is feedback that Jonathan and I get a lot of things that sort of wakes people up when they finally realize it when I'm showing them different things on Twitter, wherever is the number of young adults deaths during this time.
Very quickly. And the number of young adults or younger, I should say, adults by 50 ages, what 25 to 54, the number of younger adult deaths in hospitals, nearly all of which were attributed to COVID, which doesn't make sense, because this is not even a generous definition or thought about how deadly
those are present in this time period, you would not have seen a very high proportion of young deaths. And it just, you know, as I say, a quick spat on that, which I find extraordinary is that 25% of all the COVID attributed deaths in the USA occurred in New York City when, in fact, only 3% of the people in that age group.
That's a very spectacular stat that can't be that can't be repeated enough 25% of the age group between 25 and 45 that attributed to dying of COVID 25% of them in the United States were in New York City.
I mean, that's, that's a, that's it. That's the ball game right there. And if you think about who was in charge in New York City these past years, I mean, if you think about the kinds of rhetoric and the kinds of things that were going on, the things that they did to their EMTs and the things that, I mean, they're police officers, this is some serious, serious stuff.
What I find a little odd and disturbing is that somebody from Chicago is the one who's figured it out in 2023 and not somebody in New York in 2020 and 21.
That's what I find very impressive. New York is not a small bureaucracy. New York is not a small town. New York is not a place where people don't know about corruption.
So I am actually pretty shocked that we are in 2023 and someone from Chicago is the one who's pushing this story forward.
Isn't there a whistleblower?
Aren't there a thousand whistleblowers in New York City who want to fight for their where they grew up?
What the hell is going on in New York City?
Where is the old school Italians? Where are the old school?
You know, I'm trying to think of people that I stereotypically think of as living in New York City for generations.
Is there a Chinatown in New York City? I don't know. Is there a Koreatown in New York City? I don't know.
A population in New York City that's been there a long time that would fight for the city and fight for truth and justice?
Isn't there a whistleblower that lives there that could just fix this problem?
Or is it really exactly as bad as that repair guy, Louis Rossman, says it is in New York City?
Holy man, it's depressing to me.
It's 2023. There should be hundreds of whistleblowers by now coming out and saying, wow.
Where are the EMTs?
Dang it.
Okay, so you're saying a disproportionate number of younger adults died in New York and you expect to see given that only 3% of the US population of that age group lives in New York.
Or what evidence do you have supporting? Is it just an anomaly in the data?
It's an anomaly, which is just yet another data point which we're putting the authorities to prove.
How does that happen? I mean, I'll be explained by social factors because New York is not a poor city.
Can't be explained by obesity. New York is not particularly obese compared to some other places.
There's no rational explanation for it.
Was it claimed that these were COVID deaths?
Yeah, it was.
Well, I know that the media was desperate to produce young healthy COVID.
So let's go now unless there's anything else you want to make sure to bring forward.
We're running on time in the last couple of minutes.
Let's highlight how you're putting the authorities on notice because given HIPAA protections,
it's going to be hard to drag them into the data account for these anomalies.
What are your plans or what's underway?
I think the first thing that we're trying to do is to continue.
I have a lot of data.
I have a lot of correspondence with different New York City agencies that I'm trying to put out a little bit at a time.
I'm fighting a New York health and hospital on a data that they refused to release, but should.
So I'm sort of simultaneously keep investigating and trying to get exposure through the channels that I can.
It can be difficult when even fellow anti mandate people don't seem to want to talk about New York City 2020 or early 2020 at all and say what the heck happened.
You brought up Remdesivir and ventilators and I don't dispute that, but we don't even have data on how many New York City hospital patients were given Remdesivir.
I've done several articles on the ventilators. I'm sorry to say we don't have the data that we need to say even how many people were put on ventilators.
I'm sorry to understand and emphasize what the hurdles facing you and I admire your persistence.
I'm asking, you know, a practical question, right, given HIPAA law, which they're going to say keeps them from telling you exactly who died.
And the mechanism of FOIA, which I'm not sure you're using right, what mechanism are you like apart from badgering people and trying to get exposure for this anomaly, which I applaud and that'll move dial a little bit.
You really need more data right there.
We need more data and we need more people who care about this. This shouldn't be just a Jessica Hockett Jonathan angler thing. This should enrage really.
Well, we're on your show.
I mean, I'll go on and talk to anybody. I'll debate anyone. I'll talk to anybody. I'll put a grasp to anyone. I'm not a media strategist.
You tell me, I really don't know how to get people to care about this. If there's a mass casual, the biggest mass casualty event in New York City history, and we don't have proof of it.
I really like what she said there. And I really feel as though that's, that's the reaction of someone who's genuinely seen the alien and is annoyed by it.
That's the only genuine reaction to this. You've got to be annoyed by it. If you're excited by it, if you're proud of your theory, if you're excited by what you're doing because this is such an interesting time to be alive, then you're not really seeing the alien.
You haven't really touched the elephant from enough sides to know how dangerous this is, how little room in the room is left.
And if you're not, you know, a little bit like annoyed when somebody like Naomi Wolf, who's been apparently out in front of this from the very beginning with Steve Bannon, asks you what your plan is. How do you move this ball forward?
And you have to exasperatedly say, well, I'm on your show. I'm trying to do something about it. You tell me.
The frustrating thing about it is, is I'm not confident that Naomi Wolf is working on our team. If I had to put Naomi Wolf on the graph, I would put Naomi Wolf on the pink outside where there's this, she's part of this narrative. She tried pretty hard.
What about in these, what about in these high death areas where people were dying all of all ages of COVID? What about these high death areas?
So there was a complete insistence on reasserting that there was a novel virus for which we were all vulnerable that millions of people died from and millions more were saved from and might have been gained a function.
Naomi Wolf's not going to let that go. And so you could hear her fight for it. And now you hear a real genuine, exasperated Jessica say, I don't know what to do. I'm not a, I'm not a press strategist. Tell me what to do. I just want people to understand this so that they are moved to take action somehow. Where is a New Yorker, she said?
I think all the questions you're asking are legitimate for what it's worth in the bodies of others. I found that the New York Times was able falsely to claim that there were so many dead people that we needed refrigerated more trucks by not reporting the fact that there had been a stoppage from the governor on barriers.
Right. So I'm entirely willing. I think these are very important questions.
You know, I want to see you succeed in getting answers because they affect all of us. They were critical to full narrative. And, you know, again, I'm a New Yorker. This was a very painful, awful time. And if people were doing bad things like not resuscitating.
People having heart attacks in their homes. That is, you know, really, really important. I guess what I'm saying is we can certainly spread the word you're missing.
What word are you going to spread Naomi?
What is the word you're going to spread that there was an anomaly?
Or are you going to spread the word that Denny Rankor and Jessica Hockett and Jonathan Engler and Martin Neil and Nick Hudson and Jonathan Cooey and a lot of other people have built a mountain of corroborating evidence, which suggests that there is no biology
and there is no statistics and there are no data to support the idea of an RNA coronavirus pandemic that started from a point.
And spread around the world. See, part of what we didn't say in this discussion about what this theory is, is that the biology doesn't support releasing a small quantity of an RNA virus in a point in Wuhan.
And having that virus spread by any means, airplanes, I don't care what.
It's not possible for that RNA to copy itself with such high fidelity that the same sequence can be found in multiple cultural patients on multiple continents over multiple months after the original release in a market.
It's just not possible.
And so what these individuals have found are individual events and datasets which seem to support the larger thesis that there was no spread.
And if there's no spread, then we need to come up with an alternative explanation for the purported molecular signals upon which the conclusion of a pandemic in progress was based.
And so what are we going to do? Well, hopefully Naomi Wolf would start telling everybody this all the time on every one of her talk shows.
Every one of her interviews would start out with, well, did you hear the theory of how the pandemic work has been at worked has been updated.
The biology of the pandemic has been updated. The epidemiology of the pandemic has been updated.
I'm extremely curious as to why Jessica Hockett and Jonathan Engler aren't going to say, and they might say it still, that we have another independent researcher by the name of Denny Rancour and his colleagues in Canada and at Harvard,
which have tried to assemble their own datasets on all cause mortality and do their own analysis and have come to very similar conclusions about the lack of evidence for spread.
And in fact, in their data, they are able to show that this lack of spread actually respects borders of states, countries, even counties.
And so what are you going to do? You're going to add all these observations up. You're not going to say that I came up with this idea on my own and I looked at it to Italy.
That's not getting the idea out there. Getting the idea out there is that me and a lot of other people have come up with individual examples of how all cause mortality doesn't support the spread of a new cause of death.
And this other friend of mine has come up with a whole bunch of evolutionary reasons and simulations for how a new cause of death that was released at a point would spread in a certain manner and we didn't see that certain manner, not even close.
And then I have this other friend who has this other idea about it in New York City and she hasn't found anything either.
And then we have this other guy who presented at Panda, who's from Canada, who found the same thing in 18 countries now.
And there's this really interesting theory from this biologist named Jonathan Cooe who thinks about RNA is being very imprecise and unable to high fidelity copy itself for millions and trillions of times.
And that he's identified this alternative technique that they've used that's actually eerily parallel to the way that the mRNA vaccines were made, but instead that they can make whole coronavirus genomes in this way and make a pure quantity of them that could never exist in nature.
It's a really intriguing explanation for how this sequence could have been seeded around the world and the illusion of a pandemic could have been created.
See how easy I can summarize everybody's ideas all at once into like a five minute elevator pitch.
And do you see how wonderfully perfectly timed it is for the release of this book and the biology that's in it.
You're about to hit a series of grand slams, ladies and gentlemen, and you are a part of it because you've been here with GIGO and biological for quite a long time.
You've watched us struggle in this cave. You've watched us backtrack. You've watched us.
Yeah, you watched.
You've been here for it. A lot of you have supported me.
I wouldn't be here without those people, without you people sharing my work.
And these people are fighting the right fight. Jessica and Jonathan anyway.
And we've just got it. We've got to sharpen our swords. We've got to sharpen our messages. We've got to broaden our message.
And we've got to not be afraid to promote other people.
We've got to promote each other.
Like Jessica promotes me.
Like Nick Hudson promotes me. We've got to promote each other. The people that we trust.
And otherwise we're not going to win.
I'm going to listen to last little bit and then I'm going to close it out.
Some critical piece of information that the authorities are not going to give you right voluntarily.
So I think Panda needs to sue for the rest of the information, right?
We can certainly put you in touch with lawyers who will do that if you don't have your lawyers in house.
But apart from that, I can't really think of what else you can do except exhaust yourselves asking these people who may have committed a giant fraud to produce more information.
Am I missing something?
No, you're not.
I wish I wish more people cared about what happened in 2020 since it was used to coerce, you know, force medical treatments on millions of people.
What the heck?
What I'm trying to say is that I'm not going to amplify this idea and I am personally, you know, my comfort and fame is all dependent on me not acknowledging that the faith in a novel virus that killed millions of people.
And likely was gained a function. It could come again. I'm not allowed to question that.
So I'm just wondering how you guys are going to manage to get this message out if people like me are going to hear it, but then never actually repeat it.
So if you go on other people's podcasts and they do the same thing as me, it's actually not going to do you any good.
So I just don't want you guys to go crazy banging your head against the wall.
I mean, you have to realize that most people aren't allowed to question the faith.
That's what she should be saying to Jessica.
That's what she is saying to Jessica.
And to share with love, you know, as someone who's, who's been in the trenches a long exhausting time, you know, as you have no doubt as Panda has is everyone listening, especially New Yorkers cares about what you just said.
But there are missing pieces before it can be news, right, before it can enter the phone news dream and before there can be hearings, for instance, or lawsuits, right.
And so to get those missing pieces, right, we need to find out if you're asking a provocative question to 27,000 people really die and hope that the answer is yes.
I'm asking it 27,000 people extra people actually.
Right.
Did you hear her?
Did you hear how how brilliantly she resurrected the faith in COVID and the people that died.
What question is Jessica asking according to Naomi Wolf did 27,000 people die of COVID and that is not.
That is not the question that Jessica is asking. Listen.
Pieces before it can be news, right, before it can enter the phone news dream.
And before there can be hearings, for instance, or lawsuits, right.
And so to get those missing pieces, right, we need to find out if you're asking a provocative question to 27,000 people really die and hope that the answer is yes.
And the answer is yes, or.
Can what did you listen to anything that Jonathan and Jessica said.
Darn it. Did you listen to anything.
That's incredible. That is really incredible. This is like.
This is almost guaranteed to be.
This is a, this is faith protection here. This is definitely narrative protection 27,000 people extra people actually.
Right.
What I understand you've battled your way to the end of that question right you're expecting more for results, but I don't know that you have answered it with yes for sure it's fraud or yes for sure they died or yes it was.
Wow. So she doesn't understand.
27,000 bodies don't disappear.
I don't even get it like it's so easy.
You could just send a bunch of high schoolers out into all the graveyards. I mean, what are we talking about here?
And as we wrote in our notes, what about the funeral homes? What about the corners? What about cremations? What about the thousands of holes?
Where are the graves? Where are the bodies?
And in the weeks where they were where there were up to 5000 people recorded dying in a week. Where were those bodies stored?
I mean, has anyone ever seen band of brothers when they were in Belgium and there were like bodies stacked outside of the hospital? That was only like 15.
And there were only maybe a hundred guys in that hospital underneath the church that got blown up.
Like thousands of bodies were talking about 5000 bodies.
I mean, there would have been some photographs of this, right? I mean, some, oh yeah, we saw one body go into a white truck one time on CBS NewsHour.
We're talking about thousands of bodies.
And Naomi Wolf is still not on to the idea that, okay, so you really haven't confirmed whether these people have died or haven't died.
And so it's kind of a problem. You're kind of at an impasse.
And where Jessica is is that if it's 27,000 people, that is a mass casualty event that can't be just where they go.
I don't know. They were just here a minute ago. I don't know where somebody must have moved them.
That's not how that works. And yet here is Naomi Wolf saying that, well, you know, you're asking a provocative question, but it looks like you're kind of at an impasse.
And it doesn't look like you're going to be able to get any more data. No, no.
That's not at all Jessica's position. Jessica's position is, is that you claim that there was a battleship that landed in the middle of Central Park.
But for some reason or another, I don't see any sign of this.
And not just, you know, that that ditch isn't the right shape or those, you know, there's not enough.
There is missing.
And so it's very interesting how Naomi wants to close it with, again, making it seem as though, you know, it's a neat idea.
Pretty interesting question. Everybody in New York cares about this question, Jessica, but I don't know if you've done enough work to convince people it's news.
Yeah, I don't know if it's newsworthy. She said murder. We don't have those. Yeah, right. So that's where the next step in my view, which is, you know, legal, right, so that you said people are forced to hand over those records.
At least that's what I'm hearing. I mean, I'm not sure I can promote this and everyone will say what an interesting question, how alarming, but I as a, as a, you know, someone who cares about this issue and wants to get to the heart of it.
As a reporter, I'm in a standstill because I can't now go to the rest of the world and say, I know what happened. There was no reasons here. I know there was fraud. What we got are some very big important questions. Right.
So she can't go and tell everybody this because she doesn't have the proof yet.
And that's really all on Jessica and on Jonathan and they really need to do more legwork before people like Naomi Wolf are going to be able to put their journalistic integrity on the line and actually report these ideas.
Come on now. I mean, I, I know that giggle and biological really slums when it comes to what, what things we report, but, you know, we don't, we don't even hold a candle to the kind of integrity that Naomi Wolf holds her reporting to.
Summarize what you're basically saying, I think is that we're in a position where we throw the story out there and we're expecting the baton to be picked up by people who are enraged and who then apply political pressure to political people to pass executive orders or whatever.
So that this is, is, is fairly investigated. I think what you're saying is that's not going to happen. You have to go more on to the front foot.
Basically, in terms of, yeah, I mean, just to just to partner is, is not a big organization with huge resources so we would struggle to sort of prosecute a legal case.
But we possibly could do so with the assistance of, you know, some public funding for it from, you know, all right. Well, let's.
Yeah, so let's fund an organization in South Africa to do a legal case in America. That sounds like a great idea, especially if the people that were funding are actually based all around the world.
That's a great idea. That sounds wonderful. I think I've got a better idea.
I think we should find an American organization to do it.
And I think I'm going to write some emails and figure that out if we.
If this isn't worth working on.
I do think that Jessica is work worth working with.
And I do think the state of New York and the city of New York are worth fighting for.
And, and fighting against in this case.
So yeah, we'll see where this goes, but I'm not really impressed with Naomi Wolf. And if Jonathan Engler still watching, I apologize for being a little bit sharp on you in the beginning. I think you've done pretty well and have been very humble in the, in the, in the interview since.
And since the introduction. So I apologize for coming hard on, on Jonathan, but I am, I am going to stick by with what I said. I think it's.
He did a little bit of a disservice to Panda by making it seem like it was him and one other guy and Panda who came up with these ideas when really what it was.
Is that Panda was actually a very, very good place for these discussions to occur.
And it was one of the best and most regular places for these discussions to occur.
It was as significant for a lot of people as the doctors for COVID ethics in Europe and as significant as for some people as the doctors group that Stephen Frost chairs the medical doctors for COVID ethics.
It's as big as, you know, the heart group for some people. It's, it is these kinds of groups were important in different places around the world.
In the United States, it might be the brownstone organization might think of it as the FLCC if you're a fan of, of Dr. Merrick.
But whatever group you're looking at as a group of organized good guys, every, almost, I would say there isn't one of these groups that isn't infiltrated. It's impossible.
Given what I've learned from all the groups that I've been a member of, all of these groups have had problems with what they perceive as infiltration, what they perceive as meddling, what they perceive as people with ulterior motives.
And so honestly, I think it's really important to cite the fact that despite all of these medlers that there were groups like the doctors for COVID ethics.
That was headed by Michael Palmer and, and, uh, Sukhart Bhakti that the doctors medical doctors for COVID ethics, the one that is headed by Stephen Frost and Charles in Australia who I can't remember with the red jacket who I love very much.
Um, as the host of those meetings and moderator of those meetings.
Um, and countless other groups that are smaller than that that have been meeting on zoom are all groups of people that need to be united by common, common hat tips.
I got no problem saying that, that, that Panda was a great group and that they are a great group. And I liked a lot of the people in Panda and that I learned so much, I would be willing to bet that the evolutionary biologist that he's not naming here.
I'm sure I know which one he's talking about. And if he's not talking about that guy, he's talking about one of two other people because there were a couple really strong elder evolutionary biologists and elder.
I don't know what the other guy was, but they're all older than me and had been in academia their whole lives and these guys knew that this was baloney and they knew it from their, from their bones.
And so the doubt was there from the very beginning and then what you need is, is to collectively support one another as we explore this and as we, you know, go through the waves of am I crazy or not am I crazy or not.
And the more people that you have around you that you, you feel safe with saying, dude, am I crazy? Is this right? Am I reading this paper right or not? Then the stronger you become as an analyst and the stronger you become as a critical thinker.
I think it's just imperative and that's why I do it all the time to say that none of these ideas are mine and that so much of how I got to where I am and my understanding and my ability to present my best understanding of how they've done the pandemic is because of the heated discussions
and opportunities to present to groups like Panda and doctors for COVID ethics and medical doctors for COVID ethics and and the groups at CHD and the groups that I've even presented to a couple groups that are essentially just Christian groups.
And to the to the NCI national citizens inquiry in Canada.
All of these discussions, all of these were important to all of us not feeling crazy so that we could continue to critically think and analyze this situation and get to where we are right now.
And the only way that we're going to get there is continue with this scrum formation where we're all locked arms and we're all pushing forward.
Nobody's allowed to stand up at this and at this point and say this was my idea.
We've got to all fight together now and it's a different kind of call for unity.
That we were making a couple a year ago when people like Robert Malone were saying that I don't think we should divide the the dissidents at all. Everybody's got to agree.
And I was called the divider for a year already and all you're doing all these streams are doing is dividing people.
All these streams we're doing was separating the people who would not shake from the faith.
Separating those people from the people who were questioning the faith.
And separating from the people who were insistent on the faith certain about the faith.
This is where the danger was and this is what the power of this message is and this is the danger of Naomi's resistance to it.
Naomi should be in a position seeing as she said she was on the edge of this for so long.
She should be a more open to this being nonsense than almost anyone else because she should be more aware of all of the lies that have been used to exacerbate it.
And the more lies you become aware of the more you realize that the exacerbation was the majority.
The exaggeration was the majority was the only thing that was necessary.
And I hope you understand when I was pushing you it's just like should drag the corpse into the light of day so people can see exactly what you've got.
You know they work.
They work in raising really important questions and finding what I think are several smoking guns right that require investigation.
Certainly the directives to EMTs that's like terrifying.
I mean I say this is something nearly died in a New York State Hospital easily.
We don't know if those directives have been rescinded right we don't know if it's safe to put your left one in a New York State Hospital at all right.
This is the state that wants quarantine camps. They still want quarantine camps.
So I think what you've done to date is incredibly important.
I would like to think that people especially New Yorkers listening will hear you and go this is madness.
We need to oblige these agencies to turn over what they're withholding.
As you know I don't think that will happen even because you know Mayor Adams who's himself under investigation doesn't have power probably to compel some of these agencies certainly not at the federal level.
You know even different fiefdoms in New York State have their own lawyers right and can resist even Mayor Adams call.
I mean I don't know all the mechanisms of municipal secrecy in New York City but it's a very non-transparent city in a non-transparent state run by like I guess what I'm trying to say is the agencies who have the data you're asking for were directed by the chief murderers
right with a Cuomo or you know now Governor Hochl and so they have an incentive to not turn it over and to wait out the funeral.
So now I'll stop there. I don't mean to be a downer but I think that this absolutely requires more investigation and I would say a lawsuit is critical you know so that you can have discovery.
And so I would say if people want to send you money to fund a lawsuit should they send it to Panda? Does Panda want to think about it?
Do you want to come back to me later and tell me what?
Come back to you, back to you on that.
There's a bit of a fund for that I think.
Oh gosh I'm so happy you said that.
Right so let's stop there. You've shaken me to the core.
I think this is definitely an important thing to investigate further.
I want to thank you both for the tireless work you've done to this point.
We're proud to bring your work to the forefront.
We also are going to bring this to our data scientists who may have some ideas about how to mind the data you have in order to see if there's any more that can be served.
And you know we love Panda we love you know your leadership on this issue where can people find you otherwise and then we should probably sign up.
So they can find me I mean I write for both Panda Substack and Heart Substack and also where are the numbers which is Professor Norman Benton and Martin Neil's Substack on Twitter they can find me at my Twitter handle is.
I mean so just to address the chat a little bit I understand that we have a photograph of Naomi posing with Jill with Martinez and that's on Twitter.
But I mean that doesn't really show you very much because here's me at the original CHD conference happily taking a photo with Jill.
Now you might think in your head there's a very different reason why I'm happy to take a photo with her and if you think that yes you would be correct.
There's a very different reason why I was happy to take a photo with her but I'm just saying that that in and of itself is not evidence that they're in cahoots or something like that.
Now they were dressed a little different and they were holding different drinks and the context of that photo is obviously very different but I just wanted to throw that out there but I agree I think Naomi Wolf's responses in this interview to the data and ideas that these two guys brought to her I actually are the biggest reveal for me.
I'm a little disappointed that I let my ego get in the way in the beginning of this video but whatever it is what it is.
I am frustrated because I do think that there is a lack of humility when it comes to where these ideas and you know the way that they are building on one another the way that these things came together.
I wish people would give more credit to the energy and the collective that did this.
I mean how much we benefit from knowing that we're not crazy because other people say well thanks for that presentation.
Thanks for that idea.
That clarified something for me that didn't make sense.
Straightened out an incongruency for me.
I mean it was so important so many times to hear discussion and so I just think that that's the most important thing to accentuate here.
This was such a collective effort to get into the UK.
One would.
Fantastic.
Thank you Dr. England.
How about you Ms. Hockett.
I'm at Woodhouse76.com and at Wood Understore House 76.
My former Twitter name was Emma Woodhouse which you know back back in the day people might remember me when I was under that.
That is really one of the amazing things.
Oh sorry about Jessica is that her Emma Woodhouse account was way on my radar like way way way on my radar in 2020.
And a lot of people probably remember it is like this girl with an arrow.
I don't know if that's from the Hunger Games or what that was from but it was a really really important account anonymous.
But it was an account that was saying the right things very very early.
And so it was really a delight for me to finally figure out that Jessica Hockett was really that account and to find that you know I had been following her and she had been following me for that long.
Yeah it's a really special day right here now I think because of the fact that this book finally came out and that we're actually going to be able to tell this story.
Now keep in mind what I said in the beginning of the show and what I will continue to say codified in this book is the Scooby-Doo.
The details of the Scooby-Doo are in this book the history of the Scooby-Doo because the history of the Scooby-Doo is much longer than 2020.
The Brett Weinstein and intellectual dark web yes they played a crucial role in setting the worst case scenario and to curate the narrative as it was slowly unrolled as a has a little argument or a little mystery to be solved.
And this book actually is a historic document which really documents what people said when they said it and it goes back in time to kind of document the history of bio weapons.
How many of them were real who's doing them you know what really happened.
And I think this and the Tony Fauci book really put together an interesting set of citations and in this case the Wuhan book has also got some very interesting insight into what I think is the real biology that underpins coronavirus pandemics.
And I think we're going to be able to teach it and we're going to be able to open that book and we're going to be able to read passages and then we're going to be able to look at detailed discussions about this biology with examples from primary literature.
And make it so that a large portion of the interested population will have access to this truth.
The truth of infectious clones the truth of how RNA can and can't replicate the truth of where these excess deaths actually came from the truth of how PCR can and can't be used with high fidelity.
There are just a nice list of biological truths that we are going to get out as a result of this book coming out and as a result of us being constantly there for three years with steady pressure about natural immunity.
Steady pressure about the biology of coronavirus the biology of RNA the biology of DNA the biology of the swarm and the lies that these people told.
Thank you both and if there's a wealthy patron to out there listening who wants to get to the heart of whether 27 extra people died in New York.
Extra died spring of 2020 thus allowing the whole narrative to unfold. Please contact them or us and if they contact us will send them to help you with this critical and my view important lawsuit and further investigation.
Let's also throw it out to all the independent media to look into it further as well. Thank you so much for all you're doing.
So there is no lawsuit they don't have a lawyer. This is a sub stack and that's all it is. So it's very strange that we're still talking like there's a there's a lawsuit there's no lawsuit.
And if there's some wealthy donor that wealthy donor is going to call now I am a wolf. Hey, I want to give a million dollars that Jessica Hockett lady can you give me your address.
Do you see the dysfunction here do you see what's going wrong with with this.
Maybe we should call Steve Kirsch maybe he's got 10 million dollars to bet on this.
Maybe big Steve Kirsch has 10 million dollars to bet on an argument with people to do a social media stunt doesn't he have like a hundred thousand dollars to hire a law firm for a for a couple weeks or.
This is where the gigantic pile of disingenuousness just becomes really obvious once you start to see all these people talking talking talking talking and they don't do anything.
It's really an easy explanation Naomi.
If Jessica Hockett's observations in New York are correct.
If Jonathan Englers and the other guys information and observations in Italy are correct.
Then the who declared a pandemic of a dangerous novel virus that was detectable by a non specific PCR test.
It was through misinformation and pressure including financial pressure that caused a change in protocols around the world in key locations that caused a simultaneous increase in excess deaths that was attributed to a new cause of death.
The novel coronavirus.
In reality the probably best way that this kind of molecular signal could be seeded is through the use of an RNA infectious clone that would have been produced using a DNA clone template of the RNA virus that they wanted to spread.
A clone release would have successfully caused short term spread of an RNA signal I don't know.
And I don't think it really matters because they did not successfully culture and sequence from that many people at the start of the pandemic so they didn't really need it to go that far.
If there was a background signal that was conflatable as a novel coronavirus spread.
Then most certainly they use the PCR test to use that to their advantage.
And irrespective of the actual biology that is unfolded and how much of it is real and how much of it is exclusively commitment to lies doesn't really matter.
Because the goal remains the same and that is a total surrender of individual sovereignty of our children.
And the enforcement of a global inversion from basic human rights to basic granted permissions.
And they have done this because they have successfully created this illusion of consensus that includes a mystery that we have all solved.
And therefore brainwashed ourselves into accepting a faith in a novel virus that killed millions of people.
From which millions more were saved.
The source of which was likely gain of function research which is definitely real because Kevin S. Felt tells us that.
And Richard E. Bright has told us that.
And Rand Paul insists that the diffuse proposal is evidence of that.
And therefore a virus will come again.
And they've done this by not doing the math which is what Jessica and Jonathan Engler and others.
John Bodwin and Hugh Sotonic live. Mark Koolack all these people are fighting for a real story about what happened.
And how the real story of these people was killed.
And the only way you're going to know what the mystery virus did was to subtract all these things from the total.
And when you do that there's nothing left for the mystery virus.
But Naomi Wolf does not want to actually do this math. She wants them to get more data first because it's not really a news story yet.
And in this wonderful news story did we ever talk in this hour with them about the did Naomi ever mentioned that way but we know that the PCR was fraud did she mention that.
Oh yeah and I heard that you know that there was this huge lateral flow test fraud that was responsible for the next two waves in the UK and all of these tests just came from China and everybody started using them did they talk about that.
Did they talk about the idea that you know the only way to study an RNA virus that even Ralph Barrick wrote in a 2008 paper that unfortunately most of these viruses that are found in the wild are unable to be cultured did they talk about that.
They talk about natural immunity to RNA viruses and how T cell immunity to previous exposures would have never had a problem even if all of their biology is correct.
And now I understand that this is all about their little finding and then there one thing they're pushing right now is Jessica's observation about how hard it is to confirm that these 27,000 people died and this 20,000 people died in four weeks.
What I'm very frustrated by is that we should always be trying to at least summarize the whole story so that we understand why their particular observations are so important in the context of all these other observations.
It's definitely I'm scary terrifying that they told people not to resuscitate people that they actually instructed and paid ambulance drivers not to bring people to the hospital but paid them as if they did.
That's a pretty amazing encouragement.
So, doesn't that become an even more extraordinary set of circumstances in light of the PCR fraud in light of the lateral flow test fraud in light of the fraud around natural immunity and antibodies.
In light of the fact that they said that the coronavirus was causing cardiac arrest and now we heard a very good explanation for why it might not have been.
But we just don't quite and we're not able to get that over the finish line we're not able to connect those dots we just are stuck on one dot all the time or maybe connecting one dot to another dot.
The reality is is that if you don't subtract the fact that the protocols were murder then you can actually believe in a mystery virus but if you subtract the fact that the protocols were murder.
Then the whole faith that a mystery virus evaporates the whole faith evaporates once you realize that there wasn't that this biology of releasing something in late 2019 and having it spread around the world is not there's no biological basis for this.
A small amount of RNA in a wet market or a whole cage full of animals that are all infected with RNA are still a small amount of RNA relative to the amount of RNA we have to be added 2023 given the claims that they've made the products that they've sold the data that they've shown us.
This faith is a lie and it is sustained by a spectacular commitment to those lies in the form of an illusion of consensus.
I love to call it a Scooby-Doo because we've been fooled into thinking we solved it and it was the act of being fooled like this that has allowed us to completely miss this.
Protocols were murder thing. They fooled a lot of people around the world with this illusion, with this mystery solving exercise.
It's the faith in the novel virus we have to get rid of and we get rid of it by saying that the faith is a lie and the only thing you need to understand is that if there was a background signal before 2020 we have no data to confirm that it wasn't there.
None at all. We have no data to say that the earth was clean in 2019 and became dirty in Wuhan first and then the dirt spread around the world because that's what this kind of dirt does.
We have no evidence for it and the reason why they want you to attribute as much as many biological terms from regular ecology to the biology of viruses is because this will allow you to make the false equivalence between viruses and other living species.
When you should be thinking them more of as dirt or noise or a state and no matter how nasty the stain is, no matter how sticky the pine tar is, there are certain limitations to how far it can spread by itself.
An RNA does not have the magical ability that species do to spread and spread and spread.
Even when it is made ultra pure by synthetic means, infectious RNA can't create infinite copies of itself so that we can produce it and mass store it, share it.
It can't. We can use artificial means to produce a large quantity of pure RNA which is infectious and could be called a coronavirus clone.
But using normal collection and culture methods, it's impossible, impossible for this to occur.
That's the reality of this biology that is missing from the story.
So when we find out that there's no spread and that all these molecular biologists say, but yeah, but there was a signal, we've got to be able to explain it.
That's where the biology comes in.
So we need to explain how in an endemic coronavirus background and a nonspecific PCR test targeting highly homologous gene sequences, short amplicons,
could be misconstrued as a specific test for a specific part or aspect or a member of this background signal.
We have to be able to explain how the high fidelity sequences could be found after culturing these viruses in these different places,
and infectious clones allows us to explain those things.
And then we can overlay on top of that, don't forget that the protocols were murder and transfection was never medicine and they knew that.
And now the picture becomes clear.
And we can start to expand people's imagination by making them understand the difference between an infectious clone and a transfection agent of a particular toxic protein.
And how either of those two explanations could in theory explain the illusion of the pandemic.
The release of an infectious clone that was sufficient for brief culturing and sequencing with a good signal may have been brought over by the Sohomish County man.
May have been the source of the pneumonia sequence derived for the Wuhan virus.
May have even been found in Iran and in Italy.
But if we understand the combination of this with protocols that were murder and the intention of rolling out transfection as medicine always knowing that it would not work as intended.
But the intention was to fool us into believing that it did.
The conflated background signal takes on an added diabolical role because they're inoculating us with something that they know will produce a signal that they can confound as immunity when you don't need immunity because you've already got it because it was a background signal since you were a kid.
And so the lies go all the way down to the floor when they tell you that the earth was clean in 2019 and then some dirt got loose in Wuhan and away it went.
And that's exactly why this an example of an alternate theory was so diabolical as well.
Because it was very difficult for you to question the narrative in the first two or even three years of the pandemic and not get sucked into a debate about whether there are viruses or not.
Wait have you read the measles papers from the early 50s? If you haven't then you don't know what you're talking about.
Ladies and gentlemen this is the way out.
I am so sure that this is the way we save our children from these lies. I am so sure that this is the way that we save our children from growing up believing in a world in this faith.
The biology is the way out ladies and gentlemen pointing out what they don't talk about is the way out and if we understand why they're doing this because they want our children.
They want control and they want control based on lies and you can't do it to a globe with religions and with multiple languages and multiple cultures.
You've got to come up with a narrative that unites everyone.
The only one that might work better than a virus might be aliens.
But since they prepared us with cartoons and X files episodes and planet of the apes introductions and themes remakes about viruses spreading around the world for decades.
It seems pretty likely that the mythology they're putting all their chips on is the public health one.
And if climate change plays a role the only real thing that climate change is going to do is release more viruses and cause more famine.
Ladies and gentlemen stop all transfections in humans please stop all transfections in humans.
I really think it's important that we stop all transfections in humans please.
And that's because they're trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
This has been Gigome Biological, a high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb and transfection and healthy animals is criminally negligent.
I went too long tonight and didn't have quite the right energy in the beginning but I ended alright and I'm happy with it.
And it's another stream I'm going to see you again tomorrow because we're going to try and keep this streak going.
I'm going to try and figure out how to do shorter than two hours but so far not going to happen.
Thanks for joining me guys I really appreciate it.
80 people here it's very nice.
I seem to get above 80 every night so that's really just flattering so thanks very much for using your time to listen to me.
I do have plans to start the PDFs again but once the PDFs start we're not going to be able to do dailies.
So I got to kind of figure out how I'm going to do that.
Whether I can produce a PDF every once in a while and still do dailies is questionable because of basketball and all other stuff.
But I also really like to have the momentum of every day doing a stream and organizes my thoughts and it makes me feel better before I go to bed.
So in the foreseeable future my plan is to keep the dailies going but also to try and up the game with regard to the slide decks in the coming weeks.
Because again as I said the book is coming out and once the book is actually out and the public has it we're going to start teaching it.
And we're going to start teaching basic immunology again and the virology of clones and all of this stuff.
Holy man I can't wait thanks guys see you soon.