Where are you right now? San Francisco? No, actually, I used to live in the Bay Area. I live in the upper peninsula of Michigan now, which is actually directly north of Wisconsin. Lakes appears to the north and Canada is right on the other side. Okay, fantastic. I think Charles has arrived. I'm moving him up as a speaker. He just has to accept it and then we can get started. I'm very excited. Let's see. Should have gotten the invite and now all Charles has to do is accept it and then move up as a speaker. And then we can get started. Sent him another invite again, invite to speak. Charles, if you can hear us, you have an invite now. You just need to accept it and then you will be moved up on stage as a speaker. Invite him to speak again. Charles, if you can hear us in your app, when I sent you this invite at the bottom, you should see a request to speak. And if you accept that, it will move you up to the stage. You can also try to make a request to speak. And if I see it in the requests, I can accept it and it will move you up. Charles just texted me. He says that he cannot see the invite. Okay, well then ask him to make a request to speak. Yeah, I can hear you. Yes, sir. Oh, perfect. It worked. Fantastic. Thanks for joining us, Charles. Oh, not a problem. I'm excited. All right, very good. Well, let's dive right into it.
The first thing I would like to do is tell everyone here what this is about. I want to talk with you guys about the origin of COVID-19, what your knowledge is, what your background is, and then ask you a couple of questions. I also then want to move to what's going to happen in the future with genetic engineering of viruses and things like that. So maybe we start with just introducing you. Andrew, can you introduce yourself to the audience?
Sure. I'll try to make it as short as possible, even though I have a long, strange history for a scientist. So I started off my career in the U.S. military. I enlisted right after 9-11 and served as an infantryman, served two combat tours, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, where I did counterterrorism work actually in Central America and also did narcotics and addiction, so a little bit different there. After coming out of the military, I earned degrees in psychology. That was my undergrad. I switched to engineering for my master's degree, which was a lot of work. I also have a master's minor in geographic information systems. I was going to work in the private sector, and I was talked into accepting a full research fellowship for the Department of Homeland Security to earn a Ph.D. in public health, emerging infectious diseases, which is a subdivision of environmental health, but for all practical purposes, it's epidemiology. I really kick butt, I guess, at my dissertation and Ph.D. program. I knocked it out in two and a half years, which is pretty much unheard of. They were paying me about $140,000 a year salary as a research fellow, as a Ph.D. student. So this is the ultimate offer as a Ph.D. student. And they were basically grooming me to be an Anthony Fauci type of national security. I started spending about a week per month on average in Washington, D.C., meeting with Alphabet Soup of agencies where I became an expert in biowarfare, bioterrorism, and I was presenting my work, which was becoming an expert at poisoning people, actually, and then trying to figure out how to mitigate that kind of thing. So when I finished my Ph.D., I was offered positions at all the Alphabet Soup of agencies, and my advisors pretty much told me, you know, if I wanted to work at a specific agency in the government, they could get me in there. I accepted a top secret position at Sandia National Laboratories, which is where they primarily make nuclear weapons out in the desert near Albuquerque. But once again, I worked on public health, advanced simulation and modeling, and I also completed a postdoc, or I'd call it more continuing education at MIT and complex systems, where we used supercomputers to basically wargame and predict the consequences, all sorts of what we lovingly referred to as heinous shit. Well, I got sick of working in the classified space, and I applied to a job at a place called EcoHealth Alliance. I was hired right away. As a senior scientist, I took over a failing department, and I brought in about $6 million in Department of Defense spending to build machine learning and basically artificial intelligence platforms to predict and detect emerging infectious diseases, which is known as biosurveillance. Well, be careful with what you wish for, I guess, in life. I ended up basically ended up working on the same kinds of things at EcoHealth Alliance, which I was doing on the classified side for the US government. But due to my success, I was promoted to an executive as a vice president at EcoHealth. And once I was promoted, I saw all sorts of craziness, which I couldn't really believe. But I went along with it, unfortunately. I actually reviewed the gain of function SARS-CoV-2 COVID proposal when I first started at EcoHealth. And when I left EcoHealth, I was really happy. I had a fallout with my old boss, Dr. Peter Daszak. He lied about a number of things. I found him to be a dishonorable person. And where my story gets crazy is I went on to be a tenured professor as a tech executive, then fast forward to late fall 2019, and I find out about the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 before they're talking about the news, because this is my field of expertise. I'm always looking for these kind of things. And over the course of 2020, every time the government opens its mouth, I know that they're lying about something. I began to investigate. I kept all my documents from my time at EcoHealth Alliance. And fast forward to 2021, I started feeding all my information to a big name journalist where I believe the Department of Defense, the FBI, and the CIA have been eavesdropping on my phone calls with these journalists, namely Alex Berenson. And then I'm targeted and harassed like you couldn't believe. And that goes on for about a year. And then I publish a book, which I just arrived at my house today, the first copies, The Truth About Wuhan, How I Discovered the Biggest Lion in History, and I'm sure you'll have a ton of questions and I'll shut up because I think that's too long of an intro as it is.
Well, thank you, Andrew, for the intro and your book, which deals with what you have learned in your time at EcoHealth Alliance and what your understanding is of gain of function research, which, you know, many scientists now believe led to the creation of COVID-19. But let's talk to Charles for a moment. Charles, and do me a favor, Andrew, when you are not speaking, just mute yourself. And Charles, can you please introduce yourself?
Yes. My name is Charles Rixey. And like Andrew, I was formerly in the military in the United States. And in particular, I was in the Marine Corps and my job was what is called in NATO countries, CBRN, which is basically weapons to mass destruction defense. And so I did that for 15 years. And then I got out in 2018 and I was actually in school for my NBA whenever the pandemic started. And I actually haven't finished. I stopped. I actually got sick in the in early March of 2020. And I only had two classes left to finish my degree. And I basically ever since I I've stopped working and stopped going to school. And I've literally been working at uncovering the origin the entire time. And about two years ago, I joined the online group drastic, which basically formed for a bunch of scientists and researchers who are working here on Twitter. And literally ever since we've been investigating the origin. And so I've got I've got a background in WMD. I'm now very familiar with gain to function research and really all we do all day is try to try to figure out what happened.
Yeah. So I would like to explain to the audience really quickly what this gain of function means. My understanding of it is and correct me if I'm wrong. You're trying to virus that is, let's say, an animal. And you're trying to inject it in humanized mice to see if you can get it to infect them, that they infect each other. And gain of function is literally making a virus infect humans. Is that right, in a nutshell?
Well, it could… there's there's a set of six or seven different things that you can are different ways that you can make a virus or bacteria. Just any pathogen become better able to infect humans or more stable in a in different environments or more virulence and more more dangerous if you actually get infected. But any one of those any time you're doing an experiment with something that can cause more harm to a human than before, anything like that would be considered gain of function.
Yes. So that was my understanding of it. And you can take a virus. You can try and modify it by slicing it up with genetic engineering tools that are available today in these modern labs. And you can try and combine one virus with another or add a different function. It's almost like coding a computer virus. I mean, we're still early days in this technology. But what's possible today is you can basically modify a virus to achieve this gain of function to make it either more lethal or more transmissible or just transmissible to humans. Would you say that in a nutshell, that's correct?
Yes. And I've seen where you've mentioned the like the biological weapons convention. And that's exactly right. Is that yes, pretty much anything like that would be considered gain of function and any gain of function that has no potential benefit for research or anything else is by definition a violation of the biological weapons convention. Yes. And I've pinned a screenshot of the provisions of the biological weapons convention to a tweet in my timeline so you can just scroll down and see it. I flagged a couple of items in red. And I want to get to that. I want to talk about that, because to me, you know, gain of function and covert 19 is exactly what is described in that convention as something that shouldn't be done, shouldn't be happening. And I want to dive into that. But Andrew, back to your role. So just for people to understand EcoHealth Alliance is an organization that worked with scientists in the Wuhan lab in China.
EcoHealth Alliance employs their own scientists, of course, and partners with numerous scientists, and it was given funding by the US government to do this game of functions research in the Wuhan lab in China.
Can you tell us a little bit more about what your understanding is what EcoHealth has actually done in the Wuhan lab in China?
Absolutely. And actually, the story starts before the involvement of the Wuhan Institute of Virology specifically. So the history of this is that EcoHealth Alliance received a lot of funding from what's called the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, or USAID, it's pronounced. And what EcoHealth Alliance was doing, they're out hunting around the planet for different types of viruses. And if you can imagine, you know, you look at the globe, and you have three different companies or organizations. The University of California Davis, MetaBiota, and EcoHealth Alliance, they were carving the planet up into two different chunks of which they were responsible for. And then from each one of those countries in which they were responsible for, they'd typically go out and look for two or three different types of viruses, namely coronaviruses. So to do the gain of function work later on in history, it actually begins with the samples they start collecting from this PREDICT program in 2008-2009. And what happens in the PREDICT program is that Dr. Peter Daszak in EcoHealth Alliance forms a relationship with China, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and the Chinese CDC, and another other Communist Party officials and academics in China, or scientists or government scientists. And through that program PREDICT, Shi Zhengli, who's known as the Batwoman in China, is introduced to Dr. Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina. And then through this partnership under USAID PREDICT, they decide to put forward the gain of function proposal to the National Institute of Health, National Institute for Allergens and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, which is my section of NIH. That's the one that Dr. Anthony Fauci is in charge of. And they actually straight up propose this gain of function research via what's called serial passage, which was not discussed when you guys were talking about gain of function. I'll come back to that here in a second. But they basically proposed this gain of function work in such, and it's written so eloquently by Dr. Dask that you can't really tell that it's gain of function. So you avoid the specific term gain of function, but it's actually there in sort of eloquent scientific language. And that proposal is funded in 2013. A number of interesting things happen with that proposal. And basically without that work, without the USAID PREDICT program, you wouldn't have the relationships in place to start doing this gain of function work. And when this proposal, the understanding the risk of bat coronavirus emergence is submitted to NIH, a domestic ban on gain of function goes into place, which is sort of pushed by the White House, the Obama administration. So all these things are happening simultaneously. But basically, they find a way to outsource the research outside the control of the United States domestically to do the work. Yeah, but just to clarify, when they made their proposals to Anthony Fauci and his government departments, they were understanding what this funding was for. I mean, Anthony Fauci was himself a scientist. When he reads a proposal like that, he understands that this is gain of function research, right?
Oh, absolutely. And so you look at it from my personal perspective. So this is my field. Gain of function has been a hot debate ever since ferrets started dying from H1N1. This is, you know, 50% of the scientists in my field agree with it, and 50% of the scientists in the field disagree with it. And I've always been in that camp. But that doesn't mean that we, at least at one time in history, wouldn't have, I guess, positive or constructive discourse and arguments of debate. That percentage would have shifted now, because we've seen what gain of function has done with COVID-19. So do you still think it's 50-50? Oh, absolutely not. I think people see the danger of this now. And there's two points when we come back. So it's important that the audience understands serial passage. So serial passage is basically, you can create sort of virus or bacterial slurries and petri dishes. And you can advance this from one dish to the next with slightly different animal tissues in it or different cells, mammal cells, typically. And that's one way of making what's called a live attenuated vaccine, which might have been the case here with SARS-CoV-2. But that is the oldest gain of function technique that existed before any of this CRISPR technology or splicing technology. So that's an important thing to know. And in terms of this proposal being gain of function, so when I was hired in 2014 at EcoHealth Alliance in the fall, and I was asked to review this proposal, one had already been submitted. So I don't really know why they're asking me to review it, which is interesting. But when I reviewed this, there was no question in my mind that this was gain of function. And in fact, the executives at EcoHealth Alliance, we discuss gain of function work all the time, because we have two of our scientists engaged in that type of work, mainly Dr. Kevin Allavall, and the other one was Dr. John Epstein, not so much directly as Kevin. And then another scientist who has split his time between Columbia University and EcoHealth Alliance, and that's Dr. Simon Anthony. So this work was going on, and we were all aware of it. And we actually, you know, I was actually proud for Kevin at the time, because he received, you know, a lot of money to do this work. And that's always a big deal in science in the soft money world, because we're trying to get big contracts of money so we can keep laboratories and make bigger names for ourselves. You know, I think differently about that now. As you know, to your last question, so where does the scientific community sit now on gain of function? Well, I think it's politically polarized, at least among the stupid scientists. It shouldn't be. And the simple way that I explain this to people, why gain of function is a stupid idea, is in the context of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID, is that they advanced this disease, 100, maybe 200,000 years into the future by using these laboratory techniques. And if you look at it from the infectious disease evolutionary ecology perspective, they have species of animals basically coming into contact with each other through the engineering of this, which would probably never have contact in the real world.
So gain of function is basically also an acceleration of evolution. What we're seeing now in nature, the virus, because it's infecting millions of people, has this dish of humans to mutate and put out all these different variants and all that. So basically what gain of function does, it allows you to play God and evolve a virus, you know, like you said, 200,000 years forward.
Correct. And you can do it in a relatively short amount of time, a matter of weeks, months. It depends how many people are working in your laboratory and how fast you're working with a lot of this technology. And the premise for doing this, though, I think is even more naive. So the idea is in the way that we pitch this at EcoHealth Alliance to our customers or our partners or investors, the people that we're trying to get money from, was that by doing this gain of function work, we can then make what's known as medical countermeasures, that's a Department of Defense term actually, vaccines, drugs, treatments, to get ahead of this nasty thing that we just developed in the laboratory. Well, if the agent won't naturally evolve that way, or it takes 100,000 years, 200,000 years, heck, 10,000 years for this agent to naturally evolve that way, why are we doing this gain of function work in the first place, and then spending all this money and then trying to develop medical countermeasures? And there's a very sinister answer for that, which I think we'll get to later in this conversation, but logically, it just doesn't make sense.
Well, could one explanation be that there is an arms race in bioweapons, just like in other weapons, and that every country is trying to create vaccines or antidotes for potential future bioweapons that other countries may unleash?
Well, you just nailed it and you went right there. So that's exactly what's happening. There's a biological or biotechnical arms race happening, and it's because the bioweapons convention is not enforceable, basically. So because we have this weak international bioweapons convention, it's not enforceable. All the other, I guess, laboratories or international powers that be are trying to get ahead in this field. The problem is, my personal opinion is that unless you have really good intelligence of what's happening in those laboratories, and I mean, excellent intelligence, like you're able to read the laboratory technician's notes every day, you have no clue what they're actually engineering. So the idea that you're going to build a countermeasure on your side that's going to work specifically for the thing that they're developing is naive. The reason why mRNA was actually invented, though, is to get around that problem. So what I never really understood, the United States and China are competing militarily, right? They must also be competing in the bioweapon space. They are peer competitors. They are enemies, right? How did it come that the United States and China were cooperating with this research in the Wuhan lab? Can you explain that?
Absolutely. So I'll jump on this quick. So my take on this is very simple, and this is because I worked in the American sort of classified side of this. So this is the WIV, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is known to be a bioweapons laboratory by people like Charles and myself. This is well known. They have Chinese Communist Party officials working in that laboratory. And if you know that this laboratory is making bioweapons, you want to be able to get your people in there to see what's going on. So a couple of weird things happen. So one, Dr. Peter Daszak asks me if he should work with the CIA. Well, I'm an employee at EcoHealth Alliance. And then over the next two months, he tells me that the relationship is with the CIA is progressing. So I take that to mean that he was collecting intelligence for the U.S. government on that laboratory. It would also make sense for the U.S. government trying to get other spies or people into that laboratory. And I believe the contract with the Wuhan Institute of Virology for five or six hundred thousand dollars, initially, whatever it was, was just a mechanism for the U.S. government to get our scientists, our people into that laboratory to collect intelligence in exchange for advanced bioweapons technology. So, you know, China doesn't need six hundred thousand dollars of money from the United States government, which they lent to us. Right. I mean, it's sort of laughable when you think about it. But the thing that they did need was our our superior biotechnology. So I think we actually traded them advanced biotech for access to their laboratory.
That's quite an interesting theory. Charles, would you agree with that?
One hundred percent. And I think that that's just like just like you at the very beginning of this. It made no sense why we would share this technology with with China, because we I used to do modeling of potential bio attacks. And we we already had all of the labs and all the nuclear reactors and any sort of potential threat that was in the WMD space. And we were already monitoring that on the classified and unclassified side. So there was no way that we didn't know that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had at the time the only BSL-4 lab in China. So it's it's comical to think otherwise. So I think he's absolutely right. And I think that the the DEFUSE proposal that went to DARPA was a continuation of that research, which is if you don't know that I am the person to whom those documents were given to leak. So I'm very familiar with with the background of that proposal.
Well, so right now, yes, they still they still pay my disability, but we'll see what happens.
So I've been following this story from the very beginning. Literally, I made tweets even before the outbreak warning about genetic editing, how CRISPR technology can be used to edit viruses and combine viruses and how one day we may end up with an Ebola that has the transmission capability of an influenza virus. And you could literally wipe out 70 to 80 percent of the world's population. Like I've been following this whole thing from day one. And to me, on my right radar, it was always one of the riskiest fields of science up there with A.I. and of course, nuclear weapons. And now that this happened, that we had, you know, the situation, I found it first of all stunning that the Chinese were working together with U.S. scientists in a U.S.-funded gain of function project. And then after, you know, the virus escaped the lab, they have both been working on covering it up, the Chinese as well as the U.S. even going as far as calling this the China virus and trying to blame China for it. I remember these speeches that Trump gave back in the day. And they must have had full knowledge that they were involved in actually creating this thing. But they were trying to blame the whole thing on China. Who do you think ultimately is responsible here? If the U.S. government didn't fund this gain of function research, do you think this whole situation with COVID-19 would even have happened? Or what is your view on this? Like who is ultimately responsible for this virus?
Okay. Well, so one thing I really want to say first is that there's this, I think there's this big assumption that President Trump was aware of everything that was going on, because the gain of function ban itself was the repeal process started. That decision was made before Trump had actually become president. And so, and then-
That's an important part. I just want to hop in. That's a really important thing for the audience to know, that President Obama starts the repeal process of that about two weeks before he exits office and Trump takes over. Sorry to interrupt you, Charles.
Yeah. So basically, and Trump didn't appoint a new presidential science advisor for another 18 months. So there was a period of time during which they restarted gain of function work that Anthony Fauci was basically working without any supervision. And he had rewritten the rules. So that way, anything that he said was part of vaccine work would just be completely passed over. So- So are you saying there is a real possibility that when Trump gave these speeches and was blaming China for it, that he was kept in the dark by his own people, by his intelligence services about the involvement of the US government in this gain of function research? Do you think he didn't know about it? I don't think that. I know that for a fact. In fact, I postulated that two years ago. And then last fall, when I spoke with congressional investigators in person, they confirmed that that was correct, that Anthony Fauci had worked with Kelvin Droegemeier, the new presidential science advisor, to keep much of the information about what was going on or what had been going on from Trump's administration. In fact, Trump himself, in an interview on Australian TV with Sherry Markson, people didn't realize it, but he actually answered that question himself and said, Yeah, we weren't told about most of this stuff.
Wow. So Anthony Fauci was basically running this entire show in the background when Trump came in. Trump was kept in the dark about what happened in Wuhan. And Anthony Fauci has basically been in charge also of everything that happened since the virus did make it into the public and has basically worked together with his scientists, many of whom he is funding to create this cover story that this is a natural virus, that this could not have come out of a lab. Is that right?
I think that's partially true. And the reason why it's partially true is that what everyone needs to realize is that Dr. Anthony Fauci is a sub-agency director for the National Institutes of Health. He does not have the government control power reach to get into the other agencies that would be required to pull off this kind of charade. So it's my firm belief that the US intelligence community played a large role behind the scenes from the Department of Defense, probably not so much the CIA, but maybe parts of the FBI and definitely the Department of Homeland Security to pull off this big farce.
Yeah, I just wanted to say that that's what I was about to say is that it wasn't just him. This was intelligence agencies and others that had been working on this. They were basically working together to cover this up. But from the emails that we know today that have been uncovered, that had to be disclosed, we know that Fauci very early on has emailed a couple of scientists and saying, hey, we need to write something here. We need to put something out that this is not coming from the lab.
That's correct. I mean, I think he was put as the point man to be in front of the cameras and say the right things to deflect blame from the United States, and also to make this appear as if it had a natural origin. And one of the things that I stress to people over and over again, one, since when do we trust any data or information that is released to us that is of a technical or scientific nature from the Chinese? We never do. But for some reason, in the case of this emerging infectious disease outbreak, which turns into a pandemic, we do. And two, when do we ever trust the Chinese on anything diplomatic or security related? So here all of a sudden, the US government, Dr. Anthony Fauci, is just spoon feeding everything that the Chinese is giving us back out to other scientists to basically run interference to actually prevent a objective investigation into the origin from ever taking place. So to me, when someone is doing that, is involved in an operation to cover something up, they themselves feel they have a responsibility that they need to cover. Otherwise, he wouldn't have done that.
Oh, absolutely. I don't disagree with you. I'm just pointing out, I think Charles was making the point that Dr. Anthony Fauci alone doesn't have the power or the reach inside the United States government to orchestrate a big psychological operation. I don't see that to be the case. I do think he was instrumental in his position and the power dynamic of his position to basically control the scientific narrative, get the publications going, get the journals aligned, and get the scientists aligned. I think that was his role. Yeah, but his role was relatively simple because he had all these relationships with all these scientists that received funding from him and his departments. He could easily sway them to come together. I remember there was this famous letter that was released by a number of scientists saying, nah, this has to be from nature. This cannot be from a lab. And that was all literally orchestrated by Fauci. Would you agree with that or not? No, I would. Actually, Dr. Peter Daszak did a lot of the orchestration of that letter. The way that this typically works, and I'm speaking here from me probably admitting my own past faults and doing this kind of thing because Dr. Daszak and myself were actually very good at it. So what you put in an email, if you know that it could be FOIA'd or could be retrieved for a lawsuit, something especially as sensitive as this, you have to remember, the scientists know that before they start writing these emails. So whatever they put in the email is going to be, it's written with the assumption that someone's going to read it someday. What you really do is you hang, you know, before you write the emails, you call and talk to these persons on the phone real quick. And you're probably even careful about what you say on the phone. And then, you know, it's what you don't say in the email. And you have to sort of read between the lines. And that makes the investigation sort of difficult because everyone's going to look to these emails, but that's just not reality. And, you know, for your audience members that worked a corporate or government job before, I'm sure they all know what I'm talking about.
Well, it could be a chicken or egg argument because Dr. Daszak, you know, who knows who learned first about the emerging infectious disease outbreak happening in China, whether it was Dr. Fauci or Dr. Daszak, maybe they learned at the same time. But instinctually, I think they would both go into cover up mode. Yeah, independently.
And then, you know, China, of course, has done their part. They made, you know, all kinds of data disappear. They kind of, you know, worked on their own cover up story. Why do you think China was so eager to cover this up? Charles, you want to take that one?
Yes. So, China, nobody wants to take responsibility for violating the Biological Weapons Convention, even though it's not, even though it's basically unenforceable, no one wants to be liable for what happens with a pandemic, above all. And so, to answer your earlier question, I would say that China used our technology and our methods that have been invented by the United States to create this virus with some participation from scientists from around the world. And the truth is that both countries are at fault. If the US would, the US probably, the pandemic probably wouldn't have happened if either side had not engaged with each other. And so both of them have a, they both want to cover it up, but they also don't want to close off avenues to blame each other, if necessary. Yeah. I mean, the damages and the trillions of dollars, millions of deaths, obviously, neither the US nor China wants to take any responsibility for that. But, you know, you just made a very valid point. They are both responsible because both have contributed, you know, their part to making this happen, right?
Yes, absolutely. And I think that, I don't know exactly what it's going to take to truly solve this problem. But the reality is, is that we have to, because if we don't, like, lay out for the public across the world what happened, then this biological warfare, Cold War or active war, is going to continue to accelerate. And I can assure you that whatever has happened now, we do not want to see what happens next if no one is held accountable for that.
And that is exactly the danger, isn't it? Because if there is no real public debate, if you don't have a media that investigates and asks the right questions, if you don't have, you know, the political independent investigations as well, then you don't really get any answers, which means in the background everything just goes forward as usual, whereas what we really need is a complete global ban of this type of development, correct?
Well, I don't agree with that entirely. So I think it needs to be more limited in focus. So live attend away vaccines, which is a type of gain of function, they work if you don't advance the functionality on the ecological evolutionary timeline too far into the future. So if you do keep it within one step or within that you keep the genetics fairly similar to what is circulating naturally, that is actually a good thing. I've probably had, if I look at my vaccination card, I think I've had vaccinations against 38 different diseases. And I know because Charles, his work, he probably has a similar plush or full vaccination card history or record. So these are not all bad. The problem really lies when you start doing this gain of function work where you're pushing things, you know, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 years in the future, and you're mixing species of animals, which would never come into contact with nature because it's just logically implausible that these things would ever actually meet face to face. Like John Stewart said, you know, did the penguin kiss the turtle? I mean, that kind of thing doesn't happen in real life. Yeah, but you both agree that the United States, because of the gain of function research at the Wuhan lab has a responsibility for this COVID-19 outbreak, correct?
Absolutely. Both countries have a responsibility. I think the United States, the United States portion of the responsibility is more egregious because everyone has been trained the, you know, if we're training the Chinese in these things, we're obviously, our country is further along in our thought process, our logic, our technical ability. It's really our responsibility to be good stewards of this type of research. And then on top of it, just the systematic failures of the risk mitigate, bio risk management process. I mean, it's just atrocious. And I observed those first hand while I worked at EcoHealth Alliance, and I discussed that in my book. All right, so I have another question now. If I were the leader of North Korea, and I could somehow arrange a meeting with you, and I could somehow convince you to come and work for me, how much money would you need to build a lab where you can recreate what was done in Wuhan or where you could create new viruses of the sort? How much would this be? Well, it depends how much risk you're willing to accept in your bio, biosafety, biosecurity protocols and facilities. So you can actually do this, probably you can start doing it for 10 to $20,000 on the really cheap side, but that would be with a lot of risk to your personnel of an escape. To actually do this properly, you'd probably want, if I were going to draft a budget for this, probably $3 to $4 million in capital cost to get started for something small plus your operational budget would be another million per year.
So at the cost of a single missile, I could fund the creation of a bio weapon that can kill billions of people. Is that right?
Absolutely. The thing that's actually more difficult to obtain is the scientific expertise, knowledge and know-how, and that's why the Chinese wanted to work with the United States. You can go buy CRISPR kits on Amazon right now and become a gene jockey in your garage. They actually, in the United States, we've had bioterroristic, domestic bioterroristic discussions around the biohacker in his garage who makes a mistake. Now, the likelihood that they're going to be able to perform, gain a function work on something to make it so lethal, transmissible and sustainable in the environment is pretty low because they don't have that training. So there's a high opportunity cost to obtain the education necessary to actually effectively make a bio weapon.
So my question is this, right? Now that this happened, and literally every intelligence agency of any capable country will now understand what the origin of COVID-19 was, you know, these countries are all going to invest now and try and replicate that and have these technologies and look for the talent that can help them create these weapons. Don't you agree that this is sparking a new bio weapon arms race?
Yes. And the scary part is, is that it's actually, it's hard to gain the knowledge necessary to know how to do this, but it's actually a lot cheaper than in like with the nuclear weapons. With nuclear weapons, there's at least this hurdle of the cost of enriching in your uranium to get to the point where you could do a nuclear weapon was so immense that it created this sort of bar that very few countries could go beyond. But in this case, if you have the scientists necessary, you can pay scientists off for a lot less than you could, because there's no enriching uranium that you have to do.
So doing this research in universities now, wasn't there a story recently about a university having accomplished the most lethal version of the COVID virus?
Well, that was slightly exaggerated. It wasn't, it was actually less lethal than COVID, but they were referring to lethality in mice. But the real key to that, and what's ironic is three days after that, there was another paper published by a friend of ours, Alex Washburne, and some fellow authors. And so basically what that showed is that SARS-CoV-2 had the same chimeric construction as that Boston virus or as other viruses that they've been working with making chimeras out. What I've read here, Charles, and correct me if I'm wrong, all they have done is literally take the closest to the original COVID virus and combine it with the basically high retransmissible version that we have today. And that combination led to 80% fatality in the humanized mice that they've tested it on. Is that right? Right. But the lethality isn't transferred exactly over. But the bottom line is that they basically combined the Omicron spike, which has recently surpassed measles to become the most infectious virus in history of humanity. And they've combined those parts of it with they basically mixed the lethality of the first virus with that one. And yes, that's incredibly dangerous, incredibly stupid and completely unnecessary. So if professors can do that in the university labs with some students, what stops a foreign government that isn't friendly to the United States or the rest of the world to find someone like that and hire them and get them to work on something that is even more lethal? I mean, theoretically, you could take the spike framework from Omicron and merge it with Ebola. What's stopping you from doing that? Actually, absolutely nothing. And this is, you know, when people talk about the bio labs in Ukraine, and that's been a hot button issue, I guess, for the past six or seven months. The program behind that is called well, the agency that runs is a sub agency, the Department of Defense called the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. And they have a program underneath that called the Cooperative Biological Engagement Program. And these programs started really at the fall of the Soviet Union, because in the US government, people like Charles and I were asking the question, well, OK, all these former Soviet republics now have independence. What are they going to happen with these nukes and these nuke labs and these biological and chemical weapon labs that the Soviets used to have in places like Ukraine? So the idea was that the US government would start building positive relationships with these laboratories and funding work there. So one, we can collect intelligence on their biosafety and biosecurity, the capabilities of that laboratory, then also have a positive relationship so they don't turn around and do something that ferries back to us. Well, I think, you know, with with recent history, it highlights the sort of the weaknesses of that type of program. So unless you have someone from, you know, at least from the United because I realize this is an international audience. But from the United States perspective, unless we have somebody in that laboratory working with them on a daily basis, how do you know what they're really up to? And that was actually one of my concerns that I raised as an executive at EcoHealth Alliance on our work that we were doing with these foreign laboratories. But isn't there another reason why the United States doesn't want to do this in their own labs? Because they are signatories to a number of treaties, including own laws in the United States that prohibit this kind of stuff. Isn't it similar to what they did with Guantanamo, where they just go into different jurisdictions where they can hold prisoners indefinitely, something that wasn't possible in the United States or with the dark sides that they had, they tortured people. They also outsource outsource that to other countries because they knew legally they could not do that in the United States. Isn't the same with these bio labs that they are funding internationally that they can do the kind of bio weapon research there that they are not permitted to do at home?
Absolutely. And in fact, that's why I have no doubt that that's part of it. And just imagine that's also, I can almost guarantee that that's what's happened with all of the all the censorship and everything on social media, which is assuming that the United States government and other governments are honest with their citizens, which obviously is probably not a good assumption. Just know that they still have the five eyes agreements and things where they share intelligence. And so they're basically they're basically using the intelligence agencies to help censor things on social media because there's no way that Twitter was just doing that by themselves. Which is not. No, I mean, absolutely. There's a bigger effort from what some people call the deep state to make sure that topics like this are not really getting any traction in the public domain. Right. And when we talk about intelligence agencies, what I found quite irritating is when Biden got into office, he basically gave this big speech where he said, you know, I'm going to ask my intelligence agencies to investigate the origin of covid. I want to have the answers. And then a couple of months later, he came back and said, oh, yeah, they told me we will never know. Isn't that very convenient? Right. So what I need to say, what I need to say is that on August 27th, when when the when that was published, I already knew because I've been watching and waiting to see what would happen. I already knew about the diffuse proposal and we didn't release it for another month, but I already knew about it. And so I knew on the day that that report was published that the United States intelligence community was lying because I knew that the the diffuse proposal. That pointed directly at EcoHealth Alliance and are you and our government was in their possession. It had been found on their servers and they were lying directly to the American people about it. I mean, that is indisputable proof. I mean, Fauci was lying under oath in the Senate, right, when he was asked the questions about the funding of gain of function by Rand Paul. And he yes, he was lying. He was lying to the American people. And it's a fact. Well, it's been perpetual. And so the attorney that I work with, his name is Tom Renz. We've actually brought a dangerous product lawsuit for the creation of SARS-CoV-2 against Columbia University. I should say Ian Lipkin, who works at Columbia University, EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Peter Daszak, his wife. And I think there's someone else that I'm forgetting. But the point of that lawsuit is to actually get discovery on all the different people that were involved that need to provide testimony under oath related to the creation of this. I mean, I like to point out to people, I'm the only scientist involved in this whole thing that has done that. And that's pretty crazy to think about. I've read the filings that the lawyer Renz has made on your behalf. And, you know, to me, reading through that is just like, why are we not having this already now as a big investigation in either the House or the Senate? And don't they want to find out what exactly happened here and prevent something from happening, something like this from happening again in the future? Like, to me, it's so puzzling that, you know, all this time has passed and we're not even, especially in the media at the core of the question, who was behind this? I mean, the scientific consensus now is it came from a lab, but no one is asking the most important question. Who is responsible? You're absolutely right. And so Charles and I have become somewhat politically active on the side trying to get this story advanced, to make the investigation happen. And in the United States, at least politically, I've heard a couple of things which I believe to be true. One, before the most recent election, the Republicans wanted to push any investigation past the election because they were scared to run on the issue or make it an election issue because they didn't want the pharmaceutical companies to throw money against them. I think that was actually a terrible mistake politically in the United States because the candidates that did make this an issue, like DeSantis, for example, he's the governor of the state of Florida. He was reelected by a landslide. And all the people within the state of Florida who made this an issue, you know, they won by large margins in the election. So I think that was a political mistake by the Republicans. But, you know, they talk about it. And I used to be a Democrat when I was younger, a very conservative Democrat. And now as the party shifted, I'm a libertarian conservative type. And maybe that's just because I aged and I grew up. But regardless of that, we have the problem of the uniparty in the United States where the Democrats and the Republicans are not really representing the issues that I think most Americans want addressed. And there's candidates on both sides of the aisle saying that. I'm not sure how we're going to fix that. Well, isn't it also true that if there was any kind of admission of responsibility by the United States, that they are opening themselves up to remedy demands by other nations that have suffered enormous economic losses, you know, millions of deaths. I mean, isn't that part of the motive here? Why no one is really talking about this? I mean, of course it is. And just like, I know that you've had to deal with stupid legal crap with the U.S. Yes. So I totally understand. And your experience is a great example of the way that they will abuse the system. Like systems exist basically to be abused by people who can abuse them and let other people be victims. And so the above all, to me, this is a global crisis and it's being exploited by governments to exert control of their own people. But the answer to this global crisis can only be a global answer, because any focus on anything other than the victims and justice for everybody else is anything else is just politics. And I agree with everything Charles just said. So since this is an international audience, let me put this out there so everyone can take this to their elected officials or whatever your government structure might be. So if we were to have a new international bioweapons convention, why not have your countries hold as a bargaining chip or leverage in that negotiation over the United States and its allies and China amnesty for what happened in exchange for more stringent bioweapons convention terms which are enforceable? I mean, if the US were found to have responsibility, even if it's just partial responsibility, let's say the blame is 50-50 between the US and China, any kind of demand for reparations from other nations would bankrupt the United States. I mean, this is a multi-trillion dollar expenditure that countries had around the world with their economy shutting down and even worse, the amount of people that have died as a result of getting infected with this bioweapon or as a result of side effects stemming from the vaccines. Well, I don't agree with you entirely because there's some case law working against what you just proposed. So the liability issue if you were to go by case law is that the United States or China would probably not have any repercussions. And the reason why is that there was a laboratory leak of H1N1 from a Soviet laboratory which caused a pandemic with not nearly the severity of SARS-CoV-2 in the late 70s. So this is not the first time, and what I just told you is not widely known or discussed. There were no reparations, there were no lawsuits, and part of the reason why is that the scientific community and the intelligence people didn't really figure it out until about four years after it happened. Sort of like what we're seeing here. Clearly American victims, right? People who've lost their business because of lockdowns, people who've lost a loved one way too early because of COVID-19 infection. I mean, wouldn't they be able to use the US courts to sue the US government if they would be admitting that they have a responsibility for this? Well, we've already done that. That's the exact lawsuit we filed as a dangerous project lawsuit. So we've got four victims and their families who died from SARS-CoV-2 as the victims listed in our case where I'm the scientific expert. So that's happening to the extent that it's going to bankrupt the government. I mean, the other thing about the United States government is it has immunity from a lot of different types of lawsuits from its citizens. It's hard to believe that the politicians in this country are going to allow its own populace to bankrupt it. I mean, it's terrible, but what are we going to do? Pay more taxes to pay ourselves? It's just not feasible. Accountability means getting rid of everybody who is in power who allowed this to happen and or exploited it. And so that's really the way to achieve a measure of justice is never going to be about money. But it's going to be removing anybody that was a party to this from being able to do this again, because you've already seen all around the world that rather than admit that they were wrong. They want to continue to use their emergency powers ad infinitum, because to be honest, the alternative. This is existential for the people who are covering this up. This is existential, because they know that once the people find out the game is up. And so they're changing the alternative. We're doing our small contribution here for people to learn about this and understand this. And I recommend that everyone reads the book from Dr. Half the truth about one and educate themselves after they've been in the space and, you know, learned a few more things about this. But let's be honest, this is the biggest crime against humanity. What has happened here? Is there anything in history that even compares to the number of victims, the damage that was done? Like, is there anything else that even comes close? It makes you wonder. So I wonder what, you know, how much death and destruction Genghis Khan caused relative to the size of the global population. I don't know. What do you think, Charles? Is that a guess there? But the fact that this is even possible, like to talk about should tell you this time the unique of the situation this is. And so the reality is that there's nothing. This the answer to this and how we respond to this will be this will define what happens next, because we are at the cusp of a technological revolution. And if we enter that revolution with with with with going in the wrong direction on freedom, then then I don't want my children to grow up in a world that in where what we've done here is perpetuated. This has to be stopped because this is bigger than us. Yeah, I agree with you. And Charles and I have spoken about this a number of times. We're very much of the same opinion on all aspects of this. I don't want my children growing up in this kind of world. Charles and I were both military veterans. And, you know, we believe in living honorable lives, having values, having morals. That's what makes us Americans. And what has transpired is the most un-American, unpatriotic bunch of bullshit that I could could never imagine in my wildest dreams. Charles and I have lost a ton of money in this fight, trying to get the story out, trying to get the truth out. And when it comes down to it, this is actually an international fight against good and evil. And, you know, the weird part of globalization is that, you know, here I am talking to people from all over the world right now. And we're all fighting the same struggle against the global elite. And, you know, I used to laugh at Alex Jones when he was saying these kinds of things like four or five years ago. But it turns out he was right. I mean, we are in the struggle against the oldest, wealthiest families on this planet and the governments that they have all their tentacles in for our rights as humans. And we all need to stand up and fight and do our part. Yeah. And by the way, I'm going to open up the space in about 30 minutes to everyone. So if you want to ask questions to Andrew or Charles or myself, you know, think about what it is. You know, prepare yourself, make a request then and I will pull you up. You can ask your questions and then we have a more open debate. But I want to pivot to the next part of, you know, what I've said when I opened the space, which is the future of genetic engineering. And I think this is where it's getting really frightening, because as this technology advances, and let's just agree, it's still early days, it doesn't involve AI yet being programmed to basically create the most lethal variants of viruses and viruses and combining them literally in minutes in a lab, you know, without any human interaction. Once we reach that point, I mean, there's really no limit to what you can do with this technology can literally program viruses that kill humans like coders kill viruses that shut down operating systems and take over your computer even kill your computer like isn't that the most frightening part of this if we don't do something about this now. And if we don't have the media report about this truthfully and all of this being uncovered, then we will have no chance from stopping the ultimate disaster, a mass casualty event that could kill half or more of the earth population. I want to disagree with you, but I can't. I, so some of that is actually happening already so the machine learning artificial intelligence component of assembling viruses that that works actually been happening for a number of years. The point we're not to the point where that information is then put into some kind of robotic system to then actually do the engineering on the biologic material, at least, as far as I'm aware there's always new things happening in the classified space. The US government all the time but I haven't heard of that yet. And logically, right, there's no reason why we shouldn't have that in a couple of years you know I mean you can apply CRISPR through automated means to do the work for you. Just because it hasn't been built yet or we don't know about it yet doesn't mean it will not exist in five years. Well, there's actually a paper came out in February, I believe, where they took a, they took an AI, and they had it run through a bunch of chemicals. And basically, they gave it, they wanted to find something that was more dangerous than a nerve agent, a chemical nerve agent, and they ran, they had it run for six hours, and it figured out 40,000 chemical combinations that were more lethal than the most dangerous nerve agent compound that we have today. And that was in six hours. And they did the, actually I saw that, they did the same thing with explosive nanoparticles as well. I mean, isn't it, this to me is more frightening than anything, because, you know, you cannot protect yourself against that. All it takes is a handful of people, like you said a couple million dollars, the technology to advance a little bit further, maybe another five years, maybe it's even already possible today. And you make your own Ebola corona cocktail and literally kill half of the world's population. I mean, it's, we're not far away from that possibility, right? It depends. So the interesting thing about disease dynamics and how a disease functions in a population, and depending, depending whether or not it's zoonotic, so transmitted between animals and people, you know, the environment always has the sameness. So oftentimes, and, you know, luckily humans, we have diverse genetics too. So sometimes it's difficult to determine when a new novel disease is introduced to a population of animals or people, how it will behave. So while I think the fear here is that artificial intelligence and machine learning will create some superbug, which will decimate the planet. You know, my experience of being, of having the quantitative machine learning AI skills myself and also having the bio background is that oftentimes these machine learning applications, it becomes a garbage in, garbage out scenario, because you necessarily don't have the best data going into the model to build the agent. And you can't make all, all your assumptions can't be tight. So the predictive accuracy that you would actually produce a pathogen that would decimate the global population in all environmental conditions is hard to imagine. And there's other things that work against a disease. So a disease when it's has high, high lethality or virulence tends to burn out really quick in terms of infectious disease outbreaks because it kills the host that will spread the infectious agents so quickly that other people do not come into contact with that person become infected in the first place. So disease transmission is very much transmission risk in these novel pathogens is a trade off between how virulent the pathogen is versus how transmissible it is. Actually, a low grade infection, which would make people would be, which would maybe cause a lifelong life, lifetime disability like polio would be far more catastrophic, in my opinion, than something that would had high really high lethality. In high density population centers, right. If, let's say, not only do you have the intent to create a virus virus like that. If you also then develop the method to release it over major cities, and I'm telling you what I'm talking about because in these Ukraine labs. Russia has released some documents about it, they have been developing drones, you know that are filled with viruses, and that can basically spray them wherever they are flying and create a cloud of of you know viral matter that then rains down onto the people. So it's not going to be the same. What that's what we had with court 19 where it spreads slowly because it literally just started from one person to another to another. But if you combine the lethality with a really good, you know, intelligent mechanism of spreading it to the masses, then what do you do. The easiest way to spread it to the masses, though, is a very low tech old solution, you just infect somebody and you send them into a group of people. And there, there's declassified intelligence where our enemies have, at least United States are in our allies, our enemies have contemplated using that as attack methods so it doesn't really require some sophisticated release technology. All it takes is one person to go around spreading it in a in a densely populated area. I would say that couldn't couldn't couldn't you accelerate spreading it by by literally just raining it down on a high population center. Well, so, so this is one thing, one of the main areas that has not been like really focused on during this pandemic, but what people have to understand is that COVID-19, the virus is different than other coronaviruses, because it's more effective at transmitting via aerosol. And one of the reasons for that is because it contains this fear and cleavage spike, because our site. And that's because when you breathe something into your lungs directly, which is what happens when there's a cloud of particles in the air, as opposed to like droplet, which is how normal flu spreads. And it takes a lower number of virions to produce an asymptomatic infection. So it's exponentially more efficient. And aerosol ization is a military thing is a military goal is why anthrax so dangerous because they took anthrax, it's always found in the soil everywhere. And aerosol izes it so that way it could be suspended in the air for long periods of time. Now, in the air all around you all the time. This is always happening. There's always viruses and bacteria. But if if the ones that are in the air are are are more efficient in certain ways, then it makes it much easier to to lower the threshold for an infectious dose. And so that is that is why COVID-19 is as infectious as measles, because measles throughout human history. Measles is is so effective because it transmits the aerosol in particular, and it's between three and 18 times more efficient than anything else until COVID. Well, in indoor, you have to that's what to cut caveat. So so that's within an indoor setting where it's not being exposed to solar radiation, which breaks it apart. Well, it is that's a big distinguishing characteristic, whether or not it is been fully militarized or weaponized, because if SARS-CoV-2 would have been fully weaponized, the first thing they would have done is they would have put a tinning on it to prevent the breakdown from solar radiation. So that's what makes I'm not saying it was for militarized, but what I'm saying is that the addition of the fear and fever site gave it this because it's easier to for to infect lung cells and different types of cells that it comes into contact with. It's almost like a it's aerosol ization through different means. That's what I would say. No, and I agree. I agree. I agree with you entirely entirely. I think the one thing where we have to be cautious here in terms of at least, you know, I don't want to come off as a fear monger is that some of these these the technical ability to know how to either program a machine learning device, which we were talking about, or even having the individual know our expertise to know how to modify the genetics of an agent so accurately where without experimentation that you're going to increase the survivability of an agent. To sunlight is a very, very limited, very difficult expertise. So what I'm saying is that you'd have to have a potential to actually program the MI or the ML appropriately to be able to do that without using experimentation at the end of it. You'd have to have someone like a Dr. Ralph Baric designed this for you because he's probably one of the few people on the planet that actually knows would know how to tell you how to parameter parameterize the software code to be able to do it. Otherwise, sure, you can have MI, ML, and you can do all these models and simulations. I mean, I've done a ton of that stuff. But until you actually then ground truth that you go to test it, which takes time and resources and is one heck of an intelligence signature to set off when you go to start testing this stuff. It's we're not quite to the point where I think we, you know, we need to be terrified about this. We are at a point in history, where, you know, if the international community can come together and say we don't want this kind of thing to go on. Let's have inspections on each other's countries to make sure we're not doing this kind of thing. We should all come together and work towards our governments coming to an agreement on that because I think that'd be the best possible outcome here for everyone. Yeah, I mean, that's that's what I'm talking about. Right. I mean, if we don't have a public understanding about what happened here, which is of course going to create the demand that something is changed that something happens that this is no longer permitted. If we don't create that kind of environment, then we run the risk that with, you know, next generations of this technology, we can literally, you know, lose billions of people. I agree entirely. So, you know, everyone who's here in this room, listening to this, you know, once we are done, the replay will be the recording will be available, you should tell all your friends, you know, your doctor, your family members to all just listen to this because you've just been listening to the two people, two insiders, including one. I call you whistleblower because you were inside the organization that through gain of function research in the one lab in China has created this thing, you know, and you are listening to two core people that have such a deep understanding of what happened here. You know, you should really take this up with, you know, your friends, your family, and then hopefully with a bigger understanding coming out of this, you know, demand that the media look into this demand that politicians take this more seriously. Because if we don't do that, we're going to have a much worse situation and then covert 19 was really just a test run for the next much bigger pandemic. I agree. There's actually some science to in some national security theory to support what you're saying. National security disasters have been on a log scale historically in the United States. If you look back to the original World Trade Center attack where they set off the van explosions in the base, you know, 500 people died or a couple hundred or something. And then you have the terror attacks now 11 or 2000 die. And every time we have one of these national security disasters in the United States, it keeps on jumping up on a log scale. So if we go from a million deaths in the United States, and I haven't looked at the most recent toll death tolls are cumulative tolls are in the United States lately for for SARS-CoV-2. You know what, we're going to have, you know, 20, 50 million deaths in the United States the next time. I mean, this is just crazy. And who knows what it could be globally. I mean, this is really our opportunity to get ahead of this thing and do the right things for future generations and for the planet. And that really has to happen because that has to be the lesson that we learn out of it. If we don't do it, you know, we'll be living in a world where you would be running around in hazmat suits or else you die. Or we're running around where everyone is sick and dysfunctional. And what then could happen is that if you had these persistent infections that you just can't get over, can you imagine your quality of life? So what will happen is that supply chains would start to shut down globally because they wouldn't have enough labor workforce just to actually produce the things that we have today to maintain like this modern standard of living. And without having healthy functioning workers in the system, the whole entire economy shuts down. And we're sort of seeing the fallout from that today with supply chains globally. But just imagine if these lingering persistent infections were even worse. And that's actually a bigger fear to me than dying. I'd rather die than have lived in that scenario. Well, there's a there's a big aspect of this has been completely avoided and shut down since the beginning. And actually, it's been there literally since it was the reason for the censorship. And that is and I'm I'm I'm discovering some of these things myself. And that is the tie that this has to the HIV virus. So what people need to understand is it this is not HIV. OK. However, there are four key pieces that come from HIV virus, including the fear and cleavage site, by the way. The other three inserts are basically help the SARS-CoV-2 virus more efficiently infect T cells in your immune system. And that is what there was a paper that was published on January 31st of 2020. It was written by Pradhan et al, some scientists from India. And they noticed this. And it was that paper. People people are misunderstanding why Fauci and Jeremy Farrar and all these other global scientists get together. The original reason for them doing that was because somebody had identified those four inserts and they identified it because one, they knew that it made it much more likely that the virus was not natural. And two, they needed to suppress that because if that got out, then they wouldn't have control of the situation anymore. And the reality is, is that the odds are very good that the statistical anomalies that we're seeing in in long term excess deaths in various categories across the world, a lot of that is being driven by mechanisms that are within this virus that people aren't being told about. And it's causing it's having devastating effects. So one thing that I always wondered as well. I mean, we're just talking about a lab leak right now, right, which was just kind of talk for that wasn't intended. Right. This just happened. Sorry. It wasn't intended. But when you look at, you know, what kind of benefits, for example, the pharma companies have achieved now in the hundreds of billions of dollars for delivering these vaccines around the world. You know, isn't there a motive to try and put something out into the into the public so that they can sell their medications, their vaccines? I mean, what's stopping, you know, a pharma company from being involved in that? And then, of course, many people have raised the question about Bill Gates and his investments in all of these vaccine companies and him being on record about, you know, wanting to do more to reduce population levels and things like that. I mean, do you believe that this is just an accident or could there be more to it? What is your feeling? So what I try to do as a member of DRASTIC is focus on the evidence to find the origin, because I believe strongly in my heart that everything else will come out if we're able to get that out into the public space. So I don't know what the intentions might have been, what the reasoning would have been to make tweaks like what we see. And so I just don't know. I can't there's not enough evidence to say whether this was intentional or not. What there is evidence is, is to say that people are exploiting it for sure. And that's not necessarily the same thing, but it's just as dangerous. Yeah, so I agree. I agree with Charles. So there is a fair amount of evidence and I have the hard documents in my possession that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the Rockefeller Foundation, Google Foundation, a number of these big, big organizations have been instrumental in supporting this type of gain of function work at a number of different laboratories, including EcoHealth Alliance. Since 2010, 2015. Now, where the question gets strange is, you know, are they trying to intentionally do something like this? Well, I haven't seen the evidence for that, like Charles says. And I think that these people are incredible capitalists and opportunists. And when they saw this opportunity arise, they jumped on it. You know, there could be some bigger conspiracy of the Gates Foundation. I haven't seen that. But like Charles says, it's critical that we have an independent full investigation to figure out where this came from. And then once that happens, then it will become obvious where where this came from and who was involved. Yes, I agree with you. So the key really has to be that there is a full investigation of this and many answers will arrive out of that investigation, especially when, you know, those who have participated in this whole vaccine system that has been built, this vaccine empire behind this pandemic, you know, they are all having to answer questions on the oath. I'm sure, you know, there will be some interesting leads that explain, you know, what what may have happened here. But to me, you know, I'm just very suspicious because when Bill Gates was doing an interview at the World Economic Forum, he was bragging that he makes 20 X on his vaccine investments. And, you know, it's like when you see the world through the lens of profit where he uses his family charitable foundation to invest in all of these companies that have now greatly benefited from this pandemic. I'm just wondering, you know, is there more to it? And how are we ever going to get to the bottom of that? Well, that's why I say just once we the origin will tell us everything else pretty much. And that's why I because I am my own heart of hearts. I have no doubt that Bill Gates is evil, even if he had nothing to do with this. But in the end, if we find the evidence, it will point us in the right direction. Well, and to go along with that evidence, you know, there's some inconvenient truths that that are tied to the covid origin story, which are related to the mRNA vaccine. So there have been a number of scientific peer review publications, some great literature on substack, which show that the Moderna gene sequence patent filings from 2013 2014 are a match to the SARS-CoV-2 that was engineered in the laboratory. And if you actually look at the intellectual property transfer agreements from Dr. Ralph Baric, the National Institute of Health, which would be Dr. Anthony Fauci and Moderna, they had been moving this genetic material around a long time before that the public was ever made aware of there was an infectious disease outbreak occurring in China. Those are all hard facts. It's not some conspiracy thing. Those are government documents that were filed. Yeah. So before I open the floor for questions, there's one last point that I wanted to make about the convention right against bio weapons. And I've made a tweet which you can see in my timeline and I've highlighted some of the provisions. And one of them says undertaking not undertaking under any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile, acquire or retain biological weapons. Would you agree that covid-19 is a biological weapon? I would I would agree that it is a violation of the biological weapons convention. They will try and twist words about defense or offensive or defensive or weapon or not. But I don't I think regardless of what you call it, it's a violation of the biological weapons convention. And another provision says undertaking not to transfer or in any way assist, encourage or induce anyone to manufacture bio weapons. Wouldn't that apply to the U.S. doing this kind of work in China with the Chinese scientists? I think that's gray area. And so this is definitely a violation of U.S. domestic policy in terms of what NIH is supposed to be funding in terms of gain of function dual use research concern. So it's clearly a violation of that in terms of the way that the paperwork was filed by EcoHealth Alliance because I had the original copy of it. So there are a number of different violations that happen related to domestic policy at the international scale. I think there's some gray area because we weren't the ones actually doing the work in China. The Chinese were, but we were responsible because we are supposed to be diligent managers of a foreign research project. OK. And then it says here in the provisions as well, you know, it kind of limits the requirements to be under its jurisdiction or under its control. And we spoke about this earlier for a little bit. I mean, isn't it obvious that the U.S. is working in so many foreign labs on bio weapons that they don't want this to happen under their jurisdiction because U.S. law plus these conventions prohibit that they're definitely I have no doubt that it's the same type of consideration as us having black sites or other things. I know that you can even better example. Right. We have the five eyes spying conglomerate that spies on the world. American spy agencies are not allowed to spy on Americans, so they let it happen in the UK. So the UK spies, which are partnered with the Americans, they spy on all Americans. The U.S. spy agency simply provide access to all the networks. The UK spies puts it all into the shared spy cloud that they operate together. So they circumvent the law by basically using other jurisdictions to do the stuff that they are not allowed to do. And the same, I think, applies to this type of bio weapon research. Yes. And I think that if anything, to me, one of the motivating factors behind this whole Ukraine idiocy is is trying to keep that covered up because there's there's absolutely no reason for the United States to need Ukraine to be in NATO. There's no need for us to have biological defensive bio defense labs, whatever you want to call them in Ukraine on the border with Russia. It's just stupid. It's an unnecessary provocation. And so it's hard for me to look at Ukraine and say that part of it isn't tied up in the fact that they were already they're trying to prevent that from being exposed as much as possible. So in light of what happened in the Wuhan lab in China, would you say that the concerns of Russia are justified, that they are making a request to the United Nations Security Council to say this has to be investigated, which, by the way, is another provision in the Convention against Bioweapons, you know, the right to request such an investigation. And then also each party that is a signatory to the convention has to undertake to assist any state party that is exposed to danger. So when Russia made the case about these bio labs, why wasn't there a proper UN Security Council investigation? And why didn't the U.S., a signatory to this convention, assist Russia in investigating this? Because, well, because because war is is an easy distraction and they don't the reality is I'm an American citizen. I fought for my country. So did Andrew. I fought in Iraq. I helped them get the right to vote. And I don't when I look at this, what I see is that whoever in the United States government is somebody they are lying to us. They're lying to the world. And we have we that we've advocated our responsibilities to the global community, not the United States as a whole, but our deep state or whoever. And so, yes, why have there been nothing? Because it's not just the United States is corrupt. It's a lot of these international global institutions are just as corrupt. And so they've been working together to cover it up because all of them would be damaged by the truth. OK, so if you guys don't mind, I will just bring up some people one by one and let them ask questions. Is that OK? Yeah, sounds good. All right. I'm bringing up a few people here. Give me a second. And let's just agree to be civil and not talk to each other. Hi, how are you? Very good. Just give me a second. I'm moving up a few more people and then we get started with the segment where everyone can ask some questions. OK. Well, we have a couple of we have a couple of people here now. Kristen, do you want to start? Yeah, sure. I for years now, I well, for since the pandemic, I was really, really kind of questioning everything. And I'm I'm still questioning everything. I was a Marine Corps wife who lived in the Stomps, if you all know where that is, in 2002. My ex-husband was a Marine and he was in the Iraqi War. So I was exposed to a lot and I also received a lot of vaccinations to live on base. So I just have a lot of questions, but I do. I want to ask you all if if you think the virus or vaccine mimics like a type of fluke parasite. I would say not. No. OK. Yeah, I would say not. It mimics a lot of things, but not that. OK. Just because of whenever I watch the documentaries suddenly, suddenly are sudden death. It showed when they were doing the autopsies, the the fiber. And to me, it just reminded me of a parasite. And then when my mom got the actual virus and what I've noticed with a lot of other people, it was attacking like their weakest link, like my mom's a type two diabetic. Well, two weeks after she had the virus, her pancreas shut down. Yes, that's it. So that's actually that's that's a result of the immune system being suppressed. It was suppressed. What's going to happen is that whatever weakness you already have will be exploited. And that's a general thing that does happen. So it doesn't have to be a specific parasite or anything, because anything that happens, that's why cancer rates are going up. Because during the time the immune system is suppressed, other anything else that's already wrong will become exaggerated. OK. And what about the strokes in young children whenever they were healthy? Most of what the clots are, we believe, is amyloid fibrils, which which is dead. It's dead. In particular, it aggregates over time. And that could be from a number of different causes. But I don't want to explain it all here. But basically, what I'm hearing from the frontline doctors and people like that is that it's amyloid fibrils that are aggregating. So if you look up that, you'll learn more about it. All right.
Well, thank you. That was Christian. Let's hear from someone else. We've moved up. Who wants to ask a question?
I would love to. Yeah, go ahead. Yes. Yes. Thank you so much. And Kim, I listen to you very carefully as much as I had the time lately at the Mario's the Mario's room. Also heard a little bit about your opinions, very unpopular opinions about about the war that that is taking place now, which brings me to. And by the way, I just want to not to develop it now, but I'm dealing with the climate and and the whole. There is a whole additional vertical, which called climate climate to all what we are discussing. And, you know, I thought that this is the number one dangerous for humanity. But hearing you guys, I, you know, I, to be honest, I'm I'm quite in shock and my my I have really two questions. Number one, which which are more more global question. Number one, do we have here a new order of of completely order of what is a war and what are who are the enemies? Is it not any more countries? This is this is one question which I would love to hear your opinion. And also, Kim, your specific opinion with respect to the Ukraine war and with respect to specific those those those biological and love that you mentioned. Do you think it was something that was involved in this war? Thank you. All right. I will I will go in and answer the question about the labs. Quite frankly, I mean, I've only read the information that was released by the Russians. So you have to take it with a grain of salt. But what I've seen there was quite concerning. You know, I mean, they have provided photos, have provided documentary evidence. You know, they have developed these drones that can be used to basically spread material that is developed in these biolabs. And I was just really surprised about the lack of seriousness by the United Nations wanting to investigate this. And by the lack of information that the U.S. has supplied. So to me, this is definitely an open question. But I wouldn't claim that I'm an expert in what except exactly happened in these labs. But what should concern everybody here is that we now have an understanding about what happened in the biolab in Wuhan. And if they replicate that in Ukraine or in other countries, well, then, yes, that is very concerning. And everyone should should be asking questions about that. Andrew or Charles, do you want to answer the other question? So the previous question, the first question that Jill had asked was related to and I'm not sure they understood. That's why I'm asking whether or not there's a new type of global warfare or there's different special interests behind that. Is that correct? Yes. So he was wondering, is this no longer a war between nations? Are there other organizations behind it, similar like the World Economic Forum or the Deep State, as we call it, or intelligence agencies? Like, is it no longer a clear war between nations? Is it now a war between multilateral organizations? I'd make the argument that that's actually it's the latter. And it's been that way probably since the Vietnam War. The only difference now is that because of the digital information age and social media and the way that we're able to more effectively and efficiently communicate with each other, we're becoming hyper aware of it. I think these kind of things have been going on for decades. And now we can actually see it and you can begin to uncover it because the way that we share information. Yeah, I think there's a new kind of war and there's also a new kind of victim. And in this case, it feels like the global public is the opponent and we're being exploited. And that's concerning. It's like a global type of class. I'm not a communist. I despise communism. But in this sense, at least, it appears like it's a war of exploitation. And I'm very concerned about what that means if our elites are now working more together than they are for their own people. That's concerning. It's definitely a global type of class warfare. And the term globalist and patriot didn't come from the United States is actually coined by a woman who is from France. And I agree. There's definitely this globalist agenda, whether it's the World Economic Foundation or the Chinese Communist Party want to take over the world. They're aligning interest by special interest groups, which are very powerful, very well funded. And they have their financial investments tied to the war machine. And it's sort of funny how you see this work in the United States. Well, taxpayers are concerned about inflation. The Federal Reserve is concerned about printing more money. And the globalists are concerned about the next war because that's how they're going to make all their money. And I think we're seeing that now at a global scale. Unfortunately, I think Ukraine keeps coming into the conversation. I look at Ukraine being a very inconvenient situation for the politicians in the United States for a couple of different reasons. One, I think this is happening, this fight in Ukraine is happening because we violated agreements as Americans or the United States to not expand eastward towards the former Soviet Republic or Russia. We've then been injecting all this military aid for years in Ukraine, propping up the Ukrainian government. We then furthered our offensive capabilities essentially by working with these bio labs in Ukraine. So from the Russian perspective, it does look like they have the right of justification to be doing this to Ukraine. And I'm not saying that that's right or wrong. I'm just pointing out what I think could be a logical conclusion if you're looking at from the Russian perspective. Well, that's what I've been saying on my channel literally from the moment it started. I do agree with you that calling this an unprovoked war is really a joke when you look at the opportunities that the United States had to prevent this from happening. And to inject something, so Charles and I have been watching this. So the funny thing is, as Jurassic, myself and a few other people independently who had been fighting against this COVID origin story, I'm not kidding. So when the Ukrainian invasion happened, I forget the thing that was being released, Charles. Do you remember the big bomb that we were about to drop? That was actually, it was the Moderna paper. Yeah, it was the Moderna paper. You go for it. What nobody knows is that the same week that we released the DEFUSE documents, which was September, I received a copy of the draft of that paper. Because that paper talked about the acquisition of a cleavage site, one of the potential mechanisms for it, that was basically explained within the DEFUSE proposal, but using different terminology. And so I gave that to congressional investigators, and it turned out that the paper wasn't released for another five months. But when it was released in February, the government was already aware that it was going to be released. And I think it was two days after that was released that the war actually began. Now, it could be completely coincidental. It could be. But that is true that the timing of that paper was exactly right with that. And it's been a series of coincidences like that of information that Charles or myself have released, which were sort of like big, huge deals. All of a sudden, the US government would stir up some crap somewhere. There'd be some news story released by the government to overshadow anything related to the SARS-CoV-2 origin investigation. And at some point, you have to ask yourself, I mean, these things could not all be coincidences. I mean, there's been like six or seven of them, Charles, at least. And it's just it's mind blowing. I mean, certainly the war in Ukraine has taken center stage in the media. And any question that now comes up about the origins of COVID-19 is more of a sideshow. It doesn't really get any traction at all, which is crazy when you think about the number of people that have died. And it's an ongoing pandemic. I mean, people are still dying. People will continue to die. It's just absolutely tragic that we are not talking about this.
Absolutely. I think the tide's starting to turn in the United States. I'm seeing the story about COVID's origin popping up in mainstream media like Fox News, for example, which I think represents the Uniparty in the United States. I'm not seeing it as much in maybe the left mainstream media. It'll be really telling to see what the Republicans do when they assume power. I think a lot of Americans are expecting them to get to the bottom of this and find a solution and move on with life. And if they don't do it, it'll be political suicide. And frankly, the longer the But you know, the way I see it, Andrew, political suicide is the common theme amongst both major political parties right now. I mean, they're not really doing anything that helps the people. It's all just them and their corporate bodies and what their donors want and what the military industrial complex wants, what the pharma companies want. I mean, when was the last time that you felt that politicians in the United States have really done and achieved anything for the people? The 9-11 Commission was pretty good. And that was the only reason why the 9-11 Commission report was half decent was because the balance of power and Americans were demanding answers to what happened. Even then, they actually concealed a lot of the failures by the CIA, specifically at Alex Station. But that was probably the last time that there was something of this magnitude where I felt like the US government did a good job. The problem is then there was an overreaction by the US government, which was the Patriot Act and also the Homeland Security Act, which has now sort of turned the United States into a banana republic and some of the harassment I have experienced in the US government, I attribute to that. So the one area where we have to be cautious is we have to be careful what we wish for because our elected officials could screw up the, I wouldn't say the response, but the mitigation to this, to preventing this in the future. Our politicians could screw that up as well. So I hope that doesn't happen, but we've seen that happen before. All right, let's give Martin the floor. Martin, what is your question? Thank you very much. Actually, I want to play the devil's advocate, if you don't mind. And I assume that you don't consider me to be suspected of being a supporter of Bill Gates. After all, I'm one of the two founders of the largest open source project to fight the dominance of Windows on the desktop. You might know the KD desktop. So but and also I'm living in Tübingen in Germany. And I want to tell you that one of the largest biotech companies in the area, it's called Keurig and Bill Gates is heavily with the Gates and Melinda Gates Foundation heavily invested in Keurig. And when the pandemic started, the Keurig shares were soaring up 40 percent within weeks. But as a matter of fact, Keurig failed. Keurig didn't produce a suitable marketable vaccine for SARS-CoV-2. Another German company called BioNTech actually succeeded. And today, even though most Americans call it the Pfizer vaccine, technically it was developed and is manufactured and distributed by BioNTech in Mainz. It's a little bit further in the north from where I live. And the Gates Foundation actually bet on the wrong horse. They don't take part in this multibillion dollar industry now. So that's kind of interesting. Just to give you some idea, the big pharma thing with BioNTech and selling the vaccines to the world added four percent. That's enormous amount. Four percent of the German Bruttoinlandsprodukt, I think it's called domestic product, which is a very important number for the economy. But so actually this comes to the rescue for Bill Gates because he bet actually on the totally wrong horse. He didn't know that BioNTech will make the race. Not at all. And so this actually is one of the hints, which means. Let me correct you here for a second, because unfortunately you are not correct. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has invested four point nine million dollars in BioNTech to develop COVID-19 therapeutic solutions. So and the date of that investment happened after the pandemic started. No, you're wrong. The date of that. So the first investment was in 2019 and then that was topped up in November 2020. So they were already involved at a time when the pandemic has before the pandemic has hit. Well, I want to point out a simpler fact here that there's a misunderstanding here. So if the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives money to any company, ABC, it's not Bill or Melinda Gates giving money to anything. It's their foundation. And whether they win or lose doesn't matter because it's a tax write off. Yeah, but even better than that. Right. I mean, what the foundation really is, is tax prevention because they are still, they are still, they are still in control of all of their money. They can invest it wherever they want. And if they do make a profit, it feeds back into the foundation, which even which gives them even more power because they will never have to pay any taxes on any of the money that the foundation makes. And that just basically increases the pool of funds that are available to the foundation, which Bill Gates literally, you know, now controls since he's divorced from his wife. Let me give you some, some, some numbers. The investment in the tubing and company CureVac was in total $53 million. That's much more than they invested in BioNTech and the amount of shares they got into CureVac was much higher. But that that's one of the aspects. The other aspects I just want to mention as as facts is the first thing when you create a biological weapon is you first develop the kill switch before you create the path of gain. You first want to because a bio weapon is only really useful in warfare. If you have control, if you can't control it, it's not suitable as a weapon. And you want to avoid that at the end it hits your own people, you will not be able to have a military effect on it. There's one important fact here though. That is the old, old definition of bio warfare. If you start to get into bioterrorism and asymmetrical warfare, there are different uses of applications of an intentionally developed biological weapon. If it's if it's government run biological weapon research, you first develop the kill switch because this is mandatory. Typically, there's nothing that's mandatory about this. I mean, I'm just going to be factual about this when you work in a laboratory environment. I mean, there's some checklist that some scientists have to look at and says I have to develop a kill switch first. That's absolutely false. Well, somebody has to fund it and somebody has to gain control over a weapon. Otherwise, a weapon is useless. So there's a big piece of this is completely unknown. And that deals with there is actually a certain therapeutic that has been researched heavily by China and other countries, but not the United States, at least publicly related to something called fusion inhibitors, which is actually one of the and one of the reasons that it works. The main reason is that there's another part of the virus that almost looks exactly like the HIV fusion peptide. And but these fusion inhibitors, these have been heavily researched. And during the pandemic, there have been more than a dozen papers of different compounds that have been shown to work using this. And the in the inventor of this class of drugs, one of the inventors of the class of drugs, his his protege was one of the authors of the proximate origin of SARS-CoV-2. So they knew they knew that there were certain therapeutics available that have since been proven to work, but they have not manufactured them at scale, except in China. And to add to what Charles is saying, I agree with everything you said just said, Charles, that's all factual. They're in the proposals that they submitted and were funded and awarded by the US government and other proposals that weren't funded, which means that they're probably doing the work, even though they didn't receive the funding. And every one of those, I shouldn't say everyone, but most of those, they are talking about medical countermeasure development, whether it's a vaccine, mRNA, monoclonal antibodies, a whole array of different things that they've tested since the inception and design of SARS-CoV-2 going back to 2013, 2012. To say that they just because they didn't have a kill switch that they developed formally in a process when they developed or engineered SARS-CoV-2 is false. It's that they laid out in the proposals that they wrote, they said that they're going to do research to do, for example, for serial passage on SARS-CoV-2. They're going to make SARS-Coronaviruses, and then they're going to see what range or spectrum of things work against it. Well, using the science and experiment, sometimes you don't know how it is going to turn out specifically and how it's going to function in the environment. So then you have to then figure after you develop it, then you have to test it against a whole list, a range of countermeasures to see how they respond. So it just isn't as simple as like, oh, we're going to design thing A, and then we're going to design thing B to counter it. It doesn't really work that way practically when you're in the laboratory and when they're designing these things. Yeah, by the way, there's another important point to make. The last speaker mentioned BioNTech and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It doesn't even matter if they invested there or not, because they've also invested in Pfizer itself. And Pfizer is, of course, the number one vaccine in the market. So Bill Gates definitely has his hands in all of the companies that are benefiting from the aftermath of this pandemic. Well, and firsthand here, I have documents where it lists the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as being, I wouldn't say directly financing the research at EcoHealth Alliance, but being supportive of the programs or the partners that we're working with. And then you have organizations like the Wellcome Trust, the Google Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, which did directly support specific research programs. So a lot of these big old money families and organizations are definitely looking to profit off the advanced biotechnology game, if you want to call it, for lack of a better term. Yeah, I just moved up. Thierry, what is your question? Oh, he's not here yet. What about you, Marauder? What did you want to ask? Hey, how's it going? Kim, first, I just want to say, I know this is kind of a few weeks late, but I tried saying this earlier and Mario kicked me down before I had a chance to. Herzlichen Glückwunsch für deine Kind. Thank you. You said congratulations for your newborn baby. So very happy about that. That's cool. Yes. Secondly, just to put this out there, I'm a retired 38 Bravo in the US Army Reserve. And also, I studied biology and infectious diseases during my bachelor's. So at a point in time, I aspired to be U2 gentleman. And I just wanted to ask you guys, um, I think it was Dr. Was it Dr. Hoff who brought up the the influenza in the ferrets. Where you try to. I did. Essentially, I just wanted to ask, would that if we were going to make a bio weapon, we could use that potentially right we could mutate the virus and introduce it to a host until it acquires enough mutations where it has trophism for, you know, humans or whatever we're trying to infect. Or we could we could do the easy way with CRISPR CRISPR casts. And I wanted to ask, what do you think would be more effective is if we attempt to mutate the virus by, I would say more natural means, or if we go directly into the genome and put in insertion or engineering insertion to make it whatever more effective or more deadly or more contagious or more virulent. Well, me being a scientist and a principal investigator, I would do this, I would write a proposal and I'd say I was going to do both to test the different effectiveness and speed at which I could develop both massive methods to see which one work better, because you don't really know until you test it. But could we also not say you know introducing a gene, a foreign element into you know the entire viral genome. Could that necessarily disrupt other other you know natural biological processes, whereas I mean if it's if it's selected naturally by means of you know natural mutation and natural selection. It, I mean, selection also selects for the other factors that make it more beneficial to have that mutation and have that trophism. I think I understand you're saying so saying that if you have method a where it is quote unquote is it's really not naturally evolving but something that mimics that it's going to acquire a lot of acquire the traits without you having to manipulate or test it as in compared to like a CRISPR to say that I that that's also outside my area of expertise. So, you know, I toss it off to one of my actually virologist person I'm a quantitative epidemiologist, and I've run a wet lab before but mostly for foodborne pathogens. I don't have the deep understanding of splicing versus building a live intenuated vaccine, which would be the through serial passage, I don't have the expertise to say which way would be better. And if you want a specific answer to that I could ask one of my friends and find out. Hell yeah, I'd love to know. Okay, well send me a DM and then I'll, I'll shoot a text or email after a couple of my colleagues and see what they say. I think Dr Malone would know. Alright, I really appreciate that. Thank you. Do you have any other questions or can we move on to Martin. I'm good. I'm good for now. Thank you can. All right. Thank you. Martin, what's your question. Hey, thank you. Um, thanks for having me everyone. Very interesting just to be here listening, you know, not too long ago this was not possible in the cyberspace so it's very, very interesting, you know, now that we're all here. I just want to say that going forward, I just want to really my question comes down to is, you know, going forward seeing the things that are happening. We talk about New World Order, and different, different things that will happen because of, you know, coven and what's gone over the past couple years you know whether it's inflation, the economy, different countries. And just seeing something today, which really caught my eye that was surprising was, I believe China had about 90,000 pods that were created. My question really comes down to, do you believe that this is a form of controlling the population, kind of making everyone fall in order. And also, where do where do we go from here, where is the future lead us in the next five 10, even 20 years. You know I've heard a lot of talk about social credit scores, different things that will come out of this. So I just really was interested in seeing these new developments, especially in different countries, as far as controlling the population. I wanted to see if you had any insights or what your thoughts were about the future, and kind of what the solution is to the entire to everything you see going on. Thank you. So, I would say that the solution to any of this is to remain connected to each other, educate ourselves, build our connections outside of the world created by elite institutions that don't have our best interests at heart. So have, however, that needs to happen this, this space is an example of one of those great ways to for us to take advantage of the technology. And that's what we have to do when the people who wish to exert control over us are using the technology already against us we just have to fight fire with fire. I can agree more so I think a part of that is in terms of well how do how do people like us regain green regain power gain power against these big powerful tech companies and private organizations well we have to accumulate wealth and capital and power ourselves. And the way that I'm doing that is I'm working with a number of investors right now to start up a tech company so I, you know, actually my passion is advanced biotechnology. As investors we are like minded that we want to employ and empower people that think like us that behave like us that that don't like what's happening, so that our, our cohort of people are the people that share the same values and beliefs become more powerful let's face it, we're going to be in a weak position until we do so I encourage all of you to do business with with people who are like minded, do not support the institutions that are trying to oppress you or oppress us. Don't be a part of banking systems to the central banking system to the greatest extent that you can't I mean I understand that everybody has to live, you know you might need credit for things but don't get credit if you don't need to try to pay for things with cash. You know they talk about the cashless society. I like some aspects of Bitcoin, or Monero, you know if you want to be specific what a couple different types of crypto that that I've been a fan of. But I don't like it in total because it can be turned off if you lose access to technology networks, computing, you know, you don't have anything of value so you have to be able to diversified in their assets, and that could become that becomes more important as you get older and lastly you know like Charles says be a member of your community, be politically active, be outspoken because the other thing is you need to get everyone else or we need to get everyone else to think like this too. And, and gain power because that's the only way we're going to bring an end to this madness. Yeah, so unfortunately I'm less optimistic, simply because truth is now a crime. You know the mainstream media is serving us a mix of, you know, propaganda messages that either come from governments or large corporations. And just until recently, we could not have had the space on Twitter. If it wasn't for, you know, Elon taking it over now he is under massive attack, you know by advertisers that are boycotting Twitter by the government that is demanding, you know all kinds of changes, because, you know, free speech is really what they don't want, you know, because if we do know more about what's going on then it's harder for them to get away with it so the environment that I'm looking at is completely intoxicated with fake news with propaganda. The same example, you know, when you look at the Ukraine war and the lies that are being fed on mass to the population, you know, it's just, I feel desperate almost, you know, when I think about this because I don't see how we're going to get around that. I mean Twitter is just one place, you know, hopefully others will follow, but then you have the gatekeepers like Apple and Google, where the Democrats are now demanding that they should just kick Twitter off the platform so we can't have the apps on our phones anymore. Right. And then, like, what are the, to me personally the three biggest threats that we're facing right now is number one, the seismic shift in geopolitics with the US is threatened as a hegemony to be replaced by a multipolar order that is led by China and Russia and India. And of course, you know, the US will want to prevent that because with the level of debt that the US has and the luxury of using the US dollar reserve currency to print as much money as they want, which is causing all of this inflation, by the way, not just in the US around the world, because so many central banks hold US dollar reserves. And then you look at the war in Ukraine that can, you know, easily escalate, people totally underestimate how risky that is because neither side will accept defeat, Russia will not accept defeat, and NATO and the US will not accept defeat. So in my mind, it's just a matter of time before there is escalation over escalation over escalation that could ultimately lead to a third World War and then on top of all of that. The financial situation, right, the economic crisis that we are facing, the war in Ukraine, which is really about a bigger geopolitical question about who's going to rule the world in the future. And then on top of it, we have these labs that are creating bioweapons, you know, similar to COVID-19 that could wipe out billions of people. So when you look at the totality of what's going on in the world right now, I'm extremely frightened for the future. I've seen all of this, you know, I've been pretty clear since Russia in 2009 started the BRICS movement, the multipolar order, I knew the US is going to be very unhappy about that anyone threatening US dollar dominance is going to get in trouble. And I moved to New Zealand, I wanted to be the furthest south in the world. So if there is a World War Three, that, you know, my family has a chance to to survive it. That's literally the reason why I moved to New Zealand, which turned out to be a huge mistake, because the US government used their little pet New Zealand to destroy my business and go after me for copyright infringement, which really my case is all about, you know, copyright infringement is what they call it. But what it's really about is that I have been funding WikiLeaks basically from the beginning, when they came out with the collateral murder video, I've sent them, I was probably the single biggest donor to WikiLeaks. And when the Pentagon put their investigation team together to find out, you know, all the key people of WikiLeaks and everyone who's supporting them and funding them, I was literally on the top of the list. And my copyright case was very convenient to basically shut me out and take out my business and they were hoping that by seizing all my assets, that I will never, you know, be able to help fund WikiLeaks anymore. So, you know, my whole story has been born out of this fear of the world that is coming and we have arrived in that world and I'm extremely worried for, you know, I have six children, I just got my number six a month ago. You know, I'm worried for their future. I'm worried about how are we even going to get out of this censorship and fake news world? You know, how are we going to escape the reaches of the intelligence services and the military industrial complex? Like, where is the cure for all of this? Us sitting here, you know, 2,100 people listening to this, talking about this right now, we are literally a speck of dust in this tornado that is moving us into self-destruction. That is unfortunately my not so optimistic opinion about the situation the world is in. Well, the one thing that I'll say is that everything starts as a speck of dust. So, the best, the reason, the way that I stay motivated is to remind myself that, well, someone has to do it. And when I talked to congressional investigators a year ago and I realized based off what they told me that there was nobody else. That was terrifying to me. It wasn't a compliment. It was terrifying because it meant that even within our own government, most people were working against this rather than for the truth. But the reality is that everything starts with a speck of dust. So, if we are that speck of dust, then so be it. But if someone has to do it, and just like you, for the sake of my kids, I've told my friends before that I don't worry about some dark dystopian future because I will be dead before I allow my children to grow up in a world that is like that. So, I don't worry about it. I'm optimistic because I will not let that happen as long as I'm alive. Well, then you save us, Charles. Well, it's not just me. We need help. And I'm with Charles on this and I think the interesting thing is that we have a sort of growing population of military veterans from Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, from the last, you know, the global war on terror, if you want to call it that. And political differences aside, I think all those people are fighting back, you know, veterans in the United States because we actually believe in liberty, justice, American values. And as long as people like Charles and myself and our fellow veterans keep fighting, pushing back, we're, you know, veterans in the United States are a very strong lobbying group, actually. And we span the political divide and people oftentimes look to us for leadership. So, I think we just keep fighting. We keep doing the right thing. I'm actually more optimistic about our future. I firmly believe that, Kim, your perspective is maybe skewed or biased by the fact that you have access to more information than you've ever had access to in your life. If we put this in the context of, like, us, the United States invading Iraq, there wasn't this kind of social media presence or information availability. Otherwise, I don't believe that war would have happened. If you look at how the intelligence community pushed information out to the mainstream media, every person in the world basically reading the same news generated by the Five Eyes countries, you know, it did look like there was justification to invade Iraq. If that same proposal were put forward today, I don't think it would have a shot in the hell. So, well, you know, we do see all these and I see all these negative things happening. I don't think it's the end of the world. I don't think Ukraine will escalate at least from a Western perspective because in the United States, it's a very unpopular war. The politicians have pushed it forward. And let's face it, I think if Russia wanted to level Ukraine, it could do it in two seconds if it really wanted to. And it's showing restraint and they're trying to create this hybrid proxy war environment, which destabilizes the planet for their own advantage. I don't really see that leading to greater global conflict because the stakes are so high. And that's not unique. If you look back in history with the Cold War in the Soviet Union, I mean, the threat of nuclear war had been higher, certainly in the early 60s and in the early 80s. It was probably at its highest. But what people forget, right, during that time, the number of nuclear warheads was not enough to wipe out humanity. If we have a nuclear war today, the number of nuclear warheads are enough to literally wipe out the entire planet. Well, just because you have all the warheads doesn't mean you actually launch those and deliver them. So, I mean, this is the advantage of me working at the nuclear weapons lab. So I have some background on this, which I can inform what I say. So just because you have all the warheads doesn't mean you can get those up and deployed. The reality is, if there is some kind of global nuclear event, there is a series of strikes that likely probably takes place and then it stops. And it's because of the places that they target. You actually target their enemy's offensive capabilities because you don't want them to strike you back. So, well, yeah, you might have all these warheads, a different thing actually mobilizing, deploying on those. And even then, I think all the global superpowers that possess these things really do not want to have to deal with the fallout of that because it's so uncertain. So we're more likely, I think, to have a nuclear accident, broken arrows, they call it in the United States, from accidentally dropping one in a test or during training than we are to deploy one offensively. I just don't see it happening. Yeah, I heard something similar that it was more likely to see an EMP going on than a classical H-bomb in the sense that, you know, whatever you completely nuke is basically rendered unusable for some period of time. So we now have the technology to basically do things in a cleanest way. Kim, can I just say two things? Yes. One contribution. Yeah. So one contribution I wanted to make is to sustain what you were saying previously. I mean, first of all, I'm not an expert in the subject here, but I am a Mensa member where I have witnessed basically research on the CRISPR-Cas9 level, where I was asked for the sake of research to give samples of my DNA. And so what I'm trying to sustain, it was your idea that because of the U.S. has agreed on certain things, they will not be able to do it themselves or do it in the U.S. territory. And that's totally true because I've witnessed from requests of my fellow members to participate in some of the research to identify the common denominator genome of high IQ, which Mensa was the biggest database like certain for. And this was initially a piece of research that was conducted in the U.S.A. But my friend, who is a scientist and a Mensa member of Mexico, where I am registered, he was telling me that this entire research operation moved to Mexico for the reasons that you can do pretty much anything you want and you can do it on the ground. So that right there kind of sustains and then just like justify that thought and the train of thought. So that's one. And then on the hopeful side, Kim, I've just commented on this space, an interview I did with Matthias de Smet, who's a university professor at the University of Ghent, where he recently released a book called The Psychology of Totalitarianism. So he doesn't really touch on to the scientific origins of the COVID, but he does definitely touch on the psychological origins of the COVID. And one of the things he mentions, him being a university professor of psychology, but also having a master's degree in statistics, he very early on identified that the threat of the virus, as it was basically being studied, did not make like say probabilistic meaning as of to go into mass injections of something that remains unknown, given the survival rate and the chances you had. And then went on to study it from a psychological perspective. And so that's the angle I'm trying to put through here is, from his perspective, a lot of it comes from the object of anxiety for which there is a strategy to employ in order to deal with that object of anxiety. And in this case, the object of anxiety is the virus. The strategy is basically the removal of individual liberties and the adoption of a state run or macro state or super national strategy to deal with that object of anxiety. And in the interview, what I'm putting through is perhaps the hope here is to create an other object of anxiety that is higher ranking in terms of hierarchy than the security, meaning that the fear of losing basic freedoms can supersede the fear of very low probabilistic security. And I think that's a little bit what's happening now when you study cycles on the overtone window of things, you basically realize that you always have a cycle where you go from a lot of liberty to less liberty and back and forth. And so the hope here, if I might be able to give you some hope, is that it seems to me that what used to be true in terms of going woke can become untrue later on where now it would be more you go woke and you go broke. It seems like a lot of popular voices, be it yourself, Elon Musk or even Andrew Tate have known this kind of rebellion. You even see it now, even today and the last couple of days in China. I don't know if you noticed, but I think that small things like not being able to look at the audience in the football matches because otherwise the Chinese would realize that everybody else doesn't have to wear masks. But that can trigger a movement in the countries. And the same way it can trigger movements there, I think dissident voices, which is the theory of this Mathias De Smet university professor, are there to keep the sanity of people. And by just track record of history, people just will come to the conclusion that they were lied to. So there is some hope, I think, out there. And like you rightfully say, this space right here alone is proof that even though this was not possible, probably, or there would be definitely a disclaimer on to something like that, or we would all be shadow banned doing something like this a couple of weeks ago or even months ago. And now it's possible. So, in a way, I'm hopeful. So that's what I wanted to contribute in this. No, thank you, Thierry. But I hope you're right. I also hope that Charles and Andrew are right and that I'm wrong on this one. I would love nothing more. How about this? Let's wrap this up. Last words for Andrew and Charles. And then, you know, I add my final words to that. Is that great? Sure, I guess I'll go right to it. So I guess the one thing that I want to get out to everyone is, yeah, so what, you know, SARS-CoV-2, emerging laboratories, Wuhan Institute of Virology funded mismanaged by the US government by a bunch of scientists and bureaucrats. So what we need to be looking forward to or looking for solutions. And the only way we're going to come to a solution to this is if the global community gets involved politically and forces a new international bioweapons convention, which is enforceable, which all countries can agree to, to prevent this from ever happening again in the future, otherwise history is going to repeat itself. Yeah. And like I said, I have a master's degree in history. So when I look at this, history only repeats when when people don't pay attention to it. And the danger with censorship is that you is that we won't even know what happened the first time, which guarantees that it will repeat in the future. So what we have to do. This is why we must win, because if people don't understand that this virus was manmade, it was a manmade problem. If they don't understand that, then they will not realize that this is also a man. There's manmade solutions to it. And I would rather I would rather seek out the best of humanity than let our legacy be determined by the worst of it. That's beautiful, Charles. I agree with you on that. Fantastic. I want to thank everyone for listening today. We had some great questions. Thank you, Andrew and Charles, very insightful, very happy that you joined me on such short notice. And, you know, a lot of people here will have learned a lot today. And if you feel that way, if you take from the space today that, you know, you're much smarter now about COVID-19, its origins and, you know, future dangers of genetic engineering, then just tell your friends. You know, once I close the space, the recording will be available on my Twitter feed. And feel free to share that with your friends and tell them, hey, you should listen to this. And then maybe we have some hope, you know, the more people understand where this all originated, that we can actually do something about it, like Charles just said. So with that in mind, I thank you all very much. I enjoyed this. I will do more spaces in the future. And I hope you're all coming back. So thank you very much.