for you all. So welcome to today's discussion of Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
This vibrant community was ignited nearly four years ago by Dr. Stephen Frost, a Welsh radiologist
with a passion for truth. As a seasoned whistleblower and activist, Stephen founded this group to
champion truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health. In the face of global challenges,
I'm Charles Covess, your moderator and Australasia's passion provocateur,
decked out in my fiery red jacket to spark your passion and enthusiasm. After 20 years as a lawyer,
I shifted gears 32 years ago, and for the past 14 years, I've guided parents and lawyers in addressing
vaccine injuries and medical failures. As CEO of an industrial hemp company, I'm driven to innovate
and activate, and I point out that medical failures are the number one cause of death in America these
days. Our group is a dynamic blend of voices, doctors, lawyers, homeopaths, journalists,
scientists, filmmakers, professors, peacemakers, and bold troublemakers and bullshit artists,
heading from corners of the globe, united in pursuit of truth. Many of us once viewed
vaccines as benign, now many wear the badge of passionate anti-vaxxers with pride,
awakened to new realities. First time as you're warmly embraced, introduce yourself in the chat,
share where you're from, and let's connect. Got a podcast, book, newsletter, or show?
Drop your links in the chat so we can amplify your work and stay connected.
We're in the thick of a global struggle. We call it World War Three with medical and science battles
among 12 battlefronts. Five years into this fight with more to come, there's no room for weariness.
Stay strong, stay healthy. Science, we know, is never done. It thrives on challenge and inquiry.
Some here believe in viruses, others see them as fiction, and many are still exploring. All views
fuel our dialogue. And still in the chat on the Rumble channel, you'll see anyone who dares to
question, there's some critics who come out, it's remarkable, the abuse. How dare you think that
viruses exist? Our two and a half hour sessions are action-oriented, spawning initiatives and
collaborations from the connections we forge. Afterward, Tom Rodman hosts an optional telegram
video chat. Find his link in the chat. We'll hear from our guest presented. Today is Dr David
Raznik, PhD, followed by a Q&A. Per tradition, Stephen Frost opens the questioning for the first
15 minutes. Raise your hand via the reactions tab to join in. And the shock of today is that Stephen
is not joining us today. So there you are. Will we be able to cope? Let's see what we can do.
This is a free speech haven, appropriately moderated to keep ideas flowing. Free speech
is our weapon to safeguard human liberties. If something offends you, you own it. We lovingly
sidestep the outrage culture and its demands to silence truth. We choose love over fear. Fear binds
and sickens. Love liberates, heals, and inspires. These twice weekly gatherings are far from mere
talk. They've birthed real world actions and alliances. A key tactic in our fight is exposing
medical crimes on social media, rallying behind the demands of medical truth now.
That's our new slogan, medical truth now. This call can unite humanity in a surge for accountability.
Share solutions, products, or resources in the chat to empower our community. Our meetings are
recorded and posted within 24 hours on our Rumble channel. We're thrilled to welcome our guest
presenter, Dave Rasnik, who has presented to us before, whose insights we deeply value.
And let me, for the purposes of the recording, share his short bio. This is the short version.
David Rasnik received his PhD in chemistry from Georgia Tech in 1978. He worked 20 years in
pharmaceutical biotech industries and founded four biotech companies. He developed inhibitors
against the enzymes responsible for the tissue destruction caused by cancer, emphysema, and
arthritis. The same class of inhibitors are powerful anti-parasitic agents. Dave left the
pharmaceutical biotech industry in 1996 and joined UC Berkeley and Professor Peter Juesberg's fight
against the blatantly wrong dogma that HIV causes AIDS. Dave is former president of Rethinking AIDS,
the group for the scientific reappraisal of the HIV hypothesis and former president of the
International Coalition for Medical Justice. He was also a member of South Africa President
Tabo Mbeki's presidential AIDS advisory panel that met in 2000. Along the way, Peter, Juesberg,
and Dave Rasnik proved the aneuploidy theory of cancer. Since February 2020, Dave has been
working with people like us around the world fighting the COVID-initiated global coup d'etat.
His full CV and four decades of information are available on his website, davidrasnik.com.
So, David, we thank you for being here and with huge thanks to Stephen Frost for founding this
group and securing today's speaker. Let's dive in with open minds, fierce passion,
and a relentless drive for truth, ethics, justice, freedom, and health. David, over to you.
Okay, very good. I want to share my screen real quick. Yep, go for it.
So, I forgot where the share. Oh, it's down at the bottom. Down at the bottom. That's it. There we
go. I go in here and click this one and share. Yep, it's coming up. It's working. And now we
can see just prior to and during the COVID coup d'etat. Does that fill up the screen pretty much,
I hope? No, it's filling up one third of the screen. I can make it bigger.
Yep. That's it. Very good. Oh, that's good. Okay. All right. I just thought I'd leave this up here
for right now because I'm going to be talking before I get in a little bit about some background.
Stephen asked me to give a talk about Carey Mullis. And Carey Mullis is a good friend of mine,
was a good friend of mine. And I never ever thought about giving a talk about Carey Mullis before.
So, I had to take a deep dive into the history and I found out lo and behold, I've been
collaborating and working with Carey off and on for 25 years,
up to just right before he died, as a matter of fact. So, that was a little stunner for me
doing this research here. Anyway, a little history. We even go back a lot further than that,
but I didn't know it. Carey and I, I learned, we both went to Georgia Tech. And he was there
two years ahead of me, so we did not know each other. And we both worked in the San Francisco
Bay area in the 1980s. And again, we didn't know each other. We're really, really close to each
other. And Peter Duesberg introduced me to Carey in the mid 1990s when I joined up with Peter. I
joined up with Peter in 1996, but I met him for the first time in 1993, just to go over there
and meet this man that wrote that paper in 1986, that basically shot down the HIV theory of cancer.
And of course, it cost him all of his grant money and a lot of goodwill from a lot of people in
academia and government. But that's all right. He lived with that and has lived with it for a long
time. But so, like I said, Carey and I have been interacting for over 25 years. And that's the
shocker now to me. I hadn't thought about it in that way. The most memorable meeting for us,
both of us, was in 1997 in Bucamuranga, Columbia. This was a group of students
put together a conference for us to talk about the AIDS. So we invited a lot of people from all over
the world. They did. The students did. And let's see if I have that thing up here right now.
There it is. So here is the, can you see the Bucamuranga conference up there? Does that show
up right now? I can't hear anybody. Yes, we can, David. Okay, good. The Colombian Conference
in the Nature of Science. Right. This is in the handouts, the stuff that you can download, by the
way. And all the stuff I'm talking about is in that link there. And you can download all this stuff.
This, I'm not going to read all these pages, but this was so interesting. We met there, actually,
it was in 1997. This was an article published in 1998 by Mark Gaber-Conlin. He is one of the
journalists. Celia, you probably know about Mark, Mark Conlin, and the other AIDS folks, anybody
else on this talk today. And I'm going to read just a little bit of it, because it gives the history
about those days. Put my glasses on here. And I'm going to read it from this paper in my hand,
but you can just see where I'm starting from. It said, a truly remarkable event occurred at the
University of Sandantar in Bucamuranga, Colombia last October, two through five. For only the
second time in the rather grim history of AIDS, the first was in Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
in 1992. A conference took place under the government auspices that featured scientists
challenging the conventional wisdom that AIDS is an infectious sexually transmitted disease
caused by a single virus. So there's only been two conferences, international ones like that,
where people actually were allowed to criticize the hypothesis. Most of the major figures in
the scientific community who have challenged the mainstream view of AIDS were present,
including UC Berkeley microbiology professor Peter Duesberg, Nobel laureate Kerry Mullis,
Stefan Laca, who has gone further than Duesberg in questions whether retroviruses, including HIV,
even exist. The conference was the brainchild of Dr. Robert Roberto Geraldo, who was a good
friend of mine, and I'm pretty sure Celia's too. And he was an expatriate of Colombia,
who was one of the country's most respected experts on infectious diseases until he became
convinced in the late 1980s that AIDS was not infectious. Though he reached his conclusions
independently of Peter Duesberg, he didn't read any of Duesberg's paper on the subject until after
he was already convinced, based on his own observations, that AIDS could not possibly be
an infectious disease. He faced similar treatment from his country's AIDS establishment.
When he tried to present his alternative view of AIDS in Medellin in 1987 and 88,
after eight years in the Colombian countryside, he found that instead of seriously considering
his views, his former colleagues questioned his sanity and actually threatened to have
him committed to a mental institution. Dr. Geraldo was forced to flee Colombia and took refuge in the
United States, first in Miami and then in New York. He began to follow the alternative AIDS
literature in the scientific press and sent papers to his ex-colleagues back in Colombia.
Over time, their attitudes softened, and earlier this year he was invited back to Colombia for a
series of lectures. Out of this grew the idea of a conference chaired by a professor at the
University of Sandander named Phidias Leon S., who had done research on retroviruses in Japan
in the early 1990s and concluded that they could not cause human disease. Though there were attempts
to suppress the conference, including last-minute withdrawals of financial support and threats by
other professors at the University of Sandander, to give failing grades to any medical students
who dared attend, for the most part, the conference was well received. Even members of the Colombian
public health establishment, who disagreed with the conference's critique of the HIV-AIDS model,
still treated the speakers with respect and interest, a far cry from the quasi-religious
defensiveness with which these ideas are still treated in the USA. David Rastig, PhD, a 20-year
veteran biochemical researcher whose work on protease enzymes has convinced him that the still
highly high protease inhibitors will be useless against AIDS. He offered his experiences from the
Colombian conference and other international outreach efforts and discussed the anecdotal
evidence of the people with AIDS allegedly doing better on protease inhibitor nucleoside analog
combination therapy. Conlon, here's his question, how did the conference go?
Rastig, that's me, my answer. It went very well, sort of like Hollywood movie. You didn't know if
they were ever going to pull it off or not because so many evil machinations and things going on
behind the scenes. But all went well in spite of the efforts of powerful people to throw a monkey
wrench into the works. Peter Duesberg and Carey Mullis were down there and I'm convinced that
their presence alone is what made the thing a really big success. There were a lot of people
there from different countries but those two were the ones that really drew the media. We got front
page coverage there in the newspapers and there were some government officials and we were treated
like royalty. They were sort of ambivalent. It was a major piece of national prestige to have the
Nobel laureate Carey Mullis there but they wanted to keep it quiet. They didn't want the public to
know about it other than just that it was happening. They didn't want them to know what we were talking
about. They just wanted them to know that we were in their country, especially Carey Mullis, the
Nobel laureate. The government pulled out $20,000 of promised support at the last minute
as an 11th hour, at the 11th hour so to speak. I don't know this but I wouldn't be surprised if
they intended that all along just to kill the conference, hoping that that would do it.
That's just my suspicious nature. That's me talking by the way. Another thing they did
the school, the university threatened the students with failure if they attended the conference.
They had over 700 people who had scheduled to attend and only 250 or so actually showed up
but they were there throughout the whole thing. There was a lot of serious pressure to stop it.
Here's Conlon's question to me. Where do you think the pressure was coming from? This is my answer.
Oh, I know exactly where it was coming from. It was coming from the government health officials.
We even met them. This one fellow that we met, I forget his name, warned us about who to talk to
and who not to talk to. He didn't threaten us but he did warn us to be careful about what we said
and who we talked to. Of course, we talked to whomever showed up in the auditorium. We've been
doing that our whole professional lives. This guy was trained at the CDC at the US Centers for
Disease Control. My guess is that he was in contact with the CDC and I'm sure he was. He
wanted to know how to handle this thing and deal with it. Also, the government health establishment
held an emergency conference right after ours to try to counter our conference. For all I know,
maybe the CDC was funding this emergency conference to counter ours. I don't know that
for a fact but somebody was paying for it. It could be the Colombian government. They're
certainly not poor. Conlon, it could be the narco traffickers didn't want a lot of the people
wondering about Colombia saying the drug use was causing AIDS. Who knows? That's what Conlon was
wondering. This is my answer. You never know. You can think of all sorts of things. I haven't
contacted good old Phidias Leon since then because I just got back from Kiev and I was there for a
week doing AIDS stuff there. That went very well too. There was a meeting held in the sociology
department of one of the universities. It had 60 people there. Two Ukrainian TV crews were there
and I was interviewed on both of them. They had the country's leading health officials and AIDS
experts and things. Then I asked on the air how many AIDS patients are there in the Ukraine?
There are 170 AIDS patients they said out of 52 million people. They had almost that many people
in that room, 170 studying AIDS as there were AIDS patients. I had to ask them on the air why
are Ukrainians afraid of AIDS when there are so few AIDS patients? Of course, there was no answer
to that. That went well. Actually, we had a debate and a discussion there with the proponents of the
HIV AIDS Hypothesis. Almost done here, folks. I told them that was very unusual. That would not
happen in this country, in the United States. It was a dignified, respectful debate and I told them
how much I really appreciated it. They're going to write it up, they said. Here's what Conlon asked.
Did anything new emerge out of these meetings? Any new information, new ideas? This was my answer.
No, it was all a one-way flow of information. All the stuff that I had to say, Peter had to say,
and all the rest of them, Kerry had to say, was pretty much the same old story. We added more
details in terms of the drug AIDS Hypothesis and more literature data that supported it. The only
thing new about these meetings was that they happened at all. The proponents of the HIV AIDS
Hypothesis in Ukraine were very ill-prepared. I didn't try to humiliate them. I just answered
their questions and they appreciated that. I appreciated the fact that they were there, period.
There was nothing really new. No breakthrough, no breakthrough stuff or anything like that.
It was sort of like going to the HEAL, Health Education AIDS Liaison, HEAL meeting. It was one
of the big groups during the AIDS era, but with a lot more high-flute folks around. That's just the
part that I wanted to read as a little background about what it was like during the AIDS era.
We were having these sorts of things all over the world that were never covered in the United
States. Celia is here with us today. She could probably tell you about all the places that she
went and how it happened and how it went. She went all over Africa, for example, which I only went to
South Africa. I'll get that off of there. I just wanted to give a little bit of background.
The Columbia thing was where Kerry and I, we actually walked around a lot. We met a lot of
people. He and I got to know each other. For days, we were constantly together. We were walking
around talking about things, getting very familiar with each other personally, professionally,
and other ways. Let's see, I forget what else I was going to tell you about that.
We stayed pretty close in touch over the years either through emails or whatever,
but our particular backgrounds professionally did not overlap other than the AIDS stuff.
So, Dave, we've got your menu covering the picture.
Oh, sorry about that. Sorry about that. Yeah. That's it. That's good. I closed that thing out.
Appreciate you telling me that. I'm not so good at this kind of stuff.
That was Buka Moranga. There were so many things there. Oh, this was an interesting little story.
Kerry had two security guards because he was a big deal there, a Nobel laureate, that they were very
happy who was there. They didn't want anything to happen to Kerry while he was there. So,
they had these two guys that were very innocuous. One of them carried a bag that, I don't know,
probably had a machine gun in it or something like that. They were always following us around
with the restaurants. They would get a table, several tables away from us, but always facing us.
When we were driving around, they'd be in the car behind us making sure that nothing happened.
They're basically protecting Kerry. They didn't want a big international
issue with him. We were driving. Kerry wanted to go up in the mountains. He wanted to seize
the highlands. The security guards pulled their car up in front of us and stopped us.
We thought they were trying to... There's rebels in the mountains, in the highlands there.
We thought that they were trying to protect us against the rebels. The security guards said,
no, they wouldn't bother us. They wouldn't bother Kerry. They would go after the security guards
because they weren't for the government. So, we turned around and headed back to Bucamuranga.
That's just one of those little things I thought of pass along only because it's probably the only
opportunity I'll ever get to share it with people ever again. What's next in my little thing here?
Let me tell you about the students. The students organized this conference. They really did.
They were risking failing. They were kicked out of school, but that 250 or however many that was
there, they hung in there, man. We were so proud of those people. I took a photograph of all of them.
Had them all together. I took a picture. I no longer have that picture, unfortunately. I wish
I had that because they were brave. They were risking stuff just to be in there and support us.
I really, really appreciated that and wanted to support them. All right, that's that.
Moving on. Okay, now the emails. I got an email from, let's see here, Kerry Mollison, 2007.
I don't know. Let's see. What is that? The email from, it was 2007. Wrong. Oh, yeah. Okay. That comes
a little later. That's number eight. Yeah, okay. I see that. That comes a little later. All right.
So now I'm going to get into the issues of later in life, up to the point where he died.
The email exchanges that happened during that period. They're pretty telling. Let's see where
we're at here now. I can get rid of this one. Let's get rid of that one. All right, let's see.
Okay. We can now see the email from Nancy Mullis. That's Nancy Mullis and that was in April 14, 2020.
If you make it a bit bigger so people can read it. Yeah, let me do that. Let me make it bigger.
Let's see. How's that? Good. Okay. You can scroll up if you're reading from it.
I'll get better at this, I guess, as I go along, guys. Yeah, well, you're pretty young, Dave, so
you've got plenty of time to learn. See, I'm too old for this new technology. That's the problem.
All right. So anyway, I had contacted Kerry on, let's see, wrong. That's the guy.
That page. Email Kerry 2007. Oh, yeah. I had an email from Kerry September 2007.
Right. I don't guess I have that up there. No, I don't have that one.
What's this? Oh, yeah. This was it right here. It's just a shorty.
Let's read. I don't have it in there. I don't think. Oh, yeah. This is when 2007, the reason
I have this here, it's not important that it's in there though, is that this email was where Kerry
was talking about some of his work and his work with his PCR. His PCR was a big deal
and Nobel Prize and everything for it. And there was this big company called
BioSearch and the CEO and president, Ron Cook, of course, made a fortune and that company still does
based on PCR. It's one of the one of the world leading PCR companies. And of course, they want
to make continue making a lot of money on that. And so I got this email. The reason I pulled it
out is because he mentions it. Ron Cook, he's one of the founders, president, CEO of BioSearch
early on. Absolutely right. When he first got, I think got the Nobel Prize, in fact,
and even before that, he was involved in this stuff to try to commercialize the PCR
PCR business and the company's BioSearch. And let's see here. And here's one little funny
quote that I just want to read that Kerry Mullis is saying in here. He had a very long email.
It says, we have so far been funded by $2 million from DARPA. That's the defense government thing.
And we are looking now for $10 to $20 million to keep the working,
working without having to deal with Anthony Fauci, he says. For reasons I can't understand,
he doesn't like me. That's what Kerry said. And then he says, and I'm not the wizard that
Peter Duesberg is or the suave marketeer that Sir Rastick with his illustrious Southern family
represents, but I am fairly certain that Barry, that's the CEO, once he gets wind of it,
will make a pile, make a lot of money. Anyway, the main thing why I did that was because
that was one of the first places where he mentioned the guy by name Ron Cook.
And his wife, Nancy, when she was on the phone with me, when Kerry was in the hospital and after he
died, she didn't mention this guy's by name, but she had two men in there. I talked to her on the
phone three times during this period. And they were, I could hear their voices. They were really
close to her. I think they were trying to listen to the phone call too. And they were putting
pressure on her. I didn't hear their voices, but the way she was behaving, and it was very clear
that it was, it was, she was nervous about talking to me on the phone with these guys there.
And what, and you'll see from this, these emails, let's see here, these emails, why she's nervous.
This was an April 14, 2020. I know you emailed me last May, but this is when our whole world
changed. I took Kerry to the ER at the Hoag, whatever that is, on May 6th. And three months later,
three months later, he died. I got the right one up there, don't I? Yeah, this is the right one.
Make sure that's right. Yeah, I do. I'm 14. Right, he died. And Kerry never again,
and the thing is, a lot of people don't know, Kerry had a stroke. That's why he was in the hospital.
Kerry never walked again due to a stroke he had in the hospital a week later. And it is,
it is all too horrible and a long story, so she won't go into that. I'm having such a hard time
with the loss of Kerry. He was my whole life, and I can't imagine the purpose now. I do hope
to do something with his legacy, but we will see. Now, the reason I emphasize the stroke thing,
Peter Duesberg had a stroke. You know, that, you saw that picture I had up there. He had a stroke,
but he survived. But he is seriously debilitated. He cannot communicate very well. Kerry had a stroke
and died. Okay. And then down here in the yellow again, I sent Peter a link to an article Celia
Farmer wrote about PCR and the virus testing. She is totally off base, you say, because,
and you'll see why. She refers to back to the AIDS time when Kerry said PCR should not be used to
test AIDS and now is questioning why PCR should be used for COVID. The new version of the PCR,
QPCR, RTPCR, all that stuff is the definitive test for the virus, and she doesn't seem to be
aware of that. Totally hogwash. She is getting that stuff from Ron Cook. And you'll see that
a little bit later. She has that pressure from her. Poor Nancy, she is getting this from these
other people. We'll see more of that here in a little bit. And then let me scroll down a little
bit. And then here is what she said. Here is what I received regarding her article from,
no, this is what I wrote. Here is what I received regarding her article from my DNA contact.
Let's see now. And then I asked, well, who is this person? This person is attempting to be
provocative by saying that PCR-based techniques, et cetera, et cetera, don't work. All right. So
this person is attempting to be provocative. Who is this DNA contact that she is talking about,
this DNA contact? Well, that DNA contact turns out to be, let me make this this way.
Maybe it's the next one over here. Ah, it's this one. This is the one. It's Ron Cook.
The CEO and chairman of the BioSearch. And this was in 2015 email. So DNA contact turns out to be
Ron Cook, who I knew it was anyway. And that was the guy that I showed you earlier, years prior to
that, I think it was 2007 or something like that, Ron Cook that Carrie was talking about, working
with at BioSearch. And Ron Cook has been a good source of information. I guarantee you he was the
guy in that room with Nancy when she was on the phone with me. And it's not sure if you ever met
the guy. I never did. But his company deals with this. Here is what he sent regarding what you sent,
what I sent. And it says this. You can see that this is a quote. When designed correctly
and validated, PCR gives the correct answer. But if designed by a casual user, can very much
mislead. By the way, you, that was probably Nancy that he was talking to from the email, and Carrie
met Stephen Buston. Now Stephen Buston is a very powerful critic of PCR. And I think I have one
paper of his in the handouts here. But I got whole files of Buston. He totally shoots down the use of
PCR, just like Carrie does. And so by the way, you, Nancy and Carrie met Stephen Buston at BioSearch
and at the Friesling meeting in Germany. He is anal about the correct use of PCR and is the
lead author in the MIQE guidelines that I sent you the other day. MIQU is the recipe for doing
PCR correctly. Also Dave is correct about the reverse transcriptase step which precedes PCR.
And Buston is very conscious of this step and the uncertainty of its efficacy, efficiency.
But this step has improved markedly over the years. It is now somewhat reliable. But it is still the
reason some say that PCR is not truly quantitative but more qualitative. But when measuring for
COVID-19, this is a yes or no and not a quantitation thing. It is not an issue. Total BS.
That statement in blue is total BS. But this guy is really defending his company. That's what that
is in there. And he basically he's training Nancy, you know, about when people ask her about this
stuff. That's what's going on right there. So now let me go back here to this one.
All right. This is the email. What are these lines? I don't know. It's the same thing. What
they are. Where that came from. Okay. And here's what I said. Hi, Nancy. That's what I said.
Carrie was not supportive of using PCR to diagnose HIV infection as I recall. His standard PCR is
his standard PCR is very powerful for many legitimate purposes but using it to make life
altering medical decisions is a big mistake. Using the combination of reverse transcriptase
to turn RNA into DNA followed by performing quantitative PCR to declare that a person is
infected with coronavirus is a colossal mistake. I have attached a 2017 paper by Stephen Buston.
That's good old Stephen Buston again. Where he takes great pains describing the myriad problems
leading to irreproducibility of results when using reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR.
That's what that all stands for. For diagnostic purposes. By the way, Buston gave an interview
yesterday on this very subject. And there's the link to people that go to that interview.
Okay. Sadly, Carrie is not here to set everybody straight. He was very good at doing that. He
certainly was. And let's see here. We did that one. Okay. This must be on my computer. These
weird lines here. I don't know how they got there. But yes, they got there some way, but it'll
disappear in due course. Don't worry about that later. Yeah. Yeah. I get off this thing. Okay.
I know I'm driving everybody nuts with this stuff, but it's the only time I'm really going
to have the opportunity to present it to people. Well, this is important. It is because this becomes
recorded and is your testimony really? It is. All right. So here, here is one of his numerous papers,
but this was a good one. And let's see as of 2017, the title of it's great talking the talk,
but not walking the walk. Reverse transcriptase quantitative PCR as a paradigm for the lack of
reproducibility and molecular research. In other words, he's shooting it down right in the title.
The reverse, let me wait, make it bigger for everybody here. There we go. The reverse
transcription real-time quantitative PCR is probably the most straightforward measurement
technique available for RNA quantification and is used, widely used at research diagnostic
forensics and biotechnology applications. We demonstrate that elementary protocol errors,
inappropriate data analysis, and inadequate reporting continue to be rife and conclude
that the majority of published RTQ PCR data are likely to represent technical noise. In other
words, they're totally useless in that regard. In practice, there are significant doubts about the
validity of many research claims in the context of a flawed research infrastructure that encourages
disregard for responsible scientific process, regulation, transparency, and reporting.
Confidence in quantitative measurements depends on a number of parameters, one of which is
reproducibility. Reproducibility incorporates both biological and technical variability,
and as long ago as 1949, it was demonstrated that experimental test results can vary widely,
even when performed by the same individual at the same time. Since then, there have been numerous
publications that highlight the problems with lack of reproducibility. He gives a review.
And the role journals play in failing to enforce their own editorial policies. This together with
the fact that credibility and translation are only modestly correlated and explains why basic
research findings are rarely adopted for clinical practice. Okay. And I think that's all I had
highlighted in this. Yeah. No, there's something else. Well, we don't need to get into this right
now. Other people, it's highlighted. You can look into it when you download the paper.
And I just wanted to show this to everybody. It's about this Ron Cook and his company.
His company is BioSearch. And here I know it's small. I thought it would,
thought when I made it larger, you can see it here. But there's the guy's name. I highlighted it.
The roots of BioSearch technologies can be traced back to 1978 when President and CEO Ron Cook,
PhD, founded the company. And based on, and it's basic, really its primary thing is to
solid-phase synthesis of DNA. That's what they do. And most notably in 1982, Carey Mullis at
the CEUS Corporation used their instrument, the SAM1 DNA synthesizer, to create oligos,
those are short little segments of DNA, for use in the experiments which eventually resulted in
the invention of the polymerase chain reaction. You see, so they're getting every bit of publicity
they can. Carey Mullis, a Nobel laureate, used their equipment to develop his polymerase chain
reaction thing that he got the Nobel Prize for. And they've been making money off of it since,
and that's why he was, I guarantee you, he was in there with the phone calls with Nancy Mullis
when we were on the phone there. Okay, we're getting close to getting to the end now.
This is another email here. This is April 19th. And this is Ron again, this is Ron Cook. And you
see that the stuff above, this is Nancy. He says, here's the information I've been given by good
sources. And that's Ron. Ron always wants to stay out of weighing in. He is so busy, also didn't
want to be confronted with questions, I tell you that. The number of deaths could be inflated by
those with pretty morbid conditions when there are various hidden agendas at work, mostly partisan
and political. He's talking about the people who don't want to, who want to stay away from these
PCR tests. But let me get this bigger here for you. See, it's still so, yeah, this will get bigger.
All right. Now this stuff down here, this is coming from Ron Cook. You can tell she included
this. These are not her words. These are Ron Cook's words that she included in the email.
Testing is the solution, not the cause of the problems. The wholesale shutdown is due to the
lack of testing. He talks about the shutdown of the country and of the world. The wholesale shutdown
is due to a lack of testing. Since we don't know where the disease is, the solution has been to
assume it's everywhere. That's why they shut down the whole country. That's his logic, all right,
and the world for that matter. Not a long-term fix, not a long-term fix. So testing needs to be
expanded. You see, we need to expand PCR testing so that we could reverse the lockdowns and
the closing everything down. The problem is that there is no public health infrastructure to
administer testing, and the FDA rules and rigs hamper the introduction of new methodologies.
Blame it on everybody stopping the testing. At this point, there is no way to put the
10, the tens of thousands of machines that it will take in every local clinic,
nor hire and train the technicians to the standard required by the FDA. Again, everything is against
our machines and against us testing. That's why we're locking down and closing everything up.
Now we get away from him, and this comes back to her statements and basically what she's got from
him eventually. Most importantly, the PCR that Kerry invented in 1983 has been improved and expanded
with QPCR and reverse transcript HPCR. If done correctly, this will yield an analysis of the
virus being present or not. Kerry would not have a problem with that. Oh yeah, this is,
Kerry's not saying this. These are people saying it for Kerry. All right, so anyway,
let me keep going here. Okay, this is April 2020. She's checking in with me again. Okay,
I checked, let me make it bigger. There we go. Okay, I checked with Ron, and that's Ron
Book again, and another close friend of Kerry's. As you surely remember, I'm not a scientist, so
you know far more than me. I should probably decline the requests that come for Kerry's advice.
It doesn't seem to be common knowledge that he died. Probably wasn't in those days, early days,
but I hate all this misinformation put out there about him when he isn't around to present his
opinion. That is why I wouldn't even read the Farber piece. And down here, we go a little below,
and then I think this is what she was talking about. Celia's been writing about this PCR stuff
herself, the problems with it. And this is what I said. I said, hi Nancy, the answer by the good
sources, her sources, did not come close to answering my questions and concerns. It is
certainly not a scientific response. I've been a scientist for four decades. I can handle a
scientific response. They didn't even offer minimal evidence to support their claims other
than the standard propaganda or defense of vested interest. That's all these guys did. That's what
led her to respond above. So I guess there's enough of that. Don't need to go into all that detail.
Now let's see. Okay, we already did that. I think I'm about close to being done.
I don't need to know. Already did that. Hey guys, I think we're almost there.
Impressive. Bustin, oh yeah, that thing. So anyway, I'll stop sharing.
We don't need anything else there. Okay, I hope I didn't put all y'all to sleep.
But I figured that was most of the time to do it and I'll probably never get another opportunity.
That is important. Prime information. David, thank you so much for sharing it with us.