REFERENCE

As long as everything looks okay and sounds okay, I’m gonna go forward. Just keep giving me a little bit of feedback in the beginning in the chat if you don’t mind. I’ll do one more sound check in just a minute.

One more sound check. Does that look okay? Thank you for feedback.

I don’t know if you saw it or not, but if you didn’t get on it, Mark is crushing it like a jazz musician in his prime right now. It’s pretty impressive to see.

One thing is that about five million children die each year globally from acute lung injury associated with respiratory infections, respiratory infections like respiratory syncytial virus, influenza and measles. And so our goal is to develop a vaccine platform using coronaviruses, which are mild human respiratory pathogens that simultaneously vaccinate children against these three major human pathogens. With the goal of developing novel technologies, some of which are already licensed here at UNC, specifically focused on using those technologies to improve global health.

I’m not sure this is going to be perfect. Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize for screaming in your ear like that. I’m not sure this is going to be perfect, but I have a feeling in my gut that the next few streams, the next few weeks are going to be some of the most important work that I do in my life. And I don’t say that lightly. Let’s see where this goes. I don’t know what to tell you other than it’s hard to really even express the jitters I feel right now.

Here we are again, ladies and gentlemen, I’m asking you to put your glasses on. Sorry for that plosive. I’m asking you to put your glasses on and learn some biology now. We’re going to talk a particularly large biology now. We’re going to try and rationalize why we are standing firm, rationalize why it is that this behavior occurred over the last few years. What really happened? How can we explain this? It’s not just good versus evil or truth versus lies.

It’s a complex web that tricked us into giving up our kids. It tricked us into submitting first. It tricked us into believing all kinds of things that seem to lead right toward us having a digital ID, digital currency, digital control. And it was by people who should have known better. And if we learn the biology, I do believe if we learn the biology that we can actually recover. I do. I do believe this graphic is real. But we need to recover by learning the biology, the biology that our lives are embedded in, that our health is a reflection of.

And I think the hope is in our history. I think the hope is in having a reflective and reflective look at our history, the history of science in America, the history of what got funded, the history of what gets canonized and what does not, and how science and ideas and science can be propagated by people who are not necessarily just interested in finding out how Mother Nature does stuff, but might be interested in laying down a mythology that is over the long term useful in global governance.

Think about that for a second. Imagine that you would hijack the history of science on a decade by decade basis to try and create a history which allows you to govern globally. And it’s all based on biology. You think it’s based on Epstein and pedophiles and knocking down buildings, but it’s actually not.

It’s about lying to you about your biology, about what defines your health and where you derive your well-being from. And I’m telling you, sooner or later we’re not going to be able to talk about it, so I feel like we’ve got to talk about it now. I think there’s people like Mark and Kevin and other people think that it’s also really worthwhile talking about now.

And that means keep swinging at this stage because if we’re fighting for our children’s future, that’s really what’s at stake here. Learning the immunology is just the first step in arming yourself against these people. But there is a long term plan here that at least in America I think is going to work or hopefully will work. I’m trying to keep it simple. If you’ve been following along for a while, you’re here at the top of the wave and you know that we are staying focused on the biology. We’re not taking the bait on TV and we are practicing a thing called loving your neighbor. That’s how we’re trying to save these skilled TV watchers down there below. If you’re one of them, welcome to the show. This show is funded by people who watch it, people who share it, those people who are on at the trumpet sound.

And again, if you’re not aware, this is GigaOhmBiological. It’s a high resistance low noise information stream brought to you by a biologist. The biologist is me, this guy. Hello, my name is Jonathan Couey. I’m a neurobiologist by training but a general biologist by religion, I guess, if you will. I’ve been a general biologist since I was a little kid collecting bugs and snakes and leaves and drawing and measuring and whatever. Somehow I found myself entangled in this little mythology here and I’ve been trying to sort it out ever since. It is with the support of my best friend, wife, mother of my kids that this stream continues to move forward. It is with her support that I dared start it and it is with her support that I dare keep it going.

Again, I say the illusion is sustained by your own active participation that’s watching the news, trying to take the information from TV and let that be the basis for you sorting this out. I’m suggesting that there are other ways. That means textbooks, that means primary literature, that means learning the fundamental biology so that when they lie about it, you know they’re lying. That’s the only way this works and united non-compliance of course. I’m going to fade this out here just to give you an introduction as to who I am in case you don’t know.

I was a research assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh when this whole thing started. I’ve done some training at the Freie Universiteit, the Free University in Amsterdam, at the EPFL in Switzerland with Henry Markram. I worked at the NTNU in Norway for about three and a half or four years, four years I guess. We had our two boys in Norway and then we moved back to the Netherlands in Rotterdam at the Erasmus University where I was again for about four years. Then I moved back to the States at the University of Pittsburgh. I was at the University of Pittsburgh in the Department of Neurobiology at the School of Medicine.

I was trying to build a four-patch setup to replicate some of the stuff that I had learned at the EPFL and taken to Norway and taken to Erasmus. If you want to find out where those papers went and didn’t go, you can use that search term up there. Maybe I’ll even take it out right now and put it in the chat for people who are here or watching the chat. You can take that search and at least you can find out whether I’m full of baloney or not.

Anyway, this is the background on which that I started this YouTube channel of mine. The YouTube channel was called JC on a Bike because I was doing journal club on the bike. It’s all journal club about neuroscience. It’s me goofing around from a long time. I had wanted to do a YouTube channel and in fact I was filming for security purposes a regular GoPro film for my ride. But I wasn’t making it of anything and I didn’t have a microphone, yada, yada, yada. Finally I decided to do it because as they say, and it’s interesting, I’ve found a very interesting video of someone else saying my exact same story. But you got to start making a YouTube channel before you’ll ever have a YouTube channel and that’s what I did. So I got to about journal club number 16 or so, 17 and 18, 19, 20 and then, oops, intro to coronavirus. And you can see that in this journal club thing I’m doing other journal clubs 21, 22 and then another coronavirus, then 23, then 24, then 25, then 26, then 27, 28 and then another journal club on coronavirus. So actually you can see that even at the beginning when this was all going on I still didn’t tumble forward into it until really like March or so when the proximal origin paper came out and when Michael Osterholm was on Joe Rogan and then pretty much it took over my entire output. This is when my faculty started to notice me, yada, yada, yada. I was asked not to come in anymore. We know the whole story.

A year later, we were covered on Tucker Carlson who mentioned the possibility of a lab leak. It can’t be true. The Lancet says it’s not true. 27 eminent scientists say it’s not true. Only a few scientists in the face of all of this dare to speak up. One of them was called Gilles DeMeneuve. He formed a group of researchers called DRASTIC. That’s an acronym for decentralized radical autonomous search team, something that all scientists should be. Jamie Metzl, the former NSC official, soon joined the group. Almost immediately, as early as April of last year, it was becoming clear to Metzl that the lab leak theory was not a conspiracy theory. In fact, it was plausible.

Now, the interesting thing about this for me in retrospect is the Scooby-Doo aspect of it that I opened the show with. It had never dawned on me at all that I could be part of this, that I could have been manipulated and be a part of this. I lost my job after speaking up. I was thrown out of my university. My entire career was ruined. Other people at the University of Pittsburgh have also published papers about the SARS-CoV-2 virus being possibly a lab leak. They haven’t lost their jobs.

And so you start to see that there are pieces to this puzzle that as I start to put them together slowly over the next couple of weeks, you’re going to see that there is no doubt that many of us were manipulated from inside and out at the behest of other people or at the whim of other people. Who knows who’s in control?

But we can see clearly in retrospect that something weird was going on because here, for example, the story is covered in Vanity Fair. The story is covered by Newsweek. The group DRASTIC is identified and then attributed to Jamie Metzel and a foreign guy from France, neither of whom were really involved with DRASTIC directly for more than like nine months after the pandemic was declared. So definitely not a founding member. Jamie Metzel was never a member. But curiously, in multiple news sources, was tied to founding the group and being an influential member of it. And so when this happened, it was actually quite difficult to understand what’s going on. Like, why are they saying Drastic did it, but then not giving credit to the right DRASTIC? Where’s Luigi in this? What about Billy Bostickson? Where’s Dan and Harvard to the Big House? Where are all these people? Where’s Yuri Deigin or Rosanna Segreto? Where are the people that solved the furin cleavage site or were the first people with a blog? None of those members of DRASTIC were even credited ever, although they’re prominent on the website.

So this was a huge incongruency for a long time for me. And so I’m human, just like you. I was inside of this trap and finding the walls to it are not as simple as saying, oh, you got to get off Twitter. You got to get off Facebook. No, no, no, no, no. I can use Twitter. I can use YouTube. I can get away from this. It’s not as simple as you think.

And in fact, the early part of this cognitive matrix that they created was almost impossible not to get sucked into. And it is because of this lab leak Scooby Doo’ed type outfit. I was I wrote a paper or helped. I put my name on a paper that was basically written by other people, by Adrian and Dayu and everybody. They asked me to be on the paper after it was written. Now, I’m not saying that I was trapped. I was offered a position on the paper because they knew that I was part of this group of people that had that had put forth these ideas that it didn’t have to be zoonosis that zoonosis was really not very likely that it was much more likely something from a lab. Much more likely something from serial passage or genetic engineering and then accidental escape in a lab worker that caused the pandemic. I was there. I was part of the team of people that got Scooby Doo’ed.

The question is, who on this crew is Scooby dooing who?

It definitely if you’re a fan of mine and you know that I just get on here and tell the truth. And that’s why I don’t really have to remember anything. That’s my schtick, that you’ll know that at the time I thought this was almost an honor that they were willing to put me on this paper despite the fact that it was already written. But Rosanna suggested it. I think Rosanna is like still my I think my friend kind of. She was one person that never burnt the bridge with me. Yuri is the one who published with Rosanna the furin cleavage site paper. Yuri is the one who blocked me when I started talking about the transfection. Kevin McCairn, I think you all know. Dan Sarotkin and his father are Harvard to the big house. His father works at Los Alamos on the genome on on on technologies related to genome genome sequencing. Dayu is this like mystery guy from Australia or somewhere that’s actually obviously Chinese that knows everything about everything to do with the molecular biology it appears from the very beginning on Twitter who kind of got blocked, right? but not really.

But I was part of this and I was part of this this notion that these things are all whoops that these things are all possible. And in fact here you can see me getting getting account locked for a violation and it’s going to take these skilled TV watchers a long time if they really don’t know that the spike is the toxin and the spike from the transfection is the toxin.

So I was totally 100% on board with the idea that the spike is magic the spike is engineered the spike is what allowed the virus to go from a laboratory worker around the world and start this fire that’s not going to end. And we figured it out like Scooby-friggin-Doo and we pulled the mask off of of Daszak and Fauci and and the USAID and the DEFUSE… Voilá! here it is!

And what I’m telling you today is that this is not probably the most likely scenario at all. And in fact biologically speaking it is highly implausible if not known to be impossible. And so I’m trying to help you get out of this just like I want to get out of it like I want my kids out of it. I want everybody out of it. I’m trying to help Bobby Kennedy get us out of this. And so it is really the culmination of my life’s work here as a biologist as finding my way in academia and then somehow serendipitously finding myself working with Bobby, this is really serious work and I take it very seriously and I take the truth very seriously in this. And if in the end telling this truth is not something that is useful to Children Self Defense then they’ll let me go I get a three month contract with them as as a consultant. That’s how they work. And so on a three month by three month basis, I help with things and answer questions and emails and help write texts and occasionally an article but they don’t get paid for the article. You get paid for being a consultant for answering deep questions about stuff and and clarifying things for people behind the scenes so that they themselves don’t make mistakes.

But I’m now treading interesting waters here. Because everybody in that organization is under the same spell that I was a few weeks ago that this is a lab leak and that the right combination of viral genes can fly around the world, especially if we’re all equally vulnerable to a new novel virus from a bat. And so breaking people out of this spell is is now a risk I’m running essentially, just want you to be aware of that as I try to explain this and I’m going to take me a while to learn how to explain this. But I’m going to take a shot at it today because I think it’s time.

I think they’re changing the way that we think for a reason. And that reason is, is many years in the future building. It’s not for now. It’s not a transition that needs to be now it’s a transition that needs to happen over the next five to 10 years. And the convincing process has already started at the level of the people that they’re most interested in. And that’s at the university age.

And the kind of thing that I’m pointing to is the fact that everybody that wanted to go back to university these last two years had to submit. Submit to testing, eventually submit to the shots in a lot of places right a lot of places, if not everywhere. And testing and social distancing and masking and all this stuff was enacted on all those college campuses in a way that they could have never done with the free adult population. And so you can’t underestimate how those these last two years have fundamentally changed the way that these young adults think about freedom and think about what these people could ask of them. And what their, their, their, their responsibilities to society are and what what freedom is defined as has been fundamentally already inverted for many college kids because they have been forced to submit. They have been coerced. And coercion is going to be normalized in a way that will allow this fundamental inversion of your rights to permissions and permissions that you have to pass certain tests in order to achieve.

And I want to explain to you today why they need to do this it is a it is a once in history chance. And I want to show these skulls here of the evolution of humans because they talk all the time, the transhumanists, they talk all the time about the future and what’s going to happen and how everything is going to change and how we’re going to be demigods because we will learn to move the evolution of the human species ourselves. The human species and the human genome ourselves.

This mythology is what’s moving this entire monolith. As crazy as it sounds, lots of other people will including Mark have referred to, you know, civilization as a big cruise ship or a battleship or an aircraft carrier, you can’t turn it really fast. And this is like a 10 year turn, where they are going to go from freedom and bodily autonomy and the rights of an individual to the responsibilities of an individual to the community to lack of their bodily autonomy is nuts. And to public health being the primary overarching governance scheme.

That pivot is going to take about five to 10 years and the reason why they need to make that pivot and why they started with the college kids is because this is the one chance in history to collect the data they need for their God to solve humanity’s problems, and their God is AI. AI is coming to a singularity. That’s what they tell all their followers in their secret meetings and in their Ted talks openly. And this singularity will come when the AI sort of grants itself emergent properties as a result of playing itself in chess over and over and over again, and studying human behavior over and over and over again until it figures it out. And then the AI will see the patterns that we would never have been able to see not without 1000 generations.

And that’s the that’s the central myth of all transhumanism the idea that we’re going to be able to figure out the brain we’re going to figure out genetics yada yada yada this is all based on this mythology that AI can do this if given enough data. And a great way to start with this I’m going to copy this out and put it in the chat. This is an article that was written a while ago. And it was written… I think this is at Yale I’m not sure where that is we could, I guess I can pull that up quick is that going to come up. Cold Spring Harbor, sorry. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. “Why AI needs a genome”. And what they do is they tell this story about AI models, using a deep learning approach which mimics how humans acquire knowledge such language learning models right could be a supercharged version and autocomplete version on your phone it could be an AI bot that you chat with. So they’re trying to learn language this way. And in here, they give the example of go. And so I wanted to watch a video about talking about AlphaGo and how deep learning is applied and try to point out how this falls woefully short of being possible to apply to humans and to human life and to human biology yet. The transhumanists have told this story in particular and I believe I’ve, I’ve imagined are uncovered imagine that I’ve uncovered one of the real big stories that they tell in the secret secret meetings like you have a conference, and then you pull some people aside and you find out that they’re all pretty much on board with getting rid of a few people. And then you pull the smartest ones of those aside, and you explain to them what you’re going to do in order to get rid of those people, and then also how you’re not going to waste this opportunity as you get rid of those people.

You catched that? So you’re going to have a conference where you’re going to talk about this stuff, AI, and how AI needs information and it needs genes and whatever, so that the AI can understand things. You put data in, and we can do all kinds of transhuman stuff that’s what this really is about but it’s a distraction article, because they’re not telling you what the real aim is they’re not telling you what the real game is. And I believe that’s because this. They have to tell you something, they have to tell you that they’re doing it but they don’t want to tell you exactly what the focus is they make shiny objects over here. We’re trying to figure out chess and then we figured out go and soon we’re going to get things to read diagnostics on an x ray or an MRI and they’ll be able to diagnose sickness much better than us.

Those are all really easy patterns. Those are really just machine learning and and pattern finding. It’s not really artificial intelligence. And I think Matt Crawford could explain this better than me.

But what I really want to make the point of is with this video to try and think about the fact that they have told the transhumanists have told their, their members that AI will be applied to the human genome. And when AI is applied to the human genome, we’re going to be able to do things with the human genome that we could have never done before we applied AI to it.

And what does AI require? It requires data. Now let’s see how they got the data for AlphaGo to learn. And then we’ll see, we’ll see how that could possibly apply to humans. The AlphaGo has been using deep learning to make this happen. Yes, yes. That’s, I mean, the company that did that, well, now is Google, right, but it’s a DeepMind company that was a startup in London and Google acquired them at some point before actually anyone knew what they were doing, right? So they were smelling that was something nice, right? And their, their best thing is that they’re doing deep learning with reinforcement learning, right? So reinforcement learning is the type of, of way you try to teach and deep learning is the type of algorithm that you, that you use to try to learn that, right? So the reinforcement learning is exactly this thing of I’m not going to tell you exactly what the, what the output is. I’m just going to tell you what is the task. And I’m going to tell you whether you’re doing the task well or bad. And it’s going to be your, your job as an algorithm to find the best way of doing this task. The first idea that we have to understand is what, what we’re trying to do with it, right, which is basically machine learning. It’s trying to automate, automatically do some task that what we can do it by counting. Usually we can do basic statistics. But if we have really a lot of numbers, we can end up doing some heuristics. What we can come up with, right? And we might want to use computers to actually learn from these statistics in an optimal manner. Say the best way of finding this information out of this data that you have is following these rules, right? So the computer does this for you. This is, this is the basic concept of machine learning. One typical example is if you want to invest in either an exchange market, in the stock market, something like that. And then I guess the people that invest, they have certain rules, right? If you have the last five weeks going up in the value, then overall you expect that this week will go down because it’s being, I don’t know, like reaching a maximum. Or this kind of idea, right, that you compute the median of the last 10 values and this gives you an idea of the real value. And if it’s above that, it will go down and so forth, right? But this is just basically heuristics that we think might work, right? And we can even through experience think that some are better than others and so forth, right? But when we have like 50 values on the different stocks in the market and we have, you know, like the currency exchange and we have many other factors, right? How to how many rules can we find there? How many heuristics? Right. This is just almost infinite number. So what you would like is ideally a way of choosing the best. And the computer has a capacity of checking them all, right? You can do that pen and paper. You spend like five lifetimes doing it. And maybe, you know, by the time you finish the snow stock market, but the computer does it everything for you very quickly, right?

OK, so let’s just get it. Get where we are here with with this thing. So he says the deep, DeepMind is using deep learning, which is reinforcement learning. It’s just really network learning. It’s not very complicated. It’s just computing power and and simple learning rules. It’s it’s it’s it is very simple. And with the right computing power, depending on who your software designer is, this this stuff is pretty straightforward. But the more variables you have, the stats become harder and it becomes really important who’s defining the system’s rules, right? Who defines that and how well they’re defined will determine how easily the algorithm can sort things out.

Now, the stock market example is a good one because in the stock market, you have all values. The values are real. And the data is essentially, you know, how much do you fit in and what do you put in? What don’t you put in with any biological system? The data that you will have will be limited to your measuring capabilities. And most of the time, that’s going to be horrible. And so what I’m suggesting to you is, is that while this machine learning stuff can be good for for for a lot of applications, it’s mostly optimization or finding optimize optimization points in a chain or analyzing a data set to see what what variables the vast majority of the variance can be explained by.

This doesn’t necessarily result in a working model of the system moving forward. But that is a lot of what that is a lot of what this work bases its assumptions on that if we can identify the three basic parameters that can define 90 percent of the variance, then we can look at those and focus on them as we make our models. Now, that’s fine. Again, if you’re just moving stock money around, that’s fine. If you’re trying to predict the weather, that’s fine. If you’re if you’re trying to coordinate a train schedule, that’s fine for lots and lots of things that might even be fine. If you identify the three or four or five or six things that are that are most important when where do you put the next chip in a go game? But once we start talking about a biological system and we talk about biological systems moving through the four dimensional space and time of development, then A.I. is very limited in what it can do.

But what my suggestions to you is is that they have told a lot of their their members in these private meetings that A.I. plus genetics and maybe also phenotype or medical data. What the hell’s wrong with my pen and A.I. medical data? This this some right here is the future. This is going to solve all of humans’ problems, is if we combine A.I. with genetic data and that could also be phenotype and medical data. Of course, that’s what they would want. Mostly they would need this to be together and combine that in an A.I. And we would have the future of medicine, the future of transhumanism.

And my argument is that at no time in the past and at no time in the future will there be more of a diverse genetic gene pool of humankind than there is right now, especially if their intention is to reduce population.

And that’s why they focused on the largest adult young with 40 years of their life remaining as the group that they needed to really change the mind of. Because going forward, it’s their data that they need in order to feed the A.I. over the next 10 or 15 years, as much genetics correlated with phenotype and medical data as they can. And so they need you to give up your bodily sovereignty. They need you to give up your medical data. They need you to give up this idea that something is sacred because they only have a little time. And then this data will be lost for ever.

It took us almost 2000 years to reach the stage where this data would be available. They can’t leave it go. They can’t just flush it all down the toilet with a with a poison. They can’t just end our lives. No, no, no, this is not about ending our lives. It’s not about poisoning us. It is really an entire theater that is designed to give us to get us to give this up so that they can bring in their future. That’s what this is about.

And if you can start to grasp that a little bit, I think you’re going to find where I’m going to go with this video.

The only thing is it will not do something better than you can do, given enough time. But you do it so much quicker that you will never get there. So now we’re beginning to see cases in which machine learning is actually doing something better than humans, especially with very specific tasks and maybe better than humans that are not experts on that task, right? But historically, machine learning was always worse than an expert human doing something, right? So one of the cases is this like now famous the AlphaGo, right? So this this is one of the few cases in which machine learning has managed to beat to beat an expert. I mean, like the world expert on the on one specific problem, right? And there’s been this all this talking about why this is different from chess, right? The main difference is that for chess, you have a limited number of options, right? And once you move one piece, right? then you have I don’t know how many options, right? But again, a limited number. So you can organize that in a tree and more or less check exhaustively. You tell the program this is what you want to do. Check all the options and just, you know, do what is best according to what I told you that is good, right? So this is just sheer computational power in order to check the options, right? This tells you our computers are really powerful.

Now, he’s going to say it a minute, but I just want to stress this here to make sure that you get it. It still requires the programmer to understand the problem and to adequately describe it in the code in order for the algorithm to do it. Chess’s rules and objectives need to be adequately coded. And that’s no small task. And so to solve the chess problem is not small, but it is a brute force problem as he’s describing it. There are, you know, you can count the number of possibilities and he’s going to explain why Go is a little bit different, but it’s not.

But it doesn’t say anything about the algorithm itself, right? With Go, it’s totally different because there are so many options that you cannot really check them, right? A lot of people are repeating this fact that there’s more Go positions than particles in the universe. The people in DeepMind, which is the people that did this, have said that they really don’t know what kind of tactic the computer is following, right? They didn’t really hard code any tactic. So what they did is they created this machine learning algorithm that would play Go, right? And would play it terribly, right? It’s just, you know, some random rules. They didn’t really have a clue how to implement that. So they started at some random algorithm that would play Go terribly, right? And the point is that they pitted this machine, this algorithm, against some other algorithm that would have different parameters, right? Would play Go differently, right? But you still wouldn’t hard code anything. They just put you some parameters that would define how it would play, but you really don’t know what the meaning of these parameters are, right? And they would play against each other. And at some point after, I don’t know, 100 matches, one would win, right? And you say, OK, this one is better. And then you keep these parameters, you change them somehow, right? And you keep on doing that for a very, very long time. It’s a bit like evolution. There is a part of computer science that is called evolutionary computing, right? So I don’t want to, this is a slightly different thing, right? But the concept is you have a parameter space, right? And this will tell you all the possible ways to play Go according to, you know, your certain machine learning algorithm, right? It will have certain possibilities that are specific to that algorithm. But you have a lot of parameters, and each parameter can take a real value. So you have infinite possibilities. And the question is how to find the best parameters to play Go. Most machine learning algorithms, they have, you search for the optimal parameters in some other way. This was specific of a type of problems that are called reinforcement learning, where you basically tell them what you want to do, but you are not sure which is the correct way of doing it, right? And that’s why DeepMind says we don’t really know, because they didn’t give the examples for the machine to imitate. They said, OK, try to learn by yourself, right? This is what you want to do, what we want you to do. Just learn how to do it. Every time that the machine learning decides a move, right? So this is what the algorithm is learning. We have this configuration. What is my next move? Right. You’re not specifying the best move is this, because no one knows, right? I mean, the idea is that they beat the world champion. So, you know, maybe now the algorithm was able to figure out which next move was better than the world champion, right? So there’s no golden standard to imitate there, right? That’s the difference in essence. I suppose I don’t really understand the game Go, so that doesn’t help much. But I suppose the biggest thing here is, and feel free to correct me, but in chess you can brute force it. Yeah. And in Go you can’t. Would that be fair? That is very fair. Yeah. I mean, you still have to do it smartly.

And so the argument here, again, is that chess actually has a finite number of outcomes and a finite number of best choices in the beginning. And so there’s a tree you can make up. There’s a parameter space or a move space, a possibility space that can be defined. And in modern computing, it has pretty much been defined. And so it’s kind of a mountain that’s been climbed. Go, because of the nature of the game, is a bit more difficult to see as a parameter space with some very good choices in the middle and some rather weird choices that limit your possibilities out here. It’s a very fluid and open space, spherical, if you will. And so finding your way through that and how this DeepMind, deep learning algorithm has done it is still not something they understand.

It’s still a black box. They just know that the resulting software can do it. Now they can’t have the software print out its code and then look at the code and say, oh, and now I see how he did it. And that’s one of the huge problems of these these deep learning algorithms is that they don’t produce any insight except for if someone of equal status and skill and understanding can watch the computer solve the problem and then gain insight from it. So people have learned the tricks that the Go computer is using by playing against it and become better. And they found a couple tricks actually that can allow them to beat the Go computer. And they don’t really understand fully why some of those tricks work.

Anyway, where I’m going with this is that they have told stories in secret meetings that a similar application to the human genome with enough data fed into it would allow an AI computer to understand the human genome. And we don’t know how it will understand it, but it will start to give us answers. And because we are approaching this singularity where AI is going to emerge and that computing power is going to kind of, you know, take over.

This illusion this mythology is tied up in this this biology and it is it is a subordination of the sacredness of biology to the domineering and engineering of technology. And they can force the ideas on you and YouTube and on mainstream media and in social media and in movies and in in blockbusters.

But the reality is is that if you get right down to it, we are not at a stage where our computers are capable of doing it because our ability to measure and describe the biological processes that culminate in us is woefully inadequate. Imagine the task of explaining to the AI in code, encoding the objective of Go is talking about black and white chips that flip depending on which chips are surrounded by which chips and who laid the last one down. This is about a finite number of pieces which can eliminate one another and can move in particular ways and that’s it. Squares by squares. Limited space. Human beings are thousands of genes hundreds of thousands of proteins hundreds of millions of cells that maintain a homeostasis after and during development for a lifetime. And the computer programmer the biologist that’s able to adequately enough explain that process in variables, so that an AI can use genetic data to understand it and then pull out the most important genes design a better human is ridiculous. But that’s the story they’re telling. That’s the story they’re telling. That’s the story they’re telling.

That’s why these people are on board, because they’ve been told. This is the end. This is the last time we’re going to have 9 billion people on the planet. This is the last time we’re going to have 340 mixed genotypes on the same continent ever again. China, they don’t have anything that’s useful. Because their genotype and their gene pool is too homogenous. How many Chinese people do you really need before you have a general sample of the Chinese genome? A thousand? Ten thousand from all over China? Would that be enough? Is that going to express any kind of any kind of how do all these genes the diversity of genes in the human race? Does that help you at all? Or is that just one facet of the genetic diversity of the human race?

It’s just one facet. And believe it or not, it’s probably all been collected already. That’s part of the imperative here, don’t you see? They’ve sat people down in private rooms and said, look, the AIs work, the Chinese have AIs, the Chinese have been collecting their own data for a long time. The Chinese can take care of themselves. The Chinese are collecting our genes. We can’t let this resource go to anyone else. The most diverse genetic population that will ever exist in history is with us right now. The universities are never going to be as full as they are for the next five years. After that, it’s going to go down forever. This is the last time that we will have a chance to sample this many from this much genetic diversity. And it is only in America and only in Europe that this genetic diversity exists.

I’m not saying that those other places in the world aren’t genetically diverse. I’m saying that all of that genetic diversity is essentially wrapped up in our college kids over the next decade. And if you want to pick somebody from Iran, is it represented in our college kids? Yep. You want to pick somebody from middle Africa? Are they represented in our college kids? Probably. You want to pick somebody from northern Canada? Yep, they’re probably there. The genes are all there, recombined, all there. The melting pot of America has provided them with the most diverse genetic set of data ever and they want to feed it to an AI. And it’s not so they can control your spending habits.

It’s so that they can collect this data once and for all because after this, it’s going to be gone forever.

Force it for chess because you have to find a way to tell the computer whether a move is a smart move or not down the line, right? But you still will check all the consequences of your move, right? But this is kind of a standard. You put a bit of domain knowledge and you put brute force, right? The Go is a totally different game. This is really a fair assessment of it. So basically, there were two sets of algorithms working against each other and every time one did a bit better than the other, they thought something about that is better? Yes. So there were two different set of parameters of the same algorithm. So the decisions that they would take would be different. The algorithm was the same. It was a neural network. And basically, what you tell is the input is what is the configuration, right? And then you have a certain structure that will decide on the move, right? But this structure, you need some parameters that this is what in the end decides, right? So to see the difference, for example, you can see that you have a function that will take the input and decide on the output, right? This function, you can decide that it’s a linear function, right? So it’s just a line or a plane, right? It’s the traditional, you know, like regressing a line, right? And this is when you modify the parameters of the line, this is more or less the same. You change the slope of the line, you change the height of the line, right? And this gives you different lines, right? So this is exactly the same. But instead of having a line, it was like much more complex function.

So this explanation is woefully inadequate, but it’s not bad in the sense of, it shows how the general thinking is here, that computers with a reasonably clever programmer can tumble in to a solution that humankind itself couldn’t get to. And this solution is really awesome and fantastic. And so we can use machine learning to optimize different processes. And for a lot of applications, this works perfectly, but to call it artificial intelligence is wrong. It is machine learning, and it’s deep learning, which is also one of these ridiculously silly things to set out there. Deep learning just means that there’s many layers to the network. And layers of the network are just, you know, hypothetical ways of thinking about how all of the variables that keep track of outcomes are ultimately linked in the program. And so layers interact with one another and then pass their information on to the next layer. And it’s kind of organized, and how they organize that is all architecture that sometimes it’s taken from networks in the brain. And so they hype that up as well to get funding. But in the end, it’s just like what somebody said in the chat not too recently.

There’s a huge amount of hubris in neuroscience that will regularly make the statement about how we’re going to figure this stuff out in a relatively short period of time. And this big data stuff, if we just keep collecting the data and keep feeding it to AI, eventually it’s just going to go ding, and wow, we just print out the solution to the brain. And these are all really, really dangerous mythologies. And it’s not clear to me why it’s happening except to say that bedtime stories have become accepted ways of justifying your research and justifying your existence.

If you say that you work on Alzheimer’s, the way to start your talk is to tell how many people die of Alzheimer’s every year. The way to start your talk is to say how many people die of tobacco every year. If you work on nicotinic receptors, the way to start your talk if you’re working on calcium signaling would be to say that calcium signaling changes in elderly people.

These are all, you know, they make these huge statements which essentially imply that I’m doing critical research, I’m looking at a critical variable when in reality most of the time we’re looking at correlations at best. And in this case when it comes to a game, when it comes to a chess game or a Go game, correlations are concrete and they’re there and they’re based on mathematical calculations and so again, he’s kind of saying that Go didn’t, AlphaGo didn’t use brute force, but of course it used brute force.

If you tried to put that program on a computer from 1990, it wouldn’t work. If you tried to run AlphaGo on your laptop, it wouldn’t work. And so it is brute force. It’s just brute force in a different sense than we did with chess because we can still conceptualize the parameter space. With Go we can’t, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t use brute force to do it. I think that’s a poor characterization, but somebody with more knowledge might know. So my point is again, you can’t do this with biology because you can’t measure. Every place on the board has a value. Every piece on the board has a value in the algorithm. What pieces on this board are you going to put into the algorithm? How are you going to measure them over time and how are you going to put that data accurately into the AI as it correlates to your genome, which we know is differentially expressed across a lifetime and that you can’t ever monitor across different tissues. And so you’re starting with a consensus genome that you don’t know which parts of it are active and not active during the course of your entire lifetime.

The story that they’re telling in the back rooms of these meetings is a lie. It’s a mythology that makes them think that the combination of computers and data is going to make them useless. It’s going to make the human non-sacred. It’s going to give humans the keys to their own biology so that we can become demigods. That is a mythology which is dangerous, it is wrong, it is evil, and we should not be teaching it to our children. It is this article that talks about this, it is this article that gives you an idea of this, and in this article it suggests that in order to study human behavior they are striving to apply hypothetical neuronal network brain mechanisms to learn how human behavior is generated. The article suggests that the goal is to build an AI equivalent of Albert Einstein, which is just absurd, right? It’s absurd on so many fronts, and the article is part of a matrix of biological and transhumanist mythology that we are trapped in as a species.

We really believe this as a species, that this is coming. And we have to start teaching our children that this is a lie, and even if it was possible, it’s not going to be possible for millennia. And the possibility isn’t even something that we should actively pursue, because there are so many more ways to optimize our interaction with reality. There are so many more ways to optimize our collective well-being. There are so many more ways to optimize the development of our children than to implementing a global health vaccination program. But somehow all governments in the world are bent on this as the solution to most of our future problems, because infectious disease is controlling everything about our society right now, according to Michael Osterholm.

This is the game they’re playing with us. They have put us on our heels so that we will submit. They have coerced us into submitting under the guise of this virus, of this threat from Mother Nature, when in reality they need to coerce us into giving up our sovereignty so that they can begin collecting our data. Because this is the last time that 9 billion people are ever going to be on the planet. This is the last time that this many young adults are ever going to attend college in the American system again. That’s it. If you have adults that are choosing not to have children, then we’re going to have less. That’s the real deal here. They’ve got about 20 years, 15 years for us to shift as a society to full data collection. And if they don’t get it to happen, the opportunity of millennia, of all time, there will never be this many humans again. Never. That’s their plan. So if that’s the case, they must collect the data over the next 20 years or it’s gone. Don’t you see?

That’s where we are. They have told a story that their AI needs to be fed. And even if the AI that’s going to solve the problem doesn’t exist now, the data is only here now. So it needs to be collected now. You can’t wait 20 years for the computers to catch up. You can’t wait 20 years for the technology. You need to collect the data now and preferably from now until then.

And the only way to do that is to fundamentally invert how all of us think about our kids’ bodies and invert how all of us think about our own medical data. Rather than being something private between you and your doctor, they want it to be something that is public so that the powers that be, including the WHO and pharmaceutical companies, can use that data to feed their AIs, to develop their products. Bodily sovereignty be damned. That’s what that video was about. That’s what that video was about. Understand that. That’s the kind of story that they’ve been telling for a long time in TED Talks, transhumanist things, you know, we’re just meat puppets to be manipulated and augmented, enhanced. This is the only time left for the collection of this data. That’s what this is all about. That’s the reason why they have completely disarmed you. You don’t know anything because they don’t want you to have any chance of exercising informed consent and saying, no, we don’t want this.

And to say that you don’t want your data put into the AI will be anti-science. You will be a science denier. It will be part of your community duty to donate your data, just like it would be your community duty to sign a donor card on the back of your driver’s license. Very similar thing to that, but now they’re going to slowly start to tell these college kids that if you don’t give us your data, you’re not really doing your part. Just like if you don’t mask, you’re not really doing your part. If you don’t take your three shots and booster, you’re not really doing your part. This is all part of the incremental game they’re playing on the young adults. They’re not really worried about us.

So we need to wake up the young adults to realize that they have been effectively had this stolen from them and that this is a multi-generational principle of humanity. That hasn’t been taught to them in high school, hasn’t been taught to them in their freshman year of university because no one that’s part of this wants you to know it, including Christine Grady, the head of bioethics for the NIH. This is what they’ve done. They’ve declared a pandemic of a novel virus, which is detectable by a nonspecific PCR test because there’s lots of RNA viruses in the background, including SARS, coronavirus, applied to low prevalence populations, meaning that, you know, people that don’t have symptoms, give you a high false positives and correlated with a poor detrimental health protocol. So if you were unlucky enough to get in the hospital and test positive for one of these diagnostics, you were going to get put on a protocol that wasn’t in your best interest, likely not the best solution to the problem.

That caused this blip here. Normally we have this many people dying of pneumonia and influenza in the light blue every year. We got this blip in December and this blip in 2021 because of the mismanagement of pneumonia and respiratory disease. And in fact, anybody who tested positive in a hospital and was in a hospital for another reason might have been put on one of these protocols, either to stop the spread or to save them from progressing into severe COVID and given Remdesivir or something like that.

That’s the majority of what this action here is. And remember the reason why I’m showing you this graph is because the total number of death over the years are here in the light blue. And so we need to find this signal. We don’t need to find the signal for all of this death, the 57,000 people that average die every week in America. We don’t need to figure this pattern out. We just need to figure out what happens here.

And it looks more and more to me like that pattern is really just generated by a bunch of changes in protocols, changes in hospital policy, changes in financial incentives, changes in the way that we diagnosed, diagnosed respiratory disease and changes in the way we treated it.

And then maybe at the hairy, hairy top, there was an infectious clone released in a few places around the world that caused a change briefly in the PCR positivity here for a spike protein that they don’t test for anymore. So was there a spike? Was there a clone, an RNA clone with a coronavirus with a new spike on it? Maybe. Seems like a lot of people knew there was a special spike very early in the pandemic. A lot of people knew. A lot of people were told.

I think the goal is to surrender individual sovereignty and enforcing a global fundamental inversion of human rights from rights to permissions. That’s what I think.

Why don’t we blow the system up? I mean, obviously we can’t just turn off the spigot on the system we have and then say, hey, everyone in the world should get this new vaccine we haven’t given to anyone yet. But there must be some way that… we grow vaccines, mostly in eggs, the way we did in 1947. In order to make the transition from getting out of the tried and true egg growing, which we know gives us results that can be, you know, beneficial. I mean, we’ve done well with that to something that has to be much better. You have to prove that this works and then you’ve got to go through all of the clinical trials, phase ones, phase twos, phase three, and then show that this particular product is going to be good over a period of years. That alone, if it works perfectly, is going to take a decade. There might be a need or even an urgent call for an entity of excitement out there that’s completely disruptive, that’s not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes.

Who was that? Who was that guy? I think I know somebody who’s interested in Rick Bright. Who’s that guy again? Let me see.

Strings and processes. This particular product is going to be good over a period of years. That alone, if it works perfectly, is going to take a decade. There might be a need or even an urgent call for an entity of excitement out there that’s completely disruptive, that’s not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes. So we really do have a problem of how the world perceives influenza and it’s going to be very difficult to change that unless you do it from within and say, I don’t care what your perception is, we’re going to address the problem in a disruptive way and in an iterative way because you do need both. But it is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of a novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere. We could get the RNA sequence from that, beam it to a number of regional centers, if not local, if not even in your home at some point, and print those vaccines on a patch and self-administer.

What I’m suggesting to you is something that a lot of people have suggested for a long time, that they’re doing this for a reason, and it’s time for all of us to take a step back and see the forest for the trees, whatever the right analogy is. But it’s no longer possible to look back at our history, the history of infectious disease as it is codified in our popular history on television, in the media, in government policy, that this is a significant governance control knob. And it is being seen as their obligation if they decide that going from eggs to mRNA is something that needs to be done in the best interest of national security, in the best interest of our country going forward, then we need to do it in a disruptive way. There may need to be an exciting entity, other than the flu, because we’re going to have a hard time changing people’s mind about the flu.

It is right there in front of your eyes. This is not about well-being. It’s not about public health. It is about coercing you with a mythology into giving up the bodily sovereignty of your children.

It’s the same reason why they implemented a few years ago the idea that when your kids turn 14, that you can be asked to leave the doctor’s office, that the doctor shouldn’t share everything with you. That rule can be bypassed, but they don’t make that explicitly clear. They send you an email saying, hey, guess what? Your kid’s going to turn 13. And when they turn 13, you no longer get access to all their health records unless you fill out all these forms. Incremental shift in whose responsibility it is. Incremental shift in who’s responsible for making those choices. An incremental shift in the requisite understanding as you make choices.

This is all happening right now before our eyes. And if you look carefully backwards, you can still see that border in 2019 where all of this was not in the front. Where all of this was happening in the background. With all of this was the cognitive space of crazy people on the fringes. Like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense Fund. And so it’s not Children’s Health Defense Fund, excuse me, it’s Children’s Health Defense. If you look up Children’s Health Defense Fund, you will find a shady organization that’s trying to steal that name. Which again is part and parcel for how the whole system is working. There are traps everywhere. Just like Mark identified with this Remdesivir group that the dot com version of it is some kind of porn site and the dot org is a legitimate or used to be a legitimate group of people trying to organize around Remdesivir injury.

It is a very complicated web of lies in which we have been trapped and I was climbing around in it thinking I was leading the way. And I’m now trying to cut myself out of this web and trying to bring you with me. This is where I was. This is the paper and part of the movement I was a part of. And I’m trying to explain to you that I’ve woken up. Part of the awakening happened in the preparation for this podcast but this podcast only scratches the very surface of what infectious clones mean to the understanding of coronavirus and understanding this history of coronavirus that has been misrepresented over the last many, many, many months and years now. I was here. I thought I was Sherlock Holmes. I thought, well, I thought Rixie was Sherlock Holmes and I was, I was Watson, whatever. I had convinced myself that I was part of the Scooby Doo crew that had figured this out, right?

And as I started to wake up about it, people started to freak out. Email started to come in. People started to really get upset that that the clone thing was suggested that that means that there isn’t really a virus circulating Earth right now.

And I think that biology is quite sound. I think attacking the sequence data that’s represented on Gensed and Nextstrain is a very sound action because that sequence data is curated by people that are not publicly accountable. That sequence data is not being produced by totally objective sources and with using totally objective methodologies. And the representation of that sequencing being like any other sequencing is just scary. It really is.

And so this is where I think we are. I think we’ve been Scooby Doo’d. I think they set us up to solve the issue, to set us up to sing from the rooftops. I figured it out and pull the hat or pull the mask off of Tony Fauci and Ralph Baric and Zhengli Shi and Peter Daszak. And look who we figured it out. We sure figured it out, didn’t we?

And once you see it for what it is, they were clever. They were clever. They knew what they were doing. I even wrote an article about this, this preprint that came out that said that there were fingerprints of these, these, these restriction enzyme sites in the original sequence as if the original sequence then surely went around the Earth. Don’t you see the disconnect there in the logic? Sure, those fingerprints could be in that original sequence.

The original sequence was just published by the Wuhan lab at the beginning of the pandemic. As Christine Massey has argued, they really didn’t isolate a virus. But they did publish a whole sequence. And so if that whole sequence happens to have something that statistically shows up as being weird, that still doesn’t suggest anything like a virus could be leaked from a small vial and then replicate around the world and infect millions and kill hundreds of thousands. But I wrote this article, suggesting that’s the case. Using that preprint as evidence of see their fingerprint is there, they must have started this fire.

But viruses don’t travel like wildfire viruses don’t move like flame through grass. That’s not how this works. And so again, I’m trying to admit my culpability here I’m trying to show you how hard this wake up has been for me, and how dangerous it is for me right now because I have a couple weeks ago contributed to it with the organization for whom I consult. And now I’m trying to actively backpedal because I really think it’s important that we understand these three things these three things are what woke me up. And so if you understand that the objective here is to, to change the way you think about your freedom and change the way you think about your biology and interaction of your, your own body with with its surroundings in order for you to surrender everything.

They actually don’t care about us old people they don’t really care about changing our minds they just want us to encourage our kids to change their minds, because it’s their kids there where they’re after. They want the next four or five years of college kids. If they can. I don’t know how they’re going to get that to happen, testing or or vaccination. But I do think it’s possible that they got a lot of data already. The last two years have been a lot of data already. And you can’t underestimate how maybe they only needed 40% of of the, of the US population to consider themselves successful in their sampling.

But it is, I believe required it’s going to be required the people that are going to program that AI have to know that they’re not just going to need the genomes of these people they’re also going to need their medical data, preferably from more than one time point.

Again, if you want to understand how I’ve come full circle on this when you really have to understand these three principles and why potentially they create a parameter space where really the only possibility is infectious clone for any sustained epidemic and sustained epidemic on thousands and thousands of people is the only possible way is an infectious clone. That’s it. And I’m hopeful that that some virologists will prove me wrong.

But I really think that this is really the bottom line. And it comes really from, I have one discussion with with Rounding the Earth’s author, Matthew Crawford that I think really helped me iron it out well so and he bounces some good questions off me I want to plug that stream because I do think it’s really good.

The basic illusion that they have told you is that a single virus infects your lungs after you getting coughed on and then it makes copies of itself. And then you cop the cough those copies on to the people in your household. And that’s how delta variant comes through your house and that’s how Omicron would come a year later. And I tried to add to this very basic model of this concept in your head by first informing you that a huge large vast at least half maybe more of the viral particles that are produced during an infection are non replication competent they don’t have all the genes they have copies of themselves to successfully infect another cell in your lungs or to successfully infect some other organisms should you cough it out.

And that is a attribute of coronavirus, and the viral swarm the viral quasi species that is acknowledged in the, in the primary literature but almost exclusively omitted in the vaccinology literature in the immunology literature in in in any of the literature that fuels or forms the basis for the pharmaceutical industry and the basis for pathogen research we don’t talk about this aspect of the swarm at all.

Another aspect of the swarm we really don’t talk about is to admit the viral diversity that is there in a particular infection. It is a very small percentage of the viruses that actually are the original virus and many of them have other combination of genes which still result in replication competence but maybe perhaps slightly different molecular or physical properties when they themselves generate another viral quasi species. And so again, remember that the argument to make here is that even worse, most of the particles are replication incompetent the ones that are replication competent most of the time will not be as good as the scary virus that they told you on TV infected you but will be some, you know, barely able to do it as well as the best version in the swarm, and then several other versions that are different but maybe somewhat equivalent to the original one but this variation you need to have in your mind, because this is the variation from which all of our understanding should be based.

And so we expand this to slightly more particles so that you’re thinking about it a little bit better, and a little bit more adequately so that we can start to simulate things in your head. What happens when you culture from here. Most of the time when you culture from here. It doesn’t work. And the reason why it doesn’t work is because you’re sampling from a coronavirus swarm that is composed, largely of non replication competent particles. And then when you are successfully at sampling a portion of this viral quasi species you’re going to not necessarily get a particular variant but maybe a subset of replication competent variants which ultimately won’t grow in your cell culture fast enough for you to detect the cytopathic effects that you define viral replication by.

That’s the weakness of things, right? because if you start with an infectious clone all the time, then all the cells shows cytotoxic effects all the animals get sick PCR test is positive. There is some zero prevalence change.

I want you to think very carefully about the idea that I’ve told you stories. I have told you stories, EcoHealth Alliance told you stories about how they can collect viruses in the wild and they can passage them in human epithelial cells, or in zero six cells. And at the end of this passage they can get a virus that’s better than what they put in in the beginning and that this virus could have pandemic potential. However, despite all the technology and knowledge that they have they have never been able to show you the incremental changes that occur that lead to this change in pathogenicity they can only tell you the difference between the red and the green. And then that difference is usually left to the receptor binding domain of the spike protein and they look at no other genes in the genome ever. Not only in the end sequence but also in any of these hypothetical intermediate sequences which seem to never show up in any of these papers even though they apparently can sequence whole coronavirus genomes all over the world now very high fidelity. Oxford has created this nanopore sequencing technology but somehow or another. It’s just not, it’s not able to find these intermediate forms they’re not able to use that technology to really show us how it viruses evolving.

Except for I guess they showed us with the whole pandemic before the nanopore sequencing was being used. It’s very strange, because at the beginning of the pandemic they were using meta sequencing for that. Would you like to hear a little explanation of how that works? Meta sequencing how does that work. Let’s see. Do I have that article here where is it? AlphaGo… friendly reminder… highly immunogenic… long COVID… nerd… Gottlieb testing. Let’s see. What do we got here. Oh, this video is private. What, no way. Really? I don’t believe you. Is it really? Sorry I’m taking this time. Ah darn it really Wow, I gotta look that up again I gotta see if I can find it Gottlieb was on ABC News or something like that. Testing and what was it called Illumina. Oh wow. Two years ago 11 months ago there is nothing it’s gone he was on just this week, and they took it down. Wow, that’s hilarious so the thing that they took down his that got Scott Gottlieb is on the board of Illumina, and Illumina is the company that provides the machines that are doing the sequencing. Illumina is the ones that provide the data for the variance and he was on a program talking about it and, and it got made private I think that’s really impressive to me and there is no video on YouTube right now explaining it and that’s my point here is that in order to get enough RNA converted to DNA.

What is this happening here do I need to escape? I think I need to escape and go back to this one.

In order to get enough RNA from this sample converted into DNA that you can amplify to a large enough copy number so that you can sequence it requires you to sample from the swarm, and it requires you to be able to grow it in culture. If it doesn’t grow in culture, then you can’t sequence it because you won’t be able to… sorry that’s not true. You can add… you would amplify this clone. Whatever you sample out of here you’re going to convert to DNA and then you’re going to use PCR to amplify it if you have the right primers you can amplify this sequence up and what you’re amplifying is one of these, right? Whatever your primers lift up you’re not going to. You can be amplifying a replication incompetent version or part of the RNA as well.

So whatever you pull out of here is going to be a poor representation of what was the original swarm. And they can’t do these experiments they don’t ever do them. They can’t do these experiments where they do them in animals either and the reason why you know is because again, the only way to compare this virus to this virus is to make an infectious clone of both of them and then do the in vitro experiment then do the animal screening. They never provide you with the intermediates so that you can see what parts of the of the virus are changing and they’re always focused on the spike protein even though there are 29 other proteins to look at. That obviously have function and many of them are required for replication competence but for some reason we don’t look at these genes and that’s because they are very constricted by evolution. Functionally constrained at an optimal point and so only the optimally copied viruses that have these genes in an intact useful form are able to go out and the rest are noise and there’s a lot of noise. It’s that lot of noise that prevents this experiment and these intermediates from being cultured from being sequenced.

So of culturing wild type coronavirus is difficult and passage and cell culture animal holes cannot produce pandemic viruses. Why are they pretending it can and did. That’s the question we’re asking here and I think we have an answer. It is to cause a surrender of individual sovereignty. And to enact a global inversion of human rights from freedom to fascism.

That means that there’s no zoonotic threat. A zoonotic virus by definition can’t go and infect a whole city. Never mind a planet. That’s why the reported precursor of this virus that was found purportedly in 2012 in a mine outside of Mojiang was not a pandemic. It made a few people very sick. None of the doctors that treated them got sick. None of the other people in their their their their message was was it is all it’s all extraordinary to me right now.

This is where we are. We have been fooled into believing through EcoHealth Alliance and all of these things that not only are these the dangers, but this is the likely source of the pandemic. And it is my firm belief based in reading and understanding although I’m ready to be proved wrong that this is real that this is not how things work. You cannot use animal passage or serial passage in cell culture to generate pandemic potential. Pandemic potential can only be created by quantity of pure virus. That’s it. There’s nothing else. That’s why this is not a danger either.

And so the way that they do it is because DNA is double stranded DNA copies can be proofread and errors can be corrected making high fidelity copies of cDNA standard benchtop methodology. It’s how we make enough copies to sequence anything. It’s how we make enough copies to manipulate anything. It’s how we make enough copies to recombine anything. It’s how we make enough copies to sell anything. It’s how we make enough copies to store and share anything.

These techniques combined with PCR form the basis of most of our ability to sequence and manipulate DNA. That is the truth.

Baric didn’t invent these things. He just took these things from all the molecular biology in the world and applied them to coronavirus. Just like anybody would take CRISPR and apply it to their work. It’s no different. You can’t say Baric invented this. You can just say that he pioneered it in coronavirus research because he’s a coronavirus research pioneer.

And so what they do, they combine a cDNA version of viral genes and E. coli, and the E. coli are happy to copy those plasmids and they do it readily. You can make hundreds of thousands, millions of relatively perfect high fidelity copies of any cDNA you want. And Ralph Baric and a couple of his papers with Timothy Sheehan describe the methodologies by using five or six cDNAs with the requisite genes required for a competent virus and then ways to insert cassettes so that you can swap spike proteins into a consensus replication competent clone. Make and compare them to one another.

This is a methodology that is useful in creating laboratory models of viral infection that can then be tweaked on a genetic basis to compare changes to one another in an infectious clone pure virus model. Which can perhaps lend some insight into how viruses work, but cannot lend insight into how a viral quasi species can circulate the globe and infect millions of people and hundreds of thousands of people can die. That’s impossible because of the genetics of a virus. But if you take that pure infectious, sorry, that pure cDNA, ligate them all together and combine it with RNA polymerase in a cell culture or in a chemical soup with an industrial enriched or industrial designed RNA polymerase you can convert this cDNA into infectious RNA. And that infectious RNA can be sent to any lab stored and renewed. It can be used in vitro. It can be used in vivo.

And that’s how they do it. If you want to study MERS, you ask for an infectious clone from Baric and he sends it to you in a small tube and you can use it in cell culture to grow more virus. You can use it in a bacterial culture to make more cDNA. You can probably not. You probably have to start with the five cDNAs. But anyway, you could use it to send to your friends to put in the freezer and you can use it to infect animals with the same virus that Baric used and compare your results to his.

That’s the argument of needing this technology, of having this fidelity. And also the fact of the matter is an infectious clone, which is a hundred percent infectious particles, is usable in these contexts, whereas a viral swarm, which changes in every animal, evolves in every animal and is not composed of a reproducible viral genetics, is not replicatable. It’s not shareable. It’s not sustainable as a research line. If every time you pull virus out of the animal colony, it’s a different virus than last week, then how are you ever going to study the properties of your virus? That’s the reason why you need to have a cDNA clone in your freezer of these different viruses that you go back to as a reference. That’s what the Urbani strain is. That’s what the MERS 12, 22, 6A strain is. That’s what the SARS-CoV-2 clone is as it’s shared around the world. It is cDNA clones that are high enough fidelity so that the changes that are present in the Omicron variant can be reliably generated in contrast to the changes that weren’t present in the Delta variant, for example. If they were using RNA to do this, the fidelity wouldn’t be there for them to share any of this reproducibly. It is a prerequisite of the research line itself. And although they like to point out that they go back to patient cultures and they go back to patient samples, those studies never, ever, ever are part of the definition of the mechanisms, the definition of the countermeasures, the definition of the immunology that defines our response here. Instead, it’s always infectious clones and it’s always neutralizing antibodies, and that’s it. Cytopathic effects and, you know, clones in animals that get sick and then are sacrificed. And so, infectious clones are most used exclusively in pathogen viral research.

They represent a genetic purity that cannot exist in nature. They represent a stability that cannot exist in nature. And most researchers who use infectious clones don’t understand their significance because they have not extrapolated to quantity. If you have a small Eppendorf tube of SARS-CoV-2 infectious clone? Yeah, it’s dangerous to you and the four or five people that you might be around before you’re sick. But that’s not an entity that is capable of reliably reproducing itself and flying around the neighborhood of Pittsburgh and jumping over the river and going into the north side and then getting on a bus and going to Ohio and then passing all through Dayton and then getting on an airplane and flying to Florida and then boom, there it is in Florida and we can track it.

It’s not the way coronaviruses work because that comic book story is based on the idea that most of the time you don’t have any on you at all. Most of the time, coronaviruses are nowhere and that is one of the foundational of this mythology as well.

So I’m not sure where we are. Yeah, the TV algorithms have told us that coronaviruses have pandemic potential. This potential can be accessed through cell culture and animal passage. And I was part of the people that was telling you this for two years. Jeffrey Sachs is still telling you that. Peter Daszak is still telling you that. Fauci is still telling you that. Rand Paul is still telling you that. They’re telling you in their own way either through denial or screaming and yelling. Tucker Carlson is still telling you that. Everyone’s still telling you that but me and except for that and Mark. We’re telling you actually that these are all mythologies that are told so that you will surrender your sovereignty to the WHO. And I’m suggesting to you that this idea of being able to stitch together pieces of a virus or be able to put in a furin cleavage site or a DC-SIGN and then that will be the key to the virus.

Having pandemic potential is another aspect of this Scooby Doo nonsense. They want us to believe that all of these all four of these are legitimate dangers that exist in the garages of anybody who makes the right purchases on eBay in the laboratories of anybody with the hubris to do it. And we have no alternative other than to make a global fund and surrender to the who in order to regulate this activity and make sure that it doesn’t do what it did over the last two years, which they say is spread around the world and disrupt economies for two years rather than the ideas that they themselves propagated around the world that disrupted our economies and killed millions of people.

That’s what I think. I think that’s why we they are doing this. We they are doing this because the goal is total surrender of individual sovereignty and the enforcement of a global fundamental inversion of human rights from rights to permissions from freedom to fascism. And they Scooby Doo’ed us man! they Scooby Doo’ed us into thinking we were solving it and we were they ran us right into a corner by just changing how we think about four things.

Just going to do it really quick. They changed the way we think about coronavirus swarm. There used to be hundreds of possible causes of respiratory disease. And we used to call that influenza and pneumonia. But from 2020, we reformulated this based on EUA products, PCR tests that are no longer there. That for a brief period of time did have a spike protein amplicon. But in a lot of places in the world wasn’t even required for that to be present. And in the next stream or two, I’m going to try and explain briefly how these PCR tests on a background of coronavirus with a with a release of a clone could have been used to orchestrate this event.

The tests are the only real evidence of the existence of this virus. You need to understand that because the sequencing that they do to a large extent as at least in the beginning to a large extent is just really nonsense. I don’t know how good it is now. I just still know it’s very biased and I know it’s behind closed doors.

They changed the way we think about all cause mortality. You know that because PBS NewsHour never ever mentioned it. They have led us to believe that there’s a new cause of death. You must hold them to this standard because that’s what they said. Novel virus, deadly virus. That’s a new cause of death. There’s a certain mathematical pattern you would expect if there was a new cause of death. But the PCR tests are the only evidence of this new cause of death except for maybe symptomology in the early months of the pandemic.

They have purposefully omitted this from the discussion because there is no new evidence for this cause of death and there is no evidence for the effective curing or prevention of this new cause of death.

They’ve also changed the way we think about our immune system by making it a national security priority to tell people that seroprevalence was meaningful. They have accomplished this by disingenuously emphasizing antibodies to structural protein, spike protein, spike protein, spike protein. Geert Vanden Bossche will tell you that it was the right target. Robert Malone will tell you that it was the right target. Almost everyone will tell you that this kind of works.

It just was a bad idea in the face of a pandemic. It was the bad idea in the face of the four possible reasons why this virus would be circulating the globe due to human hubris.

That’s the narrative we are cracking open right now because they have oversimplified things to the point where we’ve seen through it. They’ve oversimplified the biology to the point where it can’t support their nonsense. They’ve oversimplified their assumptions to the point where they’ve become obvious to us and those assumptions don’t make sense. They’ve actually maybe stumbled over the line here and that’s what my program is going to be about this afternoon because it is possible that this overzealous, overconfident, bully maneuver over the last two years has exposed the entire vaccination program as a fraud.

And it is important to note that only in the last few years have some of those countries in Europe converted from the live polio vaccine to an intramuscular one like we’ve been using for the last 10 years in America. The intramuscular injection of immunizations is a shift that happened in America. And if it has happened in other countries in the world, it has happened because of the American system shifting to it. And they have continuously misled us about the flu vaccine and continuously misled us likely about other vaccines as well. That’s the scary part about this.

Two years ago, I was pretty much on board and not really a skeptical guy, but certainly not one who is questioning the entire vaccine schedule. But I am now. And this afternoon when I talk to Marc Giordano, I think we’re going to have an interesting and enlightening conversation about what this whole pandemic fiasco means to our understanding of the vaccine schedule and our understanding of the fundamental sort of intervention that is an IM injection or an IV injection of anything.

Again, they accomplished this by emphasizing that antibodies are formed to other viruses. So we must want to make antibodies to coronavirus. And this oversimplification was really a lie. They have convinced the public that this is a novel methodology that’s very acceptable because instead of having a vaccine factory, your body’s the vaccine factory.

And of course, that is just a joke because we know that they want all the scrutiny to be off of their quality control, all the scrutiny to be off of the production of their mRNA. And they want you to not look at the batches and the purity and all this other stuff because it’s all part of the illusion. We know almost nothing about these products, about their purity, about their contents, about their fidelity and about what they produce in our bodies, but they don’t care. They want you to believe that it works. That’s the fundamental inversion here. Trust us. Take the product because it will protect your grandmother. You have a duty to society to follow our orders. And the emergency is justifying further transfection in pregnant women for RSV, et cetera.

And this, again, is a fundamental inversion of our basic ethics. The pregnant woman and the developing fetus used to be considered the sort of most worthy of protection biological state of the human being because it is a combined developmental state of the kid and the connectivity of the mother’s body, which dictates that the mom needs to be more careful of her interaction with the environment than at any other time in her entire life. And over the last two years, we have bamboozled people into thinking that, oh, we told you not to eat unpasteurized cheese and raw fish during pregnancy. But IM injection of a pharmaceutical product that includes genetic material in a lipid nanoparticle is fine.

And they’ve done this with a common narrative, a Ccooby Doo inversion. We have been Scooby Doo’ed, biologically bamboozled by was it natural or a lab leak when in reality we don’t know either one from could cause a pandemic. A lab flood. But I can tell you two years into this report, the U.S. government knows more than it’s telling us. And it is redacting the information. In other words, and again, this is part of the scooby dooing of us. They have scooby dooed us with these players on TV. They have scooby dooed us with this narrative that we are figuring it out. And you can see the players that started it because all of them were essentially keyed in to the spike protein being special early on. And I think that’s part of the illusion we need to crack as well, because if the spike protein is special and the spike protein is causing all the danger, then if we take the spike protein out or we take the special sequences of the spike protein out, transfection is fine.

And that’s their next game. They’re going to get to eliminate the control group. You’re going to get to eliminate the people who are left because they’re going to say they’re going to cop to the fact that the spike was a mistake. That leaving those sequences in there might have been a mistake, that if we change from that toxic spike protein to something that’s meaningful, transfection will be useful.

That’s the direction they’re going. That’s the reason why the novel spike protein toxic hypothesis was seeded so early on. Why amyloidosis and prion disease was seeded so early on. Because they want you to think that the spike protein itself is responsible for causing this, when in reality it is the immune response to transfected cells, the proteins that they express be damned. If you transfect damage your endothelial cells and cause your body to produce an autoimmune response to your endothelium, you’re inevitably going to have problems that will be long term and permanent. And any other consequences that form part of that huge bouquet of possibilities are all present right now.

And it might not matter at all whether the spike protein is produced in high fidelity because the immune response to the transfection is produced with very high reliability. And so if you get unlucky, you get very unlucky. So don’t think about all cause mortality. Remember it’s a novel coronavirus and remember that antibodies are all that matter and you won’t wake up. You won’t see this. The PCR, the PBS NewsHour is never going to show you the light blue graph because then you’ll really understand why these deaths right here are so important to understand. Why is it that our normal amount of pneumonia year on year on year on year on year suddenly went crazy and this isn’t pneumonia back here. Please understand that that’s pneumonia deaths. And the same amount of pneumonia year on year on year produced this many deaths until this year. Now we had more pneumonia deaths, not more pneumonia, more pneumonia deaths.

That’s all that’s required. Change the way you treat pneumonia. Antibiotics don’t work on a virus. Ventilation can stop transmission. Send that person home until they need a ventilator. Holy man, don’t you see you don’t need this is this looks like there are more cases of pneumonia. This is pneumonia deaths. They killed more people, more… less people survived pneumonia than ever before. That’s the effect I’m pointing to. More people died of pneumonia than ever because less people survived it. And if we looked at these numbers, I think that’s what we would find. We would find the pneumonia and respiratory burden was about the same. But the number of people that died. Wow, did it go through the roof? That’s what John Baldwin’s data will show. That’s what all real data from around the world will show. That’s my prediction because there was no novel agent. If there was, it was a clone, which means it would have been contained in any geographic region that it was released. And if it spread, it would spread like a contaminant, not like a individual new variant. The spike protein would recombine into other endemic coronaviruses. And so if the spike protein was carrying any kind of symptomology because of its high affinity for ACE2, it would require the fidelitis copying of the spike, regardless of how it recombined. So it might not spread like a typical contagion because it was spreading like a gene in a coronavirus quasi species across the world.

But at local places, they could make a big deal about it. In local hospitals, they could make a deal about it. And with a change in protocol around the world, they made a monumental deal about it. And a lot of people died of pneumonia that shouldn’t have died of pneumonia. That’s really what we have here.

The other thing is that about five million children die each year globally from acute lung injury associated with respiratory infections, respiratory infections like respiratory syncytial virus, influenza, and measles. And so our goal is to develop a vaccine platform using coronaviruses, which are mild human respiratory pathogens that simultaneously vaccinate children against these three major human pathogens.

So what if Mark is right? What if Baric is being set up as a fall guy? What if the retiring Fauci is being set up as a fall guy? What if what if Moderna and Pfizer are being set up as fall guys? Probably just what would just ask yourself the question, for example, what would happen if Ralph Baric killed himself? Could they tell a story like, wow, this is basically an admission that he’s guilty and that they created the virus. And they could solidify it into history forever that the reason why he killed himself is because the burden of guilt was too great. And so we shouldn’t punish anybody else anymore. We should just move forward because this danger is obviously true. Otherwise, Ralph would never have killed himself. Otherwise, he would have. He didn’t do this on purpose. It’s just the nature of the beast messing with coronavirus has the potential to damage millions of lives. And so after carefully treading this this cliff face and having it backfire on him due to a collaboration with EcoHealth Alliance and China and having this devastating global thing all come down to his ideas. New York Times front cover, Washington Post front cover, lab leak solved viruses can go around the world pandemics are real and they’re coming again to a theater near you. All of this is done. Let’s write the book.

We’re that close to never for many generations realizing that a lot of this might have been a hoax. A lot of this might have been theater to coerce a permanent change in the mythology that supports our civilization. A permanent change in the mythology that supports our civilization. First, let’s undermine all of the previous methodology that supports our civilization like religion. Then let’s undermine the other part like science. And then after we’ve undermined those two things, let’s undermine their representation in schools. And then after we have that all done, let’s substitute it with another myth mythology created on the basis of a biological story about Mother Nature pandemic viruses bioterrorism and the need for permanent world health governance.

That’s where we are. Ralph Baric might have realized it too late that he was a pawn in this might have realized too late what part he was playing in the play. He thought he was just a guy who was playing with viruses, getting a lot of free grant money making a real rock star of himself on the campus of UNC going to these secret meetings and just being that coronavirus guy in the background. I know it’s DTRA. I know it’s it’s it’s a DARPA meeting, but you know, I’m just a coronavirus biologist. You guys are all the military dudes. And he loved to roll in those circles, but he had no idea what they were doing. No idea the plan that they had the story that they were laying down so that the therapeutics that they want would be enacted when they wanted to enact them when the technologies that they want would be deployed without scrutiny.

And his research was part of this whole this whole mythology that I felt like I Scooby-Doo’ed. I uncovered it, baby. Look at me. I’m so smart. They were going to make live attenuated vaccines from coronaviruses. Ralph Baric admitted it on video. How would they do it? Well, I can think about all kinds of different ways they would have to have limited replication capacity and genetic stability, high specificity for the target immunogenic single virons.

And then I realized that after almost a year of using this slide, I didn’t realize that what I was describing here. Was a clone. The only thing that could do this is a clone because a viral quasi species can’t have this. It doesn’t work like that. There are phenomenon. They’re an immunogenic genetic natural phenomenon that we don’t fully understand why it manifests in the way that it manifests. And a infectious clone created from a synthetic DNA copy is not in any way recapitulating how these quasi species interact with our immune system.

It does simplify the interaction with an immune system enough so that this kind of cartoon makes sense in a grant application. Because if you start with an infectious clone, then monoclonal antibodies seem to neutralize the virus when you grow it in cell culture. Because it will prevent infection of cells. That’s pretty cool, but you overlook the fact that it’s a genetic clone. It’s a pure virus. So, of course, a pure antibody will bind purely to it. But you can’t jump from there to assuming that that’s the main strategy of the human immune system. But that’s what they’ve done for the last 20 years, starting with AIDS, emphasizing, overemphasizing, oversimplifying the immune response to antibodies. And then using antibodies as a way of reading out what their research is doing, starting with infectious clones and making countermeasures that in the laboratory seem to neutralize them.

It does write grants. It does get us to get from incapacitating agent to countermeasure. It gets us from bug to drug faster. Bug to drug faster. But it’s only in the context of a grant application. It’s only in the context of this.

What I need you to understand is that they were only playing with the spike because that’s all they really understood. They don’t understand the other 30 genes. And so they mess with the spike protein because it does seem to have something to do with tissue specificity. And because it’s tractable and because you do build antibodies to it that they can measure, then they use it as this basis for this idea for a very, very long time.

It doesn’t mean the idea is right, but they have been using it under the context of biodefense, public health, all under this limited model of an infectious clone where all these countermeasures seem to work. It also allows them to create this illusion that there is a possibility that viruses come out of laboratories or can be pulled out of bat caves and become a global problem.

So the real question here is if this was an identified design spike, then it wouldn’t be adding to the swarm as a new swarm or a new variant that moved separately from the rest. But you can think of it as an introduction of a gene set and then that gene set is going to recombine with the other gene sets out there every time it has a co-infection. And so slowly but surely these genes will intermix with the rest of the coronaviruses out there. That’s how this works. That’s why none of these viral quasi-species are as stable as they are represented in the cartoons. That’s why we weren’t tracking the four human coronaviruses before 2020 with any fidelity because it’s not possible. It’s not useful.

And so the idea is, of course, let’s listen to Ralph. Ralph will tell you between 20 and 30% of all the viral particles produced through your co-infection are recombinant. So the clone was released to infect humans with a high specificity for the ACE2 receptor, which may have endowed some genetic stability early on because of its sort of selection. Might have given it stump stability, but remember endosomal entry is likely and so there’s other ways for the coronavirus to enter and I think they probably overemphasized this ACE2 component again to make the story that single attributes of the virus are possible to allow it to go around the world.

That was a story that a lot of people were telling very early on and I think that’s also a false red herring type story. I don’t think that’s really congruent with the biology of coronavirus and they knew about antivirals and entry inhibitors and the primacy of the RNA dependent RNA polymerase for T cell memory. But they kind of sort of didn’t really say that and they look overlooked it and that was all part of the theater, partly to get the product out, partly to get the accepted narrative there, partly because it’s a national security thing, but also because in the end, they want you to surrender your sovereignty at the end of this.

We’re not going back to normal. That’s why they called it the new normal from beginning and we’re not building back better. We’re building back very different and we’re building back very less free. So we I think have witnessed the contamination of the human coronavirus swarm, meaning that they contaminated with their designer spike. If they did anything, that’s what they did. And the implication of that is really not very big because it’s not going to be a separate bug for long and that’s the reason why the PCR test has been required to change over the time. It is not evolving.

We’re seeing random snapshots and so they can actually assort this data to sell the narrative that they want to and the best example of that, of course, is spike gene target dropout or target failure that was used to generate the illusion that Omicron was all around the world where they only really sequenced a very few of those.

And they use their metagenomic sequence to do it and they emphasize that see, you know, it’s all it’s all not legit. It’s all not above board. You just have to start with: they’re probably lying about most stuff. It’s weird because some people are really happy to believe that they’re lying about the elections, but they’re not happy to believe they’re lying about Nextstrain. And it’s really only Trevor Bedford that needs to be a liar and he doesn’t need to be a liar. He just needs to be naïve. I don’t really think the main that’s maintained specificity for the target receptor any better than any other coronavirus and a real danger would be if it increased the expression of other genes in the genome, which are immunosuppressive. And we don’t seem to be tracking that at all. That’s just off the radar. What what accessory genes are being expressed in these variants as they escape vaccines? They’re never talking about the rest of the genome. That should tell you everything.

It shows you how much they’re lying. Because they don’t talk about the rest of the genome and all the variation that’s present in nature in that genome and all the various various non structural proteins that can be present and not present in all these different variants as they get sorted. And they’re just not telling you about it because they don’t want you to know the depth and the breadth of the viral quasi species. A decrease in virulence at this stage seems inevitable. It probably was already there again if you assume that SARS virus was in the background as I do now. And that’s the reason why the PCR test is a specific and that’s why releasing a clone isn’t that dangerous because you’re really only releasing any of the genes that are novel. And likely any clone that they release would have pretty standard run of the mill replication genes. And then a novel spike of some kind. So the only question is how long could that clone after released into the wild sustain that spike? And that’s not very long. That’s where we are ladies and gentlemen. It’s got to be it’s got to be an illusion. It’s got to be.

And remember I’m the guy who was on his bike. I’m the guy who has lost his job. I’m the guy who thought that I knew everything and I’m flexing right now big time. I’m pivoting big time right now and it’s because I’m following this and following this and following my guts. Because that’s what the people that support this stream have wanted me to do from the beginning have supported me to do from the beginning.

And I’ve come to the conclusion that we’ve been scooby-dooed. We have been Scooby-Doo’ed. And they did it by changing the way we think about all cause mortality, changing the way we think about the coronavirus swarm, changing the way we think about the human immune system like where respiratory disease is and how we take care of it. And they can really learn this really well if you compare the difference between link recognition after infection and linked recognition after transfection. They also changed our mind about how we think about the concept of vaccination.

I don’t think we should be injecting anything from Moderna or Pfizer into our muscles. Never mind into our skin even.

And you can really figure this out too by just comparing what happens in infection and what happens in transfection and how different they are. I read they lied about this stuff because they want you to have no possibility of retracting your informed consent. They don’t want you to keep your data. They don’t want you to preserve your bodily sovereignty. They definitely don’t want you to teach your children that bodily sovereignty is a moral imperative. They don’t want you to teach your children that informed consent is a moral imperative. They don’t want you to learn that anymore. And Tony Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, and all the videos of her on YouTube are wonderful examples of how this is right in your face.

Why are they doing it? Because they are running out of time to change our society in such a way so that they can collect the data that will never be available again. Never will there be this many genomes. Never will be there this much diversity to be collected for their AI God. That’s what this is all about, ladies and gentlemen. I don’t want to scare you. I don’t want to be over crazy about it or anything like that. But I do really think that that’s where we are. We are really at the end. We are starting to see what’s really going on today.

I think a crucial thing is to understand what Mark Giordano is thinking about right now, which is, is the spike protein a toxin? And while can we use the last two years to really think about this and whether or not this has been a distraction, a psychological distraction rather than a real biological phenomenon?

That’s going to be at three o’clock today. I need to get some lunch and I need to get some food in me.

And remember, this is relevant to me because I was one of these people who thought that the spike protein was the toxin, was the central violation of things. What made the virus go around the world? And now I’m just saying what I’ve always said. Stop transfections in humans because they’re trying to eliminate the control group. The control group is anybody that really understands what they’ve really done, what they’ve really lied about and the extent to which this biology has been created into a mythology.

Thanks a lot for joining me. Thanks for supporting and sharing the stream. It’s a real privilege to work for you all and look at the schedule on GigaOhmBiological. I’m filling it up right up to Thanksgiving and I’m taking four days off and then I’m going to hit the ground running on Monday after Thanksgiving. So lots of shows to come, lots of time to see you and I’ll see you again very soon. The slide deck that’s on GigaOhmBiological is not the current slide deck because I didn’t take all the videos out of it yet. I’ll try to get that up later today or at least before Thanksgiving. I apologize. It’s still a good slide deck when it has most of the slides, but not all of them that I use today. So sorry about that.