Yes, for those who've just joined us, David Martin's had a close relative in a major car
accident and cannot be here, but JJ Cooey is joining us in about five minutes time.
Not his relative, Charles, it's his business partner's relative.
Sorry, thank you. His business partner's relative, major car accident. So Hemp Summer,
Daniel Andrews resigned and there will be a new Premier in Victoria who we are assured will be
Jacinda Allen. Ironically, same initials as Jacinda Ardern and we are reliably informed is
simply an acolyte, a protege of Daniel Andrews, Stephen and everybody. So it's not going to be
any better. So David Martin won't be speaking today, JJ Cooey will be shortly. Rose has got
her hand up. Rose, do you want to say something? Two quick things. One, because I wanted to pose
this to Dr. Martin, how come nobody is using the argument that a lot of these companies and celebrities
are either acting illegally as or bypassing IRB safety boards, soliciting people into research?
And I'm trying to get responses from lawyers of why that argument's not being used.
Any thoughts, anybody? And the second one, Rose? Well, the lawyers haven't noticed probably.
Yeah. Yeah. And to me, that's a huge one with Walgreens, the celebrities, people being paid
to illegally solicit, especially the most vulnerable, i.e. children, elderly, into research
illegally. Incredible, isn't it? Yeah. So there you go. That's an argument that I'm trying to
get out there because it's blatantly being abused and violated. And I also wanted to ask that
everybody get a chance to listen to that last Tucker Carlson interview with AG from Texas.
It was a very, very good interview. Listening to Tucker Carlson.
So, Rose, Tucker Carlson with whom? AG, the attorney general, let's presume. Yeah. Yeah,
I'm sorry. Yes, sorry about that. The attorney general from Texas that they were trying to impeach.
Very good. Thank you for the heads up. If you haven't had a chance to listen to it, it's fabulous.
Excellent. And Rose, on the first point, trying to get a message out there, it's like Hans Benjamin
trying to get his message and the results of his research on America's responsibility for the
Nord Stream explosions. You get stuff out there, it gets, you know, the mainstream ignores it.
On many things, they ignore it. And as Stephen's been ignored by politicians, they ignore it.
Jim's got his hand up. And the Times weren't interested in even seeing Archbishop Vigano's
carefully prepared statements. Yes. How about that? The Times of London, and I told the editor I was
talking to that he was in a cult and he didn't know what to say to me. Yeah. Jim. Yes, this is,
yeah, thank you. This is an intelligence operation and the intelligence agencies have
control of the media in the United States through the Smith-Munt-MUND-MUNDT Modernization Act of
2012-13 that allows propaganda on the United States citizens. The intelligence agencies are
the ones through Twitter that have limited conversation, through Facebook. The intelligence
agencies actually funded these organizations. We really need to focus on the intelligence agencies
of Six Eyes, Spice Network, that includes the Crown colonies as well as United States and Israel.
Jim, can you put that into the chat please, the USA Smith-Munt Act?
So, Jim, so the point that needs to be, so you're talking about the intelligence agencies, but many
people won't understand, or possibly will, I don't know, that actually the job of intelligence
agencies obviously is to support the state that they are operating in. No, it's not.
Oh right, okay. Well, not in the United States, obviously. And not in the Australia either,
and not in the country either. They have gone rogue and one of the best excerpts is from Victor
Ostrovsky. Jeremy, could you please, Jeremy Willis, your microphone is on.
The best, one of the best speeches is from Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent, who said the
Mossad has gone rogue. They used to be a very good organization for the benefit of Israel, but then,
and recently, or when recently, you know, 20 years ago when he wrote his book by way of deception,
they have gone rogue and were doing things not for the benefit of the Jewish people,
but for other causes, and he had to quit and expose this. And I'll put the, by way of deception,
in the, and by the way, he sells art on his website, and you can look at that, and intelligence
agents, that's how they get money, they sell art. You look at Hunter Biden, he sells art.
And Anthony Blunt, who was a high up operative, he was master of the Queen's pictures.
Who's that? Anthony Blunt, a famous spy in the United Kingdom.
Okay, and Anthony Blinken, our Secretary of State, before he became Secretary of State,
was so powerful he could tell 50 former CIA agents and spies on both Democrats and Republicans to lie
about the Hunter Biden laptop. And they did so. How, what agency allows him to be so powerful
before he was Secretary of State? And intelligence agents, if they did something, they don't,
they say they don't know who did it. They don't know who leaked it over the way.
Thanks, Jim. JJ has joined us online, but Jeremy, you had your hand up quickly to you.
Charles, can I just say one thing to Jim? Jim, you contradicted me when I said the job of an
intelligence agency was to support the state in which they were operating. Well, that is the job,
but it isn't now. So that is wrong, though. The latter is wrong.
If you could show me what's written, I'd be appreciative.
Okay, well, okay. Well, we can discuss that, but okay, well, we can assume. Okay, right. Well,
we can't get to the bottom of that, obviously, not in five minutes anyway.
Yeah, that's the only time to do that. But great to be Jeremy, Jeremy from the channel.
Just a very quick one. You can hear me. I've just heard rumors that they are encouraging
GPs to start doing HIV tests on the population. Has anyone else heard this at all?
Oh, they rolled that out in last year, Jeremy. I remember an MP was proudly at her
GPs and there was a picture of her at a GP, both masked up, and she just had her HIV test.
It was the HIV test week. Did you miss that? I must have missed that. Yeah, I mean, I'm not
switching off from some of it. It's just nonsense. The monkey pox, the whole thing. Well,
JJ, we can't have anybody better to explain the thought to us.
Yeah. Any thoughts on that? Any other reactions? And you know, what on earth are they wanting to
All right, let's not go there. That's it. We might get a chance. Hang on, Jeremy, we might get a
chance to do that. But we found JJ, you are a superstar, JJ. Welcome. I've made you a
a co host so you can share your screen. Thank you for jumping in at the last moment. And
are you ready to go, JJ? Do a quick intro. You're on mute. Oh, you're on mute. Charles,
I don't think JJ wants to be a superhero. But anyway, he's very, very modest.
Can you hear me now? Am I good? Yep. Yeah, no, he's a superhero to us, Steven.
Yeah, it's very, very sweet. But yeah, I'm just a humble biologist. And I don't mind coming
at the last minute just to get a little word in edgewise. But I also think that sort of to
be most useful in this kind of environment, I'm going to give a relatively short talk and then
hopefully you won't find it unuseful to ask any questions. And maybe I can help maybe I can't,
we can get a discussion going on whatever one even wants.
Excellent. So let me do a quick intro, JJ. Oh, sure. Go ahead. So and in response to what you
just said, we've had some presenters who have just come here and literally done Q&A. So that
will work beautifully if you speak as long as you like, and then we can have a great discussion.
All right, so everybody welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
Right up front, we've announced for those who missed it, that Dr. David Martin, his business
partner has had a major accident, car accident. And so David has had to defer and JJ Cooey is
jumping into the breach. Welcome to today's discussion. This group is founded by Dr. Stephen
Frost 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. We comprise lots of professions here from all around the world.
We're not just medical doctors. And many of us thought that vaccines were okay. 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 in the chat. If you publish anything, newsletters, podcasts,
put the details into the chat so we can find you, promote you, even if you've done it previously,
because we have a floating population put it into the chat. Don't be shy. 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. The 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'll listen to
JJ Cooey for as long as he's already says he's going to speak a short time and then we're going
to have plenty of Q&A. And Stephen Frost, by a long established tradition, asks the first series
of questions for the first 15 minutes. There's no censorship. It's a free speech environment.
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, 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. And in my show last week, I talked
about fear porn. Just to hold those two words in your head. Governments are love it when you are
full of fear. You come to this place to remind yourself to let go of the fear.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the
details into the chat, the meeting is recorded and is uploaded on the Rumble channel. So some
of you will be watching this by recording. Welcome. And now welcome again, JJ Cooey,
who has presented twice to us before. This is his third time. And please go back and look at
the recordings of his presentations. They are excellent. They are provocative. They are meaningful.
And thank you, JJ, for jumping into the last moment to replace Dr. David Martin. And thank
you, Stephen Frost, again, for all creating this group and for organizing JJ. Over to you,
JJ. You have screen sharing rights. We're in your hands. Thank you very much. Anybody who's watching
now on the Zoom, if you don't already see me as the big screen and only the big screen, then go
up to the right hand corner of your screen, click on view and change it to speaker view instead of
gallery, because I'm going to control my own screen. And so it will never override that. So
you need to change to that view and then you'll see me big. And that means if you see that,
then you should also see me now down here in the corner. And if that's working fine,
then everything should be good. So I, first of all, I want to compliment you guys for being here
every week, multiple times, sometimes for the last three years, because it is, we're going to require
a certain level of endurance for us to make it across the finish line in the coming years.
And I say coming years because I'm quite certain that that's how long this battle is going to go.
We can't take the bait on TV and social media, which keeps us focused on the ground in front of
us. I'm starting to really understand that the game is a longer game than this year or next year.
And in order for us to get ahead of this game, we're going to have to start thinking a little
bit farther ahead than the coming six months. And so don't take the bait. Don't pay attention
to the things that they're throwing in front of you, even if it's Google fold and they claim
that they've figured out how they can fold all the proteins in the universe. And they've made a little
video like the one I'm playing here to trick you into the believing that. So I've been pitching
for a while that essentially the psychological operation of the pandemic was one way in which
they used a series of censorship and very dramatic pronouncements that were all
uniform across the globe in order to trick us into believing that there was a mystery to solve
and that that mystery involved a virus that circulated the globe for more than three years,
that that virus was very different and novel from any other previous virus,
and that that meant it was likely that it wasn't natural. And the mystery has led us, the solving
of this mystery has essentially tricked the left and the right into believing that the solution
to this mystery is the truth. And so whether you end up believing that it's probably natural,
or it's probably a lab leak, or that pandemics are something that we need to fear in the future is
something that you won't question. So I kind of said that a little awkwardly, but if you come to
the conclusion that it was a natural virus, or you come to the conclusion that it was a lab leak,
you are still coming to the conclusion that we must prepare for the next one. And that as our
wonderful technology continues to grow and expand, the ease with which anyone who wants to be a creep
can create a pandemic virus will become ever more accessible to people working in their garage.
And that is essentially what they would like the average TV viewer to have come to in the last
three years. And this trick has been magical. Because this trick has been pulled off by a number
of different people. And I'm not necessarily accusing anyone on the screen here in particular,
but I'm just trying to use it as an illustration for how a series or a group of people that could
change the way that we think about respiratory disease, that could change the way we think about
all cause mortality, that could change the way we think about our immune response to disease,
and change the way that we think about vaccination, or permanently solidify how we think about it,
could essentially allow to happen by just telling people that there's a novel virus,
and we have no idea what to do. Although it looks like pneumonia, it's not treatable in the normal
way, because this is a novel virus, and we have no idea what to do. And so with the very standard,
you know, rush to conclusions and make sure that there's legal protection and there's also financial
incentives, they were able to use Medazolam in the UK, Remdesivir in the United States, a drug that
has never proven therapeutic for anything. And they were made able to make it the standard of care
in the United States for more than a year. They were able to ventilate people to stop spread.
They told paramedics in New York City not to resuscitate heart attack victims, because
resuscitation might cause the spread of the disease. And so these things are all coming out
now, three years later, when we finally try to look at the death count in New York City, and we
find a four week bomb of 20,000 excess deaths, and then it goes right back to baseline, and never
goes up again. And now that we have this data, and we point out to people, they just deny it.
It doesn't matter. Jessica Hockett's data doesn't matter. And now we're starting to see how this was
done. It was best described by Noam Chomsky. And I'm sorry I said this last time, but again,
I'm not prepared. So the spectrum of debate has been limited by this cartoon mystery that has been
presented to us on TV and social media, thrown into movies years before the pandemic, so that we were
primed and ready to go. We were already knowing that viruses come out of bat caves. We were already
told that it can be accessed in laboratories with animal passage or with cell culture, and we've more
recently been told that we can stitch them together. And this has always been the plan.
It has always been the plan to lie to us about this potential, and then come out with a big global
drama in order to solidify it as the new mythology under which we would be governed.
It is the only way that you could think about governing a globe. You can't govern a globe with
different nations and different languages and different religions and different cultures,
different music, unless they have one unifying mythology. And this is that unifying mythology
that there are gain-of-function viruses, that RNA can be endowed with the ability to travel
from person to person with high fidelity for three years through millions of people.
And they've convinced us with all of these people, all of these people are on narrative,
and it's become my life's mission to understand who was briefed on this silly narrative.
And I've been able to figure it out based on what they don't talk about.
Almost no one talks about how central it was to 2020 and 2021 that PCR was taken seriously.
They don't even talk about it anymore. But this was a gigantic fraud. And how many of our dissident
leaders are talking about it, but they should start with it. They should start with it at every talk,
but they don't. Masking, lockdown, the fact that we now have data that shows that there was no
spread in New York City, the death certificate frauds that were documented in so many different
states, nobody seems to know but me. The protocol do not resuscitate frauds that were done in New
York City for that month. No one is still talking about it. The way that they ventilated, the way
and how they treated people with remdesivir and who's responsible for that,
we're not talking about it. And who's not talking about it? Almost everybody in the red triangle.
I'm not picking on people, not calling people bad guys, but you can go through their social media
with a objective electronic comb. And you can just query how often do they talk about remdesivir,
and when they do, what are they saying? Who do they talk about it with? Have they ever mentioned
medazolam in the UK? No American ever does. So if you start to really look at it, my friends,
they start to reveal themselves because they don't actually tell the truth.
They tell this story about a novel virus that is responsible for the majority of the damage and
the majority of the crazy behavior. We had to make these decisions because of the virus.
And none of these people in this red triangle, for all practical purposes, do not question the
existence of the virus. And I'm not saying that there isn't a virus, but I am saying that there
isn't something that was released at a point in Wuhan and then traveled around the world rapidly
for three years, changing variant after variant after variant. That is definitely a mythology.
And in fact, anybody that's questioned the protocols first, or the spread, or the variants,
is now in this yellow zone where you can't talk to them anymore. They're irrelevant.
And so I figured out a way to really piss them off, which is to say this stuff in a more correct
way. And so I believe this is very close, but I've got to caveat it a little bit because some
people don't really like what I'm saying here. But transfection is not immunization. That's pretty
simple. But intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of
augmenting the immune system is dumb, is something I've been saying more recently, and it needs a
little bit of a caveat. If your goal is to augment the immune system so that the mucosal layer
of the lungs and the gut respond in a positive way so that you are immune to a disease that
replicates there, then immunizing intramuscularly is dumb. If there are viruses that maintain some
kind of serum and some kind of concentration in the serum, and therefore you need antibodies
there, then you've got to explain it to me. But for now, today I want to end my talk with a little
picture that I'll draw where I try to explain the immune system very simply, more importantly,
in a way that you yourself can explain it to your friends and family and then explain why
intramuscular injection might not be all it's cracked up to be. And certainly transfection is
not all it's cracked up to be. So this is my latest sort of people map. Everybody in yellow
is somebody who's still following the faith of the novel virus that we had to do something,
and the MRA probably saved people, and the virus will come again. The red people are just people
that have blocked me and made me sure that they're probably not good players, and the green are people
whose consistency with Pursuit of the Truth has impressed me enough so that I think their
track record is pretty consistent. This is not an exhaustive list. This is my own personal
experience. So one that if you don't know who this is, Jessica Hockett should speak for your group at
some point. She is a teacher of teachers working and living in the New York City area, I believe,
in Chicago. Yeah, Chicago she lives in, but she analyzed the data from New York City and compared
it to Chicago and found some incredible anomalies which I think are some of the more important
discoveries in the American data since the start of the pandemic and really underscore
the illusion that was created. And specifically with New York, I'm sure you guys all know who
Nick Hudson is. He said some of the smartest stuff. I mean, he's not always 100% because he's
trying very hard to keep as many possibility doors open even when I think that they're closed,
but that doesn't make him bad. What I think has been so wonderful about him is because
he has so succinctly articulated the idea that when somebody presents you
with a global problem that requires global solutions, you know it's BS. And that single
ideological contribution to our movement has been spectacular because I think it sums up about
80% of what the messaging needs to be going forward to the people who are
way off the reservation and we need to save. By the way, JJ, we have had Nick present to us.
Okay, great. He's fantastic. I don't know if you've had Denny Rancourt, but he's also,
Denny is just fantastic and he's done some of the analysis, of course, that's really breaking this
wide open. Now, one of the things you might not be so aware of is this recent development in my work
and the work of Mark Kulak. We have not really discovered, but kind of uncovered some connections
between these people in the beginning of the pandemic, which would seem to suggest that it
wouldn't be ridiculous for them to have coordinated their messaging from the very beginning.
There are several examples of Robert Malone doing live streams when he first came public
in August of 2021 with Paul Cottrell. Paul Cottrell was the first person that I ever
live streamed with in 2020. And in 2020, I had already uncovered him as fraud,
calling himself a doctor, but he's actually, he actually did a PhD in finance and he was doing
a biology degree somewhere, but he definitely wasn't a doctor. And he actually said, believe it
or not, in February of 2020, that he was streaming a live phone call from Taiwan,
where this woman was describing a situation in Taiwan that was so dire and that the only thing
that was working was a drug called remdesivir and she couldn't pronounce it, but Paul could.
Now, what makes it real curious about Paul is that during every stream that I ever did with him in
May of, in April, March, and April, May of 2020, he was a proponent of it being a worst case scenario,
worst case scenario in New York City and arguing that he could see the cooler trucks outside of his
apartment. So it didn't matter what Jay Cooley was saying, I can see the reality in New York City.
Now, interestingly, George Webb's favorite source of biology since the beginning of the pandemic is
none other than Paul Cottrell. And to this day, George Webb will defend Paul Cottrell as one of
the heroes of the biology. Now, at the same time, consider the fact that Robert Malone and Gerrit
VandenBosch knew each other from a professional relationship in 2007 and eight, when they both
worked for Solvay Pharmaceuticals on the flu vaccine, which in 2011, Mark, Robert Malone was
speaking about in relation to fill and finish technologies and also presenting to the WHO
directly. So multiple governments then. So at the start of the pandemic, Paul Cottrell, or sorry,
at the start of Robert Malone's emergence onto the public scene, he had streamed with Paul Cottrell.
He had already worked with Gerrit VandenBosch at Solvay. So he mentions
Gerrit VandenBosch is one of the authorities almost immediately in his live streams.
And now he's saying that that George Webb over here is one of his worst enemies on the internet.
But usefully enough, he links to George Webb's work, and he links to George Webb's appearance on
60 minutes. Same show that had, you know, Peter Daszak on a couple times and has had Jamie Metzel
on a couple times talking about the lab leak. So what I think we're starting to see here is that
some of the people that were pretending to be part of us are actually this fifth generation warfare
kind of thing that have been grooming us to solve the lab leak, forget about the protocols,
worry about gain of function, and give up on figuring out who's responsible for this.
I think one of the reasons why you should be skeptical of Gerrit VandenBosch's recent position
is that his position relies on the idea that the transfection faithfully augmented the immune
system. It's just that it augmented the immune system in a way that has pushed the virus in a
particular direction. And that is a spectacular, it's a spectacular mythology where the virus,
the virus can be pushed around by a transfection in many people. So what a wonderful, he gets you
to accept the power of transfection, the idea that viruses can transmit around the world all in one
alternative theory.
So I've been trying to break this down from the biological perspective, but I think a really good
illustration of what has occurred here. Sorry, I gotta go back. And if you have seen this already,
I apologize, but this is something that's really hit home with people on my stream. And so I thought
I'd drop it in here and then I'll stop, I think. There is an illusion of consensus that is created
when you censor all of the people who you are speaking questionable or alternative views,
and you amplify all the people who are hyper on the same thing, you know, like build back better
or whatever is a horrible example, but it's a good example. And my argument is, is that this is so
complicated that they actually planned to create an illusion of consensus around the argument
of a lab leak or a natural virus, so much so that they have coordinated both sides
with the him and I don't know how to say that word, but very vigorous defenders of the natural
virus, very vigorous defenders of the lab leak, almost ridiculous, right? But that's the point.
Because they want you to think that this debate, that this consensus, that this is the thing to
argue about will lead you to think that, well, how can I deny it? It's very much like an ash
conformity experiment where so many people agree that this is the thing to figure out. They must be
the thing to figure out. And once you jump on board, you're done. Where's the illusion of consensus
best illustrated is in a sitcom. Maybe you'll recall the soup Nazi medium turkey chili
medium crab best. This is one of the legendary episodes of Seinfeld
where this guy's a real mean soup soup monger. You can get any bread. Just forget it. Let it go.
Excuse me. I think you forgot my bread. Red $2 extra. And now the illusion of consensus.
You want bread is audible. Nothing for you.
Let me try it again. Then remove the illusion of consensus.
Medium turkey chili.
Medium crab best.
And so let me pause it. Do you get any bread? Just forget it. Let it go.
Without the laughter. It's not quite as funny. I think you forgot my bread. Red $2 extra.
It's not quite as funny. I think you forgot my bread. Red $2 extra.
$2. Everyone in front of me got free bread. You want bread. Yes, please. Three dollars.
Nothing for you.
Now what does this say to you? I don't know what it says to you. But what it says to me
is that intelligence agencies are the perfect medium through which to create
the illusion of consensus on social media. That there is a laboratory leak. That there's a Batcave
virus. That they're lying about it. That those emails are weird. That those people aren't acting
correct. Rand Paul and Tony Fauci fought live on TV. It must be something significant. The CDC
leaked a slide deck that says the Delta is breaking through the vaccine and that
even people who were previously infected are getting infected with Delta. Oh my gosh, the CDC
was keeping this from us. Oh my goodness, we found a DOD leaked lab, sorry, grant proposal from
Equal Health Alliance and they were going to insert fear and cleavage sites and coronaviruses
and spray them into Batcaves. And this was in 2017. So they probably did it. And then that
caused the pandemic. We solved it. And it sounds ridiculous, but that's actually where we are.
The diffuse proposal was leaked. The CDC did leak a slide deck about Delta. There was a
slide deck leaked from the UK, I don't know what that one's called, the MHRA or something like
that, also about one of the variants. And they've been doing this repeatedly with the idea
of seeding the narrative with social media personalities and on every, you can't underestimate
how many of these people are gaining followers, fame, comfort, a lucrative substack simply because
they agreed to push one thing or to not question the novelty of the virus or the necessity of doing
something or the fact that it could come again. If you don't question those three things,
everybody's trapped in this mythology forever and misleading children about this. This is us
telling them a new story about Santa Claus that is the reason instead of giving presents every year
is the reason why they're going to need an electronic chip in their skin.
And so the TV scenarios are lab leak or Batcave virus. And the way to explain this is that in
2008, the earth was free of pathogen. And then in 2019, something was leaked or released or whatever.
And then it by itself went around the world, RNA to RNA to RNA to RNA. And that's where the biology
breaks down. RNA molecules can't do that. And if you just say it that simple, you don't need to
say there are no RNA viruses. You don't have to get into a debate about what diseases are real
and what diseases aren't. You just have to say that that's not how RNA works. There might be
local outbreaks of an infectious RNA. I guess that's probably possible. I don't know. But I do know
that if you put a thousand identical RNAs in a place in Wuhan and then put them on the street,
no matter how perfect they were, they would not be able to jump from person to person with high
fidelity all the way until 2024. And we could still call it the same thing. No, it's not how it works.
And so a conflated background signal is the best way to think about it, because again,
we have no data from before 2020 about whether or not anybody would test positive with any of
these PCR tests. None, none whatsoever. It is very similar to starting to measure
the spread of automobiles around the world and saying there were no automobiles in 2019. And now
there's this crazy spread of automobiles and you should look. And if you, I'm trying to think of a
good analogy here, but if you, if you go into your garage or go outside of your house and you find
something with four wheels, you might already have an automobile. And so now the premise there is,
is that the only way you would accept that as evidence of spread of automobiles in America
is if you accept the premise that they weren't there yesterday. Holy crap, we have two automobiles
there. We were spreading everywhere. The neighbors have automobiles. I can see them. Holy cow.
And so the real biological shell game here is that before 2020, they had not a little data.
They had zero data, zero. Nobody's sequencing coronaviruses and people. Nobody's mass testing
for PCR. Nobody ever rolled out one of these, these products before. And if you listen to
somebody like Michael Yeaton explain it, there's no way to, to have products like this, but it's
made and mass this quickly with the quality control that would be necessary for them to be
reliable diagnostics of anything. It's just absurd, but we, we accepted it all.
And so the point here is to remember that it doesn't matter whether it's an endemic
background coronavirus, the protocols were murder and transfection is not medicine. It doesn't
matter if it was an infectious clone. If you want to talk about that a little bit,
um, the very quick summary for that, in case you forgot is that DNA is quite high fidelity copying.
RNA is not. And so that's the same reason why an RNA virus cannot go around the world with high
fidelity for three and a half years, cause that's not how RNA works. But RNA virology is based on
the shortcut or the, the cheat where you can take an RNA sequence that you're able to find in the
wild. You can synthetically create a DNA copy of that. And then you can use a bacterial culture
to make lots of copies of that DNA, because DNA is quite high fidelity to copy, meaning that you
can make lots of copies of the same thing. And they're pretty close to the same for millions
and millions of copies. Then you can use an enzyme to change that huge collection of DNA molecules
that are all identical to a pretty homogenous set of RNA. And now that's a pure RNA clone of
the original RNA sequence that you identified in the bat, but in a purity and in a quantity
that you would never be able to prepare by any natural means, you know, culturing into the dish
or sampling lots of bats. Because again, RNA doesn't copy itself high fidelity, no matter
which way and where it grows. But if you make a clone of it in DNA, and then you make a lot of
that DNA, then you can make a lot of that RNA. And then you have a lot more than whatever existed
nature. And that, that could be released in Wuhan and Iran and in America and anywhere that was
released. Those people would test very PCR positive right on for that sequence. And if you were able
to create enough of it, you would be able to sequence the whole thing. So let me explain
one thing about clones, because I came up with this explanation earlier today on another interview,
and it'll be fun to put that in here. So if you're infected, I've told you this before,
if you're infected with a virus, and, and it's a it's a regular natural RNA Coronavirus, then
as Robert Malone and others have explained a vast majority of the infectious particles that you
inhale, and that are produced from the infection are actually non infectious particles. And that's
because the RNA copying is imperfect, and the packaging is imperfect. And the list is very long
of all the things that are imperfect. So we've known that there is an infectious to non infectious
particle ratio for all viruses. And so for Coronavirus, it might be 50 to one,
it might be 20 to one, it might be 100 to one, it might be 1000 to one, nobody's really
endeavored to measure it. But let's just say it's 10 to one. Let's say that for every infectious
particle that you inhale, and it starts to replicate, it will make nine non infectious
particles for every one infectious particle, that's a pretty low ratio, because actually,
a lot of viruses are thought to be between 20 and 50. So this is just one in 10. Okay.
So I'm gonna draw that picture with two squares. And those are two different lungs, it's going to
do two different infections. Okay. So the first lung infection is one infectious particle is going
to infect that lung. Okay. And it's going to replicate. I know we got to do we got to do,
we got to do through we got to do a total
of infectious particles. And then you get one, that's a good one. Okay.
If you took this, and then this gets coughed out, right, then we're coughing out one infectious
particle and many non infectious particles, you see. So the odds are not great that this
Coronavirus is going to transmit it. In fact, that's the way that they explain Coronavirus
transmissions highly unreliable transmission is exactly because of this. This is what they
would have told you before the pandemic. Now they don't say it at all. But you can find papers
discussing this idea that it's that it's this non infectious to infectious particle ratio that makes
the reliability of Coronavirus infection low. And then it's the variability in the copying of the
RNA that makes each infection different from the last one. And the RNA changes very rapidly in the
Coronavirus sequence. And so how we build immunity to Coronavirus is usually through tolerance,
you try to ignore them. Because they're not really doing very much because most of the particles
they make are garbage. Do you see? Now, what I want you to think about very carefully is what
happens when you get infected with a clone? Because when you get infected with a clone,
you're getting infected with pure RNA, pure RNA, meaning that if they are packaged correctly,
or it's done correctly, then when you get infected, you get 10 infectious particles
that would get made. Now, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, I just said that wrong. Now I'm
gonna screw this up. Darn it, darn it, darn it, darn it, darn it. So the point is, is that in
this in this first illustration, we're, we're being infected by a cough, right? So this is,
this is somebody else transmitting infectious and non infectious particles, and then it replicates,
and then we cough. If you get sorry, I screwed that up. If you get infected with a clone,
you are being you are inhaling 10 infectious particles, not, not nine, non infectious and one
infectious particle, you're inhaling 10 infectious particles that will all do what they will all make
one infectious particle and 10 non infectious particles. So after one round of replication
in this person's inhalation, you will have four of these 12345678910. Yeah, 10 of these, and then
you will have nine times four, you'll have 36 non infectious particles. And I won't draw those
out, but you'll have 36 of them. Now I know that this is a mathematically weak example, but what
I want you to see is that a natural coronavirus cannot be weaponized. You can't grow this entity
in a cell culture and ever get enough for it to be weaponized. But if you take this infectious
particle, and you sequence it, and you convert it to DNA, and then you make a massive quantity of it,
right, you can make as much as you want in a cell culture, then when you convert it to DNA, or to
RNA, again, you will have this you will be you will be exposing the animal to you will be sharing
with your colleague a pure, high quality and high quantity of this pure RNA. So if they wanted to do
this and make it look like a coronavirus was circulating around the world, knowing that a
coronavirus can't do that, well, the technology that they have, that is the basis for all
laboratory coronavirus and RNA virus work is the DNA recombinant infectious clone,
this RNA infectious clone right here. And so now imagine if they sprayed that in the subway,
what would happen? People would get very sick, but they would shed the same cloud of non-infectious
particles. So these people would definitely be sick, they would definitely sequence positive,
they would probably have a very severe infection because they're inhaling all infectious particles,
not annoying, immunogenic or, or antigenic particles, but particles that will cause
replication of that DNA and production of viral proteins, which is the reason why infection starts
to trigger the the whole immune cascade in the first place. And you can see why in this natural
infection, the the tendency of the immune system is not to go to a cytokine store. But in in a
situation like this, where every cell has a replication competent RNA, now you can imagine
a scenario where this is a really great model of of infection in the laboratory to use. It's
extremely reliable, it's extremely robust, and more importantly, it goes back to a DNA
construct that can be shared with with and cataloged for all time. And so to virologists,
this is just the way it's done. But they haven't made the connection that this is the only thing
that can be produced in large enough quantities to create the signal that we saw. If you let
an RNA loose, and the only way it's going to get around the world is this way, then there
ain't no pandemic. And that is the trick. If we can get people to understand this, it is really,
you know, the problem is that it's DNA and RNA. And so I've got another little drawing that I
think I want to share. And then we'll be quitting, I promise. This drawing is designed that anybody
can do it on a napkin to explain number one, how the immune system works. And number two,
why vaccination intramuscularly for most, if not all things is in reality pretty dumb.
So I'm going to try and draw the simplest vertebrate body I can to illustrate what the immune system
does. And in so doing, I'm going to draw it like this. And this is also a drawing that any of you
can make. That's great. Okay, perfect. So you're going to think, oh, that's the lungs. No, it's not.
This right here is the lungs. This right here is your GI tract. And this these two areas here are
your body. So there is an outside and an inside. And it is this barrier here
that the immune system defends. And it defends it in a directional way,
inside out. And we know that because this directional this rather this barrier is
fortified by a network of lymph nodes, where the immune system that that that guards this barrier
and this this illustration, this might be the skin. The lymph nodes are the headquarters of
the immune system that man this barrier. And of course, all the MDs and all the people that have
been reading into this biology are aware that this barrier is continuous through the lungs
and actually through the gut. And it's only the change in the manning of that barrier
that determines what happens at that barrier. For example, at the lung barrier, I'll just put an L
here for the lungs. At the lung barrier, it's almost all intolerance. We don't really tolerate
anything there. Now you might say that we tolerate pollen and that kind of stuff. But in general,
it's still being cleared efficiently by the mucus. And that's why we're not having to tolerate it.
But in general, at the lungs, it's intolerance. On the other hand, in the gut, we need to absorb
all the all the fatty, all the all the things that are not soluble in water have to be dissolved
into the lymph, which is of course, also the main travel pathway of the immune system. And therefore,
what happens in the gut is actually the opposite. It's closer to a tolerance filter than anything
else, letting almost everything through and needing to be very careful about not letting
foreign things in. So remember, when you're teaching your, your, your, your family that this
is also the outside. This is also out side. And that's the point is that when you start to think
about the gut as the outside and the lungs as the outside and start to understand that there's a
continuous mucus membrane between the lungs and the gut, then you will see that actual response
to a respiratory pathogen is a response of intolerance to viral replication in the lungs
and tolerance to the presence of viral proteins in the gut. And what that does is it creates two
very yin and yang differences in the different populations in the T cells, which are sometimes
called T regulatory cells in the gut. And then of course, T helper cells inside of toxic T cells
up here. But in reality, I think that that whole nomenclature is probably a little bit too simplified
for the kind of orchestration that happens. But I think it's for our purposes of teaching our
family and friends, it's important for them to understand just from that explanation that
because food and nutrients need to pass through the gut freely, without us building immunity to
them, which would be an allergy, there is a very different compliment of immune cells that's found
here in the payers patches, then there are found in the lymph nodes which serve the lungs.
But it is the crescendo of the immune system created by the intolerant response
of the lung cells, the immune system protecting the lungs that is counterbalanced by the tolerance
that builds as the viruses replicate and move down into the gut. And those proteins are then
processed by this wing of the immune system, so that these T regulatory cells have the exact
specificity necessary to turn down the ones that are driving the immune response at the lungs.
And this localization of these different responses and the coordination between those cell groups
is vital to the proper identification of what B cells need to go into storage and what B cells
can go into apoptosis, what T cells need to go into dormancy and what don't. It is an orchestration
of this response at all of these barriers that are exposed to these RNAs. And if we don't
understand exactly how that works, I'm fine. But I assure you that it is the orchestration of these
two responses and more that is the sum total of our immune response, which means that injecting
a vaccine intramuscularly here is about the dumbest thing you can imagine doing if you want
to augment this system. It might work for something. I don't know. But my guess is,
my feeling is, my gut feeling is already months ago that this is the right way to explain it.
That the immune system is designed specifically for this task. And if you put something on the
inside, you have essentially created a scenario where the immune system is going to be challenged
not to make a mistake. And now even more important to understand is that in transfection,
whatever cell is going to express the spike protein is going to need to be removed.
And in removing that, let's make an S over this and that's the spike protein. Any cell that needs
to be removed is going to be removed by the immune system. And that means that every time
a cell is transfected and gets removed, you are challenging, we are challenging our immune system
to be sure and not choose any of our own proteins to present. And if it does choose our own proteins
to present, you better hope there isn't a T cell waiting or autoimmunity is nonstop and never going
back. And this die, this, this Russian roulette is played at every cell that gets transfected
faithfully with an RNA. And it doesn't matter what tissue it is, the potential for that error
to occur is now real. And I believe that that is the main danger of transfection that they are
trying to hide behind saying that the spike protein is toxic or that the LNPs are toxic or
that there's DNA in the shot. What I'm trying to say is that even if all those things weren't
true, the perfect transfection would still put your immune system in a situation where it needs
to make a choice. It shouldn't have to make because it's designed to defend these barriers
in a coordinated fashion. And if you try to augment it by bypassing those barriers,
you have also taken the whole orchestration of the immune response out of the equation and forced it
to make novel choices essentially. And I can't stress enough how it doesn't matter how,
how often this doesn't occur. We'll never know because autoimmunity many times will not show
up for years. The symptoms might not be something that you're ever going to connect. You will never
connect it to this. It's horrible, but I think that's one of the reasons why they're so focused
on the cardio of the cardiac effects is to try and distract from this, what I am sure is
a ridiculously disturbing bouquet of possibilities that again gets horribly randomized in every
single person because it is essentially a crapshoe where it goes. If it goes to your bone marrow,
when would you know? If it goes to your kid's bone marrow, when would you know? If it goes to your
kid's spleen, how would you know? If it goes to your kid's brain, how would you know? What would
it show up like? I mean, these are, these are endless questions with endless possibilities that
compound one another. And that's in the best case scenario of a transfection. Now add on the fact
that the LNP might be, might be poisonous or add on the fact that there's DNA in there.
Don't start with that. Add that on top of the fact that in the best case scenario, this wasn't
suitable for anything in a healthy human. They were only using it on people who were going to die.
It had a genetic disease that was going to kill them anyway, or was so ridiculously debilitating
that, well, you got nothing to lose. It's never worked. So we need to really, really start to
have ways of opening our family and friends' eyes. I think a little simple drawing of the
immune system is one way to do it. A little simple explanation of why the immune system
shouldn't be making this choice, because it's used to making this choice at a barrier
and in a cell type that is regularly patrolled for cancer. I mean, that's the reason why you
shed your skin cells as part of your defense system. And so if you're defending on a barrier
that has that attribute, and then you find antigens floating around behind that barrier,
what do you do? How do you organize your response? Where's the cytokine,
where's the cytokine concentration gradient to orchestrate the cells moving from
the lymph node to the infect? There is none. And this all missing means that no matter what you say
this does, it is not usefully augmenting the immune system for most in most scenarios. I'm
saying most because I want to hedge my bets. But if I mean, if I'm speaking to friends here and
everybody that I love, then for sure I say that I think that they're completely wrong. I think
this picture right here should be the sales pitch of why intramuscular injection is really great
for them, but it's not really great for us. I think I could leave it there. I already talked
too long. And then you can open it up to questions, I guess. Wonderful. Wonderful. Wonderful. So if you
stopped sharing your screen, you probably have, you can go back to gallery everybody.
Top right corner, click on view and choose gallery. JJ, thank you for sharing those thoughts
as you were talking about intramuscular injections. I keep hearing Judy
Mikevitz as passionate exhortation to us. Don't inject anything in your bodies.
As she's told us on numerous occasions, no more injections. And certainly, as you have all heard
me say, it was 12 years ago that I got exposed to this whole game that was going on. And the problem
is the people aged over 40 have grown up in an environment that is totally different now. So that
in Australia in the first four years, you need 43, you need 43 substances pumped into your body.
In the first four years of life in America, JJ is at 72 in the first eight years. Sorry, first 18
years. This is the shit that's been pumping to everybody. And that's why in my introductory
statement, I said many of us were supportive of vaccines and now many of us are passionate
anti-vaxxers. And your explanation has really reinforced, you know, my thinking on this
developed over 12 years, my five, my four children got minimal. I got four vaccines in the first five
years. And as we all know, no proper trials have been done on pumping in Australia or elsewhere.
43 bloody antigens into beautiful babies, which by the way, of course, and I'll come back to
the spiritual elements of this, God JJ is clearly incompetent. That's the point. You know, this
immune system that God designed is clearly incompetent. So that's why we need all these
injections. Right. And that was just really, I was just giving Steve in a moment, but I really,
you've articulated beautifully this whole, the benefit of COVID is going to be all of us
understanding why on earth are we injecting stuff into babies. Steven and Jim Thorpe gave his,
you wouldn't have seen it JJ, but two weeks ago, Jim gave his confession here, JJ, where he said,
where he said it was some 12 years ago, Jim, that you said, Hey, maybe injecting these babies is
not a great idea. So that was also, that was also very instructive for us to see a man of
Jim's reputation and capability. Steven. So JJ, so I'm not going to give you hero status,
but I am going to say that you are exactly the kind of person we want on our side.
One, because you're humble and you have a track record of changing your mind previously, at least
once when you were pretty sure that you were right the first time that you were honest with us and
told us that you actually start started all over again, having actually thought that you'd saved
the world, as you put it, I think. So I wanted to ask you, JJ, I agree with you that I don't think
people can comprehend the multiplicity of lies that have been told and false leads and
just extraordinary, the whole thing, the Rand Paul thing. I wanted to ask you about that,
whether you think that Rand Paul knows that that conversation he was having with Fauci was leading
people astray and would would actually do the big pharma and all the rest of them, their work for
them in promoting the possibility, which you and I deny, that these deadly viral pandemics are a
threat to us in the future forevermore. It's just ridiculous, the whole thing. I agree with you,
JJ. And so on what you said, I think you said on one of the calls, I think you've been on more than
twice actually, but you said that you didn't think it was possible
for them to do what they were threatening to do, i.e. you know, the creation of a lab virus,
and you also didn't think it was possible for a virus to be transmitted from an animal to a human.
And I think you said that. So that got me thinking that maybe actually they were just
trying to create a narrative which they could use to fearmonger people forevermore, and that's
exactly what they've done in my opinion. But I think it was the way you were thinking, the way I
was thinking, they both collided and then... I would really like to just before you go on any
further, like address that because it's important. There's details there that are really important.
First of all, I think that it's very likely that RNA exosomes of some kind or another can cause
illness when you're exposed to them from either people, conspecifics, or from animals. And I don't
think it's very often, I don't think it's very contagious because of the nature of RNA. But I'm
not willing to dismiss respiratory disease as being possibly caused by RNA because we have
a panoply of data that shows that we have so many control mechanisms designed to respond
to these signals and make sure that they're mopped up. We have just the idea that
what I'm afraid of is that we are being led down a path where the false information,
like there is no viruses, there are no measles, there's no whatever. These kinds of things,
we're getting very close to saying that when in reality we have to acknowledge first and foremost
I think if you want to accept the biology that I'm pushing, then you have to accept that in 2002
somebody released an infectious clone and whatever the quantity of it was, it was able to go from
China to several other countries that infect about 10,000 people. It killed 700 and when they
sequenced it, it changed about 50 amino acids between each sequence that they were able to
generate. So compared to this virus, which in the first six months changed less than 10 amino acids.
So something very different happened here, but my argument would be that you could release a quantity
of infectious clone equal to that which was released in 2002 and infect about 10,000 people
and get limited spread which could kill as many as 800. And now if you did that in multiple places
with the same clone, then you would get multiple people, multiple chains of limited spread
until the fidelity of the infectious clone diluted enough so that it was gone. Would that be three
people, two people, one person, half a person, meaning sometimes it wouldn't, sometimes it
wouldn't, I don't know. But I know that if you did it with the biology that's described in all those
books and described in all the papers about coronavirus, you wouldn't get 10,000 people
infected. It's not the way it works. When there's an outbreak of a human coronavirus, they're able
to track it through 30 people or through 10 children or two daycare centers. But it's not
like you can track it through a whole country like the Netherlands, even when they have the kind of
social monitoring and system that they do, they have never been able to do such a thing, even
though they've tried. So to me, that's the trick is to understand that there definitely is, there
are signals at this size scale that include DNA and RNA. Some of them may be infectious. Some of them
may aggravate your immune system and cause a whole suite of respiratory disease. Some of them may even
have a characteristic protein complement like measles or polio. But, but
the way that they transmit and how they transmit and how fast they can go around the world
has been grossly exaggerated in order to get you to be confused about the potential that's in nature
versus the potential that would be in a pure bottle of this size that could never exist in nature,
just like trying to get you confused and think that the uranium that's found in all the soil
outside of my house is the same danger as the purified uranium in a bottle of this size.
And that's really the trick. This RNA can't do what they said it does out there, but it can
definitely do it if they make a pure quantity of it and sprayed it around.
And that I don't know how far it would transmit. I don't know how many people would get sick from
it. I don't know if I had it, would I cough something out that would make my family sick?
Maybe. I don't know. But it's real because they can make it and they can make it in large
quantities. And that's detectable. That's PCR positive. That's sequencable. And it's
culturable, which is all the things they would need it to be if they wanted to convince the
virologists in Iran, in Wuhan, in China, in the UK and in America independently, while something is
spreading and it's the same sequence as they reported, that's how you would do it. You would
do it with a...
So JJ, can you explain, given that a deadly virus kills its host and the words deadly viral
pandemic, deadly and pandemic cannot coexist in the same sentence in my view, and endless deadly
viral pandemics is what they're offering us now. And we're all at risk from these endless deadly
viral pandemics. Deadly, if you believe in viruses, then deadly viruses kill their host and they can't
by definition, obviously, create a pandemic. And people say, well, what if they cause serious
disease? Same thing. So it's on a kind of interplay in my mind between virulence...
I agree. I just think that...
Virulence and transmissibility, people can't get their heads around this. Can you think of a simple
explanation?
Yeah, I'm trying to get there in the sense of, you know, once you start playing the discussion of
viral dynamics, you're actually not really fighting them anymore. And I think that's the
no virus crew has their game down to a science because essentially, we should be allies with
them. They should be allies with us and they should love this clone theory because this clone
idea is an idea which explains why virology might be grossly overstated and why a lot of this
science that they hate and say is fake is probably very much exaggerated or misinterpreted and
that's fantastic for them. But instead, as soon as I proposed that maybe this was all done with
infectious clones, I became a virus guy. And I had to... But there are no viruses and I had to argue
whether there were viruses or not. And I said, I don't want to argue about viruses when there are
clones.
But JJ, I think the no virus people, by the very fact that they talk about nothing else and do not
want to talk about anything else other than that there's no virus, they don't want to talk about the
Russia war, they don't want to talk about...
Right, okay, but I guess what I'm saying is though, Stephen, is that the magical power that they have
is that we haven't been good enough at stopping playing the virus game. So when you are talking
about a virus is killing its host so that it can't pandemic...
Yeah, but I did say...
Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Or that you say that it's too transmissible and therefore it can't kill everybody.
These are all scenarios of viral spread.
Absolutely, yeah. But I did preface it by saying that if one believes in viruses, which I'm not sure I do,
but I don't think...
But I think you can believe in viruses and just not believe that they have the fidelity that they...
There can be viruses, they could be exosomes that are produced by every animal all the time,
for all we know. And sometimes when we meet someone who's producing exosomes that are annoying to our immune system,
then we produce respiratory symptoms which expel those exosomes. And maybe they also come from animals and occasionally
those are especially irritating. But the idea that that could create a phenomenon like a domino train
is the part that they've exaggerated. That's all we need for most of that virology to be kind of real,
but then the pandemic to be a lie.
So JJ, so the ferocity with which they argue about no viruses to the exclusion of all else,
so they may well be right, I have conceded that many times to these people,
but they don't want to talk about anything else. And so that seems very strange, you know, it's not in our interest,
because it's like a cult. There's no other way to describe it. It is a cult.
I agree, but I just want to be sure that everybody, you know, you guys are all pretty serious.
And so at this stage, you know, you've got to be pretty nuanced in order to enunciate how right they are about a lot of things.
Yes, but having said that, even if you are not sure about whether they're right or wrong,
and we haven't got time to actually prove it beyond reasonable doubt at the moment, or even peer review it,
but we do suspect that the whole virus thing might have been pushed at the expense of brilliant human immune system,
which is the science of immunologists. And interestingly, JJ, I can't remember whether I've told you this,
but someone who was intimately involved in the HIV nonsense in London told me about three months ago
that the immunologists, the beginning of their decline was in the 80s, which is of course coincides with the rise of virology.
So you wonder whether that was intentional. They took away the influence and power of immunologists who,
when I was at medical school with the kings of medicine, and they increased the power of and influence of virologists.
And that was a construct in my view for what happened in 2020. What do you think?
I mean, again, I'm not I like Michael Eden's response. I'm not I'm not interested in viruses enough to to try to disprove them.
I'm just interested in saying that the biology that I understand with regard to RNA does not facilitate the kind of picture that we are being painted.
And and I don't know if we need to go any farther than that, because it's it's really kind of that simple.
But the point is, for the purposes of what happened in the last three and a half years, do you think there was a pandemic?
Was there? I mean, do that? Does the data say that there was a pandemic? I believe that it doesn't.
But also Jessica Hockett's data says there was no pandemic.
There was no pandemic. Dennis says there's no pandemic. But there were incidences of simultaneous symptoms.
There were incidences of simultaneous change of behavior in hospitals and change of behavior in ambulances, which could have probably did.
I'm pretty sure accounts for the vast majority of the damage that it was done.
Now, whether or not that was triggered with a few cases that were seated with a clone so that the sequence would be the same, I think it's almost certain.
But I don't think you need to think of it as thousands of people.
I think everyone needs to try and exercise their the simulation in their head of what would happen if you just told everybody that there was a dangerous novel pathogen that could kill anyone.
That needed to be avoided and that we didn't have any treatments for it, but it was killing people and people were dropping in the street in China.
And you told them that there's money. There's tests.
And there's protection from malpractice as long as you follow this protocol and put a protocol out there.
How many doctors would go against the protocol? How many doctors would go against the TV and Facebook?
How many of the doctors would go against the nightly news briefings about the pandemic?
Well, JJ, doctors shouldn't have protocols. That's another thing. Doctors should not have protocols and guidelines.
Well, guidelines may be something certainly not protocols.
That's something that that we have become awakened to now.
But the reason why the protocol, the sorry, the pandemic was able to unfold was because hospitals and their financial structure and managerial structure in America and other places permitted this kind of top down direction of doctors.
Yes, they had to.
There was evil intent always to take, take.
But everybody was afraid and confused and terrified.
And so at some point we've got to forgive these people and let them wake up.
You know, I mean, and not everyone can be expected to reject the things on television or because it is an illusion of consensus, just like the clapping audience.
You can't expect most people to be immune to that level of pressure.
And it's not like an ash conformity experiment where the wrong answer is obvious.
This is a very sophisticated ash conformity experiment where people on TV and people on social media and influencers are all weirdly saying the same stuff.
And so how in the world are people who didn't fool me.
So how did it fool.
It's just a matter of work.
Just we just maybe we were in the right place at the right time.
Maybe we're lucky.
Maybe one day there's one thing that all doctors in the world should have known about.
And that was informed consent, which is part of the Nuremberg Code.
As you know, they should have known about that.
And they didn't.
And even when I mentioned that in December 2020, they didn't want to talk about it because they knew that was a killer argument and they didn't want to talk about Nuremberg.
So what they did, they took the they took power away from the autonomous individual doctor driven by medical ethics in the name of his or her patient.
And that was evil.
And the doctors should have understood about ethics if they didn't understand about anything else.
Anyway, so anyway, Steven, that's 20 minutes.
How quickly that goes. Great conversation.
Okay, everybody.
Thank you, Steven.
Thank you, JJ.
We got hands up.
So one of the things that I think is is at the start, I said the science is never settled.
JJ Stevens has commented on your willingness to change your minds.
You know, it's very interesting the opinions that we hold and seeing some of the comments in the chat.
I don't follow it very carefully because I'm paying attention to what JJ says.
But, you know, I repeat the Chinese.
I'm told it was a Chinese saying that says to be uncertain can be uncomfortable.
To be certain is ridiculous.
And in the issues that we're dealing with, people who are certain about their opinions being right, I think is ridiculous.
And I see so many times this certainty that people I'm certain that's the answer.
And then a few weeks down the track, it's changed.
So I just make that observation in this group.
Hey, it's great to share ideas here, but you don't have to fight to the death for your ideas.
So that's the that's the that's the thought.
I want to say, let's go, Amy, Amy, then Jim, then Rose and then Jim had two gyms.
Hello. I just wanted to ask, I haven't seen all of JJ's lectures and this might have been covered before.
So if this is old territory, never mind.
But as far as this model for some sort of exposure to new or the clone of the original mRNA through some sort of distribution mechanism other than viral transmission,
does this have any effect on what you think should happen as far as with the injections, some sort of shedding or contamination to non vaccinated people who are exposed to the people who were subjected to the vaccination, the mRNA vaccination?
It's a good question. It's something that I tend not to broach very much because it's I don't have enough expertise really to to speak extremely specific about it.
But number one, it depends on the success of the transfection. So how much RNA reaches a cell and then how much of that RNA gets faithfully trans translated into a functional protein.
And then how much of that could go into circulation or get extruded. I think will all depend on what tissues are transfected. And so it's probably different in every person.
But there is potential for excess protein to be excreted in sweat. It's possible that it could be also in saliva and any other fluids because number one, the makers of these shots warned in their own paperwork.
That people who are transfected shouldn't be having sex with with other people who aren't presumably because there could be exposure to the protein.
I guess it wouldn't be because the RNA could be could be transmitted from person to person. But I assume they're assuming that the protein could.
I think you can also go from from anecdotal experiences in your own life. If you ate enough garlic, would it come out in your sweat? I think the answer is definitely yes.
And I think that goes pretty much for a lot of a lot of things that we eat and a lot of things that we expose ourselves to.
So there's really no reason to believe that if you had excess of this spike protein in your body was more or less tolerating it at some point, it would come out in your sweat.
I don't know if that would happen on the first shot. But as your body builds tolerance to the spike protein, it's very possible that later shots could produce an excess amount of protein that then gets secreted.
But I honestly I don't know. I could be completely wrong. And it's the first shot that has the most. But the idea that it wouldn't happen again is a certainty that I'm not definitely not willing to state. I definitely think it's possible.
Thank you so much. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. And I think, Amy, you raise a good point. The fact that's, you know, JJ might have spoken about something in the past and you weren't here on a previous call doesn't matter.
Because we have such a shifting population and the people watching this recording will have a question. So all questions are wonderfully provocative. Jim.
Thanks, JJ. Great talk. Number one, are you aware of Coxiella burnetti and its similarities to the symptoms of COVID? It can be sprayed over miles.
Janet Woodcock, when asked about it, refused to comment about it. It is an intelligence weapon.
I have heard before and I have and it.
It. It.
You know, it's one of these more complicated scenarios that I think will only be discovered in an investigation.
But I do think that there's been a number of potential explanations that include a toxin for the bump in symptoms.
You know, clones for whatever little experiment are needed to fool molecular biologists.
And then the rest was just madness.
And so I don't mind that explanation. It would be interesting if that explanation would naturally offer some kind of alternative biological prediction, like what would be there in evidence of that instead.
But if it's as simple as people getting secondary pneumonia and it being bacterial, then.
You know, that's what happened.
Treatment for Coxiella is hydroxychloroquine.
I see.
Without any double blind placebo controlled studies.
He did it by deduction.
And it is.
Again, there's there's there's lots of anecdotal evidence there for that being a possibility.
And if you if you.
I mean, one of the best examples of why I think that this is plausible.
And one of the reasons why this clicks with me is that I feel and sense that.
That.
They want you to feel like Ivermectin is the drug that was suppressed, but in actuality, the drug that was suppressed first and much, much harder as hydroxychloroquine.
And I think that is a part of this narrative that I haven't been able to get enough handhold yet on how to teach it.
But this might be one of the reasons why that's the right answer is that hydroxychloroquine is actually a treatment for a for a wide variety of these respiratory diseases.
And it was actually, as you're probably aware, also a in vitro confirmed preventing SARS infection as well in 2005.
So there was very good reason for that to be on a short list of substances, and it was the first one that was censored.
And I still have the clip somewhere.
But in 2020 in February already, ABC News reported that the United States government put 20,000 hydroxychloroquine pills in their in the in storage or whatever.
And they're in their strategic stockpile.
And Donald Trump ramped up the production of hydroxychloroquine in Florida, until a a plant in Taiwan that made the precursor, I think, or maybe I'm just getting the two confused.
But a plant in Taiwan that also made hydroxychloroquine or a required precursor of it burnt down.
So there was like a number of things that all it's much worse with hydroxychloroquine in terms of how hard they tried to go against it.
Then Ivermectin and there's been books. There are books about Ivermectin, but there's no books about hydroxychloroquine and that's a big sign.
I can talk you offline about that one more question about Jason McClellan, who invented the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that is allegedly made by the mRNA when injected.
Jason McClellan out of the University of Texas Austin put in the six proline restraints.
He developed it on a supercomputer called Longhorn.
The spike protein looks like it's generated by computer.
What are your thoughts on?
Well, my thoughts on that are that if the if the pandemic was meant to be orchestrated, then there was a very specific problem that they had to solve.
And that was how are they going to guarantee that the mRNA that they use will be effective and can be sold as being effective?
And so if the way that they solve that problem is by designing a coronavirus spike protein that had immunogenic properties and then lied about that sequence being found either by planting it, probably by planting it with clone, then you get this.
Okay, so we plant our our we make our RNA infectious clone release it in Wuhan and Iran.
They sequence it and report the sequence and lo and behold, it's a sequence that we know will work to generate antibodies after multiple shots.
And so we'll just pretend, well, we'll just choose the spike protein.
Lucky for us, it works. And then later on, say that maybe it worked too well or that it was toxic or something like that. And then the narrative is useful on both sides of the coin.
And again, I don't have I don't have molecular evidence for that, but I don't think it's implausible at all to think that if this was an orchestrated operation, then the idea would be to guarantee that they would have a a a shoe in working countermeasure that they wouldn't have to roll the dice on that would for sure work.
And when they rolled it out, they could point to the antibodies when they did the trials, they knew it would work. The way to do that would have a protein that already they already knew worked in the sequence that was found.
But that's good.
Go ahead. Yeah. And, and this is the plot of Rainbow Six. It's known as quote the project and a quote virus is released at an Olympic Games spreads around the world in a in a soon after the games is over.
The vaccine is more deadly than the virus engineered by radical environmentalists to depopulate the earth in the name of climate change.
That's the plot of Rainbow Six.
Yeah, it's it's I'm aware it's, you know, they're the, the new Planet of the Apes is also a viral movie where they talk about antibodies neutralizing a virus six times in the first movie and then the second movie starts out with the virus spreading around the world with red dots and airplanes and, and all the people being wiped out.
And so, and they even call it a zoonotic virus and stuff it's it's, there's no doubt that that the mythology of a pandemic is meant to be the new governing structure and the question that the temptation of course is to try and figure out exactly how they did this.
But I think our task still really remains trying to bring more people on the side of understanding that we were lied to. And let's fight about what the lies were later, because right now, we're we're really, you know, preaching to the choir all the time you're we're not I don't need to convert you and you don't need to convert me.
And so we have to, I feel like my job now is to come up with a message that converts new people without getting them to accept that all governments are bad at the first moment that they that they open their mind to this.
Obviously, that's where we want them to go.
But there's so many people that are so sucked into this right now, and so convinced that that consensus is real.
And so it's going to take a lot of work to save them and I don't know how we're going to do it, but I think the first thing and the first thing to start with that they were lying and they've been planning this live for a very, very long time and I think the book that you cite along with all the other
books that are out there the movies the X Files episodes the TV shows the cartoons that have all laid this narrative out. They're all part of it and it's not.
It's like I've said this in another interview today.
They're playing for all the marbles and their timeframe isn't five years from now their timeframe is 50 years and 100 years from now, and it has been that timeframe for several generations.
I mean if you want to think about it like I think about it. I think you should think that the United States government, or sorry, the United States populace was fooled into believing that they rebelled against the crown and won their freedom when in reality, most of the
United States government and its inner working stayed loyal, and we are still under their control and in fact this is the culmination of a plan to grind us into the ground for breaking away from them in the first place.
And that's where the intelligence agencies come in. That's where this, this whole plan is not a government. It's bigger than that because the idea is to grind America into the dirt, because we're the last.
I mean, it's not a legislative sort of bastion of freedom possible anymore. The other ones are all gone already so this is the one they have to smash.
And keep in mind if the intelligence agencies invented it they know the antidote.
Thanks. I still am tempted by the idea that there's no antidote necessary they just have to make you convinced that there's needed one.
Yep. Okay, Jim.
That's true but that's my excellent rainbow six everybody we had it mentioned a few times before excellent reminder, and JJ and answer that question of how are we going to influence.
In my view there's going to be a match that sets off the bushfire of United resistance of 8000 million against 1 million.
And it will be something like a judge and Peter Huger mentions it. It'll be something like a judge, a highly placed judge in a court, whose child has died from myocarditis pericarditis, or a top businessman who comes out and says, I have been telling lies, and that one match is what could be it JJ and let's keep our eyes peeled because, because the judges have been telling lies.
And let's keep our eyes peeled because, because the judges have been corrupted.
And some, some of them will awaken eventually and Stevens comments about Nuremberg.
We don't know what the match will be, but I'm very comfortable that there will be a matter I'm also comfortable that might be in two three years time so we don't stop as you've told us at the start.
You know JJ I remind everybody that you also said global problems are bullshit.
I love that idea, global problems are bullshit.
That's Nick Hudson. All credit to Nick Hudson when they say global problems need global solutions you know it's global BS. Beautiful.
JJ First off I love your breakdown of the science with clones that was very helpful to me. So, I want to give a twist to the comment that you made regarding that they're giving people to go down the wrong avenue.
When you were talking about oh gain a function versus natural yada yada yada. So I want to do a twist on that exact same thing regarding the actual science.
I've been in healthcare for 40 years and as a healthcare consultant had been fighting behind the curtain with the unnecessary deaths massive fraud.
I'm doing the health analytics for 20 years. I've been alone voice crying out going guys, you know, title five of the ACA we've got dummy down clinicians.
They can pass boards they don't know what they're doing. We've got unnecessary deaths going on with hospital acquired infections conditions medical errors.
In 2016 I was invited to the who's who of healthcare in the United States where they declared open fraud on the stage and the room applauded.
And they openly said about how they're hiring convicts at Johns Hopkins because they want to do social experiments.
So my point being is that all of healthcare has been corrupted now for a very long time.
And I think you know the average person can't absorb the science they can't they're so bombarded with the political narratives that I think that in of itself is the distraction from the overall problem that all of healthcare has been corrupted.
And the staff has been dummy down and we haven't had informed consent across the board for a very long time.
So I'd like to throw that out to the group of is the science being a distraction because when we're trying to get to a billion people that can't handle the talk.
If we can kind of get back to the root issues of healthcare itself so that it's more palatable for the people to get on board with all of the issues.
So I just want to kind of throw that out to the group because I love the way that you were saying how we're being distracted and pulled and right now it's a bombarding of information and then on the on the virus talk.
I break it down to the average person of its spiked protein. It's a protein. Let's talk about spiked protein and not about viruses.
So I wanted to get your thoughts on that JJ.
I muted myself.
Um, yeah, so I don't know how I would comment on that. I mean, it's a it's a it's a system wide phenomenon. One of the worst and biggest failures that I see in the pandemic is the absolute abject failure of every academic biologist who isn't aware that this is a fraud already.
And there are millions of them. People at the University of Pittsburgh that in my neurobiology department was more than 100 faculty members and none of them have ever called me to say, wow, you were right or holy man, I'm sorry that happened to you or anything like that.
They've all injected their kids and shown it on on on Instagram and on Facebook. So these are these are academics who purport to be biologists who have just given up on the on their responsibility to understand what's really going on and have decided that they're just going to even though they know in their heart that something isn't right.
They're just gonna go on with their lives and go on with their grant applications and go on with their courses and go on with their supervision and and go on with the daycare and and they're not going to question the big picture around them because they're too busy.
They've got too much to do. They're up for tenure next year. Their husband lost their job. So we're not sure if they're going to move. And you know, their kids are going to go to high school.
They're not sure what school they're going to go to. And so all of us, as she says, as Rose said, have been driven to the point where paying attention to this unless you're someone like me who's just mentally ill and can't not pay attention to it.
You are forced to deal with the inflation and the impact on your life and on your kids and what's going on. You can't pay attention to this public health thing that's still rolling forward rolling forward like a massive sort of unstoppable joggernaut where all these people are planning for the next thing and the next move and no one no one no one no one in our bureaucracies seems to be willing to pay attention to it.
To look back and say, wow, we really we really screwed that up. And the reason why is because they're all in on this change that is coming. And so the scary part is, I guess that that it's going to take something much more than just awareness.
Like really a lot of people are going to have to decide to get up and do something. And so there's a lot of momentum we still need to generate. So it's tricky because it is hard to start getting people to think like this because it's it's harder to think like this than it is to, you know, just just watch Netflix and and worry about, you know, everyday things, which is really what everybody should should be having the freedom and privilege to do.
But yeah, and I guess what I'm saying is that in the overall picture of what I've been battling for almost 20 years now, COVID is actually a small element. It's it's so much bigger. And I guess to your point, I have come across that with my HC aware presentations, I get wide eyed, open jawed, stunned silence when they actually understand the big picture of the brokenness.
That COVID is such a small piece of it.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that I think it's even as you're probably hinting at it's much worse than this in the sense of, you know, if we're if we're really honest and talk about everything that's on the table, the financial system of America is is is overextended by that saying it mildly.
And they have seen this coming for some time. And one of the biggest signals that something is very wrong was something that I already said before I moved to Europe in 2002, which is how in the hell is it possible that somebody like Nancy Pelosi, or somebody like Mitch McConnell is still in government.
It's just not possible unless it's corrupt. And I was saying that 20 years ago and guess who are still in office now. And that should be that should be terrifying to us that there isn't someone in Kentucky, between the ages of 50 and 60, or between 40 and 60, with a successful track record of keeping their arms straight and having principles when they're needed, that could serve as a better senator than that guy.
But our system is, is very, very, very I guess where I'm going with the health care is is like, again, I love our talks around the science, but to try to get to more and more average people, the science is just too overwhelming.
And so how can we get them to understand, there is a lack of informed consent for everything.
The nurses and doctors now in the hospitals aren't trained.
It's tough though I get that.
I do understand that point.
But that's why I'm, for example, trying to give a very, you know, cartoonish representation of the immune system which gets closer to the mark.
Because I think that we've got to be very careful and not fall into the trap of this is too complicated to explain to people because I don't think it is that's the whole trap that you know the technocracy wants you to buy into is that I'm not an expert in that and therefore I have to defer to the experts who are.
And that's the excuse that everybody in in in academia uses because I work on hippocampal neurons and I work on long term potentiation in in CA one.
And so since I'm only an expert on the hippocampus in mice, then what would I know about the immune system and its response to a coronavirus.
And this you're giving up your, your.
It's not it is a responsibility you know I'm not a weatherman so I don't know if I should. I'll just lose into the TV and decide what to wear because I'm not a weatherman I can't tell whether I should bring a jacket or not.
It's the same kind of attitude but now to your children's future, your children's gender and your immune systems augmentation at the whim of a corporation or a government or a or a or a global entity and that's that's it's an incredible place for us to have gone in the last three years.
I'm sorry I got off topic there.
Good. Thank you. Thank you, Rose. Now before we go to Jim JJ I'm going to say to you that you've been on this call now.
I'm interested in health, your health.
I say to you that if you haven't had to go to the toilet yet in two hours you're not drinking enough water.
I can agree with that.
Keep drinking, keep drinking and everybody drink lots of water and not fluoridated water.
So, JJ got half an hour to go we got to four hands up and then Stevens closing questions we're finishing on the two and a half hour mark so if you need to go to the toilet go now because the last half hour up to you, you okay.
Okay, Dr. Jim, here you are. Give him some health and anyway, Jim over to you.
JJ. It's such an honor and privilege to listen to you and you're really I'm extraordinarily impressed with your presentation.
If you know, I'm 44 plus years out of medical school, and I was taught nothing in medical school about vaccines.
And if, if I had my druthers if I had the power of putting a medical school curricula for every medical school in the United States of America.
You would be a mandatory lecture once a week for the first two years of every medical student in this country. Amen.
And I'm very, very impressed with that. I love it.
Thank you very much.
I had my motorcycle, and I knew at once that I had it, I saw the whole picture.
And I knew that I had to teach it that way and that was the first day that I actually put that slide up that said intramuscular injection might be dumb.
It's beautiful. I love it. I want to just go to one question and I'll let you.
Maybe maybe two questions is, I'm very, very interested in you may, I don't want to put you on the spot. But the highlight of those, you know, the prominent leaders that you had in the beginning of your presentation, somewhere in a green somewhere in a yellow and somewhere in a red frame.
And I'm just wondering if you might, you may or may not be willing to, to amplify on that, like, why were some of the folks in red.
From your perspective, why were some of those in yellow.
And, and then the, and I'll let you go on with that and I'll shut up. Thank you.
I would, I can go back and just kind of say a little bit, and I just want to want to emphasize that the reason why I would go back is because I just want to make sure that you understand that it's it's a it's it's my own personal experience that I'm trying to share.
And, and the reason why that's important is because I was entangled with many of these people from the very beginning because I got involved in this group drastic on Twitter, which ended up being central to the narrative of the lab leak and who figured it out
and whatever and reported on Tucker Carlson and Vanity Fair.
Now, don't get me wrong, drastic was reported but it was attributed to people that weren't in drastic as would you would typically expect.
But more importantly, drastic was a group of people, most of whom were anonymous and the person who formed the group is still anonymous.
And so, at some point I became skeptical of that group.
But in that first year.
I was contacted by many, many, many different people in various phone calls emails, and these people turned out to be influential people later on, or, or continue to play certain roles later on.
And so, one of the people that I have up here for example is Brett Weinstein and he's in yellow. But in reality I would say that he actually should be in red because Brett Weinstein is someone who, without a doubt, I taught most of the biology that I just presented
I talked to him in 2021 in a signal chat that he personally invited me to join.
And in that signal chat instead of saying wow that's really great I can't believe how much you've taught me.
He said at some point that he didn't understand what I was talking about it he didn't think a zoom discussion with me would help him to help him understand it.
And so I stopped communicating with him.
And so, I did the same signal chat.
I was in that signal chat in 2021 with Brett when he interviewed Robert F. Kennedy Jr in his house.
Now if you're not aware, that was November of 2021 but Brett didn't release that video until February of 2023.
I can't imagine, can you imagine having Robert F. Kennedy Jr come to your house and record a three hour podcast and then you just casually not releasing it for 14 months.
Now there's also Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone on here and the reason why they're on here in yellow is because they came out on Brett Weinstein's podcast.
And that was the first place that they came public. When they came out publicly.
The three of them stated that they were demonstrating a combination of strategies that would allow strangers to hang out with each other.
Robert Malone was vaccinated and also infected. He had hybrid immunity.
Brett Weinstein had never been infected but was using ivermectin prophylactically, and Steve Kirsch had been vaccinated twice.
So they started their podcast in the first 10 minutes by laying down a narrative that there was a novel virus for which these countermeasures are effective, and that maybe it's a lab leak and it'll come again.
Now I can keep going on and on and on but all of these people have essentially played some pretty critical like Nurse Erin down here for example on the bottom is a person who admits to being in the Army admits to being in the Psychological Operations Group in the Army.
And started an anti-vax group, two of them in 2018 and 19 in Florida, before the start of the pandemic when she moved up to New York and was in present in this Elmhurst hospital to make all these videos and show that they were mixing COVID patients with regular patients and, and that it was spreading and that it was all this people getting hurt.
And then she wrote a book and did a tour. You can go on and on. Kevin McKernan is a guy who, as best as I can tell, has made hundreds of millions of dollars, if tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars selling companies that have all to do with his years and years of experience in the Human Genome Project where he dropped his PhD and immediately went to work for the government in the 90s whenever that project started.
He's got like really young pictures of him and Francis Collins walking around the original lab where the original sequencing was done in the original Human Genome Project that was featured on time.
This guy has a has a 7000 square foot house on the ocean in Boston, and yet he spends or used to spend an inordinate amount of time on Twitter tweeting against me, telling me that infectious clones were a mythology that I didn't understand and that they were the same as regular coronaviruses and that Jay was dumb.
A guy who has no business even having a Twitter account, nevermind paying attention to a guy like me with 3000 followers on Twitch.
So the behavior of these people has been so extraordinary. Nine days, nine days after I was on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s podcast with Robert Malone, I met Robert Malone in person and he jerked his hand away and said that I've never met you.
I don't know who you are and I've never introduced you to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. However, Bobby told me that it was Robert Malone who sat him down to watch my stream and that's the reason why he hired me.
So I guess according to Robert Malone, Bobby Kennedy is lying to me. It's possible. But Robert Malone is the one who pulled his hand away and said I don't know who you are nine days after he was on a podcast with Bobby and me.
So it's strange because the behavior of all of these people has been really extraordinary. I mean, give me another example. Here's the tonic. This Mark Kulak guy that's underneath the arrow right here is a guy who from the very beginning of the pandemic was working with George Webb.
And George Webb, I started to notice a pattern where George Webb was taking taking Mark's work and kind of twisting it around making mistakes when he would report it and kind of saying the opposite of what he should have said, but then still giving Mark credit for being a great journalist.
And I started after a while really seeing this pattern to the point where I was starting to get a little frustrated with Mark because he wouldn't see it. He was just like, you know, you got to use everybody and at least I get publicity from George.
But what I could see behind the scenes was that his association with George was discrediting him among people who already considered George Webb to be to be a meddler.
And so, interestingly enough, I'm going to keep expanding on this again. But you know, all of these people are connected by actually talking about the worst case scenario together on the internet.
And that's very extraordinary because no one should have been certain in 2020 about where this was going to go where it came from or who was in trouble. No one.
All right, JJ, stop. JJ, stop there because you've done a great explanation. Jim, JJ's previous recording on our Rumble channel goes through beautifully how JJ crafted that.
So if you've got more time worth going through because JJ, that's about an hour on that. Well worth understanding, but great question. So we've got to go. We've got three more questions.
And then, Stephen, we're going to leave you with 20 minutes.
So, James, it's very important you understand that in the video that of JJ in his previous presentation, at last presentation, he went through about 50 people from memory connected with.
And it is it's not a case of JJ trying to cause trouble because he keeps his thoughts. But it's just it's very interesting to listen to his observations.
I think you would be incredibly interested, James. Yep, agree. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Marvin, Marvin, John, Tom and then Stephen.
JJ, I want to ask you, one of my most compelling factoids is Bill Gates buying a million shares of Moderna in September 2019. What is one or two of your most compelling lies about the last three years?
What an interesting question. That's really great. So the first one that I really think is important is, is the PCR as as a readily manufacturable product.
So I'm not saying the PCR didn't work before the pandemic. I'm saying that making PCR into a commercial product as a diagnostic tool didn't really exist before the pandemic and making it for a coronavirus was a lie.
There is no such thing as a specific test for a specific coronavirus. You can have a test that identifies a coronavirus, but that doesn't tell you that something new is spreading around.
That would be the first one. The second one is definitely the prevailing narrative that we don't know if we can build natural immunity to this virus. The only reason to say that is if you thought that this was some kind of some kind of toxin, right?
Or you knew that it was some kind of toxin that you didn't build immunity to that every time you were exposed to it, you were going to have symptoms. That's a toxin. That's not a pathogen.
So that discussion was really rampant for the first five months. And it really, I really had to argue with a lot of people about the the actual biology that would support that concept.
And then I guess the last one is this idea that transfection can be immunization because it's really not. And when you when you break it down, they are playing a semantic game because again, this is something that really is specific for people that worked in biology in the on the bench in universities.
Marvin, let me tell you that at the University of Pittsburgh, it would surprise me if there are more than 10% of the active research faculty at the medical school that do not use transfection in their laboratory, meaning that almost every laboratory there that's working on any animal model, any human, not any human, any animal model of a disease, any animal model that is working on any animal model.
Any human, not any human, any animal model of a disease, any animal model of a disorder, any animal investigation into the function of any system in its body or its brain is going to use transfection in order to modify that system, meaning that they are going to generate a synthetic RNA in a laboratory commercial laboratory.
They're going to have it packaged in any number of of of transfection materials that include lip is ohms, which are lipid nanoparticles just with a different name. And then they're going to get that a commercial product. They're going to bring it into their laboratory.
They're going to inject it in the place that they want the protein to be expressed.
And they will transfect the animal in the place that they want to change the protein expression. They will observe the changes in the animals physiology or behavior, then they will sacrifice the animal and do whatever other histology is necessary to publish the data.
And so everyone and at every university, it's the same. It is a standard technique for modulating, modifying, moving around, pushing buttons inside of a real organism is transfection.
And if you use RNA, it's transfection. If you use an adenovirus with DNA in it, then it's called transformation. And these products have been available for upwards of 20 years. They've just become cheaper and cheaper and cheaper because it's cheaper to make this stuff.
And everybody that works in academic biology should have immediately said, that's not a vaccine. That's a transfection. And the difference is, again, you know, you can inject, you can inject chemicals, you can inject chemicals in your in your body.
And that's vaccination. But if you start transfecting your cells, then you're doing even more potentially bad things than vaccination could ever do because vaccination is really just toxins and proteins.
The toxin is the adjuvants. Proteins are what they hope that your immune system will pay attention to. With transfection, it's completely different. In transfection, they are relying on your immune system to destroy your own cells.
And it hopes that they won't make a mistake. And the horrible part about it is, Marvin, is that every academic biologist should have known that we don't use transfection with the idea of augmenting an animal forever.
I'm going to give you the best example I've got from my work and then I'll be quiet. We used to use an algal protein algae, an algae protein that was a sodium channel, meaning that would allow sodium through if it was exposed to blue light.
What this means is, is that if you transfected neurons in the brain of a mouse with this protein, and then put a light through their skull, whatever neurons were expressing the protein, you could control, you could turn them on or turn them off.
Now, it's important to understand this modification is only temporary, and the brain and its immune system will clear those neurons out in time or those neurons will die in time.
So when we get a remote control mouse that does a particular behavior when we turn the blue light on, that's a very simplified version of the experiment, but it could work that way.
That mouse is not now a blue light responsive mouse for the remainder of its life and then it just goes on to live merrily until it's dead.
If you transfect the brain of a mouse, you have a limited period of time before those neurons will die of toxicity or the immune system will remove them.
And then that animal will never be the same again.
And your experiment will be worthless, because you can't go into the brain and find out who you changed because they're gone.
And so my point is, is that this lie about transfection being a candidate for vaccination is the really diabolical lie because it's investigational vaccine maybe it will work.
And that's, that's totally wrong.
We should have known that from the very beginning and every one of these damn biologists that uses it on their bench in their animals should have known that that's the reason why it's a limited, limited tool.
They should have known because they know for their animals. How the hell couldn't they know for grandma.
That's the third line.
Yeah, that was a good answer. Yeah. Well, well done. Yeah. Thank you, Marvin. Okay, john, Tom and then Stephen. Let's go 10 minutes to go.
I just have a couple of comments to make. One is kudos to Dr. Thorpe you know I don't hardly ever hear a doctor make a statement like that, that, you know, there was a possibility, I just want to congratulate Dr. Thorpe for coming out and saying what he did.
Because, you know, it's hard to admit that there may be a possibility of been mis-educated or under educated.
And I guess it's, you know, what you do with that knowledge now, right.
I wanted to say something that I think speaks to an earlier point JJ made about us, I guess, getting caught up in jargon and language.
You have to be very careful about this. You know, it's kind of, I pick on Jim a lot because he's caught up in the medical literature that got me all misdirected so many times I just don't really trust it anymore.
But I think it's an important analogy that to make about, you know, you think about things like chat GPT right these large language learning modules, how do they really operate, you know, they reduce language to a mathematical sort of algorithm that just puts things together
based on how many times it's seen something put together and just that way. It answers questions this way. It can't really answer a question. It could just kind of produce a silly answer with this mathematical model of probability, right.
So what they've fooled us into doing, I think, by making everybody an expert, releasing all this medical jargon into the public and letting everybody use it without, you know, really understanding the definitions of the language that they're using.
It is a gigantic human version of chat GPT.
And I think when you look at it that way and you listen to some people speak, you can almost hear this, this computer putting together an answer for you. I mean, would you agree JJ that that's kind of the way a lot of it hits me.
I mean, I get you the point you're trying to make and I think it's a valid one. They, they, it's kind of the similar to the ash conformity argument in the sense of, you know, if you don't get a joke, you might as well laugh along and because you might get it later.
And I think a lot of people have been challenged so much as Rose said to understand this biology that they kind of just go along with it because they don't understand it but they know what the right response is.
And they can, they can fake that so you know they can go along with it and they know what an intelligent response sounds like but if it lacks intelligence they don't have a way to discern.
You know my own study of this that one of the reasons why I appreciate your work so much JJ is because, you know, you have a way of erudite Lee simplifying things.
You know I got more out of your lectures than a year's worth of medical study I really did. So, you know, thanks for. Thanks for doing that.
And, you know, I have this other kind of opinion about why PCR was deployed aside from some of the more obvious ones that we know.
I think it was deployed as an effectiveness measure right to see how effective their clone deployment measures were right, they want to test everything.
The wastewater the people the animals the air the plant that they want to test everything but what is PCR you know PCR is Xerox machine.
Right. And they're looking for evidence that their genetic spam mail is actually taking hold somewhere. I'm not in the camp that is scared of any of that, but I think that, you know, if you look at it that way.
I like that. That's an interesting idea. I didn't think of it that way. It's cool. I like that.
That would definitely get data from that. That's actually really something I hadn't thought about. That's interesting.
I'm not. It doesn't really interface well though with the, with the idea of over cycling and the idea of a specificity.
But I do see your dual use, dual use right.
Yeah.
Yeah, okay.
Thank you. Thank you, John and everybody. Check out John's links to his website to further expansion of john look archers thinking, Tom.
Hey JJ. Yeah, you're you seem to be on a roll I think I've watched about four twitches I think you've done maybe like a week in a row that's it's great.
And I know you covered that neuro implant video about, you know how it'd be so wonderful to have your brain monitor doll continuously.
But I'm going to put a bunch of questions in the chat and I'm sure we only get to one or two but
you recently covered that McCullough bombshell thing where he, he basically said he didn't, he wouldn't, if you were a parent, he would not get any jabs. And then you compared that to Malone.
But on a more down to earth issue I have this friend who's just constantly telling me, so and so just got COVID so and so she's very social, you know.
Oh, three people just got COVID they're using these grocery store tests.
And so I put a guess it's called a COVID rabbit antigen test and put the manual in the chat.
So if you can comment on that and and maybe you made some discussion about no spread in New York City, or you can maybe touch on New York City and then the last thing would be the
disinforming people of your idea the swarm of variants all evolving in parallel. And that may be a way to debunk the idea that they're, they keep deploying these new clones as variants because that seems to be in the news to.
Thanks.
Yeah, you bet. So, when he's talking about the swarm. He's talking about a little bit of what I mentioned in my early part of the discussion where I was saying that when RNA makes a copy of itself, it's never perfect.
And if you want to try and do an exercise in your head to follow along with this you have to have a little stick. And this is the stick that's going to get copied.
And so remember that the enzyme that copies an RNA will copy it from one end to the other. Right. And then it's got to go back to the other end and start again it doesn't go backwards and forwards and backwards and forwards.
So, think of the consequences of this in the cartoon of RNA replication. This is the first RNA.
The RNA that gets produced when this one is copied has a minimum of three errors in it because that's the nature of copying RNA.
The virus jumps off. And now it's going to join our replicate one of the two RNA RNAs that are present.
Wait, wait, wait, you just said the virus jumps off. Does that mean?
It's not the virus, sorry, the immune, the enzyme. So, if in the replication cycle you have the first RNA and it gets copied into a second RNA, but the second RNA has three errors in it, minimum, because of the erroneous nature of RNA dependent RNA polymerase copy.
So, depending on which of these two RNA gets amplified, you might have another RNA produced with three or four errors in it, or you might have a copy of this one made that will add additional three errors from the original sequence and now you'll produce one with six.
And so as this goes on and on, you can see that very quickly the original sequence gets lost in a swarm of variants that have point mutations scattered throughout their genome.
And included in that are places when the RNA polymerase just gets about halfway or third of the way and just stops.
And so there are in almost an infinite supply of incomplete genomes partial genome sub genomic RNAs and miscopied not miscopied, but less than perfectly copied because that's the way it is swarm copies of the original virus.
So what I need you and everyone to start imagining is that if the, if the background signal is a swarm of coronavirus is that makes everybody sick every year spreads around most of the time and most of the time our immune system ignores it but little kids get sick a lot.
And as we build tolerance to this, whatever it is RNA signal in the background we become less sick every year and eventually we don't have common colds anymore.
Then the point would be that if we started sequencing that background.
We would be sequencing the swarm, and you can find lectures from Vincent Ransom yellow and other very raccoon yellow.
You can find many lectures from virologists that discuss the swarm, and how the sequence of a virus is actually a consensus sequence, based on an average of all those, those individual genomes that are present and and aligned on a computer and
decided what the average or consensus sequence is what that means is that in that huge swarm of variants, every single one of the variants that we're currently tracking could have been there.
And they could have said okay now we're gonna make could there be, could there be some geographical localization though where you have a dominant area and then they move back and forth and they move back and forth and the
dominant area and then they move back and forth and whatever absolutely that that's even in the dominant where one variant is dominant all the other parts of the swarm are probably there but just in a smaller number, and I really think that us taking
their, their, we're taking their word for it that this particular sequence is the new dominant variant when in reality, understand that they could have sampled this variation for five years before the start of the pandemic and had all the phylogenetic tree ready to go, and then
And for the most part, the sequencing is based on the 99 primer sets that are in the sequencing reaction that is distributed so if the control of those 99 primer sets is under the control of the right people then as they want to find new variants they just change that
primer set and they'll find the new variant that they already know is just waiting to be sequenced.
Okay, Tom, Tom, Tom, we gotta go.
Oh, antigen tests that's the only my second question I'll stop. What are you, can I get back, can I get back to you on it because I can't see what kind it is and I'm not, I don't want to make it.
I don't want to make it.
Accidentally but I'll definitely thank you. Thank you so much. Welcome. All right, john, just your quick question before we go to the last bit.
Yeah, JJ have you looked into any of the ramblings of Harold Krauss Bella.
Can you say that name again.
Yeah, I'll put it in the chat.
I don't want to waste a lot of time on this this guy has, you know, an overarching cosmology that is a little bit distracting but he is pretty brilliant and you know he explains a lot of things that I think are open questions that we have.
But he engages with that bio photonics
thinking and pretty much ties together a tremendous number of variable they've got a whole library of this guy talking but if you've never heard of them, just maybe watch that one, it's a little long but see what jumps out at you at that maybe the next time you know you
you know you talk to us you might be able to expound a little bit on that see what there is useful.
Okay, I'll check it out. I'm a little nervous but I'll definitely check it out.
Okay, thanks john. Now before we go to you Stephen JJ I have one thing I want to bring to.
I want to raise.
And that's this book.
Slow Death by Rubber Duck. Oh nice. What's that.
Essentially by to Australian researchers published 10 some 10 years ago.
Slow Death by Rubber Duck everybody.
And in fact the year of publication was.
It shows you know how to get buddy publication dates on 2009. So, 14 years old. Now, the point about this is that you kill your child by giving them rubber ducks to chew on.
Why slow death by rubber duck to University of Queensland researchers who said I wonder what my child is chewing on.
And this book articulates there's over 80,000 synthetic chemicals that are in products and a number of our members, our participants have commented on you have also JJ made this distinction between toxicity and pathogens.
This book, I recommend it to all of you very readable very enjoyable 80,000 synthetic chemicals, less than 5% of them have been tested for safety.
Okay, and then we've got you we've got Alec Zick, who gave us a slide and I'll remind all of you with this slide with 37 symptoms of toxicity that are identical to covert and common cold and flu symptoms.
And so, everybody, whilst we talk about that common cold.
Are you sure you're not being poisoned and many of us on this call would say yes we are and one of them, JJ you, you're wonderful exposition and, and this since 1970.
My naturopath 1970.
When I have a cold my father would say, I'm not I don't have a cold, I am eliminating.
And so these symptoms from a disease versus getting slow death by rubber duck everybody JJ just bring it to your attention. I don't want to go into it.
But the toxicity versus an infection Stephen last questions to you for the next few minutes.
So JJ, this is a really important question now so I've been thinking about it a lot over the past three months.
But it's kind of coming to a head.
And so, I don't want to kind of talk about me, but I was involved together with other doctors in a massive fight with the British government over.
Dr David Kelly.
And so we had a massive information we became experts, we were told this by the Daily Mail.
And the top three people at the Daily Mail, one of whom was the godfather of Fleet Street, so called Paul Dacre.
And we became experts we we fought a very tight campaign without lawyers, we were on our own.
And we got letters published in six letters published in the Guardian one in the New Statesman.
The one in the New Statesman I think cost the editor his job.
Unfortunately, but anyway, point is this.
We then got the best lawyers in the United Kingdom lead a in London, the human rights lawyers claimants only they were the government, the British government tried to take lead a out because they had 1000 clients in Iraq.
And there was a four year investigation of lead a this huge London firm on behalf of the British government by the Solicitor's Regulatory Authority.
Anyway, the point was that we got these lawyers on board.
We didn't even know we were going to be litigants, but we did become litigants, but we didn't realize it.
There was so brilliant.
And one of the brilliant things they did.
So, there was one lawyer in particular called Francis Wayne, and she was absolutely brilliant.
But she was incredibly modest.
That's probably why she was so brilliant.
And she was the kind of chosen one, if you like, of Martin Day of lead a so he was the kind of formed the company with Lee, le IGH.
His name was Martin Day, it took me for the four recommendations to get to him and then he immediately got Francis way, Swain, because I thought it would be Martin Day, taking charge of this very important case.
And it was Francis Swain.
So then, I'm not sure whether it was her idea, but it probably was her idea.
She instructed a lawyer on on our behalf because we had all this information.
Very like now.
And so the strategy was this a brilliant strategy, I've forgotten about it.
And it's what we should do, in my opinion, and I hope that you'll agree.
And if you do, then we need to work together to identify exactly what they honed in on and what they honed in on.
So they knew we'd formed a very tight campaign concentrating on the medicine, always making points that we knew that they couldn't answer.
And that's exactly what happened.
And so a lot of people said, oh, we didn't succeed in getting an inquest.
But in the end, we didn't need an inquest, because actually what we were trying to do was change public opinion from Dr. David Kelly, according to the British government, having committed suicide and changing that public opinion to, oh, he was bumped off, which is what people say now.
And so what the lawyer, this lawyer, I think was Francis Wayne, she brilliantly honed in on instructing a barrister called Richard Herrmann.
And the tactic seemed to be, to me, but I'm not sure.
I never had it confirmed that they wanted a barrister, a very able barrister, but a hungry barrister, i.e.
Someone who was going to be QC in the next two or three years, you know, QC is Queen's Council, now King's Council.
So Richard Herrmann fitted the bill.
He was absolutely brilliant.
And his task was to identify the single point, weakest point of the British government when it came to Dr. David Kelly.
And to identify what it was.
And also that point had to be understood by the people, very importantly.
And so what he came up with out of this massive information, much of it medical, well, a lot of it medical, and about coroner's law and inquests.
He said that the single most important point out of all the many points which could be made and the one that the lawyers and we should concentrate on was that it was not possible to bleed to death from an ulnar artery, which is the small artery on the on the medial aspect of the ventral surface of the wrist.
And that was a brilliant strategy because they were stumped before, but they were really stumped when they had to argue against that.
So my question to you is, JJ, what is the biggest lie?
And secondly, what is the part of the narrative that they're most vulnerable to attack on and unable to defend themselves because that was the case with the bleeding to death from from a severed ulnar artery.
So the story.
It's a tricky question. I don't know if I have the right answer off the top of my head, but my gut says that Michael Eden would agree with me that that vulnerability is the story of an RNA based pandemic.
So the story that we have to accept if we're going to go along with their story is that there wasn't something there.
And then in the end of 2019, there was something in a point that then spread from that point around the world on airplanes and is continuing to spread around the world.
And now I really think that is the giant lie because that's not a small lie.
That's a magnificently gigantic, massive lie about the potential for RNA to replicate.
And so I think that's where they're the most vulnerable.
The public understand that. That's the point.
I don't think that it's impossible for the public to understand that. Yes, they're going to resist.
And yes, the TV will will tell the public that they can't possibly understand it.
But it's a very simple explanation that gets simpler every time I give it.
And I don't think that anybody that's really interested if you start with as this is Michael Eden strategy, start with they lied.
And then when people are curious enough to say, what did they lie about?
Start with the fidelity of RNA, the idea that an RNA molecule, if granted the right sequence, can replicate with high fidelity and go around the world and infect millions of people in a way that it's never happened before.
Not even close, not even if you give them three orders of magnitude, it still never happened.
And so it's I think that that's where I got with my friend just the other day who came into town who hadn't heard me and didn't know where I was.
What about there was no what there was no diagnosis covered 19 because that stops people in the.
Hang on, hang on, hang on. We're we're now you've got the answers.
A great answer, Steve and stick with that answer, right?
Because I like that's a great thing for us because that's what I had question.
That's what Marvin has.
There's not just one answer to this.
We need to discuss who you ask for an answer.
He gave you one answer.
You know, and and it's it's it's tight because we're going to have got half an hour for another conversation.
That's a great question.
And so let's stick with that.
Gosh, how would we explain that?
Steven, what JJ is saying, he says, is getting simpler each time because I take your point.
The tip of the spear, the David Kelly metaphor is an excellent one for us.
All right, one more minute. One more.
JJ, have you got a second one that Stephen wants?
That's exactly what I was going to ask him next.
What's that? You want a second one that they're vulnerable?
What would be your second?
Then the second one is their their ridiculous model of immunity that has to do with anybody's floating in your blood.
So we just have to challenge people to understand how dumb that is and why that was inserted.
But the point is the thing I'd like just like to say is that people are so wedded, even in this group, to having had covid-19, they're shocked when when a doctor turns around, for example, and says there was no reliable diagnosis covid-19 and that it was a fraud.
The whole thing that there was no symptom, which is pathognomonic for covid-19.
And there was the PCR test, of course, was a joke and should never have been deployed.
So they're shocked when I as a medical doctor say and look them in the eye and say, I'm sorry, I know you want to want to stick with that story that you've had covid-19, but there was no diagnosis of covid-19 in my opinion as a medical doctor.
I just think the danger of that is, is that the planners of this orchestration have thought of that already, and they have done some things.
The question is, like Jim earlier said, did they release a bacterial pathogen that caused respiratory disease and then said it was a coronavirus and sampled from a conflated background signal?
Or did they use clones to make people sick?
That part of the crime, we don't know, but there's a lot of people who had something at the same time as other people had something.
And I don't necessarily say that you're wrong.
No, so the point I'm trying to make is that this tactic, this strategy came from one of the most brilliant lawyers in the world.
And that's why I'm arguing that if you try to make people say that what they experienced isn't what they experienced, that's more challenging than to say they lied about this biology of RNA.
That's what I mean.
So what I'm trying to do is highlight the strategy in your mind, JJ.
I get it.
If we can work on that.
He's got it. JJ, thank you so much.
You know, we're welcome.
Another four hours we clean, but you should be pleased JJ.
Next time you come on, you can do a five minute intro.
We'll get the questions going without any drama.
So at least at least we've got someone with your knowledge to handle our difficult questions.
Stephen, thank you for organizing.
JJ, thank you for jumping in at the last minute.
Thanks, everybody, for participation, for your insights, for thoughts, for provocative thoughts.
We fight the fight and JJ, I was saying this is a six year war, World War Three, someone with spiritual information says now it's a seven year war.
So we're three and a half years into a seven year war.
So everybody just get rejuvenated.
Stephen, we've got three and a half more years of these meetings.
Okay, everybody enjoy.
All right. Thanks for being here.
Bye. Thank you so much. Thanks. Thank you, JJ. Thank you, and everybody else.
Thank you, JJ.
Well, it's funny you said that Charles about seven years, check out Revelation.
Nice.
Three and a half years into the seven years.
So if we had a you are here map on Revelation, that's where we are.
Yeah, beautiful. Love it.
Thanks guys. This is great.
Don't forget, we got to get Celeste Solomon.
Celeste Solomon, she has this is she's just gone through a whole ton of synthetic biology just like JJ has been talking about, and has a tremendous amount of information she can share.
So I emailed you guys with her email address again and let me know if you need any help getting hold of her.
Yep. She's brilliant.
Okay. Okay.
Celeste Solomon. Good.
Bye.