Hey everyone, this is Dan Cohen with
Uncaptured Media and today the deception
continues. What I consider one of the
greatest deceptions in certainly the
modern era, if not American history and
who knows, maybe even human history. And
um I have one of my favorite guests to
discuss it. The great uh Jonathan Jooie
who is not nearly as well known as as he
should be. So welcome. How do how do you
prefer to be called? I call you Jay. Do
you Jonathan JJ? What do you Jay is
absolutely fine. Um the the running joke
around here now is that I'm JJ from very
beginning. But I think uh some of these
people just started doing that because
it's kind of a a belittling little name
because it's a nickname from when I was
a kid. But it's my initials. I don't
mind at all. Um and since you ask, Jay
is absolutely fine. Definitely not
Doctor. Um unless you're going to say
Dr. J in kind of a fun way.
Well, I know you are a hooper. So, um
yeah, exactly. Um okay. So, so Jay,
that's that's what I call you anyway.
So, all right. Now it's official. So Jay
Kooie, um, thanks a lot for for joining
me.
Um, so there's a lot a lot I kind of
want to unpack here, but I think the big
sort of news uh of the last week or so
is the official um
uh the the official according to the US
government now
officially the uh SARS KV2 virus that
allegedly caused a global pandemic. and
killed millions of people. According to
the Trump White House, is a lab leak.
Um, came from a lab. And we we we
discussed this on uh the last stream we
did. Um, and we'll kind of get into it,
but I think it's, you know, important to
show that on the very same day, let me
see if I can actually pull this up.
Uh
the the same day that
that website was put up by the White
House is also the same day
that the CIA released two new videos
trying to recruit agents inside
China.
So is that purely
coincidental? I don't think so. I think
from the very beginning there has been
uh an obvious political uh that that the
lab leak theory has been a cudgel. It
was it was the idea was to use it as a
cudgel to weaken China um to force
regime change in China. And all of this
is happening at the same time that Trump
is waging this uh trade war, this tariff
war that is not really going in the
favor of the United States states
predictably. So in this um um so all of
these these couple these few things at
the same time I haven't seen anybody
really put that together uh the the
broader political strategy uh and
implications let alone the um evaluating
whether a lab leak is even a real thing
which you know anybody who's watched
this channel before any of Jay your
followers certainly know your position
And I share that position though as
we've discussed in depth we come um from
actually totally different angles that
we arrived basically at the same
conclusion that uh the lab leak is a
total force. Um, so I don't know. I
mean, do you have any comment? Do you
want to say anything about um, yeah, I
mean, I I wrote something down
immediately um, that popped to mind with
regard to your reference. Um, in the
beginning of the pandemic, I believe it
was as early as January, um, a woman by
the name of Lee Minan, uh, L I M G Yan,
um, was supposedly a an outspoken, um,
viologist from, I believe, Hong Kong,
um, who was Chinese but in America, um,
and on stage with none other than Steve
Bannon. and she was on stage with a
banner that was something like the
Republican Party of China, you know,
like an opposite of the CCP, uh, against
the Communist Party. She said she was
against the Communist Party when she was
on stage and she also said that it was
a, you know, the Chinese were released a
boweapon and then she hugged Steve
Bannon like they were old friends. And
so that's really actually very relevant.
I had never heard this spin until I
heard it from you that that the whole
idea behind COVID was to have this
pretense for and and sort of you know
social economic pressures to move in
that direction. Um, but that is a very,
let me say it this way, the early
presentation by Lee Minan with Steve
Bannon on stage with her and the
specific things that she said. She the
specific things that Steve Bannon said
um, didn't make sense to me from the
perspective of why is this happening in
January and why is this dissident a
anti-communist party move? Why is she
trying to say that the Communist Party
made COVID? Like that's really weird. I
don't get it. I never got it. But now in
this context, it makes a little more
sense, right? At least it could, right?
And for I, you know, for um and that's
that's the angle even when I was very
much caught up in in uh the COVID
propaganda before it had really, you
know, gone viral, I guess, pun intended,
uh in the US in early 2020. Um I saw the
utility of this as a tool for regime
change. I don't think that's all it is,
but that's one of the key things. Um and
so uh you know that was that was very
clear to me from the start just from um
following
uh basically these attempts at color
revolutions in China, what was going on
in Hong Kong at the time where the US
was backing uh violent riots in the
streets of Hong Kong in order to
destabilize it. And then also that there
was a completely manufactured narrative
that China was uh committing genocide
against um the weaguer Muslim minority
in uh Shing Jang in in western China.
And this is a key uh point in the belt
uh belt and road initiative. So it's,
you know, China's gigantic, you know,
like worldwide e economic um development
program that the US is obviously
extremely threatened by. And so in these
kind of key places, there were these
destabilization attempts. Um when in
fact I mean um some of those weaguer
Muslims uh were um there there we
Muslims that fought in Syria on behalf
of al-Qaeda and ISIS and when the Syrian
government of Bashar al-Assad was
overthrown uh late last year um there
were many there were weaggguers
involved. So, so the so the geopolitical
point being the geopolitical um
uh use of this was quite clear to me
early on. But you know, again, you and I
come from just like very uh different
ways that we sort of arrived on a on a
very similar Would you would you
interpret this then as I mean I'm
looking at the New York Times telling us
that the CIA wants to do something. So,
I'm getting lots of red flags about
believing whatever that story is. And if
this story says the CIA is recruiting
Chinese nationals,
it's almost like that is not what's
happening, but instead they want you to
believe that that's what's happening so
that the rest of the the cloak and
dagger can go on. Um, what what is the
rest of that cloak and dagger then?
Well, I I think it's I think you're
correct to be very uh skeptical always
of outlets like the New York Times. Um I
actually have the or I had um the page
pulled up, the CIA's page pulled up
where I mean it's true that um they are
uh they did release these two new
videos. as you can see here. Um, and
they're they're in Chinese, so I don't,
you know, understand them, but I see
attempting to, you know, recruit uh
agents, and it's it's known that China
has basically wiped out um the CIA's
infrastructure. So, do you get so do you
get an email if you subscribe to that
channel or how do they actually do it?
Like, how does
uh Great question. I mean, um how like
how do you Oh, yeah. I don't know. How
do you say you're you're a Chinese
citizen who wants to work for the CIA?
What do you do once you see one of those
videos? I don't know. That's a great
question. I'm trying to put my head in
that in that. Yeah, great great
question. Um I don't know. I guess you
maybe you go to cia.gov and you know, I
don't know. There's there's some
paperwork you can fill out or some form
online. Um
but um
so then so that was that was uh last
week um right around the the beginning
of the month or the end of April. Then
um on Monday, May 5th, we saw um
President Trump uh sign a an executive
order. And that executive order, let me
see if I can pull up the clip here. The
significance is that executive order had
the words gain of function in it. And
that's really all like it's it's quite
remarkable, but go ahead. I like let's
watch it and I want to get I want to get
your reaction. Um, and yeah, I mean
there's there's so much to say here, but
yeah, I want to get your reaction more.
It's a big deal. Could have been that we
wouldn't have had the problem we had. A
a lot of people say that sir if uh we
had this done
earlier. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Many
actions that you've taken so far in this
administration sir are related uh to
onshoring manufacturing and onshoring.
Okay. So he so Trump is saying that had
uh the US government banned gain of
function research then the the supposed
pandemic would not have happened.
Um, I
mean, before I even ask you the
question, there's a couple things I want
to say. One, so he has, which we'll see
in a second, Robert Kennedy, Robert F.
Kennedy Jr., uh, who Jay, you used to
work for, you you um or you were a
researcher and writer for his book, The
Wuhan, uh, coverup. And then he also has
Jay Bacharia uh, behind him. And both of
these guys, both of these people have
been um uh appointed to high in the
Trumpetration. Um Badachari is head of
the NIH and uh Kennedy is head of HHS.
And these two figures posed or were
portrayed or portrayed themselves as
sort of dissident um during the COVID
era, the COVID event, however we want to
term it. I want to put in you up against
censorship um against um lockdowns to
some degree and they became very
popular. Now
currently the Trump administration is
supporting genocide in the Gaza Strip,
obliteration of uh millions of people.
There is mass famine. There is
starvation. There are children dying of
hunger in the Gaza Strip.
And President Trump, Secretary Kennedy,
and Secretary or I I don't know if he's
Secretary or you know, head of NIH Jay
Badacharia are in total support of that.
It's not just as if um Jay Bacharia and
Kennedy are silent about it. Kennedy
came out with this
statement amid um in on March 3 uh
saying basically that they're going to
partake in censorship that HHS is going
to partake in censorship under the guise
of protecting Jews or stopping
anti-semitism
um and as if this is some kind of public
health crisis. So to me when I look at
this I see these people as completely
fake that they don't have any actual
principles that they claim to be that
Jay Bacharia and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
claimed to be protecting children from
red food coloring um from from
um experimental uh injections uh from
viruses that escape from laboratories.
Meanwhile, they are perfectly
comfortable with
starving millions of humans to death and
censoring any American who speaks out on
it under this phony pretext of combating
anti-semitism. To me, that's I, you
know, I I can't separate those two
things. I can't compartmentalize those,
and I think a lot of people do. Um but
with that said um Jay what is you know
what what's your take on
uh gain of function research? What is
the reality of gain of function
research? Is this fact or fiction?
Um it's a fiction. Um it's a it's a very
elaborate fiction. It's a hard fiction
to describe um in a few short sentences.
Uh, but I I think it all comes down to
time horizons. And although
I I tend not to think about what's
happening in the Middle East too often
because uh I have a family and I have a
something something calling me to teach
biology and and and I just
don't selfishly I don't have a
connection to that story and I can only
believe what I see and what I see and
and hear is awful. Um, it's a story that
goes back a long time with a lot of
people having a lot more vested interest
in it than me. Um, but it is a
convenient story of uh for the people
that run this show because it's on such
a short time horizon where we're talking
about children starving now and
thousands of people being bombed now and
airports being bombed now. And so it
keeps everybody on a very short time
scale and they're unable to see this
longer the movie Sting always comes to
mind. It's a longer con that's being go
that's being done here where all the
shortterm theater is all to keep you on
a time horizon that is insufficient
enough to see the big plan. And so we we
are almost unable to see what they've
accomplished over the last 5 years
because we're so hyperfocused on this
absolute tragedy in the Middle East or
absolutely focused on uh I don't know
whatever story they're telling us in the
in you know the stabbing of that
football player or whatever came up in
the last week. It's always a new thing.
it keeps us on this very short time
horizon. We're not keeping track of all
the the scoring that they're doing
because we're always starting over. And
so, um, I really think the gain of
function is one of these things that
when it's told on that time scale and
when you think about it on that time
scale, um, it makes perfect sense. It
sounds right. All these people are using
words that make sense. You know, DNA,
RNA, pandemic, health crisis, whatever.
But at the heart of this is real nuts
and bolts biology. At the heart of this
is um a a story that has to have some
foundation in biological truth and that
it does not have. And and I think that
more than anything over the last 5 years
this has become the central sort of
pillar of my understanding. If you start
here and you really understand why gain
of function is a
mythology in the way that I do and
that's very hard. I get it. Um then you
can feel very confident that these
people have been lying about it for a
long time. I think if you want to put it
in the into a better context um and we
can even use Israel for this. Um, you
will recall and I think you're probably
very familiar with how Israel and the
prime minister advocated for Israel to
get the first doses of vaccine because
Israel could offer all of the medical
records of all of the people that got
it. And so Fizer would be able to follow
the the shot very closely and track any
side effects. And so you should use
Israel as a as as the laboratory of the
world. This is the model. This is the
model of what they want to do with the
entire world. Not just it not that was
an example of how they did it in Israel,
but there is a system in the UK which
makes that not that far away. There are
databases in like the Epic database in
America that make that not very far
away. We're building infrastructure like
that in Texas to interface AI with
medical records to make it not that far
away where pharmaceutical companies can
pay to have access to medical records
that they can use to probe to to
hypothesize and to more importantly
harvest the value of that information to
make products and to enslave our kids as
as experimental animals. Now to go all
the way back to your question, is gain
of function a mythology or is it real?
It is a mythology in the way that they
want you to believe it. The gain of
function in their mythology is that
there
are RNA sequences in the wild and
they're all over the place and the vast
majority of them are absolutely
harmless. But if they change a few bases
in one, it can be one that now can go
all around the world all by itself from
a mud puddle to all the lungs in America
and all the lungs in the world and all
the white-tailed deer and some of the
zoo animals and wherever else they look
for it. And this illusion is created by
a by a mythology. And it's the mythology
at the heart of it is molecular biology.
It's a PCR reaction. And it's it's
misuse. And one of the things that we've
established as a result of the mythology
of the pandemic is that all the
hospitals in the world are now using
products that use PCR to diagnose the
presence of something. And these are
all I would say pretty sure these are
all fraud fraudulent. Now I'm not what I
want you to understand is that on the
academic bench at a university PCR is
used with extreme precision and with
careful design and and trial and error
you can make a PCR test that can test
for the subunit of a nicotinic receptor
in a particular neuron in the brain and
that test and its controls will
complement one another to give you a
reliable signal that then you can write
papers about and claim you know you
understand all this
That's true and that's part of the
problem because the people who
understand how PCR is used and what
limitations it
[Music]
has just assumed that PCR during the
pandemic and PCR as it's used now as a
diagnostic is used in the same way and
that's absolutely not true. The kinds of
controls that any academic would use to
prove whatever they were going to prove.
The positive and negative controls are
absent in this in a in a viral test for
any of these targets for flu for
neurovirus for a particular flu subtype.
All of these claims are made on the
basis of nothing. There's no controls.
So you are made to accept the an
application of PCR all around the world.
now as being a highfidelity measurement
of a signal that would never pass the
the basic bar of what what every
academic biologist does what every
biologist that uses it in a
manufacturing setting does is optimizing
the the primers and re-checking and also
sequencing the ampl all these steps that
they would do there's list of them none
of them are done when you use PCR as a
diagnostic not from day one and not till
now. And the the point to understand
there is is that that's one of the only
things that none of these people are
questioning. They'll question the COVID
shot. They'll question the lockdowns.
They'll question whether Ivormectin or
hydroxychloricquin work, but we've all
just kind of come to accept that the PCR
works and that it finds something and
that they can, if they want to, they can
sequence the whole thing and then
compare it to other ones. And this
illusion is at the heart of the the the
the the future enslavement because you
don't need to believe that this one came
from a lab. You just need to believe
that it's possible that it could have
come from the lab and then the next one
will. That that's that's the whole once
you've accepted that as a premise, then
your children are going to grow up in a
world where they accept that as a
premise and now there's that they have
no attachment to reality anymore. I mean
it's it's really remarkable because this
discussion for the last three years now
about the contamination of the
mRNA all presupposes that the PCR works
and that it's working now and it was
working then it's still working now.
Those numbers are still being reported.
Those products are still being made.
They're still being used at every
hospital and those numbers are being
reported to the CDC. More importantly,
those remnants, those little swabs that
they put in people that those are those
are full genomes there and those are
very valuable
um they're very valuable pieces of data
that that hereto for before the pandemic
didn't exist. Hospitals weren't swabbing
everybody. Hospitals weren't having
these remnant streams, but they did have
remnant streams. In case you're not
aware, America is one of the only
countries where, you know, newborn baby
boys can be circumcised. Not for
religious reasons, but because I guess
it's cleanly or something like that. And
those are sold, those fibroblasts are
sold at the highest bidder. Same with
cesarian section placentas. Those are
extremely valuable and go at a very high
price. And that's not for nothing. So we
are in a system that was already running
on this remnant stream. And the one
thing that's left over from CO is this
remnant stream just for the human genome
project, just for sampling us. same as
what they did in Israel on a larger
scale in America. That's why they need
to have the AI so that they can match
the deidentified records with the
genome. And then once they are able to
do that with the AI now, it doesn't
matter if your your medical records are
deidentified because they can match it
back up with you using AI. That's the
main as far as I can tell. That would be
the main plan. And so if you believe
that there are rogue RNA molecules that
if they're just got that right little
tweak, we're all in trouble, um, then
you've already surrendered to a
mythology where I guess we have to swab
you again. And that also, if I can just
keep rambling and you can cut it later,
um, that also fits in very nicely with
this pivot of the vaccine schedule. It
is inevitable that they're over the next
few years they're going to admit that at
least one vaccine was bad or one one
component of vaccines is bad and we made
a mistake. But since we have this new
transfection technology, it might just
be better if we switched all these old
vaccines with these nasty adgivants,
we'll just switch them over to this new
technology that we can do better. And
this is the trick, Dan. We can do it
better than we did it for COVID. Because
when we did it for COVID, we tried to
make a lot of doses and the only way to
make a lot of doses is to make these
huge batches which can have contaminants
in them from the nature of the
manufacturing process. However, if we
went to the next generation, we would be
printing RNA and then we could just make
a vaccine for you. you come into the
doctor's office, you know, we can just
have the the machine spit out the RNA
for the shots that you need and then we
don't need an FDA anymore because then
we can give you the shots that you need
based on your genotype. And that's
personalized medicine. That's what the
human genome project always saw coming.
That's what the why the FDA needs to get
out of the way. And that's why all these
people agree on two things. This the PCR
I don't know that there's no reason to
object to that. And the FDA, boy, were
they in the way. The FDA was in the way
from the whole time. And the FDA blew it
because they're corrupt. And the FDA is
one of the reasons why we couldn't get
hydroxychloricquin and ivormectin to
everybody. And so there's two red
threads that go through all of this this
what I think is a is is a a fake health
freedom movement. They they ignore the
PCR. They and and they definitely
definitely definitely are focused
exclusively on this COVID vaccine
because it's going to be a bait and
switch. They're going to admit the old
vaccine or some old vaccine was bad and
they have to change to the new ones, but
they're going to make the new ones
better than they did for COVID. That's
absolutely the narrative that's coming.
and gain of function is this thing that
we can argue about um that has nothing
to do with getting out of their real
trap. But that's actually the that's
actually the myth that makes
intramuscular injection seemed okay. You
know, it's so scary.
So, I mean these I mean there's a lot
there's a lot to uh unpack in what you
just said in the last in the last few
minutes. Um I mean first of
all this you know you can watch any
number of podcasters or you know people
who have bought into the sort of
controlled
opposition narrative that um datam
function is this
dangerous research that you know was
going on in University of North Carolina
and then um because of regulations here
in the United States was shipped out
overseas to do in China and is
apparently being done in Ukraine in
these uh uh biolabs and and there's kind
of you know what it it feels like a
um a a dissident a subversive narrative
uh that you know we're opposing um the
the military uh industrial complex and
we're opposing the Ukraine war and we're
we're opposing um you know all all this
crazy medical experimentation that can
create these different things. And I
think if you ask your average podcaster
who who talks about this stuff, they'll
tell you, you know, well, gain of
function is um when you you know, they
stitch uh viruses together and the
furage Cleveland site and these kinds of
things.
And you know, to me, there's a level of
um dishonesty to people who kind of um
or or maybe at best naive uh a lack of
integrity sometimes with people who who
who um promote this without any hint of
skepticism
because they nor I are really qualified
that we don't have it's not even, you
know, a matter of qualification or
expertise
um but rather I would say literacy to be
able to qual to to be able to um
evaluate those statements. Is it even
possible to stitch parts of viruses
together? Is that a real thing? How
would how would any podcaster YouTuber
who doesn't have literacy in these
subjects know that? And so I think
through repetition through um this kind
of twosided
uh you know this this this u
manufactured narrative where you had you
know originally you had of course the
the natural origin narrative and then
which was made to feel like the
establishment narrative and then the lab
leak narrative which was dissident which
was subversive and you weren't you know
you were racist if you thought about
that and oh it turns out it it was
slowly accepted. It's it's all it's a
lot of it is a matter of feeling and
there's no people are not dealing with
facts. Um is is this even a real thing?
Is this even possible? Um and so there
so that becomes a way
to push in, you know, to to to ram
through uh without any opposition this
much broader and
um more uh uh what's the word I'm
looking for? Like a like a cynical
agenda um that people are not even aware
of. I really like the term I don't you
know I don't know if you're still using
this a lot but I but I heard on your
streams I mean a year or two ago
governance by mythology and what you
talked about detached from reality like
people
are
completely lost from what's actually
going on and this and this whole
discussion of you know suddenly Trump
admits it's lab leak as if that isn't
what they wanted us to think. Has anyone
ever considered that? um or you know
suddenly oh they they banned gain of
function research which I don't really
quite know what that is but I think I do
and they said it came from you know uh
uh a lab in Wuhan or a lab in North
Carolina whatever it is um it's just so
so dangerous to me and it's and it's the
it's I don't know there's there's just
not rigorous uh examination of what
we're being told and so I think the you
know what you're explaining And I know
what you've, you know, what you explain
on a daily basis on your stream at Giga
Gigahome Biological is this bigger
agenda and that's why you're able to see
um you know what's coming down the pipe,
what they're going to how they're going
to say, "Oh, this vaccine was actually
bad, so we have to replace it uh with
these mRNA vaccines and we have to uh
get rid of the FDA, which is, you know,
supposed which which the criticism, the
mainstream criticism is that it's
captured um by corporate uh by big
pharma. Um and this is a a narrative
that I I feel like is easy for people to
swallow. So
um I I honestly I think
we maybe we want
to I don't know the the bigger agenda is
an important question. Maybe we can come
back to that that question. Um, what I
want to do is actually show the I want
to show this clip of um Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. discussing
um his uh let's see um discussing his
you know his his his speech here. Good
to have you all. Uh Bobby, do you have
anything to say? We signed some
important documents having to do with
health. Anything to say, Mr.
President, a gain of function. This is
an a historic day, the end of gain of
function research funding by the federal
government and also controls by private
corporations on gain of function
studies. This was a kind of study that
was engaged in by the United States
military and intelligence
agencies beginning in 1947. By 199, the
CIA said that they had reached nuclear
equivalency, that they could kill the
entire US
population for 29 cents a person. That
year, President Nixon went to Fort
Dietrich and announced a unilateral end
to this kind of research, what they
called dual use research, research that
was for vaccination and also for
military purposes.
He then persuaded over 180 countries to
sign the bioweapons charter in
1973. That basically ended gain of
function research around the globe until
2002 or 2001 after the anthrax attacks.
We passed the Patriot Act and the
Patriot Act had a provision a little
known provision in it. That said that
although the bioweapons charter is still
is still in effect and the Geneva
Convention is still in effect, US
federal officials who violated cannot be
prosecuted and that relaunched boweapons
arms race and that was driven by gain of
function research.
In 2014, three of those bugs escaped
from US labs and President Obama
declared a moratorum on future use and
instead a lot of that research was moved
offshore to the Wuhan lab. Um we have an
launch bi weapons arms race all around
the country all around the world so that
China's engaged in it developing all
kinds of weapons using AI and crisper
technologies that are really
devastating. Russia is deeply engaged in
it. Iran and many other countries. It's
it's a kind of weapon that always has
blowback. There's always bad news. And
the justification for this kind of
weaponry was and these kind of research
was always that we have to do this to
develop vaccines to to counter a future
pandemic. In all of the history of bio
of gain of function research, we can't
point to a single good thing that's come
from it. And today I commend President
Trump for his courage and his vision in
ending US bioweapons research. And
okay so so I'll just make a couple
comments really quick in case uh you
know just some simple ones. The first
one being that gain of function research
um as a loosely defined term is already
it just doesn't make any sense to ban
it. Um, it's like that would be like
saying you're going to ban enthusiasm
about sports. Um, I I don't really know
how you would do that. I don't know how
to define it. And gain of function is
something very strange. It's almost
like, you know, you have to throw away
all the clothes that say I do gain of
function research. um and throw all
those away and then you can do it
because we have vaccines now that they
claim are selfreplicating RNAs which
from a
biologically like just from the brass
tax of the biology of that statement
that is exactly the same as what an RNA
virus is. It is a self-replicating
supposedly RNA molecule. You can spill
it somewhere and come back in a few
hours and there'll be lots more of it.
And so if a virus is that, but we're
allowed to make vaccines that are also
apparently that, then it the idea of
banning gain of function is just silly.
And so is it it's banning funding? Is it
banning the public funding of it? So it
has to be private. And the whole concept
of it is just absurd because if we go
back to somebody like a guy who's
directly behind directly behind Robert
F. Kennedy Jr., He's on the back of the
book, Robert Malone. Um, if you go to
Robert Malone and listen to anything
that he's said over the last four years,
gain of function research is already a
cat that's out of the bag because all of
these sequences are publicly available
and anybody can order the sequences
online and anybody with a bachelor's
degree in molecular biology can do the
mini prep. That's the little experiment
or the little methodology commercial
version of it that would stitch these
DNA together using restriction enzyme
cutting and and uh DNA I mean uh DNA
liase. So it's a it's a according to
Robert Malone one of the adviserss of
the health and human services secretary
gain of function is to the point where
everything is so cheap that you could
just get the equipment on eBay and if
you had the requisite knowledge of an
undergrad you can do it. So then how are
you going to ban it? And and so it's
just this elaborate theater that started
all the way back in 2020 about the
possibility that a gain of function
virus might be going faster than
anything we've ever seen before. the
most contagious virus ever because of
four amino acids. 19 bases were
different like and this expanded into
some other not you know there were some
HIV inserts or it had some homology to
staflo stafllocin and terattoxin B or
something like that like all of these
stories about things that were put in
even amalloid protein or or amaloid
generating proteins or pron proteins all
of these stories were seated as early as
February March April of 2020 in the
background of the internet and now are
slowly percolating to the top and you
have people like Steve Kersh promoting
people talking about the spike protein
generating amaloid and this whole story
is to make sure that everybody never
comes to the conclusion that
intramuscular injection is just dumb and
transfecting people putting RNA inside
of them to make a protein show up where
it shouldn't be is a terrible idea. It's
not medicine. It's a crime. and they
need you to believe that it worked kind
of sort of and even these people behind
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are there
specifically to make sure that you never
come to the conclusion that it didn't
work. It was just flawed a technology
that could be improved and that is their
plan. Um I left myself somewhere. I
don't remember where I was but I'm it's
really it's a really important time
right now to be able to understand how
much of a theater this is. I I say that
as somebody who at some point while I
was writing this book, I thought I was
helping to save like humanity. And then
I got deeper and deeper into it and it
suddenly dawned on me that the biology
that I understood and the biology that
I'd come to be an expert in didn't it
was in congruent with this idea that you
could make an RNA molecule with
properties that would endow it with
magical powers. essentially just it's
there forever. It it and and maybe your
maybe your listeners should think of it
a bit like paint. Um and it doesn't
matter what you do to paint. Um you
can't make paint so good that it will
just you can spill it and it'll just
spread over the earth. you know, like
it's so such a fine paint and it's so
easy to spread because we we altered it
so chemically that if we spill just a
little bit over here, it's enough. It's
just the whole every house is pink. Um,
and and that's really the biological
equivalent to the tale that they tell
that if if you go and swab the wrong bat
and then bring it back to your your lab,
you know, that could result in a in a in
a catastrophic spread of this single
sequence. And that is just there's no
there's no bas basis for that in any
book. That it's that's just like saying
that yeah, you can make a chemical
because that's what RNA is. You can make
a chemical and it will spread everywhere
all by itself because it's such a good
chemical. It's just ridiculous. Now,
topple this, couple this with the fact
that RNA has a cousin and that cousin is
DNA. And DNA for the last hundred years
or so has been anticipated. And then
when it was found, it was lauded as the
the sort of irrefutable proof that we
know how things are inherited and we now
have proof that evolution is real. And
so biology 101 is based on the discovery
of DNA. And why is DNA so cool? Well,
because it's so chemically stable. It's
like a biological molecule that's like
chemically stable. Because it's it's
like bound to itself in this beautiful
helix. And the the code is encoded on
both sides. So even when you make
errors, you can check the errors and you
can copy it and you can copy it
perfectly. And so all of these beautiful
chemicals, you know, chemical symphony
and and and interesting chemical
consequences of DNA that result in
everybody just being taught that
evolution is real and that's that's the
way it is. You're just a product of your
genes. Like Mendele said, this is all
based on the chemical properties of DNA
being almost magical. The double helix
is beautiful. The the the way that the
the code is is is in duplicate and and
and mirror image means that you can make
copies at very high fidelity even to
billions of bases. Well, guess what? RNA
has none of this. And yet it it has been
given the same properties essentially in
this story because you don't need very
much of it and it can go all it's still
going all over and and only because they
put the right pieces
together. And they've never told us this
story about DNA ever even though DNA is
the molecule that has all these special
properties that make evolution possible.
Not RNA but RNA is evolving. The human
genome project former research and
development director Kevin Mccernin is
telling us that you know there's 20
million sequences of corona virus that
says it's evolving. It's just evolving
even though RNA has none of the magical
properties that DNA does and supposedly
DNA is how we evolved. So this this is
the 30,000 foot picture of that biology
and this gain of function all takes
place with RNA. That's just ridiculous.
Well, I want, you know, I should have
pointed out I said I said this in the
last um the last interview we did, but I
think it's, you know, before I asked you
to comment on the on um Secretary
Kennedy's uh speech
there, my listeners, viewers should know
that
um that his book, The Wuhan Coverup, uh
which here you see, um which was
released in December 2023,
that Jonathan J. Kuey is listed as the
first person. This book would not have
been possible without the expertise and
invaluable insights provided by Jonathan
J. Kooi listed as the first person
without Okay, so that's who we're so
that's who we're talking to. So this is
um uh so Secretary Kennedy apparently
thought that Jonathan J. Kuy was a very
important voice. Um,
and you know, we we got into it last
time about how that uh relationship um
didn't work out when you came to him
with uh basically to explain um that the
lab leak theory and just the idea of an
RNA uh creating a pandemic was
biologically impossible as you were just
kind of touching on there. Um but I want
people to to to understand who who we're
we're talking to here. Um okay. Okay.
So, I want to show uh also I know you've
had interactions with Jay Baracharia who
uh is now the head of the NIH. Um Jay
Baracharia
uh
first he was a a um uh professor an
epidemiologist I believe at Stanford
University and he really a healthy
health economist. I mean he says
epidemiologist but really it's like
health economist. It's interesting.
Okay. So he became um
uh famous for for being one of the uh
main figures uh behind the Great
Barington Declaration which uh came out
in I think October of
2020. And the idea was that
um broad lockdowns should not uh should
not have been imposed but rather um
targeted lockdowns, what they called
focus protection should have been uh the
policy to stop this um supposed spread
and uh of of this virus and and the
pandemic. Um and the idea was that the
elderly, the immuno compromised should
be locked away from society while the
rest of uh healthy normal life goes on
and achieves herd immunity. That was uh
the idea. Um, and so, uh, this was, so
it was still pro-lockdown, but it was,
um, an an isolating grandma, so they
could basically,
uh, rot her mind. And as they did to my
grandmother in Pittsburgh, which we've
talked about on the last stream, how
they basically, uh,
um, cut off the the end of her life um,
by isolating her. Jay Bacharia was
totally in favor of doing that, but he
thought um the the Great Barington
Declaration should only be applied to
again elderly, infirm uh immuno
compromised, what he what they called
the vulnerable. Um so now Jay Bacharia
uh is the head of the NIH and here um is
his speech uh his his his remarks um
when Trump signed this executive order.
Did he have remarks too? Oh my gosh, I
missed those. Okay, go ahead. Oh yeah,
there you go. I can't wait. Talk a
little bit about Yeah. Okay, pause it
for a second. You should you should pay
close attention. Um, he gets caught so
often. It's so weird. He gets caught so
often in interviews reaching for a
handshake that never comes. He just did
he just do that? Yeah, that was really
funny. Let's watch
the shake his hand, but he didn't. US
bioweapons research and Jay, I'd love
you to talk a little bit about Yeah. J
this is this is a historic day. the uh
the conduct of this dangerous gain of
function research which aims at taking
pathogens and making them more virilent
more transmissible in humans uh many
scientists believe is responsible for
the co pandemic. Many I'm just going to
pause. Many scientists believe again
they will never say it absolutely is or
we can prove it is. They will say we
really think a lot of a lot of
scientists think it is. Okay, I'm going
to continue. Go I'll pull it. Um the uh
the conduct of this research does not
protect us against pandemics as some
people might say. It doesn't protect us
against other other nations. Uh what it
what it does is it there's always a
danger that in doing this research it
might leak out just by accident even um
and cause a pandemic. Any nation that
engages in this research endangers their
own population as well. Okay, pause it.
Pause it. Pause it. That's very
important because you know the story
that is now ramping up around the world
including not just in China but also in
the UK and in the rest of Europe is that
America is ultimately responsible and
that it came out of Fort Dietrich. So
he's saying now that any country that
does it and any country should be and so
he's setting up America to be blamed.
He's setting up for a consensus around
the world that actually it wasn't the
Chinese at all because even if the
Chinese did it, it wasn't their fault
because America made them do it. And so
this is coming and I think that that is
one of the main I've been saying it for
a couple years, three years. It's the
controlled demolition of America and and
they're all in on it. It's not it's it's
scary to me because this is really
exactly what I would have expected him
to say if he was going to set up this
narrative where oh I guess it was us
even though he's first of course going
to go on Fox News and tell conservative
America it was definitely China but in a
year it could definitely be America and
it wouldn't surprise me at all if these
two guys are the ones who say it. Even
Trump could say it.
My sense is that they were is that it's
it's going to be a pretext for uh
aggression against other like like
Kenned against other countries like
Kennedy said China, Russia and Iran. He
listed the three countries that you know
the neoonservatives which Kennedy rails
against that those countries are still
doing it. Um, you know, notice what
about what about the biolabs in Ukraine
that that our that our director of
national intelligence is supposedly
collaborating with Jay Bacharia to
investigate? Where's that where's that
little nugget going to go? Like that's
going to work against America, too,
right? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you you might
you you might be right. I mean, at least
I see, you know, Kennedy listed out the
official enemies, the the the
government's official enemies. Um, and
so at least how I interpret it is
they're like, well, we've stopped. They
said no more federal funding, federal
funding for gain of function. Um, okay.
So, the so they're going to say the US
government is no longer involved in
this. Um, but China didn't ban it. um
and Russia and Iran and you know these
countries that are are adversaries
suddenly you know those guys are still
doing it and then the anti-war left that
would normally be you know against um a
uh ramping up aggression against these
countries is totally in on the narrative
because they're like lab leak is real
gain of function is real and they've
they've sacrificed that ground. Um I'm I
don't know what
you're what you're saying is is
interesting that it could be used to
basically target at home that it could
be used for more controlled demolition
of the United States. Um but if they're
saying that they've banned it, how would
then how would they blame it on the US
then? No, I mean they're going to blame
CO on the US. the the COVID is still,
you know, we're still the jury's out
right now. And and it's very convenient
that Donald Trump put up a a White House
website that says it was definitely
China and China is now saying it was
definitely us and oh yeah, you guys had
lab leaks in in US Amir when we did have
lab leaks and you guys had this this
vape uh cotton candy lung thing and that
also was in America and that's also
true. And so this this narrative was
seated in 2020 also in America. Certain
Americans knew that there was a leak,
three different leaks in in in a in a
summer in 2019 in uh they had an air
facility like collapse or something like
that at at US Emirate. And even Robert
Malone joked about it with Steven
Hatfield on the Tommy podcast in 2022.
Like they all knew that this was going
to be part of the narrative. And now
it's just a question of what will the
world decide? And of course their
control over social media. They're going
to demonstrate the power of social media
by making the world decide against
America. That's my that's the script
I've seen coming for a while in my
imagination that this is a controlled
demolition of America, but from the
perspective of the rest of the world. We
have to fall like precipitously in the
in the eyes of the rest of the world so
that we fall precipitously in our own
eyes. And we're being shown that image
exclusively on social media. All of the
stories are about that. And that's why
honestly, Dan, I think why Israel is
going so hard in the paint right now,
excuse the pun, because they are the
anchor that that the United States is
Israel. they're going to get tied to,
blamed for, and that's also why Kennedy
and Trump and all this stuff is all it's
all perfectly meshing together to to tie
us with COVID, to tie us with
bioweapons, to tie us with terrorism, to
tie us with Israel, and oh my gosh, I'm
so ashamed to be American. Screw it. I
don't want America anymore. Well, to
your point, I want to come back I want
to come back to the uh to the Bacharia
statement. That's why I have this jacket
on, team USA and USA basketball because
I don't want that. I don't want I want
Americans to realize that we can we can
together reject this. It's it both sides
need to awaken that this is a this is an
elaborate theater. Unfortunately, yes,
the conservative side of America right
now has fallen for the worst part of the
theater, but this the theater on the
other side is no less bad. They just
are. It's just it's awful where we are,
right? And I will say on the
anti-imperialist left, there is a sort
of uh a broad
um and not and and this is not everyone,
but there are many people who think that
um America is irredeemably evil and a
settler country that um is just has to
be uh done away with and all the the
land has to be given back to the natives
and and all this stuff. And this is just
like um basically as I see you know grad
school nonsense. Um this is you know in
Canada like you know in Canada they
start like speeches like that that you
know Dan I'm joining you from
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which is
actually I'm standing on the ground. It
used to belong to somebody else and so I
want to say sorry for that before I talk
to you. It's like holy right. People say
Turtle Island. Yeah. Turtle Island is is
North America. I don't you know I don't
know which which native tribe used to
apparently use that even though of
course that would be the English
translation but um but yeah as if you
know like that's some realistic thing
and I mean
whereas you know Palestine is currently
being you know if we were in the middle
of a genocide of the Native Americans um
then we'd be in a different Oh my gosh.
What's that? You know what I just
realized? One of my favorite heroes in
biology right now is is Joshua Lerberg.
And I'm reading this book about Joshua
Lerberg. And he's like one of the
smartest Americans that ever lived. You
probably never even heard of him. And he
actually You talk about him. Okay. He
actually I read this yesterday because I
started reading it again. I I read it
once from the middle to the end and
never read the beginning. But he came um
originally from Palestine. like they
Joshua is the first of three sons born
to Esther and Zebie Lerberg, an Orthodox
rabbi, both natives of Yafo, Palestine.
That's what it says in his I mean, so
it's just kind of remarkable that the
guy that I
think understood the biology as I
understood it and tried desperately to
not help the American government go in
the direction that they went. That's one
of the reasons why Joshua Ladderberg,
despite being part of the 9/11
Commission and all these other very
important jobs um and a Nobel Prize
winner at 30, nobody ever talks about
him. He's like one of the most amazing
Americans in recent history that was
actually alive when we were alive and
nobody talks about him. And the main
reason is because his biology is part of
the biology that helped me dispel this
this pandemic narrative. Joshua Lerberg
is the shisel. He's like a He's like a
Ben Franklin of biology. Okay. And he's
from Palestine, which is kind of cool in
a in a in a very twisted sort of way if
you think about it about what we're
doing over there now and who's what kids
we might be killing, right? Yeah. I I'll
have to I'll have to look into uh that
that history. Um and I Yeah, very
interesting. Mark Kulak could help you
with that. Okay. So to look to your
point Jay about the narrative being
rolled out that I mean it's it's at the
same time that Kennedy is saying Russia,
China and Iran, you know, the same
countries that John Bolton um wants and
Benjamin Netanyahu want to obliterate.
Um to your point, Jeffrey Sachs, who I
know uh you you've talked a lot about.
Um I just did a show today. Okay.
There's a clip. There's a clip going
around of Let me show you this clip. I
don't know if you saw this. Of Jeffrey
Sachs. Watch this.
Oh, yeah. This one's great. Play it. Is
it not playing? And I have to admit what
I'm about to tell you is only 99% sure.
But in other words, I don't have any
proof. I don't have any actual any real
evidence. Sorry. My view based on very
extensive work over the last four and a
half years is that
CO came from the University of North
Carolina, which is the leading
researcher on beta corona viruses,
working with the US government on a set
of grant proposals that
identified by putting in the viral
change that created SARS cove 2. It's a
grim truth. It's ugly. It's been hidden
from view. The reason I mention it in
this context is we don't have any global
governance that is effective right now
to control the manipulation of dangerous
pathogens like the manipulation that
created the pandemic. And when it
happened and officially it took seven
million deaths, but probably if you
count all of the deaths associated with
COVID, it was probably closer to 20
million deaths. Even when that happens,
it's never properly investigated. It's
covered up. It's hidden from view. This
is a big claim. It's the first time that
I hear it. Can you tell us a bit more
about this? how and why and
uh all right go ahead I'll let you I'll
let you well I mean this is this is the
heart of it right and so I think the way
the best way that I can illustrate that
this is a lie is that the former human
genome project research and development
director Kevin McCernan who has been on
a children's health defense podcast a
few times um spoke in front of the
Senate um in front of Senator Ron
Johnson associated with Robert Malone
and and a lot of these other people that
are all behind Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Um,
this book also tells that story. In
2022, Jeffrey Saxs was on the Defender
podcast with Bobby and told the same
story to him. Then, um, this narrative
has been seated from the very beginning
um, with the idea of Robert F. Kennedy
Jr. being as close to the White House if
not in it um to reveal this truth to the
world and to be this being the sort of
starting point of the controlled
demolition of America. I'm absolutely
sure of it. And this Jeffrey Saxs guy um
was on a Charlie Rose broadcast in 2007
with uh Peter Hotz talking about the the
need for public health and the spreading
of disease and the need for widespread
vaccination and and a lot of other
things that of course in 2007 didn't
make much sense to us but now make
perfect sense that that they had all
along had been seeding this narrative
that intramuscular injection is great.
It's a great way to deliver medicine and
we save a lot of people in the third
world by doing it. We just swoop in with
with airplanes full of needles and
everybody's fine. And this is a
disaster. Um it really is it's a
disaster because the bottom line is the
US vaccine schedule has been a criminal
enterprise since the early 80s. It's
always been an illusion. um that I mean
I can say I can say about you know about
Peter Hotz who um is kind of seen as a
as a villain now uh among the sort of
controlled opposition
uh you know I don't know if we can call
them that the
COVID disscent controlled opposition um
the this controlled dissident movement
rather um he he'sen as as sort of a a
villain because well in part um because
of my work if uh about a year and a half
ago or so I did an invest a two-part
investigation for redacted where I
showed his entire career um has been
funded by Fizer and big pharma and he
was basically he he got a start um in
the Rockefeller Foundation and he took
up this uh Rockefeller project of um
treating what he called neglected
tropical diseases and he'd basically
just you know go to third world
countries wherever he could and and
tried to develop drugs for um malades
that uh were basically a result of lack
of sanitation um and lack of clean water
and these kinds of things. But instead
of, you know, addressing these issues,
he would get um huge amounts of uh Gates
money, Bill Gates, Rockefeller, and uh
eventually US government money to
develop drugs. So, um, and he even did
this in in, um, coordination with the US
military when, uh, there was this, uh,
supposed Ebola outbreak in, um, where in
West Africa, uh, in 2015 or so, um,
under the Obama administration and he
basically praised the Obama
administration for sending the military
to uh, conduct these medical
experiments. Uh, and you know, this is
this is all in my piece. And then during
the COVID era, I mean it became kind of
a joke where um I mean I I put this
together where I showed Peter Hotz first
saying that these uh co vaccines or um
are dangerous and then saying that uh
you have to take two and then you should
take three and get another booster and
another booster and then he just said
just keep getting boosters. So, I mean,
it was just absurd watching the guy just
lie and lie and lie and lie. And what
you're saying
is almost 20 years ago, he this guy
Peter Hotz, who was known as who's just
known as a clown among the co the the
controlled dissident movement, was uh
working closely with Jeffrey Sachs,
who's now seen as some kind of prophet
who who's revealing these huge truths.
It's incredible. Yeah. And not only
that, but Peter Hotes's most most
frequent co-author is um Sonia Sachs,
the uh wife of Jeffrey Sachs, and she
runs like sustainable development and
stuff like that. So, she she's also at
Colombia. And so, his most frequent
co-author is his wife, which is, you
know, it's not these are not these are
not coincidences. These are people that
have been in place for a long time
pushing this narrative. Um and and it is
I I do believe that there are a lot of
people who have naively accepted it over
their career in the bureaucracy and so
we have a big big problem because there
is a possibility that people could learn
the biology and understand it but but
there's a lot of work to do. Um yeah I
mean
it's you know George Carlin said it's a
big club and you ain't in it right. It's
it's just like these these people who
appear to be
um rivals or enemies or on separate you
know totally opposite sides are actually
have been working together for you know
many many years. It's it's kind of
remarkable. Um, and it it says
everything about the kind of lack of uh
journalistic rigor that no one outside
of, you know, a a very tiny few people
um yourself and and uh Mark Kulak are
are going after this stuff. I mean, I'm
sure there's, you know, I know you have
a um there are a few other people maybe
who are doing this, but but you know, I
give you guys a huge amount of credit.
Um, let me I want to continue playing
that J Bacharia clip. We got sort of we
got sort of Yeah, go ahead. Um, and I
want to get, you know, and I Yeah. Okay.
Sorry, I'm not Am I No, I'm not sharing
it, am I? Oh, I don't have it. That's
why. There you go.
Okay. Um and cause of pandemic. Any
nation that engages in this research
endangers their own population as well
as the world as we saw during the COVID
pandemic. Uh this proclamation makes it
so that uh mo most science is actually
uh has no poses no threat to human
populations. The vast majority of
science will go on under this as normal.
the the the fraction of this research
that has the risk of causing a pandemic
harming every single person on the face
of the earth. We're going to put it this
this proclamation this this uh executive
order puts in place a framework to make
sure that the public has a say that if
that such a risk is being taken that
that only science alone won't be able to
decide that that in fact the public can
say no don't take this risk and I'm
really really proud to be here with
President Trump who's signed this order
ending this research and for the first
time putting in place a real regular
framework to make it go away forever.
It's very frustrating for me to hear
that for the simple fact that I've had a
drink in my hand multiple times while
I've been explaining it in person to Jay
Bacharia before he was appointed before
I apparently he ever dreamed of being
appointed and I've met him at least
three times during the pandemic in
person where we've discussed my work and
he's told me he thinks it's great but
can't really evaluate all of it. Um, and
I've tried hard in person to explain to
him the basics of it. And I think I'm
pretty good at it. Uh, but for whatever
reason, um, this guy is just 100% dead
on balls narrative right now. And he's
going on on Dr. Phil and or sorry, Dr.
Drew and and Blaze TV and just doing
whatever saying whatever he's told to
say. And he's actually not even very
good at it, which is kind of
frightening. Um, sometimes I think he's
he's adlibbing and improvising and the
and the people behind the scenes are
like, "Okay, Jay, stop now. Jay, Jay,
stop talking now. Give it back to Trump,
Jay." Because it's it that's how it
really feels to me. I know that he
doesn't understand the the deep ideas
that he claims to be, you know, speaking
out against right now. I know he doesn't
because I've I've talked to him and
that's what frustrates me. I know that
Bobby has heard me explain it well. So
well that he had me on the Defender
podcast with Robert Malone, Mel Nass,
Jessica Rose, and Tess Lori to to try
and refute it. I gave me seven minutes
when it was supposed to be an hour. This
is all one very scary and malevolent
show. And I I don't blame Bobby. I think
Bobby is like a Truman Show victim. But
I do know that there are people behind
him who we can blame for sustaining this
this illusion. And it's all because
intramuscular injection is not a good
idea and they really need our kids to
believe it is just in certain ways and
sometimes we made a mistake or you know
adgivants are bad or whatever they're
going to tell them. We've got to save
our kids. Let me ask Wait. So I just I
want to clarify.
You've sat with Jay Bacharia who is now
the director of the National Institute
of Health and explained to him your
position that there was no pandemic that
it's biologically impossible that the
mRNA so-called vaccines are actually
something called transfection which is
should not be used on humans and what
exactly did he tell you he is
incapable of of understanding or
evaluating.
Uh it was not he wasn't really specific.
Um you know I do a lot of the talking
when I'm in a situation like that and uh
when I ask them questions they usually
say no I don't know explain it to me.
Um, and so sometimes, you know, I got to
say, I don't know if I met Jay
Badacharia because they thought they
needed him to hear me before he could do
this job or they needed him to find out
what the my my explanation would be and
then report back to them or, you know, a
lot of the times I feel like um I don't
feel like that with you, but I felt like
that with some interviews where people
are really just they want me to talk and
they want to ask all these questions,
but then they're not going really
release the interview anywhere or
they're not going to promote it because
they're just going to send it on to to
these people who I think are I mean I
know this sounds extremely egoistic but
but I don't think there are very many
people that made it as far as I made it
where first I was at a university
medical school as a faculty member and I
got fired because I spoke out because I
thought it was a lab leak and then I had
enough integrity to keep learning
biology until I convinced myself that a
lab leak wasn't possible and I tried to
teach that to a guy that I thought was a
hero at the time named Robert F. Kennedy
Jr. and I failed and instead the book
came out with me in it and he got to HHS
secretary and another guy that I've had
barbecues with is at NIH and they're all
acting as if they've never met me, never
learned anything from me, never heard
anything from me and shouldn't at least,
I don't know, be a subscriber to my
stream and give me $10 a month. Come on.
I mean, this is it's crazy to me because
if I'm right that RNA cannot pandemic,
it's the most important idea to teach
your kids. If I'm right and
intramuscular injection is just dumb,
it's not medicine, then we should be
very very adamant that talking about
safe vaccines or safe mandates or free
speech on on health issues is all
nonsense. And these people have been
doing that for 15 years. The fake
antibax movement has been around for a
long time and they've never made any
progress to understanding that viology
is a massive illusion that that PCR
would be none of these things have
happened. They've stuck exclusively to
the same narrative. I I bet you with
dollars to donuts that you could
identify a narrative in Israel that has
been kind of stuck to and never they
never make any freaking progress from
it. It's this, you know, this idea comes
back every 5 years, this argument comes
back every 5 years, there's a new
influencer making this dumb argument.
And that that happens in certain parts
of public health. And one of them is
where it happens is with RNA viology.
It's just a neverending loop where the
more complicated the story gets, the
more complicated the history of the land
is, the harder it is to come to any
conclusion. And it's all an elaborate,
it's just awful theater.
I mean, I just want to I want to I want
to focus on just this the simple fact
that the
director the the man who's been
appointed as the director of the NIH
who's overseeing
where fund what funding uh what projects
what medical research projects get money
all over the United States and
universities, hospitals whatever
settings is incapable said he was not
capable of understanding what you were
telling him. I mean to me that's like uh
first of all I don't think that he's in
charge of very much otherwise he
wouldn't have be on Blaze TV and doing
allong hour podcast with Dr. Drew. I
don't think he's in charge of anything
any more than the mouse at at
Chuck-E-Cheese is in charge of anything.
But you're definitely right. He is
definitely on narrative and and and it
it's it's it's alarming, but but we're
supposed to we're supposed to focus on
Jay and we're supposed to focus on Bobby
because then we're not focused on Marty
McCarti and the FDA and we're not
focused on any of the the stuff that the
CDC director is doing who is an AI
expert. Um it's it's just it's a
remarkable show and they can get us to
jump and turn and face and you know
scream and yell. It's like Simon says
and and this gain of function thing. I
mean, I saw this coming five years ago.
Uh, and I've been calling gain of
function a mythology for almost 5 years
now, and I'm very proud of it. Um, it's
a it's it's got to be. It's it's
absolutely got to be. And the same I I
see I feel the same with intramuscular
injection. The biology
um does not support it. And in fact, all
that I understand about our biology
suggests that that would be one of the
worst ways to administer a substance you
intended to be medicine. Um, and so for
me, it's just a if everybody agrees on
this, whether they know it or not,
whether they're witting or unwitting, if
everybody agrees on it, it's very hard
for people to see the truth. even if
they hear it from me, even if they hear
it from you in a completely different
angle, it's still very hard for them to
see the truth because everybody around
us behind us on social media has a
different opinion about it and they
agree much more than us. And so the
illusion of consensus is what I'm always
saying and it's real because you know
Jay Bodacharia actually started a
freaking blog called the illusion of
consensus which I think essentially
stole that from me and he started it
with a Canadian kid that was first
promoted by Brett Weinstein which is so
bizarre. Why wouldn't he start a podcast
with me or with somebody from Stanford?
like it's h I don't know how to say it
any other way, but there's a lot of
people that are working against America
in Canada as well. Um it's a really
weird web that these people have woven.
Um it's really remarkable.
Uh I don't know how what I was saying
there, but yes, Jay Jay Bachari and uh
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., they're both in
my phone. Um I could text both of them
right now. Uh that's that's the reality
of this. It's frustrating.
Yeah. I mean, it's it's it's um so
remarkable to me that um I mean, it's,
you know, I think the Chuck-E-Cheese
comparison is analogy is is not only
hilarious, but pretty spot-on. And it's
not even trying to be insulting. It's
just
like this guy is up there
obviously has been put in place
obviously does not have the expertise or
literacy to be able to understand these
issues at the highest level um at the at
the requisite level at the necessary
level to be able to uh serve the
American people not to do the job he's
appointed to but to do the job that he
should do. Um, and you know, you're kind
of living proof of that, which is, you
know, one of the reasons I like talking
to you, um, and interviewing you so
much. I feel I feel a little bit like
I'm the guy who's seen the UFO, so, you
know, it's like a I'm a I'm a bit of a
carnival carnival attraction, but that's
okay. I I'm better than nothing at this
stage. So, um, if it gets the word out a
little bit, it gets a few more
followers, that would be great.
Well, I mean, I'd like to, you know, you
deserve more credit than that than a
than a carnival attraction. I mean, like
I I mean, I I said in the last stream
when I, you know, basically through my
research, just looking at how the lab
leak versus natural origin narrative had
been shaped by the national security
state. And again, I think I, you know, I
showed this um uh on the on the last
stream, but this is such a perfect
example.
Um I mean, and this is one tiny aspect
of it. COVID con. This is from the Oslo
Freedom Forum, which is the it's like
the it's like the La Palooa or or it's
like the the Woodstock of regime change
agents every year that they do. And they
said, and here we go. But, you know, the
the uh Chinese government, the the CCP,
the Chinese Communist Party is behind
this. Here you see the the PLA, the
People's Liberation Army officer with a
virus as a head. Um, how tyranny works.
Do you know who Michael Sanger is?
Michael Sanger had a book all about the
Chinese did it. So, Michael Sanger is
also a guy who doesn't really promote me
even though he promoted me when I said
it was probably a lab leak. And then as
soon as I decided it wasn't a lab leak,
now I'm not promoted anymore and I'm not
used to talking. He's an interesting
character. I don't think he's a straight
shooter, but it's all good. Yeah. Well,
I mean, it's, you know, there are so
many of these figures. That's one of the
things I noticed is that there are so
many um anti-China hawks that were so
heavily that that promoted the lab leak
narrative so so heavily especially early
on before it kind of you know became the
mainstream narrative. But you know for
anybody any like anti-imperialist who
actually followed these kinds of things
this is just the most in-your-face
blatant obvious example. Um and this has
been removed. This is on the the way
back machine. This is no longer, you
know, visible to you can't find this
elsewhere. Um, you know,
so it just shows I mean, okay,
here's these are Casper. That's hilar.
Exactly. These are a who's who of the
regime change agents that are on the
payroll of the US government that are
funded by the National Endowment for
Democracy which is funded by the US
Congress and Applebomb who is a British
spy. She was caught. Okay, she's a
British spy. Um um I mean there are so
many of them. Joshua Wong who uh who
glowingly talked about burning people
alive in Hong Kong. Um uh I mean there's
so many Yep. Yep. So that is where this
really started. Um and I mean where do
we put where do we put Jeffrey Sachs?
Because I kind of see him as a very
pro-China guy. He doesn't fit with
regime change or can he just slide in
there when he needs to.
I guess he could slide in there. It's
it's f you know Sax is an interesting
character. I mean, I haven't examined
him closely, but he seems to me I mean,
okay, what I know about Jeffrey Sachs is
he came from uh he was involved with the
after the collapse with the with what
they call shock therapy, neoliberal
reforms um in the collapse of the Soviet
Union. So basically when these gigantic
stateowned industries were um privatized
and so basically this what what kept the
population alive. the industries that
kept the population alive and thriving
were suddenly privatized and and shock
therapy was basically um cutting you
know it it drastically reduced um income
and quality of life and you know people
starved in the in the in the after the
collapse and he was one of the engineers
of this as I understand it he has said
he wasn't directly involved in this but
um you know that's something I have to I
have to examine
Um he's also interesting how he's also
the most frequent speaker at the Vatican
from America.
Yeah. Okay. Another interesting angle.
Um I think there's you know he's been at
least publicly he's become sort of a um
I would say uh in the last few years not
well of course he's become very very uh
well known for promoting lab leak theory
which is which is a total which is total
nonsense as you know you and I have
talked about extensively. Um he was on
uh the Lancet commission. Um I have no
idea what qualifications. I guess he's
an economist by training.
So today my show was the defender
podcast where um Jeffrey Saxs explains
his role on the Lancet Commission to
Bobby Kennedy in 2022 and talks about
the fear and cleavage site and about how
he used to think it was natural, but
because Desack lied to him so much, I
think it's a lab leak. It was
remarkable, dude. If you listen to it,
he's laughing half the time talking
about the 20 million people that were
killed by a lab leak. It's so scary. And
in the the context of today, this video
will floor you. I mean, really, it'll
floor you. Okay, I'll have to I'll check
that out. But I mean the other you know
in the in the last few years of the of
the um Russia Ukraine war he's become a
big kind of critic of US involvement
with Ukraine which to me he's kind of
like the enlightened imperialist where
he sees the Ukraine war is not achieving
what it what the US wanted it to do
which was regime change in Russia to
overthrow the Russian government. Now
it's okay. Let's move on to the next
thing which is you know now we're in
this big competition with with uh China.
Um and so you know that's very useful.
Lab leak is of course very useful uh for
that. So I mean I haven't done like a
deep dive on sachs but it's a big
question.
Um, and one more thing I want to X going
at what you just showed him saying that
it came from North Carolina is not the
most it's not the most subtle signal
though. Right. Right. Right. Well, let
me show kind of one more
um sort of
uh angle of how this all ties back
together. Okay. So
the Trump administration, the White
House's lab leak website, their whole
thing is the origin is the proximal
origin of SARS KV2 publication. Okay,
that was that was uh the paper that
Fouchy and a few others um promoted to
say that COVID uh um originated from
nature, right? Um that's right. One of
the big critics of that of that um uh
paper was Okay. So then let me let me
add this. So then it come uh those those
messages the emails back and forth
between Fouchy and Christian Anderson
and and a few others basically saying,
"Oh, we totally lied." Admitting we
lied. We lied. Oh, it's totally it's
almost certainly from the lab. that that
became that was like catnip for the the
control dissident movement to see say
see privately they were admitting it. I
mean of course those were those emails
were released not accidentally but by
foyer which you have to do is submit a
foyer request. If the government wanted
to hide that it could have what? denied
the foyer request, right? Or uh if
they could have
red before because it's it's national
security done. I mean, it's easy.
Exactly. Exactly. Which happens all the
time um with actually sensitive uh
material that um that the government
does not uh want people to see or they
would have used some other means of
communication than something that
anybody could get via FOYA. So that
suggests to me that they actually wanted
people to see this messaging. It
suggests that
highlevel people with clearance don't
understand what email is. It's really
It's just absurd. It It's like I don't
I'm a I'm just a father of three and I
know that you don't put certain things
in an email and hit send unless you know
exactly who you're sending it to because
they could, you know, it can be it's a
legal document essentially. like it's so
absurd. It can be used in a court of
law. It's got a time stamp. It's all bad
news uh if you're not using it
thoughtfully. So, it it's just it's just
absurd. I'm sorry, but I didn't know it
either. In the first year, I I fell for
it. Hook, line, and sinker. I thought I
was sacrificing my job at the University
of Pittsburgh School of Medicine to
announce a lab leak that no one else
would admit. That's actually what I
thought I was doing. Well, what I'm
saying is they laid on the emails that
came out. They laid it on so hard that
why why would they put this paper out
saying that it oh, it came from nature
and then privately they're saying, "Oh,
it definitely did not come from nature."
And these are messages that are going to
be um anybody can access, anybody can
who who goes who just submits a foyer
request can get when it's so damning.
It's something that you would want to
keep in some kind of non-traceable, you
know, something you'd want to say over a
drink um in a, you know, in a bar. It's
it's it's that kind of thing. So, to me,
it suggests that those were basically
planted rather than uh some kind of
organic thing. Now, so Trump now, and
this is again, this is like catnip for
for these people. So Trump the Trump's
website the White House's website refers
to this publication the proximal origin
paper
and who
is who is
uh um when those messages come out by
Foya. Here we go. Here's the article
from one Ian Burell a uh who's British
um and you know there's so much British
meddling uh in in American politics. The
secret message is behind the lab leak
coverup. Beijing was helped by a cabal
of conspirac conspiring scientists.
Okay, where else are we going to see
this guy Ian Burell? Let's uh go back
here. Hey, look, there he is on the
um uh COVID con the the regime change uh
the Woodstock of Regime Change. he's he
he appeared there. Um so he has you know
a a hard regime change uh ideology. So,
so you see the kind of the spooky
networks of of shady characters, many of
which as you rightly rightfully have
pointed out many times are not American,
are from foreign countries um in
particular ones that have a long history
of meddling in American politics and um
political processes. So, um this is this
is just a perfect example. And I I mean
I talked about Ian Burell in the the
previous stream that we did, but um and
I have I have more on him. You know,
another another perfect example of this
that I I think your viewers are probably
not aware of is that Robert F. Kennedy
Jr. and Children's Health Defense have
at their foundation or their heart um
two British people. One is Andrew
Wakefield who lives in Austin, Texas,
and Paulie Tommy who also lives in
Austin, Texas. And these two um
basically did a
antivax election campaign in the UK in
the late 90s early 2000s that included
Poly Tommy being on 90 billboards saying
that autism was worth six million votes.
Now they moved to America and made the
movie Vaxed in 2016 and established the
group I can on the same day and then a
couple years later the Mercury Project
World Mercury Project changed its name
to Children's Health Defense with Robert
F. Kennedy at the head. And behind all
of these people is this story of Andrew
Wakefield being a a a doctor who lost
his license in the UK and had to flee
for safety and brought Pauly Tommy with
her. Um and and they are behind uh
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children's
Health Defense in this fake antivax
movement in America for more than 10
years now. realized that Peter Desac the
head of Ecoalth Alliance has a paper, a
scientific publication with Andrew
Wakefield from the '9s where they were
working on measles in the
gut. How is that possible that the guy
who moved to America to start the gain
of function story moved to America at
the same time that the guy who moved
here to start the fake health freedom
movement? and they're now at the heart
of be right behind Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and right behind the lab leak narrative.
They're both center stage, both British
guys. How is that even possible? He
spoke all of those British people have
spoken in front of our Senate. That's
one of the things that he did when he
first came over is he had to get in
front of the Senate and say it's part of
the MMR or something like that. It's
remarkable how these people are
connected and for how long they are
connected. But Desack and uh Desack and
and and
um Desack and Wakefield is just
crazy. Incredible. Um
Jay, I think we got to leave it there.
Um, I look forward to doing it again and
I appreciate your time and and expertise
and and really your dedication uh to
this and and um you know I hope I hope
this is enlightening and uh you know
it's sort of a it's sort of just
conversational and um not not very
scripted unlike so much of of what what
we see. So um please uh you know give
this give this a like, subscribe to the
channel, share it around and uh thank
you all for watching.