McCairnDojo.comPast episodes & related streams

Denis Rancourt LIVE: Gigaohm Biological High Resistance Low Noise Information Brief

You already knew in 2020, back when I was still on my bicycle, telling everybody that this was a lab leak, and they're lying about it, and drastic our heroes, and it was almost certainly Peter Daszak and Shengli Shi, and they must have done it, they had to have done it. Of course the flu papers show that they were already trying to do it, so how in the world can't this be a gain of function virus? I was there. I was one of the leading guys until I met a person like Nick, a person like Mark Kulak, that made me start to question my understanding of recent history, my question, my foundations of everything that I thought I understood. It's a pretty big deal because it is a realization for all of us that we have given power to a charlatan, and we need to take it back now for our children, for our grandchildren, or we may never get it back. That's what this is all about. The bricks are visible, but they're not going to be visible forever unless we show them to our children, or our children will go on believing that this theater is real, and that they live in this reality. We have to teach our children what bricks are visible, we have to teach our children the basic biology, so that they can think for themselves and execute informed consent when we are gone. That's what we really need to do, and I hope that I'm on the right path to doing that for my children and for any of yours.

Sometimes biology needs a little help from statistics. Sometimes we're just going to need to know that hindsight is 2020, and ironically enough we are in 2022, and in hindsight is 2020, the year 2020. And as we look back in retrospect to 2020 and 2021, the numbers are coming out. Around the world, the numbers are coming out and some people have been paying attention to numbers a lot better than others. Some people have been paying attention to the biology a lot better than others. And so if you're here with me, you might have hope that between history and modern reality, we're going to be able to figure this out. I don't know if that's going to happen or not, but I do know that the key is in our history. I do know that people like Mark Kulak who are trying to archive it are central to our coming future success as societies. Our freedom as humans and we need to be free to talk about this stuff. Censorship is real, but how it's manifesting in our world right now is an illusion.

We need to learn immunology. Obviously we've been busy with that for almost three years now and still the dragon is not dead. Still, we haven't succeeded in waking people up. And so we keep hammering it over and over again. Repetition is good. In America, we are keenly interested in staying on top of this wave by staying focused on the biology, not taking the much bait on television, and loving our neighbors. I feel like that's still working. I feel like it's still working. Loving our neighbors doesn't always mean that we accept everything that everybody says. It doesn't mean that we always just go along because we're all on the same team. It means being honest with everybody. It means calling a spade a spade.

And I think one person who has called a spade a spade for most of his life is Denis, my current guest. I'm about to fire up the zoom and hopefully he will be there waiting for me. I'm not sure what screen this is going to show up on. I'm just going to fire it up here. We are in the midst of a shift, a shift in our understanding and a shift in what we think is important. And not everybody's in the midst of a shift. Some people didn't have their hands in front of their eyes like we did. And I'm including me because as you know, I feel like a more recent revelation has occurred over time about why everything smelled so fishy, about why things didn't line up like they should, is because I too was being fooled. I thought I was solving the mystery. I thought can go home. Biological is solving the mystery of the of the virus. The gain of function lies, et cetera, et cetera. But actually, let's do it and see if he's there. I suspect we will be met by him shortly. I'm not sure where we are. There's just one participant there. I'm going to send him a mail and say that I'm here. And we'll get him on. I'm sure he's going to be here because we already had a nice long talk. And so that's me. But you won't see me when we go back to the when we go back to Zoom later when he joins us. So anyway, personally attacked by J.C.'s southern accent. Do I have a southern accent? I don't have a southern accent. That's absolutely ridiculous. This is GigaOhmBiological. It's a high resistance, low noise information stream brought to you by a biologist. I'm human just like you. Team human is a term that I heard recently from a friend of mine in Vermont.

I really like that term a lot. I'm arguing, as many people are, that we are still very much entrapped inside of this narrative. We are still very much entrapped inside of this dark age that they've induced on us, where we're all confused about what's medicine, what's health, what's safety, what freedom is. And I think that confusion is really intended. And so here we are in the end of 2022. And there has been a pretty amazing set of narratives that have been spun. And at the beginning, the narrative was that there is a pandemic. The narrative was that there is a pandemic of a novel virus for which none of us are immune, because that's what novelty means. And she and others started right away with the same graphics that they're still using today with the coronavirus, with the red spike proteins and the white background. It's all the same graphics that they've used from the very, very start. Some of the same terms, including the new normal and this kind of thing, have been used across countries and across languages.

They've done it for a reason, of course, but so many of us were bamboozled by the idea that the censorship and the previous scientific literature and the obvious obfuscation of these data led us to believe that this most certainly must have been a lab leak and that they're not lying about there being a virus, but they're lying about where it came from and the crazy biological potential that it might have. And being strikingly unaware that this concept would play right into their narrative, where we weren't thinking about all-cause mortality. We weren't thinking about what does a novel virus even really mean? And we weren't thinking about this certainty that seroprevalence really matters. We just took it all for granted because they pushed us on our heels, they threatened us with planet-wide disaster, and then they went forward with a plan that little did we know at the time, they had already orchestrated, disseminated, practiced, and fine-tuned over the last two decades. And so very few people were immune to the combination of attacks that occurred at the beginning of the pandemic. And as anybody who's been watching my stream for a long time, you know that I took this hook, line, and sinker. I was sure that the reason why I was censored was because I was right. I was sure that the reason why my YouTube channel was being punished was because I was right.

And that solidified a narrative in my head that took me almost three years to question, and that narrative was questioned from the very beginning by my new friend and colleague, Denis Roncourt, who's now on the screen. They can see you now, sir. Thank you very much for joining me. Can you give me a sound check to see if I can hear you okay? Sound check, sound check. Yes, that's perfect. Thank you very much for joining me. It's a real pleasure. It was a real pleasure speaking to you earlier today, and I hope we're going to have a real rambunctious conversation now. So, one of the things that I'll try and kick off before you introduce yourself is just to say that my viewers are familiar with your second to latest paper where you summarize the data from America up until around the middle of 2022. And because my attention has been so fragmented, I had to admit in our original meeting this morning that I hadn't really probed your website far enough to find out when you had first started to make this observation. And I was quite taken aback that you made this observation almost immediately in the middle of 2022. And that's, that's ahead of anyone that I really know of in terms of really, I was still really you know Scooby Doo and the vaccine or the virus and not at all thinking of the possibility that the whole narrative might be a flop. So, if you, I don't know how you would like to introduce yourself but if you could just kind of lead us into how, how you stuck your head up so early and why you might have might have been the guy to do it where I wasn't.

Okay, well I was certainly immune to their propaganda before they even started it. And that's because of my career because of my history. I have been undoing scientific fallacies my entire career, I'm an interdisciplinary scientist originally a physicist still a physicist, and I have entered many different areas of science and each time I looked at the founding paradigms of the particular I found errors and problems with it and made enemies everywhere I went, and was also invited to be a keynote speaker at their conferences and so on so I've been through a lot I've written over 100 scientific papers in areas as different as geo biochemistry. You know organic chemistry physics theoretical physics magnetism. I recently I did calculations on planetary climate all these kinds of things so I've, I've, I'm an interdisciplinary guy, and I've done a lot, I was a physics professor for a couple of decades at the University of Ottawa, full and tenured physics professor award winning and so on. Is that a grant, is that a grant, is that a grant writing kind of position that you're in then did you have to fund yourself or was there.

Yeah, there was a lot of funding involved I was one of the most funded science faculty members in in in the university. I got the largest what we call the strategic project grant I got the largest that had ever been awarded to a university at that university, and I led for a number of years I led a very large research effort into understanding the boreal forest. I mean that's how interdisciplinary I was I was cross appointed with geosciences department as a researcher. I did a lot of things, and I had several employees at the height, I had over 20 students graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and employees in my, in my research area. My, my laboratories had electron microscopes defractometers spectrometers of all kinds. I'm an expert in all those techniques and you know that that's the story of my life it's a it's been a life of science where I dig into things and accept what the dominant paradigm is and always look at, you know, what's it based on what what are we doing here. And so I don't generally believe anything that they start saying in the media. And I always can usually spot some pretty big errors and I don't want to do the history of all the things that I've that I've denounced as being false I mean we could go all the way back to theoretical physics where I pointed out that in my opinion, the heavy fermions were not a thing, and that all of the heavy Fermion, which is the thing in in theoretical magnetism, that that it could all be explained much more simply and I showed how the calculations explain all of the observed phenomena much more simply and I made a lot of enemies that way. When I spoke at a NATO Advanced Study Institute on that question. So I've been doing all kinds of stuff for decades. And, and so, when I heard this nonsense about the, the virus. I've been, I was a researcher at the university the last time they tried to have a pandemic and tried to tell us, you know, to cough into our elbows and everything you had to do and they would actually meet the faculty and tell us these things and I thought this is crazy, you know, so I was I was there when they were practicing this stuff and thought they were crazy then and when I first heard this, this new one, I thought, Okay, well here here they go again with their crazy nonsense this is going to die out, no problem. And I realized, initially at the very start that this was a geopolitically motivated campaign that was just going to go ahead no matter what we did. And I later came to understand that I studied geopolitics extensively wrote a big article about the history of geopolitics. It's called the Second World War that's on my website it was written in 2019 it really sets the stage I think for what's really going on in the world right now it's the it's it's a building block for understanding all of this I believe.

And I just went from there I wrote a paper quickly when when they started saying we have to wear masks, which is just so crazy and I noticed that in some in China and Japan they wear masks and I always thought that was nuts, except except in places that have where you have particles that need to be filtered out and you can't, you know, then it makes some sense but as soon as they talked about mass I went in and review the scientific literature on whether or not masks prevent infection of viral respiratory diseases and I found that there were quality randomized controlled trials with verified outcomes they all said the same thing. Any benefit is too small to be detected by our hog high quality experiments. So I wrote a review paper where I said exactly that. And it was very popular it was read more than 400,000 times on research gate, and they took it down research gate took it down. And so I challenged them I said what are you doing what what's this is the review of the scientific literature. And they said well it's being reposted on too many websites we don't like where it's being reposted so we took it down. Later they actually closed my account, because I was critical of of the vaccine at one point in one paper where again I was just reviewing the scientific literature, and they closed my account permanently.

So that's been my story you mentioned the early work I did on all cause mortality that my first paper on all cause mortality was published on the second of June 2020. And in that paper, I basically announced that there was no evidence in the mortality data for a pandemic for a particularly potent pathogen of any kind, and that the initial peak immortality was induced by the measures that were applied immediately after the World Health Organization declared a pandemic. And I explained why I believe that why it's true. And the title of my paper was was very radical at the time I actually claimed that there was evidence for mass homicide. And at the time I thought maybe this is too radical now in hindsight it was exactly the right title. And then I just kept studying the all cause mortality as more and more of it, more and more of the data was coming out in many European countries in Canada, and in the US and all the fit all the many states of the US. And I've just been at it, and right now I'm writing a large paper about Canada, and the provinces in Canada, and they're all cause mortality that's not out yet but we find some striking scoop, Jay, I'll tell you right now that the all cause mortality in Canada is correlated with the, when you look at by province, it's correlated to the fraction of the population that is Aboriginal that are indigenous, the indigenous population in Canada, so they are the most fragile. They are the most fragile to being isolated to being the grass to losing their jobs and so on. And the more the excess mortality is largely correlated to, for example in Saskatchewan 18% of the population is indigenous and so on. So you get this huge peak of mortality in Saskatchewan is that is that a very parallel in your imagination to the poverty correlation that happened in America. Exactly. Yeah, in America there is a very very strong correlation with poverty. Pearson correlation coefficient of plus point eight six which is unheard of in the social sciences right. And it's not just a correlation it's proportionality it goes through the origin. So you double poverty in a given state you're going to double the excess mortality for the code period. So, it's the same kind of thing for Canada. Of course, we don't have 50 states to work with, we have many fewer provinces but you can you can really see a relationship. There are many outlier provinces outlier for various reasons we're able to understand them all for example, there was a huge peak in excess mortality of young men in Alberta. At the time when the energy sector crashed when they kill the energy sector in Alberta and they fired a lot of young men and they lost their, their livelihood and their meaning in life and they were told to isolate and they were dangerous and so on. And so, there is a definite mortality of that population that you can see right at that time. So there's all kinds of anomalies in the all cause mortality that can be explained in terms of the social economic and conditions and also the aggression of, of the populations, and we see clear signals of induced death from vaccination programs as well in Canada, in the US and recently in India. Let me put that up now that's the thing you just published today correct. Yep. And so this is, is it your analysis or is it other people's analysis I'm getting them. Well, it's, it's my paper about understanding and interpret in properly in interpreting the scientific articles of others. And putting it in the context and explaining why the opposite of what they say is true, and what they don't mention and what they don't say, and how that contradicts official statistics that you can find, and so on. Right. So you have these four articles that were written in leading scientific journals you know science and so on. And they basically describe this, this extraordinary excess mortality that occurred in India in April to July 2021. And they, they met talk about it as though it were a second wave where nothing happened before. And none of them mentioned that that huge peak in mortality coincides with the rollout of the vaccine in India, which was massive. So that, you know, made me examine this in more detail and figure out what try to figure out what was going on. So in that article I present 10 arguments 10 numbered arguments as to why this excess mortality P in India is most probably due to the vaccine rollout in the early stages in India. And I spell it out I give all the arguments I show all the data that that is available. And what it would mean is what it does mean in my view is that 3.7 million people. Their deaths was caused by the initial vaccine rollout in India, where at a period where 350 million doses were delivered. And what I show in that paper is that the people who die from the vaccine are the people who have comorbidities who are elderly and who are frail. If you go and vaccinate those people, you will kill them. So we find a vaccine fatality rate of 1% 1%, which is huge. And it's 100 times more than what you get when you look at the bars data for 65 plus year olds, and the Jensen. The Jensen vaccine which is the most toxic one that was used in the United States, so it's 100 times more than that to explain what happened in India. What happened is, they really went after people explicitly vaccinating people with comorbidities, they had a list of 20 comorbidities, and if you had those, you could be vaccinated urgently right away. I mean, that's that's how crazy it was. So, I described that in detail in this paper which is not that long and and explain that you know these authors are are missing the elephant in the room. And, and, and for example, there was a big study in in science that had 30 or 40 authors on it that tried to say that this so called second wave in Delhi was due to the Delta variant. Well I, I explained that that was, there was no evidence for that there was no reliable hard evidence that you could interpret it that way no matter no matter their simulations. And I explained that in their paper, they were basically just fitting the epidemiological data to their model of what a special variant would do to get the properties of what that variant would be in order to do this so they're, they're fitting the data to their model, and then arguing that that must be what happened. And so I critique all that in the article, and, and I explained I think I think it's a bombshell of an article I think it basically says, look. If you're serious about understanding this in India, the vaccines killed 3.7 million people. And here's, here's the argument, and here's the data. And, you know, consider that that that's basically what I'm saying there with the Indian data. Yeah, I think it's well I mean, you know, it's a. It really stands on itself on its own it's a nice. I don't know when you start making these observations all the time I guess it just kind of gets frustrating that nobody pays attention, and. And during our discussion it was, it was interesting for me also to hear you point out that from your perspective, even the, the idea that we would first roll out a vaccine in the oldest and most frail was already a bit flawed. And that's an understatement I would say that that is the opposite of what you need to do that that that is crazy. It is clear from an analysis of the virus data which we did that the people who are at the highest risk of dying when you vaccinate the elderly, they you know when they roll out the vaccines, and they start with the elderly, the the fatality rates are very high, until you get down to people who are not as elderly. And if you, and if you do not carefully avoid the people with comorbidities and who are particularly frail. Then you will kill them. And in fact, the the vaccine deaths that we clearly see that are that are coincident with rollouts, both in the poor states in the United States and India. They correspond to when you went and vaccinated those people that meaning, you know the elderly and the frail, and the people who are on heavy medication who are disabled, mentally disabled and so on who cannot function in society. They roll out and vaccinate those in a, in an accelerated program which in the US they called vaccine equity, they hired thousands of people to go and do this everywhere. All of a sudden so they ramped up the vaccinations in the middle of a late summer, that they caused a peak in mortality that would not have been there. Otherwise, that is clearly quantifiable very visible, and is coincident with that increase in vaccination. When you go after the vulnerable. The vaccines are the most dangerous, and therefore, you have to stringently clinically evaluate whether you can vaccinate the person that you're about to vaccinate, you have to be very careful. And every time that the government ran accelerated programs where apparently they were not that careful, then that's when you get really high kill rates for the vaccine. In India, in the initial rollout I believe. So, it is, it is not a good idea to vaccinate those who most need it, according to the usual narrative. Yeah, it's a it's to me just really shocking how this is all adding up and right and you know, hindsight is 2020 we really need to do at some moment. I'm just so happy to have been able to connect with you on this, because, as we explained in the last thing you know I kind of came to this from the opposite side I mean I was, I was full, fully Jay I'm really excited by the degree to which you have come to completely understand that there is no logical reason to believe that there was a particularly rare pathogen that came onto the planet, that if you look at and try to understand the all cause mortality the excess all cause mortality by jurisdiction by age group, and you and you and you you analyze that as I have done in great detail for many jurisdictions, then you have to conclude that there was no pandemic that there was no that there was sure there's the usual people who are dying for all the various causes there's the usual ecology of pathogens out there that they're always out there. But there is no reason to believe that there was a particularly virulent pathogen. And I was really excited to see in in your podcast that you were vehemently advancing that and I really love your style and I love the fact that you have a very solid science background as well. And no it's great, it's great, it's great to to see thinking independent thinker who have piercing mind, able to see this and I can, I know that Mike Eden is is is another scientist who has read my work and who now says exactly that that the all cause mortality shows you that there was no particularly virulent pathogen. And you know I've gone through all the arguments as to how it shows that you know you get these, you get excess mortality, where you have vulnerable people and where you vaccinate them well when you vaccinate them, but wherever you apply these aggressive conditions like social isolation and and and destroying of the economy and everything. It's the most vulnerable who suffer and they're the ones who die. And so everywhere where they have done that, if you combine doing that with a large pool of very vulnerable people who whose lives are devastated when you isolate them, you kill them that's where you get the high death rates. So for example in the United States, 1.3 million people died during COVID excess deaths. But the, but the supposed virus that would have caused this did not cross the border into Canada, a 5000 kilometer border, the two biggest economic exchange partners in the world, it didn't cross the border, because in Canada, there is no there's virtually no excess mortality in the whole COVID period. There's like a 3% integrated increase, that's it. You can't even see it when you look at all cause mortality as a function of time. So, how can this supposed pathogen that spreads like crazy that is a spreading infectious disease, decide not to cross the border into Canada. How's that, how can you think of it that way you can't. And the, so that's one line of argument. You can, you can do the same thing state by state. Why does it not cross state borders. Why is it that in the states that had lockdowns, the initial excess mortality is much higher than in the state right beside it that is essentially the same that did not have a lockdown, I wrote a paper on that with collaborator. I wondered, I've often wondered how the presence or absence of a lockdown would change the way that doctors would behave. Like, essentially if the lockdown happened in your jurisdiction you might be believing the entire thing. Whereas if right. Right. Well you know that there's a lot of thinking and analysis that can be done along those lines you know why this correlation. I tend to think of it this way. I tend to think that the states that imposed a lockdown are the states that are more totalitarian from medical tyranny perspective, generally, so they're that they're also the same states where they'll have these crazy protocols in the hospitals. They're the same states that for cultural reasons and for institutional reasons, the, the healthcare workers are just more military like they're just more in and the doctors follow more and so on. So, I tend to think of it in terms of as the lockdowns being a measure an indicator, if you like a proxy indicator of how totalitarian the stadium. Yep, I see that. Yeah. And so, rather than, but of course the direct effect of the lockdown cannot be probably cannot be ignored I mean if you tell people, you know who normally have substance social contacts I mean, this is something it's like, it's like they want us to forget all the science that was done before 2020. So, Professor Sheldon Cohen in the United States spent his whole career, proving that the first determinant factor with viral respiratory diseases is the psychological stress that you're experiencing, and whether or not you're socially isolated. By far, by far, what is the name you just dropped. Sorry, what's the name you just dropped. Sheldon Cohen. He did, he was, you know, 20 years ago, he was infecting university students with influenza, purposefully, when you were allowed to do that, and and correlating you know which ones get sick and how sick do they get. And which ones get sick and how sick they get is determined by the psychological stress in their life that they report that they're experiencing and the degree to which they're socially isolated. That's a fascinating line of research I'm not aware of. Nothing else matters. Virtually nothing else matters. Everything else is a detail, nutrition, everything. That's what it's all about. And you know, he's not the only one, the entire field of animal health if you like, or, you know, the people who study social animals will tell you. And there's, there really is a consensus there. The first determinant of health in social animals is the degree to which you're subjected to dominance hierarchy stress, which is a random chaotic stress to keep you in your place, your position in the dominance hierarchy, that is the first determinant of health, those animals will be sick more often and will die sooner. We've got humans always construct dominance hierarchies we live in a dominance hierarchy, and that that oppression is constant to maintain the dominance hierarchy. And I argue that the medical establishment is an institutional form of that oppression. That's what it's about it's part of that system. And I've also argued in my book which I wrote years ago that, in fact, the fact that that stress weakens your immune system that's known now biologically there's a really strong link there. And there's, there's reason to believe that that is evolutionarily selected, because if you have an animal society like that, then it will reinforce the, the dominance hierarchy. So it's a mechanism to maintain a dominance hierarchy. If the stress will make you sicker and weaker. So they're there. I've argued that there's a potential link there I think I'm the first person to, to point that out, you know, that there may be an evolutionary reason for the link between stress and weakening of the immune system. How's that for an idea. Pretty radically. I like it I'm still digesting it. I think the medical establishment may basically is an institutional structure to ensure that. Well that part I really like because that all in history at least before the pandemic. I actually have this neon sign behind me that's the flag from a, from a golf course that's the 19th hole you know like you drink after you do, but I have it there because 2019 was the last real year of, of what I mean, I still look back and I have to look at science before 2020 and then I usually get the right answer. I'm. I'm surprised. I don't know I'm just to continue to be blown away at how much was available already then I mean I was a neuro biologist for a long time, and I am keenly aware that that one of the best depression models in rats is just this, you know, you put a big male in and let a little male get get put in his place a few times and then that little male does that develops depression like behavior. It has dawned on me but never so eloquently expressed as you just did that by making us take our temperature. Remember when it all started when I was still going to university and hadn't gotten let go yet. I used to have to go through the front door with my bike because I had to get my temperature taken and a sticker put on my ID. That's like a kind of. Here's the dominant rat. I'm the submissive rat. And if you don't have your sticker the dominant rat will come and tell you you need your sticker. And one of the things I got in trouble for was going in the garage like I did the old days and bypassing the temperature. That was a big deal. And that was one of the reasons why they didn't let me come to university anymore because I was flaunting the code policy. Yep. And those that that those aggressions are more effective if they're irrational. Yeah, it's a nice observation as well because we can't we can't figure them out and we can't use them to predict the future. That's right. And in fact there are scientific studies from before 2020 that show that in animal populations if the aggression is done just for no reason and at random and is chaotic it's much more effective than if you wait for the person to break a rule or something like that. No, but it puts a perfect place for these ever changing rules. Yes. Yes, yes. And it should be irrational. Like the, you know, it should be irrational. Oh my gosh, Denis I love it. Denis I love this observation. The masks prevent you from breathing properly. They're uncomfortable. They put all this goop that you're trying to get out of your lungs, right in your face. They're horrible. And it's completely irrational to think that it's a good thing to put this on your face. That is that is part of the deal. If you could personally observe that when you wear this thing you don't get as sick and you can see and detect the benefit to your health and to your person from wearing the mask, like, objectively. It wouldn't be as useful as, as a, as a way to train you to be subservient. It's a fabulously subtle adjustment to how I see it and it really helpful. It really is that's really helpful because it's it's, you know, it's these little details in my mind that that that help the smoke clear and every one of these little details. I think, you know, there's a lot of things that are that you have to consider maybe upside down from from our first reaction, like, like, for example, the vaccine cannot be itself super toxic to everyone, because otherwise, it's out, everyone will see it. So, it turned luckily for them, it only kills elderly frail people with comorbidity, except a small group of athletes, and that is a problem, because that's visible. That's unusual. That's something that everyone can recognize. So that's a flaw in their system. If they wanted to make a perfect vaccine just to get us to be obedient and to accept the military rollouts of being injected whenever they say so. Then they should have used saline solution. They should have used something completely inoffensive that there are there are scientists out there. Kevin McCarran in Japan is one who, who claims to have used like ramen spectroscopy or other things to look at these vaccines and found blanks, or at least found no phosphate signal, for example. Anything is possible. You're talking about a multi, you know, a trillion dollar industry that is putting this stuff out where you have all kinds of middle people and people at the top, everyone knows what they're supposed to do that anything's possible. You know, the machine breaks down for a while, and you can't not honor the contract and you put out what is essentially the non vaccine who's going to know, right, anything's possible in these scenarios. Yeah. This is this is like we're talking billions of doses being put out over the course of months, basically. So, yeah. You're familiar with the fact that at least in the records of the European Union, they distributed like between 55% and 80% purity or something like that they didn't. They lowered the requirement to like 50% and then they the lowest that they they distributed was 55% pure whatever purity means by their measurement. Well, that's what that's what that's what fueled the dose thing which I was going to try and lead you into, right, which is because a lot of people were interested in the fact that certain lot numbers might be hot, and you apparently have data which kind of refuted that claim right. Yeah, we wrote a paper saying that there's no such thing as these so called toxic batches that all all all of the deaths that follow immediately or soon follow the injection can be understood and explained naturally in terms of the age of the person being injected. So the in fact the deaths amounts go exponentially with with age, just as is this the paper that you wrote with Joseph Hickey. Yes, okay. I got the right one. Yeah. So that that I think that's a very important paper where we explain in great detail, the mistakes that were made in coming to the conclusion that there were bad batches, and also how you can explain the data, the same data that they're trying to use to demonstrate bad batches, we say, follows an exponential law with age. So what you have to realize about age is that you, you, you exponentially become more frail, in the sense that your probability of dying in the next year rises exponentially with age okay, and the doubling time for the human species is nine years, a lot of people don't realize this very fundamental biological fact. And in fact, I've always been surprised to know that nobody's trying to understand that nobody's trying to understand. Why is it that death goes exponentially with age and has a doubling time of nine years for the human species, and that's true across civilizations in history. Anytime that you're not in a situation where accidents dominate where you're living in the jungle or something. You've got an exponential increase and a doubling time of nine years. Let's try and figure that out well I can only find about five papers in all of science that tries to address this question, which is like the most fundamental thing right. So I am. And when does the doubling time of nine years stretch back to. So you it starts at about when you're 30. So before in younger years. Wow, I was totally misunderstood you then okay I get it now. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're under 30 die of all kinds of things in infant, you know, deaths of all kinds, and so on, but starting at 30 you're stabilized, you're, you're, you're a fit individual if you like from from that perspective, and all the way up to into your 70s and 80s. There's a perfect exponential law. Okay, no way. So, yeah, and hey you're a biologist and you hadn't really know under this note, which is, yeah, and that's, they don't teach it at school, and, and yet all the data is unambiguous on this point. And it's quite remarkable. And so, and so frailty goes exponentially with age, but the other thing that goes exponentially with age is the spread in frailty. If you see what I mean. You know, the difference in health status of one individual to the next of a given age, the spread in that health status rises exponentially with age. Okay, so it's not just the average frailty that rises exponentially but it's also the spread and frailty. And when you take that together it completely explains who's dying from being injected with this or any other vaccine by the way. Okay, if you look at virus data for other vaccines before 2020. They all follow this rule. Basically, it's not a good idea to inject frail people with these substances, whatever they are, if there's, if there's any chance there's going to be an immune response or something some nasty response in your body. Don't inject frail people with this thing. That's what it comes down to. And in your, in your United States paper though, I remember or recall that after the vaccine rollout. A age dependent biases is found in the younger groups right. That's yeah it it's okay so there's a couple of things. One is. Yeah, that's right. It's, it's the, the, the deaths. Overall, integrated deaths in the part of the covert period where you've mostly vaccinated everyone varies with age in a way that is unusual. That that weighs towards younger agents. And that's some evidence that a lot of these deaths could be induced by vaccination, but it's also, but it could be other things too which we discussed in the paper. Okay, compared to the covert period in the United States, before you vaccinated anyone were there, the the age distribution is typically what you would find. Okay. So if you normalize by how many people are dying anyway which itself is exponential you get this flat, which is what that figure show. Yeah, I see. Yeah, but then but then in the in the second half. When you're going after more frail people see, there's, there's so many things to consider when you try to analyze this data, for example, most people don't realize but in the United States, there are 13 million people who are certifiably suffering from a serious mental illness. Did you know that you're medicated. They're medicated and if you look at the age distribution of those people. It's highly highly weighted towards young people. There's almost no one above 50 is in this category, but in the you know that I forget what it is 14 to 25 year olds it's like massive. Okay, so here you've got these this huge pool of very frail people that you're going to attack. And more of the young will be killed because there, there's more of them in that pool. So you've got to take that into account as well, because it's the frail who die, whether it's from coven measures or the vaccine it's always the frail. Right. So there's all this happening together. The other, the other thing that's in that paper there's so much in that paper some hundred and 60 pages right with lots of graphs and everything. But the other thing that comes out is that, given that death itself from a viral respiratory disease, including coven, according to clinical studies is exponential with age. All right. Therefore, you should find a correlation with the median age or the age distribution of the state. And when you look for correlations of excess mortality, compared to the median age or the average age or the number of people that are over 65 or over 75 ready. Every time you do that, what do you get, what do you see when you when you look at that graph, a shotgun pattern. There is no correlation with age. There is evidence that this is not a viral respiratory disease. That is evidence that it's killing fragile people, whatever the age and and and by whatever means, but it's not a simple viral respiratory infection, and a, an infection fatality ratio that applies. I just I'm just in awe really I mean, at it for me it's just really exciting to exciting is not the right word. It is, it is relieving in some ways, because attempting to understand what's happening here from a biological perspective, and having realized part of the journey for me has also been coming to fully understand how P values and, and science have been contorted and distorted by people whose primary objective is not figuring out the truth and so you know I saw a little bit of it in neuroscience where people will go up and give a seminar and show their data and then say that they solve time in the brain and it's like well you didn't really solve time. Maybe you should call it sequence or something but you know people always are trying to make make things sexier than they are. But from the perspective of where we are today, I find myself wondering, you know have sequencing technologies been overrepresented in terms of fidelity and where, and who can we talk to, who can tell us that. I mean because so much of that data for example is either at, at best it's done behind closed doors but it could also be inside of proprietary boxes behind closed doors. And so if the technology that we're is generating the data is also proprietary the technology that they're injecting is proprietary it just starts to become this thing where it dawned on me suddenly that what if there wasn't you know and, and then, you know, you were there, your data was there. I'm really excited that you're reacting this way to genomics and to the whole PCR technology thing. That's where I'm at right now as well. One of my next long term scientific research projects is going to be to figure exactly these questions out. I want to do that. I want to satisfy myself intellectually, that I understand how this works and how it doesn't. I've been in the past and various other areas of science, and I want to do that, and I'm going to try to talk to the right people but also dig in there and find out. I'm really into it right now too and one of the things I can put you a leg up on is that they. They have applied this metagenomic sequencing to eukaryotes, and in so doing they screened a whole bunch of ribosomal RNA genes because they're, they tend to be unique but conserved so that you can go down the phylogenetic tree and follow the connections. In doing that, they have implied, and this is where I feel like there's this thorano stuff. If they only look at ribosomes, and they get a couple hits for a particular bacteria, and then that bacteria turns out to be there from other, other tests. They will say that they sequence the bacteria and found it when in reality they only sequenced certain known variable regions of certain known ribosomal subunits, but as a way of selling their product and boasting about their technology they refer to it as sequencing the genome and using the genome to figure out what's present in this sample of all kinds of stuff. And even though that was kind of hand waving with bacteria. They have gone ahead and applied this to viral genomes as well and that's where I feel as though they have probably pulled some kind of bait and switch here where they have reached the limit of their fidelity. And so it works in the right circumstances where there's enough purity or enough signal. They can, you know, wink and nod that this works for viruses too but the idea of applying it to, you know, thousands and thousands of clinical samples around the world and just filling this database full of stuff. It becomes a very I'm going to make an overarching statement here bold overarching statement. I think the whole variant of concern narratives that are out there and the way they're there, they're writing papers about it and the way they're doing it is wrong. It's probably a lot of crap. That's what I'm thinking right now. This is complete garbage. And one of these big papers about the Delta variant was about India, and I reviewed it and critiqued it in our recent paper of today about India. Okay. Yeah, and I was able to, you know, I went into and looked at what what exactly did you guys do. And I then I concluded well, based on what you did, you did not demonstrate what you say you demonstrated. This is nonsense. Okay. So, I'm, I'm becoming more and more convinced that there's a whole industry of producing prevalence curves of variance as a function of time in jurisdictions. And when you go in and read, how did they actually do that there, you're looking at non randomly selected small cohorts of sequencing, from which you generate this beautiful color graph of what the populations of the various of the various variants are as a function of time, it's completely unreliable. And in you, when you read the fine print and what they did, they actually spell out all the sources of errors and all the reasons that you cannot be confident in this. And, you know, I did that exercise once and I thought, wow, this is like garbage on top of garbage on top of garbage and then at the end you produce this color graph, and then scientists, and then scientists reproduce that color graph and interpret their own measurements and data in published scientific articles on the basis that these were the variants that were prevalent at the time in this place. I mean, we're in crazy land here. And you cannot get a good scientist who is critical to be critical of these of this dealt, sorry this variant predominance industry, and how it's done. And when you try to find papers where they actually in a in a systematic way explain everything that they've done, they're very few. It's all government websites. It's all these funded institutions that are producing these graphs. And, and then these graphs are picked up by scientists and they become the basis for interpretation. Come on, guys. I think it's crazy. No, you're, you're, you're, you're preaching to the choir here I mean it's a, it is a thing that that. You know, that there are so many people that I still know, and and and have worked with for the entire pandemic who are still having an adverse reaction to my change of heart. And they have all kinds of different responses, and a lot of it has to do with not being not having the requisite sort of subtleties and and details to understand that we're not saying the biology is fake or that viruses don't exist. But that there should be expectations in the way that I've summarized in my stream was that the TV told you there was a new source of death that has certain requirements, a new source of death has certain requirements that mathematically should be visible. And then a, a set of therapeutics that solves the problem of that new cause of death should also be visible with certain mathematical characteristics and that's what strikes me about your, your way of working. There was a military style rollout of a vaccine in the United States that was sudden, virtually immediate. And if you look at the all cause mortality, not a single life was killed was saved by this, not a single the same level of all cause mortality throughout the covert period in the United States is maintained throughout, you cannot see evidence that the vaccine had any beneficial effect on an experiment of that size the experiment has been done. It has been completely done. Yep. It's hard data you're counting deaths. There is no, you must conclude that the vaccine had no benefit. At the very least you must conclude that. And then when you dig a little deeper you find peaks that are associated with accelerations of the rollout, when you were hitting vulnerable people. So at the very least it had no benefit globally when you integrate all cause mortality. And in addition to that, you can see events of actual death caused by the vaccine. I mean that's how that's that's the reality. So there's another place where you met pushback though right and I think that my my viewers are especially interested in hearing this. That the pushback that that you get when you say that other vaccines can be explained with similar mechanisms that these might not be as special as people think. And that maybe there's just a general vulnerability, do not inject people maybe maybe injection needs to be considered much more of an invasive procedure than we do right now. And one of the people that you mentioned earlier was marks your dose theory about this that the bolus is is causing some kind of endothelial damage that can lead to blood brain barrier problems or or gut brain barrier problems all of these things. You would say that your data that you have collected or collated over the over the pandemic seems to confirm this idea as well. Well, there's at least some mechanism there that could be shared. Yeah, let me clarify. Sure, the, the mode of operation, the time it takes to react and to get death following injection. The, the functional dependence of that probability of death following injection as a function of time, you know the first peak within five days and then an exponential decay that lasts about two months. That's the same for all the vaccines that we examined it in bars. However, the magnitude of the integrated deaths following injection can be different from one vaccine to the next. Right. Right. So, for example, of the covert vaccines use the United States, it's, it's clear that the Janssen one is more toxic, that the integrated deaths for the Janssen one is greater than the other two. And so there, but there must be something underlying at a fundamental level the mechanism of death for it to be so similar from one manufacturer to another, and from one vaccine type to another from past years and so on. You know the fact that you get this sharp peak at the beginning and then an exponential decay, which, which strongly implies that in everything in that exponential decay was due to that injection that happened at time zero. There must be something fundamental so it has to do with the probability of, you know, injecting straight into the circulatory system when you inject into the muscle that would cause the initial peak for example, and then the exponential decay is related to the immune systems response time if you like, to really mount something that's going to affect your health in a dramatic way, and that's going to kill you if you're frail. So, there's something. I think it's intrinsic to your immune, the most people's average immune system that this exponential decay, and it's intrinsic to the physical injection, the first peak. I don't want to go along those lines if I had to explain why there's this uniformity in in in how the deaths look following injection, you see. So, so, so the most important thing is the very in terms of death from vaccine. The most important thing is, who are you injecting. Of course there are accidents. That's really the most important thing. In addition to that, in terms of a minority of people who die from it, or who have serious, it's the whole myocarditis thing and the athletes that fall in the field. That is probably completely new, compared to previous vaccines right. So, that's how I would put it there, but that, but that, you know, if you took all the young people who died from the vaccine under, you know, young athletes die kind of circumstances that were not among the frail that whole integrated mortalities is is minuscule you cannot detect it in terms of all cause mortality. When we look at all cause mortality we're looking at the entire, the entire society, all of the population in the state or in the country. So, you're not going to see that. But that doesn't mean it's not there and it's not really important and it's not devastating for people's lives individually. Let me just clarify for everybody watching and those people in the chat that we're not saying that that all vaccines are the same by any stretch of the imagination but we're saying that that at the base of this is a physical danger of injection of, of any foreign substance and then on top of that is your immune system's reaction to that substance and that can be graded depending on what the substance is and, and the properties of it and so we're not dismissing the idea that there may be a whole suite of problems associated with the expression of the spike and that gets me back to your India paper which we talked about also I don't want to keep you all day, but the Indian, the Indian data that you observed is primarily a dental virus driven spike expression correct so it's not mRNA, but it is. I would imagine a more similar immune response because you're being challenged to interpret the, the, the expression of a foreign protein. And I would have thought at the beginning of the pandemic just to throw this biology out there that because these adenovirus driven inoculations would have more of what I imagined to be the proper infection qualities where you're activating the interferon system and there is a virus that maybe you would get a better immune response then just random expression of spike anywhere without the, without the underlying virus to deliver it but just this, this nanoparticle might not be as attractive or as annoying to the immune system as the actual adenovirus. But it turns out, I don't know I don't know if it's the same or not but it's very interesting that they both provoke this, this, they're the mechanisms are so similar I guess that's where I needed to go. That what dawned on me that could be the case is that they share the immune response reaction so whatever the, the maladaptive response to these proteins being present is is likely what they share. I don't know if that's a good segue or not but I guess what I'm getting at is I can go along with that certain certainly the Janssen of the three that were using the United States is more toxic than the other two. Okay, that's, that's hard evidence from bars. So that kind of vaccine that was used in India, predominantly, but there's another factor here which is when you do use this kind of virus vector, as opposed to lipid nanoparticles. There is a whole slew of contamination routes that are possible when you actually manufacture the vaccine. Then, and those contamination in real, real killers in the past right. And so, when this, when this whole thing was first coming up I thought to myself. It's brilliant what they're doing, because they're eliminating all the dangers related to culturing viruses in order to make the vaccine. They're eliminating all, so they're basically just doing clean wet chemistry in the lab, and they're going to eliminate it's going to be way easier to manufacture, and there, it's a real moneymaker because it won't be as deadly it's easier to manufacture you can do it, what, and it's clean. So that was my first thought, and so we shouldn't forget that we shouldn't forget that, you know, like, like remember the goal here their goal. I believe that their goal is to is to have a genocide against the population. No, they need to record us they don't want us dead they need to get us on a on a data collection system so that. Yeah, they need all kinds of things but they're not, they're not just trying to reduce the population of the globe. I mean, of course they're concerned about the population of the globe. Of course it's a system that has a lot of population a lot of things going on in many different distributed places is a way danger way more dangerous system to the to the elite at the top. That's a given, and of course they, they're going to, you know, but the way that they control the population they starve you, they prevent development in Africa and and in Asia that they have all kinds of really effective ways to control the population. But it's not about controlling the population in my view, this is about putting into place, a military system of injection that is globalized that is whenever they want they can inject you with whatever they want, under the pretext of health. That's what this about it's it's a, in my view, it's that kind of a weapon that they put into place. They now have the possibility they've convinced you that it's a good idea to be injected whenever they like with whatever they say. And they've put into place the all the procedures and all the mechanisms to do that, and they bought out all the right people and they can go into an entire continent and virtually inject everybody. That's what I think they were after. And to achieve that. It's one of the things that we're after and leaving out all the geopolitics but to achieve that. What they need is, is, is a vaccine that does not kill you, where people are not going to have a revolt in the streets that you know everyone you've injected or 10% of them or even 1% of them have died. God we're not doing this anymore. They need a clean, they need a clean thing. Now, it turns out that there's some stuff in there that your immune system responds to, and therefore, a lot of frail people will die from these injections. But I don't think that was necessarily their goal, but it wasn't their goal to treat them either and it wasn't their goal to prevent that they just saw that as well that's going to happen. It's not necessarily a negative for them from that's right it's not a negative for them. It's not a negative at all. But it doesn't need to be a purpose indeed I see that I see that doesn't need to be a purpose. Yeah. Well, I was, I'm trying to make the argument on my stream that it would be ridiculous to throw us all away if they need our data for the AI. If this is the peak population, then the number of genomes and medical data that are available right now is the largest library that will ever exist. I mean if we're going to go down to 500 million then we're never going to have this much data again. So, better convince all the college kids in the most diverse population on earth to give us all their DNA regularly, so that we can follow these people and follow the database we need in 30 years to usher in this imaginary world where the AI will figure out our genome and fix all our problems. I think they tell that story in secret rooms all the time. I think they do. I haven't, I haven't followed the thought and the scenarios in that direction myself personally. What I see is geopolitics at play here as the dominant big wheel that's turning everything, you know. And what I see is a US centered global system that wants to crush China and Eurasia. And they need to replace the petrodollar with global currency which they hope will take over the entire globe. And for it to be strong and effective and real it needs to be tied to all our bank accounts. And so they're hoping that their particular E currency will, they'll be able to bribe all the right people and course countries and get everyone including China and Russia to accept their, their E currency and if not, they will at least have a firm hold on the entire Western controlled world in order to continue fighting Eurasia. Okay, so that's where that's how I see the E currency coming in here. And I wrote a big geopolitics paper in 2019 where I explained global currency and how it works and the history of geopolitics since the Second World War and how this, you know, you can see the trajectory you can see everything. And I think that's what's going on here. So that's that's another part of the story. Everything, everything that they can sell their allies or the world that costs a lot of money reinforces their global currency. So they sell protection when they sell weapons, whether they work or not to their allies, they force them to buy these extraordinarily expensive weapons systems, right. That is a way to maintain their global currency and medical technology is another way. If they can force everyone to buy, or, or the public to pay for if they're paying for for developing countries so called developing countries. That is another leverage to ensure that their global currency is a global currency has strength. Another observation you made that I want to bring up for you just you're going to keep going. Is that you don't see this as an energy shortage but actually the wrong the wrong people have enough energy now so that we can't control them in the way that we used to. That's right. There's too much energy that's their problem. That's why they need a new currency. If they're, if, if energy was in short supply, and in places that they can control like the Middle East traditionally. They could continue to use energy as an important substance to prop up their global currency. But they can't now because Russia has energy Venezuela has energy, Canada has energy. So what the US has done is they prevented Canada from selling its energy because Canada, if it were a sovereign country would sell its energy to Eurasia, of course, and would be a competitor to sell it to Europe now that the US has created circumstances where Europe is preventing itself from buying its energy from Russia. The US has no problem crushing its allies, its so called allies, it will prevent sovereignty from emerging in Canada and Europe everywhere, Japan, and it will. And if you look at the history of geopolitics it has done this several times. The globalization accelerations that have occurred at various times since the Second World War have all been about robbing the allies and reinforcing the strength of US based US centered mega corporations and financiers. So there's a there's a huge history of this which I wrote about in in our geopolitics paper. And so they're doing that now in Europe, they're, they're cutting off Europe's affordable energy which nourishes all of its industry in Germany and France and so on, so that they can sell US energy to Europe at an inflated price, completely robbing Europe, preventing Canada from competing in that in that by blocking landlocking Canada's energy and making sure that the liberal globalist government prevents Alberta for example from selling its energy. All of this is the US controlling as much of the world as it can. And it is happy to crush its allies in doing that. And the goal is to crush Eurasia, the development of China and Russia and integrated Eurasia. And so that that's the geopolitical adversary right now they've given themselves a decade to do this that COVID is war measures in a geo economic war. It's a way to prevent you from consuming to know where you are at all times to control you completely to be able to block your bank account etc etc. It's a way into place to control the domestic population during upheavals related to a geopolitical economic war. That's what COVID is the war measures. So, you've got, you've got a limiting of consumption. You've got limiting of where you can go how you can travel. You've got complete dependence on the state and and and complete surveillance. That's what COVID is COVID was a way, and forget about the vaccine which is a military tool, but COVID itself are war measures applied to the domestic populations in the western world. Of course, Russia and China did the same thing you know they're not stupid there, they can see the importance of this and they're, they're the opponent in this war so they have to protect themselves they're going to do the same kind of thing, right. It has to be made from the vaccine so throw that in there as well so Russia, Russia makes its own vaccine and sells it to to African countries and India and so on. So all this is happening at the same time. But the geopolitics is really important. So what stage. Do you think we are at Do you think, from your outsiders perspective that there's still a good faction in the United States that we can root for, and because you know when we when we were talking last I think how it ended was something needed to happen in Eurasia that would force the American faction to make America great again can you can you explain that a little bit. Yeah. Thank God that there are competing factions within the US that creates cracks and things. Okay, so, great, great if they want to fight between themselves. There's, there's the, the, the leading faction right now is applying the model that they can win by force that they can have a geopolitical war and win it. Okay, economic war and win it. That's their idea. So they are happy to destroy their allies. Do whatever, in order to have a military blockade around China. Do whatever, in order to win this this war which they're planning will last about a decade that they're the people in charge right now they don't care about the domestic populations or anything. There's another bunch in that that weren't wasn't charged sort of with Trump that is of the, of the opinion that you can't really have an empire, without a core, you need a core that is strong, industrially, not just in military production but that is creative, where you have a strong educational system wherever it was you need to make America great again otherwise, if there's no core the Empire is weak, and will fail. So they would like to implement that and they would like the, the domestic corporate interests to benefit from that. Also, of course, and, but they want to rebuild to the degree that it's needed to have an empire, and they have lost out. So, to hell with that, you know is what's happening right now. Will it come back I don't know. But, you know, make America great again was not just a crazy slogan. It's actually tied to a geopolitical vision of how you remain the hegemon on the planet, and how you can keep this going. Right. And that's what's going on in terms of the internal fights between so called democrats and so called republicans who have who are tied to different financier and and corporate interests. All right. So, more globally geopolitically, you've got Eurasia which is developing at an incredible pace. It's integrating, they're doing bilateral trade more than ever, and they're, they've got bricks that includes Brazil, India, South Africa, that is also building that and they've got their own bilateral trade agreements regarding what what currencies they're going to use, and they're developing their own currencies and so on. So, they are a contender, they're a real competition. And what will take us out of this craziness is for you raise it to succeed, and to reverse the brain drain in the other direction, when people see that good educational system, high productivity, industrial development is the way to go because that's where you have more opportunity more development more social development and so on. When they start to see that the, it will greatly weaken the Western system. And that's, and that's when it'll be a wake up call where we'll finally say okay maybe it's better to have a good educational system. Maybe it's better to have, you know, domestic industry and everything else right and we need to rebuild it we need to really build it up again. And that's where we'll start to have freedom of expression again. Because in order to have strongly independent self motivated corporations and individuals and everything. You also have to have independence, some, some degree of creativity and independence of thought and so on. And so that's what will save us but we're looking at, at least a decade. At least a decade. And now, the road is really clear. There's going to be total censorship, total ideology, total, all the professionals are bought out and are following the ideology there, you know, I don't know what's going to happen with Twitter I don't even know what it means but it, it seems like just a way of making sure that you don't lose out a lot of these people keep keep tabs on them. And, you know, keep controlling them and, and, and directing them. Maybe that's what Twitter is about is that they were they were afraid of the resistance, going out into a place where you can't really control them. I don't know. But I think this is geopolitical. I think that it's great that we are the resistance. We have to be the resistance, we can have some successes, but overall, like, throughout history, what's going to matter is the outcome of this war. Yeah, I don't know what to say hold on one second babe and I'll come help you. I am going to send people to your website regularly, I'm going to plug you as much as I can on my daily show. It's really exciting because I have been using at least one of your articles for quite some time and I now know after meeting you that there's much more on that website than I thought, and I am a little ashamed that I didn't go farther but like I said, my attention has been so fragmented I consider myself still pretty intrepid for knowing who you are. So, I can't thank you enough for joining me if you ever want to come back and talk about your next article you're always welcome. And if you wouldn't mind forwarding my contact information to anybody who thinks needs to hear it I would, I would be at your service I mean I just want people to see where the biology overlaps and where the biology doesn't and I think we can make something happen. It's exciting. I'm as excited as you are to have discovered you and only recently, and I should have discovered you before, but I was really excited to see someone vehemently making all the points that you were making. One of the things that I enjoyed most in one of your last podcast is like, where you explain where we're not starting in our analysis. You know, we're not thinking about this we're not doing this we're not doing this. Instead we're doing all this crazy superficial stuff that we're directed to do right. We really appreciated that that we're not actually looking at mortality we're not actually looking at, you know, the the viral properties of this supposed pathogen and so on and so on. And we're not looking at, you know, how does this genomic thing work, and what about the problems in PCR and how it was applied. We're not looking at any of that nobody wants that the system does not want us to look at that. Nobody wants us to keep rushing forward. Just keep rushing forward. And so it's really, I don't know I don't want to keep you any longer I think it's a great place to end. Thank you very very much for joining me we're going to be in touch for, for the remainder of this thank you thank you thank you. It was my pleasure. See you soon. Bye. Well, that was pretty special thank you very much guys for joining me I'm going to cut it right there because I think this is just, it stands as it is I need to get some lunch because I do think I'm meeting Matt and Liam for a discussion in a couple, two, three minutes or so. Thank you very much for joining me this has been GigaOhmBiological a high resistance low noise information stream, brought to you by a biologist. My name is Jonathan Cooey. I work with transfections in humans. I've got a website named GigaOhm Biological and I also have a federated version of the mastodon type thing it's soapbox here, put together by one of you. GigaOhmBiological or and that's kind of like a Twitter thing we can discuss, we can talk and they can't censor us.

If you want to stop all transfections in humans don't take any more if you did the elimination the control group is still real. I'll see you guys tomorrow with Joseph Lee.

Thank you.