Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh
I fixed the stream with Dennis, and I should have it up on Rumble and Vimeo overnight.
I'll put a link up in a few places so people can share that.
It was a really good recording. It actually jumped a couple times, so it might happen again tonight.
We'll see. I didn't really ever figure out what caused it, so we'll see.
He's scheduled for 16 minutes next. He's going on French, British, Italian, Japanese television.
People everywhere are starting to listen to him. It's embarrassing.
But there's still one thing on top. What happened to the real mummy?
It's my own test, Dusty.
I found the mummy.
Well, gang, I guess that wraps up the mystery, and the mummy, too.
We're going to understand that you're in the city of the A's.
Yes, yes, two days ago. One side stood your seat.
I didn't have to remind me again about what that inside I had on the stream a couple of days ago.
There's been a lot of stuff happening. It's been hard to keep track of all of it.
Give me another hand to maybe it'll spark something, and I'll start with that.
By myself, you're having a piece.
Oh, yeah, now I remember a good, good hand. Excellent, good hand.
That's about antibodies and neutralization in Vivo and Vitro.
Good one, that's right. I remember.
We've been misleading the young about a lot of things.
That's one of the things we've been misleading the young about my goodness.
All these in Vitro assays and what they really mean or don't mean.
We've got to learn our history before it's race forever because that's where these assays all came from, is this history.
If we figure that out, we can take it back from these challenges of convinced.
I'm convinced we're making progress even though it doesn't sound like it in my voice.
I really think we're making progress.
I see bricks for sure.
I see bricks because there wasn't any evidence of spreading New York City.
I see it, but I see bricks because infectious clones are the only real way that they can make something like this.
I see bricks because placebo batches were likely distributed.
And I see bricks because I knew transfection was a bad idea before they ever rolled it out.
Shoot, I see bricks because protocols were murder, gain of function as a mythology.
They tried to fool us into solving this mystery and all of these people are still committed to lying.
That's why I see bricks.
That's why you see bricks.
The bricks at the back of the theater.
It's really hard to tell with people who have taken the shot,
because they're probably really taking in social media and trying to digest it, and that can hurt you.
This is Kego on Biological High Resistance Low Noise Information Brief brought to you by Biologist.
It's the 11th of October, 2023.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to the back of my garage in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
It is the 11th of October of 2023.
My name is Jonathan Cooey.
And this is Kego on Biological.
Thanks to the people scrolling at the top of the screen we exist.
And although I've been an independent biologist for about three years now, I'm also a staff scientist at Children's Health Defense.
Although here at Kego on Biological I speak for myself and for Kego on Biological and the views expressed
on this show have nothing to do with that aforementioned non-profit organization.
I'm simply here to share my opinions from a starship.
You wouldn't want to take any medical advice from a biologist of a starship.
Don't take the bait on TV and social media.
I'm not saying that there's fake stuff on TV and that you shouldn't watch it
or try to figure out what's going on in the world.
I'm saying that no matter what's going on in the world they're going to try and use it, twist it, contort it, invert it
in order to make us fight and in order to make us ask the wrong question.
One of my good friends expressed it this way and I do think it's a very, very good way of saying that they have tricked us
into asking the wrong questions for a real long time.
And asking the wrong questions does not get you the answers you need.
And that's what social media and that's what TV and that's what the bait on TV and social media does.
It gets you to ask the wrong question.
It gets you to attribute, cause and effect relationships incorrectly.
And that's extremely dangerous to our democracy.
We are, yeah, we're trying to solve this mystery of who set us up for this Scooby-Doo, how long they've been setting us up
and how much of it's a set up, but it's a lot.
It's a lot.
And that's because for a very long time people under the tutelage of Henry Kissinger have been thinking
that it's not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true.
And it is this collection of players that we've been trying to dissect over the last three years to try and figure out what's going on.
And it's the illusion of consensus that they have created both on TV and in the mainstream as well as behind the scenes in the dissident groups.
There has been also an illusion of consensus created.
And this illusion of consensus has brought the dissident movement and the mainstream movement trying to solve this mystery to the same conclusion as if they went to the same address from two different starting points.
And that was, I believe, by design.
And you can see it because the people who are elevated by pseudo censorship, people, I'm sorry, I'm going to really stop doing this.
The last time I watched myself and saw myself do this, I got very angry.
So we should make a button or something that you can push the X key when I do that and it will cause my chair to buzz me or something, but I'm not going to do it anymore.
But this illusion of consensus that has been created by this perceived dissident debate about where did the virus come from and did they really cover it up and which of these parties is lying has all been an elaborate theater designed to get all of us to fall for the same
trick to ask the wrong question and accept the same wrong answer.
And once we accept the same wrong answer on the left and on the right, the entire system is usurped.
We are trapped and worse.
Our children are trapped because they will grow up with adults that don't understand the cage.
And they don't understand why the cheese is free.
And that's why we need to work so hard right now to get people to understand the transfection is not immunization.
And we need to get people to really understand that immunization is something that we understand a lot less about than we then they have claimed.
Because there has been no legal or or economic reason for them to investigate the technology further.
Because once something is classified as a vaccine and you show that it that it works almost did it that you actually have quite an easy time after that there will be no evaluation.
There's no way that anything that happens in the VICP is going to push through to disqualify your product.
And this is where we are. And so we need to start understanding the immunology.
We need to start understanding our immunology well enough.
So that saying the words intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
When you say those words it should make so much sense.
Because you get this little cartoon in your head of how the immune system is organized around barriers.
It's organized around sites of infection.
It's organized around lymph nodes.
It's organized around the lymph the lymphatic system and it's organized around the continuous defense of this barrier from the inside out.
And therefore augmenting that system by putting something on the very inside of that which it is supposed to defend.
It's not the best idea.
And so yesterday there were the audio was completely destroyed.
I haven't looked over here but I guess nobody's complaining.
The audio was completely destroyed yesterday but I was able to line it back up.
I'm not really sure what happened.
It could have just been that my computer was on for a long time and I was doing a lot of things all day.
It doesn't really matter.
If it's not working or not happening now then we somehow figured it out.
We talked about this Lancet paper.
How this Lancet paper had said that the COVID-19 vaccinations could be calculated using a mathematical model to have saved between 14 and 19 million lives around the world.
And now that the RNA has been awarded the Nobel Prize, of course this claim has also been used in New York Times and other articles to further cast wonderful trumpets and sunshine on the mRNA technology.
And as reported in the Lancet this technology has saved almost 20 million people.
And so with careful inspection using a lot of the work that he's already done with all cause mortality around the world.
I guess I should stay there.
Denny was able to put together a little paper using the data that he had already compiled from all cause mortality numbers around the world.
And using the data that he had already compiled about all of the shots rolled out.
Because of course the vaccines can't save anybody before they were rolled out.
And Denny and his colleagues had previously done work where they had taken the number of vaccines administered over time and graphed them in a cumulative line so that you can see zero vaccination up to some fully vaccinated state or, you know, wherever the highest number is.
And so you would expect that as that line went up you'd expect the all cause mortality to go down right because it's saving lives.
And of course there's no such signal.
And in fact when the countermeasures the the transfections are rolled out in time with a huge media campaign there's more likely to be a pretty strong signal in the all cause mortality that correlates with them.
And so he was able to do that. I think it's a really nice paper. We had a really nice discussion about it. As I mentioned earlier, I reset the time and and I'll put that up later on the website and on rumble and et cetera.
And I hope you'll share it with people.
Tonight we're going to look at Campbell and Doug leash.
I don't know how to say his name. He's a real nice guy. They're both really nice guys.
And a lot of people on my last video came to defend both Campbell and Professor DeGlish and and the Glish. I don't know how to say it. I apologize. I'm sure it's going to get corrected right now.
Because they've come so far, especially John Campbell has come so far and he's been on YouTube for a long time.
And he and he didn't want to jeopardize his channel. And so he's had to be very careful.
And he's had some videos taken down. And so he's got to be very careful and I understand all of that to a certain extent.
But at some moment, we're going to they're going to have to come to realize that they're in action or their inability to actually say it out loud their inability to find a better way.
To awaken is just delaying and inevitable and causing more harm.
More people to get farther down the road where it's harder to turn around and see what happened.
And that's part of what the extremely long time it took for John Campbell to wake up. I want to I want to give him credit.
But it's like at some moment, you know, when the when people are all dead and buried for a year or two.
And people have been hurt for like a year or two and you didn't do anything. You didn't say anything. You ignored people.
I don't know. If John Campbell didn't do that, then he's definitely a good guy and we need to support him. But we need to also bring him to understand that he's still under this enchantment that is the Scooby-Doo mystery.
And he's still patting himself on the back for having finally figured it out, albeit a year or two to late.
And in this video, I'm going to try and be very sweet because again, everybody seems to like these guys and want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
But we are in 2023. We are in October of 2023. Do not forget that in 2020 and in 2021, neither of these guys was doing anything to get anybody to stop transfecting themselves.
And they still aren't really questioning the existence of a virus relative to the existence of some really nasty protocols, some really nasty choices, and some really nasty lies that had some really nasty consequences.
And they are confused. And so we need to really see it for what it is because this is the Scooby-Doo resolution on the TV narrative side.
This is the Scooby-Doo resolution on the YouTube narrative side because this is not crushed from YouTube.
This video has not been taken down. John Campbell still has his channel.
And so this is not, and let me say it again, this is not the dissident narrative.
This is the resolution of the Scooby-Doo as the two stories come together.
As we are made to feel like, see, we were right.
And these people are made to feel like, Oh, wow, I guess we were a little bit wrong about that, but we weren't wrong about everything else.
And so then it's kind of like a rub, right? Because we're going to end up being wrong because 19 million people were saved by the mRNA and the mRNA was contaminated.
So once we fix it, it'll be fine. And they were wrong about the lab leak.
But, you know, that's okay. You guys were wrong about the shot.
You see?
It's very, very scary where we are and we cannot be too excited about it, I don't think, but I'm going to watch this video because
a lot of people seem to think that John Campbell is on the right way.
And I don't, I don't want to break anybody's body burst anybody's bubble, but John Campbell has always been a hundred percent on book.
And recall, please, that the Scooby-Doo mystery needs to resolve.
And that's what makes the, the, the whole enchantment so wonderful.
Is that it will resolve to where the vast majority of people that disagree about gay marriage and disagree about, about transsexuality and disagree about abortion will agree that this was obviously a lab leak.
Which means that they all just agree, even though they don't agree on abortion or gay rights or transsexuality, they all agree that gain a function.
Viruses are real.
And these people who can't agree about Donald Trump or endangered species or climate change will agree that gain a function viruses are the most likely cause of the pandemic and therefore they could come again.
Please, please start to really understand what I'm trying to propose.
So that if it's right and it feels right to you, you can also share it with other people.
Because it's possible that a bunch of dudes in a room came up with this idea a long time ago.
It's possible that a bunch of dudes said, how can we use a harmless, ubiquitous RNA signal to our advantage?
Well, we could call it a virus. Yeah. Well, what is what good does that do?
Well, we could say it causes the common cold, it causes respiratory.
Okay. Well, what good does that do?
Maybe we can use it for vaccines or something. What is good does that do?
Well, maybe we can blame it for a really bad virus.
You see where we're going here? It's a background signal.
They've known it's a background signal for decades.
And they have used that background signal and called it novel based on a preponderance of evidence of detection.
And that detection is based on nothing.
Nothing that they've proven or shown previously that can detect how they're detecting.
They say they're detecting it.
Previously, PCR would have been used as a pan coronavirus test, not a specific one, a pan coronavirus test.
Once you identify the presence of a coronavirus, you need to carefully and painstakingly attempt to sequence it.
There's never been a specific coronavirus PCR test for a specific coronavirus.
And it's really annoying how many of these poser molecular biologists and poser armchair biologists won't just say that.
You can go back in the literature and find absolutely zero examples of PCR being used to differentiate between different coronaviruses in the same sample.
It's not done.
It's not done because PCR doesn't work that way and because coronavirus sequences don't work that way.
And that's part of this illusion, this part of this fidelity illusion.
And now one thing I want you to see in this video, I'm just going to preface it.
You're going to see it is it's finally dawned on me where this name came from.
But DeGliche has published with Dr. Quay from Australia.
And he was on one of Dr. Quay's original publications.
And so from my perspective, we're in really drastic territory.
We are in worst case scenario, team territory.
We are in red team, blue team in the beginning of 2020 territory.
And Dr. Quay is definitely one of these people who has a really weird CV to be so out in front of a fear and cleavage site and so insistent that changing for or even two amino acids or with funny codons for arginine somehow makes the RNA able to circle the globe.
We're going to interrupt and talk about it.
It's a crazy time right now, ladies and gentlemen, it's a real crazy time.
Oh, I thought I had it up there.
Shoot.
Sorry about that.
Me thought I had it up here.
Where did I have it?
History, I should be history, right?
That worked.
No.
Back.
Sorry, this is out of different screens, so it's just a little funny.
Yes, here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
Now, today we wanted to talk about viral origins, talking about the SARS coronavirus to virus.
Where the heck did it come from?
And you rumbled this.
You were on the ball on this earlier than anyone else as far as I'm aware.
Just tell us what your background is in that field of study and why you were able to get to the right conclusion or what I perceive now as the right conclusion so much quicker than as far as I know the rest of the academic medical world.
Well, this goes back to the fact that there's a lot of research in HIV and I've been working in HIV for a long time.
And I picked up at this obsession with using HIV envelope as the vaccine was completely.
This is the vaccine for eggs.
HIV was completely flawed because it had 3000 antigens in it, which present this to immune system as an antigen.
It's basically just going to get confused.
It's a decoy, a decoy.
And the more that we looked at malarized the virus, which I got into doing because I found the CD4 as the receptor, which has hailed as a great discovery.
I don't think it's anything on power of things I've done since.
It's still pretty good.
The CD4 is the receptor on the white cell that the AIDS virus binds into.
Absolutely.
And just next to it is a region called C5.
And we realized that this was probably the Achilles heel of the virus.
This was over the months and years and years.
This was no overnight.
And it was by pursuing a lot of avenues and finding.
It was a bit like Occam's razor that eliminated absolutely everything up.
This was the only thing that stood the test of time.
And it was the only thing that you didn't make responses to if you did the vaccine because the other things drowned it all out.
So I realized this was the Achilles heel.
And I predicted all the failures of the virus.
I was furious because we had all our applications turned down by the NIH, which I now realized as Fauci.
Fauci didn't understand it.
The Gates Foundation, we now know the two of them work very closely about how things should be funded.
I don't believe that if these things were properly peer reviewed, as we've told them, they would have been rejected given how logically we laid it up.
And because of this and all the work I've done on this, I was contacted through an old PhD student who was working for a company in Norway, which was working on an HIV vaccine.
With the same philosophy, get rid of as much as you can.
Go for those concerned elements that if they no longer exist, the virus no longer exists.
Get rid of anything that might be a decoy.
So that's an interesting statement that to get rid of all the things that if you get rid of them, the virus no longer exists.
So that's, that's more or less what I'm talking about.
If you focus on the things that are necessary for the virus to exist that are functionally constrained, you're going to be fine.
And unfortunately for virology and for public health, your body's already cracked that code.
Your immune system already knows how to deal with with self replicating RNA, like a coronavirus, and it knows to focus on conserved epitopes and conserved antigenic domains, like those found on the receptor binding or sorry.
Those found on the RNA dependent RNA polymerase, those found on the end protein, the nucleocapsid protein around which the mRNA or the RNA genome is supposed to be wrapped.
And other proteins, especially, I think the envelope protein because it's kind of vital for the formation of the coronavirus particles.
Now, it's important because he starts out here again, just as he did on the previous episode from a week or so ago, plugging the discoveries that he made about HIV beyond the CD4 receptor.
CD4 receptor being the helper T cell receptor that the AIDS virus supposedly uses to infect T cells.
And he claims to have discovered another receptor, a co-receptor, or something else that works alongside of it, that's more important than CD4.
He also claims to have made viral vaccine candidates and proposals which were rejected by the NIH, which he seems to oddly say he's only recently figured out is Fauci, which I've watched this video a couple times and it strikes me the same way every time.
It feels weird. Anybody that was in the HIV field and making discoveries in the HIV field and publishing in HIV would have known that Tony Fauci was one of the grandfathers of the HIV field.
And certainly anybody that's passed through America would have eventually had to pay fealty to Tony Fauci. And in fact, we know that the vast majority of the players who orchestrated the theater from 2020 and 2021 were people that cut their teeth in AIDS,
redfield, Berks, Walensky, the Surgeon General Dude, they're all from HIV. They're all went through Brigham Young. They all went through some serious HIV clinical rotation of some kind or did their bench research in HIV.
And this is not a coincidence. And it's not because everybody in viruses is doing HIV. It's something more complicated than that.
So we started collaborating. We got very good grants from the Norwegian Research Council together for doing this. The vaccine is very good. It worked very well, but it wasn't as good as we'd like, but nothing is first time round.
And I got involved in adapting it to make it even better. And one of the things was to add my Achilles heel to it.
Their HIV vaccine was just based on the core and the nucleus was very conservative. So I've added my bit in and it works really beautifully. We've given it a booster with the IMM 101. So it's really perfect now.
And it was going to go and be taken all the way up for registration.
Now, this is frustrating because he said it again, just like he said it on the last stream. And just like John Campbell repeated it, he said he added his own little thing, which he's keeping secret.
Apparently he has Achilles heel that he found. And their virus was focused on the nucleus on the core.
And I don't like that language because I think it's technically almost certainly incorrect.
And so what he's doing here and see this as I see it.
He's setting John Campbell up to be discredited, right? Because if John Campbell ever talks about the core of a virus or the nucleus of a virus.
If anybody ever wants to make John Campbell look like a fool, like let's say debunk the funk, for example, he plays this clip.
And he says that this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's talking about the core of a virus or the nucleus of a virus. They don't have those.
So, you know, John Campbell doesn't know what he's talking about either because he listens to this guy and doesn't ask a question.
This is going to happen more and more. You're going to see people like Brett Weinstein debunked in the exact same way where they will make almost obvious imprecise statements, almost obvious inversions.
And now he's done it twice. This is the second time he did it on the stream. He didn't correct himself. He hasn't been become more precise. It's almost exactly the same wording, which concerns me a lot.
Now I know that you guys like him and I know you like John Campbell. So don't take this to heart. Don't get all worked up.
I understand what it's like to be trapped inside the psychotic mind of a, of a, of a biologist in his back in the back of his garage.
Because that's what I see here. I see people who aren't telling us a straight story, especially this fellow here.
I don't know if John Campbell can tell the difference between a straight story and a real one. And if he can't, that would be a bit more in line with him just trusting the TV in 2020 and 2021.
If he can actually smell BS, then it concerns me a little more that he was on narrative for so long. But if you really can't see through this guy makes kind of sense.
But I know this guy knows more than what he's saying and I do not.
I don't know. I don't. And you'll see.
And one of the things was to add my, the Achilles heel to it.
Their HIV vaccine was just based on the core and the nucleus was that's very concerned. So I've added my bit in and it works really beautifully.
We've given it a booster with the IMM 101. So it's really perfect now. And it was going to go and be taken all the way up for registration by a company called Seljine with whom I've worked with for that work with them for over 20 years.
When I said, you know, thalidomide is a drug which is magical, which is being tarred by the birth defects and, you know, going through that, they were going to pay for the whole thing to go through.
So we've had an HIV vaccine, but unfortunately, Seljine was taken over by Bristol Myers Squibb, which is an enormous pharmaceutical company who just wanted their cancer agents.
They took them over and threw every other project out, which was a tragedy. However, the bottom line of that was that we were working hard together, collaborating, making this vaccine, he already put into the clinic before I met him.
And I realized the right way to go. I was suspicious of the technology at first, always own. And you always should be. Otherwise, you take everything for granted. You end up in the mess. We are now.
So we worked really hard on this. I mean, you're exactly how to do it. And he'd worked with people who had tremendous algorithms mathematical for picking out sequences that are really important.
And he was far, far above a spot above all the so-called molecular biologists who just look at sequences. Because he was a biophysicist, he realized that sequences mean nothing until you translate them into amino acids.
And the amino acids mean nothing until you've built them like a Lego block into a 3D protein. And here they have their own laws. And that was the secret. That's where he was great at.
So you could take the sequences and make it even stronger by making sure they're charged with all these things, which when I talk about the people, they might as well talk over their heads.
And so when the COVID sequence came along, the burgers are in some of you as my big friend and colleague over there, he called me up and he said, Gus, there's going to be a real need for a vaccine.
Shall we collaborate and go for one along the same lines? And I said, yeah, absolutely. Because I said, before we go any further, this virus has a big spike protein, rather like the HIV has a envelope.
And we know the HIV envelope using it was a disaster. I would predict using the whole spike will be a disaster. So we need the pickler bits that are really important.
So he said, great, I'll get working on those now with the algorithms.
So one of the first things he did in his team was they did blast analysis, which means you take the sequence of all the proteins it could possibly make, and you look at the sequences.
And the blast analysis showed that 79% of the spike protein had human homology.
That meant if you use that 79% of the spike protein, there was going to be a very high chance you were going to induce autumn.
Now this might be the Norwegian guy who wrote the article about warning that AstraZeneca might be a bad idea. I don't know.
This would be curious.
I didn't like his equivalents there, although I kind of liked his equivalents there in the sense of, you know, the spike protein and the envelope protein that I knew the envelope protein would work. So I knew the spike protein wouldn't work.
So let's pick out the bits that are important. And 79% of this is overlapping. It shouldn't be very surprising.
We have a lot of viral homology in our genome because viruses are derived from us.
And we have this innate communication system using small vesicles and viruses if they exist as separate entities would use that existing communication system to their advantage.
And if they are noise within that communication system, then obviously they are derived from it.
And so there's still some sort of disconnect between the almost obvious biology at this stage and this illusion of pathogenic viruses that exist separately from us and waiting to pray upon us in nature.
So here we are talking about vaccination again and we're not talking about whether a vaccine is necessary. We're not talking about the strength of natural immunity. We're not talking about previous immunity to previous RNA viruses.
They use homologous proteins to do the same things.
But instead, we're just talking about which vaccine was good and which mistakes did they make and I would have done it better.
I had a better plan with my Norwegian friend.
And so you can see coming from the TV, social media side of the Scooby-Doo, it's a very different elephant.
New reactions against human epitopes. Can you just unpick them in what you mean by human homology?
Well, it means that the bits of the virus, which have a very similar sequence as a very important protein in the human.
And we picked out the two had the strongest homology. One was played the factor four, which means the sequence is near identified.
So by inducing antibodies against this, you would develop a clotting pathway and seriously, it would explain the VIIT, the thrombocytopenic condition.
It would be absolutely exfoliant.
This has now been accepted by the authorities as a side effect on the vaccine, albeit very rare and worth it in the long run type of approach.
The other was myelin. Now, myelin is you get that attacked, you get transverse myelitis, givian virus and etc.
So myelin is this insulating material around?
Actually, you could also get, right? You could also get MS.
I'm pretty sure that's what MS is.
In fact, didn't I read in guns, germs and steel that the Russians once made a salmonella bacteria that express myelin protein on the outside?
And if they put that salmonella bacteria in animals, they would develop a real acute MS.
I'm pretty sure I read that in some book. Guns, germs and steel, something like that. I don't know. Anyway.
So protein homology in the spike protein with myelin could cause a number of autoimmune consequences and any autoimmune consequences aimed at myelin would be a bad thing.
And then platelet factor four.
And so this is quite a bit different than, well, let's first say a couple things and then we'll let it go.
What controls do we have here? None.
So we haven't looked at the fusion proteins of other endemic human coronaviruses to see if they have homology on a similar scale.
Maybe this is just a typical level of homology between a fusion protein of a human coronavirus and our own genome in this in this fragment size.
We don't know because no one told us. If we were told that other coronaviruses have a spike protein that has almost no homology with our own, but this coronavirus has homology of like 70%.
So it's super dangerous to use this spike protein. Hey, now you're telling me something.
If you tell me 5,000 people died of COVID this week in America, but you don't tell me that we expected between 55 and 65,000 people to die this week.
The numbers don't mean the same things.
And so again, just keep putting salt in your mouth. Lots of grains of salt here because I'm not smelling fish.
The virtually all nerve fibers. Yeah. And that again is exactly what we see. And it's not a brand new thing because the 1976 flu epidemic in America for Dietrich one that was killing young people, they rushed out a vaccine for it.
And they were bright doctors and they weren't bullied and they reported back.
Gillian Barry syndrome seems to be much more common since we rolled out these 42 million vaccines.
And they looked at this. They sent people out to check it and they found that it was much more common and they looked around and they said that no one's dying of the flu anymore.
So they killed the vaccine program. That was Gillian Barry. It was because it wasn't a vaccine. It was a flu vaccine. So there's, there's a generic thing between the viruses and cross reactivity.
Now we spotted that. So one of the questions I'd like to ask is why did the 150 other people designing vaccines all go with the whole spike protein and we shouted and we said, don't do it, don't do it.
And because all the lemmings had all decided it was a good idea to jump with this type of protein. We were just ignored and off they go and every, every vaccine can take use of the whole spike protein one way or the other.
And we had the experience and everything to do that. But we never had the funding properly because.
I mean, think about what's happening here and I hope it's obvious to you what's happening here because it's certainly obvious to me.
My parents, for example, I can just put myself in their shoes. They're not listening to their son.
They think their son is an idiot. And maybe they finally found John Campbell and they're watching this and they're for the first time.
Hearing someone describe the possibility that something like a spike protein in its relative size could have hundreds of epitopes.
And many of those epitopes, if not almost all of them, will not neutralize the virus in like in the cartoons.
And not all of those epitopes will necessarily help us to bring in the complement system or bring in macrophages or bring in antigen presenting cells to get rid of the viruses.
It might not, it might not aggregate them because of the nature of off target antibodies.
And the fact that we don't really use antibodies to fight off a respiratory disease in general, not seroprevalent IgG in the blood antibodies.
None of that's being discussed right now.
And so it's a very piecemeal display of skepticism. It's a piecemeal display of skepticism around the origins of the virus.
And the target of the vaccine and the obviously dumb choice of using the whole spike protein as an antigen.
And this is exactly what we said they were going to do actually almost three years ago now.
Almost three years ago.
It's really October. It will be it is three years ago that we first stated they are going to blame.
The injuries and deaths of the vaccine on the poor choice of antigen.
And here we are in October of 2023.
I guess that's two years later because it's 21 October of 2020.
Yeah. Wow. Holy cow.
It is three years since I first got the idea that they were going to do that.
And it's not like it was my idea, but it just became obvious to me once I understood.
Once I understood what Mike Eden was saying.
And that expression of a foreign protein was going to lead to an autoimmune response.
Once I had heard.
A secret Bakti say it.
It became very obvious, right? It became very obvious that something was going to go wrong.
But more importantly, it became obvious that they had to already know.
And so they had to already have a plan of what they were going to do.
And at that time, guess what the biggest, craziest, nuttiest uproar of was about.
It was about the spike protein of the virus and about how the spike protein of the virus was revealing that it was actually a lab leak
and potentially much more dangerous to get infected with than we thought.
It's not your everyday virus.
That's what people were whispering behind the scenes.
That's what everybody was afraid of.
You don't want to get this thing, man.
Like this is not the way in natural immunity is not the way you don't want to get this at all.
That's what Dan was saying. That's what Paul Cottrell was saying.
That's what a lot of people were saying.
Because the spike protein could cause autoimmunity.
The spike protein could cause amyloidosis.
Spike protein could cause prion disease.
Spike protein was neurotropic.
Spike protein caused clotting.
And so this is the TV side of the narrative.
This is the TV side of the narrative coming to the first time to understand what it means that it's a lab leak.
Because they just thought that the lab leak, natural virus, it's equivalent because the lab leak came from a bad cave.
And the natural leak is from a bad cave. So they're the same. Who cares?
Who cares if it was a lab leak from a virus or a lab or a virus from a lab leak or a virus from a bad cave if they're both from a bad cave?
But now they're being introduced to the part of the narrative, the villain part of the narrative that we've been aware of the whole time.
That if it's a lab leak and it's got a fear and cleavage site and a bunch of AIDS inserts, it could be much worse than anything Mother Nature could have ever made.
Look, Montagnier referred to this as a watchmaker's creation meticulously assembled.
And so all you normies out there who believe the TV have grossly underestimated the danger of this virus because lab leak and natural are not the same as like Tony Fauci would like you to believe they are.
Why didn't that do? I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
And that's really the trick here. That's what you see here.
Remember, this is the TV and social media narrative side of the Scooby-Doo coming in for a landing.
This is the first time they're getting this notion dropped into their lap.
That lab leak or natural virus is not the same thing.
They have been sitting on their couch with their feet up watching Netflix under the false assumption that lab leak or natural viruses the same because they both came from a bad cave.
Who gives a dart? Whether it was somebody at a market or somebody who didn't shower after they got out of the PSL four lab or someone who was climbing around in a cave for fertilizer and brought it back on a train.
It's all the same.
Now they're being told the truth.
No use silly billies.
No use silly billies. It's much worse than that because this is a gain of function virus with lots of things added to it.
People like without using gates are refused to fund us.
So if 79% of the spike protein is the same as human proteins and you make antibodies to that spike protein, that means to me that 79% of those antibodies are going to cross react with human.
But some of them will be weak and inconsequential.
Some of them will be the medium and cause all sorts of funny things. You wonder what's going on like skin reactions and things.
It's been very common. The whole range of weird wonderful reactions would be due to that.
But the one where the homology is very strong, you're going to induce these conditions.
And one of the things is they always trump.
Oh, but these side effects are very rare.
See, but what's what's deceptive about this is that how do we tell you really.
The prediction that he's making has a very finite.
Range of possibilities because he has described the homology to human proteins.
And he's suggesting that that homology is the source of the autoimmunity.
That that homology is the source of the clotting.
That that homology may be the source of some of the, the, the neurobiological effects.
Maybe long COVID.
Now, the one problem with this is that the spike protein is a limited set of epitopes. It's a limited antigen set.
And so if there's nothing there to create autoimmunity to your ovaries or autoimmunity to your testes or autoimmunity to your liver, then it shouldn't show up.
If there's nothing to explain autoimmunity in the skin, then it shouldn't show up.
Unless you transfect cells with a foreign protein and the autoimmunity is generated by the general immune response to that self tissue that's expressing the non-self protein.
And what I see here is a very convenient narrative about a spike protein with lots of mimicry and overlapping epitopes with our own epitopes that's leading to autoimmunity that is actually
describing away the main mechanism of autoimmunity in transfection, which is transfection itself, which is exactly what I said they were going to do.
I said this exact thing for the last three years, that people were going to keep coming on the scene and retelling us the tail.
And every time they tell us the tail, there's going to be a new biological explanation for why the transfection caused all the things that it caused.
But they're never just going to say that because transfection causes those things.
They're going to try and blame it on the spike protein, on the LNP, on the DNA, on the purity of the DNA, the RNA, whatever, whatever, whatever, in the best case scenario with the purest RNA and the cleanest lipid nanoparticles, the best intramuscular injection, and the optimal health of your patient.
Because transfection is still not a way of augmenting the immune system, we have no reason to believe it is, it's just a bunch of lipids and RNA.
It's an intramuscular injection of a combination of substances intended to augment your immune system, and as we've said, that's dumb.
We induce these conditions. And one of the things is they always trumpet, oh, but these side effects are very rare, and in the end they're worth it.
Well, if you tell that somebody's paralyzed, that they didn't get COVID again, because it's worth it.
To me, that was just ridiculously unacceptable when we were warned about it, and they haven't stopped the program knowing that the incidence is on the MHRA website about Gilean Bari.
I mean, so that is not acceptable in young people who are, and they're often the ones that get it, they're the worst because they've got the strongest immune response to do something, who've got zero chance of dying of any of these variants.
All these variants coming along. There's no evidence at all that they're ever going to be worse than the initial virus, which is why we're here to talk, because it was supremely adapted to infecting and destroying human cells.
Supremely adaptive at infecting and destroying human cells. It was supremely adapted to infecting and destroying human cells.
If we were in a church, you would repeat that after me.
Right from the beginning, because it had spent years being manipulated in the laboratory in order to do so.
It had been spent years in a laboratory being manipulated to do so.
Listen to the faith, who are, and they're often the ones that get it, they're the worst because they've got the strongest immune response to do something, who've got zero chance of dying of any of these variants.
All these variants coming along. There's no evidence at all that they're ever going to be worse than the initial virus, which is why, you know, we're here to talk.
Because it was supremely adapted to infecting and destroying human cells. Right.
The original virus was supremely adapted to infecting and destroying human cells. And then what's he saying right after that?
In the beginning, because it had spent years being manipulated in the laboratory in order to do so.
Of course, I'm probably pronouncing it wrong. I've always said Guillaume-Barry.
My French is always applauding.
My French is nonexistent, so yours is clearly better than mine. But it can be a devastating disease.
I've looked after patients for months on intensive care with hypoventilation, paralysis.
And again, transverse myelitis. Transverse means it goes across the spinal cord.
And again, I've seen people with total paralysis below that level of delusion, just like in a spinal cord injury.
These can be quite devastating diseases.
Now, one of the things I think that you noticed early on was what you call viral inserts.
What did you mean by viral inserts?
Right. Well, this goes back to my friend, Berber Sorensen, who we are selecting.
Having decided that 80% of the spike protein should be avoided at all costs.
Well, putting that into what amino acids are going to be programmed by these sequences.
So these are the sequences in the letters of the RNA of the virus?
Yes. And we found that when you did that into the amino acids, there were regimens where you had amino acids which had a positive charge.
Say four of them together. Now, this never happens normally because of the equilibrium cozine.
There's a higher level of editing. So you have four amino acids positive.
The other thing will show that you're going to have two positive, two negative.
Right. Three to one is the most extreme, not four.
Not four.
And it was Berber, who's, I mean, I think he was a genius of being involved in vaccine design as a biophysicist.
He said there are amino acid runs here, which shouldn't be here.
And I discussed them with my colleagues and they said, oh, no, it's all random mutations.
It doesn't mean anything.
But then we looked that they were all around the receptor binding site.
And they were all heavily positively charged.
Now, I know great biophysicists, but I could see what this meant very quickly.
And we looked at the positive charge of the membrane compared to any other coronavirus or similar virus.
It's unbelievably high.
So this receptor binding domain is the very bit of a spike protein that fits in soon.
Yes. Now, if you accept us, my analogy, the way I saw it, and I think it's a good way to explain it,
is the cell membrane for a virus is rather like the fridge door.
So if you hypercharged it up, it's like a magnet. It goes bang and it locks in.
And it locks in.
That is why it's so supremely adapted to infecting human cells via the ACE receptor.
In fact, it's so good. It's even learned to use other receptors.
And that was the other thing that came through from that.
So Virgo spotted it with his team who analyzed all the sequences.
He spotted that these were positive charge.
I went in having spent, you know, I discovered the receptor in 1984.
So even though I was a clinical oncologist, I kept my interest in HIV all along.
And couldn't understand why so many top class scientists went down so many rabbit holes for years on it.
I found the most alarming insight that nobody was as clever as I thought we were.
We know when I started this, but I knew the receptor that I was involved in discovering the CD4.
One of the first things insights I had was, it's not enough.
There's something else required, something else required.
And we predicted very accurately that it was something else required, but it wasn't discovered for another 10 years.
This is the HIV transition we're talking about.
After I was wondering around the wards, being a cancer doctor.
And so because of all that insight, I was very well primed to understand what he was doing and realized he was completely right.
And all the people who shouted from the sidelines saying this is all nonsense erosion.
In other words, I went and looked at papers and read papers.
And there was a very important paper came out about this time.
And it was called on the proximal evidence.
It was by a fellow called Christian Anderson who wrote this paper with five or six other top virologists.
And it said there's no chance it could have escaped from that.
That was their constant thing.
And I thought that was.
But that's pretty funny, right?
To bring up the proximal origins paper now that like we all aren't aware of that one.
I wonder how long he's going to talk about that.
Did I put this faster yet?
It doesn't feel faster.
Okay, it is.
After what I've done with Burger, I thought it was absolutely rubbishly.
And if you don't agree, you're a conspiracy theorist.
You don't agree, you're a conspiracy theorist.
So anyway, I read this paper.
And unlike I would say the vast majority of people, I actually read their references.
You always cloud a load of references on the paper superficially as a decoy to make other people think you know what you're talking about.
You've read everything, but in actual practice, most of the people who put their names to these things have not read them.
So I took it upon myself to read them.
And it was beyond belief that they quoted these papers as references because two or three of them were really cool.
But they were references to that viruses, which have been genetically engineered in Google, perhaps, for a gain of function or to translate to make them more infectious to human cells.
And they described perfectly how they done it.
They had to also show that that they did.
In case you're unaware, you can still go to this channel here, J.C. on a bike, and you can still see.
The proximal origin paper to these viruses, which is pretty cool.
Hey, this is J.C. on a bike.
Thanks for joining me on this ride.
I'm going to talk about the new nature medicine paper, the proximal origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
And I'm also going to mention this other nature paper, which recently came out by one of those same authors showing the various recently discovered.
Coronavirus variants that are found in pangolins, specifically pangolins that were sort of stopped by customs in China in 2017, 18, and 19.
So very interesting data. Join me on the bike.
So the point is that this never got taken down from YouTube, even though I talk all about how they're full of crap.
Why wouldn't it get taken down from YouTube?
Because it's part of the Scooby-Doo.
It's right on narrative. That's why it didn't get taken down.
I don't challenge anything in this that they didn't want me to challenge.
I don't figure out anything in this that they don't want everybody to figure out.
And this guy isn't helping us figure out anything that they don't want us to already want to figure out.
This is part of the Scooby-Doo. And either he is completely taken or he is completely taking John Campbell.
I encourage them to get even better at this by passaging them.
That means putting them through all different types of human cells so they take and they adapt to and they get more infectious.
They also virologists are rather amusingly call this polishing.
You polish the virus so it becomes even more adaptable to the cell that it seems.
I wish they wouldn't bother.
So this is like a natural evolution, but it's accelerated.
It's accelerated evolution dramatically.
So when I looked at these papers, I thought, this insert they just put in and they published.
It's exactly the same one that said the cells do.
They're using this as evidence that didn't come from the map.
So the same insert that the genetic instruction, the letters, the RNA letters in the Wuhan publication were the same as the ones that turned up in the virus.
And strangely, I believe the Wuhan database went.
That's not real.
That's not right.
That's crazy.
Listen to this carefully.
That is not right.
Papers.
I thought this insert they just put in and they published.
It's exactly the same one that said the cells do.
They're using this as evidence that didn't come from the map.
So the same insert.
No, what they did was they moved a receptor binding domain from one virus to another.
And maybe they even moved a spike from one virus to another.
They made a chimera, but they didn't take the exact insert and put it in this virus.
That's wrong.
And so again, here's another one of these.
Anybody that wants to like that, that lady with the little dog with the really annoying voice that likes to debunk biology can look at John Campbell and say to John Campbell and this other guy don't know what they're talking about.
And debunk the funk and do the same thing here.
Because this is wrong.
But it's not what they did. They made a chimeric virus and it was actually, they did it on pseudoviruses too.
And so it's the same mistake that everybody makes is that they don't actually do what they have led you to believe that they did.
They have not created pandemic potential in the laboratory by making infectious clones of a chimeric RNA sequence.
They haven't.
And these guys are John Campbell is being fooled by this guy and it's terrible.
It's terrible.
The genetic instruction, the letters, the RNA letters in the Wuhan publication with the same as the ones that turned up in the virus.
And strangely, I believe the Wuhan database went offline. I believe it was September 2019.
Yes, it did. And that's a very important date this September, because just from my personal view and interest in getting interested in COVID, I was able to identify two families who clearly went down with COVID in November.
So what are we getting out here now spread.
There was absolutely spread because they brought it from Hong Kong.
Could have brought a clone clones would spread.
I do think clones would spread for a few people. If you got the clone, you can make your your family get sick.
So what are we getting out here now spread.
There was absolutely spread because they brought it from Hong Kong.
Could have brought a clone clones would spread.
I do think clones would spread for a few people. If you got the clone, you can make your your family get sick.
It's possible.
You have more chance of shedding infectious RNA than somebody who gets an actual coronavirus. That's for damn sure.
And more likely to shed a consistent sequence.
It's all clones. The only thing that could do this is clones and they know that.
And this guy's covering it up. That's what I think I'm just going to be real pessimistic and honest.
I don't I think he's fooling. He's fooling John Campbell to make sure that John Campbell doesn't go all the way to figuring out that Mike Eden was right and it's just a bunch of lies.
He doesn't want him ever to get that far. So, you know, he gives him a lot of good biology. He gives him a lot of good cancer data.
Now he comes on for a second time and takes the Scooby-Doo and dunks it.
Closely connected to London and Birmingham here. You've always got to be back and forth.
In the November 2019 in the UK.
And the thing about the the importance of September was they were they were very suspicious about something going on.
That's why they took it down. It was also interesting that that viruses that they were working on,
which had clearly been harvested from a mine that thousand miles away.
It's like North Thailand area, wasn't it?
And they brought them back and they sequenced all sorts of things that they started working on.
They didn't register them in the databases until all this stuff started.
Now, that's extremely unusual to do this very late registration for viruses that have been there you've been working with.
That not only made us very suspicious, but also other people suspicious who started to wonder what's going on.
And the whole details of these sequences, the evolution history,
has actually been very well documented by Matt Ridley and his collegely Shannon there.
But while they go into that part of the evidence, Matt Ridley and his collegely Shannon there.
But while there's actually been very well documented by Matt Ridley and his collegely Shannon there.
But while they go.
Did he say Alina Chan? I don't think he said that he said at least something or other,
but it's Alina Chan that wrote the book with Matt Ridley, right?
Into that part of the evidence extremely well, which I believe is very very complimentary to the way we did it.
And then after with the paper, I mentioned about this person Anderson one,
that one that we then found that Fauci had a commissioned.
They were a bit suspicious about being so black and white about it.
But once he had that paper published in nature medicine, which was submitted and published in five days,
something which never happened in a peer reviewed journal ever.
And, you know, as soon as it was out, Fauci was waving it around Congress, NIH, here's the proof.
And this became a very everybody was sort of proof.
And anybody who said anything else was a conspiracy theory.
Well, it's got to be true because it's in nature.
At until you've chosen it.
So I pointed out with my colleagues, like this paper was the most flawed.
In fact, I actually said it's the worst scientific paper I've ever come across in my life,
because normally you have to search hard to find out that the references don't support the ludicrous statements.
So this was glaring in the, that even I could pick it up quickly.
That's wrong.
And they turned it down and said, we've got nothing against your science,
but it's not in the public interest for us to report this.
That's what nature told you.
That's what they told me.
We did the same to science, general virology, landscape.
They all said exactly the same thing.
And sometimes we were rejected within five hours, because you can do electronic submission.
Well, he's got to know that the journals have got the public interest at heart professor, isn't it?
This is just unbelievable censorship.
And it's a public interest to think about the truth out there.
It's the only situation I can come to.
And so if they're prepared to do that with something as obvious as the original virus,
what are they prepared to do with everything else?
The social implications, the non-pharmaceutical interventions, drug treatments, vaccines,
I think they basically are clearly to let us.
That's what that's like.
Well, then you just almost got there though, see?
If they're willing to lie about the origin, what else are they willing to lie about?
He's so close.
All he has to realize is that they might lie about the virus itself.
So the combination of tests, fear, uncertainty, doubt, bad protocols.
Rinse and repeat.
There's been an equation I can come to.
And so if they're prepared to do that with something as obvious as the original virus,
what are they prepared to do with everything else, the social implications,
the non-pharmaceutical interventions, drug treatments, vaccines,
I think they basically are clearly to let us.
That's what that's my take.
You know, we can say.
Okay.
So now all he has to do is come to the realization that he is still apportioning blame
and cause and effect incorrectly.
And that he's still attributing too much to the virus.
But he believes that some people brought the virus from Hong Kong.
So obviously there's a virus he believes in the variants,
even though they're not as dangerous as the first one,
because the first one was supremely adapted to infecting and destroying human cells.
And then it's been here as being manipulated in a laboratory to do so.
It's possible that people on this side of the narrative are only going to be
get this far without our help.
That's the design.
This is supposed to feel like an extremely comfortable landing to these people.
So don't underestimate.
It doesn't have to be that he was chosen to carry it.
This is where we want him to go.
This is where everybody that's influencing him,
everybody that's influencing John Campbell,
wants him to go right here.
This is the sweet spot where we're not really talking about what percentage
Professor DeGlish would you attribute to all cause mortality?
What percentage would you attribute to the protocols versus the virus?
He's not at the point where we are, where we see the
Iatrogenic murder for what it is.
He sees that as a complication.
He sees it probably there,
but he would really need to be convinced by somebody like Denny
that the all cause mortality does not reveal a novel,
new cause of death on top of all the other ways that people were dying before this.
And he is convinced that there is a new cause of death.
A new cause of death that was supremely adapted to infecting
and destroying human cells upon release years after being years
manipulated in a laboratory to do so.
We've got a lot of work to do, ladies and gentlemen,
because this is the landing bay.
This is where they're landing and we've got to catch them now
before they pad themselves on the back too much and walk off into the sunset
and get a drink together.
Confused.
Well, you don't sound confused to me,
and if we can't rely on the medical journals,
I mean, you know, as someone who's, I mean, I taught evidence-based practice
since it first came out in the 1990s with David Sackett teaching.
You know, to take away this fundamental axiom of evidence-based medicine,
which is the best available evidence, then we stand on fresh air.
We stand on nothing.
But they even took away the ability to debate it.
Yeah.
It's all about debate.
It's not about sensory.
And that's why, I mean, I've recently sent a book with colleagues
to the press called The Death of Silence.
Yeah.
And it was brought to that.
Because I started writing about the, you know,
clearly a nonsense and logicality of lockdown.
And a friend saw me doing that.
I said, what do you think? How should we do it?
He said, I've got a lot to learn.
The next thing we knew, anyway, we were editors.
We were not authors anymore.
I can't wait to get a copy. When's this out?
It's going to come out very shortly. It's in the printers now.
Probably in November.
And if you'd like to come on and talk about it,
we would like to hear about it.
And it was because, you know, when I was writing about lockdown,
I said, evidence is all here, but they take no notice of it.
This really is The Death of Silence.
And my friend said, that's a brilliant title.
We're going to use this.
And I'm going to expand it with you.
Well, it's brilliant.
One word I would say tragic or devastating is another word.
Now, there doesn't seem to be any naturally occurring
Saskarone virus to that's ever been found in animal reservoirs
or human reservoirs or before the pandemic.
Was there any immunological evidence of these, of such a virus?
Do you think that is relevant?
Well, you've touched on something.
It's not exactly what you asked me,
but it actually helps explain very, very well what's going on here.
When we had MERS, and we had the first...
That's not true, though, because we had seroprevalence in blood samples.
We looked at this in...
God dang it.
We looked at this...
I'm going to get this open.
I'm so upset that he's saying this.
This is not right.
We looked at this.
It's part of an immunology talk I gave many years ago already.
He's wrong.
We looked before the pandemic.
Or is this paper?
And there are healthy donors that have the same...
The same look.
I mean, this is here it is.
This is really it.
If I just... This is just one paper.
This is healthy donors pre-COVID.
This is healthy donors, health care staff pre-COVID.
They have ORF1A.
They have S.
They have N.
It's not nothing.
They have T cells.
They have T cells that overlap with this virus on many epitopes.
And it's not this one paper.
It's hundreds.
Well, maybe tens.
So it's a very strange thing to say when there are papers in highest journals
which have shown overlapping T cell memory that existed before the pandemic
from around the world and seroprevalence studies.
Saskarone virus too.
That's ever been found in animal reservoirs or human reservoirs.
Or before the pandemic, was there any immunological evidence of the...
...of seroprevalence?
Do you think that is relevant?
Well, you've touched on something.
It's not exactly what you asked me,
but it actually helps explain very, very well what's going on here.
But when we had MERS, we had the first...
It's 2001.
In 2003.
And then we had the SARS one.
Oh, yeah.
Sorry, yeah.
And anyway, one had camel and the other was back to civic and things.
But the MERS was camels and the SARS was a civic.
Now, when you had those viruses on the test,
you could go back to the area they were found in
and you could do serological analysis of everybody being into hospital
and they had a blood test.
And you could show they were traces there for months in the community
while said virus jumped back and forth from back to civic,
so it's a human or the camel that comes up to it.
And it was doing the polishing.
It was getting good enough to get infected to build up a viral load
whereas, from the first time, the disease become evidence.
Now, that you can find for months.
In SARS two, they couldn't find a single serological imprint around...
...even around Wuhan or anything.
They could find absolutely nothing.
Which meant it had not escaped naturally.
It had gone out there, full bore, able to infect and cause high viral loads
in the first people that went out and hit.
And the other thing is, in previous outbreaks...
You know, it caused high viral loads and the first people that it hit
is a transfection agent encoding a coronavirus genome.
A transfection agent encoding a coronavirus spike protein.
A transfection agent encoding a coronavirus genome, a coronavirus clone...
...would definitely cause high viral loads.
A well-developed high-fidelity molecular signature...
...with a high probability of giving you the sequence that you wanted to find...
...that you wanted to include in your vaccine.
It had all the inserts in it.
You see, you can't have it both ways.
If this was a genuine coronavirus consensus sequence...
...the sequences would not have had all of these inserts in it, and it wouldn't have been so obvious.
If it would have been a natural sequence, it would have been a consensus sequence...
...not the sequence generated from a clone.
Therefore, the odds of this actual sequence having been found in multiple places around the world is zero.
It's zero.
The only way that can happen is through a clone.
And what that got them was their protein in the virus...
...that they wanted to use for their transfection because they knew that their protein would cause a robust...
...repeatable, redosable, antibody response.
And that's all they cared about because they knew they could make the pandemic.
The pandemic was a lie.
What they needed to also be able to do was make it seem as though...
...the RNA saved people.
And if there wasn't a clear clinical signal to point to...
...if there wasn't a clear seroprevalence to point to that they could call immunity...
...then they wouldn't be able to tell the story that they're telling now...
...which between 14 and 19 million people were saved by it.
These guys are confused by the same thing that we were confused...
...but they're coming at it from the TV and social media side...
...as far away from the truth as you could be.
That's why it's difficult to watch.
That's why it's frustrating to watch.
That's why it seems like I'm so critical.
But this is what's necessary.
We've been able to find multiple outbreaks at multiple times.
So if the virus becomes endemic in a human or an animal population...
...then the animals could spread out over 10 miles, 100 miles, 700 miles.
The bizarinotic transfer here, then the bizarinotic transfer in Carl Ireland...
...zarinotic transfer in London and zarinotic transfer in Johnny Groats...
...and we would get different outbreaks at different times.
We didn't see that sort of single outbreak.
Is that significant as well?
I think it's highly significant.
They may well have been two or three seedings in different populations...
...for slightly different takes.
But they all at the same time, they all came from the same laboratory specimen.
And they found some of the first people to get infected with people actually involved.
If the same laboratory specimen or what would a laboratory specimen be a clone...
...there is only one kind of laboratory specimen...
...that exists in sufficient purity and sufficient quantity...
...to cause a lab leak with a significant...
...and high enough fidelity signal like this...
...and that would be an infectious clone.
Laboratory sample is an infectious clone.
Olden mixing the suits of these viruses.
And the other thing I could not understand is when we pointed out...
...it has to be a lab leak.
Whereas the fact that no of these labs are tubular...
...they can't possibly escape.
When we could find six reports of the standard literature...
...six detailed reports of the SARS virus having escaped from laboratories...
...one in Taiwan, one in Singapore, four from China.
This is the original SARS-2000.
There are more reports of audio on a sink besides family.
And the other thing that was very clear from a previous inspection of Wuhan...
...was the level of security.
It was very poor for a laboratory specimen.
So, it meant that escape was inevitable in my book.
So, why should they call such a fuss about it couldn't possibly escape?
And anything to say, well, I'm a great believer in the...
...I called it the...
...the first Douglas Law of Universal Human Incompetence.
I subscribe to that one as well.
Human incompetence is far more likely than any sort of...
...inline intent.
It may be behind it, but usually what you end up dealing with...
...is a piece of human incompetence.
Yeah.
It was a way with the mouth outbreak, too.
Yeah, yeah.
So, the three options for the viral origin are natural zoonotic...
...accidental lab leak or deliberate lab leak.
I think I'm with you, accidental lab leak.
So, that's where I came from.
That this was a lab leak.
And the problem was they tried to cover it up.
Yeah.
Instead of coming clean.
And here is something really, really nasty and sinister.
They actually got the WHO into going along with them trying to cover it up.
If the WHO had been under the previous ages of the...
...the previous head whose name just escapes me...
...who was not under the control of the child.
The, like, Tetris was...
...and who should never be dead at WHO.
He wasn't even a medic.
He was over there for political reasons.
He did what he was told.
Shut up, didn't do it.
Had they done their job, this would never have escaped to the rest of the world.
I'm talking to lots of people involved in these things.
I completely believe that.
It would have been contained in Wuhan area, Kubei area.
And it would never have gone outside China.
So, flights from China, the WHO at the time specifically said...
...we should carry on flying in and out of China.
Even at that time I was bemused.
That was madness.
But the real sinister thing here is that the WHO said...
...in order to handle this better next time, we need all the powers assigned to us.
That is, I would rather sign a suicide pact.
I know UK.
Well, never let a good crisis go to a waste professor.
Well, hopefully we've got to May next year to come to our census.
But I don't hold out much properly.
People who seem to run and advise these things seem to be the most inappropriate people.
And the government seems to be so poorly educated.
And so intellectually lazy.
They go along with all this.
Yep.
And we have done several videos on that.
People like James Riggoski, who has done absolutely stirling work on that.
Now, I keep getting questions on this.
I've never fully understood it.
How similar, how homologous...
...are SARS coronavirus 2 sequences with the HIV virus?
With the...
...which virus?
...the human immunodeficiency virus.
Oh, sorry.
HIV virus.
Yeah.
I got told off one.
A viologist told me off.
He says, I said the HIV virus.
He said, how can you have the HIV virus virus?
So, since then, I've always tried to say HIV virus.
Yeah.
I always...
I've always just say HIV.
Yeah.
There's very, very little homology.
But there is a tiny little bit of homology.
And this little homology is real.
But I think we've discovered why it's there.
When I mentioned about how they get their back viruses,
and they train them to infect human receptors,
they put the human ACE receptor into a cell,
a neutral cell, with an HIV lentivirus.
So, the virus takes some receptor in,
gets integrated up, and then it gets expressed on the cell
that would never normally present it.
Those little HIV sequences...
...but it was an HIV lentivirus.
So, when you look at the sequences, you're picking up
the sequences from the vector.
The ACE receptor was introduced to the cell with.
The viruses picked them up.
So, the homology is really...
There's nothing to do.
There's no link with the two.
But...
...but...
...those sequences to be absolutely confirmed.
But it was not only genetically engineered,
but it was heavily passaged through that.
And that's because of that passage,
it's picked up those HIV sequences.
But that's purely all it is.
There's no big homology with the two.
Right.
Good.
Now, the last question is...
I've only ever...
So, he says that the HIV homology is coming from
repeated passage in cells
in which they are expressing the ACE2 receptor using...
...using HIV retroviruses...
...or pseudoviruses of HIV.
So, that's a technique that I don't...
...I can't come up with a paper that uses...
...sudo-virus...
...HIV pseudoviruses to...
...express ACE2 in cells...
...has a model of viral infection.
I don't... I can't think of one off the top of my head.
I don't think he's right about that.
I think that might be another mistake.
I'm really sorry that the...
...that the audio keeps going out of sync.
It could be that my hard drive is just getting full.
And so, I need to do something about that.
It's hard for me to believe that's the case.
I think it's more likely that...
...I don't know. I have something set up wrong.
I think...
...maybe I'll just leave it go.
We'll get done.
But partly understood this.
There's a furin cleavage site on the spike protein of the virus.
And furin is a protein on the surface of human cells.
Now, this furin cleavage site...
...I kind of think of it as kicking over...
...kicking open these furin doors...
...to allow the virus into the cell so it can reproduce.
So, is that kind of vaguely right?
And what is the significance of finding the furin cleavage site on the spike protein?
The significance of furin cleavage site...
...is the spike protein of the SARS and MERS virus group...
...because it's never been there any of these viruses whatsoever.
So, just to clarify that, sorry, the MERS and the SARS-Coronavirus-1...
...don't have a furin cleavage site.
No, no, no, no.
But any... within that phylogeny of the coronaviruses...
...from which these...
I'm pretty sure MERS does, doesn't it?
I think it does, but I could be wrong.
It's alright, whatever.
So, SARS-Coronavirus-2 is the only coronavirus that we know of...
...with a furin cleavage site?
Of the sort that can infect man?
Yes.
There are some animal coronaviruses...
...and my virus, your friends, keep proudly telling me...
...do have furin cleavage sites, but they don't infect us.
This is the only one that does.
Now, the furin cleavage site was put into these bat sounds by people...
...in the way they found that, because they boasted about it that they did it.
These same people, when they presented the sequence of the virus in nature...
...the furin cleavage site is screaming and playing sight.
They discuss everything else about the sequence...
...but they don't discuss the furin cleavage site.
They probably forgot.
Oh, that's a very kinder.
They put it in there.
Good, yeah.
No.
And what a furin cleavage site does is basically...
...if you have the virus getting onto the cell, you can lock on pretty tight...
...but you have to work pretty hard to get through the cell membrane.
But a furin cleavage site is like giving the virus an extra pair of scissors...
...so I can just spit through and get into that very, very quickly.
That never occurs in this type of virus.
It was put there in the Wuhan lab...
...and it was like magic.
You don't see it there, but you had to look very carefully...
...and my colleagues picked it up and pointed it out.
And they found that other people had pointed it out...
...they had bought it more almost a famous virus.
It's very hard.
They called it the smoking gun.
This David Baltimore saw the furin cleavage site.
I didn't know that.
That's a nice little tidbit we get out of this.
David Baltimore.
Wow.
It's a regular home run there.
This went as far as the Washington Post, and it was all dismissed.
There was nonsense of no importance.
And then another load of virologists came up and said,
well, some viruses had this, which is true.
But not the sort of viruses we're dealing with.
It's like saying some animals have trumps, if humans don't.
Exactly.
And then the other thing about this, they tried so hard to say...
...to go against our discussions here, which other people joined slowly.
They said, oh, but we found this virus as present in a raccoon.
And so it came from the raccoon.
So they looked around all the raccoons.
No, this is the only one. It could be a false positive.
And you get papers coming.
There was a paper from, say, a city in Scotland...
...which tried desperately hard to open up the narrative.
It was a natural jump, apparently.
And by this time, I don't have to do my science.
I just looked at their funding.
China.
It's ridiculous.
They might have to go to the river.
The first scientific analysis is these days.
Who the heck paid for this?
Who is funding?
And unfortunately, it's even more important when you get into treatments of vaccines.
Yeah.
I don't want to get into that now.
But the reason I'm so concerned about the virologians is,
is it possible that humans could be jiggery-pokering around with a virus,
which is as transmissible as, say,
these also are an omicron virus, but as deadly as, say,
in a bowl of virus, it's such a thing possible.
Yes, it is.
And this is all called the gain of function.
And this is under the Obama administration they banned.
The scientists and I've got a colleague I know myself.
Basically, he calls all virology gain of function in the desperate attempt to try and preserve it.
No, it is...
I mean, the sort of thing that was being done was absolutely mad.
It was basically...
It was inevitable that a pandemic would arise out of this nonsense.
Obama and people banned it, but they tried to go to an exception.
And who was the person who tried to get the exception?
And that was Anthony Fauci in order to have things in case something dreadful came along.
Very exceptional cases.
Well, he wasn't allowed to do it in his own place.
So he funded this work to be done in Wuhan via the eco-health alliance,
via a person called Peter Doze, who is very, very friendly with back woman,
who's lab did this very manipulation that led to it coming out, to escaping.
So Wayne Fauci went to these extreme lengths to deny this.
I immediately knew he was covering his backside over this,
but he realized he was in trouble.
So whereas, initially, I blamed the Chinese for which I was called by some people,
a racist.
I don't know how...
When you actually point out that something comes from somewhere, you're a racist with one thing of that.
But when I trace everything back, if somebody has to take the rack for this,
it has to be Fauci.
To me, he is the one single person guilty.
He's just used his excessive outrageous power.
And I'm a lot of watchers to...
I have no responsibility...
...to have the current pandemic.
...because it'd be Kirsten Anderson, who wrote...
I have no responsibility for the current pandemic.
That ludicrous paper for him, that he got the narrow nature.
Immediately got an nearly $9 million grant to carry on his work in his institute,
which did not go out to peer review in all the normal sentences, according to my sources.
And I'll just have another bizarre temporal correlation, isn't it?
And the same happened with Dazep.
The same happened with Dazep.
They wrote a letter to the Lancet saying,
this is absolutely ludicrous.
Anything that suggests it came out of China land is...
We use the word it was racist and demean it.
God, everything else, 26 people signed it.
No conflict of interest.
The sector declared 25 or 26 of those people were all funded directly or indirectly by that charity.
And they now, a lot of them have come out and they want to withdraw it.
They realise they've been...
Why that paper has not been withdrawn, I have no idea.
If you told me it had been withdrawn, I would have expected it.
But the fact it's still not.
It's still arguably amongst themselves.
Unbelievable.
So, is existential means existence?
Is a future lovely, potentially an existential threat to humanity?
Yes, I think it is.
And I think all this work should be stopped wherever anybody says.
Because it really does get rather circular all this.
They say we have to do this.
So we have the tools and understanding to make drugs and vaccines for the next pandemic,
which will surely arise.
So now, no, we have not had the COVID pandemic, had they not been doing this research,
and also doing it so badly and sloppily and incompetently under an auspices
of things like the WHO where the most unfit people to have done this.
And they should be removed.
I think the WHO should be defunded.
I really do.
It's so corrupt.
So is Garvey.
It's so seppy.
All these organizations, which managed to sack hundreds of millions of dollars for the UK government
on the grounds we're doing are part protecting the world, the snappy other.
With all it's doing is, is handsome corrupt incompetence in my book.
So I think this is the Scooby Doo and a nutshell.
And they think that it's enticing enough for you to blame.
Seppy and the WHO and all these big name people and all these big organizations of corporations.
They think you are going to be enticed just like these guys are enticed
to blame the profiteers, to blame the arrogant biologists, to blame the arrogant virologists,
to blame the bioweapons guys.
And I would argue that the fifth generation war that's being waged on you counts on you
not seeing any farther than that.
It counts on you needing a bad guy.
It counts on you needing someone to blame.
And it counts on you believing in a virus because it's spread from Hong Kong.
Because it was supremely adapted to infecting and destroying human cells after years of being
manipulated in a laboratory to do so.
Do you think that gain of function is a possibility in the future?
I absolutely do, he says.
This is the Scooby Doo in a nutshell.
Told to you by somebody on the TV narrative side, on the social media narrative side,
with a video still on YouTube with not struck.
And it won't be struck because this is exactly where they want the TV and social media people
to land, right here.
And when they land there, the vast majority of our side will come to say,
see, basically we told you so.
And five years from now, our children will be permanently misled.
I think it's a good place to stop here.
It's like if I'm out of sync, then what's the point, right?
I'm annoyed that I was out of sync.
I apologize for being out of sync.
I think it's kind of a memory problem, and I've already backed up everything twice,
and so it's just a matter of deleting and cleaning that disk.
It's not a matter of what is true of the council, but a matter of what is perceived to be true.
The big Scooby Doo mystery is still being solved on this one right here.
John Campbell and Professor DeGlish would have us believe that coronaviruses have pandemic potential
that can be accessed in laboratories and stitched together to make even worse.
So they basically have bought into the narrative the illusion of consensus
that will end up with our kids surrendering their sovereignty
to this global fundamental inversion of human rights to free them to fascism.
This illusion of consensus is being perpetuated by Campbell and his guest.
I know they're nice guys. I know they've come a long way.
But if you come a long way from being a totalitarian fascist creep
with no idea of what's going on to kind of sort of understanding some stuff,
it's not exactly progress. I'm sorry.
But if they're not questioning every single thing they thought right now,
after he just said that, well, you know, if they'll do this for the origin of the virus,
then why wouldn't what would they do for all this other stuff?
Exactly!
This illusion of the consensus about what mystery needs to be solved is what we need to break.
We've been set up to think differently about immunology and about virology
and about biology so that we accept these ridiculous things happened
and we couldn't have stopped it.
We accepted these ridiculous things happened and we couldn't have done nothing about it
because it was an emergency, because it was rushed.
This illusion of consensus about a bat cave or natural virus that's now
maybe more dangerous than we thought because it was from a laboratory.
You don't think that guy's smart enough to explain clones?
You don't think that guy's smart enough to know that there might have been a background signal there?
You don't think that guy's smart enough to know that the protocols were murder
and the transfection is not medicine, but he's not saying it.
He's saying that the spike protein was bad.
Spike protein caused clotting.
Spike protein has 78% of homology with human proteins.
So the spike protein itself is causing autoimmunity, not transfection, come on.
Come on, it can't be a transfection that they sprayed on us and then sequenced
and then claimed spread.
Couldn't be that.
There's no viruses, they don't do that.
There's no measles either.
Ladies and gentlemen, they took a conflated background signal with a crappy PCR test
and told us lies about a pandemic potential that never existed in the first place.
And the pandemic potential that actually showed up at the beginning of the pandemic
was nothing more than bad protocols, fear, frustration, confusion and doubt.
Transfection is a medicine, ladies and gentlemen.
They turned this into a mythology that they planned to govern our children by.
A mythology about a novel virus that came and is still going.
A novel virus that we can track and all the variants to.
But who cares if it has a fear and cleavage site anymore?
Hey, Mr. DeGlish, can you tell us when the fear and cleavage site in COVID disappeared?
Since the fear and cleavage site is so important, what variants have it still?
Has anyone ever said anything about that to you?
What variants still have the fear and cleavage site, the special gain of function gift?
What variants still have the HIV inserts that are all positive, charged amino acids?
Where did they go?
How come we're not charting those on the CBS news every night like we did with the deaths
on the chart of the globe?
Because they're a mythology!
Because the only reason why that would matter if it was from a clone.
Because if you transfected people with a bunch of clones of a coronavirus that had a nasty spike protein
then there would be a lot of that nasty spike protein for a little while in those people.
And you'd be able to sequence it, you'd probably find the RNA, it'd be all great,
but it would be in no danger.
There'd be no danger of RNA sweeping the globe because RNA doesn't work like that.
But we could trick them into believing that it did.
We could fool an entire planet with an infectious clone as long as we deny that clones matter.
As long as we can get every virologist to call Jonathan Cui an idiot.
The moment that you start talking about clones, and the fact that the only way people can work with RNA viruses
is to make clones of them, people stop talking.
The moment you bring up recombinant DNA is the way they make chimeric antibodies, they go silent.
Recombinant DNA is the only thing they got.
And that's why they're lying to our children because they want our children to be enslaved by this mythology,
to surrender to this mythology so that they don't even see the cage that they're trapped by.
Ladies and gentlemen, you can find me at giggleonbiological.com.
You can become a supporter if you scroll down.
You can also join us here at giggleon.biow, where I'm sometimes announcing things, but I'm still not very good at it
because I do have a day job and I'm actually trying to do it well.
You can also support my work here with a one-time donation if you feel that need, but I would rather have you share my screen far and wide
because right now I don't seem to be gaining any views at all.
And yeah, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances
with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb, and you can say that very shortly for the current.
My saying transfection is not immunization.
Please stop all transfections in humans. They are trying to eliminate the control group.
By any means necessary.
Please make sure you stop by broken science initiative.
You can see my friend Matt Briggs has done in his own essay about the same paper that
Jenny Rancord just came on my show to talk about yesterday,
another wonderful lampooning of that paper.
This has been Giga Home Biological, High Resistance Low Noise Information Brief brought to you by Biologist.
Thanks for joining me. I'll see you tomorrow.