um
the land of the ice and snow from the midnight sun where the hot spring people go
I come from the land of the ice and snow From the midnight sun where the hot springs flow
So into the final minute and all are in possession but this is where Mabel is strong, chasing the game.
Using that intensity we saw it in the semi-final.
Staring at a slightly torn cloth rabbit for over seven and a half minutes.
And perhaps a few signs of over-confidence from her rival, a bit of showboating.
Needs to be careful.
there's the change from the classic hold still placed on the outside though great technique and a glance at the youngster who shows little emotion but her mind will be empty 20 seconds to go now Olive closing in on victory and that coveted prize of being told she's a very good dog one paw to control and a switch now Mabel sensing this might be a chance still waiting still believing
And you wonder what Olive is doing here.
Only has to hold on.
Going to the upright though.
High tariff with no opposable thumbs.
High risk at this stage.
And it's gone and Mabel takes it.
No mercy from the younger dog who takes this victory just as time runs out.
A famous win built on patience and sheer belief.
For Olive, only thoughts of what might have been, but only herself to blame.
She's given this one away and that will hurt most of all.
Bad dog.
Hey, if you're missing, not on that list, please feel free to send me an email.
The list comes out as a very garbled Excel file and I have to edit it myself.
And so if I make a mistake or delete too fast, it could have just jumped off the list.
And then until I download a new updated version, it will remain that way.
It's not...
because I'm not trying to do it it's just not a very easy way and it's not a good excuse but I don't dedicate too much time to that because again I don't think you're donating for me to update that list and I know it's important and I want your name on it so please just send me an email accept my apologies for that.
While I take that comment definitely to heart, Soothspider, I want to also remind everybody why Soothspider is such an interesting character in the chat and on social media.
Because he's a guy without hardly any interaction between the two of us, he's promoting the ideas that GigaOM is teaching.
And that, to me, lends so much credibility to who he is, even though I don't know who he or she is, and who he or she works for, or wants to work for, or who they want to be.
The same way I don't know for sure who Nick Hudson is, but his behavior with regard to the ideas
that we're trying to push out is very consistent, as is Mark's, as is Jessica's.
And so I just want to heads that up to you, you know, that it's not anything to do with my not respecting Soothspider.
I think it's a great account, a great person who was ever running that place.
Thank you very much.
But by maintaining some degree of independence, we also maintain some degree of
certainty that we are independently coming to see the lies in the same way.
So I do think though I could use some help.
So I'll, I'll reach out.
I promise.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
I don't think I'm a liar.
I try not to be a liar.
I hope that wasn't in any way misunderstood to say anything, but thank you very much to Soothspider.
I hope you heard that correctly.
...tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case scenario.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case scenario.
I'm not sure exactly who he is.
His name is JJ Cooey, and I believe he's a consultant for CHD.
And I believe he has a PhD in some sort of scientific discipline, from what I understand.
I'm starting to get it into my head that maybe we'll just do the music and then we'll start the show for like most of the shows and then maybe only on Friday we'll do this long introduction.
I don't know yet.
I really like the bird.
I don't want to lose the bird.
And I also don't want to lose the reference to Fred Rogers.
So at some point with the Housatonic live commercial and everything else in there, just like, what can I really cut?
I don't know.
I guess I just have to
kind of start earlier or something because hey here we are 11.11 look at that timing hello ladies and gentlemen welcome to the show hit it sliders to my left and mouse to my right and buttons to my left and right and i don't know where to push so it's never going to be perfect i don't think
But here we are, where only knowledge can dispel the enchantment.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Gigaohm Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
We like to be like Galileo Galilei here and just report what we see, report what we read, and try to understand it as a whole.
We definitely live in interesting times.
And your consciousness is the prime real estate they're trying to distort with this kind of maneuver where they tell you something about what's true, but they never really work hard enough so that you can understand the truth.
And that's because this guy and many guys before him have understood that that's not really what's important.
What's important is what is perceived to be true.
And that's why, again, this slide is so important for you to understand.
As long as you're running in the direction they want you to run, we're not going anywhere useful.
And that's really kind of how we're trying to navigate out of the cave.
We're trying to find the right questions to ask.
Like, was there really no spread in New York City?
Are infectious clones really just transfection and transformation in cell culture?
Are placebo batches actually not talked about because they don't want us to?
Is transfection really what we should have called this from the very beginning and therefore it was criminally negligent in humans to begin with?
I mean, the other questions you might ask are how many different ways were the protocols murdered?
He might also ask, is gain-of-function real, or is it a mythology that the biosecurity state wants us to believe in?
He might also ask the question, wait, were we tricked into solving this mystery of a lab leak?
And were we tricked into solving it by a spectacular commitment of lies that spread across different stages and different social media platforms?
And oh my goodness,
The only way that they can fight this truth and these good questions is to attribute bad ideas and bad motives, rather, to the people that disagree with them.
That's why you know more about George Floyd than you know about this man.
Some of you might not even know what this man's name is, but you know what George Floyd is.
And that's how distorted American media and the world media has become.
This should be one of the most famous American thinkers around the world.
Maybe he is.
But in America, he's not.
And that should tell you a lot.
Ladies and gentlemen, it should tell you a lot.
They're also not really being honest about how money is created at this stage.
They want you to think it's still fractional reserve banking, but that would be a
That would be a mistake.
It's not fractional reserve banking anymore when you have fiat currencies trading for fiat currencies trading for fiat currencies for derivatives and no one's ever going to be shown that so you don't have to worry about seeing that but we can show them the biology and lots of people have shown we'll see it as long as we get them to stop listening to these people.
As long as we stop, you know, imagining that all of this stuff is so out of our control that we might as well just sink back into the couch and watch Netflix, because Ray Kurzweiler says that there's not going to be any disease in 10 years anyway, so all I gotta do is kill time until then.
And they've been telling these stories for decades.
Surprisingly, with surprisingly few details different, they've been telling these stories for decades.
I guess they used to call them latent viruses before they called them novel viruses.
But it's all the same story.
It's all the same charlatanism.
It's all the same snake oil because we inherited these charlatans from our parents.
And these people inherited their positions from their mentors.
And if you trace these people back to their mentors, it all seems to funnel back to Kaprowski, and Baltimore, and Gallo, and Plotkin, and a few other people.
A few other people with the insight to understand that we have to put all this biology outside of us, otherwise people will understand it as a part of us.
That's why David Baltimore's scheme of molecular biology is almost exclusively outside of the mammalian system, outside of the human system.
It's all virology.
If you want to escape this mythology, we're gonna need to make gentle the life of this world as we do it.
I show this man because I think they might even be using this man's son against us.
That's not a fun thing to say, man.
I don't like it.
I don't enjoy saying that because I, for a long time, used to work for the guy, and I believed in him, and I still want to believe in him, but unfortunately, his pattern of behavior and rhetoric
means that he's most likely part of this manufactured wave of opinion, manufactured wave of habits, manufactured wave of questions that everybody agrees are worth asking, and it's actually not true at all.
If you go with this wave, you're going to be slammed into the coral reef that is the next manufactured crisis that they want you to be slammed into.
And if our families are going to escape, we need to have a surfboard of truth
And we need to have teachers that can show people how to surf.
And so I humbly submit that I'm one of the people that's been trying to teach those lessons for the longest in the pandemic.
That doesn't mean that I've been doing it right.
But the principle of staying focused on the biology has gotten us as far as we've gotten.
The principle of trying to learn how to not take the bait on the social media has also gotten us as far as we've gotten and loving our neighbor
is actually the thing that has preserved my sanity during this whole thing.
And so the way this works is that people are consistent in spreading the word by sharing it.
Again, shout out to Soothspider and all those people like Jeff from Earth that do it on other platforms and cut clips and put them on Instagram.
I mean, all things.
I can't even get a substack going consistently, if that tells you anything.
Of course, some people would say that's because I have such a heavy crack habit.
You know, because we wouldn't want to get patriots confused with the son of a sitting president or anything like that.
We wouldn't want to, you know, just make random accusations about people that we generally disagree with, as Cancelled Mouse from France said yesterday.
I'm still a little bit reeling from the idea that there are people like that out there.
wittingly or unwittingly, willingly or unwillingly, are participating in this chaotic cluster mess of actively participating in their illusion.
And maybe that guy was innocently, unwittingly participating, but there's no doubt in my mind he was participating in the sustaining of this illusion because he didn't demonstrate
the understanding to engage in noncompliance.
Essentially attacking Pfizer is just exactly what everybody from Jeffrey Sachs to probably Charles Rixey agrees on.
I mean, this is gigolo and biological.
So,
Hello, ladies and gentlemen, it is 1120 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
It is the 7th of June 2024.
Welcome to the show.
This is a giga ohm biological high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by biologist.
My name is Jonathan Cooey.
And it's a blustery day outside, you're going to hear the wind blowing as long as I leave this open.
And that shouldn't be a problem.
You probably don't even hear that noise.
It's only in my ears.
I'm a human just like you.
I've got kids who just recently exited school.
I rent my house, and we're all just trying to figure out how to move forward through this.
I was let go by CHD.
I helped Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
write a book before that.
And I lost my job at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine as a research faculty member.
in 2021 is when my contract ended, but I was told to go home and not come back in October of 2020.
And so here I am four and a half years later trying to maintain some level of consistency in the sense of remaining humble about my understanding of this
pandemic phenomenon that everybody is convinced has happened.
And in the course of trying to struggle to work out some of the incongruities and inconsistencies in the narratives that all of these people have been pushing, I have essentially become one of the
sort of universally agreed upon, everybody doesn't like him.
And it's interesting because I'm kind of making the conclusion or rather the accusation that almost everybody shouldn't like me because almost everybody is in on it.
I'm gonna give a pretty succinct presentation about this several times over the summer, but the first and most, I think, grand slam type, you know, naming names and dates and showing the receipts
might be at the Red Pill Expo in South Dakota or on my stream the days before it.
And that's coming up very soon, actually.
It's June 7th.
And so really we're looking at about 10 days.
And so I've been preparing for a while for this.
In fact, I've been preparing for this essentially my whole life because what is needed is a fundamental reorganization about what questions are important, what questions have been answered and what questions haven't.
I think this is going to be the first attempt for anybody to try and do this in a manner that, you know, acknowledges that there were good ideas out there all the time and how these good ideas were sort of curated and separated from one another so that they would never summate into a meaningful, informed,
non-compliance movement.
And so I really think we're going to get there.
I really think that we're at a crucial breaking point right now.
And it's just a matter of keeping on track and not allowing people to distract us from these fundamental biological principles, these ideas that these are the only ideas that need challenging.
And yesterday, of course, we were distracted into arguing about whether or not I had attacked someone as anti-American or whether Nick Hudson was right about Pfizer.
And so these are multi-layered hamster wheels that absolutely and totally avoid the discussion of what I consider to be the fundamental ideas that everyone on earth that wants to be free
needs to come to understand in order to extricate themselves from this mythology.
The first one, his intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting your immune system is dumb, and it always has been.
Ever since Hilary Koprowski and Stanley Plotkin and David Baltimore and, um,
And who's the last one?
Hilary Koprowski, David Baltimore, Stanley Plotkin, and Robert Gallo have sort of created this mythology of retroviruses and DNA viruses and RNA viruses that is exclusively outside of us and has no homologue inside of our own systems.
They have done that in order to make this
fundamental truth about our irreducible complexity, very difficult for anyone to see.
Now a subset of this is that actually transfection, which was what the mRNA shot was, hand transformation, which is what the adenovirus shots were,
we're always gonna be criminally negligent in healthy humans.
And that should have been known by all the academic biologists that have ever used these two methodologies on their own investigational benches.
And that means that I'm essentially accusing every biological faculty member, every medical school faculty member in the United States that's done bench experiments in mice or in other animals that has used transfection and transformation in any form
to essentially be also willfully negligent here at some point by not speaking up about this simple fact.
Methodologies that already had names and already were understood to be very limited in their application were applied to populations in mass.
Even if they use placebos in some places in order to make the total effect difficult or more difficult to detect,
They still did it.
And every single one of these faculty members needs to be accounted for.
You could send emails to these people.
Just go down the list of any medical school that's in your region and just send messages to them and say, did you know that they called these investigational vaccines were actually transfections and transformations all along?
That's just a very simple question you could ask people.
RNA cannot pandemic is something that if an academic biologist hears it,
There should be wheels that turn and then the only explanation for them not continuing to turn is for them to stick their finger in the wheel and just stop the wheel from turning.
That's the only way to explain it because RNA cannot pandemic is an idea that should turn wheels for hours inside of someone who hasn't seen through this but has the requisite background to understand what this means in the context of DNA translation and in terms of RNA translation into protein.
And so this is really significant that when someone who gets the chance and gets my attention on the internet decides that what it's about is calling me out about my particular loyalties to Nick Hudson, even after I explained that, no, it was, you know, that whole video, although I don't handle myself in a good way,
is a perfect example of what they want.
They want you to get angry.
They want you to get all riled up and then actually he wanted me to argue about Pfizer.
He wanted me to talk about Sasha Latapova.
He wanted me to talk about whether or not Nick was a good guy and whether or not Nick was lying about Pfizer in that particular video that I attacked him in.
And if we had engaged in an hour or two long, a two hour conversation about how Sasha Latipova was good or bad, I would have opened up a door, number one, to Sasha Latipova saying, oh no, that's wrong, I didn't do that, whatever that anonymous guy from France said.
Oh look, see, now Jay's turning on Nick too.
And so it becomes this thing where they just want you to run in a hamster wheel.
That's what Twitter is all about.
The only way to work on Twitter is to find a good idea and promote it.
or bring a good idea to Twitter and tweet it.
That's it.
Reading and discussing things on there will inevitably get you into an interaction with someone who's number one anonymous and therefore could, by all likelihood, be somebody that's not working in our best interest.
Not to say that we don't need to get rid of anonymity.
But you need to treat the behavior of anonymous accounts very differently than you treat the behavior of non-anonymous accounts.
And then even with a non-anonymous account, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's account, you need to treat it as something different because you understand it as something different.
And so each one of these interactions is designed to break you away from these ideas, break you away from saying it in a different way, you know, like weaponized piles of money murdered people and convince people to agree about it being a lab leak.
Like saying it differently, like the old vaccine schedule is injuring and killing thousands every year.
Or saying it differently, how about this one?
We do not need to fear wild RNA molecules.
I was also going to say free-range RNA molecules because it's even funnier.
And that's really what we've been led to believe, right?
And all of these people agree on.
Robert Malone says that a free-range RNA molecule let loose from the garage of a mischievous biologist could be the next pandemic.
Jessica Rose has never questioned the idea that free-range RNA molecules can go around the world for five years.
Neither has the illustrious Geert van den Bosch.
They all agree that free-range RNA molecules are one of the greatest dangers to face our children and our children's children.
It's extraordinary, really.
Stop lying!
Cage-free RNA.
And that's what this is.
There was a free-range RNA molecule that killed millions, that millions more were saved from.
This molecule probably came from a laboratory and therefore another free-range RNA molecule will come again.
Stop lying!
And so it's the spread of bad ideas is more dangerous than the spread of any RNA molecule.
It's really the case.
That's what has happened.
That's what you should see fifth generation warfare as.
And that's why when Robert Malone says, you'll never figure it out, it's because if you trust him, you won't.
If you trust Jessica Rose, if you trust Meryl Nass, all the people that he's put on stage, like Sasha Latapova, any of these people, Corey, you will not escape.
Of course you won't.
Is it so hard to imagine that social media is just programmed to raise the people up that the national security state wants you to see?
Is it so hard to imagine that the only questions that get amplified are those questions that the national security state wants you to see?
Or is it just that they censor people and don't let people talk about stuff?
Stop lying!
And so that's what these guys are selling, right?
These people are selling the idea that we need to fear free range RNA molecules.
We got a free, we got to fear them.
All of these people say that now, if, if we can get Sukrit Bhakti out of that group, it would be great.
If we can get Peter McCullough out of that group, it would be great.
But chances are, we can't.
Sukrit Bhakti, maybe.
I got to turn that down.
I think the kids were playing.
Dang it.
pesky neighbor kids coming over here and playing Star Wars with me.
They're starting to get good at it.
I think I have to take the stool away.
They're ruining all my high scores.
So yeah, we need to fear free-range RNA molecules.
That's kind of annoying.
And that's what I think these guys are all about.
I think that's why a guy from the Human Genome Project was on all kinds of podcasts
with a dude from the World Bank in Monsanto from April 2020 to May 2020 to December 2020.
And never did he meaningfully challenge any of the biology that the national security state was selling that this could be a worst case scenario, but they might be
misconstruing where the worst-case scenario comes from.
It might come from background viruses.
It doesn't have to be a lab leak, and if it is a lab leak, we're gonna need some pretty good data on it.
But since he's in the PCR space, he can explain to you that these PCR tests are just being used incorrectly, or being exaggerated, or being misreported, or there's a financial incentive.
It couldn't possibly be that they're lying, although I guess it's possible that I don't think they are.
That was the conclusion of the third podcast.
At some point he said that.
And of course this guy has been promoted repeatedly by CHD and all these other big podcasts because he knows that there's, he's discovered, actually how they say it, he discovered that there's double-stranded DNA contamination of the RNA shots.
And so these guys have all been very honest, right?
They've all been very honest with us.
First, they told us that the J&J was causing heart attacks and strokes, and so they pulled it, and whoo, shoot, thank goodness they're not total profiteers.
And now they're being honest again, because although it saved a lot of people, I think it's also hurt a lot of people too.
And so they're not really encroaching on the narrative of Fauci and the fact that this intellectual property, although it was rushed, it saved a lot of people.
which is what he just said.
They're not encroaching on that at all.
It's just a question of, okay, you save some people, but you also hurt a lot of people, right?
And so we're going to have a fake discussion about that.
And no one will ever, ever question again, what the original OG criminal enterprise of the 72 shot childhood vaccine schedule of America did.
They won't ever question it because these people are going to vigorously agree, create an illusion of consensus that that's not the problem.
The problem is the COVID shots.
Don't talk about before.
Before.
Don't talk about before.
That's looking backwards, that's dividing.
I mean, who cares what people were doing in 2020?
Who cares who really lost a job?
Who cares who really was hurt financially or set backwards or even lost a house as opposed to selling one?
And let's surround the people with the ideas that we say are super important with people who can talk for 45 minutes and introduce stupid, complicated ideas or dumb, simple ideas which muddy the water around the guy that you say has great ideas.
And if you watch this podcast with Bobby, that's what I see now when I listen to it.
I see a guy who says so many good things about the person that's gonna speak, and then it's actually flipped upside down because that person that he says is so great and that everybody needs to listen to is only given seven minutes, and then this guy talks for the next 40, then this lady talks,
for another 20, then that lady talks for five minutes and this confused lady up there says five more things.
And so the dude that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
says everybody in the world needs to hear only got seven minutes and then never really was able to talk again because of that guy up there.
And you're supposed to believe that this is just, you know, the way that breaking free works, that fighting for freedom works.
And in reality, what this is, is this is how good voices are absorbed.
It's the same thing that CHD does to people like Laura Bono and Brian Hooker.
They put them in a position where they feel like they're really making progress, but in reality, they're really, they're really just a little, in a little controlled place where everybody knows exactly how far their message is going to go.
And everybody's, you know, who's going to see it isn't, is already converted.
And so it doesn't matter anymore.
And that's what this is.
That's why when they titled this podcast, they didn't title it Jonathan Cooey and Others.
Go look at it on Spotify.
Go look at it on Spotify because they put Malone's face and Malone's name on it, not mine.
Disappearing Flu with Malone and Others.
How's that for thanks for helping me with my book, Jay?
I mean, I don't know how else to respond to these things other than to keep repeating the truth so you can see it as clearly as possible.
Just go to the podcast and look for it on Spotify and see if you can find a podcast with J.J.
Cooey and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
What I want is high morbidity.
And so this public facing brochure presentation talks about seeding cases and using the internet to create the illusion of a spreading pathogen.
What it doesn't get into are things that are found in the SPARS document, where internet influencers and trusted sources of information can be placed before the pandemic so that you can control the perception and the argument and get higher compliance.
And concepts like EpiGirl are found in that document, which I'm often now referring to Jessica Rose as EpiGirl, again, because I think these people were put in place so that, for example, they could argue about VAERS,
being evidence that these vaccines are so much worse than the old vaccines.
That's the argument that Jessica Rose was making from the beginning of her rise, besides she got censored with Peter McCullough about a, about a, about a, it was something to do with, with cardiac stuff, right?
So she was publicly censored with Peter McCullough in 2020 about some cardiac thing, some cardiac paper, which of course got that idea out and got those two names together out, made her seem like she was being censored.
She got to do a podcast circuit and then say, look, VAERS shows that these new vaccines are actually worse than the old.
They would not even see this signal until now.
Well, what an interesting thing to say in a group meeting where this woman right here, who's been working her whole life to end the vaccine schedule, this man right here who has an adult autistic child to take care of,
and has been trying to work diligently to end the vaccine schedule and to save future children his whole life.
He's the guy who drove across the United States to take the data from the whistleblower at the CDC.
And so what an interesting person to put in front of them.
at every one of these international COVID summits for the last four years.
Why wasn't Brian Hooker or this Nancy lady, I think her name is, from NVIC, why wasn't she touring around?
Why is it that I just found out that after years and years of supporting her and organization, now Mercola has just stopped?
So Mercola was giving her like $300,000 a year from his charity and then suddenly he decided to stop.
All kinds of interesting things going on here, but I think what you see is what I see.
That not all of these people are bad.
Some of them think they're doing good and can't help but believe all these coordinated liars.
And that's what these signal chats were about.
That's what these telegram groups are about.
That's what all these Bitcoin chat groups are about.
They are about little fake groups of people, even slack groups and, and discord chats are little fake groups of people that you'll never be able to verify who's who and whether they're all just independent actors or whether it's three guys with 50 accounts that are fooling the five or six people that are in that group.
fooling them into thinking that all these people agree, yeah, yeah, cover that, yeah, yeah, write that, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And like I've said over and over again, how many people does it take to sabotage an even tug of war?
One, two?
And this is an even tug of war.
So you're looking at a very, very, very difficult nut to crack if you can't see just through who they promote and who they don't promote or who they cut on,
If you can't see how they do it, oh, I gotta change that name.
This is supposed to be Dowd.
Doink.
If you can't see how they do it, then you will never see it.
And that's what Robert Malone hopes, that you'll never see how they're doing it.
But how they're doing it is through an illusion of consensus.
It's an illusion of consensus.
People agree to argue about stuff, and they are agreeing to argue very vigorously about stuff.
That's why Robert Malone tried to convince people for years of certain people being against him, like George Webb, like Sasha Latupova, like Mary Holland.
Interesting names to mention, right?
And that list was just extraordinary because I'm pretty sure that more than half of them were not his opponents.
But it's possible that he definitely wanted to stop Peter and Ginger Bregan.
That's why the only meaningful suit that he filed was that one.
And if that suit, as it seems to be, was real, then that could have really screwed the Bregans for a few years.
I mean, you can't get sued for $25 million and just sit back and not worry about it.
I don't know, I think I need to get, I'm.
I would like people to reach out to Peter and Ginger.
I'd like to talk to them, because I do think the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is going on right now better than it's ever gone on before.
And now that we're able to show them how it's being done, the only thing they have left is to attribute bad motives to us.
You're dividing people.
And that's why they don't want to talk about these ideas, and they don't want to take these steps.
Anyone could have said it in this way,
Very few people are.
Anyone could have said it in this way.
No one is.
And so that's where we are, ladies and gentlemen.
That's why these bad ideas like we ran into yesterday occur.
And then these people laugh about it.
Well, we're mostly in agreement, but you know.
And what it is really is that they don't want to talk about the fact that weaponized piles of money have murdered people and gotten people to agree about it being a lab leak.
That's why he wanted us to talk about Nick Hudson and lies about Pfizer.
because the spread of ideas is more dangerous than the spread of any RNA molecule.
Watch carefully, right?
Jessica Hockett, Jonathan Cooey, more noise!
Brett Weinstein's great.
Kate Lindley's great.
Brett Weinstein's great.
Jeffrey Tucker from the Brownstone Institute that supports Brett Weinstein is great.
Oh yeah, by the way,
Shannon Joy is great, and Barack Obama wanted this to happen, and Steve Kirsch is great, and oh yeah, Jordan Shettel is great, yeah, that guy.
And Professor Neil is great because he writes about viruses and says viruses are real.
And can you name a single leader who realized the pandemic was a fraud, spoke out about it, and didn't die mysteriously is a reply to Steve Kirsch.
Is he promoting Nick Hudson or is he alerting Steve Kirsch?
that Nick Hudson doesn't agree with him, that we've got to control Nick Hudson.
Oh, Jeffrey Tucker, there's a reply to you and it says, my concern is that it'll be wrong kind of reckoning instead of seeing that COVID as a novel deadly virus was a scam and that pandemics aren't a material threat.
Most will believe that mad scientists can launch deadly pandemics at a whim and demand protection from the state.
Is there anything wrong with that message?
Absolutely not.
So is he promoting the message or is he alerting Jeffrey Tucker?
I think he's alerting Jeffrey Tucker.
And that's probably why this guy interviewed him, because this guy has been on John Campbell's stream.
The thing about Nick Hudson that's interesting is that he doesn't claim to have the definitive knowledge about this stuff.
He's using common sense, and he's got an open mind.
So if any of these people wanted to take a shot at convincing him of something, they could.
But instead, we seem to have some anonymous mouse character from France
trying to, and others, because that's also Jikki Leaks apparently, wants to convince you that Nick Hudson is bad.
That's why Jikki Leaks is like saying that Panda is bad.
That's why I pointed out before that Panda is bad, like all these places are bad.
If you say CHD is bad, you're saying that they're all bad?
No.
If you say Panda's bad, all that means is that they have bad people there, that they're infiltrated, but that's not precise enough.
everywhere is bad that's my whole argument but again they want you to run around because they're trying to mislead the young they're trying to get the young to ask the wrong questions like can we get Pfizer can we get them because we've got data we've got these whistleblowers can we get Pfizer
Oh my goodness, wouldn't it be great if we spent all kinds of energy getting Pfizer?
We should get Pfizer and Fauci!
Let's get them!
So here we are.
That didn't work because we're running out of little memory there.
So I'll just start from this current slide again and then it'll work, I think.
Yep.
So today we're going to do Zooby Debunked and Defunked by Dr. Dan Wilson, but I'm calling him Mr. Dan Wilson because that's how I call myself, Mr. Cooey.
Because I think, you know, if you're going to be honest with other people on the internet, if you're a doctor, it should at this stage, especially if you're going to talk about the COVID pandemic,
You should say doctor when you're a MD, and otherwise you can just say mister, and you can put PhD after your name, which is really how it should be.
So yeah, that's kind of funny.
I don't know.
I just think it's cute.
So here we go.
Let's slide over to this one.
And there will be advertisements, I assume, because this is my Mac.
And I do expect it to be relatively painful.
So I'm going to put it up to a little bit different speed, and we're definitely not going to watch it all.
unless it's so entertaining.
But the main issue that I would like to do and the main thing that I would like you to, if you want to participate in the chat, one of the things that we could do together in order to keep sane, because it's going to be difficult, right?
I don't think Zuby is a good player.
Zuby has been on Joe Rogan, so it's very difficult to believe that he's a free player.
Zuby and Dan are going to engage in this limited spectrum of debate and what we should do in order to keep our brains clear and sane is to try and... What's the right word?
Try and express the question
that they are discussing, express the question that they have decided is worth asking or worth debating the answers to.
Because that's how we will essentially define the walls of our cage going forward is what question is being asked here and how are they answering it?
Because if they are asking the wrong question and then answering it with
answers that don't reveal the dumbness of the question, then they're doing exactly what I would imagine this, how this, this campaign of lies is being waged upon us.
So welcome to the fire.
Um, it's not going to be fun, but as long as you keep your humor, um, it should be okay.
Uh, let's try 1.5 because I bet you it's okay.
Um, I hope it'll be okay for you guys too.
When it comes to infectious disease, it's not just one person that we're talking about here.
I mean, this has been the history of public health.
What's up, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls around the world?
I would like to welcome you back to The Real Talk with Zuby podcast.
On today's episode, we have got on Dr. Dan Wilson.
He is a molecular biologist and host of the YouTube channel Debunk the Funk.
So welcome to the show, man.
Hey Zuby, what's going on?
Yeah, I'm all good, man.
I'm all good.
I'm glad that we're finally having this conversation.
I know it's, I know it's long overdue.
We've had a lot of, a lot of back and forths over the last couple of years during the whole pandemic era.
So a fake rivalry on a lot of various things.
And we were meant to have this conversation, I think last year, but I've been traveling like crazy and we keep, yeah, it just keeps going back and forth.
So I'm glad that we're, I'm glad that we're finally making it happen.
How's everything on your end?
It's all good.
I'm busy too.
I got my second kid now.
It's four months old and keeping us busy.
But yeah, you know, I mean, we know we don't see eye to eye on the pandemic, but
point of your show is to have conversations, and let's just talk about it and see if we can come to some understanding.
Absolutely, man.
And congrats on the new edition.
It genuinely makes me happy to hear that.
Thanks.
Awesome, man.
Well, I've done a brief intro there, man.
But for those who are not familiar with you and your work, just please give a little bit of an introduction and background.
Yeah, sure.
So my background is I have a PhD in biological sciences.
I got that from Carnegie Mellon University.
From there, I went on into industry because I don't know if you know much about academia, but with my wife and I being about to have our first child, I wasn't going to continue in that.
So I went into industry, we moved, and now
I work at Janssen.
I'm a senior associate scientist there.
And in my spare time, I just do a YouTube channel because personally, I used to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories when I was younger.
And science helped kind of pull me out of that thinking.
And so I thought, what better way to still have fun learning by challenging bad science and also just give myself a hobby to do in that realm.
So I started.
That's hilarious.
So he's trying to make the argument that he decided to do this because it's a hobby.
Um, that's really interesting because unlike him, I actually have a track record of starting a YouTube channel right before the pandemic with actually something to say that had nothing to do with the pandemic and nothing to do with debunking science.
So it's interesting, right, that essentially you have these inorganically appearing people that have decided, hey, I think I'm going to start podcasting.
What was Kevin McCairn doing before the pandemic and before he had a super spreader event?
That he just decided to do three and four hour daily podcasts in March of 2020.
What excuse did he have?
Because I was riding a bike to a medical school where I had a faculty position and I was trying to do journal club on a bicycle about neurobiology, which was my specialty.
It's not like Kevin McCarran or Eddie had a preexisting neurobiology thing where he was talking about Tourette's syndrome or teaching about amyloidosis.
It's not like Paul Cuttrell had a podcast before the pandemic where he was teaching investment tips and then suddenly decided, hey, wait a minute.
Thank goodness I decided to take a course at Harvard.
I can now talk about the pandemic and take whistleblowers from Taiwan about Remdesivir.
And so he's trying to tell you that, yeah, you know, I have kids and if you know anything about academia, you're not going to go into that.
I got a PhD in biological sciences.
Can I remind you of what Peter Thiel told us on the Portal podcast in 2019 about the hyperspecialization that's found in sciences?
He's not going to tell you that what he did was work on one particular subunit of ribosomes and do little point mutations in it to see if he could find the functional relevant
amino acids of this particular subunit or this particular rival protein.
I apologize for not knowing the exact details of his PhD, but if you're going to go that hyper specialized into a particular topic, then you're not getting a PhD in the biological sciences.
It's already a little broad for me to say that I have a PhD in neurobiology.
My PhD was in cellular neurophysiology and biophysics of the single neurons.
I mean, I'm not an equal expert in systems physiology.
I can read those papers.
I've read them for years.
But again, it's the lack of precision, including him presenting himself as Dr. Dan Wilson and being as, let's say,
as imprecise as possible so that the average person will take his expertise to be as broad as possible.
How can we explain a person who never even tried to do a postdoc rising to a senior associate scientist at Janssen after working for a testing company whose name slips my head a few years ago?
Congratulations on the second kid.
That's really great.
Kind of.
Wow, I don't know.
I mean, again, what questions are they going to ask?
What questions are they going to debate about?
And what answers are they going to agree are worth arguing about?
Once you start to see this move forward, it's going to be painful because they are going to mislead millions of young people.
That's the plan.
Keep in mind, I think this is a
He might even be supported by Canadian money.
There was something to do with a Canadian propaganda fund or some kind or another that he may have gotten money from.
It doesn't matter, but I'm sure it's true.
Yeah, that's about it.
Okay, interesting, man.
There's a term that you use there, which I know you use a lot, which is bad science.
So tell us what bad science is.
So when I cover bad science, usually it's either poorly communicated science, so it could be a good paper that is getting misinterpreted or getting spun in a way that does not represent what the findings actually are, or it could be a
bad paper where maybe the authors used poor methods.
They did some, maybe they did some fabrication of data.
Maybe they published it in a predatory journal and the work is just not up to par and they're making bold claims with it that can't be backed up by their actual findings, nor can they be backed up.
And so it's not, he's never, ever, ever, and reminding you, Zuby is not prepared
to push back and say, isn't it more what Girk Gigerenzer says it is, that it's like this ritual of probability that defines whether or not an observation is significant, that has allowed the creation of a lot of noise that has been misrepresented as knowledge.
So instead, Brian Wilson specifically focuses on fraud or bad experiments and not
specifically able to say that, well, most experiments don't test the model they say they're testing.
Most experiments are actually designed to disprove a null hypothesis, which doesn't test the model that they have for the world.
So it's interesting, to the point of nauseating, that this
what can only be described as a unwitting participant, because I actually believe he believes everything that he says because people have told him that he's right.
And because he doesn't have the lifelong experience that a regular adult does, he has no background on which to base his trusting of the people around him.
And so it's just naive people telling other naive people that you're believing the right stuff.
It's like imagining that you would go into a church and follow their ritual and then have them tell you that you're wrong.
And if you go to the church and you follow their ritual, no one's gonna tell you you're wrong.
And that's why he's there now.
because he has gone to academia, he's done it exactly as he said, he followed the way into industry and did exactly what he thought they wanted him to do, said what he wanted to say, said what he thought everyone around him believed, and they probably did, because there is an illusion of consensus that runs through all of these industries and all of academia.
where simple ideas like transformation and transfection are not appropriate investigational vaccine methodologies that are appropriate for rolling out in healthy kids, nevermind healthy grandparents, they're never gonna get to that simple expression.
because the idea is to create a dumb, simple, or stupid, complicated version of these limited spectrums of debate, where in reality, there is an answer.
There is a very succinct way to say these things.
But the goal of both of these guys is to say either side of this limited spectrum of debate in such a vigorous way that you don't see it for what it is.
the scientific community's findings when they actually challenge those data and try to reproduce them, interrogate them, build upon them, whatever.
So from that bad science, you get a lot of misunderstanding of science.
And I think that's generally a big problem around the world.
Science is a difficult field.
Science is generally a difficult topic to understand for a lot of people.
And the mainstream media often gets it wrong in their headlines or in their short segments on the news.
And science
is a difficult field for people to understand.
I guess that's science with a capital S, the same science that Tony Fauci says, I am speechless at this level of rhetoric.
He really deserves a face palm right in his forehead that knocks him down to his ass, because that's how dumb this is.
I mean, again, he's never come against, it doesn't sound like he's ever really been challenged
by a faculty.
It doesn't sound like Carnegie Mellon's biology faculty is as good as I imagined it was.
If this is who they graduate and he says he got a degree in biological sciences and can't explain that he's hyper specialized in the molecular biology of a particular subunit of a particular RNA in a particular model.
Oh boy, oh boy, it's amazing.
either get it wrong or they don't dive into it enough so that people actually understand it.
And so it's on the job of scientists to actually communicate and correct that.
But a lot of scientists aren't trained to do it, don't care to do it, and are too busy to do it.
So some scientists aren't trained to communicate it.
I'm not sure that he was trained.
Some don't know how.
But he does it as a hobby because it's fun.
And I guess he, I don't know, I am just, it's bewildering to me that anyone takes this character seriously.
So yeah, that science can be all of those things that scientists ultimately have the responsibility of correcting.
Understood.
OK, so as I've already said at the beginning of the conversation, we've had a lot of we've had a lot of back and forth and on Twitter, I wouldn't say that.
So it's interesting because actually it feels like Zuby is going to take this as a very Zen thing and just let this guy talk.
And if that's the case, then I have something to learn from him.
I'm already impressed with his ability to
just let him talk.
I've got a lot to learn.
There's no question.
Been the most friendly.
My goal of this podcast is not necessarily to to like fight or debate and I absolutely never you know insult my guests or results ad hominem or anything like that.
You're you're the guest on my show and I treat it as such as my host.
I want to say up front that I am open to learning.
I am open to having my mind
changed.
I think that there are probably things that we are both dug in at this point to the extent that a mind change might be unlikely, but there are going to be thousands of people who listen to this.
So I'm just open to have a conversation and see where it goes, see where it leads, see what our points of disagreement are, see what our points of agreement are, see how we think, how we reach our conclusions, and let the chips fall where they may.
So I guess the first question I'm going to ask you about this is, obviously, you've responded- My first question is, did Franklin Barbecue pay for that t-shirt?
Because remember, remember,
Joe Rogan and this network have a lot of implanted ads and all their stuff.
So if that were Black Rifle Coffee, it would be obvious.
But if it's Franklin Barbecue in Austin, Texas, where's Austin, Texas?
Isn't that where Joe Rogan is?
Did anyone catch that before I decided to mention it?
Because I think that's quite significant.
Like what T-shirt you wear on Zuby's podcast, knowing that Zuby's got millions of followers and people that aren't following him, but watch him a lot, that's pretty significant.
over the, I don't know, the first time we had any interaction online.
It was maybe perhaps late 2020 or sometime in 2021 for sure.
But I've had various tweets that have gone out there, which I know that you have specifically taken issue with.
I think you've taken issue with a lot of my communication during the time around the pandemic.
And we certainly were not seeing eye to eye on the risk of lockdowns and masks and mandates and all of that stuff.
So let's maybe just start with an open question of
What's the greatest thing that you have taken issue with in terms of my communication, or what is the biggest thing that you think that I'm getting or have gotten wrong throughout this?
So I guess my biggest issue with things that you've said is you have put out the sentiment that COVID vaccines, specifically mRNA vaccines, are killing thousands of people.
And you're giving the impression that they're dangerous and that they shouldn't be taken.
And that is, I guess, the biggest issue that I have with your communication.
And I'd be curious to see what... Sorry about that.
I was pushing up the wrong slider.
That's why his voice was a little low.
I am so sorry about that.
That's my bad.
I got the right slider now.
Sorry about that.
have seen that brings you to that conclusion okay that's interesting all right i mean i think there were many criticisms okay i'm gonna go back and the impression that they're dangerous i guess what's the greatest thing that you have taken issue with in terms of my communication or what is the biggest thing that you think that i'm getting or have gotten wrong throughout this
So I guess my biggest issue with things that you've said is you have put out the sentiment that COVID vaccines, specifically mRNA vaccines, are killing thousands of people.
And you're giving the impression that they're dangerous and that they shouldn't be taken.
And that is, I guess, the biggest issue that I have with your communication.
And I'd be curious to see what you have seen that brings you to that conclusion.
That's interesting.
I think there were many criticisms prior to this in terms of the lockdowns and things like that.
Sure.
I'm happy to start with the shots if that's where you want to start.
By the way, I don't do politician answers.
But in the course of some of my answers, I might ask you questions so that I know that we're coming from the same place in terms of statistics and numbers and things like that.
If there's something that needs to be corrected or we're coming from different sources, then it can be clarified.
I'm going to lay out what my position is.
I think that you've partly got it right.
I would say that I know for sure
i have never told anyone not to take the shot um my position has i have never told anyone not to take the shot what an interesting thing to say because guess what i did
Although I didn't say it as early as I wanted to in December of 2020, I put out a review in May of 2021 where I said definitively we need to pause all transfections now.
Did I have all the biology right?
Did I have even some of the biology right?
Not really.
Not the way that I have it now.
And that's why it's featured on a link on my website called Scooby.
and why it has a little paragraph there that explains that I was lost.
I was being misled by people.
And I did think that the transfection was working, but it was making the spike protein change faster.
And so then we might enrich it for other things.
And so we better pause because I don't want to say that it doesn't work, but it could work in a bad way.
And that was exactly what they wanted me to be saying.
That was a perfect thing to say, as long as I said it in May, because in June, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
wasn't going to come anywhere.
It was going to be Robert Malone and Brett Weinstein and Steve Kirsch.
Hell,
Brett Weinstein wouldn't even bother to interview Bobby Kennedy until November of 2021 and then he wouldn't even release the video until 2023 in February.
So just after I wrote my review that nobody watched and nobody listened to, some people shared it online but not very many people,
Then Byron Bridle comes out and says, oh my gosh, look what I got from Japan.
And then right away he gets silenced.
And there comes Robert Malone.
There comes Steve Kirsch.
There comes Brett Weinstein.
And what was their message in 2021?
Well, masks work.
Forced drugging of everybody could get us to zero COVID easily because ivermectin's that badass.
And Robert Malone took two shots because he thought it would help with his long COVID and because Peter Cullis told him it was good.
That's what we're supposed to believe.
And Zuby didn't tell anybody not to take it.
I told people to take it.
Now I'm telling people that transfection is criminally negligent and it always was.
This happened 24 hours ago, ladies and gentlemen.
been throughout the thing, even from beginning of 2020, has been opposed to the mandates, opposed to the coercion, and opposed to the lies and just the dishonesty, in my opinion, coming from the media, coming from politicians, coming from so-called public health experts, not just, I mean, in different countries, I'm from the UK, but I think wherever you go, the messaging was largely similar.
So my personal viewpoint is based off of, firstly, just starting out with how, you know what, actually, I think a good place to start would just be how dangerous slash deadly we both think that COVID itself is, because I think that perhaps we don't see eye to eye on that.
And as a result, everything that follows
we are missing each other on.
So my viewpoint, well, I mean, not my viewpoint.
I mean, look, actually before this conversation to make sure that I'm not like just sort of running things off of my feelings, I wanted to check the infection fatality rates by different age groups.
So the numbers that I have seen, I have got a link to this, but based on the numbers that I've seen, for the various age groups, the median infection fatality rates that I've got for age zero to 19 years old is 0.0003.
Okay, so what are we doing here?
We're trying to do the thing that we want to do here, which is this one.
No, not that one.
This one.
And what we're going to try to do is look at... Wait, why?
Oh, that's not the right way to do it.
I can't do that.
That's right.
Okay, I can't pull two screens here because the Mac doesn't pull to the inset.
Sorry about that.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
The fake rivalry, I think that's what this is.
And they probably have been doing it since they were on the internet together, right?
So what you need to see is that, oh yeah, we've been arguing for a year.
That was all part of this.
And so that was a slow roll, right?
He could have, we should have done this like a year ago, but we didn't.
Well, that's because it wasn't time.
Now we're doing it because it's time, or now we're doing it because we've reached that time in the script, or that's how far we've bent the reed.
I don't know what it is, but he says he's got a PhD in biological sciences.
If you know anything about academia, that, I wasn't gonna go into that.
And he was now a senior associate scientist at Janssen.
The first thing is, let's see, you said, what do you most disagree with, Zuby asks.
And he says, well, you've said that RNA is killing people, and I most disagree with that.
So Zuby says, let's focus on the lies about the shot.
That's basically what they're talking about.
But then, then,
courageously says, let's just back up.
Let's first decide if we see eye to eye on how dangerous COVID was.
So in order to have that discussion and ask that very important question, I went and looked at the data from the CDC and from other government sources and found an IFR for particular age groups.
And now you're running in a hamster wheel.
And now we're going to listen to them run in a hamster wheel about this for several minutes, because that's exactly what this is.
We're already 40 miles away from asking a really relevant question with regard to saving our children.
20 to 29, 0.002%.
From 30 to 39, I've got 0.11%.
From 40 to 49, I've got 0.035%.
From 50 to 59, I've got 0.123%.
And from 60 to 69, I've got 0.506%.
And then from age 70 upwards, it increases over 1%.
First thing I want to say, do those numbers align with your own sources?
So is that the infection fatality rate or is that the case fatality rate?
I have that as the IFR, the infection fatality rate.
OK.
So I would look at case fatality rate if I was going to look at any number.
He's always going to be looking down because he has a notebook in front of him.
I never use notes.
I've never used notes in a meeting.
I've never used even an outline.
In fact, I used more notes on my bicycle than I used when I do this stream.
And that is an absolute truth because I used to put little tiny notes about what the figure titles were on the bar of my bike so that if I was riding and I needed to remind myself where I was, I knew the titles of the figures.
That's my trick.
That's why I could remember all the figures in a paper, because I actually had them listed.
And I don't do that here.
Obviously, I have slides and stuff like that.
But in an interview, I've never done it.
In any of my presentations, I don't have notes about what I'm going to say.
There are no notes on the slides because this is a show about what I know and what I've come to understand.
And so when I'm trying to talk about that stuff, I don't need notes.
I'm not lying about anything.
I don't need to keep anything straight.
If I put it out in the wrong order, it doesn't matter because these are all synergistic ideas that don't cancel each other out if they're presented in the wrong ideas, rather in the wrong order.
That's what's extraordinary about every one of these little fake conversations, is that they have to be gone and done in a careful order and in a careful hierarchy so that the contradiction in terms of, wait, why were you arguing about that question 10 minutes ago if you're now talking about this?
That's what happens if you do some of these lies in the wrong order.
And when you're telling the truth, you don't need notes, you don't need to keep things straight because all of it is naturally synergistic.
It all lines up because that's the truth.
You see?
that.
But to be fair, those numbers sound like I'll just agree.
Sure.
They sound like in the ballpark of what the case fatality rate would be.
But case fatality rate is a is a better metric to look at for that.
But okay.
So what's the question?
Shall we write the question down just in case anybody is trying to do this?
What's the question?
I don't see anybody putting it in the chat, but that's all right.
So what's better?
IFR or CFR?
And now if they're arguing about whether IFR or CFR is better, and somebody is not really confident about what those two are, or doesn't understand that infection fatality rate almost always has to be a model because they don't know who's all infected, whereas case fatality rate can be derived from real dead data.
Interesting, right?
They're not gonna talk about that at all.
He's just saying that he thinks case fatality rate is better.
And if he says why, I'll be surprised.
Because if he says why, he will actually be helping people just a little bit.
but still essentially getting them to accept the fundamental principle, which is what if you're arguing about how dangerous COVID is and whether we should talk about IFR or CFR, then you're not questioning the novel, the novel virus, right?
You're not, you're not questioning it at all.
And so is it dangerous for Zuby to get into an argument with the illustrious Mr. Dan Wilson about whether COVID, debating about how dangerous COVID is should be used, the IFR or the CFR?
Wow, it's just awful when you see it now.
I was gonna just say, would it be fair to say for people aged under 70, under 1%?
Uh, pre vaccine, um, age under, it was around 1% non age adjusted.
So, uh, pre vaccine.
So below a certain age group, it was going to be below 1%.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Cool.
I just want to make sure that we're aligned on that because my, a lot of my thinking, not all of it.
Oh, what was that on that?
Because my, is that my thinking?
Wait, what?
Okay, all right, cool.
I just want to make sure that we're aligned on that because my... Is that a lion?
Is that right there a gold lion?
I see a lot of lion.
That looks like a lion to me.
And I know other people that use lions as signals.
Ooh, I don't like that necklace very much.
A lot of my thinking – not all of it, but a lot of it is based off of the fact that I do not believe that for the vast majority of the population that COVID is a serious threat, or ever was.
I've never made the claim that for elderly people or that for people with various comorbidities and so on that it isn't, and I know that there's exceptions to this.
I know that there have been young people who have had a bad and rough time with it.
I'm fully aware of that.
claim that isn't the case.
But when I look at the... I know there are young people who've had a rough time with it.
I've never claimed that isn't the case.
So we're really, really, really, really, really trying to make sure that we both agree that there was a virus.
We're not questioning that.
And don't you dare put me in that category of people that denies COVID or denies that people got sick or even denies that some young people had something very strange.
Holy shit, it's obvious.
Stop lying!
overall response to it.
I do not believe that the response, I'm talking about lockdowns, I'm talking about the various types of mandates, the rules and restrictions implemented in various countries, the coercion, the segregation, discrimination, all of the stuff that came out of it and all of the longterm, all of the ongoing effects that that's having in terms of the economy, in terms of civil liberties, in terms of people's mental and physical wellbeing, in terms of inflation and so on.
Okay, he's a Leo.
I just thought, it's okay.
You know, I gotta give them something, right?
So they can cut that clip out and say, look, Jonathan Cooley thinks all the lions are bad guys.
I'm sure it's just he's just a Leo.
I do not believe that it made sense.
I would go as far as saying I believe that the impact of the policies has been and will be worse, in my opinion, than the impact of the disease itself.
I also think that many of the policies themselves did not make sense.
I know that you're a science guy.
You're all about science.
I think that many of the policies that were undertaken around the world were illogical, let alone like
they didn't make any sense in terms of science.
So if you're willing to, if you're able to change my mind on some of those, I'm happy to give examples.
If you feel differently on those, I'm not going to make you defend every stupid policy.
If we want to go through some of them, we can see the ones that you think make sense and the ones that perhaps you don't think do.
But I'm giving you my overall perspective.
It looks like he's also taking notes, which I think if you're in an interview, that's not silly.
And I've done that before.
It is generally one of
is generally one of choice.
So if someone I've never in my life told anyone to I've never even asked anyone to back status.
I've never once yelled at anyone for wearing a mask or not wearing a mask for taking a shot or not taking a shot.
My stance has always been this should be up to people.
And so he's it should be up to people.
So even if the vaccine schedule in America is criminal,
Even if the liability shield is criminal and has resulted in thousands of people being injured and maybe even thousands of people being killed, it's probably millions of people are injured and have no idea where their allergies come from, where their ailments come from, when in reality, some of them may be from their vaccines.
That's the reality that we have here.
And these people do not want to meaningfully question that at all.
They just want you to have a choice of whether you do it or not.
So essentially it's allowing people to be murdered.
Imagine if you said that, well, when people go to the hospital, they're being murdered, but I'm not going to tell anybody to go, not go there.
I'm not going to stop anybody from going to a hospital, but I do know that they're murdered when they go there.
What a weird stance to take.
It was part of the reason why my review got delayed for so long, because I kept wanting to say that it's killing people, but my co-author wanted to be a little more subtle and use a little bit more language.
That's why we came to the language pause.
Because I just wanted to say, stop all transfections.
Which I'm now saying, of course, for many years.
He's never told anybody to stop.
He's never suggested that the previous vaccine schedule is bad.
I mean, I just want everybody to make their choice.
I don't want anybody to think that abortion is good or bad.
I just want everybody to have the choice.
Once you see that a lot of these positions are abdicating the moral responsibility of the question at hand, you start to see what they've done to us.
I don't have anything against trans people.
Well, then you obviously don't have anything against trans kids.
No, that's not the same thing.
And that's the same kind of cognitive dissonance that's being created right here.
In fact, reinforced with an illusion of consensus that these two guys are creating, that they're agreeing that this is a useful conversation, that they're trying their best to come to have a objective conversation with one another, and they are absolutely not doing that.
Stop lying!
This is a performance complete with planted
references and planted commercials the whole nine yards.
if individuals do their own risk calculation for themselves and their family, and they think that it's best to stay home, or they think it's best to close down their business, or they think it's best to wear a mask, or wear two masks, or take zero shots, one shot, five shots.
However many, I've never cared about any of that stuff before with any other illness and with most health things in general.
I think it's up to individuals.
That's been my stance.
My stance has been anti-mandate.
You could call it anti-mandate.
You could call it anti-lockdown.
I would simply say that it's pro-freedom, pro-civil liberties, and it's also just pro-transparency of information.
One of my biggest beefs throughout this whole thing has been something- I'm anti-harm.
Okay, that's the thing with me.
And I think that's the message that these people all avoid.
I just want freedom.
I want freedom.
No, I want safety from harm.
Okay, I don't mean that I want rules and regulations and all this other stuff that people will automatically contort that as.
No, I want crimes prosecuted.
I want crimes actually prosecuted.
And people were murdered and that was misconstrued as evidence of a spreading novel pathogen.
And neither of these people is equipped to question that narrative.
And in fact, I would argue that both of these people were given financial comfort
and pre-programmed social media attention because they won't question it, because none of them are ever going to come to the conclusion that the previous vaccine schedule in America that currently still exists is actually far more diabolical than asking people to take a transfection that more than half of it was probably placebo.
but that's why Jessica Rose is so sure this is so much worse and agrees wholeheartedly with somebody as crazy as Richard Fleming or Kevin McCairn or even Gerd von den Bosch, all of these people with disparate connections to the randomness of it's a gain of function spike protein in 2020 with certainty of a God.
It's just ridiculous.
Only now can it be seen because hindsight is 20-20 and when you look backwards and the behavior of all these people just kind of lines up like this it's not accidental if it goes all the way back to the beginning and With both of these people it goes all the way back to the beginning and it stays true to right now they were gonna talk about how the RNA was killing people and instead they decided to
to take a detour into this nonsense, and we still haven't talked about how the RNA is killing people, even though that, in my mind, is a secondary message at this stage.
The only reason why the RNA could kill or harm anyone is because they made up a story that justified the rollout.
Stop lying!
on earlier which is about the communication and I think that the communication has been has been awful and I think that the part of the reason it's been awful has been because I don't want to I don't even want to go too deep because I don't want to just like it could also be just a banana tree because when banana trees are small they look really a lot like that tons of stuff out here um but yeah I I do I do think that there are ulterior motives I don't think that the people who were
See, so the people that are rolling it out are what he's talking about.
So who are those people?
I think that's going to be Pfizer and Moderna.
It's not going to be the biosecurity state, right?
It's not going to be the NIH and the NIAID and DARPA and DTRA and Health and Human Services and the entire executive branch that encompasses the State Department.
It's not going to be all of these 17 plus
intelligence operatives or intelligence agencies that are connected to all the Five Eyes countries around the world.
It's not going to be any of those.
It's going to be the profiteers and the people that had intellectual property like Tony Fauci.
So he just wanted to get rich.
And so the ulterior motives aren't going to be to teach a mythology to our children so that they can be enslaved by it forever for generations to come, and that that mythology is about RNA and free-range RNA being dangerous if you put the right combination of bases together.
See how easy it is to talk about the truth when you know it?
And how easy it is to see that these people are circumlocuting it with the widest margins all the time.
Stay away, stay away from any useful questions at all.
What one what question are they asking right now in mind and I'm not um, I'm not some super deep conspiracy theorist I'm not here like saying that I think you know The shots are turning people magnetic or if I G's out here gonna, you know kill everyone or everything like that I just don't think that in a remotely free society You should be forcing injections on people or you should be forcing masks on people Let alone children, but I don't think adults either and that has generally been my perspective I don't think that the government's even had a right to do many of the things that they have done.
So I
Okay, so they don't have any right to do it, and debating about whether the government has any right to do it ignores the fact that they lied about why they're doing it.
And if the fact of why they're doing it is not real, but it's a cascade of lies about murder and fraud, maybe they murdered 10,000 people in New York and lied about
another 15,000, maybe.
We don't know because no one will ask the question except for Jessica, myself, and Mark.
We don't know because people are too busy writing textbook reviews of virology as the textbooks teach it and claiming that that's enough to debunk what occurred to us.
It's no different than arguing about IFR or CFR.
A lot there.
You're welcome to take that away.
I'll allow you to respond.
Yeah.
That's a lot.
So let's, I think first we'll start back at how dangerous is COVID, how much a threat was it and how much damage did it cause?
So I think looking at an IFR, an infection fatality rate, is going to give you a significantly limited perspective.
Are we still there?
Because a infectious disease with a low fatality rate, but high infectious rate, can still cause a lot of damage.
And remember that death is not the only bad outcome.
Now, interesting, right?
Because this is very similar to the argument that Kevin McCairn and Charles Rixey are making.
The same argument that I've heard other people make with regard to an incapacitating agent.
And so death isn't the worst thing.
If it spreads really fast, like Charles Rixey said for three years, this was the most contagious virus in human history, spreading faster than anyone, anything had ever spread before.
and it was because of the Fear and Cleavage site.
It's a very, very succinct narrative.
It's a very succinct set of claims that hasn't changed in four years, hasn't become a little better in four years, except for absorbing the term clone.
At some point on a podcast with Kevin McCairn, Matt Crawford, and Charles Rixey, both of those guys admitted that clones are real.
They just want you to believe that a clone, if constructed correctly, can be like a free-range RNA and go around the world consistently for five years and still be going around the world now.
These people are challenging nothing.
And in fact, Mr. Dan Wilson sounds an awful lot like he's about to say the biosecurity state has been developing incapacitating agents for years.
He's regurgitating McCairn and Rixey talking points right now.
That's the only thing to hear here.
much of a threat it is because a infectious disease with a low fatality rate but high infectious rate can still cause a lot of damage.
And remember that death is not the only bad outcome that we want to prevent in people when it comes to a new virus like SARS-CoV-2.
Keep reading.
You could die from it.
Keep reading.
You could also be hospitalized.
He's got to look down every time he says something.
Long COVID.
None of those things are things that people want.
And those are all things that we want to prevent in terms of public health.
The more of those things we prevent, the more people live, the better the economy can do with more living, working people, et cetera, et cetera.
So COVID did kill millions of people around the world.
COVID did kill millions of people around the world.
Narrative.
Check.
Majority of those people were older, but it did still have a significant effect on younger people.
A significant effect on younger people that would never be misconstrued with other things that were killing young people.
You know, like the opioid pandemic.
The opioid epidemic would never be used as a way of saying that, look,
life expectancy has gone down because of COVID.
Oh wait, maybe it was because of the 500,000 people that aren't elderly that were killed by drug overdose.
No, no, no, don't worry about those people.
Why would we talk about a number as insignificant as 500,000 when COVID killed millions?
When it comes to
those younger ages and all ages, really.
It's not so much a question of, what's the absolute risk that COVID poses to me?
It's, what option am I better off taking?
Am I better off with the vaccine or without the vaccine?
Am I better off wearing a mask in certain situations or better off not doing so?
And we can interrogate those questions with science and gather data to answer those questions.
And so when it comes to things like vaccines, in all age groups, it's been shown that you are better off per capita being vaccinated than not being vaccinated for all of those bad outcomes.
And I guess maybe the best example of this is that in Korea, for example, there's a really big data set from Korea.
There was one study that looked at the adverse events and harmful effects of vaccines in a population of about 42 million people.
I may be getting that number slightly wrong, but it was in that ballpark.
And they even looked at deaths, deaths that can be associated with mRNA vaccines.
And when it came to people 18 and under, zero people died that they could associate with the vaccine.
However, in that same country, out of fewer COVID infections, so fewer than the 42 million vaccinees that I just talked about,
Out of a cohort that's smaller than that, there were about 46 deaths in age 18 and under.
Just to be clear, what time period is this over?
Is this over the entire time period?
The two and a half, three years?
These time periods were similar time periods.
I'd have to look at the papers to get you the exact times, and I can definitely do that for you.
But there were similar time periods.
And there were about 46 deaths in people aged 18 and under in that country from COVID.
And the biggest risk factor for them was being not vaccinated.
You see a data set like that, and that can give you a big picture perspective.
But then we can also drill down to individual cohorts.
We can do more detailed studies looking at it.
Of course, now we're not asking any relevant questions here, like how did they define COVID?
What tests did they use to define COVID?
How rigorous were they about it?
None of these things are going to be discussed because, again, we're just taking the assumptions of the papers that he mentions, of the papers that he mentions.
It won't matter.
Because this isn't a debate in earnest, ladies and gentlemen.
Whether they are witting or unwittingly participating, they are participating in the limited spectrum of debate, and bouncing around inside of it as vigorously as they can, like two motorcycles in a cage going around like this.
Wow, and now the cage is gonna rotate around, and it's just a wheel of death.
But actually, they're not engaged in any meaningful discussion, and they're not putting themselves in danger at all.
And it's just, it is exactly how they are going to trap our children.
If our children are watching this on social media, if our college age kids are listening to Zuby on social media, this is what happens.
And if they have enough Zubys and enough Dan Wilsons, then it doesn't matter if nobody follows any of these people because nobody follows me.
from all over the world.
Sorry to jump in there.
Do you know what, out of those, let's say the 46 young people who you said died, was that of COVID directly from it?
Yeah.
Do you know what percentage of those had comorbidities versus not, just to be clear?
So the biggest risk factor was being unvaccinated.
Comorbidities.
Oh, yes.
We've got a debate about whether they had comorbidities, because then we can understand if they really died of COVID or if they just had COVID.
Another terrible question that assumes that the test works.
Assumes that if you used it twice, it would work.
Or if you combined it with a rapid test, it would work.
Or if you did it over several days, it would work.
All lies.
All irrelevant questions that are components, bars in a hamster wheel that you just...
more of them were unvaccinated than had comorbidities.
If you need to record anything, sorry, it's my Mac.
More of them were unvaccinated than had comorbidities.
Okay, that makes sense.
I understand.
Yeah.
So when we look at all these different studies from around the world, we can consistently see that
If you're vaccinated, you are less likely to suffer severe outcomes from COVID.
And that's really the goal, right?
You don't want to end up in the hospital.
You don't want to end up with debilitating symptoms.
Here he is.
We didn't ever want to stop transmission.
There's no stopping transmission with vaccines.
Vaccines never stop transmission.
Who said that?
All vaccines don't stop transmission.
They just reduce the danger of disease by exposing your immune system to something before it.
I mean, think about how much they've backpedaled from 2020, where previously we have defeated all previous epidemics and diseases with vaccines.
And that's why it's logical that for this new virus, we're also going to have vaccines in a couple of years.
And now they've pivoted all the way to the stage where vaccines have never given you sterilizing immunity.
Have we ever used the term sterilizing immunity?
Gee, I can't remember I've ever used that term.
Is it in a textbook somewhere?
It can't be because vaccines don't do that.
Even natural immunity, it's questionable whether they give you sterilizing.
Sterilizing immunity suggests that there's a reason to be sterile.
suggests that a clean epithelial surface with a sterile epithelial surface is the ideal immune condition.
It's just all an elaborate system of hamster wheels that every time you think you're making progress you've just jumped into a new wheel or some
Worse yet, some hamster has jumped into the wheel with you to convince you that this is the wheel to run in.
Oh great, really?
Alright, let's go, let's go, let's go!
And it makes sense that you can prevent all those things with a vaccine that's giving you a piece of the virus, essentially.
It's introducing your body to the virus, letting your body treat it as a punching bag, learn from it, get tactical information on the enemy.
And then when it sees the enemy, it knows what to do.
So again, we can see that for all age groups.
And just scrolling down your page on Twitter or seeing the kinds of things you say about COVID vaccines, as a reader, I get the impression that you are saying that
we don't need them, and they're harmful.
I feel like that's a bit of a strong man of my position, to be honest.
I was going to say, I'm not going to push back on all of these numbers.
I haven't looked at the South Korean study and so on.
I would make a couple of points on it.
The first one that I would say is, look,
46 young people dying.
What's that age group, by the way?
18 and under.
18 and under, okay.
In America, we had about... What was it in America?
In America, it was about 2,000 kids throughout the whole pandemic, 18 and under.
Okay, so 2,000 over a three-year period, is that fair to say?
Yeah.
Okay, but also mostly with comorbidities, right?
No.
Mostly not with comorbidities?
Right, so there was a study that looked at hospitalization and ICU admission rates in children, COVID cases, and it found that about 30% did not have comorbidities.
Am I still with you?
Your screen's frozen a little bit.
Okay, sorry.
I don't know what happened there.
Yeah, I'm back.
Carry on.
Oh, it's the deep state.
They don't want this conversation to happen.
It's so much of the kids.
So much thought crime here had no comorbidities.
That's 30%.
But 90% of the kids admitted to the ICU were unvaccinated.
So, you know, you can't always predict who's going to be at risk based on pre existing conditions.
And, you know,
About 30% of the kids that were studied had no comorbidities, that's 30%.
But 90% of the kids admitted to the ICU were- 90% of the kids admitted to the ICU.
This sounds like an imaginary place to me.
Where were kids admitted into the ICU as COVID kids?
What the hell are we talking about here?
This is pretty extraordinary.
Unvaccinated.
So you can't always predict who is going to be at risk based on pre-existing conditions.
And that's the important thing when it comes to public health.
You don't know necessarily who's vulnerable.
There have been plenty of healthy people, people who would consider themselves healthy to be seen as healthy, who have suffered of COVID and who have died of COVID.
And if that suffering is preventable, then it's worth preventing that suffering with the tools that we have at our disposal.
OK.
That's interesting.
I have many directions to go here.
I think, okay, what's the first point I'd like to bring up here?
I think the first point I want to bring up is I think that throughout this entire situation, one of the issues that I've certainly had with it is this is a real multivariate situation.
And the sort of simplification that's been done through all the communication... Multivariate!
See, this is the exact same thing that Bret Weinstein sells himself as.
Because he's an evolutionary biologist, he understands complex systems.
And a lot of people don't understand complex systems like an evolutionary biologist.
And so since we come from an evolutionary perspective, we have very unique insight into a multivariate complex system.
Stop lying!
It's not very simple at all, or not very complex at all, actually.
Vaccination is a lie.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system has always been dumb.
Transfection and transformation in cell culture is RNA virology.
And really, transfection and transformation were always criminally negligent if you were gonna call it investigational vaccine.
It's pretty simple, really.
It's not a multivariate system, unless you, a highly complex system, unless you believe that Brett Weinstein is right, and we're watching an RNA molecule free range itself for five years around the world because of its unique attributes.
Stop lying!
It's just incredible.
public health officials from the public.
And the sort of simplification that's been done through all the communication from the public health officials, from the politicians, people pushing policies, and so on, and from the media, even in terms of the way many of the statistics are done, has simply been unvaccinated versus vaccinated.
Which, if you're talking about something as multivariate as health outcomes, is ridiculous to me, especially when you consider that the vast majority of people
in the least vast majority of adults in our countries who got it, died, were overweight, obese, lots of, I know, I think a ridiculous proportion had vitamin D deficiency.
So there are other factors that go into this.
So I think even the simplification of just making it as vaccinated versus unvaccinated, not only did it lead to a lot of the divisive stuff, which obviously I take issue with, but I think it's also.
And that's how you know that what happened with me and that that guy from France yesterday is not pro wrestling because I can't keep my, I can't do that.
I don't know how to pro-wrestle like this.
I could never have this conversation with Dan.
It would never happen because the shit sandwich that he is serving up with some lipstick on it is really, it's just disgusting.
And the fact of the matter is, is that he's not usefully pushing back at all.
This is absolutely positively pro-wrestling in its finest form.
It is a limited spectrum of debate that is an illusion of consensus created by these two guys that agree.
We are trying and they are not trying.
You are not witnessing anyone trying.
You are witnessing two people in a covert agreement about what dumb questions we're gonna ask in front of these people.
You have two people who have a witting or unwitting covert agreement to argue in a limited spectrum of debate in front of the people that they're currently arguing in front of.
That's why they are promoted the way they are and not someone else.
And if Zuby is not American and he's not American or has a dual, it doesn't matter if he's supported by Canadian money, whatever, it's all
part of an elaborate attack on our Republic.
It's all part of a way to get Americans not to pull their head out, not to ask the right questions, which will ultimately lead to their conclusion that the vaccine schedule in America is criminal.
And it was before the pandemic.
And a lot of people at ICANN and Children's Health Defense knew that.
and assisted in a number of people being unable to convince others of that fact.
That's the essential truth.
And once we come to accept this, we will be able to move forward because we will be able to reject all of the people that are synchronously promoting the idea that we just want health freedom.
We just want freedom of mandates.
We just want free speech.
No, I want people to stop being injured.
I want people to stop dying.
I want kids to stop being poisoned.
That's what I want.
And so I'm very willing to say that no one should be doing this anymore until we have some reckoning about it.
It's a very large chasm of difference between what's going on here in this Kayfabe reaction, whatever this is, bullshit.
and what I'm trying to do.
It's very similar to what a lot of these mouse accounts on Twitter are trying to do, to create these very vigorous arguments about stuff that doesn't matter so that Americans will never reach a threshold where they come to the conclusion across the board, has common knowledge that holy shit, these people have been lying to us for decades.
They lied to our parents.
And the vaccine schedule in America is criminal.
It's really simple.
You can't even fill an hour podcast with the truth anymore because the truth can be so succinctly shared.
I just don't think it's an honest, and again, if we're going to talk science, I don't think it's a very scientific approach to just say, okay, well, we've got a massively overweight and obese population.
And most of the vast majority of the healthy people, whether they're Vaxxed or Unvaxxed or whatever, they're doing fine.
But actually obesity is a gigantic risk factor to this thing.
As far as I'm aware in the UK and in the US, I'm not sure if at any point it was suggested that people- Why do you think obesity might be a risk factor?
Do you think obesity might be a risk factor because of this?
Do you think obese people are working at 99% oxygen saturation all the time?
What about smoking obese people, or diabetic obese people, or immobile obese people, or you hear me now?
Oh, it was fat people who were vulnerable.
Were they vulnerable to COVID or were they vulnerable to the pulse ox PSYOP?
We should ask Pierre Corey.
with vitamin D. I certainly don't know if it was recommended at any point that people get their butt to the gym, and they lose some weight, and they take care of their nutrition, and they do various other things that they can to boost immunity.
It all just came down to mask facts, mask facts.
And to me, as someone who is a health advocate, this is not a holistic health approach at all.
And so this is where I think some of the so-called, quote unquote, conspiratorial thinking comes, because it's like, well, if this thing is simply just about health,
There are a lot of questions here.
Why are you shutting down gyms?
Why are you shutting down public parks?
Why are you shutting down beaches?
Why are you telling people not to go outside and not to get that vitamin D?
Why are you telling people just to put on a mask and take the vaccine, but you're not encouraging them to lose weight?
You've got people who are 1,500, 200 pounds overweight, and there's no messaging at all, even suggesting them.
And again, this is over a long period of time, suggesting, hey, these are other things that you can do to improve your health.
So what are your thoughts on that?
Yeah, so I'd push back on.
So we are, where are we in this talk now?
We are 25 minutes in and we still haven't really discussed that the RNA vaccines are killing people.
The RNA transfections are killing people.
The RNA and DNA are killing people.
We haven't even gotten there yet.
We're still talking about COVID and the measures and COVID and the measures and agreeing, both of them are agreeing that there's something to talk about there.
Stop lying!
So I wrote down comorbidities.
So let me just clarify that.
So I think that a lot of people hear comorbidities, and they think things like diabetes, obesity, asthma, things like that.
And when you hear that people who died of COVID-19 on average had three or four comorbidities, I mean, that's been said a lot, like on Joe Rogan and things like that.
but that's not really, I think that misses what a comorbidity is when it comes to a death certificate.
So a comorbidity on a death certificate is anything that contributed to the death.
So a typical COVID-19 death certificate might look something like respiratory failure.
They are actually debating how death certificates are formed and how they're filled out and how the causes of death are prioritized when there are actually probably hundreds of thousands of different patterns of
and death certificates being filled out depending on who's doing it and what office is checking them or approving them or filing them, what county they're in, what state they're in.
And so here we are again getting to incredible detail with incredible certainty about a question that has absolutely no relevance at all to freeing our children from this problem.
to pneumonia due to COVID-19.
That's at least- The date on this video is yesterday, God darn it.
It's yesterday.
It happened 24 hours ago.
Morbidities contributing to COVID-19, but they were caused by COVID.
So the actual numbers on how many people were obese- It's almost like we haven't come anywhere since 2021.
We could have had this conversation in 2020 if we really wanted to, because we could have discussed what happened in New York and said, what's going on?
But we didn't.
And interestingly enough, he and he are both unprepared to look at anomalies, or this guy isn't even sophisticated enough to have noticed that Jessica Hockett has been screaming from the rooftops about a particular American anomaly for more than three years.
Holy balls what's going on here other than an elaborate hoax.
These two guys probably both work for Peter Thiel.
might be inflated in if you are thinking about comorbidities in just that in a way that says that they're just those things right so I could get you real I could get you the numbers from America on that breakdown how many people died from COVID who were obese had diabetes etc let's just see if we assume that YouTube let's give YouTube the benefit of the doubt and say they're not lying then 2,500 people have already seen it
And he has 254,000 subscribers, okay?
So, it's gonna be a hell of a lot more people potentially seeing it than will ever see anything that I do.
And that's not by accident, right?
That's programmed in there and he's got a million followers on Twitter.
So this is a pretty big deal.
Lots of people don't subscribe to YouTube channels that they watch because the YouTube algorithm is very good at giving you what you watched last time or the next thing from it.
And so you don't need to subscribe to see the same people in your feed on YouTube.
And so it's not strange that he only has 256,000 subscribers on YouTube, but a million followers elsewhere.
The number that I remember seeing, which I've just looked up very quickly, the thing that pops up first is from 2021, which I've seen something from 2022, and it's saying that over 75% of the people who are hospitalized were overweight or obese, and that's coming from the USA.
That's from the NIH and the CDC.
I know that 70% of the American population is overweight and obese, so that's not... If you add overweight to obesity, then that's broadening it a lot.
But yeah, that's just one thing.
Maybe comorbidities might be reframed a little bit if you look at what's actually classified as a comorbidity upon death.
But then you also said vitamin D. There hasn't been any data suggesting that vitamin D supplements help fight COVID.
There is a common misconception that there's a stat that's also commonly reported that most people who are hospitalized with COVID, when they test them, they have low vitamin D levels.
And that is normally a result of COVID itself.
There's an analogy here where it's like if you're a firefighter and you go to a fire, and you're like, holy shit, there's ash and smoke everywhere.
Let me get rid of the smoke and the ash, and that'll solve the fire.
Like, no, the fire is causing the smoke and the ash.
And in this case, the smoke and the ash is a vitamin D deficiency.
Because your body is fighting off a virus, you are getting into a state where you can become vitamin D deficient.
So that's interesting.
He's not going to provide any reasoning for that.
Why would that cause vitamin D deficiency?
That's a really weird stance to take.
Is he going to tell you that vitamin D is an essential component of the immune system?
And that it's an essential component of immune activation for a number of cellular cascades?
Even one?
Is he even going to say it's for one?
There have been studies looking at, can we treat COVID using vitamin D?
Once someone comes into the hospital and they're vitamin D deficient and they're hypoxic, can you treat them with vitamin D?
And you can't.
It doesn't work.
Doctors have tried it, because doctors honestly want their patients to.
Just to jump in here, though, isn't it well-known, isn't it scientifically established that vitamin D
that vitamin D in general is very good for your immune system.
I mean, the fact that COVID itself, that the virus itself can deplete your vitamin D levels, that would suggest that as a preventive measure, it would be important to have those topped up either just from natural sunlight or from some type of supplementation.
I mean, soothe spider is right.
Vitamin D, the reason why it's important is because it is the absolute central molecule in the regulation of calcium everywhere in the body.
Vitamin D and calcium are intimately controlled by the parathyroid gland and the parathyroid hormone.
And so endocrinology class for me was one of the best classes that I ever had as an undergraduate because I had a teacher by the name of Dolores McWinney.
Dolores McWinney was the scariest biological professor you could ever have.
She had all of this knowledge in her head, and she would do the overhead writing with the scrolling page on the overhead, and you just took notes.
And when you took a test, the test was derived from every line of notes that she ever talked.
The tests were gigantic, and they tested every single point.
And one thing that this woman made clear, if you look up Dolores McWinney on the internet, you will find a woman who has a twin.
And her twin actually was the first woman to ever make it to the South Pole.
And Dolores McWinney actually studied at Woods Hole in MIT around the same time that green fluorescent protein was found.
And she was an absolute badass.
And so I understand the central role of calcium regulation in almost all physiological metabolic chains and where vitamin D plays a giant role in that.
So it does have a role in the immune system, but that's one of its absolutely almost countless roles.
So here's to Soothspider for having the heads up to be able to tweets or to chat something like that.
something there.
Well, so if that were true, then if we give it back while your body's fighting COVID, then that should help.
But it doesn't.
And well, I think there's prevention versus cure are different, no?
I mean, if you get someone to COVID, OK, I was going to say, I mean, you're obviously very pro-vax.
And I'm saying, surely, if you gave someone the vax once they'd already succumbed to it and been hospitalized, would that?
I doubt that would necessarily help them, even assuming that the vax is effective from your position.
Yeah, no, that's not how vaccines work.
And you're right.
I see what you're trying to say.
But also, that's not how vaccines work.
I got to go back a little bit.
while your body's fighting COVID, then that should help.
But it doesn't.
Well, I think prevention versus cure are different, no?
I mean, if you gave someone a COVID, OK.
I was going to say, I mean, you're obviously very pro-vax.
And I'm saying, surely, if you gave someone the vax once they'd already succumbed to it and been hospitalized, I doubt that would necessarily help them, even assuming that the vax is effective from your position.
Yeah, no.
That's not how vaccines work.
And you're right.
And I see what you're trying to say.
But also, there have been studies that look at what happens if you
supplement with vitamin D?
Does it help protect you against respiratory diseases?
And the consensus is that no, it really doesn't.
And the reason is that most people aren't actually very deficient in vitamin D to the point where it can be, excuse me, detrimental.
A lot of times when, if you're not malnourished, then you shouldn't need vitamin D. And very few people, even if you're obese and you're- If you're not malnourished, you'll have fine vitamin D. But even obese people that only eat processed food or fast food, they got plenty of vitamin D.
They never go outside in the sun.
Sun doesn't have anything to do with vitamin D, does it, Dan?
Eating well, you're probably not malnourished, right?
There's a difference between not eating well and... Vitamin D deficiency is actually really common, especially in certain climates and areas.
So maybe in climates where, like in the north, like in northern Europe.
But why would it be there?
Are you going to say that it's the sun or not?
Because it is the sun.
Vitamin D is converted to its active form by sun in the skin.
There's not a lot of other ways to get it.
It's kind of strange.
That's the reason why they have a problem in the North.
So if he doesn't say it, it'll be strange.
Problem, but it's not really so common that it, it's not common to the point where it's going to put you at risk of infectious diseases.
And that has been shown with these vitamin supplementation studies where they're actual.
But it might not be infectious diseases that it makes you vulnerable to.
You see what is extraordinary here?
We're limiting the spectrum of debate to whether or not vitamin D can protect you from the outside invaders that we all agree are there, including this new one.
control trials where people take vitamin D or don't.
And the outcomes with respiratory illnesses are not significantly different.
So yeah, I'm all for eating great, being healthy.
And the advice on that has not changed from doctors in a really long time.
Doctors have always said, eat well, get exercise.
I hear your frustration because a lot of America does not follow good health habits.
And yes, that can put them at risk of worse outcomes for infectious disease or just worse outcomes for health later in life.
And, you know, like with your thing, I think it's great that you try to encourage people to work out and get fit and eat healthy.
That's fantastic.
That's great.
Fauci actually said how many how much vitamin D he was taking.
And he said it on Jennifer Garner's podcast in like 2020.
And you're right.
Like, you also don't have to give this impression that vaccines are not necessary or dangerous, or that they're dangerous.
I don't, I don't, look, I'll be, I'll be honest.
I mean, I think, I don't, I don't want to, I don't want to, what you're, what you're saying there seems a little accusatory, so I don't want to, I don't want to do the same back, but I don't think that, I feel like what you're saying there is sort of lumping me.
I know you use the term, I've watched quite a lot of your YouTube videos, actually, and I noticed that you call a lot of people anti-vaxxers, you call a lot of people anti-science.
I would say that I think you overuse that term to the point that you're kind of lumping in people who are genuinely against
all vaccines with people who just have certain questions or who are skeptical or who just chose not to not to get this one or who have, you know, hesitations and things like that around it, which, from a communication standpoint, I don't I don't think it's very effective.
And I know that I think a lot of genuine anti-vaxxers have actually been created over the last few years.
partly because of the overuse of the term and just some of the communication.
Oh, so we have some of these people who are really dug-in anti-vaxxers only because we weren't subtle enough or we didn't choose the right words.
And otherwise, had we been more honest, we wouldn't have so many anti-vaxxers as we do now.
Stop lying!
I think when you kind of go around calling every single person who's skeptical an anti-vaxxer and just dismissing them, in my personal opinion, number one, I don't think it changes minds, but I think in the long term, when you look at the whole picture, I think it's actually quite likely to create more of them, because if people are just labeled instead of someone explaining a position, then I don't know, I think it causes- So essentially, anti-vaxxers are crazy.
but we've created more of them.
They're not disagreeing that anti-vax is a stupid position.
It's just that we have unfortunately created many more of them because of the botched response.
Can you not see how absolutely gigantic battleship-sized lie they are casting?
It's an enchantment that's trapping millions of kids.
And it's not just these guys, it's everybody that's performing this, just like Shannon Joy and Mary Holland do.
Just like Shannon Joy, or sorry, Tommy and his guests do.
just like Joe Rogan and his guests do, just like Jordan Peterson and his guests do, just like the nightly news and their guests do, just like the nightly talk shows and their guests do.
It is an illusion of consensus about what the smart questions are and what the right arguments to participate in are and what the right stance to take on this or that is.
You have already accepted the questions.
And if you accept the questions and you're not asking your own questions, then you're not actually thinking.
If you are only asking the questions that social media is asking, that you follow ask, or that you watch ask, then you're not asking questions yourself, which means you're not thinking.
There's questions in our chat all day long because everybody that comes to this show is thinking and asking questions, even as I ask questions.
That's what happens when you start thinking.
You end up with more questions than you have answers, which is where we should be when we're confronting an irreducible complexity that deserves to be designated as sacred.
Damn, I can rock this when these fools are this bad.
and it causes people to dig in more and it creates more of a us versus them mentality.
So I know I definitely through my communication, like I definitely have not been and I'm not pro, I'm not pro COVID facts, and I never have been, but I'm also not opposed to it.
I know, I'd say probably most people I know, did take it.
And I didn't tell any of them not to or discourage them or attack them or insult them or anything like that.
He saved no one.
He's so proud that he saved no one.
He risked nothing to save anyone because he's not sure about anything, but he's sure that Dan is wrong.
So in other words, they're extremely certain that everybody's confused, and they're extremely certain about why they're confused, which is just plain ridiculous.
You can't be confused and simultaneously know exactly why you're confused.
That doesn't work.
Stop lying!
to do that.
But also, I'm very vehemently opposed to mandates.
And I know, based on some of your older tweets, I don't know if you still hold this position.
But I remember you saying something about being pro-vax but anti-mandate doesn't make sense.
You didn't say this to me, but it was in response to somebody else.
And I don't understand that position.
I can dig up the tweet if you don't remember it.
But it was someone who was saying that they're very pro-vax, but they're anti-mandate.
And you'd suggested that that position doesn't make sense.
Maybe you don't feel that way anymore.
But that was something that, OK, go ahead.
No, sure.
I mean, so first I want to just talk about the anti-vax thing.
I mean, so in my view, someone who is an anti-vaxxer is someone who uses their platform to spread anti-vaccine misinformation, whether that's about childhood vaccines or about COVID vaccines.
That's my view of that.
What does that mean, though?
At this point, misinformation and disinformation and anti-vaxxer information, these are such egregious terms because they've been so overly utilized and weaponized by the media, by social media platforms, by YouTube, by certain politicians and bureaucrats around the world, where they just started calling everything and everyone who was not 100% on board with every policy in action an anti-vaxxer and started calling everything a misinformation, despite the fact that
As I'm sure you will admit, if you're an honest man, they themselves have moved the goalposts a lot.
They themselves moved the goalposts a lot throughout 2020 to 2023, and they themselves contradicted, I know science updates, I'm very aware of that, but at no point did they say, oh, we made a mistake, or we got this wrong, or okay, maybe this is not, these numbers are not what we thought they are, this is not what we predicted it is.
They just kind of kept going as if it was still February 2020.
So I would make the argument.
So he would make an argument that is not that they've been lying since 2020.
He's not going to make that argument.
It's going to be very subtle and it's not going to challenge anything about what the national security status told us, which is extraordinarily on par for what I expect from somebody who's been on Joe Rogan more than once.
So-called public health experts and the mainstream media and many politicians up to the president himself, I would say that they spread a lot of misinformation about the vaccine, about lockdowns, about mandates, about the virus itself.
and how deadly it is and about what's going to happen to people who don't take the shot or what's going to even happen to people who do take the shot.
Joe Biden himself, I'm not saying he's a, you know, but he is the president of the USA.
He said, look, if you take these shots, you are not going to get the virus.
You're not going to get it.
He said that, right?
Like that is misinformation.
That's my point.
I'm like, that is misinformation.
And Trump, if you tell that to people, then yeah, exactly.
I'm not even to me, it's not a Democrat, Republican thing, whatever.
Oh, yeah.
Trump was also bad.
Here we go.
Like that is misinformation.
That's my point.
I'm like, that is misinformation.
And Trump, if you tell that to people,
then yeah exactly i'm not even to me it's not a democrat republican thing whatever you know there's stuff that he says this and then he says that and so on and you know sometimes people get things wrong i have no problem with people getting things wrong and saying oh actually you know what i got that number i got that number wrong or i thought this was going to happen and it didn't or i thought that this had a 99 effectiveness and it turned out to be 80 or whatever it is and at no point did they they just didn't really update this um for a long time for a very long time i mean one thing that's annoying with the vaccine
for me or the vaccines is the obviously the mandates and I do want to get into the mandates because that's that's a huge that's a huge thing that I'm I'm very opposed to but um it went from look if you take the shots you're not going to get it and you're not going to spread it that was that was how it started I remember very clearly you know you know late 2020 early 2021 that was the that was the message that was what you were telling millions just an anecdote um the way they got Trump to say the aquarium cleaner
was in a private meeting, most likely what they did was they explained that they were testing a derivative of chloroquine called hydroxychloroquine.
And so since chloroquine is much easier to remember than hydroxychloroquine, and they probably repeated it over and over again, it's a derivative of chloroquine, a derivative of chloroquine, and then they said once hydroxychloroquine.
And then when he went out and tried to sound smart at a podium, he said the word that they wanted him to say.
And then it only took one person to go out and do it or one report of somebody doing it for them to say that, look, now people are drinking aquarium cleaner because Trump's an idiot.
Now I'm not saying Trump is bad or good.
I'm saying Trump was used as part of a limited spectrum of debate where people that were thinking they were defending Trump from liars or thinking that they were defending their kids from Trump were more confused
and became more certain about why they were confused.
It's Trump.
It's not Trump.
It's them lying about Trump.
And that, again, created a limited spectrum of debate that everybody could very vigorously engage in that would never free them from the original illusion, which there's a novel spreading pathogen, hair on fire, hair on fire.
Pierre Kory says there was a huge thing happening in New York City, even though he arrived too late to notice it.
of people, billions of people potentially.
And then it changed to, oh, it's super effective, but there's these rare breakthrough cases.
And then it started getting to the stage where tons and tons of people who were vaccinated started to contract the virus and test positive and so on.
And then it shifted to, OK, well, if you take the shot, it's to reduce hospitalization and death.
which is a very different statement to this is going to stop you getting the virus and prevent transmission like that's a very different that's a very very different statement and people obviously make this what an important thing to say here that actually if you're honest about it the current status of the narrative
The narrative that's available on the social media platforms that he frequents is not this narrative.
He could have made the argument that there are papers available that actually show, at least from the perspective of peer-reviewed science and p-values, that there are people being hurt by the shots.
But Zuby isn't able to bring that up because I guess it wasn't time for him to incorporate that into his argument.
Maybe that'll be an episode whatever comes after this.
based on these statements.
And these are coming out from the people who are supposed to be the experts, who are supposed to be the points of authority.
And look, I don't know if they just got it wrong, and then they got new information, or if they were just being dishonest from the beginning.
I have a natural inclination to lean more towards the latter based on the wider picture.
But even without assuming malice, the point is that they still spread misinformation.
So just coming back around to what I'm saying, this is why I think the sort of misinformation and disinformation terms are a problem.
Because I think anyone who disagrees, right, there's going to be people who listen right now who disagree with you.
And they're going to be like, oh, yep,
Dan Wilson is spreading misinformation and disinformation.
I'm sure you've had that in your comments.
People telling you, you're spreading misinformation.
I get people telling me I'm spreading.
And it's just like, well, what does the term really mean?
I generally try, especially on these podcasts, to not assume.
I'm not assuming ill intention on your part.
I know you're a father.
I know you have children.
I know you care about people.
I'm not coming from the position of, oh, I think this guy wants people to die, or he's just on big formless payroll, whatever.
I'm not assuming evil or ulterior motives on your part.
But yeah, I don't want to ramble too long, but I genuinely wish over the past few years, regardless of people's individual positions, I wish there could have been a lot more of that.
And I think part of the reason it got so contentious and unpleasant is because people were just so tribal that they were unwilling to say, OK, maybe this person is not an evil anti-vax conspiracy theorist who wants everybody to die and my grandma to die and my children to die or whatever.
Maybe they just have a different opinion.
Yeah, I remember what he's talking about here and keep in reference what happened yesterday.
Somebody who on the stream live, very calmly admitted we probably agree about most stuff, also the day before decided to post a pretty lame rebuttal to what I said with a picture of myself in a crack pipe, probably cut by Kevin McCarran and Charles Rixey, and then came on my stream and tried to argue that those two guys are legitimate actors.
legitimate actors whose understanding of the Incapacitating agent that was released on us and in 2020 hasn't changed at all in four years And so we're still here we're still fighting this and we are still coming up against the cage because again the way that they do it is that they just don't acknowledge that I'm here and
Because otherwise, Jessica Rose and all these other people disappeared.
Do you know how many of those people have been on my show?
The only one that really hasn't been on my show is Robert Malone.
Think about that.
All the other ones showed up on my show, some of them multiple times.
That's how long they've been meddling and trying to absorb Jonathan Cooley.
You know, let's make him feel a part of this.
Let's make him feel a part of that.
Maybe we ought to invite him to Steve Kersh's steering committee.
Then he'll feel smart.
Once he's in a Zoom meeting with Mark Giraudeau and John Bodwin and Matt Crawford and Jessica Rose and Stephanie Seneff and Steve Kersh, he'll feel much better about where he is.
Stop lying!
That happened years ago already, ladies and gentlemen.
That's how long I've been in it.
The same the other way around.
Sure.
Yeah, so when I say the term anti-vaccine misinformation, that's not implying that the mass media or the president doesn't spread misinformation.
I'm just saying that if someone is spreading anti-vaccine misinformation, in other words, saying things like vaccines have killed 17 million people, or COVID vaccines are gene therapies, or all this stuff, that is anti-vaccine misinformation.
Didn't some of the manufacturers themselves use the term gene therapy?
No.
So they talked about how when mRNA vaccines were first, they were thinking about how to submit them to the FDA.
There was no structure for the FDA to look at something, to review something, or categorize mRNA vaccines, because mRNA vaccines had not gone to market before COVID.
so they were saying we can submit it as a gene therapy as if it's a gene therapy but it is not a gene therapy because it's not treating a genetic disease by i don't know exactly the details of why this is a lie but it's a lie simply because if he is
the academic trained biologist that he claimed to be at the beginning of this, then there is no way he could not know that before the pandemic, using DNA to transform something like a cell culture would have been called transformation.
And using RNA to transfect something like a cell culture would have been called transfection.
And it's very likely in his study of ribosomal subunit function, he probably transfected
his gene of interest or altered genes of interest into a cell culture and then studied the function of those ribosomes.
So he knows that we don't need to call them gene therapies.
They had names for two decades.
And Kevin McKernan also knows that.
Robert Malone, who spoke in front of the WHO and sold vaccine technologies and brokered them between nations, knows.
Merrill Nass knows.
Mary Holland knows, because I've told her in Zoom meetings.
All of these people know.
And if they don't say it at this point, it's because they're playing along.
And if they're playing along, that means they're complicit in the murders that everybody's lying about and distorting as a lab leak.
They're complicit in the murders that everybody is lying about and distorting as a lab leak.
That's what these people are.
And they're getting comfort and artificial social fame
from conforming with this narrative and reinforcing it with a very skilled, limited spectrum of debate that the weaponized piles of money can trust them with.
And so the more successfully they do it, the higher they will rise, the more financial gain they'll get, the more notoriety they'll have.
Maybe they'll get a sponsor or something.
Correcting a genetic deficiency.
So yeah, that's what I mean when I say missing.
And I don't think the shots have killed 17 million people.
That sounds like a, yeah, that's overestimating.
That's good.
Oh, so he doesn't think that the shots have killed 17 million people.
He disagrees with Denny Rancor.
What an interesting stance to take.
You're so brave for having taken that stance.
I don't think they killed 17 million people.
I think that's probably too high of a number.
Stop lying!
But there are people who do think that.
And so when they say things like that, humans like to categorize things.
And that is anti-vaccine misinformation to me.
But again, that's not to say that the mainstream media can't spread misinformation.
Like you said, Biden said, if you get COVID vaccines, you're not going to get COVID.
You're not going to get sick.
That was not true.
Trump said that COVID vaccines saved, like, what did he say?
He said, like, 100 million American lives.
I mean, that's not true.
That's ridiculous.
That's way too high.
And the thing is that politicians and news media outlets.
So again, we're agreeing that arguing about the numbers is significant.
They're actually coming to an agreement.
Yeah, I also agree that the numbers are too high.
And I also agree that they exaggerated how many people were saved from it.
But they're not arguing about whether people died and they're not arguing about whether people were saved.
They're just arguing about whether the numbers of people that died is right or the number of people that were saved were wrong.
Boy, I'm getting tired of running in this hamster wheel.
I got to keep going.
Holy cow.
themselves look good and news outlets want to sell stories.
So politicians are going to embellish and stretch the truth to rely to make themselves look good.
Right.
Trump had Operation Warp Speed.
So, of course, he's going to say they say 100 million lives.
Look how great they are.
And Biden, you know, they were rolling out mostly during his presidency.
So, of course, he's going to say
we're doing great, everything's fine.
So, you know, I don't trust them.
I don't look to them as good sources.
And same with mainstream media.
They want to sell stories.
They want to either scare you or give you the give you like blow your mind with a headline.
And so I don't take those sources of information seriously.
Can I ask a question?
sure just uh just based on what you just said there um how come you don't seem to have as much uh smoke for them as you do for the uh independent individuals and podcasters and things like that who are out there um actually having open conversations perhaps conversations you disagree with and would like to rebut i'm still i would think that the when i'm still having audio here you might have to refresh
talking about power dynamics and influence, the mainstream media, the pharmaceutical companies, the CDC, the Fauci's and his equivalents around the world, the presidents and prime ministers, the people actually setting all of these policies and who are pushing out all this information en masse, and who have, you know, billions and trillions to do it with, if they are
you can as you said if they've told lies and that they themselves have spread misinformation and disinformation why are you not as critical of them as you are of i don't know whether it's a joe rogan or it's a brett weinstein or it's perhaps myself or um you know independent people who are just honestly trying to work out what the heck is going on so who did he decide to list joe rogan brett weinstein and himself it's like he's part of the intellectual dark web or wants to be holy cow stop
Right, so I do criticize them.
I have criticized the CDC before.
I've criticized the government's handling of lockdowns, multiple governments handling of lockdowns.
But maybe you don't see that as much, and it isn't as prevalent on my channel, because I'm in this space where I'm combating anti-vaccine misinformation.
I'm combating the kind of misinformation that would have sucked me in as a kid when I used to believe a ton of conspiracy theories.
Would have sucked me in as a kid.
And if you listen to any of his other interviews, like his interview on Twiv, which is fantastic, he claims to confess that he used to be a conspiracy theorist because YouTube convinced him that 9-11 was a conspiracy.
But YouTube also saved him from going down another rabbit hole.
And actually, that's why he so believes in his hobby.
of having fun debunking anti-science.
Because he himself used to be a conspiracy theorist.
That's why you should believe him.
He doesn't have enough life experience to know whether an adult is lying to him or not.
That's the truth of most of these people.
They don't have enough life experience to know when adults are lying to them.
And they also don't have enough life experience to know when an adult doesn't know what they claim to know, which is a very different thing than lying.
Let me repeat that again.
The skill that I feel I have because of my childhood is that I know when adults are lying about something, but they don't know it.
Or they are staying committed to a lie and they know it.
I can see it.
They're not just doing it for the first time.
The reason why this podcast didn't happen until now is because it's taken these guys a long time to sharpen this limited spectrum of debate enough so that they could cross swords and know that nobody was gonna get hurt, that nobody was gonna open up a new wound.
Cause you don't want to open up new wounds, you know, where you just say something like, you know, I think the American vaccine schedule is just criminal.
It always has been.
Ooh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Don't want to do that.
Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, easy, easy there.
I think it's egregious and harmful, especially when people like Joe Rogan will host someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and he'll tell Joe Rogan that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or there's a good case to be made that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
And Joe just sits there and nods his head like, yeah, wow, whoa, that's amazing.
And I'm sitting there just thinking, this is insane.
How many people are going to believe this?
And if a lot of people believe this, this is going to be super harmful.
I mean, my- Do you know- Oh, sorry.
Let me not cut you off.
Go ahead.
I'll just going to tell a story.
And this might be a little bit of a tangent, but I brought that up because I feel strongly about it.
My dad's side of my family is from a small country in southern Africa called Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland.
And that is the most AIDS-afflicted country in the world.
My granny, who just passed away about a year or two ago,
Is Dan Wilson actually going to testify to the existence of the virus, HIV, because his dad comes from the most HIV-afflicted country in Africa?
Are we really about to witness that?
Because that, I'm afraid, is the most extraordinary place that this could have gone.
That is just spectacular.
It's a tangent.
I didn't really mean to go there, but I've got this note on my page.
Tell the story about my grandma.
I didn't get to see her much since she was so far away.
So then time is weird.
So I don't remember exactly how long, how long ago it was now, but she had a farm where she raised a lot of AIDS orphans.
There were a lot of orphans whose parents died from HIV AIDS.
Um, and a lot of time is weird.
So I don't remember exactly how long.
I don't, I didn't get to see her much since she was so far away.
So then time is weird.
So I don't remember exactly how long, how long ago it was now, but she had a farm where she raised a lot of AIDS orphans.
There were a lot of orphans whose parents died from HIV AIDS.
And a lot of, there were so many deaths there, partly because the president of South Africa at one time, his name was Mbeki.
He believed that the antiretroviral therapies used to keep
people who are infected with HIV alive to like a normal lifespan were poison.
He believed that.
And so he didn't let a lot of citizens, or he didn't pay for the entry of antiretroviral therapy into South Africa.
And as a result, there are a lot of AIDS cases now.
And the reason he believed that is because of a virologist from
I don't remember the university, it was in California, one of the UCs, and I'm not going to name him, but a virologist who Joe mentioned, who Robert Kennedy Jr.
mentions and mentioned in the book, who was pretty much single-handedly responsible for pushing the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
I wonder if it's Dewsburg, because I've got a really good friend named Dave Rasnick who wants to come on my show and talk exactly about how he came to the conclusion that AIDS wasn't real.
I wonder if these people would appreciate a long discussion with Dave Rasnick.
Shall we do that?
I think we should do that soon.
Because we're at the stage now where if Dan Wilson is gonna be the guy that testifies that, I'm sure there was an HIV because my daddy is from a place where my grand-grand died of it.
Holy balls.
someone go on a podcast that is the most listened to podcast in the world and just say those things that are easily demonstrated as false is really frustrating to me.
Easily, easily demonstrated as false.
Let me go get one book that says it's false and then I'll demonstrate it.
This guy with so little biological experience on the bench that he has three years of experience of it.
working on a very specific set of methodologies to study the subunit of a particular ribosome in a particular experimental methodology.
has now branched out into understanding all of global politics and all of global public health as this fight against misinformation.
And he considers himself one of the frontline workers in regards to the war on anti-science.
in preventing people from falling down that same rabbit hole that I fell into once.
So that is my, that's where I put my efforts.
Okay.
I understand that.
Do you think that people should be censored?
There was a lot of censorship going on over the last few years.
Do you think that that is, and so let's not get into a discussion about the biology that he could never go into.
Let's just talk about censorship.
So should people be able to say bullshit
Should people be able to say bullshit?
Well, let's argue about that.
I think we should argue about that for a while.
I think we should sue people for it.
I think we should raise millions of dollars to fight for free speech.
I think we should support people like Elon Musk because he's definitely for free speech.
My word.
I never thought it would be this easy to keep my cool.
It's just so ridiculous.
I mean, I thought that they would, they would come close enough to the truth that I would get frustrated.
But I mean, this is, this is, this is just like shooting fish in a barrel with no water.
I am certain, absolutely certain that without any narration at all, anybody that's in this chat right now would be able to do the same thing that I'm doing, if not better in some regards.
That's how magical of a place we are at.
Just share this stream with anybody that needs to see it.
And everybody that's watching it and everybody that watches it after it's live should put it in Zuby's Twitter feed, in Joe Rogan's Twitter feed, and in Debunk The Funk's Twitter feed.
Because this is the World Wrestling Federation at its finest with regard to the mythology of pandemics.
So far, zero useful questions have been asked.
zero course of action.
I think that social media has a responsibility to, uh, curate or at least do something, uh, on their platforms, not just let, uh, things run wild.
I mean, we would hope that Zuby has done a tremendous amount of damage to his position because in reality, what looks like on social media, somebody who really knows what he thinks and is really certain about what needs to be said is actually not that at all.
I've never said anything like that.
He basically admitted that he never took a stance on anything.
It's very similar to Alexandros Marinos and Brett Weinstein, who had a discussion on Brett Weinstein's Dark Horse podcast about during an emergency, you either have principles or you don't.
And these people don't have principles because they don't take a stance on anything meaningful, especially murder.
Stop lying!
I hope I'm not driving anybody nuts by my multiple sounds.
I agree that certain things should not be allowed on social media, and we just disagree on where the line is.
You're shitting me.
There's no way that Zuby's a PhD from Oxford.
If that's the case, then I don't even know what I'm doing here.
Then I should have started with that.
Holy cow, is that true?
I think something should be done.
So do I agree with censorship?
No.
But I think that social media platforms can and should do what they think is right to not allow certain content on their platforms.
I mean, given the nature of science itself and the way that things change, there can be and there have been things which are considered conspiracy theories or which are very much against the scientific consensus at any moment in time, whether we're talking about this previous pandemic or we're talking about things further in the past, which people absolutely wanted to censor or do censor.
And then they turn out to be the truth or at least have some truth in them.
don't you think that's somewhat dangerous to let the social media platforms decide what is, again, it comes back to the misinformation, disinformation thing, because there could be something that in April 2020, it was considered misinformation or disinformation or a conspiracy theory.
And then two years later, it turns out, it turns out to be true or to have an element of truth to it.
And there could be then something, you know, we're always learning more.
I think that's the biggest issue.
There's a lot of issues I take with censorship, obviously, I mean, there's just the civil liberties aspect of the free speech aspect, but also from a from a scientific perspective, and just human understanding, it's like,
Okay, I think we're gonna probably break it pretty soon.
I gotta go play some hoops to clear my mind of this nonsense.
Everyone has their different opinions.
Everyone has their different positions, perspectives, experiences, and so on.
And one person's fact is another person's misinformation.
One person's opinion is another person's disinformation.
It's so messy that I'm personally of the opinion that what we are doing right now, this is the way to do it.
So, you know, Joe Rogan- This is the way to do it.
This is the way to do it.
Stop lying!
Stop!
I don't think it's the way to do it, ladies and gentlemen.
I think the way to do it is to be really, really, really simple.
That's what I think we should do.
I think we should be really, really simple.
What we should do is something like this.
We should just say,
that we think that these people are responsible for misleading the young.
I think we should say that these people have been put in place in order to curate a limited spectrum of debate, which will never usefully move forward the understanding of young people in the world, and will never usefully move forward the idea that the criminal vaccine schedule in America was indeed criminal before the pandemic.
That's what these people are trying to save by misleading our children.
And I am calling out names because these people are the ones.
You can see it because they're always there.
There's no reason for these people to be present at every COVID conference.
There's no reason for these people to be present on so many of these podcasts unless it is that they are specifically there not to talk about, to make sure
that the American public doesn't realize that there are at least three ways to say that these people are lying to us.
One is to say intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Another way to say it would be that transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent even before the pandemic.
and RNA cannot pandemic.
These three things could be said in a different way.
You could say weaponized piles of money have murdered people and gotten people to agree about it being a lab leak.
You could also say that the old vaccine schedule is injuring and killing thousands each year.
And you could also say we don't need to fear wild
free-range RNA molecules and make the same point, but you know, whatever.
Stop transfection in humans, ladies and gentlemen, because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary.
I'm gonna go play some basketball with my boys, clear my mind a little bit, and prepare for tomorrow's show.
Because that's what I do.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
This has been GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
If you like the work that I'm doing, please go to GigaOM Biological and find a way to support it.
Or, at the very bare minimum, share the stream by sharing stream.gigaom.bio, the Twitch channel, the Twitter stuff, whatever it takes, wherever you are, please help me out by spreading the word as far as you can.
If you want to put this in Zuby's feed, that would be great.
It's not like he's going to invite me on his podcast or anything like that.
And ladies and gentlemen, we have these people to thank.
And this is not an exhaustive list.
So if your name is not on there and you're angry about it or upset about it or disappointed, please just email me.
It's just me.
And it's just an Excel sheet that needs a lot of cleanup.
So I'm happy to fix it.
You know, not everybody is filling in the right names and stuff, and so I gotta be careful.
I don't want anybody to be exposed who doesn't want to be.
And so I apologize as much as I can for that list not being as up-to-date as it can be.
And I love you all very much.
Thank you very much for joining me.
I'll see you again tomorrow.