There.
So JJ, let me introduce you for this.
For the purposes, is Stephen here yet? Where is he?
He knows we get underway at five past on the dot.
He'll come, he'll join us.
All right.
Everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International
and today's discussion, this group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost.
During the darkest days of the COVID scam, response with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology. I'm Charles Covets, the moderator of the group.
I'm Australasian passion provocateur. I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 30 years ago.
And over the last 13 years, I've helped parents and lawyers strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice.
The latest numbers we've heard is that is that bad medical advice is now the number one killer in America.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were OK.
Now, many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself at the chat in the chat and where you're from.
If you publish a newsletter or podcast or you have a radio or TV show or you've written a book,
put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.
And even if you've done it last week or the week before, keep putting it into the chat to make it easier for people to find.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three and that there are various battle lines as part of this war.
Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is never settled.
And then if someone tells you the science is settled, you know you're dealing with a fraud or an idiot.
Some of us believe that viruses exist.
Some of us believe that viruses are a hoax and some of us are on the fence on the matter.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours, after which for those with the time, Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you're able to join.
We will listen to JJ Cooey, our guest presenter, for as long as JJ wishes to speak.
And then we have Q&A. This is the third time that JJ has joined us.
His previous presentations are available on the Rumble channel.
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asked the first questions for 15 minutes.
There's no censorship. It's a free speech environment.
Free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms.
If you're offended by anything, be offended. We're genuinely not interested.
We reject the offence industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
I have a standard template of nine potential answers to somebody who says, I'm offended.
If you want that template, put a note in the chat. I'll email it to you.
It's very useful. Be ready with your response when someone says to you, I'm offended.
And also what's Ricky Gervais if you ever want to be amused by people who claim to be offended.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love. Fear squashes you. Love, on the other hand, expands you.
Before we start, we were talking about Gandhi.
The game plan clearly has to be nonviolent, noncompliance with bad government behaviour.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talkfests.
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by attendees in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the details in the chat,
the meeting is recorded and is uploaded on the Rumble channel.
And now welcome to our guest presenter, Jonathan J. Currie, globally renowned genius.
And thank you, JJ, for giving us your time, wisdom and insights again.
And thank you, Stephen Frost, for creating the group and for organising JJ to speak to us.
JJ, we are in your hands. There, Stephen. He's arrived. There's JJ.
Hi, JJ. Thanks for coming to speak to us.
You're very welcome. Thank you all for taking the time to listen.
I'm going to try and go as quick as I can because I know that you've heard me before.
And there's a lot of buzz about different recent conversations I've had, including one with Wolfgang Wodach.
And so it might be that I cover the wrong things here.
And so I'm going to try and fly through it.
But please keep in mind that I've done a presentation like this enough so I can handle an interruption.
And it might be easier if you interrupt when the question is relevant for everybody rather than waiting until the end.
And so barring any, you know, if it becomes a thousand questions, obviously, it's probably not good.
But occasionally, I don't mind at all.
JJ, I'm happy to do that. So, everybody.
So today, because JJ has been with us so many times, we'll do it unusually.
So if you want to ask a question, JJ is good. You watch the screen, JJ.
So if you see a hand come up, you know, stop when you stop talking and handle that question, does that make sense, JJ?
It does, except all the magic that I have. It makes it very hard for me to watch the Zoom.
So I'll handle the hands up. Just put your hands up if you have a question pertinent to that issue.
And then at the end, when JJ finishes, then we'll do the normal process.
OK, over to you, JJ. JJ, how many times have you spoken to us? Is it three or more than three?
This could be the fourth time. I think so, yeah.
It could be the fourth time. OK, fourth. I'm going to borrow.
I'm going to borrow a starting slide from my friend Vera Shirav.
I think Edward Bernays' statement is very important here.
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
And I think that's something that I've been trying to explain to those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.
And maybe now with the Internet and with the WHO and other organizations around public health, it may be that this may be the mechanism by which they plan to rule our global society.
I'm sorry to spend all the time just to bring everybody up to speed.
I apologize if it's a bothersome thing for those of you outside of the UK, but I've been trying to explain that we've been fooled into solving a mystery.
And I use the example of a cartoon show from the United States called Scooby Doo, where teenagers solve a mystery every week in the town that they're driving through.
And the show involves a monster that needs to have its mask removed and then the bad guys revealed to be someone that was earlier in the show.
What I'm suggesting here and something that I want to be very clear about is it's not in 2020 that this started, but it started a much longer time ago with the co-opting of certain investigative lines in primary literature in biology.
By carefully co-opting certain narratives into the biological literature and importantly funding investigation into certain ideas in the primary literature, you can seed a series of papers over a series of years that can imply a danger that's not there.
It can imply a link that's not there. One of the most spectacular ones from my own field is the preponderance of literature that's looking at correlations between genes and autism and often in animal models of autism.
And so after many years of funding this kind of research, we have a whole foundation by which anyone who wants to justify the further investigation into the genetic causes of autism can simply cite all of these hundreds of papers and build their grand proposal from there.
So it's a very dangerous sort of environment in which this pseudo intellectual pursuit occurs because you can't just ask any question you want. You've got to ask a question for which you can get funding.
And oftentimes the way that academic biology makes progress is dictated solely by what questions they're allowed to ask. And with response with regard to RNA viruses, that general academic pursuit has been hyper controlled for a very long time.
And I think if you reflect on all the people that are in involved in biology and how biology from AIDS onward has been, let's say, scripted, you can see that there's some incongruency between the real biology that we can verify and the real biology that they claim.
At the same time, of course, they've been running tabletop exercises. The most famous of one is it the most famous example of one is event 201.
But of course, we can go back decades and see that there were many tabletop exercises looking at bioterrorism, what could be done and what could happen.
Now, the trick with this is to understand number three is to understand that they have gamed this out on a table and they've actually run it live before.
There was a swine pandemic in swine flu pandemic in 1976 that was part of this. There was one in 2009 that was part of this that afterward was analyzed over and over again, especially from different countries perspectives and how the language barrier in a place like Belgium played a huge role in the
uptake of the vaccine. They analyze this like a postwar analysis of the battle plan and lamented about the fact that they didn't have the kind of social media reach in 2009 that they have now and that maybe they would have been more successful in the Flanders section of Belgium, the French speaking part.
The French speaking part, had they been able to to work into that language a little better. All of these things have been gamed in such a way so that this time around, the actual presentation of the narrative at the very beginning was hyper controlled, right down to the three
build back better or a new normal. These kinds of things were just as this is the obvious. This is the one they made videos about so that everybody got excited about. Look, all these world leaders are saying build back better but nobody got really suspicious about some of the other things that everyone was agreeing about, including the fact that this was a pandemic.
The attributes of the pandemic were actually early on seeded in such a way, I believe, so that the narrative of worst case scenario was present from the beginning and that people could already consider in January of 2020 that if these people are lying about it and it is the worst case scenario, we could all lose several people in our lives.
That billions of people were going to die. And so this worst case scenario was extremely important. Number one, to make sure that everybody complied from masks to lockdowns to getting iPads and putting your kids in front of them.
All the way eventually to the end of 2020 where the transfections using denovirus or using mRNA and lipid nanoparticles were taken gladly because of the fear of worst case scenario.
They of course told this story under the pretense of a national security response and so the people that were curating this narrative were also kind of under some constraints under what they could say.
And we're required to say that we're at war with this virus and that is biblical.
And finally, the whole idea, and I really believe this with all of my heart, that one of the main objectives of the original three years was to make sure that a story about a virus spike protein could be confounded with the story of transfection to that spike protein.
So that when transfection didn't work out as well as they hoped it would, they would be able to blame it on the poor rust choice of the spike protein as the transfection target rather than transfection in general.
And now we can move on to subsequent generations of this technology reporting to solve some of the problems that are there.
And I will include the double stranded DNA contamination in this general ruse to try and confuse us about what effects are coming from where.
What I want is high morbidity. I want people to complain. So what do I do? I go to Des Moines. Ladies and gentlemen, the people on the screen, I have nothing against Des Moines. I lived there for four years.
I go to Des Moines. I infect a couple of Sentinel cases in Des Moines. I go to Seattle. I infect a couple of cases there.
Okay, so we've listened to this video before. This video is Dr. Giordano. Dr. I can't remember his first name.
Shoot. But anyway, it doesn't matter. Dr. Giordano, he works for the US Army and he's explaining here a seeding of a few annoying cases using a toxin or some other substance which would cause people to go to the hospital and complain could be combined with an internet campaign to create the illusion of spread.
And then that illusion of spread could be claimed by a terrorist group and also denied by governments. And you could cause confusion that would cause a rift between the populace and their government and that would ruin a country over time.
Now, although this is not exactly what I think happened, I think that this presentation from 2017 really puts out an outline which we need to consider as a real possibility as an alternative to the idea that either a natural or a lab leak virus has circulated the globe for the last four and a half years, and that it has changed its flavor several times across the entire globe in a sort of almost, I don't know, color changing kind of manner.
This story doesn't have any foundation in biology, but this one has stories in as a foundation in military lectures. It has a foundation in biology and it has a foundation in previous tabletop exercises which discussed these kinds of things.
So number one, a military response with the ability to drive local mass casualty events. I believe that it's very possible that in the places where the script called for a lot of people to get sick, there was also a military presence to make sure that that appearance was maintained.
It doesn't necessarily mean that 20,000 people were killed in four weeks in New York, but that seems to be the numbers right now. We don't have death certificates. We don't have any firm evidence of where these 20,000 bodies went, but the numbers that are officially reported are a mass casualty events that begins and ends in four weeks.
There's no evidence of spread after that. And these numbers need to be corroborated because, again, the New York City was a place where lots of people rushed to help, including people like Pierre Cori, who although he came after that 20,000 deaths event, was very quickly in front of the US Senate telling about how this was a war and that this was crazy, deadly, and that it was a real battle.
And so we've got to be very careful here because it's very likely that the beginning of the pandemic in these places where these mass casualty events were occurred, people were also co-opted. They walked in. They said, hey, this is a national security thing. We don't know how bad it's going to be. It could be worst case scenario. We need your help.
We're glad you came, but we need this message delivered to social media. You're a credible guy. I think you can handle it, but you're going to have to stay on script a little bit because the worst case scenario, we need everybody to believe it so that they comply, so that they lock down, so that they wear their masks, so that we figure out whether this is really bad or whether it's ongoing.
And so they could have scared him, threatened him, not saying that anybody was given a suitcase of cash and that's how they did this. I'm saying that the people who ran this used the worst case scenario to co-opt all of these people to make sure that they stayed on narrative.
And at the same time, in the background, there are financial and legal incentives to declare COVID. And at the same time, there's this social media campaign where the worst case scenario of a lab leak is already being whispered about.
And at the same time, there are people on regular TV already denying that that's crazy.
And now if you institute inside of hospitals, little tweaks to different knobs, little tweaks to different procedures so that the average all-cause mortality goes up, and then you have a couple specific things that when they test positive or they're suspected of being COVID, you can get a lot of money if you put them on this protocol.
And you're also free of legal obligation if you put them on this protocol.
Then there's going to be a lot of hospitals, especially in America, who are going to put them on this protocol.
If you also combine that with social policies like do not resuscitate orders to EMTs or any countless other ways that they mistreated old people in nursing homes, you can also increase all-cause mortality under the umbrella of this spreading COVID virus.
Emergency social policies and these COVID hospital protocols then need to be ignored by the people who are perpetuating the worst-case scenario narrative, not because they're mean, but because this is part of the way that this would work.
We didn't know anything then. There were no numbers. We can look back now and look like, wow, you should have known better, but we really can't say it then.
And that's how I got stuck into this, too. That's the reason. They convinced the public that a lab leak cover-up was happening before their eyes.
I was involved in a drastic Twitter group that also convinced me that I was breaking the story of a lab leak right before my eyes.
I felt like I was being a hero.
And so they roped us into figuring this mystery out and to fighting about it.
And all the while, they also used Australia and New Zealand as lockdown examples where they threw people on the ground and forced them to get in masks and they brought them to trailers away from their house to be quarantined.
They couldn't do that in America, but they needed to show the rest of the world what could be done and what might work, what a real lockdown looks like.
Then they needed people like Brett Weinstein in America to complain that, well, we didn't lock down hard enough, otherwise we'd already be at zero COVID.
Zero COVID being a real thing that we talked about for two years that we've all forgotten about, but that was a real debate.
And so the way that they hid all of this activity was to just agree that we're going to talk about a novel virus, we're going to talk about millions of people died, we're going to talk about millions more could be saved, you just listened to me, and we're going to talk about gain of function being a real likely source of it.
And therefore this danger will come again and again. And if you don't question this stuff, you can say anything else.
And they have been laying this narrative for decades that cell culture and animal passage can access pandemic potential and now we can stitch them together and it's even worse.
And they want us to pass this idea onto our children so that they grow up with these boogeymen forever, that this mythology governs their behavior.
And I believe there are a number of people on the internet that were recruited before the pandemic for narrative control, not even knowing there was going to be a pandemic, just thinking that, wow, I get to help out with the governance structure of America by being the new social media, the new media, the new mainstream media.
I get to be that guy. That's so fun.
Joe Rogan doesn't have $100 million contract on Spotify for nothing.
And so we had guys like this in America in February of 2020 listen carefully.
Help people.
People come in, or you can't hear it.
Again, again, again.
Maybe I have to switch my.
We can hear it just a bit muffled to the start.
Okay, that's good. All right, I'll play it. Sorry, it's very quick.
I kid you not.
People come in, I get intubated.
They die. The cycle repeats.
You're overwhelmed. Yeah, the system's overwhelmed all over the place.
My daughter's an intern in Brooklyn, first year resident. She starts the ICU today.
I couldn't sleep last night.
It's scary.
9-11. No, what you know here. Sorry. He says one more thing.
He said 9-11 was nothing compared to this. Now what's important to see is that that guy was also featured on Tucker Carlson.
So, even though we now know when we look back at New York City, most of the hospitals were empty.
That guy was on Fox News telling the United States, the whole world, that it was biblical like hell.
And they had world leaders saying that it was a pandemic and it's the new normal.
We're going to build back better. They had people on the news saying this.
They had virologists agreeing that the ACE2 receptor affinity sure seems to indicate that they enriched this in a laboratory, maybe even with humanized mice.
And none of these people acknowledged that there was this huge propaganda campaign that caused fear and uncertainty and doubt.
They sent old attending physicians home because the virus was so dangerous.
You didn't want these people that were near retirement to be in the OR or into the ER rather.
They sent old professors home from universities, said, don't come in.
You should just take early retirement because if you come into a university, you could get this terrible thing and you could die.
They told people not to resuscitate people because you'll spread the virus when you give them CPR.
You better use ventilators with a higher pressure setting than you've ever used before because otherwise they might spread the virus.
Yeah, but these people can talk. That doesn't matter. Sedate them, invent them because they get COVID money then.
$35,000 a person and they get no, there's no liability for the care of that person if they designated them COVID.
Lack of antibiotic use was just built into the protocol. Poor use of steroids was just built into the protocol.
Eventually, Mandazolam and Remdesivir was built into the protocol.
The opioid deaths have gone up every year in America since 2017 or something like that.
But since the start of the pandemic, they're going up much more rapidly.
These are not excess deaths that can be discounted, but they are excess deaths that very easily hospital administrators could call COVID and did.
More importantly, these deaths happen across age groups, which reduce the expected lifespan of America, and then they can be pointed to as saying, look at what COVID did.
And without any honest accounting of what's actually happening in America, what's actually killing people in America, these deaths are getting mixed up as COVID because they only care about excess.
And if you compute it wrong, all of those are excess. Death certificate fraud, financial incentives, and then we go to track and trace, which happened in America for literally a year.
They had whole companies that were making phone calls to warn you that somebody that you work with was tested positive.
And then we go all the way back to the beginning and we find this PCR fraud, this lateral flow test fraud, and likely sequencing fraud, which we have all come to accept as being evidence of something, which it's not.
And we've come to accept that evidence because no matter who we got into arguments with, they just seem to all be stuck on this novel virus as being real.
It's the limited spectrum of debate that we've been trapped in for four years.
It's the way that we get family and friends out is by alerting them to the idea that this hasn't been a vigorous debate.
It's been a very limited debate actually tricked you into solving a mystery that got you to accept their monster.
They started us out in the beginning of the pandemic on a lonely road all by ourselves with only social media and mainstream media to look to besides our family.
And then no matter who you got in the car with, they were going to tell you a story about a novel virus that killed millions that we should be able to save more people from if we would just give them these novel treatments and gain a function.
It's definitely a possibility and the virus will come again.
And so it didn't matter who you chose. It was a random cards. If you got lucky and chose Mike Eden, well, and maybe you were losing your mind for three years because no one else agreed with you.
If you heard Wolfgang Wodach before he stopped speaking up because of censorship, he might have been gone crazy by now.
But if you found any of these other people on TV or in social media, you're still hot in the debate about, oh my gosh, these people were lying to me.
Brett Weinstein was hot on this telling about lab leak and natural virus.
He even had a member of Drastic on his show named Yuri Dagan, who was the first guy to identify the fear and cleavage site that supposedly set this from a normal average coronavirus into something that could skirt the world for five years like a lightning bolt.
Most recently, I got courted by one of the things that happened, not most recently, but most relevant to the story I want to tell you today is that Charles Rixie, a member of Drastic and an American came to my house in Pittsburgh to convince me that my assessment of the diffuse proposal, which is a leaked grant proposal, which supposedly describes the insertion of fear and cleavage sites into coronaviruses and then spraying them into bat caves by EcoHealth Alliance, was likely a fake.
I said that the moment that anybody showed it to me, I said, that's got to be a fake.
There's no way that anybody would have written that grant proposal.
And if they did write that grant proposal, they wrote it just so that people would believe that these experiments would be done.
They're ridiculous. And even if they did them, my current conclusion is that this doesn't create pandemic potential, but it does create this ongoing debate about whether that's pandemic potential or not, which is the scooby-doo to begin with.
So this guy was involved in that. He actually came to my house.
He's one of the people who claims that he released the diffuse proposal to the public.
Now, why is this important with regard to Kevin McKernan?
Well, Kevin McKernan is this guy who worked for the Human Genome Project.
He's not a doctor or a PhD, but he's a very clever guy.
He's sold a lot of patents to different companies, a lot of companies he's sold or got bought out because he's got a lot of ideas about how to sequence DNA.
So there's no question that he's sharp as a knife.
The deal is, though, is that he's been on my stream at least twice.
He came on my stream in the first two years to talk about the transfection, to talk about the RNA impurities, to talk about what would happen when they codon optimized the RNA.
And so we had an ongoing relationship.
But at some point in time, that ongoing relationship tumbled and stopped because I said that the double stranded DNA in the shot was probably not the worst thing that's in there.
And even if that wasn't in there, it would still be bad, which is what I thought we agreed on already with the previous two times we had discussed this.
However, that kind of fell apart.
Why is that interesting?
Well, it's interesting because after being blocked for over a year, it looks like Robert Malone is promoting Kevin McKernan and a particular article.
It's a particular article about the diffuse proposal and about how the diffuse proposal has had some extra evidence brought forth because a FOIA request reported by Emily Koff has shown that they ordered some of the enzymes that would have been needed in the proposal, that they had some email conversations about the contents of the proposal.
So these these these other orbiting documents are argued by Robert Malone, Kevin McKernan, a guy by the name of Archimedic and Jessica Rose, all to be further evidence that the diffuse proposal is real, that they actually put furan cleavage sites into coronaviruses and they sprayed them into bat caves.
And so the implication is, is that they made it and that an RNA did circulate the globe for the last four years and is still circulating.
Now, I want to put reference to the fact that I also wrote an article about this at the time that the paper came out with none other than Charles Rixie, that guy that came to my house, and Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. in the the CHD Defender.
In that article, I acknowledge that the diffuse proposal has this methodology in it, but I was already at that point telling Bobby that you have to consider the possibility that the diffuse proposal is a fake with the design of trying to get people to buy into this
lab leak thing because a lab leak implies a virus with unknown potential.
It could be an unknown level of deadly, an unknown level of stable, an unknown level of whatever, because it's not natural.
And that's the whole that's the whole beauty of the Scooby Doo.
Once you start accepting this as a mystery you need to solve, you're accepting that that boogeyman.
And so what's interesting about the promotion of this is that it all seems to be a concerted effort to make diffuse real again.
Why is that interesting? Well, because I think this all spun out of control when I started to talk about what clones are.
And I think that this has a lot to do with this because if you look in the comment section of this actual post, you will find a comment about Kevin, that Kevin McKernan, the author of this, makes to a subscriber or follower of me.
And so I just want to read this. I know it's it's sometimes annoying to have somebody read something, but it's a little low.
It's a little small. I want to make some points about what this is.
And then we're going to listen to what we're going to discuss what this is really all about.
So this is somebody who said that what about clones and the fact that RNA can't go around the world with high fidelity for many years.
That was the that's the basic 30,000 foot message that I've had for a while. You're probably familiar with.
This is common. Remember, this is a response from Kevin McKernan, the guy who has been going around the world on lots of podcasts telling people that there's double stranded DNA contamination in the shot and that that means that that all these guys are bad guys and that it could explain all of the problems that we've been having, which I really believe is is a red herring.
So here we go. This is common JJ Cooey bio babble slash folklore.
Corona viruses circulate the globe every year.
There is no reason why an engineered version could not do the same given it was derived from parts of viruses that have been doing this for millions of years.
So I have the the virology textbook behind my head here because I want to emphasize that Kevin McKernan, the guy who worked for the Human Genome Project and now has a a marijuana genetics company.
I mean, and lives on the Atlantic Ocean in a very beautiful house whose brothers have several companies about about testing for cancer and his father was an absolutely giant set their family up really well as a successful businessman.
This guy has no business, no reason to waste any of his time coming against a guy who is renting his house in Pittsburgh and streams from his garage with less than 3000 people.
But here he is already 100% on the virology that the NIH and the WHO and the CDC and everybody else would love you to believe.
Corona viruses circulate the globe every year and there's no reason why an engineered one couldn't do the same.
In this case, someone spent the effort to hyper optimize the COVID-19 ACE2 binding affinity so that would spread far and wide.
That's weird because the first year and a half we were debating about the fact that it had a furan cleavage site, which made it very infectious.
Now he's saying that it was actually the ACE2 affinity that caused that.
I thought the ACE2 affinity had something more to do with how many people it would infect or how easily it could infect people.
But the fact that it would go throughout the body and be very systemic and that when you coughed it out, it would already be ready to bind was the furan cleavage site.
The fault in this logic is assuming the spread initiated when Chinese claimed it did in 2019 when in fact there's evidence of prior circulation.
This is also important because this is the opposite of what I said.
Prior circulation gives time for it to achieve an endemic state.
We've already said that it's likely that the background endemic RNA signal is being confounded with new spread.
Most efficient mechanism would be to package a virus and infect a few people in the city.
Exactly as Giordano's lecture tells us and exactly as I've been teaching for the last almost three years.
So again, this is a January 19th, 2024 post about my ideas.
And he says that the seeding clone hypothesis is chemtrail retarded.
Dropping clones everywhere, hoping for magical transfection to occur while having an endless parade of spies dropping, spreading these clones around his keystone cop.
When packaged virus will perform all this skullduggery for you.
So he wants you to believe that viruses are something very different than clones when virology acknowledges in actually thousands of papers that clones are their best approximation of what they can barely find in nature.
So it's a direct inversion of what I have to believe he knows is the truth about RNA virology.
You expose yourself to infinite more disclosure points going to get cost.
So leaking the virus provides camouflage, plausible dietability.
So here we are again being forced back into solving the mystery.
So this is the final insult.
The keystone cop clone chemtrail hypothesis requires teams of covert people and frankly is stupid.
If you know how to package a virus.
Well, this is curious because that's not the argument that I'm making.
So I want to clarify that first.
The argument that I'm making is that the cartoon version of the infectious cycle is incorrect where a virus goes into your lungs that makes copies of itself and then you cough it out.
It's much more complicated than that.
One of the very early clues that we had of this was when Robert Malone told us that the vast majority of viral particles are non infectious.
They're, they're, they're replication incompetent.
And so that's what's represented at the cartoon over here.
I believe this is also the reason why a lot of the objections of the no virus camp are actually very much spot on and have a great relevance to our trying to understand the infectious cycle for real if there is one and I'm open to the possibility that there isn't.
So the first thing that I'd like you to imagine or think about is virus packaging and what that has to do with.
This is a cartoon, a computer model of viral packaging.
The idea is again, that little tiny red line there is the mRNA and it's supposed to be coiled around the end protein, and then a bunch of end proteins brings that full genome of the virus into the endosome and the endosome has the spike protein on the inside of it.
And so when you when it invaginates like that, then you get this vesicle forming on the inside of the endosome and that's supposed to be the free virus.
Now the question becomes, how in the world is this all orchestrated?
How does your cell just get told, okay, take this and wrap this all around and put this in there and arrange this that way.
The idea that the word hijack is sufficient to justify this cartoon as being fact is absolutely unacceptable.
And that's again part of the no virus people's objection that I think is really spot on.
And in fact, there's almost everything that they say is true.
It's just the things that they chose not to say for two or three years that frustrate me.
But again, it could just be that I was an idiot and stuck with these people.
This I want to. Whoa, sorry about that.
That's from my stream.
So I would like to come on and I would like to just give you a brief introduction to RNA viruses to make sure that you understand where we are.
This is influenza A and influenza A.
If you can see, my arrow is right here and it's binding with the cell.
It's going to go into the endosome and then it's going to release into this thing a negative strand RNA.
And some proteins which can copy it.
So the first thing to remember in case you're unaware of this is that flu and measles are negative strand RNA viruses that they can't be read by our ribosomes.
So in order for an influenza virus to be a useful particle, it also needs to have all of the accessory proteins present so that that negative strand RNA when it's released into the cell will be reliably copied into a positive strand RNA, which can be then trapped in the cell.
And then it will be reliably copied into a positive strand RNA, which can be then translated into proteins by our our ribosomes.
Now, that's a pretty interesting scenario, right?
Because then if we go back to this, this illusion here, then in a flu virus, when a flu virus is assembled, not only do you need to get a full genome in there or in the flu viruses case actually need to get about eight circular RNAs into the same virus.
But you also need to get some of these proteins in there because if they're not in there, then this virus will be useless.
So contrast that to the positive stranded RNA virus of coronavirus and you will see that actually the translation of the full genome occurs immediately.
And you produce end proteins and you produce this primary translating polyprotein.
So these this compound protein something something apparently can copy sub genomic RNAs right away to genomic RNAs or sorry, genomic RNAs right away to genomic RNAs.
You see in this picture here, this is from like Science magazine.
So if you think that this is kind of a bad picture, I agree.
But here you have just a little cartoon that seems to indicate that this this amount of protein is capable of making copies of the single stranded genomic RNA.
But it's also capable of making these single stranded genomic RNA sub genomic RNAs that are little tiny ones here.
And they don't really explain much more about it.
It's again a lot of hand waving.
But again, you can see the task.
None of these RNAs are supposed to be packaged.
Only the full genome should get packaged and shipped out.
And yet when we've looked at the expression of these positive stranded genomes in cell cultures, we see that the preponderance of mRNAs that are produced are actually all these sub genomic RNAs like hundreds of thousands of times more than any full genomes that are made.
And so this seems to kind of to support the idea of what Robert Malone said, which is the vast majority of viral particles don't end up with a full genome inside of them because the full genome is very rarely copied with very very rarely copied successfully.
And then every time it is copied successfully, there are a number of errors in it because of the way that RNA is copied.
Now, it is possible in the realm of possibility that this little area here in the cartoon will be found to be quite high fidelity and Jay's all wrong and he's an idiot and he can go home but I really doubt that and more importantly, there's no real there's no real firm molecular evidence for the fidelity here at this step, they can say that it's, it's here or it's there but the bottom line is that it's not like copying double stranded DNA.
And so you're already at lower fidelity with that. And so what is actually happening here is most likely that these these RNAs these viruses are interacting with existing machinery that already packages things that already puts RNA or DNA into a package and already has proteins on the
outside because then it would make a lot more sense. In other words, it's kind of like a cuckoo clock and if you hijack a cuckoo clock you can't make it make toast. You can make it ring at the wrong time you can make it make funny noises, but you can't make it make toast and I don't think that a virus can go into a cell and make it do something that it already doesn't do.
And so I think that this is just hijacking of that signal and but what that means is that what we are doing is we are packaging RNA and the vast majority of the RNA that we find in there is either low fidelity copy or even a impartial copy.
And that's the problem with what they find when they look in these papers what they find when they look in the wild and so this is the analogy I've come up with. They are more like mixed tapes.
And so you cannot grow them in the wild. A mixed tape is from the old days, where you could bought this in the store it would sound really good but if you copied it for your friend it would already have this hiss and it wouldn't sound very well.
So you could make a mixed tape for your girlfriend and put all the songs that reminded you of her on one tape and it would sound okay.
But if you wanted to make a copy of that mixed tape it would sound really awful. And this lacking a loss of fidelity upon each copy. There is a there is a equivalent to that in the copying of RNA that is orders of magnitude more important than the copy then in the
copying of DNA. And that's why an analogy for RNA versus DNA, a useful one might be an audio tape versus a CD. If you make a mixed CD, and then you made a copy of that CD it would be a pretty decent copy to listen to but it's not the same with
And so I'm making the argument that like audio tape, an RNA signal found in the anus of a bat or found in the lung of a sick child is not a cultureable signal that can be made infinite quantities of.
You can't just grab it and go and then you know put some more in the culture and pull some more out. And that that's always been a problem for them and the way that they overcome it is a technique that is who's who's
The credit for inventing it has been given to Ralph Baric by the by the narrative by the TV but in reality these are just standard bench techniques for putting two pieces of DNA together. And in this case the DNA that they're putting together that they're ligating together is actually DNA that is the copy of a genome that they say they found in the wild so they make this DNA copy.
And I put a little CD here to indicate that this is a high fidelity copy and because a coronavirus genome is so long they need to divide it in a few plasmids.
And so that's where the ligation comes in. You have five pieces that you can that you can grow in a bacterial culture and then those five pieces need to be ligated together into one genome and that ligation step requires a sort of puzzle piece to be cut in both ends of those
And then that puzzle piece cut is actually done by a specific enzyme. And so with very clever choices of codons you can actually make an assembly kit for coronavirus genomes that you can kind of insert pieces into and this
This methodology has been blamed for again that that sewing icon that I put on the worst case scenario. It is it is the stitching of things together and using this technique to do it that then leads to a huge quantity of DNA.
And this is the part where Kevin McKernan seems to want to try and obfuscate the idea of clones. The problem is with clones is that when you make this DNA in a bacterial culture, you can make as much as you want.
And so when you convert it to RNA, there's only one step from converting it to DNA and RNA. So there's a limited amount of errors that will be made. And since you're moving from a pure template of DNA to a limited amount of errors of RNA, you will produce a purity of this full genome that doesn't exist when you sample these from nature because when you sample them from nature.
The mRNA makes a bunch of sub genomic RNAs that overwhelm the RNA signal and the full genome is almost undetectable. And this gets overcome if you do it this way because you have a DNA copy of the full genome that you convert to RNA. So there's no sub genomic RNA produced.
You're not even using an RNA dependent RNA polymerase. You're using an RNA polymerase that has been commercially optimized. And what this allows you to do is produce cell cultures that are replicable and everybody can use your DNA. You can just make more RNA. You can just make more of it from the DNA that you made. You can make more DNA if you want.
You can also make replicable cell animal models of these infections and you can also share it with people. The worst part about this is just like the mRNA shot, you can produce industrial quantities of this. It doesn't have to be small batch brewing. You can do a giant batch of this cDNA and then convert it all to RNA and you will have a large quantity of infectious RNA that could have never, ever, ever, ever been generated in any other way.
Because of the nature of RNA copying and fidelity. And so they have indeed used this for all RNA papers forever. This is what they do now. They find a signal, they make a clone. And now if you want to use my clone, I can send it to you.
This is an example of a paper that was done in 2019 right before the pandemic where they use human coronavirus 229E and they make a clone of it.
They take this clone and they put it into a cell culture and they look for these sub genomic RNAs to be transcribed and they're trying to look for the relative ratio that they're produced in.
And so I'm going to skip this slide. When they find the... this is kind of a hard graph to read, but what you're looking for are these signals here and what level they are relative to the x-axis.
Sorry, the y-axis. Hello. And so as you go up in the y-axis, you go up in abundance. And the coverage here, so what you're covering is the full genome which is listed on the bottom.
So this ORF1A and ORF1B are where all these magic proteins are which are able to copy the viral genome but also make the sub genomic RNAs that are necessary for viral replication and assembly according to virologists.
The interesting thing is, is when copying begins using this clone, the vast majority of sub genomic RNAs that are present are the N protein, the M protein, the E protein, a protein called number four, and the S protein.
And in fact, when you look for full length RNAs, they only found two.
So while there were somewhere between five and eight thousand copies of the N protein in some of these transcripts, a lot of these are high numbers, and they're different lengths and different variations of that fragment, there were only two fragments that could qualify as anywhere near full length.
Now we could have missed some, except the problem is, is that we've seen this same signal even in the old days when we were doing it in old ways, when we were still really just being able to look at MRR,
RNA and looking at whole fractions in gel pull downs, they still saw the full genome is almost invisible. It's almost impossible to find.
And so this is a very consistent signal. It's probably not the limitations of nanopore sequencing in that latest paper because this signals the same.
When a coronavirus RNA replicates it very rarely makes a full copy of itself. So how in the world are these things spreading from person to person? It definitely isn't the way that the cartoon describes it.
That's the reason why this story doesn't make sense, that it's really hard to culture. Well, if the virus was making perfect copies of itself, it would be easy to culture, but it's not. It's making very poor copies of itself.
Many of the copies are non replication competent. That makes it difficult to culture coronaviruses from the wild.
The solution that they've come up with is to take that RNA sequence that they find in the wild, turn it into cDNA constructs that can be grown in high quantities in a bacterial culture.
They can then use any number of ways to convert that cDNA to RNA. You don't have to get into that now. And in fact, because we're going to talk with somebody like Kevin McKernan, it would be really silly for me to try and wax intellectual about all the details of that.
But the point is, is that when they do this, they are able to create a purity level of a single copy, many, many copies of a pure RNA that can't exist in nature because of the nature of replicating RNA.
Now, the trick is, is that up until now, no one has really tried to measure the infectious ratio of a coronavirus swarm in an animal or in nature or anywhere else.
But my guess is it's a lot different than one to one or 10 to one or even 50 to one. The point is, is that if you make an RNA copy, or sorry, a DNA master copy, you can make lots of copies of the same RNA and you will have averted this problem that makes it so difficult to culture
coronaviruses from the wild.
So are you are you suggesting that they're making.
So you know if you put that infectious clone into a mammalian cell, you're going to get a very similar output to what SARS does right the replicated machinery is going to make this really odd array of different expression from the N gene, the M gene and
Because it has to right if you want to actually stoichiometrically put one genomic piece of DNA or RNA into a capsid, you have to make like 100 to 1000 spikes 100 to 1000 you know end proteins envelope proteins so so they're going to express a lot more that junk at the end of the molecule,
just to make that assemble correctly.
Are you suggesting that that to do an infectious clone release you'd have to like, take the clones grow them in a coal I like they're doing for the vaccines, and then purify them and then make a lot of T seven like RNA off of it and then infect people with the RNA somehow, because
that case it would be it would be linear it all be one molecule it wouldn't be all diced up and having this this different type of expression profile that we see in nature.
Right so that's that's kind of my point is that if you did that, you would have a an infectious clone would be an not accurate representation of what SARS does when it's on its own.
So, the question becomes ladies and gentlemen what in the world is this all about.
In the world all of a sudden in January of 2024 do I, after being blocked for a year and just kind of ignoring him. Do I still get this kind of vitriol when when we discussed it live over that was in March of 2000 of last year, when we discussed it live he didn't have this
went on.
There was 15 more minutes of that discussion where we discussed all of these principles and he didn't think it was crazy.
Yes, sir. What was that.
We have had Kevin McKernan on as a guest, but that I can't remember what he looks like was that him then that was him then absolutely.
And so, he is calling me keystone cop clone chemtrail hypothesis when we've discussed it many times, and he didn't call it this.
Well, he's a little bit exercise there I think when he was challenging you.
That's okay I don't have any problem.
No, no, I, you know, yes, okay. I was just commenting. First thing that he says is that in this comment is that close coronaviruses circle the globe every year he also says that they've hyper optimized the receptor binding domain, and that equals fast spread now
that wasn't the way it was it was actually, we turn this off. It was actually the fear and cleavage site that was blamed for that for quite some time.
And then we have this.
Then we have, it could not spread as fast as what he said and so it has to be already endemic but but but I was, I've been explaining that to him that this is a background.
And that if there is a background that's being confounded by the PCR then we would. We were just being misled he is purposefully ignoring that for more than two years.
And what, so, Kevin, what, what just let me go forward let me go forward, ask it at the end, seeding clone hypothesis is chemtrail retarded is not a scientific discussion here this is it a, this is a multimillionaire wasting his time on his own
trying to track back trying to trash somebody who has 3000 followers, and was just laid off from CHD.
Like, what, why does he even need to waste his time doing this unless there is a reason. And the reason is is because this idea is the right answer.
I would like to see a few people with a clone so that you get the same sequence in any place that you look for it. And if it lasts for a little while, or a few days. It doesn't matter I don't know how long it will last I don't know how much quantity they would use.
The point is is that this biology is real. The papers are hundreds to argue about whether or not RNA replicates at this at this fidelity or that fidelity doesn't change the fact that that these clones are used to make coronavirus biology replicable
in each in each experiment if you don't do that then the moment you do an experiment with the coronavirus you can't replicate it because it's gone.
And so, this keystone cop chemtrail hypothesis insult is actually an admission that this is actually real there's no other way that this guy with a cannabis company is going to be touring the world talking about these shots.
And he's not speaking the viruses better he's actually arguing that real viruses have have attributes that clones don't.
And the most important thing to understand is that in all of his time, and all of his podcasts and all of the microphones he's ever had. He's never once pointed out that on top of all this they were really exaggerating the danger of whatever it was, and that the protocols
that were used to replicate the virus have probably caused mash casualty events that were misconstrued as spread. And so, the defense of there are viruses the defense of the relative replication competence of viruses is irrelevant, if you don't actually
And so, this keystone cop chemtrail hypothesis insult is actually an admission that this guy with a cannabis company is actually real there's no other way that this guy with a cannabis company is going to be touring the world if you don't do that.
replication competence of a particular gene in the coronavirus genome. It's absolutely absurd. And you can see it here because in that same video from March of last year.
Jessica Rose says that it's the best idea she's ever heard and it explains almost everything here is the, the substack that she wrote after that article it says by the way a massive thank you to Jonathan Cooley Matthew Crawford john Bowden and Mark Jura dough for the Thursday night chats, you know
You know who Mark Jura dough is he's the guy who claims that it's a bolus effect and if you just hit a vein that that's where autism comes from. You know who Matthew Crawford is you know who john Bowden is you know who Jessica roses, this is a description of the Steve Kersh steering
committee that used to meet on every Thursday night where I would explain this stuff to these people that now ignore it.
The only person who covers this idea is Matthew Crawford.
Mark Jura dough insists that it's still just injection and missing the vein.
John Bowden is talking about what he needs to talk about and he's every time he says that the protocols were murder somebody cuts him off.
We need to wake up to the idea that we have been lied to and that there are people who are actively lying to us they are obfuscating the truth about this, and they, they even go so far as to say that the viral swarm isn't real.
Even though they have to admit that RNA cannot be copied perfectly if it can't be copied perfectly the swarm is real done.
And so they have, there's an orchestrated campaign to make this diffuse proposal real so that this fear and cleavage site becomes real again and so that this cover up becomes real again so you think that we think that our families think that we need to teach our kids that this was
a solved mystery and that Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance are guilty of this we need to return RNA to real again.
We need to return the biology of RNA and clones real again.
That's what we need to do.
And now I'm going to use this analogy and then I'm going to wrap up, but look very carefully at this guy this Italian guy pretending to stop this subway.
He gets on and he pulls it to a stop and then he's going to go over here and he's going to chalk up his, his hands and he's going to pretend that he's doing this. Now what I want you to understand is that the more people, and please do this thought experiment if you haven't already
the more people that he recruited to do this act, the more convincing it would be, especially if you are a young person, or you didn't know anything about electric trades.
And the bigger the people were the more animated they were the more lights and sparks that they had in their in their uniform or more tools that they used, and more noises that you heard as the train stopped or the train went away the more convincing it would become
that these people were stopping and starting the train.
And I want you to think about the pandemic as something like this that if enough people were to act like there's a pandemic to agree to fight about what the pandemic is that you would be bamboozled by you would think wow look at all these that must be.
And if you were one who really wanted to participate you might even be invited to hear there. Here's the tug of war pull on the rope.
You can help us by pulling on the rope. And so you get your
James raise his hand with a question.
Oh, it's okay good I'll stop right here. Go ahead.
Actually, it was very interesting what you were just saying then you were interrupted on a key sentence. What was that.
Well, I don't know just that that that that all of these people now if you think about how this little this little cartoon goes. The more people that you have standing along the train the more convincing this this illusion is and so that people are doing something
that matters.
And in the, in the start of the pandemic do you want to ask your question now Jim go ahead.
Absolutely I didn't mean to interrupt I just wanted you to address the, if you could, the different types of spike proteins that are being alleged by a guy named Jason McClellan who supposedly invented the, the vaccine.
I can comment on that a little are you aware of that guy. I'm not aware of that guy and I don't want to interrupt you I didn't want to I didn't mean to interrupt I just wanted to get in line early because you're gonna have a lot of questions is great
talk. Okay, great.
So the point would be then to get back to this is that the more people you had standing on the train that agreed to talk about one thing.
And that not not question the pandemic but just talk about one aspect of it, like a novel treatment, or whether we can build immunity or not or whether T cells are involved or it's all B cells or is it a natural killer cells.
Did the lockdowns work or not I mean are we seeing evidence of masking working in in Asia or not these debates were all real, and they were all televised, and they were all designed to make sure that you didn't question the primary thing that was happening
which is that these mass casualty events equal spread that these PCR tests equals spread.
And so all of this stuff was scripted it was it was gained, it was tabletop exercised for many years they knew that they were getting closer and closer to getting it right.
And so I would argue that there are a couple things that we can know for sure I hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are underutilized pretty useful drugs.
Chances are very good that in a place like America using processed food and eating as bad and exercising as little as they do that something like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin when applied to somebody with some immune problem some sickness that it might have some general effect,
even if it's not directly related to whatever that they were experiencing. The point being that these are underutilized pharmaceuticals that have no real danger if they're used properly and even their overdosing is probably not that dangerous so you have this issue here that if you accept this again this is the mystery.
A novel virus needs novel cures. What did they choose they choose novel cures that you could argue about without any problem. And then they also conveniently did really badly designed studies that could people could argue about people like Brett could argue about people like Pierre
Corey could write a whole book about.
I would argue that the double stranded DNA is another opportunity to make fake helpers join in the vigorous discussion that will never question the necessity of the transfection in the first place, nor will they question the general application of transfection as a vaccination methodology
because they will say like like Buchholz did that if this DNA is in the shot I would still give it to my my parents but I wouldn't give it to my daughter. He actually said that in front of this, the, the South Carolina Senate this guy who claims that he was whistle blowing on the
nation and confirmed that Kevin McCurden's measurements were right.
This is a guy who was also very involved in the testing for coronavirus for the first two years it's not for nothing that he was chosen to be the guy who again stepped in front of step to the side of the train and pretend to help stop it.
They praise the methodology and they blame the rush.
And so the last thing that is is this diffuse proposal and its contents and whether or not it's real and whether or not the contents mean that they were already done.
Whether these released emails indicate that they the experiments were obviously already done. And just like other aspects of the narrative if you accept this relevance or even argue about it, you are not arguing about whether RNA can go around the planet and change colors.
And they have done this with lots of things, including meetings all around the world where people are invited and considered celebrities and get to go on stage and present their results.
And then somehow or another their results or their objections never quite come out of the meeting like they should.
And so in this scenario I just want you to imagine where Jessica Rose is a good guy and and and Byron Brittle is a good guy and Danny Rancourt is a good guy and and Nick Hudson is a good guy and Ryan Cole is a good guy and they're all these people on the stage are pulling on this tug of war.
But actually when it comes right down to it maybe some of these people in yellow aren't actually pulling.
Maybe they're not actually going to leave this meeting and tell everybody everything they heard they're just going to tell everybody some things that they heard.
And that's how they did this throughout the entire pandemic by calling me by putting me in signal chats and having me give them tutorials on my immunology ideas and then not putting them on their podcast not telling anybody who they were learning this from correcting themselves but not giving credit
they did this to everyone.
They're doing it to Danny Rancourt right now they're doing it to Nick Hudson right now Nick Hudson was at this discussion talk conference in Romania in Budapest, and nobody ever said that his talk was great and I'm sure it was.
And nobody's ever said that Danny Rancourt was there and that he showed there was no evidence of spread they just show that he shows that 17 million people were killed by the shot because that's okay to talk about but the fact that mass casualty events don't have spread away
from them is not okay. So they don't talk about it.
But Danny presented that data.
And that's how this is done, ladies and gentlemen, they're controlling a narrative about this potential and any other parts of this narrative are just discarded.
So, keep bringing you back to this faith, and keep making it about this phase without making it about there being no evidence of spread, not making it about the projected Medicare costs that were saved in America and around the world especially in America,
and not making it about strict liability in America in our law, where the way that we speak about what happens with regular pharmaceuticals it's strict liability you're responsible for the damage that's done with your product.
We don't apply that to vaccines we could just change that.
But nobody talks about it.
We have this separate system called CI CP and VI CP which are two kangaroo courts, where all of the claims against vaccine manufacturers are brought, and the US government pays all of those damages they even pay for lawyers that bring losing cases.
In our constitution it says in the Seventh Amendment that we have the right to sue for damages over $20 so that seems to kind of contradict because we're not allowed to sue vaccine manufacturers we have to use a kangaroo court.
It seems that that's a pretty, pretty obvious violation of our seven.
You got to mute yourself.
It seems like a regular, that's a violent Seventh Amendment but but nobody ever talks about that, none of the lawyers that have been in front of this in this group have ever said to you that one of the ways that we could win is that we could take a single vaccine injury
to court in a state and have the state court say no we can't see your, your claim because of the prep act and then you could take that as an appeal to the federal court and have the federal court strike the prep act has unconstitutional we could be done in months.
But nobody's doing that.
And that should tell you all you need to know.
With all of this biology that I have to teach, I got laid off.
And not from, from, from a university this time.
And so, I think the most important thing to understand is this team worst case scenario is real.
Some of them were co opted some of them were forced some of them were coers some of them did it gladly. Some of them were in place before the pandemic and found themselves between a rock and a hard place as part of this control mechanism in the media and then wow
do I really have to go along with this yes you do.
And we are victims of this.
Our children are victims of this because they are being misled to believe that something real happened that could happen again, and that thank goodness transfection work pretty well for grandma.
And it all started with this illusion here.
Spike protein and antibodies and the antibodies from infection being very much weak compared to the vaccine antibodies. This is a picture that's taken from Francis Collins his own blog in July of 2020.
This is the illusion in a nutshell this is the lie in a nutshell the variants go on into the future and your infection antibodies are useless.
Depending on who you got in the car with you would have heard all this.
You would have heard arguments about all this if you were lucky enough to get in the car with Thomas Binder well good.
But then you would have had to survive four years with people telling you that Thomas Binder was crazy.
And that's the new world order that they want to teach our kids that's the new world order they want us to teach our kids and our teachers are doing it.
The college professors are doing it the college administrators are doing it soon this lie, like in the book 1984 is going to be forgotten to become truth.
And so it's up to us to teach our kids the way out of this it's up to us to teach our kids that they have been fooled by this, that these changes are real, that they are being transitioned to submit to a digital ID and digital currency the digital ID is not a big deal because if you have
it you already have it. You're being tracked and monitored in ways that a digital ID won't even do. It's the digital currency you need to be afraid of of course but I'm not an expert in this stuff I just know that they're probably right people like Michael
Yeeden are probably right this is the, this is the next stage.
And they want you to believe that one of the excuses for this one of the excuses for this level of control is the, the ongoing threat of gain of function viruses this is most important to understand we cannot let our children get on this train, where we believe that
we've defeated all diseases in the past by vaccination that we believe that novel coronaviruses can jump.
We want them to believe that asymptomatic is spread is what they need to think about. They're already telling people in America that RSV is is asymptomatic and that that they need to be concerned about all of these respiratory viruses as being asymptomatic.
This is a train that our kids are currently on and we have very little time to get them off of it before they have their own kids and teach them that this is the reality.
And so we need to get them off this train we need to get them out of this new world order so that this isn't erased. The way to think about this in case you're not there is that they have told us that we have an ongoing RNA viral pandemic that started in 2020 and has been going on for five years.
Five years of sustained RNA transmission that started in a point in a puddle, and an animal cage, and has gone around the world since it leaked that's ridiculous but it is a faith that no one questions.
And it is a faith that your children can be trapped in if you don't start pointing it out to them that we are in the fifth year of this lie. I never thought we'd get this far.
And you can see it as a background they don't know what was in the background before it could be just noise like on a radio that they've turned really loud and then told you there's organization inside of it.
And this RNA signal being confounded as spread could have been seeded they could have seeded the sequence using RNA or RNA clones or the DNA construct and put it in sewers.
And the PCR would have been positive some people would have probably complained because the spike protein and end protein are immunogenic and would have annoyed their immune system so a transfection by a clone would have done everything and more to create and seed the illusion of the pandemic without endangering anybody.
Except for the people who bought in.
So the way to see these people that are meddling with us is they don't ever talk about the childhood vaccine schedule as being as being criminal. I heard Pierre Corey on Jimmy door last night saying it was criminal and I loved it.
So good for Pierre Corey advocate for strict liability of all pharmaceutical products that's the way you speak to lawyers you just say no I'm not I don't want to talk about all this other stuff why don't we advocate for strict liability why don't we use the Seventh Amendment to strike this prep act we need to start saying that regularly.
Investigate the use of deadly protocols to create mass casualty events that were misconstrued as spread and investigate whether or not transfection could have been used to compound that problem or to create the molecular illusion of it.
Declare or take your sovereignty back from your from them and and and the sovereignty of your children and withdraw from the who in the UN entirely.
And if you want to see the meddlers they're not talking about this stuff they rarely cite the deadly protocols that's number three.
They rarely use the word transfection although Brett Weinstein occasionally does they never use the word clone to explain anything and in fact if they use the word clone they use it to ridicule me.
And finally they attack people instead of ideas and they are unable to summarize across the entire show and that's really evident with somebody like.
With somebody like Kevin McKernan who has defended transfection in the past by saying I hope we don't throw the bath the baby out with the bath water because of this contamination.
And has also very distinctly not spoken up about any of the protocols ever which of course were used to justify the rollout of this product and if you really wanted to bring everybody to attention and to understand.
How badly with bamboozled you would tell the whole story at least in a nutshell and not just say it's double-stranded DNA and then my hair is on fire.
And the reason why they're doing in this is because the rich people and private meetings have been saying for a long time we got to start collecting this data from these people before they're gone.
And since we're going to get rid of them we should start collecting that data they want your kids and they want your kids kids so this is a multi generational thing you don't have to think.
About this going to be over in a couple years this is not going to stop because they've convinced themselves that if they collect enough data and the AI evolves.
That we're eventually going to solve all this and we're going to become the transhuman futurist that everybody wants us to be so please stop transfection human because they are trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary that's the end.
I'm open for questions thank you well done.
JJ great great job sorry that was long.
It was long it was wonderful so we'll go back to our normal process and Stephen next 15 minutes and then Jim you'll be first after Stephen so Stephen all over to you.
Hi JJ so.
You're a great teacher JJ I'd forgotten about that but you are a fantastic teacher and.
I think you should communicate with lawyers more than you have been maybe.
Because it's very important that people understand what you're saying.
And so if the lawyers know that there's no possibility in my mind as a medical doctor it's highly unlikely that the narrative which they've been pushing pushing endless deadly viral pandemics.
Is something that's real I think this is just designed to fear instill fear in people I just feel it I can't prove it but I'm relying on someone like you a brilliant biologist to help me and I.
Yeah I'm trying to make sense of it trying to work out what it is that we need to highlight to the world because no one else except you and a few others seem to be looking at the whole picture and your brilliance JJ is that you can actually talk about the biology and then kind of talk about it as it applies to politics.
You can get into the minds of politicians who think they know everything and and you can make them look ridiculous and that's really important so.
I just want to kind of I you know the two main messages I would like to put to people because they all think that there has been a pandemic or damn nearly all anyway there has been a pandemic they all think that COVID-19 was real.
So you've been using the word novel disease I think but I think that we need to kind of think about what the general public understand and they think that they had COVID.
And I tell them where it's highly likely in my mind as a medical doctor there's no such thing as COVID there's no diagnosis which was which you could say was COVID there was no possibility of diagnosing it because there was no symptom which was pathognomonic for COVID-19 as far as I could tell.
They may be realized that but then they came up with you know the loss of taste loss of smell.
And then everybody was saying oh yeah they couldn't remember that they couldn't taste anything for a couple of weeks when they had a cold previously and for a couple of months if they had flu and they also lost their sense of smell it's just amazing.
So it seems to me that people operating cults and they just operate on a belief system and that's how we solve they don't they're not capable of analysis but actually even the people who are capable of analysis they overthink everything and think their tiny little area of science is going to solve the world's problems.
No without them putting it into context what they're saying that it has no significance whatsoever it's completely lost and they might as well not bother.
So I just wondered what your comments are about that.
It's I mean yeah I agree it right now we're just the I don't want to get too too explanatory about it and pigeonhole myself into just I want to be sure that this possibility of there being real biology that could have been used to mislead us and even misleading virologists and misleading molecular biologists into believing that this signal is higher fidelity.
So it is cultish but it's cultish with real you know it's like if you went to a ceremony at some cult and across the water was a giant a giant idol and in front of that idol a bunch of people look like they were they were I don't know sacrificing goats from the other side of the river you don't know what they're doing and a lot of us are on the other side of the river with regard to the pandemic.
We don't really know what's going on behind the scenes we don't know what goes on behind the idol we don't know where those lights are coming from or whether those people in those costumes are who they say they are.
And so we're really lost here I think it's very important to realize that so many of us have been duped into accepting people as as not I don't like the word savior but as people who are trying to come to the rescue on white horses when this script almost certainly prepared that for.
It had to happen.
And only in retrospect as it becomes so visible so I think you're right in characterizing it that way but it is, it is extremely diabolical because not everybody who's participating knows that they have been bamboozled I did not know how badly I was being fooled and how many people were
active in fooling me for those first two and a half years it's only obvious now.
It's strange because it's strange that even you could get into it because it was obvious to me from the beginning that everything was wrong.
So, you have to you have to you have to see that that's not what I was thinking those aren't the questions I was asking I was not asking is the pandemic real I was asking, is the virus lab leak or natural.
Yeah, but this is the point I'm trying to make with this talk is that if you were asking the question of whether the pandemic is real or fake. You were stuck in a certain path that was very different than being stuck in the is the pandemic and natural or
And if you picked the right people, you were going to be stuck over here and you were never ever ever going to be allowed to ask this question.
Do you understand that if if you're in a private chat with a bunch of people that think this is a low level lab leak, you can't ever get those people to discuss the possibility that they might be completely wrong.
And the questions that they ask are going to fuel this very limited spectrum of debate that's very vigorous within it.
And if it's somebody like Joe Rogan talking to Mike Osterholm, it's these are things that people all have to sort out and as an academic biologist, I went with academia.
I got stuck with academia. And so I was trying to sort out what's wrong with academia and to get all the way to the stage where I can now relatively succinctly explain how screwed up academia is it took me a long time I needed to get
I needed to get far enough away from it so I could see it. And so every person, every doctor, every health care worker, every carpenter that bought into this mystery needs to work their own way out and their own way away from this because they've been so
entranced and enchanted to solve this mystery. And then they also don't forget they almost all of us came to the conclusion that we had solved it, that I was winning, that I had finally figured it out.
And that's a very dangerous place to be because then you you can really be really hard to be convinced that you've been fooled. And that's where I was. And I brought a lot of people there and a lot of people in my family or family and friends in circle took the shot because I wasn't arguing the right biology.
I was telling them that it was a lab leak. So hey, if I say it's a lab leak but you don't have to worry about it, how are you going to take my word for that? And that's what I was saying. It's a lab leak but you don't have to worry about it because your immune system is strong.
And all you have to do is doubt your health or doubt your immune system or say well I'm not as good a shape as Jay, I better take the transfection. So I didn't save anyone when I could have saved someone because I was fooled by the same narrative.
And that's what I think is so powerful about my story because I can start crying about it. And one of my friends had an aneurysm on December, I don't remember what the date is anymore, but he had an aneurysm, just a freak. He's just dead. He's got two daughters and a beautiful wife and he's gone forever because he and his family took the shots because I didn't have it. I didn't have the story back then.
And it's really important that people see that it's okay, we all didn't have the story and if we can all come to this realization, we can all collectively lift each other out. It really is an important moment I think.
Yeah.
So, so one, just very quickly, I get traction when I say that I'm a medical doctor to people I don't even know I just talk to them. I know how to talk to people as Jerry Brady says, you know, and, and when I say that I'm a doctor, not for any glory or anything, obviously.
And then I say, no pandemic, I get their interest. And then I say, by the way, there's no novel disease either. There's no COVID-19. And they say, oh, well, I had COVID. I said, don't think he did.
But by that time, we usually got some kind of conversation going and they kind of believe me and but I noticed that they are a bit disturbed, you know, they're very confident about saying they had COVID prior to me saying no pandemic, no novel disease.
And so it's a way I think that we can influence people but maybe you need to be, you know, a brilliant biologist like you or a doctor because they they hesitate to kind of take me on because it may probably look as though I mean business because I do.
But anyway, I wanted to ask you the gain of function thing, I think maybe the message is being missed by some people. So in my opinion, the gain of function research, which they're plugging and saying, oh, how illegal it is, you know, and the people are saying, oh, it's terrible.
They're doing gain of function research, you know, United States is funding this gain of function research, but they don't understand even the people on our side who should know better.
They don't understand the talk about the gain of function research and saying how bad it is and how it shouldn't be going on. And I think David Martin talks about it.
And I think that's the reason why I'm trying to teach the clones in different ways because the gain of function, anything that they do, anytime they insert something or they make when they make a synthetic virus, they're making clones.
Yeah, I mean, I think that that's the reason why I'm trying to teach the clones in different ways because the gain of function, anything that they do, anytime they insert something or they make when they make a synthetic virus, they're making clones.
So it's only a question of how much that they make. They make a little bit or they make a lot because the RNA is still not suddenly endowed with extra copying capabilities because you put an extra base or two in there.
That doesn't change the properties of this multi poly protein replication complex that's hardly even understood.
And so you can you can put whatever RNA you want and you're limited by copying it with an RNA dependent RNA polymerase. So they keep making all these statements about what's going on.
But there's nothing that you can do to the spike protein to change how well the RNA that codes for it is copied. That's like ridiculous.
And and that's the argument that we we needed to learn the weaknesses of it from the very beginning because all of us just bought into the cartoon that there are viruses and then they replicate and that we cough them out and then other people get sick.
And it wasn't until I started really getting challenged on that and really listening to the the objections of some of these people like Mark Bailey, where I started to see that there was something really incongruent and I still feel like we need to revisit a lot of these narratives because best case scenario for virology and biology is that the fidelity of the signal has been grossly exaggerated.
But there are signals that we could characterize as a measles virus or a flu virus or maybe even coronaviruses. But the worst case scenario for virology is that all of these are simply amplified noise that's been mischaracterized as transmitting pathogens, which
And then in that case, we have been probably actively misled by people controlling this this sort of thought space, which is a much more diabolical situation. And it goes back to AIDS and the people who controlled the biology story of AIDS and goes back to the whole vaccine schedule in America going from live attenuated vaccines to recombinant vaccines that were given intramuscularly.
So that's the problem with this too, is that a lot of these people, that's why I say that at the end, how can you see the meddlers? It's very hard to imagine that someone on this journey of discovery in the pandemic would stop at, wow, I guess they made a mistake with the transfection.
And so we should fix that before we move forward. It's kind of a very selective attention on the lies and a very big amount of lies are ignored in that interpretation of reality.
And so it's hard for me to believe that very many of the people that are on our team can still basically say that they think vaccinations in general are very good, like Brett Weinstein still says.
And this is a very big red flag for me that almost everybody that lost their career and got censored and had to shake a can on the internet should be at the stage where they realize that the CDC is the largest producer of vaccines in America and that we have a schedule with more shots that are earlier than any other Western civilization country in the world.
And that alone, that difference alone should be enough.
It's a fraud. I agree with you. Absolute fraud. Yeah. So I just wanted to ask you this key question, JJ. I don't know whether it's key, but it just seems to be to me.
I think that virology, genomics, I'm not sure about genomics and epidemiology, but yes, I think so.
Virology, certainly virology, genomics, epidemiology, evidence-based medicine were constructs to achieve exactly what they launched in 2020.
And that, sorry, immunology, as the virology increased in importance, in inverted commas, the immunology sank into, wasn't seen, you know.
So the very subject which taught us all how brilliant the human immune system is and presumably the immune system of animals too,
that went, lost its influence in the 80s. When I was at medical school, immunologists were kings of medicine.
But now it seems that the virologists want to be kings of medicine. And I think that what they've been doing is fraudulent and it was a construct.
I don't know it was fraudulent, but I think it was. I feel that it was. And it was a construct which was necessary for these bastards to do what they did in 2020.
I think it's very possible that a lot of this mythology will break down. I do. I do. Yeah.
I don't think we're under any obligation to be sophisticated enough to delineate what parts are fake and what parts are not.
We just need to be focused on the current regime of lies and then work backwards from there.
Yeah, but we have to be able to attack the world of virology if that's what we need to do in many different ways.
And so I'm just thinking a little bit further than the end of my nose or trying to because a doctor should be thinking about the possibilities and warning his patients.
Or the world if necessary about dangers. And so yeah, so there was something else, but it's gone out of my head.
Yeah, I liked your I liked your examples. Your analogies were excellent.
I thought so you talked about the our our children are on the train and we have little time to get them off the train.
You didn't use those exact words, but I understand what you're saying.
We and what I think the train was was and Lee endless deadly viral pandemics in the future.
And not only was there no pandemic in 2020, in my opinion, but actually the possibility that there are can be pandemics in the future, I think is another construct.
They've they've they've put this about so they can instill fear into the population and thereby achieve their aims.
It's just necessary to have the fear and and put out the propaganda.
So the whole thing that people are fearing disease X and people who shouldn't be distracted are distracted.
I won't mention names, but you must have seen the disease X and Marburg.
It's just nonsense and we don't need to fear all this nonsense, you know, and thinking about the next pandemic.
So the British government, I need to tell you this, JJ.
They they so they had an inquiry in having an inquiry, COVID inquiry.
I try not to watch it because it's so bad.
And what they had intent on doing is saying to the British, the the agenda is to say to the British people, well, actually, we should have locked down a bit earlier, you know, and then it would have been a lot better.
And and so along comes Boris Johnson, the former prime minister of the UK, who has many, many faults.
He actually determined the remit of the person who's doing the inquiry.
But of course, he's out of power now.
So he comes along. I think he blew the whistle.
He said that so she was commiserating after two days of evidence when Boris broke down, you know, and the story in the newspaper that Boris broke down because everything was so sad.
We should have locked down earlier.
But guess what? Boris comes out at the end when she's commiserating with him.
And he says, I don't think I'll see you in in the near future.
And I was thinking to myself, what world is that?
He's describing I think you'd be meeting that they'd be meeting at every party in the near future.
So he said, I don't think was he said, I think, but you can't look into it.
I think we need to determine where this came from.
Well, dead right. But nobody noticed JJ.
Nobody noticed. I thought, wow, the former prime minister of the UK.
Who was beaten into following the narrative, in my opinion, likely he was blowing the whistle at the end of his evidence of the covid inquiry and nobody noticed except me.
And I'm not claiming if he says if he says I would argue that if he says we need to determine where the virus comes from, that he's telling you, you need to solve the mystery of no, you said it.
He said it. It took a.
Goodness knows what he meant. I'd love to contact him and find out what he meant, but probably he's got an army of people stopping people getting getting to him.
So you remember when he went into into hospital and he was terrified allegedly for his life, he ended up in ICU.
I don't think he was in hospital or he was being.
He was he was predicted to go into the hospital in the in the Olympic Games ceremony, right?
I mean, we saw his at the 2012 Games that were in London where they had the virus from above and they had a giant death walking around with all the attribute or it was a tribute to the NHS and they had all these beds being pushed around.
And one of the people was was him. So like they they told us that.
He was in the bed. Yeah, I didn't know that you've never seen that there was a guy with yellow hair and he was like in the bed whining and they made him look absurd.
It was like a character. Yeah.
So, I think it's a real possibility that I don't know for certain, but it's a real possibility which you think about that Boris Johnson didn't believe what was going on in 2020 and he had to be persuaded.
So actually, yeah.
Okay. All right.
Thank you, Stephen. Okay. Now, Jim had his hand up first and what happens with zoom is if someone says anything that takes your hand down automatically.
So Wolfgang, I saw you came in there, but Jim first and Jerry.
Yeah, thank you very much. Great presentation.
I'm certainly living the plot of a Tom Clancy book called Rainbow Six where an alleged virus is released at the Olympic Games to spread around the world and the vaccine is worse than the virus to depopulate the Earth by radical environmentalists in the in the name of climate change.
My question has to deal with how we prove or first getting immunity and NK and if you can address NK and T cell immunity as good immunity versus IgG immunity as bad immunity that they're measuring, they at the CDC and everybody is measuring right now.
And if you can address the different types of spike protein, meaning the first spike protein is the one that was transmitted by computer from from Wuhan, allegedly.
Number two, the spike protein that was allegedly engineered by Jason McClellan.
We're using proline restraints six proline restraints and I emailed you a video of his presentation and how that spike protein in vaginates into excess goes into gets into cells.
And number three, the spike proteins that are allegedly made by the DNA contaminants that seem to be correlating very well with the dangerous lot numbers or batch numbers and how bad is my batch.
Thank you.
T cell immunity and natural killer cell immunity is complicated and we don't know a lot about it but I can generalize to say that in in my last three years of reading, it seems apparent from the primary literature that T cell immunity is formed to proteins that are conserved
across a wide variety of viruses. One of the most conserved proteins would be these proteins that are in the replication transcription complex. And those proteins are highly conserved across all of these supposed variants of SARS.
That's why they only show you the spike protein and only talk about that because of the other 30 proteins that are in the coronavirus, they don't seem to be changing and they don't care.
And so that's already an obvious tell that this narrative about the spike protein is really not biologically plausible because you, you have other people saying that the spike protein is the only protein that matters or the only one that's changing and that's just not plausible, given the way that we know
is copied. So I would suggest to you that T cells that are relevant for any of these RNA signals are going to be primarily aimed at the RNA dependent RNA polymerase or accessory proteins that are common across these viruses.
Another common one is actually the end protein because it is around the end protein that this RNA is coiled and so you can't really, you know, vary that protein too much and then get packaging to go well, at least in their cartoons.
So that is another gene that they have looked at in the past as a general indicator of coronavirus presence and now they have obfuscated this idea to say that this end protein can be used to identify a particular coronavirus.
And it's up to molecular biologists to judge whether that's true or not, but the vast majority of these PCRs are not using nested primers and so there's a certain level of accuracy that's just not possible that a lot of
academic biologists assume is there. If you want me to give you that little briefing, and I've never really done it before, but I think it's a good idea to try and do it here because you asked the question.
When you amplify the whole virus genome, it's a very long genome and you actually are usually, sorry I'm bumping my camera there, you usually are looking for like a very small amplicon.
This amplicon might be only 300 bases long, whereas the whole genome is 30,000 bases long. And so you might look for two amplicons, you might look for a spike protein amplicon and an RNA dependent polymerase amplicon and then this would have been in the old days pre 2020.
Dang it, I keep hitting my camera. This would have been any coronavirus. You would have used PCR to find two small fragments and then you would have used metagenomic sequencing to amplify everything in the sample and then use an algorithm to see if there was a full coronavirus genome.
Most of the time you wouldn't find a full genome and so instead you would just replace the genes you didn't find with genes that you found in the literature and then you would make a DNA clone of this sequence that you purported to have found in nature.
After 2020 they've been doing the same thing where they first said that we're going to look for a small amplicon in the spike protein and we're going to look for a small amplicon in the RNA dependent RNA polymerase.
And then at some moment in time, they changed what they're looking at and now they're looking at N protein, which is even farther out here on the genome. Doesn't really matter. This is N, this is S, this would be ORF1.
The point is, is that when they look for these amplicons, they're finding a very small signal. And the best analogy that I can come up with would be to say that the local library got blown up by a bomb and none of the books got burnt, but they all got blown into a million pieces.
And so I think that you, Jim, you've written a yoga book and I have primers that can find the sentences of your yoga book. And if I find the sentences that correspond to your yoga book, I can prove to you that you wrote a yoga book you didn't even know you wrote.
And so I look for a few sentences that are pretty common across a lot of books like the following is an explanation of, or an alternative way of doing this would be.
And then I claim that this is very specific for your book. I mean, look, it's right here on page 67. It's really your book. And then I find that signal in the burnt exploded library and I say, look, Jim, you wrote a book.
And that's very similar to how they've found coronaviruses in the past. They look for signals and they find a very short portion that is thought to be shared across many coronaviruses.
And then they look for the whole book in this pile of words. And it's very easy to assemble the whole yoga book if you can use all the words in an exploded dictionary or an exploded library.
And it's hard for us to know as biologists what signals are actually there at this size scale, because the only way we have to probe it is with PCR.
So you almost have to know what you're looking for before you look for it. And then when you look for it, you won't know if it was there for real or if it was just a sentence from another book.
And the most important thing to see here is that in biology, we're not using a dictionary that's got 10 million words in it. And we're not using words that are spelled with lots of different letters.
We're using a limited number of bases that code for a limited number of codons, which code for a limited number of amino acids.
So the shorter you choose the amplicon to seek, the more likely it is that you're going to find a signal that's not related to what you thought you were.
I.e. if you look for once upon a time, you're going to find a lot of signals in that blown up library.
And so to get back to your question to make sure I don't lose my track of my thought here, the spike in Wuhan is actually a I'm going to cut back over here.
I apologize for this. I'm just going to do it quick like this. The spike in Wuhan.
The spike in Wuhan. That's this camera spike in Wuhan is a construct that was made like this.
It was made with an assembly. And my question would be in terms of the clone is that keep in mind this has to do with vaccines and it has to do with converting us.
I apologize for this long answer, but I hope it's good in converting us to believe that the previous combination of substances would be injected to augment your immune system is not as good as the current new combination of substances that we augment your immune system with.
And the way that they fooled you with that is they probably put this spike protein that they wanted to inject in you into these places.
And that's what I think you're hinting at is that the design is not only the prolines to to keep it from being able to change confirmation.
The design probably was the insertion of small epitopes that companies like EpiVax and other companies have been working on for decades to try and find ways to make proteins that your immune system ignores into proteins that your immune system pays attention to.
Because the current way or the old school way that you do that is that you take a recombinant protein that you made in a laboratory and you inject it into the muscle of a child in combination with heavy metals or other toxins.
And those toxins attract the attention of the immune system and macrophages and they try to process this garbage.
And one of the arguments is that the processing of that toxin also causes the processing of those proteins and then you develop antibody immunity to those proteins that you made.
The trouble is is that your immune system is learning to respond to something on the inside now.
And so the antibodies that you make are on the inside. The T cells that you made are not to anything other than those proteins.
And when those proteins aren't around those T cells don't have anything to do.
And the trick here with I'm just going to keep talking because I think this is all really good stuff that probably you don't hear very often.
The other thing to keep in mind is that there's two different mechanisms that are going on here with regard to the immunity.
So when a virus is replicating in your cells or when your cells are transfected, the main thing to realize is that there is a molecule called I'm drawing it in the wrong shape because this is like the shape of an antibody, but it shouldn't be really in the shape of anybody.
I apologize. But it's a molecule that can present other molecules and this molecule is called MHC.
There are two different kinds MHC one and MHC two that I don't want to confuse you with.
Just understand that when your cells are making stuff, they need to report what they're making on the outside by presenting small fragments to the immune system.
And so there are T cells that are patrolling your immune system all the time and checking that like a little bouncer, checking to see that the idea on this cells.
Okay, are you guys cancer cells? Are you doing what you're supposed to do and making actin and other things?
And so there are natural killer cells and there are T cells that are doing this check that are seeing what on the major histocompatibility complex is being presented and whether that jives with the other signals that are present on that cell and so that the immune system can confirm that this cell is doing what it's supposed to do.
When a cell is producing virus, the idea is that on the MHC molecule there will be viral proteins presented that the T cells can recognize and come and destroy this cell before it's able to release full variants.
And of course, the earlier that protein is expressed on MHC, the better chance we have.
If you recall that cartoon we looked at an hour ago, the first proteins that are expressed during coronavirus infection, according to the scientists, are these replicase transcription complex proteins.
So if those are presented and they are shared across the number of these viral species, then this would be the way that T cells would be activated and have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the spike protein, which would be necessarily expressed later.
And also because of the nature of the way it is, it's going to be on the outside of the cell, not presented on MHC, but on the outside of the cell, which is a very different signal.
Now, this is the worst part. When we transfect a cell, the MHC is not going to be presenting in the same way because there's all these antiviral things are not activated because they've chemically altered the RNA to make it invisible to our cells, internal machinery.
It just sits there and it's there for a long time. And it expresses the spike protein on the outside of the body or outside of the cell and expresses small fragments of the spike protein on MHC.
This is a problem because if the body doesn't can't tell the difference, it's going to destroy this cell and then it's going to try and process it.
And every time it does that, there's a potential that it's going to process something of its own and it's going to cause autoimmunity.
That's less likely to occur in an infection because that infection is occurring at a barrier.
Cells that are patrolled regularly by the immune system, like epithelial cells, the orientation of the immune system is oriented around patrolling those cells.
If you transfect someone and that LNP goes anywhere in the body, then cells are going to be doing, they're going to be presenting bad proteins that normally the immune system does not expect them to express bad proteins.
That doesn't express the proteins that infection vulnerable barrier cells are expressing.
And so this is a whole different task for the immune system to sort out.
And so your question of spike in Wuhan is so important because the idea for me would be that if you really wanted to pull off this show and make sure that the entire earth thought that transfection was pretty effective, you better choose a protein that your body won't ignore.
You better choose a protein that after the fourth transfection, you still get a bump in antibody response.
And that's not guaranteed for every protein.
In fact, most proteins without any alteration, your body would build tolerance to very, very, very quickly.
And so it's very striking that even from the fourth transfection, people are still building a noticeable bump of antibody seroprevalence.
That's very dangerous.
And it's dangerous because, again, this this attack, it should not be blood based.
So there's no reason to have a preponderance of IgG antibodies.
You want to have T cells that are eliminating viral infection before it starts in the cells where viral expression is supposed to be.
So this whole engineering of the spike protein may have even been kind of a red herring to make you confused about the fact that, OK, what's the dangerous part about this spike?
And thinking about whether they have eliminated the dangerous part of the spike or not, when in reality it is the transfection of your cells and the randomness of it that leads to the dangers rather than any particular aspect of the transfection in general.
And then if I go all the way to the double stranded DNA question, it's not that I don't think the double stranded DNA packaged in a lipid nanoparticle or not wouldn't be dangerous.
I think it's probably pretty dangerous. That's why they keep it out of all biologics using anion chromatography to remove it from monoclonal antibodies.
For example, there's no DNA allowed in a protein biologic.
None. If you have DNA in it, it will be canceled. That lot will be destroyed.
So this is an extra interesting aspect of making RNA because you can't use the normal procedures, the accepted gold standard to get rid of the contamination because you can't separate RNA and DNA very easily.
So that's another tricky thing that they just completely ignored as they rolled out this transfection and then conveniently brought it up as a problem only afterward.
We rushed it. We didn't know we should have used better methodologies.
We shouldn't have made such big batches. All of these are excuses to make you think that transfection could be good if they had done it right.
And that I have been saying is a lie for at least three years, if not four. It was the only thing I could see through from the very beginning that they were confounding this narrative of, oh my gosh, we chose the wrong spike and the spike was gain of function.
Now it's even worse. And that was all just a that's just all an act to make you think that transfection could be good if they just got their act together.
Holy cow. I hope I answered something. Yeah. Well, you took a JJ. Thanks very much.
But 20 minutes and you got six hands up and we're finishing in half an hour. So you better handle it.
Faster. So yes.
Hi JJ.
My favourite long hair.
I struck off GP from Ireland.
I was suspended GP from Ireland. I'm still suspended temporarily.
Three years ago. You just talked to Stephen there about, you know, I don't want to waste your time, but you're talking to Stephen about sort of being caught and being fooled.
It was all about perspective. It's a perspective of the observer.
I as a GP could see there was no illness. There was no major illness in the community. There were no people dying of Covid.
So it's very, very easy for me to cop on to that. The fact that Covid was a hoax and that in effect, you know, it didn't smell right.
And then to look at the PCR test, you know, it's quite obvious that it really couldn't diagnose Covid or a pathogen as such.
But what I'd like to ask you about, you used the word clone.
You know, surely all viruses are clones in the sense that they're an exact replica of the absence of asexual reproduction, but they are a clone.
So I'd just like you to elucidate your use of the word clone.
Sure. I'll try and draw a little picture of it because I think it's important and a lot of people are asking that question, so it's good.
So I think where I would like to go with this is just to draw a little cartoon about how it's done.
So when you when you copy DNA, the DNA strand opens up, right?
And then it comes back together as it's copied. And that coming back together can reveal mismatched bases.
And because of the nature of copying DNA, there are actually accessory proteins that are accessory to the main protein, the RNA polymerase.
There are accessory proteins that can proofread and correct mismatch bases that are here.
And that's well known. DNA replication in bacteria is very high fidelity.
But in the cartoon of viral replication, you have a single stranded RNA that is copied by an RNA dependent RNA polymerase.
And that copying is definitely not high fidelity.
And even though they claim that there are accessory proteins that can increase the fidelity, the the error rate is real.
And so when you copy a 30,000 base pair RNA, it is by necessity, according to most virologists, you will make three errors.
You can't you cannot it is not possible to use an RNA dependent polymerase and copy 30,000 bases perfectly.
You can do that with DNA because there's a proofreading step that corrects.
So not only does this is this is this enzyme, the DNA polymerase.
Is that not only is that enzyme known to be orders of magnitude higher fidelity, but it's known to have accessory proteins that are orders of magnitude higher fidelity.
And it's all dependent on this double stranded model.
And that's absent in all your RNA viruses, because they're all single stranded.
It's either there are a couple double stranded RNA viruses.
I should be careful. But most of them are negative or positive strand and positive strand means that they can be translated directly into protein.
Negative means they have to have their own enzyme to do that translation.
So flu and measles need their own enzyme. AIDS needs its own enzyme.
But coronaviruses are special. They don't because they're positive stranded RNAs.
They can be translated directly into proteins.
And one of those proteins that they need to translate right away is the RNA dependent RNA polymerase before they can ever copy themselves.
And so the reason why I would argue that these viruses, if they exist at all, are so difficult to culture, for example, they might do a 96 well plate preparation from a bat and only two cells will show
cytopathic effects and only two cells will be PCR positive and they can't culture from that.
They can only sequence. And then the way they overcome it is they take the sequence that they find in their laboratory and they convert it to a DNA molecule.
And the reason why this is important, Jerry, is because they can make as much of this DNA as they want.
They can make a truckload of it like a literal tanker truck full of almost perfect copies of this consensus genome.
And then because commercial products exist like T7 RNA polymerase, they can convert that DNA to a perfect copy of the genome.
And that perfect copy of the genome in that quantity, a truckload, cannot exist in any bat or in any bat cave or any community of animals because those RNA molecules are by definition all different
because they've all been copied by RNA polymerase and therefore none of them are the same.
And so I can create a purity of RNA using this cloning technique that no matter what culturing techniques, no matter how sick the animal is, no matter how virulent the virus is, by definition, none of the RNA molecules can be the same.
And this is the illusion that they have told us when if an RNA molecule goes in a million different directions on Earth, but all of those RNA molecules just happen to random walk to Delta and then random walk to Omicron,
this is there. There are no evolutionary mechanisms inside of an RNA molecule coded in lipid nanoprotein lipid protein to to account for these directional moves.
It's just not possible because the fundamental randomness of of this process and it's this process that they most don't want us to talk about because it it undermines the whole concept of it's still going.
It's still going because it can't be. And it's much more likely the case that if there is a real bona fide signal that it's just a signal that was always there.
And that's the best I can do for pencil drawing but anyway.
You're muted again Jerry sorry.
It's unusual for me. I'm not usually muted. At one stage you said they're getting close to it. What was it? Was it a call a depopulation?
No, you went down to say it was transhumanism in our children and grandchildren.
I reluctantly have come to the idea and conclusion that in effect the vaccinations were about a call or a depopulation effort rather than just a totalitarian control.
Would you agree or disagree with that?
I mean I hesitate to say that they would make any moves to prevent that but I do think that there is a real multi-generational move here with the idea of getting our children to accept a different way of governance.
And so I do think that this is a long move. And so they're never going to convince us that the vaccine schedule is good. They just need us to shut up long enough so that the college kids accept it and they give it to their kids.
And so we're also in a very weird state right now Jerry because it's very hard for us in this group to know how far our message is going because it often just echoes off of people that we already know.
And so it's very possible that we're reaching farther and we're not allowed to see it. It's also very possible that we're not getting anywhere and we're just running in a wheel.
So I'm optimistic because this group expands but I'm still very pessimistic because we are up against a monster for sure.
Thank you, JJ.
Great help.
Thanks.
Great work.
Thanks. Thank you, Jerry. Keep riding that motorbike around Ireland.
Wendy, you're next.
Hi there. Thanks so much for that presentation. I always love listening to you. My question, I'm very interested in the DNA contamination.
And so what you're talking about with Kevin McKernan, I'm curious about the plasmid. I'm curious about the DNA fragments and the open reading frames.
So it's been published by Kevin McKernan, David Speaker and Jessica Rose. They wrote a paper looking at the sequences in the plasmid.
And it looks like there was a reverse open reading frame that was also a gene that seems to be a spider silk gene.
And I'm curious about this because of the fact that the embalmers have been finding these weird slots in blood vessels.
There's weird fibers that people are seeing in blood samples in the microscope.
And there's also now coming about people that have weird clot kinds of things in their large intestine that they're kind of pooping out when they do parasitic cleanses.
That look strangely like the embalmer clots. And it seems that there's silk proteins in those clots.
So I'm curious about your thoughts on that. Are those DNA fragments?
You know, I know you said that any DNA getting in can be potentially bad.
And especially if DNA fragments get in and interrupt other genes, it could be contributing to the turbo cancer stuff.
But if pieces of these open reading frames are getting in and making spider silk proteins, I'm just curious about your thoughts on that.
Wow, I hadn't heard that before. I have to look that up.
I would be first very careful to fully rule out the possibility that endothelial cells are being destroyed by neutrophils and being cleaned up.
And when they are cleaned up, there is a process of fibrinogen being produced or fibrin being produced.
I get those two mixed up, which one's the breakdown and which one's the not.
But there is an enzyme that comes along, neutrophil elastase, that destroys these endothelial cells.
And in the process of doing that, there are clotting factors that are produced.
There are things that happen that can result in this micro clotting.
And it's not clear to me. I don't know if this would be, I would assume, be related to the stuff that Sukrit Bhakti has worked on and all these bombers have worked on.
I just don't, I would caution you to realize that the fibrinogen, fibrin clotting cascade that has been described by these people has no special biology in it.
It is just how antibodies and how clotting and how platelets and how this might cascade out of control.
And so adding a silk protein to that could be potentially something that could be later debunked or something that could be disproven when in reality it's a criminal investigation.
We don't have to prove where these clots are coming from in order to call it a crime.
And so I would always encourage you not to get too deep into the minutia of the explanation.
In this case, it's very enticing to think about that.
But I would say that SV40 as a sequence might be more interesting than silk protein.
Because again, if it's silk protein, it should be very, very simple to prove it.
The protein should be very obviously not fibrinogen or not fibrin to fibrin base.
So if there's a...
So yeah, and apparently it is obviously not fibrin. So all of that has been looked at. I appreciate all of those thoughts.
So Kevin McKernan, and now that I know more about your thoughts about him, he has sequenced that reverse open reading frame in the plasmids that are contaminating the vaccines.
I can paste the paper that was published in the chat and then you can read that paper.
And so it's called...
The other thing that I would just talk about while you're putting this in there is that one of the things that I think is very much overlooked is what happens to the lipid nanoparticle after it gets released in the endosome.
So there's a very good presentation by I believe a Spanish guy with the last name of Ciguela or something where I've seen where he shows very definitively that the chemical properties of the lipid nanoparticles,
the cationic lipids that are used to transport the RNA, once they are internalized into the endosome and they get into this lower pH of the endosome,
they change into very corrosive cationic lipids that can go around and essentially create reactive oxygen species and destroy mitochondrial DNA or even if they get into the nucleus, they could destroy nuclear DNA.
And this aspect of the delivery mechanism is completely ignored because they don't want you to think about them after they've delivered their RNA when they change their chemical properties quite a bit after reaching the pH of the cell internally.
And so that aspect of this is also something that I think there's a concerted effort to hide.
And so any discussion of relevance with regard to the lipid nanoparticles often obfuscated by somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about.
And so this, I'm not saying that they're telling this silk protein story for that reason, but I do think we have to be very careful about latching on to these hyper detailed explanations that we don't need.
Did you put that in the chat?
Yes, so I will find it in a second.
But yeah, I would really like you to look at the plasmid sequence and that reverse open reading frame silk protein.
And if that fragment can get into people, why are they putting spider silk in people?
And you know, maybe the next time you do a talk, you'll talk about that.
Well, hopefully I'll be able to tell you exactly why it's crazy.
But maybe.
Okay, yeah, that'd be great.
Thanks. Thank you, Wendy.
Alberto, lovely to see you.
JJ, thank you.
You know, two camps seem to be emerging on our side of the aisle, and the camps are the pro-vax people, but just not pro this vax.
And then the pure, true anti-vax camp.
And to say that, you know, I think this jab is bad.
I think the whole jab, all the history of jabs were bad.
And I think that's easy to see when we're, you know, when we're paying attention to what people are saying, because I've always said, like, beware of the person that wants to fix the formula or improve the formula.
For the, for the, for the future.
So thank you for that for, for kind of slowly.
This is the layers are getting peeled back in and that's being revealed which camp people are in.
The question that I had though was in yesterday's, in your yesterday's podcast, you kind of went into the details about getting laid off of for children's health defense and I'm sorry to hear that.
To hear that you had said that there was a McCurnan did a podcast with two CHD people and because of that, you know, you slightly criticized or debated or some some to critique it.
But you got reprimanded for that from the children's health defense people behind the scenes and somehow that you feel may have caused your layoff or something.
Do you know what the timeframe of that was? How do I, how do I find that that video where McCurnin was?
I would have to look on my chat so it was a little.
It was a little while before I did it but he had gone on Brian Hooker's podcast.
Oh, scientists.
And when he was on that podcast actually Mary Holland joined him and so what I did was watch that podcast and critique what Kevin was saying.
And I pointed out that I thought that maybe Mary and Brian weren't really aware of what he was what he was skipping or what he wasn't pointing out and how much more there was to talk about.
And the way that I got reprimanded was that they just didn't want me to cover that kind of thing.
They didn't want me to redo podcasts. So it wasn't necessarily that they didn't say that Kevin's a good guy and you shouldn't pick on him.
They didn't want me to critique to risk portraying some kind of, you know, not not a uniform front for CHD.
And I understand that. I mean, I was working for them as a staff scientist and then to go on my podcast and have the president and the chief science officer on there.
And not necessarily. I don't think I said anything wrong but it would be very easy for someone outside of the organization to say, hey, it looks like they don't agree on everything.
What the hell's going on? And so that's what I got reprimanded for. I didn't want to say that Kevin was involved but it was how that started.
Well, I don't put anybody on a pedestal and that goes for Bobby Kennedy. I know you no longer work for him. And hey, I might still vote for Bobby.
You know, I for the most part, I mean, I like him. But I also know that he knows that VAERS doesn't publish all legitimate reports received.
And then I wonder like, why aren't you really clamping down on that one? But needless to say, I really appreciate that you your search for the truth and, you know, not being afraid to investigate under every rock.
I appreciate you, JJ. Thank you so much.
You're very welcome, Albert. Thank you. Thank you, Albert.
Thank you, Albert. Now everybody, you've got an interesting breaking story relevant to what we're talking about.
And this just came in. So JJ, very relevant to your comment on lawyers.
And here it is. Justin Trudeau fails as justice prevails. Federal court in Canada declares Prime Minister Trudeau actually outside of his legal authority when he took unreasonable constitutional measures against the Canadian truckers.
So Federal Court in Canada has just ruled in favour of applicants who filed an application against Trudeau for unreasonably and unconstitutional measures.
So that's one of many cases that are happening. And it's quite possible, JJ, that that that judge who's shown some bravery at last, his grandchildren may well have died suddenly.
You never know. But anyway, I just bring it to everyone's attention. I don't want to sidetrack it.
But there are, as Warner Mendenhall is going to tell us in February, thousands, hundreds of thousands of cases in the pipeline.
So it's not true to say that they're not happening. But it's very true to say that most big law firms do not want to attack the system because they get the bulk of their income from the system.
So we just that's that's our challenge.
Albert, thank you for that. Anders.
Yes. Hello. Thank you, JJ. It was wonderful to hear your presentation.
I was fooled like a lot of people to believe in the virus theory.
I must say that after last year's intense investigations, I don't find any reason anymore to believe in the virus theory and that it is a big risk for a lot of people who are confused in that theory.
I think that this is correct science to present all of these modeling out of computer science that there is so and so genetic, let's say, footprints of what you claim.
I think we need to go back to real science and to go long back to the philosophical discussion which were going on for more than 100 years ago about whether Louis Pasteur was right or not.
But that is an in comment and that is connected to my own research, which have, I would say conclusively come to the final conclusion that the covid so-called virus of 2020 was an invention and not the fact.
And there was mortality across the Western countries, but that mortality was strictly connected to protocols and to the launch of 5G.
So that is my general comment to it.
But let's say the question is, how can you all or those of you who continue this continue the virus theory against, let's say, the postulates of Robert Koch and all the lack of evidence that there is such a thing like a virus?
That is my question.
I would argue that there is plenty of evidence in the literature that cells excrete small vesicles with RNA and DNA in them.
Don't dispute.
Okay, and so I think that my main argument is that they can make RNA and they can make a lot of it.
They can make DNA and they can make a lot of it.
And that means that some of the experiments that they do in the literature are definitely possible.
They can make enough DNA to put on a cell culture and then the cell culture will sow psychopathic effects and try to copy the DNA and then afterward,
there might be more DNA or more RNA, excuse me, than when you put it in the first time, but it won't be the predicted amount and assortment of RNA that the cartoon provides for it.
In fact, they don't need it to because they use psychopathic effects to show the presence of a virus, but they never then go farther than that.
And so I would totally agree with you that viruses are likely a phenomenon that have been exaggerated both in fidelity and in significance.
But I would also argue that in place of that, there are technologies that are sufficiently advanced so that a DNA molecule or sequence could be planted anywhere.
And that RNA could be used to transfect someone and make their cells express proteins.
And if that's the truth, which I'm sure it is because I've used these transfection agents in mice when I was an academician, a biologist in medical schools, I used to do these experiments where I transfected mice.
And so I am I am confident that if they wanted to express a protein in your lungs, they could do it.
If they wanted to express a protein in your skin, they could do it.
And I'm sure that they could express a protein in your gut if they wanted to do it.
And I'm sure that if they put DNA into a sewer, they could use PCR to tell you they found it.
And so all of these very standard methodologies could be used to create the molecular biological signal that someone with a high level of sophistication, but also a very high level of specialization, would never be able to tell the difference between BS and truth.
And that is where we are. And I do think that it's been going on for a long time, probably since the AIDS virus was first characterized and said to be in circulation.
And we're probably dealing with a scenario where when they started to grow things in cell culture and then inject them into people, there was there were problems because they couldn't detect the kind of immune signals that were present in these cell cultures.
And if there are immune signals that are at the same size scale as viruses, then it would be very easy for a controlled discussion of this biology to result in a horrible misinterpretation of a signal that is almost exclusively endogenous, as opposed to being exclusively pathogenic, which is what they would like us to believe.
Okay, so that kind of an answer. Yeah.
Thank you. Thank you, Anders Wolfgang. Welcome. Lovely to see you. For those of you who don't know who he is, Stephen has organized Wolfgang to speak to us twice so far, I think, Wolfgang, twice or three times?
Twice.
Twice. Welcome. Great to see you. Over to you.
I came explicitly because I heard JJ some days ago in the Corona, and I was very fascinated about his knowledge and his interpretation of what he observed in the last years.
And I think I'm not a specialist for molecular biology, but I observed the whole business of vaccination industry for many years, as it was of a public health institution.
And when in politics too, about the patent laws and all this around how they try to have formulas where they could have claims to work with, to earn money with, and they had their claims not only in the land, they had them also in biology.
And they tried to shape their claims there and to give them, give their claims a certain meaning that they could produce because you can only get a patent when you can use it for certain techniques you have to describe.
So this, this, it's working out such theories that there are some molecules you could do something against with a certain technology.
This is the basis of patent, of getting a patent and earning money with it. And I think it was, we are trapped for many, many years.
I think much long, I think it started in the 50s or 60s already, when they were trying out the first vaccinations, when they were, when they had the idea, the pharmaceutical industry got the idea that it's too little business only to deal with ill people.
They wanted to sell something to healthy people. The market is much, much, much bigger. And this was a genius idea to tell people we can do something with your immune system.
And I think this was, this was a fantastic idea for them. And they developed it more and more. And they went more and more in a granular, in the granular phase.
They went to molecules and they, they went into the immune system and they take it. They invented stories, which about good immune system, bad immune system, all such things which have nothing to do with biology, which we can never understand.
And JJ, you said it last time. It was great. I was fascinated. They tried to just to describe the irreducible complexity of life. And they picked out something of it.
And they made a, they made narratives around it and they to sell them products and to get their patents. And now they, I think it's, it's, it's not just trying to open a new sphere of business.
And they can only do it with the war of speed methodology because normally we should, we should need some time to find out whether people get healthier or not, or whether they're really protected or not, have a control group or whatever.
It's a very, very long process. And then when you, when you find out such things, whether something is working or not, it's only statistical results. You don't know what happens in a certain person because this is the irreducible complexity of life that we all different.
And so I think this, this business, what I observed in the last years from my, from my experience now, it is just that I don't advise people anymore to take any vaccine.
I am, and it goes much further observed also the clinical studies they did and about normal pharmaceutical drugs and how they constructed their narratives there. They are constructing narratives everywhere.
And I think if we want to change this, one very effective thing would be just to forbid patents on such things, forbid patents on living on everything that has to do with life.
And to forbid patents for drugs or drugs.
And I think this will solve a lot of problems. And I tried to work for this in politics, and I experienced that they suddenly there was people coming to me and lobby was coming, and they were really terrified when I started to make such an initiative.
And so I felt that there was something very important with the patent right. So this is just what I want to say and I want to, I think I want to thank you very much.
Because you, JJ you, you're much more strict in your in your thoughts and you much more.
I got lost sometimes I got lost and my time got lost in molecules too.
And I was distracted very often too. And they made it very well but the more they did it and the more they, the more we find out that, again, you were trapped again you were mistreated or you were cheated.
And the better it will, so we learn that we are cheated. And this is a very interesting process, which may perhaps lead to some some improvement in living together in this irreducible society complex society.
Thank you very much.
I think it's a great comment I just want to follow up by saying you might not be aware of it but in the United States right before the pandemic there was a Supreme Court decision, which basically decided that all intellectual property of monoclonal antibodies was
was based on bad science. And they actually decided to say that the intellectual property of antibodies was based on a formula that had been repeated so often that it had no relevance anymore and one of the things they talked about was that the claim of monoclonal antibodies is that it's a single molecule when in reality it's a it's not a single molecule at all and depending on which animal produces it's going to be as many variations as possible.
The kinds of motifs that are created and so they portrayed a level of fidelity in creation that wasn't there. And the Supreme Court basically took a, a whole field of intellectual property that was the basis for a lot of pharmaceutical value pharmaceutical company value, and made it very shaky ground right before the
pandemic as to whether or not you would even be able to to patent an antibody in the traditional manner. And so one of the things. This was actually all discovered by a friend of mine Mark Kulak of a Houston tonic live, who just lost his YouTube channel yesterday for a video that he put up but he found this
antibody paradox being covered by a Yale Law School review that was then several months later cited by the Supreme Court as the evidence for the biology of monoclonal antibodies not supporting their general patents so this was a huge change that occurred right before the
pandemic seemingly very convenient so that no pharmaceutical companies would invest in any monoclonal antibodies but instead would convert to this new.
There is there is science from first though, you know, I don't know whether you know physician, a physics professor and he was, he was telling when when there are problems, we have a narrative, and we deduct from this narrative, everything we do.
We take some new narrative and we make it the basis of all things we do. And then we don't when we don't go when we cannot go further. We invent particles, and we discuss about the particles, and what we have learned all about the particles, and we can't go further we invent
particles of particles. And like this it goes on until there is a new narrative. And I think we are at the at the level now that there will be a new narrative and I hope so you started it. Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you. Okay, okay, Stephen we're going to have another 15 minutes we got two questions and then Stephen for closing questions. We'll go for two and three quarter hours today JJ you okay for another 15 minutes.
I can probably do it. Right. Okay.
If I fall out where you know then it's correct. So, Tom and me go and then Stephen and we'll finish it, the three and three quarters go Tom.
Can you hear me okay. Yep. Yep. I can. Oh, nice mic.
Oh, okay. Yeah, so, let's see if I got my questions. Are you from Wisconsin does that say you're a Wisconsin guy.
Yeah, yeah, I am. I grew up in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. That's where I was born. Right and I was on the Mississippi when I grew up in lacrosse but I'm not now nearly Michigan. Yeah, so I had asked you this before and it's kind of a minor question but this
lateral these grocery store tests that are in cardboard boxes. Oh yeah. Yeah, those lateral flow and well yeah I have I have I guess three or four questions but that's a quick easy one. Are those lateral I hope our lateral flow, and you talk about lateral flow
flow fraud. So should I do all the questions. Should we do one by one or what's the best way. Maybe it's fine you can just say it I know what you're asking about now and, and I'm limited in my.
So we haven't looked at the specifics of each of these products.
There's a lot of them.
And so what antibodies are present in them and what they're specific for is specific for each product so it's tricky to.
It's pretty tricky to to discern which of them would be, let's say more reliable or less reliable for the indication of the presence of these proteins so that's tricky but go ahead just ask.
So, so I assume do they create an antibody are you are they detecting antibodies in general or.
They're not detecting antibodies in a lateral flow test I think you use your saliva right and so they're detecting spike protein or end protein and it's antibodies to those proteins that then move, and then get bound to a second protein that changes color.
If I'm wrong about this then please don't let that undermine the rest of my biology that I taught because lateral flow tests are are kind of tricky with the antibody problem because it was so so I.
Yeah, I love your train thing and everything but this, this is what I'm up against with a lot of people on the other side it's like oh I tested positive for covert again.
This is like that eighth time I've had covert etc and it's based on those tests, but you don't need to respond to that so this is like a teaching kind of question it exposes all kinds of confusion that I have.
And let's see so it's.
It's the idea of okay the viral the virons has a genome which is that is that the M is that represented one to one by the M RNA and within that genome how many genes are in it and is that another way of asking for how many proteins does it code for.
And then and then at the higher levels you're kind of going up the hierarchy.
We've you've got chromosomes, you've got the cell nucleus and then you have the entire human genome could you kind of quickly touch on those concepts.
Sure, so in a viral genome you expect the virus to have in a coronavirus 30 odd proteins that are encoded in a single genome and the genome would be long one long RNA, that's the idea in our cellular genomes is one long double stranded DNA molecule in theory for each chromosome.
And so our genome is just gigantic and instead of having end proteins we have our DNA organized into chromosomes that is really DNA around histones and other other proteins.
But a viral genome is supposed to contain all of the proteins that are necessary so that when that RNA goes into the cell.
Remember that if it's a positive strand RNA that it can go right through the ribosome. If it's a negative strand RNA it needs to be turned into a positive strand RNA before it can be converted into protein.
So for negative strand viruses like flu and measles there has to be a not only a genome in the virus but there also has to be an enzyme set that can copy the negative strand RNA into a positive strand one before flu proteins can be made before measles protein and virus can be made.
So the coronavirus is an opposite kind of thing because it's positive stranded. So the first thing it has to do is go into your cells and translate itself into protein, so that the proteins that are present that copy it from positive to positive are there.
So that's the trick that I wonder if you caught it but it's something that I find very frustrating about the current model of the of the way that these viruses replicate and it's part of that bothers me I got to find the right slide here apologize for this.
Is that in this model.
Oops, that should be here. And then yeah in this model.
This is the, this is the diagram where they show a coronavirus replicating the thing that has to happen right this is a positive strand RNA genome which can go right through the ribosome, but you want a positive strand RNA in your viruses that go out of the cell.
So, you might presume that the positive strand RNA has to be translated to a negative strand RNA and then the negative strand RNA gets transbaggling back to a positive strand RNA because that's how these double stranded molecules are copied right they, they rely on the mirror
in order to make the copy but this is a single strand RNA so you don't have that and interestingly in this diagram.
It shows, if you can see my arrow, it shows that the, the RNA dependent RNA polymerase is translating a positive genomic RNA into another positive genomic RNA.
I can't find a single paper that explains how that happens or explains why that's so special because the flu virus needs to change its RNA in from negative to positive, and then the positive needs to be copied back into a negative and packaged in with the enzymes required to be a
full Byron.
So the flu virus.
Yeah, go ahead.
Can I ask you, do you have any examples of.
Okay, no then then I'm going to go to my last question, which is kind of a bombshell thing. I had a friend in this group, connect me with another friend who is that you've got an adversary out there.
And I just, I've only watched like three hours of him.
And then, could you comment on Kevin McCarran.
Sure, um, Kevin McCarran has is a guy who streamed with me, starting in the first week of March.
And we did a stream of about five hours long every weekend for five weeks in a row with another guy by the name of Paul Cattrall, who is a completely fake doctor who was promoted by George Webb for a very long time at the beginning of the pandemic.
And Kevin McCarran is a guy who when I first met him was very convinced that over a billion people would die and that everybody should be at home making masks and that we should stay home for 60 days instead of 20.
He was also very convinced that the spike protein was gained a function and that there would be a massive influx of amyloidosis and spike protein induced prion disease, and he was already convinced of this in March or April of 2020.
And he remains convinced of it now five years later. He has done nothing but stream about the N word and Jews and how the Jews are responsible and he has done nothing but associate his own racist bigotry with me and a couple other people with the idea I guess of slandering us and the first time that I reviewed his work was when he got in a shouting match with Mark Bailey and at that point he already started calling me names and said I was a liar and I didn't know what to do.
I was a liar and I didn't know what I was talking about but he didn't really lose his mind and still I started teaching about the clones and then him and Charles Rixie pretty much have gone full tilt.
You know giga ohm spiral and all these other things. There are hundreds of hours of videos of these guys spending most of their time trying to say that I'm a bad guy and it's just absurd. It's laughable at this stage.
Okay, you did a beautiful job.
Kevin McCairn came to Pittsburgh from Japan and tried to stay overnight in my house.
This guy is more than a meddler. It is, this is real, like these people came to my house they are, they are being paid to, to keep the worst case scenario alive I assure you.
Beautiful. Thank you, Tom.
Most importantly, he was involved in making it very hard to decide.
The idea that we were transfecting billions of people, one of the most likely possibilities would be misfolding of proteins and potential generation of pre-on states.
So imagine that they knew this was a possibility and they had people like Kevin McCairn from the very beginning out there in the darkest corners of the internet, putting this nonsense out there so that when it finally did happen it wouldn't be, it wouldn't be very hard for them to confound it with the original gain of function virus.
This guy's one of the worst characters out there I assure you.
Oh my gosh, he makes me mad. He really, really has been messing with my family for four straight years.
Yep. Thank you, JJ. Thanks, Tom.
Very briefly, thank you so much, JJ. Excellent.
It must be very late there.
Good evening.
Your wife's from the Netherlands, isn't she?
That's right, yep.
Yeah, very good, very good.
Okay, I have a question.
I read the book of John, of Robert Kennedy, the Wuhan cover-up.
And there it says that you said,
It is on page 284.
A virus designed by a gene jockey on a keyboard, says Cui.
So what do you think about it? Is this correct?
At the time that he's quoting me, that's exactly what I said, but what I'm meaning is that they created a clone.
So when you do it on a keyboard, you make a clone.
And this is again, I don't know how to say it any other way, other than to say that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wanted to write a book about a lab leak.
And it wasn't until very late in my service of this book that I started to realize that I was perpetuating the wrong narrative.
And I did teach it to him. It is in the book in some places, but there are quotes, including one where I think it's in very late in the book,
where I say that oftentimes grant proposals are done before they are submitted.
And that was used to say that maybe the diffuse proposal was done.
And I would argue with throwing myself under the bus to say that they went so far as to come to my house to convince me to say that.
And they did. They convinced me to believe that for several months that I was wrong, that the diffuse proposal might be right,
and that I needed to think very carefully about whether I was putting people in danger.
And this when people come to your house, when people call you on the phone, when people send you emails like this over and over for many, many, many years,
it becomes very difficult to stick to your laurels and say, no, I'm sure Mike Eden and Wolfgang Wodach are right.
And these guys are full of baloney. And that's that's really where we are.
And during the writing of that book, you can see the evolution of my thoughts, and at least I can in my notes.
And it's just a question of Bobby's ultimate objective was to make sure that the mythology was captured.
I don't think we are in a scenario where where Bobby couldn't come to understand this biology the way that we understand it.
I just don't necessarily think that it's going to be that easy.
And I'm for sure that there are lots of forces out there that have have made sure those books were written.
And it's just very hard.
I don't I don't want to say anybody's a bad guy because I think so many people like myself were taken by the by the narrative and by the by the performances and by the previous, you know, rumors and and and mythologies that we all grew up with.
I gave my kids all their shots in twenty twenty two before we moved to the new school that they're at now.
And it was a week later that my wife and I sat down and watched Vaxxed and we cried for hours because we realized, oh my God, what in the hell have we been doing?
We've been working for Bobby Kennedy for half a year.
We never bothered to watch the movie.
That's that's how stupid I am.
So I don't want anybody to think I hate it when I get introduced as a genius because I'm not a genius.
I figured this out like everybody else that went crazy figured it out and only very few people were were smart enough to be ahead of this.
And I wasn't one of them. I definitely wasn't.
All right. Thank you. Thank you.
We're going to go. We've got to move on.
Thank you. Great question.
Now, JJ, just to just stay there, JJ, the last couple of questions from Stephen.
But one thing I want to remind everybody of, it's a crucial concept.
Make all of us feel good about not being geniuses because Albert Einstein said every one of us is born a genius.
But if you contemplate all human knowledge between my hands, the smartest person on the planet, whoever you think that is, knows this much.
Each one of us knows a tiny little bit. That's the point of these conversations.
So JJ is very honourable of you to admit being stupid.
I'm stupid. In fact, the wonderful Anthony de Mello, when he says this in his wonderful book Awareness, he says,
When somebody says you're an idiot, agree with them.
Each one of us, we are total idiots, except for this tiny little bit.
So glory in your idiocy. Now, last question. Stephen, are you there?
Last couple of questions, JJ, we'll let you go.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm here. So just switch on the video.
So, JJ, I was kind of I was going to ask you what happened at CHD because it was completely mystifying to me
hearing that you had lost your job at CHD on the 4th of January, I think you said.
I couldn't think of any good reason why they should choose now to get rid of you, because as far as I can see,
you are absolutely essential to understanding what's going on.
So but now it makes sense because I remember reading it, but I like R.F.K. Junior.
I really like him. And remember, R.F.K. Junior is not at CHD anymore.
He had to break all ties with them in order to run for president.
So he has no rights. He was not involved in me being hired.
I actually got hired because some of the writing team from the from the book also worked at CHD
and advocated for me to be hired by Brian. So it's it's absolutely nothing to do with Bobby.
I know that I actually called him when I got laid off because I was so sad.
And what did he say? Well, he said he couldn't do anything about it, that he had nothing to do with me being hired
because he had already left the organization. They call him chairman and leave.
But that's just a moniker that means nothing. He's nothing to CHD. Can't be. They can't talk.
So they call him what? A chairman on leave. All right.
Yeah. But is he going to stay there because he well, I doubt I don't know.
Yeah, I don't know. But he can't be a part of the organization now.
He is all contact has to be broken by definition in American law.
So that tells me that it's quite possible that he would have come to agree because I was mystified when I heard
about three months ago, maybe I can't quite remember that he was going to write a book about all the gain of function stuff.
And I thought, no, no, don't do that.
That's part of getting you to getting everybody into the narrative, you know, discussing the gain of function, how terrible it is.
And so I like David Martin a lot. But I'm I don't understand why he's fallen for it either.
And anyway, point is that it now makes sense what happened to you at CHD in my mind anyway, that you are actually saying, well, actually don't believe this gain of function stuff
is playing into the narrative. They want you to believe that it's all about fear and it generated fear whether they could do it or not, you know, and they didn't need to do it.
So that's very important to understand. So taking it so seriously that you write a whole book about it.
Well, yeah, I remember thinking at the time, shall I email him and what you know, say, but I thought, you know, he's got so many people around him.
He probably wouldn't have taken any notice. So no point in wasting their time.
So but I did think about it. And maybe you and I could go to him and and maybe Wolfgang too might be prepared to do it.
I'm trying to work on a brief that that that describes this biology in text and has some citations and things I think in the next week or week and a half, it will be done.
So it's not going to help him in the long run or in the long run, if he's got it wrong, you know, if the call.
No, that's right. That's right. I agree.
I read the whole book about gain of function research and goes down the Rand Paul route, you know, I just think he's going to look a fool in 10 years time.
And so we need to warn him off and we're not warning him off, but suggest that, you know, there are dangers in going down that route because I really think that the whole thing was used just to generate fear and nothing else.
He's a lawyer. He's a lawyer. So he could very easily do what I've done and just say I didn't get it. And now I get it. He could just say it. It's very easy.
Absolutely. It's harder for somebody like me to do it than a lawyer. I mean, why not?
Well, whether whether RFK Junior becomes the president or not, he's got a huge following around the world.
I agree. I agree. And so it's important for him to know it whether or not.
Absolutely. So maybe Wolfgang would like to join us because he he's got incredible insights, too.
And actually, Wolfgang, you are a virologist. I know we're stopping. We're not having a conversation now.
That's another question to you, JJ, is do you want to write a book? Because I know someone who's a publisher who who is very interested. He can't couldn't be on tonight's call.
Put me in touch with him. I mean, I've found a lot of people that are interested in me writing a chapter or two, but then they just ask me for the chapter right away.
And so it's hard for me to. But yes, I would be in theory. I'm already writing for a very long time.
I just don't publish it yet because I I'm not a very fast writer and I'm very anal. So he is a publisher and he can publish books for you and even get the book written for you.
You know, you could dictate it or you could have it co-written for you.
Don't tease me with those things. Just put me in touch. It would be great.
I will do. Yeah. And Wolfgang, the same question to you. Would you would you like to write a book or not?
Yes, I would.
Would you like to write a book with me? I have written one.
We can write a book together.
Yes, yes, I would love it.
Okay, well set it up. Set it up, Stephen. We're going.
The dream team. Wolfgang and JJ.
JJ, you are you are a disgrace in demonstrating that you are not drinking enough water because for you to sit there for three hours without going to the toilet is very.
Yeah, yeah, but you haven't made the toilet. So you're clearly not drinking enough water.
So I have to go. Don't worry.
You have to go. Everybody. Big thank you to JJ. Great work. Great job.
Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for organizing everybody. We're going. We're way over time.
Tom Rodman's video group. The link is in the chat and we'll see you on Sunday, Monday, depending on what part of the planet you're on. Thanks, JJ. Thanks Wolfgang.
Thank you very much. Bye bye.
Thank you so much. Thank you Wolfgang as well. Bye bye.
And everybody actually.
Do we know who's going to be on Sunday by any chance?
Yeah, so it's Karen Kingston.
Okay, beautiful. Thank you. Lovely. Thanks everybody. God bless. Have a good week. Thanks everybody.