you you you August 2022. Somebody doesn't know how to update his date. What's that all about?
Oh, man. What happened there? Hello. I'm your science officer this evening. How's this look?
We're okay. Testing okay here with the sound check. Thank you, Captain, for visiting. We'll take over from here. Anybody got feedback on that sound check for me? All right. Thank you very much. I think we're ready to go.
Oh, we're gonna be talking Robert Malone tonight.
Take him hard into the paint tonight just like my friend would do. I'm gonna push this tonight. It's time. We got to go for it when we can. We might not get another shot at this.
Thanks very much for the compliment on the RFK Junior podcast. I really appreciate it.
It was a pretty stressful week and tonight we're gonna take that one and make it into a grand slam. That's the plan.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is with very humble pride that I give you Greg James, my greatest supporter. My name is Greg James and I'm a business person with no affiliation to any organization. Here are three suggestions that could help improve pandemic response. Firstly, two and a half years into the pandemic, there's a mountain of evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is man-made and escaped from a lab. We need an international health body to quickly identify the source of pandemics so that we can put in place measures to ensure that the same type of pandemic doesn't happen again. Secondly, two and a half years into the pandemic, there's a mountain of evidence that there are many medications that are effective at treating COVID. The website, c19early.com, for example, currently identifies medications that were demonstrated effective in over three million patients. To this day in California and around the world, pharmacists are aggressively preventing the dispensing of these medications to treat COVID patients. We need an international public health body to condemn this type of criminal behavior, which has caused hundreds of thousands of excess COVID deaths due to lack of treatment options.
Thirdly, two and a half years into the pandemic, there's a mountain of evidence that combating a pandemic with a leaky vaccine is completely ineffective. More critically, COVID vaccines appear to cause catastrophic adverse health reactions, including sudden adult death syndrome. 62,000 excess deaths in young people occurred in the U.S. in the past 16 months, likely caused by the vaccine. We need an international public health body to condemn the use of unproven experimental vaccines to fight pandemics. Thank you for giving me the...
That was a statement that he sent, a video statement that he sent to the WHO, a part of a public collection of commentary. Mr. Greg James has been supporting me for a long time. He has the largest name on that screen for a reason. For more than a year now, he has been an unwavering buoyancy underneath this boat. And I can't thank Greg enough for everything that he's done for me and my family. The reason why I'm here, a lot of it has to do with Mr. Greg James. So it was very nice for me to be able to introduce you in the context of that comment. So thanks from everyone here, Greg, for doing that comment, for supporting this work. Thanks a lot. And we are going to learn biology tonight, ladies and gentlemen, it's really the final piece of the puzzle that you need to know in order to understand what's really happening here. Basically, your brain is going to be studying your body. So you're going to be studying your body. So you're going to be studying your body. So you're going to be studying your body, and you're going to be studying your body. And as we get closer to the end of the understand what's really happening here. Basically I'm gonna try and explain the last little bit of the brick wall that will form your foundation for understanding that this has to be at least the theater itself is is formulated around the best they can do for a bioweapon and that is an infectious clone leaked or accidentally released is the best they can do and right now they're using that as an excuse to try and trick you into giving up informed consent for your children and the only way you're really going to be able to see this clear enough is to look at the history the history of biology in America the history of funding it the history of how it has been funded how the ideas have been driven and how these ideas have been turned into products and we must be free to talk about this for the next few years because that's how long that's how long it's gonna take for everybody to really understand we're all at various levels the first way in of course is understanding the biology if you understand the biology then you start to question the policy and once you start questioning the policy you know why you're swinging and why you can't stop that's it I think it's a pretty simple passage from learning the immunology to becoming the Patriot that we all need you to be if you've been following me for a while you're here at the top of the wave and if not you might be a skilled TV watcher that we are here to save we're gonna save you by keeping you focused on the biology we're gonna save you by making sure you don't take the bait on TV and we are going to make sure that you're loving your neighbor because that's the way out again besides Greg there's people like Ben and Rodney and Piper and Christian and and Maggie and I don't even know where to begin Stefan and Ryan and there's just a lot of people out there that are making small and large contributions which keep this this this this thing afloat this giga home biological high resistance low noise information brief I'm the chief biologist of this this little operation and we have been covering pandemic biology and cutting-edge biology for about two years now you count the very beginning stuff on JC on a bike and it's almost three years that we've been busy putting biology product biology content out on the internet all started with where did this virus come from what cage did this virus emerge from very interesting question but afraid it's not really what happened there oh I didn't have my cursor over here it's really not only about that got a swipe again now because I'm still not screen hello my name is Jonathan Cooey this is geome biological we are trying to dispel illusion illusions which are unfortunately sustained by your own participation it's your own hand it's in front of your eyes and if you want to free yourself from this really the only thing you need to do is remove your hand and that's what this photograph is all about always like to thank my best friend for all the support that she gives me as I try very hard to keep my mind focused enough to put a stream out every once in a while because it is hard I'm not trying to play a violin or anything like that but it is a bit like the more you delve into this the more it taints your soul and the more it can make you feel very unhappy about the world and so it's a very fine line to walk here and my goal is always to help you dip your foot into the right part of the pool without slipping in and and never escaping I want you to be able to understand what they've done to your family and friends and it is so crucial right now because we are approaching the Thanksgiving table and for those of us in America the Thanksgiving table might be the only place where we get together with people of varying political bents it's gonna be ugly and we're gonna need to be prepared to keep it apolitical and talk only about the biology that's why I think it's most important for us to really understand this right now I just want to remind anyone who's just joining for the first time for a very long time I was a neurobiologist what that basically means is that I killed a lot of mice and I'm fairly good with a microscope that's about all I can really say about that because most things in neuroscience are so specialized that one of the main skills that you come out of academic science with is the ability to read your way into a problem quickly it reads your way into a set of ideas very quickly and over the course of my neuroscience career I changed from nicotinic receptors in the frontal cortex and attention to the representation of space in the brain and its sort of functional role in memory and I looked at the connectivity between neurons in the context of all of these investigative questions so in reality I was a photographer taking pictures of many different subjects but the skill transferred from subject to subject but as I was doing that I was always challenged to read in to the new subject area read into the new foundation of literature when you move from the frontal cortex and attention and the nicotinic receptors and smoking and schizophrenia to the hippocampus and memory and and forgetting and learning and contextual memory and associative memory as well as emotional memory later on in the in the amygdala you start to see all these different ways that people have investigated circuitry all the different tools that they use and how they're applied to different questions and this is all really the skill that lots of people in academia should have is the ability to say hey I'd like to know more about that and then to systematically be able to sort of assemble a good model of how that biological system how that biological question how those biological thoughts are organized and I think that's at least a skill set that I developed over 20 years in neuroscience ending as a research assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine for the last four years of my academic career before I pivoted to just pure independent consulting and and and and teaching biology on the internet and shaking a can hoping people will find the content valuable enough to pay for it and without a couple people like Greg maybe I still wouldn't be doing this but thanks to Greg James and a few others I'm definitely still doing this it all started again on the bike and YouTube we were covered as a group called drastic by everybody including Tucker Carlson but they often get the origin of drastic wrong it is a group that started almost exclusively with Americans most of those Americans are no longer in the group but at some point a large portion of the people that were in drastic were American or Canadian it's also suffice to say that there were several times that the group bifurcated or even you know broke up into several different still communicating groups of people and so it was a little bit disingenuous to portray drastic as a single phenomenon and it still remains pretty disingenuous to portray it as a single phenomenon when right now officially there are at least two drastic one drastic and drastic science or something like this I do believe that Charles Rixie is a guy who tries to straddle both of those groups but I left the group formally when it was still one single group that was basically having different people wrestling for control of it Billy Bo Stixson and and Yuri Dagan and a few other people trying to wrestle ultimately for control and behind the scenes of it and in between the separate groups that formed within it there was a slack group and so it became this pretty controversial thing but in reality in 2020 it was just really a few people that were interested in talking about the possibility that this virus came from a laboratory and those people included me and so what this stream is is really a cathartic sort of summary of where I have come all from way back when I was on the bike and when I was on the bike talking about the possibility of a lab leak and all the things that they had done in the past which which should have pointed directly immediately to the topic of tonight's lecture but the actual genetics of it are actually quite elusive and in fact I will argue that what you will hear me present first tonight is something that you will have never heard anywhere else explained as succinctly as I'm about to explain it and I would argue that anybody who's already known how to explain it this succinctly is probably part of the group of people that would like you to not know it this succinctly and instead focus on all the other permutations of gain-of-function research that are purported to be out there and available to those very studious garage virologists that we are all hypothetically threatened by by the news and social media and so I'm gonna belabor this a little bit you know because my kids are being put to bed and we have a guest over and I want to get this right today because tomorrow I have another guest coming in town and I want to be sort of free in the evening tomorrow so I want to get this out there and make sure it's out there once and for all and now that Matt Crawford did a stream I really feel like it's necessary as you know Twitter has been taken over will this account be brought back if you feel like you know this is something important maybe we can do that but I'm actually working on trying to start a collaboration with a couple people in the background that will allow us to do the Twitter alternative and I'm gonna give you more details about that in a few days I've got a helpful person on the planet who's helped me set this up I want to remind you it's not just the PBS NewsHour it's CNN it's Fox it's any channel it is impossible to escape it YouTube might as well be considered mainstream media at this point it's also impossible to escape them pre social media there was some impetus to tell the truth on television there was some correlation between what we believed and what we saw on the TV that's what's depicted here and during the pandemic we are really dealing with a much more dangerous version of media that is not beholden to the truth is it's able to lie to us and it lies to us most of the time on the on the basis are the idea of national security and this this impetus to lie for policy reasons for life or for for governance has become a normal thing and for the vast majority of Americans that's okay they choose one of the narratives that they see on TV and they go with it but a few of us are confused and that's really where we are right now they have misled us with this media firehose and they've convinced us of a number of things that just simply are not true I'm not saying that there is no virus I'm not saying that there aren't bioweapons programs I'm not saying that there aren't millions of dollars spent in these programs I'm not saying that people didn't whistle-blow I'm not claiming to know everything but I am about to present to you what I think is the most parsimonious explanation for whatever biologic started this and the most parsimonious explanation for what they did about it and why that has resulted in what we have experienced over the last two and a half to three years so without further ado this is a guy we know he's actually at 8 o'clock I believe he's doing some kind of thing where he's having a zoom meeting about his own experiences with misinformation in this little video without wanting to promote him too much he's talking about the Boston virus which as you might know is the original SARS-CoV-2 backbone combined with the Omicron spike this purported gain-of-function chimeric virus has been paraded in the news is something that wow the audacity of what they've done and it killed more of the mice in the lab I'm gonna show you today why it's mostly hype and he will say that it's mostly hype but for precisely the wrong reasons so let's just listen this is how we understand how they work and yet you can see how it might be really easy for someone who doesn't understand this process to spin it as some Franken style experiments that could destroy the world this is just scaremongering no two ways about it this is mass media spreading fear as they do I mean even if this virus were to make it into the population guess what we have vaccines that already target this form of spike it would be no different we'd still have vaccines that work we're not changing spike we're putting it in a new background so he believes that the antibodies block the spike protein and that's how we combat the virus he believes that changing to a different spike variant in the transfection will change your immune memory in a useful direction and he believes that the primary motive of combating disease from a public health perspective is vaccination he mentions nothing else and now why we don't want to promote this person but we want to use them as a prototype example of the skilled TV watcher the ultra confident certain that they are right about very complex biological phenomena and the more certain somebody presents themselves to be the more likely it is that they're full of shit because they haven't put in the requisite work anybody that's been following me knows that I put in the requisite work and I'm still not gonna tell you I'm certain so the requisite work that I've been putting in lately has been starting to pay off in the form of collaborations with Bobby Kennedy a couple weeks ago I was asked to write a brief article about this paper which came out called endonuclease something something something I don't know if it's in there I have it in a minute it's evidence of the seamless ligation technique and they used they looked at the sequence they compared it to other viral sequences they created a baseline of probability for these sequences to occur in those locations and then they showed that the odds of them occurring in those locations as they do in the original SARS-CoV-2 sequence is fairly fairly significant and so it does look like there is a possibility that some very useful restriction enzyme sites flank the receptor binding domain in a way that would make it very easy for the receptor binding domain to be tweaked at a number of different amino acids that just happen to be amino acids where the furan cleavage site occurs and so the title of the the study endonuclease fingerprint indicates a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2 suggests the fact that these fingerprints these these endonuclease restriction enzyme sites are so curiously placed and so rare in those places in the wild that they reach a level of significance that we can call evidence and so that's what this paper is this what this article is about but I would note that the motivation of Children's Health Defense and the defender is one of reading and getting the ideas out there catching people's attention and I witnessed firsthand the push and pull between the readership and the defender as they started with a more inflammatory title and a slightly inflammatory final paragraph and after only a few rounds of feedback from the readers the title and that final paragraph were changed the final paragraph was removed and so I've been pretty impressed with the defenders responsiveness to critique from random comments you don't have to be somebody we know who you are apparently as long as you have a legitimate gripe about our extension or overextension of you know beyond the data or beyond the interpretation of the data and I find it quite impressive for an anti-vaxxer you know extremist website like the defender so kudos to them for that it was really a pleasure to write that article shout out to those behind the scenes that helped with that of course the reason why I think it's important to bring this up is that here this paper puts out there the idea that the pandemic and the virus that we've been tracking is the result of a gain-of-function and I want you to understand without a doubt that I think if that is true it was only true in 2020 maybe 2021 maybe I don't have a really good idea of the the temporal stability of an infectious clone but I have an idea that this temporal stability of an infectious clone and the track ability of an infectious clone is on a different level than what a wild type coronavirus swarm could be considered that again is the idea I want to get across today I'm sorry I'm going so slow it's something that I'm still working out in my head and exactly how to change to teach so I want you to think about all the stories that they've told you with regard to gain-of-function and what they include there's gain-of-function animal passage which is you have a box of sick animals and you take the sickest ones and then you put them in a box with healthy animals and then presumably some animals get really sick and then you take those really sick ones and you put them in the next one and if you keep doing that the virus should get worse and you can select for more virulent viruses cell culture works the same way you put cell viruses in cell culture and you passage them over and over and then you can get viruses to mutate and change to become better at infecting that cell culture and if that cell culture has certain attributes that are related to humans it could be that you could take a virus that wasn't very good at infecting humans and make it better in a cell culture model according to their mythology another part of their mythology is that gain-of-function virus hunters can go out in the wild and swab bats or take whole bats back to the laboratory and then shake or poke or squeeze the viruses out of them and then those viruses can already be very dangerous but they were just stuck in a bat cave somewhere and then now bringing them to the laboratory can already create pandemic potential for the first three of those we basically don't have any really good evidence that this happens I know that's gonna sound there might even be people screaming at the state at the screen right now but it's true we have evidence that these things can happen that they can cause or facilitate the evolutionary change of the virus that they start with but I think if you were to take the time as I have to scrutinize a lot of these papers side by side by side you would find that the vast majority of these papers fail to really demonstrate a molecular change in the virus they show a symptomatic change in illness symptomatic change in the cell culture but the way that they show it is surprisingly unconvincing and yet all three of these sources of gain of function viruses are purported to be dangerous these are part of the list of things that people can do in their garage or in their secret laboratories as a way of creating pandemic potential because animal passage is something that they talked about flu something that I talked about on my bicycle with the flu cell culture is something that we often talk about with Ralph Baric with humanized ACE2 lung cell cultures and and lung epithelial cell cultures gain of function virus hunters of course is Peter Daszak and Shengli Shi and all the pictures of them with bats and bats in nets and bats in caves bats in cages but all of those things have in common is that they are all basically wild type swarms they are RNA viral swarms so genetically speaking they're pretty equivalent on different backgrounds and I will argue that none of them have pandemic potential none of them have pandemic potential the only thing that has pandemic potential is the gain of function methodology known as synthetic infectious clones that's it so I'm gonna try to teach it two ways it's not gonna be the perfect way yet because you know I'm gonna need to figure it out I'm gonna do it one time with some graphics and some talking and some mouse movement and then I'm gonna do it another time on a piece of paper with some drawing and some text but my drawing is not the best and my writing is not the best so we're gonna see where we get but it's short it's sweet it'll be done and then we'll watch the live stream and comment about how this feeds into it so just a heads up this is the roundtable that I talked about earlier that was rounding the earth podcast or rounding the earth whatever they call themselves if that's a podcaster or broadcast whatever roundtable they had Alex Washburn on there he's the middle author on that paper that I wrote a CHD heads up article for and in this talk they talk a little bit about an infectious clone they talk about how it's constructed Kevin McCarran and gives some excellent input on that it's a they mentioned the diffuse proposal quite often Alex does and I'm not sure really why that is but he does mention it quite often but he also mentions infectious clone quite often and it is in his paper and so I think Alex is at least aware that this is the form of a laboratory virus that could have potentially leaked and could have potentially led to the declaration of a pandemic now what I'm going to explain to you tonight is what none of these people explained on this podcast and probably won't explain and I'm pretty sure that at least Kevin McCarran and could confirm I'm right about these things so we can check that later seems to distract from the fact that these techniques are widely applied across the entire field of molecular biology in other words seamless ligation and the use of restriction enzyme sites to remodel cDNA to make whatever cDNA you want to make for your application on the bench this kind of construction has been used quite often now there could be that there are special enzymatic combinations that are especially suited to viral work or a particular combination that's really suitable to inserting at a receptor binding domain and being able to make lots of alterations there but the methodology that Barrick does devise to make like five cDNA constructs that can be grown separately in culture and then ligated together at the end it's such a general idea and the techniques to ligate cDNAs are such a general idea that although the principle is you know great it's his idea it's not so creative that someone else wouldn't have come up with it it's not so creative that people haven't improved it now and there's probably lots better ways and more varied ways of doing it than there was when Barrick was first doing it back in the early 2000s but what this entails is what's important to understand and and I think Kevin pointed out perhaps the best part about this from the perspective of the evidence that they found which is that the receptor binding domain is flanked by a couple of these unique restriction enzyme sites that would make it especially convenient for that cassette to be swapped out all you have to do is make like 12 a nice set of 12 you know nice nucleotides and you got your your your new insert and it's pretty easy to ligate that in so that's pretty interesting but it doesn't mean that that means that Barrick or one of his students did it it just means that seamless ligation or ligation using these techniques is there which now are pretty much ubiquitous across the whole field of molecular biology nevertheless it's a really good stream there's a lot of good information in there and Kevin McCarran and Alex and and and Liam and Matthew all have a really good interaction I think it's a really nice dream and they get through a lot of it I mean you know they're they're making a probability argument that this is evidence of ligation in a laboratory and that means that this might have come from an infectious clone and I think the thing that I can contribute is if you understand how an infectious clone works and what it really is how they make it then you'll understand how different it is from the real viral swarm from a quasi species because if it's really different from a quasi species and really different from a natural viral swarm that one would be infected by then really the only danger for pandemic in a curve in the coronavirus setting is the infectious clone because the viral swarm and the quasi species are not capable of generating a pandemic they don't have the fidelity you see so which of these phenomenon has pandemic potential I hope I can convince you by the end that it's that it's the last one so first of all we're gonna start with the super duper super duper duper basic wrong bottle of infection and that is that you get infected by a single variant portrayed here in orange happy Halloween and so all the viruses inside of your body when they make copies of themselves they don't make mistakes and so they're all the same and you're infected with Omicron 7.1 and all of these viral particles are 7.1 now the first thing that I want you to augment in your model of the immune system or sorry model of viral infection is this idea that there are all one viral particle and what I want you to instead think is that I want you to think about this for natural immunity which is kind of where you're coming from right here in nature a path okay so the natural process is that a virus infects a cell and it produces antigens it produces viruses in fact in most cases a large fraction if not the majority of the virus particles that are produced are defective they're not good for anything they're not infectious they just kind of float around so the non-infectious particles just float around it could be the vast majority of them says Robert Malone so we're gonna argue and I'm gonna augment my little cartoon here to have non-infectious particles with the unfilled in viruses are you following this so far because I got to walk you through this you're gonna build this model in your head if you're really gonna understand it the key to understanding biology is to have a working model in your head that you can adjust the parameters of or you can never read into this because it's too many details and if they're just all details on top of each other like this thing you don't have anything you got to really build something out of it so this is how I'm gonna help you build this model of what a viral swarm is in your lungs and in your guts as it infects your body so first we are adding the non-infectious particles they are the ones that are not filled in next thing we're gonna add is genetic variation because in reality even if it's a pretty high fidelity copying mechanism they're gonna be ones that are not replication competent still portrayed here with no color and then they're gonna be variants ones that are replication competent but they have some change in a gene or two or three that make them better or worse at some things than the orange original that first came into your lungs now if you want to expand this a little more you're gonna have to make this picture a little bit bigger right and you're gonna have more particles and they're gonna be sorted out and then you're gonna cough this out and depending on what ones of those particles are able to successfully get to the next person you're gonna see this variant evolve you're almost there except you have to realize that this effect is also happening in your own at your own barrier so the first infectious particle can produce copies of itself and then those infectious particles can go to nearby cells so you also infect yourself and this process occurs within your own lungs within your own gut lining that the virus can make the viral swarm can make movements through this assortment here now you still don't have it quite right because in reality the vast majority or the majority of viral particles are replication incompetent and then these are more evenly distributed they're not all orange it's half and half or more but the vast majority are replication incompetent and so when we draw the picture it looks a lot more like this and so infection can in theory change very quickly depending on which one of those infectious particles two or three that you get and the rest will just pass along antigenic memory to the next person that gets hit but not replicate not over stimulate the immune system just offer epitopes this is basically basically what a lung infection would look like if we just tried to make a cartoon of it and if you took a swab or you took a sample like a like a lung bronchial lavage and you tried to make a cartoon of what the the viruses would look like a lot of them would be replication incompetent and then the other fraction would be an assortment of a genetic swarm that's centered around the orange or the red one maybe but had all these other variants available to it as it replicated and why is that because it's RNA replication RNA replication is almost proofreading free and it has a certain built-in error rate not only that but the RNA dependent RNA polymerase can just stop can just drop the template and in completely leave this partially translated genomic RNA there to be packaged and sent out and so we know that there are various mechanisms that lead to this phenomenon that that I heard first from Robert Malone in that video that the that a majority of the particles made during replication are replication incompetent they're useless now why is this important well because I brought it up in that live stream on purpose because it is central to my new understanding of what gain of function is and isn't but what if I told you that in the laboratory all of the models of viral function look like this I said look like this so if this is the natural swarm vast majority of replication incompetent and a assortment of genetic variants centered around what we would call the consensus sequence and this is a laboratory swarm what's the difference there's quite a few differences that's why I want to explain it also again in a different way so I want to use a piece of paper as well so what I drew in that picture before and what I want you to understand now is that if you have a viral swarm in your body and you cough out the vast majority of the viruses that you will find in that if you could but you cannot because it is very difficult to sequence virus from any kind of patient sample just get lucky the vast majority of those viruses that are viral particles are replication incompetent only a few represented here by circles are replication competent that is why for example when you sample from this it is very difficult to grow these in a dish they don't grow in a dish because you only get a few replication competent viruses and so you can passage this for a long time and you're not going to have enough virus to sequence here especially if the replication competent virus don't manage to start replicating in the cell culture that you're using now I want you to think about how they make an infectious clone because an infectious clone is a very curious thing in fact if you look into how Ralph Baric has described it it can be as simple as this we found a novel spike protein in the wild marked s sub n for novel Ralph Baric has five cDNAs and these five cDNAs contain the genes that are necessary for a minimum replicating coronavirus have a RNA dependent RNA polymerase there's an end protein there's a couple accessory proteins etc and they're all encoded in this cDNA constructs one two three four five why are there five of them because you can't make them past a certain size and so part of the technique is choosing the way to break up this genome into a useful reliable set of five cDNAs that can be ligated together and what they're gonna do then is because the because the sites that are in between here we were to zoom in on this what we would see is that there is a certain puzzle piece here right that fits with this puzzle piece and this is the endonuclease the site that's right here in this spot this puzzle piece is unique this one's a different one this one's a different one this one's a different one so that when they cut these five together and they put them to try and ligate them four will only fit five will only fit with four four only fit with three three only fit with two so each of these match and there's lots of enzymes endonucleus there's lots of restriction enzymes so you can there are many combinations that will work to serve the purpose of uniquely ligating five cDNAs to create one long DNA molecule and then of course the third and are the sixth and final one will be the SN that they found in the wild now first thing to understand is that surprisingly most novel coronaviruses discovered in the wild are discovered by the identification of the spike protein and then the assumption that this spike protein of course must have come along with these consensus genes which every functioning coronavirus has and conveniently Ralph Baric has built into a seamless ligation system which allows them to create synthetic versions of wild type viruses based solely on spike proteins that they identify by sequence are you starting to see where this is going they can go out in the wild and find spike proteins by sequence pulling up by PCR and then using barracks seamless ligation techniques in the laboratory create an artificial version of the virus that they assume must be the reason why they found the spike protein in the first place that means that a very large majority of what we have been told is a diversity of coronaviruses found in the wild as a result of all these zoonotic expeditions are really just spike protein sequences that have been identified and assumed to be tied to a complete genome now this is just the tip of the iceberg because what I'm about to tell you next if you don't already understand it is gonna blow your mind I think I might start with a new piece of paper just to make sure that I can get it up there how do you make an infectious clone let me get this I didn't have the talk up there so I didn't see so so the the what is an infectious clone that's what we're gonna do what is an infectious and the reason why this is important to understand is because we're gonna make it in the laboratory right and we're gonna make it the way that I just described it so what we're doing is we're using cDNA and why do we use cDNA well cDNA is great for a lot of reasons but circular DNA can be replicated in bacteria we can grow huge colonies of bacteria and with just putting the cDNA in those bacteria this the bacteria as they divide will also copy that cDNA and they'll copy it pretty flawlessly so if you wanted to amplify any construct of DNA that you you had you could do that with using many many flasks of bacteria and let them copy your cDNA over and over and over again and they would do it with high fidelity why is that because DNA is double-stranded right so that means that it allows proofreading afterward and there are enzymes that proofread there are DNA polymerases that have proofreading functions in their polyprotein setup and some will even tell you stories about the fact that RNA dependent RNA polymerases in coronavirus also have accessory proteins which provide a proofreading mechanism but nevertheless the copying of RNA is an error prone process and the copying of DNA is a error free process and the error rate is essentially error free and then coupled with the with the with the proofreading it makes it virtually error free we're talking about many many many orders of magnitude so they create the cDNAs one two three four five and the spike and they do this in the same manner like this right they're making bottles and bottles and bottles and then what they do is they ligate all these bottles together by lysing the bacteria what does that mean they're gonna explode them use a detergent or something like that to take all the bacteria and open them up and then they can use filtration and centrifugation and and gels or whatever they want to use combination of methods to isolate the cDNA that all of these bacteria have very reliably and high fidelity reproduced so in the end they'll be left with this huge quantity I mean just a giant quantity of cDNAs in if you want to skip a step they will have the cDNAs they will grow all five of the cDNAs and then they will ligate them all together and they will end up with a huge vat of the ligated cDNA that encodes for the entire virus the five pieces plus the spike protein they made an artificial genome and then they made virus they made bacteria make lots of lots of DNA copies of it are you following me so if you make if you make lots of DNA copies of this and then you take that DNA and you do any number of things which allow oh man I'm running out of ink I got to change colors sorry about that I've been trying this a lot trying to teach this a lot and I've been wasting a lot of paper um you can use a lot of different things to do this but you could use an RNA polymerase you could use a cell culture and what you would do is you would take this cDNA and you would you would put it in the cell culture and allow the cell culture to convert it to RNA which would be infectious or you could just use I think I think you could just use a commercially available RNA polymerase you could lice all of this and then the RNA polymerase would just convert read all these DNA molecules over and over again and convert and produce RNA so you have a lot of DNA here you don't need all of it you have enough to send all your friends you have enough to put in the freezer and you can take little samples out of here because it's perfect copies millions and millions of perfect copies of the cDNA equivalent of an artificial coronavirus with your designer spike in it after you've made all these cDNA you can take that cDNA and you can convert it to infectious RNA and what do you get when you convert it to infectious RNA you get a swarm but it's a swarm where every one of the RNAs is basically the same and missing no genes and is a hundred percent infectious and a hundred percent molecularly identical to its neighbors which is in reality nothing like what a wild coronavirus swarm would ever be there is no purity here equivalent to in nature this purity level is 100% pure 100% pure RNA infectious virus and the best you can do in the wild the best you can do in the wild is this but if you use DNA and you replicate it in bacteria you lyse the bacteria and convert that DNA to infectious RNA you get this which doesn't exist anywhere in nature cannot exist in nature because RNA cannot reproduce with this fidelity when an RNA virus is replicating it makes mistakes with every virion when a bacteria is replicating a cDNA version of a viral gene it makes very few errors over thousands of copies are you feeling me yet are you seeing why this is the only place where a pandemic could be potentially created using a coronavirus and even if you did a swarm of this nature would very quickly dilute itself back to a swarm of this nature once it started replicating in the wild using its own RNA polymerase instead of a commercial one and so there can be no doubt anymore that if there was a biologic at the beginning of the pandemic if there is a biologic that we need to be worried about if there are laboratory problems the laboratory problem is the infectious clone because the infectious clone is a purity level orders of magnitude exceeding anything that could exist in nature so even if you found a bat with this swarm and the green viruses were the pandemic virus the green virus wouldn't have a chance of causing a pandemic until mankind enriched it to purity level 1000 are you feeling this yet because I really think this is significant I think it's significant to the point where they're not actually gonna tell you this because they don't want you to realize if you understand this genetics you see that even if they released an infectious clone in Wuhan it would have disappeared even if they released an infectious clone in Iran it disappeared in Italy because it's gonna go very quickly from this level of purity once it starts copying itself and making errors it's gonna go right back to normal now if you compound this with our previous hypothesis which is that SARS virus has been endemic for some time and that these PCR tests are being and had been rolled out on a background of endemic SARS virus which could cause that's a heater in the room that could cause false positives which aren't false positives but are positives that are not related to the swarm the sorry the infectious clone which would have been released well what I find very compelling about this idea of an infectious clone is that an infectious clone is the form of a coronavirus that could be tracked by PCR that could be tracked by by fairly concise and consistent symptoms for a brief period of time what we could be witnessing is the exaggeration of what happened in 2003 maybe 2003 was also an infectious clone that was released from a laboratory spread around the world infecting 8,000 and killing 800 and we've tried harder but our infectious clone is about as good as we can get with regard to weaponizing coronavirus with regard to making a laboratory tractable model of a coronavirus because that's why they do it this is the form of a coronavirus that you can sequence it's so frustrating when people say that the sequencing data is is valid and of high fidelity when they don't even understand the concept of having enough pure virus to sequence is already nonsense because the virus never exists in a pure form it exists in a quasi species which is terribly underrepresented by this stupid cartoon over here but the contrast between this picture and this picture is a pretty good approximation of the difference between the wild quasi species and an infectious clone in the laboratory and if you think about being infected by this versus being infected by this then you can really see why one is gonna kill a few people outside the lab and you shouldn't have been messing with those bats and holy cow a whole city might have symptoms and some people might be in the hospital for a few weeks because this is a highly infectious clone and so for a very brief period of time it could appear to have a very high or not because the typical coronavirus is mostly a swarm made of non infectious particles this is a particle swarm that starts with high infectivity because it's purity so this is the podcast and we're just gonna listen to it I'm gonna follow along the only thing that I don't say in the podcast is specifically that the infectious clone is the only dangerous thing but I basically imply it because I say that the rest of gain of function is exaggerated as a danger so that you think that this virus is capable of going around the world multiple times and evolving slowly to evade our immune system because it was a unique new novel source of death and that's baloney I don't think I have a thing here no so that's where this is gonna start and I'm just gonna play that gonna bring that over here holy cats that's this one I think that over here we're gonna throw down over here and here we go I hope you enjoy it okay everybody I'm gonna start by reading kind of the first paragraph I'm gonna introduce Jonathan who's gonna talk about his his latest distillation of what the pandemic means to society biology to science and to democracy and the whole kind of idea of empiricism integrity and then each of us is incredible preeminent panel that we have each one of you is gonna get a chance to comment on his thesis I wanted to bring everybody together because I've read Jonathan's thoughts about this he's one of them one of the most thoughtful critics of the pandemic management from the beginning he was one of the co-founders of drastic which was the organization of independent scientists all over the world particularly at the beginning of the pandemic the really wonderful work in in understanding the science in unearthing scientific studies that made a lot of this stuff comprehensible and he's also instrumental in in uncovering some of the involvement of the intelligence agencies and others in the management of the pandemic and also the long history of what we call gain-of-function science and here's the first paragraph synopsis of the pandemic of his latest thoughts about it using a highly coordinated messaging campaign governments around the world led by the WHO changed our minds about all-cause mortality the corona virus warm our immune response to respiratory RNA virus and the idea of vaccination the goal seems to be to accomplish a worldwide fundamental inversion for natural human rights the government granted permissions and ultimately the surrendering of sovereignty over our own bodies in the guise of the international public health well none of that is particularly new but you're I think all of us separately have come to the conclusion that that's you know what's happened and we've all taken our own paths getting there John is and you have some kind of unique take now that I think we all need to talk about and that the public needs to hear so why don't you take it away it's a it's my honor and privilege to speak to you people today thank you very much to take the time to listen I spoke commented to the FDA about the fact that principle of informed consent has been ignored and the way they're doing it is that they're essentially have misinformed us and they've started from the very beginning with misinforming us and that's where we are now the almost the time have my head out of the way the hypothesis that I want to really start with is the idea that the who declared a pandemic of a dangerous virus declared dangerous by them and this allowed them to convert a large percentage of all-cause mortality into a national security priority of vaccine preventable deaths before the pandemic this would have been called the flu and before the pandemic not in the sense of this is the flu but in the sense of the national security priority that was a vaccine preventable deaths took the form of the flu and the flu vaccine and the important thing to understand is how that was calculated and how they've stopped calculating it in that way so if I can just summarize as briefly as possible I apologize for the animations this is for my normal stream there's four basic things that we need everybody to understand and that's not we in this group but it's we as we spread the message further the first one is is that we need everybody to understand that there is a coronavirus swarm so before the pandemic there used to be hundreds of possible causes for respiratory disease and in general they were lumped into a pneumonia and influenza category but from 2020 on we have reformulated the counting of deaths based on hundreds of EUA products many of which are no longer on the market and all of those were purported to be specific for this novel and deadly virus and this is incidentally really the only hard evidence quote-unquote that we have of the existence of a novel and deadly virus and the cartoon that I'm showing here is trying to portray the idea that before the pandemic there were a wide variety of causes for respiratory disease some of them were coronavirus rhinovirus respiratory syncytial virus the flu etc and since the start of the pandemic we've basically summarized that into one cause and the second thing that they've changed is our idea of how we count all mortality or how we think about it they've led us to believe that there's a new cause of death but the results of having a new cause of death are invisible in all cause mortality they've convinced the public and governments around the world that a PCR test is evidence of this novel pathogen and using that PCR test they have purposefully omitted the all-cause mortality from the discussion in order to convert regular existing deaths into a new cause of death based on this PCR test and so again I'm not telling you anything you don't know but I hope I'm summarizing it in a way that will start to bring into the idea that we don't even need a particularly dangerous virus for this to occur the next thing they've done is they've confused everyone including doctors about our immune system they've led us to believe that seroprevalence is really important and I think they've done this for purposes of natural national security they have also accomplished this by disingenuously emphasizing antibodies to structural proteins and these are unproven correlates of immunity and finally just to beat a dead horse they have simplified the immune response to avoid any loss of countermeasure uptake from informed consent non-participation in other words they don't want you to understand how complicated the immune system is otherwise you would have a reason not to participate and so finally of course you are all aware of how many different ways they've changed the way we think about vaccination they have done this again in order to make sure that we take the new product up I think it's important to point out that this disingenuous emphasizing of antibodies started many years ago they've lamented for many years that people just don't take the flu vaccine like we'd like them to and have oversimplified it again in order to kind of get us to accept this idea that now that we've vaccinated excuse me transfected so many people it's a safe methodology and it's just simply not true and why are they doing this just to make sure I have your full attention here remember they didn't tell us anything about purity there's data from the EU that says they pretty much put out a wide bouquet of purities and again they're simplifying this to make it you know it's just an RNA it's just a lipid nanoparticle and don't forget that they coerced us into believing that by taking this novel novel methodology we could save our grandparents so all this being said how did they accomplish this will they accomplish this by getting us to argue about whether this was a lab leak virus or a natural virus for at least two and a half years and that argument precludes the possibility that gain-of-function research may not be that dangerous and in fact the only thing that we know for sure is that they've been working on immunogenic proteins and that it's very difficult for them to handle coronavirus in a laboratory and so as you're well aware we don't know whether this came from nature or a marketplace or a laboratory but I can tell you two years into this Commission report the US government knows more than it's telling us and so you know he's he our host Robert Kennedy has interviewed Jeffrey Sachs and has talked about this with him he is perpetuating the same narrative if we look at pneumonia and influenza this is year-on-year 18 19 20 21 22 and we look at the red line being pneumonia and the the the shaded areas here are influenza deaths and of course this is a CDC graph it's designed to confuse you you have to use the the the axes on the right for the the shaded area and axes on the left for the red line if we convert this to what they're telling us now which is pneumonia influenza and coronavirus PIC instead of P and I now we see this great drop-off in flu and we see this great increase in coronavirus deaths if we look year on year on year the actual fraction of pneumonia deaths which are tied to flu is quite small and so what we are looking at here in my humble opinion is an attempt to convert more of the unknown pneumonia and respiratory illness to a vaccinatable target if they show this graph on the PBS NewsHour with all the deaths every week contrasted to the COVID and to the pneumonia deaths no one would be that worried about this and the emergency would be obvious so the way they did that and I'm almost done the way they did that is they tricked us about how this swarm is composed we know that before the pandemic there were many hundreds of causes for respiratory disease and now we're using a PCR test to blame it on a few and I think this is really the the best way I guess I can summer this should be the end here yeah so here what I've been talking about for the last two years on my podcast is how Fauci had these emails and the the fusion inhibitor inhibitor can block the fusion of many different protein or many different coronaviruses and that endosomal entry is a good target for some of these these therapeutics and that they hid the data about all of these molecular signatures but then after two years I start to feel like maybe they didn't hide any of this maybe they just very controlled release this information to keep us fighting about this lab leak or natural virus when in reality it's probably closer to part of an existing swarm the PCR was originally aimed at the spike protein but it is no longer aimed there T cell memory from childhood is protective specifically because we don't focus coronavirus memory on structural proteins and these molecular clues that are probably clues to how they've tried to modify proteins to become immunogens so that they can remove the need for an adjuvant and at best I think this is where gain of function has reached in terms of its limits of its of its technology and coronavirus simply because coronavirus is so intractable in the laboratory so that's my theory I think coronavirus is kind of the gain of function of coronavirus is an exaggeration based on a false fidelity that they claim to have and I ID funded designer protein may or may not be involved in the initial biological incident which would explain why it doesn't really move like a variant of a virus because in fact it's probably a protein that contaminated the viral swarm that already exists and then we can obviously I had a lot more slides so I can I can answer any questions so what I want to interject here is a couple things the first thing is to remind you that this this viral swarm thing did not get in the talk and and that's a problem because starting or ending there without explicitly saying that the viral swarm that is capable of causing a pandemic needs to be pure enough to cause a pandemic that's trackable by PCR is this one it is not the one that exists in the Batcave it's not the one that exists in cell culture it's not the one that exists in that animal colony it is only the DNA circular DNA grown in bacteria ligated in a laboratory converted to infectious RNA in a pure clone state that has any possibility of contaminating the existing coronavirus swarm with a protein that could be tracked both by its ability to cause symptoms and its uniqueness on background and they told us they claim that they had 250 emergency use authorized products that could track this virus and the only possible way that that could be the case is this either their tests were not specific enough and instead we're drawing upon an already existing endemic swarm of SARS viruses in the background coronaviruses in the background it's not even probably specific enough to tell the difference between various alpha and beta coronaviruses at best but they purported to be very specific for this virus if that's the case this is the only virus that could have been possibly been behind it and it very very quickly disappeared maybe in a year and that's why all of the PCR tests that we use now do not test for the spike protein the most variable gene in a coronavirus genome so let's keep this going and see if what we can do with with Roberts commentary the first commentary is gonna be by Bobby just saying that they've looked at flu before and realized that flu is a concocted number and he basically confirms that up until the pandemic as I said that the national security priority of vaccine preventable deaths every year was the flu that's what the manufacturing base was that's what how we maintained it for military and national security purposes the target was the flu take it away that would be my my thesis one of the things that interests me about what you say is that we have that CHD we've tracked the flu data for many many years and what and you know and they had these periodic meetings and you know you can see Fauci on videos repeating the general message that was drummed in by the communications department at CDC again and again and again people are not frightened enough about flu they don't take it seriously we can't get these we can't get them to vaccinate flu you also have this other problem which is that the flu changes every year and that we we can't get a vaccine out quick enough to treat all the new variables so we need two things we need an mRNA platform that can instantly respond that is a plug-and-play vaccine and we need people terrified enough to get it think about 10 or 12 years ago because nobody was scared of a of a disease that was killing so few people they conflated the the pneumonia deaths with the flu deaths and pneumonia kills 30 to the worst years 90,000 people so they started calling those flu deaths but in separate studies when people studied how many people who died of pneumonia actually had a flu virus in them I think it was fewer than 7% it was a lie so all of those years they were saying they switched they said look the flu is killing 30,000 or 90,000 people a year we got to get everybody vaccinated and then coronavirus came along the flu disappeared flu deaths disappeared and all of those pneumonia deaths were switched you know I think that's one of the phenomena that your your slide shows so I want to get first response from Robert Malone and as most of you know Robert Malone is this discoverer of in vitro and in vivo RNA transfusion I'm not gonna read his whole biography here because everybody in the world now knows who Robert Malone is and how important he's been to not only to our movement but just to to giving us a real understanding about how pharmacology works and vaccinology works and the and also the relationships between the military and the pharmaceutical industry so Robert what is your you know initial reaction to this couple little house cleaning things Jonathan used the correct term transfection I think you just kind of tripped over your tongue there and of course I defer to Merrill as the master in disambiguating the nuance of the DOD and its nefarious actions over time I've come to personally come to some positions that overlap with Jonathan's but I'm wary of attributing intent and purpose because I'm not able to verify it not that it doesn't exist and this is a personal choice we for instance when I speak of the web I speak of the the tangible things which they have written you're talking about the world I comment for them yeah and and the tangible things that I can observe and we can all observe in and if they say if they speak of things like depopulation agendas well then we can all agree that they are speaking and writing about depopulation but I use that as an example so in this case um a couple of points I'd like to raise I've long known that the primary objective of the annual flu campaigns is not to prevent influenza death I don't know if we're all aware of that the primary objective is to maintain warm base manufacturing capacity Merrill smiles yeah so so that the logic here and I and I think that Jonathan is touching on some underlying truths Robert let me just interrupt you for a second so that audience who does not you know who's not following what you're saying is there's a military impulse a national security impulse that we need vaccine manufacturing capacity that can instantly ramp up if the Russians attacked us with a you know with a millet with a weaponized anthrax part of it but in the case of influenza there is a like let's say a long-standing what's the right word urban fairy tale sort of legend 1918 and what happened and that it was all due to this horrible h1n1 influenza virus and it disregards all of the other aspects of that public health event including the apparent bacterial co pathogen let's say is that fair Merrill yes and so so this story has absolutely been used to justify a variety of public health investments and interventions and has absolutely just like the biodefense story has been used to generate an industry with all the associated bells and whistles in terms of the let's say biodefense military industrial complex that also has by the way a very strong academic complex component to it influenza virus has long been kind of a weaponized tool to justify various infrastructure investments and technology so the logic that has been promoted that's given rise to this whole we could call it an influenza industry as a subset of the biopharmaceutical biodefense industrial complex is is justified by the threat of 1918 and you can see that in the CDC publications literature and the various periodic overstated crisis risk events that occur periodically and the logic forgive the fly I live in a farm with horses the logic has been that if we do not have sufficient warm base is the term manufacturing capacity established manufacturing capacity then in the event that we do have this very bad thing arise a new recombinant influenza that we are that is highly pathogenic that we're highly susceptible to then we will not have the capability to respond to it in a timely fashion therefore we must have warm manufacturing capacity you can't have warm manufacturing capacity you basically have two options the dogs either have to eat the dog food all of us in the metaphor being the vaccine recipients would be the dogs in that metaphor or you have to throw the dog food away and so the the logic has been explicitly in my industry having worked on you know major flu projects for much of my life that and also worked in developing a advanced development manufacturing facility down in Alachua Florida the logic has been that in influenza if if we do not have a market for these products on an annual basis then even if we were to build the manufacturing plants in biologics it turns out you cannot mothball them they they they just it doesn't work as a business model and also from a regulatory standpoint you have to keep these facilities operating and the staff has to be there etc and so the best way to do that is to spin up a chronic need and that what underlies a lot of this is a logic of the ends justify the means if you look underneath much of what drives all of this is the belief system that there is a major public health threat out there on the horizon and it comes from two general sources emerging infectious disease and this has in this wrapped around climate change and environmental disruption and a lot of other agendas are wrapped around this same logic of the threat of emerging infectious disease coming out of the African jungle and fruit-eating bats or whatever the thing is and um the other threat horizon is the engineered pathogen threat horizon and those are those are valid there there are threats so it is they are valid and there are threats I apologize my mom I thought I had an empty every every year I buy all the candy from my kids and I buy it for one penny a gram and you're not gonna believe it but I bought almost six kilograms of candy from my kids it's just really out of control kids that eat this much candy I mean well how does it even happen anyway that's the trick-or-treat that happened around here so the reason why I'm stopping is first I just want to make sure that you understand that he's explaining something that's pretty crucial but he's explaining it in a very indirect way what he's explaining is that there is a whole mentality which runs through every level of that government apparatus which thinks that they are fulfilling a national security need a national security issue the people that work at the CDC think that they are doing national security jobs and that their job is crucial to national security that's why they have the arrogance that they do because they are working on a threat basis the idea that somewhere there is a worst-case scenario that requires us to be ready and now what I'm trying to make the argument of is I think of this very slowly is that that need and creating it can be done in a number of different ways and although he's gonna talk a lot he will eventually say that these people have a vested interest in making that need as great as possible the potential danger as great as possible to expand the threat horizon as widely as possible the threat horizon that he says is valid and he's about to list a couple of very valid examples of how diseases can come out of the wild and come and get us and I think to a certain extent at least if Robert Malone is supposed to do something it is to sustain that narrative that there are there are diseases waiting in nature to emerge and run around the globe like the fuse of a gigantic firework but it doesn't happen like that that's not how viruses generally work there are trade-offs that prevent that from occurring and there's this huge problem of the human immune system and yet here he goes Ebola is obviously an example of such a threat which was so highly pathogenic that it would come out of the forest of god only knows where from time to time and was so pathogenic it would wipe out whole villages and it would do so so quickly that basically it would burn itself out and then we had the recent relatively recent West African outbreak where it got into cities in West Africa and it continued to spread and adapt to humans and that's what we never wanted to have happen so that's the those are kind of the two big threat scenarios is engineered pathogens and we now live in a world in which literally it is possible with stuff that you can buy off of eBay to recreate the binary weapon which our side the West the United States engineered as part of the most massive quote defense spending activity in the history of the nation apparently I'm told it dwarfed the nuclear investment on the gave rise to an extremely potent bio weapon binary by a weapon that was field tested and was so lethal that it would kill tank commanders before they would reach the English Channel that was the mission so that can now be created in garages and many other even more nasty engineered pathogens can readily be created by somebody with a undergraduate degree basically in the right tools so those are the threats and the logic is that we have to have sufficient infrastructure in order to be able to respond to those threats and that logic I think absolutely bears scrutiny and challenge but based on that logic has what do you say that logic bears scrutiny and challenge is that a very complicated way of saying that that logic is kind of BS for me that's what it sounds like and created a truly a biodefense military industrial complex just the same as building tanks guns and airplanes that has become self-sustaining in all the nefarious ways that we understand how this works in DC in the US government and globally now within NATO and within all of the other infrastructure is and notoriously was going on in the former Soviet Union so so what I what I hear that that resonates with me is that there is a long history absolutely of government believing based on the logic of utilitarianism the ends justify the means in the greatest good for the greatest number that it's okay to employ psychological operations let's call you know we call it what it is how is that not exactly what I'm talking about psychological operations to make you think that a virus is more dangerous than it is that people are dying of a new cause of death when they're not when there's a novel coronavirus when there isn't when Pax Lovat works when it doesn't to convince you that vaccines don't have side effects because of national security priorities because of perceived national security threats coming in the future even we have to lie to you now to get this infrastructure in place before it's actually needed so why didn't Robert say this when he came on Brett Weinstein's podcast to manipulate populations to generate a a chronic market first for biologic products with the justification that it's in our best interest because sometime at some unknown future what is it Dick Cheney used to say Meryl will know the 1% risk this is the justification for vaccinating all of the first responders against smallpox and giving them myocarditis you know that that any 1% risk we have to mitigate and anything is justified in pursuit of this and and I think we've seen this logic upscaled on a global basis and and I think we've seen that logic drive much of of this rollout of this technology this was technology pulled out of the trash can that Merck had sat on and in basically pocket vetoed and after the patents expired DARPA picked it up and pushed it forward in their usual way they want things that only have about a one in five or one in ten percent success rate and they thought this is a high-risk venture they punched bunny into Moderna and then money got punched into by other players kind of aping that into BioNTech and CureVac and in DARPA continues ergo the our intelligence community continues to back this within QTEL funding the new manufacturing facility up in Florida I mean up in Canada so that the logic underneath this is that we must have a rapid response capability and because the threat of emerging infectious disease and engineered pathogens are is so great of course that creates an incentive to justify and validate that in fact that threat is as great as they say it is because you now you've got a multi you know really a trillion dollar plus industry that is all predicated on a high hypothetical risk in in and I think that this is in no way apologizing or excusing the behavior but but I think if we if we allow ourselves to get into the intellectual space of the people that have been driving this and this is an intellectual space that I've contributed to I've been part of I wrote a paper with any DeGroote about the need for rapid response platform and the youth and gene to vaccine you know about a decade ago that that the logic has that they they there was two main platforms that they believed were potentially useful in this context and also for special forces one was a a genetic product that would go gene to vaccine and Merck spent billions on the DNA vaccines that could never make it work and so that was out and the other one was monoclonal antibodies and monoclonal antibodies have just turned out to be too kludgy and we've seen here that they really weren't that effective the virus escapes fairly rapidly so they've kind of the the the bloom is off the rose with the monoclonal antibody tech which DOD and HHS spent bunches of money on with the advanced development manufacturing facilities funded by Obama and they believed that the mRNA tech was going to be their ride it would it would meet the mission space and it was necessary to push it into the population and get population-based acceptance of this tech using any means necessary and that's kind of my personal current working model for that aspect now there's all the other overlay of other parties exploiting this whole situation and potentially giving rise to it to support their own agendas which are different from this one that we're talking about but in terms of this path of influenza warm-based manufacturing need to have some platform for rapid response both for special forces and for population-based responses we now know that there was a this is just recently published there was a planning meeting held by Margaret Liu who used to head up the DNA vaccine project at Merck at the WHO in which all the regulatory agencies were brought together from the West in which they all agreed before any of this really happened that the RNA tech was to be a platform they were going to push it and once the core platform had been validated so long as they kept the same basic formulation they could change the sequence of the RNA ad libitum for whatever pathogen they wanted and and basically deploy that in humans with mit with essentially no non-clinical testing and minimal clinical testing and that was accepted as the position by the FDA by the way it wasn't universally accepted in that in that meeting back then headed up by Margaret Liu but we've now seen this strategy deployed with the bivalent the White House insists it's a new vaccine the FDA calls it a booster right product that that we're now all recommended to so that's that's my kind of core response here is I my my feeling in my belief system overlaps with the one that's been presented except just to recap I I try not to infer purpose other than for those specific things that I have direct experience with and I can say yes for sure that is a purpose and that purpose includes warm based manufacturing and the need for rapid response technology platform for the perceived global threat of emerging infectious disease and engineered pathogens over thank you very much Robert dr. Meryl Nass earned her BS in biology from MIT her MD from the University of Mississippi in 1980 where her husband was a faculty member she is board certified internist in Maine she is an expert on bioterrorism she's testified seven times before congressional committees on bioterrorism on vaccines on the anthrax letters Gulf War syndrome she has consulted for the national debt for the director of national intelligence and the World Bank on the prevention and mitigation of bioterrorism she identified the first use of anthrax the biological weapon which occurred in 1978 during the Rhodesian Civil War so Meryl give us your take on this all right I want to say a lot of different things first I I am familiar with what Robert just talked about I'll add that the FDA has encouraged many different vaccine platforms that's why they have used dog kidney cells as a platform and monkey cells and you know why we have this worm baculovirus platform is they're experimenting they're trying to find the best way to do things and to for the most part they're using the flu vaccine to do those experiments so we've had as many of as a dozen or more different flu shots in one year that have been approved by the FDA now that said in order to push this flu shot program where over 65% of elders are getting a flu shot every year thinking it's benefiting them the government has to has to have lied you know incessantly for decades first of all they've said that the flu shot works to prevent deaths in the elders but there is absolutely no evidence that that is the case probably because their immune system doesn't respond as well as young peoples to these shots they've also lied about the number of deaths so even though the CDC usually says 30 40 50,000 people are dying in a year what Robert Kennedy was referring to is actual death certificates the death certificate data is usually one to two thousand deaths per year where it's actually written as the cause of death primary cause of death so that's probably the number of deaths that we really have from flu although there are some secondary pneumonia deaths etc so they've spun up the numbers they've told people it's going to work when it doesn't work and we and maybe they're doing that to protect the country in the future or maybe they're doing that to protect the elites in the future but we have to consider that maybe they're doing it for other reasons maybe they're lying to us about the reasons and the reasons maybe that they want to acclimate us to the fact that we have to go regularly to get vaccinated that we have to be used to the fact that we're going to be injected every so often with something and the less testing you do the quicker you make this process and remember it's under the guise of a potential 1918 swine flu or you know a bird flu or a biological attack you have to make it very quickly that also enables you to get a lot of things through the regulatory agencies that are not going to be examined so you can put anything you want in the bottles that's what's happened now with the COVID vaccines we don't know what's in the bottles so anyway I I just say that there's no reason for us to believe that the purpose for all of this is is a benign one although it may be I agree for sure with Jonathan that the US government tried to roll up all flu deaths and as many pneumonia deaths as possible into COVID deaths they wanted to get those numbers up high and he is correct that in terms of all cause mortality there are many countries in which the all cause mortality in other words deaths from everything including COVID were no higher than they were in years before COVID but that's not true of every country so I mean I think there are there were COVID deaths and I think COVID is a thing, and I'm getting to a very curious thing where the… I have noticed the PhDs and the MDs really differ, and the MDs believe that there's a COVID and that it has unique properties, and that it can be extremely deadly and can be very disabling to people it doesn't kill. The PhDs who are scrutinizing the numbers as correctly as Jonathan has, say there's no increase in all cause mortality therefore it doesn't really seem like anything happened and this may have just been flu. The MDs who are accustomed to really looking at symptoms and signs and lab tests, rather than all cause mortality, see that the characteristics of the illness or this, the syndrome from SARS-CoV-2 at least in my view are very different than the syndrome I called flu previously. So I do think it's a thing but I do also think that the numbers were juiced to scare everybody and that it wasn’t as big of a thing as we were told. I think it's very interesting what he said that the work of gain of function may have been to develop more immunogenic proteins because I think that makes a lot of sense nobody wants to add adjuvants to vaccines if they don't have to because the adjuvants are causing much of the second you know the side effects from the vaccine so to figure out how to add portions on to a protein that will give you the same immune kick without the adjuvant would be useful again that's making the assumption that this work is benign but so much of it has had a military birth I don't think we can necessarily assume that the work is benign I think for most scientists and doctors yes it's benign but when the military is developing projects there they are looking for military applications always always and there are doctors and scientists in the military who have migrated there appropriately because they want to make offensive weapons and we shouldn't forget that thank you thank you Meryl Dr. Tess Laurie is the director of the evidence-based medicine consultancy LTD in Bath United Kingdom she has a medical degree and a doctorate in philosophy PhD from the University of with sir what sir Rand in Johannesburg South Africa I doubt if I pronounced that right and she just practiced clinical medicine in both the United Kingdom and South Africa this is a very understated biography because Tesla has been a consultant for many years for the WHO and one of the most respected and busy consultants that they have and she played a key role in and really torching her career in exposing some of the fraud around ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and everybody who watches the show knows that he has oh death please give us your your reaction to Jonathan's thesis thanks very much well what really interests me in in what you pointed out was how the data shifted between you know reducing respiratory disease and and boosting the the covert disease so I thought something that I did at the end of December paper I did at the end of December that never got published I submitted it to the BMJ there's there's a table in there that might be interesting because it's a it's a was a study of the Scottish official statistics and what's interesting about the Scottish statistics the national records of Scotland the database is that they divide the the cases or deaths among care home deaths home deaths and hospital deaths and it was you know obviously during that first year of covert 2020 we were told the hospitals were overflowing and everything and and so these data do not show that but also they they they categorized the deaths according to whether they're cancer whether they circulatory whether they're dementia coverage or respiratory or other and so it's quite easy to see over over compared to the five-year average you know where the where the deaths are being counted or loaded up so if you don't mind I'll just share my screen so I'll just show you this so the paper was called hospital deaths in Scotland have gone down not up during the covert 19 pandemic and it was very simple basically I just took the data and did simple percentages comparing to the five-year average so you can see on this table and there's the so it was from week 12 which was the 16th of March to the 14th of December compared with a five-year average and they were at home deaths care home deaths hospital deaths and then all together I made the table so overall this figure here deaths for that period were up 15% and which is not which was not huge we were under the impression you know the deaths were much more than 15% but but I think what's interesting is when you look at at this final column here respiratory deaths were down 22% whereas and covered of course this is the covert column here you can see so covert was a new thing but respiratory deaths were actually done so so I just I'll just show you a little bit so with if you looked at the the at-home deaths cancer deaths were up for 47% and dementia and circulatory disease basically all deaths at home were up on average about 40% and the care home deaths cancer deaths were down respiratory disease was down overall it was up but but it looks as if the cancer deaths and the respiratory deaths were put into the covert deaths just to be clear what she's showing you here is that in the Scottish data it appears that they had a precipitous drop in respiratory respiratory and and cancer deaths while a huge rise in covert deaths and an uncharacteristic drop in those things so similar to what I propose with flu and with pneumonia in terms of how it's categorized in America it appears that certain categories of death using PCR were just shifted that's what she found in Scottish data that she hadn't published yet and then the same with the hospital deaths we see people were actually the cancer deaths and dementia deaths and circulatory deaths and respiratory disease were all down I mean the hospital deaths respiratory disease was down 33% and they were and all of those seem to have been popped into covert and and the overall hospital deaths were down 3% so it looks like people were dying at home and probably from cancer circulatory disease dementia when they would have been in you know in hospitals it's probably I think what this shows is that there was a fallout from the lockdowns and all of that but also that the respiratory deaths from flu and pneumonia and all the usual things were simply loaded up as covert deaths and not pneumonia or flu and and of course all deaths were registered were were deaths with a peak positive PCR test it wasn't you know it was dying it was dying with covert not from covert let me ask you let me interrupt you for a second test because those are not raw numbers those are percentages so when they say a hundred percent rise in covert death since there were zero covert deaths the year before a hundred percent rise could be one covered no I did I was just highlighting the percentages but you can see here so covert deaths altogether they've got as five thousand seven hundred but they were a thousand reduced you know a thousand lower in the respiratory disease so so there were fewer respiratory cases and five thousand seven hundred and seventeen but as I say you have to remember that these are people who were dying with covert not from covert so it was where covert was mentioned on the death certificate were they double counting people here or were they are these so this it's a total death so they weren't double counting they're not double counted no it's easy it's basically the cause of death so if it mentioned covert on the death certificate then it would be counted as a covert death so so they were in in Scotland during that period there were five thousand seven hundred and seventeen deaths with covert on the death certificate but there were a thousand fewer that died of flu and pneumonia it's arguable whether you know cancer deaths and and circulatory disease and all these other causes were all also contributed to the to you know with covert rather than rather than you know for for whatever other cause so but it's just an example you know I think what's what's really remarkable is that you know we've been told the hospitals were overflowing well it showed here that they were actually fewer deaths in hospital and that really many people died at home and and probably because they couldn't access proper care as well and they had all the appointments postponed and delayed partly and and and stress and so on but but I think there you know the other remarkable thing is that respiratory disease went down rather than up and everything became covert so I think that was really what I wanted to highlight there thank you Tess now Jessica Rose Dr. Jessica Rose a Canadian researcher with a bachelor's degree in applied mathematics and a master's degree in immunology a Memorial University of Newfoundland she also holds a PhD in computational biology from Barr Ilan University and two postdoctoral degrees one in molecular biology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and wine biochemistry from Technon Institute of Technology he was also accepted for a two-month program as a senior research researcher at the Weisman Institute prior to completion of her latest postdoctoral degree in Technicon so Jessica Jessica of course people know her has done these extraordinary extraordinarily revealing and consequential distillations of the VAERS data and the other F and injury data from COVID have been really transformational Jessica give us your reaction to the Jonathan Seed thesis thanks for that and and thanks for inviting me I don't remember what I was going to say so and everyone covered so much good information so I just I just want to throw out two things points of interest first and then I'll give a wrap up the pneumonias that you mentioned JJ I'm curious about what types of pneumonias those were but you can answer later with could they have been fungal for example I'm just curious about that and I agree with what Meryl said about COVID-19 being real thing and I'm more on the PhD side that's based on personal experience more than anything else but a lot of times on the subject of inferring purpose behind all this I get asked a lot during interviews like why do I think that they're doing this and I'm like I I mean I don't I'm just like Robert on this I don't want to assign myself to a position where I'm thinking along the lines that anyone is doing anything on purpose right now not for any particular reason other than to keep on a path whereby I think we don't need to infer purpose this could all potentially have evolved based on the fact that the business model of pharmaceutical companies has been applied to you know so many other things so many new things that the profit model I mean to medicine so if we lose the regulatory body interference between the humans and a bad product a bad biological product for example what would we get we get something like what we're seeing now so and also good laboratory practices and good clinical trial practices we all know both of these things are out the window apparently we know this it's shocking most people don't aren't ready to admit that but we have clear and present data to show this and yeah the those three things combined really kind of lend itself to well it it convinces me that I don't need to infer infer nefariousness into the equation I'm not saying there isn't I'm really not I know that there are bad players I'm well aware of that and becoming more aware the more I look into things but yeah that that's basically all I really wanted to say I also if I may I wanted to ask Robert this warm based manufacturing am I saying that right warm WARM correct warm BASE a warm base okay so these I'm curious about these bivalent products because I've been calling them complete nonsense because basically because the the Wuhan strain is extinct etc is this another if you want to answer are we doing questions is this the right time for me all right so is this another I don't know if what it would be is this based on this warm base manufacturing is this what is this in your opinion like um runaway pharmaceutical capture of the executive branch the administrative state and all of HHS I noticed something that I found surprising they're anticipating rollout of mRNA vaccines for kovat for basically all of our livestock industry now all right um and that sure sounds to me like justification of manufacturing capacity that the you cannot please do not underestimate the power of the logic that it is absolutely the I'm speaking of a belief system okay I'm not endorsing that belief system but the the power of the logic within this monster that we've created this biopharmaceutical military industrial complex the power of anything that can be justified used to justify chronic expenses basically this is rent seeking behavior like we've seen with everything it swept through industry they want a well-established chronic annual or monthly or whatever cash cow I mean that's that's for instance that's what the anthrax vaccines are are the cash cow to end all cash cows you know that we don't really need the vaccine it it sunsets out what is it Meryl every three years three years now yeah three years so every every three years if you're emergent biosystems and you've aggressively prevented any other market entries and by the way that's another beautiful thing I'm being slightly facetious about the vaccines market is that once you have an established product it is wickedly expensive and challenging to bring any competing market into that niche because you have to do a massive non-inferiority study and either win on one of two points it has to be safer or it has to be more effective or both and if you don't meet those criteria you're not going to get market entry and that is a huge risk by the way that is the brilliance again in a twisted a wicked way of the logic that the FDA has promoted now that if you have if you're one of those two companies that has that established preclinical package which they're now grandfathering for everything that remember was based on luciferase protein and we wondered back then why were they using luciferase protein instead of spike protein for their non-clinical studies well what that does is allow them to bridge to any potential product and the logic is if you have that formulation you don't change that formulation and manufacturing process and as Merrill will tell you the product is the vector sum of everything the documentation the labeling the fill finish blah blah blah blah blah so if you don't have if you're not one of the two that got the golden egg the goal is the goose that lays the golden eggs um you're locked out of that market space because you're gonna have to recreate that whole data package in a new competitive environment where those things are already established it's an interesting line of conversation that he has here because the the idea is that Robert Malone and Jill Glasspool were at in OVO as I understand it the incorporation papers were actually written by Jill or Jill is present on them in OVO did DNA vaccines and electra poration which would be using electricity to put DNA under the skin and essentially its transfection using DNA and electricity and in OVO was producing spike protein you can see it on a BBC video from January of 2020 where they are producing I believe seed DNA of the spike and so why is this important the it's important because he's explaining that once the initial sort of contract is given out and it's commercially available it's prohibitive to competitors this initial contract is prohibitive to competitors so if he understood this and his his horse was the Inovio horse and in late 2020 early 2021 he figured out that whatever forces were aligned inside of the NIH and the CDC and the FDA DARPA had decided to use this technology out of the garbage can as opposed to going with a DNA version of a vaccine are you following me or a protein based version of the vaccine it's possible that he decided that he could speak out against the whole system because he was permanently losing his piece of it that he was safe to come out and say that you know a lot about this system is bad and now he's walking that line very carefully sustaining most of the narrative denying not denying confirming nor denying that gain a function is exaggerated he ignored it but he said that it's fine to use psychological operations to perpetuate the narrative it's fine to use psychological operations to create the need and it is fine to maintain warm base of manufacturing for these technologies for this perceived need and so all the pieces have been acknowledged they're all laying right in front of you gain a function can be a mythology coronavirus gain a function especially can be a complete mythology the only truth needs to be that there are coronaviruses because if you understand that and understand that the infectious clone is a form of purity that never ever exists in the wild a form of fidelity that never ever exists in the wild then you know that this is a lot of hocus-pocus and a lot of shell games designed for you to never know that the only danger is the things that they do in the lab the very model of infection the infectious clone the only reason why they can create an animal model of a coronavirus infection because that's what they start with an infectious clone a hundred percent pure infectious RNA so from from the standpoint of pharma this is an absolutely brilliant business model that now the FDA has basically said I don't know Merrill if you saw a substack there's a hundred trials now initiated or in progress 50 are currently enrolling I apologize if I'm confusing you at all the idea is is that the gain of function as a term the gain of function as an idea has been inflated and exaggerated as a possibility in order for you to ignore this stuff that they are doing over here in a way I guess you could say that in a way I like that in a way gain of function has been described as something that involves we talked about it already cell culture animal passage right and and collection out of wild but all of these things are exaggerated that's what I'm trying to tell you all of them are exaggerated every one of these is exaggerated and probably it cannot be the source of a pandemic virus because of the fact that they are a swarm of predominantly non replicating particles a small number of which are infectious and that's what makes them hard to work with in a laboratory hard to sequence from the wild and easier to build from the spike protein and consensus synthetic coronavirus genes and when you do that in a laboratory you create an infectious clone that is all identical infectious RNA which is in no way equivalent to what is in the wild that's the point it's no way equivalent and if you infect animals like a mouse that's a terrible drawing of a mouse but when you infect a mouse with an infectious clone and you get symptoms and you get cytotoxic psychopathic effects if you would infect a cell culture with an infectious clone and you get psychopathic effects it's not surprising but that's why it should also not be surprising that if you take a sample from a patient you do not grow and you do not see psychopathic effects and that's the reason why a lot of these no virus people have so much to argue about because it is a shell game because this does not exist in the wild so if you use this and equate that to what you've started with you are being disingenuous from the start none of this biology is related to this biology that's the point this is the biology of the Batcave this is the biology of the animal passage this is the biology of the cell culture this biology is different do you see that I hope that's that's it's followable I don't know if I'm doing a good job on that or not I don't have a good for new mRNA vaccines of a variety of different types all grandfathered in without having to have a new preclinical package as Jessica was saying the rules are right out the window and over 200 new mRNA based medical products that employ the same logic and so basically if you're Moderna BioNTech and to a lesser extent CureVac you've got the cash cow to end all cash cows the other thing I wanted to say if well I've got the floor that speaks to Jonathan's point and expands it a little bit in is really important in in in addressing Jessica's point of what the heck with this bivalent product um the problem that has been long known but absolutely the third rail I I've lost I think three different jobs or clients by speaking about immune imprinting with influenza vaccines that is a so he's lost three jobs about it because he's talked about influenza imprinting with vaccines and he didn't mention that on Brett Weinstein's podcast immediately I got to watch that podcast again to see what he talks about and what immunological principles he brings up if he brings that up on Brett's podcast I'll I'll take this back but I feel like a lot of these admissions including the one that's coming up shortly about original antigenic sin feel like they're coming about a year and a half too late especially when I mentioned them two and a half years ago in topic okay because if you come to grips with the truth of immune imprinting in influenza you realize that the logic of an annual influenza vaccine is driving our patients to an immunologic place in which they are less the vaccines will become less and less and less effective over time and in fact that's what we see we see effectiveness for influenza vaccine now running in the twenty to thirty percent range routinely and we are all accepting that when I started at influenza that would have been shocking we were up in the you know sixty seventy percent range now it's routinely twenty to thirty and we all accept it as if it's the Sun rising in the morning and by the way that is precisely what is happening with these multiple jabs is we it's clearly documented now multiple papers from the top labs in the world with you know twenty to thirty authors on them showing immune imprinting with these multiple jabs and as Jessica said with this new bivalent quote-unquote product it is as I said from the outset I couldn't design a better product to elicit the adverse events in outcomes associated with immune printing if I had sat down a computer for six years it is the ideal product driving immune imprinting which has been the chronic problem within me with influenza vaccine and the government doesn't care they they just do the I can't hear you I can't see you I can't say it about immune imprinting and the press continues to do it I think there's been one article out about immune imprinting in the lay press as opposed to the I don't know eight peer-reviewed from major studies in the scientific press over and I jump in I want to use a different terminology for immune imprint immune imprinting the result of that is that can you explain what immune imprinting is for people who don't know go ahead Robert immune imprinting otherwise known as original antigenic sin that's a much sexier term easier to remember has to do with the fact that our I like to say our immune systems like all of us are biased by the last thing that happened to us by our prior experiences I like to use in talking about this the military metaphor our military is always best prepared to fight the last war and the same thing happens in your immune system when it encounters a virus it basically builds a memory armamentarium let's say trying to keep with the metaphor that is cells which have been educated based on that initial exposure and because of the wonderful nuances of how the immune system evolves your response will forever be biased by those initial things that you've encountered that are related to the new thing that you encounter basically your immune system says oh I've seen that before I'm gonna react the way that I did before that I learned to react before and the consequence of this is that if a virus or or other pathogens are able to evolve in ways that they are not being controlled by the thing that controlled their grandparents metaphorically speaking then you're stuck with an army that believes that it's fighting World War one Germans in the time of the Luftwaffe and and the blitzkrieg I hope that metaphor helped let me say it another way so a Canadian scientist named Danica Skowronski found after the 2009 swine flu business that those people who had gotten a flu shot the year before were more susceptible to the swine flu their swine flu shot did not protect them as well and found they were about two and a half times more likely to get the flu if they'd gotten the shots and so it turned out and so she then checked that first in her province of Canada then in the other provinces of Canada and then a number of countries found the same thing and the CDC tried to shut it up tried to publish data that made it seem like it wasn't true but it is true and they've basically suppressed this concept but what's what seems to be true given the vaccines we have now is if you've never had a vaccine for flu or for something else if you first get it and when you're faced with the very serious disease a deadly virus it's going to give you a much better immune effect than if you've been having them year after year when you see that final deadly virus coming those shots are not going to work so well for you and so that's another way of looking at this whole thing Jonathan any final comments a couple things just quick one of the reasons why I think an immunogen is such an interesting prospect for gain-of-function focus is because of something that I heard Robert Malone say a couple years ago on a podcast that he was on is that the the viral particles that are produced during a viral infection many of them are replication incompetent and so on a typical coronavirus infection the body needs to ignore those particles and not over react to them if you engineered a coronavirus with an immunogen on the outside that the body couldn't ignore the the normally not infectious and also non-immunogenic particles would now become immunogenic to your body and create what might be called an incapacitating agent in the form of what appears to be and can be called a virus but really it's just a novel protein but I can't thank make sure that you understand that that this this what I told you today I know it's taken a long time to get here where are we at two hours and 22 minutes the idea of making an infectious clone in which you have designed the spike protein through careful selection to non-specifically activate your immune system to non-specifically activate T cells to non-specifically provoke seroprevalence so that you could insert this cassette into any coronavirus you wanted any vaccine you wanted any protein that you wanted the body to produce antibodies to then you would have this sort of proprietary mechanism by which you could produce seroprevalence over and over and over again and you would have a vested interest in keeping that sequence in every RNA candidate protein you make if the result is supposed to be seroprevalence and so now what I'm explaining in this video is a one step in the design making the spike protein immunogenic so that by itself it would provoke seroprevalence and on the virus it would provoke immune response even from the majority of particles which are replication incompetent in a wild type swarm now imagine the consequences of that same technology being applied not in a wild type swarm assortment of genetic variation with a spike protein with a particular sequence on it but now a perfect genetic swarm of a perfect genetic swarm why isn't it there oh I'm not in the wrong I'm on the wrong thing a perfect genetic swarm of this so how do I get back there that's what I'm pointing to now right so you could have put the spike protein into a swarm like this so that even the non replicating particles that are here would have a spike protein on the outside that your body couldn't ignore and that would cause a cytokine storm that's one possibility of the agent but the way that they would make any agent like this is that they would make a pure infectious clone with that infectious sorry that immunogenic spike protein on the outside and this part of the biology did not make it into this discussion because it was just too much to put in there everybody kind of agreed that it was too much to put in there and so we just kind of left it at this but that's why I'm bringing this up for Robert right now because I want to make sure that I get that out there that because those particles are non infectious that's the whole reason why we can understand wild type swarms and understand the quasi species as a place where this is not possibly generated from but whatever we're being presented must have come from or is based on the idea that a infectious clone is a danger to us and is a possible source of the virus everybody enough for listening and and tolerating my slides thank you very much well since I got cited I have to respond forgive me Jonathan what you were essentially addressing is known as defective interfering particles is one term and it's absolutely true that viral replication we all think of it as very conservative and this amazing machine that just spits out billions and billions of particles but you're absolutely right a very large fraction of those are defective in a number of different ways and the ones that aren't defective are often containing on average one or more point mutations particularly with an RNA virus which is part of what drives the evolution but the defective inner the we call it's just for the sake of argument call them defective interfering particles those it's not that they aren't immunogenic it's that they interfere with a lot of functional activities that might otherwise be able to control virus because they're busy it's as if the defective interfering particles are a sponge sucking up things that might otherwise be useful like that cat is a sponge for Jessica's attention so they will for example still clean up antibodies and still occupy antibodies absolutely they will basically functionally reduce tighter but the ability to produce antibody in in human in in any mammal is so profound that it's able to overwhelm them now one of the things that it is we haven't touched on the ability to produce antibodies is overwhelming that is important is this cell paper from January of this year that demonstrated in humans not cell culture mice that the levels of spike protein produced from these genetic products in the plasma is significantly higher than the levels that are obtained after the natural infection in which you have this dynamic interchange between an expanding immune response and a growing virus that's trying to dig its foothold into as many cells as it can get so I have the feeling now that we are starting to see under the hood of this and what I'm about to say is going to be a little controversial but I think this is where we're starting to see under the hood I'm just gonna let it run maybe I'm not gonna say it tonight yet but and so another piece I just wanted to throw that in since we're kind of touching on this people are often raised the question well why would you see more adverse events with the vaccine products than one often observes with the natural disease and one explanation for that is that spike is in fact a toxin in so many different ways one explanation is the spike is a toxin that's one explanation mark shitado is just written a substack if you're unfamiliar with mark shitado you should figure him out where I think he's done a fairly reasonable job at making the case that the spike protein can't be the toxin and it's not the cause of the adverse events that we're seeing with the jab simply because if it was a lot more people would be getting sick because a lot of people have this spike protein circulating in their body now there's a number of things that he could be wrong about but I think it's an important substack to read because Robert chose his words very carefully here he said one explanation one possibility is that the spike protein is a toxin of course another possibility is it doesn't matter what foreign protein you express using transfection the transfection will always be centered around the endothelium endothelial damage through neutrophils can inevitably lead to a cascade that will lead to thrombosis and death for example in wonderful ways not the least of which is elicitation of autoimmune response not if there were a high percentage of that's part of the delayed deaths and that you just have as opposed to the natural infection I think Gert talks about this you gradually see an increase in spike protein in tissues and in plasma whereas in this case what you see is this huge surge of spike protein and I shouldn't draw it like that it's more like that it persists for a very long time at least 60 days and and so we have very different pharmacokinetics very different toxicology profiles and the other factor in this is that in the natural course as Merrill knows and Tesla knows and all of you know we often see a cellular response dominating earlier in the infection and then an antibody response coming up really strongly later which kind of clears out a lot of the residual debris after you killed off the cells that are infected so the last point and I think Merrill may have touched on this I know that Jonathan did we absolute the early data was explicitly clear coming out of groups like Emory some of the top B cell labs in the world that we were seeing very rapid immune responses at two weeks or less after infection with this quote novel coronavirus that were being detected as quote neutralizing antibodies and you're absolutely right there is no proven correlate effect of protection and and they have made multiple attempts to assert otherwise but they're false they're fraudulent just as you say but um it was clear within a month and a half that we were seeing recall immune responses not primary immune responses and so I since we were kind of on that I want I wanted to just kind of shovel those those atta boys at you okay so we were talking a moment ago with the metaphor of your immune system as an army immune response being an army and memory cells being stockpiled tanks and other in soldiers in a primary response which is to say the first time that you've seen something that looks like this bad thing this different thing it takes a while for there's a whole series of immune maturation processes that have to happen before you're generating a good robust antibody and t-effector response and this whole cascade involving class switching all kinds of cool immunology stuff generally means that it takes about three to four weeks before you get a good tighter up and rolling antibody tighter and in the case of you've seen it before and now the memory cells just have to kick in they've already been educated they already know what they're supposed to do and they just need to be the switch needs to be turned on and they need to start doing their business you typically see those antibody responses and cellular immune responses within certainly within two weeks within about 14 days and so you can really tell this is a key thing in vaccinology when you're designing a clinical trial you must do a two-week bleed in addition typical endpoint of three to four weeks because you could be fooling yourself in thinking you're getting a nice robust primary response when all you're getting is just another recall response and that's why I've always objected to this statement that these these vaccine responses represent a true prime boost there there is no priming here every one of us were already primed just as Jonathan's saying every one of us had already been infected with the circulating cold coronavirus with significant cross reactivity which is why these these vaccines quote-unquote we're not ever eliciting a primary immune response they were eliciting a boost and then a subsequent boost with the two-shot protocol and then boosting and boosting and boosting and boosting all right well thank you all very much Taz I know you're tuning in from the UK so thank you for staying up late so this is the way it goes I think it's the best way to explain it first they changed the way you think about your your immune system they changed the way you think about all cause mortality by convincing you that there was a new cause of death but the numbers don't show it and they convinced you about the contents of the coronavirus swarm that we had one cause of death a new one whereas there's always been many and now they're bringing some of those back to try and scare you the PBS news is calling it a tridemic RSV flu and coronavirus coming back to get you and they have changed the way that you think about vaccination to include anything that they tell you as a vaccine remember that they started the pandemic by telling you that we've solved all previous infectious disease with vaccines oleo measles this is the same and it's just not true that was the TED talk you want to check that out they really just bamboozle us into thinking that they got this mRNA thing all under control when they really don't this is the hypothesis that I'm pushing the who declared a pandemic of a dangerous virus to convert an ever larger percentage of all cause mortality from pneumonia and influenza as it was previously called into a new national security vaccine priority and an NIA the funded designer protein or a viral clone was involved in the initial biological incident but the ultimate goal here is social reorganization stop all transfections in humans full stop the danger is the elimination of the control group by any means necessary don't let them do it don't let them do really man don't let them do it