This morning when the sun was gone
So many people have come and gone Their faces fade as the years go by Yet I still recall
When I'm tired and thinking cold I hide in my music, forget the day And dream of a girl I used to know I close my eyes and she's gone
You know who the best player in the game is?
Me, Mars Blackman.
And I'm way above the rim, demonstrating some serious hang time.
Very serious.
Do you know how I get up for my game?
Do you know, do you know, do you know?
That's right, Air Jordan, Air Jordan, Air Jordan.
Mike, what's up?
Oh, money, money, why you wanna do that to me?
Why you leave me hanging?
Come on, I got it.
Oh!
We're doing one of our hits here in a second.
Here we go.
Set.
It's very striking that the only thing left to do is ignore now.
So yes, Jessica, Jonathan, I expect more people will block Jessica Rose.
It's a lot of people now, but you know, I've been saying it quite clearly.
You can't call people traitors repeatedly on a social media platform and expect them to continue to not block you if possible, because they're cowards and they're traitors.
If they weren't,
then they would have a response to something, to the lies that are on display on my substack and on that of Housatonic Live, on the lies that I have displayed on my stream.
None of these people have a response because they are coordinated liars.
And it is Americans in coordination with people from the UK and elsewhere.
That's why Charles Rixey is working with that person in Japan or wherever he lives.
And that's why Jessica was working with Jonathan and others.
It is a coordinated demolition of our respective republics by traitors in each country.
And we need to wake up.
Happy 4th of July.
Look.
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, that's not the way life is.
But you can tell if someone's lying, you know, you can sort of feel it in people.
And I have lied.
I'm sure I'll lie again.
I don't want to lie.
You know, 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 really important not to be a liar.
introduce Jonathan, who's going to talk about his latest kind of distillation of what the pandemic means to society, to biology, to science, and to democracy, and the whole kind of idea of empiricism and integrity.
And then each of us, this incredible preeminent
that we have each one of you is going to get a chance to comment.
It doesn't matter much at all what you believe about vaccines until we invent really important ones, until we have a pandemic that's killing everyone, and it's measles plus.
Okay, I can tolerate what you think about measles, because not that many people die from it.
It's just a big hassle in the end.
When we have this new pandemic that is, you know, got 75% mortality and it's not, it's, there'll be no pretense of being polite in the face of these beliefs.
It'll be a moral emergency because it has to be.
I'm afraid that the latest data tells us that we're dealing with essentially a worst case scenario.
Now, Dr. Gallo and Dr. Fauci talked a lot about isolation and purification.
Can you tell me what the difference is between the two?
Isolation?
What was that?
Isolation and purification.
Of the virus?
Well, you isolate a virus by finding the virus which causes a disease.
You purify a virus by making a lot of it.
I mean, just by purifying it so you get a pure virus.
I don't understand what the... I see.
It was the same thing, or if it was two totally different... No, it depends on how they used it.
Can you explain the process of HIV isolation?
Well, didn't Dr. Gallo do that?
I mean, he actually isolated it, so... I mean, why should I do all of this?
This is all textbook stuff you're asking me.
so so
I'd trust your instincts on that one there, left-hand monkey wrench.
I would definitely trust your instincts on that one.
Hello.
Happy Independence Day, everybody in America.
It's giga home biological.
It's interesting that Mark's theory and Mark's, uh, it's not really a theory, you know, it's not really a theory.
What Mark has put forth is pretty solid evidence that Corey was involved in the Floyd thing around the same time that he was involved in the New York stuff.
And that's it.
I mean, Mark is not somebody who just makes weird statements.
He's a guy who backs up things and archives things before he announces that he might know something.
And he's never really said that he knows anything.
He just reads stuff.
and post stuff.
And so it's really strange how everybody just tries so hard to ignore his, his, his website, which is really just composed of stuff that he's gathered off the internet and organized under headings with names, which, you know, is one way to look at the truth, I guess, from a couple different angles.
And I'm, I'm kind of thinking that because
The truth isn't what they're concerned about, but rather what's perceived to be true is what they're concerned about.
I think that's the reason why they don't like Mark.
That's why they don't like his website.
That's why nobody wants you to just go to Mark's website and explore Robert Malone or explore Hilary Kaprowski because they want you to perceive something else.
They want you to understand something else to be true.
and ignore all these other things I'm gonna click on that link actually because you know what I'm not afraid of it I'm pretty sure we're not gonna find something scary there so I'll click on it in a minute
Yeah, just make sure you realize that there was no spread in New York City.
Infectious clones, that's the term that you need to be afraid of and you need to understand in order to realize what virology is and what it isn't.
Placebo batches were likely the big secret.
And transfection in healthy mammals was always dumb.
Not only that, but the protocols were definitely murder.
And one of the main ways that they got somebody sliding into the COVID protocol was with a little extra supplemental oxygen.
And that's one thing that, again, nobody wants to talk about.
They want to talk about how gait of function is so dangerous.
It's a mythology.
And they want you to get involved in solving the mystery of that lab leak.
And that's really a...
That's really the national security operation in a nutshell.
You've been fooled into solving a mystery and a spectacular commitment to lies by all of these people on both sides of the narrative is all that's required in order for you to stay suck-stuck and in order for you to teach that mythology to your children.
And that's why Jessica has resulted in blocking rather than making a comment on my sub stack about what in the hell she meant by that email she sent me.
or making a comment on Mark's substack about what the hell she meant by that text message she sent him.
And instead they are attributing bad motives and more importantly they are ignoring me.
See they're not going on social media and saying Jay is a liar.
They're not going on social media and saying Jay is a biological nutcase.
They're just ignoring me because these weaponized piles of money and the traders that they fund are probably, you know, this is all part of the same little five eyes operation where weaponized piles of money and intelligence agencies from these countries have convinced us to argue about the origins of the novel virus so that we participate in that argument.
And when we participate in that argument, the premise of the novel virus is accepted by default.
And therefore, we are being governed by a theater that spans from mainstream media all the way to social media platforms like Twitter and includes all sides of this mythology.
That's the reason why average folk don't rise virally as they have the best ideas.
Rather, people that work for the Human Genome Project and are connected to these people through their fathers and through their mothers are the ones who have risen up
into social media platform fame with hundreds of thousands of substack subscribers and once you see it for what it is that an emu farmer and horse breeder can't put out 25 pages of substack a day every day for two years you start to see it for what it really is and there aren't going to be everybody's not going to be able to see it because everybody's not going to be able to understand what social media is because they've been fooled
they've been fooled into believing that social media is the early manifestation of their God, of artificial intelligence.
And that, you know, it's still something that we don't really understand how it works, or it's hard to explain why some people go viral and other people don't.
And so they still think that it's a lottery that they might eventually win, or that it's something that actually reflects a reality that connects us all together.
And in reality,
The only thing they've been using this to do is to disconnect us from ourselves, from creation, and it's time that we wake ourselves up and wake our kids up because the same people have been behind this for a very long time.
That's the reason why one face in particular is always there.
Always there for 38, 39, going on 40 years.
We've got to take the power back from these charlatans and we inherited this situation from our parents.
So it's going to be difficult, but not impossible to get out.
As long as we start to recognize that these are not different, these people are not any different, as long as they are not fighting the narrative at the heart of this.
which is this implausible biology, this impossible biology.
And if we're going to get out of this alive, and our kids are going to get out of this with freedom, we're going to have to make gentle the life of this world as we break this mythology.
Yeah, social media is your coming prison companion, and social media is in fact an artificial wave.
It's an artificial wave of consensus, and if you want to surf social media in a useful way, it's quite a skill.
You're gonna need somebody to help you see it, most likely, because otherwise it's gonna cost you a lot of pain in order to see it.
It cost me a lot of pain, three years of pain, thinking that I was being helped, thinking that I was being encouraged, thinking that they were supporting my family, when in reality I was being swept up into a wave of consensus.
And until I focused on the biology and I stopped taking their bait, which included, oh Jay, you're so smart.
and I stopped thinking about that instead tried to love my neighbor again and think about how I could do that with this stream did I start to see through it.
So social media users out there and in America especially we need to stay focused we can't take their bait on social media even the even the really tempting stuff and we got to start looking to love our neighbor again in the next few months because these are a few critical months so if you can't support the stream please do something to share it
This stream is called Giga Ohm Biological.
It's named after a level of resistance that is achieved during a recording that I used to make, an electrical recording that I used to make when I was an academic biologist and a catamagician.
My last job was at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
Technically speaking, I wasn't fired.
They just sent me home and then paid the rest of my contract out.
But that did ruin my career because, of course, I couldn't get recommendations.
And how am I going to continue working for a university if the last university wouldn't even talk to me anymore?
There is a paradigm shift coming, ladies and gentlemen, an understanding shift where a lot of people on earth are going to come to understand public health as based on an illusion.
an illusion that was only sustained through our active participation and the participation of our doctors.
And people like Welcome the Eagle, I think, are helping us do that because he is, again, trying to bring truth to the bears narrative.
And I think that's one of the reasons why a lot of these heroes up until now have been largely ignoring him.
If we want to engage in a non-compliance, you've got to understand how they've done it.
And that's what my goal is here at Giga Home Biological.
I'll be right back.
do
Good morning, everybody.
Right after the slide switches, I'll click on this link and see if I can't.
So the original study is where the original study conclude.
I'm looking at the study that somebody dropped in the thing about COVID's hidden toll, full body scans or some shit.
I'm trying to see where the original finding is.
200 symptoms of what?
Long COVID?
Oh boy.
Autopsy shows some studies.
Where is the original study?
Long COVID is far from being.
Far more likely to have a new study adds weight.
Where is the new study?
I don't think that's the new study.
Maybe that is the new study.
Let me click on it.
No, that just takes me to another link of their same shit.
See, this is what I don't like.
Where is the actual study?
Do you have that link?
Science.org.
That didn't open for me.
There it goes.
Okay.
I don't think I can get this with my...
I don't think I can get this with my PIT thing.
It sounds really crazy, but I don't think PIT actually subscribes to science directly.
I can't get it.
I always have to get it off of somebody else.
Term long COVID, many drivers of long COVID have been out here, provide compelling evidence.
Persistent aberrant T cell using whole body positron imaging with a tracer that selectively tags activated T cells.
We identified intracellular SARS-CoV-2 single-stranded spike protein encoding RNA in the laminate appropriate tissue of all five participants and double-stranded spike protein encoding RNA in three participants up to 676 days after initial COVID-19, suggesting
tissue viral persistence could be associated with long term.
So it's very interesting because they say they find spike protein RNA in a couple places, and double stranded spike protein encoding RNA in three participants.
I don't know how they differentiate between double stranded spike encoding RNA and single stranded spike encoding RNA.
I'm sure there's some amazing methodology that makes that a very high
I mean, I'll read it if you can find it, if I can get the thing, but if I can get the PDF, I'm just not.
This is increased T cell activation in these tissues was also observed in many tissue individuals without long COVID.
So some of these people are long COVID, some of them they are, it sounds like to me, it's gonna be one of these studies that will misconstrue like things like chronic fatigue syndrome with long COVID and just lump them all together and then say, look, we can find something in, I mean, you're trusting,
You're trusting their tracer, first of all, we have to see what the tracer is.
And then we're going to have to see how they find this single-stranded spike protein encoding.
I mean, that's pretty remarkable claim anyway.
It is July 4th, 2024.
It's a gigaohm biological high resistance low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
I'm coming to you live from Pittsburgh in the back of my garage as usual.
It is 1245 already.
I know how this usually goes faster than that.
But you know, it's a vacation day and the kids are home.
An intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system remains dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and thousands of academic biologists should have known better, and RNA cannot pandemic because RNA does not possess the chemical and biological qualities necessary to copy itself through thousands, never mind millions of infections, and therefore RNA cannot pandemic.
It is a very serious problem that we have right now because we have a coordinated effort on all sides of social media to portray this as a worst case scenario.
And we are just detecting sequences, but they're sequences that apparently just came out of a bat cave or a laboratory and then spread all around the world consistently in different patterns for five years now.
And was it a lab leak?
Are they killing us?
Who's coming to our rescue?
Is everything under their control?
These are all questions that these people are asking in a very breathless sort of way.
And it all has to do with this laboratory or bat cave zoonosis idea, or no viruses at all, one, two, or three.
and the illusion of consensus that those are the only three places to be.
Either you think it's a bat cave virus and you're kind of dumb, or you think it's a lab leak virus and you finally figured it out, or you think it's no virus and you're really dumb.
And I'm not saying that people who say that it's no virus are really dumb.
I'm saying that's the general consensus of most of the people that have solved the mystery at this stage.
They realize that there are two lesser positions and an acceptable consensus position.
And that's the illusion of consensus that the whole world is under.
And they would, almost any adult that you know of that uses their phone regularly, if you were to ask them, are there three positions about the pandemic?
They would say yes, and they would be able to very succinctly describe what I just did.
Two of those positions accept the existence of the novel pathogen.
And one of those positions does not, or did not, and it may soon, but did not adequately question the foundation of the narrative up to and including the murdering and lying about it in order to cover up that illusion.
And that's where I think a crucial mistake was made, or more importantly, a crucial part of the script was played out.
You can see it a couple different ways.
For me, it seems fairly obvious that it was a crucial part of the script.
And it may be that now some of those people that were put into that position very early in 2020 and 2021 are now going to be maneuvered in such a way so that that no virus position can be subtly adjusted to mean, oh no, we mean some and some things and whatever they can mean will mean that the vaccine schedule is bad and that's fine.
But it will be very orchestrated.
You have to be very careful because a lot of these people are starting to pivot to supporting Bobby Kennedy now.
Donald Trump is starting to talk about chronic disease and the toxins in the environment.
And so you're going to see very possibly Donald Trump choosing Bobby Kennedy as his running mate.
And then we'll see chapter 13 of Don't Start the Revolution Without Me come true when Donald Trump gets run over by his own motorcade and Bobby Kennedy ascends to the White House.
Well, you heard it here first if it happens, you know, that's all.
All social media worst case scenario is just this, right?
It's the same exact story.
It's a story about a incapacitating agent.
It's a story about amyloidosis.
It's a story about coming pre-on disaster.
It's a story about their control over these things and their secret technologies and their secret dominance and their racially designed viral weapons
they could make racially designed transfections really easy.
They could make a racially designed transformation, adenovirus transformation methodology really easy.
But a self-replicating, you know, obligate pathogen of some kind that just can grow for like a really, really, really, really, really long time, like 10 years, 20 years, and it just stays there.
And so these people are trying to cover it up by very particular strategy.
The COVID shots are bad, and they're much worse than the old shots ever were.
And don't talk about 2020, and then we can move on.
But that's not going to work for me, because the faith is a lie.
Transfection is real.
And if you see it as what it is, and how these people have done it, of course, we're looking at it every day, all the time.
I showed this thing yesterday, I want to show it again, because I think it's important to see the pattern that two people from the intellectual dark web talked to Vivek, and now another guy that they used to promote on the intellectual dark web talks to Vivek.
and then two more intellectual dark web guys talk to each other, and that guy's also talking about the same things that they're talking about, and then Joe Rogan, the head of the intellectual dark web guys, or one of them, is talking about something, so then they have to talk about it, and then another two of the intellectual dark web people come on to the same, and then they talk to Bobby, and then they talk to Phil, and then Phil talks to Bobby, and Phil talks to
to Netanyahu.
And then also this guy talks to the lady from Fox and then the lady from Fox talks about Biden and talks with Bannon.
And so they've all talked to Bannon too, of course.
And then, of course, the other guy from the intellectual dark web has to talk to Bobby up there.
And then this guy that they also promote as part of the intellectual dark web has got to talk to Vivek.
And then he's also got to use the exact same photograph to talk about the Democrats panicking.
And then we have, of course, Tucker, one of the greatest examples.
He's kind of like David Icke.
He's allowed to say the truth because he also has got to say bullshit.
And so as long as you combine that in a nice, nicely portioned sandwich, you're allowed to get away with whatever you want to.
I think that's also what this guy represents.
And that's why he does the tour of these same layered networks of media that aren't actually real, but were propped up in 2008 or propped up in 2001, or whenever they were propped up, they've been propped up ever since, populating the internet with people that were under control.
And so that's why you see that guy on this guy's show, who also gets Ben Shapiro, of course he does, and gets that guy too, because he does the whole rounds as well.
And so they've got guys on the right, they've got these people in Australia that make fun of us, they've got these people in the UK that make fun of us, and also promote the same people that we are supposed to watch.
legitimizing them at the same time as they make fun of America in the same way that all of these people do.
And so we are slowly being made to accept the idea that America is responsible for this, and America's falling apart anyway, and it's rotting in from the inside, and nobody likes the white people, and so we might as well burn this whole place down.
And it is a coordinated effort among people that are being fueled and paid for by people like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk.
Giant weaponized piles of money and nonsense things like locals and and rifle black rifle coffee are all being used to fuel this this Control by mythology governance by podcast and That's where their weaknesses
because we can also resist via podcast.
We can also fight for freedom via podcast if we start to share it in the right way and we start to say the right things.
If somebody like Joe Marshall could get more than 120 subscribers on Rumble, that'd be a great start.
If I could ever break more than 3,500 subscribers on Twitch, that would be great.
If I could get above 15K on Twitter, but I mean, come on, who cares about that platform?
We need people sharing PeerTube.
Because PeerTube, if we keep paying for it, won't go away.
PeerTube has no login.
PeerTube has no requirement to give an email.
And PeerTube will allow you to download now.
You can download all of our stuff from PeerTube and put it up wherever you want to.
Cut it into a million pieces so you can make fun of me.
I don't care.
Because the truth will take care of itself.
None of these people mention Ron Klain.
Have you looked him up yet since yesterday?
None of these people mention Averill Haynes or Jake Sullivan or Anthony Blinken or Joe Biden or Jill Biden, excuse me.
Especially Ron Klain.
Nobody ever talks about him.
It's super annoying.
He's a good one to look at because you can see that if there's one Ron Klain, there's a lot more of them.
And they're all on the same team.
I wouldn't be willing to bet that Robert Malone is probably shaking hands with Ron Klain.
I'd be willing to bet that Kevin McKernan is shaking hands with some of these people.
And because Bobby's dad worked with Brett and Eric's dad, I don't know, just seems kind of fishy to me.
I'm just at a loss for words at this stage that Robert Malone wants us to believe in avian flu, and he wants us to believe in henzoinosis, and he wants us to believe in gain of function in avian flu.
And so does actually the Brownstone Institute and Children's Health Defense.
They all believe that gain of function happens in flu viruses and can endanger the world just like gain of function in coronaviruses.
And that's really terrifying.
That's absolutely, oops, that's absolutely terrifying.
Because who's coming to the rescue then?
If the Brownstone Institute believes, and Children's Health Defense believes, and Robert Malone believes, well, holy shit, where are we going to go here?
So I wanted to go to this thing.
I'm gonna read this email that I posted on my sub stack on May 20th, 2024.
And this email was sent to one Gabe Mason or Mason in, I don't know where he lives, somewhere in Canada.
And the day before he had interviewed me and after the interview, because I had recorded it,
And because I was kind of skeptical about what he was going to do with it, and he told me it would take him a few weeks to put it out.
I wanted to put a transcript of it out so that any interesting tidbits that I had said in the video could be published already.
And so he reacts in a funny way.
You know, I might have worded my email rather coarsely, but I think what I said was, is that the interview is of me.
So it's not your interview, and it's not your content.
You were interviewing me.
Therefore, it's mine.
I can do what I want with it.
And so he says, I'm a bit confused.
Let me get my mouse over here.
I'm a bit confused about your message, JJ.
Notice JJ.
It seems like you're speaking as you've just made a decision to put my name out there with a full transcript of a project that I haven't myself even started to put up online.
Keep in mind that on that YouTube channel there with only 1,560 subscribers, he's got 90 videos.
So this was some project, I guess he was going to do in English.
And so he says, I've already assured you that no editing to your words will be done.
And I have no intention to split out pieces of this conversation, to spit out pieces of this conversation out there out of context.
But you could give the whole conversation to my enemies and they could use it as intel on how and what talking points to absorb, right?
He could do that, which is why I was concerned about what he was going to do.
So he says, the quick feeling.
Get is this you will basically steal my material and put it up on your website before I release it myself Even just a full transcript is definitely going to prevent some people in the future to watch the video If they already had the transcript weeks before I don't have my name out there in the English world No presence, so you would just put me out there without my consent in an area.
That's that's quite controversial On
One part of our relationship I was fully transparent and gave you informed consent prior to our engagement to the show.
That was, one, pre-recorded.
Two, no official release date was settled yet.
It might take up a few weeks.
You accepted the terms and condition and we proceeded.
But that's not what's going on now, is that you're coming in after our contract was fulfilled and telling me that you are choosing with no consultation with me that you will put up the material on your website as a transcript, and you're not trusting me to hold my word that I will not edit or cite out of context.
It's not about out of context, it's about sharing it with people.
And I said that very clearly, but I've never agreed to these terms and conditions.
I do not have informed consent.
There is no we in that decision at all, JJ.
I believe that if you're choosing to do this, it is not respectful of the scientific method.
Do you see how this is problematic and not logical?
So, as a direct reply, I am definitely not giving you consent to release a transcript of the conversation before I put the episode out.
I am reiterating my promise to you not to bring this stuff out.
You said publicly, or out of context, or trying to capitalize on it as we already agreed together, as in we.
You will not see this anywhere online.
Oh God, it's great.
But you give it to a lot of people and I think he did.
And so let's watch this funny little video.
Remember the reason why I put this, this email up was not to bust him, right?
It was just to make sure that my video wasn't released out of context to make sure that everybody saw what's going on.
This is really nonsense to me.
And this happened in May, more than a few weeks ago.
We're looking at six weeks now, something like that.
So I think it's a good time.
So I just gotta get into my file explorer here and look at the, ooh, that's gonna be tricky.
I didn't think about that.
OK.
Not sure this is going to be possible, but I'm going to try it.
It's going to be mad at me when I do it.
Maybe it'll let me.
So it was 518, was it?
Let's see.
518, 516, 17, 19.
That's the one.
Copy and then I'm gonna have to put this on the desktop because otherwise this This computer is gonna get very angry at me and then I don't it'll probably mess up the recording So just give me a second.
Let me run it to the It'll take me a second Matt eret did get back to me We tried to schedule something tentatively for this Sunday, but this Sunday is the last day that my I
My family will be here for a week or two, so I'm not sure if Sunday's going to work.
But I'll get to Matt probably tonight and see what we do.
I don't know how many more interviews I really need to do on my own stream.
This stream is kind of more for me, for me to teach and for me to study hall.
And I don't know.
I've wasted a lot of time in the last few weeks doing interviews that don't come out.
And that's why I'm doing this show because this is an interview that hasn't come out.
And I think that that's how they waste your time and energy.
If they make you do an interview and then they don't put it up, they make you do a trip away and then they don't put up the interview or they put up somebody else's interview live, but they don't put yours up until weeks later.
It's all just kind of,
It's all just kind of the same nonsense game.
And meanwhile, people like Robert Malone and Jessica Rose have to write a few substacks with AI or with a staff, and they get all kinds of followers.
And so some of these people have fallen face first into the butter and get $10,000 or $20,000 a month just from their
from their substack and other people like Mark Kulak still have 6,000 followers on YouTube and get regular videos struck when they mention people's names or talk about stuff that you can't even really know for sure what he talked about.
So that I think just copied over.
Is that correct?
I don't see it anywhere.
Why don't I see it?
There it is.
Is that it?
Ah, sorry guys, this is annoying.
I gotta go to this one.
I think this is the right one.
I hope this is... Phil?
Yeah.
Mr. Cooley or Jay is fine.
You don't have to call me Mr. Cooley for a whole two hours.
I mean, this is the last time.
Just call me Jay.
All right.
Well, I'll take that as the acceptance from you.
Excellent.
So listen, so I don't want to... Phil?
Uh, Mr. Cooey or Jay is fine.
You don't have to call me Mr. Cooey for a whole two hours.
I mean, this is the last time.
Just call me Jay.
All right.
Well, I'll take that as the acceptance from you.
Excellent.
So listen, so I don't want to take too much time before we start, but I... So I don't have him.
I don't have his video, right?
Because it's in Pennsylvania.
And although he was recording, I was also recording.
And just to be sure, I didn't record his video, but he knew I was recording.
Everybody who comes on my stream or interviews me knows that I'm recording.
reiterate my extreme gratitude for you being here today.
It's extremely appreciated from me because, you know, I'm not a familiar face for you.
And I kind of insisted a little bit in my email.
So I hope that was not out of place.
So thanks again for getting back to me and accepting to be here today.
So did you want to, you know, talk a little bit about any details that you felt needed clarification or anything before we start?
I mean who are you and what what's your deal with regard to the pandemic and stuff like I'm just kind of I I said yes, I Guess kind of thinking you were a different game.
So, oh really?
I'm kind of I'm open.
I Don't really mind but do you have a podcast that you run?
I mean, are we gonna be broadcast over radio?
So
The very short summary is basically I studied physics at the university, engineering physics in Montreal Polytechnique, and I did not graduate.
So I'm not a scientist.
I do not have an academic career or anything like that.
But my interest came from physics first.
So when the pandemic started, just to ensure your question about the pandemic, I was already into like
So basically, I'm just like a podcaster or something like that.
I try to reflect about what seems to be, I guess, incomplete or missing or how things seem to be moving to in different scientific departments.
And so that's my passion.
So I'm trying to understand what are the new ideas of science that could be probably useful going forward.
So that was already my thing before.
So I started to do that in French mostly in 2016.
So I've been on the Internet doing podcasts for about eight years.
And so when the pandemic started, my angle personally was coming in
already with like another view of physics.
So like the more, I guess, unified kind of physics out there, talking more about the unified field and stuff like that.
So that was where I was at that point.
And so when the pandemic started, I was already like kind of in the alternative, you know, I guess, different kinds of views out there scientifically.
And so I really got fast on board with the idea about the virus, problematic with virology and the virus existence and stuff like that because I was trying to understand how the new physics could incorporate into biology.
So that's where I was at that point.
And when the no virus thing, which I didn't know anything about that before the pandemic,
So when it came on the scene for me very early, like in mid-March, basically, the first time I heard about that happened.
And so for me, it kind of clicked in a way.
And so I've been living the pandemic through that lens.
So I was following that whole scenario.
And of course, I heard you first, I guess, at the end of 2021.
probably or early 2022.
So you got like kind of slowly into that background for me, just like as a point of view on the pandemic, like as an external point of view, I guess, as well from the United States.
And so the more I listened to you, the more I thought your point of view was interesting and you were always a bit on the side of everything.
And you refined your point of view as well over the past few years, which was very interesting for me.
And so I felt like you had like kind of an interesting scientific mind.
And your position, like in the last maybe six months, kind of crystallized around something.
But there's still some points which I'm not sure that I'm clear about that.
And I really want to clarify it because
The question of the virology problematics, the science problems and the techniques that they use and what's going on there is very important for me.
I think it's a central point of what I'm trying to do personally, because of course, everything is to my just personal experience.
And I'm just going basically with my own hypothesis.
I'm trying to contribute the best way that I can.
And so that's it.
So I'm basically looking for the exceptions.
out there to understand better the rules.
So that's kind of the way that I'm trying to approach this.
And my hypothesis that I'm going to work this project on or that I'm going to base this project on is that we already have all the pieces of science out there, either inside or outside of academia.
that can be put together to form a new kind of understanding of science, which is going to be more simple, more straightforward, more pragmatic, and better for humanity as a whole.
So basically, I was trying to find someone that saw the same things as me out there, putting them together.
I don't want to be too much of a shithead, but you can already see it on my face, right?
I'm already very skeptical.
Beware that if I get a little testy with him, it's already flipped in my head.
I couldn't find it even before the pandemic, but especially since the last two years.
And at one point I was like, all right, so I guess I'm going to try to just contribute myself and do this.
And the first thing that I want to focus on was the virus thing.
around that, the scientific method.
So basically, these are a couple of points that I want to focus on first, and then move forward.
So in a few minutes, that would be it.
And I hope you're not too disappointed if you felt like there was another Gabe coming on the screen today.
No, no, it's actually better to have a random Gabe.
The other Gabe, I assumed, was a bad guy, and I was just going to play along.
So it's fine.
I wonder, as a physicist,
I'm not a physicist, right?
I don't know if you're talking about me, but I'm not a physicist.
But you studied physics, so you have some idea of... I mean, you were saying new physics before.
What do you really mean by that?
Like, just not thinking about string theory or something?
No, no.
New physics is not the proper way to say it.
Like, for example, there's not...
a new physics doesn't exist.
It's just like a new understanding of the same physics, right?
So that's the way that I more kind of think about it.
So it's just like there's a new way to understand what's already out there and with different point of views.
So obviously, that's not what we're going to get into today.
But what I was interested in was more like there's basically like a fundamental difference between seeing physics as
the standard model of cosmology or of particles which is particles exist as matter in a vacuum right or there's the etheric or the ether kind of model which is the other one which we left that's not a good face there uh i don't know a few hundred years ago behind
which is basically there's an overwhelming medium which is permeating everything outside and inside matter.
And what is matter?
Particles are illusions, basically, or they're just like basically statistical condensation of waves inside the ether, right?
So the unified field or unified physics is kind of going back to that kind of understanding.
But of course, with new
new technologies, new understanding, new experiments.
But from a physics perspective, it must be fairly obvious or apparent to you now, after these, I don't know how many years you've been trying to think about these ideas, but how easily very bad theories about cosmology, for example, can be sustained indefinitely with
the way that we do falsification of a null hypothesis and so if you imagine how easy it is to spend so much human energy on the string theory or whatever you want however is the proper way to refer to that idea very much the same thing has happened across the board in most sciences that don't involve engineering and so if you're if you have to
If you're a chemical engineer, you can't get away with that.
If you're a physicist that builds things like an engineer, then you can't get away with that.
But if it's theoretical, and you're a theoretical biologist, a theoretical neurobiologist, neuroscientist, you're a theoretical
pharmacologist or a theoretical virologist, which is what they are, theoretical virologists, then you basically get away with perpetuating the idea of what if, and you're allowed to ask this question over and over again because you're not really setting out to ask
the actual what-if question.
You're actually, you're trying to disprove the null hypothesis reflection of that what-if question.
And that to me, it really boils down to a fundamental disconnect between like apprentice and teacher or student and apprentice or however you want to think about it.
We've
We've just taught a couple generations and we've been teaching a couple generations of scientists not to ask the hard questions and then test those to find those answers.
We've actually taught a lot, a whole generation of academics how not to get to the finish line.
And that's been taken advantage of, I think.
And in physics, maybe it's less harmful than it is if you do it in the biomedical sciences.
That's really maybe the most
important thing because any bad ideas in physics will never kill anybody because either they're not real or they'll never get to the stage where they'll be enacted upon because they fundamentally don't work.
But in biology, mythologies about effectiveness and mythologies about a methodology being particularly useful in a particular situation can be perpetuated for decades.
I mean, think about how long it took for
for people to realize that many, many ulcers could be treated with simple antibiotics and how long people were happy to cut people open and cut those ulcers out with a knife.
So we're really just one of these things where we've been led to believe that these are anecdotal examples rather than just a very nice core sample of how biomedical sciences have been done over the last 40 years or so.
Right.
So I think you're talking about very, like, basically fundamental points that are very important to me.
And, you know, there's a few things that actually are very central to what I'm going to try to do with this project in what you just said.
And because, of course, direct harm probably, as you said, come more from the medical sciences, biology and stuff like that.
But in another
kind of way that you can think about it, which is where I was coming from as well, like physics is the mechanism and it's basically how things work together, right?
So it's the foundation upon which all other sciences kind of are interpreted in a way.
So in that kind of point of view, if you think that if, for example, we become
we understand that we have like a wrong foundation, then everything else can be even more harmful because they're based on that wrong foundation.
Right.
It's like if you leave a point and then you want to go like very far away and you have like a two degree difference only, like you might think that you're going to get at the same point roughly at the same time.
But two degrees of difference at the foundation can lead to a huge difference.
Right.
I mean, I get the point that you're making, but with regard to... That's not a criticism of what you just said.
It's just like a complementary notion.
I think it's still where the rubber meets the road.
Physics is never going to screw up biology unless biology starts to make assumptions based on the wrong physics.
But as long as we keep using optics and other things that are well understood, proven things that keep matching up to the
to the theory in practice, then I don't think there's any danger.
And that's why I think something like string theory is so, in some ways for me, hard to believe that we have spent so much energy and time trying to develop that idea when, in practical terms, even if it was right, what would be the practical
you know, outcome or what ramifications would it be in terms of changing the way we behaved or the way we look for the future.
It just changed nothing.
So it's really not even an idea that matters.
It's almost
It's comical to me where, you know, on the other hand, we're supposed to accept that antibodies are a correlative immunity, and that's something that plenty of people are willing to die on.
And so, yeah.
You haven't started the recording yet.
Maybe you probably want to.
I don't know.
No, yeah, I'm going to start.
Actually, I just wanted to, I was about to get to that point.
But so that's awesome, actually.
This is like, you know, you really have like the right state of mind.
With which I'm trying to approach the conversation today, so thank you so much for that.
You guys can vote in the chat if you want me to speed it up.
Two-minute introduction, just starting forward, and then I'm going to bring you up and we're going to start with the pandemic and what's your views and how you came to them.
And then if we have time, trying to get back into these types of discussions, right, more about the science process and how you've lived it through your career and how you see it going forward.
And basically, I want to bounce back as well, a couple of notions at the end, just giving you like a preview, which would be like from my first guest, Dr. Qureshi.
who was a 30-year scientist for Health Canada here.
He's a Pakistani chemist.
And so he's also in the no-virus category, if I can say, but he's got different issues with the no-virus group based on the scientific method and how he sees it versus them.
So I want to exchange with you what I learned from him and see what you think about that.
And also maybe if we can touch back on the membranes, because in one of your lives a week ago, you talked about Tom Cowan and the membranes and your work about that.
So that would be something interesting if we can get back to that.
But we'll see if we have time.
So another thing I just want to tell you, are you comfortable with StreamYard?
Have you used that before?
I mean, I've been in it before.
I just, yeah.
Okay.
Just as a little warning, if I put you on the screen, it's going to look like this, right?
So you're not going to see me.
That's fine.
Yeah.
So, so it's not because I'm leaving.
So I'm just going to put you like that for the, for the, the, the, the people out there.
So, uh, and then I'm going to move like around like that.
And there's a possibility.
So what happened to me a couple of times since I've been using StreamYard is if the software doesn't have time to fully convert your audio, it might ask me to send you a link that you have to click back again and finish the conversion on your computer, like in the next day or something like that.
So it's one possibility that I might have to ask you after.
It depends on how StreamYard manages the feeds.
Yeah, you can avoid that by not, I won't close my window.
If we just stay open and you wait, it sometimes takes 10 minutes after the show.
Okay, excellent.
Because sometimes people have to leave very fast after or whatever.
All right.
Excellent.
So, yeah.
Any other questions or anything else for you?
No, it's good.
Just hit it.
All right.
Awesome.
Well, thank you again.
I'm very excited and let's see how it goes.
And once again, I'm having fun with my
my project, you know, it's the first time I'm going to do like a 100% English project and I just wanted to, you know,
make it sound big, but I just want you to know that I'm just a guy, I'm just very humble, but I'm trying to have fun.
I'm calling this the International Quantum Coordination Project because I just feel like we should have something that unifies science around the world in some kind of way, but it's just for fun.
So I just don't want you to think that I'm presumptuous or pretentious or anything like that.
And so that's just a little branding for fun.
Okay.
All right.
Let me just record.
I moved that over there so that I would be more centered on his screen.
So now my secret is blown here.
All right.
And your image and sound is great.
And was there any problem with my audio just before we started to make sure?
No, I hear you fine.
I hear you fine.
Excellent.
All right.
All right, so here we go, JJ.
Have a great show.
Thank you again, and let's have some fun.
I'm going to do my quick introduction and then move back in.
Okay.
Hello, everyone.
This is the second installment or second opening show for... Here comes his second show opening, right?
He doesn't know what he's going to do with this project yet, but he's already got his opener ready to go.
I guess he knows how he's going to do it.
I'm just going to back it up for a second.
Okay.
Hello everyone, this is the second installment or second opening show for the International Quantum Coordination Project.
Today we will be joined by the self-described, quote-unquote, recovering academic neuroscientist who's been on the science staff for the Robert F. Kennedy's nonprofit for fighting children's chronic illnesses.
It's called Children's Health Defense.
His name is JJ Cooey, and you can find him at gigahomebiological.com.
It's G-I-G-A-O-H-M, biological in one word, dot com.
My name is Gabe Masson, I'm the self-appointed Chief Quantum Coordinator, the CQC of the International Quantum Coordination Project, and I'm just having fun here running with a basic hypothesis.
What is the hypothesis?
It's the following.
I think we probably have by now in 2024 all the pieces of science that are out there scattered inside and outside of academia that we can put together to probably get a new understanding or basically try to lead to a new paradigm of science going forward that could probably benefit humanity generally.
That's the hypothesis and why I'm
So he's going to save the world, I guess, with leading the way to a new science as a guy who's done a little physics or something, I guess.
I don't know.
Am I calling this a hypothesis?
It's because I'm going to try to falsify that hypothesis to the show with different guests and my own self-analysis of what I've learned to the show.
Which is actually more than Doc Malek does, because Doc Malek doesn't have any understanding.
He has no fracking idea.
At least Gabe is purporting to bring his own understanding to the show as he interviews people and learns from them.
So it already sounds a little better than Doc Malek's podcast, at least.
Basically, I think that's what is respecting the scientific method.
So if we want to talk about science, we try to follow the scientific method.
And the goal is to falsify one's hypothesis.
If I can't falsify it, then at one point, I guess we'll come to a conclusion that things seems to be working better than before with a new understanding.
The first topics that I want to focus on is the science.
We could talk about that being the wrong way to explain how science isn't done, but we won't do that in this video.
But suffice it to say, that wasn't quite right.
And he was saying falsification, which is basically the pauper method of science, which Jaynes and others, of course, go against.
scientific method and applied to what happened to us all around the world in the last four years, which is basically the pandemic.
So as a brief, brief summary, you know, during the pandemic, there were different gangs of scientists, I'm going to call crews or unofficial groups out there.
There's the basically mainstream idea of the natural zoonotic infection started in China spread around the world.
Then we have the lab leak hypothesis which was there early and came back over the years to become now kind of the mainstream kind of alternative almost mainstream theory or idea about
of what happened basically during the... Anybody else think that this is kind of exactly what I would say or was saying?
He's kind of absorbing it.
This is only his second show and he hasn't even really started the project but he's summarizing the pandemic as groups of scientists that have, you know, different gangs.
the start of the pandemic.
Then besides that, there was another group, which was saying that, no, actually, there was no virus at all.
So they're called the unofficial no virus group, I guess, that you could refer to them as.
And these guys were saying, we went back into the scientific literature and the claims that virologists are making that we find particles that are self
replicating infectious, contagious particles are there called viruses, do not seem to be existing at all.
So there was no cause for any consequences or any measures for the lockdowns, the masks, everything during the pandemic.
So these are the exceptions right now.
So the problem that I have with that already, how he started is that he portrays the no virus people as questioning all of virology.
And therefore, there was no pandemic.
And I think that is the dangerous position to take.
And what position that Mark Bailey took specifically was that there's no SARS.
There's no SARS-CoV-2.
There's no spreading risk additive pathogen that you can track with these technologies.
That's not possible.
And then went backwards.
And so I still have this
idea that we are being led incorrectly by them and have been led incorrectly by them because they didn't go far enough to say that they would murder people and lie about it in order to cover up this lack of fidelity, this gross exaggeration over what virology is and what it isn't.
And they've never been able to succinctly get to the point where they could say something like I've said, which is that there is no RNA molecule that can make your cells do something they don't already do.
And so if they are making your cells package bits of RNA and spit them out in a viral-like particle or an exosome or in a virus, whatever you want to call it, then that's something that cells do already.
And we are just taking advantage of that already in unnatural cell culture through transfection and transformation.
For the past four years.
Around that group, there are other exceptions.
So there are exceptions to the exceptions, and our guest today is one of them.
His name is Jay Cooey, and he believes something a bit different than the no-virus group.
So let me bring him right up.
Mr. Cooey, thanks for being here.
How are you today?
Hello, Gabe.
Good to see you.
Good to meet you today, I guess, is the right way to say it.
Absolutely.
First time meeting me.
So let me just reiterate in front of everyone what I said just before.
I just want to tell you that I'm very grateful for your time today.
I really have a great respect for what you did over the past four years.
You came into my point of view or field of view, I guess, at the end of 2021, I think, or early 2022.
and you were kind of re-questioning the no-virus group, right?
So you were bringing your own hypothesis, I guess, or conclusions from your own research into that, and you were saying that they were wrong, but that everything else was also wrong, and that you had kind of something that was kind of in the middle of this, involving, like, transfection, overtime transfection, and infectious clones, and all of that.
So I just want to tell you before we go further, JJ,
I don't want to think that I'm pretending that I have a great understanding of biology or virology or all of that.
My perspective is really like meta.
So I'm trying to understand as simply as I can different fields of science just because I'm trying to basically play a scientific Tetris game and put things together.
So you can lose me very fast if we get into some details because you're an expert and I'm not.
So I don't want people to think that at home as well.
You know, compared to a lot of people, I've been spending some time, you know, trying, I've been debuting a lot of times in that.
So I might have a fairly good enough understanding.
But if you go too fast, I might ask you a lot of questions or repeat stuff.
And just because I want to make sure I understand.
what you're telling me.
So try to dumb it down a little bit for me and for us, but let's still try to keep a high level enough that we can go into some weeds a little bit together if you don't mind.
So with all of that said, welcome again.
Thank you so much.
It really means a lot.
And the other flower that I want to throw in your way before we get further is I really feel like you have a great scientific mind because I've also seen you
Although you're putting out there a lot of material, right?
So it's impossible.
Well, not impossible, but it was impossible for me in my situation to follow everything.
But when I did, I saw your positions change and evolve.
And even in the last few weeks, I was listening to a couple of your streams and I saw you address arguments from the NoVirus group from a few years ago, and you were
remaining pretty humble, right?
We're trying to remain honest and trying to give them everything that you could give them as the arguments, but still defending your points.
And so for me, it kind of shows like a great scientific mind.
So I just wanted to tell you that.
Thank you for that.
Your attitude is really needed, I think, out there.
But there's also sometimes that I've heard you maybe mischaracterize some of their earlier positions, but I'm not sure.
So maybe I'm going to ask you a few questions in that kind of energy as well.
So welcome again.
And anything you want to tell us maybe in the shortest version possible about your bio?
You said you're a recovering academic neuroscientist.
What does that mean?
And how did you get involved in children's health defense?
And let's start there.
I was a neurobiologist.
I guess I probably should change that if it says neuroscientist.
I really, I feel as though it's an important distinction because my specialty from since I was a young man has always been biology.
I knew I was going to do something.
I thought I'd be a vet or, you know, everybody goes through the marine biologist idea.
I went through all of these ideas.
And so I really think of myself as a biologist and neuroscience is actually a field where all kinds of different academic backgrounds have come together to try and study the brain together.
And so that's why they started calling it neuroscience a few a decade ago or so.
And that's allowed, you know, mathematicians to come into neuroscience and make mathematical models of hypothetical neurons or even networks of neurons.
And most of those people were physicists.
And it's allowed chemists to come in and design, you know, designer chemicals that can activate neurons and get into pharmacology from a chemical perspective.
So I really consider myself one of the people that went in to study the brain as a biologist and so I was into microscopes and I'm into cells and and With regard to the pandemic then I kind of came into it rather naively I was working at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and I was trying to find a way to use my nine and a half mile daily bike commute on a electric powered bike and
I was still commuting about 25 minutes, but on this electric bike I can go up these huge hills and it was really, you know, I was getting a workout, but I wasn't destroyed by the time I got to work and I could also ride home.
And it became this thing where I suddenly realized I had all this footage on my cameras that I was recording because I was in traffic.
And I could hear myself talk to the cars.
And I suddenly realized that, wow, maybe I could record a YouTube video.
And I started doing this journal club on a bike.
And a lot of my colleagues liked it a lot.
I was just reading people's papers and talking about them on my bicycle.
And I prepared a little cheat sheet and tried to look at it all day long so I knew what my points were going to be.
And then I just rode home and talked into the camera, started loading those up on YouTube.
And at the start of the pandemic,
It never dawned on me not to just make a bike ride and talk about coronaviruses.
And then I started to get curious.
So I started reading coronavirus literature and talking about what I was reading.
And at some point, the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine apparently got contacted because I had been quoted in The Washington Times.
has saying that a laboratory leak is certainly not out of the realm of possibility.
And somebody from the Pittsburgh Gazette wanted to talk to me and they said I couldn't do it because it wasn't my expertise and that they'd seen my YouTube channel.
And it was kind of curious about a month later, they asked me not to come in anymore, just kind of all at once.
I got an email saying you need to mail in your badge and keys.
And they paid out the rest of my contract.
So they technically didn't fire me.
They just let my contract
move out, I didn't finish any of my work, and some of my papers were published without my name on them.
And that's basically ending career.
And can I ask just what was your position, just specifically, when that happened?
Research assistant professor.
Assistant professor, all right, thank you.
But you have to say research, because that's a non-tenure track.
It is, you're funded by somebody else.
So, you know, people don't think that I'm trying to misrepresent where I rank was.
But as a technician, if you will, as somebody with methodological expertise, that's what a research technician is.
It's somebody who can actually do the work and teach other people to do it.
So the research technician position or research assistant professor position is a very much like in a way it's a very respectable position if you can attain one because it means that you have enough combination of skills and knowledge that you're indispensable or at least not worth
not worth letting you leave academia.
So anyway, in that position, I felt like it was okay for me to talk out loud with my fellow faculty members about how I thought the New York Times had a ridiculous article here or made a ridiculous statement there.
And I also thought it was okay for me to download papers from PubMed and read into coronavirus literature so that I could understand it better.
And yet somehow or another, there was this tremendous sort of incredulity that I met with other people where they're like, why are you reading those papers?
I'm like, because they're telling us that a new coronavirus is spreading around.
Don't you want to know?
So this went on for like this month.
And then at some point, I got this email saying I couldn't come in.
kind of had to make a decision about what to do.
And it wasn't really obvious to me right away that what I should do is teach biology online.
Actually, my brother had an opportunity to start a business in Texas.
And so the first couple months of my, let's say, time off, I said, you know, I can help you with that.
I want to come down a couple weeks a month and help you with your new business.
And so I did that for a while.
And then over the course of that time,
the adherence to coronavirus.
let's say warnings and mythology, the story on television was starting to get in between me and my brother, because I was going from Pittsburgh to Texas on a plane, and we were kind of supposed to keep it secret from the clients that we were working with, because he didn't want them to know that I was traveling.
And he wanted me to wear this super mask, and I didn't really want to wear a super mask.
And then he found out that I wasn't wearing a mask on the plane all the time, and he got really pissed.
And we got in a little fight about that.
Long story short, that ended kind of badly because we don't talk anymore.
That's your brother, right?
That's my brother, yeah.
You got involved as well into the personal, familial struggles.
Yeah, just because, again, at that time, he actually also, just to share a little personal detail, because he's my younger brother and it's personal and it's family,
he brought it up very quickly that, you know, if you knew what you were talking about, maybe University of Pittsburgh wouldn't have told you to not come in anymore.
And that also kind of gets, you know, whatever, it's personal, but it's just brothers.
Anyway, that's still going on though, of course, because my working for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
a year later to help him write that book for a year did not convince my brother or my parents that that made me
more legitimate as a thinker.
But after the year of working for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., then for six months in 2023, after the book was released, I was picked up by Children's Health Defense, and I was a staff scientist for six months, and I helped with some projects there, and I met a lot of really, really great people that work really, really hard to try and get this message out.
But I also was
was consistent enough with my podcast and trying to maintain a unblemished record of integrity, I was still willing to call certain players out while I was working for CHD on my own podcast.
And I think it was characterized as that work was interfering with their ability to interact positively with their partners.
And so,
they ended my position.
And then ever since, so from the beginning of 2024 now, I've been working independently.
Just to be clear to all your viewers, the reason why I don't really have a problem saying what I can say about CHD is because most of the time when people leave Children's Health Defense, they're given some kind of NDA and a little package, and so they don't talk.
But the package that they offered me was $8,000, and I didn't think that
The amount of sacrifice that I had made and the amount of credibility I thought I earned by working for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
was worth that.
So I just said no and quietly walked.
You know, I have to emphasize, I think CHD is an absolutely wonderful organization with a lot of wonderful people working there.
And it only takes a few people to sabotage such a place.
And so, I just, I feel very bad about it because I do think I could have really helped CHD to take their message and their whole thing up another level.
And I just don't think it's the right time or their,
or something, but I just, I don't understand.
All I know is that I feel the best since I am independent and can say what I feel needs to be said and teach the biology that I'm learning as I go and refining as I go.
And I feel like at this stage now I've become a problem if only because
it's no longer that easy to meddle with me anymore.
These mysteries and rabbit holes were easy to lay down in 20 and 21 when everybody was running around with their heads cut off.
But now when we can pause and you can look backwards and see how everything lines up, it's a little easier to walk forward carefully and not feel rushed.
That's really where I feel the last couple months have really led to a lot of gains is that we are choosing the topics that I discuss.
I'm choosing the topics that I want to read and not, you know, asking the questions that all these other people want me to ask.
Absolutely.
That's awesome.
Well, thank you so much for that enlightening summary, actually.
There's a couple of points that really helped me to figure out more how you lived through that four years.
And that's interesting because you said that you kind of feel bad about that.
And just to give you a bit of where I'm coming from, I'm in the province of Quebec, which is like Eastern Canada, right?
Maine, Vermont, and New York, right?
And so we're French.
We're French-Canadian, of course.
And that's why I speak like that.
English is my second language.
And the topic about virology and the existence of viruses and everything, it's really been difficult for me as well because I'm kind of the only person who spoke about that early here.
And it's been difficult because the people here and our local organizations are doing amazing work.
They've been doing amazing work all throughout the pandemic.
But once I, me personally, as a podcaster and just like an unofficial member of that kind of ecosystem out there, when I started to talk about that, I was seeing the tension that it was provoking and there was kind of subdivisions among different groups.
And it's really difficult, actually.
And so it takes like a kind of a different mind to go through that and accept that.
and still trying to pursue the truth.
So I commend you for that.
And I think all around the world, these kind of topics have had the tendency to create subdivisions among the resistance movements or that kind of unofficial groups.
And so the reason that I'm interested to talk to you, as I was telling you before we started recording, is because, you know,
I believe, this is my working hypothesis, that science should be modeled or it should mimic the natural flow of energy of the universe.
That's one of the things that I have.
I believe that the foundations we've had in the past, like let's say the Enlightenment, were probably a bit misplaced.
And so they were not reflecting properly how the universe works.
And that's why over time we're getting into some places where
Although technology has been great, there's problems in science.
So in order to find these rules and to understand the natural rules and to make sure that we have a scientific understanding of the world that reflects those rules, which again is just my personal hypothesis.
Well, there's a saying that says the exception confirms the rule, right?
So I'm trying to
have an interest or to seek the exceptions in order to understand what kind of rules apply there and where we have them right or wrong and can we ameliorate them or not.
So the exception to the pandemic was the no virus group.
And then you were kind of the exception of the no virus group.
So we have like a different position.
So you said that you've been working with
you helped with the redaction of the book from Robert F. Kennedy from 2022 to 2023.
And then after that, or throughout that, you worked directly for CHD.
So can you tell me when you started to have like a kind of a different view, when you kind of got closer, but not totally into the no virus group, and what is your position today?
And how does it differ from the full on board no virus position?
And let's get a summary of that.
And then we're going to go a bit deeper into the details.
So just to speak to your first thing, I would let you give you an alternative word to use rather than looking for the rules.
You should look for the patterns in nature.
That's something that that
Buckminster Fuller is the one who inspires me to say that.
So I'm not saying rules are wrong, but maybe you need to look for patterns first that then start to outline rules or outline models.
are how they are because of the rules that they obey, right?
So the patterns actually emerge out of the rules.
Of course, rules is like a loose term here, but you know, the laws... But the rules are invisible and the patterns are not.
And that's why I think that Buckminster was so into that.
So with regard to the virus and no virus thing, the thing that was the impetus for this was
Really, the very specific question that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
posed to me sometime when I was still consulting on the book, and I think it was in the middle of 2022, in the summer, he asked me to define for him what infectious clones were, because he really saw these words all the time and he wanted to know what they were.
He saw that from you.
He saw it in the literature, actually, himself.
He saw it in these virology papers, and he heard me mentioning it a couple times.
And he really wanted me to explain, OK, when you say this, and that Ralph Baric came up with a methodology to make infectious clones, what do you mean by that?
What do they mean by that?
Well, that's a question that you can't, well, at that time, I couldn't just call him up and,
and say, give him an elevator pitch.
I had actually was working on that myself to try and understand this, but there was never...
No one had ever given credence to that idea.
I was the only one who thought of it.
I was just doing it in the background.
I don't even know if I'd mentioned it on my stream ad as something that I thought was important.
I could have, but it was at this, this week or so where he said, Oh, you're interested.
My first reaction was, Oh my gosh, I'm so happy that you're interested in that because I've been meaning to, to knock this down.
I'm going to do it right now.
So I just started downloading papers, scanning them quickly.
in the methodology, because really, virology is methodology.
So if you're going to read virology papers, the most important thing is to read the methodology from a grand perspective.
You're basically looking for patterns in the way they make the cake.
And if you look at all different cultures around the world and look at how they make cakes, there will be different patterns.
They won't all use eggs.
They won't all use the same flour, whatever.
But there are patterns that you can make out.
And with virology, the patterns are in the methodologies.
and the pattern of this term infectious clone.
If we back up one layer.
Right.
And just, I don't mean to interject too long, but just so that you know, you know, from an outside perspective, you know, this is something that I've never heard about from the researchers of the NoVirus group until you brought it up, like, I guess, like, and I saw you talk about it, like in 2022 or something like that.
So this is something that you brought in my field of view from your perspective.
I mean, not to toot my own horn, but I do believe that I brought it into everybody's perspective.
And it's frustrating to me, the people who have tried to absorb the term in a very disingenuous way, because it's not my term, it's virology's term.
And one of the things I wanted to back up and say, just to address the bigger picture that you wanted to address with the stream,
With regard to changing the way science is done, one of the ways that science has been neutered is that the way that we use language in science has been neutered.
And so in virology, it is particularly apparent that a lot of the words that have traditional meanings outside of virology have an alternative meaning inside of virology.
And so when you hear terms from virology that include isolation, purification, culturing, these terms have meaning outside of virology that inside of virology is different.
And that already is an objection that these no virus people had from the very, very, very beginning.
It's a totally, totally legit observation that actually
And they give credit, if they do it right, they give credit to the fact that there are many biologists that were contemporary to the HIV epidemic that are also well aware that some of these incongruencies exist.
So the interesting part about it is, is that after two and a half years of them
behaving in a very curious way, in the sense of most of them would not talk to anybody who wouldn't first agree to, you know, I, yes, I don't think there are any virus.
Yes, I, you know, you had to agree to this stuff before they would even have a conversation about you talking on their podcast or vice versa, even.
And I found that really
dubious.
They wanted to maintain some independence.
And that already seemed quite strange, but it never really bothered me.
And the reason why was because I was a bit naive.
I was a bit naive because I thought that in neurobiology, I already had the experience to know that viruses were real.
I have used adenovirus preparations to transfect mice for more than a decade.
And so I've done it.
I've ordered it.
I've designed them.
I've said, yes, click order.
I've got the tube.
I put it in the mouse.
Green fluorescent protein showed up.
When I turned on the blue laser, the sodium current shows up.
If I block it with the right blocker, it gets blocked.
Like so, I know transfection works.
I didn't understand that transfection doesn't mean... I didn't understand that transfection on my bench, you can't talk...
The transfection on my bench, sorry, I had some people come in the room.
All right, thank you.
Transfection on my bench does not mean that virology exists.
But I kind of, at the beginning of the pandemic, was working from that standpoint because I had this experience in academic biology of ordering a commercial product that was told to me was an adenovirus that encoded the gene that I wanted to transfect into my mice.
And so I know that there are technologies
where you can package RNA and you can put it into a system, a biological system, and a protein will show up.
And to the extent that the pharmacology and the optogenetic measurements that I've made in these neurons
can be explained in any other way, I would like to hear how it can be explained that these biological principles work.
Now the question, of course, is had the television or my doctor been able to convince me that there is a correlate of this in the real world that are just viruses floating around and every once in a while, if you get the wrong one, holy man, are you
Are you unlucky?
And this is something that from a person who's being paid to think about the brain very hard all day long for years, this is not something that even, well, who cares?
I don't need an explanation for why I get sick.
I don't need to think about that.
That's what they do.
I'm trying to come up with my next grant proposal.
So for me, this was a real big shift.
to start to question this stuff.
And I would argue, Gabe, that because the no virus position was so lacking nuance, it was impossible for me at that time to have them bring me out of my misconception that what I had done on my bench doesn't mean that there are viruses in bats.
I just kind of thought that this was all one thing.
And they had a, there's a huge opportunity there that I'm trying to cash in on with these academic biologists that I used to work with, where I can be like, Hey guys, hello, we were all, I was trapped where you are.
I can, I can, I can help you out.
And it's not that I'm going to tell you that all of this stuff doesn't exist.
I'm going to tell you that maybe we're,
We've been grossly misled to the extent to which we understand it, to the extent to which we can make high-fidelity measurements in this regime.
Maybe those are all illusions, but there are things there.
There are signals there.
We do use this in our immune system.
Antibodies are occasionally useful for toxins from bacteria.
These are all probably true.
If layered on top of this is a mythology which only benefits a multinational biosecurity state and has no real bearing on our daily lives, we've got to question it.
We absolutely have to question it.
Because if pandemics were real, they wouldn't need to censor anybody.
If pandemics were real, you wouldn't need to kill presidents.
If pandemics were real, you wouldn't need to push it.
It's just that simple.
That's absolutely that.
I don't know if I'm ending in the right place, so you can cue me back up.
All right.
I mean, I've got an endless way to ask questions, so never worry about that.
So you've already introduced an important term here, which is transfection.
And you've also outlined the way that you started to modify, I guess, or to change your point of view about what you were doing before.
through that new understanding that there might possibly be a huge misconception out there.
So can you get into a bit more precisely about what is your position today?
Can you tell me more details about what you believe are the infectious clones?
What is transfection compared to infection?
And how does the notion of infectious clones
for you brings something more to the table than basically the no virus position.
So from my understanding, before I let you answer that question, the no virus position, it doesn't come alone.
So it comes with the terrain conversation, like the terrain theory.
and another way to understand disease and health.
So this is a pretty big conversation actually.
So from their perspective, there doesn't need to be a virus.
Infection basically is an illusion.
So the epidemiology exists, but it's an illusion and basically the body reacts to adapt to its environment and it produces either exosome, intercellular communication, and its own bacteria, its own fungi, its own molds, etc.
Until you solve the cause, then the symptoms will diminish and get back to homeostasis.
Closing the parenthesis about the no virus position, getting back to yours.
How does infectious clone bring something different, something new, something more precise, I guess, according to you, to observations?
And what is to infection compared to infection?
So I'll start with an analogy that I've been using on my stream for a while and see if it lands.
You cannot make a cuckoo clock make toast.
And if you think about the cell, any cell in your body, an epithelial cell, a brain cell, I don't care.
If you think about that as a cuckoo clock, there's a limited amount of things that you can do if you hijack the machinery of a cell and make it do stuff.
And if you think of it in your mind, the metaphor of a cuckoo clock, there's lots of things you can do with a cuckoo clock to make it do what it doesn't already do.
I don't know, it can cuckoo too often, it can cuckoo all the time, it could read the wrong time, it could go backwards, there's lots of stuff.
Maybe you can rearrange the gears so that you keep track of months.
I don't know.
But you're not going to be able to make it a toaster.
And the problem with virology is that they suggest that your cells
can be convinced to do something they don't already do, which is make virus.
They're going to shut off everything they already do, drop all this stuff that they have to maintain, all these finely tuned processes.
This entire symphony is just going to stop, and it's going to start selling lemonade instead.
And that isn't, from a biological perspective, possible.
There's only a limited repertoire of machinery available inside of a cell.
Even if you believe, you know, the wildest idea of what cells are or are not, you kind of have to accept the fact that the parts are there and you're left with those parts.
And so if you imagine
that an RNA with a particular sequence can come in and just make the cell drop everything that it does with the sacred complexity that we don't understand yet and focus on making viral particles.
I think you're already kind of telling a story.
And once I started to sort that through my head, the first conclusion that came to my little boy biologist in my head was, well, then maybe cells already make viral-like particles.
And then I realized that, wait, we already know they do, because in the brain, there's this mRNA called Arc.
And in 2018, after studying and using Arc as a marker in my own work,
ARC is a gene, A-R-C, which codes for actin... I don't know what ARC stands for off the top of my head, I apologize, but it is an actin-associated
RNA that allows the actin skeleton to be rearranged or become mobile.
And the point is that that is one of the first genes that comes up in the expression pattern of a neuron after it's activated in a learning context.
So one of the best examples would be like cocaine exposure will activate
ARK, the gene expression of ARK in neurons in the nucleus accumbens, for example.
And so you can study
the plasticity in those neurons.
And in fact, you can target the neurons that changed or were activated by the cocaine by looking for where ARK is expressed.
And so this is just a tool.
Immediate early genes have been used for a long time to try and probe what's going on in the brain.
If you have trillions of cells and only a few of them are involved in the behavior, then you've got to be all identifying.
This is one of the way they tried.
So in 2018, long story short, they found out that, holy crap,
Arc RNA is actually packaged in endosomes, in little extracellular vesicles, and it buds off of one neuron and goes to the next neuron so that nearby neurons that may not be activated enough by the stimulus in the network to produce arc on their own, if their neighbors and their neighbors are producing arc, they are also
made more open to plasticity, which is actually really cool.
And it's actually just an endogenous little virus that gets released by a neuron, and it's sent to another neuron.
You can think of the extracellular vesicles that are used when a muscle contraction happens.
Those are also packages of signal.
In that case, it's neurotransmitter.
But in the case of ARC, it is RNA.
We're packaging RNA in one neuron and sending it to another neuron.
And this is just one tiny example of what is likely a very ubiquitous method of communicating.
And now you're not telling a story that this little foreign RNA is hijacking a cell and making it do something that it doesn't already do.
You can imagine a scenario.
Just give me five more minutes.
You can imagine a scenario where the
cell is busy sending little RNA signals, maybe to its neighbors, maybe to the immune system, that the immune system is busy communicating between all these autonomous elements with exosomes with endogenous viruses, whatever you want to call them, they're little packages of genetic material.
that can be sent around the body.
They can even be labeled or have a specific address on them, so they go to specific tissues.
And there's nothing wrong with the idea of saying that, wow, we kind of missed this.
We didn't realize that we were so complex that this actually existed.
And now imagine if people that were making vaccines and playing around with radiation and cell culture and trying to figure out how the genome works,
discovered that, well, maybe our immune system uses retroviruses, and actually the immune system of all mammals use retroviruses.
Maybe the signals from a related mammal would be compatible enough to screw up our own immune systems, and they didn't want to tell anybody about it because they made a few mistakes with it, something like this.
And so the feeling that I have is very simple.
They have substituted with a little shell game
the idea that, well, we used to have to go out in the wild and try to get this cytopathic effect to work.
They don't need to do that anymore.
Why?
Because they can make a synthetic DNA or a synthetic RNA using any of the commercial techniques that are available now.
And when they take that pure DNA or that pure RNA, and it's either pure
DNA or pure RNA.
So when you say pure and in a molecular perspective, you use the word clone.
So really what you're doing is a DNA clone or an RNA clone.
And when I say clone, I mean you have a lot of a molecule and it's all the same or as close to the same as is stochastically possible with the methodologies used.
My point is, is that what virology boils down to is that cell cultures
If you put a lot of RNA or DNA on them, they'll probably package it back up and try to put it out.
If it has some genes that will encode a RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, then you may get the cell culture to copy some of those RNAs, but they will just package them in exosomes and send them out.
And it's very, very possible that at this stage, RNA virology is a massive illusion that is based on a shadow of some kind of endogenous signal in all mammals, all plants, all fungi use exosomes.
And because of a biosecurity state,
that doesn't want us to know that we are created in God's image and that we are fine just the way we are, perfect when we come out of the womb.
They want us to believe that we're broken from the very beginning and that we need shots from day one and that the only way we're going to survive to be old is if we take all the medicines and follow all their rules.
This really is just all falling apart for me because I feel really like this is so bad now that they actually probably just murdered people and lied about it.
And I think they probably also just murdered people and lied about it during the AIDS crisis.
I think they have consistently demonstrated that
that this is not about high fidelity understanding of our world.
It's not about high fidelity understanding of our health.
It is really about removing our ability to exercise informed consent and removing our ability to appreciate, you know, the beauty of our children when they're first born, but instead really to eventually want to, or it become normal to turn our babies over or even think of them as not ours, but part of the state.
And I really do see the problem here as if you look very carefully at how the no virus thing was done, they at first were using the word exosome for a while.
They were at first using some terms that I'm using, but very quickly they cleaned up and it started to really limit right down to they haven't isolated the virus, they can't purify the virus.
the electron microscopy is silly, and they can't culture viruses, and those are all things that I agree with.
And so the sort of
wake-up moment for me was when I was asked to write a brief email response to Christine Massey and Tom Cowan in response to an email that they had sent to CHD.
Give me just one quick second there for the people listening.
Christine Massey is someone who was trained as a statistical
sorry, a statistical scientist, I guess, in Ontario, Canada.
And she was able to collect about more than 200 freedom of information requests about different governmental institutions and private organizations and labs, asking them if they had in their possession a sample of pure and purified, I guess, isolated viral particles of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
So he might have been prepared for any mention of them.
So if the names come up, he was ready to set in and now he's telling us who Christine Massey is.
Again, it's an interesting tactic.
You might also say, hey, just take a step back, Jonathan, and see if you can tell us who Christine Massey is.
But instead, he's got already a script ready to go.
So you can kind of see it, but I don't know.
I kind of have the feeling that's what happened here.
And they all said no.
So that's a whole discussion in itself.
But if people are interested in that, on my French show, I had Christine Massillon in 2022, and I'll put the link in the description below as well.
So let me give it back to you, Jonathan, and please keep going.
Yeah, I have no particular beef with Christine Massey.
She was doing stuff, anti-fluoride stuff, before the pandemic, so she's not nobody and I appreciate the stance that she's taken.
And when I've talked to her before and I've heard her speak, I understand the frustration because it is, at this stage, I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that
if there is no virus, then what are we talking about?
I am also very frustrated with the idea, though, that I do think, wittingly or unwittingly, she has not been able to make a meaningful, you know,
There's nobody nobody's coming together on any of these issues and I have to believe that that's by design If only because I've tried to come together with a lot of these people on these issues over the last four years and it's always been somehow or another the bridges have been burnt or I'm supposed to choose a side and I really feel the one of the overarching messages that myself and I think Mike Eden is also giving out very
consistently is that if this is a crime, then we don't have to explain it.
I don't have to come up with a valid alternative to virology in order to agree with Mark and Sam Bailey and agree with Dave Resnick and agree with these people that whatever we've been told, it's in all these giant textbooks that I have with me.
I mean, this is, in my mind, it's like protest.
You write a gigantic book with two volumes about virology if virology is not real.
just like you have to lock down the world and kill presidents and injure people by the millions if pandemics aren't real.
Otherwise, you wouldn't have to do that.
So it was really, to me, what's becoming most striking about it is that if you have the position that there was no virus and you see that people are dying, then it seems like a very easy
touchdown to score, so to speak, to say, hey, virology is such a big lie that they would be willing to murder people in hospitals and then lie about it.
But none of these virologists that are sorry, no virus people have been able to get to that point where they've clearly enunciated that there are no viruses, which is fine if that's what they want to say.
But if there are no viruses, then we're murdering people in hospitals all the time.
And we're giving people vaccines and injuring them all the time.
And I don't know how that's not part of the discourse then.
Because in reality, then they agree with quite a few people, like autistic, moms of autistic kids, dads of autistic kids, people that have lost old people to the, they agree with lots of people then, but they are so focused with almost razor precision on, you know,
With Christine, a lot of times she was focused exclusively on acknowledge my FOIAs, acknowledge my FOIAs.
And if anything, over the last four years, I've learned is that at least the U.S.
government, I assume they do it all over the world, a FOIA, it doesn't prove anything.
Even if you word it exactly correct and you have three lawyers check it,
But there are ways that you can never know for sure.
And it's not surprising to me if you send a FOIA to a police department and ask them if they've isolated a virus, that you get a negative.
I mean, you could have stopped at three or four of those FOIAs and then moved on to the fact that, see, they don't isolate the virus.
They're just murdering people.
And their message would have been more effective in 2021 if they were already saying that.
And I find it striking that I don't think they were.
There's a lot of stuff in there, in what you said, and it's all great actually.
But I really want to get back to your more precise position because you skimmed pretty fast actually on the clones thing, and I want to get back to that.
But before, I want to address what you just said and maybe get your feedback.
on that because, you know, I was telling you earlier that there might be some points where you might disagree.
So let's say, for example, I'm in the no virus category.
Right.
I've just been you know, I've not been in that group at all, but I've just gravitated around that.
So I was like, I guess, self-identifying a little bit with that group since since the beginning.
Right.
Since March 2020.
I've never gotten that impression so that they were not talking about the harm and the problems and the whole of the vaccine schedules personally.
But I also understood that it was like self-evident at one point that the consequences about
be like basically harming people directly was a consequence of making sure that we understood that the viruses that we were basing all of that were actually not even existent.
So the scientific arguments cannot be
we're murdering people, right?
It cannot be about the consequences, like the causality, the scientific arguments, like it's to show, to make sure that the scientific enterprise as a whole understands that we're living through an illusion, that the methodology that we're putting in our papers
to make our claims that viruses exist and are a thing, and that they infect and hijack the cells, do not exist as it is.
So for me, I thought it was very logical and rigorous, actually, to focus on that point a lot, to make sure that we're attacking the science and not going into assumptions.
Because even in the murdering and the harming people, it involves a bunch of different things, right?
The politics, the money, the ventilators, the oxygen, and the antibiotics, and then the...
you know, the corruption and all of that.
So it's difficult to remain scientifically focused when you get into that from my perspective.
So I thought that the idea to focus on the scientific literature was interesting, was very important, and it was central to make sure that we understood that it's a serious conversation and discussion.
But I've never gotten the impression
that they were neglecting the harmful consequences of that.
And once you widen the group of people that you follow around the no-virus conversation, when you get into the Alex X and all of that, well, they've been talking on their podcast and their shows a lot about the harms that are consequential to that.
So I guess that's a little bit of a different understanding or impression that I got from you
throughout the first couple of years of the pandemic.
So anything you want to bounce back from that comment or you want me to move on?
I only know from my perspective that I lost a job at a real medical school.
I lost a career with a real PubMed record.
You can look on PubMed and search my name and the papers that come up are me.
And they represent two decades of dedication to becoming an academic biologist and learning how to write grants or make papers or do experiments.
And I would argue that a lot of the experiments that I've done and published represent
the exception to the rule that often because I'm a biophysicist and I was a pharmacologist, these are basically chemistry and biochemistry.
And so there's a lot less p-value bullshit to be involved in the things that I was doing.
However, I was very keenly aware that it was going on all around me and how much easier it would be to climb if I was, please don't slosh your coffee onto the keyboard, doing that kind of methodology.
Like if I did MRI instead of,
Patch clamp it would have been great for my career And so what I find very frustrating is that I've never been antagonistic I can go back and show you the email where I first reached out to Sam Bailey saying I think she does great work and I want to have you on my podcast and She told me that she was pregnant and she would get back to me in six months and in six months later She wouldn't even return my emails
And it's because of this, whatever happened, there was actually sides were taken, borders were drawn, boundaries where they wouldn't cross.
And it felt very disingenuous to me.
I'm sorry, but I only have my wife.
and a couple of friends that talked to me along with my three kids.
And for the last four years, I've basically been alone with them.
We lost a house that we were trying to buy at the beginning of the pandemic, and now we rent a house.
We have incredible amount of stress every month just on what are we gonna do?
Where are we gonna go?
How long are we gonna be able to afford this?
And these are all real pains that I don't see in any of these other people.
And I'm not saying they deserve it or they should.
Maybe I'm just really dumb.
But there are people who have put everything on the line.
And then there are people who really haven't lost or risked anything and are doing better than they've ever done since the start of the pandemic.
And I can't really explain that.
It's really very difficult for me to explain when a lot of these people, when they meet me face-to-face, will say the words, I think you do the most important work in the world.
I think you are the best immunology teacher I've ever heard.
They say ridiculous things to my face, but none of them, you are one of the first people that's ever interviewed me and started by spelling my website.
In fact, I would go back and look at when I was on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'
's.
podcast, he never said giga ohm biological once, I don't think.
And that's, to me, it becomes very obvious.
Some people put my interviews behind paywalls, like, they know that my family lives month to month, they know that I, and they don't, they do exactly the opposite of what you might expect them to do.
And I really believe that
at least three times, I have in earnest tried to reach out to the no-virus people and suggest that there is a way to explain the molecular biology to the mouth-breathing academics so that they understand that they have been misled about the PCR, they've been misled about virology, and there's a way to bring them over, but it's not by telling them that there are no viruses, even if 10 years from now,
saying that there are no viruses is more accurate than saying that there are a few viruses.
That could be the case because we might just say, look, this signal, the regime at this size scale that's composed of little lipid particles that have genetic material in them and maybe have some proteins in their lipid nanoparticle coat, this small layer of signal that Nathan Wolf has gotten famous over, that metagenomic sequencing is aimed at amplifying,
This signal is dominated by endogenous signals, signals that come from our own tissue, signals that come from other animals' tissue, signals that come from bacteriophages.
All of this stuff is dominating, like orders and orders of magnitude, this signal is dominated.
And what we have been told at the beginning of the pandemic, that that signal is almost
irrelevant because we can pull very specific signals out with very high fidelity.
And we are actually pulling out a signal right now with diagnostic tests and sequencing primers that we've never used before, even though they were there and we could have used them, we didn't.
And now we're telling you that we have a very high fidelity phylogenetic tree pulled out of a background of almost nothing that's relevant.
And we've carefully observed the spread of a novel virus for five years.
And there is absolutely no precedence for this in the literature.
And the only way to succinctly destroy that is to say that there are lots of ways, real molecular biological techniques that could be used to create the illusion
of a molecular pandemic, because that's what this is.
Virology has become molecular virology.
All virology is done by using a PCR reaction in the wild with primers that are geared to pull up certain sequences.
And if those sequences show up, then
prerequisite one has been met, there may be a coronavirus in your sample.
Then you would use metagenomic sequencing to amplify everything there.
And then you would use a computer program to decide whether or not the sentence that you're looking for could be present.
And that's the extent to which our biology existed before the pandemic.
And unfortunately, because I guess we weren't funding them or there wasn't a priority, we have actually zero data.
None, zippo zilch on the prevalence of N protein, the prevalence of a spike protein, the prevalence of seroprevalence in people to any of these proteins before the pandemic, zero data.
And so all of the data that we've gathered from the beginning of the pandemic could have been there before the pandemic available to be characterized, but we just didn't characterize it and they have done nothing
In fact, they have avoided ever establishing the novelty of whatever the signal is.
One of the tricks that the no-virus stance, I believe, is too simple to reveal is that an existing background noise of RNA and DNA is almost required.
for the virology illusion to have come into existence at all.
In other words, if these no-virus people were right, and there are no viruses, it's just something completely different, then it would be impossible for this many observations in the past to have been so consistently misinterpreted.
But because they have been consistently misinterpreted, that suggests that there is a phenomenon there that's been misinterpreted.
And to say that there's no viruses means that there's no signal here.
Obviously there's a signal.
Maybe calling it viruses is really dumb.
But there's a signal here, and from that signal we can be made to believe.
that there is something of significance, like we do with all p-values.
That's what they've done.
And so if you remember the cuckoo clock thing, if all cells are already packaging RNA and DNA and already communicating in health and in disease, then it would be to their best interest to tell you that that's all outside of you.
Otherwise, in order to study it, they've got to be able to accurately differentiate between what's you and what's that.
And if they can't, then the whole illusion of disease falls apart.
Because now, am I transmitting disease to my wife to protect her so that she develops an immune response that might include a runny nose and whatever, but not the potential exposure that I was exposed to?
We don't know because we're never going to ask that question.
All the symptoms are from outside.
All the symptoms are produced by a pathogen.
It's got to be a bacteria or a virus.
And so we've never even considered the possibility that in a small community, kind of like tribes or whatever, you can imagine a scenario where the immune systems of those conspecifics, because they live together, because they grow together, they raise their kids together, that their immune system could become in sync.
And that just has a reflection in even the rudimentary syncing of menstrual cycles has to be occurring in some mechanical fashion, most likely probably an exosome that's sending a signal or a hormone that can be detected.
But we don't care.
We're not looking for that stuff.
Because signals that describe interaction between us are not signals that they want us to pay attention to.
They want us to think of all of this biology as extant from us, because then they have complete intellectual control over it.
And they don't have to justify studying it as outside of you, whereas if it was part of you,
then even collecting the sample would need your permission, right?
Even, even you're sampling my immune system.
No, no, no.
Oh, no, we're trying to sample the pathogen that's in your immune system.
And so that's a huge, you know, it's potentially a huge bait and switch that has been going on for a couple generations where they're actually never been looking at
at pathogens, they've been looking at a signal which is essentially a reflection of the current molecular health of somebody or the molecular status of their immune system, the molecular status of the cells that they sample.
It's just a
It's a level of simplification.
Virology takes this potentially almost limitless complexity if you admit that this communication is possible.
And in fact, there are whole departments that have studied it for a few years, a few decades now.
And you just admit that virology can't exist unless they ignore that.
It suddenly becomes obvious that at least from the biosecurity public health perspective, most of the narratives that we've been told are wholly false.
And that's why they doubled down on the vaccine schedule right at the beginning of the pandemic.
They've tried to make sure that Bill Gates and everybody had their
explanation down and we have gotten rid of disease in the past using vaccines and then only you know three or four years later they say well not this vaccine but lots of other vaccines have worked that way and so they've
Dave, I think all along had this plan to kind of hedge their bets and to try and hope that the vast majority of us would be so confused and frustrated that solving the mystery of the gain-of-function virus would be enough for us to buy it and enough for us to teach it to our children.
And I'm frustrated because I feel like
I feel like there's a lot of people at ICANN and at CHD who at the beginning of the pandemic actually thought, oh my gosh, this is going to break it.
We're going to actually win.
This is going to be badass.
And I think internally, I think a lot of people are kind of disappointed that we haven't come farther and are unwilling to realize that
through careful curation of these disparate points of view and careful segregation of these points of view and particular questions that are asked or not asked by different people, it would have been impossible for us to be any farther than we are now.
And in fact, we're as far as we are now despite their best efforts, which is actually commendable for all of us.
Because had we had just a little bit more compliance in the United States, I'm not sure
that the illusion would be as wavy as it is right now.
I'm kind of wondering, maybe you have to center me again.
That's great, no, actually, because you're putting your position into different layers of perspectives, which I really appreciate.
Because, again, it helps me better understand how you think and why you think the thing that you think.
What you think, the thing that you think, the thing that you think, sorry.
But...
Let's pretend, let's try to approach this in a different way.
Let's pretend, for example, that I'm Andy Kaufman or Tom Cowan.
Because before we do that, for me, as an outsider again, I guess 85% of what you just told me
is almost like a clone, to use the word, of what the no-virus people think, right?
We're in agreement with pretty much like the greater picture, the harms, the problem with the teaching, teaching new virologists and the children and the harms that's done and all of that.
Although, you know, we have different perspectives.
You think that the no-virus people did not talk about it enough.
I think they did, but you know, that's neither here nor there, right?
the problems with the division, so the people at CHD and even the people at the Highwire event and all of these big great places that have done great work and they're divided around that issue and we could have been probably even further if there was like a
more tolerance in between different positions and like a greater unity among the resistance.
That's something I think we can agree as well.
And I would grant you that some people in the no virus category probably were a bit too direct, too close, maybe not maybe, I wouldn't say maybe close minded, but really more ideological in a way that they really focused on making sure that they were proving or disproving the claims of virology.
So I could go that far as well.
But
The reason that, I'm not affirming, but possibly the reason that you were not able to go through or to push through communication with the no-virus people, and I don't know, I haven't spoken to anyone, I'm just hypothesizing here.
So the reason that you were not able to establish communication there and go further has to be around the science.
It has to be around the interpretation of what was going on
and what is your different interpretation and understanding and conclusions about virology and the existence or not of viruses.
So I want to center back to that and try to re-approach it a little bit and tell me what you think I have wrong in my understanding here.
So the clones, right?
So the clones thing is very important.
So one thing that you said is that clones are
clones of themselves.
So that's why you call them clones, of course.
That's great.
But the counterpoint, I guess, to that from the no-virus people is that, yes, but you need an original clone.
Before you clone the clone with other clones, you need to clone the clone on the first thing that should be represented in the natural world.
So you should have a representative of a virus
something that's proven to be a virus purified in itself that's shown to cause a disease X inside the living being.
And then you can clone that.
But before that, you need to make sure that you've characterized it and understood it as a particle.
And you understand what it is by itself.
Then you can close that.
And then after that, you can have a bunch of clones.
You can be, I guess, DNA clones that you transfer to RNA clones.
And then these clones exist in themselves.
So for me right now, this question becomes very disingenuous because it's not his question because it's too long of a question for it to be his question.
So it's on a note somewhere and he's reading off the note and then now improvising past it to waste more time.
There's no way that these people don't understand what I mean when I say that they can make a lot of DNA and they can make a lot of RNA and they can put it on cell culture and then they can do passages and it'll still be in the last passage they understand exactly the implications of what I'm saying and that's why they have to ignore it because if they if they don't
ignore it, then this will become common knowledge very, very quickly because it is the truth that everybody needs to hear.
The transformation and transfection with DNA and RNA that they can make in giant vats.
You want to see the giant vats?
You watch Brian Artis' red pill presentation from this year that I presented right after him because in his presentation, he shows lots of these big vats where they're making venom.
But he never explains how they make it.
And how they make it is by making it a lot of DNA that encodes the venom.
And once they make the DNA, they can make RNA if they want to.
It depends on the methodology they want to use.
But transformation and transfection in cell culture is virology.
And so any gain-of-function virology is that.
It is the synthetic creation of DNA and RNA and the transfection and transformation of cell culture using it.
That's it.
And that's not a pandemic in a Petri dish.
It's just not.
It's synthetic
exosomes, it's synthetic repackaging of RNA.
We don't really know what's going on there, but whatever they're studying there, whatever they've cloned out of the wild is likely an endogenous signal that they are distorting as an exogenous one so that they can study it with reckless abandon and never tell us that, well, we're looking at the immune system of bats because the immune system of bats has a particularly strong signal.
And this signal is strong enough that we can detect it, and we've detected some interesting genes that we've never found in any of the things we've looked at in humans or monkeys.
And these genes might help us create more reliable self-replicating RNAs.
And so since Tony Fauci and NIH and Department of Defense are all in it together, then when they say they want to study viruses, what they could really be studying are endogenous immune signals.
And the modification of, the protection of, the projection of immune signals.
Are bats especially good at keeping people out of their cave by, by making sure that there are immune signals there that can make people really, really sick?
I don't know.
I'm not, but if you believe that there is some kind of, of
of intermeshing kind of thing there, then there's lots of different ways to describe how the immune systems of humans could interact with the immune system of other humans.
And it might involve particles that could very much resemble small packets of information with a protein lipo coat.
And so he wants to understand, I don't understand what the clones are.
You have to have a clone to know what you're cloning.
And so now the argument is that molecular biology, where they look for stuff, they can't find anything.
When they try to study enzymes, they don't find anything.
When they try to find RNA, they don't find anything.
Are we really going to go that far backwards?
Or are we just going to start to admit that as they're studying this background signal, if they want to get away with studying it, they will never know what they're looking at.
They call it viruses.
rather than the signaling of all the life on earth, the signaling of all the bacteria on earth.
And again, I don't say it enough in this interview, but bacteriophages are just completely out of the question, out of the discussion.
And yet none of the no virus people disagree with their existence or object to their existence.
So just the fact alone that bacteria in your lungs, bacteria in your guts, bacteria in your skin, bacteria in the air, bacteria in the water are all
are all, okay I'm not gonna worry about it, are all, all of those things are, are produced by, I lost my train of thought now, I thought I saw a cat in the backyard, sorry.
I don't think I did though, but it would be kind of bad if we did.
And I guess you could use these purified clones to send a signal out there or even put into some beverages or water sources and get a signal after that with some PCR tests that were based on
on the molecular structure or the genetic code of that clone.
But the first clone has to be based on something that's real, that's been isolated and purified inside the living organism.
And not just inside a soup, that's how they call it, right?
The culture, the cellular culture is a soup of different provenances of genetic material which can be
maybe a virus, but maybe like, you know, cells from the body, you know, it's not whatever.
And then they add antibiotics, they add like the fetal bovine serum and all of that.
And so you have a lot of different material.
And then it's impossible from that to know that the RNA that you have sequenced together is from a virus.
So can you explain to me simply
How do you build the first clone?
Is that detailed in the methodology of the papers that you're talking about?
Because I'm sure that it is.
Yeah, this is the part that I think the reason why you don't understand it is because of the no virus people.
It's possible.
So that's why I want you to explain it to me.
I don't know who else would have, because I've been explaining it for like three years.
And if you don't still understand it, then it's because of them.
I'm not saying that if you put DNA or RNA clones
on a cell culture that now you make viruses.
That's the whole point.
But you do make exosomes with those DNA and RNA there if you make enough of the RNA or the DNA.
That's the part that I can't express how frustrating it is that these people pretend to be able to dismantle my arguments when they don't even address them.
When I say that they have not cultured virus, I'm agreeing with them.
When I say that they use PCR to find a single enzyme called RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and then claim that there's a virus in the sample, I'm agreeing with them.
And what I'm suggesting is the only way this works is if you assume the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase is not native to the animal, to the patient, and it has to be.
We have RNA dependent RNA polymerases.
Why would we assume that it's viral?
The only reason why we assume it's viral is because David Baltimore and all the people after him have told us that it's viral.
The same reason why we assume that retroviruses that we find in T cell cultures have to be viruses.
They can't possibly be retro
viral genetic signals being used by the immune system to communicate between its autonomous parts.
That's impossible.
It couldn't possibly be that.
And that assumption is all based on just a few men.
Bob Gallo, David Baltimore, maybe Murray Gardner, and the people that trained with them.
That's it.
If one, for those three or four people, this dumb idea that RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, that single-stranded DNA, single-stranded RNA in the negative form, all of these things are outside of us.
We don't use any of this stuff.
And it's every time we find it, it's indicative of a virus.
The trick, obviously, is that if the cuckoo clock doesn't
You can't do that.
The only way to explain viruses is to say that it's possible for an RNA or DNA to briefly
use the machinery of a cell to package itself, to briefly use the machinery of a cell to replicate and package itself.
And lo and behold, where are we now?
We're talking about self-replicating RNA vaccines for flu.
So we're actually revealing that the molecular biology that we've been playing around with all along is probably just our own.
And we're trying to find its correlate in bats and its correlate in other animals because the more correlates of it we find, the better that we'll understand how our own system communicates within itself.
And the point is... The no virus position does not exclude that at all.
The no virus position, you just wasted 20 minutes or 10 minutes asking all the wrong questions about where does the first clone come from.
It comes from a keyboard.
I've said it for three years now.
It comes from a keyboard.
It doesn't have to come from the mouse or the rat or the bat.
And once you see that, then virology doesn't have to come from there either.
And the no virus people, whether or not they've said it, they know damn well that I've been saying it and they've been purposefully mischaracterizing Cooey for the last three years.
They've been physically and emotionally and financially interfering with my family.
It's like tortious interference with a business partner.
If you call my employer and say that I'm acting in bad faith,
It's just, it's wrong.
They shouldn't have been doing that.
Not when I'm sending them emails saying, I think you guys are right.
Not when I'm sending emails saying, I think infectious clones is something you should understand.
Their response was, well, send us some papers.
It's like, that's sad.
Just go to PubMed.
Go to PubMed and put infectious clones in and start reading, because that's what I did.
I'm not going to do this work for anybody, and I can't.
If you're not sophisticated enough to learn the biology, then I'm not going to be sophisticated enough to teach it to you.
It's like, if you don't want to put in the time to work on a car,
Then I can't draw enough pictures on my screen to teach you how to work on a car.
And if you want to figure out what infectious clones are, every single person with the intellectual capability is going to have to download about 100 papers and find out that, holy shit, all they do is print a DNA, squirt it on a cell culture, take the supernatant, and call that viruses.
That's culturing, and I've been trying to explain that they're 100% right, but they could be more precise about it.
I've been trying to say they could be more precise in saying why it's so important to hide this fact.
That's the reason why they make such a big deal about Ralph Baric and his no-see-um technology, because then it really seems like, wow, Ralph Baric invented something really important, and he's the one who invented infectious clones.
It's just transfection.
Just the same as when I put my RNA on the cells, they express the protein that's there.
If you put an RNA in there with the right genes, it'll probably hijack the exosomal machinery and package it up.
Big deal.
Hold a second there, because, I mean, I appreciate that, but so it seems to me like you're speaking to the norovirus people through me, and I just want to reiterate to you that I'm not
These guys that you've interacted before, I'm a different person and I approached you in order to... Well, I'm trying to suggest to you that I'm trying to suggest one particular thing and I am a rare bird because I have actually seen them in the wild.
in the background in private zoom meetings and I know I know for sure that how they have played the game is not straight because I have tried my best to play the game straight I've never lied to anybody I've never doubted that people were only when somebody doesn't
just discuss things, just talk about things, but instead starts to attack and say that you're a... They were tying me to Jeffrey Epstein because I had some... You're going back to the personal issues with your communications with them.
And I know that it's not an easy four years that we've lived through.
And your precise case is really particular.
And I know that
I'm not going to want to use the phrase on both sides, like the Trump phrase, but I'm pretty sure that people made mistakes in different kinds of groups, and that it's not been great for this particular topic in your communications.
I understand that.
It's my understanding that people outside of that want to understand the truth about what's going on and the truth about biology and virology.
So the way that I approached you is for you to explain to me your position clearly so that I can understand it and digest it, and people that are interested in that and want to get to the nuance of the details can at least have a brief summary of what you think precisely.
Now, if you don't want to get more into it, I guess we can move on, but I would have a couple of few more questions to ask you, but it has to involve you trying to boil down some things that you understand to a lower level.
Because the only way that I can understand what I do is because people did that before in different fields of science.
Well, tell me what you need, because I've spent the last four years doing it, there's hundreds of hours, and so if I need to take a swing at a particular thing, just tell me what it is.
All right, so I guess the term infectious clone is in itself like the difference between virus versus exosomes or endosomes.
Yeah, I would call it transfectious clone, really, because it's transfection of a cloned molecule.
Okay, so what's the difference between infection and transfection?
Well, infection is a virology term that assumes that viruses exist, and when viruses replicate inside your cells, that's called infection.
I'm making the argument that that doesn't exist.
I'm making the argument that transfection exists, and we use that as a way of communicating between cells.
We probably, transfection is some way of communicating between immune system elements, especially retroviral communication.
I think that's probably the conclusion to come to with regard to
XMRV and HTLV and AIDS, actually, is that retroviruses are a very common mechanism by which T cells and B cells and the rest of the autonomous units of the immune system communicate between the various cell populations.
It would be a spectacular thing to keep secret of course, because then you could completely control that whole intellectual space and every possibility there would be under your control because nobody even knows it exists.
It's, it's, it's virology.
So transfection, for you, if I get you correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, it's a synonym, I guess, for intra or intercellular communication through the subtle layer that you were talking about earlier, right?
The endo-vomit.
Transfection is a bigger word that is more general.
Transfection, for me, I'll just define it for myself,
is the use of RNA that results in the expression of a protein.
And I want to use it as broadly as possible in order to help academic biologists to understand that what they are doing on their bench for the last 15 years is transfection.
They use lipofectamine to do it.
They've used gold particles to do it.
They use electroporation to do it.
There's probably
40 different ways to take a cloned RNA and put it in a cell, and then whatever that RNA encoded for will be expressed by that cell.
That's how they make insulin.
That's how they can make lots of pharmaceutical biologics.
So, this basic methodology has its
has its endogenous counterpart in the form of this exosomal communication.
That's my guess.
And so just like we are able to express a protein in a cell, one cell can send a signal to another for it to express a protein, just like I gave the example of the ARC protein in the brain.
That's one neuron sending an RNA signal to another neuron so that it can express a protein that it wouldn't otherwise express.
And so if that exists in that one little context of the brain, it's very hard for me as a childhood biologist not to imagine that this is just a ubiquitous thing.
in our bodies and the bodies of all the other, you know, complex beings, pattern integrities on Earth.
And so, transfection is a way of talking in general biological terms about what RNA does when it gets put into a cell.
And it's a broader term because I want to include all of the synthetic ways that we have learned about
about protein expression by using transfection.
So if we back up a little bit, one of the ways, a lot of the things that we have learned about the physiology of our body is based on the ability to take an RNA of a protein and express it in a place where the protein already is, so that the physiological levels of that protein are double or triple what they're supposed to be.
And the physiological effect of that change gives us some clue as to what that protein does in the natural system.
And we've also done things where we express an RNA that can reduce the expression of that protein and look at the effects on the system of that.
And so for many decades, academic biologists have used transfection as a way of altering protein expression, up or down, or putting it where it doesn't belong,
to understand how these proteins are part of the symphony of life.
Now, transformation is a word that specifically refers to using DNA to do the same thing.
And so if you were being really precise as a thermoscientific salesman, you would have already known that transformation refers to DNA and all the products that use DNA, and you got to order a DNA to do transformation.
Or we have these subset of things that we call transfection products, which we use with RNA.
And the important thing to realize is that infectious clones are very simply the transfection of cell culture.
So it is a methodology that, outside of virology, is very, very well understood.
Like I used to do biophysics in HEK cells, and we would express a particular potassium channel there, and we could study it and do whatever, and we did all that stuff.
And the way that we set that system up is very similar to how they do virology, except for we don't use the supernatant.
We record from the cells.
But if we took the supernatant off,
and we put it in an animal and they got sick, we would basically be doing virology and I wouldn't know what was making the animal sick, but it would work.
And the point is that we need to get academic biologists to see that what they do on the bench with all these controls and with all these, you know, reviewers saying, hey, you got to do this and hey, you got to do that.
Virology doesn't do any of that.
Virology just works under the assumption that if we put this DNA on there, and we say it came from the bat, so this is it.
We can make this DNA because it's just easier and faster because technology is so great.
They have excused the use of these synthetic clones and said that this transfection represents the virology that we've never been able to substantiate for the last 20 years.
The important thing to be able to enunciate to a thinking and entrenched academic biologist is not to say that there are no viruses, because it's too easy for them to dismiss that out of hand, even though technically speaking, it's pretty close to the mark.
You got to walk somebody there.
And I feel as though after four years, it's almost got to be disingenuous that nobody tried to walk me there.
That nobody tried to get me to think about this stuff, but instead made it so antagonistic.
And that's why I went back there before where I feel like I could have been here earlier if anybody would have taken the time to say, Jay, you're wrong.
Let me just listen for a second.
And they didn't.
And in fact, a lot of people tried to get in touch with me and make sure that I never took any of these people even remotely seriously and doubled down on viruses and gain of function and, oh, you got to solve the lab leak.
And so it is this concert of influence that leads me to believe that it's worth mentioning.
Because the no virus position in the time of AIDS, as represented by David Resnick or
or, I can't come up with the other guy's name off the top of my head, he just recently had a stroke.
These guys are, Duesberg, these guys are...
I want to be their contemporary now.
I want to go to them and say humbly, look, dude, I came to the conclusion, I know I'm late, but let me help you get this information out, because they were already fighting the first wave of this illusion, which has been piled on over these many, many years.
And I feel like we need to be, well, at least I feel like a calling to try and save these academic biologists, if only because I was there.
I know exactly
where they're trapped.
I'm keenly aware of the cave they're in.
Let's put it that way.
That's what I see inside of your mind, I guess, from an external perspective.
And that's why I appreciate your contribution and what you're trying to do there.
But to remain focused again on the point
Let me ask you another question.
So you've said earlier, like when you kind of got a little bit more emotional there, that you were tired, basically repeating your position.
And I'm sorry that I have to ask you again, but that the first clone, again, is from the keyboard, as you said, right?
So that, again, is the same thing as the no-virus people in a general way, right?
But once you have these clones,
So another point, once you have the clones, wherever they come from, any computer program or metagenomics or whatever, is there a different way that this entity, this created entity is used or was used according to you in the last four years that brought something to our collective experience that would not have been there were these infectious clones not real?
Sure.
So, it's mostly a possibility space.
So, again, remember the argument that might be denied.
Before you answer that, JJ, because I guess the point from the no-virus people that has kept them in their position maybe, I guess, a little bit in the front to you is that
whatever he says if it's right that these infectious clones exist or are created in cell cultures or whatever it doesn't change what we're seeing here at all and it doesn't impact the reality of pandemics at all because it's still not
a viral particle as we understand it to be.
So I guess what they're saying is like, we're together as well in that.
So if you bring the infectious clones, what is the real life impact of that that makes us see the science differently or the experience differently than if your infectious clones were not there?
There are, I'm not sure how many virologists there are that work on RNA viruses, but I guess there are a few.
And all of these people are basically fooled by this same idea, the same idea that you can make a synthetic sequence and put it on a cell culture, and you have basically jump-started your virology experiment at a reproducible, high-fidelity starting point, which is what all of these academic biologists have trained to try and design into their experiments.
My whole point with patch-clamp physiology
is that I can record from neurons and record pico-amp level recordings.
And so this is very fine detail of the electrical signals, the ionic signals that are moving in and out of a neuron.
And so if I apply a pharmacon, a drug to that neuron, and those signals change, and then I apply an antagonist to that, then those signals change in a predictable way again, you can start to trick yourself into believing you have some understanding of the proteins that are working underneath those signals.
Now, with virology, there's no standard at that level.
It's not like that at all.
And so, you really have a... I'm sort of losing my train of thought.
I apologize.
Just tell me again what... Yeah.
So, basically, what I wanted to know from you is how does... Oh, the new thing.
Yes.
Okay.
So, yeah, I got it.
So, in real life, how does it affect reality?
Yeah.
And how does it contradict, basically, the position of the no-virus position?
Because from their perspective,
I said I got it.
So do you think it's legitimate for me to tell you that everything you believe is wrong, but then not to substantiate it at all?
Like, if I just start with that and say, you know, everything, Gabe, that you believe is wrong, and then not say, you just have to accept it.
Otherwise, I don't want to talk to you.
because that's their strategy.
They don't want to explain to biologists what the misnomer is.
They don't want to explain to other biologists what the misconception is.
They want to show you that isolation doesn't happen or that virology means something else.
And from the perspective of other academics, it's a lot of times sufficient for them to hear that, well, virology doesn't mean isolation like I mean it.
That's fine.
And they don't mean culture like we say culture, but that's fine.
And that leaves everybody with a very easy out to just dismiss that their understanding is so un-nuanced that they can't explain it to me better than that, then I'm not even gonna take them seriously.
That's where I was left.
And so the problem with, here's with clones.
And there's millions of people out there that weren't either, right?
So once we understand the arguments that they were brought forward by them,
For me, it clicked with other things that are already new and it actually brought me overboard.
It brought me into a new understanding, a new paradigm very quickly through the terrain theory as well, because without the terrain part, it's difficult to go there.
I mean, just give me one example.
If they would have told me in 2020 or in 2021, for example, there's that, everything that we've told you.
Plus, if you add as well the infectious clones thing, it
These are the consequences.
These are what happens, and this is why the pandemic was different because of the reason or the mechanism of the infectious clones.
So what do they do, these clones?
What's the importance of these clones in reality?
In reality?
I mean, how many different ways should I say it?
Well, I understand the impact that they have in technology, right, in what you're saying, but in the pandemic,
the reality of life in medicine, I guess, or in health.
I'm trying to understand really what you're missing.
I mean, you understand that
If you don't call it... Are you saying, for example, what did they do with the clones that you're talking about?
I'm not saying what they did.
It's a crime scene.
I'm telling you that there are lots of ways for the virology, for example, of the Sohomish County man.
Are you familiar with him?
The Sohomish County man is the first case in Washington State in the United States.
And it's actually the, they took his virus and cultured it.
And supposedly when the CDC distributes sequences or the virus from Wuhan, they distribute a cultured virus derived from him.
Still, four years later, if you go on the CDC website and you order the Sohomish County man virus, their guests, they're going to send you something.
They claim that they are culturing and sustaining and distributing for the last four years.
And that's absolutely positively biologically ridiculous.
They can't do that.
And the only way that they can do it, especially down to a pure sequence, is to have made it.
So what I'm suggesting and what people don't see is that there is a, they refuse to hear it, is that there is an illusion that needed to be created in order for billions of people to behave so stupid.
It is not as simple as getting a bunch of people to go on social media and agree.
It had to be more complicated than that.
And if you understand
that every pharmaceutical company that had any manufacturing capabilities at all in the biologics space was capable of making liters and liters of relatively pure DNA or RNA in their vats because they can make antibodies.
Therefore, they have the capability of making the DNA or the RNA that leads to the antibodies.
They can do all this stuff in bacteria, the same way they made the RNA for the shots.
Now, if you understand that PCR works, and you understand that PCR works well, and you understand that they can make for cheap, like they brag about it for the last 10 years about how cheap it is to make DNA and how cheap it is to sequence.
And all you need to get a PCR positive is for that DNA to be present.
DNA is not infectious.
DNA is not dangerous.
DNA is very stable.
If you got a bunch of DNA from somewhere in your lungs, you wouldn't just go into cardiac arrest or something.
Your body would just store it in the mucus.
You'd cough it out.
You'd probably never notice.
But if you PCR swabbed somebody who had been laced with that DNA or with that infectious, cloned, viral,
sequence, then it would have been... Where did it come from?
A laboratory, it's a fricking fake.
How many times?
Is it impossible not to understand that the biosecurity state needed everyone in academia, everyone in the bureaucracy, everyone at home, everyone working at a gas station to believe that a pandemic occurred.
And so that means you need to create a real illusion of consensus.
And it doesn't mean that virology has to exist.
It means that transfection works
and that PCR can find DNA.
If you don't believe that stuff, then you really are lost.
And I think a lot of times, these no-virus people have taken the false route of saying, oh, they just over-cycled the PCR.
That's an absolute, ridiculously, un-nuanced argument.
It has nothing to do with PCR cycle.
That's a different argument.
So I guess, let me know if I get correctly what you just said, is that your position with the infectious clones has to come a little bit
and meshed with the whole biological kind of labs or bioweapon thing.
So these clones, in order for people to find them through the PCR test inside of the people, these sequences that they've cloned, they have to be brought into the people in one way or another.
Only one?
That's the part you guys just don't seem to want to lock into and that they've bamboozled you into not seeing it.
There's only three cases in the world where they sequenced anything.
Those are the only three cases where that sequence had to be present.
Everything else was bullshit because they only did a PCR primer test.
And so I don't understand how it's taken four years for people to realize that for four years I've been saying that the only case that needed to be faked in America was the one guy that we don't even know his name.
He's already gone.
And yet, interestingly enough, the sequence that we got, confirmed Wuhan sequence, was in this one Chinese guy.
We modeled all, all, all of the spike proteins in all of the mRNA products after this one guy's sequence.
And the virus that we're supposedly distributing for the last four years is derived from this guy's virus.
And I've been trying to say for four years that this is the ultimate evidence that infectious clones were used because it's the exact same sequence that they reported in these other places.
And you understand, please, please understand, a teaspoon of that DNA
that was made by the leader, by all of these companies that were manufacturing the RNA for the spike protein.
If you wanted to PCR test for the RNA of the spike protein and you had a DNA, because they always have to make the DNA before they make the RNA, and you had that DNA of that spike protein and you only had a teaspoon of it,
but it was pure.
That would be enough to put a absolutely fire-hot PCR test anywhere and everywhere you wanted it in the world.
You could have put it in several people in Italy, several people in Iran, several people in Wuhan, several people in America.
They would have all found the same sequence.
It would have all briefly
probably caused a little cytopathic effect if you'd have put it on there because the DNA would do that, the whatever, and they would say, oh my gosh, look what we sequenced.
And they would have put the DNA there, they would have claimed to have found it, and how many liars would it take?
Two?
Maybe three and then two of those liars don't even have to know they're lying because they're trying to climb the tenure track ladder and they think the pandemic is going to make their career.
And now the story in Seattle is set.
And now everybody in the world has to accept that the CDC has the sample.
And this is the sample that we're going to make all of the therapeutics from.
And the way that they did it is the simple methodology that they've always used to start every fricking experiment that's worth its salt.
Even the experiments that are cited as the gain of function experiments in 2015, where they took one SARS and put it with another, it's all just synthetic DNA that they put on a cell culture and said they were culturing viruses.
And I have been saying this consistently for four years,
And no one is being genuine about acknowledging that.
They're all pretending that, oh, Jonathan thinks there's viruses and Jonathan, Jonathan, Jonathan.
And this is terrible.
That's why we are here in 2024.
That's why- I'm trying to go beyond that.
That's the reason actually that I wanted to have this conversation.
And I thank you for getting back there with me.
So just to maybe ask you a last question here, if I boil it down to another point,
further along that route and the other counter-argument that will be that I'm sure you can explain it quickly is
from their perspective, the no virus perspective, the first genome, the first sequence was made up actually from a bunch of different, like actually millions of sequences that were brought up in the first patients.
And then this sequence was made up, but was not actually transferred into reality, right?
So if I understand correctly, the person in the US, for example, which would have been hypothetically infected with the infectious clone, that clone, was it based on the sequence from the zoo paper?
Is that what you're saying?
I'm saying that if you're sophisticated enough to understand their virology, if there was an infectious clone present in Wuhan and then you used metagenomic sequencing,
the odds of you having a consensus sequence that would be right on, dead on balls accurate for the clone is extremely high.
So even though they showed you this metagenomic sequencing of all these different, you know, little bits and fragments, and then they say they went down and they made an average sequence, the average sequence only showed up as loud as it did, in my humble opinion, because it was generated from a very pure exposure to begin with.
It doesn't need to be this way.
What I need you to hear
is that I've never defended virology using these arguments.
What I am defending is the idea that a very high fidelity illusion of a molecular pandemic is so capable in the wheelhouse of every technology set that any of these pharmaceutical companies have.
They can make the large quantities,
They can package it in liposomes.
They can distribute it.
They can do any number of things.
And if you understand that, for example, I'll give you one from the literature.
There was a paper, I believe it was from New York State, where they were trying to look at coronavirus using PCR in white-tailed deer.
And after a long, long data collection process and whatever, they were actually very shocked because so many of these things were positive.
And it actually turned out, after they did careful controls on the advice of the reviewer, that they actually swabbed the floor of the laboratory and the shelves of the laboratory.
And it turned out that somehow or another, they had a control
amplicon, which is a small piece of DNA, which represents the amplicon that you are looking for.
And so you use that DNA as a control.
So that comes up at like 10 cycles or something.
And so you know, okay, so our primers work, and they pull this, this control sample up really fast at like 10 cycles.
But
you can learn something then about the concentration of the thing you find in your sample based on, okay, this one comes up at 10, and we know the concentration of that one.
Then when it comes up from the sample, maybe it's 30, so then we have some quantitative measurement of the transcripts
presence there.
My point is that that's all they do.
That's all they did.
So this proxy, if it's accepted by all of these people, is a proxy that now they move on with the assumption that the background behind there is there's something to find.
And this marker
incidentally, has varied and it varies widely throughout the whole pandemic.
For example, they were pulling N-protein sometimes, S-protein sometimes.
And it's, there's a lots of bait and switch that goes on here.
For example, the S-protein, they want you to believe that the S-protein is this really special thing.
It's
only on coronaviruses and we got to talk about it, talk about it, talk about it.
But in reality, there are lots and lots of these proteins, homologues of these proteins in our body doing all kinds of things.
And the conserved regions of what they call the viral spike are conserved across a lot of proteins that we ourselves use for signaling and this kind of thing.
So there is a great distortion that has occurred
if we are allowed to assume that what the virologists want you to assume is that they're looking at a background that's mostly clean and they don't want you to understand that PCR is so powerful, so powerful, that a very, very tiny fraction of DNA that's so harmless
can be used as a marker.
I mean, if they wanted to, they could take a DNA construct with a known sequence and distribute it at the school that my kids go to and the kids would not get sick.
it would just be on their hands because they put it on the trays of the lunch table because it's DNA.
And if you had that in high quantity, you could PCR test those kids and it would test hot as fire.
And it would be that simple to say, holy crap, something's spreading around in my hospital.
Now imagine
Just a quick interjection.
That point that you just said there, that was actually where I was going with my next question.
The basic chronology, the A, B, C, D steps.
What you're saying, if I get it, is that the thing that you would put on the hands of the children, which would be in our story for the pandemic, the thing that you put, for example, in the guy or whatever in China and then in the US, has to be pre-existing.
So I guess... No, it doesn't.
It just has to be made.
has to be made, right?
Pre-existing in the laboratory.
So before that, you would have to have a previous step of people in the background, just a few people only, creating a sequence, and then creating the DNA and the RNA, and then going somewhere and putting it, whatever, in the water or anything.
And then you could easily detect it in the first patient.
And this is made up of nothing.
I would say it's probably nothing.
It's not nothing.
That's another misconception.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
We should stop right here.
Stop right here, because it's good.
This is a good place.
Let me just recite what I was saying.
I was not saying from nothing, like thin air.
I was just saying not like a virus, like a viral particle existing in the human body.
That's just what I was saying.
Okay?
Not nothing.
Okay?
So I guess...
It doesn't have to be a part of it.
Just try not to define it.
Don't say that the RNA is a particle in the body.
Don't say any of that.
Just say that PCR finds molecules.
We know how PCR does that.
And if there are all these molecules there, you don't have to define where they're coming from.
PCR can find them.
That's the simplicity of it.
So if you think again, back to the beginning of the talk, that we said and agreed that we don't have any data before 2020 about any of these signals.
None.
Zero zip.
We don't know how the seroprevalence tests would work.
We don't know how any of the PCR tests that we used in 2020 and 21 would have worked.
We don't have any data.
And imagine a scenario where the idea was, and I think this is the idea, where the idea was to convince our children that pandemics are real.
The way to do it would be to spend the years between the first SARS pandemic and this one characterizing the background.
roll out PCR tests, the DITRA could be PCR testing for any signals that it wanted to in the background, characterizing all the noise in the background, all of it.
And now I want you to imagine, if you can, the metaphor of nobody on earth knows that automobiles exist.
But they exist.
They're there.
We use them all the time, but we just don't think about it.
They're not there.
We don't see them.
We don't experience them.
But then the government was able to accurately characterize everyone's automobile, what they drive, what they own.
And then, unbeknownst to the public, they would tell you that we have a way of testing whether or not you have an automobile.
And if you have an automobile, you may be a danger to your grandparents, you might run them over.
And so they've created an illusion that we're not aware of because we weren't aware we were always driving cars.
That there's this huge danger that, wow, if I have a car, I could kill my grandparents.
And so then they gave us a test and we went down to our garage and we tested for rubber wheels.
And holy shit, everybody's got it.
No matter where we look and no matter what garage we find rubber wheels, this shit's spreading everywhere.
And that illusion could be created except we can see cars.
But if there is this huge, thick background of DNA and RNA signals that's produced by every living thing on the planet, and they have done their best to characterize what signals can be easily pulled out of it, and then in 2020 decided, hey, guys, there's something spreading.
Check it.
We can suss for it.
Now, imagine if that could be augmented by a couple of super positive examples because they use synthetic infectious, don't call it infectious, they use synthetic cloned molecules to make sure that the signal that they wanted to tell you was spreading was found, knowing that they know the background so that they can say, okay, now we're going to change the primers because
Delta is spreading.
Now we're going to change the primers because Omicron is spreading.
And now they're just going through their background catalog of signals they know are there and telling us that's the ongoing evolution of a virus.
And before you know it, four years later, we've been arguing about no virus or virus, and we've been arguing about lab leak or natural virus, and we've accepted the fact that there's something out there.
And in reality, there are methodologies which can explain why these things work the way they do, why virologists have been fooled.
And if we were good enough at walking people out of this cave, we could wake up hundreds of thousands of people to this illusion.
I believe that if we didn't just start with, you have to accept that there are no viruses, because I don't think that's nuanced enough.
Well, I think that there's already hundreds of thousands of people that have been woken up by the no-virus group, so that's one thing, but that doesn't invalidate what you just said.
Are they woken up in a way that allows them to act effectively, though?
Or have they been woken up just to the stage where they don't have any message to communicate to anybody?
Because that's the problem.
I believe the impact is very positive and very concrete.
I hope so.
And it's about mostly the fear, right?
So it's about not living in fear of infectious particles out there.
So that would be the main argument.
But just before that, just to finish on the point,
the amplification signal that you're talking about which would be amplified through the clones before in order to give the impression firstly that you have a new signal and then bringing about the pandemic machine I guess so that amplification would basically would come from the infectious clone
And I guess the question that I would end with to close that discussion, that would probably be a question that the no virus people will ask you is, probably you're tired of hearing it, but was there any evidence that this is done?
And for the particular pandemic in itself, is there a way to show
that for this pandemic, there was that infectious clone and that it was used as a boosting signal, or I guess, because I guess we're basically in a hypothesis land, right?
I think that that's one of the reasons why the no virus position is so important, because there is a, I got to think about this carefully.
Because from how I see it, they're trying to remain as rigorous as they can to the scientific literature.
So they're always trying to base their claims on what can be shown.
And so what do you propose that I'm doing?
No, you too as well, but I'm going for the amplification signal, right?
So that would be, what is the, is there any?
I'm still, I think you're actually still not understanding it.
It's very, very simple.
Are we at the stage now where we're not arguing about the fact that there are industrial ways to make large quantities of a relatively pure DNA or RNA molecule?
No.
No, right?
Just like we can make a book, right?
That makes sense.
That's simple.
Yeah.
And we can make lots of copies of a book, right?
Right.
So if I take this book,
and I put it somewhere.
No, I understand.
I understand the mechanism.
I'm just trying to ask you what I guess someone like Tom Cowan would tell you at that point is, well, can you show to me anywhere that this happened at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020?
But that's like saying, that's really strange because I don't, can he show that it hasn't?
Can He show that these molecular signals were not found?
Can He show that these primers are not amplifying anything?
Can He show?
Because that's the counter argument.
I'm saying that it's fake.
I'm saying that they have tricked us into believing.
RNA can go around the world and it can't.
And these messages are very precise and actually are very complementary to their stance.
And so if you take the position of Tom Cowan, I'm sorry, but that's the wrong name to drop because
His discussions about ionic currents and this kind of thing have totally undermined his stance and his seemingly razor-sharp intellect with regard to virology because his discussions about ionic currents and ion channels and the way that cell membranes work is just wholly unfounded.
And he's suggesting that now biophysics isn't real.
There's a difference between saying virology is an illusion and biophysics isn't real.
I think what he would, I can't speak for him, but I think what that place is saying is that it's not that biophysics isn't real, is that we've got a picture of biophysics and it works differently than what we thought before.
He has actually said there are no ion channels.
So you can't, you can't, you can't, you can't.
Potassium, potassium channel inside the membrane.
Yeah, but that's, that's, that's ridiculous.
I'm sorry, but that's, it's not possibly.
See, this is where, this is where I get frustrated.
I have spent, I have spent 25 years becoming a sophisticated biologist and now I'm trying to shed the cloth and accurately describe what
I now believe as ridiculous biology and at the same time try to prevent people from throwing out the 200 plus years of work that we have done to painstakingly try to understand a little part of nature and the idea that this man
has enunciated that there are no ion channels suggests that a lot of the best experiments that have ever been done in biology are false and that these are the best of the best experiments that have ever been done are the experiments that have been done on ion channels and on ion fluctuation controlled by ion channels.
They've done it in the most rigorous examples of biological experiments that there are that include
intimate mathematical descriptions and models which make predictions that come true even at the single channel level.
And I've done the experiments to confirm these things.
So the concept... Can you see them?
Can you see the channels?
The individual channels in the membrane?
Oh my God.
I'm just asking.
That's a very genuine question.
Can you see them in the... How do you see atoms?
How do you think... What is going on?
I mean...
You really don't think that any of this stuff has been done?
You really honestly believe that?
That's how badly they have contaminated you.
Because you just brought me into a whole different territory there.
But it's not a whole different territory because when you say that viruses... Are you talking about the credibility of Tom Cowan, right?
And my point was not about Cowan.
It's about the credibility of anybody that says no viruses.
If you say there are no viruses, then it is just like you think.
that it's very much the onus on me to explain how infectious clones were used, and I have to come up with the exact details of how it's done, or whatever, besides saying... You're claiming something.
You're getting into the whole scientific method.
You're lost in their trap, man.
I'm sorry, but I don't have to explain anything to say that it's fake.
You don't have to if you don't want to.
But if you're claiming that's true, it's true.
It's about the onus being on the people that say there's a pandemic to explain it.
That's the whole point.
So why attack me?
Why make me explain it?
Well, because you're not claiming the same thing that the pandemic people are claiming.
You're claiming something different.
You're claiming that your infectious clones are used as a... No, I'm not.
Stop putting those words in my mouth.
I'm suggesting to you that there is molecular biological methodologies that can very parsimoniously explain how a false signal could be created.
I'm suggesting to you that there's a very good molecular biological explanation for how many, many virologists are fooling themselves into believing what they do constitutes virology.
And I've been trying very hard to explain the subtleties of this at a high enough level so that academic biologists can't just shrug their shoulders and say, oh, this guy's a clown.
Because that's what happens when Tom Cowan argues about all these things, and I'm really smart, I'm really smart, and the coronavirus people, they're all lying, and Mr. Cooey is false, and then he jumps over and says that biophysics is fake.
It's just ridiculous, and does not see how disingenuous that has to be.
There's no possible way that he can think that it's okay to apply his rigorous analysis to virology and then not apply it to the biophysics of ion channels, because he's lying then, because he hasn't looked at those papers with enough scrutiny to tell me why aren't there ion channels.
He's never bothered to say that, because he can't, because that's a lie.
And it's really frustrating, because with all the work that they've spent disproving virology, he's actually spent zero time disproving a much broader and much more expansive field of biology, which is protein dynamics, and ion channels, and signaling mechanisms, and G-protein coupled receptors, and this concept
is not the dismissal of all of the molecular biology that we have because there are no viruses is exactly the trap that these people represent.
Okay.
Well, I can understand that perception.
And actually, I don't think it's invalid.
I think that's a good analysis.
That's an interesting analysis that would probably reveal itself to be false or true in the future, right?
And just to conclude that, so if I get correctly what you just said at the end, just to make sure that you understand me, JJ, I do not want to put words in your mouth.
at all.
I'm not trying to make you say something that you do not believe in at all.
I'm just really trying to make sure I understood correctly or to the best of my own limited capacity what you were claiming since the past six months to a couple of years.
So you're just basically not claiming at all that this signal was used during the pandemic.
That's your hypothesis that it could be used to amplify stuff, but you've never stated that it's been used and that there's a way to show it or prove it there.
Right?
So you just provide basically the molecular mechanism.
I'm not providing molecular mechanism.
I'm providing a much, much more parsimonious explanation for the vast majority of the lie.
And the parsimonious explanation is that there are no viruses.
That's not a parsimonious explanation.
And saying that they don't isolate or don't purify viruses is not a parsimonious explanation.
It doesn't get anywhere.
It's a hamster wheel.
I'm sorry, but it is.
And it's the exact game that they wanted us to play.
It's exactly why they were there.
It's exactly why there's a photograph of Andrew Kaufman shaking the hands of Andrew Cuomo in 2019.
Because these people, some of them are good, and some of them are being sabotaged.
And collectively, that has led to the no virus position effectively not saving anybody.
The ones that it saved were gonna be saved already.
Anybody that bought on to the idea that there was no viruses was not gonna take the shot to begin with anyway.
That didn't save anyone from the shot.
And in fact, I think the ludicrous stance of there being no viruses has led to a lot more people taking the shot because they've never considered the possibility that the biosecurity state and the CDC and all the people
All the weaponized piles of money that make infinite amounts of money on the childhood vaccine schedule in the United States would have any onus to lie about it.
because that message is not front and center of any of these people.
And that's where I feel like I am completely different.
I don't say in the start of my stream ever that infectious clones are what they did.
What I say is that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Say transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent because hundreds of thousands of biologists should have known.
And I say that RNA cannot pandemic.
Other than that, the beauty of that is that you don't have to get in a debate about whether viruses exist with an academic biologist.
You just have to challenge them to think about it a minute.
Wait, what?
RNA can't pandemic.
Wait, why would that be?
Well, that's because we don't copy RNA the same ways.
Oh, wait, maybe that's an interesting idea.
And now if they end up thinking that there are no viruses, we've saved somebody.
But if you start with no viruses and it gives so many people an easy way to dismiss it,
We'll see.
We'll see what happens.
We'll see.
We'll see in the future what's going on.
But my guess is this slow roll to accepting that this was a lie is...
is going to continue over the next three or four years.
I don't think that just like the lab leak, it's still being rolled out in mainstream media.
And so we're going to be we're going to be trapped in this mythology for a while unless people become sophisticated enough to understand that there are ways that this could have been this could have been faked.
And more importantly, one of the easiest ways to do it would have been kill people in hospitals with protocols that were were the wrong idea or or
or financial incentives that encourage that.
So to me, I'm happy to hear that they've talked about the protocols and stuff.
But at this stage, I feel like the thing that's missing is the very, very, you know, 20,000-foot perspective that everybody can understand, which
which is where I'm trying to go.
I don't know if I'm there yet, but I want people to understand that the big ideas that are represented in this pandemic mythology are just not there.
They're not there biologically.
They're not there socioeconomically.
They're not there.
Whatever you say it is, there are very few worldwide phenomenon that nevermind a worldwide molecular phenomenon that
unprecedented 15 or 16 million sequences, examples of this ongoing evolution.
I mean, it's just absurd.
And the idea that so many biologists have just taken this and not bothered to question it, there's a lot of reasons why that's the case.
I guess the most important one would be that most academic biologists have created such a narrow expertise for themselves that they actually aren't sophisticated enough to see
vaccine schedule was a lie and that infectious disease has been exaggerated for years.
It is a terrible place we are in.
I mean, I don't want anybody to underestimate how much more work is to be done.
And I am very open to the idea that eventually the no virus people will say, I guess Jay's getting it right now, and that would be fine.
So do you, you know, to call back Buckminster Freer, well, I'm going to paraphrase him a little bit, but there's also some some thing that he brought into the global consciousness was that instead of Buckminster, Bucky.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
You quoted him at the beginning of the show today.
But there's a way that something that he said close to
you know, when the system is obsolete, you know, just build a new one and do not try to destroy the old one, just try to build a new one and people will, you know, aggregate around that new one or use the new one with your more, you know, simple and elegant system.
So in your point of view, JJ, in closing here, do you think that there's two
Too much harm that's been done, too much division for, I guess, you guys to reunite together, you and the Novirus people?
Or do you see a world, a possible world, where you will engage in a good faith conversation with even Tom Cowan or Andy or Mark Bailey?
I think you like Mark Bailey a lot.
For example, if I were to take some active steps in that direction, trying to bring you on a show with one of these guys, would you be open to that?
Yeah, in theory I would be.
I mean, as long as we don't get into some kind of nuanced debate about what we can and can't talk about, then sure.
I've never been offered a situation where I wasn't given a very strict number of things that we were supposed to prepare and send literature about anything you want to argue about.
I mean, this for me is just silly.
Either you're a competent
biologist and you're working to try and understand it, and that means reading every day and being humble enough to realize that none of us are going to get to the stage where we know the answer.
I really, and I don't mean that we're not going to find out that they're liars.
I'm sure that answer we know.
They killed people and lied about it, and that's how we are governed.
We've been governed that way for
for decades.
So I just think we need people to realize that lying about biology is not beyond the purview of these monsters.
And so I just think if we can come together
to agree that part of this illusion is not, I agree, part of the illusion is isolation and purification of viruses.
Part of the illusion is using synthetic DNA and RNA to pretend that isolation and purification is happening or that pretend that viral culture is happening.
Those are all important.
But I think the overarching new message that I would love them to adopt and steal and never give me credit for is that this illusion is so important that they would murder people and lie about it, because that's what I think they did.
And so they would plant molecular signals if they thought it would help their cause.
They would distribute pure molecular signals if they thought that they could misconstrue it as spread.
I think they would murder people and lie about it in order to tell you that a pandemic was ongoing.
And so if we can start there and then discuss, you know, argue about how about biology and whatever, then then for me, it's fine.
But if we if we're going to establish that Jonathan Cooley has to argue that that viruses exist or that clones are real or whatever the the phrasing will be, I'll be a little frustrated, but I'll be there.
I mean, I don't have any problem with that.
Cool.
Well, I have no idea if it is something that's even possible.
So I'll see, you know, as I told you in the beginning, I'm just one guy trying to, you know, bring things a little bit more forward than they are right now, if possible, and hopefully in a better direction.
And I hope you did not, you know, take my questioning and my, you know, basic level of understanding as an upfront or, you know, as someone that has not paid attention sufficiently enough to what you've been saying, because,
My perspective is, you know, we're talking about the 20-foot view.
I'm trying to be like a 100,000-foot view.
I'm trying to understand what's going on in physics, in technology, in AI and everything, and just trying to put things together and see if there's a global picture emerging of that or not.
So I'm really not, as I said at the beginning,
coefficient in one specific field like that.
So thank you very much for taking some time and going through my questions, my repetitive questions today.
I think we kind of made some progress actually for me.
I kind of understood really more what you were saying.
There's many more different fields of questioning that I would have loved to show to you today, but we don't have time for that, so thank you again.
So, JJ, your website is gigahomebiological.com, G-I-G-A-O-H-M biological.com, and you're going streaming live like almost every day of the week, so can you give people basically
I appreciated your point of view today and want to learn more and follow you in the future and maybe encourage your research by whatever, making donations or supporting you, what they can do and where they can go and what days of the week you're like.
That's really nice of you.
I can't stress to you enough how often that doesn't happen to me in interviews.
I will start out by saying thank you and I apologize if it felt like it got heated or antagonistic.
I think it should, in retrospect, maybe after the stream is over, it will feel as a sign of authenticity because if you've actually seen an alien, you're not going to be very happy about having to tell everybody that you've seen the alien.
People who saw the alien that was HIV went through the same thing that I'm going through right now.
And maybe people like Mark Bailey and Sam Bailey, Tom Cowan went through it earlier than I did.
And so they're at a different stage of dealing with it.
And so it could be that there's just some spontaneous friction that occurs there too, as people are at different stages of waking up.
And so I'm trying to humble myself all the time and make sure that everybody is reminded that I'm not the guy who came up with these ideas.
I'm not the first dude to doubt virology by any stretch of the imagination.
But I feel as though maybe there's a more nuanced way to bring more people to understand how
how intricately the illusion has been laid over the last 20 years.
And so you can find me at stream.gigaohm.bio or gigaohm.bio.
These are all two places that are federated places.
So there's no algorithm.
All my videos are archived there as well.
And I archive also on Rumble.
But the most important thing would just be to try and share my work and spread the word.
a few people that help me out and we scrape by.
And if a few more people subscribe in the next few months, we'll almost be fully sustainable, I think, at least for the short term.
And so for me, it's more about getting the word out.
And I don't do very many interviews because often what happens is what happened in this interview that I'm not able to, you know, be as diplomatic as I should be in order to get this message out.
But I hope that you're
your viewers will give me the benefit of the doubt and try to listen to the words I'm saying and not yelling.
And I'm going to get better at it.
You know, it's four years.
I'm getting to the stage where I'm a little more, I'm able to keep my cool, but I still get frustrated with my own inability to bring people to where I am.
And I guess it's just, you know, it's just practice.
I can say it on my show.
It's a jazz show.
I have to repeat it every night.
It gets better and better.
We'll see.
Well, you know, the last couple of minutes that you've been speaking here is, you know, I guess the genuine values, I don't know, I guess you're kind of speaking from your heart when you get into that kind of space there, and that's what I'm looking for.
I'm looking for someone who's got a scientific mind, and for me, it's about humbleness and acknowledging that we can all move forward, and I'm trying to live by that kind of attitude as well.
I've been wrong so many times, and even today, I've not been the best at managing that conversation also.
So I just want to say thank you for going through it with me.
I'm just trying to make some progress.
doing that in a way that can be unifying as much as I can, and hopefully so that it can have a good impact for the people out there.
And I just want to encourage people to listen to your streams.
You're much better than me, more advanced.
You've got multiple cameras, you've got some sound effects, and you've got a great quality, and you're a great communicator.
I have to say that.
You're straightforward, your sentences are
clear and you always have a point that you're driving through.
And I really appreciated that from the streams that I've listened to.
So I really encourage people to follow you, too.
And because, you know, what we're trying to do here from my own perspective to my audience is I'm trying to find the heterodox thinkers which have heterodox ideas in order to better understand the rules or the patterns emerging, as JJ said at the beginning as well.
So
Well, in order for that to happen, these voices that are more lonely voices like JJ here need to be encouraged and supported.
So I think it's worth it if people go your way.
So of course, the links would be in the comments.
Thanks again, JJ.
You've been really awesome today, even if it was not easy all the time.
Thank you again for participating.
And I have no idea if something will come out of that, as I said.
But I'll give it a shot.
And if I do bring something, I'll let you know.
OK, sounds good.
You're awesome.
Thank you, man.
Thank you.
OK, so that's the end of that video.
I don't know.
I have an interesting feeling about that now.
I don't feel as bad as I did.
And I guess it now explains to me why I felt so weird when that email went so wrong.
I just wanted to post a transcript to make sure that those descriptions, especially a couple of those that I nailed in there,
about transfection and transformation of cell culture, just basically being virology, that was one of the first times I had ever said that.
And so I was pretty proud of that.
And I did not, I didn't want to
Yeah, I don't know.
I didn't want to leave it hanging.
And so I did.
I ended up just posting his email, as I showed you here.
And that was just a way of, in my humble opinion, putting it out there that the discussion had happened.
And then as far as I was concerned, the idea, I didn't post it, right?
I gave him lots of weeks.
He said it would be a few weeks before he would be able to do anything.
And that was the 20th of May.
And now we've passed the 20th of June.
And now we're in July.
So I do think we gave him enough time to post that interview.
And if he does, I don't think I've ruined it.
Because again, we want people that haven't seen me to see me.
So presumably he'll have a different audience than me and you guys won't need to watch it there.
And that wouldn't be who he would be trying to attract anyway.
So I never really understood what the point was of calling it his content when it was interviewing me.
I guess he tried to talk a lot and he said a lot of things, so I guess that was some of his content, but I didn't get the feeling that his content contributed a lot to what I said.
Anyway, the point would be very simple, and there isn't much more dishonorable thing to do than misleading the young, and I think
All of these people are involved in an intricate plan to get us to mislead our children about the pandemic potential that exists in nature.
I think this man is also intimately involved in this and one of the main things that they are hiding.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic.
Weaponized piles of money have murdered people and gotten people to agree about it being a lab leak.
The LL vaccine schedule is injuring and killing thousands every year.
And RNA virology is just transformation and transfection of cell cultures and animal models.
Please stop all transfections in humans.
Happy 4th of July to the Americans out there.
They are still trying to eliminate the control group.
That's why the new flu vaccines are all RNAs.
Just trying to keep that control group whittling down.
If you like what you saw, please support me at gigaohmbiological.com.
There is a family of five that lives off of this stream, and this is really our thing.
And gigaohmbiological.com is a place, or gigaohm.bio is a place where we can chat.
I will go check that later on.
And then stream.gigaohm.bio is the PeerTube version of the stream.
If you don't watch it, they're live.
because it's a little delayed from Twitch, please make sure that you go watch it there on the replay.
Number one, because you get the music in the beginning, you don't want to miss Boston.
And number two, because you can now download everything that you find on Peertube in two different formats, the full version, or you can download a 480, or I think you might even be able to download just the audio, and you have my explicit permission to take those
those formats and put them wherever you want to and distribute them however you want to.
If you want to start your own podcast on Spotify and call it Giga Home Biological Replays, please do it.
If you want to start a new Rumble channel, please do it.
And like I said, if you want to support the work, please go to gigahomebiological.com.
Thank you very much.
This is the luxury of having spent my life doing what I love.
The cost of that
It sucks.
I'm not blind.
I'm not numb to the pain.
I would argue I'm more conscious of it than anybody else, but I'm also more conscious of what that gives me.
And when I'm done with this, that will be
what it is and I'll find a way.
But there's something inside of me propelling that I'm not going to give up until the wheels fall off.
That's what I'm made of.
And I wish I see all the arguments against it, but I wish I could relate the intangibles to you.
My guess is that we're all built the same.
None of us are completely stupid,
a little deranged, I think a strong argument.
I do.
But ultimately, we also know what we have.
And to go and lay down in that sense of it, that's like embracing what we've done with our lives, you know?
So most of you have already gone, but I just want to make sure that you understand I'm taking a deep breath here because I don't want to get emotional.
But everything in this whole pandemic happened somehow for a reason.
Even me losing my brother to this ideology happened for a reason.
What does my brother have to fight for with no kids?
What future is he fighting for with no kids?
What do I have that he doesn't have?
What have I been missing when I've been in science my whole life thinking that tenure or the future was where to find my happiness instead of in my kid's bedroom or in the swimming pool in the driveway?
And we've all got to realize this, that while we're fighting for our kid's future, we're missing this present.
And so on this 4th of July, when you're at the barbecue, or this 4th of July, when you pop open that beer, make sure you're really present.
Hang on the rim a little while.
Because we're winning.
I'll see you soon.