So everybody, welcome to today's meeting of Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
We're having an urgent announcement for five minutes to start before I introduce Jay Kui,
wonderful presenter, wonderful thinker who's joining us today.
We're going to have five minutes from Craig Pardikoop who's presented to us twice before.
This group was founded over three years ago by Stephen Frost. I'm Charles Kovace. I'll do a
shortened invitation today. We comprise lots of professions here and we're from all around the
world. We recognise that we're in World War III and that we're part way through World War III.
This is a free speech environment with appropriate moderating. We reject the
offence industry and we reject the triggering industry. If you're offended by anything,
be offended. We are lovingly not interested. We come with an attitude and perspective of love,
not fear. Fear is the opposite of love. Fear squashes you and enslaves you. Love, on the other
hand, expands you and liberates you. So thank you for being here. The meeting is recorded,
is uploaded onto the Rumble channel and before I introduce Jay Kui, Craig Pardikoop,
in the next five minutes is yours. We are all ears and Craig, we can see your screen.
Can anyone? Lovely, great. Okay, so the headline is and I'm not sure how you're going to take this,
but I'm just going to just tell you the facts without trying to interpret them.
A message has been found in the X logo for the X platform and it is a significant meaning to
everyone. The logo was made public initially in August 2023 on the X platform when Elon took over
from Twitter. People have noticed that there appears to be a scratch on the logo, which was
a bit odd, but no one actually zoomed in and actually saw what was embedded in the message.
So here is the message. Here is the actual logo, which has been present on all phones since 2023
August. When you zoom in, you can see that the scratch isn't a scratch. It has letters and
numbers which comprise a message. Initially, I didn't know what language it was in, but it's
now been completely deciphered. The actual line of message points to an image above the X, which
I'll show you briefly what that is. So the central scratch is not a scratch. It's a message.
It consists of letters and numbers. It's been deciphered.
When I deciphered it, it consisted of two parts. It consisted of a sequence that repeated three
times consisting of three letters each time. And it reads, now this is going to sound
horny, but I'm just going to say what the facts are. It reads.
This is.
Hang on, Craig. This is.
Hang on, Craig. We got to it reads and then you got stopped. Start again. It reads.
Okay. It reads.
It reads.
In letters, not in numbers. So you got S-I-X, S-I-X and S-I-X. I've put a full document of this
on my website, howbad.info under the section COVID and Cult. So people can look at it in detail
and get zooming in on high resolution images to see this. And in between is an image that
I go into. I can interpret this in detail in the files that I've provided.
This is the image that I was referring to between the 60s. This is the only other thing in the
message other than the 60s. It consists of a person in a walking position with wearing shoes,
upright walking position, but it has the head of a beast.
And it goes by a name beginning with two letters, E-L followed by two spaces. So it's a four letter
name beginning with E-L. Now concerning the image above the X, which is on everyone's phone,
this is it. And initially I wasn't sure what it was, but then when we used high resolution,
we can see this is it's a person. Their head is at an angle of 20 degrees to their right.
They're holding a sword of some kind in their right hand and on their left shoulder they have
chevrons, which is a military insignia. So this is a commander of some kind.
You can see its eyes here and here, its nose,
its mouth, and there's a symmetry at 20 degrees to the vertical. And you can see
one of its ears here, which looks quite pointed. Now as bizarre as all this sounds like a fairy
tale, it's actually what's on everyone's phone. And the interpretation is the X, my interpretation
now is this. The X has always been a symbol for Christ. And when you have a vertical line
through the X, that's the iota chi, which is the symbol for Jesus Christ. It's a traditional
Christian symbol. What you see here instead is the line going through it with the message
666 and that strange walking beast pointing to what looks like a kind of a devil at the top.
To me it looks like the symbol for the Antichrist because we have instead of Jesus,
it's relevant to what's going to be happening in America over the next few months, which is that
they're having an election. People are taking part in that election and it's up to people to decide
whether they want to take this information into account. That's all. And this information
and this information isn't provided by anyone except the person who is taking part in the
election. So it's not provided by me. It's not provided by an opposition to them. It's provided
by them themselves. They're declaring who they are here. I'm just saying this is relevant and
it's going to affect the history of America and also of the globe in the coming months.
So I've said that. That's my newsflash. At the bottom of the...
I've provided links. So here you have... You can find this information under Covid and Cult.
I've created a document that's about 40 pages where I go into detail in analyzing the image.
I have like a video and a document. So the video is on BitChute and the document is here.
And I'll invite everybody to at least take this into consideration regarding a self-declared
identity of the person who actually created this image. So people should take it into consideration.
You know, so therefore whatever they decide, they decide.
Well done, Craig. Thank you for all those links. Have you put those links into the chat? Have you, Craig?
Okay, I'm going to go back to...
I'll just put... Just copy and paste while Jay starts. Just copy and paste that into the chat,
Craig. Make it easy for people to access.
And he's frozen. Yes, he is.
All right. So I've got... We've got those links. I can put them into the chat
and we'll get... Craig, thank you for that. If you can hear us, that is a newsflash. And Craig
will present more. He will discuss with Stephen and I will stop his sharing there.
And Jonathan J. J., or JJ Cooey, I really should say. I'm delighted. We're delighted to have you
again to talk about the Human Genome Project. Jay's bio is on the show notes for those of you
who don't know who he is. He is a researcher and wonderful presenter, wonderful investigator. And
we thank you so much again, Jay, for joining us. And thank you again, Stephen Frost, for creating
this group and giving us an opportunity to speak the truth to each other.
Jay, over to you. You can share your screen and you're the man.
Thank you very much again for the opportunity to speak. I'm going to put myself over on the
other side. If you can't see this as one screen, you just have to change your view to speaker view.
So I want to take a look at this book, which is called What is Life? Mind and Matter. I put a link
in the chat. It's a link on my website where if you go to that link, you can see these PDFs that
are downloadable. And one of them is this book. You can also find this book on the Internet Archive.
And if you just search for Erwin Schrödinger and What is Life, there are probably many places where
you can find the PDF of it. Some of the PDFs have this cover. Some of the PDFs have a little chicken
on the front. There's a Cambridge version. There's another. Well, this one's also a Cambridge
version. Maybe there's multiple ones. Anyway, I think that the reason why this book is so
interesting is because it has become clear to me in trying to formulate a new biology 101 for
freshmen students in college that something is really wrong with Campbell, the book that everybody
uses at universities in America. And with the help of my friend Mark Kulak and other people like
Peter Hotez and others, it has become very clear to me that there is a long mentor chain of
thoughtfulness with regard to answering some very crucial questions about what we can and
can't understand about ourselves. And it's a sorry, I thought my dog was going to come in here.
It's a it's become sort of my life. Now, it was COVID, but COVID is kind of passed for me,
because I understand it in a larger context now. And how, more importantly, after repeating over
and over again for you and for many other people, that we actually inherited these charlatans from
our parents that I realized that I needed to explore the consequences of that idea.
And the consequences of that idea, of course, are having to go back to those times and those books,
and actually read them to see how it is that we got to the point where we are where people are very
somehow able to go in front of a stage. I think the best example that I have, I'm just going to
take a cut right here. I have little notes, and I'm just going to grab this notes here, I'm going
to drop this in the chat. It is a YouTube video that I would like to assign to you as homework.
It is Adam Rutherford. He is like a kind of used to be an academic scientist, but then became a
science communicator. And at the start of the pandemic, he was very, very involved in this
debate about whether it was a lab leak or whether a lab leak was ridiculous, or a bridge too far,
because there was enough nastiness and Mother Nature to explain everything. So the reason why
I think that video is important is because in the first 30 minutes of that video, you basically have
a person teaching the central dogma of biology and teaching all of the
teaching through all of the major, let's say, greatest hits that you have to, you know,
little milestones in ideology, the bricks of the ideology that once you accept those,
then you can go on into the university system or on to PubMed or on to any of these primary
literature sources and have the right foundation of ideas in order to understand what all these
people are talking about, and also to understand the context in which all of their terminology
and all of their concepts fit. And what's extraordinary is, is that I, as a professional
biologist, was in that well within this structure of ideas for a very, very long time. And at some
point, I think if I would have been in a bar or in a situation where somebody challenged me
on the primacy of the idea of evolution and the primacy of the idea that the brain evolved from,
you know, previous forms or whatever, and to defend that idea, I would have been there
all night and I would have never fallen asleep and I would have had all kinds of answers for
everything all the time, ultra confident that a few basic principles were sufficient for me to
model in my mind how it is that a lightning bolt could hit a mud puddle and just the right
combination could happen. And then now you have this spontaneous process that billions of years
later results in me going to the prom and crying afterward. And for me, that's where the rubber
doesn't meet the road anymore. For me, as a child and as a biologist when I was a kid, there was no
question in my mind that what I was looking at and appreciating was beyond a simple explanation. And
yet, as an adult, I started to realize that that kid was really not present when I was working at
the university. That kid was constantly being told to shut up when it came to formulating my
grant questions or teaching people what it was that I was trying to address as a concept with
my experiments because reductionist biology necessarily requires you to only pick a few
knobs and then pretend that, okay, if I leave these two knobs alone and turn knob number one,
then I get one result. And if I turn knob number one with knob number two, I get another result.
And then that's supposed to be understanding the system because you're ignoring all the other knobs
that you know exist and the ones that you haven't even found yet. And the art of being a 10-year
professor is being able to, at the same time as you justify how important the knobs are that you're
turning, also very humbly admit that you don't know what any of the other knobs do and you're
sure that they do things important too. And so as long as you play that game, you can become an
academic biologist without ever questioning the main bricks on which all of this investigation
lies and on which all the premise on which your expertise is based. And over these last five years
for me personally, the most humbling thing about it has been to realize how awfully wrong I was
about so many things that I thought I understood. And also what's been very humbling to me is how
easily that can be rearranged once you realize what bricks are there and who put them there and
how they got there. And you can feel good about it because you realize that it wasn't your fault.
It wasn't just because a couple people got it wrong in your particular biology class.
It's because there has been this trend, a wave of knowledge, a wave of what I guess I would call
implied knowledge or assumed knowledge, which all traces itself back to this wonderful time when we
were into nuclear bombs and radiation and at the cusp of thinking that we were about to make major
breakthroughs in our understanding of biology. And so that's why this book is so interesting.
This is the book. Do I have to scroll up to the top? Maybe. Let's see. So I got this guy here.
I'll just scroll to the top. This is What is Life by Erwin Schrodinger. I think this is the one with
the chicken on the front. Yeah, this is the one you can download from the archive. And so if we go
to the first chapter, I just got a few things I want to highlight here because I just want to
make some big points, okay? And it's a really important book. You can find so many people
who will highlight it as a seminal book in their reading. And before I get started with highlighting
a couple of things in the first 20 pages of this book, let me just help you to do a thought exercise
to try and put you in the right space of exploration in terms of what might be going on with you and
what I think happened to me. I want you to imagine a scenario where you grow up and all the teachers
and all of the adults that are around you believe that they need to feed the right birds and attract
the right birds to the backyard in order for all of the best outcomes to happen at work and for all
of the best things to happen in their lives and for people not to get sick. And there are people
who are experts on birds and can tell you what things you have to put in your backyard to attract
which birds and which birds you want to attract when you have a certain sickness and which birds
will come and announce that the sicknesses are coming and all this stuff. And you can imagine
very easily this elaborate mythology that would be created with weather and with what birds eat
and all this other knowledge that could be misconstrued as birds being an intimate connection
to nature and to our health and to our understanding of our biology and with a crafty set of liars,
you could get that to work, you could get that to go even if at the beginning everything was really
well meant and it seemed to really work that if you attract cardinals then generally speaking
families are healthier than people that have crows in their backyard whatever the anecdotal
observations that get misconstrued as understanding are. But then understand that at the beginning of
this revolution we were being propelled forward our greatest thinkers were chemists and physicists
and so this guy acknowledges that and sort of without even really knowing it exposes the
problem that's going on here and one of the terms that comes from this book is aperiodic crystal.
So he makes the argument that chemists and physicists are always studying periodic crystals
and what occurs in biology is an aperiodic crystal because it changes over time and it's a very
consistent one-way pattern of change you can you can expound on that all you want to but the idea
of an aperiodic crystal influenced lots of people afterward lots of people grabbed onto that
and that's actually maybe where this term gene originates or thinking about genes originates.
So if I scroll down a little bit through this thing one of the first things that comes up here
I'm going to make myself smaller is that the reason that this book needs to be written and
he's of course a mathematician you can oh I forgot which one I'm using here he's a mathematician
and so the scary part would be of course or the assumption would be that he's going to use math
to explain biology but the reason for this was not that he's not going to use math that's what
he says here it's not going to be hardly utilized at all and why is that well it's because this
subject cannot be explained with mathematics it's not fully accessible to mathematics and yet at the
same time in this book the question that they want to answer is how can the events in space time
which take place within the spatial boundaries of a living organism be accounted for by physics and
chemistry alone because that is at the heart of it and this is something that needs to be very
clear in everybody's head as a as a starting biologist or a restarting biologist or recovering
biologist is the you have to see that an organism is is something that moves through space a pattern
integrity that remains integrism to and through time and it's that developmental time course from
a child to an adult to an older adult to an elderly person that is a single course irreversible
and it is in these people's minds in these chemists and physicists minds that are starting to
let's say cross over into a biology and apply their their understanding of the world to biology
because they are the the the curators of the the laws of physics and the laws of chemistry so if
life is governed by these laws then who better to convert to biology when biology is ready to accept
that determinist outlook and so this is where most of the thinking about genes and the primacy of
dna comes from because these chemists and physicists were looking for a a chemical and
physical explanation for the life for the pattern of light and so if we scroll one page after this
this is page four the top here this is the assumption so the preliminary answer which this
little book will endeavor to expound and establish can be summarized as follows
the obvious inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such events is no reason
at all for doubting that they can be accounted for by those sciences so just because we don't have the
microscopes just because we don't have the fine instruments doesn't mean that when we do we won't
be able to just account for everything by physics and chemistry and so it is very important to
understand that that premise that premise is central to biology 101 at every university in
the western world and it is absolutely central to the idea that the human genome accomplished
genome project accomplished anything at all because the concept is very different than what it actually
this is this is written at a time when they're getting excited about the possibility of identifying
this chemistry and the identification of this chemistry was immediately taken as proof that
this was true and so we don't still don't we still can't look inside of a cell and see the actual
status of the dna molecule which parts of it are exposed which parts are wrapped up which ones are
being translated or not all of those things are done using physics and chemistry means by which
you take something that is very tiny and then you attempt to make lots of it so that the presence
of lots of it is interpretable at a single size level and that's what's so beautiful about the
beginning of this book the beginning of this book explains the rationale upon which this this bridge
can be made where you just say well if you put the right chemicals in the right little sack and then
just let them go then billions of years later you'll have us and it only requires that you accept that
there's no reason for doubting that just because we can't explain it now and so the finding of dna
and since they found it it has been physicists and chemists that have been used or abused or
willingly taken biology into this direction where all of the irreducible complexity all of what was
sacred all of what was assumed to be creation can now be assumed to be the consequence of physical
and chemistry chemical laws that we are just not yet able to quantify or measure and that's an
extraordinary place to be of course because what's really interesting and i'm just taking you as this
completely improv i have a list of a couple things that i want to talk to you about and the rest i
just want to share things to read also on that that list of giga ohm biological stuff is this
book which is you can't i guess you can't see that maybe i can do this is uh the phenomenon of man by
tehard de chardin he is a jesuit priest who in the 30s i'm gonna get his history wrong but it
doesn't really matter in the his in the 30s he was actually kind of kicked out of the church or
getting the the catholic church got angry at him why because he was really really into that pith
down man guy i don't know if you remember this um but there was something in the in the 20s or the
30s or the 40s you have to just look this up yourself i can just do it right now um the pith
down man summary is a uh fossilized remains that were discovered in 1912 and so he was around then
but it was in the 30s that he wrote a lot of these books including this one which didn't get
published until later with an introduction by julian huxley and this priest took the pith down
man and ran with it and said that that meant darwin was right and that meant that we were
descended from animals and the church didn't like that but this guy was really like oh this solves
the problem then the way that we were created was through evolution and this idea of solving the
problem of how did god make us by saying that god did evolution is actually something really
interesting because this same guy who did that for the catholic church and is cited by no less
than peter jotes in an article in the lancet in 2024 as being a seminal thinker in this public
health space this guy right here went for evolution fully and also in this thing said that the the
shape of the planet being round meant that at some point the phenomenon of man the species of man
would become one cognitive unit a noosphere and and that would be the way that we would move
forward i may have said this before and if i have i apologize but julian huxley characterized this
idea as the equivalent of fish swimming in groups in the water and men swimming in groups of of
conscious thought not water but conscious thought and so um the idea was is that because the
population would eventually come in contact with each other he couldn't have seen the internet or
maybe he could have i don't know but that we would all become sort of one conscious sphere that would
be governable and then steerable and it was in our divine duty to take command of this to to take
control of this to steward the stewardship of it and that's very similar to what a lot of eugenicists
think a lot of these uh these biologists think that we have to take charge of our evolution as
a species and of course that also means again because we're we are um if we go back to this
book if we are just the consequence of physics and chemistry then our free will and our decisions
and you know what individuals do is really it's really um not as important as what we do as a
species and where we go into the future and so um if i if i use that as a branch um then um let me
see if i can quickly jump over here so this is the paper that we're all talking about the initial
sequencing and analysis of the genome by the international human genome sequencing consortium
and this was published in nature i think in 2001 or 311 2001 and so i think it's just really telling
to read the first part here the rediscovery of mendel's laws of heredity in the opening weeks of
the 20th century the opening weeks of the 20th century which is actually around the same few
years that we were talking about with regard to the pith down man and with regard to when this
guy was starting to get in trouble with the church because he was saying evolution and so what we're
what we're seeing here is a very disingenuous misrepresentation even of what mendel's laws mean
and i i was one of the many things that i wanted to cover um i think everybody in this chat would
have would have heard of the the hapsburgs for example the hapsburgs i think were a very very
very rich family in europe for a very long time but they were also incredibly inbred and i don't
think anybody in in in the historic and sect would would say that what resulted there was good
there were crazy people there were sick people there were sterile people and if you looked at the
the the um family tree uh that that video that i gave you that family tree is in there and you
can see that there's like aunts that are also grandmoms and then there's also great-grandfathers
that are also grandfathers and it's super bizarre because there's lots of people that are marrying
within the family for a long time and so that is genetically very bad but it's interesting in that
video he jokes because it's really good for geneticists and actually it's important to
understand that this rediscovery of mendel's laws of heredity it's something that when it was taught
to me when i was in high school when it was re-taught to me and when i was in college and
when i taught students this as a college um lab instructor or or or lab assistant i taught the same
illusion and the illusion of this is is that mendel just got pea plants out and started breeding them
together and it was all good and that's an absolute lie mendel spent a long time
breeding pea plants that started to show consistent traits
it's not it's not that he just started with pea plants with with wrinkles and pea plants without
wrinkles and then then did these studies and voila i wrote the book because that's not how it worked
he first had to breed these plants long enough so that the traits were consistent
then when he bred them together he could see these sorting ratios now if you understand then
that there are certain phenotypes there are certain attributes that might by coincidence
be sortable in that way sort in that mathematically neat way if you create
let's say clean enough genetic signals and so in the case of the habsburgs there were probably
several several combinations of genes that would stand out as wow these are bad and if we looked
at other people who have these symptoms it looks like that that's that's a bad combination of genes
but understanding what those genes do in development that led to that understanding
the likelihood of that being a developmental process or a genetically predetermined process
was still only correlation even in the greatest and most pure signals of mendel or the most pure
signals in our own genetic let's say catalog and that's where the bamboozlement happened here
that's what i can speak to personally as a neurobiologist because when i got into
neuroscience everybody everybody was hoping that they would get a chance to work on a knockout
mouse that was interesting and what is a knockout mouse a knockout mouse is a mouse that supposedly
has a protein a gene at that time a protein was really the gene that you would knock out or a gene
and so you'd knock out a protein and if you got lucky enough and the mouse lived
and could function then chances are pretty good that you could go in and look for the
physiological defect or the thing that was wrong and then maybe it would give you some idea of
what that protein did in the mouse the mice that have it and because you're working on an inbred
mouse line the background noise is very low the signal is very consistent across animals
and so if these genes are these proteins are present or not present it's very easy to screen
for that and that illusion is sustained across laboratories in in in america and europe where
they use inbred mouse lines that by definition are very much like the peas of mendel but it is
very clear from the hapsburgs family tree that if we tried to make an inbred strain of human
human if we got anywhere near the homogeneity of mice there would be no living humans anymore
and in that same video adam rutherbird rutherbird actually says that that humans are actually quite
inbred which i find a really weird statement for him to make because in this same video this guy
this former scientist and now science communicator who was sure that it was a natural leak that guy
will tell you that the central dogma the dna to rna to protein is essentially how life works and
everything that's alive does that and that cells are the smallest unit of life and cells come from
other cells except at the origin of life after the origin of life there was always a cell and
then cells beget cells and that's how we have all the cells that we have and so really it is no
different than the than the idea that i've said multiple times to you about in much shorter
time scale the idea that that uh let's see is that one that one the idea that why did that work
the idea that that something that's endemic is impossible to tell from something that is
that was already in the background and so what we have from an evolutionary perspective from a
genetic perspective a snapshot of all the people on earth we don't actually have any data
this this four-dimensional family tree or whatever that they propose is where we came from we don't
have any data from that except for the current hundred years of life that we've been able to
catalog both molecularly and and and macroscopically you know whatever what they look like and and and
whatnot so this implication i can give you one example this is just again endemicity versus
background you can't tell the difference because you don't have any data we don't have any data
we don't have any data from what animals were on the planet in 1600 and a good survey of them
we don't have a good survey from uh 4000 bc and yet these biologists are talking about evolution
on a much longer time scale with no data on any of those timescales they just they you just have
to accept it because they found dna and since dna is the chemical and physical explanation for how
life works the code then then evolution is also real so that that video that i put in as as homework
is really important to listen to because what that guy does in the first 25 minutes is give you a
lecture about the basics of the central dogma and how all academic biologists and all thinking
academic medical professionals think about the basis of all life on earth what we share in common
and they also believe for example in this thing um and i know this is out of date now but in 2003
there was a uh paper by the last name of hillis and they put together this plot where they put
like 2000 plus species on it and they tried to make this tree where it starts with uh the the
most basic kinds of protists and and and and then splits and now you get all the rest of life and
here's where the bacteria are over here and here are the animals and we're over on this part if
you can see my my arrow here and so this is like a pdf you can zoom in and see all the animals that
they did and yet all we have is a snapshot just like with with this coronavirus or with this
latest uh there was a latest neuroscience paper not nurse and nature paper that came out that
showed that they went for for some used ai to find all the rna viruses and some sample and they found
all kinds of new viruses or potential new viruses using metagenomic sequences it's no different
if you just take a huge sample of all the animals on earth and you claim that they have to be
arranged in some kind of descending order of of complexity or where they came from
then you can make this tree and claim all you want but the bottom line is is that none of these
animals are anything but contemporaries of the process that they claim they came from
and they have no evidence that that's the case and it's extraordinary because again remember that this
all of these assumptions are wholly based in my humble opinion on these bricks that these main
foundational cornerstone bricks are that the dna is the code for life and therefore it's just a
matter of time before we are able to understand it use it manipulate it improve it and everything
else is an assumption all the spending is an assumption all of the grant calls assume this
everything it's all based on this and i even based my understanding of the brain and my my
organization of my my thoughts on how to pursue a further understanding of the brain based on this
idea that i had to think of neurons as expressing genes and genes coming on and off and how even
though we can't monitor that we assume it's happening and all of this gets fueled by these
these wonderful cartoons and and all of these elaborate animations and in that same video that
i i sign you for homework he will at some point um he will show you a video that somebody made
a computer animation of dna being copied and proofread and in that entire model there's no
water molecules there's no other proteins and chaperones around there's no bases anywhere it's
just you know making a nice little thing but it that's not what that that model doesn't even
understand or it doesn't even attempt to show you what's really happening there because of course
it's happening in an aqueous solution of course there are other proteins around so why are we
just looking at the dna molecule coming apart like this and one little ball coming over to it and
then it gets wrapped up and it becomes double stranded again it's all very beautiful and
whatever but we don't have cameras that can see that we don't have electron microscopy flash
by flash pictures of what's going on there that's all imaginary stuff and elaborate cartoons no
different than the cartoons of of covid no different than even the image of covid that
they use from the very beginning with the red red spikes and gray body
it's no different than this you can draw this picture it doesn't make it right
and you can you can publish the the human genome and then and say that you did something but it
doesn't mean that you did and so in this thing they even admit it that that much work remains to be
done to produce a complete finished sequence and of course now 24 years later there are lots of
people who tell you that we've done it all we know it all we've done it all but how do we do it
so it's all very simple but i i just don't think that it's true and this is the reason why because
i want to go back to schrodinger because on page 21 and i again you got to read the whole book the
whole book is just mesmerizing um it's gonna go a little bit farther here
so the the physical laws rest on atomic statistics and are therefore only approximate is one of the
things that schrodinger does is he gives you a couple of really good um examples of it where
what essentially what he's saying is is that everything that physicists and chemists think
that they understand about molecules is understood from the perspective of if you have enough of
these molecules then the attributes of them start to become obvious and without enough of them the
noise of the system is too great you can't say anything about it and so physics requires there
particles around for them to see anything or do anything with them and the number of particles
that are involved increases our accuracy in terms of our ability to predict what the what the system
will do and so he gives a couple and this thinking has been applied to the physics and chemistry of
life and these assumptions are are how they they purport to understand us and so um there's a couple
different uh different examples that he uses there um maybe one good one to use would be this
one here where he's talking about how a tube full of oxygen can be a voltage can be applied
and the way that that reacts to the voltage is different than what you might think unless
you're thinking of it as an average effect um there's also this discussion about diffusion
and sinking fog which is also very uh enlightening but i just want to get past all this stuff just to
make sure that you that you understand that this whole book is really important to read because it
is a guy who who who sees the problem um and so in the second part he's talking about the
hereditary mechanism and and what the problem is and he sees a very big problem but a lot of the
people who read this book don't seem to realize that he sees this problem so the hereditary
code script chromosomes let me use the word pattern of an organism in the sense in which
the biologist calls it the four-dimensional pattern meaning not only the structure and
functioning of that organism in the adult or in any particular stage but the whole of its
ontogenetic development from the fertilized egg cell to the stage of maturity when the organ begins
to reproduce itself now this whole four-dimensional pattern is known to be determined by the structure
of that one cell the fertilized egg known to be determined
if we if if that's the case we know it is essentially determined by the structure of
only a small part of that cell the nucleus the dna that's it right so what is he going to say
down here then and this is the trick every complete set of chromosomes contains the full code
so there are as a rule two copies of the latter in the fertilized egg cell which forms the earliest
stage of the future individual and then we go down here and he says you know that it can be a black
cock or a speckled hen or a fly or a maze plant a rhododendron a beetle a mouse or a woman to which
we may add that the appearances of the egg cells are often remarkably similar and so even when they
are not as in the case of the comparatively gigantic eggs of birds and reptiles the difference is not
so much in the relevant structures as in the nutritive material which in these cases is added
for obvious reasons but the term code script of course is too narrow the chromosome structures
are at the same time instrumental in bringing about the development they foreshadow they are
law code and executive power or to use another simile they are the architect's plan and the
builder's craft in one and so my argument will be that up until now and including the present day
biologists are only able to scratch the surface of the part that encodes proteins that's it
all the other stuff is just written away as repeats or as useless code or code that isn't
needed or code that isn't read even though we know from this own physicist's opinion and from lots of
other scholars to follow that the main question of how does this all orchestrate together you
don't just make proteins and then because of the nature of their chemistry and physics they just
assemble into the things that they do and go where they're supposed to go and do what they're
supposed to do and get replaced when needed that is the builder's craft and if this is going to be
contained in this single code then we're missing a whole large part of it and biologists around the
world have known this for a long time and honestly i feel very humbly i can say that i've known it
for a long time too i've just never didn't realize that people were already codifying it so
eloquently already back when when this guy's book was written because this is not part of biology
101 you don't read day shard and you don't read schrodinger you don't read you don't read jonas
sulk survival of the wisest where they say exactly the same thing the determinist aspect of our
biology means that as a species we need to put our big boy pants on and start taking control of our
evolution because we are a phenomenon we aren't individuals this is the natural evolution of us
as as thinking individuals that's what all these people want us to believe and that's why i think
it's really important to have a good sense of of how to move forward they have told us for example
that there are diseases that are genetic and they get them confused with infectious diseases because
again they are taking and and and twisting our language around so that we can't use it effectively
to fight out and and that's really important to see that that just like the pea plants with
wrinkled or smooth seeds you can find rare examples or exceptions to the rule where a single gene
and it's missing or it's it's it's mutation it can result in a phenotypic change that's
sufficiently detectable so that you can point to it but the flip side of this is oftentimes
in neuroscience you'll see this happen where a a neuropsychiatric condition actually when you start
to look at what they now call genome-wide association studies where they take a bunch of
people and classify them as all having the same set of symptoms and then they look across their
genomes for signals that they share it's often a complete disaster and they they find nothing
and so they the the idea that these physicists and chemists hoped would occur and manifest because of
the discovery of dna has failed miserably and the start of that failure goes all the way back to the
announcement of the completion of the human genome project and it is extraordinary because again
in that you know we're going all the way back to 2001 and a nature paper and and we are now supposed
to believe that someone from the whitehead institute who worked for eric lander named
kevin mccurnin is one of the guys who's put his put his life and career on the line to come and
save us from the laboratory leak and from the dna contamination in the transfection and most of the
the the basic methodologies that are responsible for all the biologics in the world all the
sequencing technologies all of this stuff he was involved in it and if you go down
to the to the discussion here i want you to point out that the idea of this actually started at the
department of energy and i don't know if you're anyone's aware that's not in the united states
the department of energy is the highest level of security and in fact it this is a directed mission
that it descends from the same funding and the same secrecy that ditra comes from that the state
department uses and that all of the manhattan project used and so in order to maintain that
secrecy in order to maintain that funding stream a lot of those physicists that were involved in the
manhattan project actually went into the the precursor projects of the human genome project
and most of those that that that's that's just traceable history that just nobody nobody traces
back and so if if i just kind of humbly submit that i don't know i just know that this has been
exaggerated for a long time if i humbly submit that that i think we have a lot of work to do to
try and extricate our kids from this we cannot have our kids growing up thinking that most of
their biology is determined by genes and most of the genes have already been identified and with
just a matter of time and doing the work before all of these problems can be solved by altering
those genes because that is not the truth yet that is the truth that's presented in biology 101 and
in high school biology and it traps people i have a i have a a an article from the same i guess it's
a year later where they're talking about how every biology it's a it's a opinion piece in nature i
apologize for not having it up where they argue that every young person needs to be taught the
primacy of genes so that they understand how important it is going forward and that they
they go into biology as scientists with the right outlook so that we can make the fastest progress
toward toward the mastery of this and i i am sorry but you know after after being a biologist for 20
years i i just didn't get it i didn't get it and now i i actually think i do um in the sense of
of a lot of what i thought i knew was already well understood to a level of high fidelity was actually
a lot of bravado and promises that date back to a time when we didn't have all the molecular
you know ideas that we have now or all the molecular evidence that might be thrown at us now
the ideas were already well formed and we are still working firmly within those ideas which
are rooted in in in physics thinking and probability thinking and big numbers thinking
and and that that's a real dangerous place for our kids to grow up
because that's the same place where viruses are outside of us those enzymes are outside of us
and that rna in viral form can can be as dangerous as as a new mosquito or or or an
invasive rodent or worse worse than a nuclear bomb so i know you might be disappointed but
honestly i feel as though the most important thing for me to say right here is that you guys have
given me too much time this is my i really believe it's my sixth time speaking so i want to i want
to leave it at this understand that also there was a lot of biology around bacteriophages
and a lot of principles of bacteriophages that have remained assumed that a a a similar relationship
would exist between us and and similar particles and that insistence is also a false basis for
for this viral contagion idea and and hiding this basic transfection and transformation so
instead of speaking for an hour i already probably spoke too long um i want to you know be able to
answer as many questions as anybody wants to throw at me even from previous uh previous talks um
you're gonna find a lot of pushback you're gonna find a lot of pushback i would say try to get
kevin mccurnin on here again without me here um and let me let me give you a few questions that
you can ask him that will that will reveal exactly what kind of chicanery is going on now and i think
that's really where we are they they need more data they think that if they have more data and
they feed it into more computers that eventually they'll make the progress they thought they were
going to make 20 years ago back when back when these guys were talking about it but i don't think
that's the case um i'm very i very apologize for if it wasn't as organized as you thought it would
be but he asking me to explain the human genome project in his in an hour is pretty tough and
and the state of the art right now is extraordinary um but it's also still just chemistry and it hasn't
scratched the surface of of how we as a pattern integrity are generated maintained um it's just
not there yet we're not going to get there probably and i don't think it's necessary honestly um
anyway well jay loved it loved it not disappointed at all i love the series of questions and i love
what this the intent of this group is to is to stop thinking yes i know how how life works
and so thank you for we'll call this the confession of jj um my my the people that i've been around for
a long time have said similar things including ian bright hope has told this group about the
depth of understanding of the functioning of the human cell is minuscule so the sheer ego of people
saying this is how it works it's lovely to be reminded of that and you know oh there's lots of
them and i just say there's that in the same list of things to download there's a book by
denis noble called understanding living systems he's a guy from the uk who's been around for a
long time he's still at it um you know he's one of many dudes who this is me discovering that there
were a lot of people out there um it's not my idea it's not my idea at all um i'm just happy to be a
part of the the awakening to it um thanks thanks jay so steven next 15 minutes is yours we've got
lots of hands up and um let's go with you steven so jj um i um sense that this is really important
uh uh but i haven't really been thinking about it i must admit so um i just was thinking as you were
talking um what do you think is true so do you believe in new evolution and is evolution
inconsistent with the belief in god um uh and evolution in the in the x-men sort of way where
there's random mutations and you know then everybody just reproduces and the ones that
reproduce are passing their genes along is not sufficient to it well whether human beings are
evolved from animals no i i don't i don't know that no i don't i guess i i probably did before
the pandemic but um i just have come to understand that we only have data from today and and any data
that we have from yesterday is still not deep enough in time for any justification to think
that there has been a dynamic change from mud puddle to monkey to man so um so essentially the
same scenario as we've had in the last five years they were talking about gain of function research
and how dangerous you know putting putting the idea in people's heads ordinary people's heads
that oh a lab leak oh and they put a lab near me too apparently the labs can appear anywhere um so
is this human hubris and just kind of gone unchecked you know because it's a cult and
that everybody wants to join the cult so that they're not threatened and don't have to take
responsibility is it just cults gone mad or what and so where does darwin fit in this charles darwin
you know the origin of species yeah charles darwin didn't think that his theory explained all the way
back to the mud puddle i mean and he knew that a lot of his contemporaries knew that i think
um i mean you know i i was in preparation for this and the reason why i kind of pulled the
chute and didn't try to do a really one hour you know discussion about molecular biology some kind
of crash course or something was because i think it's a really bigger idea than that i mean i i
i found a paper where they tried to to describe all the major phylogenies of spiders and then i
suddenly realized that you could think in the in the very short time scale and think oh yeah
those are different species of spider or you could think of those as snapshots of a continuum of
change and and waves of expression of all the same basic um biological pattern and so if you look
at a long enough time scale in your imagination spiders don't ever have to have come from anything
but they can still be a constantly changing vibration um and we can be constantly changing
vibrations without having to have come from more primitive ones um so again i feel like the lack of
data from anywhere but now um and and also the idea for example that everybody that collects
dinosaur bones doesn't work for a university but as a private company um and they only sell models
and it just for me it's all starting to drive me nuts because i know that the exaggeration is
is multi-generational so um much like if you if anyone is familiar with this um i i just had is
ray kurtzweiler is a guy who for many years has been talking about the exponential growth of
technology and some kind of point of you know you know where technology and biology is going to come
together and he's been projecting for a long time because he's very very smart and he's you know i
don't know i use math or something that it's like 2040 um when we're going to be able to upload our
consciousness or there will be no more disease or something like this this is the same promise
that these people are making in these in these books that i'm holding up here when they didn't
know as much as we know now this it's the same thing that elon musk is saying that in 10 years
we're going to be able to implant something in your brain that will interact with all
with all parts of your i mean it's just absurd it's these statements are absurd but absolutely
so jj the human genome project is part of that the human genome project is part of that the idea that
that at best these people understood that that if they were going to extract any meaningful data
from us they were going to need us to to think of ourselves in this way so jj um i agree with you so
so we have to examine think about everything but we are actually just like them we're human beings
too so we're going to be somewhat limited but apparently we're told that there are hundreds
of billions of stars suns in our galaxy and there are hundreds of billions of galaxies
in the universe so and we live on one planet in one solar system and the nearest solar system
two hours is four four light years away serious i think it is um and um so uh and that's the
nearest solar system the nearest star and there are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy
the milky way and there are hundreds of billions of milky ways it's just incredible isn't it so
is that true do you think or or huh i don't i don't know i i honestly it's true if it is true
alleged allegedly true how do some people get to say that and at the same time elon musk is talking
about interplanetary travel inter solar system travelers i understand it went and people as you
know aren't properly educated so they've got no idea of what the numbers mean so four light years
is a huge distance if you're traveling by anything that a man made um so so uh and that's the nearest
solar system so quite where elon musk is going in his interplanetary travel or inter solar system
travel i don't know and and in what machine or is he talking about being kind of going through time
what do you know no i don't know i mean honestly i think it's all just
it's all hamster wheels um unfortunately and i think if we if we wake up to it soon enough our
kids can get out of the trap um we're not going to get out of this trap it's like a moving thing
so jj what do you think is at the moment what do you think is true now everything that you thought
was true is coming apart but what do you think is still true now i mean there are there are probably
an irreducible complexity of small genetic signals in the background in our world and
there what does that mean to to the layman that no matter what small sample you took you're probably
going to be able to find some genetic material in it and these people have just like you know if you
put food out in your backyard you're going to get birds in the backyard that doesn't mean that those
birds have all kinds of significance for your life and and i really think that if you look using
their tools and their techniques which essentially are not very good um because again you're you're
for a human genome for example one of the things that that that that it relies on is that that
they're supposedly the same molecule in every cell so that if they have enough of your cells
and they isolate the the nuclei then they have lots of copies of the same molecule and that's one
of the only ways that they can get a lot of it if they don't have a lot of it just like any other
physical or chemical process if you don't have enough molecules you don't know what's going on
what's going on if you if you don't have enough atoms you don't have any attributes it's not a
gas or a liquid and if you don't have enough of these biomolecules you can't tell what the
sequence is and so with dna if you don't have enough of it you can't sequence it so all of
this process of saying what was in the cell is based on making orders of magnitude more
than what was present in the initial sample and assuming that the signal that you are able to
measure when you make enough of it is equivalent to what you would have measured if you only had
one in one cell and there's such a giant number of assumptions there that any number of ways
that producing the large quantity and then measuring it could have no bearing on what
the original small quantity was and we of course are taking all of this for granted as being done
with high fidelity perfect objectivity and high accuracy since the 70s which i think at this point
in time has almost enslaved us so jj you know about the science oh sorry science not the science
and you've got a very good handle on biology and it would be really helpful if you wrote a book
in the future maybe not now because you're still in a confused state as far as i can see
and no not in a bad way but you're being honest and you could write a book entitled
what we know you know and and we could agree on what we actually do know and what we don't know so
i'm now wondering whether it's 93 million miles to the to the sun our sun
um and whether what we've been told are there hundreds of billions of stars in our
in our galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe don't know but if there are that
many hundreds of billions by times hundreds of billions then that means it's there are a lot of
suns in the world in the universe aren't them and that's beyond our comprehensive the the flip
side of this would be that that you could study a long time the diversity of the grains of sand on
the on the on the beaches of italy and probably find a lot of interesting patterns and possibilities
there but if if in the end all of those measurements and calculations have no bearing on
on jay and pittsburgh then i guess i'm gonna i probably want to teach my kids about other things
and that that to me is maybe the worst part of of astrophysics is it's fine to look at the stars and
it's fine to do that stuff but you know how much money have we spent on it and and should be
there's a lot of this that bothers me now because america is in shambles and and our infrastructure
is all but withered away and and we are we have accepted all of the the reality that that they've
given us from the pandemic and and the stakes going forward and if we can't free our children
from this they're going to grow up with an inordinate amount of fear and uncertainty
well it seems to me jj they've divided us by and the modus operandi seems to be dividing
as much as possible creating as much confusion as possible and that depends on people being very
sure of their position so how we can help people is to say it's very healthy and very good to say
i don't know and we don't know and but no human beings have to say oh yeah we do know no we don't
know we cannot avoid death that tells me nobody can avoid death as far as i can see
and that is true um so that means that we have a limited understanding of the world in which we
live in the universe in which we live just like the cat just like the dog we're good i mean think
think about this one just for an anecdote the guy that they one of the guys that they gave the
nobel prize to this year for actually the folding program but his his whole work was based on
uh small rnase micro rnase or something like that small regulatory rnase in c elegans the worm that
has a known number of cells and so you i it's very easy for me to imagine that we have been very
um inaccurate in our division of where um certain higher properties of life have emerged and and
oftentimes all of our our interesting stories like you know there's a whole book on prions behind me
and most of that book is done in yeast and so the idea that people eat brains on some on some island
and they get these these misfolded proteins has been all the all the molecular data that supposedly
supports that is done in yeast and so it's just a model of and then supposedly what happens in
humans is a homologous molecular mechanism and so much of our genetic understanding and our viral
understanding is actually the assumption that what we know about bacteria and bacteriophages has a
homologous system in our own and and that those assumptions are are taken advantage of all the
time too where principles that were proven in bacteriophages are just assumed to to work for
these other rna signals that these people promote uh to study jj do you know anything about a concept
known as singularity which is a a very small infinitely dense uh uh entity as far as i can
understand and everything the one that they're talking about now is the singularity between
technology and biology but i think you're just talking about like a black hole center or something
and i'm talking about the the singularity which was the start of everything and um and then you
got the big bang and then it it's apparent and then everything was expanding and it's still
expanding apparently so um yeah and somewhere in there i'm like hit a mud puddle on a rock that
was really the right space away from the star to have liquid water and then it's been there for
about a billion years and that's exactly amazing isn't it so um all right let's go to questions
thank you charles yes very good well done i was wondering a bit there dave raznick we've got lots
of hands up lots of lots of uh conversation to be had so dave over to you oh dave's gonna ask you
some hard questions now jj oh no the first thing i'm gonna say is congratulations man that is very
very interesting and entertaining uh you did you did a great job first can y'all hear me it looks
like uh the screen froze up there yeah we can all hear you david okay good all right um yeah jay i
actually came uh what late 90s i came pretty much the same conclusion that you did uh recently i
guess but it had to do when i started working on cancer and i'm not going to go into all those
details i'm writing a book and it's got a lot of stuff in it about that but um and one of the just
a couple of interesting things i want to share with everybody once i realized the unimportance
of individual genes and the dna and all that much less important in the realm that people think it
is um it uh some of the specifics that i've i'm not a genetics guy i'm a protein guy basically
but i follow a lot of this stuff and uh when i was looking at the human genome and the other genome
projects i was following it and it turns out that humans and mice and not only humans and mice but
humans and other species too have virtually identically the same number of genes something
just below the 20,000 or so and not the higher organisms anyway and 99 percent of them are
functionally equivalent all right so uh so how how do those same genes know to make a mouse or
to make a human for example or a turtle or something like that uh that's just a facetious
facetious question but i'm putting this out i'm using it as an analogy the genes and the genome
is basically a dictionary a biological dictionary uh it just so happens uh when i last i looked
oxford english dictionary has 23 volumes and the human uh dictionary we have 23 chromosomes
and the the mice have 20 chromosomes but we have the same 20,000 genes so uh basically what's going
on is that there's a total complete mystery this is totally totally complete uh if if i
wasn't a scientist uh but i could easily sympathize with people think there's something spiritual
going on here okay we got this dictionary but we don't have a clue how that dick how the what turns
those words in the biological dictionary into a human over here and over in a mouse over there
uh you know so anyway i just wanted to share those analogies with people uh and i would love to talk
with you jay uh privately about this because i thought you were going to get really really
technical and talk about the genome project i thoroughly much much more appreciated your
the road that you took to to come where i am too i totally accept i feel like i'm a brother with
you on on this whole thing so i'll shut up now it's not i said what i wanted to say
good to hear from you david thank you nice david why not david say good nice initials you got here
for someone with a phd dr haha all right john john look arch hey jj um i don't want to hog up a whole
lot of time here but uh you know three or four things came to mind as i was listening to you
just you know like here maybe your take on this whatever your opinion is um one of them is about
dna in general you know i don't want to i can't quote you know anybody for this idea i think i
maybe came to it myself but there's this idea that once you take or that the structure of dm dna
matters that once you stretch it out to look at it or you know splice a piece or cut a piece out
it ceases to be what it once was so you can't really experiment on it and i don't i don't really
know if you agree with that but i'd be interested in knowing what you think of it um the other thing
might be just an opinion on mendel because you know the reading that i've done on mendel is that
you know he was pretty much an unreliable monk that did a whole bunch of um experiments on pea
plants as we know and he gave us things like genes for traits and laws of inheritance and
punnett squares all of which you know are just terribly unreliable um so you know i think darwin
based a lot of his model on mendel and you know it's just this this continuum where you know what
we're calling genetics now was you know previously uh rebranded from eugenics and from there we get
bioethics i mean it's just a big downward you know a hill uh into the abyss right
yeah i didn't know when you were when you wanted me to jump in there but um
just trying to not load you i mean i think we just think all we we think very much similarly and and i
think the the added danger is the the the perceived um role that these have for people that aren't
thinking on a very sophisticated biological i mean you know it's it's hard for me i let me let me
maybe say it this way um it's very easy for me to see how the transgender issue and the arguing
about whether sex is determined by chromosomes is a trap because of course sex is determined by
chromosomes just like when you have an extra one you get down syndrome but that doesn't mean that
that principle holds true to understand us as a pattern integrity it's like an anecdotal story
about like if you take the light bulbs out of one side of your car then only one side will be without
light but that it doesn't explain how the whole car works or anything like that and so
i i feel very strongly that this is a trap that they're getting us to say that you know genes
determine everything including sex as if they're smart and they understand biology and of course
it's genes and that's a very dangerous trap and it only dawned on me in the last few weeks that
that trap in fact look i even have a i even bought something the other day
because i this is what actually cued me into thinking that it was a trap because
there's even a thing on x now where they're they're selling hats and say xx and xy and it's a real big
campaign to get you know real women in sports and keep the the weird men out but it's also a very
seductive way to get people to think that this holds true for all traits then everything is just
genes and we understand everything and what we don't understand we just need more data and then
we will understand it and that's the day right um you know i get asked a lot of questions by a lot
of people who are caught up in this whole nanotech fear porn thing and uh i've never heard you give
an opinion on it mine is that it's all crap i don't know where you fall on that but i think
you know not to overly reduce it but consciousness doesn't reside in the brain i think most people
will agree with that so nothing they you know put in you is going to really affect your you're going
to turn anybody into a remote control toy or anything like that i just think it's a um you
know it's an easy sci-fi concept to get caught up in and a lot of people are caught up in this and
i can't talk them out of it most of them they're just insistent
yeah yep all right john is john john thank you for that comment john
yeah good good thinking good thoughts marv
hey uh i just read this last week in uh gabbar mate's uh the realm of hungry ghosts uh
he uh your mud puddle uh organisms have about a hundred thousand genes and the human cells
today have about 30 000 and sorts and what's his name these uh the reason that we have fewer genes
is the humans or the mammal species has developed this adaptability and we discard genes and add
genes to adapt to our to to the new environment or the new conditions
and this is fairly recent uh knowledge about the number of genes and this adaptability
that our cell that human cells have and this is why we've we've become so different in the last
millennium in the last couple of hundred years you know we have a museum here in Salem Oregon
where we can visit this and look at the artifacts of people who came here in the 1830s the
missionaries these were tiny people i mean if you were 5'5 in 1830 you were a big person a six-footer
was unheard of in the 1830s their beds were tiny their shoes were tiny
but anyway i wanted to ask you about this the number of genes in the human cell today
and its adaptability and the uh i want to see if you've read if you're familiar with this book
the mind and the brain neuroplasticity and the power of mental force
uh 2002 uh Swartz and Sharon Begley anyway it's just this book is a treasure trove of uh
of this information about geneticism so anyway i thought maybe you
the main thing is the number of human genes today and the number of human genes in your mud puddle
organisms um it's a lot to unpack there because again it we we kind of we get into a scenario
very quick and i'm saying this in the most humble i'm not i'm not at all trying to disrespect so
don't hear it that way even if it might sound like that at first pass um when we argue about
viruses and virology and clones and and and what what they call a quasi species and all of this
other stuff a lot of these arguments because they are taking place and the other day on my stream i
use this analogy that there is that that the limited spectrum of debate that we're trapped in
is actually a very big steel ball and inside of it these people that are keeping us there are
riding around these motorcycles that make a lot of noise and the thing goes around like this and
it seems like it's really exciting and there's a real debate going on but actually we're not
getting anywhere and when we start talking about whether there are 100 000 genes or 30 000 genes
we're actually already inside of that ball riding a motorcycle thinking that we're going to go
somewhere when we're just going to go around in circles and the audience is going to see us do it
and there's going to be fire but we're not going to get anywhere and so i think like i was and
still maybe am by discussing this you know those people were smaller well did they eat what we eat
did they have access to the food that we do did they have access to the the medicines that we do
how many of them you know and and how is our height look now how does our fat content look now and how
is that is that genes or what people are eating what toxins are in the present in our environment
or for your kids that were not present for the people who came over on the mayflower and so
there's lots of pluses and minuses i mean i don't know at this stage how much i was exposed to
growth hormone or something like that and all the milk i drank when i was in wisconsin i mean i don't
know if drinking milk is something that made me six foot five and if i wasn't drinking milk my
whole life i would have only been five ten i don't know all i know for sure is that these people who
work at the nih who descend from these geneticists physicists chemists that didn't know enough but
knew what they wanted i really i don't i don't i don't have a good interpretation anymore but
i know that people being smaller in the past doesn't mean that that genes mean that mean
everything i mean i think it's very possible that if you could go back and grab a bunch of babies
from that time and bring them to now you would find them expressing phenotypes that were closer
to the the people around them that would be so you don't you don't accept this adaptability
theory of our cells discarding genes the crocodile i think i think it's much more likely that what what
um is is that there is a as as dave said there is a library with the vast majority of which
might never be used depending on the environmental and developmental conditions that the animal is
exposed to and so it may be that there's an adaptability but it's not an adaptability
where you discard genes you just don't read some books sometimes and in other generations you read
those books and that is a kind of flexibility that is not a part of the human genome project model
it's not a part of this model where you look for genetic diseases and then apply that thinking to
understanding a healthy human that's a completely different way of thinking so what you're on to
is is in that same general direction that i think we need to go so don't i'm not arguing with you
i'm just trying to see if i can show you yeah yeah no that's very good very good thank you
yep thank you thank you mav elbert
hey jay how you doing could be worse hey i got about uh three or four questions i'm going to
ask real fast and you know i'm a simple christian so i apologize in advance for
for some of these questions but i believe that god made the baby perfect so with that
i was wondering if if you thought uh autism or cancer was uh hereditary
um what is it an immortal gene do you think is really cancer and what is aliquoting and do you
believe in conferred immunity and i asked you this this one question a long time ago on this zoom and
you didn't laugh me out of the room but i i said um you know if there's like good cholesterol and
bad cholesterol is there such thing as a good virus and a and a bad virus and you reached out
and you pulled out a big book and i would like to have that name again because you said it was very
expensive but um i don't know if you remember that but uh anyways those were my questions jay i really
appreciate your your brain power uh you're very sweet um i've knocked everything down here let
me pull these books over here um the book that you're referring to i'll go backwards um is there's
two of them um that i think are really cool and this literature always gets assembled in a weird
way i don't know why there's uh i can go over here jay j used to have a book on a table near where you
sit which was absolutely massive and a few people asked me what's that big book on jj's um oh it
depends if it's if it's the one behind me i've got a great big catholic it was open it was open
yeah it was open then it was a big great big catholic bible back there and then otherwise
i have a domestic medical practice book that's almost as big as that that catholic bible is
from like 1890 um so underneath here is that the visible one can you see that camera yeah
so this book is uh edited by gunther wazani and it's called bio communication and natural genome
editing a lot of this book is actually viruses and and and endogenous viruses in different systems
and then this one um viruses essential agents of life is a huge compilation of studies and essays
where people are talking about how um viruses may even influence the epigenetic expression of
genes and regulation of genes especially in i mean the the easiest examples are in the phytoplankton
in the ocean but the there are some examples from fungi and examples from this is a book i have not
barely penetrated it is a book that i just bought on a whim because i thought i had to have it and
i haven't penetrated it at all so don't don't let me represent that as having done the reading
um you asked me the other guy asked me about nanotech so if you don't mind me just saying one
two words about that before i uh go on albert um optogenetics is a thing that a lot of people
are talking about lately and there's usually a picture with a blue a blue laser going in by
an optic fiber into the head of a mouse and then they're suggesting that they are they are putting
this in your brain and they're going to control our mind with optogenetics so let's understand
what optogenetics are and understand why this is complete bullshit so optogenetics as they exist
in neuroscience right now in any form as far as i know there might be something in darpa that
somebody will tell you this again but i don't believe that um is an adenovirus based transformation
of an algal protein found in chloroplasts which is actually a blue light gated sodium channel
how's that for a long list of words that i just pulled out of my head um essentially what it is
is that that neuroscientists have wanted a non-invasive way to control neuronal behavior
neurons are known to spike they send signals based on this very quick snap of of ion channels of
sodium in and potassium out or maybe it's the other i think it's that way it's been a little
while since i taught this but sodium comes in then potassium goes out and so you see this wave and
it was originally described in the large axon of a squid but all the neurons in our brain are are
sending binary signals where they snap and then they send an electrical signal along their axon
and at the end of the axon there's a release of neurotransmitter onto the receiving neuron
and if that neuron gets enough neurotransmitter then it will be depolarized and snap and send a
signal down its axons to the next neurons and that's how the brain works it's neurons going
through this depolarization and promoting it like gene on gene off you know blue yeah so so
optogenetics is a a transformation keep in mind i've been trying to teach that for the last five
times i've been here an adenovirus with a dna in it encoding that that algal protein that that
sodium channel that opens when you shine blue light on it so they take that gene and they put
it in an adenovirus using traditional pharmaceutical manufacturing methods
and then they take that adenovirus and they sell it to me and i squirted into the mouse of my
and the brain of my mouse and all the neurons that are exposed to that and that that get that dna in
them will start to express this protein and this protein will insert itself into the membrane and
we can stain it and we can show you that it inserts itself into the membrane and when you shine blue
light on the neuron by a hole in the head you can make the neurons go bang bang bang bang bang bang
or if you shine a little less blue light you can get them to go bang bang bang he shoot a little
less blue light you can get a little bang and so then you can do a really bright pulse and you can
get everybody to go at once and that's it that's what optogenetics is and so we're able to drive
that into different neurons based on what genes they might express we might be able to put it in
different places depending on where we squirted the adenovirus you're trying to conflate that
into we can make you think the way we and that's absolutely ridiculous yes that's right but you'll
have whole people do podcasts about how optogenetics were in the shot and we're all but dead and we're
almost remote control and that's just not at all what's going on so then you asked about immortal
genes there's just two anecdotal stories i'd like to bring up here most of the the what are called
immortal cell lines still need to be renewed from previous passages so what's the best way to say
this if you were growing tomato plants and keeping the seeds and you didn't keep the seeds rather but
you just grew tomatoes and then you you tried to key out and that's not a good analogy hold on a
second the point is is that when you grow cells in a laboratory i guess you probably understand
this from the the ridiculous theater of the pandemic when you grow cells in a laboratory
you grow them in a dish and at some point they grow so many that they there's no room for them
anymore and so what they do is they passage the cells they disconnect them from the agar in a fluid
and then they dilute them into two dishes or four dishes and then they let them grow until they cover
those dishes and then they split them again and then they use these immortal cells to study stuff
they make put some virus on them or whatever the hell they do with them anyway the point is is that
that's not an infinite process i've been in those laboratories before i've done a lot of biophysics
experiments on potassium channels in cell lines that were immortal but inevitably those cell lines
start to grow shitty or they don't really grow anymore they start to die and then you got to go
back to the freezer that's the reality and i don't think there are any examples in real laboratories
where it's just the the stuff from yesterday being recycled and split and recycled and split
and recycled and split and they never go back to a commercial source or they never go back to a
renewed source so they never go back to a previous passage i'm almost positive that's true but i'd be
happy to be told i'm wrong the other anecdotal story that you should know and you might not know
depending on how ubiquitous it is in europe because i don't know how ubiquitous it is in america
but i can only tell you the anecdotal story that i told in the beginning of my
ron johnson repeat that i did for my own platform where i did basically the same talk that i gave to
sucre last week but i did it slower with a little more detail and specifically aimed at ron johnson
you might not be aware but one of the most used cell lines in pharmaceuticals and biotech and
in academia is the fibroblast and fibroblasts are generated exclusively from the never-ending
supply of foreskin that comes from american hospitals has remnant material now at first you
might think oh that's all right you know they it's religious i guess or something like that but it's
not because all through the 70s in america in order to supply this material parents were told
in different parts of the united states that it was a hygiene thing yeah and so it's a hygiene
thing where not just the a small portion of it is removed like in a in a religious ceremony but all
of it is removed and so being a kid growing up in wisconsin and showering with everybody in elementary
school for whatever reason i don't know why that's the way it was at my school i know for a fact that
a large majority of the the young males that i grew up with are fully they have nothing and this
is a biology discussion so i'm not trying to get graphic here i'm trying to describe to you how
the flip side of this is is that i had a guy who i went to um did my graduate study with in the
netherlands who married a turkish woman and in so doing he actually got himself circumcised by an
imam and kind of you know on it for all practical purposes converted to islam so that he could marry
this turkish woman and i assure you that whatever was removed didn't go to a medical remnant sale
and get derived into cell culture material because there is a pipeline of this coming from american
hospitals and it has been for a long time so are there immortal genes honestly i don't know because
i do know that most of the cell culture material that's used in america is not immortal even if
they tell you it is there's you should question this this notion and if i'm proven wrong that only
means that all of us will have learned it better but i i would be willing to bet it's not aliquoting
is just when you have a sample like uh sugar and then you decide that you're going to take a really
a big amount of sugar and you're going to put it into little teaspoon size samples so that you can
conveniently get a teaspoon whenever you want to and so aliquoting is something that they say they
do when they have this dish full of a virus and then they make it into a lot of small samples
and send it all around the world any any kind of thing like that would be aliquoting it's not a
very special word um and then good virus versus bad virus i guess that was the question about the
book so i showed that first i hope that was good that was that what she had yeah that was fine
thank you this is dave i'd like to interject something since you're talking about immortal
cells i know a lot about them would that be all right that would be great thank you yes please
clear this up okay um the immortal cell lines uh are all all of them are aneuploid meaning they
have unbalanced chromosomes not all not all of the aneuploid cells live forever but all
immortal cell lines like the healer cell line that was the very first one all right they're
immortal uh the not i mean the immortal ones are aneuploid the diploid ones the euploid ones will
always have this hay flake limit they'll divide maybe 50 50 to 70 fold and then they'll slow down
and stop dividing they'll fall apart and everything so that's all i wanted to say the immortal cell
lines have to be aneuploid i see well thank you for that thank you dave thanks elbert good job las
charles can i just ask david uh they have to be what david what did you say what was that word
aneuploid what does that mean aneuploid euploid means balanced you get one complete set of
chromosomes from the mother another complete set of chromosomes from the father for a balanced set
humans would be 23 plus 23 is 46 aneuploid would be like down syndrome where they got three
comp three chromosome uh 21s that's down syndrome all right so that's an unbalanced set of chromosomes
aneuploid means not a euploid it's not euploid which means it's not balanced did i answer that
for you yeah so what is the significance of that then well you know i'm a cancer researcher
and i know a lot about this because cancer cells always are aneuploid there's no such thing as a
dip diploid cancer cell doesn't exist in other words all cancer cells have unbalanced chromosomes
and it's like shuffling a deck of cards whereas normal human cells always have the exact same
composition of 23 and 23 23 from the mother 23 from the father cancer cells never have a balanced
set and there's no two cancer cells that have the exact same complement of chromosomes all of them
are different they're like snowflakes you know them when you see them but you never see the same one
twice yeah so if said so if these things are aneuploid which you ended up saying what does
what does that mean what does that mean that they're disorganized or um they're unbalanced
they're unbalanced you and what's the significance of that that's what i'm trying to
well usually if you're talking about higher organisms like mammals like like we are those
cells typically die if they get unbalanced they might live a little while but they're
damaged cells all aneuploid cells are damaged none of them are super cells and so why would
they use damaged cells david ah but why would they use the aneuploid cells are very unstable
whenever they divide they rearrange their chromosomes and at some point they evolve
to the point where they live in cell culture for example like the healer cells the healer cells
were first discovered in cell culture and and they can just grow forever in the laboratory
and cancer cells and they can evolve normal cells do not evolve in cell culture aneuploid
cells evolve they they evolve to become drug resistant uh you know most of them will die
but some of them will actually become drug resistant that's where drug resistance comes
from in cancers it comes from a certain population of these aneuploid cancer cells
survive chemotherapy radiation whatever and then they come back later when you stop it that's where
it comes from so david why would they use aneuploid cells in your opinion
because you can get them commercially and they get them it's the euploid cells that are very very
difficult to come by i mean i'm taking the other way around the euploid cells uh can only grow a
limited amount of time in the cell culture where aneuploid cells you can grow them forever basically
all the research they're doing then is arguably invalid because yes yes that's what i was trying
to get out of you david that's exactly what i was trying to get out of you so 99 at least 99 percent
of the published data using uh uh cell lines they're aneuploid cell lines and they have
nothing really basically nothing to do with reality so it's fraud then well no fraud implies
that you consciously are trying to mislead well maybe they are doing doing this stuff now we're
going on a little bit too long on this i mean we're taking away from from from what i know david
i'm just trying to uh so in the public's mind i'm just trying to get them to think about it you know
so all the scientific work on cells is done with these aberrant cells for lack of a better word and
so maybe all the conclusions that they get from these experiments which are funded by nih i suppose
and uh they're all invalid and of no interest irrelevant irrelevant i tell you what exactly
why don't you guys invite me and i'll give a whole little talk about this be happy to do it
oh yes can you remember what the topic is uh and you play the i've been yeah you'll have to you'll
have to remind me uh what okay so david if you email me that will remind me okay
okay thanks that's great so sorry everybody no it's okay otherwise we lost the we wouldn't
have understood what aneuploid meant no nobody would have been i thought it was just me
okay thank you charles
oh charles is gone so lars you're you're it's your go as far as i can see hello lars good to see you
all right good to see you your speech at g edward griffin's red pill expo was fantastic
and you have only uh accelerated from there it's fascinating to follow you i thought i would
ask a question about uh sorry lars whose speech was that i'm so sorry
uh jj gave a speech in south dakota that was very very good yeah and and he has improved
every time since then so yeah now i i thought i would ask questions about the inability of
rna to replicate and pandemic but this is not the topic of the day so i will ask you another
question uh are you familiar with professor freeman dyson the professor of science and
are you familiar with professor freeman dyson's criticism of the theory of evolution where he
refers to a japanese um evolution and biology is called mutu kimura who talks about uh not
natural selection but random genetic drift as being the engine of evolutionary change
have you seen that i'll i'll put one please put a link in the chat i am not familiar with it
honestly this is me you know just just it's actually very very interesting i don't understand it but
you will understand it so uh i'll just put it in the in the chat i got it that that's a popular
article but if you follow uh professor kimura you will you you will read some very interesting
stuff actually very good oh this is wonderful thank you oh no he's a colleague of robert
oppenheimer oh no it's exactly the same group of men it's fantastic well done okay this is going
to be a good piece of the puzzle this is awesome so have you got a question for jj or yeah well i
would like to talk about the i i'd like to find the scientific um proof or the suggestions why
rna cannot replicate to become pandemic i i just want the scientific papers but i can call you
tomorrow well let me let me flip it around for you and make sure that the the link that i put in the
chat with the youtube video when you're you when you're bored watch that youtube video it's a
really nice guy he's very popular dude adam rutherford um and the first 25 minutes you can
listen to it even at double speed um and really uh when you get to the point where he's explaining
what dna is he's going to show you a cartoon of dna replication and he's going to state very clearly
that once they discovered the chemical composition and structure of dna and have now demonstrated
how it is copied it is this incredibly high fidelity process with a predictable level of error
that has gotten us from the mud puddle billions of years later to us and that is reliant on the
double stranded structure and the the consequences of the double stranded existence of it meaning it
can be proofread and single stranded rna by definition lacks that entirely and so the whole
foundation of the primacy of genes and dna and crick and watson and all this stuff is based on
the remarkable double stranded nature of that molecule and by definition single
stranded positive strand rna viruses lack this and the only protein that they argue
circumvents this huge shortcoming is a protein that only their drug remdesivir interacts with
it's not possible it's absolutely not possible right but if you look at the consequences of
dna and how much effort has been in and put into making sure people understand how
wonderful this double stranded nature is and all the wonderful consequences of it including that
you have no free will rna doesn't have that so i that's the main argument for me but i can help
with more more specific things maybe those those papers for example if i call the leading professor
at karolinska institute in stockholm in microbiology and suggest what you just said to us will he agree
will he understand or will he i would be happy if you would get me a zoom meeting with him and you
and me and we just i would love to do that yeah i mean really yeah that would be great
we need you could come and speak to us get jj the professor from karolinska and you you can be the
moderator and we need to crack through this now yeah we really do need to crash through this yeah
absolutely you have the answers we just need to break through in in in reality with your a lot
of people have the answers there's a lot of biologists out there that would come to our rescue
immediately and say more or less that i didn't say it as clever as that but that's definitely
what i think and and that would be wonderful right if these kinds of people would carry that
flag forward for us we'd really have a we'd really have something so large can you set up a
discussion like that and and moderate it or i'll see if he'll see if he's interested
yeah he will be it could be that they know the truth and are scared that could be oh yes well
ask him nicely then lash go and see him i tried to be nice thank you jj i think before lunch tomorrow
very good thanks last jennet
uh yeah just um a couple of comments and a question so um one comment goes back to the
theory of evolution and and i just wanted to mention that there's a uk doctor i think he's
a gp called james lefano he wrote a book entitled why us in 2009 in which he explains that the
survival of the fittest evolution theory is only unproven and he gives examples where there are no
intermediate forms that confer survival advantage so for example there is no intermediate stage
between quadripedal and bipedal that confers a survival advantage so that breaks the link
really between animals and humans right um the question can you say the last name again james
james land who lefano l e l e capital f a n u james lefano and he talks about there being no
intermediate um stages in the development of the eye which confers a survival advantage as well
and it's very funny because yes there's another guy who made that argument and actually when i was
a freshman in college i and the very first lecture at de paul university i can still remember his
name is beck i can't remember his first name but he was the dean of the biology department
and he was telling us about evolution and i said i just want i'm not asking this i even framed it
perfectly i said i'm not asking this as a gotcha moment i'm asking you to help me have a good
answer for this but what about the lack of intermediate like usefulness of the eye and
how many times vision has evolved and he stuttered and stammered and it was one of the most like oh
darn i didn't mean to hurt you like i really thought it was i was being the right kind of
smart kid you know like hey i i get this question a lot from people and i really want to be able to
answer it and he couldn't give it a very good he was not prepared for that it was really funny so
i'm i'm happy that you mentioned i haven't heard the book but i'll i'll get it yeah um my question
is if there aren't enough genes to explain the entire construction of the human body in other
words how the proteins are actually put together what is junk dna is it still a concept and is
its function still a mystery yeah i mean i absolutely think that's probably the case the
other thing to consider is the idea that that um the code could be somehow uh unimaginably
layered to us uh sorry layered but invisible to us so um you know not that dissimilar to how people
say that you know if you read a book and you only circle the certain number of letters then you can
see another message or if you if you uh use the if you add up all the numbers across the line and
did this then you could find another message um it is not entirely ridiculous and i don't i don't
necessarily disbelieve the idea that that within the the nucleus they were able to identify
molecules of dna that seem to correspond to sequences that maybe can be related to proteins
and and that central dogma in some way exists and i'm not arguing that that that in some ways that's
not true what i am suggesting is that that is wholly insufficient for us to jump from that
those limited observations in those limited chemical preparations in those limited you know
hyper pure genetic signals or whatever system that we're looking in to use that to generalize
that well it's just a matter of figuring out where all the other moving parts are and then
basically free will will be eliminated and there's no need to talk about god or spirituality
because we're just a bunch of spinning wheels and bubbling chemicals and that's the part um
that i think i was trapped in a lot of my my colleagues are still trapped in because we all
took the same lessons from the same people who already were trapped in it none of my biology
teachers were aware of this these shortcomings but instead were given just enough understanding
so that their imagination would happily fill in all the blanks and that's what's very enticing
about it what is junk dna then if there isn't well i think it's just a bad name for it you could if
you if you had a chinese book and you only knew five characters and you told said that all the
other characters were junk characters that wouldn't be a very adequate way to describe it right
okay and i think that's the way to think about it just because it's repeated and so repeats to us
seem to mean nothing or something like that doesn't mean that when it's folded on itself and read in a
different way that it wouldn't reveal a third dimensional structure code or any other possibilities
that we haven't considered that go beyond this list of characters right yeah yeah i just the the
third thing i wanted to mention i was pleased that you mentioned the issue of circumcision
because i was involved in researching to this quite a few years ago and these babies in america
in particular are circumcised shortly after birth without anesthetic and even though they were very
tiny a number of these babies actually when they grow up they actually have post-traumatic stress
disorder and i did a research project on this and these people who have been circumcised which is
basically the equivalent of a sexual assault in a very undefended human being can lead to
a severe psychological damage and there are some people within this anti-circumcision movement
who are actually suggesting that the psychological damage which is done to babies actually prepares
males in america to serve in the military because they are sufficiently disengaged from their their
own emotions but i just i just wanted to say thank you for mentioning i would love it if you would
send me an email or something i would love to talk to you more about it because it is a it is one of
those things that i think um especially as you said in america there are lots of men who could
think deeply about about their circumstances i mean you know when you when that happens on the
other hand you know you don't know any different and so you're not aware number one of whatever
potential sort of psychological effects would be there but you're also not aware of the context
and that's why i brought up that context of my friend in the netherlands because the ceremonial
removal of of of some foreskin is very different to what they do to those babies where they remove
it all these are there are a lot of kids that have scars from this because that that's what you you
you're not just again i don't want to be too graphic but it's it's very they're two very
different amounts of tissue that are removed and what parts are left a full circumcision of the
foreskin removes 50 of the penile skin and most people say oh that's ridiculous but it is actually
true it's absolutely true i know for sure it's true simply because i grew up with kids of both
conditions and so um it's burnt into my head i have years of of showering with these kids so i know
um the difference definitely and there's a book there's a book by a chap called jim bigelow called
joy of uncircumcising where men who want to restore their foreskins can do so and it's brought a lot
of relief to a lot of men so wow i've never heard of that before that's crazy um wow okay well again
like i said this is just something that in in terms of especially america i think there's a huge
awakening that could take place because there's nothing other than malevolence that can be
attributed to that especially when you realize that there was a whole you know industry of of
medical remnants that has not gone away it's just gotten better and better in america yeah and what
is your email address um i'll put it in the chat right now thank you so jj um janet's a british
doctor nice i'm very excited to meet you and yeah and likewise there you go i think whoops did i do
that no i didn't what the hell just happened there and she helped with um um david kelly
but also uh worked on doctors for a son as well
so she understands
oh tom are you next um thanks tom's next yep i yeah i can go um yeah thanks as usual part of this i
think your teaching is so valuable and so i'm not directly addressing the um the it seems almost
philosophical or metaphysical issue of free will and you know the watch that would just some sort
of wind-up watch um but i'm a blind watchmaker oh i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm sorry i'm
okay all right so so uh yeah a few things and i'm not really good at doing this but i want to just
kind of shotgun through here so uh and maybe if you want if you'd allow me to do a few things
maybe if you want to interrupt and just answer uh endos uh cytosis that was introduced recently to
me in a meeting it just seemed like a good term because we need to like tell stories to people that
um you know that are uninformed and it and i think that's part of trans transfection
and you know and maybe you could hit on that the other one is um i heard now some of this is coming
out of the doctors for covid ethics meeting the the process of self-replicating dna uh the japanese
jabs and i heard someone in that meeting describing that as a process that only replicates
the dna and does not replicate any proteins i don't know if you so that's something to comment on
oh and then uh michael palmer speculated about the formation of the casts in the um you know the long
stringy material that they pull out of carotid arteries and so forth and he was simply speculating
that it's a process of the that's triggered by the irritation of the endothelial cells and um
and this there was a woman in that was doing the presentation and her name is she's a professor
uh anna s ulreich uh i believe martina who's here also watched this and she she agreed that that
might be the case that and and this was in the context of discussing um i don't know if i
mentioned the name but anna um mahal sia who believes that there's um blinky lights and
nanobots and emf and intra body communication between the nanopods and oh wow yeah okay that's
a good one um yeah well wait let me just oh yeah go ahead look back and say that professor uh anna
ulreich said no no this is just uh this is just crystallization and it's well documented
and then after this i have one yeah why don't you comment i have maybe two more and that's it
um so endocytosis is a pretty general word for when two membranes merge and so it oftentimes
refers to when a smaller vesicles taken up by a cell in in the use of a lipid nanoparticle
and transfection you're going to have what is endocytosis of the of the lipid nanoparticle so
also i think you could describe the uptake of uh a adenovirus particle as endocytosis although
maybe there are people who would argue with that so i don't i don't think that it's a very specific
term i think it's pretty can be broadly applied um self-replicating rna is on dna sorry it i but
the the mrna is actually what they're doing in japan i don't think it's oh um okay all right
and so the self-replicating rna is actually as far as we can you know as we can discern
they are using a viral rna dependent rna polymerase and i can't remember off the top of my head what
one it is but i know that it's in the paper you can see they did just take it from uh some some
pathogen that has an rna dependent rna polymerase and then they're putting that in uh the the same
mrna construct as the as the antigen rna and then their argument is is that they would have to give
you less lipid nanoparticle and less chemically altered mrna because this chemically m or
chemically altered rna will replicate itself now that's an interesting claim and it's an
interesting differentiation between the two mechanisms because remember the reason why we
had to make it m1 pseudo uredine was to prevent the immune system from reacting to it and the
immune system ignores it but if you take a mrna and it's self-replicating then by definition
it's going to self replicate itself not in the presence of the chemical reaction that would
alter it into the m1 pseudo uredine rna which would mean that then you're making a non-protected
or non-chemically altered rna which won't go through and see that here's the problem that that
i just see when i think about it that if they tell you that the first one worked or x y and z
then this one won't work for that reason because it can't be chemically altered because it will
be made in your body we're using your own your own nucleotides which are not going to be chemically
altered whereas the one that they put in the original shot or whatever supposedly all of the
uracils were chemically altered so the self-replicating mrna presents a whole
another set of problems that actually were in the original version of this that robert
malone said all those years ago didn't really work out for him because the immune response was
too strong so the self-replicating rna thing is quite frustrating to me because again
people got on the internet saying that oh they're releasing this and now there's going to be a new
rna spreading around and so you better stay away from those people and i think it's all it's
probably it's probably a gross over exaggeration of even the potential best case scenario of joining
an rna-dependent rna polymerase to another transcript and then thinking that that was
going to somehow work out um if anything to me quite honestly i would say tom that this
almost seems to edify the idea that they have known that there are self-replicating rna signals
that have a limited spectrum of coverage in our families or in our cons specific groups or in
our classrooms that occasionally manifest in respiratory disease and other you know maybe
what appear to be contagions but the fidelity and endurance and ability for these things and signals
to sustain themselves over thousands or millions or billions of people is ridiculous and so um
we're at a stage now where they they have always been trying to play with this system
and so in playing with this system they've told us stories like aids they've told us stories like
chronic fatigue syndrome they've told us stories like like epstein bar virus and they've told us
stories like coronavirus the pandemic all to disguise this you know almost endless field of
of of packet genetic communication that they know has to do with with health and evolution and
disease and and and sickness and and cons specific signaling they probably even know it has to do
with whether you are attracted to your mate and enjoy kissing her so for me the the the issue is
the confusion and the implication that they have already developed these high fidelity molecular
tools that they can make and use on people and so the more they get people riled up about a
self-replicating rna that's going to spread from japan if we let airplanes fly the more that people
buy into this idea that these molecular tools work in this high fidelity way and so i i have to
believe that this is almost exclusively exaggeration and that's why um you know the the details of it
and the discussion of it is not really framed in what i feel like is any different than gain
of function viruses so michael palmer saying it's an irritation of the endothelium
i don't think there's anything wrong with that again because we don't know really what these
lipid nanoparticles are really going to do especially after their ph changes and they
become much more toxic and it's very likely that that this is a possibility but again i don't i
don't think there's any reason to speculate too much about it simply because what they've told us
that it's covid or that it's the spike protein or or whatever it can't be the case um relative
to just you know a general effect of transfecting the epi endothelium and and transfecting the
endothelium will have all kinds of terrible consequences and maybe one of them is a a
activation of the clotting mechanism remember that in case you have forgotten um the transfection
agents that are listed in all of the papers previous to the pandemic one of the the
the overarching themes was that where they went was then what where they meant them to go so when
lipid nanoparticles first came out and they started using them they realized that almost all of them
went to the liver so the first thing they said was hey these are liver targeting lipid nanoparticles
even though it had nothing to do with targeting the liver it's just where they mostly went and
another way place that they went that they said that they could be useful for was platelets
lipid nanoparticles go to platelets for some reason and many of them do and so that could also be
a cell type that's irritated here and of course platelets being irritated would
would very quickly get you to the clotting mechanism so um i think sukrit bhakti would
be better to talk about that than me and then the nanobot light lady drove me bananas in the same
way that um a guy by the name of kevin mccairn who also put a bunch of of of stuff under a light
microscope and then said he found or didn't find things um the first and foremost thing to remember
about light microscopy is that if you don't know how they did it the chances of them seeing
something that is significant versus something that's random um it's almost always going to be
something random because light microscopy can make dust look interesting it can make dirt look
interesting it can make dirt look alive and it can make dirt look sparkly especially if the field of
view is adjusted in such a way that things are coming in and out of the field of view
and the light source is angled in such a way that things can move in and out of the light source
you can have things look like they're sparkling i was just absolutely livid when i heard that
lady say on a chd video that this is blue light sparkling in this sample but she had a backlight
on it's like if there's blue light being generated here please turn off all the external illumination
and show me it's blue light um and this is just the very beginning of it so for me um if they're
not using anything but light microscopy and they haven't been using light microscopy for many many
years um then it's most likely bullshit i'm sorry but it is uh and i think that lady was very much
not looking at what she said she was looking at and i don't know anything about the the um
the signals there's some people are purporting that there's some kind of code that comes out
of these things i don't know what they call it anymore but i don't know mac address um mac address
that's right so so two more things well maybe a couple statements and you can
contradict them if they're wrong so in in the meeting urnst um who's a german scientist he had
done uh i think ramma mass spectroscopy on on the vials on the jab vials a couple years ago
and he he chimed in and he suggested that some of the discovery of graphene may be an artifact of
them in other that they actually created the graphene in the process of of looking at the
vials by mistake and then um the and so he says no graphene um and so so does the professor uh
ulrich um and then just test me on this my understanding of the nano lipid particles
is that each molecule in the um each molecule is on the order of 2000 atomic weight you know like
on the periodic table atomic weight and that these molecules um have dipoles and they get
vibrated and then they self-assemble into the larger 50 to nanometer uh nano lipid particles
and you know leave in there now i i heard it was in some cases i heard multiple strands of mrna
and other cases i just heard one i don't know so there's that and then here's a thought experiment
let's say you did let's say it was 2017 and you had a lateral flow test that you get got from the
grocery store would the background interactions in the population generate any positives i mean
that's what i think i think that's definitely what would happen i don't obviously we can't go back
in time and do it um but yeah that's that would be my premise that that the that the pcr test
wasn't and it could have been again i really think that you can't underestimate the malevolence here
so there could have been a couple tests that were fairly accurate for some known background
signal then a bunch of tests that were absolutely nonsense um but even the lateral flow the grocery
store test not the pcr yeah the lateral flow test too i mean how do how do we know um
how do how do we know that they're not testing for a a um an endogenous protein uh because again
when you buy one of those tests you're trusting everything about it uh and so the the assumption
that everything here's another example so my friend lives in um in australia and he's he just
moved house and in moving house he found a whole box full of these lateral flow tests that were
being given out by the case to every family in australia so that students could test for
before school um and all of these tests were manufactured in china all of them and he had
he had he sent me a picture and i couldn't believe it they were like six different ones
and they came from two different places in china and the australian government was buying hundreds
of millions of these tests that were being produced in china and so for me it becomes
almost too easy um for this to have been gamed in such a way on a known background so that any
cursory investigation into the molecular fidelity would not reveal anything untoward and uh now they
can easily be having an abit test with 17 targets that again um are part of a background that may
or may not be there and definitely doesn't need to correlate with symptomology for it to be
something that all hospitals will buy and use as standard um i don't have a lot of answers anymore
other than i don't know um i just know that they're probably lying about this if it's if it's a high
fidelity yes or no answer um yeah i know that's not very satisfying but
thanks again yeah you happy with that tom yeah very good so uh well craig pardacuper had his
hand up but i'm not even sure he's on the call now um yeah so um one of the things that was really
impressed on us that as children at school um jj was uh the discovery by watson and crick of
the double helix and all the structure of dna um and now in the context of what's happened in the
last five years i'm thinking hmm i wonder why that assumes such incredible you should really look as
if you chase down anything what you ought to do is chase down um the writings of watson in his later
life because he almost feels like he's trying to admit it like he regrets it um watson in particular
i've found i didn't i don't have anything available it's it's part it's in the different notebooks
i think my question to you is jj what's the discovery or the uh the the science that they
uh they they determined the structure of the oxo ribonucleic acid dna um and
if there was uh if it was a psyop the whole thing about dna you know the discovery of this and um
what do you think their intention was in the future if or do you think that there were motives
for this why was it so important in our education no i think it's much more about the fact that
at the time they didn't know what they were doing they didn't know how complex it would be and so at
the time given the state of mind that they were in it was very enticing for that to be the ultimate
answer and then to go with it and only 20 or 30 years later would somebody like watson realize
that wow that was a mistake and look at what we've done well yeah but why would he think that
just explain to the people watching why watson might think that you know this was a mistake and
that um this was going to be misused maybe was that his fear or or what yeah well i think it i
think what it did was that it unfortunately gives credence to the idea that that maybe we need to be
governed this way that we need to be bred um and that it's worthwhile to do that um and and that
i think is what he may have regretted most because if that indeed that foundation isn't so simple then
then that argument doesn't hold water right i mean maybe there is a combination of genes that we
haven't reached yet and and we'll never reach if if we don't continue on the path we're on but instead
try to breed the best human that we can come up with um so do you think that watson was trying to
do his best to to establish the truth um i i think he was he was trying to slow that train down um i
don't think you know anybody could stop it at that point because it had so much pent up momentum
from this assumption that way they would find that piece so what so i still haven't quite understood
jj what you think watson was upset about what what exactly was he afraid of well this idea right that
that what what i think um schrodinger is also hinting at that that all they had to do was
find justification to think that life boils down to physics and chemistry and this was the
justification that they needed and watson doesn't think it's sufficient to make that jump that now
we're just physics and chemistry and there's no free will that that's a very terrifying place to be
um especially in that time when that was putting really out in the spot about whether or not faith
was real i mean now we're in a i grew up in a world where it was okay not to care about god and i was
weird because i was catholic like that and so watson was upset so watson was upset that his
research with prick was going to lead to some people saying that life was just about chemistry
and physics and nothing to do with god is that what you're saying i am saying that and i'm saying
that there were people in the catholic church who were waiting to say it that wanted to say it that
that essentially that that we had not reached the the the final divine form of humankind and that
that this was the revelation we need so why would people in the catholic church be saying that
well i don't know maybe they're not really catholics they're jesuits they're all jesuits
so i guess if you want to go down that's that path that's that's really one of the the things
to realize is that all the catholics that think this are jesuits um for better or for worse that
that's it this is the king jesuit this this day chardin guy he's written a lot of books one of
them is called the future of man go figure yeah so did watson ever give them reason for us to believe
that uh what they found where he didn't believe it himself or you know were they misrepresented
and they knew that they were misrepresented or yeah i i think so i mean that's that's what i gather
there's not very much to find because i don't think people want you to know how skeptical he was um
yeah i mean again i agree a lot with dave you know there could be a library of of proteins in a cell
that has has no other information in it and that's why because we life forms share a lot of the
proteins that a lot of the the the signals that we can detect there if we amplify it high enough are
are shared that's not that's not crazy to me um but it still is only a snapshot of now and we have
no snapshots that that that would allow us to justify the thinking that we came from mud puddle
none so essentially um watson was worrying that uh human beings would uh without justification
get more power and believe in their um in their importance more at the expense of god is that
correct maybe or maybe people could be governed that way you know i mean i i think that that for
sure the the something happened over the course of of of the enlightenment and whatever where people
turned inward and outward in exactly the right way so that that that that we we made a lot of
progress and that progress has been i think significantly hampered and stalled and maybe
even misdirected by by the the trends in biology in the last couple generations so so the reason
they were emphasizing the importance of the uh work of watson and crick in the united kingdom
when i was a child that was all about taking people away from uh god essentially yeah and uh
and um so leading people to believe that uh science is fantastic you know and that um i mean
if you read this book there is no way to read or hear anything other than the joy that god is really
hands off it's a process that god put in motion and since then has just been watching from the
sidelines and so the moment we decide to take the wheel and drive the car we can that's the argument
that this guy has been making since the 30s that then julian huxley published and then julian huxley
went on to write this man and his future book like 10 years later with people like hillary
kaprowski and herman moller and all the same ideas are in there it's all the same concept of
determinist biology that goes right down to the the individual molecules and so we just you know
people are not people and then aldous huxley comes along and writes brave new world which is his
brother right that's julian's brother i mean it's correct and then he also writes a brave new world
revisited about 30 years after the publication of brave new world um so the question is did aldous
huxley write that then in the 30s i think it was uh was it intended in his mind to be a warning
or was it intended to be a playbook no i think it was a warning i honestly do i think that that
that maybe we you know if if we rise to the challenge there's nothing wrong with that right
then i think humanity rising to this challenge and throwing these chains off would also
um be in the best interest of our species so either way i think uh we better keep fighting
yeah so anybody else who wants to ask any deep questions i am not very good at this but some
i'm sure dave colum and lars joe hansen have questions they'd like to ask but
i've been listening i've been listening um dave have you got any thoughts on this
uh well it's interesting i can entertain anything so so it's all interesting to me um
i've had several thoughts as we went along um a little bit of a tendency to throw away stuff
rather than build upon it i think and so this idea that you know that that
uh the idea that that something is just dead wrong is not quite right in many instances where what it
is is it's just too simple um i think a person jj might want to talk to is is oddly enough brett
weinstein because he he's made some utterances about his view of evolution how they've changed
and they've not been clear enough to me to to to let me know what he's thinking but it could
just be a punctuated equilibrium model that he's talking about or something like that but he hasn't
said enough um and then um what else was i thinking i wasn't going to chime in i'll just go sit here
and listen um the junk dna the junk dna model makes total sense to me because i think when you
need to if you think about how evolution works what you can't do is is mutate an essential protein
very easily and not have it be fatal but one of the things you can do is replicate a big chunk of
dna just randomly and all of a sudden that gives you blank canvas to work on so evolutionarily if
you can improve upon a protein by using uh by mutating a duplicate that's been created as what
you might call junk dna and all of a sudden you get one that works better now you haven't
enforced a fatality what you've done is you you've provided the organism with an even better route
i'm listening to the evolution of the eye part i i heard some sort of how could the eye evolve well
uh it's actually in my mind kind of simple in that um all you need is a
a molecule in the cell in a unicellular organism even that responds to light and since light's
energy and that's how information gets transferred that strikes me as a completely rational thing
so you can imagine an organism for which there's a selective advantage to being able to detect
light for whatever reason um maybe it it has some mechanism to float towards it right um
if you duplicate that molecule now all of a sudden you've got really the very beginnings
of stereoscopic vision so you've got two molecules that respond to light but they
one will get a brighter brighter response or are more frequent hit than the other one and so it
tells the organism where the light's coming from and that becomes the beginning of of of of an eye
basically you've just described the first the very first beginnings of rods and cones and things like
that um i think the one the one super absolute and i mean this with the utmost respect um your
imagination is quite limited um and the reason why i would i would argue it's missing one
incredibly important variable and that is that if that model of evolution is true
then that should have happened thousands of times before one got through to the next generation
because it didn't get stepped on or rained out or dried out or eaten and so this this thing of a
molecule that can detect light is not the evolution of an eye and i think that that
that that whole argument is just not equivalent to what we're talking about which is trying to
explain all of the circuitry and all of the fine tuning and all of the developmental process that
goes into defining binocular vision all of these things can't be the process of an incremental
improvement that randomly could become extinct like oh i got the best eye ever in humankind and
then i got hit by a car or i couldn't find a girlfriend that would have to happen millions of
times for each good trait in order to explain this as random mutation and selection and i think it's
because you've accepted this well three gear your dad your your froze i don't know if it's my computer
yours you sound a lot like brett weinstein and it's so it is you're all still let me find another
room um oh no he missed yeah i know i i i heard i heard no i heard i heard basically a response
when i was i was a genetics major which is now a 45 year old antiquated uh degree and i haven't
used genetics since so it has not evolved very quickly itself i remember one time where i had
a guest lecture and the guy said he said that this idea of how did we evolve to this complex state he
said said you think of the i'll say gazillions because i don't even begin to put an order of
magnitude on it but but unbelievable numbers of generations and he said every single one of your
ancestors was a winner every last one and and so i i wonder for example like is the chemist the
origin of optical purity so the fact that we have a single enantiomeric series in all of nature
right so you you tend not to get the the enantiomerically related mirror image proteins
and things like that and and i i've always gone on the basic assumption that it probably was
was events happening in both mirror images and then it in one moment there was just one that
really worked and survived and then it really took off and so i figured that amongst the gazillions
of generations you just needed one that that that couldn't readily replicate before kind of the other
one grabbed the the biological niche i think that i think what you're illustrating is is that that
if you start your interpretation of all the sacred biology outside of your window and in the forest
around you on this rational on this rationing on this on this understanding of how things have
come to be then you will always be trapped in it it's not no i that's why no no that's why i
found it an interesting discussion um what i what i'm reluctant to do is throw it away rather than
build upon it no and i think that's very important why i say that this no virus notion is really
annoying because that would mean that there's no genetic packet communication no knowledge at this
level that would be absurd and that would mean that all these books and all these observations
are bullshit and i think we really need to retool and reinterpret the data that we have and maybe
throw some data out but definitely i'm i'm with you on this right right and so i i happen to work
in a field of chemistry that turned out almost every paper ever published i showed someone was
wrong but they were trying to get it right and and they were not they were not wrong in the sense
that the whole thing had to be reversed they were wrong in the sense that they made assumptions
about function that just were not correct and when you looked at you say well i now see how they made
the mistake and now it actually looks kind of silly in retrospect because you know scientists
get in terrible echo chambers even physical scientists and so i'm totally conceding which
is why i stayed with this whole discussion all the way and and if we evolve another million years
i'm sure let's say we evolve in a direction that that somehow it represents intellectual
improvement i'm not sure that's even remotely possible but if if we do we'll look back and say
back in million years ago these guys could not have fathomed what we now understand they could
not you know and so i think there's things
how darn he shaped he's froze again i want to oh he could possibly understand right now because
we don't i don't know um it's but but that's sort of my basic thoughts on the whole thing um
i just i just all through the well i
again that in this group in particular i saw people throwing away things that um didn't have
to be thrown away to have the discussion right and and and and even cases where if you want to say
like uh i'm totally riveted by this idea that that aids doesn't come from hiv right and peter
dusberg and all the all the stuff that that i think is quite possibly true what i also know
though is that if you're getting in a discussion with someone who's not up to speed if you lead
off with that kind of a punch it's over yeah right so you you kind of have to weight them
into the shallow end of the pool and then say okay follow me with a little bit of let's just think
about this a little bit and so i and that gets back to the don't throw it away build on and by
the time you're done uh it might look like a renovation in which you say i can't detect the
original house in this renovation right it could be one of those um that i have nothing deep to
say about it besides just that so i don't have any problems with the things you guys talked about
i just the reluctance to reluctance to look for nefarious things from the 1930s and i don't think
they were you know the circumcision i i've never heard the circumcision story by the way this is
was completely new to me um the the idea that you use foreskins for for to advantage doesn't negate
the fact that it might actually be biologically health-wise an improvement than not of a foreskin
and and so you don't have to turn it into a oh those bastards they're clipping kid six off
because they want the foreskin it can be that someone said hey we could use that so don't chuck
it right that's useful um there are hygiene issues that are real and there are but but do you mean if
you just want to be real real clear about it i mean foreskin is this okay so the idea is is that
if you want to want it to be clean you want the foreskin to be able to come over the glans penis
if and some people's foreskin doesn't come over very easy and maybe doesn't come over and so the
idea would be to cut that open a little wider so that you can roll that skin back and clean
underneath it that's the whole point of a baby that would be the only argument to make what i'm
telling you is is that these american babies are like this okay that was by the way your your
long-sleeved shirt foreskin analog that was brilliant that no that was that was spectacular
and so by the way i'm in i'm in the middle of digging into the transgender movement i'm in
the middle of abigail schreyer's book oh wow exactly and it's it's horrifying it is horrifying
because it is so socially complex yeah yep and there's so many people that are cool
it's really crazy this this illusion that everybody agrees on it really sucks people into it's oh and
and the whole the whole thing is designed to separate kids from their parents and kids from
anyone who will defy them and it really is a i knew it was um i knew it was a a cultural contagion
but i didn't understand i didn't understand the momentum and the the tools that were being used
to do it and and so um so science does that too we all agree you know did you know that um
kirstammer the prime minister of the united kingdom the new prime minister the deputy prime
minister of the united kingdom i'm not quite sure whether it's uh evette cooper or um angela reyna
but anyway the other one is the home secretary so we've got three very prominent positions in the
british and new british government and three those three the daily mail which is a well-known
newspaper in the uk um and they they've been aware for quite some time that all three of those people
in prominent positions in the uk i think it's a conflict of interest in you know when you consider
that uh children are being told uh taught what they are being taught apparently in british schools
um all three of them have transgender children
yeah it's a badge of honor among certain old nut cases um but the really interesting thing for me
is that the daily mail knew about has known about this for some time i don't know exactly how long
but i know that it's true because someone very senior at the daily mail told me they haven't
told the british public this so the british public are totally unaware i was totally unaware till i
was actually told by the head of the daily mail not exactly the head but very near the top of the
daily mail well curiously elon musk got taken down that path a little bit by one of his kids and then
realized what was happening and one thing's for sure is elon is not invisible
you can't when he decides he wants to talk about something that you can't hide it and so uh yeah so
in any event so that's a fascinating again and science those who are not in science don't
understand the group think that kicks in even amongst people who are trying to get it right
even i don't i don't think it has to be conspiracies and i think there are fields
of science where the fraud is much more prevalent than others those happen to be the fields where
the stakes for committing the fraud are very high or it's easy like in biochem you can win a noble
prize by faking stuff if you if you are clever enough to do it but um um but but um the climate
change guys it that grift is spectacular and and it's it's 150 trillion dollars of projected
spending who's gonna who's gonna open their mouth on that right every everyone wants a piece of that
pie and guys have gone down to the southern border friends of mine have gone down there said what's
clear is everybody's making money down there the whole thing there's money every single moving part
on that southern border is a for-profit machine wow and so yeah so that you dig into this stuff
and it can it can make you very dark my advice would be don't get don't get too dark on dna
it's still an important biomolecule it just it probably is i agree with that yes yeah yeah
yeah anyway creep and say i have to go i'm sorry yes so thank you i do too actually i do too
thanks jj see on twitter dave is uh oh you know each other do a little bit we're connected
yeah we we can reach each other when we want to how's that i think he's heard me yell at uh at uh
carrot fund and bush once about t cells a long time ago that's how we cross paths first
i am so you know so you know he's a professor of chemistry than dave i do yep yeah very good
so my twitter my twitter presence is on healthy levels of presence that's that's uh
yeah dave before you go i i would like to uh introduce you to the joke on the foreskin
oh okay okay which uh my mother bought her a magazine which had uh a nude
uh reynolds in it and she was disappointed because he'd had his leg up so she couldn't
see anything and it was in the centerfold and she was saying you've got playboy and
look at this this is rubbish and on the following page was an article about foreskin and the lady
said to the doctor what do you do with the foreskins and he said we make handbags you give them a quick
rub and you have a suitcase
don't get me started i used to be the joke master i have 10 000 jokes um and they're all
they're all tasteless i gotta go thanks for the time very good