Get that record happening there.
And everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
And today's discussion on the 2nd of October, no, 1st of October,
UK time, 2nd of October here in Australia.
This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost over three years ago 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.
At this time, we remember Ryan Ofulmik, German doctor, German and US lawyer,
who has fought against attacks on truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health and is currently in jail in Germany unlawfully,
having been criminally kidnapped by the German and Mexican governments and is now undergoing a show trial,
has had 31 days hearing days and still has not been, was not let out on bail.
They are trumped up charges and he's expected to be sentenced in the middle of October.
He is in remarkably good mental health and he announces to the world that the German regime and the regime that is attacking him will fall.
Anything you can do to support him, promote his cause is much appreciated.
I'm Charles Covess, the moderator of this group.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 31 years ago over the last 14 years.
I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice.
Bad medical advice in America is now the number one killer, number one cause of death.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were OK.
Now, many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
And I highlight the recent article by Dr. Stanley Plotkin, the honoured godfather of children's vaccines,
who has acknowledged that not one vaccine ever created has been properly tested for safety and efficacy.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat.
If you publish a newsletter or podcast or you have a radio or TV show,
put the links in the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three and that the medical science battle is only one of 12 battlefields of this latest world war.
There's no time to be tired.
I assess we're four and a half years into a seven year war.
So look after yourself, get fit and healthy and get me up for the fight.
Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is never settled.
And today, Jay Cooey is going to be pointing out science is never settled.
Some of us believe that viruses exist.
Some of us believe that viruses are a hoax.
And some of us sit firmly on the fence.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours after which, for those with the time, Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you're able to join.
We will listen to Jay Cooey for as long as Jay wishes to speak.
And then we have Q&A.
Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asks the first questions for 15 minutes.
This is a free speech environment with appropriate moderating.
Free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are lovingly not interested.
We reject the offense industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
And that we also reject the triggering industry that don't you dare say anything that may trigger another.
That also is a suppression of free speech exercise.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you.
Fear enslaves you.
Love, on the other hand, expands you, liberates you.
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk fests.
An extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated from linkages made by attendees in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product, the links are resources that will help people put the details into the chat.
The meeting is recorded and is uploaded onto the Rumble channel.
Now, welcome to our guest presenter, Jay Cooey.
And we thank you, JJ, for again giving us your time, your wisdom, your insights.
You have spoken to us, I think, three times previously, maybe four times, four times.
Thank you very much.
It's wonderful to have you here.
I haven't got a convenient CV of you.
If you want to talk, tell us about your background, please do so.
And thank you, Stephen Frost, again, for creating this group and for organizing Jay to be with us today.
So, Charles, I'll just say that I didn't have an up to date bio.
So I think I put in an old bio which was referring to JJ working for Children's Health Defense.
So I think that was wrong.
But I did describe JJ Cooey, Jay, as a brilliant biologist and probably the foremost expert in the world on Covid-19.
So he not only understands what happened, but he's able to explain it using biology.
So I think that's very valuable.
And that's why we keep getting him back, because I one of the things, JJ, I saw you getting pretty angry about some people on the I think I put the link in the in the invitation.
So you'll be able to see.
I meant to try and find the time to look at the whole video, which is one and a half hours long today.
But unfortunately, I didn't have time to do that.
Probably good because I would have got confused had I watched it maybe.
But you were talking about the furing cleavage site and getting pretty angry about the people who are promoting the existence of that.
Anyway, please, you're welcome, JJ.
So I think you're really important.
And by the way, did you see that there's an international summit?
No, International Crisis Summit is called ICS, I think it is in Japan.
So I think it's the eighth.
It's the yeah, it was the sixth one.
They have the seventh.
Sixth is it. Yeah.
And they have the seventh and the eighth planned.
And all of the same people mostly have coordinated each one.
Sure. The center of that is Robert Malone.
Exactly. And so I was in touch with someone in California.
This was some time ago and she was pushing.
She wanted to get Robert Malone in.
And I said, well, I've nothing against Robert Malone, but I think that he hasn't got it.
And you need to get people like JJ Cooey.
And I was I was they were pretty polite.
There's a guy from Italy as well involved.
And I can't remember the name.
Well, it's good that I can't remember the name.
But anyway, they went their own way and it's become an echo chamber.
It's very, very, very same people you are talking about in the are, I think, prominent in this.
But anyway, but of course, some people who are good get caught up in it.
Well, I think they're all good. But yeah.
All right, JJ, over to you, Jay.
I mean, OK, so if I can offer everybody a little bit of viewing advice,
if you go up to the top and make sure you're watching Speaker View,
I'm not going to share my screen because I can do it myself by just switching my own screen over here like this.
Yep. I'll put myself down, put myself down here in the corner.
Who you're listening to.
I am somebody who wanted to get tenure at a university in America for a long time.
I dedicated about 18 years of my life to doing that.
I spent a lot of hours under a microscope.
I've killed thousands of mice in my lifetime.
And the result of it are experiments like you see behind here where I'm recording from pairs of neurons
and trying to characterize the short term dynamics of the connections between them
and tell stories about how those neurons might use those different connections to contribute to behavior.
That's what all neurobiologists do in one way or another.
You can find the stain of that work on the Internet.
You can look on PubMed. And if you just look for my last name, Kui with a dash JJ,
you can find all the papers that I did and see exactly what I did for my whole career.
The name that I use on my stream is Giga Ohm Biological.
And Giga Ohm means a million ohms.
And it's an expression of resistance that had something to do with the methodology that I used to use.
Jay, could you put your input microphone input sound up a bit on your audio?
Oh, sure. No problem. Yes, I can. I can. I can. I might have it too loud in my ears.
Is that better? A little bit better? Yes, that's a little bit better.
OK. So anyway, I have a whole list of reasons why you might want to pay attention to me
that I don't need you to read and I don't want to read right now because I think sometimes it comes off as
seeming like this is all about me. But the reason why I bring up this list is because I've seen an alien
that quite a few people don't want you to see.
And a lot of the people that don't want you to see it are people that know the alien that I've seen because I've spoken to all of them.
And that's what this list is. Some of the more interesting things on this list include number 10.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Merrill Nass, Robert Malone, Tess Laurie and Jessica Rose have never assembled to discuss anyone else's ideas.
But mine and all five of them came together in one podcast to talk about the ideas I'm going to talk with you today about.
The same with the No Virus people. They've never really assembled to try to attack anyone else but me.
And in fact, Mark Bailey, Kaufman, Cowan, Zeck and Massey all got together to tell everybody how bad I was and how bad my ideas were.
And this has been going on for five years straight.
The number one reason why you might consider listening to me is because as far as I know,
I'm the only active medical school faculty member in America to actually lose a job and a career for speaking out in 2020.
I don't know of anyone else who has. Some people say that they've lost a license or a membership or something like that.
But nobody with a track record of wanting to get tenure, with a track record of publishing on PubMed,
with a track record of studying with Nobel Prize winning scientists has lost a career that they would have given anything to keep except for me.
If you can find somebody else who has, I'd be happy to meet them, promote them and support them.
JJ, maybe your time will come like Julian O'Sullivan's time came today.
I don't care about my time. I care about our kids and I want everybody to take these ideas and run with them.
I don't care if you ever mention my name. I just want you to make sure you take these ideas.
This is where I produce all my videos. It's like a YouTube channel, but you don't have to log in.
There's no analytics and I pay for it all. So if you want to watch all the things that I'm working on, you go to this page and you can find all the links to the.
I'm teaching a biology 101 class and I'm auditing someone else's stats class and I don't want to show you, but all these links here are active and you can just find all the work that I'm doing there.
So the point is, is that your consciousness, I'm going to make myself a little smaller, his prime real estate,
and they have been using beautiful computer graphics and coordinated groups of liars to take control of your consciousness.
They have sent you home, told you to go on social media.
If you don't like the social media that's being censored, you can go to one of the alternative social medias that popped up in 2020.
And either way, you have surrendered to their game. You have given your consciousness over to them.
And unfortunately, besides us acquiescing to social media, we already inherited a set of charlatans from our parents,
a set of charlatans that have been pushing this kind of public health narrative for a very, very long time, ever since the HIV epidemic and before.
This is an ongoing thing that goes back to the special cancer virus program in America.
And I do think that this guy's very right when he says that when you when once a charlatan has power over you, it's very hard to get it back.
The trick is, is that it's not just these TV charlatans, but it's also the coordinated group of charlatans on the Internet.
And we have always for five years underestimated how many of these people are actually working for the same weaponized piles of money that these guys work for.
In fact, this is the way the Western world is governed at this stage.
And it used to be a little bit more awkward with just TV and television, but it has become spectacularly easy with social media.
And so I'm going to start this with with statements that I would like anybody to challenge me on after and discuss afterwards.
These are statements that I make that maybe even seem a little too strong with the idea of trying to get somebody to push back.
So far, crickets, intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans was always criminally negligent and RNA cannot pandemic because viruses are not pattern integrities.
Now, I'm going to try to give you some broad biological ideas to support these.
And I'm going to try and bring you to an understanding of why it is that the mystery virus does not equal the excess deaths that we are experiencing.
And I'm going to give you the the whole story right now.
The reason why this is I'm sure this is the whole story is because the first time I said this was in 2021.
And then I experienced almost three years of people trying to get me to stop talking about specific things.
Transfection and this.
But they don't want you to know is the mystery virus is not equal to excess deaths.
They don't want you to know that Denny Rancourt showed very early that there was no evidence of spread.
And they don't want you to notice that all the lawyers working inside of the US legal system,
almost exclusively for the last 10 years, have not said to the American people that if we restored strict liability that these problems would go away.
They have never said that some of these vaccine laws and the way that they prevent you from suing for damages may be a Seventh Amendment violation.
Now, I'm an American. This may not mean very much to people in Europe and elsewhere.
But one of the facts is that in America we have our own fight because we have our own legislative prison, our own legislative cage that we're in.
And those of you with a royal family or a parliament or a House of Lords have a different cage and a very different trap that you're in.
And unfortunately, although the biology will help you, strict liability in a Seventh Amendment violation doesn't really mean anything to you guys.
But what you should hear is that all the people that have been purporting to fight for medical freedom in America exclusively fight for free speech.
And they never use very, very well understood legal principles and legal words and legal terms that would get us to the exit quicker.
And they haven't for very many years.
Now, in addition to this, I know that there's a lot of people. There's Noam Chomsky, there's Edward Bernays.
The list is quite long of people who have explained what's going on.
But I think it's important that we adapt what they have said in the past to fit the current social media model.
And so I've tried to do that by saying that weaponized piles of money have have used their acolytes on social media to convince us what to argue about and with whom to argue.
And once we accepted that argument, we just accepted the narrative of the biosecurity state of Tony Fauci and of Francis Collins and of the Vaccine Center and of CEPI and of Gavi and of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and of the WHO.
And in fact, we have been governed by this theater, spanning mainstream media to social media for many, many years now.
But at the start of the pandemic, they definitely doubled and tripled down on this idea of completely controlling the narrative with people arguing about it on social media.
And so what I want you to imagine when I when I put these these same terms, that's stupid, darn it, that that that pivot was wrong.
I should have had those words just moved down here because these are the same words that I just read to you.
What I want you to understand is that these weaponized piles of money and their coordinated liars have created an illusion of consensus.
And this illusion of consensus is about a laboratory virus or a natural virus that because it was novel, it was capable of killing millions of people.
But millions more were saved from it because we rolled out countermeasures and did lockdowns and made some mistakes.
And there were some hot batches. But in the end, you know, gain of function is real.
So this could all happen again. So we better get our act together.
And the way that this is working is the way they do it is that they say the covid shots are bad, but they don't talk about 2020.
Nobody who is currently at the International Covid Summit, number six, Jessica Rose, Meryl Nass, you know, Robert Malone,
all these people will not tell you or not want to talk to you about what was going on in 2019 and 2020, what they were working on before the pandemic,
what their pre-pandemic history is. Because if you found that out, you would see that they're all into genetics.
They're all into virology. They're all into immunology.
Some of them worked for NATO. Some of them worked for DITRA.
All of them were curating the same narrative before the pandemic.
They weren't horse farmers and Mii Miu breeders.
They weren't surfers and mathematicians.
These people are all covering up one thing.
And that is that in every Western country around the world, they expected all cause mortality to go up.
Why? It's very simple, ladies and gentlemen, because there were bigger families after World War Two than there were in the 80s and we're in the 90s and we're in the 2000s.
That means that because family size has changed at the same time that life expectancy has gone up and the quality of end of life care has gone up,
that we have a giant pile of old people. They expected all cause mortality to go up.
What would a biosecurity state do with that? Would they tell you that, well, I guess we've got to get more hospital beds because we're going to need a lot more end of life care.
We better spend more money on Medicare, even though that's more than half, it would be more than half of the budget of the United States.
If they if they just let these people go and tried to keep them alive as long as they we've been worried about this for 20 years.
In fact, most Western countries have known that their all cause mortality was going to go up and they have known that this could bankrupt them.
And you can research your own country. You can find the data yourself.
And in the United States, for sure, we knew it was true because we have some of the most unhealthy old people on the planet.
And so what better way to create the illusion of a pandemic than to use a military exercise and sweep a few of these people together with murder and lies?
That's what I was saying in 20 and 21. And that's what all these people got me excited about other things like natural immunity and maybe the virus is mutating.
Oh, my goodness. But nobody was talking about this entire list of ways that they've murdered people and lied about it.
Two of the most important things that nobody talks about.
And I want you to ask every doctor in this in this chat and every doctor that you know, what happens when you give somebody pure oxygen for a few hours?
Because there is literally thousands of papers on it. And I've done a whole review on it about two weeks ago.
It can cause a RDS. It is indistinguishable from severe acute respiratory syndrome.
What happens when you give persons pure oxygen? In fact, you only have to give them 80 percent oxygen at a high enough flow rate to have the exact same damage occur.
Indistinguishable from the progression of covid in a hospital. And so you had a beautiful excuse to get people on ventilators.
Now, the crazy thing is, is that I don't know why this is here again. Darn it. I got to move this.
I conflict. The crazy thing is, is that if we go back to 2019, here's the video. You can see it down here.
It's on YouTube. If you search for Chatham House and Van Ronst from Belgium, you can find this video or you just use this website.
I already put it in the chat in case you're not watching the chat. I put this link and the next link in there.
This is a video of a guy in 2019 at the Chatham House talking about controlling the narrative from day one.
He's talking about his experience running the flu pandemic in 2009 in Belgium.
He's talking about his conflicts of interest and lamenting about not having the scope of social media available to him that he sees now in 2019 that wasn't available in 2009.
And he jokes constantly about being dishonest in order to get compliance. And the whole audience laughs.
The guy who's sitting on the stage there is a guy who there's a video on YouTube of him putting his hands down when he got 35 million doses of the vaccine purchased by the Dutch government.
These people in 2019 were having a meeting about how to do it right.
A few months later, you can see on this slide, event 201 is marked in October. This was in January of 2019.
And so they've known already for a very long time they had to control the narrative.
And so in the start of 2020, I ran into a bunch of people when I was speaking out, they were all controlling the narrative.
I thought they were good guys. I thought they were really serious about repurposed drugs.
I thought they were sure about this spike protein. They knew more than I did.
They even knew there was a fear and cleavage site and that there were HIV inserts. They knew that this was had to be gay.
I didn't even know what gain of function was. They were already sure it was a lab leak and sure that the deleted databases were the Chinese admitting that they did it.
They were sure that amyloid and prion might happen because the spike protein has funny inserts in it.
They were sure that there were neurological side effects, cardiac effects, and they knew that mitochondrial damage would occur.
And after five years of chasing these things around, I've come to realize one thing.
All this is is a narrative being seeded specifically for outcomes, for expected outcomes, when they transfected people to new proteins.
Not just for COVID, but COVID variants and RSV and pneumonia and all the other things that they're doing now.
They seeded a narrative of all the expected outcomes that we already knew from the academic bench would happen if you transformed and transfected humans.
And they had a bunch of people out there controlling it. In fact, from very day one, they had a guy who worked for DITRA,
running an AI server called Domain, an outbreak specialist, a private consultant, a vaccine technologist, an inventor of vaccines, but also a selfless savior, homesteader, and horse breeder.
He came out in 2021 to save us, but he was actually very busy from day one.
In January, he got a call from his CIA buddy, told to spin his team up, and DITRA and Domain, the server, are actually responsible, supposedly, for the identification of remdesivir, silicoxib, speldrong, femotidine, and ivermectin
as four candidate repurposed drugs that would work against the 3-CL protease, which Robert Malone claims he made an x-ray crystallography model of,
and then used AI to interface with all of the known drugs and pharmaceuticals in the FDA catalog, and came up with these four.
That's actually the story he told. I'm not making this up.
And so the narrative was specifically seeded with the help of people who understood the technology, understood what was to be accomplished.
The old vaccine schedule has always been garbage. They've always known that.
And they've always known that in order to study humans and human genetics and human biology, they need to use humans.
They've run out of room with inbred mice. They've run out of room with monkeys.
They know that all of those experiments, because all of those animals are biologically different and not equivalent to us,
the only way to learn anything reasonable about our genetics and our physiology related to genetics is to study us.
And the first step in this is to get us to accept transfection as a working medical methodology.
And they've tried to figure that out for a long time. They've admitted that, right? They've been working on these for decades.
We've been using them on the bench for decades.
So the trick is to have this guy come out in 2021 and control the narrative about the virus and control the narrative about the technology being used to respond to the virus.
That's why he said COVID and a couple other people said COVID, but nobody else.
That's why he and these guys pushed vaccines, but also ivermectin and repurposed drugs.
It's definitely a novel virus. And Brett Weinstein agreed on that podcast that zero COVID is still a realistic goal.
I mean, if we could just get everybody to take ivermectin for 60 days, it would be over.
And in fact, they agreed on that podcast in 2021 that endemic was the worst case scenario.
Interestingly, there's a CNN pandemic documentary from 2019 where they also conclude that if a batk virus gets out or a lab leak happens, the worst case scenario is it going endemic.
That would really suck.
And so what is endemicity? I've got the little picture up there, endemicity in the background behind the planets there.
This is all earth. And you can see behind me, these are years progressing from what would be left to right to you.
And so if we go through endemicity is the process from becoming from a mud puddle to being everywhere.
Right. And the interesting thing to realize from a biological perspective is that there's absolutely no way to differentiate endemicity from a background signal because we have no data from before 2020.
If there was a background signal there and they used PCR to tell us that it was spreading everywhere, there would be no way for us to tell the difference between this scenario and that scenario.
And they know that. Of course, all of these people know that. That's one of the reasons why all of these things aren't discussed.
And so this is where I want to go. I'm going to I know it's a lot of reading, but it's a lot of summarizing because if you can follow along, I want you to be able to ask questions and I'll answer them.
So this is a list of things that none of these people, all the heroes won't talk about. I want to break them down individually.
I've broken them down individually before on separate podcasts, but this is the first time I've tried to bring them all together.
I'm going to drop my head out of the way. Well, maybe I don't need maybe I planned that already.
OK, so the first one, why oh why won't anyone discuss how a background signal could be misconstrued as spread, both genetic and actuarial using murder?
What do I mean there? I'm talking about the population pyramid and how we know that there are more old people expected to die in the coming decade than we're dying in the previous decade and in the previous decade before that.
And that signal is hot. And so they can misconstrue that as something like a disaster because it's eventually going to go away.
The crazy part is, ladies and gentlemen, is that China had the same problem.
And you can know that intuitively, because otherwise they would have never had the one child policy in the first place, ladies and gentlemen.
So let's see, let's these are a list of questions for people to ask others.
So ask why and for how long DITRA, that's the agency in the United States that's that's adjacent to the State Department and is actually responsible in the history for cleaning up nuclear weapons in in countries that have them and want to get rid of them.
It was established by the father of Margaret Hamburg.
Margaret Hamburg was the FDA director for a while or something.
And she and her father have been involved in this biology for a very long time.
And so DITRA, for some reason, was in control of all the sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 for at least the first year.
I don't know if for the whole globe or if it was just for America, but for sure in America.
And nobody seems to want to answer that question as to why.
Ask everyone why they're not talking about the expected increase in all-cause mortality.
And I'm including Denny Rancourt, because Denny Rancourt and I had an interview almost maybe a week ago where I told him that this is a signal.
I know it's a signal and they're ignoring it.
It's a it's a it's a signal that they've taken advantage of.
And and Denny was very quick and very certain to dismiss it and instead wanted to discuss dominance hierarchies for an hour.
And that frustrated me a lot.
Ask every victim whether high flow oxygen was used, because if it was used, it's probably the way they were killed or attempted to be murdered.
Ask every doctor what they know about pure oxygen, because any doctor who doesn't know that pure oxygen is poison is a shithead.
And I mean that. I really mean that because I have read books now and I've read hundreds of papers.
They have known that you can hurt people with pure oxygen since the 60s.
So ask everyone why we are not talking about the 500,000 Americans that were killed by opioids during the pandemic.
The reason why we're not talking about them is because those people were of all age groups and conveniently reduced the expected lifespan of an American by calculation.
And yet that's been attributed to COVID. COVID has driven life expectancy down in America.
It couldn't be the half a million people or more killed by opioids of all age groups in America.
And finally, ask everyone how we can tell the difference between a new endemic virus and a previously existing background if we don't have any data from before 2020.
Because they won't have an answer for you.
The next one, why oh why won't anyone list and define the many ways the methodologies of PCR can be applied to assure highly accurate results that were not used for SARS-CoV-2?
So everybody needs to get their head around the idea that if PCR is used correctly, it is extremely accurate.
Because you can layer the reaction on itself and essentially screen a sample multiple times.
And if you're choosing correctly and with good intention, you can make PCR almost so sensitive that the signal that you want to find is sometimes missed.
That's basically how they use it in academic biology.
So a few questions would be, for example, ask if nested primers were used.
So one of the aspects of PCR that a lot of people are not familiar with is that if you're looking for an amplicon, the amplicon is the.
The subsequence that you're looking for, so you might be looking for a sequence that's super long.
But then the amplicon that you look for is only this little small sequence that the PCR can amplify.
And you use a primer that's going this way and a primer that's going that way.
So one of the ways that we can make PCR really accurate in academia is that we would just run this PCR once and then we would select a second set of primers that would would amplify this part.
And then we would only take samples where the second amplicon amplified.
So in other words, even if we get a positive here and we have something amplify, we're still going to use another set of primers to check to make sure that what we amplified matches those primers as well.
That's called nested primers. And as far as I can tell, all 200 plus EUA granted PCR tests, many of which were produced in China, that were rolled out in America in 2020 and 21 up until 2022.
None of them used nested primers and nested primers are very standard ways of making PCR better at the academic bench.
So the second thing to ask people is how many amplicons were targeted, because in a lot of PCR tests, they may have amplified multiple amplicons, but only required one amplicon to be present for it to be positive.
So if I go back to this thing, you might also think, well, they could have amplified this amplicon and then they could amplify this amplicon.
So you could have amplicon A, amplicon B and amplicon C.
But the funny thing is, is that in academic biology, in order to say the whole thing was there, you would nature magazine or or cell cell magazine would require you to show that amplicon A,
amplicon B and amplicon C were present and they were present in pretty equal quantities relative to some other endogenous gene from inside the animal.
And that amplicon would be D. And so the scale between all these things would also help to indicate, you know, how good is this signal?
Nothing like that was used in a SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic. Instead, the presence of any one amplicon was a positive.
It's exactly the opposite of how one would use PCR to diagnose the presence of something on an academic bench.
But everybody who works in an academic setting assumes that these proprietary PCR tests and these great companies would never short.
But they did. And you can go online and you can find the description of the EUA's and the description of the methodologies and you can actually see it.
One amplicon, two primers. That's a PCR test. I'm not kidding.
And so the other thing is, we'll ask what the control endogenous amplicon was.
So the other thing that you have with regard to a academic bench is that you will have this D amplicon.
The D amplicon would be something from you so that you could scale it.
I mean, how strong is this signal?
Right. And the idea would be on an academic bench is that you would have a signal that when you PCR it up, that it would be the same signal across all mice.
So, you know, like legs, for example, if you wanted to see if mice had extra noses, then you would scale it to the legs.
Right. OK, I got four legs and one nose. That's correct.
If you got four legs and two noses, now you might have read that wrong. Right.
And so here, if you expect that in every mouse you're going to get 10 copies of D to show up, then in order for the presence of this one to be significant, maybe you need 100 copies of it.
But if only 10 show up, then maybe you decide it's not a big deal.
In other words, in an academic setting, you have all of these different ways to verify what you're getting and scale it, quantify it, maybe relative to something else and verify that what you're getting is not a false signal.
And none of those things, absolutely none of them were used in the context of PCR diagnostics.
Instead, they use them in the opposite way that they would be used on an academic bench.
And so academic biologists around the world need to come to the realization that all the ways they use PCR to achieve high fidelity results were not used in any pandemic diagnostic products.
They may be now. Now that they want covid and and all these endogenous signals to be read correctly, they could be now fine.
The Abbott test could be great, but I can tell you and you can verify it yourself.
The EUA granted tests that we used in America in 2020 to define the crisis that everyone else pointed to and said, oh, my gosh, look what's happening in America.
We got to get out of this. Those tests were not. And that's the way it is.
So why oh why won't anyone list and define the many ways even in its purest form, the mRNA products would have never been appropriate for healthy humans.
So right now, the main focus is on the DNA contamination.
But that's absolute nonsense. And the reason why is because we need to ask everyone if fragmented mRNA can be problematic.
The answer is yes. And there's a lot of fragmented mRNA in all of the samples that we can test.
So that that already is a danger. And that was a danger from day one.
That's not something that we needed to find the double stranded DNA to know.
Every one of these people that was defending the shot for four years as possibly OK should have already done known better.
Ask anyone if the DNA contamination was a previous problem in pharmaceutical manufacture, because it was.
And in fact, all biologics that are made by lot need to be screened for DNA and RNA contamination.
And if they have any, the entire lot is burnt.
That's the reason why so many biologics are so expensive to make.
And why making mRNA or DNA is quite a bit cheaper, because the step anion exchange chromatography that's used to clean up biologic proteins and get all this stuff out of there doesn't work on mRNA and DNA.
Can't separate those. So the really expensive process to clean up any protein biologic is just not even needed here.
And so they already knew that the contamination was possible. They already knew the purity problem would be there.
They already knew that. So ask everyone if LNP technology has ever remained at the injection site, because it never has.
Not before or after the pandemic. And the idea that they were saying that is, of course, absurd.
Ask anyone if they know who Jesse Gelsinger is, because he's an American kid who in the early 2000s or late 90s was given an adenovirus treatment for his liver disease and it killed him.
And they learned a lot from that, including the fact that one of the easy ways to pull the wool over our eyes would be to use an adenovirus vaccine that they knew would hurt people and then withdraw it from the market to claim that they were monitoring safety.
So ask everyone else how to explain how and ask everyone to explain how Inovio's so-called vaccine was made and how it works, because if they don't know, they're about to find out.
And finally, ask everyone why they have never considered the advantage for them, meaning all the bad guys, a placebo would provide.
Why is it that I'm the only one on earth who ever brings up the fact that, you know, the easy way to make the manufacturing quota would be to introduce placebo?
The easy way to reduce the total number of of adverse events would be to introduce a placebo.
The easy way to make sure that you monitored only the people that needed monitoring would be used to placebo in a lot of places and it would save so much money.
And it would make everybody so certain that they could make manufacturing targets, it would make everybody so certain that lots were OK or that hot lots were.
Think about that. Not one of them has considered the possibility of placebos, even though that's the easiest way to do this.
And so let's watch this.
It can take years, sometimes decades, but international research facilities all around the world like this one here in San Diego are trying to come up with a vaccine for the new coronavirus in record time.
Let's find out how they're doing it.
So this is Dr Kate Broderick. Hello, Kate.
She heads up research and development here at Inovio.
And you can tell us about how you even start creating a vaccine.
How does it work?
Absolutely, Tulip.
So what you're looking at here is the actual DNA sequence of the virus from the outbreak in China.
We received this virus sequence when the Chinese authorities put it online.
We downloaded it. We started working on it immediately.
And essentially overnight, we designed the vaccine that you can see here.
The next step then is to put that into manufacture.
So let's go and have a look at that now.
OK, so so far she told you that they have the DNA sequence and they're going to make a synthetic version of the DNA sequence and then they're going to make a lot of it.
Well, let's go see how they make a lot of that DNA sequence.
And if you're not familiar with Inovio, Inovio is a vaccine company that originated in Norway, was incorporated by Robert Malone and his wife.
And they specialize in electroporation technology, which is a little electric gun.
And so the idea would be to take this DNA that they're making there and with the electric gun, they would electroporate it into your skin cells.
And it would be kind of a cutaneous, subcutaneous vaccination.
And they would use the DNA of this.
I believe it's the DNA of the spike protein, although she said that was the whole virus.
I think it was the DNA of the spike.
The whole virus would be thirty thousand.
And I don't think that was thirty thousand on one screen.
Anyway, let's go see how they manufacture a lot of the DNA.
So here we are, Tulip, in the plasmid manufacturing lab.
So what you can see here is that we've taken the DNA medicine, the plasmid, and now we've added it to bacteria.
And the incubators in the back, you can see the bacteria growing and also in these flasks that you can see on the benchtop here.
It's a very musty smelly.
Very smelly. You do get used to it after a while.
So the next stage will be to purify the DNA from the bacteria.
Hopefully, that will achieve great results, not only in clinical tests but in travel.
Maybe in global!
But at the World Health Organization, in indeed the New Kingdom,
it's also really annoying that people are waiting for a result without having that genetic factor.
So by saying what we have today, we mean, we've got these three vitamins in the glued two-bit flask complete with trigger
and we'reblazing with films of up gain,
breadening with the monuka daily,
beauty,
Very smelly, you do get used to it after a while.
So the next stage will be to purify the DNA from the bacteria.
That will give us a pure product that can be used for pre-clinical testing, which is going to start this week.
And so the unfortunate thing is that this video tells everything, and I didn't see it at first because I didn't understand the biology,
but I saw this video already years ago and thought it was cool, but I didn't get it.
And now I get it.
What this video is an admission of is number one, that biologics are manufactured using synthetic DNA,
amplified to unlimited, nearly pure quantities, not possible by any other means.
Sorry.
Not possible by any other means.
Understand that.
That pharmaceutical companies around the world that make biologics have all of the equipment necessary to make large quantities of pure DNA.
That's the only way to do it.
You can't go out in nature and dig a hole and mine for it.
You can't grow it in culture after you sample it from a bat.
The only way to do it is to start with DNA that you make synthetically and then use it, use a bacterial culture,
or hijack a bacterial culture to replicate that plasmid.
And then you can make liters, grams of it.
Synthetic DNA can also be converted to RNA using commercially optimized RNA polymerases,
creating a pure quantity of RNA that was otherwise never possible.
And this is how they make the transfection, the mRNA injection, right?
That's all they do.
And so DNA or RNA could be used any number of ways to seed a high fidelity signal that would be detectable both by PCR and by sequencing.
There's no doubt about that.
If they wanted to find the spike protein in my house, they could make the DNA or the RNA as described in this video and spray it out of a bottle.
And then swabbing anything would find it in high fidelity.
And it would be a very strong signal.
If the protein was or the RNA could produce protein, then maybe I would produce spike protein if I inhaled it.
Because that's just transfection and transformation, nothing else.
So virology calls the production of pure DNA or RNA using identical methods.
They call that infectious clones.
This is the whole truth of virology right here and the reason why no virus doesn't get you to the finish line.
Because anytime they've ever found a signal in the wild, they've started with this process where they take a DNA and they grow it up.
And then if they need to, they can do number two and they can add that synthetic DNA to a commercially optimized RNA polymerase that will make the RNA.
And then they put that RNA on a cell culture and call it virology.
That's it.
And that's the trick for all gain of function.
It's not about whether the RNA can grow and cover the earth.
It's about whether they made enough.
And if they made enough, they could find it anywhere they wanted to.
But RNA can't do what they say it can do.
Like biologics manufacture, these pure quantities are otherwise impossible to obtain only through commercial methods.
And so it is absolutely important to see that this is the same story.
The reason why transformation and transfection is on all of their resumes and was on my resume before the pandemic
is because every academic biologist that knows anything about molecular biology ought to know these two terms.
So number one, ask an academic biologist what a mini or a midi prep is.
And if they know, then they definitely should be able to define these two terms.
Transfection and transformation, which refers to the use of DNA transformation or the use of RNA transfection to cause the expression of a protein where it's not supposed to be artificially.
So ask every academic biologist how optogenetics is done in mice and monkeys, because that's done with an adenovirus transformation.
And they should have known that. That's how I knew, because that's what I did.
And anybody that's reading those papers knows that that's a transformation.
And that's exactly the same thing that AstraZeneca was.
Ask every academic biologist what small interfering RNA is and what it does.
What about those small fragmented RNAs that are in the in the shots?
Aren't those aren't a problem?
And finally, ask every academic biologist to describe the possible long term effects of transfection on their experimental model.
Anybody that uses transfection or transformation in an animal can't tell you that because they sacrifice the animal early enough so that they can see what they did.
If they don't sacrifice the animal early enough, the place that they transfected will be destroyed by the immune system.
So all the anatomy will be lost.
So academics have been using this on the bench for decades, but they just haven't been using it in a way that has directly shown them that it would kill the animal over time,
directly shown them that it could cause autoimmunity, directly shown them that it could sterilize them or damage their pups because they don't look.
It's just a tool that has been misconstrued into an investigational vaccine by an illusion of consensus coordinated by people like Robert Malone.
And finally, why won't they acknowledge the statement that RNA cannot pandemic?
Well, then ask every biologist to explain why DNA can be copied nearly air free, but RNA cannot.
And the short answer is because DNA is double stranded.
You can proofread it.
When you put it back together, if it doesn't fit, it's an indication of an error.
RNA doesn't have that, especially a positive stranded coronavirus RNA that's 30,000 bases long.
So ask every academic to explain what enables coronaviruses to sustain such a huge single stranded RNA genome to endemicity.
How does a molecule copy itself infinitely and sustain it permanently, which is what endemic means?
It's just there. There's no biology to explain that.
None. And yet we accept it because these people agree to accept it.
They create this illusion that everybody agrees on this from Tony Fauci to Robert Malone.
They all agree. Ask every academic biologist to explain the mechanism of action for remdesivir
because if they do, they'll find two papers both with Ralph Baric on them or Sina Bavari on them.
Or a and and then that case that it would also be a postdoc of Ralph Baric named Alison Totura.
And in those two papers, they explain very succinctly that remdesivir works on the proofreading, the proofreading protein of coronavirus.
So the only evidence that they have that coronavirus is able to sustain an RNA genome,
unlike any other RNA molecule on the planet, is because of a protein called XON that that Ralph Baric and Mark Dennison have found.
And they have a candidate drug that interferes with it called remdesivir.
And a few months before the pandemic, the head of US Amarid named Sina Bavari and the last postdoc of of Ralph Baric published a paper
where they said that soon there would be a coronavirus probably out of a bat cave and that remdesivir would be a great thing to have on the shelf.
So ask every academic biologist to define what exosomes are and name any context in which exosomes play a role in normal physiological function.
Well, I'm an academic neurobiologist, so I'm going to give you an example from the brain.
Up until 2019, there was this protein in the brain, rather a gene in the brain called ARC, which was actin associated regulatory something something.
I don't know what it means in actin associated ARC.
You can look it up anyway.
This gene was used as an early indicator that a neuron had been activated by an experience.
And the way that we figured this out was we would give rats cocaine and then we would kill them really quick and slice up their brains and look where the where the gene
expression had occurred and some of the earliest genes to come on.
One of them was this this gene called ARC.
And so for a very long time in neuroscience, we've been using ARC as a as a marker for neurons that were recently activated.
And in 2019, it was discovered that neurons actually package the mRNA of the ARC protein in an exosome or in an endosome or in an endogenous virus.
And they send it to neurons next to them so that neurons that weren't activated can still remodel their local synapse because they still express the protein that releases the cytoskeleton and allows the spine to reorganize.
And so before 2019, we had no idea that the brain sent little viral packages of mRNA to neighboring neurons to get them to be liable to learning even if they weren't themselves activated by the input.
And now we would be really naive biologists if we thought that that example was going to be the one in a million anecdote where a particular tissue signals with exosomes.
That would be a terrible assumption, but that's the assumption they would like you to make.
My argument is, is that all healthy tissues signal with exosomes and they've known that for quite some time.
My argument is also that our immune system probably uses retroviruses and they've known that for some time.
So finally, these questions make sense to me now.
Why won't anyone?
They won't discuss the background signal being misconstrued because that would reveal the murder.
They won't list all the ways that PCR could be misconstrued against a background and was used differently on an academic bench because then that would reveal the lie.
They won't tell you that the mRNA and the transfection even in their purest form wouldn't have been appropriate because then that would reveal they always knew that they were transfections and transformations.
They definitely won't tell you that they know that infectious clones are really just transformation and transfection in cell culture being lied about as virology because then that would reveal that the no virus position is indeed not quite going to save us from this biosecurity state now, is it?
And finally, they won't address this RNA cannot pandemic thing because that's very different than saying there are no viruses.
If my immune system can signal in some ways that occasionally someone else will react to that wouldn't be so crazy, but it would be very easy to misconstrued as something very dangerous instead of something very normal.
And RNA cannot pandemic dismisses that with three words.
And so it shouldn't surprise you if you go back to 2017 that you can find videos of Robert Malone talking about how vaccines are great and how he's great and how he's a outbreak specialist and he you know cut his teeth with Zika and Ebola and he brokered the Ebola vaccine for Merck and yada yada yada and it shouldn't surprise you that if you go back to 2015 you can find Paul Offit arguing with Mary Holland about how the MMR vaccine is bad or some component of it is or how it's not.
And how anti-vaxxers are bad and they're spreading bad information because vaccines are so great and 10 years later it's the same two clowns still arguing.
About the same things.
Mary Holland doesn't say that all vaccines are bad or intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb. CHD fired me at the end of 23 because I was talking about Robert Malone on my stream and that's actually what they told me.
I was interfering with their interaction with their partners, you know the people that they publish the books for.
Mary Holland was fighting this in 2015 by saying that the MMR vaccine caused autism in her son the exact same thing that Polly said in the UK the exact same thing that Wakefield said in the UK and they all argue that maybe we should separate it or maybe we should test the components and they haven't tested these and Paul Offit was the guy they argued with and they're still arguing with him to.
All the parties in 2020 accepted endemicity including Paul Offit who just did a podcast a couple weeks ago about maybe COVID will be here forever. That's endemicity.
Now here's where I have to say something that I'm not very happy about.
But I love Mike Eden.
Mike Eden really woke me up early about the idea that natural immunity was more important yada yada yada but what I didn't know then that I see now is that natural immunity accepts the existence of the novel virus. It just argues that natural immunity is better than whatever they're offering.
And that's the hamster wheel that he got us running in.
And I'm disturbed by the fact that he has joined the no virus group and promotes their books with it knowing that he knows me.
That we've talked before about this infectious clone idea and the idea that they can make large quantities of DNA or RNA and they can put it on cell cultures and say whatever they want.
And those no virus people ignore that.
And he's also promoted this guy and Jonathan Engler if you like him I'm very sorry but that's the hamster wheel that he got us running in.
And those no virus people ignore that.
And he's also promoted this guy and Jonathan Engler if you like him I'm very sorry but this guy meddled with my life personally and tried to get me to write a virology review with him and if you go to his sub stack and read his virology review it's the worst virology review ever written and somewhere in the 13th page he says something about me.
And that was supposed to be a friendly hat tip.
These people are all liars they've been lying to me for years already I'm sorry but I've seen the ghosts.
And so I'm very upset if you can see my pointer that so many of these people are saying there's no viruses they don't have any nuance at all.
These people say we have to fear free range RNA molecules because there's gain of function these people call them viruses.
The only guy that I can really say hasn't stepped on my nerves is Thomas Binder.
Everybody else even I love Sukrit Bhakhti but he thinks that there's a COVID.
He's sure that there was a novel strange virus that went around it I just don't buy it.
And I'm very upset with Denny Rancourt because I think he's a guy who either can speak to the possibility that the population pyramid in the western world could have been weaponized against him or something like that.
And he's not in the same way for almost a half a year.
And I'm going to just say it.
He went to the international COVID summit in Romania.
And he presented all of his data.
He presented that there was no pandemic and evidence of spread in 2020.
And that the rollout of the shots was causing an increase in all cause mortality.
those people over there who saw him, including Meryl Nass, Robert Malone, Stephen Hatfield
was there. They all came back from Romania and were happy to say that, look, wow, crazy.
Denny Rancourt says that 17 million people were killed from the shot. Not one of them,
not one of them was able to take home the message that also there's no evidence of epidemiological
spread in America in 2020. None of them. And Denny didn't care. Denny didn't say anything.
Denny said he wanted to be strategic about it. He still hasn't corrected them. And it's
shocking to me that now Michael Yeeden and Denny Rancourt are having an active conversation
in the comments of Substack about how Jessica Hockett, the person who set me up for that
virology review, is a great person because she says there's some fraud in New York City.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are being governed by a new kind of totalitarianism that Alice
Huxley told us about. And what it is, is these acolytes on social media are getting us to
argue with them, retweet me. And as long as you do that, you're essentially getting in
a chair and it's a simulation. What X is, is weaponized pile of money using your data,
showing you a false sense of reality, giving you a false sense of being heard, giving everybody
a false sense of free speech. And it's absolutely not that at all. And yet everybody's fighting
over whether Elon Musk is saving us or not and being censored in Brazil. It's all nonsense.
Social media is exactly the trap they want us to accept because that's how they got us
here. Social media is like that guy in that chair. You are sitting with goggles on. You
are fighting the empire. You're chasing Star Wars tie fighters around. And I've been doing
that for four years trying to get these people to say these words. I don't want my name.
Just say it. Just try to say it once. Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances
with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb. And if it works for tetanus, then
great. There's one exception. So those things have been ignored for a very long time. And
the latest iteration of that is this rescue the republic thing that happened on Sunday
where all these people got together and said a prayer and sang songs and said that they
were going to save us. But this is the deal. They're going to admit that processed food
was bad because they can use that against America and destroy her. They're going to
admit that environment in America is polluted and they can use that to undermine America
too. They will admit that cosmetics are toxic and that means the FDA is shit. They will
admit that the old vaccine schedule wasn't tested. They will admit that the COVID shots
were bad too. They rushed it. I mean, you know, they had to save us. And they will promise
to fix all of these agencies and they will promise to fix all of these problems with
science. That's what the Trump unity party with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. joining up as the
health guy is all about. Well, that's what Maha is all about. These people, if you just
listen to their words, they actually say it because they've never risked anything, none
of them. And they won't speak candidly about where they were in 2020 or before. Because
if you do look, you will find that they were put in place. They were put in place to be
ready and they are blaming the American military, most likely because this whole thing has been
coordinated in the beginning by the American military. The American military probably is
responsible for sweeping a few of these people together to create the peak that the entire
world could point to and say, look what's happening in New York. They don't have their
act together. Donald Trump has no tests. Oh my gosh. And that justified the lockdown
down under. It justified the masks in Japan and they could say, look, look, look. And
it's all one big story. Do you know why? No, because they made an own goal this week.
Steve Kirsch admitted the play. You ready to hear it? They will fix all of these with
science and the quote you're listening for is that's why Bobby Kennedy says he's not
anti-vax. Listen for the quote. It's right at the end.
They're safe and effective. You should go get yours because that's what the not that's
not what the news media should be doing. They should be reporting on what's actually happening
and pointing out to people that side effects do occur and that they should always before
getting any medical intervention, understand the risks and the benefits. Now for all vaccines,
it turns out that the excepting extremely rare cases like, you know, maybe this one
might have might have been a case, but
so make sure you understand that maybe this one was a case where the risk benefit was
okay. So he first is going to start this by saying that for this one, for the COVID vaccine,
maybe the risk benefit was okay. So I'm going to play that again because you need to hear
it. First, he's saying that the TV shouldn't say go get your shots because it's not that
simple. They should say more. And then he says that listen carefully because it's important
to parse this out.
Eventually understand the risks and the benefits. Now for all vaccines, it turns out that the
excepting extremely rare cases like, you know, maybe this one might have might have been
a case, but I really don't think so. And pretty much every case I know about the the
benefits of vaccination never outweigh the risk and people should always be refusing
vaccination. We've been telling people that for a long time.
Okay, so you do agree that nobody, nobody's
So we've been telling that to people for a long time. Also very disingenuous because
when Mary Holland went on Democracy Now in 2015, she didn't tell everybody not to take
vaccines. She said that the MRMR vaccine or some component of it hurt her son. And later
they say that maybe it was a genetic predisposition to it. And in fact, Children's Health Defense
promotes many people who still push the idea that genetic disposition and vulnerability
is what underlies vaccine injury. So again, him saying that we've been saying that for
a long time, no one's been saying it.
No one's been saying that the criminal that the vaccine schedule in America is criminal
until I started saying I'm not trying to toot my own horn. I'm trying to say how desperate
this situation is. No one actually says it. And Bobby Kennedy, of course, doesn't say
it. He always says he's not anti vaccine once tested vaccines. So listen to what Steve says
next. This was three days ago.
Could ever take another vaccine.
No, people should not take any of the vaccines that are currently approved. There may be
a time still in five years from now that they actually have a safe vaccine.
No, they won't.
I can't rule that out.
No, I mean, that's why Bobby Kennedy says he's not anti Vax.
That's why Bobby Kennedy says he's not anti Vax. There's no other way to hear that. I'm
sorry. There's no other way to hear that. These people won't talk about the truth. And
the truth is discussable. It is understandable and it is accessible, especially to academic
biologists and to doctors who do their reading.
First and foremost, just to summarize, this population problem, this impending doom has
been looked at from the perspective of the NHS and the budget of America and a lot of
other countries for a very long time. They knew this was coming and they would murder
and lie about it. The way that they did it was they lied about a novel virus going endemic
when all the while a background could explain that. So the combination of the expected rise
in all cause mortality and a few murders, as well as the lying about what they're seeing
in the background, could have already allowed them to see the narrative that was just perfectly
tweaked so that the expected outcomes of the transfection would be misconstrued with the
spreading virus. And of course, the gain of function lab leak story and the gain of function
viral story all played exactly in to the idea that, wow, I don't know if it's transfection
or if it's the spike protein, but it's transfection, I assure you. And that's why they've taken
the strategy of talking the COVID shots are bad. Let's just not talk about 2020. So I
want to just give you one more thing to leave you with something that will tease you. And
I think we're really close to a huge breakthrough. So what they told us versus is there a more
parsimonious biological explanation? Hold your breath. I hope I'm not insulting anybody
here. This is not me thinking alone. This is me standing on the shoulders of giants.
HIV is a retrovirus that attacks T cells, reverse transcriptase and or antibodies are
an indication of infection in case you're unaware. In case you're unaware, HIV is diagnosed
by the presence of antibodies or the presence of reverse transcriptase activity. And that's
the indication of an infection at that time. And maybe it came from bushmeat is something
that even Brett Weinstein believes. What do I think is a more biologically plausible
explanation? Well, our immune system uses retroviruses and reverse transcriptase is
endogenous. And that we actually know. You can look it up in PubMed and find that out.
So although he got the Nobel Prize for discovering it and David Baltimore says reverse
transcriptase is from retroviruses that come from outer space or something, we have reverse
transcriptase in our own physiology. And intramuscular injection of retroviruses from closely related
animals is probably dumb. And we know that Hillary Koprowski and others were making early
vaccines using chimpanzee cells and this kind of thing, which all could have hexosomes or
retroviruses from their own signaling that would be compatible enough with ours to screw
it up. Much easier explanation than bushmeat and magic viruses that transmit funny ways.
Let's look back at the narrative that Mary Holland told us in 2015 and that the movie
Vax told us about poly and about the Wakefield paper that MMR or some component of it caused
my son's autism. Children can inherit genetic vulnerabilities to adjuvants or genetic predispositions
to autism and then the vaccines can trigger it. And so safe vaccines are possible if we could
screen everybody for these vulnerabilities and they're obviously a worthwhile goal. That's
actually where Mary Holland and Robert Malone and Bret Weinstein and all of these people sit.
Only Peter McCullough to my knowledge has said that vaccines are bad, but he hasn't actually
implied that they will never be good, which is what I would suggest at this stage. That's why I
say with my statement that all intramuscular injection with the intent of augmenting the
immune system is dumb. So here's this narrative of Wakefield and Mary Holland and the MMR vaccine.
And remember, they just wanted to split them up or something, right? Intramuscular injection
of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb would
also explain that. The recent age progression to pregnancy and day of birth vaccines is completely
incongruent with everything we know about fetal and infant development. That's another incredibly
large battleship sized reason to be skeptical of the whole vaccine schedule. And yet Mary Holland
is only skeptical of some components or something. And then finally, we need to admit that we need to
sequence everyone regularly because the Human Genome Project, that's what HGP is, the Human
Genome Project was a lie. Now that could be a whole other presentation, but I don't know
how many people are aware of the idea that the Human Genome Project was a lie. But basically all
they did was get a bunch of landmarks and then agree that those landmarks could be found in a
few genomes that they checked and then said they were done. This is a multi-billion base genome
that they don't have any hopes of comparing across genomes unless they have all of them.
And so the Human Genome Project was really an illusion that was created by the U.S. Department
of Energy, that was created with the intention of being able to fuel the coming years and decades
of vaccine and genetic research under the idea that we have to figure out the genetic causes of
all these things, all these vulnerabilities, genetic diseases, childhood diseases, yada yada yada.
And also we need to understand our immune system. All of those questions, the only thing the Human
Genome Project did was make them realize that animals weren't going to do it, that monkeys
wouldn't do it, and that a few people is not nearly enough to get the data they need to even hope to
have enough data for the AI to crack the human genome. And so don't believe them when they say
that they're sequencing you because they don't. They make restriction enzyme maps. It's very
different than sequencing you. And finally, and we can, like I said, that's a whole talk,
finally the COVID thing. There is a novel virus in circulation. Novelty means everyone is vulnerable.
Worst case scenarios endemicity. Billions could die because gain of function is a real danger.
We rushed it. We made mistakes, but there are bad batches and we all got new vaccine tech out of it,
y'all. So that's really exciting. We've got a new technology from a pandemic, good and bad.
I think the real truth is that a rise in all-cause mortality was expected, and all nations involved
had this shared problem, China too. There was no way to differentiate a pre-existing background
from something they say is going or already is endemic. And so that already gives me a pretty
good reason to believe they're lying. And placebo could be easily used to stage a manufacturing and
safety and public health miracle. And incidentally, also the controlled demolition of America because
then the whole world will blame this on us. And that's the intention. I think they need to destroy
us because the rest of you are in much tighter cages with much less opportunity to exit.
And so the more that we don't realize that America is that one opening where the rest
of Western nations might be able to live vicariously through a free America until
something else can be changed in your countries. But right now we're the only ones with free speech
and guns. And so I think we have an extra special reason that we need to fight. So murder and lies?
Absolutely. To cover up the fact that the US vaccination schedule was a criminal enterprise,
to cover up the fact that they always knew transfection was a crime and that RNA pandemic.
I really think that's the best way to summarize it. This is the place to find me and I'll answer
any questions you need me to answer. If anybody's still there. Yes, yes, we're still here.
Jay, thank you so much for this work you've done. Thank you for sharing your passion,
your provocative perspectives. So to give people a chance to be provocative.
Congratulations on the style of your presentation, Jay. You know, as a professional speaker,
as I am, you do brilliantly and share complex ideas and then having you sitting in the corner,
I've got to learn from you how to do that because I know other people do that, but I just
haven't got around to mastering that. So that in itself is masterful. There are many, many elements
of what you're talking about. That sheer complexity. It's wonderful to have the conversations
around this while they're out there killing us, while they're out there not rescuing people from
Hurricane Helene. And we can be, you know, this, this, the complexity of what the depth of knowledge
that you have and the ability of most people to understand it is minimal. So that humanity's
ability to unite around what you're saying is challenging. However, we don't all have to know
everything about everything. And, you know, I love your depth of knowledge and I could spend hours
discussing that with you for each to unpack each part of your proposition, particularly, you know,
from what you've learned, the perspective of what big pharmaceutical companies do, their behaviour,
Mike Yeadon's perspective on the human beings in these enterprises. And then we had Philip Altman
on Sunday, a man who spent 50 plus years in Big Pharma who thought that, you know, Big Pharma
generally acts honestly and with integrity. And, you know, the one thing that people forget is that
if I'm in a car accident, I love the anesthetics that pharmaceutical companies have produced.
And doctors, you know, some of our members here say, all doctors should go to hell,
except when I break my leg or, you know, I'd rather have an anesthetic and not have a leg cut
off if something goes wrong. So there's this nuance around all this complexity. Thank you so
much for sharing your genius. Stephen, the next 15 minutes is yours. 15 minutes limited.
Sure. So, so first of all, JJ, thanks very much for coming on. And also, I wanted to say,
if you want to speak about the human genome project in another meeting, then
you can do that. Would you like to do that? Sure, you can schedule that. Okay, we'll discuss it all.
The other thing is that you mentioned some people. So Jonathan Engler, you mentioned Mike Eaton,
Thomas Binder, Sukrit Bhakdi, Dennis Gronkud. I get the impression that you like Thomas Binder and
you also- I like them all. I like those. Those are the people that stayed in the,
in the, on target for the longest. Sure. So Mike Eaton, I think, is capable of changing his mind.
So I do too. I do too. And that's why I said what I said today, because I don't think he, if he
hears it, I don't think that he will take it the wrong way. I think he'll hear. So would it be a good idea too?
So would it be a good idea? So I think Mike Eaton is very good at kind of changing his mind when
necessary. And also he's very good at getting the people on side. He somehow manages to get complex
ideas out to the people. I've seen, I saw a video today of him talking in Trafalgar Square. I think
it was. He was masterful. And so he seemed to know how to message to the people in a way that they
don't really understand, but they get the seriousness of what he's saying to them.
And so I don't know. But I was thinking that maybe if Mike would agree, we could have it
you talking to Mike Eaton. If you would like that, so we could do that. Would that be helpful to you?
I mean, any way that I could get in contact with him again, it would be great. He's just a very
hard guy to talk to. And I think my emails get lost in the flood. So sure. So you and Mike Eaton,
I think that would be brilliant. So of those people I've just named, there are five of them
as far as I can see. There may be others. Is there anyone else there who you think should be in that
conversation? Thomas Bind, do you mention this? I like Thomas. I wonder if I could convince
Sukrit Bhakdi of these infectious clones, because this is really, in my mind, the issue is that what
people are failing to grasp is that what the no virus people have taken and misused is the idea
that virology is a hoax. And I definitely agree that the isolation of viruses, the purification
of viruses, and the culturing of viruses is all an illusion. These are words that they misuse.
They misrepresent. And they're absolutely right about that. But what they don't seem to want to
accept is that all of these things are methodologically bypassed once they decide,
okay, well, the sequence that we say we're using is this one, and we're going to make it.
And so yes, there are papers and papers and papers where the culturing of viruses is
misconstrued, or rather the killing of cell culture is misconstrued as the culturing of viruses.
But that doesn't mean that transfection of cell culture or transfection of animals doesn't result
in a short-term transmissible, detectable signal that they can still misconstrue as spread. And the
reason why that's important is because, as I tried to emphasize in my talk, the only way you can make
grams of a pure DNA molecule is in a pharmaceutical methodology, in a manufacturing recombinant
biology techniques. The only way you can make a large quantity of RNA is the same way. So what's
crazy is that you have to believe that if you make an RNA molecule with a certain sequence,
that it can also do it itself. Because if there is an RNA that started out in a mud puddle and is now
everywhere, then we're talking about trillions of molecules from a few. And it didn't happen because
you put it in a factory and you carefully made it like that lady in the Inovio video.
We're talking about somehow or another the molecule becomes spontaneously able to do that
in the presence of humans and in white-tailed deer. And that's ridiculous. It's ridiculous.
So JJ, so those five people, Jonathan Englund, Mike Eaton, Thomas Binder, Sukrit Bhakdi, and
Dennis Rundkuhl, do you think it would be what we could try? I think Mike Eaton would come and
Thomas Binder would come to speak to you. For sure they would, but I don't think Jonathan
Englund is a good guy, so I don't think we should invite him. I'm sorry. Although I think he's pretty
close to thinking what you do. I've had him. He's been in contact with me personally for months
last year. And basically, I don't think he was a good guy. I mean, he didn't, he said he was
trying to help me. But if you just think about what I told you today, I told him this that a year ago.
He's already heard this personally. I've argued with him personally and discussed it with him
personally. And then the result of that was him blocking me and writing a weird virology review
on his substack, which is really awful. It basically accepts virology says this, virology says that.
It covers nothing. It summarizes nothing. It helped no one. And he said that that was what
he wanted my help with. And it was extraordinary. I mean, I can show you the Twitter conversation
that I had with him when he sent me the draft. I told him this is not the virology review that
the world needs. This is exactly what they I could have written that that review in 2020. This is not
what we need. You need to listen. And he so so the other reason why I have to say this because
you're giving me the mic and these people need to hear it. The other reason why I know it's true is
because him and Jessica Hockett and Nick Hudson insisted that I not criticize Claire Craig. Now,
everyone on this call needs to understand that Claire Craig almost has to be a bad guy. And the
reason why is because before the pandemic, she was a clinical pathologist involved in the thousand
genomes project. She was sequencing people to diagnose genetic diseases. She has exactly the
resume of somebody that would be on board with inverting our sovereignty so that we could collect
medical data around the world, genetic data. She believes in that stuff. And crazy enough, she wrote
the the review or not the review the objection to the PCR test with Kevin McKernan, who cut his
teeth in the human genome project and has been my main antagonist for the last year and a half called
the infectious clone idea chem trail retarded on his sub stack. What I just explained to you, he said
was chem trail retarded. And it's the truth, ladies and gentlemen, it is the absolute molecular
biological truth about biology. And it's unfortunate because that guy was on my stream in 2022 talking
to me about all the reasons why the RNA was impure, and it was dirty, and it would never work,
and it wasn't gonna and then came out years later with CHD to say, oh, it's the double stranded DNA.
And at the same time, he's also blocked me and also been nothing but negative about me in the
worst way possible. This guy is terrible. Yeah, so he's really sad thing is the really sad thing is
is that on that paper is Mike Eden, Claire Craig, Thomas Binder, Kevin McKernan, and a few other
people who have turned out to be very much lab leak type people sequencing the virus type people.
Only Thomas Binder has remained unscathed on that whole list. And even Mike Eden
recently is starting to get on shaky ground for me. So I have to say about Claire Craig,
I was always a little bit suspicious because she's a British medical doctor, and so am I.
But she wasn't for someone who was so exercised, allegedly by what had gone on. She wasn't asking
the right questions, for example, post mortems, that kind of thing. Absolutely. She went on the
internet in 2021 to tell everybody that PCR testing was a bit like producing restaurant food.
And if you want it to be fast and cheap, then you're not going to get it to be very
accurate or tasty. And if you want it very accurate, then it's not going to be so fast.
And it's going to be very expensive. That was her job. Yeah, she got us to accept it.
And she always seems to be extremely anxious to get the microphone and write the first draft of
any letter, if you understand what I mean. So these people have to be watched very carefully.
I'm not saying what's happening. What I tried to do with my talk was give you questions that you
could pose to them on Twitter or anywhere else. Questions that if they answer them with any
earnesty, they will reveal that they will be admissions. They will force admissions.
Well, Claire Craig didn't like my questions when she appeared on this
platform. And later I was trying to get her attention about something.
And she did. I can't remember exactly what happened, but I challenged her. I said,
that was rude. Wow, Craig. Claire. And she didn't answer. So that told me that she was guilty as
charged. But anyway, that's by the by. But I think we do need to think about who is the real deal.
I think that Mike Eden is the real deal. I think he might have been led astray by
some people, you know. But I think he's struggling to get to the truth, because only with the truth
will we be able to hold these people properly to account and identify our real enemies. I think he
understands that. So Thomas Binder, I get the same impression. Susie Bagdee, I get the same
impression. But the problem with him is that his whole life has been about virology, it seems. And
so I don't know, I think he just finds it very difficult. Not that I'm saying that there are no
viruses. I don't think that's helpful at the moment. But I think all the stuff that has gone
on in his career, I don't know. But I think that Sukrit Bagdee really wants to make things better.
He's got a young son, I think he's maybe seven or eight now. So obviously, he has an interest
in making the world a better place. But I think if we get Mike Eden, Thomas Binder and Sukrit Bagdee
and you on together, that would be quite a forceful, wouldn't it? Yeah, I mean, I just hope that we
would be, or maybe we have to try and focus on keeping on the subject. But yeah, I mean,
I would be open to it. Definitely. What about Danny Rancourt? I've already had a couple interviews
with him, and I'm supposed to have another with him again. But I guess, I mean, my main frustration
with Danny is that I think he's one of these guys who he either, I don't want to put it like this,
but this is the best way that I can express it. He either really needs to accept the fact that
all Western nations had this population problem to deal with, and that they all expected all cause
mortality to go up for the next few years. Or he asked to explain to me why that's not true.
Because what he said to me in the last interview when I brought it up was that he didn't think it
would be useful for them. And I just don't, I don't understand that response. Because to me,
they didn't kill that many people. There wasn't that, I mean, it was what Jessica Hockett says,
it was 25,000 people in five weeks in New York City. And if that was all they had to do, and then
everything else was just kind of expected, the old people were expected to be in the hospital and
expected to get sick, then I don't think that it's very hard to understand what happened. I really
don't. And that's interesting that there's not one actuary that will remind us that we knew this was
coming, even though there are interviews of somebody like Ted Turner talking about how
the coming Medicare, Medicaid could could bankrupt America. They knew this 20 years ago,
back when cable TV was a thing. I don't understand how this this coinciding here now is something
that everybody is just, they're not talking about it. It's as odd as not talking about how handy
placebos would be. So JJ, when you first started talking tonight, I was thinking, almost immediately,
I was thinking, I wonder who JJ would say the people on this call and the people watching the
video later, there are lots of those who should they listen to at the present time to understand
better rather than get more confused by listening to the wrong people. So who, in your opinion,
would you pick out? Would it be Mike and Mike and Mike and and and Sukrit and and Thomas, those three.
Okay, even if Mike is getting is getting some part about virology too simple or too
absolutely, that doesn't matter because he's been ahead on the digital currency and digital ID,
which is also inevitably part of this, because that's how they're going to keep track of all
this data that I understand. So can I just ask you, I don't know whether you can do it, but can you
say one sentence about each of these five people who you've mentioned? Why you differ from them?
What are they saying that you don't agree with? So Jonathan Engler, what would you say is the,
I know you've had a discussion with him and you don't like him or you don't seem to like him,
but actually what is the difference in your thinking about what has happened
to what Jonathan Engler says? And then we'll go to Mike Eden and Thomas Binder, Sukrit Bhakdi and
Dennis Rangur and that'll be the end of my questions, Charles. So, Thomas. Okay, so Jonathan
Engler, I've had too much personal interaction with him to know that he's not being genuine. So
whatever he agrees with me on, he's absorbing. That's what I would say. Thomas Binder and I have
had several conversations in private, really actually also in 2020, and I am pretty confident
that Thomas Binder has been one of the most exceptional examples of somebody who hasn't
gotten into any arguments that don't likely have an exit and that's why he's been so good.
Absolutely. I think Mike Eden is another guy who, again, I have tried to save him from the
oversimplification of no viruses before. I understand why that's a very enticing little
place to go. Mostly it's because the belief in contagion and this kind of thing is very easy to
dismiss at this point in our societies, but I'm not willing to do that. But I don't think that,
as Mike has also pointed this out, I don't think that that is really that important if you start
with the fact that they murdered people and lied about it. And if we figure that part out, then in
five years we can start working on this virology question. And Sukrit Bhakdi, I think like Mike
Eden and others, he faced so much pressure. I think Germany is one of the worst places to be
for this. And so anything that he gets wrong or that I don't see eye to eye on him, I'm not really
sure what it would be. I don't disagree. I mean, I think that there must be some kind of what I will
call packet genetic communication. There has to be packet genetic communication because there's
examples of it in the brain. There's examples of it in the gut. Bacteria communicate with
bacteriophages all the time. So we know that packet communication on the genetic level happens.
And so the idea that my physiology could interact with somebody else's physiology and result in an
immune response is also not crazy, but it is also possible that it's not contagion like we talk about
it. And so again, I just think that those five people are awesome. How do you disagree with him?
Yeah, Danny Rancourt, I disagree with him because, well, first he didn't push the conclusion that
there's no epidemiological evidence of spread when he was allowed to present it to all these people.
He didn't hold them to it, which I found really disappointing. And he's still not holding them to
it. You can go look. And then also, I really think in the interview I just had with him where we were
interviewed on the Levine show, he very quickly dismissed the idea that the population pyramid
could be a source of a background all-cause mortality increase that the national security
states of our countries have misconstrued as a crisis. Yeah. So anyway, I agree with it. So
Mike Eden and Sukrit Bhakti were the two people in the world I needed to get in contact with in 2020,
and they succeeded. And Thomas Binder had an extraordinary experience at the hands of the
Swiss government. So I think- They put him in a loony bin, didn't they? Absolutely. Yeah.
They kept him for a week, I think. But of course, a week's a long time. So if you're being kept in
communicado in a psychiatric hospital and you're a doctor, you're not going to be feeling very well.
And a week could be six months, you know, at the end of the sixth day. You're thinking,
when's this going to end? He didn't know. So he's really suffered. You've really suffered, JJ.
And I agree, it's a very good test to see who has suffered. Mike Eden, I know for a fact.
The only thing that suffers in this is my ego, let's be honest here. My family is fine.
I have had a couple decent jobs working for Bobby Kennedy until I got to my name in his book,
and I had six months of work with CHD. And I have got a lot of supporters that pay my rent.
And we just paid my rent now, so I'm back to zero again. But whatever, I got a whole month to earn
it. And so I don't- Great, JJ. I admire your bravery and you're not feeling sorry for yourself. And
that's very attractive to people viewing. All right. Time's up. So I want- I was coming to the
end, Charles. So anyway, what I think you've done, JJ, which is very, very important, because they've
deliberately built in confusion, in my opinion. And so all these people are inviting all the other
people. These are the honest ones now. We've got the others who are infiltrators, maybe, you know.
We don't know who they are. But everyone's saying, even on our side, join my cult. Join my cult.
Please join my cults. Well, make sure that everybody understands that I'm not- I don't
think that you have to do something really, really wrong to be participating. For example,
just to give you one, Pierre Cori is a guy who says that he left his job in Madison, Wisconsin,
to go to New York City in May to help with the crisis there. But of course, you know from Jessica
Hockett's data that the crisis was already over by the time he got there. But still, his experience
there led him to testify in front of the Senate a month later about what was going on in New York
City, and also led to him being an expert witness in the Floyd trial, where he said that the Floyd
was definitely suffocated by the police and it wasn't an overdose. So Pierre Cori also,
conveniently for the national security state narrative, stuck exclusively to Ivermectin for
like three years. Didn't talk about anything else. And actually, Pierre Cori is the guy who
told everybody in the world that people were low on their pulse ox and needed pure oxygen,
and that they were running out of oxygen in New York City. And that's why the comfort ship
that pulled into the harbor in New York City didn't need to have people on it. It had an oxygen plant,
and they actually showed them carting tanks of oxygen from that ship to hospitals to give to
people in the hallways. And so they were administering pure oxygen. There's even
Kyle Seidel from New York that had a YouTube video where he showed that they were going
at 60 liters a minute and actually said that out loud. And that's way more than enough to induce
ARDS in about an hour and a half. It's insane. And JJ, what you just described is the
the practice of medicine, as we're invited to believe it should be, is pathetic. And every
doctor in the world should realize that it's pathetic. All right. And public health is always
a tyranny, in my opinion, will always be a tyranny. Charles, Charles, you have the hardest job in the
whole world trying to moderate Stephen Frost. It's like, okay, when you put the group, when you put
the group ahead of the individual, as they do in public health, you're going to get problems. And
that's what we've got. We were told this at medical school, public health could lead to tyranny.
I think it's inevitable it will lead to tyranny. And they knew it. Next. Yep. So,
Albert, you had your hand up first, and then suddenly you became third. Is that another zoom
trick? No, it's not. I'll go third. I like that and third. Beautiful. So Sandra is from California.
Jay, she's the opening batsman. She's wonderful on integrative health. Sandra.
She's the opening batsman. Yeah. Lead off hitter. Can you hear me? Yeah, I sure can. Okay. Hi,
hi, JJ. Thanks for presenting. Your stuff is always awesome. And I love your giga and biological stuff
as well. I had a couple questions. One, I emailed you before, but I never got an answer. So I'm going
to use this opportunity to ask. I think it was one of the first or second zooms you did with us.
And I have tried to find this section. I have listened to everything and I still can't find it.
That's why I'm asking it. Okay. At one point, you had mentioned Linus Pauling and his theories of,
I don't even really remember what it is, bacteria or viruses. And it was all theories,
but everybody assumed it was validated at some point. And that kind of started this whole thing
rolling in the wrong direction. Do you remember talking about that? Are you sure it was Linus
Pauling? Pretty sure. Because you're also talking about vitamin C, which was obviously his thing.
Can you give me a rough date? I mean, I don't want to sound like a fool, but I read and cover
so much. It's possible that I covered it and thought it was great. And then I haven't covered
it again. And so it's just been kind of a lot of the way. It would have been not this summer, but
last summer, one of the zooms you did. And like I said, I re-listened to all of this.
This. Oh, okay. Well, then I can figure that out. Why don't you give me your email and then I'll
see what if I can find the original email too, because that might be the easiest way.
Okay. I'll do that. Thank you. Cause that's just been funny. I'm really sorry. I can't answer the
question right now. That's a pity. That's all right. It's just for those who don't know the
Linus Pauling was the double Nobel prize when he won a Nobel prize for chemistry, I think it was.
And he also won a Nobel prize for peace, strangely, but he was the biggest advocate of vitamin C.
And he ended up at the end of his life. He was taking 17 grams of vitamin C a day. Oh, wow. But
it still didn't save him. Nope. Cause his time was up from what old age. I didn't think he'd
All right, Sandra. That was the first one.
My second question is, you know, this population thing is awesome. You presented that about a week
or a week and a half ago on your show. And we know that the death numbers were supposed to go up due
to the aging population, but we also know there was a lot of criminal activity going on in the
hospitals that encouraged that those deaths. But I'm also looking now, we certainly still have excess
mortality of young adults and children, which we assume is from the transfection. So I guess what
I'm saying is it seems like the deaths are continuing to go up, which they would with the
population curve, but they're going up with younger people as well, which is not normal.
So I guess I'm just saying you understand what I'm kind of saying.
I do. And I think the thing that I would try to add to that is
Sukrit Bhakti was the guy who broke it for me when he explained that the first shot you might get
away with it, but the second shot you won't because you will already have activated your immune
system once. And so if you have antibodies, the antibodies will direct the immune system to the
places where it is, and then you could have catastrophic damage to your endothelium, whatever.
And that seems to be what has played out. So what I would suggest that you try to model in your head
is that if they knew that two shots would get you like that, then the best way to avoid that
to happen was make sure that nobody got two live shots. If the first round of a lot of shots was
not hot, and the second round was or vice versa, and they knew anything about the distribution,
they could avoid people taking three hot shots and have only a very few people actually win
that lottery. And so then it becomes a thing where the narrative is it's really rare.
And they engineered it to be that way. I think that's the only explanation for why I have friends
who insist that they've had two, and they didn't feel anything. And then I have one friend who's
dead. Like, it's not possible unless there were so many placebos. It's just not possible because the
people that felt it felt it. But won't the death stats keep increasing over time and supersede the
population curve? That's the problem, Sandra. I guess I don't think that any of us, I certainly
haven't done the research to know to what extent and to what magnitude they expect this to happen.
Do they expect all-cause mortality in the next five years to double? Remember that part of the
problem is that with the American model, because old people are so sick and because we have so many
wonderful end-of-life medicines and care for them, the average cost of the last six months of
somebody on Medicare is a half a million dollars. And so if they can, instead of having it be six
months that they're in care, it could be a few weeks because they give them pure oxygen and then
remdesivir or whatever the combination is, then they're saving a tremendous amount of money on
every person that comes into the hospital that could get end-of-life care for months or even years
whereas opposed they could get COVID and be out of here. They could get a RSV vaccine and a
pneumonia vaccine and a shingles vaccine and be out of here too because they're doing that in America
as well. So I think the point is that if we don't know that this all-cause mortality increase was
expected, then there's this baseline signal that they can distort into whatever they want to. If
we don't acknowledge that opioids are killing all age groups of adults, then there's another
signal that they can distort into whatever they want to. And so this is the kind of thing I'm
trying to nail down, but it's a good question. Okay, I still have two more. Okay, the other one was
since there was nothing that was spread around but sprinklings of things, okay, that might have been
local distributions of whatever, of some sort of a bio weapon. I mean, I had a lot of patients that
have flus with clots and that's just, I mean, I've never seen flus with clots before and I'm still
having a hard time reconciling how they got it when it really wasn't very common out here in
Southern California. Yeah. You know, wouldn't have been pretty common. I mean, it was such a small,
smattering, but it's still not a typical, it wasn't normal. And this is before the shots and
all that. So you can attribute it to that. Right, right. I don't have a lot of experience, like
long-term experience with these kinds of epidemics. So I don't know what happened when the flu came
through last time. I don't know how, if they were checking for these kinds of things. Because part
of that is the problem too. I am very compelled by the idea that embalmers have encountered
something that they've never encountered before. But it's harder for me to put that in place for
doctors, not to, I'm not insulting you or your profession. I'm just saying that it depends on
whether you were looking before. And if we weren't looking before and then we started looking now,
the propensity of that signal to be there, baby, just distorted, like we didn't know before.
And I'm not saying you're wrong. Well, I'm not saying it wasn't looking. They came in with
strokes related to their, you know, in with their flu at a young age. And that's just not normal.
I mean, it's not. And that was, this was pre-transfection. Yep. So let me just,
you know, I understand. Let me just throw this out there for everybody, because I don't want,
I wasn't going to say it because I didn't want anybody to be able to take it out of context.
But I want to also say it now, because I think it's important for, you know, you guys are all
adults. You can think about something and not believe it. But one curious thing about what
was happening in Japan and the international COVID Summit 6 was of course the objection to
self-replicating RNA being used in an mRNA transfection. So the basic gist of it is,
they were going to put an RNA dependent polymerase in with the, with the spike protein
or whatever, so that the mRNA itself would be able to make a protein that could copy it. So they
would have to give you less mRNA because the mRNA would amplify itself inside of you. Now, the thing
that bothers me about this is that I've had this gut feeling since I saw Steven Hatfield on the
Tommy podcast several times with Robert Malone and then saw Steven Hatfield at the international
COVID Summit in Romania, where they all finally met Danny Rancourt and heard his data. And the
reason why I'm concerned about it is because Steven Hatfield is a long time biosecurity state
operative in America, was involved in the Ebola outbreaks, and was actually the first guy that was
accused of being the possible leak of the anthrax after 2001. Now, of course, he was cleared,
but how he was cleared is a little strange and then the guy that they blamed it on is a Christian
who killed himself. So it doesn't really all make sense, but let me just say that it started to dawn
on me that if Steven Hatfield was the guy that they sent to Africa in order to monitor the, the
Ebola outbreak, and interestingly, the head of DITRA is an Australian named David Hone,
and the head of US AMRID is an Iranian named Sina Bavari, and they share a patent for a virus-like
particle, a virus-like particle, a VLP that essentially is the same shape as the Ebola virus
capsid. And so it suddenly dawned on me that, wait, what if all of these outbreaks are actually just
them remotely deploying a self-replicating RNA that they hope they can track? And so the SARS
1 virus could have just been the release of an infectious clone self-replicating RNA that they
wanted to track to see how far it would go. And the mayors could have been the same thing. And,
and in fact, they could have been looking in the background for these self-transmitting RNAs so that
they could use them against populations. Now, imagine that we get all the way to 2024, and now
they're going to tell you a story about a vaccine that has a self-replicating RNA in it so that if
there is a signal that gets over here to America, maybe it's a signal from the self-replicating
RNA that these nasty people deployed. When in reality, Ralph Baric could be covering up
using a story about coronaviruses when in reality he's just providing cover for the release of
self-replicating RNA bioweapons, and has been for a couple decades. And the same with EcoHealth
Alliance and the same with, with MetaBiota. You have three clown shows running around, getting on
60 minutes in PBS NewsHour, telling us about the infinite variety of viruses in the background.
And in the meantime, you have a biosecurity state trying to figure out how to transfect populations
and calling it coronaviruses. And this, it seems a lot more plausible to me than a lot of the other
explanations that we've been given, including, well, it was a spill and it spread everywhere
because it had fear and cleavage sites and an insert from HIV. It seems a lot more likely,
given what I just explained to you, that we've had the ability to make large quantities of
DNA and RNA for a couple decades. In fact, that's one of the only things the Human Genome Project
provided for us. Okay, Sandra, we're going to keep moving. We've only got 35 minutes to go.
Can I ask, I'll be quick. The other, the other one is, you know, the new smallpox slash monkeypox
approvals where they say that the injections can spread and infect others. Any comment on that?
No, it's the same thing. I think it's, it's the fact that they don't understand this biology. So
they're kind of testing it and they're, they're, they're doing it under the guise of public health
and they're doing it under the guise of vaccination when they actually, they, they, they're,
they're just trying to figure it out and we are their subjects. Got it. Thank you. Thank you so
much. Thanks, Sandra. Glenn. Hi, I'm very much on board with your theme of it being a transfection of
a artificial spike protein. And essentially that there were two waves. There was the wave of the
virus of that concentrated spike protein and there's the wave of the poison from the vaccines.
And so there's a lot of data about the poison of the vaccines, a lot less clear around the cycle
with the starting transfection. Now, I, I, one of the things that seems to be sort of a gap in your
story and simply, I don't think you've either figured it out or gotten the right information
from anyone is specifically how did the delivery of that concentrated transvection get done?
Yeah, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't have any idea. There's lots of ways it could be done. I mean,
one of the, oh, go ahead. I'm not looking for you to speculate. I'm going to give you. Oh, okay. Oh,
great. That's even better. Yes. Oh, yeah. Awesome. But before I do, once you start with a very high
concentration like that, presumably the people that have that high concentration have the highest
death rates. Is that correct? I would assume that. I mean, if they produce the most toxin, right,
that would be the idea. Absolutely. And at each generation, it becomes diluted and it becomes
less and less toxic over time. Either by concentration or by, or by, you know, random,
not, not, not propagating. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Have you, have you speculated on how many generations
it would take before that original high concentration would have ended up being non, non impactful?
Yeah, well, I have, I have, I have used the analogy that if you say what I just said earlier,
if you imagine that SARS-CoV-1 was one clone unit released in a place in China, and then they
tracked it through 10,000 people and 700 deaths, and then they kind of lost it. And so now you
could think of whatever they released in Wuhan and Iran. Iran could have been different. I mean,
Italy could have been something else. You know, each one of these places doesn't have to be the
same thing or the same sequence, especially, and I can't stress this enough, if the general
background is hot. So if the general background is hot for RNA dependent RNA polymerase,
then using that in your coronavirus PCR test isn't specific enough. If the, if the background is-
Okay, okay. I'm going to, I'm going to really win because now you're starting to speculate and put
together a trial hypothesis. And I'm going to give you a much stronger case and hypothesis,
and very precise, that, that it was delivered inside of individuals that were injected with
a substantial amount of the original concentrated artificial spike protein. That these individuals
happened to work for flu vaccine companies based in China. That this distribution mechanism started
in late October of 2019, where these individuals were injected and then told to go to their various
places. They were couriers, that they took the initial vaccine samples and took them
to various sites. They had regions where they were involved, and they were then directed to go to
their, their standard region and to visit each of the pharmacies and so, and doctors that they dealt
with as part of their distribution channels. And that, that is in fact where the infections occurred.
And then they were told to go on vacation and live it up in the bars and live it up in the concerts.
And therefore, wherever you were, more and more of those people were going to be infected.
Now the reason we can tell this is accurate is because the number of deaths that occurred to the,
to COVID was very concentrated in a certain number of states. Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey. And one other state, you know, that other state was
Michigan. Now Michigan isn't even adjacent to those others. So it tells you that it was very
precise in who they gave it to and where they wanted to put it and how they were going to measure
that. So there's a flu place in Michigan? Where did they send them in Michigan?
If you just do the state, you can figure out these numbers just by looking at all the states
in February, March, and April of 2020. You're going to see a whole bunch of crazy ass spikes
that only happened in those states and didn't happen anywhere else in the United States.
I mean, I don't, I think that what you're saying makes very, very testable predictions and it makes
very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very,
chaseable leads. I mean, I, I, I think what I'm suggesting actually still remains more parsimonious.
That just simply means that they used a background signal and lied about it, murdered people. If they
actually distributed a meaningful amount of, of a bio weapon, they wouldn't actually have meaningful
control over anything. And I think they had complete control the whole time. And that's the,
that's the part that doesn't make sense to me. The point is once they got the fear going,
the fear and the lockdowns and all those other processes is what killed everybody across the US.
Right. So they didn't need to do, they just needed the lies. Yeah. Those were, were just, you know,
average flu with, with stress injected and other things that just caused extra deaths in 2020.
I mean, the, the, the jackup in, in real death rates happened in 2021 and beyond because that's
what the vaccine did and, and Ed Dowd and, and, and John Baldwin and stuff, their stuff on all
that is really highly accurate. But the, the issue here is first, where did it get seeded, the fear,
and they needed some number of deaths to actually occur there. And, and they got them through these
couriers in specific regions where they were sent and they basically, they were physically
deliverers. They, they went around and they, they got sick and they started to cough and the vast,
virtually all of them died because they had the first high concentration. It didn't matter how
good their health was. They could not survive that higher concentration of the clone.
All right. I still, I still think that, I still think that then there would be more
epidemiological evidence of spread in those areas. I don't see how you get there.
The numbers are, are pretty direct. I'll send, I'll send, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
I'm going to send you some material in, in the signal chain connection I have with you.
Okay. And then you can take a look at it.
Perfect. Thank you, Glenn. Albert, you're next.
JJ, how you doing, my man? Good to see you.
Good. Hey, I just wanted to come on here and, you know, say out loud and in public that I,
I appreciate all your work. I follow you. I watch most of your, most of your videos live on
Twitch and, you know, I think I've kept my, my arms straight this whole time.
I'm, you know, I'm proud to be anti-vax. I didn't know I was anti-vax previous to 2020. I had just
been zero vax myself. And that's in large part to my mother growing up, but, you know, I didn't like
needles anyways. So, you know, it wasn't a big deal to not want to get flu shots or any kind of shots,
really, let alone vaccines. But now this pandemic happened and it seems like, you know, kind of,
you're forced to declare what you are. And, you know, I'm not, I think we were kind of seeing that
we have these people that are basically like pro-vax, but just anti-this-vax. And it's like,
those, you know, I get, I get kind of a, that drives me crazy too, because we're not going to
take down the pharmacobol until we, you know, roll the dice and say, Hey, I want to take,
I'll take the risk and throw all the vaxes into the abyss. And, you know, I'm willing to take that
risk. You know, cause I really, I just, I'm a simple Christian and I think that God made the baby
perfect. And why would you want to puncture God's perfect design to throw junk in there and think
that, think that a man can do it better than God. So just from, because I'm just simple like that,
and I'm only a medical biller, that's what makes me kind of anti, anti-vax. No, thank you. No,
thank you, please for me. And, but God bless you, JJ. I appreciate you. And, you know, it's when
I'm the type of person when somebody says, Oh, don't, don't read this book. Don't listen to that
person. Yes. The type of person I am, I'll go straight like a beeline and read the book,
listen to what some people say, because I do not like people telling me, like who to, who to listen,
who not to listen to, especially not that, not that people say, don't listen to you,
because I don't really hang around or listen to those people. But just to say, I feel you, I, I,
I know you probably feel like, or I probably feel like, like I'm persona non grata myself. You know,
it's like, it's like I'm invisible. And then what I do in the various stuff too, compared to other
people. But the Eagles with you, JJ, God bless you. I love you, dude. Thank you, man. Thank you
very much. It means a lot. And if anybody doesn't know, Albert has been working on ways to probe the
VAERS database and several times other people have kind of taken what he's done and maybe neutered
it or done it slightly less thorough or misrepresented it. And it's, it's after a while,
the pattern has become pretty obvious. It's, it's annoying. Well said. Well said.
All right, Tom, now you've got three hands up. That's all we're gonna have time for. And then
a couple of closing questions. So don't make the questions too long, Tom and others and Uwe and,
and RNOS. What's the R stand for in RNOS?
We'll find out in a minute, I guess. Hi, Tom. Good to see you again. Is your refrigerator open
or is that something else? This is a room that gets sunshine. We have a, we're by the lake and
it's a, sorry, it's a pantry. It's a hundred year, 110 year old house.
Jay, I reckon Tom looks like he's in a spaceship every time I say Tom, I think he's in a spaceship.
That's better for my ego. He's in space. He's in space.
Yeah, I, I follow you, you know, I, I took a little bit of a break and when I came back, you were
immersed in compassion for people that thought they were, that were injured. And it was a
huge change. And, you know, I've watched, I've watched you dealing with people, you know,
I watched you break away from Jessica Hockett and so forth and so on. So, yeah, you're,
you're kind of enigmatic, but I do, I respect all you're doing and I learn from you.
Yeah, I have too many questions. So maybe I'll just try to focus on
one, maybe a couple. One is this idea of, if there is in fact, if there are MRNA viruses,
could you go through like an example of one, like I've been away from this for a while,
but I don't know if measles is one or not. And then explain like, is that an endemic thing or,
you know, why does that seasonally come and go? And based on what you've said, it sounds like
unless they're doing the new infectious clones, we should be just done with COVID. It shouldn't
be around anymore. So that's, that's one concept. And then I'll just limit it to two questions.
The other one, if Jim is not around and you probably know Jim Thomas, somebody's got to
bring up the spike protein and the Moderna sequences and the virus and the S1, S2, you,
you usually dismiss all that. And I don't entirely understand why you dismiss the furin cleavage
site and so forth. And so if you could go a little bit more slowly over, over those points.
Okay. I'll see what I can, what I can get in a few minutes here. So
the idea that I'm dismissing the spike protein has a lot to do with the idea, the fact that
all of these narratives about the spike protein in the vaccine causing an immune response that is
forcing the immune, the back, the virus to change and mutate into Omicron and what,
all this stuff that Heret von den Bosch is talking about, all relies on the idea that the reason why
it's spreading faster than any virus at the beginning of the pandemic, they told us it had
a higher R naught than measles. And the main reason why was because these furin cleavage sites make it
very ace, it can just go anywhere because once it's cleaved, the interesting idea is, is that
apparently the spike protein is active. And so when you make viral particles and release them,
the spike protein is already cut once you've made it in your own body, because the, the furin cleavage
enzyme is inside of the endosome. And so they've known this apparently when it comes to flu viruses
that they make in eggs, if they develop a fear and cleavage site, then it can be a real nasty thing
to inject in somebody. And so they've always known that this receptor or whatever this protein is on
the outside of these particles can make the particles in their models more infectious if they
have this site on it. But the problem with this is, and the main problem I have is that did anybody
ever track it? Did anybody ever tell you that, oh, this, this, this one doesn't have the fear and
cleavage site, it finally went away? Or did they tell you that it gained a new one? Did they ever
keep track of the HIV inserts to tell you exactly when Kevin McKernan's modeling of the or monitoring
of the 16 million sequences confirmed that the danger is over and the fear and cleavage sites
and HIV inserts are gone? They haven't kept track of shit. And that should give you all the things
you need to know that those things were just an illusion, just something to get you to believe
that there was a phenomenon that exceeded all previous phenomenons. And unlike the first SARS
that only got 10,000 people, this one is still getting people now. And it's just not possible.
That's why I dismiss it. And the same reason why I dismiss it in the transfection because
here at Vanden Bosch's whole story relies on the fact that these people have manufactured such a
perfect mRNA product that you express a perfect spike protein that allows you to develop such
a perfect immune response, that it allows you to attack a very specific part of the virus and
force that very specific part to change. And that's an assumption on top of assumption on
top of assumption that is based solely on the idea that these people in 45 minutes could make
a plasmid and put it in bacteria and grow the DNA that would make the RNA that would make the
protein that would result in the perfect evolution of a virus. And it's just ridiculous.
I think that's why I dismiss it. Okay, one quick follow up. So with all those sequences,
would it be that difficult? I mean, don't you have software that could go in there and say,
yeah, this is when the fear and cleavage site. And I think you should challenge anyone who has
been talking about the fear and cleavage site since 2020. I can give you a whole list. Kevin
McKernan, Charles Rixie, Kevin McCairn, Walter Chestnut, Jessica Rose. Actually, the one of the
first person I've ever heard it from was James Lyons Weiler. He published a blog about it in
February of 2020. How the hell did that guy know that the fear and cleavage site was an indication
of a lab leak? And why was he the only one besides Robert Malone in 2020 to call it COVID and not
COVID? Why is he also the one that CHD is still promoting? And yet he promotes the idea
that vaccines hurt people because they are genetically vulnerable to components in them.
He doesn't believe that intramuscular injection of any combination of substances is just dumb.
He thinks that people have genetic vulnerabilities to it. And the only way we can figure it out is
to sequence everyone. That's actually what his book is about. That's what this book is about.
And Stephanie Sineff is the lady who recommended this book. Like, look at this. That's her,
Stephanie Sineff, saying this is a Bible for anyone who wants to understand the deep science
behind the autism and its genetic causes of autism. And this person has had the mic about
vaccines for almost 10 years. This is a Children's Health Defense published Skyhorse book. The same
year that Mary Holland was on Democracy Now saying that the MMR vaccine gave her kid and it was
probably something in the vaccine that did it. Maybe we should have separate vaccines. And those
people are still at the forefront of this bullshit right now. They're still talking about free speech
and they still, even after hiring me for a book and hiring me as a staff scientist, they still
don't say anything about RNA not being able to pandemic or synthetic DNA and RNA and transfection
and cell cultures being misconstrued as virology. And they don't say the vaccine schedule in America
is criminal, even though you can just compare it to any other western country and you can see it's
criminal because it comes too early and it comes with too many shots. And that alone should be
enough to convince any thinking adult that something shitty is happening. Never mind that
these people don't say it. All right. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Uwe,
where are you located? Germany. He's one of the Germans. The Germans are here. We're in trouble now.
Yeah, I hope not. So Jay and I, we know each other from working together with Children's Health
Defense and with Vera Sharav. We both have been let go at the same time by Children's Health Defense.
It may be coincidental, but it may be not because both he and I were working on a very important
project with Vera. And we are trying to get across some of the ideas which Jay has
floated today also to Vera to boost, to give Jay boost basically because he is the one who's
out there as a scientist. I'm not a scientist. What I want to stress is that if Jay is
correct with just one of his points and that is that RNA cannot pandemic, then, and that's the
reason why I support him, then this is the most critical questions of all. Look, my background is
politics. So I have been working for senior German politicians, which is why I meant how I came to CHT.
But this is the whole rationale behind the whole pandemic preparedness scam. And this is the reason
why I'm not knowing any of the science. I think this is obvious that this is the most critical
question of all to get sorted out. And it is really distressing to me that some organization,
which I have loved and I've worked for and I've given years of my life to such a CHT, have ditched
Jay for pressing people like Robert Malone about this. And what I would like us to do is to really
step out there and ask everyone whom we are in contact with, who has some cloud in the movement,
to join Jay to get these topics discussed because they are not discussed. They are put away.
And I applaud Jay for his bravery to keep calling out those people. It's not an easy job. It's not
a nice job to do, but it is important that we get attention to this question and many others,
which he has pointed. So this is what I wanted to say. And also forgive me to say that taking the
example of CHT, it would mean that this organization may be compromised
at a very high level, which is not a nice thing to consider. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying
I have serious questions, which I keep not getting answers for, but this wouldn't be the first time
that this happened. So the question is control the position. And therefore I would also urge
us to consider that this may have happened elsewhere. I am from Germany and I have watched
in horror what happened here to the German resistance and Susharit, whom I know personally
is the case in point. He has been threatened with ridiculous charges of antisemitism, which
has resulted in him keeping a low profile and even shutting up to censorship of Mike Heaton
within the German parliament. So everyone in Germany has shut up about this horrendous act
of censorship against Mike Heaton by the AFD fraction in the German parliament, which many
freedom fighters consider one of us. They are not. They are shutting up Mike Heaton and the most
critical question of all. And forgive me for saying this, but do your research on Rainer Fülmich.
Do your research on Rainer Fülmich because he has been all over the place in Germany and everywhere
it's scorched earth. And I have written about him in my blog. I don't want to go deeper into it now,
but all I want to say, we need to exert caution about whom we are putting on a pedestal
whilst they have continued to have answers to give about their past. And you can read about this
on my blog. Thank you. Thank you, Uwe. All right. Well, whatever Rainer Fülmich did, Uwe,
whatever he did, if it was bad, it certainly wasn't bad enough to justify what appears to be
a political kidnapping. We're not going to go there, Uwe, because you make a statement like that. It's
like saying Donald Trump has been bad in the past. Or, you know, and in terms of I'm saying as a
lawyer, the way that the system has treated him, whether he's guilty or not, is outrageous. Full
stop. Absolutely. That's exactly what I'm saying, Charles. Good. That's what we're saying. We're
not going to and so be careful. I've not made a statement. I've asked, I've urged you to do your
research. Hang on. I'm telling you that I've done deep research into this matter. Okay. So just don't
flow. It's like saying Jay said this in the past or did this in the past. You see, this look,
this view of desire of perfection of each one of us before you can listen to somebody for what they
do or to support them is absurd. And so I reject that assertion that people have to be perfect.
No, I reject you turning the table on this. I'm not saying this. I'm saying that we need to
really consider whom we are putting on a pedestal, why there's still questions to answer.
Who's putting anyone on a pedestal? Who? That's ridiculous. It's being put on a pedestal
as a shining example of resistance in Germany where he has very close connections. No,
I'm not going to go there. To groups which are closely connected to the intelligence
community. I call BS, Uwe. Thank you. Next comment. RNOS. What does the R stand for?
Okay, the R stands for Richard. Hello Richard.
Hello Richard.
Hi, I have been in contact with Jay via email and I'm particularly interested, I'm
evolutionary biologist myself. And I just wanted to say a couple of things. First of all,
and I just wanted to say a couple of things. First of all, I really admire your
taking a part of the virus myth. And but what I think is that we need something in its place.
You've put forward a number of things about communication and what we're looking at is
packets of communication going between different cells. But I think that that needs to be put
somewhere in the literature. And we need to have something that people can say, well, no, there is
an alternative to the theories that we have at the moment. And that has to start somewhere in
the literature. And I think, okay, it will be torn apart, of course, the first time around,
because you can't get it all right the first time around. But I think you've got to start building
up that literature in order to turn the ship around. And I just think that that's one of the
key things that we must do at the moment. And actually an awful lot of the information that
we need has already been collected, but it's just been misinterpreted.
Absolutely. I completely agree. I completely agree. And actually, Richard, I'm I know it,
maybe you've seen it that I'm trying to start this biology 101. And every time I get it started,
I realize that I'm not quite ready to start. But now I'm pretty there. I've been filling
folders on my desktop with different titles, because there are a few points that I need to
make in biology 101 with regard to molecular biology that will establish this. It's funny,
maybe you're aware of this, but plankton biologists in the oceans are well aware that
plankton physiology is actually dictated by the viruses that they release, and that they actually,
as the ocean currents flow, they carry viruses from the bottom of the ocean that influence the
ways that the plankton that are actively engaged in photosynthesis are metabolizing at the time,
based on signals that they get from plankton that are circ- I mean, it's the biologists of the ocean
actually understand the depth and breadth of this much better than we do. Yeah, I was just reading
recently about norovirus and the way in which norovirus interacts with bacteria and causes
those bacteria to release things like exosomes. Exactly. And this is another thing that's so huge.
It's such a huge, huge topic. So that was just one point I wanted to make. And the other thing is
that we have somebody here who's analyzed all-cause mortality data in Scotland. And
what you can see from that all-cause mortality data is, yes, there's a huge increase over about
a period of a month immediately after lockdown and also during the second lockdown. And those
are old people who were killed off by various means. But after that, there's actually, you can
see some blips when the vaccine was administered. But generally, there hasn't been excess death.
However, there are lots of people who are reporting there are excess deaths. But if you look at the
age structure of the population in Scotland, it's very old. And just what you've been saying,
and the person who was analyzing the data said, I can't say there's excess death here because
we've got so many old people. But everyone wants to jump on that bandwagon of saying we've got
excess death. And then the statisticians here who were in the government, they let them say,
oh, there's all this excess death. And then they do the proper calculations and they say,
they completely undermine what those people have been saying by proving that it's just caused by
an increase in the number of old people. So it's a bit of a trap that they've put people into.
Claire Craig is responsible for doing that kind of thing, saying there's lots of excess death.
But if you do the analysis properly, there isn't. It's because of an aging population.
So I think that's been, I agree with you that it's been used in that sense. And it's been used as a
bit of a trap as well, because then you can undermine the resistance.
I completely agree. And yeah, I'm glad that you took that message away. I'm just sad that I left
it out of my presentations for a couple years for some reason. I don't know. I had it for a
while in 2021. And then I kind of just dropped it. I don't know. I got into the clones idea.
And I got into the idea that I was really trying to learn what was I missing? Because
the no virus people, not all of them are bad, but the ones that are bad are real bad.
They insist on, we're going to only talk about these things today. And then when we talk about
these things, that's it. And they did that for a long time. And it's unfortunate because I really
believe that a lot of people still think that those guys are good guys. And it's unfortunate.
But I think this is the way. This is the way. Just teach people the biology that they're
skipping. And this biology about clones and synthetic RNA and DNA being able to be produced
at any quantity that they want. And this capability being available at most pharmaceutical
places is the key. Well, thank you very much. You're very welcome.
Thank you, Richard. So Jay, I put into the chat a link to an article by John Abramson in
imprimis. Excellent Hillsdale College. Oh, yes, got it. It's fantastic. Great analysis of the
challenge that you have faced. And many of us in terms of what masquerades as, as research,
as publication of research as health moving forward and the disastrous state of American
health. I urge everyone to have a look at it because it's a brilliant article. 17 years,
this guy's been in the on the Harvard Medical Faculty as an educator. So I just bring it to
your attention. Thank you, Richard. Last set of questions. Last question. Last few or four or five
minutes to Stephen and then we'll finish. Yeah, sure. So JJ, they're the no virus
people. I mean, they're good people there, but essentially they're taking part in, in cult like
activities where propaganda and censorship are operational. But they say it's all about the
science. So the science. So Mike Eden, I saw a video today where Mike Eden was talking about
the science and he said scientists never talk about the science, never ever. And so good for
Mike Eden. He notices things like that. So anyway, I wanted to, oh, one of the things I wanted to ask
you, have you been looking into the, you know, lots of people are talking about excess mortality,
but nobody seems to be looking at the birth rates as far as I can gather. So I know I have not. I
have not been looking at that. I know that there's been anecdotal reports that sudden infant death
syndrome has gone way down in America, which is curious. But other than that, I haven't really been
looking. No. Well, the reason I ask is because what, I don't know whether you know about the
universe 25 experiment, which was conducted, I think in the sixties. So obviously I didn't notice that
then, but I become aware of this experiment and it seems to me that they took the, so the mice,
it seems, you know about mice. So I don't, do you know anything about the universe 25 experiment?
I don't, I don't know about them. So I recommend that you read it because I'd love to know what
you think about it. So the 25 apparently relates not to 2025 as I thought, but I don't know. I've
never confirmed this, haven't the time, but, but I was told that the 25 related to the fact that the
experiment was so important, despite it was being done by one individual allegedly, that they did
it 25 times. I don't know whether that's true, but anyway, the point was that, sorry. I just wanted
to clarify. So the person has depression and anxiety and where are they located? Sorry,
interruption. She's, yeah, somebody, by the way, hold that thought, Stephen, hold that thought of
the 25. Just a moment. I can't hold it. No. So the 2025, sorry, the 25, the thing about the mice
experiment was as the population grew, they had all the food they needed. They had wonderful quarters
when they had the right number. But then of course, mice being mice, they bred and it got
overpopulated and then all kinds of things came about. And, but one of the things very interestingly
was that the male, some of the male mice, not all of them, but some of the male mice didn't want to
have sex with the females to the point that the females noticed this and took reprisals against
the male mice and attacked them. So, so the point I'm trying to make is that the, the universe 25
experiment, I don't know who has interpreted it. I, I know that it was actually done on behalf of
governments, although I don't know which governments, but it seems to me that it could
have been the model which was used or model used loosely for what happened in 2020. So the idea,
so I think we have to consider that it wasn't just about the shots and it wasn't just about 5G,
but it could have been about reducing the will of people to live. So I think,
I would think that your, your guest, Meredith from, isn't she from Texas? Meredith would have
the best insight into this because that's, that's the psychological effect of this.
She didn't know the experiment. So the, but the point was that I think that they had the intention
of removing the will of human beings to live. And I think they succeeded because a lot of people
are stuck in a state of Stockholm syndrome from my point of, point of view as a doctor.
So I just wanted to mention that I would be very interested in what you thought of that experiment.
Yeah, I've seen, I'm, I read it now or I'm reading it now. I'm going to get it and get back to you
on it. I don't know. I mean, at some point it's just, it, it rats eating their babies is also,
I mean, male lions kill baby lions that they come upon when they enter a new pride to make sure that
all the females have their own kids. Right. So some of these things are, are, are, are not all
the same context, but I get your point. But as I understand it, all the mice died. So that was a
bit of a surprise to everyone. And I think when the mice were down to 150 from 10,000 or something,
he predicted the guy who was doing it, he predicted that all of them would die because
essentially they'd lost the will to live. But the, but the species was defunct because it had been
interfered with that, that group of mice, if you understand what I see in the experiment that I'm
reading now, which goes back to what, the last time I interviewed with Danny Rancourt a week ago,
he had a whole hour about dominance hierarchies. And one of the outcomes of this experiment was
permanent dominance hierarchies where the extremely dominant males can eat whenever they want to.
And the, the males that have become submissive and aren't mating with anybody actually only eat at
night and they eat together and they, they go to sleep and they hide from the other mice when,
when it's daytime. And so to me, if I was to try and extrapolate that experiment to now,
what they have done is anybody that had the propensity to become a weak sort of
hide at home and wait and see what happens, you were pushed into doing that. And so only the people
who were willing to stand up despite that are standing up now.
Yeah. So very quick questions and quick answers if you can do it JJ, because I haven't got much time.
So, so was there a pandemic?
A bad ideas.
Yes. But was there a pandemic in the sense that, you know, there was a pandemic of COVID-19?
No, no.
Right. That's a very important message for the public. Will, have there ever been pandemics,
given that I was taught at medical school that the deadly virus kills its host and therefore
cannot spread sufficiently to create a pandemic? Has there ever been a pandemic and will there be
pandemics in the future? These are very important.
They are very important questions from my, from my best estimation, there has never been a pandemic
and the idea of endemicity is even a myth. I don't think there are coronaviruses that are endemic.
If there are, then there are signals that we make and we're being told that there are signals that
come from outside.
So do the populations of the world need to be afraid of future pandemics in simple terms?
From Mother Nature, no, but from the biosecurity state, yes.
Right. So, so what do you think of this? And so do you, so whether, whether the virus or whatever
has come from a lab or whether it's naturally occurring, it seems to me that a deadly virus
still kills its host. It doesn't matter whether it's from a lab or whether it's from a naturally
occurring. So I think that the gain of function thing is something to play into the narrative,
which traps, so traps people in the notion that there'll be future pandemics in the future,
which will threaten the human species. I don't believe, I think they've just made it up. I
think it's a pack of lies.
I actually, at the bottom of my screen, when I have my other screen up here, I actually have this
little pyramid that spins that says gain of function is a mythology right there. It says it
gain of function is definitely a mythology. And again, this is the idea that a non pattern
integrity molecule of RNA that otherwise can't copy itself or do anything special.
If you put the right sequence together, it could suddenly, it could suddenly become a
pattern integrity and be able to sustain itself all by itself because of the magic sequence.
And that's just ridiculous. But that's exactly what gain of function is. It's the idea that you
can endow RNA with properties that regular RNA doesn't have if you just, you know, put the right
sequences together. And that's, that's really at the heart of this. And I think Uwe is extremely
correct when he says that those three words and the fact that all these people ignore them when
they could be the way out is the real home run that we need to hit here. I'm sure.
Sure. But it seems to me- Come on, come on. This is going to be a quick question.
No matter what they've done to it in a lab, JJ, a deadly virus still kills the host. So it can't
spread to be a pandemic. Yeah. Okay. So then let's call it a different thing. Let's say a deadly
transfection is, you know, I mean, because I still think it's worth, it's worth accepting the fact
that it is right now in our best interest to question the biological model of a virus.
And so I'm very hesitant to use the word. I realize that. I was going to say that,
you know, a deadly virus kills its host, whether one believes in viruses or not, you know, so I
don't. Yeah, exactly. So I guess, I guess I accept that. But I think it's, it's easier if we first
realize that every time we use the word virus, we're almost certainly going to use it for that.
The point is, JJ, now you were the one who got me thinking about this. So you said on one of these
calls that you didn't think that what they claimed they could do with gain of function research,
they couldn't do in your opinion, but maybe I misinterpreted what you said.
No, they can't. What part of what I'm saying is disagreeing with that. I think that's the point.
They can't do it. And so if you start talking about viruses, you're almost kind of opening
the door for them to do it. Because the whole model of viruses that they that they can do it
all by themselves and they can't there there is that's the problem with virology. So if there is
a measles, you've got to explain to me where the measles comes from. And then that it gets in your
cells and it can copy itself in theory is okay, because our cells make things like viruses all
the time. That's where in my last talk, I was using this analogy where you can't make a cuckoo
clock do something that it doesn't already do. Like you can't make a cuckoo clock make toast.
And so my argument has been repeatedly that the way that they've distorted this is that retroviruses
and DNA viruses and negative strand flu viruses. These are all things outside of you that need their
own enzymes and they have their own tools. And that doesn't make any sense because what that's
implying is is that something can come into your cells that are minding their own business and take
over what they're doing and make them manufacture something that they don't already manufacture.
And that's not possible. That's like saying you can open up this watch and make it start to play
music. You can't know no amount of additions to this watch unless you shoved an iPad in here
would make this watch play music and you if you accept that viruses can't do that, then the only
alternative is is that our own cells do it all the time. That's the case, then their whole model of
disease, their whole model of pandemics, their whole model of contagion is wrong, but it requires
nuance not dismissal. You can't just say that there's no contagion, there's no viruses, there's
nothing at this size scale because then you will dismiss 200 years of observations that need to be
reinterpreted not thrown away. So I'm not saying I've got position on no viruses or yes viruses.
I'm just saying that whether it comes the bio weapon then whatever you want to call it,
whether it comes from a lab or whether it's naturally occurring or whether it's
half and half, it can't. Highly virulent, it can't spread. Okay, even more important if it's even
more important if it's made of RNA it can't spread. Come on, how about that? Right, I'm going to stop.
Now Jay, I'll show you on the screen just this morning on this issue of SIDS.
Yes. A report came out from Pennsylvania State, sudden infant death surged after COVID vaccine
rollout. So there you are, just because you mentioned it. Yep. And in the JAMA Medical
Journal. Can you say that? Oh yeah. So I think it's before then, before that rollout then it
went down, like in the time when you know we were all locked up and stuff. Okay. Okay. So
JJ needs to know that Mary Holland is coming on. I'm not quite sure when, about 10 days I think.
Send me an email, maybe I'll show up. I mean she and I won't you know have a conversation,
but at least I could listen. Yeah. Righto. Thank you Jay for being here. Thank you very much Charles.
Thank you for sharing your genius. Thanks everybody for contributions, for joining. You can join the
Tom Rodman group for those with the time. Have a wonderful Tuesday afternoon, evening, wherever,
and pray for those who are, who've lost everything in, on the east coast of the USA with an outrageous
defective response by an ineffective corrupt government. Thanks everybody. See you again.
Which states was that? All the states including North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida.
So also Western. So just look at Chile, a farthest sub-stack. Steven? Georgia. Not just the coast.
All right. West North, West North Carolina as well. Yep. All right. Thanks everybody. Thanks Jay.
Okay. Bye. Thank you JJ. Thank you. Brilliant.