So sorry, I am very late.
And left hand monkey wrench is first.
I'm going to assume that my sound is okay, but just in case I think it should be fine.
I think I figured out what that glitch was a while ago already and have fixed it.
But if you can give me confirmation, synced is good.
Excellent, excellent, excellent.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst-case
scenario, the scary part of the ship thing seems to be the rumors about it maybe being
done via the internet, by a cyber connectivity or some kind of cyber attack.
I think that's probably a rumor at this stage yet, but just realize that given the shipping
industry that we have, there's lots of different ways to attack the infrastructure of a nation.
Is this a shot across our bow?
Is it a threat or is it just an accident?
I don't know, I'm a biologist.
I think truth is good for kids.
We're so busy lying, we don't even recognize the truth no more in society.
We want everybody to feel good.
That's not the way life is.
You can tell if someone's lying, 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 don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like-
Can someone check and see if you can find me on YouTube anywhere?
It would be really handy if somebody could see whether the live stream on YouTube is
going.
I hate to pull away and to take any bandwidth and try to see if I can see it myself.
If it's hard to find that it's also not really working, right?
If you can find my JC on a bike channel that can't find the live, then that's also a problem.
In case you haven't forgotten, I've got a friend named Nate and he took both shots.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Giga Home Biological, a high-resistance low noise
information brief brought to you by a biologist again to remind you this stream and every stream
on every Tuesday from now on is dedicated to a friend Nate who we lost in an untimely
way because of the transfections and I think we need to start to be very frank about how
many people we've lost for something other than a virus.
That's what I think is most important right now as we move forward to start to get people
to focus on the people who were actually lost and not the people who were censored or lost
their YouTube channels.
Again, welcome to the show.
I'm a human just like you coming to you live from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the back
of my kind of weird smelly garage.
I think my wife left the chicken feeder that's outside in the office and it was a little wet
last night's.
I don't know, it smells weird in here.
Anyway, you can't smell that, so that's really good.
We're not at smell-a-vision yet.
Again, this is Giga Home Biological, it's the 26th of March, 2024, it is the fifth year
since we've had, this is, we're going on our fifth year since we had 15 days to flatten
the curve, 60 days to smash the curve if you were a Paul Catrell fan.
This is a time and a place for you if you've never found me before, if you're here for the
umpteenth time, then you already know that what we are fighting against is something
that has gone on for a very long time and it's only a question of whether or not it's
been turned up to 11 for the last three years or whether it's turned up to 11 for
the last 10 years.
The real deal is that the internet and social media and our cell phones and all of our devices
and all of these different applications have allowed them to and mesh us in a web of what
they call knowledge, what is it actually noise, that is carefully curated so that if you try
to escape or you try to understand the shape of it, you will inevitably run into these
fake barriers which are essentially defined by people on the internet who agree to disagree
about things and agree not to talk about other things.
And as sort of ridiculously simple as it sounds, it is exactly the same as your most famous
favorite magician if you actually found out how any or all of those tricks were done
would be horribly disappointed because you would find out it's just a couple of people
lying to you.
And no matter how clever it is, the way that they lie to you, it is nevertheless a lie.
And if we start to think about this as a show that we ever attended, we were given tickets
to the pandemic, we sat down in our seats and we had no idea that half of the people
that were in the audience were in on the gag.
And so when the people on stage told us that you better wear your masks and half of the
people in the audience did it with vigor, it was a lot more difficult for us to resist.
And being in an experiment or in a performance where people are working against you because
it's part of the experiment is a very devious position to be in indeed.
In fact, on bench academic science, that means that somebody's walking in an honor
out front door, which I guess at one, I think that's okay.
The idea is that if you think of a national security operation that was run on us and
the world and that that national security operation can be best described as analogous
to a magician's performance in Las Vegas, where the stage was social media, the stage
was television, the stage was the pulpit in the White House, the stage was the FDA and
the CDC pulpits, the stage was the internet and the intellectual dark web.
And all of these pretend voices that have purported to be fighting for our freedom,
but in reality, we're coordinatedly working this theater.
And if you see it as a stage thing with audience members engaged in fooling the other audience
members to enhance the likelihood that they would suspend their disbelief, then you see
why if if you sat down a bunch of bureaucrats, if you sat down a bunch of military leaders,
if you sat down a bunch of politicians and people with clearances and told them that
this is the way.
And then you pulled the you rang the bell and everybody went to work.
This is where we are.
And since everybody understands it for what it is, then none of them see the cognitive
dissonance in telling us that it is the way it is when it isn't because that was the
design of the plan in the first place, the people that were planted in the audience already
knew they were planted in the audience.
They already understood their role in the show.
And now there may be other people in the audience who have decided to participate in a way that
that's not scripted and that those people that were planted in the audience have been
very skilled at allowing them to participate.
But that's probably part of the show too.
And no doubt that they've gained that out before this was finally executed.
This is a quote from the 19, sorry, I don't know how to do the weatherman thing.
This is a quote from the 1920s, I think it's 1924.
This is back when they could do it with radio and television.
Please tell me you have no problem imagining that when we give them our brains on Twitter,
we give them our brains and attention on Facebook.
We give them our brains and attention on these devices and these applications that they can
surely consciously and intelligently manipulate our habits and opinions.
Of course, you believe them.
But for some reason, we're supposed to be afraid of the AI that's to come, the AI in
the future instead of the machines that are being used by other men to control us right
now to steal from dude.
And that's the magic of where we are that if you just boil it down to that, you can see
the people who are are medlers because they are purporting even the ones that do say that
they're thinking across modalities and talking about the whole big picture like Robert
Malone often does, he doesn't get to the heart of this at all.
In fact, he pushes the AI scary thing.
He pushes the gain of function virus thing.
He pushes the collapse of the dollar, but something, something, something, but never actually
gets to the heart of it, which is fractional reserve banking.
The idea that if you can create money and you decide who uses that power and how it
gets used and who has to follow the rules very strictly, then you can set up a system
where corporations can go bankrupt, but college students can't.
And that's the system that we live in right now, not saying it's good or bad.
This is just the way it is, a corporation declares bankruptcy of billions of dollars
is what happens.
But there is no way that a college student who went to a very bad university and got
a very dumb degree because that university was very happy to give it to them and had
a financial aid office that was very happy to get them to sign the right papers so that
all $15,000 of every year's tuition would be covered.
You can blame it all on the student if you want to rather than the lawmakers that made
the bills or the people at those lending agencies or the universities that said, oh,
my gosh, great, thanks, we'll raise our tuition, we'll pay everybody more, we'll hire more
things, we'll build more buildings.
But the student loan thing is an issue that comes right back to the universities.
The same universities that we're totally happy to accept are corrupt, are teaching our kids
terribly, are responsible for all kinds of bad things and bad ideas, wasting money, but
when it comes to student loans, it's all the student's fault.
So think about the kind of conscious and intelligent manipulation of our habits has occurred in
order for people to be very convinced that helping people with student loans is absolutely
absurd and I didn't go to college, I don't have loans, so why should I help them?
And those same people have never considered the oddity of corporate bankruptcy or personal
bankruptcy for that matter, which is totally okay.
And so it's bizarre because that is obviously, if you think objectively about it, that's
only because people want you to scream about that, otherwise it wouldn't rise all over
the internet.
And once you see it that way, then all of these things need a real inspection.
Because in reality, we are being governed by asking the wrong questions and being convinced
that these questions are much smarter than they are, in fact, they're dumb questions.
And once you see it that way, then you see why informed consent comes back to the fore
all the time, because informed consent is what one would have if you were in a free
country, if you were in a free republic, you would have informed consent.
If you were a real citizen with real voting rights, you would have informed consent.
And these people in our government would be acting with our informed consent, more
or less.
I don't know if that's the right legal language or not, but it sure sounds pretty good to me.
And so one of the ways to understand how our informed consent was taken away from us was
to understand that there was a magic show, which was performed with people in the audience
in on the show that has convinced us that there was a pandemic, a combination of people
in the audience that were making new diagnostic tools and other people that were starting
new PCR companies or track and trace companies.
And all these people that seem to be just, wow, this is this is crazy.
This look at all this, the Ant Hill is moving.
And when you look around and you think that it's all real life instead of a show, it was
overwhelming.
And that's what all of us did, all of us very naive, including myself, people that thought
the vast majority of what we thought was the real world was the real world, that most
of what we saw in television was the truth, that most of what people published was the
truth, even though we knew in our hearts that, you know, like the things that happened on
9 11 have been sort of obviously mistold, although we might not claim to know what happened.
It's weird how even people like us were not able to apply that skepticism fully to the
whole picture in front of us, but rather just those two buildings over there, just those
airplanes.
That's it.
That, that seems weird, but everything else seems kosher.
So as long as you tell a good story, then it's totally okay.
It's when the details don't match up that things start to get hairy.
And it seems to me that with the pandemic, because they closed the trap too early, because
they, they went all in before we were afraid enough or confused enough.
There are sufficient people outside of the illusion to rescue.
I do really think it's possible.
I just think that they're using all of their might, all of their social media power, all
of their dirty tricks, all of their, their illusions, all of their disguises to make
sure that we don't figure out that we're actually really close to a threshold moment
where irrespective of who got us there, we're all going to be able to wake up and leave
these, these medlers behind, because once we understand the whole picture, it doesn't
matter who's selling an Ivermectin book.
Once we understand the whole picture, it doesn't matter who's running that study or who's doing
that group or who's on that telegram chat.
Once we understand the big picture, then any of these one trick ponies will be completely
irrelevant rather than part of a relevant barbershop quartet that everybody thinks is
such harmony.
I think that's the reason why the illusion of consensus was something that needed to be
almost stolen and diluted, because you had to, you had to take this and make something
other than an illusion of consensus about a novel virus in order to dilute the power
of this idea.
It's just unfortunate that maybe a friend was involved in, in that operation, wittingly
or unwittingly, and that's what I find most disappointing about it.
I think this faith in a novel virus is something that is really essentially an attack on us
in our way of life, whatever you want to call it, baseball and apple pie, true freedom
not whatever we're talking about now.
And that story, this story here that's on the on the screen is how they're doing it,
how they intend to do it to our children.
Create enough chaos in their mind and enough insecurity with the adults in the world that.
You know, you'll see very soon we'll have a kind of middle aged adult 30 year old
kids, thinking that they belong in Congress, thinking that they belong on states and and
rejecting the 50 year olds like me and you and the 40 year olds and maybe even the 60
year olds, they're all going to get rejected because of this, you know, all these old
people, including the old person in office right now.
That's part of the intergenerational fracturing that that was probably intended with regard
to the pandemic to try and make sure that most of the skeptics were old and most of
the people on the good side were young.
And so then in the end, when the next one comes along, we can glump all these old people
into one group, transfect them all.
I don't know.
I'm a bit, I'm a bit off target here and I'm wasting a little time, but I feel as though
we are at a crucial moment where I don't need to address anything else other than to repeat
what I'm saying.
And that is that that the people that are on one side, the other, the top, the bottom,
they all agree that there was a virus.
They all agree that it went around the world that infected millions of people and maybe
even killed millions of people.
They all agree.
It doesn't matter what side you're on.
Tony Fauci, Kevin McCarran, Kevin McCurnan, Robert Malone, Meryl Nash.
Yes.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Peter Desak, Jeffrey Sacks, Kim.com, Dr. Drew, Dr. Victory, Debunk the Funk, Brian Wilson
or whatever is Daniel Wilson, what is his name?
I don't care.
All of them agree that there was a novel virus that probably killed millions of people that
millions of more may have been saved from by transfection, but some of those people
think that the transfection was adulterated.
And so there was damage done that nobody's acknowledging.
But if you carefully dissect that narrative, then neither side right now of all the people
that have any space on social media at all, there is not one person, not one person on
the either team, any team that questions the whole principle of the pandemic in the
first place, not because the virus wasn't deadly or it was very mild because that's
not questioning it and be very clear in your own head that if you say there was no pandemic
because it was never a dangerous virus, because kids or the CFR or the IFR wasn't high enough,
and you are not actively rejecting the idea of the pandemic, you are giving them the pandemic.
And that's exactly what they want.
What you need to realize is that the principle, the idea that an RNA molecule can pandemic
using it as a verb, can pandemic can go from a point to being everywhere on earth.
That's the verb pandemic.
If the guitar behind me pandemics, then at some point in time at the end of the pandemic,
there should be a Paul Reed Smith custom guitar in every place on earth and every human on
earth, every human on earth should own one, then it's a pandemic.
So you might say something like cell phones, there's a pandemic of cell phones because
once we started making them, they're everywhere now.
So there was a pandemic of cell phones.
But you can imagine all of the energy and work and human whatever that goes into that going
from one iPhone on the stage to an iPhone in everyone's pocket.
And here, biologically speaking, the model that we've been handed is that an RNA molecule
that gets leaked.
I think Robert Malone once told the story about the idea that they were recycling things
from the laboratory in Wuhan and that after they used the animals for laboratory experiments,
they would also take them down the street to the market and sell them, which is just
hilarity beyond hilarity.
And again, wherever whatever story you want to tell, they took the laboratory animals
out of the market and they opened up a WIV Wuhan Institute of Virology stall at the Wuhan
market and they sold control group and experimental group Golden Hamsters and the experimental
group was half price.
Whatever story you want to tell, there was RNA in a small place and then it pandemiced
and now we can find it everywhere.
And there are lots of very useful products and methodologies to find it everywhere.
That's the story that we're told.
And not only that, but we're told it in a consensus sort of way everyone agrees.
And so we have to be very careful because everyone also has a great faith in a great
deal of this mythology around the biology of it.
And so the very slippery slope is that gain of function RNA went endemic is going to
permanently instill in our children that something like a fear and cleavage site, for example,
can endow a virus with the ability to pandemic.
And without that fear and cleavage site, it can't.
We could also get to a stage where our kids actually believe that prions and chronic wasting
and this kind of thing is something that can be caused by protein misfolding and that
it's a natural thing that occurs as opposed to something caused by a parasite or something
caused by a bacteria or something caused by a toxin, whatever it might be in each of these
cases, which very few of them have been substantiated as well as you might like to think.
And so I do apologize for not starting today, but in the next couple days, for sure, we're
going to start doing real hard work, you and I together on the stream, about prions and
about the literature that supports them and how we understand what they do and what the
pre-on protein does when it's not doing this stuff that apparently it does in these papers.
But right now, the important thing to understand is that the faith in a novel virus is starting,
it essentially is a faith in a novel biology.
And that model is something that that's where we attack.
That's where logically we need to probe each of these people who is certain about what
has happened.
We need to have them give us details about their model, give us details about how they
mechanistically understand what happened and what's happening.
For example, why don't we already have thousands of people in the hospital with crowdspelled
yachob's disease because of the virus?
Because that was something that a lot of these people said very early on in 2020 was that
there would be neurological symptoms, that people's behavior was going to change, that
maybe we would have amyloidogenic or prion-like diseases in these people.
And so, you know, showing videos of people licking the walls or licking the windows of
closed pubs was a way of suggesting that the COVID virus was going around changing people's
brains because the spike protein was a pre-on weapon.
These people said that in March and in April of 2020 when they had no business having any
opinions about what the spike protein would do or not do, but they all had ideas.
And they weren't all mainstream people.
None of them were mainstream biologists, academic biologists.
They were fringe people, people that had no business calling themselves experts, no business
putting themselves out there.
Was I one of those people?
Well, I don't really know because I never claimed that this was a worst-case scenario.
I fought against the worst-case scenario.
I fought for the idea that it might be better not to trust the government and not to trust
the pharmaceutical companies and to not take their word for it.
Even though I didn't have the total biological understanding that I think I have now and can't
make as cogent argument as I can now, I was already making a pretty cogent argument
in March 2020 and the people that were rejecting that argument are quite striking because many
of those people are now front and center of the opposition, presenting, being promoted
together, it's incredible, really, because this is the biology they want, I think, your
children to believe us to talk about, us to argue about, and that's not what we're going
to discuss because it's not real biology.
We will discuss it and we will use it to understand how a biological concept can come to exist
in the literature when it might not exist in nature and it will come to understand how
it is that gain of function, virology, has been exaggerated in the literature in exactly
the same way with the, sorry about that, what was I doing with that for?
That was weird.
That is not a symbol of 666 for me, I can tell you that much right now, but I do know that
everybody says that.
I think it's got to be upside down to in order for that to be real.
I was just holding my hand that way, I apologize, but I am sensitive to it because everybody's
talking about it all the time, so anyway, I really think this is important though.
It's important to understand that we have a biological story here that is plausible,
that doesn't require any crazy variables, it doesn't require any as yet unverified biology,
no new principles of biology, no crazy things, just a signal in the background that we weren't
measuring before, because we weren't measuring before, that we have been misled as being
something that is actively spreading.
And now how that was accomplished could be different in different places.
And that's totally okay to what extent it was deliberately done or accidentally done
in different places can be different.
That's totally okay.
We could be very much under the yoke of a bunch of people who did it on purpose with
lots of planted audience members in the United States in the magician show that we attended
here, but in the Netherlands, there could be very few people in on it in Sweden.
There might have been very few people in on it.
And so you have to calibrate your interpretation of what happened around the world because each
one of those places also saw a very different window on social media.
What was the social media like in Germany?
What was the social media like in the Netherlands?
Quite frankly, I don't know.
What was the social media like in Australia?
You don't know and I don't know either.
But we can guess from what we've been shown that the Australians in the New Zealand are
probably pretty convinced that there was COVID because they saw it ravage our country.
They saw us go bananas and they locked down and they didn't have it.
So there's lots of congruent observations when they look out their window and they look
at their phone to make them the believe that it did happen.
Maybe it's not so bad anymore.
Maybe it could happen again.
But they experienced a very different window into reality than what we saw.
And I would be willing to bet that the window that they saw is sufficiently incongruent
from our own so that when we meet together, we're going to disagree about stuff and that's
by design.
The Australians in New Zealanders are going to be especially skeptical of anybody that
says there was no COVID because they saw it.
And the few cases that made it over there were bad.
And the theater was designed that way.
You got to get sophisticated enough to see that this theater is big and it's multifaceted.
It's like a stage with multiple angles and those angles are not visible to the other
people but have bearing on what the other people experience.
Isn't that weird?
Because one audience is hearing the reaction of the other audience, but you don't know
if that other audience is in on it or not.
And what did they see over there?
And so it's a very complicated show.
It's not just a magician on stage with a couple people in the audience.
It's several audiences and some of them you can't see but you're being told what they
see.
Or you're being shown a mirror image of what they see but you're not sure if any of those
people are in on the or the same number of people, maybe the whole audience is corrupt
on the left but the whole audience on the right isn't.
And all of these variables are under their control.
They already figured out what the best way to do it is.
They already tried a couple different combinations and now they're doing it well.
And that's why it was so difficult for all of us to see through it in 2020 and 2021.
They never thought they would have to keep this theater going and keep adding acts and
keep adding actors and keep pulling more people out of the audience.
They're getting very, very close to having no more people in the audience.
Do you understand?
There's no more, almost said a particular name.
There's no more, there are no more Brian Artises to come out of the audience.
There are no more Pierre Corries to come out of the audience.
I don't know if, but you see what I mean.
There's no more new ones anymore.
Now they have to argue with each other.
Now they have to create new rivalries.
Now CHD is promoting Dr. Drew and promoting Dave Rubin because they don't have anybody
else on the bench to pull out.
Now Brett Weinstein is interviewing random, random people about the biology, trying to
confirm his biological ideas.
It's incredible.
People like J. Bottacharia who are faculty at Stanford University just get randomly hooked
up with some guy from Canada to do a sub stack called Illusion of Consensus.
Who's that kid?
Why would Jay choose to do a podcast with him when he could do a podcast with any of
his students or the fellow faculty member?
Why some guy from Canada and why did Brett Weinstein like introduce him to the world
as well?
If you don't see the show for what it is, it's hard to help anybody, but again, seeing
the show isn't for everyone.
Anybody can see the show, but not everybody wants to see it.
Not everybody has the machinery to see it.
I don't know who did this experiment, but I think at one point somebody measured that
like 80% of humans don't have the ability really to say no to an authority figure.
So I mean, this is where we are.
It is our obligation, my obligation at this point, I feel to try and bring as many people
as possible that want to understand this, want to try and understand this to understand
it.
And it's a set of bad ideas.
It's a set of assumptions.
It's a set of very poor and simplistic models that we have been forced to accept by the questions
that we have been tricked into answering for the last couple of decades.
And that's why.
Scientific questions I think are very hard to get a handle on.
And the reason for this is that in late modernity, which we're living in, there's simply too
much knowledge for any individual human to understand all of it.
And so in this world of extreme hyperspecialization where it's narrower and narrower subsets of
experts policing themselves and talking about how great they are, the string theorists talking
about how great string theory is, the cancer researchers talking about how they're just
about to cure cancer, the quantum computer researchers are just about to build a quantum
computer that will be a massive breakthrough.
And then if you were to say that all these fields, not much is happening, people just
don't have the authority for this.
And this is somehow a very different feel for science or knowledge than you would have
had in 1800 or even in 1900.
It's funny, I don't really, I don't really get it a lot of times what I see in the chat.
I guess you guys are talking to each other, funny, funny, funny little kids.
See they tell the truth all the time, right?
They've told us the truth for a while now.
These fields haven't made much progress.
Cancer hasn't made much progress.
Quantum physics hasn't made much progress.
I would argue that big genetics hasn't made that much progress.
We can collect the data, but we don't understand it because it's too much data.
It's too much analysis.
It's too much variation.
And we aren't sophisticated enough to understand it.
Have we gotten to the stage where we made a few restriction maps of the whole human
genome?
Sure, we did.
Have we gotten to some very low hanging fruit with regard to genetic diseases with one or
two main genetic causes?
Yes, we have, absolutely.
But how much has that helped us understand the symphony of genes that is our natural
homeostatic function of a healthy four-year-old child?
Well, not very far.
Not very far at all.
Just like when you find out why a violin, oh, look, there was a crack in the neck of the
violin.
That's why it broke.
And I understand it very well.
Look, that crack is right there.
If you have a crack, then this violin is going to break.
Well, do you understand how it is that a Stradivarius makes its music then?
You don't have any idea at all.
But you can indefinitely explain how it is that a violin breaks when it has a crack
in its neck.
And that's the kind of understanding that we have of our biology up from a genetic perspective.
We understand how a broken violin can occur when there is a catastrophic error in its
structure related to its function.
But we can't understand how the music is made in a perfect violin.
And that should be the ultimate goal, right?
It shouldn't be to fix these one-note genetic disorders, even though that, I guess, is a
worthy goal, that's a disguised goal.
Those are morally justifiable experiments in genetic manipulation that don't have any
real justification in ethics other than for the particular lives of those people, you see.
So you have to use it.
That's what they're doing here.
It is an elaborate game that they've been playing with us for a very long time to try
and permanently remove our reverence for the sacred, for the sacred of the perfect
child when it's born.
It's perfect.
It doesn't need a vitamin K shot and a HEP B shot.
And we're not there anymore.
That's not this country.
This country still circumcises little boys.
This country still removes the uterus of women whenever they're, they might need it.
We're in a very, very dire straits right now because there are lots of young people who
don't understand this and don't can't hear the truth when it's said to them.
They don't even hear the truth when it's said to them like this, well, wait, it's, they don't
even hear the truth.
They can still understand just about everything, 1900, Hilbert could still understand just
about all of mathematics.
And so the sort of, the sort of specialization, I think has made it a much harder question
to get a handle on.
We don't have a handle on it.
They are lying to us.
Of course, Tucker Carlson will tell you that he's lying, can sort of feel it.
You know that he's lying.
You don't want to believe it.
But he most definitely is.
I don't want to.
Unfortunately, no, the reason why I know I don't want to be a liar.
I think it's like really important not to be a liar.
The reason why I know is because there, there was a very gigantic lie that he told on national
television after covering a Vanity Fair article that was also a lie, it was a Vanity Fair
article about the group drastic, which at the time I was a member of.
And he said that drastic was started by a guy by the name of Jamie Metzel.
Now the only way that that could have happened is if Jamie Metzel was Billy Bo Stixon.
And it wouldn't surprise me if he was.
But the point was is that if he told the truth about that, then someone else was lying to
me from the very beginning.
That means that the diffuse proposal was actually turned over not to a foreign national with
the pseudonym Billy Bo Stixon, but to an American futurist named Jamie Metzel.
Now I'm not saying that Jamie Metzel started drastic.
I don't think he did, but I don't know who Billy Bo Stixon is.
Billy Bo Stixon is still an anonymous person on Twitter.
And that is the account that started the group that later was called drastic.
The group that kicked me out.
The moment that I said, we have to talk about transfection, not the virus.
The virus doesn't matter.
Where the virus came from doesn't matter because they want to transfect everybody and we shouldn't
be doing that.
Then they asked me to leave.
And I'm not sure if it's split in half right then or before then, but there's drastic
science and drastic.
And I think some people say they're members of both.
Some people aren't.
It's all an elaborate hoax.
And these are the sort of moments.
Political cut I have on the specialization is always that if you analyze the politics
of science, the specialization should make you suspicious because if it's gotten harder
to evaluate what's going on, then it's presumably gotten easier for people to lie and to exaggerate.
And then one should be a little bit suspicious and that's sort of my starting bias.
And I'm going to keep playing this video like every week because I think it is the most
spot on video of any of these people.
And it's just striking that it's this guy's chubby belly saying it because I do think
that this guy is near the top of a group of people at the helm of a weaponized pile of
money or two that is vying for control of America and vying for control of the West,
if you will, because he's invested in Canadian companies.
He's invested in lots of places, you know, and they're all part of this.
Eric Weinstein is definitely part of this.
Brett Weinstein's part of it.
Brett's dad is part of it.
It can be zero doubt anymore.
Otherwise, Brett's dad would not be one of the foremost arbitrators of intellectual property
law specifically in biotechnology in the United States.
Otherwise Brett would be very proud of his dad.
Otherwise Brett would have talked with Bobby Kennedy about his dad and how their dads work
together when he had him on his podcast in November of 2021 and he would have played
the podcast in November of 2021 instead of playing the podcast in February of 2024.
And when again, when you look in the in the rear view mirror and all these things line
up like that, what conclusion can you come to other than, I guess I better not look backwards
anymore.
Otherwise, I might come to the conclusion that this wasn't the pandemic they said it was.
Are we actually all engaging in the lookaway doctrine?
I'm just not going to look because if I look, I know I'm going to figure it out.
Could be.
It could be that there are a lot of people who know, really know in their heart, but just
don't have the courage or the stones to accept it.
Even when they're shown that these people actually admitting it, they can't quite accept it.
So intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting
the immune system is dumb.
Is something that none of these people make the list will ever talk about or say or acknowledge.
Yeah, that's probably the best way to say it.
Nope.
None of them will.
And curiously, none of the people at the top of CHD will there's plenty of people in
the middle of CHD that have kids that have suffered that have real skin in the game that
agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
But the people at the top, they don't say it.
They've never said it.
That's the weird part.
Try to find a statement where the longtime scientific advisor of CHD, Meryl Nast says
anything about the childhood vaccine schedule in America by itself.
And a place where we see one of these people saying it, it's very rare.
It's very, very, very rare for an organization that at least at the heart is completely opposed
to this.
And there's a reason for it, ladies and gentlemen, because this is a controlled operation.
We are being governed.
And until we stop allowing them us to be governed by this mythology, it's going to continue.
I don't really know all the ways out.
I don't other than one at a time.
We all need to awaken.
We need to just come to realize that there are simple ways to say these things.
There are easy ways to talk about this stuff.
There are very, we could make substantial gains in our general understanding of biology.
We could make substantial gains in the average person's understanding of what really happened
in the pandemic.
But unfortunately, many, many, many people with large platforms, with growing followings,
are still focused on the same thing that they were focused on in 2020.
The same thing.
After four years, they still can't talk about the vaccine schedule in America as a particular
example.
They can't talk about the Prep Act, the Vaccine Act, and the lack of strict liability on vaccines
as just a thing that everybody should understand.
It's very few people.
Lots of people will spend an hour on stage talking about Ivermectin studies.
Lots of people would be happy to break down the details of a remdesivir study for you.
Lots of people would be happy to break down the details of a hydroxychloroquine study for
you.
But not very many people are going to break down the literature of coronaviruses for you.
Not very many people are going to break down the literature of prions for you.
But lots of them are happy to talk about a preprint about prions from last year.
The only person that's taught you immunology 101 to this date in four years is me.
Maybe Dr. Bean, maybe besides that who?
Think about that.
Which of these MDs has taught you about linked recognition?
This is the last time Meryl Nast, Robert Malone, Pierre Corey, Jessica Rose.
When's the last time they mentioned linked recognition?
Do you think that they could explain that at a whiteboard?
Do you see the problem, ladies and gentlemen?
Do you see the problem?
They're spreading ideas.
It's just not the good ones.
They're spreading lots of ideas, just not the good ones.
They're questioning a lot of ideas, just not the ones that need to be questioned.
I want to take a break from hammering that home to watch a video from the past, which
is a video from 11 years ago.
I have no idea what I'm about to find, and I'm going to watch this video for exactly
an hour and then I'm going to stop because I've got basketball this afternoon again
because my boys are so, they're dedicated like Shaolin monks.
Now, they're actually upset.
They were talking to me yesterday in the car that they realized that the place where
we're going is closed on Easter Sunday, and so they were panicking because the rec center
is also closed on Easter Sunday, and what are we going to do for basketball on that
day?
Well, all I can say is I hope with all of my heart that this kind of dedication continues
because I'm sure it's going to pay off for them.
And I'm sure that they're going to have a good time next year in basketball.
It's really nice to see.
And I've got you guys to thank for that because part of the reason why I'm able to do it is
because, well, I mean, people are supporting this stream and we're not, like I said, we
still need more supporters.
We need more support for next month, but so far so good.
And I'm just, I'm just having faith that somehow or another people are going to hear
this stream.
People are going to get the message and enough people that have the means are going to be
moved enough to support me so that this can continue because I think it's the vital work.
It's the only stream on the internet that's trying desperately to reawaken a reverence
for the sacred in and using an appreciation for biology to try and do it.
And so if you think this is a unique message and something that needs to get out, please
take the time to go to GIGO and biological and support my work.
Here is a video from 11 years ago with Craig Bentner and he's going to talk about what
life is that he's going to talk about the challenges of understanding how life works.
And that's all I really know because I read the description and the video description.
So I have no idea what I'm going to hear here.
It could be that we're about to waste an hour of our time, but my guess is that that's
not the case.
Here we go.
Thank you, Luke.
T-Shock, Harvest, distinguished guests.
It is a great pleasure and honor for me both on behalf of the Royal Irish Academy and the
Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies to speak on this historic occasion.
My task is to give some of the background to how the remarkable lecture that we celebrate
tonight came to be given.
Let me begin with someone that few of you have probably heard of.
Edmund Taylor Whittaker was a distinguished mathematician, later historian of science,
who spent most of his long career at the University of Edinburgh.
But he did spend some time here as one of the last Royal Astronomers of Ireland.
And he is significant for the story of tonight's lecture for two reasons.
Firstly, while in Dublin, he had a young student, a man called Eamon de Valera, and he inspired
in him a lifelong devotion to mathematics and a great admiration for the legacy of William
Rowan Hamilton.
And we'll come on to that later.
So when de Valera then in the late 1930s began to think of establishing what was then
only the second Institute for Advanced Studies in the world, he naturally turned to his former
teacher for advice.
And Whittaker made one key recommendation.
He told de Valera that the hardest thing to do was to give a comprehensible public
lecture, something I can vouch for actually from personal experience.
And de Valera took this to heart and wrote in to the 1940 act that each school of the
Institute must offer a public lecture every year.
And if it hadn't been for that and the recommendation of Whittaker, we would not be here tonight.
This brings me, of course, naturally on to the next major player in the story, Eamon
de Valera, a remarkable man in many ways.
His political career and influence on Irish society remains a subject of vigorous debate,
I think it's fair to say.
I'm not really sure if this is relevant.
I might just fast-forward through it.
In his publication, Judging Dev.
Yeah.
What is perhaps not so widely known is that his interest in science and mathematics was,
in fact, genuine and deep.
And in fact, I recall the previous provost of this college telling me that his life used
to be made miserable because at nine o'clock in the evening, his secretary would tell him
that the also Ucteron was on the phone and the president was having a problem with mathematics
could the provost help him.
Those days are gone, I fear.
So it was this deep admiration for mathematics and science, as well as his instinctive horror,
I think, at the barbarism of the Third Reich, which persuaded him to establish the Dublin
Institute for Advanced Studies in 2014, and to recruit Erwin Schrodinger as the first
director of its school.
So we're talking about the school that he's in.
So I might actually skip this.
I'm sorry if that offends you at all, but maybe this next guy will give a better interest
in the introduction.
I don't know.
Thank you, Luke, for putting it in context.
Now I'm going to give a bit of background about what Schrodinger did on this night in
February in 1943, and it's no exaggeration to say that what he did that night sparked
a revolution.
He did a ruckus that went off, and we haven't had a few moths in here tonight, for example,
who depended on Schrodinger's water's life lecture to inspire him, for example.
Oh!
Let's all say that we know DNA revolution and agriculture.
Wow!
Well, biotech industry, so as Luke has said a long way away from that time, it gave rise
to the whole industry.
So the importance of the lecture is very important.
Secondly, it was the middle of the second world war.
Holy crap!
There was devastation in Europe.
I swear this is not a difficult thing called Ireland.
This is an actual accident.
A bit of countable by a kid.
I'm not kidding.
Just like the monks had done in the 8th century with the book of Cales, it's very similar
that it happened in Ireland.
This lecture sparked-
This is so weird, because I just bought this book on somebody's recommendation.
And I got a first copy of it.
It's called What Is Life Mind and Matter by Erwin Schrodinger.
So he's talking about the lecture that this book is based on.
I swear on the Bible that I did not know that this was going to-
Oh, wow!
It is really that book.
This was published in 67, though.
This edition.
So what?
Which edition is this?
It's not the first edition, then.
Yeah, the first edition was 44, then reprinted in 45, 48, 51 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then Mind and Matter was this one.
Okay.
Huh.
So it's two books in this thing.
I didn't get around to even starting it yet.
So that's kind of cool.
Okay.
That makes-
That makes making me more happy.
It sparked a whole revolution and really helped civilization along.
And we had a lecture here.
If I can-
Now where's my remote?
So Luca O'Neill's not a good guy.
That's pretty funny.
Ha ha!
I guess I'm not surprised.
Hang on.
I've gone too far.
Hold on.
So we had a conference here, actually, in 1993, to commemorate the 40th anniversary
of this, called What is Life as Well.
And I got a book out of this.
I added this book with-
See, the thing is-
Look, the thing is it's not a hoax, okay?
First of all, let's go-
I think that's a really good question, is the author of the book in on the hoax.
This is the book we're talking about.
It's actually What is Life and Mind and Matter.
It's two different books.
Like I said, I just got this in the mail, so don't-
I'm not pulling this off my bookshelf and claiming I had this and read it all along.
What I am finding, though, and that's what I do have this bookshelf for, is what I am
finding- I won't roll it into the screen now, though, but what I am finding are many,
many books-
Sorry, I don't know what you could- Oh yeah, I was standing on that camera.
Many, many books where- Here's Yona Salk, survival of the wisest.
That's a book you ought to read, because that one's shocking.
Molecular Vision of Life by Lily Kay.
And this was one that I was adding to that same shelf.
There have been lots of people who have been thinking about what humankind should do with
the knowledge that we now have.
This book here, this book by Yona Salk- I don't know if you ever heard of Yona Salk.
This book argues that now that we know that we are subject to evolutionary pressures,
now that we know how traits are passed from generation to generation, isn't it our obligation
to use that knowledge?
Isn't it our obligation as a species to use that knowledge?
Shouldn't we think as a species when we can, even if all other species can't?
That's what this freaking book's about.
And so where do those ideas lead us?
You can do that.
Use that model in your head very easy.
And I suspect that there's a lot to do with this too, because again, once we understand
how our genome works, don't we have an obligation to augment it?
Don't we have an obligation to improve it?
In fact, wouldn't that be part of the natural process of evolution if we did that to ourselves
because this is the argument that they make, which just completes the circle and outside
of that circle is everything sacred.
To me, it's extraordinary because it doesn't, you don't have to read a lot of books to find
out that it's a very, very common theme among the highest echelons of these thinkers.
That the conclusion is that if we are an exceptional species with exceptional knowledge of ourselves,
an exceptional knowledge of the universe, it doesn't that come with some moral obligation
to use it?
And then how should we use it?
And does the rights of an individual really factor into how we use that knowledge on a
species-wide scale?
I don't know.
These people don't think so.
And so this is cool.
I'm really excited to hear what Craig's got to say now, because now I know.
Take Murphy, a colleague of mine in biochemistry, who said that water's life lecture happened
in Trinity.
Many of us went away over that.
But the book, we were to where it was done in Trinity.
And we published a book.
We edited a book with all these great speakers, came to the conference that were the conference
proceedings.
And just the impact.
It was translated into 17 languages amazingly, this proceedings of this event in 1993.
And very importantly, we got all the people who spoke at it to sign the book.
This is the names that came here in 1993.
And you see them here.
They're all very famous people.
John Maynard Smith, Stuart Kauffman, Roger Penrose, Christian Doode, Stephen Jay Gould,
Gerald Edelman, Jared Diamond.
The next speaker will get better with audio.
This is a part of his ebay.
I would have auctioned it by now.
And that was the water's life version in 1993.
So that just shows you all these people turned up.
Me and Mike Murphy in our mid-20s invited them when they all came along.
And it was a great celebration.
Now, I show this because one of the speakers, Jared Diamond, is a very famous writer.
I wrote a great book called The Third Shimp on Z, and I read it.
Myself and Patty Cunningham for Esauff invited Jared to come.
And he wrote this nice letter back.
He said, apologies, but I'm unable to accept your invitation.
Are you the Luca O'Neill who organized the What is Life Symposium in Trinity some years
back?
Or to remember at the dinner, your co-organizer reaching over and taking some of your food,
a common sign of intimacy among primates.
Did that person become your wife?
And she did?
And she's here somewhere, Margaret.
There she is.
Round of applause for Margaret.
At the time, my girlfriend, Margaret was the official photographer of the event.
And this is the Japanese translation.
There's all the speakers.
There's Margaret Whirl.
They couldn't translate her name into Japanese, but there's all the speakers.
So Jared Diamond is obviously a very peculiar man.
We're already happy to get that letter from him.
Now let's get back to the matter in hand, though.
In the book What is Life, showing her opens with this great sentence, really.
He said he gave the lecture in dubs, and he points that out.
And he said the subject matter was a difficult one, and the lectures could not be turned popular,
even though the physicist's most dreaded weapon, mathematical deduction, would hardly be used.
And he was a fantastic communicator.
The book was written with crystal clear prose, and inspired people like Jim Watson, Seymour
Benzer, Leslie Orgel, Francis Crick.
All of these great giants of Mannequilobaji said they read the book, and they were inspired.
And of course, the question is what inspired him in the first place.
There's the book, of course, when it came out, and it says in the page, given in Trinity
County's Dublin, this is the 1943 edition, but what's interesting is Louis Lebrocki became
a big friend of Schrodinger, and turned up with the lectures, and sketched a picture
of Schrodinger during the lecture, which we couldn't get our hands on for this, but later
on, then did a beautiful, typical Lebrocki party.
So Schrodinger was very popular in Dublin, many friends, many artists, including Lebrocki.
And of course, here's a great picture, I think, from the Royal Arts Academy in 1942.
Here's Devallera, here's Schrodinger, here's Paul Dirac, who won the Nobel Prize with Schrodinger
outside the Royal Academy.
There's a worrying number of pre-sterial notice in the background, but that was a conference
that was held in Dublin when he can invite his friends.
So this was the inspiration for what is life.
A paper had come out in 1938 by a guy called Max Delbrocki, a very famous biochemist, my
lack of no biologist.
And in this paper, what they were doing is that they were radiating fruit flies with
radiation, fruit flies, and we heard about fruit flies yesterday from a dual half man.
And they were trying to quantify the smallest amount of radiation to cause a change in the
phenotype, the trait of the fly.
Wow.
So it's a small amount of radiation, and they got maybe the wings change.
Wow.
And from that, they said, a gene must be a thousand atoms big.
Wow.
Do you hear how dumb that is?
Can you hear that?
This is the same thing that Mark has been on for a long time, the radiation, nuclear
energy, mutating genes, and mutation being the primary source of evolutionary change.
The idea was using radiation to mutate humans, to make super humans rotary.
This was a way of trying to understand how evolution worked.
And they thought that they could irradiate genomes and increase the rate of evolution.
They actually thought this.
These are this is from the pool of bad ideas from which our current understanding of biology
grows.
So we need to understand this pool very well, who are never going to understand why this
tree that we call biology is so misshapen.
It's wonderful.
I can't believe it.
A mutation in a molecule, that size.
Shoring a red that paper, I was inspired to give his lectures, and he says in what it's
like, the target for which the ionization radiation is about a thousand atoms big.
We believe a gene to be an aperiodic crystal.
Very important.
The gene must be stable, so it must be a crystal, it must have information, so it's
aperiodic, and that was the phrase he coined.
And then he says it's the chromosome that contains some kind of code script, and that
was the first time ever the term genetic code was used on this stage in 1943.
So that's kind of cool.
So those all come from this book.
That's what's really neat about it.
So let me read what he cited there, because it's actually funny that he didn't read the
whole quote.
Maybe the next guy will read the whole quote.
So he said that the book starts with a quote.
This is the preface, and this is chapter one.
And large and important and very much discussed question is how can the events in space time,
which take place within the spatial boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics
and chemistry?
The next page says the preliminary answer, which is the little, which this little book
will endeavor to expound and establish can be summarized as follows.
The obvious inability of present day physics and chemistry to account for such events is
no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences.
In other words, just because chemistry and physics can't explain life now, there's no
reason to believe that in the future chemistry and physics can't explain it.
Therefore, there is no sacred.
There is no irreducible complexity.
There are no emergent properties that come above and past chemistry and physics that
only occur in living systems in living patterns.
There's nothing like that.
We are a chemical soup obeying physical laws.
And therefore, we are not sacred.
And so that's where this book starts.
That's where this guy is starting from, from the perspective of understanding DNA and the
human genome and the human pattern integrity.
Of course, we now know the genetic color was the go away to describe this.
Now, mind you, the only thing is two thirds of the book was not about genes at all.
It was about thermodynamics.
And he had this awful diagram.
And that's been neglected.
It's amazing.
The length of what his life was DNA.
The thermodynamics was kind of forgotten about, I guess, and people often forget that we've
still worked to do on the thermodynamics of living systems.
And there is the structure of DNA that came out, of course.
And then we had the famous Watson and Crick paper, and I'd say Jim will speak a bit later
to describe the structure of DNA.
But very importantly, Francis Crick writes to Schrodinger in Tlantarff with a reprint
of the paper.
Isn't that amazing?
And he says here, me and Watson, we know we were very influenced by what is life.
He said, we thought you'd be interested in the enclosed reprints.
This is the key reprint of all biology and history.
And he said, we think your term aperiodic crystal will be a very apt one.
And that shows you the influence of this very important lecture in Schrodinger.
Aperiodic crystal does describe DNA.
Now, the last thing I want to say before we hand over to our honored guest is, Flano
Bryan got involved inevitably.
And he became friends with Schrodinger, and they kind of hit it off.
And the third policeman, as you may know, involves the molecular exchange theory and
so on.
And in 1942, before that, what is life lecture, Schrodinger gave a public lecture on the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle, right, and Flano Bryan was in the audience.
There was a second professor in the D.I.A.S. at the time in Celtic studies, because Devilair
had two hobbies, Irish history and mathematics.
And they appointed a chair in Celtic studies, a guy called O'Rally and Schrodinger.
And O'Rally spoke, he was an expert on St. Patrick.
And he said there was a historical record that there were two, St. Patrick's.
And this is true.
Same from Rome, called Palladius, and one from Wales, called Patricius.
And then Schrodinger gets up and he talks about the quantum world, the uncertainty of
existence, you know.
And the next thing in the Irish times, Flano Bryan writes the funniest science joke on
record.
The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, with its strange combination of Celtic history
and cosmic physics, has proven that there were two St. Patrick's and no God.
And I was just fine, that's very funny.
And that's a round of applause to Flano Bryan, even though he isn't here.
What a wonderful phrase.
So this just shows you the influence Schrodinger had.
And now it gives me a great pleasure to introduce our keynote speaker for tonight.
And no finer person could we have for this task to reflect on Schrodinger.
And of course, he's here for Esoph as well.
And I'd like you to welcome Craig Venter, who's going to speak about what is life, a 21st
century perspective.
Craig.
Well, thank you for that wonderful layup for this exciting event, and Teischach and
Provost, distinguished guests, family and friends.
It's indeed an honor to be here for this event.
And I was asked earlier whether the goal is to dissect what Schrodinger had spoken about
and written, or to present the new summary.
And I always like to be forward looking, so I won't give you a history lesson, except
for very briefly.
I will present our findings first on reading the genetic code and then learning to synthesize
and write the genetic code.
And as many of you know, we synthesized an entire genome, booted it up to create an entirely
new synthetic cell, where every protein in the cell was based on the synthetic DNA code.
So as you all know, what Schrodinger's book was published in 1944, it was based on a series
of three lectures here starting in.
What he really means there, right, is that they took the genome of a yeast and they made
a synthetic copy of it, and then that DNA could be used to grow another yeast.
So it's not exactly what he's suggesting, which is like, you know, it almost seems like
they just went to the drawing board, made up a whole new DNA sequence, put it in a membrane
and it went, but that's not what they did.
They just showed that they could copy a whole genome, make a synthetic version of it, and
that synthetic molecule could be reinserted, and it would faithfully allow that organism
to replicate.
So, as far as I understand it, it's not the exact same thing as synthetic life, although
they would like you to believe, I mean, because it is synthetic life, but it says, you know,
it's still based on life.
I thought that would work, sorry.
February of 1943, and he had to be people, lectures I read on the following Monday, because
the room on the other side of campus was too small, and I understand people were turned
away tonight, but were grateful for Internet streaming, so I don't have to do this twice.
So also do, clearly, to his historical role, and it's interesting to be sharing this event
with Jim Watson, who have known and had multiple interactions with over the last 25 years,
and including most recently sharing the double helix prize for human genome sequencing with
him from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory a few years ago.
Now, Schrodinger started his lecture with a key question, and an interesting insight
on it.
The question was, I'll read it, how can the events in space and time, which take place
within the boundaries of a living organism, be accounted for by physics and chemistry?
It's a pretty straightforward, decimal question, and then he sort of answered what he could
at the time, the obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such
events is no reason at all for doubting that they will be accounted for by the sciences.
That's good.
So, while I only have around 40 minutes, not three lectures, I hope to convince you that
there has been substantial progress in the last nearly 70 years, since Schrodinger initially
asked that question, to the point where the answer is at least nearly at hand, if not
in hand.
So, I view that we're now in what I'm calling the digital age of biology.
My teams work on synthesizing genomes based on digital code in the computer, and four
bottles of chemicals illustrates the ultimate link between the computer code and the digital
code.
Life as code, as you heard in the introduction, was very clearly articulated by Schrodinger
as code script.
I think perhaps even more importantly, and something I missed on the first few readings
I was book early in my career, was, as far as I can tell, the first mention that this
code could be as simple as a binary code.
And he used the example of Morris code with just dots and dashes.
It could be sufficient to give 34 different specifications.
I've searched and I have not find any earlier references to the Morris code, although historian
I know wrote a quick letter asking about that then, and quick response was, it was
a metaphor that was obvious to everybody.
So, I don't know if it was obvious to everybody after Schrodinger's book or sometime before.
One of the things though, Schrodinger was right about a lot of things, which is why,
in fact, I think we celebrate what he talked about and what he wrote about, but some things
he was clearly wrong about, like most scientists in his time, and he relied on the biologist
of the day.
They thought that protein, not DNA, was the genetic information.
And I think it's really quite extraordinary because just in 1944, in the same year that
he published his book, is when the famous experiment by Oswald Avery, who was actually
65 and about ready to retire, along with his colleagues Colin McLeod and acclaimed McCartney,
published their key paper demonstrating that DNA was actually the substance that causes
bacterial transformation, and therefore was the genetic material.
This experiment was remarkably simple, and I sort of wonder why it wasn't done 50 years
earlier, because with all the wonderful genetics work going on in drosophila, certainly people
were looking at chromosomes.
He simply used proteolytic enzymes to destroy all the proteins associated with the DNA and
showed that the DNA, the naked DNA, was, in fact, of the transforming factor.
The impact of this paper was far from instantaneous, as has happened in this field, I think, in
part because there was so much bias against DNA and towards proteins that it took a long
time for that to sink in.
In 1949, obviously, was the first sequencing of a protein by Fred Sanger, and the protein
was insulin.
And this work showed, in fact, that proteins consisted of linear amino acid codes.
So he won the Nobel Prize in 1958 for that achievement, and was very key in terms of
leader understanding of the link between DNA and proteins.
But as you heard in the introduction, obviously, the discovery that changed the whole field
and started us down to DNA root was the 1953 work by Watson and Crick, with help from Maurice
Wilkins and Roslyn Franklin, showing that DNA was, in fact, a double helix, and had a clear
explanation of how it could be self-replicated.
Again, this was not, as I understand, instantly perceived as a breakthrough because the biochemist
was still hanging on to genetic code.
But soon, with a few more experiments from others, the world changed pretty dramatically.
I think the next big thing came from the work, obviously, of Corona and Marshall Nuremberg
in 1961, where they worked out the triplet genetic codes, three letters of genetic code
coding for a single amino acid.
And then this became clear how the linear DNA code, that coded for the linear protein
code.
Which was followed a few years later by Robert Hawley's discovery of the structure of tRNA.
And tRNA is the key, the key, a link between the mesrometeor RNA and bringing the amino
acids in for protein synthesis.
So Hawley and Nuremberg and Corona shared the Nobel Prize in 1968 for that work.
The next decade brought us restriction enzymes.
So my friend and colleague, Ham Smith, who is at the Venture Institute now in 1970, the
first restriction enzymes, these are the molecular scissors that cut DNA very precisely and
enabled the entire field of a molecular engineering and molecular biology.
And Ham Smith and Warner Arbor and Dan Nathan shared the prize in 1978 for that work.
The 70s brought not only some interesting dress codes and characters, but the beginning
of the molecular splicing revolution, using restriction enzymes, Conan Boyer and Paul
Berg published the first papers on recombinant DNA, Conan Boyer at Stanford, Stanford father
patent on their work and this was used by Genentech and Eli Lilly to produce a human
insulin as the first recombinant drug.
DNA sequencing and reading the genetic code progressed much more slowly.
So in 1973, a maximum in Gilbert published a paper on 24 base pairs, 24 letters of genetic
code.
RNA sequencing progressed a little bit faster.
So the first actual genome, viral genome, RNA viral genome was sequenced in 1976 by Walter
Fiers from Belgium and this was followed the following year by Fred Sanger again sequencing
the first DNA virus and this was 5x174 that I'll bring back to mind with you.
So this became the first DNA virus and the first viral DNA genome and it was also accompanied
by this new sequencing technique called now referred to as Sanger sequencing that Sanger
introduced.
This is a picture of Sanger's team that sequenced 5x, the second guy from the left on the bottom
is Clyde Hutchinson who was also a member of the Adventure Institute and joined us after
retiring from the University of North Carolina and took a key role in some of the synthetic
genome work.
So in 1975, I was just getting my Ph.D. as the first genes were being sequenced.
20 years later, I led the team to sequence the first genome of a living species and
Cam Smith was a key part of that team.
This was homophilus influenza, instead of 5,000 letters of genetic code, this was 1.8 million
letters of genetic code, or about 300 times the size of the 5x genome.
Five years later, we upped the ante 1,600 times with the first draft of the human genome
using these new whole genome shotgun.
So I don't know if you're clear about what he just said there, but I think he just said
HIV, Hib bacteria.
So he sequenced Hib, which is one of the most deadly vaccines on the childhood vaccine
schedule, at least we used to be, yeah, it's not a good thing.
And its name is an H word in the beginning and then influenza in the second word and
then B stands for something else.
Instead of 5,000 letters of genetic code, this was 1.8 million letters of genetic code,
or about 300,000 letters of genetic code, Cam Smith was a key part of that team.
This was homophilus influenza, instead of 5,000 letters of genetic code, this was 1.8 million
letters of genetic code.
I'm pretty sure that's HIV.
The size of the 5x genome.
Five years later, we upped the ante 1,600 times with the first draft of the human genome
using these new whole genome shotgun techniques, and the smaller papers, the public genome
effort size doesn't reflect its significance, only its relative significance to me.
So the human genome is about a half a million times larger than the 5x genome, so it shows
how fast things were developing.
Reading genomes has now progressed extremely rapidly, so instead of years or decades, it
now takes about two hours to sequence a human genome.
Instead of genomes per day or genomes per hour or hours per genome, we can now, in a
recently done a demonstration, sequencing 2,000 complete microbial genomes in one run,
in one hour.
So the pace is changing quite substantially.
Now, I view DNA as an analog coding molecule.
And when we sequence the DNA, we're converting that analog code into digital code.
Remember that if he's right, and 11 years ago we could sequence a human genome in two
hours, then the testing operation in the United States could have easily been a test deployment
of a mass genotyping operation.
And so depending on where these remnants went and who they were sold to, if you can sequence
a genome in two hours in 11 years ago, then I guess chances are pretty good that in about
the same time they can do those PCR reactions, they can also be amplifying a whole genome,
or using other means where you don't have to amplify the genome before you sequence it,
like, for example, nanopore.
So there's a lot of sketchy stuff going on here, and my chickens are crawling, so I'm
just going to check outside to make sure everything's okay.
It could just be an egg has been laid, I'll be right back, I'm going to push play.
The ones and zeros in the computer are very similar to the dots and dashes that Schrodinger
indicated might be the original code, and I call this process digitizing biology.
A number of scientists have drawn the analogy between computers and biology.
I take these even further, I describe DNA as the software of life, and when we activate
a synthetic genome in a cell, we call, we describe it as booting up a genome in a cell
the same way we talk about booting up a software.
June 23rd of this year was Alan Turing's, would have been his 100th birthday, and Turing
described what has become to be known as Turing machines, and the machine described a set
of instructions written on a tape.
He also described the universal Turing machine, which was a machine that could take that set
of instructions and rewrite them, and this was the original origin of the digital computer.
Now, his ideas were carried further in the 1940s by John Vandumen, as many people know,
and he conceived of the self-replicating machine.
So von Neumann's machine consisted of a series of cells, which encoded a sequence of actions
that be performed by the machine, and using a writing head, the machine can print out
a new pattern of cells, allowing it to make a complete copy of itself on the tape.
So many of people have certainly made the analogy, most recently in nature, Sydney Brenner, who
played a role in almost all these stages of early biology, wrote an article about Turing
and biology, and in this, he argued that the best examples of a Turing and von Neumann
machine is found in biology, with the self-replicating code, the internal description
of itself, and that this is the key kernel of biological theory.
So while software was pouring out of sequence of machines around the world, substantial
progress was going on describing the hardware of life, or proteins.
So in biochemistry, the first two decades of the 20th century were dominated by what was
called the colloid theory.
So life itself is explained in terms of the aggregate properties of all the colloidal
substances in an organism.
We now know that these substances are a collection of three-dimensional protein machines, each
evolved to carry out a very specific task.
Now, these proteins have been described as nature of robots, and if you think about it
for every single task in a cell, every imaginable task is described by a panford and Reynolds.
There is a unique protein to carry out that task.
It's programmed when to go on, when to go off, and it does this based on its structure.
It doesn't have consciousness.
It doesn't have a control from a mind or a higher center.
Everything a protein does is built into its linear code derived from the DNA code.
Just briefly, there's multiple protein types.
Okay, I'm going to take a big left turn here.
We're going to come back to this video.
I've got something hit me, and I don't want to miss it, and I'm going to end the video
early because this makes perfect sense to me now.
He's talking about DNA, he's talking about proteins, he's talking about how all these
spontaneous, physical and chemical processes come together and form something that we call
life, and I want to show you a video completely unrelated to this that's so close to my heart
that will give you just an insight into the kind of, I don't know what the right word
is.
Is it passion that I have, the belief that I have, reverence that I have for everything
that's alive?
Because here's where we are with this guy's lecture.
He said, protein used to be the genetic material, then DNA with the genetic code, then the
triplet code was cracked, then the tRNA structure was found, then restriction enzymes were found,
then we'd made recombinant DNA, and then we started sequencing stuff first with a 24
base pair sequence, then a viral genome, then a DNA viral genome, then this first bacteria
was sequenced by yours truly, then a whole genome using shotgun techniques to the point
where we can now, at this time in this lecture, read a genome in two hours, it's much lower
than that now.
Presumably, I guess Kevin McCurnan would tell us exactly how many minutes would take with
the cutting edge technology.
Now we're talking about molecules whose emergent properties we don't understand, whose relationship
to other molecules produces other emergent properties that we don't understand, who then
fold and are post-translationally modified in ways that we don't understand, and we
purport to understand how this multi-layered, complex pattern integrity produces life, because
we can translate some of the bases into some of the components of the next layer.
Now I'm going to show you a video that may not have anything to do with this, but I think
if you listen to how I describe the video, you will understand exactly why these people
have no idea what they're talking about and how much we stand to gain by pointing that
out, how the foundation of biology is just based on a few gross misconceptions about
fidelity and depth of understanding.
So let me see if I can find this video without too much looking, I'll just use my history,
I think that'll work the best.
Oh, I'm revealing everything I looked at in the last couple hours here, that's going
to dump.
Let me see, let's go back out of this, yeah, I can't see it, I don't know why it's not
on, this should be on this list right here already, and it's not.
So let me think, how else do I do it?
Nope, then I got to go back and go to YouTube and search for, oh, maybe I should use the
YouTube history, that's what I thought I was using, not that, there we go, dumb, dumb,
hee dee dee dee, YouTube, where is my history stuff, what's going on, why am I zoning out
like this, let's just go icky, icky TV, please look it up, see if you can find icky TV.
So what is, what are we looking at here, well we're looking at a stunt kite and the
stunt kite is actually exactly what is sitting behind me on my desk over here.
You will see behind the screen here a stunt kite.
And that is a diablist, it's a German made kite, it was one of the first of that design
to be made and that design was later sold to a French company by the name of Arsky and
they didn't use the same panel out, look, that kite won several competitions in Germany
and in the Netherlands before I got my hands on it and there's lots of people who would
love to have that kite also for the plans of the panels.
This video that we're about to watch is actually kite in the Netherlands being flown on a Dutch
beach, very recently filmed by a friend of mine named Carlo, flown by a friend of mine
named Lars and Lars is one of the best kite pilots on the planet and now what you have
to understand, this is going to be fun.
I'm excited, it makes me happy to teach this, hold on I'll be right back.
What you have to understand is that there are a few variables involved in how the kite
behaves and kite flyers who are talented are taking advantage of those variables.
Now if you look at a stunt kite and I've got one right here and I'm going to put it underneath
the thing here and so if you look at a stunt kite it's actually got a three-point bridle
that has points that grab the kite on three sides here, see the triangle there and then
there's another one over here that actually grabs on the other side and so then the kite
flyer is actually holding two strings and the strings are pulling each on a triangle
of string like this and now the interesting thing is is that the wind is blowing in this
direction right toward the kite and the kite is designed to make it fly up and so in this
case if I change this around like this the kite's going to fly up right and so it flies
in the direction of the nose because the wind is blowing this way and then the kite is designed
to have a nose and then the wind only moves in one direction so it moves through the air.
The cool thing is that these kites also have attractor states where they are very stable
facing if the wind is coming from you this is the way you would be flying the kite but the kite is
also stable in this position the kite is also stable in this position and the kite can also
rotate in these positions but if you get it the lines tangled around the end of the kite or whatever
then it's not going to fly anymore and so the trick of flying a kite is to jerk the kite in and out of
the wind and get it to settle into different attractor states and then spin around in the wind
while the wind is still moving and give it slack in the right way so that when you pull it back
into the flight position the lines are still free of the kite itself. Now what I want you to do is
watch this video and think very carefully about how your brain interprets what's going on here
because there are very few variables there is the static shape of this kite one shape in three
dimensions there is the static direction of the wind it's one direction and he's on the beach which
means it's laboratory grade wind it's going to be the same speed from the ground all the way up to
the top of the flight window and so all of the flight is going to be very smooth and the variables
will be limited because the wind is not from everywhere like it's in Pittsburgh Dutch kite flying
is the best kite flying in the universe and you can lose literally weekends with your feet in the
sand and get like emergency room level sunburn because it's so zen so watch this kite fly try to
figure out how it is that somebody with only two lines and two handles can make the kite do what
Lars makes it do and then think about the idea that we're talking about one three-dimensional
shape with two lines and a protein is a three-dimensional shape with electrostatic charge
in a electrostatic polar solvent water and it is attached to other three-dimensional magnetic
electrostatic three-dimensional shapes that are in a polar solvent called water
and we are being told that we understand how proteins fold and we understand how DNA gets
translated into proteins and to describe the physics of what Lars is doing would be pretty
complicated so how in the world can we already be so i got to slow it down sorry
that's why this music sounds a little bad
let's start it over again so you can see exactly what i'm talking about
so think very carefully now how would you describe what's happening here how do we understand this
I want you to think about a protein as a kite connected to another kite connected to another
kite and each one of the 20 amino acids has a different shape that interacts with the wind in
a different way and depending on how they are connected depending on the bridal connection
between them depending on the the sugars that are deposited on them depending on the speed that
they come through the ribosome depending on the particular kind of ribosome
the chain of kites will come out in a very different way and fly in a very different way
and have a very different effect on other proteins and we claim to be able to reasonably understand
that or we're very soon going to be able to understand it can you understand what Lars is
doing right now does it make sense to you because i assure you whatever's going on in the
simplest protein is much more complex than this the physics and the chemistry are much more complex
than the physics of this even a whole chain of these and we can understand this i have no doubt
we can understand this but trying to understand the irreducible complexity of protein folding
of protein modification and of the the the pattern integrity that is a cell never mind tissue never
mind an organism a developing baby a developing teenager my goodness ladies and gentlemen let's
let's stay focused on the physics and chemistry we can understand let's stay focused on the
phenomenon that we can harness instead of trying to convince all of our children that
they're nothing more than chemistry and physics because that's ridiculous i really believe that i
really think that's at the heart of this we have to convince our our young people that they're much
more valuable than that that they're much more precious than that that you know we need to go
back to the stage where people aren't getting tattoos where people are very interested in
whether or not should i pierce my ear or not that's where we need to go back to and i think that
that if you start to see i'll give you another example um i don't know if i can yeah i can i can
get that out of my list let me give let's see if that's a good one is that listed here
yeah okay let's do this one shall we do this one just to keep doing this to a raw egg until
it spins and then catch it to stop it and and instantly this is one of my favorite um math
teachers that i like to share with people and i'll just let's let's again just let's listen to
this and then i'll i'll end the show
once in a while you run into somebody who happens to be carrying around an inclined plane
and he produces from the recess of his toy box two jars one of them is filled with top quality
basmati rights from india and the other one is filled with top quality air from Birmingham
and they can be made to roll down this slope you can see that they roll down quite fast not
quite exactly the same way because the moment of inertia is doing something but they roll down
quite fast now what i propose to do is to investigate how the speed of descent
how fast it goes down depends on the amount of grains inside here we have a big question mark
only two data points available we know that when the jar is practically empty that's represented by
zero it's quite fast and on the other hand when the jar is practically full that's represented by
one it's also going down quite fast so how does that work well let us experiment immediately
and in order to make the contrast striking i shall leave one of the jars about two thirds full
or one third empty depending on the degree of optimism and the other one one third full
or two thirds empty so i shall do that is that is that a good amount maybe a little more
good let's begin with the two thirds full one now as far as i can imagine there are three
possibilities on there perhaps it will go down at the same speed as before between those two
points because if you remember the story and believe the story of galley dropping those two
heavy balls from the tower pizza the speed of descent didn't depend on the weight and perhaps
it's the same with grains in that case it will be the same speed no matter what and amount of sand
amount of grains i amount to rice inside so perhaps it will go down at the same speed on that hand
maybe it will go down faster or perhaps it will go down slower so let's take a vote who thinks he
to go down at the same speed as before who thinks he to go down faster than before faster faster
who thinks he could it will go down slowly than before
who's to shy to vote well let's do this okay so this is two thirds are you ready
it starts going down and it goes down very very slowly very slowly
not only does it go down slowly but there is a very interesting phenomenon going on
along what we make called the free surface the surface that's exposed between the grains and
the air there is a sort of avalanche land slide going on the sand and the rice grains are going
down just sliding down all the time and the rest of the rice on the other hand the rest of the
rice grains are sticking to the receptacle to the jar in some sense therefore if you have studied
something like fluid dynamics you can say that it's acting like viscous fluid sticky fluid
by the way you can do the same experiment with honey and if you do it with honey something
interesting happens we shall come back that in a moment okay so that was the first experiment
now let's go through the next one one third okay so he's might not get to the honey because I do
have to go to basketball in a few minutes the honey experiment if you put the honey on there the jar
won't move at all and if you come back in about a half an hour the jar will have moved and then
you come back another half an hour to have moved again and so honey is just a very extreme example
of the fluid dynamics that are shown here what I'm trying to get at
is that proteins and their production if it occurs in the way that we're told which is an RNA goes
through it goes through a ribosome and then a protein comes out some other hole that is all
occurring inside of water at the molecular scale and water behaves more like polarized magnets
the size of rice grains than it would any other you can't come up with any other analogy for it
it's water and it's water at the molecular scale which is one of the reasons why a lot of the talk
about what water does at the molecular scale is so important and why what water does at the molecular
scale around proteins and DNA and in cells is important because it is a repetitive shaped
polar molecule that can assume a crystal lattice can dissolve many things in it and so the structure
that those molecules take can be ordered or unordered and the ordered water has different
properties ordered water could be ordered around proteins and around biomolecules so trying to
understand what these biomolecules do in the context of the polar solvent of water is a very
complex system to model that we are not even coming close to modeling and I'm trying to give
you if I'm not failing an example of a system where there are many little parts that collectively
produce results that aren't intuitive to how we apply our understanding to the physical world and
nothing about how we understand the physical world of life applies at the molecular scale with
regard to protein folding protein interaction protein regulation degradation etc and so
they are grossly over exaggerating how much we understand about the link between DNA and protein
and how proteins work to produce the pattern integrity that is us are there proteins yes are
their DNA probably is their mRNA probably are there ribosomes that do that of course
but that's again like saying that there are strings on the violin there are this wood has been used
to produce it if there's a crack in the neck a violin could break but understanding how a stratovarius
is produced and made because you understand that that's the kind of wood or that that cracks a bad
sign or that the strings make the noise doesn't really tell you that you understand what a stratovarius
violin is and that's all the farther we've gotten with understanding life we are at the stage where
we can describe why a crack in the neck of the violin is a bad thing and we can understand that
the sound comes from the the strings vibrating and resonating with the body that's it that's all we
got we haven't even gotten to the stage yet where we can appreciate the idea that whatever varnish
was used on the violin could have a significant effect on its total qualities never mind thinking
about how the varnish would be made or who would have made it or why they chose the ingredients
that they did and yet they're already telling you that they know how to make the stratovarius
violin and they're going to make each one of us into one okay listen to this guy because i really
think he's fun now they have four possibilities and perhaps it'll go down faster than when he was
full or empty or perhaps it will go down faster than this but slower than when he was full or
empty so halfway between or perhaps it will be very sluggish and go down even more slowly than
this or those of you who have symmetric minds like mathematicians might say there must be some
symmetry between f and one minus f if you see what i mean so perhaps it will go down at the same speed
as this one so a little bit slow down so who thinks it would be the champion and go down very fast
faster than zero one those are the risk takers who thinks it will go down faster than this one
but slower than zero one by the way reasonable people vote for this option yeah okay and who thinks
it will go down even more slowly than what we have seen right now and who thinks it will go down
more or less at the same speed as the previous experiment so symmetry school those are the
mathematical reminded people congratulations okay so let's try to do this yeah nothing up this
are you ready
not not only does it stop completely dead but it's quite stable i mean i can push it and then
no no no i don't want to go yeah it stops completely dead which
i want you to imagine the idea how this shape imagine the idea that in protein dynamics in
genetic dynamics in the dynamics between dna and cell division in the dynamics between dna and rna
translation in the dynamics between rna translation and piece and protein folding there are non-intuitive
processes like this one that have relatively simple mathematical explanations but are nevertheless
extremely in a non-intuitive and layered on top of one another so that even if you understood
one of those layers there would be several other unknown layers on top of which all summarize and
summate to to become the pattern integrity of a protein of a cell of a tissue of an organism
now i'm not saying that we can't make a lot of progress in understanding these systems i'm
not saying that these are uncrackable questions i'm saying that right now we haven't cracked
them i'm saying that we've been talking about how we're gonna for a very long time and they've known
for a long time that we aren't gonna not without a drastic reorganization of how we think about
ourselves how we think about our kids and how we think about the sovereignty over those very
sacred bodies those very sacred beings they have to get rid of the sacred in order for them to have
any hope of cracking the irreducible complexity of life that's what this is all about i don't know
if this was a very wandering stream or not we'll go back to that vendor maybe i'll watch the video
beforehand i'm sorry that this was such a weird um break in the in the matrix there it wasn't really
my plan but i wanted to do i suddenly wanted to do the kite video for some reason i hope this and
then this one seemed like it would follow perfectly i don't know sometimes this one man show um
doesn't go quite as i plan but i've been putting a lot of work into the coming um pre-owned discussion
and so sometimes these streams will be will feel a little bit like they're on the seat of the
pants but when i get an intuition like that i feel like i got to do it so hopefully it wasn't
too bad thank you very much for joining me i'm off to basketball i might see it tonight but
i'll definitely see it tomorrow and then thursday don't forget thomas binder is joining big show big
show um and it's 3 30 if you have the link uh don't forget that i think thomas binder is actually
speaking at the medical doctors for covid ethics right now so you could catch that um
anyway thanks for joining me i'll see you guys again tomorrow
this is the micro kite there's actually a whole video about the micro kite you can find video of
me flying it and if you want to look icky tv does have a video of me flying in norway quite a long
time ago um i'm not a very good pilot anymore but at one time um i was i was really skilled
i wonder what i could do now probably most of the tricks but some of the more complicated ones
that require really perfect timing um it would require me a while to get back into it um but
actually kite flying like lars did a lot of that flying is actually pretty straightforward once you
get the hang of it i mean it doesn't take absolutely months and months of practice to learn some
of those basic tricks and keeping a kite in the air with good wind is very easy and unbelievably
relaxing you can fly circles and squares for hours and never get bored um never mind if you can land
or stand on one one tip and that kind of stuff so um one of the best ways to spend your time if
you've never done it before and have a friend uh kite flying might be the best maybe we can meet
at uh lake ery uh and fly some kite on april eighth for the the eclipse i don't know maybe you can
join us that's where we're going to be see you soon