You
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 a lot of other people in our channel's sights.
But no, I'm anxious to help you in this COVID crisis.
I think we all have to change, but I would like to have our voices heard.
Have more of these people possible.
I think this one's going to be important.
I know they're all important.
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, you know, Canada saying nine months, is as actually J.J.
Cooey's insistence, and I think he's right on calling them transfections rather than vaccines.
Bones make a spot on my haggle-white mood.
I have my hands on your hips, but my head is at the door.
They say it works.
I tried.
But no matter how I do it, my house won't protect me anymore.
It's raining harder than I can handle, harder than I can think.
It's raining harder than the ground,
I have my hands on your hips, but my head is at the door.
It's as if no one lives here As if nothing is happening It's raining harder than I can take Harder than I can drink It's raining harder than the ground can take
The buoys are too dark, for my sky is blue in mud.
Because my head is in the clouds, and a hand already at the door.
It's raining harder than the ground can handle Harder than I can handle It's raining harder than I can handle Harder than I can drink
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.
Here we are ladies and gentlemen again, running the gamut, running the...
running the rat race if you will trying to keep up with these people trying to make them keep up with us actually is what we are doing because as we take control of our attention again and we take control of our consciousness these people are going to have to up the ante on their on their military operation on their on their social media attempt at controlling us and enforcing these
charlatans power because that's i've started to see this in a little different light that's part of the reason why i'm inspired to do a different show today than biology 101 because this morning i got up and every morning i get up and try and think about what am i missing what am i not thinking about how am i how am i trapped still
by this coordinated group of liars on the internet.
Ladies and gentlemen, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent.
And RNA cannot pandemic because viruses are not pattern integrities.
And we are working diligently to
to codify all of the biological observations from the past that edify these ideas.
And I think we're doing a very good job of it.
The mystery virus does not equal excess deaths.
They always knew this was going to happen.
And so they took advantage of this opportunity with murder and lies to create the illusion of a pandemic when there's no epidemiological evidence of spread.
And that's the reason why a lot of these lawyers are also not really objectively or, let's say, earnestly solving the problem using what should be, you know, law school L1 level understanding of American law.
We're not talking about the right terms or combining the right words.
And that's the problem.
Instead, we need a new consensus about the vaccine schedule, about transfection and about RNA and what it can and can't do in order to break the illusion of consensus these people created by sticking to that limited spectrum of debate about a lab leak, about gain-of-function viruses.
This is all how we are now being governed by a bunch of people who go on podcasts and talk to each other about what they say are the problems that need solving.
And as long as we accept that these people
these people are having useful debates with each other, as long as we accept that these people are arguing on our behalf, then they will be the acolytes that quietly assist the elite in running this show.
And I believe that's what happened at the rescue of the Republic.
And I've got a new idea.
I mean, it's something that someone has always been trying to push on me.
Always trying to, I've had a lot of friends in the background, advice in the background, viewers that send me thoughtful emails in the background.
And so I am challenged all the time to reorganize how I think about these people that we argue with and about the subjects that we argue about.
I'm forced all the time to think about how it is that I'm still accepting this narrative or may still be useful tool to them.
because we are we are being governed by this mythology so coming out of this fighting our way out of it is not going to be as simple as taking the goggles off because the lights are bright and these people know that's what has been
bugging me in the back of my head for the longest time is that they already knew there were going to be people like Mark Kulak and Jonathan Cooley and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
and all these people.
They've known all of us, known about us, known about our kind, known about our type of people for generations.
Ladies and gentlemen, you're talking to Jonathan Cooey, or listening, rather, to Jonathan Cooey, Gigaohm Biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
For about 15 to 16 years, I was a patch clamp physiologist, which is a microscope and mouse brain guy.
I made a lot of recordings from a lot of brain slices, and I published a few papers about it over the course of
It looks like they're 20 years, but really the useful amount of work there is less than 20 years.
You can find the last year or so of my work on the internet at stream.gigaohm.bio.
It's not a perfect website.
It's not a perfect server.
I think we're going to need to invest a little bit more money into it so that it's a little more reliable and a little more smooth for people that watch.
But it's better than nothing right now.
And it is actually quite exceptional.
In the grand scheme of things because not a lot of other people are doing this.
We've got that peer tube channel there There are other channels there including a clips channel you can find my calendar the courses I'm teaching the books you need for that the archive of other videos that I think are important like videos of Kevin McKernan from 2020 and then of course Mark Kulak at Housatonic ITS is now publishing an archive there as well.
So
It is a ongoing project, but please share it, try to use it, figure out how it works, criticize it, tell me what you're having problems with, so that Ted and I can optimize it, even if that means we have to invest more money in it.
That's the point, right?
A bigger server with more GPUs, or however the hell that works, will make everything run smoother.
And if it's not running smooth, I want it running smooth, so I need people watching and critiquing from that site.
Holy cow.
Let me move over here.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Coming to you live from Pittsburgh at 12.06 Eastern Standard Time.
Apologize for being late.
Like I said, I've been really inspired this morning and the course of this week.
Basketball tryouts, puppies, just a lot of farms, talking about renting to own things.
There's just a lot of wheels turning in the background right now that Giga Home Biological has needed to turn in the background for a while and trying to get to turn in the background for a while.
And so as these things come forward and opportunities now start to come to fruition, I hope we're going to have a lot of good news.
In case you're not aware, we are going to put on the first ever, for ourselves, for this little LLC, sole proprietorship, our first ever live live stream.
So I have booked the local community center here in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania,
and we have a capacity of 250 people.
I will have my rig set up on stage and a hard line and we will just do the same thing that I'm doing now.
I will stream, but then I'll have a studio audience and we'll have some mics and maybe we'll get food, maybe we'll have a barbecue, maybe there'll only be 10 people there and it will be a complete joke.
I don't know.
But the main drill for me was to see if I could
set up a rig somewhere else and successfully live stream from somewhere else because the family has a number of ideas about how we could spend next summer and the following year.
And one of those ideas would be streaming on the road.
And another one of those ideas would be moving to a more rural living location where we're renting anyway.
and having a more of a farm-like setting where my backdrop could be different, our location could be different, my kids could have a lot more outdoorsy kind of stuff, and we can, you know, shake a can on the internet from somewhere a little more comfortable than in the middle of a small, albeit very, very wonderful city of Pittsburgh.
I'm not saying I'm not grateful for where I am, I'm just saying that
in the grand scheme of things, since we pay so much for this house because we're in the city, we probably could pay a similar rent and have something very, very much different somewhere else.
And so we're trying to figure that out as well.
And again, I can only say that I'm immensely grateful for all the people's names that are over there and the people that aren't there yet, but should be.
There's just a lot of
There's been a lot of opportunity given to me and my family that has been very hard to see and seize because of the stress and the uncertainty of this, call it a job if you want, this mission that we're on.
So, whoa, that was, sorry, a little loud.
I didn't, I guess I overloaded the memory here.
Let me just escape and start that slide again.
I would say that again we are still at the stage where there are some basic things that if we wanted to, we could definitely get this, get this to work.
If we really wanted.
and people really wanted to.
There are very succinct ways to say, at least about the public health system, what's wrong with it.
And clearly these people are very adept at avoiding that.
And so that's what you see when you hear Steve Kirsch
talking on the Stu Peters podcast, or you hear Elon Musk talking to Tucker Carlson, or you hear Brett Weinstein talking to someone, or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
talking to someone.
It's always the same.
They're trying to be very specific about very specific things that they think are bad, and they don't actually want to talk about the biological ideas that edify their position, because if they had to explain it, they wouldn't be able to get here.
Right?
Their avoiding arriving at these conclusions would become obvious.
And so that's why they're in charge of the narrative and why the narrative has very quickly pivoted over the last year or so, which is, you know, for me, very quick.
But for you, it probably feels like forever.
But really, that's quite quick that they eventually decided to pivot to do not talk about 2020 anymore.
Never mind what Robert Malone said to Paul Cuttrell on several podcasts in 2021.
Don't go back and see that because that would reveal that there was a different thing happening.
And so they, of course, don't want you to think in longer timescales.
They don't want you to think in terms of population.
They don't want you to think in terms of governance.
Because if you did think on longer timescales and you did think about governance and you did really think about depopulation, then you wouldn't be thinking about them killing us.
What you would be thinking about was what depopulation problem are they talking about?
And the depopulation problem they were talking about is the big families after World War II and that era of prosperity where people were having lots of children and we were having medical advances, which have led to, of course, a preponderance of old people that from a retirement perspective and public health perspective and from social medicine perspective could potentially bankrupt any one of these countries where
in the course of trying to govern a large population growing at a potentially exponential rate, they discouraged family size.
And so now we are left with the remnants of this in the data.
And they knew that.
So why in the world would they just tell you that we expect all-cause mortality to go up by a few million people every year around the world because there's more old people dying?
when they could tell you something that would benefit the governance of you by them for generations.
And the thing that really struck me this morning when I woke up and inspired me to change the topic today
is all scribbled down on this piece of paper here, but I haven't been thinking at the right timescale.
And every time I think at the right timescale, new things come out.
That's why I showed that video with the rock the other day, the German video where there's these two rocks on the mountain and they're watching humanity.
And on their timescale, they can't even see the people moving.
They just see houses and crumbling buildings and this kind of thing.
And so if you think on their time scale, and that's what I challenge myself to do every time when I get up in the morning, I sit down in the chair and I try to think, what are they thinking?
What would I, how would I contribute to what I imagine their plan is?
And this morning I got hit by a bowling ball.
Like something just knocked me over.
And so what I want to do is start here at this introduction and go through my introduction, albeit a little tiny bit shorter.
It's still going to be annoying for those people who hate it that I do it every day.
And then segue into gene drives and why gene drives are more interesting than you might think.
And more malevolent and terrifying than I ever thought possible until I realized what they could be used for.
And now, I'm standing in front or sitting in front of the wrong slide here, in the sense of what I'm talking about.
But I want to preface this by saying why it is that I think this repeating this introduction, and then understanding why I'm doing Biology 101.
Now,
I want to do Biology 101 because I want people to understand that the foundation of your introduction to biology is fundamental to how your entire understanding of your world forms as you listen, read, and think about these ideas.
And so it is of paramount importance for
any kid's introduction to biology, if they're going to achieve what they want to achieve, it's so important for kids to start with molecular biology and most importantly, their version of molecular biology, their simplified, stunted version of molecular biology that underpins ultimately people like Sam Harris saying that there's no free will.
because everything is determined.
Because from the molecular level onward, it's just chemistry and physics interplaying like a clock.
And it's just our inability to measure or understand or see at that time scale and that size that prevents us from fully being able to just kind of predict the future like we predict the weather.
And make no mistake about it, that is the bridge.
That is the thought that has to get a seed in your garden of your mind and then grows as a weed.
and spreads throughout your garden as a weed that you think that, wow, I mean, if DNA is there and evolution is real, then I guess that means that basically we are a spontaneous process that potentially we could take control of, not that dissimilar to the breeding of a dog.
And incidentally, something that I did yesterday,
really also got me thinking about this.
And I'm just gonna keep talking because I'm only gonna do this one show today.
And if it's goofy, it's only for you guys anyway.
I just wanna share all these things and how they're coming together.
Years ago in Amsterdam, when I was doing my PhD, we were out one night and I don't remember what kind of crew we were in, but we were all drinking and having a good time and talking about things.
And I actually,
I have it framed back here.
Shit, did I just stand up and show you I'm wearing green sweatpants?
I think I just stood up and showed you I was wearing green sweatpants.
Hey, guess what?
It's not serious.
I'm just in my garage, so I'm wearing my green sweatpants.
Surprise, surprise.
Let me go over here and go over here.
Whoops.
Um, why isn't that on?
That's weird.
Why isn't this on?
I want to show you this thing that I'm holding in my hand.
Uh, but I thought my, my table camera was on and I don't see it's on what's happening.
That's so weird.
Why isn't it coming on?
It's like it's broken or something.
Uh,
So anyway, I'll show you this.
This is a napkin.
Yeah, I can do that.
Sorry, I can do that.
It's a napkin that I drew when I was sitting in a cafe in Amsterdam all those years ago in Iceland.
is the most pure genetic population in the world, you see.
And then I have plaques and tangles, plaques and tangles, plaques and tangles.
And then you see in that down in the bottom there, you see this thing right here, that's a Eppendorf tube.
See that?
That's an Eppendorf tube.
And it says human, human tissue going in an Eppendorf tube.
And plaques and tangles, plaques and tangles, that's all about Alzheimer's disease.
And then you can see here, I was drawing the canals, like I'm not an artist, obviously.
So the point is, is that, why isn't this working?
I'm still trying to figure out why this is not coming on.
There, that's blinked and it went funny.
And why isn't it?
It's still not showing up.
I don't understand that.
Hmm.
I want to fix this.
Oh, that might not have been all the way in.
Ah, I want to fix that.
OK, I'll have to fix that later.
I don't know what's going on here.
Something came apart or something is not connected because my table camera doesn't work.
And I really wanted you to see this just because I want you to understand that this has been in the back of my mind for a very long time and trying to understand it.
But from a perspective of how do I get ahead in academic science, this is me getting enthusiastic about understanding what they wanted to do, which was take human tissue
with Alzheimer's disease, plaques and tangles, and look for the genes that are altered or different from people that don't have plaques and tangles.
And then those genes would be the things that you would knock out in a mouse, or you would up-regulate or down-regulate, or chart through development.
Now, why is this important?
Well, because we have been arguing, Mark and I have been arguing, among other people have been arguing, that this
this population thing, they knew that there was gonna be excess deaths.
And more importantly, they know they've already got the population thing kind of under control because population is going to collapse because family size has decreased and has continued to decrease.
They know, these actuaries all know that our population is not gonna stay 10 billion people for very much longer.
They know that.
And if you think in a multi-generational way, and you think about it, it's a great idea to have everybody think that it's as simple as just trying to get rid of people.
But Mark has made the point, and I will make the point, that they would never waste that resource.
That's a tremendous number of experimental animals that would otherwise be very useful, essentially medical remnants.
Why in the world would you wait until these people are dead?
what if you if you can convince them that you're just killing them when in reality you're using them their whole life to achieve something that can only be seen from a multi-generational perspective now that's a different story
And so I believe Mark is right, or I believe that I'm right, or I believe that we are all who have said this are right, that the Human Genome Project was the announcement, the start of a transition to a new kind of governance where nation states would be in the way.
And they used this population signal, this known coming rise in all cause mortality to tell us a national security story, a global
health, public emergency story, and all they had to do was murder a few thousand people in America, and the rest would take care of itself, because it would just be coordinated lies about that murder.
Now, the nice thing about this is that they've done it in all different ways, and so there's not one way to see it, but there are a few things that they leave out all the time, the opioids, the supplemental oxygen, and the idea that they knew that this rise was coming.
And so that's the problem with talking about all-cause mortality.
If you don't calculate it correctly, you can make anything disappear.
And they have essentially done a shell game with what they knew was gonna be an all-cause mortality rise for maybe a decade, and they've made it into a crisis by sweeping some of these people together with murder, and coincidentally avoids that bankruptcy, that problem with the budget,
where these people, as they age out, that part of their life is the most expensive for the state.
And people like Ted Turner were talking about this in the 80s already, about how we would never be able to afford all these old people when they finally retire.
So that's why I play it like this.
This is real.
And it needs to be as evil as it can possibly sound.
You, my lord.
And so that's what I say about 2020 and why these people had to be out there with all these ideas, because they are seeding a narrative that allows this clock to keep moving, allows this script to keep moving, where again, one of the things that's going to happen in this script is America as a nation and as an idea is going to be destroyed by the people that own it.
the people that are a part of it.
Just like Rome was destroyed by Romans, this place is going to be lit by us.
That's what they want.
And ideally, we'll take each ourselves out as well, because again, there is an issue.
What happened?
What happened when America was established?
People are able to joke all the time about the idea that Australia was founded by criminals.
But people don't talk very much about what people found in America.
It was pretty independent, hardcore people willing to get on a ship and risk their life to come to a place where they knew there would be people that didn't want them to be there and didn't speak their language and lived like savages.
And they went anyway.
And so you could imagine a scenario where actually America is enriched for very particular genotypes.
Free-thinking, critically thinking, independent, free-willed genotypes.
And then mixed in there are physical and mental capacities that were added to the population because of the weird results of slavery.
You got to accept that as well.
That's why Jimmy the Greek lost his job because he said, you know, one of the reasons why these black people in America tend to have a genetic disposition that's,
pretty impressive from a physical muscle mass perspective is because they descend from people who, like it or not, were more or less bred that way.
This is a very dark history that we need to come into stark realization of.
because it's that same history that's now being twisted and contorted so that people like us will fight about it when we were all essentially enslaved by this same mythology and then pinned against each other with these not so well told American history tales.
Where we actually escaped and broke away from the crown and all these other things.
have free money in this stuff.
And so this narrative is just part of a longer, much longer game, a multi-generational game.
So when we look at it from the perspective of one year or five years, it's still a time, it's just a snap in the time that they are planning and scripting.
And so yes, right now in the short timescale, we are kind of off of their script, off of their planned places.
Maybe we've even slowed them down a little bit, but in the grand scheme of things, in the very large scheme of things, this cruise ship is still 100% on target.
Because unless you're thinking in a multi-generational timeframe, you don't even see where the ship is going.
And that's why Biology 101 with these books,
And Peter Hotez leading us to Teilhard de Chardin is so important because these ideas have been developing across generations, which explains why the biological mythologies that I believe we've uncovered here at GigaOM Biological are so important to understand, because those mythologies are directly related to this vision.
and its evolution in books like What is Life and Mind and Matter and Man and His Future, honed and sharpened by years of discussion and books like Survival of the Wisest.
And so if you look at the short timescale, this is a very important thing to argue about.
But if you pull back and try to look at the multi-generational timescale, there's something a lot more frightening here.
And it's not depopulation, ladies and gentlemen, it's not.
And it's not just experimentation either.
It's much darker than that.
I can see I've been shown
Something popped into my head today that I need to get out right now before I even have a slide for it.
And so yes, on a short timescale, the illusion of the plandemic was the idea that an endemic signal, whatever it was, could have been well characterized before the pandemic.
And then using a strategic rollout of highly specific PCR tests, along with highly aspecific PCR tests, an entire tidal wave of confusion
and seemingly high fidelity data or assumed to be high fidelity data could be used to take that expected population signal and murder to create an illusion of something that is going endemic when in fact it was always in the background because you can't tell the difference between endemicity and a background if you don't have any data from before 2020.
You just simply can't.
Nevermind that the 220 plus EUA products that were used to define the spread of this pathogen in 2020, 21 and 22 are all gone now.
There's just no excuse to believe the story that they told us.
And so yesterday I took you back to the Glenn Beck program and Robert Malone's appearance there nearly a year after he had come out on Brett Weinstein's podcast in 2021 and nearly two years after he had gotten that weird phone call in January 2020 that something crazy was happening in China and he should spin his team up.
In this video, he talks about exosomes as if it's normal, but he's just, you know, realizing all this stuff now.
And that's not what happened.
What you're seeing here over the course of these years is Robert Malone keeping the ship going in the direction it is and keeping people from understanding what's actually happening.
And that's why all of these questions, if we just were to boil it down and maybe this is a better way to write them.
Those were questions that I originally proposed on the UK Doctors for Ethics presentation that I put up the other day.
Why oh why won't anyone discuss how the background signal could be misconstrued as spread both genetic and the actuarial signal that we talked at the beginning today?
Why won't they list and define the many ways the methodologies of PCR can be highly accurate but complete bullshit for the background signal?
Why won't they define that even in its purest form these products would never have been appropriate for healthy humans?
Why won't they define the transfections using the terms that were there before the pandemic?
Why won't they use those terms transfection and transformation to explain how infectious clone is really just a misnomer or a semantic game that virologists play to hide the fact that most of virology is transfection and transformation in cell culture?
And that's also, you know, why won't they acknowledge the statement that RNA cannot pandemic?
Well, because if they did and acknowledge that that biology was present before the pandemic, then they would have to admit that they were either completely fooled, which would be great.
You could just apologize for it.
Or they would have to admit that they've been playing along all along.
And that's why we have a video now of Steve Kirsch on the Stu Peters podcast saying that only in extremely rare cases like this one might it be justified to mandate a vaccine.
And we've been telling people a long time not to get vaccinated.
And that's why Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
says he's not anti-vaccine, is because maybe in five years, there will be a time when we have safe vaccines.
That's also why when Elon Musk sits down with Tucker Carlson, the big message is, is Elon saved free speech by buying Twitter.
And then he goes on to say that smallpox killed a lot of people.
People would be still dying from smallpox and polio if we didn't have smallpox and polio vaccines.
almost as if he doesn't understand that nobody gets a smallpox vaccine anymore.
It was a super bizarre statement that I'm sure no one else in the world is going to cue in on except for me.
And now regulation is killing Americans and he knows how to fix it.
Not that dissimilar to what Kevin McKernan was saying in 2020 on the Vance Crowe podcast, no less than three times, where he said the FDA and it's 10 pages of paperwork for an EUA was getting in the way of them solving this problem.
And so this is you on X, and it's actually, I think it's actually X. I think it's possible that these, a lot of these people actually work for Elon.
I think it's possible that Elon's billions of dollars, because that's a lot of money, is being, very small amounts of it, but very significant to these people, are being used to influence them, to put them on places, to get them to go farther, and maybe Peter Thiel's in on it too, because they're buddies, right?
But that's what's happening.
That's who all these people work for.
They don't work for DOD.
They don't work for the military industrial complex, unless you call working for Elon Musk, working for the military industrial complex, which isn't that far off.
Because if these people are an integral part of how a social media platform can be used, militarized to control Americans, that would be extraordinary.
Now, what I want you to imagine is that when you get off social media, when they turn off social media,
what people are left with.
And then flip that around and ask yourself, what are they left with?
Because the moment they turn the internet off, they know the address of every person that is skeptical of the current narrative.
They know the address of, the IP address of, the name of, the family members of, the close contacts of, the private message partners of all of the people
who are skeptical of the state narrative.
And so of course, the more you engage in social media, the more you tell them about your behavior, about your propensities, about your thoughts, about your potential for action.
And so it started to dawn on me that, wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute.
What are we talking about here?
We're talking about genetic testing.
We're talking about wanting to figure out the genome of humans, right?
That's what we're talking about.
So how are they going to go about that?
What would be the thing?
Before I talk to you about this, I want to share a video that will clear your mind.
And it is really designed to clear your mind because what I'm about to explain is dark.
And I don't want you to think that I necessarily think it's happening.
But I think it's something worth considering as an exercise because it is of vital importance that more people
think on different time scales so that you can see different things.
And I really want to challenge you, and it's so serendipitous that gene drives are the molecular biology subject matter that brought this all full circle for me, because I've known for a very long time that gene drives are important.
And that there would be an important thing to understand but I didn't understand them as well as I do Now from the perspective of the bad guys or I imagine I do and so I want to share this with you.
No more words This is a video just to clear your mind and then I'll be back after the video.
I Might escape and start it again just to make sure it plays I
Yeah.
So that guy right there, if you can see my pointer, that guy right there is like a badass on the keyboard.
That guy right there I think is the best keyboard player in Japan.
Or one of the best keyboard players in Japan that's showing him how to use the reverb right now.
And then that guy right there with the turban I think is also a super badass.
I just don't remember his name off the top of my head.
And they are at some kind of keyboard convention and this is the dude from
Snarky puppy, I can't remember his name.
Somebody will type it in the chat because somebody knows who this dude is.
Corey Henry, thank you.
He's playing with his feet too, in case you can't see it.
He's playing the bass line with his feet.
Hey.
So let's do this.
Did this work or not?
It still didn't work.
I don't understand why this is not working.
Oh maybe this thing is broken.
Cause that works.
When I pull that out, it works.
So this cord may just be shot.
Let me see what's happening here.
Like that works.
So is there something loose here?
What is it?
Two?
It's supposed to be two.
I don't know why it's not, it's not working.
Um, shoot.
It's super annoying.
I want to almost find another cord for it or something.
Uh,
I don't understand why you are not working But the this is on for sure it's on so This cord must be broken so I could go look for a cord right now But I won't because this is just darn it annoying But I I want to explain something from the perspective of genes and and
How neuroscience it when I was in neuroscience how neuroscience was thinking about it and so Man it's really bogging bugging me that I can't write And I'm gonna I'm almost I'm almost gonna have to stop and fix it because I really need to have my paper here but
The reason why I wanted to clear your mind there with that music is because I wanted you to think about a couple of things that we heard about before the pandemic and try to put them in perspective of how neuroscience has been moving forward and how they think about moving forward in neuroscience.
Dang it!
I need this.
I need this, uh... Oh, I do have that long cord.
I could use this one.
Oh, let me see if that works.
Hold on.
Let me get this... off of here.
I wish I could signal to my son and get him to come down here and help me.
Verla, if you're watching, you can tell Kiri to come down here and help me.
Um... I just have to get this cord off of here.
I think that'll work.
This cord might already work.
Oh no, that's the camera cord, so then this cord will work.
Yeah, this is the one.
Okay, this one might work.
Let's see.
Because I think this is also a little one, right?
This is also a little HDMI.
Yes, it is.
I think it is.
Yeah.
Okay, so let's see.
Maybe this is gonna work already.
I have another long cord here that's hooked up to camera.
What one is this one?
Three, two, something.
It's another camera.
I think it'll work.
Let's see.
I just I gotta remember which one this is.
Is this two on the main?
Is that the right?
Yes, that's the right chord.
Because this is really for the outside camera.
So that would be 2.
Is it coming on?
Alright, I think it's coming on.
Where's 2?
Camera 2.
Oh no, this 2.
There it is.
Yeah, I don't need it anymore, honey.
I figured it out.
Thank you for running down.
It worked already.
Um, and then I can put myself here.
Yes.
Okay.
So here, I'm sorry for that delay.
So here's the little notes that I was taking.
Um, and what I'm trying to do is give you an idea of what, okay.
That's what I want to do.
Okay.
This is, I'm all working this out on, on, you know, live here.
Because it's an idea that I think is really worth trying to work out.
And if we don't work it out today, then we'll work it out tomorrow.
We'll work it out tonight, work it out this afternoon.
So the idea is time scales.
And running out the clock.
So Mark and I have had the feeling that they have been running out the clock, but we haven't, I don't think any of us understand what clock they're looking at or what clock is running or what the script is that they're running out or what this is really going on.
But part of it has to do with what social media does and what TV does and what the mainstream media does with regard to our ability to think on longer timescales.
Because while these people have been playing multi-generational timescales, media and social media makes us play hourly timescales, daily timescales, tomorrow's timescale, this week in Washington timescales.
And so if we continue to think exclusively throughout the day on those timescales alone, then we will continue to do things like argue about, so what do I need to do here?
I need to switch to that one.
And then that one should be, yeah, okay.
We need to think on timescales like this one, where we're thinking about endemicity and the background.
And so we would want to think on timescales like this, right?
We would want to think on timescales of four or five or 10 years, and then still, still we're not thinking on the timescale of a generation, not even close.
And so even this book about the fourth turning or something like that, even this is just approaching that correct timescale.
But what's interesting is the gene drives are also on that multi-generational timescale.
And when Kevin Esvelt is talking about gene drives, he's always talking about getting rid of mosquitoes or getting rid of this or changing that.
but it doesn't really have any implications for us.
And we're not really thinking about what it might be used for us because we don't think on those timescales.
Now, at the same time, what I want you to play with here in your head is, no, that's not what I want to do.
I want to do this one.
And so then I can leave this one on, right?
No, this one, it's gotta be this one.
So I'll figure that out.
I can switch that chord to the other one, and then this will work the way I expect it to.
So running out the clock and timescales are the theme of this discussion.
And now what I want you to see is what the Human Genome Project did with regard to timescales.
Because what the Human Genome Project did with regard to timescales was, number one, it identified a bunch of single nucleotide polymorphisms, meaning that it identified
relatively conserved regions of the genome where single nucleotide changes were identifiable.
And it's not really clear to me exactly how these these
small nucleotide or single nucleotide polymorphisms were identified.
But these were considered sort of the first anchor to solving any kind of genetic problem with regard to the human genome project, right?
This is human genome project.
Oh, I don't have this pen open, so it's not running.
Come on, girl, run.
There we go.
So the Human Genome Project identified single nucleotide polymorphisms.
And these were supposed to be changes in conserved regions that they thought, wow, look at this, this is cool.
Now, what you need to understand is that that was a tiny, tiny fractional signal of the genome that was only attainable in places that are highly conserved across the samples that they sequenced.
And so like
a rudimentary map of a generic national park.
If you drew a map of a national park and you said, oh, here's my map, and you said that there's an entrance and there's an exit, well, yeah, I mean, that's a map.
It's not a very complicated map, but it's a map of a national park.
It's not a very specific national park map.
It's not going to be useful if you say, take this map to Yellowstone and try to find your way around, but it is a map.
And you can claim that you have made a general map of national parks.
You could even add a ranger station and you could add trail heads.
And then you could say, yeah, every national park has these things.
And we looked at two national parks and they seem to have different, slightly different trail heads.
And I know this is a very inept analogy or a very inadequate analogy, but it is intended to let you see that this proclamation that we've identified about 1000 single nucleotide polymorphisms implied that the rest of the signal was relatively homologous and relatively homogenous.
But instead, we found these single nucleotide polymorphisms that are interesting.
And so it implies a level of fidelity that wasn't there.
And instead, what it was, was saying that there were about 1000 places in the genome that were very highly conserved that we could identify relative to a larger background that we haven't even touched yet.
And in that, there are about, we've identified some single nucleotide changes, which is interesting because why?
Not because of the single nucleotide polymorphisms, but because the genes that those are identifiable in are so conserved.
Do you see what I'm trying to say there?
If you took 10 genomes that are billions of base pairs long,
and were able to identify small nucleotide polymorphisms in single genes, and you identified about 1,000 of them, what you would be identifying is 1,000 ticks on these lines.
That's it.
Nothing more, nothing more high fidelity than that.
And those ticks would represent about a million bases.
inside of which there's a conserved region.
And that conserved region was highly conserved, conserved enough so that when they amplified it, they could see a single nucleotide polymorphism.
And what they used this observation to imply was that the rest of the genome could be probed and studied.
And furthermore, these changes would always be single nucleotide polymorphisms.
It suggests that single nucleotide changes could have gigantic effects on our pattern integrity.
And to a certain extent, for these limited number of examples, that may actually be true.
Just like the fainting goats are goats that have a very particular modified or missing potassium channel.
I don't even know what it is anymore.
And so a single gene change can result in what appears to be a very obvious phenotypical change in the animal.
and the gross overgeneralization that is biologically pulled over, mythologically pulled over our eyes in 101 biology, is that these single nucleotide polymorphisms and our ability to occasionally tie one to a childhood disease or one to a birth defect or associate five of these with people who get Alzheimer's earlier than other people,
does not indicate a high fidelity understanding of what this whole code is coding for.
Which, as we heard from the other day, is coding for both the architecture and the assembly.
It's more than just proteins.
It's also how they work together and how they get assembled together and all of these things that we have no hope of translating.
at least no hope from where we stand right now.
And so to imply that we have sequenced the genome and understand the genome and understood it already a while ago when we published the Nature paper with Mark Lander's name and Kevin McKernan's name on it, which is what they imply all the time, is wrong.
The only thing the Human Genome Project made very cheap and easy was to sequence 3,000 bases at a time or so and made it very, very much cheaper to manufacture synthetic pure DNA and synthetic pure RNA.
And so now what I want to get to is this single nucleotide polymorphisms and neuroscience.
Because single nucleotide polymorphisms that should happen to produce or be associated highly, like for example, let's say, you can look it up and teach me what it is.
Angelman's disease is a disease that is associated with a particular change in some genes and when kids have these altered
genes, they come into these, you know, altered states of, of cognitive ability and all kinds of other things happen.
And Angelman's disease is studied as a window into autism.
Why?
Because autism has all of these symptoms.
And Angelman's disease has some symptoms that people can say overlap with it.
And the bonus is, is that Angelman's can be blamed on a gene.
think it's only one gene.
And so if Angelman can be blamed on a gene, then the rationale of the Human Genome Project is, is that by doing you the favor of identifying this gene, we have enabled you to use this as an anchor to study the manifestation of something very big that people call autism.
And so now we're spending money on autism and we're solving Alzheimer's, but really what we're doing is spending money studying particular genes under the pretense that they're related to these things.
just throw a thing out there.
You've heard everybody, we've spent billions of dollars on Alzheimer's disease and looking for genes that are involved in Alzheimer's.
Would it surprise you or scare you or terrify you that any of the genes that are involved in Alzheimer's disease could also be involved in extremely high memory capability, could be involved in extremely high intelligence capability?
And so if they tell the NIH to study a list of genes, we don't have to know why.
And we could think we're studying it to prevent Alzheimer's disease or to combat the genetic causes of autism, when in reality, we're doing the work of DARPA or DITRA or the DOD or the executive branch or the NGOs that want to understand how this gene plays a role in advanced intelligence or memory formation and maintenance.
And so the cool thing that I realized this morning was the timescale thing.
If you want to study anything in the brain, this model is a trick.
Because in reality, all of the things that you want to study in the brain and understand in the brain are insurmountable, combinatorial,
It's an irreducible complexity of genes and behavior and experience that is the culmination of us as humans.
And so of all the genes to study, of all the places to put your resources, where are you going to put them?
People have been thinking that and hyping the idea that they're trying to extend life and find longevity.
Well, how are they going to do that?
They're going to do it by finding the genes that are associated with it.
They're not going to do it by making drugs.
They're not going to do it by transfecting you.
They're going to find the genes of it, and then they're going to put those genes in the people that they want to have those genes and kill the people that they want that have those genes they don't want reproducing.
In other words, I started thinking like a dog breeder today, but then about humans.
Like if I was in the ruling class and I was in on these meetings and I was thinking about how to breed future generations of humans to get where we want to go, I would guess it's not that far off from having a ruling elite with all the good genes and a working slave class.
that could be used for experiments or for doing stuff or whatever, at the end, you know, when they finally get there, that would be the result.
And what are we doing right now, which has really creeped me out the most, is that we're segregating ourselves right now on social media into free-thinking people, into people that want to try and save the world, with people that want to try and save their communities, lead in their communities.
And so social media is helping our rulers to identify the people with genetic propensities to act.
And how will they identify it?
Well, if it passes on to your kids,
It might have been genetic.
If it doesn't pass on to your kids and your kids acquiesce to social media and jump in, then maybe there are no special genes in your family.
Now, I'm not saying that there are genes that are responsible for my behavior and that's it or, you know, that I'm suggesting what they think.
And so if you were gonna use the population of humans on earth for something useful, what would you use it for?
Would you put all the Alzheimer's people in a place and use them as an experiment to try and get rid of Alzheimer's?
Or would you use a military program like Twitter to put all of the dissident people in one group and all of the conformists in another group and make sure that these two never meet
and yet make sure that these people feel like they're really doing a lot as they run around in their hamster wheel and all the while, you can watch these people's kids.
And in one generation, you can identify with the genotypes of those kids, genes that seem to correlate with parents who were dissidents and kids who were dissidents.
How the hell else are you going to get those genes?
You can't do that experiment in animals.
And so if you were planning to use the human population for genetic experiments, which would benefit future generations of humans.
then you're going to need to separate those humans into useful populations that exhibit the genotypes and the phenotypes, because you can't do genotypes yet, the phenotypes that you want to select for.
Not that dissimilar to if you were running a fox farm for fur and you wanted to get rid of all the biting foxes.
Well, the easy way to do it would be not to let any of those biting foxes breed.
And in a couple generations, you don't have any biting foxes anymore.
And so if you were using social media for something that would benefit the governance of future generations, you would use it to identify the biting foxes and to track the offspring of those biting foxes and to make sure that in a couple generations, there were no more biting foxes in your generation, in your population.
And at the same time, you'd get the benefit of finding the genetic basis for biting foxes.
That's why I had to play the music because
You gotta clear your mind before you can think this darkly.
But I do think that they think this darkly.
And so it's, you know, that is weird and it's scary, but it also explains why we might be where we are, where they're fine with us talking about depopulation because it's not about depopulation.
This is about using the population to identify genes that matter.
And what genes that matter would they be worried about?
They're not going to be worried about Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease.
That's what they say, but that's no way.
You've all seen that video where they were talking about the VMAT gene or the VGAT gene, some glutamate receptor in the brain that is especially enriched in people that are fanatics in religion.
Don't you think that that data is almost exclusively available to people that engage very vigorously in X?
Or moved from X to Telegram?
Or moved to Locals and are active there or on Discord there?
Active?
We are giving them information about our phenotype and how we think.
Remember that these people, these people told us that like fish swim in the sea in schools, men swim in conscious thought in groups.
And so by showing them what groups we want to swim in and what ways that we swim, what thoughts we swim in, what we choose to put in our garden, we are,
In a way, if you think of their biology revealing a genetic propensity to rebel.
The genetics of heroes.
The genetics of patriots.
Versus the genetics of compliance.
The genetics of weakness.
The genetics of drones.
The genetics of conformists.
And make no uncertain, I mean, don't misunderstand me.
I believe that that is very possibly what's going on right now in the guise of public health and pandemics and climate change in the Middle East.
This is a multi-generational narrative that the details of don't really matter that much.
For the short term, they do.
For allowing people to briefly see outside of the blocked train window to the reality of where we're going, yes, it's useful for that.
But it doesn't get you off the train.
And the only way we get off the train is multi-generationally.
We need to raise children that understand this.
We need to raise children that understand it well enough so that they can speak it to their peers and resist it.
That's how we do this.
We have to turn the chaos that they necessarily have to create in order to get where they want to go, where nation states don't matter anymore.
That chaos is the same door through which we can walk our free grandchildren.
It's not going to be pretty.
It's not going to be easy.
It's going to require patience.
And it's also going to require stamina.
It's going to require faith.
But it hasn't been clear to me, as it is now, how important it is for us to think on their time scale.
And that's why gene drives are so important.
Because if you were exposed to a gene drive,
and it changed your gametes, or if it changed some cells in your body, unless it had a physical manifestation in the form of disease or suffering, you would never actually know that you were altered by a gene drive and that your kids might inherit that alteration.
And inheriting an alteration that only has effect during development, well, that's a very interesting thing, right?
And so gene drives are of course very scary from the perspective of their application to an ecosystem, of the removal of an insect species.
Oh my goodness, the birds might not have anything to eat.
And that's what I thought we had to be concerned about.
The changing of crops, the changing of wild populations, the spread of a gene drive in places that they didn't expect it to or unknown consequences.
But I want you to think much more malevolently about that.
I want you to think about the fact that while they have us chasing around the idea that gene drives released in the world, just like gain-of-function viruses released in the world, might be worse than nuclear weapons, which is the title of that video that we were going to watch with this program here.
So I'll escape from this and put that video on.
And we're gonna watch it yesterday, which was this video here.
Escape, no, it was this.
This is not a very well-produced show, but it's definitely live.
It's definitely live.
So a Gene Drive is basically CRISPR
that can, it's like CRISPR, but then encoded.
So you put a CRISPR into your genome.
And then once it's in your genome, it can use itself to write over whatever is there.
So, it becomes a very hyper-dominant gene.
That's the best way to describe it, because we have a diploid genome, we have two copies of every gene.
And so, in theory, you can use a gene drive to not only write over one copy, because that's how CRISPR would work,
but you're encoding the CRISPR into it so that after it's in your genome, it also automatically writes over the other one.
And we'll let him explain it.
That's what Kevin Esfeldt explains in this video that has less than 300 views on YouTube.
Now, he's gonna talk about screw worms and he's gonna talk about all these ecological uses for it and how it might be used and why it's very scary, but he's not gonna talk about the possibility that it could be used to knock out a gene that would remove anybody's desire to be independent or critically think or believe in God or whatever other gene they say they've identified as a problem.
to create a population of people that's no longer capable of rebelling, that doesn't have the biological basis for which to form the thoughts and the behavior that they want out.
Again, I'm just improvising here, trying to work through these thoughts with you.
I don't have it all worked out.
But I do know that when you think on those timescales, and you think malevolently, as they might have thought at their table, then if you have the choice of spending all of your resources, and you can only identify a couple genes, you can only focus on a couple things, then we probably would want to focus on free thinking, we'd probably want to focus on intelligence, we'd probably want to focus on longevity.
And so they get us running around talking about how AI is a problem, or people are going to upload their consciousness to a computer, or that gain-of-function viruses are way more dangerous than a nuclear bomb, instead of talking about how these people might be manipulating us so that we would segregate ourselves into populations based on the way we think.
And once we segregated ourselves based on the way that we think, it would be possible for them to do experiments on us or to read our genomes in that way.
It's never dawned on me before that my genome could actually be useful to them.
And why?
Until this morning.
I have been telling you up until now, and this just came into my head immediately, that our genomes aren't important, that they're after our kids.
But that's not entirely true.
Because what we have done, what my wife and I have done, what Mark and his wife have done, is identified themselves as people that are willing to stand up.
That means that any of their progeny might inherit the genetic propensity to stand up.
Knocked my microphone off the stand here.
And so that's a really important thing to see because then our genetics are useful because before we die, they need my genes so that when they're screening my kids, they can see whether their behavior correlates with anything that came with their inheritance.
And if they had enough of us,
have identified and can keep track of our kid's genome, then they can actually identify the genes that are likely to underlie this stuff.
And then they can play around with knocking them out.
Now, I know that almost seems like a comic book level of application of this biology, but I think it's a much more plausible application of this biology than any gain-of-function RNA with furin cleavage sites or any bioweapon that's made of a spike protein that was designed to hurt people.
They need to identify the genes that are
problematic before they can ever use a gene drive to manipulate the human population.
We already know that a gene drive could do it.
We already know that Kevin Esvelt understands that they could do it, and that's crazy.
But nobody's going to do that until they know what genes are the problem.
We are several steps away from their goal, but there are lots of increments here.
And even though they are lying about their fidelity of understanding, they lie about their fidelity of understanding with an underlying background plan of how to surmount or solve those problems.
And if you want to study the human genome, then you need human populations in useful groups.
And the useful grouping is not the phenotype on the outside, like Chinese and Indian or black or American or white or Caucasian.
Those are completely useless genotypes.
Unless those genotypes segregate inseparably from the things that they're really interested in, like longevity, intelligence, strength, immune system, I don't know.
Think on the scale and think about how these people would be thinking already back from these people, right?
That's the point.
They were already thinking that way in the 30s and the 40s and the 50s and the 60s and the 70s.
And so now we're here.
How can we separate the human population into useful groups based on phenotypes that actually matter without them knowing that we're doing it?
I think the answer is social media.
I think by actively participating in social media, we are giving them an unfathomable amount of information about what we think and how we think and our cognitive capability and our propensity to rebel.
And if there is a genetic basis for it, the way for them to find that, the way for them to find the genes for conformity or for a useful slave, a willing slave, would be to segregate the population into groups that behave the way that they want them to behave and then screen those populations for the genes that correlate highest with them.
And so it is a lot more malevolent than I ever imagined if I imagined what I imagined this morning.
They need us to beg for X.
They want us to think that Kamala Harris is going to censor X, and so we have to vote for Trump so that X becomes the default free speech, you know, town hall, Main Street America, where everybody gets to yell and scream whatever they want, so that again, everybody can yell and scream into their own private bucket and get an own private echo programmed by them.
so that you feel like you're engaging in useful resistance when really all you are is giving them more and more details exactly how you think, how intelligent you are, and who's connected to you, and how you are able to organize or not organize a network.
And then they can watch our children.
And by two generations, they will have this fox farm and the genes that they need to breed out identified.
and they can get rid of them with a gene drive.
The creepy thing is, is that if it's a gene that doesn't, that isn't present in some of those populations, then the gene drive only needs to apply to the population that has the gene.
It might be harmless to the people that don't.
So let's watch Kevin Esvelt and see if he can, if he can, if he can
I hope X is dead.
I hope no one uses it.
That would be a wonderful place for us to be if X is dead.
I think that would be great.
Wow, I don't know.
Can anybody in the chat give me a little feedback?
Did I make any salient points here with this discussion about timescales?
I'm still trying to understand whether I did anything useful there or not.
I think this is the one.
Is this the one we, did I turn it on already yesterday?
Oh yeah, this is the three hour one.
Now, perhaps the first thing to see here is that in the interview, there's no way in God's green earth that this interviewee, the guy who's doing the interviewing, no, sorry, the interviewer, not the interviewee, the interviewer doesn't understand Kevin's answers and is probably not a sophisticated enough biologist to really grasp what Kevin is talking about.
And it feels a lot like Kevin understands that, but
Let's just watch this and again, realize that this is on YouTube and it's got less than 300 views.
So you can definitely find it.
And he's just going to explain what gene drives are here.
I'm going to get a little smaller, I think.
Welcome to the Zapiens podcast.
I'm Lloyd Waitz.
Today, I'll be interviewing Professor Kevin Esvelt, who leads the Sculpting Evolution Group at the MIT Media Lab.
What was the title of his group?
The Sculpting Evolution Group.
Now, that's no different than what these people talk about.
Sculpting the evolution of a species, sculpting the evolution of our species, and using all the tools, all the tools that God gave us, right?
Being most famous for the development of the CRISPR-based gene drive, Professor Asfeld is also a very passionate and vocal speaker about preventing existential risks, such as pandemics.
A lot of his thinking has been very inspirational to a lot of the conversation that I've had on this podcast.
So I'm very happy to have him on today and interview him in detail.
Thank you.
Delighted to be here.
Yeah.
So just for starters, I'm familiar with some of your work.
But if you could just give a broad overview for anyone who's watching, what you work on and what your interests are.
Sure.
So I'm Kevin Esvelt.
I run the Sculpting Evolution Group at the MIT Media Lab.
And we focus on advancing biotechnology safely.
So that includes ways of harnessing evolution to create new molecular tools and platforms to catalyze the work of others.
It includes developing technologies to change.
Platforms that catalyze the works of others.
You could say enables terrorists, you know, like, I mean, that's pretty funny.
Enables the works of others, you know, like eugenicists and people who, wow.
Into the shared environment.
to solve ecological problems using nature's tools, and especially includes doing that in ways that are going to ensure that the technologies have the greatest likelihood of winning popular support.
And the way to do that is to ensure that they're as safe as possible, which involves going to people early on and saying, hey, we think we might be able to address this problem that we've heard you have any of these different technical ways.
Are you interested in any of them?
And if so, which ones?
And that's just very different from the typical way technology gets developed, where we are too afraid of being scooped to even tell anyone what we're doing until we have the thing basically done, at which point it's really too late for anyone else to weigh in.
And that's a bit of a problem because... So I think one of the first things to see is that one of his standard schticks is that he wants you to believe that he's very interested in safety.
And that one of the reasons why he's so open about all these tricks and all these methodologies is because he wants everybody to understand so that everybody knows and so that we are very open about it.
And that's an irrelevant debate.
It's a very irrelevant debate because the technology that he's talking about and its application to the irreducible complexity of our ecosystem or just the irreducible complexity of a single human is already very easy to understand as morally and ethically incorrect and arrogant and wrong.
because we don't understand those systems at either size scale and in either time scale to usefully augment them using a gene drive, even if it does on what it says on the tin plus some extra.
And so talking about it in this way and thinking about it in this way, he frames it as, as long as we're open and honest about everything, then everybody won't be scared of something that they shouldn't ever be thinking about using anyway, which is not what he's going to say.
We shouldn't be thinking about genetically altering wild species or eliminating them using bacterial genetics that we don't really understand how might affect a eukaryotic genome over generations.
We shouldn't be doing that.
We shouldn't be playing with that.
Even if those, those tools are in theory available to us, it's probably not things that we need to do.
His argument will be that if I don't do it, someone else is going to do it.
But I don't think that's even true.
If I was offered a lab to do whatever I want, I would probably at this point either study dogs or I would study squirrels because I think the way that squirrels navigate around my backyard really indicates that they get stuck in little ruts.
Like they take the same fence to the same branch to the same ground, and then they jump over there and hide there for a second, and then they run under the fireplace, and then they go up this way.
And if you interrupt that with a chair, they almost can't find their way to the chicken food anymore.
And so for me, as a neuroscientist, that really says that whatever mapping is going on in their brain is really, really hard.
And so they really rely on this memory of the map.
And if the map gets interrupted, then they have a little bit of a glitch for a while.
They don't know what to do.
when all you have to do is just climb over the new thing.
But that I find very fascinating.
I would never be interested in the molecular biology at this time scale or this size scale.
It just wouldn't be drawn there.
I wouldn't be interested in the genetic manipulation of animals and plants by artificial means.
Why would I be interested in that?
Knowing that 99% of the time it would never work out anyway, that it would result in a broken dog or a broken mouse, like all inbred mice essentially are, like all of the really inbred dog breeds are.
That's one of the insights that I had on this thing, which is what, what inspired this napkin that I talked about an hour ago was actually the realization that this is how I explained it at that exact conversation.
But do you understand?
Isn't it crazy that we haven't used dog breeds for any of these things yet?
Because we're talking about genes and humans and we're all excited about these genes of interest.
And I said to these people at the table, but we have dog breeds that already have a propensity to have heart problems, a propensity to have hip problems, a propensity to have all these genetic traits.
So we should be able to use their genomes and compare across purebred dogs to identify all kinds of genes of interest that have to do with phenotypes like muscle size and leg size and skeleton thickness and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
and definitely for heart problems that are congenital in golden retrievers or hip problems that are congenital in in shepherds and so it dawned on me oh my gosh there's a huge resource that we have that's even more
selected and inbred and purer than the laboratory mice that we've tried to create and serendipitously because we were breeding animals to be useful.
Selecting for phenotypes and the genotypes that came along with them have naturally been enriched and so there's information there.
And like six months later, a PNAS paper came out where they analyzed five different dog breeds and showed the genes that were responsible for the extra claw and the gene that was responsible for the bull terrier's jaw and change in skull and how that change in skull, the same gene was also responsible for the collie's long nose.
And it was just this absolutely brilliant paper that did exactly what I said in the pub.
which was use these animals as natural inbred, you know, enriched pure genetic populations from which you could compare other genetically enriched populations and then see what genes separate them.
And so if you were going to do this in the human population, you wouldn't do it based on skin color.
You wouldn't do it based on hair.
You wouldn't do it based on any of those things that don't matter.
But you definitely want to tell everybody you were going to do that.
You definitely want to tell everybody that was all about blonde hair and blue eyes in World War II.
You definitely want to tell them that because you wouldn't want to know, you want them to know that you were enriching for longevity or mitochondrial power or intelligence or free thinking or higher order mathematic capabilities or any of these other things that may very well have some basis in genetics.
And so if you're thinking on multi-generational timescales and you're thinking about what information can I extract from these people before they die and the population is cut in half, what would you rather extract other than potentially group them into people that live longer, group them into people that think stronger, or group them into people that are healthier?
and then inadvertently screen their children in the next generation or this one for their genotypes and then even though they don't know, you've already grouped them.
You already know who the groups that are meaningful are and you've got them all around chasing around race and chasing around religions and chasing around all these other things when in reality the population is screening itself for behaviors and phenotypes that they can then screen for the genotypes that underlie them.
And the biggest signals will be the most useful.
It only needs to be one or three.
Think about the human population as a great big diverse fox farm.
And what you want to get in the next couple generations is foxes that don't bite.
If you're intending to change the shared environment,
Well, people can't very well opt out of the outcomes.
So you're denying them a voice in these early stage critical decisions.
So we're trying to establish these norms of greater transparency and especially community guidance in work that will have widespread environmental impacts outside the lab.
And then the last one is on the
Misuse side, how can we prepare for a world in which biotech allows many people to build exponentially spreading biological agents?
Yeah, so there are, I know, a list of different ways that you are looking at approaching that.
And I think probably the most famous piece of your work is coming out of the gene drive, right?
So can you talk about what is a gene drive?
How does that work?
And how does that affect these outcomes that you're talking about?
Yeah, so until, I suppose, about a decade ago, we really couldn't use biotechnology to change the environment very much.
About the most we could do is use biotech to change the domesticated animals and crops that then we put out there and shape the environment in other ways, typically using lots of energy and chemicals, to create a local fitness advantage, and then we would just engineer those things so that they had different traits.
What we really could not do at all is engineer anything approximating a wild organism with a new trait and then have that trait persist, let alone spread on its own in the wild.
In fact, it wouldn't be an overstatement to claim that we could not build fitness-positive things until about a decade ago.
And a decade ago, of course, is about when CRISPR came out.
so fitness positive and one of the things i realized not too long after that is fitness positive things in his vernacular seems to indicate like a gain of function
So we weren't able to create gain of function pattern integrities until his technology.
So make sure you don't miss this, right?
He's choosing his words very carefully, but he's not choosing them in a way that will reveal the stunt.
And the stunt is here very specifically.
He understands what he just said.
He just didn't say it in a way that would be useful to us.
But I'll say it in a way that will be useful.
We haven't been able to make pattern integrities that sustain.
We haven't been able to usefully augment a pattern integrity ever and have the progeny of that pattern integrity be better off than before we modified them.
We've never been able to do it.
But this is the same guy who was in front of the Senate in a testimony in 2020 or 2021 about the fact that gain of function does exactly that with RNA.
Do you hear how extraordinary that is?
A professor from MIT at the Sculpting Evolution Lab is telling you that heretofore, we have not been able to usefully augment a pattern integrity in a positive way.
that was sustained across generations.
And yet, a couple years ago, this guy testified that gain-of-function research in virology, which is lipid-coated RNAs, needs to be tightly regulated because if you add the wrong sequences to these, they become self-sustaining pattern integrities that can endanger the entire world's population.
And this guy's in their meetings.
This guy is at the foo conferences.
This guy is the guy who's finding and training the postdocs that then don't go on to work to pharmaceutical companies.
They go on to work for DARPA.
They go on to work for DOD.
They go on to work for somebody that nobody knows.
He works at the MIT media lab that was tied with all these other creepy stories that have nothing to do with what they're really doing there.
which is thinking on a multi-generational timescale about how they can usefully augment the human species.
And they really actually already understand that it's going to be primarily
genes that they need to target, genetic backgrounds that they need to target.
And the first way that you find a gene associated with a particular behavior in animals on the laboratory bench in neuroscience is to take that group of animals and enrich them for the behavior that you want.
If you want to see genetic signals in an animal, and you're only going to look for things that stand out, then you also need to create a genetic background that's very homogenous.
So that tiny signals show up on a background with very little noise, because all the animals are identical.
The flip version of that is when you start with a phenotype, the way to get a good genetic signal would be to enrich this phenotype as, as specifically as possible.
If you wanted to make everybody redheaded, then the way to do it would be to make sure that only redheads had kids.
If you want to make sure that you don't have biting foxes in a fur farm, then you make sure that the foxes that bite the handlers don't make pups.
And if you want to find populations of humans and identify the genes that underlie their
their rebellious and independent behavior that make them ungovernable, then you're going to have to first identify those people and then monitor their children to see if they pass on this trait.
And if they do, you've got a group that's probably enriched for genetic background propensity to rebel, to critically think, to be intelligent, to live longer,
to be healthier.
And so can you see what they're doing?
Can you see why it's not about depopulation, but it's a longer game and why social media plays exactly into them being able to covertly identify and group us, store all this information digitally?
That if you edit an organism with CRISPR and you put it out there,
natural selection is going to typically act against it, because whatever change we made, we made it for our benefit.
We didn't make it to assist the replication of the organism.
But if you encode the CRISPR genome editing machinery next to the change that you made, and you program it to turn on in the reproductive cells of a multicellular organism, so one that makes sperm and eggs,
then in organisms that inherit one engineered copy and one wild copy, CRISPR will turn on in the reproductive cells, it'll cut the wild copy, and it'll replace it with the engineered version.
And so what I'm suggesting to you is, is if they did this to you, you wouldn't know.
If they knocked out the gene for rebellious behavior, whatever that gene is that they identified, and you had kids, you wouldn't know.
And so if this guy has invented the molecular techniques that are needed, the first thing they need to do is make sure that all of our kids accept injections, intramuscular injection.
The next thing they need to do is have our kids accept that the species and the group and the globe and the community are more important than themselves and overrides their own sovereignty.
And then they need to use the data that they're gathering over the next decade about how we behave and what our propensities are to endure and to rebel as opposed to conform.
And then our genomes can be put into a useful context.
Our genomes can be put together and pooled and screened for signals that rise above the noise, which indicate that maybe or maybe not our kids are inheriting something.
And if they are, they can use a gene drive to knock it out in the next generation.
And in one generation, we will go from having these genes to not.
And they will be exclusively controlled by the bloodlines that are running this show.
The only wild type humans left with all the potential of humans given to us by God will be those people who weren't gene drived.
And it's impossible for me to let go of this thought anymore.
All this studying of his papers and trying to get to the point where I could teach virology and teach molecular biology and the illusion of the human genome project and teach what gene drives are has also inadvertently awakened me to this idea that reminded me that I need to think on different timescales.
This is the perfect weapon.
A gene drive is the perfect weapon because the victims are not the victims.
There are no victims in a way.
If our gametes are affected and our kids grow up with those genes, they don't know.
You're not going to know if you're a genetically modified organism when you grow up a genetically modified organism.
And if we have accepted intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system as a foregone conclusion, has the highest expression of our technology and a highest expression of our existence, then it's going to be very, very easy for them to put this in there because that's all it is.
It's just RNA and DNA.
Synthetically purified, made to order and design.
They put it in you, it affects your gametes, and if you reproduce, and if you don't reproduce, it's all good too.
Polluting the CRISPR machinery.
So this means that instead of half the offspring inheriting the engineered trait, all of them will.
I would say something to Phil Blanc there, because what you're talking about is really real.
You're right, that if biting foxes, if there is an advantage, then the biting foxes will come back again.
But from their biological perspective, I don't know if this is right, because again, I think that this is undiscovered country here with regard to what the genome really is.
But if you go by their model of reality and by what they're thinking, what they believe is that a significant portion of behavior and of propensity to behave in humans is determined by genetic background.
And so if they are able to identify genes which play a role in the propensity to behave in a certain way, then taking those genes out of the gene pool completely
which is what a gene drive does, will remove permanently that potential of evolutionarily coming back in a generation.
If you get rid of all the genes for red hair, it's much harder for red hair to spontaneously show up again in future generations, even if it could be carried very recessively for a while until you get lucky.
That can't happen if the genetic basis for it is removed from all populations or from the population we're talking about.
And so you're totally right about foxes, but if you believe what this guy is saying and you believe what the mechanics of this molecular biology are,
and it seems to be the case in cell culture and in limited applications in insects, then it seems like this would take away the genetic basis for these propensities.
And so the propensity to bite would have to develop in a new way, or as a consequence of a rearrangement of the other genes which are involved, which weren't identified.
And so you're right, but you're also kind of not right from their perspective of the biology.
But thank you for the tip or for the chat, because I think it's insightful.
And that's why we call this a CRISPR-based gene drive system.
And the gene drive refers to the distorting inheritance to favor one particular allele over another.
And there's all kinds of natural gene drive systems.
Our genomes are laden with the broken remnants of ancient gene drive systems of various forms.
But with CRISPR, we- So that's an interesting statement to make without qualification.
Our genomes are littered with remnants of gene drives from before.
That's really kind of like virology saying that, you know, there's all kinds of RNA and stuff all over the place.
So, you know, it's not just viruses, but that doesn't matter.
We study viruses.
Him saying that I'm making gene drives and it's a brand new thing, even though there are remnants of gene drives from generations in the past and it's all over the place, seems to implicate something different here.
And so because there are very few people that are attempting to spin this mythology, I think it's very possible that we're going to catch a lot of these kind of pseudo incongruencies or things that aren't explained quite right.
Number one, because again, the interviewer is completely inept.
He's not going to be able to do anything.
He's just going to ask questions that were probably already pre-agreed upon.
Have the opportunity to control this and harness it for our own purposes.
Of course, in most cases, you don't necessarily want to engineer the entire species.
I can think of four cases where we might wanna do that.
For most of them, you really just wanna keep a lid on that.
I just wanna show you how, so TK07777, they'd probably target fertility more than anything else, no?
Let me give you a flip side of that, which comes right off the cuff right now, just pops right into my head because of what you typed.
Who's having babies right now?
Who is passing genes on to the next generation right now?
Well, it's not the people that are already conforming.
My brother and his wife decided not to have kids because they thought that was a good thing to do for the earth.
My friend Mark Kulak was currently in Reno, Nevada, and one of the things he noticed is that there aren't very many kids there.
The people that work there aren't having kids.
And so, yeah, the people that don't have the genes that they're interested in, the people that are conforming are not having kids.
They don't care about those genes.
They care about the genes for intelligence, longevity, health, independence, critical thinking, and those genes and those people are still reproducing.
The experiment is going perfectly.
They can discourage most people that watch TV and social media and usefully, really skillfully use those things.
They can discourage them from breeding in all kinds of other ways.
With infidelity, with porn, with divorce, and with narratives about bad kids, or you know, whatever.
And with economic hardship.
But people that are gonna have kids, people that believe that having kids is, you know, the thing, they're not gonna stop having kids because somebody says not to have kids or that kids are bad for the environment or whatever.
So for me, the experiment is working out perfectly because the people that are having kids are also likely to have the genetic predispositions that they want to analyze further.
And so using social media and stress and societal strife, they are getting us to identify ourselves.
And then they can watch our behavior in the artificial prison of social media where we oftentimes think that we're actually fighting the empire when really we're just sitting in that virtual reality chair.
And these performing liars are telling us a version of the mythology that won't usefully let us escape.
because we're not thinking on the right timescale.
This is the right timescale, the generational timescale, the changing of people's gametes so that people that they don't want to breed won't breed.
But more importantly, so that people won't pass on the genes that they don't want them to pass on, because that is a much more crafty and much more malevolent and wicked application of the same tools.
And you're only a local population.
So a lot of what my group does is focus on this question of how can we reliably control the extent to which we edit a wild species?
So he's saying wild species here, but ultimately understand that this is not about the wild species.
It's about us.
We're going to learn how this thing works.
We're going to make this tool work better.
And then once it's working, the application to the human race will be a multi-generational experiment.
Nobody who gets a gene drive will know that they got a gene drive and their kids won't know either.
And unless you know what part of your genome to look at to see whether you got a gene drive, you won't know either.
How did you end up stumbling across this?
I understand that kind of the argument of CRISPR being discovered rather than being invented as it's technically a natural system.
But so how did it come along that this doesn't seem like this was something that was searched for in demand.
It seems like this is something that you kind of found and realized its potential later.
Well, the notion of gene drive is well understood because nature discovered that around the time sex evolved in the first place.
Ways of cheating that even distribution of inheritance pattern began to evolve.
And CRISPR was first really discovered, yes.
I played a very minor role in developing it with George Church's team.
at Harvard Medical School.
George Church is not a good guy.
In case anybody is not aware, you can go Google that fella.
He's like Epstein and all that other stuff that I don't cover.
And that's who he did his PhD with, George Church, in case there's any more doubt about what team he's on and what he's talking about and how he thinks.
With Gene Drive,
I've just always been very interested in evolution and fitness advantages.
That's been a major focus of my research.
For other reasons, I was just walking outside in the Emerald Necklace and I wondered, hey, would we ever engineer any of these critters around us with CRISPR?
I saw a turtle that day, I remember, which is very unusual.
You don't see a lot of turtles in the Emerald Necklace.
And I concluded that no, we probably wouldn't because we'd have to raise so many of them in order to release enough to make a dent in the existing wild population of any given trait that it probably wasn't very likely that we would do that.
Then I wondered, well, wait a minute.
What if you encode CRISPR along with the change you want to make such that the organism will do genome editing on its own and convert the wild copy to the engineered copy?
potentially every generation.
And I thought, wait a minute, that's exactly what the ISK1 endonuclease gene and enzyme do in yeast.
ISK1 exists at a locus that does not always contain it.
And when it finds itself in a diploid yeast that has the wild type version and the ISK1 version, ISK1 endonuclease cuts the wild type version and it copies over the ISK1 gene in its place.
So this is a
endonuclease gene drive system.
And what I was thinking, wait a minute, what I just proposed was doing that exact same thing with CRISPR.
And then I thought, wait a minute, aren't there people trying to engineer homing endonucleases like IceQ1 to be useful to build gene drives in like malarial mosquitoes to get rid of malaria?
Because I'm sure I remembered hearing something about that.
And I thought, but that won't work very well, because A, it's incredibly difficult to re-engineer homing endonucleases.
And B, if you target just one site, what if there's a mutation in that site that blocks cutting?
Any wild type organism that has a mutation, as long as that mutation is more fit than your gene drive system,
then it can't be replaced by the gene drive, and so it's going to outcompete it.
Now, first of all, keep in mind what he's talking about is yeast, right?
So he's talking about a very simple genome, a very simple organism with very simple physiology that can be easily tracked over generations.
And he's talking about the application of these endonucleases into those genomes and how they work.
And the jump here, and that's again why I'm teaching and trying to orchestrate this Biology 101 class, is because in this book,
regularly in this Biology 101 book and regularly in the ideas of prion disease, for example, you're going to be asked to accept the molecular evidence, the mechanistic molecular evidence of yeast as directly correlated to molecular processes assumed to be seminal to our own pattern integrity.
And so anything that we learn in yeast can be applied to this pattern integrity, even if the difference is, you know, a matchbox car and a Formula One race car.
He thinks that, you know, if we understand how a little matchbox car works and how the wheels can work, then we understand how a Formula One car works and we can apply what we learned in our matchbox car modifications to a Formula One car.
And yet that's what we accept with prions and the prion model in yeast with the prion model that we assume exists in our own system.
And that's what he wants you to assume here is that when he can do these things in a yeast,
that doing them in a larger, more complicated pattern integrity on the four-dimensional and on the three-dimensional and on the four-dimensional size scale and time scale, that it's all the same.
And again, what is that illusion?
That illusion is almost the determinism of this fundamental biology that they've been teaching us since we were a kid.
That DNA and its existence mean that we're essentially all physics and chemistry.
We're not all we're cracked up to be.
There's nothing really special here.
It's just that we can't really understand it yet, but eventually we will once we get better measuring devices and better cameras and better microscopes.
And so if we understand DNA, then everything else is dependent on it.
Just in the same way that Teilhard de Chardin and Brett Weinstein would say unequivocally that evolution is the foundational mode of thought, that all other disciplines stem from evolutionary theory and evolutionary thinking.
They say that.
Brett says that, Desjardins says that, they all say that, and this guy is, of course, sculpting Evolution Lab at MIT Media Labs.
But I thought, with CRISPR, the game changes.
Now you can target multiple sites, such that it would have to require combinatorial resistance, which nature is not very good at.
So here is a way that would allow us to
engineer wild populations in a way that would be evolutionarily stable, and CRISPR is so versatile in targeting that you could always build another one, no matter the target sequence.
Instead of spending a decade trying to engineer one homing endonuclease to build something that wouldn't be a very evolutionarily stable, you just target it with CRISPR.
So I was very enthused for the first day and thought about it a lot, and went and read up a lot on gene drive and discovered that Austin Burt had actually come up with a clever way of using a homing endonuclease to cause a population to crash.
The obvious way is you can, instead of copying a single sequence of DNA at one genetic locus, what if instead you program the gene drive system to preferentially cause the inheritance of a sex chromosome?
So what if, for example, in the mosquito Y-chromosome, which also encodes maleness in mosquitoes just like it does in humans, what if you encode a nuclease that cuts the X-chromosome, thereby ensuring that most offspring inherit the Y?
They would therefore be male, and they would inherit this ability, and then you would end up having this driving Y-chromosome spread through the population, turn them into males, and the population would crash.
There's also another way to do it by targeting female fertility genes.
So Austin Bird had worked out all of this in 2003.
And in fact, he'd been trying to raise money and building up this organization called Target Malaria to build gene driving in mosquitoes.
So I was very excited by this.
And I thought, oh, it's not just malarial mosquitoes.
If that works, we can directly target and crash the populations of the schistosomes that cause schistosomiasis.
There's surely many other things that we could do this for.
And then the next day, I woke up and thought,
Good God, how many people are going to be able to do this?
And are we going to be engineering every organism there is out there?
And if you can engineer a mosquito to not carry disease, you can engineer a mosquito to carry a disease always.
This seems really bad.
How thoroughly could this be misused?
And is that going to be a problem?
And I sat on it for a month or so until I was pretty sure.
But the answer is, it's slow because it spreads over generations.
easily detected.
It's obvious if you look for it, just because these sexually reproducing organisms don't have CRISPR in their genomes.
They have CRISPR in their bodies because in the gut.
That's really extraordinary.
It's obvious because you can look for it.
Who's going to screen for CRISPR in our kids' kids?
And whose word are you going to take for it that they screened your genome objectively to find out if you had CRISPR in it or not after being transfected over your lifetime to the entire childhood vaccine schedule?
You see where this is going?
If it's a multi-generational thing,
then they need to identify and segregate populations of humans with the phenotypes that they want to screen for.
And they're not screening for things that you think they're screening for, like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.
They're screening for intelligence, longevity, endurance, mitochondrial performance, all these things.
And they are using social media to get us to segregate ourselves based on cognitive ability and cognitive propensity to rebel and to think independently so that they can eventually screen our children for those genotypes.
To try and identify signals usefully in these generations as they slowly, inevitably, the population collapses back down to a more useful level for the world.
But I think the people that are governing us over these multiple generations already knew that it was okay for the world to become crowded because we could use it.
It's okay for us to drive the population to a higher population, sorry, family size after World War II and then take it down later in the coming decades because then we would be left with this, you know, coming increase in all cause mortality as these people aged out that we could tell them a story about.
And that story would allow us to finally segregate these people into useful groups across countries.
Because across languages, across cultures, people have risen up and identified themselves as people who don't believe this bullshit.
And so they did it very cleverly, much more clever.
I mean, I think they need a clap because this is incredible how this plan has enabled them to identify all the people across cultures and languages using social media that had the potential genetic propensity to stand up, to rebel, to critically think, to endure.
And now they can carefully monitor our children
because we are still having them, to see if that behavior segregates or not.
And if it does...
they have their population.
They have their population of biting foxes with the probably enriched genotypes.
You know, like James Lyons Wyler was talking about how unvaccinated kids are segregating by genotype because they are injured and they have a propensity to be injured.
And so we have to screen those people for their genotype.
That is a bullshit lie.
But screening everybody that's had the propensity to stand up and have principles in 2020 is not a lie.
And screening the kids of the people who stood up and the kids who are still standing up would be even a better group of people to screen.
And the perfect target for a gene drive.
encoding CRISPR in the actual eukaryotic cells themselves.
So if you see CRISPR in there, it's because a human put it there.
So it's going to be blindingly obvious you can't pull a fast one on anyone with this technology.
And that's a ridiculous statement.
You can't pull a fast one on anyone with this technology.
If you're only changing my sperm, how the hell would I know until my kid's 14 years old?
It's an illusion.
Maybe you can't knock down a mosquito population without somebody being able to figure out that the mosquito population collapsed because of a CRISPR event.
That's true.
But how the hell would we ever know until it was way too late that they had altered people with CRISPR?
We wouldn't.
And this is bullshit, what he's saying right here.
And this is part of his shtick.
This is what he does.
Apology.
So it's slow, it's obvious, and crucially, because CRISPR is so versatile, it's easily countered.
That is, if one person can build a gene drive system that works in an organism, somebody else can take the exact same gene drive design, swap out the guide RNAs, change the sequences
for two ones.
Sorry, let me start over.
You can take the original gene drive that you don't like.
You can remove whatever it is that causes the problem.
And then you can add some extra guide RNAs that target the original version and just change the target sequences in yours so that they're no longer present.
This way, yours will continue to spread through the wild population just like the version you don't like.
But whenever yours encounters
The first gene drive version, the second one will cut it and replace it with itself.
So it has all the advantages, plus it wins when the two encounter each other.
And because CRISPR is so versatile, it is not possible to build a CRISPR-based gene drive system that cannot be overwritten by another one.
So that's also ridiculous because one of the things that he's not admitting is that CRISPR has all kinds of off-target effects.
You have this guide RNA that is supposed to make it go to a specific place and give it high specificity, and that's what he's talking about in a cartoon form.
But in reality, CRISPR also just randomly hits shit too.
And they know that.
That's one of the huge limitations about altering larger genomes, and why it works so usefully in yeast most of the time if you ignore all the noise, because the genome's small enough where off-target effects are negligible.
But when you start trying to augment a genome that has, you know, billions of bases, well,
It's a little more complicated than that.
Now, I'm just suggesting to you, not that this is dangerous for us now, it is dangerous for our ecosystems now, but it is this kind of potential and this inaccurate, very disingenuous discussing of a limited spectrum of debate, asking questions that don't matter, talking about aspects of safety that don't matter.
and thinking on timescales that aren't relevant for human population and human governance and the sculpting of the evolution of mankind, which is what all of these people and all of these books are all about, including Kevin Esvelt.
If anybody is definitely on their team, it's him.
Remember, he testified in front of Congress during the pandemic that gain-of-function viruses were very, very dangerous.
and needed to be tightly regulated, even though in this interview from this year, he said that we've never, up until very recently, been able to positively augment a pattern integrity.
We've never been able to gain a function anything.
But three years before this, he testified in front of Congress that gain-of-function RNA is dangerous to the planet.
So you know he's a liar, okay?
You know that he's part of this.
There is no other,
conclusion to come to.
He might be unwittingly doing this.
He might be, but there's, it's no way.
There's just no way.
This guy loves being part of this highly trained elite.
He descends from George Church.
In other words, it's inherently reversible and it inherently favors defense because anything that is slow, obvious, and easily blocked favors defense.
Now, if you remove any one of those properties, then it no longer favors defense.
But gene drive has all three.
And consequently, I concluded that it was safe to tell other people.
So at that point, I told George Church and said, who else can, is it safe to tell about this and ensure that I'm right once you believe, to your satisfaction, that my reasoning is in fact correct?
I'm guessing George Church was very excited when he first had this idea.
Yeah, we had some good discussions.
Yeah, we had some good discussions, and then he looks away.
We had some good discussions about how we could govern, how we could influence the evolution of humankind.
How if we knew what genes were doing what, we could really influence humankind.
If we knew what genes were doing what, we could sure influence humankind.
One of the ways that we could find out what genes are doing what would be to first get people to segregate themselves into groups of different fundamental conscious thought.
Because as they say, schools of fish swim in the ocean and groups of men swim in conscious thought.
So our genetic propensity
to swim in high levels of conscious thought, to swim in spiritual levels of conscious thought, to swim in independent conscious thought versus our desire or drive to be a part of a group of conscious thought is probably somewhere has a genetic basis and these people would be interested in that.
Elon Musk and his friends would be interested in that.
Kevin Esfeldt and George Church would be interested in that, I assure you.
So because this is an inherently defensive technology and still is probably looked at very carefully, even when you're looking at crashing populations of mosquitoes, because even though it's a defensive technology, the mosquitoes aren't going to be trying to re-engineer CRISPR to try and fix it.
What are the specific applications that you had in mind?
I know you said you mentioned four.
So originally it was, well, remember Ian to the fray.
What they're talking about in swimming of schools of thought is that fish swim in groups because that's their nature.
And men also swim in groups.
You could say that we have a propensity to form social groups in the form of tribes.
You could say we have a propensity to form groups in the form of gangs or in the form of militia or communities.
And that genetic propensity
I think is probably variable.
Just like the propensity to be a leader is variable.
Just like the propensity to speak up or not is probably variable.
And some of that variability, maybe not very much of it, maybe it's very little genetic, but from the perspective of these people, they think it's exclusively genetic.
They think they can explain almost all of human behavior by the propensity and the potential set by your genetic background.
And so they want to look for this signal.
They're most interested in signals that are longevity, endurance, mitochondrial strength, intelligence, free thinking.
They want to understand the genetic basis of those things.
They want to understand the genetic basis of genius without us knowing that that's what they're doing.
And so they tell us that we're studying Alzheimer's.
They tell us that we're studying the loss of memory in old people, when in reality, those genes are most likely involved also in the maintenance of memory and the ability to live a long, healthy, conscious life, a spiritual life, an independent life, free of the influence of liars.
there may be a genetic vulnerability to concerted lying and social pressure.
And that genetic vulnerability will also be enriched by the groupings in social media.
And so all of these things are just ideas I want you to think about.
I don't want you to assume that I think I've identified it now.
I'm trying to start to exercise muscles that I haven't been exercising in a while, which is trying to think on their timescale
and on their list of goals.
And if I think about it that way, then I can see a very big advantage to what is happening on social media spontaneously.
And that is that they are able to identify phenotypical groups of people and how they think.
And then that grouping might be useful in identifying the genetic basis for those behaviors.
And if that is to be done in humans, this is the one of the best covert ways that I can think of doing it.
Tricking people into accepting social media as the free speech forum and then getting them to behave very freely on that forum would give them a digital representation of our propensity to rebel.
And then they can screen our kids for whether or not they inherited anything from us that seems to correlate with that behavior.
It's just an idea.
And then they could use this guy's gene drive to, in theory, knock it out in the next generation.
Again, it's just a comic book.
It's just a theorizing session that's designed to start to exercise the muscles necessary to think on their time scale, to think on their goal set.
Because if we keep focusing on pandemics and on RNA camp pandemic and stuff like that, we're still on too narrow of a timescale to be able to see their movements and the coordination of their movements, the coordination of their ideologies or the idea set that they're... It's hard to see only in retrospect what they did with lab leak and natural virus over those years.
Now, when we look back, we can see it.
What can we see when we look back on the years of the social media?
Well, we can see that they have screened us for our propensity to ask questions and to be willing to go to a new platform, to be willing to find a new set of people, a new set of friends, as opposed to the people who weren't willing to do that.
And so watching how our kids grow up and how our kids behave will also give them some idea as to our ability to pass that on to the next generation.
And if there is any genetic predisposition for it, they will be able to identify it on the scale of populations.
They're not gonna be able to see it at all, the people like us, but in a group highly enriched for people who watch GigaOM, if there is any genetic basis
then they will be able to find it across all of the different ethnicities and all of the different ages and all the different cultures that watch this little show.
They can see it.
And now think about what Joe Rogan has done for enriching a population of free thinking or conformist thinking or whatever they've done to manipulate those people and screen those people and tweak those people.
Because every one of these podcasts is a potential experiment.
like the people that they put in front of us at the last meeting with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., how many people went and subscribed to Michaela Peterson's podcast tells them something about those people's susceptibility to that kind of message and manipulation and their personal history across social media will give them some idea of what ideas and conversations led to them accepting the new people that were put in front of them in that meeting or subscribing to them and why we didn't.
Thank you.
And so these people have been making the argument behind the scenes that with AI and with tracking and with more data storage and with all this stuff, eventually we will reach a threshold where we will be able to use the information on social media to correlate with the genetic background of the people and their behavior.
And we're going to be able to make useful progress for the human genome in ways that benefit us.
And then we can tell NIH to look at these genes and say that they're involved in autism or say that they're involved in some genetic defect.
Millions of academic biologists around the world will investigate these genes because we say they're important and in reality we know that we're looking for the genes that we need to segregate for, eliminate, gene drive out of the population when the gene drive system and methodology is finally up to snuff for humans.
And then we'll do it.
Just like when we finally are able to upload our consciousness like Kurtzweiler says, then we'll do it.
and he just assumes it's gonna happen.
This guy just assumes that gene drives are gonna get better and better and they're already reversible.
It's 100% reversible.
You just change the guide RNA and you can just reset whatever thing you screwed up.
This is the level of arrogance and simplification and also exaggeration of understanding and fidelity of command over these irreducible complexities that all of these people have been bullying us to accept
from biology 101 when we were in high school until right now.
And so until we start thinking on the time scale of Teilhard de Chardin, we're not going to be seeing why this immunomythology is being taught to our children, why we are being coerced into teaching this immunomythology to our children.
It's because we need to accept that the goal is taking over the evolution of mankind so that we can finally perfect
ourselves.
And that's not how we perfect ourselves, ladies and gentlemen.
Perfecting ourselves is an individual spiritual journey.
It is a family journey.
It is a spouse and soulmate journey.
It is a journey that a community makes.
It is a journey that an individual makes.
It's not a journey that a species makes.
And certainly not at the behest of a few members of the species that have elevated themselves to believe that survival of the wisest
And I'm the wisest.
They're the wisest.
George Church is the wisest.
This is an incredibly long video, and I'm not going to watch any more of it for now, because I think it's worthwhile for you to investigate it yourself.
And let me see if I know what I'm doing over here.
Where are we?
We do this, then we what?
Do I need to do this?
Yes.
And then this.
Right?
No.
What am I doing here?
Oh, that's the other one.
That's right, I screwed that up.
Okay, so this is this one, and this one, and this one, and this one, and that one.
There we go.
So I really think it's vital that everybody try to visit the website.
this slide here in particular, because again, it is important to understand the details of the last five years and how the last five years was run on us.
It's important to understand that actuarially, meaning that the population had a bump in it, that they expected to increase all cause mortality, and they twisted that around to be a crisis.
They had to murder some people to do it, to make the spikes a little better in New York City.
But a consensus of lying about that around the world has resulted in the perception of a pandemic.
And that probably was done in concert with a pre-existing background signal that was misconstrued as something novel and new.
and that could have been explained very well by any of these actors if they just explained how PCR is used to get very high fidelity results on the academic bench and that all of those
let's say subsets of the methodology or advances in the methodology were not applied to any of the diagnostics for COVID in 2020, 2021, or 2022 that are all gone now.
And the list and define the many ways that even in its purest form, the RNA products would have never been appropriate.
And that has a lot to do with how biologics are manufactured and
anion exchange chromatography and how that just is irrelevant when you're making an mRNA because it won't work.
And so then all of these, you know, things that are there now, or the discovery of double-stranded DNA is just one of a long list of shortcomings that were already there at the beginning of the pandemic.
And anybody
that worked for a pharmaceutical company before the pandemic or sold a pharmaceutical company would have done known that that was the case and how biologics are produced and how this mRNA would be produced and none of the purification methodologies could be used on it.
So defining the countermeasures as transformations and transfections is also something
that Mike Yeadon could have done in the beginning of the pandemic but didn't and I at first you know and I still haven't really questioned that although I think it's really important to see it as a data point that none of them have done it and they still won't do it even those that have talked to me for months or years.
and in defining what an infectious clone is by just pointing out that it's just transfection and transformation and cell culture would have been a great way for any of these no virus people to avoid having to do stupid control experiments or having to write FOIA requests to all of these different governments if you just say this
you're already done.
The illusion of virology and the high fidelity of RNA pandemics is gone once you explain that any of these gain-of-function experiments rely on the synthetic manufacture of DNA and RNA in a pure form that can't exist in nature, can't be dug up or filtered.
And that's why talking about endemicity was the goal in the beginning.
The scary part that Garrett talked about in the 2019 CNN documentary, it's all the same illusion.
They can take a background signal and say that it's spreading everywhere if you don't have any data.
And you don't.
They don't either, they didn't need any.
They just needed to coordinatedly lie about 2020 and 2021 until the clock had run out far enough so that nobody wanted to bother asking any questions.
And saying the COVID shot is bad and screaming it from the top of the rooftops is the defining attribute of anybody that has risen in social media and has a voice.
And that's the reason why you can see it's wrong.
We need a new consensus about the vaccine schedule, about transfection and about RNA.
If you liked what you saw, please go to GigaOM Biological and find a way to support the stream.
November 3rd, we're having a live live stream in Pennsylvania, in Pittsburgh.
If you'd like to come, please send me an email and figure out how to do it.
I hope we can have hundreds of people there.
We have the capacity for 250 people.
I don't have that much room at my house or my backyard.
there's a lot of problems that everybody's gonna need to solve on their own.
But if you can come to the area of Pittsburgh in the first weekend of November and be around maybe for the Brownstone on the first and the second and wanna be present on the third, you know, you could come to the Brownstone meeting and just sit outside and carry a sign that says, clownstone is fake, prove me wrong.
And that could be what you do on Friday and what you do on Saturday.
You could see me outside, we could have lunch.
And then on Sunday, we can all,
gather in Bethel Park for the live live stream.
Anyway, thanks for joining me.
If you wanna share, stream.gigaohm.bio is working well, but it's starting to reach its capacity.
So Ted and I need some more feedback.
We're gonna probably turn on the metrics there so that we can see what's working hard and what's not working hard.
I expect, for example, that two hours and 30 minutes is gonna test it a little bit on transcoding, but we'll see what happens.
Thank you very much.
And I'll see you guys again tomorrow.
Thank you guys very much.
Good to see you Vilma and Idaho, Garden Girl and all y'all.
Really great to see you.
I'll see you again tomorrow.