Connecting to Rumble…
McCairnDojo.com

Well, our music didn’t play, but welcome to Rounding the Earth. I think something’s happened with our studio options here, but this is the same channel. Pretend you heard the cello music. We’re here today.

JJ and I have been discussing a topic. Well, he’s been discussing a whole lot, and I thought that it was about time for us to have another chat and clarify as much as we can for as many people as possible. Thoughts that JJ’s had and that I’ve discussed with him, you know, sort of one little bit at a time for months, but he kind of had an explosion of thoughts, maybe a month ago, or a few weeks ago, that has kind of turned the thinking a little bit over over biowarfare and the pandemic in particular. Have I introduced this well, JJ?

I think so. I think so. It’s still sinking into my head as well, and so I welcome the opportunity to talk to you with it about it so I can help myself clarify it as well.

Awesome. And I named this video Gain of Function or Gain of Purity. And before we even get into that, one of the things that I would like for anybody who’s watching this episode or watching this conversation to think about is whether or not Gain of Function really is the point, or what is the point behind Gain of Function, right? We’ve been showered with this terminology. We’ve been, you know, it’s almost like, oh, there’s this big secret, and we’ve been uncovering it, and it has all to do with Gain of Function.

But there’s a real question as to whether or not that’s like a fifth generation warfare type of misdirection, right? And it is certainly true that you don’t have to go far in the literature to discover that we have spent billions of dollars moving in this direction toward Gain of Function research, but what if there is a far simpler explanation for everything that we’ve seen? What if it is the case that Gain of Function research never really found a way to take off?

What if it is possible that there is something else that can be done, however, within the same sphere, where biologists who are in the know, who are the, you know, the bleeding edge of the techniques, could do something that is simpler, that would cause something that could appear to be a pandemic so long as it was wrapped in the right package with, you know, maybe the right instructions to hospitals and the right media blitz and just, you know, and all the total confusion of authorities just not being willing to have honest conversations, right?

So, if I, and hopefully I have, hopefully I’ve given this a fair beginning to this conversation, but I’m going to let JJ take over for a moment and explain the basic idea of what might have actually happened during the pandemic.

Thanks. So, first let me say that the kind of spell or enchantment that I’m about to describe is an enchantment that I myself fell under. And what Matthew is speaking of is this realization that I too may be under an enchantment. Once I started to look for signs of it and look for the boundaries of it, it became very clear to me because of all the studying and practicing that I had done. Easier for me to fully escape it and I do really think and I know this sounds pretty bold after three years of this theater that we are starting to really break free of it, and this is a really crucial piece of it.

Where it started with me with this idea was that I was asked by someone to evaluate the paper that recently came out, which Matt and Rounding the Earth did a very nice podcast on a few days ago with Alex Washburne, I believe is his name, where they saw signs of molecular ligation, seamless ligation, whatever you would like to call it, Gibson assembly. It’s got lots of commercial and urban myth legend names, where you use a wide variety of well-known techniques to seamlessly or to assemble large quantities of DNA in a particular sequence, in a particular order, with a high degree of fidelity. And over the last 20 years or so, this toolbox of ligation techniques and enzymes and combinations of commercial techniques has been evolving across all of the molecular benches that we know. Simultaneously, we have been talking about how they’re doing experiments in these laboratories, and the description of these experiments is often a reference to a paper that came before, which has a reference to a paper that came before. And so chasing down this methodology seemed to have a pretty obvious trail, which went back to Ralph Baric and the lab in North Carolina, where they came up with a way of making synthetic clones of coronaviruses in order to facilitate their study.

If you’ll allow me, I’m just gonna put these slides up, you don’t need to share screen, I’m just gonna replace my head. I gotta get to the particular one that I want here, I apologize, I have two open, and so I want to do two things at once.

So what they have done is kind of bamboozled us about how the virus should behave, and how the virus will behave in nature. So I guess I don’t need that yet. I’m just gonna keep the presentation open so I can see what you’re doing. Yeah and feel free to bring up any slides that you want.

Yeah okay, so the first point that I want to make, and it’s a point that I made yesterday at dinner, which seemed to sink in with everyone, is that start off at a baseline and recall if you’re a biologist or have had high school biology, or learned for the first time if you’ve only been watching television, that the major difference between RNA and DNA is, yeah there’s a base difference, but the real difference is that DNA is double-stranded. It’s always double-stranded, it exists in a double-stranded state, which means that essentially it’s like a sentence that has a mirror image underneath it, and so this kind of makes a certain kind of chemical structure that permits this double helix thing to occur, and it creates a very stable molecule, which incidentally, when it’s copied, if you make a mistake there will be a kink in the cord that a proof-reading enzyme can find and fix, and so the double-stranded DNA molecule gives an enormous numbers of opportunities for proof-reading, and even when mutations occur, mutations can be corrected because you always have this double-stranded transcript.

Okay, let me stop you there now and reflect something back at you. So given the DNA has such a dramatically, and it’s not even a little, right, it’s a dramatically better ability for error correction, right? It’s like, okay, you’ve got all these errors and a whole bunch of them get fixed. We should expect there to be an enormous difference between a DNA virus and an RNA virus. On the level where a DNA virus, we could expect a far larger proportion of the virions created in a cell to be replication competent, meaning that they can reproduce, but for RNA, it’s a far smaller proportion of the RNA, the single-stranded RNA virus, a far smaller portion can be replication competent. So am I setting this up correctly?

You are, indeed. So that is the first thing to understand, and it’s a crucial aspect of thinking about this, that the functional difference, the mechanical difference, the chemical difference between RNA and DNA is that. We can circle back to this later, but one of the reasons then why RNA also has very peculiar properties as a molecule on its own is because it’s single-stranded, but it’s similar to DNA. It has the potential to form bonds with itself should there be sufficient overlap here, and this three-dimensional structure of RNA is actually very important for how the ribosome processes any particular RNA. So when we circle back to this later, that will be part of the reason why any alterations that they make to this viral code in the transfections will be important, because it’ll change the way this single-stranded molecule ends up winding up around itself. But that’s not really what we’re talking about for this part.

For this part, what we really want to explain is the instability and dynamic nature of an RNA virus, and with that, I want to do a slide here in a particular, in a particular... I’ll go ahead and answer this question while you bring the slide up. We’ll get to that a little bit. You know, like, what is the, you know, quantification or at least qualification of why the quantification is important, but we’ll get to that.

Sure, okay. So the first point that I’d like to try and make is, again, the TV narrative is that the virus exists as a little automaton that hijacks your cells in your lungs, pictured in red here, and makes copies of itself, and it makes copies of itself in such a way that it can jump from person to person, and we can call those variants as they move across the landscape. And what that implies is a certain level of homogeneity that doesn’t exist at all, because remember, you cannot copy an RNA molecule without making errors, and there is no real way to proofread that. Furthermore, understand that the enzyme which copies RNA is an enzyme that’s kind of finicky, and if for whatever reason, it should skip off, jump off, or release the template molecule that it’s copying, it’s just done. There is no accessory proteins that can re-establish translation. It will just make an incomplete RNA, and in practice, those incomplete RNAs would be deleted or eliminated, and if they’re long enough, in the case of a viral replication, they may be packaged, but they will be missing a significant portion of the genome, whatever wasn’t finished, and so these will be part of this group of viruses that are replication incompetent. So the first thing you need to do is start to build this model of an infection where some of the viruses can’t copy. After you’ve built that model in your head, now you have to change that ratio, because every, almost every mutation, almost every omission that causes all of the subsequent bases to be off by a codon, any of these errors result in a viral particle that’s basically useless, and so the vast majority, it could be as many as 80% of these, it could be even higher for all we know, and one of the arguments I’m making is, is that this illusion, that it’s a high fidelity copy process, is part of the mythology that allows them to create this story about a pandemic. So just bear with me. If we go back to this idea, then first you have to change your ratio so that not only are there replication incompetent viruses, but there are also viruses that work but are different than the, than the consensus sequence that we are thinking of as SARS-CoV-2 that’s replicating inside of your lungs. So what they would tell you is, is that Omicron has a certain number of letters, and if you’re infected with Omicron, most or all of the viruses that you cough out that are circulating in your body are Omicron, and what I’m trying to explain to you is that because of the nature and instability of RNA copies, that’s impossible. Even if you were infected by a purer form of Omicron, as it replicated itself, you would get a swarm that looks so much like this. Replication competent virgins of various kinds, and a whole pile of replication incompetent particles that in the end your body is challenged to ignore. So if we push this, push this one more cartoon, we’ve got to make it a little bit more virions, right? We’ve got to put more particles in there, and the ratio of bad particles that don’t replicate to good particles that replicate is much, much higher. So that means a lower, depending on what ratio, I guess I said, but the vast majority of the particles here are now not filled in with color because they cannot replicate.

So now if we take this ratio and we try to make a better cartoon, we’re gonna add a few more, and now you can really see that the vast majority of these are non-replicating, and the ones that are replicating are all very different, all coded by different colors, and so there’s a very random kind of direction that a viral swarm can move, depending on what virions are released, depending on what virions managed to replicate, and then what errors are present or not present in the virions that managed to reach the stage of replication competent. Now this is all very different than what they have told you, which is number one, there are no replication incompetent virions, and number two, that most of the viruses in you are of a particular variant. It’s exactly the opposite. The baseline biology. So that all of the virions are similar, of a same variant, so yeah, then this is gonna be a little bit of a complicated topic. I like your graphic, by the way, and for those who are watching, even the number of replication competent virions that he expressed, you know, really that’s meant to be an analogy, but it’s actually still even a far smaller proportion for an RNA virus, if I understand correctly, like you might have one percent or really less than one percent. You could have far less than one percent, but there is a principle that I came across when I was, you know, doing the reading and catching up and learning about all this in order to be able to understand it and discuss it, which is for the viral swarm, which is what we’re talking about here. You know, if you’ve heard quasi-species swarm or viral swarm, that’s what we’re getting into, and there is a principle called survival of the flattest, right? You know, you think of survival of the fittest, but survival of the flattest is like a game theoretic strategy, where what you want, if you’re a swarm, you know, let’s try to, you know, it’s not thinking cognitively in the same way that we are, you know, deliberately thinking about strategy. However, if you think, you know, what would be healthy for the swarm? What would it want for that, for that idea of want? It wants to be able to continue onward in a stable way, which means that it doesn’t want to veer too far from a form that has proven to be transmissible, right? Once there’s, like, just the fact that something is out there means that it was transmissible. It doesn’t want to go too far from that form, and I’m gonna give kind of a, like, a fractal analogy. You know, if the stuff in black is the swarm that hit you and got infected, you know, this is the Mandelbrot fractal here, then you may wind up with little mutations that take it off in all kinds of directions, but even as it does, most of those wind up dying off. They’re not replication competent, and the majority of the swarm looks very much like it did when it got to you. And so, that relationship should remain stable over time, and we’ll come back to that point.

I agree with that. The tricky part about this is, remember, and that’s part of the illusion, or not remember, but that’s part of the illusion that I’m trying to dispel, I was trying to get my green screen up quick, that we have a scenario where a level of fidelity and fine observational capability have been implied from the very beginning, despite the fact that for 20 years previous to the pandemic, coronaviruses have been kind of a ghost of biology, and only indirect evidence ever existed, and, you know, there were a handful of sequences from beginning to end of any particular coronavirus, and now we are led to believe that we have thousands and thousands of individual sequences from confirmed cases, and this level of fidelity that they are implying was part of the sort of bell that went off in my head when I realized that they couldn’t possibly have accomplished what they say that they have accomplished. So here’s the theory as it might go. Maybe they never achieved this gain of function to create a novel coronavirus. However, that’s not to say that there isn’t necessarily this, you know, novel coronavirus out there, and I’m gonna make an analogy. My wife is a biochemist. She deals with viruses. She’s done, you know, bioterrorism defense research, and a few years ago she kind of made a joke when we were discussing, you know, bioterrorism defense, and she said, you know, there’s something in this kitchen that I could swab up, purify, replicate, and kill you with it. So I’m just gonna pass that off to you. Yeah, so here we go. That’s where I’m at. So if this is... let me just get my flicker away. If this is... I feel like I should sit here because this whole thing is not this for me to sit here. This is a poor representation of what they have been studying in the wild, but if you look at this cartoon and you start to think about what happens when they swab your nasal passages and attempt to sequence, the odds are they’re only really gonna amplify one or two of these virions, and the rest of them that they amplify will be partial sequences or replication incompetent variants. So what they pull out of you as a sequence is some gross approximation of this swarm, which they tell you is very high fidelity, which they tell you is composed of highly uniform particles, but in reality that’s not the case, and yet that’s what each of these variant sequences implies, and these maps where the colors change over time as the next variant sweeps across the population. This kind of thing cannot happen with this biology, and that’s where the light bulb sort of went on for me when I was investigating how it is that they set up these controlled experiments. So think of it this way. If your coronavirus that you start out with in the laboratory is from this sample, then it would be very hard to send this sample around the world. It’s also very hard to grow this sample in a cell culture, because maybe only one of these virions is equipped to grow in your particular cell culture, or maybe only one of these manages to infect a cell, and so one of the the natural aspects of a coronavirus quasi species swarm is that it’s very difficult to culture, and when you do culture it, it tends to become more homogenous, and that’s because again if only the red virions will grow in your Vero cells, then when you sample from this bat and you grow it in Vero cells, the red virus is where it will start to produce another one of these swarms that is biased to that little tiny cell culture, but keep in mind it will still be a swarm composed of mostly irreplication incompetent virions, and the ones that are replication competent will still only be somewhat related to one another, and may have massive omissions between each of those variants, each of those varied particles that are produced. Go ahead Matt. Yeah, so you know a couple of implications of this. If you are, if you create a PCR primer, you can, if you want to, you can pick, you know, you have these bookends which are approximately 20 nucleotide, you know 18 to 24 nucleotide sequences that are meant to go out in find, you know, two places in the genome, and you might have also a, what do you call it, a probe in the middle to try to help, you know, distinguish, you know, these sequences, and somebody says okay, we tested PCR positive, but understand that they could define those primers in such a way that they are only testing for maybe just the red, maybe they’re testing for just the green. They can, they can test for only one particular fraction of this viral swarm, and even though I said, you know, the idea is survival of the flattest, we may not be in a stable situation because infectious clones may have been added to the swarm that do not look like the rest of the swarm, and so it creates this illusion. What does PCR positivity mean? You have, you know, maybe you have this ordinary swarm that goes around, but you’ve also released this infectious clone which is going around with it, and ordinarily, like it, over time, this thing is not going to survive as just the two of them put together. It’s going to gradually revert back to the swarm, and so am I explaining that the way that you’re thinking about it? Definitely, definitely, and I think the thing that, the angle that I’m trying to take is to try and look at it from a historical perspective to make everyone realize the reason why coronavirus was so difficult and intractable in the laboratory, and at the same time remind you the reason why it was so interesting as a potential biotechnology, and that reason is because coronaviruses are found in all mammals. They’re found in a lot of birds. They’re basically endemic genetic noise, that for healthy individuals, not frail elderly, but healthy individuals, exist more as a symbiotic genetic noise, and therefore represented something that if it’s harmless now, perhaps we can use this virus to carry signals in a medical purpose, or in a bioweapons purpose, or for any reason, and the reason why coronavirus was particularly attractive is because of their unique structural nature. They have a huge genome, and that huge genome is unique, and it supposedly has some proofreading properties which are very difficult.

There’s only a few papers which confirm it, but the point is, is that for 20 years they have been looking at this as an opportunity because of how not dangerous the natural form is, and part of the reason it’s not dangerous is because of this dynamic nature of its genetic evolution, and so the immune system takes a very different angle against an RNA virus versus a DNA virus, because one is a stable target and one isn’t. So evolution has taught the immune system to focus on the things that are evolutionarily constrained, and that’s not the structure, that’s not the spike protein, but it is real essential enzymes like the RNA polymerase and the N protein around which the genetic material is coiled. So these proteins are actually very common and very homologous across many different coronaviruses, and certainly all of the SARS family of viruses that was first identified in 2002, and their implication is that these guys were just found, but they’re not around, and they’re found, but they’re not there. They came around and then they disappeared, and that’s part of the illusion as well, because remember before 2020, people died of pneumonia and influenza, but doctors and medical textbooks and ICUs and emergency rooms and grand rounds all talked about the fact that pneumonia and influenza is a large category of respiratory deaths, but embedded in there is respiratory syncytial virus, unknown coronaviruses, and the list goes on depending on who you talk to and their angle or what they studied last, and we have taken that general category and tried to take a larger chunk of that and make it a vaccine target. Before this, it would have been flu. Right, and I’ll just mention for the audience, I have an article that I put up just last week where I talked about John Collins’ hypothesis, and I kind of, I did my best to provide some corrections and refer to what the hypotheses are that I consider open, and they’re probably more than I listed, but the PNI category was not as he described it, and that was, that’s his primary flaw. He’s done good data work. He’s done, you know, combining that work with some smart people. It’s very productive work, but he was incorrect. When you go into the PNI database, you find that almost 99% of those deaths in the PNI database are pneumonia deaths, and it is distinguished between pneumonia and influenza, and it may be that, you know, some of those pneumonia cases are with, you know, an influenza infection, but there are lots of other infections going on there, so it’s incorrect to view the PNI, the pneumonia and influenza category, as necessarily involving influenza, right? If a virus is not, you know, fitting well, and JJ said noise, but you might think of it as genetic information. If your body is not healthy enough that it is processing that genetic information, which might be both, you know, viruses and maybe even interacting with bacteria, right? You know, pneumonia is very often a bacterial thing to begin with, but viral pneumonia may also be bacterial interaction, so your bacteria are trying to process a lot of this information. They’re really, they’re a lot of the good guys. A lot of our immune system is really dependent on them. We should thank our bacteria daily. I’ll pass the baton back to you there. So to keep going with this, the idea is in laboratory work, how to standardize things. How is it that Ralph Baric and I could collaborate on a long-term project studying a particular SARS virus, and so that’s where these clones come in. There is a SARS virus, which is accumulated or accommodated to or adapted to mice, and this is a SARS coronavirus clone that Ralph Baric will share with you so that you can infect your mice with a SARS-like virus. Now the trick here is to understand what they’re sending to each other, and once I figured that out, this idea of “Gain of Purity” versus ”Gain of function” started to really come clear, and Matt’s terminology, I think, there’s really spot-on. So with gain of function, what they have implied is that if we were to go into the wild and collect these variants, and I was to take a little piece of the red one and combine it with a little piece of the orange one and a little piece of the blue one, there is a remote possibility that I will get something which I can’t control and will light up a fire that will go around the world, and so the potential is there in the tweaking. The potential is there in the fumbly guy or the fumbly lady in the in the laboratory who’s arrogantly gone out in the wild and collected all of these swarms and then attempted to combine them, but it has dawned on me at some point in this discussion that every time they create one of those new magic combinations, it’s still capable only of this. There is no combination of genes that you can put together in a coronavirus that will change the fact that it’s gonna copy RNA, which means it’s gonna make mistakes, which would it means it has a certain limit on its fidelity and it will always result in a quasi-species swarm, which means there is no stability which is capable of infecting more than a few thousand at most, maybe even only a few hundred, which is very characteristic of any coronavirus outbreak before this in an old folks home or even in a small town, and so the interesting thing became to me, what is it that Ralph Baric is sending to me if we collaborate on this mouse-adapted virus? Well, what he sends to me is a cDNA, and if he doesn’t send me a cDNA, he sends me a little tiny Eppendorf full of infectious clone RNA, and then it took me a while to figure out what an infectious clone really was, and let me explain to you what it is. An infectious clone is very, very simple.

It’s actually a pure version, why isn’t this this, a pure version of a wild swarm, so if we look at this swarm that I just had up on the screen a second ago. Well, wild or not wild, right? Wild or not wild, it doesn’t matter really because most of these sequences that they assemble are synthetic by definition, and what do I mean by that? There is, there are very few examples in the literature of a successful end-to-end sequence of any coronavirus. All of these sequences are approximations or assumptions, and what I mean by that is, is that every time they go out there and do a paper and publish it in nature, they have not successfully gone from swab to sequence. Many times they’ve only gone from partial sequence to full sequence, and the way that they do that is very simple.

Ralph Baric has described a five circular DNA set of genes which, when assembled, results in a minimally replication competent RNA virus, and this assembly of genes includes the end protein, includes helicases, it includes the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, it’s basically ORF1a/b, and a couple other proteins that are put in conveniently sized circular DNAs so that these can be made in mass quantities and then sent around the world for people to use as a basis for creating infectious RNAs with a spike protein that they found in nature, a spike protein from another, essentially describing the chimeric process. We go into a lab, or sorry, we go into a bat cave, we find a unique spike protein, that’s all they have to find, and then they use this synthetic methodology to essentially imagine what this would be in an RNA virus, but how do they do it? They do it using DNA, and when they do that and make massive quantities of it, they end up with a very high fidelity copy of the cDNA. Remember, DNA doesn’t really make errors. The error rate is orders of magnitude lower than for RNA. So if they make a large quantity of cDNA, which describes a highly virulent or even a normally average Joe coronavirus, and they make enough of it, when they turn that DNA into RNA, instead of having this, which would happen if you were copying RNA to RNA to RNA, but if you start with perfect copies of DNA and then you convert to RNA, you get this, and this is not a wild-type swarm where the vast majority of these particles are not dangerous.

This is a pure replication-competent swarm that will, instead of very slowly moving through your body and changing and fizzing out or evolving, it will start with a massive advantage, an advantage in the sense of, again, thinking about inhaling all of these particles, if it goes back slow, I apologize, if you think about inhaling all of these particles and the green ones only being very dangerous, then you would have a certain odds of developing a severe infection. If you inhaled a clone of the green virus, now you have a much, much greater chance of developing a severe infection, and even worse, you have a much greater chance of passing that relevant sequence on even as it replicates and makes errors. Okay, so let me stop you here. Let’s summarize to this point. So Ralph Baric says, okay, you want to create this invader. Here are the parts that you need, body, head, arms, legs, and he has a doll, but the pieces are the sufficient conditions to have something that works, that have this artificial virus that, even if it doesn’t last a long time, even if the cloud is not long-term replication competent, it is short-term replication competent. And, if I can just help you, it’s repeatable because you can always go back to the cDNA and make more, so every experiment can start here, and that’s what makes it so nice for the NIAID and for NIH. It’s the baseline, and we can keep it here. We can always reset by starting with the cDNA clone and then building from there. Oh wow, and I just had a startling thought. So, you know, and some people were willing to have this conversation, some people weren’t, but going back to January, and this is when you and I started to talk a whole lot more when we were getting to know one another, I was talking about Omicron and the fact that I did not think that it was an escape variant. The number of mutations, the ratio of silent, the 97% ratio of silent to non-silent mutations, or codons, excuse me, and, you know, there were just the distance evolutionarily on the tree, you know, if the distance on the tree, you know, would make it look like you went all the way out to, like, the furthest possible, you know, branch from the original swarm or something like that, you know, such a narrow and quickly charted course to something different. Now, if what you’re saying is making infectious clones, that’s the thing that works. Gain of function to change the whole swarm, that doesn’t work easily. That’s a much more, if that’s even achievable, that’s a much more difficult task, and we haven’t, we probably haven’t gotten there. Hopefully we never will. On the other hand, it is very plausible and much simpler if what we wanted to do was create short-term biological weapons, something that we could spray on a battlefield and make a whole bunch of troops, the enemy troops, just tired, lethargic, maybe even harm their heart, and we know that Ralph Baric was already researching the fact that coronavirus could damage the heart, right? And you could, perhaps, go ahead and pre-inoculate your troops, whether with a, you know, small protein peptide inhibitor. Or monoclonal antibodies. Yeah, monoclonal antibodies or something like that. What you have is a recipe for a bioweapon that would be short-term. It wouldn’t be this sort of global pandemic where you would expect it to last for years, right? I think the one thing, just because you brought it up, I want to make sure we get it out there before I forget. The one thing to see here that’s very diabolical is that if you were to deploy this in a military situation, you would use monoclonal antibodies. You would not augment their immune system permanently. You would just load them up with the best monoclonal antibody that you found after you use the spike protein, has a vaccine, and animal model. Screen the animal model for the best neutralizing antibody, and then synthetically make that antibody and use that as your countermeasure. And what’s beautiful about that is, is that then in the dark room, you can explain to people that look how effective this countermeasure is. If we vaccinate people against this, or if we transfect people against this protein, they will also build this antibody. And so you can sell the countermeasure as the commercial response as well, based on the secret meaning of the military response, and the argument that look, zero prevalence is antibodies. One of the antibodies there is this highly neutralizing one, and we’ve shown that it can work in a military setting, in a laboratory setting, and so of course this will work when we transfect people to it. It’s so diabolical. I’m gonna mention, maybe we’re over the target, because we have drawn somebody dumping profanity into the YouTube chat room, and sorry, I’m not even logged in under the account to moderate that right now. But it’s interesting, stuff like this seems to happen. Maybe we’ll pick some mods that we know. I don’t know, Chris, but maybe we’ll tap a couple of friends who can moderate when they come in. I don’t even know how that’s done. But you know, it’s when you get over the target that people come in and try to disrupt your conversation, right? So that’s very interesting to me. So okay, so we have, we have a, and this is, and I just want to say this again, I’ll probably say it a million times over, this is a much simpler model for targeted bio warfare.

And then I’m gonna back up and say, you know what, I was, you know, Omicron, maybe even other variants, may have been just new tweaked versions of the original strain that were then just re-released. Now I do think it’s much more likely that there was some sort of, you know, escape process where when we vaccinated the original wild, you know, strain, you might call it the Wuhan strain, but just, you know, this infectious clone, that it has, you know, been combined with the regular swarm that is traveling around the world and it’s infecting some people. And then during vaccination experiments, some of the variants popped up at those sites. That was the first time that we saw them specifically at those sites, right? And I covered this in an article previously, but then Omicron pops up. It may be that these infectious clones have a lifespan that they might travel around with the swarm for a year or something like that, but maybe you need to refresh the threat. If what you want is to continue the pandemic, you might need to drop new versions and you will need to drop a new version that is further different from the older versions if what you want is to continue to create positive cases and make people sick. I think, or, well, and it may not even be make people sick. I think a very small proportion of people are getting, like, really truly, like, very sick. I think that the primary purpose of the bioweapon is just to make people short-term sick. Maybe cause, you know, tachycardia or some hard dysregulation, but, you know, it seems like the primary purpose would be a battlefield, you know, type of weapon. I think that the thing that’s really compelling about this for me is the idea that you wouldn’t need to release very much of a pure RNA clone in a city in order to get a residual positive PCR for that particular spike, like in this picture, for many, many weeks because of the fact that there would be recombination. So I can’t help but think that all they knew was that for a time there would be a signal and that’s why the PCR test had an RNA polymerase, an N protein, and an S protein until it didn’t. And then when it didn’t anymore because, again, this is reverting to a natural swarm where the most variable protein is the spike. So it is going to be, no matter what virus you release, that is the least constrained by evolution protein. You can have a completely replication competent virus with no spike protein at all. Will it infect very many cells? Not really, but it’ll still have all of the genes necessary to accomplish that if it should get in. And the spike protein is in no way required for replication, so that’s interesting because that releases it from any real evolutionary constraints, which means that when you release a clone is the first thing that’s going to change, and they probably knew that. So when the signal had gone away, in order to regenerate the signal, they didn’t need to release more virus. They just told you that it had changed sufficiently to not see the spike anymore, but it’s still out there. And so it’s a super simple way to make you think that it had evolved when really it had gone exactly the direction that they always knew. The purity disappeared, and then therefore the spike protein amplicon would be the first one to drop because it is the least evolutionarily conserved.

You’re mute, I think. Thanks, sorry, I was going and axing the harasser in our YouTube video channel.

So, okay, so we have a theory here. I think this is already, it moves beyond the level of hypothesis. You know, this is one way things could happen, and we know that it’s one way things could happen. And we have Robert Malone talking about a lot of what we just said. Over the past few months, he’s kind of, I don’t want to say dropped clues. This is a difficult topic to explain all at once, but he’s been in a number of interviews and a number of talks, you know, giving some conception of the information we’re talking about.

And now, you know, how would you describe him laying things out? Like, do you think he’s trying to, did he say it just sort of all at once? Because I know you’ve watched the videos a lot more than I have. Did he say this might not even be the epidemic that you thought it was? This might be somebody dropping, you know, bioweapons. Not as dangerous as like this is just gonna like kill a whole bunch of people, but, you know, dropping some, you know, an infectious clone into the cloud. He was very careful not to confirm or deny most of what I said. And in particular, this aspect was not part of our discussion, the infectious clone and the significance of it. But what I did get in that podcast or sneak in that podcast was that the danger of gain of function may be exaggerated. And that in reality, it might not be that coronavirus can have pandemic potential unless brought to purity. And even then, I might, in my imagination, it doesn’t really seem that a pandemic would be possible unless you made a large quantity of it and then distributed it. I don’t think that if you took a truckload of infectious RNA and dumped it into the water in China, it would be in America in a couple weeks. I don’t think, I don’t know, because that’s an experiment we hopefully will never hear of. But my feeling is, is that the nature of coronavirus is that you create something that appears to be stable through purity. And that allows you to do experiments in a laboratory. It allows you to set up animal models of infection that you can share with laboratories. It allows you to have a starting point that you can always start back at in a laboratory. But if you make it at quantity, it becomes something that for a perhaps extended period of time, there will be a real signal in the swarm where a particular variant is present in a particular spike protein, perhaps. And whether that spike protein has some properties which have been have been introduced through engineering. And that’s the reason why it originally appeared in Wuhan. Those are all things that I would, I could not speculate on. But I think the most important thing that we’re on to here, Matt, is that the story that Jeffrey Sachs, that Russell Brand, that a lot of these mainstream sort of dissident people are pushing, is that there was a dangerous virus that was made by arrogant people and we’re still under the pressure of that dangerous virus. And my feeling is, is that that entire possibility is an exaggeration. Okay, you know what? This brings me to an interesting point because I’ve had tremendous numbers of people ask me, is Robert Malone controlled opposition? And, and it’s an interesting question. And what my response has, has generally been, be discerning of who you trust. And, and that is a dodge, of course, but I had no way to answer the question, right? I have no way to answer the question, you know, how was, you know, if he was, if he is a bad guy, let’s say. And, and I’m not even sure if we should define good guys and bad guys. I think that there’s an extraordinary complexity to everything that is going on. And I’m gonna bring in my theory from the very beginning. Part of the reason I was doing pandemic research almost from day one at the beginning of 2020. You know, the, the moment I heard about this, you know, this thing that was, it was being billed, like, we know this thing is gonna be a pandemic, you know, this thing, you know, viral, you know, R of 3.8, mother of God, you know, we, we have the, the fear porn people out there. And it, it really just looked like a dramatic, you know, production. It really looked like some sort of reality program, you know, reality TV programming. So, you know, I was, but the real reason I had my eyes open is because I was looking at the world financial system. When the repo markets collapsed on September 17, 2019, I said, I talked to a lot of friends, I was like, world’s about to change. I literally packed up my car and moved back from Tennessee to Texas. Two weeks later, I was that convinced that I was in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that, that, you know, my wife and I needed to rethink what our, what our immediate plans were. So let’s, let’s frame this in terms of Robert Malone, I’m gonna give a hypothesis of who Robert Malone might be. That, that it’s tough, right? Because I have people, you know, coming in saying, well, you know, look, he changed his CV, there, you know, there, there are certain things about who he is that have some sort of appearance of being an insider, therefore controlled opposition. But I think it may all be more complicated than that. And I’m saying this after having spent hours around both Robert and Jill, and having hours of phone conversation with them, you know, maybe three hours of phone conversation, you know, over a little over a year and, and three hours in person, talking to one or the both of them. My, my gut instinct, body language instinct, is no, they’re not doing something that is nefarious, and that their concern for children is real. So let’s, I’m just, I’m offering this out because I feel like it should be part of the discussion. And, and I’m not saying that anybody should take what I say as gospel. I’m proposing a hypothesis here.

Suppose that this was as a bioweapon meant to create a disruptive economic environment that would force an economic separation to some degree between the US and China, so that perhaps, I mean, this is one possible, there may be a number of possibilities, so that perhaps the US would be forced to start rebuilding its own economic infrastructure at a moment at which we could see that the world was going to break down on a dollar level and on an energy level. And, and the motivations don’t even have to be exactly that, right? But the financial motivations strike me as the world’s most obvious, gigantic, like there’s no set of incentives, there’s no prize bigger than the world economy, the dollar, there’s, there’s no pot of gold more important to play over as an ante for international games. So, let’s say that, that, that Robert Malone’s job, you know, we know that he was involved in the manufacturing of cDNA, that, so that’s Inovio. So, Inovio, excuse me, Inovio.

So, suppose that what he, what he was doing was helping create this sort of very low-grade bioweapon, something that is more meant to make a whole bunch of people tired at once, maybe disrupt supply chains, maybe, maybe only disrupt supply chains in conjunction with a large-scale propaganda campaign. And then, maybe he doesn’t know that at the hospitals, they’re just gonna change protocols and it’s gonna start killing people who would not have otherwise died.

Suppose that he didn’t know that these mRNA vaccines were going to be pushed on billions of people and specifically also children were going to be experimented on there. Suppose he didn’t know that this was going to be used also as a mass data collection. I mean, he may or may not have have thought about that piece, mass data collection of so much genetic information around the world. And then he says, at some point in time, I’m putting my foot down and takes a risk and comes out from the inside and starts talking about what he can. Is this a reasonable hypothesis of who Robert and Jill Malone are? I think it is if, if, if you will give me the fact that at some moment, if we keep pushing, we’re gonna come up to a line where Robert won’t be able to confirm or deny it. And I think we did. I mean, if he comes out and says that I’m 100% right and coronavirus is totally harmless except for when we purify it, then the whole game of bio warfare, a lot of the game of bio warfare, will be up. And people will start questioning whether Ebola is dangerous unless it’s pure. They will start to question whether Zika virus is pure or when it’s pure or how often do we make it pure? And it will start to become a very, very contentious issue that will, could end up being the thing that kicks off this domino effect, which may have already started where people just don’t trust anyone. But I think that that’s why I’m still not being able to connect with some of these people. I think Herod von den Bosch has completely lost his mind. And he says antibodies and sub optimal neutralizing antibodies so many times in an hour, it’s kind of, it’s kind of scary. Yeah, weird commitment. And by the way, I talked to a friend who actually talked to him at the recent conference in Portugal and asked him specifically about Omicron being an escape variant. And the signals that it looks like it was, you know, produced in a lab, like, you know, possibly passage through a mouse bottle. And his response, I was told, was sort of this, this, oh, people don’t understand the theory of viral escape and blah, blah, blah. Like, it didn’t answer the question. It was like a, he defaulted instead toward, oh, people don’t understand, you know, and, and just, and pushed it away, didn’t answer the question. So there’s something going on right there. You know, and he is, was he, was he employed by Gavi or the Gates Foundation? Both at different times. Okay. Yeah, I, I have, I think that we should, we should be discerning in who we trust, and we should be discerning in the way that we trust them. There, there may be complications that, yeah, some people may be controlled opposition, but there, there may also be complications, just like I described possibly with the Malones, that make it difficult for them to talk about some full piece of, of, of things. But I, I just, I can’t, in his case, I’m having a hard time understanding, maybe it is to hide the fact that Omicron may have just been a new bioweapon release, like a newly developed infectious clone that was meant to test the possibility that it would perform better post-vaccination. Personally, I don’t think the vaccines do anything, but it may be that the authorities did expect it to do something.

What you just said is really crucial because what you just said is really crucial because one of the things that really sticks in Carrot’s story, despite him remodeling and dropping out a lot of his original story, is this idea that the transfection is, number one, a legitimate immunization, and number two, has had the influence that it has had on the virus. It is actually effective enough to cause an evolutionary drift of the virus, which I think, as you just hypothesized, could be just part of this narrative that they’re trying to create, that this is a viable technology, that it has huge consequences when employed, and he makes the specific argument that it would have been fine if we wouldn’t have been in a pandemic. This would have been a perfectly legitimate immunization, and I think that’s a hundred percent hogwash. And so, you know, you were in a conversation in a podcast, Children’s Health Defense. You were there with with Robert Malone, Meryl Nass, Jessica Rose, Tess Lawrie, and one of the threads of conversation, it was a whole lot for one hour of discussion, right? There was no way that any one piece of this was going to be perfectly drawn out, but I thought there were so many important things said during that conversation. People should go, should really go watch that interview, and you covered it on your stream last week, right, and in further detail about some pieces. But the discussion was partially around whether or not this whole, like, you know, testing of mRNA was partially to force the sense of a need to spend on having high capacity under military circumstances, as in, are we at a point at which the US needs to be wary that a foreign actor, national or otherwise, might come at us with a bioweapon, and that we need to have production capacity of vaccines such that we could just, boom, roll it out. That is definitely the need that Robert Malone confirmed these interests would have in their best interest to imply was as great as possible. The danger is as great as possible, and Robert suggested that the forces which are controlling these funds and controlling these ideas have a vested interest in making sure that we think that threat is as great as possible, and it doesn’t work to their detriment if we exaggerate it. And in fact, my argument right now is that this is the primary modus operandi of talking about bioweapons, as Robert Malone said in that podcast, something that with a few purchases on eBay and some molecular biology techniques, you too can be a gain-of-function researcher, and that’s just nonsense.

And I think that that threat is how they justify everything that they’re doing right now, because that’s what Jeffrey Sachs would say, that we have this ongoing issue, an ongoing danger, that we need the who to intervene on. We need a separate inspection regime and a separate fund which will help the world cope with these interconnected problems of pandemics. And they have, through this careful orchestrated theater, created a boogeyman out of what before 2020 was a very benign genetic signal that they thought they could harness for medical purposes or for genetic purposes or for perhaps bioweapon purposes, but under the pretense that the natural form was benign. So this is really important because I don’t think that the natural form of any of these recombined viruses will have any pandemic potential until they are enriched to a purity. And that understanding, that concept then goes all the way back to there are only two possibilities for the pandemic. One, they’ve been releasing infectious clones and probably in more than one place, or two, that they haven’t done anything and that the background SARS virus from 2002 and before that’s been in Asia for four ages has been part of this background respiratory disease that we’ve been calling PNI for 20 years and a small portion of that disease is caused by coronaviruses related to SARS and therefore when we rolled out the PCR test and they were only sequencing for homologous genes, at some point we’re just sequencing on a background of positivity, a certain amount of positivity that was always there.

And it’s probably in my estimation a combination of these things. It’s probably an infectious clone that was released locally somewhere so that the local doctors would have a real phenomenon, the PCR test would really work and for a brief period of time this imperative could be pushed and afterward when when using a specific PCR test the rest is sustained by really stubborn media that we still see now. You can still go on television and find people saying that the story hasn’t changed, there’s still a novel cause of death and Pfizer and Moderna have the only real novel cure for it and that’s that’s just crazy.

Stepping back to beginning of February, there’s still this mystery over the CDC’s and FDA’s handling of the PCR tests and just a reminder for anybody who might have forgotten, I can’t forget because at the beginning of February I went for a walk with my wife and I was discussing what’s going on with the PCR test and I asked her, for anybody who’s watching, my wife designs PCR assays. That’s part of what she does as a biochemist and she said, oh you know I could design one today. I was like, what do you mean? Like you mean today? Like by the end of the day? And she was like, well basically yeah. I mean you know you have to figure out what reagents you need. You know you’d be able to get those out but really and truly you know we have 8,000 PCR labs peppered around the US in universities and hospitals and whatnot and all of these places could create assays and begin testing now. Now over the next two months the CDC and the FDA were making it illegal for that to happen. Well that’s weird. That’s very very weird. Why weren’t they allowing lots of people to create PCR assays and start testing?

Oh man you can’t believe it. It was really something that struck me as incredible because you know these were all the academic scientists that after they saw this happen thought no longer about the PCR. These people who know how to run it and know how to use it and know that it requires positive and negative controls then after they were told no we don’t need your help we’ll have new novel companies and develop new novel EUA products for it they didn’t question any of it and that’s also very disappointing. Yeah and well it is a complex conversation to have too and if you’re gonna draw fire like you’ve got to be committed to into that battle. So there’s a lot of you know moving pieces you know fifth-generation warfare maybe even by accident right. I mean you know so so we’ll you know put a pin in that but my thought was after they’d spent two months I became suspicious that it took so long because it made me wonder are they back there in the lab figuring out statistically what it is that they want to identify in the swarm that will not reveal other information about the swarm right and it may be like perhaps the swarm contains fragments fingerprints of previously released bio weapon tests and there are a number of possibilities understand when I watched John Cullen’s interview and multiple people have interviewed this guy Steve Kirsch interviewed him also a guy whose wife Tammy Bay was you know taken to the hospital and she tested negative for coronavirus but they still like pushed her into this isolated ward and started treating her as like some sort of like completely different case and she wound up you know sadly dying in the hospital and it really it really looks like a story of neglect to death right but I actually wonder if if they knew and she had the low pulse ox right that really like and that’s been this sort of like that that’s the new feature of all this that makes me go you know that makes there is some further mystery here right there’s something about this maybe when you have an infectious clone it’s more likely to to cause that but maybe maybe there was something there where where they felt that she did have we know one of these bio weapons in her perhaps I don’t know I don’t and I’m kind of thinking out loud trying to problem-solve but you know just going back to the CDC and the FDA were they trying to make sure that whichever PCR they said this is this is the way we should do it this is the one right this is the template that everyone needs to follow were they figuring out how they needed to design the whole testing regime for the pandemic and that would be a complicated statistical process.

Yeah, I understand what you’re you’re suggesting I just I always I don’t want to say suggesting I’m asking the question you know I like okay right I know what you’re trying to describe but I feel there yeah it’s not necessary it’s just it it it really isn’t necessary for this if if there was a previous background that that two of the three amplicons in the origin would come up and now all the amplicons can come up because now they’re not sequencing for spike are not they’re not PCR testing for the spike protein anymore they just have to end proteins and an RNA dependent RNA polymerase and if two of the three come up then you’re positive so it’s my best guess that they can’t even tell what coronavirus is infecting you and they don’t care because in the end it may have been the plan to to to to roll into circulation a general coronavirus test for which the CDC claims there is a general coronavirus vaccine for and and that that’s that’s really what they’ve done they haven’t achieved anything else because during this entire pandemic we’ve never talked about in the the end endemic viruses that were there in the past and we’re only bringing up respiratory syncytial virus now because there’s an mRNA candidate vaccine in trial it’s pretty shocking really because they’ve gotten an EUA for that which you know there’s no emergency so why do we need the EUA they justify it by the fact that they’re still under an emergency for the original novel virus that never was there.

Yesterday I had a really interesting conversation and I mentioned it to you very briefly right before we started a retiree from California guy in his 70s I yeah we’ve been exchanging emails for a couple of months he’s an RTE reader and and we decided to have a phone call we talked for nearly two hours he’s one of those people who comes at you and says um you know I’m not I’m not smart like you and then he turns out like he’s he’s clearly very smart and he’d done a lot of reading over the years and he said you know could it be that the reason that China trying to handle this well is that we have been dropping bio weapons on them routinely for years and that they have you know come up with the right ways to use traditional herbs maybe also chloroquine I mean their national protocol included chloroquine right you know they they and they didn’t say we’re not going to give people antibiotics for pneumonia you know but you know maybe they really did handle it well maybe it really was approximately that simple and that over the years they had that we have been testing infectious clones on them after all we do know that that all the influenzas do come out of the East.

Or you, or you could just assume that because they have such crazy eating habits that they have regularly exposed themselves to these viruses in a way that our cleanly habits haven’t and because they’re endemic to those populations and because they eat wild food in a way that we don’t their population is regularly imbibed with these viruses in a much more symbiotic interactive way than our culture may be both because of what’s endemic over here and what’s endemic over there and so if we released or they accidentally spilled an infectious clone the vulnerabilities may have been different I think the ethical skeptic suggested that as he looked between Asia and then the the diaspora regions in Africa and whatever and it just seemed to be that there was a sort of endemic quality to it that as you got farther from where Chinese diaspora go every year then you got progressively less immunity to it but of course that overlaps a lot with overweight and comorbid people so that’s a trouble a confound.

Somebody just throws in an interesting question here: what is the explanation for China’s continuing mega lockdowns? I don’t know if this relates to the story that we’re talking about at all don’t know. We talked about it I think in the past about something that I think is relevant here and that is that it’s not everywhere in China in specific places and there may be much more complicated story happening politically in China I think that that’s the case in fact specifically when I saw it was Shanghai that was locked down so hard you know two of the places one was Xinjiang and that’s where the Uyghurs are but another one was Shanghai and if there’s any any place in China that is vying for power with Beijing it is Shanghai you know there is zero doubt about that in fact I’m you know part of the reason why it was that the Manchu who were like this tiny sub 1% population of China were able to rule China for almost three centuries it’s because there is a Han rivalry that is that is large enough to fracture the Han majority politically and and we may be seeing you know vying for power you know where does China’s future go from here they are at a crossroads just like we’re at a crossroads and and and yeah I think that’s that’s that’s very possible yeah and so here we are you know we don’t know to what extent the Chinese understand the real danger of gain of function we don’t understand the extent to which our secret meetings convey this truthfully or actually sort of continue the exaggeration that they’re also exaggerating on television but I do think that the average person on the street is now starting to realize that this must be a laboratory virus and that actually is the orchestrated theater that they had intended the whole time they denied it almost almost overtly on purpose they made the censorship over the top in the beginning on purpose and I feel like I got sucked in to thinking that wow they’re covering this up for a reason and and that led me to for a very long time parrot this idea that gain of function is a very arrogant and dangerous thing to do to viruses and it was only after a couple years or three years of study did I come on the nuance of DNA to RNA infectious clones and how different that is from the natural swarm to really understand that that very threat of Peter Daszak and Zhengli Shi combining things in a laboratory as the spark that could have led to this pandemic while eliminating the fact that you still needed to enrich it to purity I think the best but it’s still as a inadequate analogy is to say that we don’t worry about nuclear explosions underground in some random place even though we know that uranium is found all over the world it’s only where it’s enriched of sufficient purity that we start to worry about those things and that’s why we prevent supposedly Iran from having certain sized centrifuges and in the same way we could go around collecting uranium from all different places and if we put Russian uranium with American uranium it’s not going to end in a nuclear bomb but if we make enough of it and put it together under pressure it will and I think that that’s although inadequate it’s a pretty good approximation for a first non-biology thing to understand why natural viruses as they occur naturally cannot be made dangerous but if you enrich them put them under pressure and do other things that are unnatural then you can get such a pandemic event or possibly yeah this is this is making a lot of sense to me I had a thought now I’ve lost it that’ll happen there’s a lot of a lot of moving parts a lot of complexity but you know we could move toward wrapping up but it felt like it felt like something worth talking about insane and I know that it was something that related to one of my recent article topics so you know what I’m actually just gonna do a quick scan here because we are on all of these topics you know you were you’re talking about Ralph Baric and it’s a it’s it’s one of those you know issues where go go ahead if you figured it out.

Yeah yeah, um you know my one of the conversations that I had yesterday with the gentleman in California that I was talking about it was a reminder of one that I had with Stephanie Seneff at the beginning of this year I ran into her at the wise traditions conference here in Dallas first time I met her in person and she said you know there’s a theory on viruses that what viruses really are is an information exchange in nature right and and this sort of makes sense right like we know that ninety nine point nine nine nine nine percent of viruses don’t harm us and we also know that bacteria which are really one of nature’s great you know game theoretic information processors right I mean they’ve been doing their thing for four and a half billion years on earth you know they’re just awesome but they they deal with the viruses a lot right and and then it may be this sort of like natural thing that is like a computer program but a game theoretic one because it’s constantly changing cost new information so you know there’s something good about this in so far as it may mean the gain of function research is almost impossible maybe impossible and and it may be that it was thought to be possible and I’m going to throw out an analogy that that I floated with JJ two or three months ago in this conversation came up in Steve Kirsch’s vaccine steering committee which is which is that our have we been sold a threat for the purpose of being okay with the spending of tens of billions hundreds of billions of dollars over the years maybe trillions even have we’ve been sold this idea of this dangerous thing that is essentially impossible so here’s the analogy people say you know if you put it up monkeys at typewriters eventually one of them writes Shakespeare and it sounds good when you first hear it but it’s actually not true and here’s the reason why it’s not true there are such things as physical constraints there are energy constraints we are in an energy constrained environment in the solar system if you were to create the most efficient computer possible and and it may be debatable what that is right but if we assume like wavelengths of energy that are very very long in order to suggest the least amount of energy used to change a zero to a one and vice versa to to be able to change the bits in a strand the number of times you could change a digit using all the energy in the Sun is not enough to come close to a 30,000 strand single stranded RNA virus in fact you can’t even cover a fraction of that genome so this idea that all possible genetic sequences are sort of out there in nature is totally bonkers it’s totally bonanza for people who pay attention to cryptocurrency here’s the analogy people go oh what if the random address generator which has an address and a private key that allows you to access that wallet what if two people get the same wallet and therefore the same key then one of those people can steal the money of the other person right this is called a collision in cryptocurrency but the but when you do when you run the math on this you come up with the fact that you would need to have like you know many orders of magnitude more wallets than will likely ever exist for the probability of one single collision ever occurring to become particularly high there are energy and statistical constraints even if there exists some set of sequences that would allow for a stable change to happen in the global environment doesn’t mean that it’s likely to ever take place so I want to mention that and you you pointed out that you know we’re talking about automata and if people kind of want to take that idea and also play with automata I’m gonna encourage people to play with John Conway’s game of life and I just saw a big smile go across your face you’ve yeah yeah I’m sure you’ve played with this before yeah yep I don’t know if this is a really good generator oh you can base there there are some better generators where you can just like create swaths of dots out there and and you have these automata but the moment you start it because there’s a rule by which every cell changes according to the cells around it and they’re only two colors so there’s only if you have eight cells around you then you have two to the eight 256 possibilities some of which are gray some of which are yellow in this case but most of them are not stable they just disappear rather quickly and then there are a few stable ones and even if they come into collision they become unstable again stability is very very narrow yes so narrow it is so hard to achieve and I hope that that we have given people a sense of that because I think this relates to the entire argument what is possible what are we spending money to do what is the facade and I think that that might be it yeah I really do I think that you’re hinting at a very possible exit mechanism that if someone were to try and describe the the implied mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 as a function of the people that supposedly have been infected I think we would find something that would be so off the plausibility scale in terms of fidelity and consistency that again we would just see another aspect of this elephant that if you just step back you realize wow it’s really not the lion that they told us it was it’s just not and I think this is a huge piece I’m not trying to pat myself on the back I’m just trying to say that it’s a it’s a piece that anyone could have thought of and anyone could have realized if someone would have challenged them to say explain to me how it is that Baric can share the same virus year after year what does it mean when he sends a MERS 3.14 AB clone to somebody and why is that clone the same two years later and once I figured that out I realized how unnatural all this stuff that they do in the laboratory is and the potential that this purity would represent. And just a reminder as we begin to wrap things up here for those who want to go back and take a peek at the conversation that that I had with Liam and I had with Alex Washburn who is co-author on the recent statistical fingerprinting of SARS-CoV-2 paper and and Kevin McKernan who is our genius genomics friend whom we go to when we when we want to learn more of the nitty-gritty of genetics and and ask hard questions with. You know go back and look at that conversation there’s a conversation there about why why SARS-CoV-2 looks artificial and part of it is about spacing of the restriction sites very even spacing and I’m gonna help tighten and at least in it on an intuitive level I we may have a conversation with Jessica Rose sometime soon on children’s health defense and I’m gonna come up with some graphics that help explain the probability of statistics intuitively. But you know what Kevin McKernan brought to that conversation is look there are labs that you can just send your recipe to and say this length 900 nucleotides this this this and this and they will assemble that for you and ship it back that’s where we are with the technology right we are not at a point at which we can create you know like figure out what all possible sequences are in order to change the genetic information of the earth you know thankfully yeah we are at the point at which once you identify one thing that purified will make people sick you can send that recipe to a lab they will bake that cake for you and we have the genetic fingerprinting to show that it that it it took place. Yes the sequence that they shared with us at the beginning of the pandemic is essentially has too many synthetic fingerprints to be real it was a natural I’m sorry it was an artificial construct and so whether or not it’s ultimately based on what is a natural virus again what Matthew is trying to explain is that if you made little bits of it to do little cell culture here and then sent it over to your friend and then made little bits of it and did cell culture over here if it escaped from the lab in that pure form it might infect 40 people maybe even a few people at your home maybe even a town but until it was made in quantity because of the nature of RNA it would never be able to sustain thousands and thousands of people I mean think of this hypothesis that maybe the original SARS was a clone leak and it infected 8,000 and it killed 800 and that was it yeah so and somebody said do you have a link to the show yeah you know please do subscribe to our channels you know that is how we grow you know we do hope that this is a self-sustaining enterprise I’ll even mention this I don’t pay myself anything from these but but I do hope that that we wind up with enough revenue for for what I pay for Liam because I think that he is an excellent commentator he’s a smart guy who has the the speaking training that I that I don’t have getting a little better at it but no but you know please do subscribe to the channel to help support that to help grow the channel that’s what we’re trying to do and but it’s it’s only a couple of videos back here and you can see you know we got 213,000 views apparently because Mercola pushed this out I guess he saw and he liked it but you know this is over a hundred thousand unique people have viewed this so far it is an important conversation it’s a conversation that should have happened in 2020 frankly you know if I’d had you know the connection the right people with you know whatever software you might use or something like that I probably could have participated in and helped you know build a paper like this in 2020 the only reason it wasn’t done there are lots of people who could have done this I should say lots it’s not like there are millions of people out there but but there are there are plenty of people who could have done this in 2020 but you know he talks about the pressure being pushed back against because when he asked questions you know he basically got one of those stop asking questions sort of responses and it took him you know meandering around in that environment as a younger man than the than the senior researchers to step out and say you know what I’m you know I’ve got some people to work with there are three people on that paper and and they did it I think one of the things that’s significant about that is that from the perspective of shooting from the cuff there isn’t any skilled molecular biologists that would have looked at a restriction site map of that original sequence and wouldn’t have scratched their head saying wow that’s pretty convenient and yet once you observe that like a lot of molecular biologists did and speak out about it how to make an objective argument that that’s beyond chance when any of these these crowned virology experts can just go on Twitter and say that’s conspiracy theory those those sites are in all kinds of natural places and so you’re full of bull and that ended and so they really decided to try and buckle down and figure out if there was a statistical way to make their argument that wasn’t so easily rebutted as yeah you can find these in nature which is which was tricky I think yeah do do follow Kevin McKernan for the cats you know call it but he is a genomics genius he’s a really bright guy you’re gonna want a lot following him and again and again I lost my train we were moving toward wrapping these things up and I felt like there was one more important thing to say what was it cats it is always the cats you know I probably have the toxoplasmosis I’m just inventing the fact that that would have you know an effect on my memory just just out of thin air I’ll just blame it on them not getting older not having a lot of complex things in front of us it’s the cats well you know what you were talking about with the with the restriction sites and that people should have been able to look at it and say you know this doesn’t look right one thing that I remember getting on Twitter and we all had so many things to look at right what are we gonna pay attention to there was what seems like now looking back probably a propaganda campaign all over I saw people say well if this was synthetic where are the cut sites uh-huh oh yeah and and and you know what they’re not lying when they ask that question they’re they’re they’re asking the question as if it is a condescension because they are acting like they know enough to know that they’re not there mm-hmm and also you only have to leave out you only have to leave out the one you could show a chart of 40 of them and none of them would show up right bracketing they are the receptor binding domain so you only need to leave out two enzymes out of hundreds and you can say you’re showing a restrictive site map when you’re not right right exactly yeah if you’re sending this to the cake baker 600 nucleotides at a time and what you really need to be doing is focusing on those 30 really less than 30 really less than that maybe maybe six around around that site you know it’s only 1% of the genome where you would be examining and seeing this effect right so so that’s where we are so anything anything to say before we wrap this up this has been a great conversation you know we we that’s the reason why we started doing it because we call each other and then realize we should have recorded it so it’s nice that’s true yeah and and I learned something and I think through something a little bit different every time we talk and you know thank you audience for being patient with my hesitations and thanks JJ for for showing up with us for another 90 minutes for for what is a you know educational for me I’m sure for for a lot of other people and oops my pleasure man I’m really grateful for our friendship it’s really made my pandemic experience a little less stressful so thank you very much all right everybody well I will have JJ on again as as things evolve as we have more conversations and more thoughts this one summarized a number of things that we’ve been talking about for a couple of months so you know but he is one of the the people if they’re a tiny number of people on the planet that have really done a good job of dancing through the minefields of the information warfare and it really is that the minefields are such that even even a professional right even like in this this was not his area of research right he was a neurobiologist but but he had plenty of knowledge that would allow him to begin investigating and then it took him time to to make certain leaps and and and for us you know and he hasn’t made the leaps alone you know he’s done the right thing which is talked to dozens of other smart people and and we all inform each other as best that we can but he’s he’s in that small number of people who have made the most progress and we appreciate his time here and we appreciate your time I hope this was worth it like I said I don’t say this very often do click that subscribe button you know to do help us out grow these channels you know let your friends know you know your friends who are completely brainwashed you may have open enough minds to watch this and learn a little bit from it you know and poke at them a little bit can you answer this you know do what they did to us right you know how do you answer this how do you answer this how do you answer this how do you answer this and maybe we can turn that fifth generation warfare a little bit back on him so anyhow thanks for joining us and I’ll play a little outro music for you as you go.