REFERENCE

Moderation, free speech is crucial. This is a place where you can explore your own beliefs. You don't have to fight for your beliefs. You can share solutions in the chat. You don't have to have an argument in the chat. And if you think something works and something else doesn't work, go ahead and put it in there and we can just decide for ourselves. Have an open mind. This is a place where we fight for truth, for freedom, for justice, against treason. We're delighted to have you all here. And if you want invitations to this, then please send me an email. Jonathan's background we have shared with everybody. So Stephen, is there anything you want to say? Stephen Frost before? Sam Dubay hasn't got his red top on. So Charles, I'm sorry, but I can't get my... I'm on a different computer and I can't get my camera to work. So I don't know what's wrong. And the other thing was to ask Mark... Oh, welcome, Jonathan. I didn't actually... I knew you as JJ, so I apologise. So, Mark, I wanted to ask you, was that film of Gordon Brown recent or not? You're muted, Mark. Sorry, it was posted today on Twitter. It may have been posted today, Mark, but was it... No, you're not listening. You're not listening, Stephen. I said it's posted today. I'll check. OK. So what I wanted to say, Mark, I noticed that he mentioned Abu Dhabi. Well, as far as I know, they've had a meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, not Abu Dhabi. But anyway, that's why I suspect that it's an old video, but I don't know. Understood. Yeah. Thanks. All right, everybody. Jonathan, welcome. We are all ears and eyes. And over to you. Thank you very much. I'll have to clear my throat every once in a while. If this volume is OK, this should be where I should stay for the remainder of the talk, I hope. I think it's going to feel like I'm telling you a story about my life, but it's really not. It's kind of a brief introduction to me so that you can understand the kind of message I'm trying to send. So wait, just let me cut back over here. It's important for me to emphasize that this is basically a confessional talk. I've only given it once. I gave the long version of it to Panda with all the science in it about a week ago, and it didn't have this level of big picture admission to what I think happened to a lot of us. And the most important thing for this group in particular, first of all, let it all be known. I've been a part of this group for a long time. I've been in the background for a long time. Sometimes I log on with a different Zoom that's JJ Cooey, and sometimes it's Jonathan Cooey. It depends which email I use. One of them I ended up paying for, so now I use Jonathan all the time. But I know you guys, I've seen some of the talks that have been here, and you guys are keenly aware of the divide among the dissidents that centers somewhere around this bullshit about whether, excuse my language, whether there's a virus or not. And I believe that some of the stuff that I'm going to talk about this afternoon is the conceptual and intellectual space that we need to come together on so that we understand that no virus is not a viable position to take, but almost everything that they've told us about SARS-CoV-2 and a lot about coronavirus is false. And there's a reason why. There's a really easy way to understand it, but it's going to take me about 40 minutes to explain it. So that's my goal today. And I hope that for those of you that have seen me before, it'll be a lot of new stuff. But we'll see. I don't know how much of it is new. And Jonathan, for everyone, because Jonathan is doing the sharing of screen in a different way, to get the full screen, just go to the top right corner of your screen and click Speaker View. Then you'll see Jonathan's screen. Right. Exactly, that's correct. So this is just to let you know that I have a stream on Twitch. Twitch is not really a very well-known streaming platform because most people are playing video games there, but that also gives me kind of the freedom to say a lot more than I can on YouTube. And so I've been teaching there for a while, but this is how this all started. So in 2019, I was a research assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. I was trying to build a multi-patch microscope combined electrophysiology rig that would use this German set of micromanipulators. And I had a Twitter and I had just started a YouTube channel. My sort of pedigree took me through the Netherlands and Switzerland and Norway and back to the Netherlands through about 20 years of trying to get tenure, but I ended up here in Pittsburgh in 2016 right before Trump was elected. Excuse me, Jonathan. Jonathan, could I ask you, do you want to share your slides or not? I gave you a link in the chat where the slides are downloadable by the first Google Drive link that I shared. OK, so Charles can organize it so you can share your slides. No, no, no, Stephen, it's happening. Just go to the top right corner, Stephen. OK, sorry. That's all right. And so the point here is to just say that I've been at it for a long time, and I'm about, there's about, not to brag, it's to say how ridiculous the technique is of recording from more than four or five neurons in the same brain slice under a microscope. There's about 25 people in the world who have wasted their time enough so that they have that skill, and I was one of those people, but it allowed me to travel around the world and work in nice places and teach a lot of students. That technique also got me back to Pittsburgh, and it was at that time that I was working with also a YouTube channel. The reason why I started a YouTube channel is because despite you do all this work in academia, you'd be surprised how little opportunity there is for teaching and how little they pay and how much they discourage you from doing it. And so I decided that I needed to start a YouTube channel, and it took me a while to get the idea of what I was going to do, but eventually I decided to do Journal Club on my bicycle because I was riding my bike to and from work every day. And I started this about three or four months before the pandemic was declared, and through the winter I had done about, it looks like, 22 or 23 Journal Clubs before the first time I did a review of coronavirus on my bicycle. And at first it wasn't really a big deal. You can see that I'm still doing Neurobiology Journal Clubs in between the coronavirus rides, and then at some point it just completely dominated my channel until my faculty asked me to turn in my badge and keys and leave. I just bring this up to say, whoops, I go back to that and let it play out there. I bring this up to say that as this happened to me personally, about a year later, the group that I was involved with from the very beginning that was called Drastic on Twitter was covered by multiple news sources in America, and in that coverage, the coverage was very, very clear. Two people started this group, a person from France and a guy by the name of Jamie Metzl. Listen to Tucker Carlson say it. Lancet letter to censor anyone on social media who mentioned the possibility of a lab leak. It can't be true. Lancet says it's not true. Can you hear that? 27 eminent scientists. No. You can't hear that? No. Okay, that's okay, then don't worry about it. This is a video from, I think it's April of 2021 or February of 2021, and Newsweek and Vanity Fair also covered the same group called Drastic, and you can hear in that video, Tucker Carlson will list out the people that started the group, and only one American is listed, and that is Jamie Metzl, who was a National Security Council member in the Clinton administration, and they take the narrative and say that these people are responsible for making it plausible to consider that it was a lab leak, and in reality, of the five people that originally started Drastic, I was one of them, and none of those articles covered any of the people that were in Drastic originally, none of them. So we knew already then that something was going on, but I didn't understand what, and what I realize now is that I've essentially been fooled just like everyone else. I'm a human being, and I got played. I think I got Scooby-Doo'd. This is an example of a paper that I'm on. You can see that my name is here. Yuri Dagan and Rosanna Segreto are two authors that published the first paper about the fear and cleavage site. Kevin McCarran has his own stream and is a neurobiologist from Japan who's been talking about the spike protein since the beginning. Dan Sorodkin and Carl Sorodkin are the father-son team that wrote the Harvard to the Big House blog, which was the inspiration for my first bike ride. So all of these people are part of the original Drastic. None of these people, well, Kevin McCarran really wasn't, and neither was Adrian, but that doesn't matter, Kevin was involved. None of these people were mentioned by Tucker Carlson or by the mainstream media, even though we've all been on multiple papers or reviewed multiple papers about the possibility of this lab leak. So again, I'm telling you that I was part of creating this narrative, and I'm about to tell you why I don't think it's real. And it's not to do with there being no virus, but I just want to keep sure that everybody is clear on the logic that's happening here. So I'm on Twitter here, and I got canceled, and of course, you know, I've appealed like nine times, but Elon's not going to give it back to me. But here's why I got finally thrown off, was 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 got thrown off of Twitter because I was talking about the gain of function spike protein, right? And so again, it's obvious I got, I had to believe that that's what was happening because that's what surely seemed like was happening. And so just like you, I'm trapped in this little bubble here. I'm trapped in my phone. I'm trapped on Twitter. And I think that PBS NewsHour is lying to me, but I think they're lying to us for a reason. And I think that reason is a multi-generational once in a millennia opportunity. And if you understand that, then you'll understand, I think, why all of this would be sustained. I think one of the interesting questions that everybody always asks us is now that they know, why don't they cop to it? Why isn't it stopped? Why haven't we reversed course? Why is the narrative still 100% completely on the rails the same? And that's because this is about a different objective than a virus. It's about a different objective than vaccines. The objective is that there is only one chance in history to collect the data that they will need for their God to solve humanity's problems. Their God is AI. They have told the story. And this is just an example of a six-year-old article from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory that talks about AI and talks about AI solving the game Go. And as it talks about solving the game Go, it talks about AIs used to study human behavior, the idea of building an AI equivalent of Albert Einstein. And the article paints this idea of the idea that AI, if it's given enough data, can solve a problem like chess with no problem. Now that we have bigger computers with enough data or have the computer play itself, it can solve an almost inconceivably difficult parameter space like the game Go. And so I'm suggesting to you that people like that Noah, whatever his name is that says we're all just useless eaters, has noticed that if we're going to have 9 billion people and then we're going to go down to 500 million, then we have a once in a history time chance to collect the genetic data and the medical data of 9 billion unique genetic expressions of the human genome before they're going to be gone forever. And it took us many thousands of years to build up this genetic diversity, which is arguably best represented by the young adults in America, one of the largest melting pots of genetics in the world. And so it's curious that all of the high school or all of the college students were coerced into taking the shots and taking lots of tests. And it's interesting that they're interested more in changing their minds over the long term. If you think about the fact that they've got a five to 10 year window to convince them that the collection of their data and the correlation of it to their genetics is something that they should surrender for the good of humanity. And they're not going to convince you and I of that. So what I think is happening here is that they have told this story that if they had the genes and they had your medical data that they could feed it to the AI and then their transhumanist future would come true. And it doesn't have to be real that that outcome is not something that I believe is possible. But I do believe that that is a story that could be told in the in the secret part of the Google meeting or the secret part of the food conference where they have a dinner with everybody in the dark room and say our real plan is to reduce population over the next 30 years. But we don't want to just waste all of this data. And we have to convince the entire world or a large portion of it that the collection of their data is not something they should worry about. Otherwise, they're not going to surrender to it. Now, could they collect the data accurately enough? Can they collate it all? Do we have the computers? That doesn't matter. We're answering the question of why in the world would these people do this? How would they motivate people? This might be the story. And the reason why I think it's that story again is because if the population is going to peak for natural reasons or it's going to peak for for sculpted reasons, then this is the last chance we're going to have to have this much genetic diversity ever again. And so the principle of informed consent has been ignored for the duration of the pandemic because they never want you to evoke that again. They want you to surrender your sovereignty so that they can collect what they want to collect and coerce how they will. And what they did, in my humble opinion, and I think I can tell a biological story that explains all of this, is that the who declared a pandemic of a novel, dangerous virus, maybe not something I haven't told you've maybe seen me on the podcast with Bobby Kennedy, where I started with a similar statement that enabled a larger percentage of all cause mortality than pneumonia and influenza to be prioritized as a national security threat composed of vaccine preventable deaths. So you and I and the no virus people all know that the PCR test was used to inflate the number of cases and to extend a wide net so that they could claim that this pandemic was much, much, much larger than it was. Nobody's going to argue about that. But the question is, how did that work? Did it work because the PCR test was so weak and so a specific and so vulnerable to false positives if you ran it up to enough cycles? Or is one of the central myths that they've told us, which is SARS-CoV-2 got out twice, but it disappeared again, is completely false. What's much more likely is that on the background of an untold number of coronaviruses, many of which are related to SARS-1, a PCR test aimed at SARS-2 will have a lot of overlap with background viruses. So anybody that has some coronavirus is likely a certain percentage of them is likely to have a coronavirus that will register on any one of these EUA tests that's no longer there anymore. And it's hard for me to explain it all at once, but I'm just going to keep rolling. The NIAID-funded infectious RNA clone of a coronavirus may or may not be involved in the initial biological incident. It's this concept that I'm going to try and get through. Why don't we blow this up? Can you hear this? I mean, obviously we can't just turn off the spigot. I don't know why that doesn't work. This is a video. In terms of sharing the screen, did you click the button to put the audio on? It's OK. I don't mind explaining it. It's fine. This is a video you can find on the YouTube from October 29, 2019 at the Milken Institute, where they talk about how they have to blow up the system. They need to blow up the system because we are making flu vaccine and eggs, and it's going to be really hard to turn this ship around. It'll take 20 years. And Fauci says, but if you really want to do it, you're going to have to do it from where the end and you're going to have to do it in a disruptive way. And then Rick Bright, the guys who was responsible for pushing Remdesivir on the American population while hiding hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and anything else, speaks in that same conference and says, it would be interesting to have a disruptive event or a disruptive entity, which necessitated the idea of beaming the sequence to several places on Earth and making a countermeasure that you could put on your shirt and patch it in some nonsense like this. And so you have a scenario where a story has been told repeatedly in the back rooms, where a story has been created in the literature and it's been created by a concept that nobody really knows about that I tried to bring attention to in this podcast. If you haven't seen it, please look after it. And this was me. Remember, I was saying that there was a lab leak. And what are these guys saying? What is the general story that you can serially passage it in animals or serially passage it in a cell culture? And then that can result in some change that results in a pandemic. This, I believe, is false. I believe I was one of many people who was misled. There's my picture as Sherlock Holmes thinking that I had solved this mystery of where the virus came from. And I think what happened as I was Scooby-Doo'd, they essentially made us believe that by censoring the lab leak, it had to be true, because the emails say that they saw it was a lab leak. The emails say that Fauci was covering it up. The fear and cleavage site says that it must be a lab leak. There's even evidence of restriction enzyme sites that I did a story on for CHD before I really realized what I think happened to me. And a lot of us is that we were tricked into believing something that's not biologically true. So I just want you to think about these three questions before I start to explain the answers to what I think they are or the answers that I think are there. What's a virus? What's a quasi-species? And what is an infectious clone? So this, if you want to hear another discussion of it after this, you can look up Matthew Crawford's Rounding the Earth discussion with me and him that talks about basically the same thing. I'm going to try and explain it here again. The virus, as they tell you, it infects your lungs and then starts to replicate. That replication process ends up with many virions. If you believe the PBS NewsHour, you will believe that these virions are perfect copies of themselves and they move around your house as perfect copies. But in reality, anybody that knows genetics or a little bit about ecology or has ever thought about large populations that are related to one another, then they know that that's not true. The first thing, though, that I think is most interesting is that this first aspect of the viral swarm was revealed to me by a video of Robert Malone explaining how a coronavirus infection works. And as he explained it, he said, well, you know, the first thing to understand about a viral infection is that when the virus is replicating, you're replicating RNA. And the replication of RNA is a pretty erroneous process and a coronavirus genome is pretty long. And so the odds of you making it for one another are already pretty low. And making mistakes along the way is pretty high. And so as a result, as you make these many copies of the virus as fast as you can, many of the copies don't have a full genome, which makes them replication incompetent. And according to Robert Malone, he described that as a majority or a vast majority of the coronavirus particles produced in infection are replication incompetent. They can still be inflammatory, they can still be annoying, but they can't make copies of themselves should they be lucky enough to infect another cell. Why is this important? Because the PBS NewsHour cartoon then is already wrong because it's not this, right? It is some portion of it is replication incompetent. Now, this is the first part of the narrative that you can break at the Thanksgiving dinner table if you're in America. Second part of the narrative you can break is that the copies are never perfect and very few of them, in this case, the yellow ones, are the same or relatively equivalent to the original virus that infected this cell. Many of them are variable, white, red, green, blue, as depicted here, and many of them are replication incompetent. So then you've got to take this model in your head and try to model it with the idea that most of the viruses now here in brown are actually not going to be replication incompetent, but they're not going to be as good as the original virus because they're going to be missing a non-structural protein that's not required for replication, but is required for it to be as good as the original yellow one. And so if you start to think about how a virus replicates with RNA copying RNA and proteins from the virus doing the copying, and it's an erroneous process that creates an endless swarm of genetic variants which are centered around this consensus sequence that they call the variant, but very few of those variants actually reach the stage of qualifying as having all the genes that define the master sequence. The rest of them are poor excuses for it, and it's on that swarm on which evolution and your immune system are reacting and acting upon. And so if you realize that, then think about answering a few of the questions that the no-virus people have. One of the first questions that the no-virus people have is why the hell can't you culture it? Well, the reason why you cannot culture it is because most of the time you're sampling from a viral swarm, and the vast majority of those particles are replication incompetent, just as Robert Malone said. Robert Malone trained with the, he has the, what do you call this, the pedigree that comes right from Gallo and HIV and retroviruses, and so he's studied viruses almost as long as some of the grandfathers of this mythology, the people that first established the retroviruses caused cancer because we saw something on an island as one of Gallo's great publications. The definition of HIV, one of his great contributions, and his direct descendants are more or less Robert Malone's supervisors. So we're talking about people that know a lot about viruses. So if he says that in a coronavirus infection the vast majority of the particles are replication incompetent, there's your explanation for why you can't culture virus very easily. There's also the reason why when you try to sequence this virus, it's pretty difficult to get a good sequence, so you need to do something called meta sequencing or shotgun sequencing and then have a database of possibilities that you throw your shotgun sequencing pieces into. And so again, the no virus people have a very legitimate card to play when they say this sequencing is BS because it is, but it's not proof of no virus. They have a very good card to play when they say that you can't culture this virus. What's the problem? But it's not because there's no virus. It's because of the known biology of coronavirus that isn't part of the TV narrative. And so the coolest part about this is is then that means that we don't need to be afraid of the passage experiment. And I'll give you a good reason why you're going to love this. If they can sequence viruses to have 15,000 or 30,000 or whatever it is that they have on Gensed right now, whatever they have on next strain right now, entire sequences of virus. Why the hell when they do this experiment in a laboratory, aren't there intermediate sequences that describe how this virus from the bat is changing to a virus that can infect humans? Why do they only look at the receptor binding domain of the spike protein and they don't give us full sequences as it changes because presumably the other 30 proteins could change too, right? But we're only ever looking at receptor binding domains and we're only ever looking at spike proteins and that's going to come back in a minute. So this can't happen. We don't have to worry about that. The other thing we don't have to worry about our animal passage experiments. And we've got another reason why this is skeptical, right? They enriched flu in ferrets and they passage did until it became aerosolized. But for some reason, they didn't bother to sequence any of those viruses. That's weird, isn't it? Yet they can get the whole sequence of the 1918 flu from a grave in Alaska and publish it in science. But they can't get the intermediate sequences of the flu as it transforms from a non aerosolized to an aerosolized version in ferrets, even though they have all the animals. Are you starting to see the incongruencies here? And that's the reason why these no virus people have so much to say and it's legitimate. And it makes it very difficult for a thinking person who doesn't has a delve deep enough into these subtleties to see where the problems are. But that doesn't mean you have to give up on all the observations that have ever been made about this RNA and DNA noise in the background. So if culturing wild coronavirus is difficult and passage and cell culture animal host can't produce a pandemic, why are they pretending it did? See, why can't it produce a pandemic? Because as it moves from animal to animal, it's changing. In fact, a lot of you doctors and thinkers out there know that as it moves from your lungs to your guts, the sequence of the virus swarm can change because the focus of the virus is different and the tissue that it's infecting is different. So we know that this happens in single people. So how is it that Paul Offit can go on YouTube and tell a story about how a virus was released in Wuhan and then a single amino acid changed at D614G and then that sequence at high fidelity and high speed went around the planet. That's not possible if we're copying RNA. And so they have to be lying to us about it. And I think this is where the real kicker comes in, because that means that there's no zoonotic virus either. The only way this could happen is with purity. And this is how it works. In case you're unaware, I know that there's a lot of smart people in the audience. But just in case you're unaware, the double-stranded aspect of DNA makes it proof readable. It makes post-copying proof readable. It makes mutations that happen after copying proof readable. If you use a single-stranded molecule or you're copying a single-stranded molecule, you don't have this opportunity both during the copying process and afterward. Making high fidelity copies of cDNA, that's circular DNA plasmids in bacteria, is a standard benchtop methodology. If you want to make a lot of RNA, sorry, of DNA, you can use E. coli. You can make giant brown shaking bottles full of E. coli culture. And all of those bacteria will very reliably and very robustly at very high fidelity make tons and tons of the DNA that you want it to make. That's how we get enough DNA to sequence. That's how we use PCR and this kind of thing to engineer stuff. Now we have CRISPR-Cas9. All of this stuff that's done in DNA can be done in large quantities by just growing this cDNA in bacteria. So this is where the infectious clone comes in because this is how they share viruses between laboratories. They make a cDNA copy of the virus and it can be up to five cDNAs that are needed or six cDNAs that are needed, six circular DNAs that are needed to be copied by the bacteria. And then I'm using this white flask as the symbol. And so in the white flask, the bacteria is copying the cDNA. So now I have a huge bottle and in there is the bacteria that's copied the cDNA. Lots of times I lyse the bacteria. I filter out the DNA and I can have a pure, let's say it's a low estimate, it's 90% pure cDNA of what I wanted it to be, which is this coronavirus. It's MERS coronavirus, for example, that that that Barrick sends all around the world. So what he does with that is that he combines it with an RNA polymerase. And then that RNA polymerase making relatively few errors because it's an RNA polymerase reading from DNA. Again, let's say 90%, 90% pure, you get a clone of a single single sequence of a coronavirus. In this case, let's just call it MERS 2012. And unlike MERS 2012 in the camel stables in Saudi Arabia, when the camel handler gets sick and coughs on his wife, he's not coughing 90% pure, genetically identical, 90% replication competent coronavirus onto his wife. He's coughing 10% at best, probably 1% competent coronavirus on his wife and then none of them are the same virus. Many of them have errors that make them less fit than the master sequence. And so what we have here in the laboratory scenario when when Barrick is sending these things around is a pure copy that can be sent or frozen in a laboratory, they can be put into cell culture and used for cytotoxic effects like assays where the cells, the number of cells that die or the number of plaques that are formed tells you something about the replication competence of the virus. You can get reliable disease models in animals if you start with a replication competent clone. And what that is, if I represent it like we were looking at before, is a picture like this, where all the viruses are genetically identical. And almost all of them are replication competent. It is in no way shape or form recapitulating a natural infection or a natural virus. But it is creating a scenario where experiments can be repeated, starting points can be replicated. Viruses can be recreated and stored as archives. All of these things are very valuable aspects of this methodology. But what's not acknowledged is that every time you use a clone, all you got to do is make enough of it and you could start something that would be PCR trackable. Because only something that has a spike protein that is in such high fidelity at such clone level purity would a PCR test be useful for any length of time on any particular one of these proteins like a spike that's normally very variable in every infection. Everything we know about all other coronaviruses, the spike protein is not some kind of high fidelity, the same protein on every... That's the real awful thing that they've done to us, is that they've made us believe that Mother Nature can make a combination of genes or Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance and Shengxi Li can make a combination of viral genes that will endow the virus with properties that only can be recreated when the virus is purified like that and made in enough quantity to do anything at all. My guess is if there was a virus, it was a viral clone. And that's why they could actually think that for a short period of time, a PCR test would mean anything at all. And that's also why for a very short period of time, they tried to target it to the spike, but very soon it became RNA dependent RNA polymerase end protein or spike. Two of the three was only required. And at that stage, you're once again screening the background in any coronavirus with a homologous protein of those, those two would likely pull up a PCR positive and there you go. They've converted almost all respiratory disease to a national security priority that's vaccine targetable and nobody can argue with them because it was declared in an emergency. The tricky part about this is, of course, that this means that there's really no danger except for what they did to us because this isn't real. Yes, there was a cave in 2012 where they found that three people or four people got a very similar disease to SARS-CoV-2, but it didn't spread. It didn't wipe out a hospital or a town or a city. It ended with four or five people and some sampling. And so what you see there again is that that's why you get an outbreak of an old folks home with OC43. You don't get a citywide outbreak because of the variability and the constant instability of the genome of an RNA virus. So that doesn't work, but they say that it does. They say that you can access this potential besides going into bat caves. You can also do it in the lab. And I think they're full of bull. I think the reason why they're telling us this is because they want us to surrender our individual sovereignty and invert our rights to freedom and fascism. And then we got Scooby-Doo because they are trying to make us believe that, yeah, you can also stitch pieces together and make chimeric viruses. And then those viruses will just go around the world like wildfire. And that's just not biologically plausible. So this is what I think happened. They Scooby-Doo'd us and they tricked us into slowly, but surely even the even the even the TV watchers think that it's probably a lab leak. I mean, obviously it's a lab leak. And isn't that just perfect then? Because now the who is needed forever and the threat of people buying equipment on eBay and building gain of function viruses in their garage is real. And the possibility that China is doing it and America is doing it. And oh, my gosh, imagine the theater that they could that they could create if Ralph Baric committed suicide and how guilty that everybody would that he would feel because he started this pandemic. And forever after, it would be codified in every story that Mother Nature is capable of doing something that she's not and that they know she's not. But they've told you a story that most of the time you take a PCR test, you never would have gotten a positive before 2020. That's a lie. And it's basically based on that lie alone. And I think most of us know that in our hearts, we know that without the PCR test, this never would have gone anywhere without an ability to round everybody up with a PCR test to try to shift more of all cause mortality rate under an umbrella of an unknown novel virus that everybody was was vulnerable to. And there's just no way to explain their their the intensity was what they go and so I'm going to try to explain the four things that they think they change and then I'll be done. First of all, I think they change the way we think about the coronavirus swarm. Before 2020 there used to be hundreds of possible causes of respiratory disease that could ultimately end in pneumonia, and the who and most governments qualified these under pneumonia and influenza with very few actual tests just diagnosis of respiratory disease and pneumonia has lots of causes. But after 2020 we reformulated this counting of deaths based on EUA that's emergency use authorized products the PCR tests that were used in America enumerated no less than 200 different products, all of which were under EUA all of which are gone now. Some of those companies are gone, but those tests are definitely gone now the US have been revoked and there's no possibility of going back to audit, which of those tests would have been ludicrous which of those tests were contaminated, which one of those were really reliable even if they turned in great reports to the FDA before their EUA was granted 200 different products were used to create this illusion. Those tests are really the only only evidence of the existence of a novel virus you are taking their word for it that the tests work and we are taking their word for it that those sequences are real. Despite the fact that the sequences in America at least are all controlled by DTRA. And that's real. Since the very beginning all the swabs that were distributed in America were controlled by DTRA why would they do that. They let all the academics in the United States that know how to do sequencing that even have sequencing stuff on their bench do that. They said it was because it's a not it's a deadly virus you can't have those samples in there you can't help with PCR either even though you guys know how to do PCR you know we don't need your help. We're going to centralize it all behind closed doors and use EUA products. It also changed the way you think about all cause mortality this was a huge bamboozlement because think about it now as you look back, they have led you to believe that there was a new cause of death a new cause of death. Everybody that died of it shouldn't have died because it's a new cause of death and if Peter Daszak wouldn't have been tweaking viruses we wouldn't have this problem. They convinced the public around the world that the PCR tests were evidence of this. At the same time they've never talked about all cause mortality you know how you sum it up at the dinner table. You say there's 340,000 people in America how many people die every year answer now. They will get it wrong. And the answer is 300. Sorry, the answer is 3 million people it's between 2.7 and 3 million people every year die in America now divide that by 52. How many people on average die every week. It's a lot. And there's a reason why they never mentioned that on the PBS news hour they never put anything in perspective in the UK because they don't want you to understand the context. And that should be evidence enough that we are being lied to. The other thing that they've lied to us about is of course our immune system and I know that you've kind of heard it codified before but I'll just do it one time here. They have missed that led us about the value of cereal cereal prevalence and I think this is because of the national security priority the secret meetings that they had. This is what we have to do because of the worst case scenario. And so they disingenuously emphasized structural protein antibodies as unproven correlates of immunity. They may have even done it because they knew that the original spike protein of the clone that was released in Iran and in Wuhan or wherever it was had the properties of a toxic spike protein that could be fought with antibodies, which is a very common methodology and a very common sort of combination in the in the bio weapons incapacitating agent arena, where you have a toxin, and you have a monoclonal antibody for it so you can imagine a scenario where if there was a clone. There would have already been a countermeasure in that countermeasure could have been part of secret briefings that would have really made this stuff sick and sink in and be believed. And so they oversimplified the public's understanding of the immune response to avoid any loss of the countermeasure and void any informed consent. And then you guys are all well aware that at the beginning of the pandemic they were making the equivalence between smallpox vaccine polio vaccine measles vaccine. Della Maxine DTP vets all the same because we, again, they misled the public about the biological definition of vaccine for national security reasons the idea if you watch that video of the three guys talking at that conference in the Milliken Institute, you will hear them say that we will, we would need to lie about this in order to do it and for national security reasons it's okay to do that. And that's again why they emphasize the structural proteins because they can test for them. They can point to them as proof, even though when they explain it to you. It's not a correlative immunity, but at the same sense the FDA says that the evidence that they have that proves that these work are the kids get the same antibodies as teenagers. So, they're talking out of both sides of their mouth and they're know that they're doing it the question is why I'm telling you because it is a national security priority to lie to you. They have currently conveniently convinced the public to accept this novel methodology has proven safe due to the serendipitous consequence of the pandemic so in other words we just got lucky. Like we rolled it out in mass, and we hope for the best, and lo and behold, we got the best. And there's going to be a lot of people that watch TV that are still convinced of that outcome and we need to wake them up about that because we know almost nothing about these products we don't know about the content the purity the variability, the viability the fidelity of the product they produce the tissue specificity, the individual variability in terms of genetic background and the long terms effects, depending on where the transfection occurs. You know there's a lot of things we could go over about that. We have a duty to society will protect your grandmother. You can't move forward. Without more trans I mean they're transfecting pregnant women right whoops sorry, they're transfecting pregnant women right so we know that something drastically wrong is happening and we know that a lot of people are going to be woken up from it if they can't be woken up by that fact alone. The fact that we used to tell women that unpasteurized cheese and and sushi is a good thing to avoid while you're pregnant. But go ahead and transfect yourself. And yeah that that makes a lot of sense if you're an idiot but if you're not, then you have to see that something very drastic is going wrong. And so I think how they did it was they started this common narrative about this conspiracy theory that it was a natural virus or it was a lab leak when in reality as I'm trying to tell you there is no virus that's natural. It comes out of a lab that by itself can generate a pandemic. The only way that would be possible is if somebody like Ralph Baric or using Ralph Baric's techniques made a clone of a single sequence of a competent coronavirus with all the genes that it needs, and then quantities of it and released it in some way. That would be a way for example to scare the world by, I'll just throw some some circular DNA of the spike protein into the sewers and let the bacteria of the sewers make more spike protein and then we'll PCR test the sewers and tell everybody that the world is having a pandemic. Much of the data that we have is indirect. And it's indirect because we cannot assume the PCR tests are serious. We can't assume that sequences are serious. And most importantly, we can't assume that there's only one virus one source of respiratory disease is absurd. Before 2020, this would have been absurd. And so this is, I'm going to pause this for a second. This is Jeffrey Sachs not too long ago on CNN doing the exact Scooby Doo thing. And now you can see why it's Scooby Doo because it is, they are trying to lead the public in the direction of, we solved it. We don't know whether this came from nature or a marketplace or a lab. Oh you can't hear that sorry my bad. I apologize. What was he saying, JJ? So he's just saying we don't know whether this is a come from nature or a lab leak and the American government isn't telling us what they know and neither is the Chinese government. And so the WHO needs to have a special fund that's based in Geneva that will govern this kind of stuff and be super national and free of this problem where governments won't share information will make them so it's really Jeffrey Sachs is one of these guys who's playing the same Scooby Doo game where, where as they stumble forward they want you to come to the conclusion that it is possible that a coronavirus could have can explain the last two and a half years and it cannot. But that doesn't mean that there's no coronavirus so this is what they've got us believing in the red are the people watching TV they've already tested it on millions of people so it must be safe. That function is real and anyone with eBay in a garage can do it. We can vaccinate against a respiratory coronavirus even though there's lots of lots of history in the literature that says we can't antibodies are immunity most of the public and most of the people at the Thanksgiving table are really convinced and transfection is a state of the art new methodology that's going to save us from genetic diseases. It's going to save us from cancer, it's going to augment our, our, our, our physiology once we understand it it doesn't matter when we feed the AI in and the AI tells us what to augment that's, that's their plan. The real reality is this transfection is not equivalent to vaccination immunity is nk cell and T cell based and it's based from the inside out, meaning we've never successfully immunized against the coronavirus before attempts have also often resulted in enhanced disease after immunization and gain of function is exaggerated on purpose at all levels because natural zoonosis is a ghost. Natural zoonosis isn't dangerous than what Peter Daszak said about 1.7 million coronaviruses waiting to jump is part of this narrative. The, the chimeric paper that they combine a SARS virus with a new bat spike protein and it kills more cells than the other one did is also just a story. It's a story about two synthetic viruses in a dish that make more plaques than the other one. And then while they're making gain of function viruses. This is crazy. Imagine what they're not telling us. Scooby Dude, we've been fooled because there is no that's possibility in nature. And in fact, listen, there's a video that I have in here where it's Ralph Baric who's going to tell you that coronaviruses are harmless RNA viruses that we want to harness to vaccinate for other things like measles mumps and rubella. This is the real picture they never showed you on the PBS news hour in light blue are the total deaths per week in America, starting in I think 2014 and then moving forward all the way to the pandemic. So this extra Nonsense here at the top is all we need to explain. And usually they show you just the bottom, which is the yellow is influenza. The darker blue is pneumonia and the red over the top are the coronavirus deaths on top of pneumonia. What you first should notice here is that more than half of all the coronavirus deaths in the United States were classified as pneumonia and influenza deaths, more than half. If you think about how they rolled out the tests and the fact that they admitted that anybody who tested positive within 28 days of a death was considered a COVID death. It's very easy to explain why by telling everybody that there's no treatment for the pneumonia that you see that antibiotics won't work for the pneumonia that you see that ventilation might stop the spread of the virus that you don't see that all of these changes that were introduced into our healthcare system all of the huge shifts that occurred in the way that we treated people, the way that we treated other diseases, and the way that we reacted to a respiratory virus should this test come up positive is easily responsible for creating these blue bumps. What are those blue bumps? What are those blue bumps? Remember, this is pneumonia deaths. What you can't put on this graph are pneumonia survivors. But presumably under on top of these pneumonia deaths are a bunch of people that got pneumonia and survived. What I'm suggesting to you is is that it seems to me from a wide variety of data sets that the change in protocol, the lack of protocols, the ridiculous suggestive protocols, the horrible pharmaceutical protocols that were enacted, especially in America, could easily explain why we went from a very steady number of pneumonia based deaths to a doubling or tripling of pneumonia based deaths. Couple that with using tests to rope in everyone that ever went to a hospital. And now you see how this theater was created. I started the same way a lot of us did very early on in February of 2020. It's got to be a lab virus. It's got to be a lab virus. Otherwise, it wouldn't go around the world. It's got to be a lab virus. Otherwise, it wouldn't cover it up. It's got to be a lab virus. Otherwise, why would they fire me? And a lot of people were played like this, maybe entire newscasts, maybe entire networks, maybe entire, maybe entire vaccine committees, maybe entire BARTA committees, maybe entire CDC committees, maybe entire White House staffs were convinced that the possibilities of a zoonotic virus were real and that it was happening right now and that these were evidence of it, including the PCR tests. If they bought that, here's the video that I apologize you can't hear. Let me just see if that is possible with the screen share one, advanced sharing options, multiple. I don't know why this wouldn't work. So it's okay. Don't worry about it. On your second screen, if you just stop your share for the moment on the screen and then click, I don't know what program are you switching between screens. Anyway, there's that tick box that you have to do to share audio. I see. I'm finding it and I don't want to waste too much people's time, but I'm just going to say that this video here is a video of Ralph Baric speaking about the fact that coronavirus is a harmless respiratory virus that they want to harness to use as a live attenuated vaccine for most of the, of the current vaccine schedule targets. And this is him in the early 2000s what I'm suggesting to you is is that his research line is part of this narrative, it's a part of a narrative that involves public health and immunization and trying to harness coronavirus as a biotechnology. It's also about bio defense and the idea of generating a universal Corona vaccine that could be used to defend against somebody who would weaponize a coronavirus immunology microbiology this is all shared things that Baric and the Chinese supposedly partnered with one another and barracks molecular biology is supposedly at the heart of this spike protein, and it all came from natural diversity it all came from going into bat caves and sampling from many bats, putting swabs in their butts and growing them all in labs and whatever, and that natural diversity was recombined in the lab using molecular technology, and we wanted to keep our enemies close. So we funded some of it in China in order to keep our foot in the door in order to, to, to avoid getting stumped and and we concealed and covered this up, and I felt as though I had discovered the fact that they were going to make this live attenuated vaccine. There's a video of Ralph barracks saying it so how can it be true. They were obviously playing with it they were going to make a live attenuated vaccine. It was going to be genetically stable, it's going to high have high specificity for the target receptor. They might even inserted some pathogen associated molecular patterns talking about all this stuff about barrack looking for a very good RNA dependent RNA polymerase to increase the fidelity of coronavirus because one of the problems with making a live attenuated vaccine from coronavirus is that it copies in a swarm. And so even if you install this, this thing it won't spread like a live attenuated vaccine because it will change. And so reversion to a novel virus is possible reversion and losing everything that you put in it is possible. All of these things presented problems to them in terms of designing this as a useful vaccine platform but that didn't stop Fauci from funding it because what it did was allowed them to create this endless sort of pattern of we're going to make papers about a pathogen and then countermeasure pathogen and countermeasure. I have a clone, I can grow it in a dish, then I can put antibodies to the clone in the dish, and in the dish, fewer cells will die. And now I've completed the hoop that is the NIAID says I want a model of a disease, and I want you to show me a possible countermeasure for it that we can patent. So a monoclonal antibody is patentable. A clone of a consensus coronavirus is also patentable because it is, by definition, a synthetic version, a best guess copy of something that's natural. So it's definitely something that you can patent and that's what explains why there are so many coronavirus patents before the pandemic. It's not because they were planning to do this, it was because they needed to lay the groundwork. Probably Ralph Baric didn't know that he was going to be Bruce Ivins. And if you don't know who Bruce Ivins is, that's the guy who supposedly released the anthrax after 9-11 and then was blamed for it, and then he killed himself. It's the same story. But it wasn't him. It wasn't him, of course, but I'm telling you that the public believes that. The public buys into these short corner Scooby Doo narratives where he wouldn't have killed himself if he didn't do it, and most people have stopped there. He was killed. Yeah, I get it. But I'm just trying to tell you that that's not what people who watch TV think. And that's what they've done to us here. So they think by telling us that this spike protein has been optimized to the ACE2 receptor, by telling us that they have been making spike protein vaccine since 2004 at the original release, I can tell you that they plan to convert from egg producing flu vaccine to RNA for at least a decade. And the reason why they had to do it is because RNA cannot be copied with fidelity in nature. And so what percentage of this COVID infection is recombinant? So what am I saying here? I'm suggesting maybe I should now I won't draw a picture. I'm suggesting that if they made what I think they made, which is a clone, what Ralph Barrett, I am going to draw a picture. What Ralph Barrett does is he has the the entire coronavirus genome, as you're probably aware, is too long to be translated or copied by by bacteria very, very well. They have a certain limit as to how big of a cDNA that they can copy. And so Ralph Barrett is credited with coming up with the idea of taking a consensus coronavirus genome with ORF1A and the end protein and some other necessary genes and making it so that anybody can grow these five cDNAs in their laboratory and then using a cassette like methodology just replace the spike protein that they find in nature. So most of the diversity of coronaviruses in the SARS claims that have been described in the literature after careful looking at it is that they find a novel receptor binding domain. At best, they find a novel spike sequence and then they put it on the consensus minimally replication competent coronavirus, make a clone, and then compare it to other coronaviruses with different spike proteins. You can also do that with pseudoviruses that aren't replication competent. But either way, they're essentially saying that every time they find a spike protein, they found a new virus and that's not really true. So when they do this, then they are always making clones here. And so my point is, is that when they introduce a novel spike, if I draw it here like this big S, if they introduce the novel spike, and they make a clone of it. The only thing that's really novel, it's being introduced to the existing swarm that everybody is interacting with all the time would be the spike that they designed, because the RNA dependent RNA polymerase is pretty close to the rest of them. The end proteins pretty close to the rest of them, and all the special proteins that are ORF 16 and eight and four and the ones that they don't know very much about. Those aren't part of Barrick's construction. Barrick's construction is a minimally replication competent coronavirus with a spike that can be cassetly removed and inserted. But other than that it's just pretty much the basic thing. And then they can compare what functions or what attributes of the behavior in the in vitro setting changes when they opt to change the spike or some aspect of the spike. So many papers are just based on this methodology. Again, clones. And so if you just have a little Eppendorf tube full of that infectious clone, you might get very sick if you were to inhale that. You might even get your whole household sick. But by the time that virus is replicated in your lungs and in your son's lungs, it's back to a variant swarm. It's lost most of its purity. So the viral load is going to be immunogenic, but it's not going to be destructive. It's not going to be the kind of hyper infection than the unnatural infection that would occur if you were to inhale a pure infectious RNA clone. And so that's this page here. And so there are all these things that we thought about it. All these these things that they describe about it. They are describing, interestingly enough, in my humble opinion, sorry, they are describing only attributes of a clone. Everybody that looked at the sequence was looking at one sequence. The original one. Petrovsky from Australia. Ooh, it's enriched to ACE2. Yuri Dagen and Rosanna Segreto. It's got a fear and cleavage site. And then we went on and on about AIDS inserts and all this other stuff. Why don't we track the AIDS inserts now then? Why don't we talk about whether the fear and cleavage site is still present? Why don't we talk about the pre-antigenic aspects of the spike and then track those sequences? Why do we keep talking about the original spike when we know that there is no conceivable way that after this virus was released in Wuhan, at a one single point that that virus could both circle the earth and also maintain a fidelity which didn't slowly but surely erode the wonderful, beautiful, perfect toxicity of whatever this spike protein was originally. You can't have it both ways, but I believe because of the scooby doing that has occurred to us, we're actually allowing that to happen. Many of us are allowing both the idea that the spike protein is a toxin to exist and also the fact that the dosages go from 0 to 80% pure. So how is that possible? And we need to start reconciling the possibility that a vast majority of what we've been focusing on, for example, Kert Von Den Bosch is one of these guys that came out very early to tell us about natural antibodies and later on to tell us about how the transfection is forcing the spike protein to change. Just two weeks ago, he was on the Children's Health Defense Sunday or Saturday morning show and said three things that I couldn't believe. Sorry. He said that the spike protein was the correct target. He said that the transfections worked fine and that it's only because we rolled them out in the wrong ages at the wrong time in a pandemic that this went wrong. So Kert Von Den Bosch says that this works, that the transfection works, that we don't need to look for differences in batches, that we don't need to look for what products are actually produced by the shots. Curiously also Robert Malone has very little argument that the shots work or do what they say they're going to do. It's more a debate about was the spike protein the right thing or not. As a biologist, I think we should be grounded in the idea that transfection of any protein is likely to lead to maladaptive changes that we cannot predict, and the younger the person that you do it in, the more likely ridiculous outcomes are the only possibility. And so I'm going to just, I'm just going to keep going here because I think the point to say here is, is that if this was released, it can not be released except for as a pure clone and if you understand or can try to imagine how a pure clone would integrate into the natural coronavirus swarm it would disappear very quickly, but if the, sorry, if the toxicity was tied to only one protein, just a sidebar, Ralph Baric has said in several talks that in a co infection, about 20 to 25% of the coronavirus particles that are produced are recombinant, meaning that they are a mixture of the two viruses that infected that cell. If this is the case, then even if a clone was released in Iran and in Italy and in Wuhan is probably the worst case scenario, then it would have integrated with the existing coronavirus swarm very quickly and only if the symptomology was tied to the spike protein would you see some kind of pattern, which would vaguely resemble an infectious disease, but not really because it would only manifest if the spike protein toxin itself was insufficient concentration. But again, this doesn't really jive with the idea that millions of people have been transfected to this toxin and have survived. The question is then, what do we have to question I think we have to question the fidelity of the shot purity of the shot contents of the shot and realize that there could have easily been all of the stories could be true. They could have put graphene in Spain. They could have put blanks in Japan. They could have put very doses across the EU and America, and they could have used very high quality products in Israel in the very first two times they put it in, who knows, there's nothing, no evidence, no data, no obvious presentations from any of these manufacturing sites no obvious data from the FDA showing that look how well they did it. They scaled up from nanograms to kilograms of RNA, and they did it flawlessly. No one's ever shown us that. And yet many of the people on our side like Karen funding Bosch, Robert Malone, Brett Weinstein they're all just convinced that that's all fine. Transfection works, it makes spike protein, spike protein antibodies neutralize spike protein. All of these assumptions are given to us by the television that also told us that if Peter Daszak and Tony Fauci and Shengli she got together at a table, they could design a virus that had the potential to cause a pandemic and I'm telling you, I would, I would bet the whole kit and caboodle on the fact that that is fundamentally mythology. So let's see where we are here I don't think that they could get anything more than 8000 infected and 800 dead just like the original SARS virus because that's about all they can do. So all of these things are a lie. None of them can happen. And the way that they did it was they changed how you think about all cause mortality how you think about the coronavirus swarm. How you think about your immune system these two things are really these three things are really important to understand the best way to understand them is to look up and try to teach yourself the process of linked recognition linked recognition is the process by which naive B cells and naive T cells cooperate to sort of provide an orchestrated response to novel antigens. If it's too much time for me to explain it now but I've explained it in some of my streams, it's something you can look up on Google. It's important to understand this for a wide variety of reasons one of them. One of the most basic ones is secret bactis favorite home run to hit, which is that if you're activating naive B cells you should see IgM first and then IgG later. And because we see IgG on the first shot reactivating memory B cells not novel B cells and that means that we're augmenting previous memories likely messing with previous memories to coronavirus not a good idea. And so just think about linked recognition when it comes to transfection because instead of having all of the potential antigens from infected cells and from variants in circulation in the lymph to activate B cells and those same antigens presented by antigen presenting cells and then those sort of in a in a Monte Carlo kind of competition here, combining with activation of T cells and presentation of antigens by B cells remember naive B cell is activated by an antigen that it recognizes on its B cell receptor. When it activates it activates actually multiple B cell receptors are the best way to activate a B cell and then they take that antigen inside, and they process it and then they display it. Their antigen presenting cells and they're presenting because they want a T cell to confirm that this antigen is worth fighting. And before a T cell that activates that sorry that recognizes one of the presented antigens on the B cell cooperates with it. They don't have the full plasma cell antibodies zero convert I'm sorry class conversion all the stuff that occurs, and everybody brags about are responsible for the effects of these transfection products. Imagine a scenario where the spike fragments, or the short, the short antibody sequence sorry the short amino acid sequences that are encoded in the mRNA are sufficient to non specifically activate this system and get you to produce antibodies, not antibodies that are really good for you but just antibodies, because remember, if this is a technology out of one of their laboratories out of one of their ideas. It is technology that's meant to fit into this puzzle piece this category. And so, the real synthetic biology we need to be scared of the real crazy biology we need to be scared of is not gain of function viruses in laboratories, it's not going into bat caves and looking for viruses is not chimeric viruses. It's taking a lot of a pure virus, or it's using things like synthetic evolution or gene drives or CRISPR to create virus biotechnology. Any number of things which would be nothing to do with pandemics nothing to do with, with what you think are what we think of my family thinks of as pathogenic viruses but using viral like particles to do stuff, which is really actually what Robert Malone has been busy with since he got in from the very beginning retroviruses were seen as the best way to modify DNA. That's why he went for it. That's why all those people were interested in retroviruses from the beginning, and likely. They stumbled on mixing mixing exosomes mixing retroviruses in a way that did result in pathogenic pathogenic effects that they didn't understand and then they covered it up in any number of ways and I don't want to go into those kinds of conspiracies but what I really want you to understand is that there is a conspiracy and that conspiracy really is that that the bio weapons people. This is probably the best way to to explain to your friends, just think about what happens during infection and the changes that occur and think about what happens during transfection and understand that when a cell is infected by a virus there's certain intracellular changes that occur. There are certain expression changes that occur, and none of those changes occur when you transfect well if transfection works as they tell you it does, because the mRNA synthetic because it doesn't get degraded it doesn't cause an immune response and causes many many copies of the protein to be made so it's a strange world right now because it's not sure what we can believe, but I'm sure that the principle of informed consent has been ignored for the duration of the pandemic. I'm sure that they bamboozled us about a lab leak or natural virus under the intention of getting us to permanently believe. That, that Mother Nature posed a danger, and that you could tap into this danger by cell culture by animal passage, and by chimeric molecular manipulation and none of these is true. The reason why they're manipulating our understanding of biology to this extent with this much mythology is because over the next 10 or 15 years their goal is to completely change the global mindset about what freedom is under the pretense that they need to change our genetic and molecular data over time. Over the next 30 years maybe it's my kids thereafter. But at some moment the universities aren't going to be as full as they are now and they will never be again, if they have their way. At some point, the, the human population will be down around 2 billion, or maybe even 500 million if they have their way. And that means, this is the last chance that we will have to collect the data that is a population of humans of 9 billion people. And I can't stress enough how important mathematically that is, because they don't have the AI to do it yet, but they do know that AIs need data, and this data is not going to be around forever. I don't know why that slides there I apologize for that. I think that's the end I just wanted to remind you again that I used to be a spike protein is the toxin kind of guy and I'm just just trying to figure this out. I don't I don't have all the answers, but I'm pretty convinced that that that they fooled us with this lab leak and natural virus stuff and that the clone is really the biological entity you need to understand to understand what's possible and what's not. I think that's a good place to stop I can take a lot of questions if there are any. Okay, Jonathan well done. Thank you for that presentation round of applause everybody. Now, Jonathan, as you know, because you've been in the background here Stephen Frost is the founder goes first and then anyone else who wants questions. Hands up well done everyone knows the process, Stephen over to you. And you are on mute, Stephen. While we're waiting for Stephen to unmute. Yeah. Just two seconds I'm going to convert to the gallery. Yeah, so JJ I think you have possibly nailed it probably in fact, and, and you've written a story which is brilliant. And everything that has happened is consistent with your story, in my opinion. So, in my opinion, I won't say what I've said previously because it's not very popular. But there never was a pandemic. As you said, nothing went around the world. And that's the end of it really. So we need to. I've been thinking to myself that the gain of function thing was what he called a double bluff if you like, or the other way of putting it is a limited hangout. And so, with the purpose that you've described and you brilliantly described the reasons why they might have done all these things, but I agree with you there wasn't a pandemic in the world. Well that's what a pandemic is it goes around the world didn't go around the world. It never had the capacity to go around the world. That's my opinion. And what do you say. Yeah, I think that's the that's the summary I mean if the real important point for me here in this mixed audience is to stress that this is in my best attempt at reconciling why so much of what Tom Cowan and Andy Hoffman talk about is real why the Bailey's in New Zealand have points about it. Why Christine Massey is right when they say when she says they haven't they never isolated the virus that they published early on in the pet that's all true. It doesn't mean that there aren't coronaviruses it doesn't mean that those papers weren't published but those papers were published for a reason. They were to create this possibility to bluff us into believing the gain of function viruses are definitely real and the pandemic is evidence of it. So it's actually what they use the term I think in intelligence. Well they may have other terms but limited hangouts. So they, and they, they've created the story of a pandemic, as you brilliantly outlined. And so I as a medical doctor look at this and think well there never was anything capable of going around the world there never was a pandemic. And yet everybody's kind of gone along with this. So, from different directions you as a scientist and I as a doctor came to the same conclusion. So it's highly likely we're correct, JJ. That's all I've got to say, Charles. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Stephen. Before we go to Jerry, you mentioned the word the phrase, Jonathan of public health, and we've been seduced into thinking that public health means something. Because the health of the 63 people on this call is different in every case and so this nonsensical idea we're just being seduced. And I think I, you know, I used it, it's in, it's in legislation we're being sucked into this idea of what's good for the public and that's socialism, that's communism, that's dictatorship. All of you sacrifice your lives for the good of what, Yuval Noah Harari? So think about it everybody, stop using the term public health. So, and that wasn't a criticism of you, Jonathan, because I know that's what everyone's using. So, Jerry Waters. Hi JJ. Absolutely brilliant presentation. Hugely impressed. And I particularly trust you, because you wear a ponytail. Now the reason I trust a man that wears a ponytail is that I've worn one for 40 years myself, and I'm massively trustworthy. Ask anybody. Ask, ask, in fact... That's the best I've ever heard. Ask all my enemies. The one thing I, I don't know, I'm a GP, I've been a GP for 40 years and I've been struck off the medical, I've been suspended from the medical register, because I refused to go along with the hoax. And funny, you and I are probably on opposite ends of the spectrum of this business. But I recognize very, very early that it was a hoax, primarily through my contact with my patients, I realized that there was no particularly pathogenic virus circulating. I've done, I've done 40 winters of seeing people with upper respiratory tract infections and I realized very quickly that there was absolutely no highly pathogenic virus. I refused to go along with the masking, the lockdowns, the social, the social distance, I refused to go along with that. I fought a battle for a year with the Medical Council and the Irish College of General Practitioners. Most people, lots of people would know this, so I'm just filling you in as to who I am. I have a case, I have not actually been tried, I've been, I was taken before a kangaroo court, the medical members of the Medical Council wouldn't get into the ring with me. And if they wouldn't get into the ring with me, they sure as hell wouldn't get into the ring with you. And what I would say is that at some stage when I eventually get to have my hearing, I would love to bring you along as a witness. I'd love to participate, it would be, it would be my honor. You know, I don't know if it happened where you are, but in America one of the trends that we forgot happened in 2020 was they told all of the doctors with the most experience to stay home. They actually retired a lot of them in America, including professors that were of retirement age were encouraged to take even early retirement as a way of, you know, you don't want to come in here for the next year anyway. Might as well retire. I think they were able to really get rid of the people with the experience to know whether this was novel or not as part of the operation, in fact. Well, I'm in Ireland, and in effect, they got rid, they got rid of those of us who in effect were not afraid to speak up. I was at a stage where I was financially viable and secure, and I could afford to actually say no. I'm not acting like an idiot. I'm not going around with masks and gowns and that on me. Apart from that, you know, now that I've declared my love for you. Well, you used the word transfection. What exactly do you mean by transfection? So for the last 25 years, transfection has referred to the use of any material to instigate the expression of a protein that's not supposed to be where you're putting it. So if you used electricity and circular DNA to express insulin in a bacteria, you would call that transfection. If you use gold particles coated in DNA and shot them through cells that expressed whatever was on the DNA. That would also be technically transfection or transformation. And so those two terms have been around for like 20 years to describe the methodology and literally any methodology that causes the expression of a protein somewhere where it's not supposed to be. So that's all they're doing here. That's a reflection of the fact that I qualified 45 years ago. That's how come I wasn't particularly familiar with that word, even though I'd heard it quite a lot. That's why I required clarification. The other thing is you say about nature, you're not able to grow these clones perfectly in effect in nature. And yes, you say that they're actually cultured in E. coli. Surely that's doing it in nature. Do you not get that sort of incompetence within the E. coli? Or do they come out perfectly formed? Well, remember, the main argument I'm making is that if you keep the cDNA under a certain size and you use the standard laboratory E. coli, which is basically had all of its genes sculpted and removed so that the only thing that it's really useful for is making copies of cDNA, then they make pretty damn good copies. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. Got it. Just sorry. Do you think about the PCR test, the actual swab? You know, people are very, very suspicious of the swabbing. Is it possible that actually these cloned viruses could in effect have been spread by means of the actual PCR test, the swab itself? I've heard that sort of thing. You know, is that possible? It's possible, but I don't think that's really likely what happened. My guess is more about the original statement, which is the amount of swabbing that they did and the amount of swabbing they continue to do suggests something else, that they're sampling other than just coronaviruses. Because remember, when they amplify all of the genetic material that they collect from the swab, they amplify everything. So if they want to, they can look at your entire genome. That's what my next question was. Were they in effect collecting the genome of these 8 billion people? Why do they need it for AI? That's definitely what I'm suggesting. They are setting us up to accept. I don't know that if they've already started, but if they convince all of our college kids from now on that it's just going to be normal for you to return to campus and give a swab. And it's going to be normal when you come back from Christmas to give a swab again. At some point, you are going to have to realize that that is a pretty good way to sample their DNA regularly. And I don't put it past them. This is something that we've seen in a lot of different places and a lot of different companies and a lot of different examples of how potentially valuable this is. I'll give you an example from a speech that Biden gave like a year and a half ago where he was announcing the Cancer Moonshot Program. And he looked into the camera and he said that all you companies, you won't share your data. We all need the data. We have to share the data. And we have to convince patients that we need the data. Well, even Joe Biden's prepared remarks have already prefaced the idea that the AI needs genetics and it needs phenotype, preferably phenotype over a long period of time. If you would give them all the sampling that they could from your children, they would take it. And why wouldn't they rather than do that for a few people who are willing to volunteer, just like signing the organ donor card on your driver's license, would they not use public health to make it mandatory? Convince you that it's in your best interest to do it. Yeah, yeah. Sorry, I've got lots of questions. You talk about the gain of function. I was reading, I was only reading this morning about these, where the furan cleavage site, they had found an assertion of 19 nucleotides that have already been, that had a patent on them. That this has been patented in 2016 for entry. It facilitates, this change within the furan cleavage site facilitates the entry of the virus into, it's actually on the spike protein. Yep. Is that part of the gain of function? If you mean the gain of function. Those 19 nucleotides. If you mean the gain of function mythology, definitely. Yeah, but surely that is gain of function then. Because it facilitates, apparently it facilitates the entry into the cell, which would be great. It was developed originally for cancer. They were going to, you know, they were working on a cancer vaccine in effect, which is a brilliant idea. But apparently it facilitates the entry to the cell. You know, it makes it, you know, through the spike protein by altering those, those 19 nucleotides. As I read it anyway from the paper. Yeah. And so my, my supposition or whatever, that's not the right word, but my, my suggestion is that the natural expression of a coronavirus with a fear and cleavage site, which has been done in cell culture and in animal culture, the fear and cleavage site disappears very quick. And it is because it is a specific amino acid sequence and copying RNA to RNA over and over again, as fast as you can. And then assembling sub genomic RNAs as fast as you can often results in poor assembly, improper assembly, incomplete assembly and wrong folding. And so you, you are inevitably imagining that a protein could have a specific sequence. And then that specific sequence could replicate flawlessly for two years. And that's part of this narrative that is impossible. So even if they could make a clone version of a single coronavirus sequence with a fear and cleavage site, which in cell culture and in animal preps created more effects, more replication, more cell death, more illness in the animal. Only animals in cell culture exposed to the pure version where every coronavirus particle is competent and every coronavirus particle is producing that spike toxin, will you see those results? The moment you passage it through animal to animal to animal, that effect will disappear. And you can see it because they don't ever do those experiments in a laboratory. They start with a clone, they do one infection, they do the assay that they're doing and that's it. If they're enriching the virus, they show you none, none of the intermediate steps. And they just say that these animals are sicker than when they started. And so it must be a worse virus. They have done a shell game for 20 years to lay down a foundation of an incorrect understanding of how viruses replicate and how they cause disease and how they sustain themselves. Sorry, I know I sound like a medical student and Charles probably doesn't like me talking sort of too much science. But can I ask about the actual furan cleavage site? That is a protease, that is an enzyme, is it? That actually helps, you know, what exactly is the furan cleavage site? And, you know, obviously I'm a little bit confused and I kind of need to know this because I give talks on this. So the idea is that the spike protein, every protein has parts that like to be in water and parts that don't like to be in water. And the most constrained part of the spike protein by evolution is a small portion of the spike protein that is the fusion protein portion of it, which is a hydrophobic part, which is hidden in the folded protein. If the protein gets cut at one of two cleavage sites, the furan cleavage site or this TRMPS protease site, then the protein can open and that opening, no matter whether it occurs at the top or the bottom, will expose the hydrophobic fusion part of the protein, which can cause fusion with the other membrane. The reason why the furan cleavage site is important is because furan, the protein enzyme, is found in a lot of tissues that the TMPRSS, the serine protease one, is not so abundant. So normal coronavirus would be limited to that serine protease. And with the furan cleavage site, now you can more easily and in more tissues have the spike protein get cleaved and then allow the fusion to occur. That's the argument. At a day in a canyon, is that what they refer to them being in a canyon, the kind of buried? I think that's more for the receptor binding domain and for where the active site of the binding for S2 is, the canyon thing. Sorry about that, Charles. No, I don't mind at all if everybody else does. The other thing, getting back to my end of it, getting out of your end. When this all started up in February, March 2020, I knew very, very quickly that this is a tree card trick, that in effect we were switching the debt certification from flu, not that I ever knew how the people killed flu. I've written hundreds of debt certs. I'm not exactly a shipment, but I've written lots of debt certs. And I knew that we were being asked to switch from flu or from old age, multi-system failures, multi-organ failures. And we were told, it was by DICTAT, we were actually told to switch. And I knew instantly that that was where they were getting the figures. And the chief medical officer was going on television telling people that people were dying. He was calling them COVID-related debts. Now, the newscaster before and after them called them COVID debts. But he was using his get out of jail card saying, oh, COVID-related debts. That was so obvious to me at the time. And what I can't understand how pretty much every other, the other two and a half thousand GPs in Ireland didn't, you know, didn't cop it as well. I started screaming. Sorry. Quick, quick, quick. We've got to keep moving, Gerry. Yeah, I think I just can I ask you about the lipid nanoparticles and them used as a transport system into the cell. And, you know, and their ability to overcome the sort of policoceptors. If that's the question, I can only say that we are all forced to take their word for it. If you want to do research on it, I would suggest that you do what a lot of people have already figured out, which is read papers before the pandemic to find out what lipid nanoparticles do. And basically they go everywhere and depending on what you coat them with, you can get them to concentrate in certain places. So they used to be a lipid delivery device or a bone marrow delivery device or a cancer delivery device. But in the end, you find out that that we don't know, they don't know. And they've they've basically tried to monetize lipid nanoparticles as a bio delivery mechanism for a very, very long time. And they haven't managed to do it very often. They've not become products very often. And this kind of comes back to the sort of lipid microphone. Jerry, Jerry, Jerry. Too complex. No, no, but we've got we've got six hands up and we've only got time. So put your hand up after Jack if we've got time for that. But great questions. Well done, Jerry. And I still haven't seen your ponytail. I've seen you so many times shows your ponytail. Yeah, you've got one. OK. That's the first I've seen it. Look at this, everybody. Jerry, the wild man. Thank you. Thanks, Jerry. Liam. OK. Hello and hello, JJ. Just fantastic. First of all, goes without saying, I have three things written down. I'll go very fast. First is Denny Rancourt, a couple of months ago, successfully convinced me that there was no pandemic. And he did it in a way different to you. But you have confirmed, at least in my head, and demonstrated that he was right. And I for anyone who hasn't gotten familiar with Denny Rancourt, I recommend you do so. And so that's great just to see this is what science is. Is someone coming up with something saying this is what I think and either being confirmed or denied. And in this case, you have confirmed at least his conclusion, which was that there was no pandemic. Thing number two, can you articulate again how the virus slash no virus argument could have been intentionally used as a divide and conquer tactic to slow us down? Yeah, sure. So I think the gist of it is that there has to be a certain period of time, just like with 9-11, that the buildings had to fall down and there had to be airplanes. There had to have been a virus that at least for a short period of time, people thought was real. If it was only in Iran, fine. But the other thing that there had to be in my mind was a virus in the background all along. And so that's the trick. And the no virus people are, if they're an operation, and I don't want to say that they're an operation, but Tom Cowan drives me nuts because Tom Cowan, as sharp as he is about the viral papers, he also believes that you can freeze water and water has memory that includes being able to read your mind about whether you're going to a wedding or a potluck dinner. And so I have a problem when people are there is no virus. But instead, all of previous biology is baloney cannot be true. For example, I bring this book up a lot. This book is a real book that was published in 1983 out of the EMBL workshop of Molecular Biology and Pathogenesis at the State University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. And this is real papers of people trying to figure out what coronaviruses are. You can't say there aren't any coronaviruses when we've been studying them for 20 years. You can say that people have lied about the danger. You can say that people have lied about about what they're capable of in order to create a whole mythology about public health and the requirement and the interaction of humans with nature and how awful it is for us. But you can't discount all of this data. We need to explain it. And the way to explain it is that a natural coronavirus by the by the biological properties granted to it by the fact that it's using RNA as a genetic material, it's using RNA dependent polymerases to copy it. And that process is not nearly as flawless as DNA copying is and doesn't give the opportunity for proofreading. And we have no real evidence of proofreading enzymes. Then you're in a scenario where the only thing you have is a viral swarm that is a genetic quasi species. It's not a single variant where one amino acid is reproduced or one amino acid change is reproduced with high fidelity and results in a tenfold gain in transmission that sustains it around the world. It's just not possible. I don't even remember what I was talking about. I apologize. Well, yeah, the question being because the way you're right, there's we can point to specific people and wonder if they are controlled opposition to whatever extent. But am I understanding what you're saying correctly in that both sides of that? That's right. That's the question. Sorry. Yeah. I think that these people, if they are controlled, have been primed to cue on to known problems. The sequencing doesn't work. Go with it. The PCR test is nonspecific. Go with it. We didn't we didn't isolate the virus. Go with it. Because all this does is fuel the fear, uncertainty and doubt about what's possible. And it gives you this really easy alternative where no understanding is required at all. No subtlety is necessary. And it's completely seductive in that way. Oh, there's no virus. They've been lying to us all along. And it's almost right. And that's what's so annoying about it, because it's almost right. So a lot of people believe it is totally right, just like the lab leak is almost right. So everybody believes it's right. But it's not possible. And I've spent three years reading this biology to try and the reason why it worked is because what happened was Bobby asked me to explain to him what an infectious clone was. And he sent me three papers of Ralph Baric and I read them over and over and over again until it finally dawned on me that they were making synthetic virus by using DNA and that removed the variability. And it created this purity that cannot exist in the form of RNA. And once you realize that they're using this purity to make it possible to culture, to make it possible to create replicatable disease states, to make it possible to do neutralization assays, to make it possible to do cytotoxic plaque assays, they're all done based on taking this clone and growing it in this dish, taking this clone and growing it in this dish and seeing which of these cells dies first by putting this clone in that animal and this clone in that animal and seeing which of them has more cells get killed by that clone. It's replicatable, it's shareable, it's catalogable, and it's completely fundable. But once you start going from patient samples and starting there, you lose. Once you start from bat samples and starting there, you lose. That's why you need meta sequencing. You need shotgun sequencing where they use random primers and amplify everything in the sample and then screen all those fragments against a known limited data set and tell you whether they found a virus or not. They're not giving you a de novo sequence that they pull out of a hat and read it. It's a bunch of fragments that are screened against a known catalog and whichever one of those of the known catalog fits is what they say is probably in the sequence, and that's metabiota. That's Nathan Wolf. That is this guy who was associated with Ukraine laboratories and DARPA funding, and metabiota's meta sequencing is the shotgun sequencing that was used at the beginning of the pandemic to purportedly track this virus and populate the next strain data, and it's all based on nonsense. And it's hard to convince virologists of that because they don't want to believe that the way that they sequence is incorrect, but it is. They're not doing it. Yeah, so it seems to me the big takeaway there is that it's good news. We've been more on the same page with each other on each side of that specific discussion than we've known the whole time. We can sort of come together now, hopefully, and give each other some props and also agree to disagree, or do we even need to? Anyway, point is, okay, that's great, and then my last question is just, and you alluded to the possibility that if we are, in fact, in an extended, multi-layered psychological military operation of sorts, anybody in theory could be playing a role. So how could you articulate, especially given that you are challenging things that many of us hold to be reality, can you articulate how people in this group can consider your perspective through the lens of the possibility that you yourself are controlled opposition? Yeah, sure. The best way to do it, I think, would either be look at my history, and that's why I tried to present this as a story, because I really did think that I had solved it. I really did think that I was a hero for solving it. I really did think that I had learned this biology well and that I was learning the immunology. And after three years of relearning and rechecking and doubting myself and being challenged to support my ideas, I really have come to the stage where I think it's a pretty good bet that my kids are not in any danger from a coronavirus and never have been. I think the only really danger to my kids is this mythology that you don't have most of the control over your own health through nutrition and exercise and choices that you make and that the circumstances of your life and the circumstances of your environment are very little control over what happens and how much happiness you experience. TV would like you to believe that you have very little control over anything in your life anymore, and you're better off just sitting at home and watching YouTube while the world goes by. And I think that level of surrender is what they got out of our college kids, and the level of surrender that they're going to continue to try and demand from us is they convince young people that injecting pregnant women is logical. I think it's a really good time to be optimistic, because I do think that there's a possibility that somebody like Christine Massey will see that it is possible that there are coronaviruses, but there has been a mythology built up around them, the same way that I think a lot of people have come to understand that there are likely retroviruses that are associated with cancer and associated with HIV, but not necessarily the cause of any of these things. And we need to wake up to the fact that the less we understand about these phenomenon, the more that they can be monetized, the more that they can be used to rule us as a population. And I would go so far as to say, does it really make sense now that I'm 50 years old and I look back at the fact that all through my elementary school age years, we had to do tornado drills, which were called tornado drills, but were also called bomb drills earlier on, and Sting sang a song about, are we all going to, do the Russians love their children too? And we told this story about having thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at each other, and those thousands of nuclear weapons are supposedly still aimed at each other. And it has dawned on me as a 51-year-old man that even that may be a mythology, a mythology that was used to orchestrate government responses and orchestrate internal government narratives. And they have now just shifted from a kind of global thermal nuclear war narrative to a global pandemic endless danger from pathogens kind of narrative that's going to allow them to make the next pivot in the way that they rule us. And I think we need to wake up now or we're going to lose it for generations. Excellent. Thank you so much. Thank you, Liam. Albert. AJ, how are you doing, my man? Good to meet you. Good to meet you. So how many years do you think this plan was in effect? I don't know at the earliest times that people were talking about this, but the Club of Rome has a lot of documents about it. The UN talks about it. I mean, it depends how far back you want to go, but I think it's been orchestrated since roughly Rockefeller probably and the conversion of medicine in America to the pharmaceutical industry that it is now, probably right on right on that. You know, as I as I free fall down the rabbit hole myself, I you know, that's what scares me the most is to think that this type of evil has been here planning and doing pushups and getting ready for us for, you know, decades, basically decades. And that's what that's what scares me. But anyways, I appreciate you, my man. You're one of my favorites because you're so cool. And plus your skateboard and your drumsticks. So thank you. Thank you. I appreciate I appreciate you. Thank you very much for that. Albert, all you need is to grow your hair and get a ponytail made and you and Jerry and Jonathan will be will be the the Ponytail Club for medical doctors. Perfect. Well done. Thanks, Albert. Teresa. Hi. Sorry, took me a while there to unmute. Very interesting. Thank you, JJ. I really, really appreciate the time you took to come and tell us your latest theory. I did catch your presentation to RFK Junior. I found that very, very interesting. But I'm going to I could ask you all night about magnetofection, magnetogenetics, teslaforesis, all of these little rabbit holes that I've been down. But the question I'd like to ask you is this. I do believe that they're doing a depopulation, but I don't think it's going to be 500 million. I think it's going to be perhaps a tenth of that. So I don't know, maybe 50 million, something like that. But I'd like to know why am I magnetic? Why is it that I can stick a small neodymium magnet or a small steel key to my sternum, to my neck and to my to my wrist and I haven't had the covid jabs. I have had flu jabs in previous years because I've been pushed into it by work. But I would like to know what's your theory? Why am I able to to cling magnets to myself? Could you do a demonstration for us? I don't know where the magnets are right now. I've been playing with them for a while, so they're probably somewhere. But I do have photographs and I did record a video which I put up in Darkest Winter. Very funny magnetic personality. Yeah, I can demonstrate it, I can record video, anything anybody wants to see. I've also written a small substack about it. It's a little bit of a hypothesis that is gradually turning into a theory. But I just wanted to jay to us. I don't have a clue. Is there something about it being all over your body that's very perplexing to me? Well, it's a circulatory system. Obviously, you didn't have this problem before, right? I mean, we wouldn't know, I don't know. I've done a little research, I've reviewed the literature and I've gone back about 10 years and found cases of it going back 10 years. So predating the COVID vaccines. But my thoughts are that if this was a thing that humans can do, the Victorians would have written about it extensively. They'd have been all over it. It would be in the medical literature. And I'd just like to say that my partner is also able to stick magnets to herself. I've talked to quite a few people, some that are vaccinated, I mean doctors, MDs in this group who can stick magnets to their injection sites. But that's different than your sternum and elsewhere. If it goes in the injection site, there's something in my imagination that makes that more plausible. Yeah. But once something goes around your body and still is concentrated enough to be magnetic and detectable, that seems extraordinary. It's also extremely concerning because if you think about it, it could be weaponized. Well, it seems to me you shouldn't go near an MRI machine if you actually believe these effects are real. I've already made that decision. I wrote a little substack with my theories about it. Personally, I think magnetotransfection, magnetofection, I think that's BS. I think that is an excuse to dopus. My degree is physics and I remember we did a lot about electronics. Would you like to hear a story about magnetotransfection? Oh, yeah. I've got a great story for you. So the Chinese author on my Nature Neuroscience paper is Zhang, I believe is his last name. I have to think about it again. His husband is a husband and wife couple that moved from China to Norway to work with the Mosers when I was there. I have a Nature Neuroscience paper where I use a virus that was generated by him and his wife to opt to genetically manipulate some of the cells in the medial entorhinal cortex and do that paper. That husband and wife then went back to China. And the very first paper that they put out was retracted. And what it was was a paper where they purported to have taken a ion channel that was sensitive to magnetic fields that they found in a pigeon. And they put it in cells and they could use a magnetic field to depolarize the cells, which is essentially activating a neuron. So it would have been a very cool technique. But then over the next two weeks, it came out in Nature that he had gone to a lab in Shanghai and stolen the plasmid of this magnetoreceptor that this guy had cloned and brought it back to his own laboratory, prepped it in a cell culture and done the experiments and submitted it to this podunk journal to scoop this dude. And he ended up losing his position at his university and moving to some other university in China. The same guy who basically blackmailed me to be first author on my paper by not wanting to give us the sequence of the virus that he let me use for my experiment without making him shared first. So after he manipulated to take my ideas and participate in a way that he shouldn't have just because he gave me a reagent, he then went back to China and was really involved in the first publication of this magnetoreceptor in birds and involved in the fraud of it. So I'm still of the firm belief that the only magnetoreceptor they ever found is just an ion channel that doesn't conduct very much. And so it could never be used to depolarize neurons. And it certainly could be used to generate magnetic coupling like you're describing. Magneto induction is something completely different. So you don't you don't subscribe to the science of magnetogenetics where they're claiming that they can hijack the nervous systems of zebrafish larvae or even mice and affect their behavior. They can in the sense that it's an ion channel and they can target it in places that's no different than really. It's no different than. Then optogenetics, except they're using magnets and it's a lot less refined. That's not what I think is fake, but that doesn't in any way, shape or form explain what you're experiencing. That's what I'm saying. That's that's it. It couldn't explain it. Well, there's so many videos of it. But what made me try was the fact that a friend of mine's husband, who is not vaccinated, could stick a magnet to his injection site. He must have had some kind of job in the past. But my thoughts are that they have been using magneto transfection or magnetofection as a sneaky way to get some kind of magneto type protein into our bodies, doping us for some point in the future at which it can be weaponized. And, you know, if you if you if you look at the other technologies. But again, I would I would just argue that my current status and stance on this is that almost all of these rumored transhumanist technologies are bullshit. And so imagine a scenario where they did actually put a little graphene in some of these so that there would be a rumor. Imagine that they put something in there that would cause magnetism. Fine. But they did it in a few shots and you don't get a shot. So I don't know how you have it. It doesn't make sense to me. But but I'm suggesting again that almost all of the narratives that we have been led to believe are true are probably part of this. And once you start looking at it that way and realizing that you just had to tell doctors that there was a new cause of death that they needed to be afraid of and that their normal treatment of respiratory disease had no business being in the in the ICU, most of the deaths can be explained. And so then you really have this problem of what have they actually done. I think what they've actually done is completely convinced us that something is possible that is not possible. And so all of this, all of it, even the magnet part is something that they either knew already knew existed and amplified it now for the first time. Or even worse is something that is completely extemporaneous to this and and and has nothing to do with it. But it's all fear, uncertainty and doubt. I'm not suggesting that you're crazy or that you're lying or that anybody that's thinking this. I'm just suggesting that fear, uncertainty and doubt is all they need. So it's starting it in every way possible. If you don't like the clone idea, just imagine that they could have taken CDNA of the spike alone, dump that in sewers and you could have gotten a combination of water supplies that was causing reactions. And most certainly you would have gotten PCR positives and PCR positives in sewers is one of the main narratives that went around the world in early 2020, which was was evidence. Just like they told us about a month ago that there was polio in the sewers of New York City that could have just as easily been put in there by somebody with a clone. And it's not evidence of polio being transmitted, but it certainly is presented that way on every TV show. Yeah, yeah. Just just to say that Ray Fernandez has just dropped me a note to say that he's put the video that I put up in our signal group. He's put that in the chat. It's a video of myself sticking a magnet to my wrist. Oh, nice. I've also I've got the Byromark is gone now, but my partner mapped everywhere on my neck where I could stick the neodymium magnet and I've written a little sub stack. I'll put the link into the chat if you like. I would love that. I would love that. I guess. I mean, I've fallen a bit of a fantastic voyage with it. I've just do you have any sensitivity? Do you have any sensitivity around cell towers or any Wi-Fi remote or routers or anything like that? I spend a lot of time camping in the mountains. I work in the mountains quite often in the forestry, but I'm more comfortable up there. And I don't know if it's because there is no there's no mains electricity. There's no Wi-Fi router. It's just me and a little camper van. I don't know. But I haven't really I wouldn't say I'm sensitive to routers or anything like that. All I can say is I had the 2019 and the 2018 flu jab because I was working with vulnerable people. I just wonder, for example, somebody just sent me a link that shows the formulation of novel lipid coated magnetic nanoparticles as a probe for in vivo imaging. So I'm just wondering, for example, if they did something like this to you with nanoparticles that were magnetic, one, could they generate the magnetism that you observe? I don't know. The second thing is how long would they embed themselves in your body? Would it be for months or years? Or that's another thing I don't know. But it seems to me if the magnetic if your magnetic phenotype is correct, then there are a couple of things that are true, that it is. It's real. It is manifesting in particular locations on your body and you're alive. So now the question is, I guess you could go down the list of possible technologies that were tried out on you. But then you would need to go back and really do the research of saying what injections did you get and who else got them? And are they magnetized, too? And once you find that pattern, you might be able to run somewhere. I don't know. I don't know what to say because it's. Come on, we're going to we're going to keep moving. We've got three more questions and then we've got 17 minutes to go. But thank you, Theresa. And the video, everybody remind you, is of Theresa and her magnetic personality. I like that idea. John Bodwin, you're next. Well said. Well, it's been a while, so I don't remember my original question, but I will comment on this part of the conversation. I did read a patent. It was about microcontainers. And what they do is they put magnetite in the microcontainer along with some type of drug. And you can do simply drug delivery to inoperable areas of the brain or other parts of the body by using an external magnetic field to drag that stuff through the body. The thickness of the microcontainer shell will determine its decay rate and length of time. So you can you know, you can put that stuff in a body and direct it where you want inoperable areas. It all seemed it all seemed pretty good in terms of reading the patent until there was another patent that went alongside it. There were there were no dimensions to that microcontainer. Like if if if you got a patent, you'd think they would put how many microns that thing is. The other thing was they had this little mechanical beast that would also deliver drugs in the form of like almost solids, not liquids. But it would it was it was an arm that turned and it would dispense. It was ridiculous. The other portion of that combination of patents was ridiculous. So, you know, I believe there are things they can do with these little injectable microcontainers. I believe that they could use something that would be disrupted by a certain electromagnetic frequency such that if somebody were to take a drink and then it got in their blood in their body was absorbed in their bloodstream. They're walking around at any point in time. Somebody could just point something to them and it would release all the stuff that's in the microcontainers and the person would just die and nobody would know why. So I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I do believe that can be done. If you guys don't know, I'm an electrical engineer. I'm certainly no expert in nanometer physics of semiconductor research. But that is where I spent my time. I sat in meetings with PhDs. So some things can be done and some things just can't be done by the laws of physics. We don't have the technology yet. And what I see in a lot of these conversations, JJ, you can I do want your opinion on what I'm saying here when I'm done in a lot of these conversations. The medical people, the you know, a lot of doctors, a lot of biologists, researchers, they haven't gone deep enough in material science to understand what can or cannot be done at this point from a material science viewpoint, not from a translation of an RNA code that produces a protein and then that protein might misfold. There's no intelligence that can be formed at that level. I mean, there's no circuit boards that could be created by auto generation of those things. So I'm not a believer in a lot of things that are said, maybe here and elsewhere, just on my knowledge. And I spent time at MIT Lincoln Laboratory and Draper Laboratory, where the most advanced science was going on. And, you know, I had guys with M16s looking under my car and looking in my car. And I was told to stand aside for four-star generals walking in the building. No, I'm not privy to all the details, but in the engineering conversations, you can kind of figure out some of the stuff they're doing. And, you know, we knew, you know, I knew what was coming in 20 years, 20 years ago. And it's just some of the stuff that's being said is just not plausible. So, JJ, you got an opinion on that? No, I'm with you. I think the audio is messed up. You got a different microphone on now. No, I don't. But that's OK. Go ahead, sir. It's for me, what you're saying is pretty valid. We have a lack of understanding. We have a lack of conceptual understanding. And I think that's where I'm hovering right now is trying to outline the limitations of coronavirus biology and finding out that a lot of it is based on the concept of a clone and how clones are used in a laboratory to recapitulate. So this is really not a biologically relevant representation of this. And therefore, it's really not imparting any understanding in terms of what's out there. And it's allowing them to exaggerate the threat. That's what I think. And if everybody understood biology a little better and understood immunology a little better, that exaggeration wouldn't be possible. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, John. Jack and then Pamela and then Stephen, and then we'll be done. Hi, Jack. Yeah. Well, it is certainly a problem with the lack of public understanding of biology and immunology, which I also share, but I'm a retired psychologist. And so it's human behavior that I'm looking at, which I think can be used very effectively to relate the narrative, the very dark narrative that Jonathan has identified from a different, from a micro angle where I'm looking at the macro angle. And it was obvious to me early in this psiops, this massive global psiops, that the perpetrators, let's say the CIA is probably an easily identified participant, they've really been studying a lot of psychology. And this is pretty easy to explain to people. For example, you know, Salamanash's study on conformity, that people will, will form a judgment, at least a public judgment, on the basis of things that appear to be a majority opinion, but which are obviously wrong. They will go along with the crowd. We've certainly seen that, haven't we? We know Zimbardo's research at Stanford, the so-called Stanford Prisoner Experiments, where people can be easily induced to act in a very authoritarian and abusive way, simply by an artificial role assignment. We've certainly seen that with the masked, unmasked nonsense, and the demonization of people who don't wear masks, or demonization who are as anti-vaxxers and so forth. So, we also have seen the very important Milgram studies that showed that people will violate the most basic ethical standards, when they're instructed to do so by an authority figure. And that's all in the field of social psychology, in the field of developmental psychology, it really gets dark, and I think very diabolical. The masking thing, how many, how many new mothers, nursing mothers, have worn masks with their infants, and with their toddlers. John Balvey's study on developmental variables showed that seeing the mother's face, seeing the mother's facial expressions, you know, expressing emotion, hearing the sound of her voice, I mean every human voice is different. Every human voice is different. Every human face is different. So, nature obviously values diversity, and the effects on infant development are incalculable from this kind of absolute nonsense. So, what I'm seeing is beyond some of the things we've talked about here today, I've seen, I've been watching for two and a half years now or more, an experiment in voluntary dehumanization, attacking the very foundations of humanitarian empathy, humanitarian emotional expression. Let me, let me mention another very important area of research, Ashley Montague, a cultural psychologist, wrote a whole book on touching, I mean how fundamental touching is. And, and another fascinating piece of research was done by a, actually a developmental psychologist with animal, doing animal research in animal studies, his name is James Prescott, and he looked at the Murdoch files on cultural anthropology, looking at the cultural variables that were predictive of violence. He found that there were only two cultural variables studied, you know, cross culturally, that were predictive of violence, they both had to do with touch. The most important was touching in infancy. And the next, next most important of the two, and there are only two, were permissiveness of adolescent sexuality. In human touch, there's nothing more fundamental than human touch, in anxiety reduction, and in aggression reduction. And so, then I look at the, these prescriptions that were laid down by Fousi et al. Oh, we were not allowed to be, we have to stay six feet apart, where the hell did that number come up with. Well, if you, if you stretch out your hand to another human being and extend your arms fully. If you're tall, you can reach each other and if you're short like me you can't. In other words, it really is a prohibition of human touch. This masking in schools has has produced an enormous decrease in student achievement and student IQ stores. Just, just astonishing. I mean it's not astonishing to me as a psychologist but it's really alarming. So there's been this whole behavioral, psychological dimension that's accompanied all this other stuff. And to me, that is, is easier to understand and easier to communicate and explain than things that people can't see, like variants and molecules and so forth. They can't see that. And it's kind of interesting but I don't compute it. I've never seen one. I'm a, I'm a photographer and artist as well as a psychologist. I pay attention to things I can see. I think the heavy lifting then that we all, I'm trying to get better at is what you're describing, which is, there's no doubt in my mind that what you're describing is a singular part of the narrative that without it would, this would have never worked. It was part of the fear, uncertainty and doubt that started from the very beginning with people in Italy banging pots and pans out the window in supposed solidarity with the people who are suffering in the hospitals. This was all part of a charade that was designed to, to bamboozle us all basically into thinking that there was a new cause of death and a new reason to be afraid and that we should start touching each other's shoes or bumping each other's elbows as a way of, I mean I'll give you an example from my personal life. We took my four year old to the school year in 2021, I think it was, but maybe it was, so it would have been the end of yeah I think it was the 2020. It was the fall of 2020 and she would have gone into fourth grade like preschool type thing for four hours or five hours a day. And we went in there and the lady who was running the thing was saying yeah they're going to wear masks for the whole year. She said well then we can end this because I'm not going to, we're not going to wear, she's not going to wear a mask she's not going to come to school and be around five or 10 or 20 or 50 strangers that are all masked while she's learning Dutch and English at home. That's that's crazy talk. So then she proceeded to say that while we have experience from last fall, where within a couple weeks the kids even the kids that are really emotionally upset about having to wear a mask eventually get used to it. And I had to say to her that yeah, they would also get used to you regularly abusing them if you regularly abused them, that doesn't make it right. And we walked out, but there are people who because of the fact that they can't accept that the narrative on television is purposely being told to them to to manipulate them and they have to figure this out based on what they're told on TV. Then they can, they're never going to escape. It's really, it's really frightening but you can point out the fact that none of this was logical that that we know this in human behavior and so why would they ever do what they did. But until you explain to them that that the biological story is false, then they all these people that are running the show can always take out this this play this joker card which is, we didn't know the worst case scenario was, we didn't know that that's bullshit. Brilliant explanation. Brilliant. Okay. I wanted to ask if this is being recorded. It is a link to the recording. Yes, it was available email me jack and I'll get it to you. Tom, Tom Rodman will put the link into the all the recordings jack. Okay, Tom I know Tom. There is another issue Jonathan, before we get to Pamela and then Stephen on this whole you don't have to go to the biology as a lawyer. I said you the fact that all dissident voices were silenced is an evidence enough so I'm with jack, you know, the, the psych, the let the scientists go off on the biology. Great, but it's all. It's a total sigh of because of that shutting up of geniuses being able to speak and the suspension of Jerry waters, and a shit load of doctors and terrifying doctors. So, so you don't need to go into the biology was wonderful that you can Jonathan says another way to look at it. Thank you jack Pamela and then Stephen and then we're done. Pamela you're up. Yeah. Okay, Stephen, you go next. I'm going to close with two and a half hour mark Jonathan you've done, you've done very well and you can keep going on the telegram video group. Jonathan please you know Tom Robert and the group will be love to have you, if you've got time, but Stephen for closing questions please. Jonathan I was very surprised when Christine Massey was getting all these replies from all these authorities all around the world. And I thought they're very open about that, aren't they. And I realized tonight, listening to you. That's why they were so open, because they were trying to create another story. I think so, I really do I it's obvious it seems almost obvious to me now that that's what happened but I don't, you know it's if you see it with enough details it really looks like we were played and that's that's where I'm at, I really think. So I was thinking to myself, why would all these authorities be so conscientious about answering Christine. You see. But I think that's all their interest, it was in their interest to, to answer her, because they wanted to create as many stories as possible. And to promote, create the stories but also to encourage to allow multiple stories to be created by others. Absolutely I fully agree with that that's exactly what I also did myself, create the story. Exactly. So, so decently trained doctors should have realized that they shouldn't have made their minds up very quickly, when there was so much going on at the same time, particularly when everybody, including the doctors were psychologically tortured, because they're all human beings. So, and I just want to hear that. So, so one of their tactics was to fanfare by creating multiple stories, and by allowing multiple stories to be created. Very interesting isn't it. Yep. So you get complete subjugation of the human species, because that's what some human beings do they run around when they're feeling afraid and create stories in their minds to explain what's going on. And this was all allowed. Apart from some of course, I just wanted to ask you about security at airports following 911. I always thought that was nonsense. I remember standing in the queue. Soon in early in 2002, yes, in 2002 it must have been. And I said to the guy behind me. I said, isn't this nonsense. Are we going to have to put up with this for forever more, all because we're a bit afraid of the terrorists, you know which were never there in my opinion, you remember the shoe. Absolutely. Oh no, absolutely. It's incremental though right. That's also. That's also why I say that this is a five to 10 year plan that they are converting us slowly to giving up everything and it's not going to happen all at once. It really ruined air travel. Yep. For me at least because I used to go with thin air to Sweden, and they used to serve cognac and goodness. It was really great experience up to 911 and then all of a sudden, that was the end of that we had this nonsense that the airport, and everybody accepted it. I remember the guy's answer was, well, better to be safe than sorry. I said no I don't agree. Nope, that's the same. That's the same. It's the same thing they use here better safe than sorry we better lock down the schools for the sake of it. Because if we don't, and it ends up to be a desire. I mean, Richard E. bright, one of the most outspoken people that has spoken in front of Congress several times in November of 2020 said, or in September of 2020 said that if we open the universities in America it's going to be a mass murder. I'll give you another interesting tidbit of of anecdotal information in early 2022 three scientists were asked to speak in front of a Senate select committee about regulation of gain of function research in viruses. One of them was the aforementioned Richard E. bright, another one is a guy I can't recall and the third one was a guy by the name of s felt who works at the media lab at MIT. And the reason why that's interesting is because s felt is the inventor of two extremely important biotechnologies one is directed evolution in bacteriophage libraries. And the other one is gene drives using Casper Chris night, Chris. Chris for Casper, sorry Chris for Casper and gene drives are a way of creating a hyper dominant genetic hopping gene, which you can extinct to species with or modify a species with very quickly. And it is a very dangerous potentially much more dangerous than any nuclear bomb in a biological way. And you can even ask s felt himself. him testify about the dangers of gain-of-function virology research in chimeric viruses, knowing full well that both his phage-directed evolution techniques and his gene drive techniques are the two most dangerous, high potential destructive biological technologies in existence, and they had him testify about gain-of-function research in viruses. Yeah, so Jonathan, you've mentioned the Cold War, exactly the same as we've been experiencing for the last three years, the nonsense, and you're absolutely right. Once they, if they have enough time to let the story propagate, like five years, ten years, it embeds, early on you can get rid of it, but once it's there, and it's been there some time, like you know security at airports, you can have a job to get rid of all that now, especially with the young people, because I've never known anything else. But also that you mentioned, so there was the terrorists, you know, and now the viruses. So we need to educate people about the possibility that human beings can be manipulated by these psychological operations, and we need to be looking out for them all the time. I mean it's not my idea, but lots of people characterise this as a dark age right now, and we would never know it. Most of us don't even know. And last question Jonathan, can I ask you, would you be, would you like to be introduced to some people who you may not be in contact with? I know you're in contact with quite a few people. I would love to be in contact with anybody you think needs me to amplify, or I could help in any way. Sorry I didn't catch up, your microphone's a bit dodgy. Yeah, I don't know why that is. But I would really like to be put in contact with anybody that you think I could help, or I could work together to to get these kinds of messages out. I think the very last question Jonathan, because this is important, when did you finally put it together like you have tonight? And how long have you been moving towards what you said tonight? I think I basically put it together, I think I basically put it together about a week before I presented it to Bobby in an email. And when was that? A month ago, whenever that, let me, when that, I don't know when that podcast was, let me look for a second, but it was... So if we think of this as a variation on 9-11 and the terrorists, you know the war on terror, when you don't declare war on... It wasn't very long ago, really like October, middle October is when I started to really think that the clone was the story, and that the clone was the only thing we ever had to worry about, and that a natural virus could never do this. That's really where I got. And that was the middle of October, brilliant. Yeah, before that I didn't, I didn't get there, yeah. All right, let's go. All right, thank you very much. For coming on. Yep, thanks guys. Wow, wow, wow. That was pretty hardcore. Oh, I got to stop that stream, don't I? Sorry guys. Wow, I forgot about that. I'm online still. That's hilarious. I forgot to say good night. Thank you very much for joining me guys. I know that I wasn't really paying attention to you, but I'm happy that you joined me and happy to get it on recording. So this will be up and we can talk about it tomorrow, but I got to go get something to drink and something to eat and find a bathroom. So thank you very much for joining me. I'll see you guys soon.