It's nine o'clock on a Saturday
A regular crowd shuffles in There's an old man sitting next to me Making love to his tonic and gin
He says, son, can you play me a memory?
I'm not really sure how it goes.
But it's sad and it's sweet, and I knew it complete when I wore a younger man's clothes.
Sing us a song, you're the piano man Sing us a song tonight Well, we're all in the mood for a melody And you've got us feeling all right
Now John at the bar is a friend of mine He gets me my drinks for free And he's quick with a joke or to light up your smoke But there's some place that he'd rather be
Bill, I believe this is killing me As a smile ran away from his face Well, I'm sure that I could be a movie star If I could get out of this place Oh, la, la, la
Now Paul is a real estate novelist Who never had time for a wife And he's talking with David Who's still in the Navy And probably will be flying
The waitress is practicing politics As the businessmen slowly get stoned Yes, they're sharing a drink they call loneliness But it's better than drinking alone
a song you're the piano man sing us a song tonight well we're all in the mood for a melody
It's a pretty good crowd for a Saturday And the manager gives me a smile Cause he knows that it's me they've been coming to see To forget about life for a while
And the microphone smells like a beer And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar And say, man, what are you doing?
Piano man, sing us a song tonight Well, we're all in the mood for a melody And you got us feeling all right
a test that could detect a virus when the virus wasn't present.
And in addition to that, he didn't have virus, coronavirus, COVID-19 to work with, right?
He was drawing the sequencing from a computer database.
Is all of that correct?
Yes, only I would say he had an intention to pick up the virus when it was present, but in his design, he admitted that he couldn't do a very good job with imperfect information and it would pick up other Asian coronaviruses.
And that it would pick up other Asian coronaviruses.
And when you say pick up, meaning the test would indicate, return a positive if there were other coronaviruses.
And for the lay person, I didn't know this either,
Everything is a coronavirus.
I mean, things, I don't mean, many cold viruses are also called coronavirus.
In fact, COVID-19, it sounded so exotic and scary when we first learned about it, coronavirus, but many, many ordinary cold viruses are coronaviruses.
Is that correct?
It's correct.
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 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
channel 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.
know when when we have this new pandemic that is you know got 75 percent mortality and uh it 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 and i'm afraid that the latest data is literally turning into a worst case scenario i'm afraid it's literally turning into 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 it?
Isolation and purification.
Of the virus?
Yes.
Well, you isolate a virus by
finding the virus which causes a disease.
You purify a virus by making a lot of, I mean, just by purifying it so you get a pure virus.
I don't understand what the issue is.
They interchanged the two and I wasn't sure if it was the same thing or if it was two totally different... No, it depends on how they used it.
Okay.
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.
The End
I've been talking over the ABC Aussie News intro and nobody could hear me because my sound guy is me and I've got very good at it.
Hello ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the show.
This is definitely GigaOM Biological.
Misha in the chat.
I've never said hello to you but you always put two flames and a bike there and I've seen you a lot.
Hello.
Ahem.
Excuse me.
We are definitely in interesting times, ladies and gentlemen.
Definitely in interesting times, so let's enjoy them.
Let's tend the garden that is our consciousness and pull the weeds out whenever we need to and whenever we have time to because they're putting all kinds of weeds in our head all of the time.
in hopes that what we perceive to be true is not close enough to the truth for us to escape.
That's what this prime real estate thing is all about.
I'm not really sure what it is about us that does that.
I mean, it's our social nature.
I'm sure there are lots of animals that are susceptible to their fellow animals, their fellow conspecifics is the word.
Ladies and gentlemen, there was no spread in New York City.
Infectious clones are the only real threat.
Placebo batches were likely distributed and transfection in healthy mammals is dumb.
The protocols were definitely murder.
Gain of Function is a mythology that they would love for you to teach your children and the Scooby-Doo mystery is still being solved live on social media.
It's breathtaking.
A spectacular commitment to lies is all that's required.
Some of these people just don't get it.
Some of these people are so compartmentalized in their comfort, and then their success, and their perceived rise.
You know, when I started as a little tiny YouTube channel at the beginning of the pandemic, now I got like 25,000 followers.
So I must be doing something right.
Ladies and gentlemen, weaponized piles of money have convinced us to argue about the origins of the novel virus.
Participating in the argument accepts the premise of the novel virus by default, and we are governed by a theater that spans from mainstream media to all social media platforms and includes all sides of the mythology.
Yes, all of your heroes are not real.
I know, it's a bad message.
Everybody hates my message, but
If you just look at how none of these people are talking about what I'm saying biologically anymore, none of them have anything to say about the three main points.
It's pretty extraordinary.
You know, I'm the only one, actually, if you look at what these weaponized piles of money have managed to do, I'm the only one that got all five of the no-virus all-stars on the same stream, and they did a whole hour just dedicated to me.
And I'm the only one who got Robert Malone and Meryl Nass and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and Tess Laurie and Jessica Rose together for a presentation.
Who else did?
And who else got John Bodwin and Stephanie Seneff and Jessica Rose and Kevin McKernan and Jonathan Cui together?
Who's the only one that these all-star teams are assembled for?
That's right, ladies and gentlemen.
I'm sorry to tell you, but it is definitely... It's definitely the host of this show.
And that should tell you something.
Because nobody's gotten all those people together to talk to Jessica Rose or to... It's interesting, ladies and gentlemen.
I think you gotta see it for what it is.
These charlatans have gotten a definite...
Is it yesterday's title?
I don't think it's yesterday's title.
I thought I changed it.
Did I not change it?
Do I need to go?
Maybe I didn't hit done.
I don't know.
Maybe it didn't update.
Sorry about that.
Yes, once you give charlatans power over you, you almost never ever get it back.
It's a big problem.
If we're gonna make gentle the light of this world, I'm just gonna move this backwards a little bit.
If we're gonna make gentle the life of this world, the life of our children going forward, I'm spitting apple all over my notebook.
If we're gonna make gentle the life of our children as they go forward and we break them from this mythology, we're gonna have to move forward very carefully, show them what social media is so that they can see it for the artificial consensus that it is.
And once they can see social media for what it is, it'll be a lot less dangerous.
It's still dangerous.
Especially for kids that aren't particularly clever.
It's also dangerous for adults that aren't particularly clever.
And even if you have a surfboard, some people just aren't ever gonna do it, right?
And so, that's part of the problem here.
Not everybody can be saved from this wave.
Not everybody's gonna be able to swim in these waters.
But we've got to get as many people that have the potential aware and swimming and eventually up on a surfboard so that we can all get to shore safely and excise our kids from this by staying focused on the biology, not taking the bait on social media and loving our neighbors.
This is a special message, of course, always coming from America to Americans, because that's what I am.
I'm an American.
born and raised, and my dad's a tall white guy, my mom's from the Philippines, but it's the Philippines with Indian in there, and so it's like, and not American Indian, and so I got a very interesting past, heritage, whatever you call it, so I don't fit into any boxes.
I'm just an American and so if you want to spread the word about this stream about America put together by an American Please do it spread the word because that's how this works people find this stream because people share it and If you keep doing that share this the the shorts from Jeff from Jeff from earth that's it who's in the chat there and
Yeah, anyway, this is Giga Giga Giga Ohm Biological.
And I'm very excited to be here today.
I'm going to take a couple more bites of this apple and I think we'll be ready to go.
Can anybody else feel it shifting?
Twitter is like useless now.
I don't really see it being useful anymore.
Probably the main thing I'm going to use it for going forward is telling you what time I'm going to come on.
Because it's pretty dumb at this point.
Anyway, if we pull ourselves away from places like Twitter, you're essentially taking one more hand away from your eyes and getting closer to engaging in real, united non-compliance.
But we gotta understand the illusion.
We gotta understand how we got here.
And that might mean that we need to interact with Twitter a little longer.
to understand how these anonymous accounts are being used by our heroes to make it seem like people are responding to them, or arguing with them, or fighting against them.
And so, it just never ceases to amaze me how... how I should have done known better.
I should have known... I should have known better.
Anyway, I'm gonna get to it in a second.
Thanks, this is GigaOM Biological.
I'm really happy to be here today.
So,
Hello, ladies and gentlemen, this is GigaOM Biological, a high-resistance, low-noise information brief brought to you by a biologist.
It is the 8th of July, 2024.
I don't have my black scrubs on, so you can't really tell who I am, so I thought I'd put my badge on, but I am the chief biologist of GigaOM Biological.
I don't know.
I feel like at this point it's really important to realize that I wear black scrubs to make fun of all these people and I now am wearing a badge to make fun of all these people because unlike people that are claiming to be experts in
prionogenesis or amyloidogenesis or experts in analyzing data and therefore they can look at VAERS for four years straight or being polymaths that are really highly trained in bioethics, I'm wearing a badge that says chief biologist and the name of my LLC on it.
So from the perspective of my own little business here,
and how my family makes a living, this badge is pretty legitimate.
Now, given the fact that I also have a PhD in neurobiology, that's also not bad qualifications for being the chief biologist of a small consulting firm.
And so I'll just sit here and make sure, you know, that I'm flaunting the same kind of, you know, silly credentials that a lot of these other people are flaunting from behind a microphone.
However, I would like to point out that again, my path through this little theater, I'm human just like you.
And I've been fooled by a lot of liars because it's easy to believe liars when three of them lie to you together.
Like if you go on a podcast with three of them,
Or when five of them go on a podcast together to lie about you and your ideas.
Or when three or four people get together and two or three of them are lying.
It's happened to me at least three or four times with some of the all-stars of this narrative, and I don't think anyone else can say that that's happened to them.
Now, I don't know if that's a sign that everybody doesn't like me, or if it's a sign that everybody doesn't understand me, or if it's just the sign that everybody is a liar, but I'm pretty sure my gut feeling is, given all the things that I've seen and read behind the scenes, how many voicemails I've gotten, how many phone calls I've gotten from these people, and all the things that they've said,
The reason why I've been on all of those shows with all of those people but then all of those people just forget me as quick as they see me is because they don't want to discuss the idea that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
They don't want to have a discussion about the fact that any academic biologist worth their salt before the pandemic would have known what transformation and transfection meant.
Even if there's some debate about whether Cooey is right and transformation is DNA and transfection is RNA, maybe transformation has to do specifically with using viral vectors and retroviruses, whereas transfection can be transformed
Transfection can be with DNA or RNA if you use a lipid nanoparticle or electroporation.
So he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The bottom line is, is that all of them knew that transfection was dumb and healthy kids.
Would have been dumb and a healthy elderly person that you wanted to live for another 10 years.
And yet we were coerced by murder in the United States and lies about murder in the United States.
We were coerced so that we would encourage or not discourage the elderly people in our lives from taking these shots, and most of them did.
But worse yet, we were not able, many of us were not able to discourage the young people in our lives from taking these shots, the 30-year-olds, the 40-year-olds, the 20-year-olds that went back to college.
We let them go back.
Nobody wants to talk about what happened in 2020 in the fall.
Because if you do, you will find out who had principles and who didn't, who spoke out early enough and who didn't.
That was when we could have saved them.
When Richard Ebright said that if we open the colleges without any kind of regulation, 250,000 people will be dead by Christmas.
Richard Ebright said that.
They don't want to discuss the fact that RNA can't pandemic.
There's no real biological basis for this idea.
And so they attribute bad motives to me.
They don't want to adopt any kind of real explanation, overarching explanation that can help everybody understand what happened.
They don't wanna talk about how weaponized piles of money, they don't even wanna talk about what a weaponized pile of money might mean and how useful of an umbrella term that might be.
But weaponized piles of money have convinced us to argue about the origins of the novel virus.
I was there.
I was thrown out of the group drastic on Twitter in late 2020 because I wanted them to pivot to warning people that transfection was a terrible idea.
The group actually fractured into two groups, drastic and drastic science for like a year and a half because of that same little debate.
Participating in that argument is what made us all accept the novel virus, and they all knew that.
That's why DRASTIC was formed in the first place, to make sure that the narrative of the novel virus could be controlled, and anybody that needed to be made feel like they were a hero could be put in that little DM group, get invited in, and then listened and read to all those spooks that were talking about all the clues they were finding.
was like a great big Scooby-Doo unfolding right before my eyes.
Oh, wow, that looks like a good clue.
And I'm in a DM group, so not everybody sees it.
So I know from where these tweets are coming from behind the scenes, and it feels like I'm an insider.
And it's just, it's annoying.
because it's like I have seen an alien and I can't explain it well enough for people to believe it.
But Twitter was used as a lying machine, a coordinated web of liars and anonymous accounts that were run by the same people so that their lies could be even more succinctly coordinated.
And because Twitter has risen to such popularity,
We are now being governed by a theater that extends to that platform, to the Facebook platform, to the Gab platform, the telegram platform.
If you read a telegram platform or you read a large signal group, there's no, if you're, for example, in a signal group with 150 people, only two of them have to be real.
You and the person who invited you in.
If you're in a Slack group with 50 people, only two of them have to be real.
The one that invited you in, and you.
And yet, it's still, to this day, I can be fooled by this.
I don't have this premise centered in my head when I approach social media until something sticks out like, oh wait, ow.
And we must teach our children to see how this is done.
This is the fifth generation warfare that Malone spent four years explaining to everybody around the world we'd never figure out because you can never know who's lying to you.
It's because they're all lying to you.
It is a coordinated group of people that pretend to be opposed, pretend to cooperate, pretend to argue, exactly as this guy said.
It is a limited spectrum of debate being curated by somewhere between Geert van den Bosch and Children's Health Defense and the Brownstone and Robert Malone and Steve Kirsch.
And if you believe all of these people and listen to their arguments, you're stuck in the exact hog trap they want you to be stuck in.
And the only alternatives are, you know, there's no viruses at all.
And you're very quickly into very dangerous, discreditable ground.
Discreditable, right?
Yes.
I don't know.
You can be discredited very easily.
Or people can feel as though they can discredit you very easily.
And so then the position is very hard to take if you don't have the nuance necessary.
And then the other one is, of course, natural virus.
And so we are in the trap right now.
And if we can't explain it succinctly to people, it is possible we could get out.
The truth can set us free.
But the truth is so in our face,
When you go on YouTube, it's the entire screen.
And the better that the thumbnails match, the more likely it is that they are part of the illusion.
That's it.
They are all part of the enchantment, whether they know it or not.
There's no way to succeed on YouTube telling the truth, unless it's the truth about Legos.
And there was never a way to succeed telling the truth in the newspaper for a very, very long time.
And if you did, then you needed to be co-opted or you'd be gone.
That's why this statement from the twenties is so poignant to think about that in the twenties, they were talking like this.
They had no social media.
They didn't have phones in people's pockets.
They didn't have people in front of screens and, and, and TVs that had cameras that could see them.
They didn't have people giving up their most intimate thoughts on private chats in Twitter and elsewhere.
Now they do.
If you're teenagers on Snapchat talking to his friends, then what's happening there?
What are they talking about?
They put these people in place very early.
Kevin McKernan of the Human Genome Project was one of them.
Why?
Well, you should watch Housatonic Live.
I think he's got some really good output lately.
I think it's very, very interesting how every time he opens the book on the Barr family, something crazy falls out.
And I don't know what to say.
Bill Barr is the guy who prevented the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's death.
And that somehow or another, all these people that are fanatics about that story don't seem to say much about that.
I'm curious, I got the books back there of Whitney Webb.
I wonder if I could look up the Barr family in that book and see if there, does it have an index?
I guess I could do that, right?
I'm not gonna do that right now.
I will do that though, that's a good idea.
And so I think that he was put in place to mislead the young.
That's why he was on so many podcasts so early.
Oh, here they go.
What?
Okay.
Shout out, if you're watching live from the airport in Detroit, hello, good to see you.
Thank you for joining me live.
It's good to see everybody there.
I hope you're doing well.
Don't eat too many French fries.
anyway these people are misleading the young that's what they're doing that's what they did on twitter that's why so many of these people have emerged as heroes now in 2024 in the fifth year of this exercise
people that were in contact with me very early in 2021 already talking to me, even actually in 2020, talking to me about what the correct biology was.
And I was teaching people about T-cells and about memory and what memories would be the most pertinent.
and also teaching people what transfection was and the definition of it.
And one of those people was Brett Weinstein.
Another one was Heather, who were both in that Signal Chat with Alexandros Marinos and Roller Gator and Matt Crawford was in that Signal Chat and Chris Martinson and a few other people.
And that signal chat was where all these people learned the definition of the word transfection and from then on should have been calling it a transfection so that people would have to admit that this isn't an investigational vaccine.
But they didn't.
They admitted it on their stream a couple times, and they said my name a couple times, but they never actually changed their language about it.
And they never did a program to explain that, or had me on to explain it, or anyone on to explain it.
Even Robert Malone never explained it on their program, and so that's why I call them traitors, because if they would have explained it to college kids in even 2021, a lot of college kids might have even at least foregone their second shot.
But nobody made any useful effort to stop anybody from taking it, certainly not anyone under the age of 40.
And that's a crime.
Those people are guilty of playing along with this, and you can't claim ignorance.
These people can't claim ignorance because I was telling them.
They can't claim ignorance because they're all aware of my review because I put that review out in May, but I was already writing it and had it ready to go almost in January.
None of these people can claim they didn't know.
And they certainly can't claim that they don't know that Gate of Function is a mythology because I've been telling them that for a really long time as well.
I haven't been able to say it this well for more than a year and a half or so.
I haven't known that Gain of Function was a mythology for more than a year and a half or so, so I'm not claiming to be some kind of superhero here.
But one of the reasons why it took me so long to get there was because the no-virus people were so good at their job.
And they still haven't been able to say it as well as I've been saying it for the last year and a half.
And that's why they won't talk about these talking points, but instead want to talk about infectious clones and debate about infectious clones and the infectious cycle and whether or not, you know, there's competent particles or not, because those are all wonderful debates about the details that automatically accept the virus and the circulation of it.
And so that's why I'm going to keep hammering on these tips, because if they don't want to talk about these three things, I mean, it's pretty easy, not very hard to get there, but that's not part of their goal.
Their goal is to try and trick you into believing that before 2019, there was nothing.
And then in 2019, there was something, and that something, you know, equals a pandemic and lockdowns worked because, you know, look at New Zealand and Australia, they had no deaths in 2020.
And then here we are in 2024, five years later.
Five years later.
These people are the ones who created this illusion of consensus.
It wasn't me.
I was sucked into it like you were.
And that's what they always do.
They ask you to sing in the choir and then they put you in the back.
Sing in the choir and then put you in the back.
And in rehearsal, they let you sing really loud.
They'll talk to you a lot and they'll listen to, they'll read your DMs and they'll answer your texts.
Sometimes they'll even pick up the phone.
But the illusion of consensus is created because only those people get invited to the Senate.
And that worst case scenario is still living on right now, and all the people that say that this is an incapacitating agent, and all the people that say that it's bio warfare in the shot, all the people that are saying that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is gonna come to our rescue, and all the people who are asking whether or not they're putting graphene in us, are asking whether all of this is under their control.
Are they just gonna kill us soon?
Flip the kill switch?
5G?
Dead?
Covid shots are bad.
Don't talk about 2020.
That's what everybody says.
Nobody wants to talk about what they were saying in 2020 or 2021.
Nobody wants to talk about it anymore because it still reveals malevolence.
It reveals a lack of principles that they claim now to have had always, and they did not.
It's important that everybody sees that.
That you use the archive on the internet to go and find your heroes in 2020 and find out what they were doing.
Or find out how they explain what they were doing.
Some of them won't do that.
Others maybe have.
Doesn't matter though.
This doesn't matter at all because the faith is a lie.
This idea that an RNA can do this is a lie.
There was a background signal and they said it was spreading.
And this cartoon version is the easiest way to say it.
If there's a signal that's composed of exosomes from us, and exosomes from your dog, and exosomes from your cats, and your chickens, and all the insects, and all the plants in the backyard, and there are bacteriophages that are floating around in the air, then when you swab the air, and you swab the bench, or you swab the dirt, or you swab your desk, or you swab your throat,
You're swabbing a very diverse set of microorganisms and signals at that size scale.
And then to claim that you can detect one particular signal on that background using a single PCR reaction with a single pair of primers, which is what that first two years is based on.
And then to say that all those sequences that we're supposed to believe, well, all the sequencing for the first year was done by DITRA.
And Kevin McKernan will have you say that, no, no, all those databases were all put together by everybody submitting sequences now because the Arctic primers are being used all over the world.
Well, on a background signal of infinite RNA and DNA from all the organisms on the planet, then the Arctic primer set may just bring up a signal a lot of times, big deal.
I think that these people are over-extending their hand.
And it's the insistence on this that is most frightening.
There's only a handful of experts that can hold a candle to Kevin McKernan.
And so those experts are hard to find and hard to get them to weigh in on this.
And in fact, none of them have.
That's part of the problem that we have.
The resident expert for the world right now is Kevin McKernan.
On Twitter and at the Senate and for Children's Health Defense and everywhere else, this is the rock star that was put in place already and probably in March of 2020.
I don't know, I haven't seen an earlier video of him.
If you find an earlier video, the earliest video of him you can find in 2020 would be great.
That's a new rule.
Just find 2020 videos of these people and send them to me via email and you get, you get, you get some, some stars, maybe extra credit.
I'm not really sure yet, but stars for sure.
Why did that not sound?
Hmm.
I'm going to escape here because maybe we have a little memory problem.
Current slide.
There it is.
So I use this analogy a lot, but I really think it's important again, you know, we got to tell this to people every night.
You've been in the car with these people for a long time, and if you were in the back seat, and there's a driver,
and his girlfriend, and their friend in the backseat, or her friend in the backseat.
And you get picked up on the street, and they're giving you a ride, and they want to steal all your stuff, and they're gonna lie to you about it, and then leave you somewhere.
They can tell you lots of different stories, which will get you to trust the person in the back seat.
And then the two people in the front seat will get out at the fast food restaurant.
And then you'll be left with the one person.
And that one person will say something, tell you another story, and make you stay in the car.
And then they'll call you from the fast food restaurant and tell you to come in and just leave your stuff in the car.
And then very quickly they drive away before you realize what happened.
Now this, this kind of thing is silly.
Of course, it's a silly story, but if those three people wanted to get you to believe that they had just escaped an alien and they had something in the trunk that told you that they were just escaping an alien and they had all these stories worked out, it would be pretty convincing, right?
What would be even more convincing, though, is if the passenger in the front seat, the one that's supposed to be the girlfriend of the driver, didn't believe them because she was asleep.
And so now she's arguing that Jay's obviously the only rational one in the car besides me because you guys didn't see aliens.
And then the other two are arguing, going crazy about the fact that they did see aliens.
Now when those two people get out of the car and then you're left in the car with the girl in the front seat who says, oh my gosh, aren't they crazy?
I can't believe it.
Maybe we should make a run for it.
Let's just take the car and run.
Now you think you're leaving those two people and you're joining her on a run away from these crazy people who just saw the UFO.
Now you trust her a lot.
Now she drives down the road for a little while and picks up two more people, but those two people aren't random.
They were waiting there the whole time.
That's what Twitter is.
And Twitter is that way all the time.
Ooh, another stop.
Ooh, new people in the car.
Ooh, whoa, here we go.
Ooh, ah, yeah.
And every time new people come in the car, they had new ideas about the lab leak and new ideas about early treatment.
And oh my gosh, I agree with that guy.
Did you see him?
Yeah, we met him at the last gas station.
Oh my gosh, he's crazy.
And so you can barely keep up.
You're just sitting in the back seat, munching your french fries, going, holy man, this is the craziest car ride.
I can't believe hitchhiking has led to this adventure.
And the whole time, what's going on in the background?
Right?
That's what's going on in the background.
Even though people are getting in and out of the car, even though the people are arguing and fighting and you're, you know, leaving people behind and whatever the, the agreement is with all these people that you're running from the same thing.
And by the time this car ride is over, you're going to tell your kids, holy cow, you know, we were running from aliens.
Can you believe it?
I wouldn't have believed it myself, but you know, we got rid of these two guys, but then we met these other two guys on the street and they saw the alien too.
So then the girl that was driving started believing it again.
She wanted to turn around and go back and get her boyfriend, but we didn't have time because there were two.
And that's why all of these people still won't talk about Sina Bavaria in his paper with Alison Totura, the last postdoc of
I mean, they won't talk about David Hone and the intimate relationship he has with Robert Malone, because they couch surfed at each other's houses.
He knows his ex-wife, you know.
They won't talk about Stanley Plotkin.
Won't talk about him at all.
They won't talk about Hilary Koprowski.
He's not interesting.
They won't talk about the Barr family, even though Bill Barr is the guy who prevented an investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein thing.
He was in the DOJ at that time.
I mean, it's really weird.
Nobody sees that as interesting, but Mark?
And, you know, Joshua Lederberg, no one mentions him at all.
I mean, they mentioned Peter Daszak, like he's some kind of smart guy, like he's some kind of mastermind.
I mean, it's pathetic.
It's sad.
Why don't you just say Amy Maxim or Alina Chan or, you know, one of these other clear puppets?
It's all a big show, ladies and gentlemen.
Most of the opposition on the internet is just a big show.
Look at this crazy stuff that happened a few minutes ago.
Vajon Health just put out a new video and underneath it, he tweets, thank you for discussing the string theory about abnormal clots at JJ Cooey and at Lasky Eye Center.
Oh my gosh, I can't believe it.
Is this a nudge to try and get me to make friends with Joe Lee again and take him off of my screen down here?
No, Joe Lee's right there.
He fits in just fine right there, Mr. Joe Lee with his all gray background.
It's perfect right there.
I will leave him and his string theory right there.
It's really interesting because, again, I think tonight I'm going to spend some extra time on Robert Malone because I just really am curious about him.
He's a red thread running through this for many decades.
I wanted to go over what we did in the first half of this video because I'm going to watch the second half of the same video we started a couple days ago.
I wanted to go through this list again because yesterday's show I had it in red outline with black center.
When I watch it on my phone, I'm kind of like, wow, you're a dork.
Use different colors.
So number one, Robert Malone worked on retroviruses.
And that's important to understand because retroviruses are simply RNA viruses with a reverse transcriptase enzyme inside of them.
They are not, repeat, as far as I understand, I could be wrong, you know, there might be a virologist in the audience who'll bark me for this, but retroviruses are RNA viruses with the enzyme reverse transcriptase.
They
They are not RNA viruses that go into the cell and translate into reverse transcriptase and then do that.
That's very different, right?
Coronaviruses are an RNA.
And then the story that they tell us is they go into our cells and they make the proteins that are necessary for them to copy their own RNA.
The RNA dependent RNA polymerase and this helicase and a couple other things.
Now, the curious story about retroviruses, because of the fact that David Baltimore found this enzyme, reverse transcriptase, which turns RNA into DNA, it's very curious that that enzyme needs to be packaged with the RNA in order for a retrovirus to be replication competent.
I want you to think about that again because that means that a protein needs to be made correctly and then put in the same package as the RNA.
And that they tell you that the retroviruses are hijacking our own cells machinery to do that.
That our own cells would never do that.
Our own cells just do DNA, RNA through a ribosome to protein and that's it.
But these viruses are able to come in
And even though they need to carry this protein, flu also needs to carry the protein, believe it or not, which makes it a very interesting example of this transmission.
They need to carry the protein.
And so it's also an interesting thing to think about, can they go into a flu culture, like a flu virus culture?
Can they go in there and break that up and then distill out the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase?
Because it has to have an enzyme in it.
They're a negative strand RNA.
So they have to have their own enzyme there.
They can't be red.
And so the cartoon of flu virus is very different than coronavirus.
All of this stuff goes back to retroviruses, which are the first really interesting virus because David Baltimore gets a Nobel Prize for it.
And then Bob Gallo gets a pretty big award for it, not quite as big as Luc Montagnier for finding the retrovirus HIV.
And then there's also this thing with XMRV and, and Judy Mikovits.
And then there's this curious thing of Robert Malone saying that in his postdoc, he worked on, uh, investigated packaging sequences.
So the sequences of RNA in retroviruses, which governed the packaging.
So not necessarily the packaging of, of
reverse transcriptase, so that enzyme in there, but just the packaging of RNA.
He's looking for the sequences that will get those RNAs packaged.
because the idea is what?
It's he, they want to use retroviruses to rearrange, to reorganize, to reprogram, to fix the human genome.
And he said in that video that he thought that in 10 years there would be a geneticist at every hospital curing childhood diseases with retroviruses.
So that's why he had a passion for it.
It was, it was such a crazy cutthroat place, um, that they put multiple postdocs on the same question and whoever won, won and everybody else lost.
It was so cutthroat that he got a diagnosis of PTSD.
And he told a reporter that it felt a lot like rape.
And now he's worked for DITRA, he's worked for DOD, he's worked for the WHO, he's done NIH study sections, he's a clinical trial specialist or a clinical development specialist and a bioethics expert and a hundred other things it seems.
But he won't touch Judy Mikovits because they descend from the same basic group of people.
Retroviral virologists.
He's a virologist.
And so he worked at Solvay with Geert van den Bosch.
Yesterday's stream on Twitch seems to cut Geert's name out when I said this, but he definitely worked with Geert van den Bosch at the Solvay.
And he also did a COVID movie with Geert van den Bosch, where he's wearing a black taxi cab hat.
And it's pretty ridiculous because there's drone footage of them walking in the mountains of Spain.
And again, I can't encourage you enough to go to housatonicits.com and look at the links for Malone and all the other people that you can find on that website and figure out what you didn't know.
Please do that.
Do that soon.
So yesterday we did look at, again, a little bit of Vajon and a little bit of Gert and then we also looked at
at Paul Offit, but we also looked at Jimmy Dore.
Jimmy Dore also had a very interesting crossover with some Australian or UK guys.
I think it's UK guys.
I don't know.
I don't recognize any of those accents.
I think it's really interesting now that the current debate, I know you've seen these slides before, but if you weren't here the other night, so you missed some of this stuff, I like to cover it again.
I think it's really interesting that the sides of this debate now with regard to avian flu are actually being bookended by the Brownstone and CHD on one side, who are promoting one another's articles quite regularly now and telling a story about a fire department that was so bored they decided to make new ways of making bad fires.
And then one of those ways got out.
I'm sorry, but it is very, very sad because I really did believe when I got hired by Brian Hooker and CHD that I was going to be able to make a huge difference, that I would be able to teach biology for them, that maybe they would give me my own show or what, I don't know what would happen there, but that's not at all what happened.
And now you can see why, because as I was trying to temper their language about gain of function and try to get them to start talking about and questioning the validity of that claim, I don't know, I got tossed for talking about Robert Malone.
And Robert Malone, since he's so crucial to understanding why it is that CHD couldn't handle having me as a biologist, I think it's really important to understand that on the other side of this bookend is Robert Malone's substack where he talks about all the
the natural things about the biology of flu, and how often it's been there, and how we study it, and it's not likely to enter the food supply, and $200 million is gonna be spent on an influenza vaccine.
Not much different than what Meryl Nass did a couple weeks ago, where she just told us that there's three vaccines in development, and it's scary, scary, scary.
But she's not questioning the actual narrative as to whether these things are really spreading like they claim or not.
Whether the fidelity of detection and fidelity of tracking that they claim is real or not.
Instead, she's just telling you, yeah, here comes some more shots.
And so if you don't believe CHD, then you won't believe her because her message hasn't changed and she won't talk about what she was doing in 2020.
I suspect that if somebody wants to do something really nice for me, they could go look for the Defender podcast where I believe that Meryl Nass and others talked to the no virus people before I was ever working there.
It might've even been before I was even working for Bobby.
It might've been pre-2022.
And if you can find that video, please send me a link because I suspect that that video will reveal an awful lot about both sides of that debate.
So here we are, COVID shots are bad.
Don't talk about 2020.
That's really the trick.
If there was a background signal and they're misconstruing it as spread, that's all that's required at this point.
That's why it feels like they're a little bit, it feels like they're running out the clock because they kind of are.
The farther we get from 2020, the less likely it is that people are going to be able to see it with the clarity necessary to understand the impact it had.
That 2020 is the reason why, oh, it should be 2021.
Sorry.
Um, and, and do I have that right in the, in the title here?
I got to change that.
No, no.
It's also 2020.
Shoot.
That's too bad.
Um, this is 2021.
Um, it's June, 2021.
It's two weeks before, um, I can probably update it here.
I don't know if it'll do it though.
Um,
It is 2021, it's June, it's two weeks before he goes on the Bret Weinstein podcast to make a fool of himself and Steve Kirsch.
But that's okay, and Bret Weinstein, that's okay.
What they did was, it's an admission at this stage.
When you look back on it and you see what they did, you can't see it any other way.
They weren't trying to find a way out.
They weren't trying to tell us the truth.
They had a script and they stuck to it.
They had talking points and they were excited to stick to them.
And it's gross.
And when you look back at those people, they weren't struggling to figure it out.
They weren't acting like they'd seen an alien.
People are using this term, duper's delight.
I'm not even sure that that applies here, but they looked like they were happy to do the act.
They were happy to perform the act.
The least excited in that trio was Robert Malone.
And the reason why is because he knows that they are defining a limited spectrum of debate, which will basically go on to be used to govern the globe for a few years.
And so they better get it right.
So let's bring this up here, put this video wide.
And remember,
I'm starting it right here where he talks about the rape and then we'll go on from here I won't interrupt unless we get to a new spot.
Thank you very much for joining me.
It's one hour in I've got a lot of a lot of gas in the tank So if you're if you're hanging around or you just join me don't think it's gonna end soon Um, so just to get that The feeling um, so Francis Delia of Heidi news was the one that first contacted me from the press about this whole situation and um
And from the heart, what I said to him was, it feels like rape.
And I know that's a strong word.
But what I was trying to express is it feels like something that I have created.
And with my own passion and effort, I mean, I work tirelessly, is being taken from me completely without anything, being taken by others.
And that's pretty rough.
In academe, there's rules about citing citations.
You know that.
You're an academic and you publish also.
And it's probably pretty important to you, as it is to me, in this small, strange world of academic research and publications, that people acknowledge your intellectual contributions.
And I'm sure you, like me, are rigorous about acknowledging the, you know, the best metaphor is we all stand on the shoulders of giants.
And I think it's important to acknowledge those that have contributed to this song that we all sing together, that have come before us and are our peers.
And to have that kind of taken away and others seeking to advance their own agendas without even acknowledgement is a little rough.
And so how does it feel?
It hurts a lot.
You know, the quote, I think it's from the Outlander, you know, it ain't right, it ain't proper.
And I think we all know that, right?
Intuitively, but science and academic science is a strangely competitive world that's very much a pyramid.
So it's a personal commitment on my part to make sure that everybody that is in my world gets credited for their contributions.
And I guess I kind of expect the same from others regarding my contributions.
So this is him still trying to jockey for that last possible open window to get some credit for this.
And that's why he was earlier in the video and you can watch it on the last show.
That's why he was so trying to be very humble.
You know, I'm not sure that anyone else didn't come up with this idea before me, but you know, I do have these patents, but they didn't really help me because it was such a cutthroat thing.
And everybody was, you know, sending me cease and desist letters and stuff.
It's the only thing, it's part of the capital that we're all trading as academics and intellects contributing to this common song that we sing in science, and that we will all respect the contributions of each other.
Does that answer your question?
Absolutely, absolutely.
And I feel honoured that I'm in a position to be able to at least give you the opportunity to get some of that credit, you know, and I feel honoured about that.
So I'm going to take us on to a different part, because we are in the middle of COVID.
You are therefore one of the experts on mRNA vaccination.
And it has done a tremendous step with regards to reducing
I'm shocked.
I mean, I am amazed.
Now notice that they didn't actually say anything there.
It has done a tremendous job at reducing and then he goes, I'm shocked.
So they didn't actually say what it did there.
And I don't know that that wasn't a scripted kind of thing where
It's, I don't know what you would call this, but you know, you're, you're kind of maneuvered into making the assumption of filling in that blank of what they meant.
Well, obviously they mean saves lives.
So there's a novel virus.
Millions of people were dying and now millions more were saved by this thing that I'm shocked.
I'm absolutely shocked.
Ugh.
I'm shocked.
I mean, I am amazed.
I spent a couple of decades of my career trying to advance new gene delivery technologies.
I was a founder of Inovio, the electroporation company, and mentored the young Norwegian scientist that was behind that.
I spent years and years developing and testing cationic lipids.
I know how hard this is.
I noticed Mark in the chat says that he didn't mention John Wolfe.
I think John Wolfe is the first author of the paper with the RNA
in transfecting something or other.
This is to get to get this level of transgene expression, because that's really what it is.
This is really gene back to the original concept.
This is gene therapy applied to vaccines with RNA.
Wow.
I thought given what had happened in all the pushback and and
all the intervening time, I thought that this would eventually come to pass, but I would be long in the ground when it happened.
So to see it happen so suddenly in the context of this amazing public health crisis we're in is mind-boggling.
And furthermore, the levels of activity of these lipoplexes, that's the technical term for these small nano-aggregates of RNA and DNA,
and lipids that are formed, which are what allows the RNA to go into cells and be produced into protein.
The level of efficiency associated with those is mind-blowing to me.
And in particular, I think the unsung hero in this song here is Dr. Peter Collis and his team, who developed the core, this advanced, new,
formulations of lipids that are directly being used by both the BioNTech Pfizer product and the CureVac product.
The Moderna product is a slight variation on the same.
The activity of those is mind-blowing.
So I never expected to see this in my lifetime.
So it's curious because here he seems to be implying that the formulation of lipid is the reason why
He seems to say that the efficiencies are mind-blowing and the new formulations of lipids that he's attributing to course, Peter Cullis, um, these guys, these guys are, are amazing.
So it's, it's curious because of course the Nobel prize was given to the, the people that came up with the, the M one pseudo uridine, uh, chemical alteration.
So.
It's a curious thing to remember.
This is, again, you just have to remember that this is June 2021.
So there's still possibility for him to position to some credit, but he's got to sort of make the argument that, you know, with some gentlemanly courtesy.
And so he had tips to other people that he thinks kind of spread the credit out as well.
And I think it's very curious from a biological perspective that he is actually saying that these new formulations
are incredible, because what does that mean?
Then that means that the chemical contribution to the story of M1 pseudouridine is not as important.
He's not saying anything about that, that the mRNA is altered.
And I think we should listen to it again, because it's really that important to see that, because that's a detail that I missed the last time.
that are directly being used by both the BioNTech Pfizer product and the CureVac product.
The Moderna product is a slight variation on the same.
The activity of those is mind-blowing.
So I never expected to see this in my lifetime, and I'm fascinated.
But with that high level of transfection activity of polynucleotide delivery ability,
there comes consequences, as you know, in drug development, nothing is free, and no drug is perfectly safe.
And so with this amazing advance in efficiency, come some potential issues, which I think we need to be sensitive to.
Now, this is a sensitive topic, because as I said, we're in the middle of a pandemic.
there is a lot of pressure politically to try and get out of it with regards to the vaccines and a major part of it, especially with some of the other side effects that we're seeing from some of the other vaccine candidates.
It looks as though the mRNA technology is leading the way.
So you've made a good point is that there is the opportunity to make a difference.
But as always with any technology, there are risks or potential problems.
This is an important topic.
What have you come across recently that would make you think about
consideration of how we approach vaccination at this point.
So thanks for that.
And let me frame that up a little bit.
I was alerted from a colleague that worked for the government, let's say U.S.
government, that was in Wuhan during the last month of 2019.
I was alerted in the first week of 2020 about the threat that the virus represented.
And I made a threat assessment.
I'm an experienced outbreak specialist that does a lot of biodefense work these days, mostly with the US government.
And so I made a threat assessment and made a personal determination that the most efficient way to help provide protection was to focus on drug repurposing, not on vaccine development.
Now, the government of the United States made a different assessment and different decision.
And I don't want to second guess that.
It's water under the bridge.
And I can tell you, having been through too many of these outbreaks, when it hits and the fog of war hits, it becomes very difficult to process information and make decisions.
This decision was made by the government to pursue vaccine technology because there was apparently by these emails that have come out recently from The Washington Post under FOIA, there was a sense that this was the best way to move forward is to invest all capital and effort into vaccine development.
And the NIH, as well as BioNTech back in EU, made a strategic assessment to invest in RNA-based approaches, which was quite bold.
And that decision has been validated.
And so I've watched with great interest as this has proceeded.
Recently, because of my background, and I'm a clinical development specialist, I'm experienced in toxicology and regulatory affairs and other things.
This is what I do for a living these days.
I was approached by some individuals to provide an assessment, an independent assessment, of some data that had been revealed through a Freedom of Information Act
submitted by a group of Canadian scientists and physicians, which had obtained a copy of the application which Pfizer and BioNTech had submitted for their mRNA vaccine.
He got the jab to travel, remember?
to the regulatory authorities in japan and this is a there forgive me there's some technical he's not mentioning byron bridal's name this is at 1.4 speed just in case you're getting impatient we're almost to the new part the words here um this was their uh initial new drug application or uh their common technical document these are regulatory terms what it means is it's the information package that a drug developer or sponsor in this case vaccine developer
would submit to a government regulatory authority that basically says, here's the sum total of all of our data at this point in time supporting the use of this product in humans.
And so normally these packages of information are closely held confidential and are not discoverable by Freedom of Information Act.
They're usually protected from that.
And that's certainly the case in the United States.
But these Canadian scientists and physicians who were very concerned about some of the safety signals that they were seeing in vaccine recipients in Canada
So all this talk, all of this talk is to tell you that they, through a Freedom of Information Act, got a document that wasn't available in America that showed the distribution of the lipid nanoparticles.
It's crazy how many words he used to say that.
Decided to, of their own initiative, to seek more information.
And so they obtained this, and within 24 hours, I was asked by the editor-in-chief of an organization called Trial Site News in the United States to look at this document and another document that was publicly available from the European Medicines Agency that was their official summary of their assessment of the analogous initial new drug application and common technical document that had been submitted to them.
Can I stop you here a minute, Robert, before you go any further?
Because we're speaking live, and this information is being shared publicly, and you are walking in an area here that is not well taken, where you are saying stuff that can be challenging to the political narrative with regards to vaccines.
Are you sure you want to speak about this?
Are you sure you want to go forward?
Are you sure you want to go forward, Robert?
Because I don't want you to risk your emus or your horses.
Are you sure you want to go through with this?
Are you sure?
Yeah, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to pause and reconsider.
I'm really committed to openness and transparency.
And part of that comes from the background.
That was cued up.
I'm sorry, but that was scripted.
And now that I've seen it twice, I'm sure it's scripted.
That's hilarious.
And every time he thanks him, I have the feeling he's more or less thanking him for reading the question he told him to read at the right time.
on the crucible that I've had to go through.
But it also comes from the extensive training I've had in bioethics.
And I'm personally as a physician, scientist, clinical development specialist, I have a really bedrock commitment to fundamental principles of bioethics.
And among those is transparency.
and the importance of full disclosure to particularly people receiving experimental products.
And so what an interesting, I mean, it is just an extraordinary nonstop full court press to try and get you to believe
that he is the most ethical man on the planet.
Transparency, transparency.
You know, for me, it's about transparency.
For me, it's ethics.
It's, I feel the need.
I just really, it's important to me.
I've got extensive training.
I've got a mentor.
So I'm comfortable continuing to speak.
I'm an experienced professional, regulatory professional, and I hope that the audience doesn't in any way infer to fundamental principles of bioethics.
And among those is transparency.
and the importance of full disclosure to particularly people receiving experimental products.
So I'm comfortable continuing to speak.
I'm an experienced professional, regulatory professional, and I hope that you don't, the audience doesn't in any way infer that I am invested in a contrary position regarding vaccines.
I'm not an anti-vaxxer.
I've spent my whole life developing vaccines and trying to advance vaccines.
So there you have it.
You can't see it any other way.
He is not in any way, shape or form trying to make the argument that this vaccine isn't saving a lot of people.
I mean, it's totally tremendous, but it also comes with its downsides.
And so we're going to have to make some risk assessments here.
Especially if there's some double-stranded DNA in it, but that that doesn't override my commitment to Transparency and disclosure and good science.
I'm of the belief that the public is the adult public is mature enough to
to make their own informed decisions based on the information available.
And that it's the obligation of governments and public health organizations, particularly in the context of an experimental product like these vaccines all are.
Still hasn't said, he said these vaccines are experimental products.
Why does he just say they're not vaccines?
They're transfections and transformations.
Because that's not his job.
His job is to muddy the water to make sure that people don't really understand how they're different from regular vaccines that are already shit.
Because, of course, he's not an anti-vaxxer.
He's been developing vaccines his whole career.
Right now.
It's the obligation of the public health community, the official public health community, to convince the public that they're safe and effective.
And so I'm totally okay with proceeding, and I'm a grown-up too.
And if I say something that's controversial and I start getting hate mail, it's part of the price I have to pay.
But it doesn't, I've been through situations before where I have gone public about major ethical issues that I've encountered in, you know,
in this kind of technology development space and drug development.
So to convince the public the shots are safe and effective, that's the whole operation, he said.
So would they murder people and then lie about it in order to convince the public that the shots are safe and effective relative to a virus?
Would they put a bunch of retards, excuse my language, would they put a bunch of idiots on the web, willing and unwitting,
willing and witting and unwitting idiots on the web talking about parts of this narrative and even encourage them?
Of course they would.
In order to convince the public the shots are safe and effective, they murdered people in New York City so that people would be coerced into accepting they must be safe and effective relative to the gain-of-function virus.
It's flying AIDS.
public that they're safe and effective.
It's the obligation of the public health community, the official public health community, to convince the public that they're safe and effective.
It's the obligation of the public health community to convince the public that the shots are safe and effective.
If that includes lying, it includes lying.
There is nothing in that statement that precludes the possibility of lying.
And in fact, I would suggest to you that in fifth generation warfare, that statement indicates lying.
It tells you right to your face, it is the obligation.
The obligation of governments and public health organizations, particularly in the context of an experimental product like these vaccines all are right now,
It's the obligation of the public health community, the official public health community, to convince the public that they're safe and effective.
In the context... I can't write when I'm not listening and then I'm only paying attention to what I'm writing.
In the context of these experimental products, it's the obligation of the government to convince the public the shots are safe and effective.
Holy shit!
Well then of course the government would murder a few people, using protocols, encouraging people to get put on supplementary oxygen until they begged for a ventilator.
If in the end it would achieve a higher level of compliance,
Because that's what convincing the public that it's safe and effective means.
Don't misunderstand the old man's words.
When he says convince the public that they're safe and effective, it means convince the public to take the shots.
And so they'd murder people.
They would also lie about people dying.
They would make, they would commit fraud.
They would do all the things necessary, anything on the table, including putting people like Robert Malone in front of you to titrate you through this truth over four years.
And that's what he's done.
And so I'm totally okay with proceeding, and I'm a grown-up too.
And if I say something that's controversial and I start getting hate mail, it's part of the price I have to pay.
But it doesn't, I've been through situations before where I have gone public about major ethical issues that I've encountered in, you know,
in this kind of technology development space and drug development space and clinical research space.
And I've had consequences in my career, but that doesn't absolve me from the obligation that I think I have.
to be open and transparent about information which is relevant and, in my opinion, should be made publicly available.
Well, that is tremendous.
And we do appreciate that because we do need scientists like yourself who are studying and able to challenge and make sure that everything that we do is as safe as possible.
So yes, please, go ahead.
We are very appreciative of that.
So thank you for that support and those words.
Let me just kind of loop back just a little bit on that theme.
In my experience, in my strong opinion, science requires that we... Look at that little illusion of consensus there.
Right?
See it?
A true man.
Honesty.
Now there's a real illusion of consensus because Edward O'Reilly believes him.
Well then, how can I doubt him?
I'm just some guy watching this stream and replay.
Does Edward O'Reilly need to be anybody real?
No.
He could be Philip McMillan just hitting a button.
These could have all just been sitting there waiting.
You don't think I could just put up chat messages right now and say, you know, blah, blah, blah.
Well, I got a rumble one.
Challenge each other.
And if we don't do that, we end up with groupthink and we end up making mistakes.
So continuing on the theme, these documents were provided to me and I was asked to render an opinion about what I saw as a professional with the level of, you know, the type of experience and background that I have.
These documents that had been uncovered by... So if he's not emphasizing his
depth and breadth of his experience, he's emphasizing his incredible commitment to honesty and transparency.
My respected scientific and clinical colleagues in Canada.
And so I made an independent assessment of those.
And then I was concerned that I may have over interpreted or misinterpreted.
And so I asked an even more senior regulatory specialist that I respect highly to look over the same documents and draw their own independent opinion to make sure that I wasn't over reading things or overreacting to them.
So that happened.
And with those documents, we both observed that there were deficiencies that were highly unusual and not what we would anticipate seeing in a regulatory submission from an organization of the experience and capabilities of Pfizer.
Um, and, uh, that was, I found that a little bit alarming.
So did my colleague.
Um, he was, uh, less sanguine about, uh, placing his name to his assessment.
Um, and so he remains anonymous.
Uh, but, uh, I was comfortable that, uh, the assessment that I made was, uh, true and accurate based on the documents that I had.
Um, and, and I was very clear on that.
Uh, so, uh, here's another one findings included.
There's another one.
Oh, you're so honest, Robert.
You're so honest, Robert.
That examined the biodistribution of the vaccine product in a animal model, in a rodent model, with limited numbers of samples, using two core technologies.
One was the one that I used way back in the day when I was finding RNA delivery, which is expression of proteins from an RNA encoding, the protein that makes the firefly tail glow.
So it has the perhaps unfortunate name
here in the States, where we have a strong religious community, of being luciferase.
Luciferase is just the name that the discoverers that were trying to understand how come fireflies glow at night gave to the protein when they cloned it.
And it turns out to be a super-duper, we call it reporter protein, way to detect whether or not a polynucleotide, an RNA or a DNA, has gotten into a cell and been turned into protein.
Because it will produce photons, and those are easy to detect.
So a lot of technical there.
So the studies were done in non-good laboratory practice
means.
And they involved use of luciferase RNA rather than the actual RNA of the drug product, encoding spike.
And they involved tritiated RNA.
So this is radioactively tagged RNA that is able to be detected very sensitively because it's radioactive in various tissues of the animal in which it's been injected.
And so the data that I was able to review
had to do with the distribution of injected RNA lipoplex complexes.
We talked about that earlier.
This is the actual material.
Only it wasn't the actual material, which is what usually one has to do these studies with.
It was a surrogate, the RNA for the luciferase instead of the RNA encoding the vaccine, which is encoding spike.
So what the data showed was that in these rodent models, and it was small numbers of rodents,
that the injected material, a lot of it stays near the injection site, but a lot of it doesn't.
And it goes throughout the bodies of these mice or rats.
It appears that it may have remained biologically active in some of those distal sites.
And it certainly, the data suggested, and the tables are a little difficult to follow for me, because they analyze both the lipid distribution and the tritiated signal distribution, which is a marker of the RNA.
They showed a high concentration and relative concentration into, for instance, ovarian tissue, spleen and liver.
But in particular, the ovarian tissue was surprising.
Um, and particularly it was surprising because there was not that concentration in the, in the testis that were sampled from the male brothers.
Okay.
So we had concentration of the lipids in particular in ovaries and we had some relative concentration of the tritiated signal suggesting the RNA in the ovaries compared to some other tissues.
But strikingly we had distribution of all of this kind of systemically throughout these animal models.
It's really interesting.
So I apologize.
what he's talking about here, the luciferase would require the expression of the protein.
So he says that they're using the luciferase to follow it around.
So they didn't put the spike protein and they put this luciferase in, but wherever it goes, it needs to make luciferase before it's going to release any light or, or, or any fluorescence.
Um, and yet he just said in this last,
10 seconds, where the lipids go and where the RNA goes.
But the lipids are not tagged.
I don't really understand why he said that.
It's either very, very imprecise or he's making errors on purpose.
so that people who listen to him will explain it incorrectly.
I don't really, just listen again.
Particularly, it was surprising because there was not that concentration in the testis that were sampled from the male rodents.
So we had concentration of the lipids in particular in ovaries, and we had some relative concentration of the tritiated signal suggesting the RNA in the ovaries compared to some other tissues.
But strikingly, we had distribution of all of this kind of systemically throughout these animal models.
Is that what we would expect to a certain extent with regards to
injecting a vaccine.
Isn't there some degree of spread or do we expect it to remain local to where it was injected?
Good question and entirely appropriate.
And I had no way to assess because we didn't have the controls of alternatives.
But yes, one would expect to some degree a spread of the injected material.
He's not being honest.
He's not being honest at all.
If you put some toxin and so, I mean, he's not being honest at all.
It's hilarious.
They're definitely developing the narrative right here and the response right here.
That's why he says, it's a legitimate question.
Maybe he didn't even expect to get it.
I don't know.
I had no way to assess because we didn't have the controls of alternatives.
But yes, one would expect to some degree
spread of the injected material.
The core thesis that had been advanced in the scientific literature before my, you know, I can only speak to my personal experience, my encountering these data in this IND package, IND being the abbreviation for initial loop drug application,
My expectation from the literature was that the injected material and the encoded spike protein would remain membrane bound and regional.
I was aware that these complexes had been engineered as a formulation historically, specifically so that they would be transmitted along lymphatic system.
And I'm trained in pathology.
I used to teach university pathology.
And I know darn well that the lymphatic system drains into the blood and circulates and passes through the liver and all that good stuff.
This is fundamental biology and human physiology in mammals.
So the prior publications and information has suggested that these complexes would remain at the site of injection or the draining nodes.
Mm-hmm.
Um, the formulations were specifically engineered to, to preferentially go through lymphatics to the draining nodes, lymph nodes, which is where the immune system processes antigens and teaches B cells and T cells.
These are the things that attack other cells or produce antibodies, um, teaches them, uh, educates them so that they make the proper immune response against the antigen.
I feel like there's something that, um, this should be explained here because I've explained it only once before on the stream.
But with regard to the formulation does just make a little line here With regard to the formulation he uses the word a lot With regard to the formulation of the lipids what he's really actually speaking of there is the mechanical Proprietary methodologies that are used
to assemble the RNA with the lipid nanoparticles.
And the primary intellectual property here is microfluidics.
So little plastic and glass things that are carved so that they bring together like two streams of something that come together like this.
And if you
they've figured out that if you do a certain level of turns or spins or whatever, then you get a certain sized lipid nanoparticle.
And if you do a certain number of
of curves and spins and whatever, you can get single RNAs to be sorted out.
And so then when they come together here and you spit out over here, you get a very uniform set of particles that comes out and they usually have the same ratio of lipids to RNA and they can adjust it depending on the microfluidics of the RNA that comes in and the microfluidics of the lipids that come in.
And I'm not an expert in any of this stuff.
I'm just trying to explain to you that
At the start of the pandemic, there was a loss of intellectual property value for a lot of the methodologies and a lot of the standard products that were over $150 billion a year, the antibodies.
That loss of intellectual property, of course,
was pretty tragic for them because a lot of small pharmaceutical companies are basically sold and their value is determined by the number of patents they have and what those patents are for.
And the whole technology of lipid nanoparticles is this kind of microfluidic technology in combination with the actual chemistry of the lipid nanoparticles.
Part of the thing is also the proprietary combination of chemicals like pegs and stuff that are put in there that allow these microfluidic formulations to come out relatively uniformly.
And so, he's not explaining that of course, but I just want you to understand that there's a great deal of... There's a great deal of new intellectual property here and
A lot of that is stuff that I think
Peter Cullis is involved in, he was probably involved in, isn't aware of, maybe he was even brokering it for a very long time.
For the viewership.
So that was the logic.
Spike was engineered with the tether.
It transmembrane region, it was supposed to stay in the cells that it was, that were in the region.
And it was not previously disclosed, let's say, in the literature, that it would move systemically in any kind of a systematic way.
Yeah, it's like,
It's like the eddies and the way that the, at a small scale, that's what makes microfluidics so interesting is that at the small scale, the capillary action of water pulls water through these little spaces.
And then when it does that, the molecules and the things that are dissolved in them behave in predictable ways that they don't necessarily behave in larger volumes.
So it, again, I'm not an expert, I'm just telling.
So, for me, it was a surprise, and the relative concentration in certain organs was a bit of a surprise.
You'd expect it to concentrate in spleen and in liver.
The ovarian signal was a little surprising, more than a little surprising, a bit concerning, particularly since, now we get into this intersection between these many reports that patients, that are out there, that patients have made.
And we have to be really careful because there's a selection bias.
When somebody makes a spectacular claim, you know, I lost my baby or I had, you know, my parents died or, you know, right after vaccination, whatever, these things quickly catch fire in social media these days.
And the truth is that all of these events would be expected to occur at some normal frequency.
And for instance, there are those who say, oh, we have X number of vaccine associated deaths.
Well, and then there's others that I've heard public health officials saying, no, there's no vaccine associated deaths.
Okay.
Well, I know that's false.
Um, because by random chance, a certain number of people will die within the two weeks after they receive a vaccine.
The question is, is there any causative relationship between those?
And is there more people dying at, for example, just to take the extreme, there is no warning here.
Make sure
Make sure you see it.
There's no warning here at all.
There's no, he's not even coming close to saying, pause this shit.
Are there more people dying than would normally happen by random chance in X period of time after they receive the vaccine?
Those are the key issues.
And so there's various claims that are made, and people are, there are those that are very upset, and understandably so, about risks, including this group of Canadians.
And I hear about it all the time, as you might imagine, with my background.
You know, people on the street.
The house cleaner, you know, should I take a vaccine?
I have- Oh!
House cleaner.
Should I take a vaccine?
The house cleaner.
Are you really to believe that the guy that lives at the foot of the Shenandoah forest with a shitty little house, according to Merrill Nass, a dirty little farmhouse, a little humble farmhouse, he's got a house cleaner?
Yeah, is that how that works on farms?
I don't know very many farms that have a house cleaner in Wisconsin.
That was not something I associated with farms, house cleaner.
And it's an interesting thing because two weeks from now, they're gonna go on the Brett Weinstein podcast and talk about how Steve Kirsch's house cleaner is vaccine injured.
I find it incredibly,
curious, an incredibly curious story.
These problems all the time, and understandably so about risks, including this group of Canadians.
And I hear about it all the time, as you might imagine, with my background, you know, people on the street, the house cleaner, you know, should I take a vaccine?
I have people on the street just stop him because they all know that he's a bioethics expert and a clinical clinical trial specialist and a former
Study section head and you know, he was a candidate for the head of scientific director of a US Emirate for goodness sakes these problems in this background Um, and I'm asked to opine so I get hit with this Um in this case some of these reports about dysmenorrhea or other ovarian related events that
may or may not have been underreported by public health authorities, or may have been readily discarded as not vaccine related.
Because this is all subjective.
That's the one thing about this.
We can talk as if this is hard science, and we're all dealing with numbers and statistics and machine learning and all that wonderful stuff.
But the truth is, it comes down to somebody making a subjective decision.
This is related to vaccines, or it isn't related to vaccines.
And that triggering an investigation.
A subjective decision that this is or isn't related to vaccines, and then they got to investigate.
And so we'll never really know if these people are being hurt by the vaccine.
Wow, it's such a strong warning.
I'm just impressed with his heroism here.
that if the person making that decision, that call, has any intrinsic bias, this can cause problems, and we're very aware of that type of problem in clinical research.
I want to pause you here a minute.
I want to take you back to something that you'd said, which was in relation to the spike protein spreading systemically, that's mean throughout the body.
I remember seeing a very interesting study in Israel where they were looking at patients with hematological malignancies, and they realized that they can't do PET scans
within a certain time frame, because if they did, they were starting to get false positives because nodes were lighting up all over the body and they couldn't differentiate post-vaccination.
Does this fit with spike protein going and spreading into nodes and spleen throughout the body?
Okay, so we have to, allow me to dissect that a little bit, and it's a fascinating observation and insight that you're sharing, and thank you for sharing it.
It's adding value, and this is a great example of how science, good science, happens.
So it's possible, if you think about the fact that Robert Malone is an operative, and Philip McMillan isn't, but Philip McMillan needs to be
or let's say not an operative, but he doesn't know, right?
He's an unwitting participant.
He thinks he's being a hero.
He was asked to be a hero.
He stepped up and now he's talking to an American hero and he can barely keep up.
He's not a very sophisticated doctor and I'm not trying to insult him, but this is not a guy who, who dropped everything and started reading his way into understanding this.
He assumes he knew from the very beginning and someone told him he definitely did and said, here's what we need you to do.
We need you to talk about the spike protein and we need you to talk about it now.
is a lot of the folks, you know, it takes a lot of minds, the expression it takes a village, it takes a lot of people thinking really hard and looking for associations to pick signal from noise.
And you've just given a great example of that.
So let's pull apart a little bit what you said, we're speaking about spike protein.
Philip almost looks a little confused right now, which is actually kind of funny.
So the data that kind of lit me up a little bit with looking at the Pfizer IND package was relating to the distribution of the transfection complexes.
Transfection being a fancy scientific word for the process of the RNA getting into cells.
So transfection being a fancy scientific word for the process of the RNA getting into cells.
The distribution of the transfection complexes.
Transfection being a fancy scientific word for the process of the RNA getting into cells.
He said transfection complexes.
Wow, I mean... I'm actually quite shocked he said it.
Wow.
So I was talking about the data relating to the distribution of the lipo plexus, which caused the RNA to get into cells and turn into spike protein.
You're talking about spike protein.
And so there's another key paper that I'll remind you of, I'm sure you're aware of.
that recently it's in press, it's past peer review, and it's in press from Harvard and Brigham.
So generally, you know, this is like publication in NEJM.
If it comes out of Harvard and Brigham, we all say, oh, yes, that must be true.
But in any case, it was a bunch of nurses, a group of nurses, about 14 or 15, that received vaccine and agreed to, or Moderna in that case, and agreed to have blood draws after vaccination over a period of time.
And some very sophisticated, sensitive technology was used to detect the presence of free spike protein or subunit in their blood.
So in that data set, they're looking at the actual protein, which is what you're referring to in your example.
And of course, the production of the protein is a little time shifted.
It's a little delayed compared to the distribution of the RNA.
And the engineering that had been done at the Vaccine Research Center for the Moderna product and at BioNTech for the Pfizer product had- Vaccine Research Center, that's Barney.
And Barney was college roommates at Rice University with the dude at, one of the dudes at Pfizer, Mark could tell me.
But they were definitely college roommates.
And Barney was college roommates with somebody else.
Is my boy Mark in the chat?
What are we doing here?
Who was that?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure there's like newspaper articles and stuff about these guys being college roommates.
Anyway.
Engineered the spike so that it would stay put where it was expressed.
And yet these nurses had significant levels of non-trivial levels of circulating free spike protein in their blood for a prolonged period of time.
Now, for me as a gene delivery guy, this is kind of, wow, I'm shocked.
It's amazing.
I can't believe it.
Well, not really.
I mean, I believe the data, but it's profound.
Is that real?
Did they really, PolitiFact actually said that he said it, what?
Seriously?
PolitiFact said that, no way, I don't believe it.
I don't believe it.
Pamela, I don't believe it.
They did not hat tip him.
Oh my God.
They had tipped him.
Bridles claims are false.
Oh my gosh.
Robert Malone.
Oh my gosh.
Well done.
Thank you very much.
Pamela, as always coming in, coming in hot.
Thank you very much.
William Gruber.
There he is.
That's Marky Mark.
Nice work.
So they were college roommates.
That's dope.
And I mean, I guess in a good way or a bad way.
In terms of the underlying technology, so both, like we said at the beginning, there's a yin and a yang to these things.
So as a technologist who had worked for decades trying to develop more efficient systems for non-viral gene transfer, this was shockingly good.
More efficient systems for non viral gene transfer.
Please say it again, sir.
That was pretty good one.
That was a pretty good one in terms of the underlying technology.
So both, uh, like we said at the beginning, uh, there's a yin and a yang to these things.
Um, so, uh, from as a technologist who had worked for decades trying to develop more efficient systems for non viral gene transfer, more efficient systems.
for say it out loud with me non-viral gene transfer you see you see where we're going here it's all the same stuff it's all the same story they want to hijack they want you to believe that you don't have any of this machinery that they're finding it out there as pathogens and that they're using it
They're making stuff from it.
They're making products.
They're discovering things.
They're misleading us about our own biology.
I'm convinced of it.
And this guy is one of the people that has been doing it for a very long time.
He got recruited as a young man and he's been doing it ever since.
We have been governed by this mythology for a couple of decades.
Our parents were governed by it.
As a trained pathologist, clinical research specialist, physician scientist... How many times is he going to repeat that?
I didn't go back.
That's another repeat of the same list of shit.
As a technologist who had worked for decades trying to develop more efficient systems for non-viral gene transfer, this was shockingly good.
As a trained pathologist, clinical research specialist, physician scientist, this was a, uh-oh, Houston, we've got a problem.
Right?
It's pretty funny, isn't it?
Houston, we got a problem.
Because this isn't supposed to be happening.
Because spike protein is biologically active.
It's not an inert antigen.
It's not just... Oh, the spike protein is biologically active.
It can be cleaved.
all kinds of other stuff.
And here it is.
The spike protein is toxic.
And now the stories about the properties of the spike protein from this point onward will be sold by tens of hundreds of people on the internet, including Jessica Rose, Walter Chestnut, Kevin McCairn, Stephanie Seneff.
All of these people start talking about the spike and they're still talking about it today.
an antigen.
The virus has evolved to do a whole host of amazing things.
Um, and, and these little RNA viruses are just evolutionary pressure cookers.
And, uh, there are all kinds of overlapping.
How can they be an evolutionary pressure cooker when they don't even have their own enzymes?
How can they be an evolutionary pressure cooker?
If the vast majority of them that are produced during infection are non-infectious particles, they are replication incompetent.
He's telling a story here.
It's disturbing how easy it is to see it.
These little RNA viruses are just evolutionary pressure cookers.
And there are all kinds of overlapping activities that exist in all of the express proteins for these little RNA viruses.
Yeah, because there's only, there's 31 proteins, but I mean, they each have like 16 different jobs.
They're each like a little Swiss army knife from hell.
And in fact, Walter Chestnut was calling the spike protein a Swiss army knife from hell for about a year.
like the SARS-CoV-2.
So spike is not just an antigen.
Spike has its own intrinsic activity.
And as you note, among those things is that it binds to a particular receptor present widely in humans, particularly in vascular endothelial cells.
That's a fancy word for the cells that line the inside of your blood vessels.
And they display, they express and display this ACE2 receptor.
And binding of ACE2, ACE2 is crucial for regulation of a whole bunch of things, including blood pressure.
Now, the reason why I know ACE2 is probably bullshit is because Paul Cottrell and Dr. Richard Fleming, MD, PhD, JD,
We're so hyper-focused on the spike protein.
I mean, so hyper-focused on the spike protein.
And it's incredible, unworldly affinity for the ACE2 receptor.
Because don't forget, it's not just that it binds to ACE2, and that's the story.
The story is that it has an affinity, which is several orders of magnitude, with more exponents.
that is so high affinity that the affinity for ACE2 is in and of itself evidence of viral laboratory enrichment.
That was the story that they were selling us.
Not only
was the fear and cleavage site evidence, but the extreme high affinity for the ACE2 receptor was evidence of laboratory enrichment.
And in fact, the guy who told us that was Richard, Dr. Somebody Somebody Quay from Australia, who was on Philip McMillan's show one week ago.
an hour and a half talking about the Scooby-Doo and about how it was a lab leak.
And that guy, very early in the pandemic, was talking and publishing pre-prints about how the ACE2 affinity, when compared to ferrets and all these other animals that he has access to, boy, oh boy, his computer models say that this spike protein is super affinity for human ACE2.
And that super trader spoke in front of our Congress a few times, testified in front of our Congress a few times, and even went on Bay John Health a week ago.
And we will watch that.
But understand that, understand how ridiculous that is.
Dr. Quay testified right next to Dr. Richard Ebright.
And then he went on and did an hour and a half show with Dr. Philip McMillan a week ago.
It is all one big five eyes intelligence operation taking in theater players from every one of those countries and combining them with other players from other countries to make it look like there's some kind of consensus about what's going on around here.
And the only consensus is, is that this traitor is lying with that traitor.
And so if you have something in the blood that can bind to ACE2, it can cause all kinds of issues, many of which we're only beginning to understand.
And so... And so isn't that a convenient narrative?
Because it could be Bradykinin, it could be all these things, you know, all these other things that are involved.
who can draw all kinds of flow charts and this is connected to that and this and that and the other and holy shit it's so hard to understand.
Only somebody with an MD, PhD and JD like Richard Fleming could understand it or somebody with chaos theory experience like Dr. Paul Cottrell could understand it because boy oh boy somebody like me could never understand it.
I'm not even an MD.
What that also means is that the free protein detected in the blood of these nurses
is a tiny subset of the total amount of free protein because most of it is probably sticking to ACE2 on vascular endothelial cells, among other things.
This is a very important point because my research is focused on the autoimmune response.
My research is focused on the autoimmune response.
COVID-19 and the fact that what... The autoimmune response of COVID-19 because then he was already seeding the narrative of autoimmunity from severe COVID so that when autoimmunity would develop from transfection, the story would have already been laid down for COVID and this idiot wouldn't even know that he had just unwittingly helped the fifth generation warfare being waged on the whole West.
Useful idiot.
That's why he was on that narrative so early in 2020.
Uh-huh, autoimmunity, so early.
Not because Dr. Philip McMillan has a unique insight into how the immune system works.
It's because Dr. Philip McMillan got a phone call.
or Dr. Philip McMillan just happened to say the right thing and then got a phone call, but some shit happened because there's no way, there is no way to explain why these people were so hot and bothered in 2020 about all these things that should be more likely associated with transfection than with a viral infection, whatever the hell that is.
And yet they were so sure that the spike protein was gonna do all this crazy shit.
and they're still sure of it today, just like Kevin McCairn and Rixey and this guy.
And this guy hosted them last year to talk about it.
The spike protein, bad, bad.
Long COVID, bad, bad.
Virus spike, the transfection spike, all bad, bad.
Transfection spike makes viral spike even more bad, bad.
I have been predicting is happening is that the serum or the free-floating ACE2 binds to the viral spike protein and that combination then triggers an autoimmune response.
How?
Why would that trigger an autoimmune response?
Wouldn't that just lower the amount of circulating ACE2 protein and change that balance in the regulation of fluid dynamics and fluid pressures or some shit?
It binds and then it causes autoimmunity.
I don't understand that at all.
It's so stupid that it aggravates me.
And from a clinical perspective, what I've noticed is that many patients have symptoms of both.
And so then his cartoon idea of two things sticking together and causing autoimmunity is backed up by clinical evidence, clinical experience.
What I've observed in the people that come into my office,
holy shit two weeks after the vaccination which would which would fit with an igg production time but robert's not treating anybody so why is he nodding up and down is it because of all the clinical trials he's involved in with famotidine and stuff that he hasn't mentioned yet he didn't mention domain and his volunteer team that put together a x-ray crystallography model of the 3l 3cl protease
and scanned all known drugs and pharmaceuticals in the FDA catalog in three weeks to identify four drugs that could save the world, why isn't he mentioned the DITRA program?
As opposed to necessarily being directly related to the spike protein.
So are we triggering an autoimmune response as well as an immune response to the viral spike protein?
Is that possible?
Ah, thank you for that last caveat.
Is it possible?
Absolutely.
So this is science, right?
This is the intersection of science and medicine.
And I'm a big fan.
As a very young undergraduate, I was taken under the wing of an experienced pathologist at Davis.
And it was a little bit of a brutal experience.
I got a lot of things drummed into my head.
One of them was this ancient paper from the 1880s, published in science called The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses.
And it's how I've approached science ever since.
So the core idea is don't get invested in just one hypothesis.
Recognize that when you encounter something scientifically, some phenomena, which is what we're talking about, then it's really good to come up with as many possible explanations as you can think of.
Oh my gosh, this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
I mean, I just, I am absolutely blown away.
You and all your buddies.
And then design experiments to reject those so that you get down to a core of hypotheses that you haven't been able to reject.
And there's a good chance one of those is the true thing.
Now that's different.
Some people have a tendency to say, aha, I know what the problem is.
It's this.
And they'll go and spend a lot of time focused on that.
But I think there's a lot of merit to this idea that you are pursuing of autoimmune.
And absolutely, I'm a fairly knowledgeable immunologist.
He's a fairly knowledgeable immunologist.
I mean, not like he's really knowledgeable with bioethics.
He's really knowledgeable with clinical development.
He's really knowledgeable with
with biodefense stuff, which is mostly what he does right now with the U.S.
government.
He's really knowledgeable about a lot of things, and he's only reasonably knowledgeable with immunology.
And I've spent time in computational immunology and cellular immunology, et cetera.
Computational immunology?
That sounds a little bit like Jessica Rose.
More cellular than hemorrhoid for me.
These
Antigen complexes, which is what you're talking about forming, whether they're membrane associated or free, represent... Antigen complexes, you mean spike protein, like clumps?
expressed protein clumps that get made when a cell expresses a bunch of protein that it doesn't need?
Is that what you mean?
Exosomes?
It's back to the fundamentals.
The immune system doesn't know that it's you or not you.
They just know whether or not it's different from what it's seen before.
And anytime you do something like this, where you have a foreign protein complexed with a self-protein,
then as far as your immune system is concerned, that's something different.
And it needs to respond to it.
And we have, you know, our knowledge of the immune system is still evolving.
And these days we have T regulatory cells and
It's still evolving.
These days, we have T regulatory cells.
I'm not going to tell you what they do, but... All kinds of complex regulatory networks.
All kinds of complex regulatory networks, but it's as simple as injecting shit in the muscle.
I mean, you know, we're starting to have all kinds of new things, you know, finding new things, all kinds of regulatory networks, but we just inject shit in the muscle.
Is it conceivable that we are...
much of the delayed pathology observed in COVID disease, recognize that COVID disease is not the same as SARS-CoV-2 infection.
A lot of people get infected and they don't develop clinical disease, only a subset do.
And often that more severe disease, the part that puts you in the hospital and kills you if you are unlucky, or puts you on a respirator with a lot of oxygen,
That often is delayed, as you say, by two, it's hard to measure because we don't, we're not subjecting humans to challenge studies right now, so we don't really know what the timeline is, it could lead to an infection.
A lot of people get infected and they don't develop clinical disease, only a subset do.
And often that more severe disease, the part that puts you in the hospital and kills you, if you are unlucky, or puts you on a respirator with a lot of oxygen, that often is delayed, as you say, with a lot of oxygen.
Why do you need to be on a respirator with a lot of oxygen?
One kills you if you are unlucky, or puts you on a respirator with a lot of oxygen.
That often is delayed, as you say, by two, it's hard to measure because we don't, we're not subjecting humans to challenge studies right now, so we don't really know what the timeline is here.
But it looks like, as you say, it's two to three weeks.
Now, I would say one thing to your hypothesis about the rise of the IGT.
Just forgive me, but, you know, I've been tracking this really carefully.
And I completely agree that the autoimmune hypothesis is one of the leading hypotheses for, just a minute, somebody's trying to call me and I'm going to hang up on them.
One moment.
So one of the leading hypotheses for both the pathogenesis of COVID, the disease.
It's often delayed severe disease, inflammatory disease.
And what the community calls lung COVID, the thing that I experienced, this prolonged syndrome.
The COVID that I experienced, he said.
The long, drawn-out syndrome.
Has a lot of symptoms that are a little bit inexplicable.
Stop lying!
There are many different systemic diseases that are consistent with that.
POTS is one of them.
But much of the myalgia, arthralgia... POTS?
Oh, okay.
You mean like chronic fatigue syndrome?
in other, in potential coagulopathy that's observed, is consistent with autoimmune functions.
Wow.
So they're just laying down the narrative that we said already four years ago they were laying down.
They're laying down the narrative of damage due to COVID
that they know is eventually going to be probably the bouquet of damage that gets caused by mass transfection.
It's very simple.
What's worrisome is the thrombocytopenia that pops up.
My colleagues within the FDA, that I'm not going to share their names, tell me is a known complication of any oligonucleotide-based therapy in a small subset of patients, thrombocytopenia.
So it's so the formation of these complexes is absolutely there is a known complication of any oligonucleotide based.
So any oligonucleotide based again, is that helping the average person if he says that?
What's an oligonucleotide?
It's a RNA or DNA, right?
So it's just a stupid choice of words if he's really trying to educate people, really trying to enable people, average adults, to engage in informed consent.
This guy ain't the dude.
Therapy in a small subset of patients, thrombocytopenia.
So the formation of these complexes is absolutely
could yield a autoimmune response in a subset of patients.
And let me amplify that a little bit, because it gets back to the safety.
There's a vaccine.
But I want, yes, this is a bit that I want to try and clarify.
We don't even get close to administration of market authorization, that's the technical term for licensure, for a product, for a vaccine product.
until one to two years after at least 3,000 subjects, that's people, have been exposed to the product.
Why is that?
Because of autoimmune disease, largely, and the autoimmune disease risk, because these are often fairly rare events.
Now, we cannot
You know, I can't venture an opinion right now.
It's not my job to examine the data about whether or not these are rare events or relatively common events that we're seeing.
But the agent, the regulatory... So you see, he is titrating it.
He's not actually speaking out yet, even though he has 20 years of experience and he knows from his earlier work.
He told us in the earlier part of this video that he worked on lipid nanoparticle deliveries.
I mean, he worked on that stuff.
For years, he said he worked on that stuff.
Lipoplexes was a term that he used in this thing because he used this stuff.
Where is this?
Where are these notes?
Packaging viruses, retroviruses.
I wrote it down here somewhere.
Anyway.
agencies throughout the world generally agree that you want to be able to detect a severe adverse event, which autoimmune is one example, at a frequency of about 1 in 1,000 when you power your clinical studies.
And the statistics just work out that if you want to make sure that you detect something that happens 1 in 1,000 patients that receive the product, you have to expose 3,000 people.
And then on average, you would see three people that had that event.
So it would come across as a very rare thing.
But if it's Guillain-Barre syndrome, paralysis of the face, it was observed with the swine flu vaccine and is part of the safety signal associated with flu vaccines in general.
It occurs at a higher rate than that.
And so usually because autoimmune diseases manifest over a longer time course,
Regulatory dossiers, you know, regulatory agencies require that we have two years of safety follow-up data after administration to at least 3,000 subjects.
So in this context, I'm pushing you on this question.
We're in a situation where these things have not been deployed for two years.
We don't have those data.
The safety data are emerging.
But we also have, I like to say, the wolf is at the door.
People are dying.
They're filling up our hospitals, fortunately not at the same rate that they used to.
I'm watching the UK carefully to see the impact of some of these new variants on disease attack rates and incidents in the UK.
Even the idea of watching other countries was something that was seeded by these clowns.
They made us all want to pay attention to that stupid world meter and all these different websites.
It was all part of it.
Encouraging us to think that this data could somehow help us solve the problem of what was going on.
the data, their official data.
We were supposed to trust it and not only trust it, but use it to solve the mystery of what was going on.
It's extraordinary when you see it.
They don't seem to have come stateside in quite the same way yet.
I work closely with colleagues in India that are developing vaccines, more traditional ones.
I mean, I don't know.
He's he's selling horses.
He's raising emus he's building barns and he's working with colleagues in India and Paying close attention to the UK and putting out about 17 to 27 pages of sub stack a day Sometimes doing nine podcasts a day.
It is freaking extraordinary and That is not a that is
a very unpleasant situation right now.
So here's a question.
I hope that the UK doesn't experience something similar and that we don't see that in the States, but time will tell.
So Rob, I'm going to have to ask you here, based on what you have seen so far, do you think it's appropriate for us to continue with mass vaccination when we have these questions arising, especially in groups who are at low risk for severe disease?
Okay, I'm going to not give you an answer.
He's not going to give you an answer, which means that he doesn't have principles right now in June of 2021.
He simply doesn't have principles if he won't say that transfection in healthy people going to college is really, really criminal.
He's not going to give you an answer, which means he's not going to save anyone from the shot.
I already put out an answer 2 or 3 months before this video and finally published it more than a month before this video where I said we should pause all transfections in humans.
Some of my answers and some of my reasons were wrong because they were based on Herod von den Bosch but other of these reasons were absolutely and totally right.
Look at the smile on this guy's face!
Everybody gets mad at me all the time because I'm angry.
I'm not having any fun when these people have been lying about the murder in my country for four years straight.
And using it to murder other people in other countries, to transfect other people in other countries, because this guy couldn't explain it, Brett Weinstein couldn't explain it, none of these people would explain it, and none of them would share my work with you, even though I was being shared with them.
I was sharing with them, I was begging them.
Then I got paid for a whole year to work for Bobby Kennedy and I begged him.
Then I worked for six months for CHD and I begged them, nobody will do this.
because they're all on the same team.
It's a limited spectrum of debate that's not supposed to free us or our children or America because America is being controlled, demolished.
The culture, the future of our kids.
I'm not loyal to any candidate.
I'm not loyal to any person.
I'm loyal to this dirt.
Where I was born, where my dad was born,
Where my grandfather was born.
And where they died.
I'm tired of this.
These people are not patriots for their respective countries.
They are collaborators.
They are collaborators in a global theater.
There's no good reason for you to believe that these international people have come together in some spontaneous way.
There's no reason to believe that.
Americans can't even come together spontaneously.
Not on social media, not on the truth.
That's why it took Mark and I almost two years to get together.
To finally realize that you might be a good guy.
because people were doing everything they could to keep us away from each other, to keep us busy on our own things, focused on our own things, chasing our own ghosts, angry about our own shit, arguing about our own people, chasing around George Webb for Mark Me, chasing around Rixey and Drastic and Kevin McCairn and Kevin McKernan and all of these people.
Steve Kirsch, Matt Crawford, Jessica Rose, all of them.
They all danced with me.
And now they all pretend like they don't know who the hell I am, that they didn't learn anything from me.
They never heard anything useful from that guy.
He's just angry all the time.
Nobody likes him.
That's why they get together in groups of five or six to talk about me.
And it has to do with me, as a professional, respecting my professional colleagues, whose job it is to make that determination.
And just to provide context, I did speak with insider colleagues that are very senior at the FDA that I've known for many years and trust, and they trust me, about these potential safety signals and concerns about widespread distribution of the gene expression and the high levels of spike protein free in the blood and the Pfizer data package issues that I had observed.
And they had recommended to me that I speak to the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation Research at the FDA.
And he kindly granted me a meeting over Zoom about a day ago.
And we discussed these various issues.
I think that's Jeremy Marks.
He basically presented to me... So he's claiming that he showed Byron Bridle's FOIA request data to the FDA and discussed it.
So basically, he's done as much as possible.
There's nothing left for me to do.
There's nothing left for you to do.
Bret Weinstein doesn't have to do shit anymore because he's basically gone all the way to the FDA already.
No reason to do anything else.
What else could you do?
I mean, this guy's done it all already.
He's got all these connections with people that he trusts.
So then what good are you gonna do?
What he could because he's constrained by his ability to disclose information associated with the Pfizer package that was fully submitted to the US FDA about two weeks ago.
And I respect, he has an excellent reputation within the FDA as a person of intelligence and integrity.
And so- Imagine that Kevin McKernan says that the FDA is just totally shit and it's all corrupt.
And Robert F. Kennedy says it's all corrupt.
But this guy says that one of the heads of the FDA is just awesome.
Totally trustworthy.
I mean, it's almost kind of laughable if you think about it.
It was fully submitted to the US FDA about two weeks ago.
And I respect, he has an excellent reputation within the FDA as a person of intelligence and integrity.
And so I trust that what he tells me reflects that background of intelligence and integrity.
So, I mean, now he's not only transparent and bioethics expert and whatever, but now he's insisting that somebody that works at a high level at the FDA is also just as trustworthy and just as trans... I mean, it's just lucky that we know people like Robert Malone and his friends or holy shit would we be screwed.
And he assured me that the gaps that I had identified in the, what are now really historic documents, they're from a different timeframe that were obtained by the Canadian group.
Oh, these documents are historic documents.
They don't apply to the stuff that we're doing in America.
Holy shit.
and may or may not reflect the current documents that have been submitted.
I understand all of that, but we are certainly in different parts of the world.
There is a significant amount of pressure, especially now that there has been some, certainly.
Wow.
So Byron Bridle's documents aren't even that important anyway, because they use Luciferase
And they didn't even really, I mean, they used tritiated RNA, and it wasn't even the right RNA.
So, you know, it's a historic document at this stage.
It doesn't even really have anything to do with what we're doing now.
Stop lying!
It is extraordinary.
This is a criminal.
It's a traitor right there.
Maybe he's not a criminal because he's working for an intelligence agency or a government organization that allows him to do this.
But from my perspective, this is a traitor.
This is somebody who sold out our college kids in June of 2021 because he didn't have the balls.
He didn't have the principles.
He didn't have the morals.
to warn any of these young people.
And instead, he went on an international podcast to talk with a trader from the UK and say nothing for an hour and a half.
Except he's great.
He's really righteous.
He's a great guy.
He's all about transparency.
When I do things, I do it with integrity.
they're aiming for the 12 to 15 year olds, so children who are at low risk of severe disease.
And what I'm saying is I do understand that there is due process, but this is in the context that if this is relevant for long-term impact on the young people, this is a pretty important point that has to be raised to the public very quickly.
Good, Philip.
At least Philip is kind of saying it for shit's sake.
They should know about these issues.
You and I are aligned.
And this gets back to the bedrock.
You and I are aligned.
I like to talk in a way that normal people can't really understand what the frick I'm saying, so I say stupid shit.
And it's not even like Yoda stupid.
It's just big words for nothing stupid.
Bioethics.
Fundamental.
They should know about these issues.
You and I are aligned.
And this gets back to the bedrock of bioethics.
Fundamental principles of bioethics are for an experimental product, which is what these are currently, certainly in the United States.
Informed consent?
They're under emergency use authorization.
They have not been approved yet in the United States.
I can't speak to, it's a little unclear to me about the status in the UK.
Informed consent?
But I firmly believe that the
I'm of the school as a physician that your patients have the right to understand their disease and understand.
Understand their disease?
Informed consent about transfection?
Understand their disease?
What?
Potential interventions and participated decision-making.
It's their body.
Your body doesn't belong to them.
What is that called, Robert Malone, bioethics expert?
What is that principle called?
Informed consent?
To the state.
And I'm of the opinion, as you suggest, that full and open disclosure of risks is something that not only can adults process and manage, and should be able to, but I think we're obligated to have that full and open disclosure.
So you speak now about adolescents, and that's a special case.
Informed consent for adolescents?
Bioethically.
It's a special case bioethically.
So you speak now about adolescents, and that's a special case bioethically.
Um, if, if the product is not yet licensed and proven safe in an adolescent or child population, they, by definition, they are not able to provide full informed consent.
Oh, there it comes.
There it comes.
Full, full informed consent by definition.
They can't, they can't do it.
Why can adults do it if they don't know anything about it?
Why can adults do it if you don't tell them it's transfection, Robert?
Consent.
This is a child population.
They, by definition, they are not able to provide full informed consent.
They're not of the age of consent.
This is fundamental.
And in the specific case, there are now known disclosed risks in the adolescent population, particularly cardiomyopathy.
Well, not so long ago, there was strong denial that there were any risks in this population.
And that was kind of the group consensus and the party line, forgive me, put out by many public health professionals.
But among other things, the FDA has a absolutely super duper biostatistician, one of the world leaders, he actually is.
Oh my God, the FDA has a super biostatistician too.
So not only is one of their high ranking officials totally trustworthy,
but they've got a super biostatistician too.
So all the numbers that come out of the FDA are just chef's kiss.
Holy shit.
He played by Oracle and he examined a lot of those data.
He discovered that.
Did he say Oracle?
Wasn't, wasn't, isn't Cullen, isn't that guy Cullen?
Didn't he also work for Oracle and like make the, make the map?
He's like the map's daddy.
Didn't he also work for Oracle?
Holy shit.
I'm one of the world leaders.
He actually is employed by Oracle.
He said Oracle, that's the same company that Colin says he worked for.
He discovered that there was a safety signal associated with cardiomyopathy in these mRNA vaccine recipients.
That was then confirmed by the CDC.
The CDC issued a press announcement and an announcement on their website.
I received a document from the Maryland Board of Physicians, which is my licensing board, that specifically warned about cardiomyopathy in adolescents.
I don't understand.
The biostatistician works for the FDA and also for Oracle?
I don't get that at all.
That's weird.
And then we have an editorial in Science Magazine revealing that everybody's kind of been relying on the Israeli database as the most comprehensive, and much reassurance was taken from the Israelis not having reported anything.
Yes, Congellon did work at Oracle.
It's so, it is so funny because supposedly Goodman and Cullen got on a phone call with Mullen, or with Mullen, with Malone and they had a recording of it.
Oh my gosh.
Don't also don't forget that at the at the Knoxville CHD inaugural conference I met Charles Rixey and Robert Malone and Robert Malone apparently told Charles Rixey, he didn't tell him this in front of me, but Charles Rixey told me at the conference that Robert Malone remembered him
Charles and not me from the podcast.
And that's why he didn't remember me in the hallway and pulled his hand away because he only remembered Rixie.
And that Rixie was invited to come to his ranch in Virginia.
He told me three different times that weekend.
He mentioned it three times during the weekend.
to make sure I remembered that Robert Malone didn't remember you, but he remembered me and he invited me to the ranch.
I don't know if anybody watches Charles Rixey and Kevin McCarron regularly, but I wonder if there was any report from the ranch.
I bet there wasn't.
to do with the adolescent population.
At that same conference, Matt Crawford and his wife had dinner with Robert Malone, or had lunch with Robert Malone and his wife, which was really interesting because supposedly they just met, or they didn't know each other, or they just happened to have lunch.
They confirmed, in fact, they saw the same safety signal.
It doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence, I'm afraid.
And it's in this particular population that we've all agreed deserves particular caution and care.
Now, if I can speak just a moment about cardiomyopathy, because that's us, as you know, among other things associated with autoimmune disease.
We don't know that that's the cause.
We're not taking the small number of children, adolescents that have experienced cardiomyopathy and doing cardiac biopsies, which is the kind of thing that's necessary because we generally don't do that and there's a lot of risks associated with it also.
I just want to share one thing.
Because I work in this biodefense space, at the time when the U.S.
government, it's an anecdote, okay, so forgive me, has to do with smallpox vaccine.
And it illustrates kind of the situation, I think, quite well.
There was a time when the U.S.
government was concerned about the risk of smallpox being released stateside as a biohazard threat, and they started vaccinating first responders and other healthcare workers.
This happened during the Bush administration.
They killed a lot of paramedics.
This was a pretty big deal.
And they saw what they believed was an intolerable signal of cardiomyopathy in the vaccinee population.
And I was tasked, I was working as under contract with the DOD at the time, Department of Defense of the US.
I was tasked with looking into whether this type of a problem had existed historically during the prior major smallpox eradication campaigns that had occurred historically.
He had to look into the history of smallpox vaccination for the DOD?
Did he just say that he was tasked by the DOD as a contractor to look into whether or not previous smallpox vaccination campaigns had a series of adverse events?
Holy, holy, holy balls.
Oh my gosh.
Cardiomyopathy in the vaccine population.
And I was tasked, I was working as under contract with the DOD at the time, Department of Defense of the US.
I was tasked with looking into whether this type of a problem had existed historically during the prior major smallpox eradication campaigns that had occurred historically.
How the hell would he do that?
You'd have to go to the Vatican or somewhere where they would have the records in order to do something like that.
I mean, I don't know where you'd go.
The thing that comes to my mind is like the Da Vinci Code and going to some place where really old records exist.
The Vatican might have old records about smallpox outbreaks.
And in fact, the signal was there.
Soldiers and others, young people in particular, receiving smallpox vaccine had an incidence of cardiomyopathy that was compromising their function.
And it was considered an acceptable risk because of the risk-benefit ratio, and that's crucial.
Because smallpox is so dangerous, it's okay if some people get myocarditis.
So again,
I find myself going back to my old encyclopedias over there.
When I look up in that old encyclopedia from 1894, the smallpox, I don't find the word death.
I don't find the word deadly.
I don't find the word die.
I don't find the word killed.
I don't find any evidence that smallpox was something that a lot of people died of.
People got pockmarks.
There were scars.
People got variolated to it.
But they don't talk about it like it killed a lot of people.
Because they don't even use the word.
It's strange.
I wonder where, I guess he looked into military records then.
I guess that's what he had to look at.
I don't know how long something like that takes.
I guess you get a few Excel sheets and you do some basic statistics and you're done.
I don't know.
I thought the FDA had a really good biostatistician that worked for Oracle.
Understanding the perspective of the public health community about these signals.
The thing about the risk-benefit ratio is it's subjective.
It's in the eye of the beholder.
And so there's no computer algorithm or machine learning whiz-bang to say, ah, you've crossed the line.
Now you're over the risk-benefit ratio.
It's very much a subjective call.
How many times has he said that there's a computer algorithm or an AI that says something?
I think that's like the fifth time he's kind of dropped that in.
Now he's saying that there's no AI or computer program that'll tell you when the risk-benefit ratio is correct.
Interesting.
You know, I heard a thing that Mark brought up in his stream today about the idea that warfare was actually also being argued that the fastest computers were going to be the people, the countries that would win wars.
And so, you know, the whole race for computer chips and for microprocessors was fueled by this race, this idea that if they got faster computers than us, then they would be able to beat us.
If they get the human genome mapped first, then they could beat us for decades.
And so the same kind of impetus, you know, it's a race against the clock.
It's a race against the bad guys.
We got to beat them to the goalpost is how they got us to think we went to the moon.
It's how they got us to think that we finished the human genome project.
And it's how they're going to get us to think that we raced to get this mRNA done.
And now it's finally good once we get the double-stranded DNA out of it and we make it personalized for you.
And it's pretty much a function of what is the risk of the pathogen in the population.
So if you were to do a risk-benefit analysis for, say, an RNA vaccine, and you were doing it from the perspective of the Indian regulatory authorities currently, you would be probably responsibly very inclined to tolerate quite a bit of risk in the product because of the risk of death and long-term consequences associated with this variant that's spreading and infecting people in India.
If you were doing the same analysis from the United States currently,
as opposed to, say, six months ago.
The risk-benefit ratio would change.
Can you appreciate this?
Yes, I understand.
So with this adolescent population, it is not my job or pay grade to second guess national public health authorities.
What I will say is that I am confident in my position in bioethics.
And that position is while these remain experimental products not yet licensed or fully evaluated in terms of their safety.
I mean, he said it again.
It's just incredible.
It's just absolutely incredible.
What I will say is that I am confident in my position in bioethics.
And that position is, while these remain experimental products not yet licensed or fully evaluated in terms of their safety, there is an obligation to fully disclose risks, ensure that those which receive the product are comprehending those risks, and that they have consented in some way to accept those risks which have been fully disclosed and which they have comprehended.
This is bedrock bioethics.
And in the case of an adolescent, we have all agreed that adolescents and young people down to, people are talking about two-year-olds.
And here we are already working the narrative of the Medicare, right?
Because we need the old people to die.
So there's no doubt that it's good for old people.
We're not even discussing that right now.
Your, your 80 year old grandmother that's been taking care of herself for her whole life.
She's got a shitter pants and take this shit because it's definitely the risk benefit ratio for her flying AIDS or transfection.
You better take the transfection.
That's already a foregone conclusion in June of 2021 with these two monkeys.
Listen to this very carefully.
They're barely able to say that, that, that healthy middle-aged people,
Healthy teenagers, I mean, they're barely able to say that.
Are not able to provide that informed consent.
It can only be provided by a responsible adult that's been designated, whether it's their parents or whatever the designation has to do with, the people that have accepted responsibility for decision making on behalf of those adolescents or children.
And I don't think, while these are still experimental vaccines, I caution that governments and public health professionals that are making these decisions about vaccination of adolescents in an environment where the safety database is evolving.
And as we've seen, I think they are treading on very thin ice ethically.
And I really counsel that it's time, past time, for us as a world community and as a public health community to take a good hard look at what we're doing here.
You know, in crisis, it's easy to convince yourself of the need for extraordinary measures.
And history is full of examples where we have decided to
intern ethnic populations or whatever because of perceived risk or allow certain types of medical experimentation on populations.
The Tuskegee experience in the United States is notorious.
African-Americans in the United States are still wary of participating in clinical research as a consequence for good reason.
And I kind of feel like we're in that same kind of ethical
environment where we have to be very careful and cognizant of the decisions we're making, because in retrospect, we may regret having done so, particularly because it's
I can say for me it's self-evident that the safety database is evolving.
I look forward to disclosures from our colleagues in the Scandinavian countries and in the UK that have a well-developed mental health service with more rigorous methodical reporting, unfortunately in the States.
All of our safety databases are based on self-reporting.
And the consequence is we have neither a reliable, I'm sorry, I've got to say it, numerator nor denominator.
You know, we don't know what the.
event rate is for these.
So we don't have a denominator or a numerator before or after the pandemic.
And so pointing to VAERS is not even a good point.
And so they're just muddying the water and making sure everybody understands you're not going to figure anything out anytime soon.
And he's already doing everything he can.
He's putting his whole, his whole life on the line where other people won't because he's the only one with ethics that he knows of.
He's the only one he knows that'll put his name to any of these things.
at least for a couple more weeks.
It's gross.
Adverse events, the true event rate of among all people vaccinated.
And we don't really know the number of vaccine recipients in any kind of a rigorous way.
And these adverse events are self-reported.
So I don't want to second guess national health authorities and their policy.
It's not my job.
It's not my purview.
But you've been working with them for 20 years.
You know more than anyone in the room whether or not it's worth being afraid of their propensity to do things incorrectly.
You just told us a little while ago that with regard to experimental products, it's their job to convince the public that the shots are safe and effective, to get full compliance.
That's their job.
Would they murder people and lie about it in order to get it?
Yes.
Would they put Robert Malone on a stream with international people for years?
Would they have him tour around the world for years?
Yes, they would.
Would they have him tour around with the same people like Pierre Kory and Jessica Rose and Meryl Nass?
Yes, they would.
And they did.
I do feel comfortable raising a concern about the underlying bioethics and reiterating that we, in the West at least, we all can agree on these fundamental principles for an unlicensed product that remains experimental.
There has to be full and open disclosure promptly of risks to the patients in the broadest sense.
You know, when you're running a clinical trial, that list of risks that are disclosed is those ways- Please do not mistake or forget that he has completely blown off all people that are old.
Anybody over the age of 60 doesn't give a shit.
He doesn't think that there's ever going to be any way to confirm whether any of these people were killed by their shots because, you know, a certain number of these people are going to die within a few days of those shots anyway, and you're never going to know because they were going to die anyway.
So he spent most of this video trying to discredit the idea that we need to even think about whether old people were killed by it.
They were saved.
But these younger people, because of myocarditis, it could be riskier for them.
because you wouldn't want to get myocarditis as a young guy.
But I mean, myocarditis is a pretty low risk for somebody who's 60 years old.
You know, clotting and stuff like that.
And you know, maybe a little autoimmune reaction to your endothelium when you're 80 or whatever, that's no big deal.
Ladies and gentlemen, please see this.
This is some of the most malevolent footage I have ever watched.
It has had so many home runs in it.
So many disturbing things about it.
Even this little admission here that he worked for the D.O.D.
and had to look at previous smallpox vaccinations.
He's talking about A.I.
and he's talking about learning, machine learning and all this other crap.
I'm sorry, but I think Mark hit a home run today with the Department of Energy.
Because that article, that little coverage there, actually tied together all kinds of stuff.
Mainly, why in the hell is the Department of Energy involved in the first place?
Why?
Because they have the absolute airtight secret compartment called nuclear weapons.
So anything at the DOE, the Department of Energy, that's classified gets classified real good.
They're already really good at it.
And they prioritized, what two things in that article?
They prioritized supercomputer chips or some shit, microprocessors, and the mapping, not the sequencing of, because sequencing of the human genome is not useful because everybody's genome is relatively unique.
Even though in that article, they said specifically, and I even wrote it down because I thought it was so funny when I was listening to him.
They said,
Where did I write it?
I wrote it somewhere over here.
But they said that most of the genome, most of the parts of the genome are the same across people.
It's ridiculous.
That's absolutely absurd.
And in fact, the little tiny differences are probably what makes us all very unique and makes us very difficult to understand as a single pattern integrity, you know, generalized across multiple birds.
It's easier to study an inbred mouse line than it is to study an outbred population of human beings.
And if that's not an understatement, I don't know how to make one.
Ladies and gentlemen, this has been a concerted effort for more than 20 years to set us up for this inversion.
And they knew they needed this technology and all the technologies that complement it.
And just like Mark showed us earlier today that the DOE, the Department of Energy made the argument that very soon, very soon war was going to be taken over by AI and computers.
And so we needed to get the fastest computers before the Russians did.
We needed to get the smartest computers before the bad guys do the Chinese or whatever.
The exact same argument in that article was made for what for sequencing or mapping the human genome.
We have to get it before they get it so that we can be ahead of them for decades.
The crazy thing is, is that those two, those two technologies might've been complimentary.
Because they knew that in order to sequence the genome they were going to need the computing power to pull off these algorithmic tricks.
And just processing the data alone would be impossible for the computers at the time when they were trying to envision how the human genome might even be cracked.
And the more that they got to understand what the human genome had in store for them, and the more variability that they found there, the more impossibility they found there, the more they understood that the main thing that would ever hold them back after they collected the data would be the computer that would process it.
And so the imagination that they had already 20 years ago was absolutely correct.
They knew that they would need both of these technologies.
They would need to focus on the mapping and the sequencing to get a headstart, to get the data ready, to get people ready, to get the technology ready, to collect the data that they would feed to the computers that would eventually be strong enough to crack the code.
Don't you understand?
That's the exact goddang slide that I put up every single day.
It's this exact same slide.
It is computers solving the human genome.
And so all the way back then, when Mark was reading this paper, they already knew this article.
They already knew that they would need the computers to do the data.
These two things were exactly the same goal, exactly the same impetus.
We are at a magnificent turning point, ladies and gentlemen, because the work of two very tiny little patriotic Americans has finally synergistically led to some higher understanding, perhaps, of what's really going on here.
By carefully looking at the history, by carefully trying to follow the mentorship of these ideas,
we have probably just today stumbled upon some better understanding of how these ideas were brought together and by who they were brought together.
Not only that, but on the side dish served over here as a appetizer is the idea that all these experts on the Epstein network haven't been able to say Bill Barr's name!
Never go into Bill Barr's family!
And Mark's been trying to get somebody to pay attention to Bill Barr for a couple years now.
I remember one of the first videos that I ever watched of Mark that actually impressed the shit out of me was about Bill Barr.
Let's watch this last little bit, and then we will wrap this amazing show up.
Down into the weeds, just like it does in a package insert.
And so we have to disclose.
I think we're obligated to.
We have to ensure that the public comprehends that disclosure.
We have to put it in paper.
Oh my gosh, the supercomputer in WarGames is named Joshua because Joshua Lederberg was a consultant on the game WarGames Movie.
I've got goosebumps.
My whole legs are just... All the hair on my legs is standing up right now.
We just won.
Don't you understand?
It just happened.
Joshua Lederberg was an advisor on the War Games movie.
They always knew.
That slide of mine is so relevant, I didn't even know it.
It's so magical.
And how long has this been a slide in my deck?
How long has Mark been chasing these leads down?
How long have we been joking about Joshua being the computer of war games?
And then Mark just does another show today and reads another article and then Jay does another show today and watches another video and... There goes the whole illusion.
and not obfuscate it.
And we have to have a process in which they are consenting.
I believe firmly the state, in the West at least, does not have the authorization to compel vaccination or administration of an experimental product, full stop.
And I'm not shy about saying that.
He's not saying anything.
They don't have the data to compel anybody, but they can coerce them with Joe Rogan.
They can coerce them with Brett Weinstein.
They can coerce them with The View.
They can coerce them with Sam Harris.
They can coerce them with a confusing nutcase like you two.
You can confuse them with Kevin McCairn, and Charles Rixey, and Jessica Rose, and Peter McCullough, and Pierre Cory, and Jessica Hockett, and Jonathan Engler, and The Heart Group, and Claire Craig, and you can confuse them with all these people.
And then the choice will be pretty difficult.
Absolutely.
Listen, Robert, we could talk for hours about these things.
I think this has been a truly enthralling discussion, and I'm looking forward to having more of them.
But this is, in truth, probably one of the most important discussions in terms of its timing and in terms of the relevance to what people may choose to do and what governments and public health officials may need to do in order for us to have a truly safe and good practice going forward for health.
So I want to thank you again, Robert,
and I really appreciate the time.
I look forward to speaking to you again, and I hope everyone watching has enjoyed this as much as I have.
Thank you very much, Robert.
Bye-bye, and thank you for the opportunity and for your interest, and I look forward to learning from your research also, okay?
Bye-bye.
I look forward to learning from your research also.
What a bunch of jackasses.
The way they are pulling this off is by not talking about 2020 and 2021.
That was from 2021.
So that was a year later.
A year after this already started.
A year after we let our kids go back to college.
Almost a year after I said stop.
The faith is a lie, ladies and gentlemen, and the faith was actually laid down by an illusion of consensus created by people like Robert Malone and Meryl Nass and Jessica Rose and Pierre Kory.
A consensus about the worst case scenario being a gain-of-function laboratory virus that might go endemic.
And that illusion of consensus is what coerced a lot of people into accepting transfection as an investigational vaccine, instead of realizing, instead of being informed that transfection is the only way that RNA virology can really be accomplished.
And if we just break this down,
My family has just sat down in the plane to Amsterdam after a seven hour wait in Detroit.
So I'm actually extremely happy right now that they're finally on the plane and they're gonna watch a few movies and then be in their house of grandma very soon.
So I'm very excited that they're going and let me assure you, I'm not gonna waste any of this time alone.
I'm gonna be doing a lot of work.
Look, if you think about it like a cassette tape, RNA is not perfect.
RNA can't be copied perfectly.
It's, uh, even if you've got the best dubbing cassette player, you can't make good copies of a cassette tape.
And so that's very similar to, you really can't grow RNA in a dish.
You can't grow it in a cell culture, but you can sequence it.
And if you sequence it, hold on, I'm going to start this again.
You can sequence it.
And if you sequence it,
you can make DNA of it.
And that's pretty standard molecular biology.
If they make DNA of it, you can think of that like a CD because you can make copies of DNA and we know lots of different ways to do it.
We have special technology printing ways of doing it and we also have more traditional ways of doing it that involve circular DNA molecules that are copied by a very handy dandy bacterial culture.
And in fact, there are videos of Inovio making the spike protein using the same technology, bacterial culture, making the DNA, then making the bacterial culture, make a copy of it, and then they convert that DNA to RNA, and then that RNA to spike protein.
And there's lots of different ways to do it, cell culture, electroporation, RNA polymerase made by a commercial process.
But any way you do it, if you put this RNA or this DNA on a cell culture or into an animal, you're already doing virology.
That's most of the time how virology is done.
And, in fact, these processes are very translatable and, in fact, already in use to make pharmaceutical products called biologics, proteins.
Any protein that's made as a drug is made in this fashion.
And that's what Brian Artis' presentation at the Red Pill Conference was about.
Except, as he was telling everybody that they're making kilotons of venom, he didn't bother to explain to them that they're making that venom using synthetic DNA and RNA in culture.
And that means that Jonathan Cooley is right because if they can make these infectious DNA clones in small quantities and share them with other virology labs, then they can also make them in large quantities because it's the exact same process.
And pharmaceutical companies all around the world already have gigantic factories that use this process to make other things.
And so if you just tell the story correctly, you can just say that, well, synthetic RNA in quantity can be used to transform or transfect cell cultures or animals, and that's virology.
And that means that virology can be done on an industrial scale very easily using existing technology.
Existing technology that Kevin McKernan is an expert in, and that's why they had to put him in place early to control the narrative about it.
That's why he was on my stream twice to try and control the narrative about it.
That's why I was on a St.
Patrick's Day podcast in 2023 to try and control the narrative about it.
And that's why he turned into a complete asshole to me because he's trying to control the narrative about it.
And since he can't argue the biology with me, then he's got to attribute bad motives to me.
That's why he was selected to be part of this Senate committee and not me.
because they don't want the truth.
They are controlling a narrative so that we teach our kids the mythology of gain-of-function viruses.
This is one of the worst traitors in America.
Pierre Khoury is one of the worst traitors in America.
And if I'm wrong, then he should do something about that and tell us the truth about why he did what he did, said what he did, and why and where he was at all those times in 2020.
Don't ask him what he was doing in 2020.
Remember, he's on that team.
Ladies and gentlemen, intravascular 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.
Of course, there are other ways to say it, but any way you say it, this is an illusion and we are being controlled by the theater of it.
The crazy part is who the players are.
It was very easy to think that Peter Daszak and Tony Fauci were players.
It's a little harder to see that Bill Barr is a player, or that Ron Klain is a player, or that Averill Haynes is a player, especially when none of these people will say their names.
It's a little harder to see that these ideas probably descend from World War II experimentation.
It's hard to see that these ideas descend from a combination of impetuses in the Department of Energy, hidden behind the nuke cabinet.
But, you know, if you pay attention to Mark Housatonic Live and you pay attention to GigaOM Biological, you might make it to the end.
Ladies and gentlemen, transfection in healthy humans was always a stupid idea and they're still trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary with all these dumb
versions, including the new flu vaccine.
If you liked what you saw, please share the stream here at stream.GigaOM.bio.
And if you have the means and you're impressed enough, and you're not doing it already, which I thank everyone who is, please go to GigaOMBiological.com and find a way to support the stream.
We need all the support we can get.
There's been a few people who have been floating this boat for a couple years now and they can't do it for much longer.
So we need some more people to pick up the slack and you know, even $10 a month.
I know it's a lot to ask of some people, but if you have the means, it would be great.
And all of us would appreciate it very much.
Thank you very much for joining me and I'll see you again soon.
supposed to be the music here is still going out.
I wonder if anybody can guess why I keep playing this.
But anyway, we're on a mission from God, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't forget.
I'm not sure about Broken Science.
I think so.
I want to believe, but nobody in Broken Science supports GigaOM Biological.
No one at Broken Science supports GigaOM Biological.
I have been invited to their meetings and I participate in their meetings, but no one at that place
is a subscriber, not even at $10 a month, just so you know.
I mean, it doesn't say anything, but it kind of does say something.
I love you all very much and I will see you again tomorrow, of course.
Bye-bye.