Testing 123, CQCQ, CQDX, CQDX, W3JJW, Whiskey3, Juliet Juliet Whiskey calling CQDX.
Anybody out there, CQCQ?
Good to see you, Tony.
You are number one.
Not only in the chat, but also in my book today.
Thank you very much, sir.
Thank you for answering my call You're coming in five by nine And uh, this is the charlie rose show October 10th 2007.
I'm gonna run an intro so feel free to Feel free to tweet it out or send out an extra alert to those people that you love that we are going live Thanks for joining me Oh
The next thing that I want to say is our lack of biological knowledge and the general poor health of America, of the American people, is being used to create the crisis they need to divide and conquer us, to ruin maybe America, I don't know, crash the dollar, I don't know, steal the rest of what limited treasury value we have left, I don't know.
But I know for sure
that they are combining our lack of biological knowledge and our general society's lack of good health and access to health care to create a crisis to usher in all kinds of changes that would otherwise never be necessary and more importantly never be possible.
If you think about it, you know, if we're defining vaccine really liberally, and these COVID vaccines are vaccines, the flu vaccine is vaccine, okay.
But actually they're kind of cheating when they're calling these things vaccines.
And, you know, anything with really rapidly fading efficacy, such that you need shots within a year, or, you know, Canada's saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right, on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Yeah.
Summer's out of reach.
Empty lake, empty streets.
The sun goes down alone.
I'm driving by your house.
No, no, you're not home.
But I can see you.
Your brown skin shining in the sun.
You got your hair curled back and your sunglasses on, baby.
Yeah, the boys are so out of control
I never will forget those nights I wonder if it was a dream Remember how you made me crazy Remember how I made you scream I don't understand what happened to our love
But babe, I'm gonna get you back.
I'm gonna show you what I'm made of.
I can see you.
Your brown skin shining in the sun.
I see you walking real slow and you smile at everyone.
I can tell you my love for you will still be strong after the boys and summer have gone.
you.
Out on the road today, I saw a dead head sticker on a Cadillac.
A little voice inside my head said, don't look back.
You can never look back.
I thought I knew what love was, but did I know those days are gone forever?
I should just let them go.
Your broad skin shining in the sun You've got the top girl down, lady around, baby I can tell you my love for you will still be strong After the boys and summer have gone
I can tell you my love for you will still be strong After the boys of summer have gone home
you
He's scheduled for 60 minutes next.
He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him.
It's embarrassing.
Hey, why aren't you playing?
What the hell?
That's weird.
Hello?
Start!
What in the world is going on here?
Okay, uh... Come on, what happened there?
Everything was just fine a second ago.
What in the world?
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the show.
We're here to break the enchantment of the charlatans that we inherited from our parents.
The message still remains the same.
It's not just the charlatans that were on TV in the PBS NewsHour, it's also the charlatans that were on Twitter, and now called X, that were on Facebook, and Gab, and locals, and Discord groups.
You see, the fifth generation warfare that Robert Malone pretends to warn you about in his upcoming book to be released in October is actually him!
It's actually him and all the lies that he's told.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm an academic biologist, recovering akademagician, and I used to be a patch clamp physiologist where I used microscopes and borosilicate glass electrodes to record from individual neurons and brain slices of mice and monkeys.
And I really wanted to be a biology teacher, and I worked really, really hard.
to try and get the opportunity to become one at a university.
I worked at universities in Norway, the Netherlands, America.
My last place of faculty was at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
You can still find the stain of my work on PubMed and the list is still getting longer because that's how it works when you have a real track record with real work being done.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need to have a new consensus about intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system being dumb.
We need to have a new consensus about transfection in healthy humans being always criminally negligent.
And we need to have a new understanding in our young people that viruses are not pattern integrities and therefore RNA cannot pandemic.
This is a mythology that they want us to teach our children that they have attempted to coerce us
into teaching our children and we must avoid it.
What they've done is they've taken this excess deaths and they've misconstrued it with a mystery virus.
And just like they're misconstruing a well-rehearsed actor with somebody wearing headphones, I assure you,
Kamala is not wearing earbuds as pearls because they could just as easily put something in her ear that you couldn't see.
They do that all the time.
So the idea that they're focused on that earring just makes it more of a debunkable thing.
Like a lot of these other things were very debunkable.
And as a result, we focused on a few things while the reality was that the truth of supplementary oxygen, ventilators, poor antibiotic use, the overuse of steroids like dexamethasone, these things were all hidden behind an illusion of consensus about something spreading and the fact that something like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine was helping treat it.
And so instead of talking about strict liability and restoring it to all pharmaceutical products, instead of talking about how the Seventh Amendment is being violated by these laws which support the vaccine schedule in America, these people focused on a few tiny parts of the narrative.
a limited spectrum of debate and that limited spectrum of debate specifically hid the murder and lies that were being misconstrued as a novel virus and so they needed people on tv yes but they also needed people on social media
to never come to the conclusion that transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent, even though that's what Robert Malone originally opened with in a few of his podcasts in 2021.
They need to protect the idea that the vaccine schedule in America is a criminal enterprise, and that's why they murdered and lied about it.
They definitely need your kids to grow up thinking that RNA can pandemic and that's why they murdered and lied about it.
It cannot.
RNA cannot pandemic and that's what we need to teach our kids.
If we stick to their illusion of consensus, if we keep fighting for one team or the other and arguing on behalf of these people, we will never get ourselves and our young people out of this because we will end up
fearing free-range RNA molecules or RNA viruses or being so naive that we would accept that there are no RNAs.
There's no RNA or DNA anywhere.
It doesn't float around.
There's no signaling at this time scale.
There's no signaling at this size scale.
There's no packet communication between healthy tissues.
None of this stuff is relevant.
There's no disease.
Ladies and gentlemen, by engaging in social media, you have gotten into the chair, put on the goggles, grabbed the joystick, and joined a team.
And one team fighting the other team is not going to win because the blue team over here
This team right here behind me, these guys are all bad guys too.
Wittingly or unwittingly, they're part of the show, and that was the whole point of Twitter and the whole point of social media being used against us in the way that Aldous Huxley said it would be used against us.
We just didn't imagine that they would have such a thorough control of it by putting their highly trained acolytes there.
We never imagined that their highly trained acolytes would perform a show that would involve somebody on 60 Minutes.
and somebody in DITRA.
They never imagined that it would involve somebody who worked for the Department of Energy and the Human Genome Project and somebody who worked for DITRA.
They never imagined it would be a person who worked for NATO as a postdoc in virology.
They never imagined, we never imagined it could possibly be a Kennedy kid.
And that's where we are, ladies and gentlemen.
I hate to break it to you, but that's where we are.
The reason why these truths haven't gotten out is because of these people and are engaging in the illusion of consensus and fighting it in their chair.
Fighting it with their methods, with their social media, thinking that the next tweet was gonna win.
And it will never win as long as these people are between us and the truth.
That's how they did it.
Weaponized piles of money have used their acolytes on social media to convince us what to argue about and with whom to argue.
Participating in the argument accepts the premise of their narrative by default.
That's how they got us to believe in a novel virus.
That's how they got us to believe in nuclear weapons.
That's how they got us to believe in most of the things, whether or not they're true.
Whether or not they're true doesn't really matter.
If you want people to believe that bioterrorism can occur in a garage with the right graduate student and the right purchases on eBay, then you send Robert Malone to the UK Parliament in an auxiliary room and have him give a talk about it.
and promote that on social media in a consensus appearing sort of way with lots of people agreeing that Robert Malone is a hero.
And now suddenly Robert Malone is on the cusp of becoming something very important in the Trump administration.
This is, this cannot be allowed to happen.
And so here we are, um,
We are governed by a theater that spans from mainstream media to all social media platforms and includes all sides of their mythology.
And so here we are again.
not realizing that they would do it with everything, still unable to grasp the idea that they would do it with everything.
And yet for me, one of the questions that still sits in my head is that given what I know about Donald Trump and given what I know about his braggadocious sons, it's very hard for me to imagine that their father was shot in the ear like Evander Holyfield was bit in the ear.
And then we see no pictures of the scar.
No sons bragging about either the scar or the fact that his father healed without a scar.
And we had a uniform illusion of consensus across the meddler field that we had to talk about multiple shooters and not talk about Matthew Crooks.
We had to talk about the water tower and not Matthew Crooks.
And the funny thing is, is what we also didn't talk about is the photo op, is the blood in the ear, is what happens when an ear gets hit by any projectile.
We have pathologists and biologists telling us to pay attention to the shooters and analyzing over multiple days the audio from different videos.
to make arguments about how many different shooters there were.
Imagine the preposterousness of this theater, and yet we all went along with it for multiple weeks.
And now we've just seen Trump on TV with no discussion of him being, where's the scar?
He wore a Band-Aid, a giant pad on his ear for the Republican National Convention.
And millions of Americans, I think, or maybe thousands also wore a thing on their ear in solidarity.
And so what do we do when we argue about the audiophiles of the day in Butler, Pennsylvania?
What do we do when we argue about multiple shooters and possibly one on the water tower using a zip line?
What do we do when we go and interview a bunch of people who say that somebody in a hangar in a golf cart said something about something and saw something else?
We accept that Donald Trump was shot.
What do we accept when we argue about whether or not ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine are being covered up by the FDA as being suitable repurposed drugs for the treatment of COVID?
We accept COVID.
And so we need to start to learn.
how to break through this narrative by figuratively getting out of that chair, figuratively removing the goggles, figuratively releasing the joystick, taking your feet off the pedals and getting out of the chair.
And I think the way we do that is by studying.
I think the way we do that is by studying what has been said over many, many, many years.
My latest acquisition, which makes me very excited,
is this book called The Phenomenon of Man.
This is a book that was cited by Peter Hotez in 2024 in an opinion piece that he wrote about vaccines and said that this book was a foundation of his thinking and the thinking of public health in general.
This book is phenomenal.
Quite frankly, I would say that this book is on par or better than
Now it all disappeared.
Where the hell did it go?
I must have put it... Maybe I... Oh no, it's right here.
It's even better than this book.
And the crazy part about this is that, as you know, this book, Man and His Future... I don't know if this will work or not.
Let me see.
Yes.
Man and His Future from 1963.
had an introduction by Julian Huxley.
He's the guy who does it, right?
He's the dude who does the first chapter.
And so then if we look carefully at this book, it's really interesting because the introduction is by Sir Julian Huxley.
And so when was this book written?
This book is 1955.
So this book is 10 years before
the man and his future book.
And so now I think we've finally, with the help of Mark's work, we've really kind of narrowed down the sort of mentor chain that I think we need to pay attention to.
And so I'm really excited because Mark has been archiving, archiving, archiving, which is what I guess what he does,
and finding things and following these mentors back.
And one of the guys that has been kind of popping up over and over again is Jeffrey Sachs.
Jeffrey Sachs, as far as I recall, now somebody can correct me, I'm not trying to tell a false story.
I really believe this in my head is true, that I was told
Or I heard Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
tell somebody that he knew Jeffrey Sachs, has known Jeffrey Sachs for a very long time.
And when they were younger, I believe that I heard a story that him and Bobby Kennedy spent a couple nights in a tent in Africa.
And all that means is that they traveled together.
All that means is they've known each other for a long time.
And if you research and do the due diligence and just go and you do the easy thing.
Go on Spotify and find the Defender podcast and look for the two times where Jeffrey Sachs was on with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
And you will see that he gets introduced as an old friend and he gets introduced as one of his biggest heroes.
And so Jeffrey Sachs is also a very prominent speaker at the Vatican.
He's also a guy who had some kind of offline conversation with Charles Rixey and Kevin McCarran that I couldn't be part of because I was taking my family camping that weekend.
but it supposedly happened and you can still find streams where they're talking about that.
So it's a very curious player because of course, Jeffrey Sachs being also attached to the Vatican is also keenly attached to the UN and to China and to these globalist organizations.
He's an economist.
So he's got his fingers in many places.
And so it's a very curious thing to see him on Charlie Rose in 2007, talking about malaria vaccines,
Talking about with with Peter Hotez and a guy by the name of Paul nurse And so it's gonna take me a while to break all this down.
What's happening in this video?
And but it plays back into my biology 101 series it plays back into everything.
It's just spectacular so shout out to Mark Kulak of Housatonic live for finding this video and for For calling it to my attention.
I'm gonna escape out of here and I can think I can switch this over here and
I can make myself small, and then I can push play.
And we're just going to watch, and I'll pause it when I need to pause it.
And hopefully this will work decently.
From our studios in New York City, this is Charlie Rose.
One of the great challenges of the 21st century is to improve global health.
Life expectancy is 78 years in the United States, but the average newborn will not make it to 40 in some of the world's poorest countries.
There are many reasons for this disparity.
Infectious diseases kill millions of people throughout the third world each year.
Malaria claims up to 3 million lives every year and infects up to 650 million people.
HIV-AIDS also kills 3 million every year, and 90 percent of these cases are in developing countries.
Neglected tropical diseases like hookworm and yellow fever also cause an enormous burden that only the poorest have to bear.
Many of the leading killers have been contained in first world countries and are easily treatable.
The problem of global health is not only a matter of disease and medicine.
Issues of poverty, infrastructure, and the environment are all inseparable.
Fortunately, more funding than ever... It's interesting, right?
Already we don't hear the paramount nature of RNA and the inevitability of a pandemic.
We hear that it is a complex problem that probably has to do with sanitation and infrastructure and all these things, that most of these diseases are treatable.
And that's why the first world has conquered him.
It seems like Charlie Rose actually maybe has even read that book by Humphreys, you know, and Roman, whatever his name is, with a B. The one that talks about, you know, the lost history of disease and vaccines.
It's really extraordinary how he explains it.
I think it's worth actually listening to that again because it surprised me more than I thought it would.
It's only a minute.
From our studios in New York City, this is Charlie Rose.
One of the great challenges of the 21st century is to improve global health.
Life expectancy is 78 years in the United States, but the average newborn will not make it to 40 in some of the world's poorest countries.
There are many reasons for this disparity.
Infectious diseases kill millions of people throughout the third world each year.
Malaria claims up to 3 million lives every year and infects up to 650 million people.
HIV-AIDS also kills 3 million every year, and 90 percent of these cases are in developing countries.
Neglected tropical diseases like hookworm and yellow fever also cause an enormous burden that only the poorest have to bear.
Many of the leading killers have been contained in first world countries and are easily treatable.
The problem of global health is not only a matter of disease and medicine.
Issues of poverty, infrastructure, and the environment are all inseparable.
Fortunately, more funding than ever is being devoted to this fight.
Some progress has been made.
Vaccines and other technologies are being developed that could one day eliminate the worst diseases.
Also, mortality of children under five has dipped below 10 million a year for the first time since the statistic has been recorded.
But for now, large-scale improvement remains theoretical.
Joining me now are four experts in the field of global health.
Jeffrey Sachs is director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Until 2006, he was director of the United Nations Millennium Project.
Tanya Villafana is the Director of the Portfolio Management System at the Malaria Vaccine Initiative.
Her organization recently announced a successful trial vaccine for malaria.
Ann Veneman is the Executive Director of UNICEF.
Peter Hotez is the President of the Sabin Vaccine Institute.
He is an expert on neglected tropical diseases.
And once again, my co-host is Sir Paul Nurse.
He is a 2001 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine and the President of Rockefeller University.
I am pleased to have all of them here for this conversation.
Let me just start with this issue.
I mean, what is the state today of global health and how do we measure it?
You know, Charlie, this is a very interesting problem because it's so... This is the guy that I want you to pay attention to more than anybody else because I believe this is the guy that's the player.
Now, if you're not into this kind of thinking, then maybe this isn't the stream for you.
But what I want you to watch, and what I think I can see with my own eyes, is that he is approving and disapproving and helping with the coordinated lying that's about to happen at this table.
Now, Charlie Rose has just given a very interesting introduction that had a lot to do with global health equals life expectancy.
Infectious disease in the third world is malaria, HIV, yellow fever, he said hookworm.
Poverty, infrastructure and the environment are what really the problem are because most of these are readily treatable.
And so vaccines are not paramount yet.
You can hear it.
He says that in a list of things as things that are being developed along with nets and infrastructure and water, you know, the whole thing.
At this time, DDT is still being used to control malaria in lots of parts of the world.
So Jeffrey Sachs, UN, and Columbia, there's a lady from UNICEF, there's a lady there who's developing, and I'm not insulting these ladies, I just didn't hear their names, and I don't pay much attention to either of them because they're clearly
They're clearly parts of this, you know, puppets that don't really get it.
And the Sabin Vaccine Institute, another puppet that doesn't get it is Peter Hotez, or he gets it and he doesn't care.
But why is Paul Nurse there?
Who the hell is Paul Nurse?
Well, I would say that we should know who Paul Nurse is, right?
We definitely should know who he is.
So let me pull this up over here.
this.
So if you go to Wikipedia and find out who Paul Nurse is, he's got a lot of honorary degrees.
He's president of the Royal Society, and he's a director of the Francis Crick Institute.
And he got a Nobel Prize for identifying the gene CDC2 cell division cycle protein 2 in fission yeast.
Now, why is this important for me?
Why is this important for this introduction?
Why is it important for him to be sitting at that stupid table is the question you ought to ask.
And the reason why he's sitting at that stupid table is because he is part of the narrative curation that is occurring there that maybe even Peter Hotez doesn't understand yet.
Peter Hotez could easily be a very naive molecular biologist who is a glorified pastry chef.
He can follow recipes and report what he gets.
And that's the extent to his creativity and the extent to his insight, because he's trapped in the assumptions that these people give him.
And one of the largest, most
crippling assumptions that we make in general biology is that something that we find in yeast can be readily generalized across all cellular organisms.
Now, another very prominent example of this is the prion protein and the prion phenomenon, because in yeast, there are apparently all these examples of proteins that fold differently, and then the folding pattern can be inherited independent of the gene.
And these are supposed to be homologous molecular examples of what likely underlies these diseases in humans, even though the correlation and connection mechanistically has never been made.
And so you can study prions in yeast that have absolutely nothing to do with the molecular mechanisms that play in your brain or in the brain of those people with some kind of disease that supposedly do or body due to amyloid or due to prions, specifically prions.
Because remember prions
Prions are also the subject of a book, a great, big, giant, thick book written by Stanley Prusiner, who is the mentor, the student of Hilary Koprowski, who's been to the Vatican multiple times.
And this is also a biological story with way too many details to justify itself in yeast rather than us.
But it's a story supposedly about us and the dangers of prions in the future.
Just like the virology books over there have multiple volumes and need to be expanded every year.
But the neurobiology book, the plant physiology book, the genetics book, the chemistry books, they don't ever get bigger.
Because they're not being filled with manufactured knowledge.
They're not being filled with mythology.
They're being filled with verifiable models that have been verified.
And so you don't need to keep adding colors to your cartoons or keep adjusting your cartoons because just yesterday you found out that bile acids are important in some phenomenon that you think you're an expert in.
Like we talked about in yesterday's course, yesterday's lecture, or yesterday's discussion, coaching session.
And so in this coaching session, I want you to see that it's very strange that this guy, Paul Nurse, would be a co-host on Charlie Rose's show with Peter Hotez, a lady from, a malaria vaccine maker, a lady from UNICEF, and Jeffrey Sachs from Columbia University, the UN, and the Vatican.
Now remember, Rockefeller University, that sounds great.
Sounds innocuous, right?
And again, he's got this whole list of things that he did in yeast.
And we're supposed to believe that everything that regulatory genes and stuff that he finds in yeast are somehow giving us fundamental insight into the regulation of the cell cycle in ourselves.
And what I need you or I would beg you to see is that in my biology 101 class, I am trying to emphasize that.
I'm trying to emphasize that by teaching us from the bottom up of genes and proteins and then RNA and then ribosomes and, sorry, genes and then RNA and then ribosomes and then proteins and then cells and then tissues and then organs, and then teaching us stories like Paul Nurse's,
Nobel Prize winning story about finding a gene in yeast that you can also find in us and saying it has exact homology and it lends understanding to us even though there is no doubt that yeast as a cell, yeast as a pattern integrity is nowhere near as complex
as a human being that goes through between 18 and 22 years of development before adulthood and then goes through the raising of offspring which have an equivalent development time period.
There's no possible way to compare whatever you might find that is homologous in something like yeast with something like us.
And that's the reason why I've often brought up these old books and brought up these old books in the foundational lecture, is that when you go back to the very, very old books about animal and plant science, you don't find the tendency, the drive to generalize across things that you find.
You just find an appreciation for the diversity of the things that they found.
Biology 101 has been teaching us for decades now, and the people at the Human Genome Project have been teaching us for decades now, to think of ourselves as homologous to yeast.
And everything we learn from yeast has a homologous part in us, and so that all the really important shit is down here.
at the cellular level and the protein level, focusing on homologies that have no bearing on us understanding the pattern integrity that is us, but rather very specifically force us to focus on those components that are in our pattern integrity that have homology in much more simple pattern integrity so that we can perform a reductionist
philosophical investigation and create the illusion of knowledge.
An investigation in mouse, an investigation in yeast, this guy is famous for having a Nobel Prize for identifying a yeast gene which has a homologue in humans.
And he did a screen of cDNA constructs in order to find that gene and then that was it.
Here's your medal.
And forever after that, he is what?
He is on things like Charlie Rose to try and tell people that when you find stuff in smaller and smaller and simpler pattern integrities that you can generalize all the way up to the most amazing pattern integrities on earth.
Stop lying!
That's why he's co-host right now.
And you will notice throughout this program that there are going to be people looking across the table at him to see if he agrees with what they're saying as they test out their contributions to this narrative.
multifaceted.
It's, of course, a medical problem.
We have these major diseases you just listed, malaria, TB, AIDS, for example.
We have some idea of how we may treat them, but we know that there's new ways we can develop.
So part of this is a scientific problem, part of it's a medical problem.
But part of it is also a straightforward health economic problem and how we apply that in the developing world.
Because it is different, quite different circumstances to how it is in the United States.
Does he sound like a yeast biologist to you?
Or does he sound like somebody with a fancy accent that can say things to Americans that they'll believe because the accent is so enticing?
He's a yeast biologist.
He's a guy who, according to...
this nature article called We Beasties.
I'll just read it.
It's by Paul Nurse.
It's actually in nature.
And it's about this discovery that he made.
And there he is with his hippie friends, Pierre Thoreau, in a relaxed setting, ha ha ha, in 1974.
A major turning point in my scientific life involved
not only a group of individuals important as they were for what happened, but also a microorganism, or to be more precise, a mutant microorganism.
The time was 1974 and the place was, can you see that cursor?
I think you can, right?
The Murdoch Mitchelson's Laboratory in the Zoology Department of University of Edinburgh.
Mitchelson had been interested in cell division cycles since 1950s, working mainly with the fission yeast, schizosaccharomyces plumba.
If I said that correctly, that was completely lucky.
He recognized that the length of this rod-shaped single-celled organism was a good marker for how far the cell cycle had progressed, which made fission yeast a convenient model for cell cycle studies.
It was this microorganism which transformed my scientific life, no pun intended.
The previous year, because transformed, right, is using DNA to express a protein where it isn't supposed to be.
The previous year, I had been a graduate student at Norwich studying amino acid pools and fungi.
This project required me to nurture a rather temperamental Beckman amino acid analyzer.
So here he is admitting that he uses a machine that's very temperamental.
that probably needs a little Fonzie slap every once in a while to get it to keep running, and yet he thinks that he's making really high fidelity measurements.
And I often found myself keeping this machine company throughout the night just to make sure it kept running.
During these long night visuals, I read numerous research papers and kept me awake, and two from Lee Hartwell attracted my attention.
These described the isolation of temperature-sensitive cell division cycle mutants in budding yeast,
which failed to progress through the cell cycle when grown at high temperature.
Immediately, I decided that I wanted to do something similar, and being familiar with Mitchelson's work, thought that fission yeast would be a good organism for this project.
I contacted Mitchelson, who was enthusiastic about me coming to Edinburgh, but wisely suggested that I should first learn and become familiar with genetic techniques.
So I went to Ursus Leppold in Bern, where he and his colleagues, Peter Muntz, taught me fission yeast genetics.
I guess because that's something you can just buy a manual for.
No, I'm just kidding.
He says it right here.
I finally arrived in Edinburgh at the start of 1974 with my newly acquired but rather limited genetic knowledge and started isolating CDC mutants, which are cell division, cell cycle division
cell division cycle mutants in fission yeast.
However, I'm going to get a little smaller here.
However, the isolation procedure was very laborious and the progress was very slow.
First, temperature sensitive mutants, those unable to form colonies at high temperatures, had to be identified by replica plating yeast colonies from high to low temperature.
Next, these mutants were screened visually using a microscope to find colonies that contained elongated cells, which indicated that they could not complete their cell cycle and divide, although they had continued to grow.
So you see the deal here?
You have these rod-shaped bacterias and they start out small after cell division and then they elongate along their longitudinal axis until they reach a certain point
which apparently somehow or another inside there is a trigger which causes them to divide.
And so the mutants were often stopped in an elongated position because before they could initiate the cell cycle, some enzyme which was crucial to
initiate the cell cycle or initiate cell division was became heat sensitive in that mutant.
And so by screening for heat sensitive mutants, they're looking for the enzymes which become heat sensitive and the enzymes that are heat sensitive, and when they are heat sensitive in this in this time scale, and this time course of of elongation to cell division could give them some clue as to where in that cycle the enzyme plays a role.
It's a very clever way
to look at yeast and them as a pattern integrity.
I devised an enrichment procedure to try and speed things up.
I centrifuged cell populations through a density gradient to separate large, elongated cells from normal-sized cells, and the larger cells, some of which would be cell-division cycle mutants, should make it to the bottom of the gradient, and these fractions were plated out.
And so he's spinning out cells based on their size, at least that's what he's assuming.
After isolating a few mutants this way, something strange happened.
There was a clump of cells in the middle of the microscope's meal that seemed to be smaller than normal.
Now remember, his assumption was that when he spun these cells down that the big ones would go to the bottom and the big ones were the ones that were elongated and trapped in some part of the cell cycle, unable to divide.
My first response was disbelief.
How could such small cells have gotten to the bottom of the gradient?
This thought was slowly replaced by another one.
What was the significance of these tiny cells?
Well, I can come up with a couple of reasons why they might have gotten to the bottom of the gradient.
One might have been their density.
The other one might be that the gradient doesn't separate things like he thinks it does.
The gradient might separate them by size and weight.
And so if the size has something to do with it, then smaller particles might also move easier than larger particles.
And so in reality, he may have just gotten lucky.
Fission yeast cells usually divide at a constant cell length.
So if these cells were shorter than normal, this must mean, here we are using logic again, like William Briggs would probably cringe at, that they divided at a smaller size.
This was the only possible if cells had progressed more rapidly through their cell cycle, dividing prematurely before they had grown to normal size.
I called over my friend and colleague, this dude, which I think is author on the left, Pierre on the right, who was visiting from Bern, and he was aware of my limited genetic skills and gently suggested that my plates were contaminated with another organism.
It was another day before we and Mitchison were convinced that it was definitely fission yeast, albeit a small one.
During our conversations, we recalled a seminar from a colleague in the Department of Genetics, Henry Kaeser, on the control of metabolic flux.
Kaeser had argued that although control was distributed through all steps of the metabolic pathway, some steps could be more rate limiting than others.
Was it possible that this small-sized mutant, soon to be called wheat,
to reflect its Scottish origin, had a defective gene for a major rate-limiting step in the pathways-controlling cell cycle progression.
This simple interpretation turned out to be correct when it was eventually demonstrated that WE1 regulates the cyclin-dependent kinase that acts as the major engine of fission yeast cell cycles."
So this whole sentence is crazy because the one experiment they did did not demonstrate that
that the cyclin-dependent kinase is the major engine of the fission yeast cell cycle.
There's no paper that shows that.
There's a paper that shows it's crucial for it.
So all of these things are semantic enchantments that are done individually very naively and also very innocently because he wants to sell you the significance of his serendipity here.
He's absolutely positively discarding the irreducible complexity in which this should be couched.
So what lessons did I learn from this turning point in my career?
Not very many.
The first was the importance of biology, letting the organism you are studying guide you in the right direction to solve your problem.
By using microscopic visual inspection, I was not being too restricted in my search for mutants.
Imagine the context of this experiment in the context of experiments now where we're looking at single cell RNA complements and proteomes and all this.
This is such a simple data set and still amazing.
If something unexpected turned up, I could see it.
This allowed mutants that no one had imagined existing before to be observed and thought about, opening new avenues of inquiry.
Serendipity was given a chance to play a role, allowing nature to constrain and guide the infinite possibilities that occur to the human mind.
A second lesson was the importance of spending time trying to understand the real biological significance of observations made on cells and organisms,
before undertaking detailed investigations of the molecular mechanisms involved.
I believe that this is a statement which is exactly the opposite of what they used his work to do over the last 25 years.
They instead used his work to edify this idea that understanding very simple pattern integrities and the genes that they seem to have some use for has given us fundamental insight into the mechanisms that are at play in our own pattern integrity.
And this is fundamentally wrong.
And so that's why I think he needs to close with a statement as so contradictory as this one.
Understanding the biology properly is as important as the subsequent mechanistic insight.
Even describing it as a mechanistic insight is already arrogant as crazy.
I mean, one final thought, why were the wee mutant cells at the bottom of the gradient?
I don't know.
Perhaps it was because they clump easily, or maybe I was just very lucky.
Sounds like the crazy stories that a lot of these people have, right?
You know, just happened to bring the AIDS virus home in my jeans.
I don't know.
Just happened to be working in a lab and have this idea.
You know, I was doing an embryology class.
I just thought I'd squirt some of this stuff into these embryos and lo and behold, it worked.
I don't know.
Seems pretty serendipitous.
Anyway, let's go back to the video because I do think the video is important and I do think it's going to be a lot of fun to watch.
We always fully understand the sort of drivers that we have to appreciate if we're going to sort out this problem.
And then there's a third issue, which is all to do with even if we actually solved the scientific, the medical problems, if we worked out the economics, how do we actually deliver that on the ground?
I mean, with the infrastructures often in very weakened conditions.
So I think we have to think about this in
with a range of issues, not simply a scientific one, not simply an economic one, not simply a developing one on the ground.
I'd like to get a sense of that overall picture.
I wonder if Geoffrey could kick us off with just putting it all in perspective for us.
Well, thanks, Paul.
I thought both summaries were perfect, that we're making a lot of progress.
Stop lying!
There is an amazing amount of disease and death
that still occurs every year that just could be controlled massively if we put our attention to it.
So the good news is, as you said, Charlie, that the number of children under the age of five who are dying every year of infection has dipped below 10 million.
That's good news, because in 1990, it was about 13 million deaths.
And it's come down, even though the numbers of children have gone up because of population growth.
So that sounds good.
But on the other hand, all of a sudden, you think 10 million children dying
of things like malaria or measles or other infections, diarrheal disease or respiratory infection that can be controlled by an antibiotic or a vaccine.
So you see there's no mention of norovirus or rotavirus because I think what he's talking about, diarrheal disease, was later blamed on viruses.
We can go back and look and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my feeling.
He would be listing all the viruses if
that plan was already in motion or in set like it is now.
Or something as simple as a bed net or a dose of anti-malaria medicine.
So the wonderful thing is we have these powerful technologies and we see in many parts of the world that these diseases have gotten completely under control.
And at the same time, we have nearly 10 million deaths per year of young children from what should be completely controllable causes.
And what Paul says is really the point.
The deaths are occurring in places of extreme poverty.
So we have to face the basic question.
How do you have our powerful techniques, like vaccines or medicines or bed nets, reach the poorest of the poor?
Because they can't afford them on their own.
Their governments are also impoverished because they try to collect taxes from people who have no money.
And so the question is, can the rich world and the poor world work together to solve this problem?
Now, we've promised many times to do that.
30 years ago, we said there would be health for all.
by the year 2000.
Well, we kind of missed that one.
Then in the year 2000, we said that by the year 2015, the child mortality should be cut by two-thirds, and the maternal mortality, let's not forget the mothers dying in childbirth because there's no obstetrician around for an emergency.
half a million mothers dying in the poorest countries, that that maternal mortality should be cut by three-fourths.
Those are the Millennium Goals.
So the question is, can we meet those goals?
My answer would be yes, and Veneman... I wonder what the Millennium... whose Millennium Goals are those?
If UNICEF can tell you, there are the ways to meet them, but the other question is, even if we can, will we?
Will we get organized to do it?
Can we?
Will we?
Well, I think that's the question we have to ask.
Now, you can see that this is a much more rehearsed and scripted illusion of consensus.
And Charlie Rose may actually be a victim here.
He doesn't have to know that one or more of these people had a discussion about what they were going to say before they came on the show.
Charlie Rose may even be happy with that.
Charlie Rose may have even taken the questions from them.
You see the progress that's being made.
I continue to believe that with a collective sense of urgency, we can meet or nearly meet these goals.
We've talked about the under five mortality rate, which is one of the biggest measures of child illnesses and so forth.
But it's important to recognize that that rate has dropped 60% since 1960.
So we know that progress can be made.
We see measles mortality be reduced from 1999 to 2005.
They set a goal, reduce measles mortality by 50 percent.
That was exceeded.
Globally, it was reduced 60 percent.
In Africa, 75 percent reduction in that six-year period.
Coverage of bed nets, it has increased from about 30 million nets to 63 million nets in just a matter of a couple of years.
uh... we've seen increases in breastfeeding which we know is very important for for children's health and survival we've seen increases in clean water available which is also the diarrheal diseases from dirty water are very uh... impacting on children in the developing world but i think one of the things that's that's setting us backwards on some of these figures and and the figures that you you pointed out early on on the uh...
life expectancy is in southern Africa with HIV and AIDS, and that's really having a serious impact in reducing life expectancy from the 60s into the mid-30s in some countries.
What astonishes me is... Now, I think there's a parallel here, right?
Remember, we're talking about life expectancy and Charlie Rose opened up with global health as equated to life expectancy and comparing across nations the life expectancy of their population.
And so here again, she's playing that same game.
saying that AIDS is reducing life expectancy in these countries.
It's not very dissimilar to how the opioid crisis that has reduced life expectancy in America has been overlooked, has ignored as a primary source of this reduction in America.
And instead, things like COVID, long COVID, cancer, you know, all these random things that they're blaming it on is just, you know, it's tough.
when in reality it can be many, many hundreds of thousands of deaths can be blamed on one single thing.
And that's the opioid crisis that is coming into our open border and not being treated in a way that as the crisis that it is.
And you can hear it in the callousness of when people talk about it.
Like when Meryl Nass talks about the opioid crisis, she's pretty upset with the idea that we're spending so much money on Narcan and that that company's making so much money saving these people as if that's the problem.
Rather than all these young people having their lives cut short by exposure to something that should never have ever, ever been available.
It should be treated as a war.
how inexpensive so many of these measures are and yet this is probably the most cost effective way to lift people out of poverty nothing else jeff sacks has taught me that these conditions not only occur in the setting of poverty but they promote poverty these are the reasons why poor people stay poor for instance hookworm infection a disease of six hundred million people one in three of the world's poorest people who live on less than two dollars a day have hookworm
So now you hear him say it.
Jeffrey Sachs has taught me.
And now he's going to say something and watch.
Jeffrey Sachs, listen to it.
There's no nodding.
Jeffrey Sachs is not learning something from the infectious disease professor here.
He is listening to the infectious disease professor say what he told him to say.
That's what I see in his eyes.
Watch.
a developing one on the ground.
Oh, wait.
I'd like to get a sense of that overall picture.
I wonder if Jeffrey could kick us off.
Sorry, I didn't mean it to go back that far.
...in First World countries, and... Yes, and Vanaman, head of UNICEF, can tell you there are the ways to meet them, but the other question is, even if we can, will we?
Will we get organized to do it?
Okay, I'm gonna go forward one more time.
Pennies a person per year.
Shoot.
Incredibly astonishing.
But is it a question of money?
primarily.
Jeffrey, you're taking a hint.
As weird as it is.
From 1999 to 2000, clean water available, which is also the diarrheal diseases from dirty water, are very impacting on children in the developing world.
But I think one of the things that's setting us backwards on some of these figures, and the figures that you pointed out early on, on the
life expectancy is in Southern Africa with HIV and AIDS.
And that's really having a serious impact in reducing life expectancy from the 60s into the mid-30s.
You can really feel them trying to hit talking points.
And I really feel strongly that that's what's happening here.
This is a scripted talking point hitting interview.
In some countries.
What astonishes me is how inexpensive so many of these measures are, and yet this is probably the most cost-effective way to lift people up.
Why is he looking back to Jeffrey Sachs and to Paul Nurse?
Why isn't he talking to the host of the show?
out of poverty.
If nothing else, Jeff Sachs has taught me that these conditions not only occur in the setting of poverty, but they promote poverty.
These are the reasons why poor people stay poor.
For instance, hookworm infection, a disease of 600 million people, one in three of the world's poorest people who live on less than $2 a day have hookworm.
excellent economic analyses showing that chronic hookworm infection in childhood will reduce your future wage earning capacity by 40%.
That is spectacular that he is correlating hookworm infection in kids to their adult income.
It couldn't have anything to do with where they grew up.
It couldn't have to do with anything they ate or where they went to school or what country that was.
Nothing.
It's hookworm infection and adult income.
That sounds like a U.N.
kind of thing.
That sounds like a who kind of thing.
That sounds like a Jeffrey Sachs told me to say kind of thing.
Lymphatic filariasis, a disease of 120 million people.
causes $1.5 billion in economic losses for India alone.
Here we go again, talking about economic losses that this person at the Sabin Vaccine Institute can't possibly have calculated himself.
We can't possibly have the data to do this.
We can't even generalize data across different hospital systems because we can't agree how to keep records about cancer or any of these other things.
How in the hell can we have national statistics about it or statistics that we can compare across countries?
And yet these people who talk about public health regularly discuss as though there's one central database
one central depository of up-to-date statistics that they have a password to.
And so whenever they want to, they can just throw out numbers that a yeast molecular biologist or a tropical disease expert have no business knowing, unless their buddies over here that work for the UN and for the Vatican and for the World Bank are giving them talking points, that Thai economics
to infectious disease, to justify the rich countries spending money in the poor countries on it.
You know, Haiti is not about Haiti, right?
You know that the Haiti thing in Ohio is actually just for us to run around in a limited spectrum of debate, not realizing that America has a force there and that they want it to become a UN peacekeeping force in Haiti so that they can permanently run that place.
You know, the Clintons were in Haiti.
and we don't even know how much it is for Sub-Saharan Africa.
These are easily preventable, easily treatable for pennies a person per year.
Incredibly astonishing.
But is it a question of money, primarily?
Jeffrey, you're shaking your head.
As weird as it is, take a case, and you know that I'm nearly obsessed with this issue, malaria bed nets.
Every few months, you let me rant and rave about getting malaria bed nets out to the world.
Five bucks for a bed net which lasts five years, but poor people can't afford them.
And when you charge even a dollar for them, you basically prevent the poorest half of the rural population in Africa from having a chance, because they have no money.
So it's hard for us to imagine that a little bit
actually prevents saving lives.
But it's amazing, last fall in Kenya, just as an example, because we now have some great results from this, they gave out two million bed nets for free in some of the poorest districts with the heaviest malaria burden.
and now in published in a british uh... medical journal lancet just a few weeks ago they showed in those districts that the deaths went down forty four percent from children under five by this very simple two-day intervention of just handing out bed nets to people that need them money is critical as weird as it is even when it's just pennies for the medicine that's too much for people who have nothing but for us it's
it would hardly be noticed, and a point that I find shocking.
If you're not hearing it right now, please understand that this is the time.
This is the time point where this pivot occurred.
Maybe not exactly this Charlie Rose show, but this is when the biosecurity, bioweapons, biomilitary apparatus had just come off of 9-11.
The economic crisis is one year away.
And the emphasis is still not exclusively on vaccines.
You can hear it.
And this will change.
But CEPI doesn't even exist yet.
The global partnership for, you know, whatever it is, that doesn't exist yet.
So it's a cool video.
There are 300 million sleeping sites in Africa where you need to put a bed net over.
And these nets cost $5 each.
So it's $1.5 billion needed for that.
Can't be afforded locally.
But that's less than we spend for one day on the Pentagon.
So one day's Pentagon spending would cover
So again, here he's almost making the same bullshit analogy that these people are still doing now when they say the DoD did it.
The DoD is a multi-layered bureaucracy that basically describes it as the Major League Baseball of America did it.
Or the NBA did it.
When you know it's not the NBA, you know it was one team.
Or even worse, you know it is a few players on each team.
that is responsible for it.
But you just keep saying over and over again, the NBA did it.
So what is he saying here to make sure that I make my point well enough here to make sure you get it?
I'm going to replay it again.
Replay it again.
Each.
So it's $1.5 billion needed for that.
Can't be afforded locally.
But that's less than we spend for one day on the Pentagon.
So that would be like arguing about, you know, NBA players are overplayed and the budget of the NBA is this.
And so that's more than we spend on one day in the NBA.
Does that really clear up the disparity between the highest paid players in the NBA and the lowest played?
Does it clear up any, any, any, does it provide you any useful information?
Does this provide you any useful information that it's one 365th
of our total defense budget.
He wants to spend one three hundred and sixty-fifth of our defense budget on third world interventions for public health is essentially what he's saying.
But he says it in such a malevolent way that it almost sounds reasonable to the lazy listener.
One day's Pentagon spending would cover every African sleeping site for five years.
That's the kind of great opportunity we have, which would save millions of lives.
Remember that Elon Musk told us that for $6 billion, he could solve world hunger.
That's also a fraction of our Pentagon budget.
Stop lying!
we choose to make that choice.
This is your disease.
Well, malaria, yes.
I mean, I want to point out one thing.
I do agree money is a big part of the problem, but I also think it's about creative partnerships and innovative thinking.
We have an arsenal of new interventions that can also join in helping to make this happen.
Does it feel like an audition to you?
Because it sure feels like an audition to me.
Here you go.
How well can you use the words and concepts in this book?
And how well can you use the words and concepts in this book?
The better that you use the words and concepts in this book, the more invitations you'll get to show up with people like Paul Nurse and Jeffrey Sachs.
That's the simple game that I see here.
Stop lying!
the kinds of changes everyone on the panel is talking about.
While we're developing vaccines, we're seeing greater successes with new technologies than ever before.
As you mentioned previously, the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative in collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline and an African clinical trial site in Mozambique has shown that we may have a vaccine
that will move into phase three.
Why does she keep looking back at Jeffrey Sachs?
Is she being interviewed by Charlie Rose and his co-host, as he called him, Paul Nurse?
Or is she auditioning for the UN and for the WHO and for the Vatican and for the weaponized piles of money that Jeffrey Sachs works for?
It's bizarre.
And why is Peter Hotez sitting there like the little tiny dog in Warner Brothers cartoons?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, boss.
The efficacy trials, which is the latest stage of clinical development testing as early as next year.
This is the furthest we've ever been along.
I think I agree with everyone that it's money, but I also think it's about thinking out of the box and being innovative in terms of how we use that money to get done what we need to get done.
Why did he smile like that?
Why does he smile like that?
You gave us some pretty impressive statistics.
What do you say we've learned from those improvements that would help us in the future?
I mean, what lessons did you learn from those improved situations?
Well, I think it, number one, shows that if you invest in health, you can get results.
And I think that's really something we have to recognize.
I also think as we talk about all of these different diseases and interventions, whether it's deworming or vitamin A or bed nets or measles vaccines or other vaccines,
We have to look at them as integrated packages that are given out at the community level.
What is she saying?
I thought I heard something else.
As we talk about all of these different diseases and interventions, whether it's deworming or vitamin A or bed nets or measles vaccines or other vaccines, we have to look at them as vitamin A.
integrated packages that are given out at the community level so that you don't just hand out bed nets, but you give them when the child is vaccinated or when the mother comes in for prenatal care.
Oh, so now we're going to give we're going to give bed nets only to the people that show up at the clinic and take the shot.
Did you hear her say it?
She just said it.
You give bed nets to the people who come to wellness visits and who get vaccinated.
This is terrible.
Because now the vaccine could be effective because those people took bed nets home and have nothing to do with the fact that they were vaccinated.
I mean, it's gross.
because we find that you can make more sustainable systems if, in fact, you build these community-based integrated approaches.
One of the things we saw from the 80s to the 90s is that vaccine rates got up very high for basic childhood vaccines.
And yet, that began to fall because it was all done in a campaign mode.
Now we're recognizing as a global community that you really have to build basic sustainable community integrated systems for mothers and children.
And keep in mind that it's very important to begin that care with the pregnant mother, because a healthy mother is more likely to deliver a healthy baby.
And so that's the precursor to vaccinating the mom.
They're not there yet in 2007, but what you can see is this titration of the end goal that has gone on for decades.
That's what makes this video so nice because they really have slowly brought us to the ideals that are expressed in these books in the 50s and the 60s about how we need to think of ourselves as a phenomenon, our species as a phenomenon.
that unlike any other species in nature may have the ability to take control of his future, take control of his biology.
And these people all back in the 50s and 60s already knew that what that would mean is that vast majority of people wouldn't be in charge anymore.
The vast majority of people would be experimental animals.
And they're talking about, to a certain extent and to a certain degree, they're talking about Africa as a laboratory
But of course, what the pandemic has done is allowed them, given them an excuse to invert the entire Western world into their laboratory, which I believe was probably their plan all along, probably for several decades now.
I was just going to say, Paul, also, another way to summarize that is you need a tool like a vaccine, you need the financing so that it can reach the poor, and you need a delivery mechanism as part of a health system.
And if you have those three things, absolutely amazing things can be done.
And we keep finding, one after another,
OK, get the measles under control, boom, in five years, amazing results.
Get bed nets out, two days, 2 million nets.
And now we've had another 30 million nets in the last couple of years.
And it could go up to 100 million a year to cover all of those sleeping sites.
Get mass.
chemotherapy, so-called, giving every child a pill to deworm.
I mean, part of what I find better, but part of what I find very disturbing about what, like, the thundercunder put in the chat about them giving DTaP to pregnant moms for about 10 years by 2008, is that a lot of the OG objections to the vaccines, the really interesting ones at CHD, all agree that it was the MMR shot.
It's very bizarre.
Like, Polly agrees that it was the MMR shot.
Actually, Mary Holland was on that Democracy Now!
show before the pandemic talking about how her son had been injured by the MMR shot and that maybe certain people were vulnerable to certain components.
It's not dissimilar to what
what Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
has been arguing for a long time that might be thalidomide or mercury or aluminum, and it's always another, it's another thing.
It never comes down to intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system might very well be dumb.
It always comes down to a component or a shot.
And none of them ever seem to consider the idea that the earlier you do this intervention, the more likely it is to fundamentally interfere with the developmental progress of that kid.
So giving vaccines after birth within an hour is as ridiculous as it can get, except for giving vaccines to a pregnant mom that 10 years earlier, we wouldn't allow her to eat sushi.
She's not allowed to have unpasteurized cheese, shouldn't use cosmetics anymore, is where we were about 10 years ago.
Now we have advanced all the way to the stage where we can vaccinate a mom to protect the baby.
That we can vaccinate a baby to protect them from cancer 50 years later.
And the doctors and the thinkers that we hear on social media and on television believe these myths because they are not sophisticated enough as biologists
to understand that they are myths.
And if they do understand, then they are like Jeffrey Sachs, that they are playing for the slavers.
They are playing for the moneyed interests, the weaponized piles of money that want to enslave our grandkids by coercing us to teach this mythology to them, so that they will willingly surrender their data to this global security state.
That's who Robert Malone works for.
That's who I believe Mary Holland works for.
Meryl Nass works for.
Pierre Cory, unfortunately, probably works for.
Peter McCullough probably works for.
Jeffrey Sachs probably works for.
Jessica Hockett, Jessica Rose, all of these people, and definitely Kevin McKernan, the guy who worked for the Human Genome Project, the guy whose dad did microarray technologies, which was one of the stepping stones for where we are now with sequencing technology.
And it all comes down to the fact that they want our data, our medical data, our genetic data, our proteomes, our RNA, our microbiomes.
And that's why all these people in the dissident movement and all these people on television are following the same script.
The public facing brochure of which the best one that I can come up with is the sparse pandemic document because it had a lot of these ideas in it, albeit in very tiny form.
Jeffrey Sachs should not be this prominent.
But he is, and he's this prominent consistently over decades.
That should tell you all you need to know if Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
says is one of his all-time heroes.
It is a Trojan horse where I believe a lot of these people are trying to get into an administration where they'll have a lot more power than the vice president does.
Bobby Kennedy as vice president is not as powerful as Bobby Kennedy as the head of HHS.
Bobby Kennedy as vice president is not as scary as Robert Malone as the head of the FDA.
Not by a long shot.
Be very aware of what is happening right now, ladies and gentlemen, because a game is being played with us.
But you can get all the community routinely covered.
So there's a lot of cleverness right now of actually how to deliver as well.
UNICEF and the International Red Cross have done brilliantly on combining
the measles vaccines with the bed net distribution and uh... peter's group has done brilliantly on showing how to get this package of uh... medicines out for the d warming and so lot of clever things little bit of financing by our standards because just to come back to you the two fifty you need to fifty million grounding air there are a billion people in the rich world so that's twenty five cents for each of us over a year
nodding heads is an illusion of consensus.
Why is Paul Nurse smiling so much?
He's a yeast molecular biologist.
Why is he even sitting at this table?
And you can deworm more than 500 million children.
It's incredible.
Someone once said to me, talking about a national problem, and I'm asking this in terms of an international global scope, that we need here a czar.
Do we need a czar of global health so that there is a kind of clearinghouse, there is some centralization of focus?
Well, one of the problems is it's very important to realize that these diseases... Is that health and human services, Secretary?
Is that a czar already exists?
I don't know.
Is there an ASPR at this time?
I don't know.
We should know that answer, though.
he's so proud
packages of interventions, not simply single measures.
So for instance, it turns out that when you use the community drug distributors that give ivermectin for river blindness and parasitic diseases, if you use those same drug distributors, if they drag a bed net with them, the use of bed nets goes up ninefold.
So right now, so many of our health interventions are siloed.
The AIDS people don't talk to the malaria people, the malaria people don't talk to the wormy people.
We need to bring them all together in a unified mechanism, and it will change the world.
Would a czar do that?
Sorry, how would you think a czar could work to do that?
Jeffrey, you were nodding your head.
I'm not sure about that.
One interesting thing about public health in history is often, actually, it's been a general in charge.
And quite interesting, of course, was General Gorgas, who cleared the mosquitoes from the Panama Canal zone.
Wasn't Charles Rixey's
A great-great-grandfather down at the Panama Canal with one of the Roosevelt's in an all-white suit.
Probably, I mean, it's interesting.
It's interesting.
when the world eradicated smallpox.
That was also an operation.
Every site, this had to really be a very rigorous approach.
Wow, so he's insisting that smallpox was eliminated by a very rigorous approach.
Stop lying!
That is impressive.
I've got medical dictionaries down here from the early 1900s which would argue with Jeffrey Sachs.
Maybe those books are fake.
Maybe that Foster's Encyclopedic Medical Dictionary is just fake.
I got some shit off of eBay, I guess.
What an illusion, right, ladies and gentlemen?
Now remember, this is in 2007, before anybody was really paying any attention.
And so we just kind of accepted this as history, even because we were not provoked into re-investigating it.
But at this time, those books were not out there.
When UNICEF took on the immunizations, Bill Grant drove that in the 80s and 90s.
So you're in favor of this idea?
Well, I think that if we take our targets and we view them as goals, and their goals as partnership with poor people and poor countries,
and we have leadership on this we'll get the job done and with all the good ideas around and all the things that UNICEF has proved yes we need strong leadership and a strong that face that Paul Nurse is making is crazy for a guy who should be bored out of his mind because
He is a Nobel Prize winner in yeast molecular biology.
Commitment.
We will meet that goal.
Kind of the moonshot analogy.
And it really makes sense.
The moonshot analogy.
Wow.
That's not an admission or anything.
On what ground?
Well, no, I mean, I guess I had a reservation on the calling it a czar, but I agree with Jeff.
It's a shared vision, a shared strategy, working in partnership with our counterparts in the developing world.
It's so... Boy, do they want it, too.
Okay, but do you need some, for the lack of a better word, centrality of leadership?
I think you need a shared vision by leadership.
Why is he looking like that?
I hear two things here.
One is that you're doing fascinating scientific research in terms of vaccines.
We all know about that and other areas.
On the other hand, there's this basic dilemma of implementing, executing, delivering what we already have.
Is this a great debate within the global health initiative community?
Well, I think it is.
I mean, we have experts here.
Why is Paul Nurse talking about it?
You read that article with me.
He's not super clever.
He's a guy who looked through a microscope and used a gradient and used to use a very finicky machine that he had to stay up all night and make sure it kept running.
That's his expertise.
Back before anything was complicated, back before anything was complicated, back before anything was complicated.
And he's got a lot of papers after that, I'm not saying he doesn't, but they're all in yeast.
Why is he at this table talking about global governance?
more than me, I get a sense that in the short term, we're talking about implementation.
There are things we already know.
We've heard about the nets.
There are cheap treatments already available.
Then there is the science, I mean, the stuff I'm particularly interested in, because we have particular challenges here of how we can develop treatments that can be delivered in these less than ideal circumstances.
And I think that is research that we really
Remember, he got a Nobel Prize for cell division cycle regulating gene mutants in fission yeast.
really should be thinking about because often in the developed world we can imagine more sophisticated treatments, we can do that, we can ensure compliance and all the things that go with it but what we've got to sort out is ways of actually delivering treatments that are very simple and straightforward, a single dose a year or something like that and that I think does require good science and good vaccine science in particular.
It's not an either-or argument.
It's not science versus implementation.
I'll give you an example.
In India, in the 1950s, we had 75 million cases of malaria in India.
By 1961, we had reduced it three logs full to 75,000 cases.
Why?
Because of widespread use of chloroquine.
and widespread use of DDT, the insecticide DDT.
By 1962, the number of cases was 100,000.
Then it was 200,000.
Then it was 400,000.
So by 1960, the WHO was predicting the global eradication of malaria, in part because of their experience in India.
But why?
Because of DDT resistance and chloroquine resistance.
OK, so now I'm going to make an argument that a lot of people are probably going to go, oh, look at Cooey's crazy now.
But have you ever considered the possibility that DDT and chloroquine were a problem back then already?
Have you considered the possibility that DDT might have actually had a couple downsides and also a couple upsides?
And that in order to get that thing out of there that was helping control malaria and reintroduce the problem,
you might need to have DDT become less effective.
Now it's hard for me to understand how a chemical like that could be, you could become resistant to the chemical.
It's not the same.
It's not a biological mechanism.
And I would challenge anybody that wants to challenge me to go do a literature research on this, to find a paper that describes the mechanism by which the malaria parasite became resistant to DDT.
how the malaria mosquitoes became resistant to DDT.
I want you to find a molecular mechanism paper about that because it would have been a wonderful paper to write.
Why wouldn't you want to understand how insects became resistant to DDT?
It's very right.
Somebody in the chat also said it's not bed nets, but it is chemically impregnated bed nets.
That's why they only last for five years.
Whether or not those bed nets and exposure to them have any effects on those kids is not part of this, but it is nevertheless important to say that, that it's not just bed nets, but it's bed nets with chemicals on them.
completely derailed those efforts.
Had there been parallel, ongoing research going on at the same time to develop a new generation of control tools, maybe we would have solved the problem.
And the same thing is true today.
We have to give antiretrovirals.
We have a moral obligation to maximize use of antimalarials and bed nets, deworming drugs.
Don't stop there.
Develop the next generation of control tools.
We tend to declare victory too early.
It's the problem.
You can't declare victory too early, says Paul Nurse, the yeast molecular biologist.
And then quickly comes in UN Columbia University Vatican guy, Jeffrey Sachs, good friend of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
what you have and with what you're gonna need for the next generation, no question.
Absolutely.
And we have to think, I think if we develop a vaccine and we can't get it to the people who need it the most.
It's weird, right?
Because they just started the whole program with saying that in the first world, we've conquered all these diseases because the vast majority of them are treatable.
And now we're right back to the point where we need vaccines because the stuff that works doesn't work.
we would have failed in our mission in terms of getting a solution to malaria.
So I absolutely agree that while we're thinking about the science, coming up with innovative ways to develop a vaccine, looking at different platforms and technologies to do that, we need to think about how we deliver it in these settings.
That being said, I think places can rise to the challenge.
And we've seen that with antiretroviral drugs.
in Africa, we've seen compliance when everybody thought that people wouldn't be able to comply with regimens.
Now remember that she is a malaria person, so I don't think malaria is a virus, yet here she is talking and singing the praises of antivirals being, I mean, it's so bizarre.
These people are performing.
And I think, you know, it's a question that remains to be answered.
We've got to do the research.
We've got to look at it.
But people can also step up to the plate and do what needs to get done.
I think part of the problem has been that the research has sometimes been done in isolation, and it's also not been done for the developing world.
That's changing.
People are investing large amounts of money in looking at ways we address diseases that are not common to this country, in particular malaria, malaria vaccines, and so forth.
Especially Bill Gates is making.
And especially the Gates Foundation, exactly.
I just recently spoke to their Grand Challenges for Global Health meeting, which is all their scientists.
And I think one of the things that came out in that meeting is that you need the combination of discovery tied with development and tied with delivery.
so that those people that work on the ground in the developing world are working with those who are trying to develop the new and discover and develop.
And you need the combination of all of this if you're going to continue to make the next generation of interventions that will really make a difference in global health over the long term.
And the other thing that I think we have to look at is looking at the integrated package that is beyond health.
an educated person is more likely to be a healthy person.
So education is very important.
Clean water is critical to global health.
And all of the kinds of things that we work in, in development, really all come back to having an impact on global health.
Well, I mean, I think we may have said it in other ways, but I mean, it's so obvious to me for a long time that poverty and health are so intricately linked and there's no way you can separate them.
That's right.
One causes the other, the other causes poverty.
It's interesting that poverty was the main correlation with deaths in America due to COVID.
causes disease, disease causes poverty, you get in a vicious circle, you have to help break the vicious circle.
And it's education too, because kids don't learn when they have worms in their bellies and they can't be educated if they're infected with malaria.
Put the environment in that whole sort of mix as well, in that context.
How does that impact?
Well, one thing is, as the Nobel Peace Prize this year taught us, we've got looming over a lot of this some grave long-term challenges.
That's the climate change.
And we know that diseases like hookworm and malaria are climate-determined.
And actually, the warming is already leading to a spread of the area infected by these diseases.
Does it surprise you that already in 2007, Jeffrey Sachs was connecting climate change to the increase in epidemics around the world?
Does it surprise you at all that he's sitting at a table with a guy who is a yeast molecular biologist and Peter Hotez, head of the Sabin Vaccine Institute in 2007, plus some lady from a, from a world organization on malaria and some lady from UNICEF.
Global
climate change and disease.
That big issue which we're also grappling with on the side is like everything else in this world connected to this as well.
You can't just argue do this or do this.
They're all interconnected.
It's also the case that the local environment that poor people live in is a dangerous environment and that they
Being poor means you don't have a pump for safe drinking water.
It means you don't have a housing structure that protects you from the insects that transmit the diseases inside the home, and so forth.
It means that, shockingly, one to two million children die each year of respiratory infections that are probably aggravated significantly, if not caused by the indoor air pollution,
It's weird because Christine Stibel-Ben could show that the all-cause mortality in young children went down a lot if they had a live attenuated vaccine versus a recombinant vaccine.
A lot of her research before the pandemic was looking at how live attenuated vaccines actually increased the expectancy and health outcomes of the kids that took them.
But recombinant vaccines like the DTaP vaccine actually led to increases in all cause mortality in those groups.
So what an interesting thing for him again to kind of talk about like the gas coming out of a tailpipe, the vapor coming out of a tailpipe, and the correlation between heavy metals in that gas and that vapor and the speed of the vehicle.
It's the same nonsense.
At least the UNICEF lady said that clean water was paramount.
It's also what Luke Montagnier said at the end of his life when he said, you know, isn't it funny that I say the opposite of what Fauci says, that actually we just need better nutrition and water, and that gets rid of AIDS?
We are on the precipice of a major breakthrough, ladies and gentlemen, because it is the Vatican.
It is DITRA.
It is these people that are connected through the Hamburgs
and these people that are connected through Jeffrey Sachs and the UN and the Vatican.
Hillary Kaprowski, Stanley Plotkin, Murray Gardner, Bob Gallo, David Baltimore, and Lederberg.
Lederberg was at Rockefeller University.
Then followed David Baltimore, the guy, you know, who did reverse transcriptase and basically allowed them to define all kinds of things to do with retroviruses being outside of us.
And then this guy, Paul Nurse.
cooking on a wood stove, cooking wood on a three-stone stove.
And so the physical environment of the poor is just not safe.
And it goes to Anne's point that there's a broader issue of, more generally, the escape from poverty, of which direct attacks on disease is part of it, but so, too, is ensuring that children are in school and so on.
People that have thought a lot about this, including the world leaders, decided on these Millennium Goals in the year 2000 to say, we have to approach poverty in this interconnected way.
And the Millennium Goals themselves, there are seven main goals.
Make no mistake about it.
The Human Genome Project and the technology that it inspired is parallel to this, because again, the inversion of our sovereignty to permissions was going to happen over these next 20 years.
So that's why there's this seamless citation rate here.
Eighth one being that we're going to partner with the poor and the rich.
But the seven goals are about hunger.
They're about schooling.
They're about gender equality between girls and boys, men and women.
They're about maternal... Gender equality.
He's already starting to use the word that I'm sure that his controllers and his handlers understand is going to be leveraged on us in the coming years.
and child survival.
They're about the control of diseases.
They're about access to safe drinking water.
So they take a holistic approach.
They say, yes, we need to approach the challenge of extreme poverty with a whole vision that understands that it is education and disease control and more food production and livelihoods to earn income.
It's a very clever thing.
It is recognizing there's no one single
magic bullet to get this done.
But on the other hand, it's also not so overwhelmingly complicated that it's just a morass.
It's a few very important things that need to be done.
I want to come back to that.
We mentioned neglected diseases.
I mentioned in my introduction.
What are we talking about?
What are the three or four that are most neglected?
Well, it's a great question.
So if you look at going back to the Millennium Development Goals, the Millennium Development Goal 6 says to combat HIV-AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.
And unfortunately, we've kind of forgotten about the other diseases a little bit.
What we're talking about are a group of primarily worm infections.
These are diseases such as hookworm infection, river blindness, elephantiasis.
These are the most common infectious diseases of the world's poorest people.
So of the 2.5 billion people who live on less than $2 a day, roughly half have one or more of these worm infections.
So that when you go into a developing country in Sudan, let's say, or go into sub-Saharan Africa, anywhere, what you'll see is that all of the kids in the village
are chronically infected with these worms.
These are chronic infections.
These are debilitating infections.
And very sadly, they're also very disfiguring.
Because they're disfiguring, such as elephantiasis, where you have someone's genitals or limbs grossly distorted because of the presence of these worms, they have an enormous stigma attached to them.
And the stigma particularly hits women of reproductive age very hard.
This is an audition.
It feels like an audition because it is an audition.
unable to marry, or they're not allowed to hold their children, even though this has nothing to do with the transmission of the infections.
The problem with these worm infections is they don't kill.
They kill some, but they're mostly debilitating and chronic infections, and so it's very hard to give a two-minute elevator speech about these worm infections.
The problem, in quotation marks, just to explain, you mean in terms of helping to motivate people to... Helping to motivate people to understand why there are these...
And if I could just say one other thing, and the other very important part about these worm infections is that they promote susceptibility to malaria, they exacerbate the disease caused by malaria, and now there's evidence that they increase transmission of HIV-AIDS.
So they got to link all of these phenomenon together in order to make it, you know, justify their work.
Again, what we're talking about in biology 101 terms
are picking a few gears out of the watch and then claiming that by monitoring these three gears, you're contributing to the understanding of the whole watch.
If we monitor hookworm, we see more malaria.
If we monitor hookworm, we see more HIV.
Therefore, my research on hookworm is just as important as her research on malaria and their research on HIV.
Stop lying!
And then we have the Nobel Prize winner in yeast molecular biology overseeing and refereeing this discussion with a clever smile on his face.
These are your stealth, because they're so easy to treat, 50 cents a person per year.
This is your stealth weapon for AIDS.
This is your stealth weapon for malaria.
Stealth weapons.
Well, first, about 37% is neonatal causes, so those who die in their first month of life for a variety of reasons.
Then pneumonia is the number one after that, treatable with a basic antibiotic.
Malaria, diarrheal diseases, these are all the big killers of children.
Vaccine-preventable diseases.
Vaccine-preventable diseases, for the most part.
There was a flurry of news last week about... She just said that pneumonia was an antibiotic-preventable and treatable disease, not a vaccine-preventable one.
So that was almost forced in there.
That was a little gross.
Microbes and the amount of death that came that exceeded that from HIV.
Please tell me what that was all about.
Oh, well, I didn't read this particular article.
What is clear is that microbial diseases, which 30 years ago we thought we'd beaten,
I mean, they eliminated it.
It was just going down and going to disappear.
They've just come back.
I mean, this is associated with antibiotic resistance and the like.
Of course, a problem in the developed world is super bugs, which are resistant in hospitals.
Super bugs in hospitals.
It's weird because there are rivers in India that are absolutely overflowing with antibiotics that have been featured on things like 60 Minutes, and there's still no super bugs coming out of those things.
like foaming with multiple antibiotics right outside of the place where they're being made, and yet there's no superbugs in those rivers.
The people who are downstream from those rivers aren't completely dead from superbugs.
Are there resistant bacteria?
I think it's possible.
Yes, I definitely think so.
But do they threaten to overwhelm us because we'll all be susceptible to the novel bacteria?
No.
No more than a novel RNA coronavirus, whatever that is, could threaten the world.
So they're still juggling this mythology around in their head, finding a way to deploy it where it's believable.
That's what's happening here.
It's a real-time juggling act.
where Charlie Rose is one of the victims.
It's kind of the audience that they're reading it out on.
Did Charlie buy it?
What question did he ask after you made that point?
Oh, we don't want him to ask that question again.
So maybe we should adjust what you said there so that it provokes a different question from the Charlie Rose next time.
but we see it on the ground.
I mean the antibiotics that we'd have used as first line of defense are gradually becoming a problem because we need to have new antibiotics.
That's why I said a bit earlier we declare victory too soon.
If we don't need new antibiotics then what will these pharmaceutical companies patent?
If we don't need new antibiotics and that all the derivatives of penicillin work fine for gram-negative bacteria still to this day, then why in the world would we need new antibiotics unless it's just for pharmaceutical companies to make new products?
Why would we need a yeast molecular biologist to explain this to us on a Charlie Rose show with the most invited speaker at the Vatican?
These come back and they bite again.
They are evolving.
They are changing.
These bugs are changing.
So this is a major problem that we thought we'd solved in 1960 and we have not.
And then we have an issue of how we... He keeps looking down at the table.
Of course, you've noticed that already.
We do solve them because when we have a research system in industry which is driven by how much profit one can make,
If the company cannot make profit by producing new antibiotics that would work in the developing world, those new antibiotics are not going to be developed, they're not going to be made.
And I'm very interested in this problem.
I'd like to hear what our visitors here would say about that, because the normal drivers are not actually operative here.
I mean, how do we deal with this?
I mean, obviously Gates putting money in would be one way of dealing with it, but
Basically, the system we have, which we have got used to operating with, is not going to deliver the solutions to the sort of problems that you identified, Charlie, with microbes and also these specific diseases.
What do we do about this?
Well I think you know you've hit the nail on the head.
How do you incentivize an organization to make a product for people who can't afford to pay for it?
This is the biomedical equivalent of the movie The Producers instead of Springtime.
I really think that this is a bullshit argument.
I think that the idea
the limited spectrum of debate that it is money that we have, and we have to decide whether we have the heart and the wherewithal to spend it on people that won't give it back to us.
And so this is the limited spectrum of debate that they are crafting right here, that the deal is not really money.
It's just a question of whether you want to spend the money or not, and whether you have the heart to see that spending this money would save so many kids.
It's a limited spectrum of debate that they are auditioning to participate in and maybe even helping to craft in real time because this is back in the day before social media took over our brains.
Before it would be necessary to have a guy like Brett Weinstein and Eric Weinstein and all these other podcasts out there.
with skateboarders and people that claim they're, you know, started multimillionaires and want to save kids from whatever and whatever, like impact theory, all of these silly podcasts, Sean Ryan, Lex Friedman, those people are all fifth generation warfare manifestations of what was not necessary back when everybody only watched four major news networks.
And a lot of people could be counted on to watch 60 Minutes and talk about it the next day.
And a lot of people could be counted on to watch Charlie Rose and talk about it the next day.
And so they didn't have social media available to them like they do now.
And social media did not play the role in our lives and on our thinking as it does now.
And so the illusion of consensus that was used at the time was sending a few guests onto Charlie Rose and some of them being on script.
One of them being a Englishman that could use his accent to pretend like he knew what he was talking about, even though he is just a yeast molecular biologist.
Springtime for Hitler, we're making springtime for hookworm.
How do we develop the next generation of products for people who can never afford to pay for it?
I'll give you the urgency of this.
20 years after the licensure of hepatitis B vaccine, we still haven't penetrated markets in developing countries.
Look at the HPV vaccine, the vaccine for cervical cancer.
It's estimated that 38,000 women in South America die every year of cervical cancer.
Most of those 38,000 women in South America are women who are younger than who die in the United States because they don't have access to routine pap smear screening.
That's pretty spectacular grossness right here.
The HPV vaccine is probably the worst vaccine on our schedule in America.
And the hepatitis B vaccine is one that they give babies on the day of birth.
So what you're looking at are 38,000 women in their 30s and 40s who are dying every year from cervical cancer, 38,000 families totally devastated and destroyed.
Multiply that times 20 years, because right now, HPV vaccine, the cervical cancer vaccine, I just got my daughter vaccinated, it's $360 for the three vaccinations.
There's no way you're going to get a $360 vaccine
Oh my god, is this before he writes his book about his daughter?
Is his daughter injured by the HPV vaccine?
Or is it genetic?
He wrote a book about it, remember?
He just said he vaccinated his daughter.
Is it possible that he's vaccinating his autism-having daughter?
Is that who he's using on this program right now?
I don't want to dig into his history, but somebody should.
minister to poor women in Latin America.
So we need to find new innovative mechanisms to bring the price down and to have a structure, an infrastructure, by which you can make vaccines for less than a dollar a dose from day one.
That's what Tanya's doing.
That's what we're trying to do with the Save & Vaccine Institute.
And I think that's really interesting because even some of the examples you've used are things that have markets.
HPV has rich world markets that you could tap into.
A malaria vaccine will not, you know, have a rich world market necessary.
A traveler's market's not enough.
One thing we could talk about, and I'm by no means an expert in this, is new ways of creating innovative financing mechanisms and pull funding.
One thing we've been talking a lot about is advanced market commitments.
And we're going through a pilot case of this now for a pneumococcal vaccine.
And I think that's a really interesting thing for us to look at going forward.
So this comes before the 2009 debacle with Wolfgang Wodar.
And that debacle was caused by the fact that the WHO and vaccine sales people went around from country to country saying that the total capacity of our vaccines was X number of shots, and Denmark has already bought Y, and so there's only Z left.
And so if you don't buy as many as you need now, it could be that when we come back at the beginning of the pandemic, all of the doses will be spoken for by other countries who had bigger balls than you.
He's talking about the exact same kind of pre-sale commitment.
Talking about the exact same scam that Wolfgang Wodach ended up crashing his career on in 2009, 10, and 11, as he revealed that that's exactly what happened.
The swine flu vaccine.
eating about that uh... many years ago when we propose that they're basically two two things uh... that need to be done when you're trying to develop a medicine or vaccine or diagnostic for poor people it's for a condition that rich people also suffer from then it's likely that the rich world market will give the incentives and then the problem comes how do you get that same medicine that's been developed to the poor what we've been discussing so far
But what if it's a condition like these worm infections or malaria and so forth, which is basically a poor region problem?
Then the markets by themselves won't do it.
And there are two kinds of solutions that have proven to be effective.
One is you put money on the table and you basically give an incentive to get the research done.
And that's what Bill Gates and Melinda have been doing.
And they've set up a number of
quite remarkable efforts for malaria vaccine, for tuberculosis vaccine, for AIDS vaccines, for new medicines for each of these.
And that's putting money on the table and getting the big companies to partner, but because they were getting paid to do this.
And then they make the deal.
And so then he funds the companies that he also with his foundation.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is also backed up by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust.
So Jeffrey Sachs is very conveniently talking about the forward-facing pile of weaponized money that's actually a small weaponized pile of money compared to the larger weaponized pile of money, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust.
Very similar to the fact that the CDC and the FDA have a trust foundation where pharmaceutical companies can donate as much money as they want to and then that sort of gets laundered essentially into the FDA or the CDC budget.
It's supposed to be for donations, you know, because these are humanitarian causes.
We're talking about all the same mechanisms and all the same lies, all the same limited spectrum of debate already being laid down in 2007 on Charlie Rose.
Bill Gates was going to save us and it was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but it's not.
It's the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation investing in companies that the foundation trust invests in so that then they reap the profits from the investment.
And they publicize the investment in those companies so that those stocks and those companies go up because Bill invested in them.
But it's not the investment that you're thinking of.
When you say investment and Sachs says investment, you're thinking of the money that Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gave to the company to make the cure.
You're not thinking about the investment of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation trust that's buying stock in the company that the foundation is granting money to.
And that's why Bill doesn't mind giving away his money because his trust invests in the companies that his foundation grants money to.
And at the same time, his foundation publicizes.
And so it looks like that we should buy this stock because Bill invested in it.
And you don't understand that because of the nature of the semantic enchantment that somebody like this is willing to cast, you just get it all confused and you don't realize that there are two piles of money.
One is much bigger than the other one.
And Jeffrey is referring to the small one.
That the grants come from the small one.
And that's why the little dog barking in the background named Peter Hotez is so happy about it because he gets those grants.
He doesn't have a company that the Foundational Trust is invested in.
And if he does, he's fine with it.
If you get something, it won't be under a patent-protected high price.
We'll make that available on an open license.
What an interesting thing to bring up, patent law and IP.
what happened at the beginning of the pandemic, but IP in the pharmaceutical space changed drastically after the Supreme Court basically declared that monoclonal antibodies and polyclonal antibodies and the patents surrounding them are based on bullshit biology.
So that none of these patents would actually stand up to scrutiny in court or whatever it's called for a patent.
And so very quietly, the entire pharmaceutical industry around the world reorganized around biologics and reorganized around mRNA.
and the processes and the proprietary technologies needed to bring a transfection technology to market.
And so there are all the patents, all the new patents that Peter, like Peter Cullis and Robert Malone are all interested in and well aware of, probably brokering
while they keep you focused on antibodies and keep you focused on repurposed drugs and keep you focused on the Scooby-Doo mystery of where did the virus come from.
This guy was integral in laying down the foundational mystery story because he was the head of the Lancet Commission.
He's the one who appointed Peter Daszak and all these other clowns like Koopmans from the Netherlands to this investigational committee.
And he's very conveniently in place to say, it looks like the Chinese were covering it up.
It looks like the Americans were covering it up.
We probably have responsibility for it.
America's terrible.
That's who Jeffrey Sachs is.
A real hero of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
to the poor.
That's one way.
The other way, which is a way that a colleague, Michael Kramer, and I promoted starting about 10 years ago, and it's now being tried for the first time.
I mean, if Bobby Kennedy spent time with this guy in a tent in Africa when he was younger, then is it any surprise that this guy would have the ability to influence him over those many years?
Maybe actually almost in effect brainwash him into accepting some truths about the world that aren't true.
Maybe Bobby is just a patsy, a dork, a guy who just goes along.
Which explains why he did the bear story, because a bunch of drugged up friends were in the car and convinced him to do something stupid at age 50, so he did it.
If he's got friends like Robert Malone and Meryl Nass and Mary Holland and Jeffrey Sachs, then what does he really know?
If he knows what those people told him, I would suggest that he doesn't know very much.
Try to make it as if there were a market.
So get a bunch of governments together and say, whoever invents a vaccine for so-and-so will be the market for you.
And we'll announce today, though there is no vaccine, that whenever you have it, we'll pay $10 a dose from you.
Now, go take that to the bank.
Go get a venture capitalist.
Go get some rich investors to do it because there's a guaranteed market for you.
So that's what's called an advanced market commitment.
And this is just now being tried for the first time with the pneumococcal.
Just to make sure, just to kind of correct the Pete guy in the chat, you have to read the actual opinion that the Supreme Court wrote, which was written by Gorsuch, to know what changed about patent law with relation to monoclonal antibodies.
You have to read it.
If you haven't read it, then to say that no longer considered a patentable invention is because the biology which was cut and pasted across a lot of these patents is biology that is refutable and has been refuted.
That's why.
So they're no longer patentable because the biology that we understand that underlied those patents is no longer real.
were misrepresented as a biological purity that they're not.
That's the real truth.
It could apply to malaria vaccine, it could apply to a hookworm vaccine, it could apply to these other conditions where you don't have a real market because the people that you're trying to help are too poor to be a market.
I mean one question I have about the advanced market is whether that will work for
products for diseases for which there's absolutely no U.S.
or European market.
It'll work.
I believe it'll work for pneumococcal vaccine.
It'll work maybe even for malaria.
I don't know about hookworm.
I still think for hookworm or diseases like hookworm that only occur among poor people in developing countries, we still depend heavily
on organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to step up and really do the right thing and fund it.
The problem being, Bill Gates can't be everything to everyone.
And so what we need is more.
I got to give you credit.
That's funny.
Yeah, it was once mysterious is now patently obvious.
Kudos to you.
That's the pun of the day.
I'm going to use that on Twitter or something.
organizations like the Gates Foundation to help finance these programs.
But let me just raise this point on that.
My impression is that global health and global poverty has become a much more hot, for the lack of a better word, issue.
And therefore, it's attracting more philanthropic dollars.
People who might have formerly given to a very worthy cause, let's say a museum or a library, are now somehow attracted to river blindness or things like that.
And therefore, that leads me to, A, is that true?
And so therefore, there are more dollars and more interest in global health issues.
It also leads me to sort of this, which is always fascinating for me,
Is there out there, among especially the two of you, several bullets?
I mean, where is the hope for the research side, vaccines, whatever kind of development that we ought to know about?
may be naive because of my youth, but I believe that we will have a malaria vaccine in my lifetime.
And I think we have a promising candidate now, as I mentioned.
Easily.
So close to the solution.
Right.
Both.
Just like we're going to cure all disease by 2040, according to Ray Kurzweiler, that we're going to be able to upload our consciousness into a computer in 2045, this is the same bullshit biology mythology that they push on you in Biology 101 at every university.
That just over the next hill, within 10 years, all of these things that have heretofore been science fiction will become reality.
Maybe she's just naive in her youth.
But we do.
We have a really exciting, robust portfolio of vaccines that we're looking at developing.
We've got a lead candidate that shows some effect against clinical malaria and also some effect against the most severe forms of the disease.
As I mentioned before, that's going to go into phase three efficacy trials next year, the latest stage of development.
And we'll know in a few years whether or not that will work.
That will be a partially efficacious vaccine.
It wouldn't protect totally against malaria.
And at the same time, we're developing new candidates, utilizing new technologies, utilizing new platforms.
So apparently with malaria, it was already accepted that there would never be a sterilizing vaccine.
I don't know if that's real terminology or not anymore, but I know that that was terminology that I was using at the beginning of 2021, end of 2020.
And so it's curious that already in 2007, they're talking about vaccines that aren't perfect, that don't prevent disease, that can prevent severe malaria.
And so it sounds like to me, quite frankly, that this idea that there are imperfect vaccines that are still worthwhile has been tested and gamed out on malaria before it was just rolled out in general.
Because now that's the general attitude that vaccines never prevented disease, that vaccines only prevent severe disease, protect you from hospitalization.
And so vaccines are justified in a very different way than they were when, you know, he was talking earlier about the control and eradication of smallpox and talking about how when they put their foot down, measles went away.
We're not really talking in equivalence here, and I find it very funny that her, in particular, with regard to malaria, is using some of these, let's say, mealy-mouthed terms that have become part of the capital E enchantment that we are currently fighting against.
And I think they're very promising.
Another very promising candidate that we have is the Scenario, a whole sporozoid candidate vaccine, which is a whole parasite vaccine that's very much classical vaccinology.
That's another up and coming vaccine.
How does that work be more effectively?
Well, the candidate vaccine... He's like a weird English Robin Williams or something.
He's freaky.
We have in current development is actually targeting one part of the life cycle of malaria.
It's a recombinant protein approach.
So it's a fairly simple, straightforward approach.
It's a protein that's been made by splicing genes together to make a new sort of protein.
Right, right.
And the whole spores... He got a Nobel Prize in molecular biology for
cell division cycle mutants in fission yeast, but recombinant protein means what again?
It just means mixing genes together, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So I'd approach that we have, um, that we're collaborating with scenario, Steve Hoffman's group to develop, um, is really, I think, a, a classical live attenuated approach to developing a vaccine, um, irradiating the, uh, malaria parasite and giving that as the vaccine.
It turns out that
The best proof of concept for vaccines is taking the whole organism and somehow making it weaker.
So the oral polio vaccine is taking attenuated strains.
He's trying his best to audition, but I bet you he's kind of getting it too close to correct for it to be good.
polio vaccine, same with measles vaccine.
The problem for the vaccines that Tanya and I are focused on is we're dealing with whole animals.
We're dealing with more complicated organisms, and so it's much more complicated to attenuate them.
So in some ways, the low-hanging fruit has been done, the easy vaccines.
We're not taking on the harder vaccines, but it's still doable.
It may take a little longer, but there's no question that we will have malaria vaccines.
We will have tuberculosis vaccines.
We'll have hookworm vaccines, God willing.
And I also believe that an AIDS vaccine is still definitely feasible, although we have had a big setback.
So, so far, none of them, none of them are there.
And yes, this is the Jack Black of vaccines.
In the last few months.
What's that?
Well, the setback is Merck had a very exciting candidate vaccine that rely, everyone was always saying it's the problem is we're not, we're too focused on initiating T cell antibody responses rather than the right kind of T cell responses.
Merck has made this vaccine that generated the right kind of T cell vaccine responses, but it's still not protecting.
Interesting.
So that is around the time when Tony Fauci was doing interviews about the vaccine and telling everybody how they were almost there and that antibodies versus T-cells and it turns out that the T-cell response didn't help very much.
So that's curious, right?
Sounds like they don't really understand how to augment the immune system yet.
The immune system you have antibodies, there's two parts to it really, antibodies which are proteins that fight disease and then cells of the body, the T-cells that fight.
And this was supposed to stimulate the T-cell approach which hadn't been tried before but unfortunately, or not effectively before.
So he's an expert on vaccinology in the AIDS context now, I wonder what he knows about retroviruses.
It's really bizarre, it's really bizarre
You can only see it one way.
This is national security narrative curation at its best being done old school with a couple controlled voices and a couple unwitting participants in an interview on television.
And one of them has an enticing English accent.
It's the perfect American recipe for propaganda.
but we're still not getting protection.
But what I really hope is Merck doesn't walk away from the problem.
I hope Merck continues to chip away at it.
Well, Merck will get the Ebola vaccine after Robert Malone brokers it from Vykal.
So, you know, Merck will stay in the vaccine game for some time.
Merck is actually the company that bought the patents from Inderverma that Robert Malone claimed to have originated at the start of the pandemic and the reason for his being
featured on Brett Weinstein's podcast.
You know, Brett Weinstein, the son of Les Weinstein, the first patent lawyer to be appointed to the Department of Justice in the Kennedy administration, oversaw the formation of the FDA and the thalidomide scandals, and maybe even knew about how the Senator Kefauver was murdered.
Still a solvable problem, I believe.
UNICEF.
Tell me about how this fits in terms of your mandate.
Well, we're the largest procuring agency of vaccines in the world.
A lot of it is procurement, medical supplies, vaccines, and also working with developing countries on integrated approaches.
And we also procure a lot of bed nets.
We're one of the largest procurement agencies for bed nets.
So all of the kinds of interventions we've been talking about, UNICEF works in these areas, both on the supply and procurement side, as well as on the delivery.
I have lots of black friends.
When I had Bill and Melinda Gates here, they talked about antiretrovirals.
Where are we on that issue?
The world has committed, the rich world has committed, our governments have said that by the year 2010, just three years off, that everybody that clinically needs those medicines should have them available.
There should be universal access to antiretroviral medicines.
Now, six years ago, there wasn't one single person in a poor country that had support from any rich country program to be on antiretrovirals.
Many people said it would be impossible to do this at all because the poor wouldn't be able to adhere.
I think they're still talking about AIDS.
When they say antiretrovirals at this time, they're usually just talking about AIDS, even though I would think that they would
need to be a little more specific, they're not.
To the drug regimens or there was no infrastructure in the last few years.
I thought AZT saved people from AIDS.
because of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and because of the U.S.
program, emergency program, to fight AIDS, the so-called PEPFAR program.
Now there is a breakthrough where there are about a million Africans right now that are on antiretroviral medicine, and the numbers are going up because the basic process of helping people to get these drugs is taking hold.
But we have a long way to go to reach that goal of universal access for all who need it.
It's like all the things we've been talking about, though, Charlie.
There's nothing which would stop it from happening if we have a commitment, leadership.
Maybe it's that czar we discussed earlier.
I don't know the answer to that question.
whether they have an effect on innate exosomal activity.
But it's, of course, a question I think very much deserves answer.
But a plan that says we're really going to... My guess is that it's detrimental.
...meet the goals that we've made, we can achieve what we have set out to do.
And it would mean millions of people's lives saved, and it would mean even more millions of children who would not be orphaned by this horrible disease.
By the way, I'm in favor of the idea, notwithstanding, simply because it focuses everything.
Absolutely.
It does.
But I think this point about, you know, it's only been in the last three or four years that the whole AIDS issue has been addressed with both the drugs and the testing.
And you can really see the difference on the ground in Africa.
I just got back from Botswana.
Now, Botswana happens to be one of the most proactive countries in dealing with the HIV problem, but they've also got a very high prevalence rate of about 35%.
But they now have coverage of what's called PMTCT, which is prevention of mother-to-child transmission.
That means testing pregnant women and making sure they get the right kind of drugs before they deliver so that you have less chance of passing that on.
They have 93% coverage.
Now, the average of it was about 10 percent three years ago.
They now have reduced, because of that, they've reduced mother-to-child transmission of the disease from 40 percent to 5 percent.
So this is what this money that's been put in the Global Fund, PETFAR, is really making a difference in some of these countries.
The situation in southern Africa, particularly South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, Lesotho, Zambia, these are countries that have very high prevalence and it's going to take a lot to turn around the AIDS pandemic.
Charlie, the whole history of this is that on this also,
Every single thing that's been tried before it was tried, it was claimed that it would be impossible.
Every time we've gone ahead and done something, it's turned out to go much better than was predicted.
What's the best example of that?
Well, whether it's getting antiretrovirals out, or whether it's getting the bed nets out, or whether it's getting the vaccine coverage.
And when the smallpox eradication effort was first proposed,
Most people said, no way, no chance.
Actually, the United States government wasn't even in favor of it.
It turned out it took a lot of pulling and pressure to get that done.
And then it worked.
And it was a vote of just two votes at the World Health Assembly, so-called, which said, OK, we'll try it.
And it turned out to work in this wondrous way.
So the lessons of public health are that
These techniques are very powerful and very effective, even in places that are extremely poor.
And the problem has been just getting ourselves motivated and organized to do it.
Just back to AIDS briefly, because I mean, what can we say about certain problems on the ground?
I mean, South Africa, I mean, there's this resistance to treatment in other countries.
Remember, remember that the first president of Rockefeller University was Joshua Lederberg.
And the next one was David Rockefeller.
And the one in this video is Paul Nurse.
a yeast molecular biologist.
Why is there such a variety of approaches here?
Leadership plays a huge role.
And here's this very odd phenomenon that President Mbeki of South Africa for a long time was in denial.
And his health minister, even worse, peddling garlic rather than antiretrovirals as a solution.
So it was
absolutely unaccountable how badly it was handled by that government.
Contrary-wise, in Uganda, just like you said, President Museveni sounded the alarm and said, everybody has to know, and got some tremendous things going.
So leadership played a huge role in Botswana, which was so hard hit because of its large migrant population and mining population.
The former president Mohai and current president have been completely dedicated to this.
So you need that kind of leadership.
But the notable thing in Africa right now is how many places there are with good strong leadership that are saying we'll take this on.
Give us a hand and help us do it.
But we will take this on.
Something that we can't ignore in the solution for global health problems is the importance of the multinational drug companies.
At least in my field, I can tell you that the drug companies are actually the good guys in this.
The reason we can give that rapid impact package of deworming drugs for 50 cents a person per year is because Pfizer is donating the Zithromax
Merck is donating the Mectizan.
Johnson & Johnson is donating the Mibendazole.
GSK is donating the L-Bendazole.
We don't have all of the drugs donated, but it's making a huge difference.
So we don't have to even worry about the cost of the drugs.
I guarantee you they're writing it off.
It's the delivery.
If we can take that model of the drug companies really stepping up to the plate and helping with these neglected tropical diseases, these deworming drugs.
The drug companies are the good guys now.
You understand that, right?
Robert Malone wants you to believe that it was the DoD that worked behind the drug company.
The drug companies didn't do anything.
Pfizer and BioNTech didn't do anything.
None of these companies did anything.
It was the DoD.
Just ask all these people who are currently trying to run Trojan horse operations into the Trump administration.
They all believe it.
That the DoD is a specific enough accusation.
for other diseases as well, that's going to take us a long way.
Is there something that will be on the horizon again, this is my journalistic obsession, that we don't know about?
I mean, one thing we haven't factored in here is population as an issue and how that, when we talked about environment, we talked about
the combination of poverty.
But is there something else going on out there that we're just beginning to get a little sniffling of?
Yes.
What is it?
Actually, first of all, is there something going on that we don't know about?
Surely, is the first answer.
First, because of the pressures of humans on the environment all over the world, we're seeing a lot of new diseases.
because people are coming into contact with animal reservoirs of disease that they never did before.
If the COVID hoax is a military operation, at the top of the military is the executive branch of the government.
And so to blame the military is to blame the people that followed the orders instead of the people that gave the orders.
If the orders were given by DITRA, if the orders were given by DITRA and the State Department, if the orders were given by the office of the ASPR or the head of Health and Human Services or some person adjacent to the president,
then the people that follow the orders aren't necessarily the ones we need to go after.
I guess you could say that a soldier shouldn't follow immoral orders, but could they?
No.
If there was an illusion of consensus above them and the executive branch about what was going on and what information that we had, could the DOD really be blamed?
If the fire alarm gets pulled, is the DOD supposed to question who pulled the fire alarm or are they supposed to just respond?
Because I find this a very disingenuous argument that automatically takes all of the blame away from the people who were elected to run the government.
And the DOD is supposed to take orders from the people who are elected to run the government.
And so it's okay to say that it's a military operation, but don't tell me that the military did it on their own because that's called a coup.
And this is not a coup.
This is a national security operation run by the highest levels of the intelligence agency, the intelligence community, the executive branch.
And so anybody that tells you it was DOD is not blaming the people who told the DOD go.
That's why I find it a problem.
These are being transmitted in new ways, whether it's avian flu or SARS or many.
Avian flu or SARS.
You see, the playbook is all there.
The playbook is all ready.
It is the semantic war and the enchantment using semantics that wasn't in place in 2007, that was still being put in place, worked on, massaged to be accepted.
at the same time that social media was becoming an ever more important aspect of our lives as more and more military algorithms were rolled out as social media platforms.
us certainly, but it's affecting also the developing world in a shocking way.
And that is the non-infectious diseases, the so-called non-communicable diseases, notably the lifestyle of chronic diseases.
Finally, chronic diseases came up.
urban, a little bit couch potato, with fast food reaching the world.
And something unbelievable is happening right now, which is that there is an epidemic of adult-onset diabetes, even in the very poor places.
And this is a big shock.
It's not infection.
It's the way people are eating, what happens to sedentary lifestyles.
There's no end to the problems exactly, but there are huge gains that can be made.
But you do get the idea, you cross one mountain pass, we'll see other challenges ahead, no question about it.
But let's take on these millions of lives that can be saved now, because it's right in front of us something that can be accomplished now.
I think one of the things we haven't talked about this evening in the discussion of global health is the importance of nutrition.
About 50% of the child deaths under five, a contributing cause is lack of nutrition or malnutrition.
So that if you have malaria and you're undernourished, you're more likely to die.
And I think nutrition is a key part of global health.
But today, we're also not only dealing with the issues of undernutrition, and there's some very exciting new kinds of products in development, like ready-to-use therapeutic foods that are having a dramatic impact.
But also, there is this issue of overnutrition.
And it is hitting the developing world in quite a big way.
In some places, yeah, in the urban centers.
Yeah.
In the richer countries, for example in Botswana, I spent many years on the ground in Botswana and you know HIV AIDS is a problem but we started to see chronic disease affecting people as well.
You know as soon as those people who made it through the 30s and 40s start having a whole different disease.
So somebody watching and listening to this right now should take away
Well, you know, I'm curiously... Let's let the yeast molecular biologists summarize this wonderful discussion, shall we?
in the most enticing English accent he can muster.
Optimistic, given the, I mean, the size of this problem.
I mean, what I think I've heard this evening is, I mean, I think, firstly, this problem is being taken seriously.
I mean, it's being talked about seriously.
And I don't think it was, perhaps even 10 years ago, and certainly for a decade or two before that.
Secondly, I'm hearing there's real resources out there.
Interestingly, I think these philanthropic sources are extraordinary.
And I get that everywhere.
In my university at Rockefeller, donors want to give to this.
And of course, we have the wonderful Gates Foundation.
So there are resources.
And I think countries, developed countries, governments are thinking about this too.
The third thing I've heard is that some of the solutions seem to be pretty simple.
and we just have to get on and actually do it.
It's a question of organisation, implementation and leadership.
That really seems to be the key factor, leadership.
And the final thing is that there is some science to be done, and we've heard a bit about that, but it sounds doable.
I'm coming out pretty optimistic.
Thank you.
Optimism is a word I'd like to end on here, if I may.
My thanks to Peter, the president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute, Tanya Villafana, the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, Anne Veneman, the executive director of UNICEF, and Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia, and Sir Paul Nurse, my colleague.
on all of these scientific inquiries.
I thank you, my friend.
I thank all of you for joining us.
And we thank you for sharing this time with us, and we'll see you next time.
Wow, that was extraordinary.
I loved it.
Thank you very much to Mark Kulak for pointing that out to me.
You can find the original link at charlierose.com slash videos slash 18317.
You can see it right there.
And yeah, that's...
that was what my plan was um i didn't have anything else planned for this particular day again remember you can also find this little article of his um isn't it scrolling on here uh where he's talking about the wee beasties and how he discovered them and how it was serendipity and how he's not really that bright of a guy but somehow or another we have him on charlie rose
It's a long time after this, right?
He's on Charlie Rose as an expert on world governance, on epidemics, on infectious disease.
He's co-hosting and moderating a discussion about something that he probably doesn't know anything relevant about because again, he's so old and his science was so basic.
I mean, it's like getting a nature paper for cloning a G-protein coupled receptor or something like that.
That went fine in the 80s, but you wouldn't get that nature paper now.
This discovery is silly.
Finding a homologue from a yeast gene to a human gene is silly.
But it was a very big deal back then because it was the way they wanted to codify this ideology where understanding genes in one organism allows you to understand another organism.
And so understanding genes also allows you to understand the whole pattern integrity and they need our children to believe that or our children will not give up their children's genetics and their children's molecular data to these people who need it or claim that they have some use for it.
I think that guy's playing for them.
I think he's just probably a useless idiot playing for them, but nevertheless, I think he's playing for them.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need a new consensus about transfection in healthy humans being always criminally negligent, that RNA cannot pandemic, and that the vaccine schedule in America is a criminal enterprise, and definitely they would murder and lie people, lie about it in order to cover these things up,
make sure that our children believe that RNA can pandemic, to make sure that our children grow up believing that the vaccine schedule is somehow magic, and grow up believing that transfection is such a beautiful new technology and it saved millions of people.
They murdered people and lied about it in order to accomplish that goal.
And I believe Robert Malone is just as guilty of it as Meryl Nass is just as guilty of it as Tony Fauci is just as guilty as Peter Daszak, just as guilty as all of these other people including Kevin McKernan.
They're all part of the same crew.
And if you don't figure it out soon,
your kids are going to be enslaved.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you liked what you saw, please go to gigaohmbiological.com and find a way to support my work.
If you want to share the stream, please share it at stream.gigaohm.bio because there are no algorithms, no logins, no other ways for you to get distracted by what YouTube or some other channel like Rumble wants you to see.
Thanks very much for being here.
I'll see you guys again tomorrow.
Let's get a Ruby update in here.
Ruby!
Ruby, are you out there?
Ruby, come here!
I don't know.
She might not be in the garage, in which case she's not going to come when I call her.
But Ruby's doing fine.
She's on her second day of injections.
Um, which means that she's digging more holes.
Um, she's essentially thinks she's about to give birth.
So she's doing things that jive with that.
She doesn't want to walk anymore.
She wants to stay home.
Um, it's not causing diarrhea or vomiting.
Um, tomorrow's supposed to be the high dose.
so we'll see but it is causing drooling and it's causing her to dig holes and then laying them which she doesn't normally do which is kind of cute but i think it also is causing her a lot of cramping and stuff and so she's a little she's a little tenuous but she's doing well and and we're all very happy here thanks for being here guys see you tomorrow
Thanks, Jeff from Earth.
Thank you very much, Jeff from Earth.
Please follow Jeff from Earth.
He does great work.
And the clips are really, really, they're annoying a lot of people, I can tell.
So keep working, Jeff.
Love you very much.
And not to mention that Jeff actually supports this stream, him and Kara, with donations that are not small.
So Jeff is a real dude.
Jeff's a real dude.
And my family owes them a lot.
So thanks for making it possible, Jeff.