REFERENCE

The reason why the government has pushed this so hard, that's not a justification for the shortcuts they've taken. So that's my brief understanding of the background of the source of the technology, and the logic for why it has been aggressively developed, largely by our intelligence community. Over. Well, just real quick, because in yesterday's discussion you were talking about the difference between as this was originally conceived as, I guess, biologic RNA, versus now this is synthetic. And there's a difference there. Can you explain that? So, about a decade after that original work that was done at the Salk Institute in Vichal, a group, Karikó and Weissman at UPenn came along and attempted to address one of the key problems with the technology, which is that it is very inflammatory, which is kind of a big word saying it's toxic.

And they came up with a modification using a newly discovered aspect of molecular biology, that is the substitution of a modified U, RNA contains four bases, AUGC, and a modified U called pseudouridine, which reduces inflammation, also causes the RNA to last for a very long time, and has a variety of other effects on the biology of the RNA that are still being understood. And so, in the original embodiment, we had RNA that would potentially last for a few hours, and that was what was taught to physicians is the half-life or lifespan of these injectable products. But with the pseudouridine incorporation with this modification of Karikó and Weissman, we now have clear documentation the product lasts for 60 days or more in human bodies after injection, which has all kinds of implications, including that we really have to extend the window of time where we assess potential risk or toxicity associated with the treatment, rather than inferring that it just is in the body for a short period of time and degrades. I hope I've answered your question.

You did. Let's put a finer point on that. So, we were told that this injection would stay in the arm muscle, and it would quickly produce a spike protein that the body would create antibodies for, and that mRNA would degrade, and all would be well. And there wouldn't be any kind of long-term impact. But it was encapsulated in a nanoparticle that was designed to permeate difficult permeate barriers. So, it biodistributed all over the body. We'll talk about that later. And the mRNA lasts a whole lot longer than anybody was told. And in particular, much longer than physicians and other health care providers were told by the pharmaceutical industry and the U.S. government, including HHS.

Over. Okay. Thank you. So, I want to call up to the table Dr. Jancy Lindsay. Oh, you're there. You weren't there last time we looked. Dr. Lindsay is a Ph.D., is the Director of Toxicology and Molecular Biology for Toxicology Support Services, LLC. She holds a doctorate in the biochemistry and molecular biology from the University of Texas Graduate School, the Biomedical Sciences Houston MD Anderson Cancer Center. Her focus on COVID-19 has been on molecular pathways that may be involved in reproductive harms and coagulatory pathologies caused by the genetic vaccines in their expedient, whatever. These are way too big words for me. As well as understanding molecular mechanisms behind the various treatments of SARS-CoV-2. Sorry, I butchered that. I asked Dr. Lindsay to really address the potential toxicities of the vaccine and how these things work. And I think Dr. Malone may chime in.

Dr. Lindsay. Thank you so much for having me, Senator Johnson. I very much appreciate it as well as being in the company of all these amazing and remarkable scientists and physicians and attorneys. I very much appreciate your work. So when we think about toxicology and we think about the toxicology of these vaccines, we have to take into consideration all of the parts of the vaccines. The lipid nanoparticle portion, the PEG portion, the methyl pseudouridine in the mRNA, which allows it to be very stable and persist in the body, which Dr. Cole will go over in a little bit. And also the way that…

It's not that I don't think this is important, but I do have a scheduled interview with Joseph Lee, and so I'm going to do that now. I do think that we should revisit this. There's all kinds of stuff we need to listen to here. And so I encourage you, you know, don't think I don't think that this is important. I'm going to clear that out if you don't mind. I'm going to get Dr. Joseph Lee on the horn here and see if we can't produce a meeting. We're starting. Let's see. I don't see him yet, but he said he was in the room. Let's see if we can get him here. Oh, there he is. I got it. We don't even need to send a message. Hello, sir. Can you hear me? Is that working? I can't hear you. Okay. See if that helps at all. I'm just going to keep talking. You can see me, right? No ear. I'm not hearing you. No ear. Let me see where the sound is coming from here. Oh, that should be okay. That should be okay. Hmm. I do hear you. I'm just going to chat that over to him. Hmm. You're muted. I'm going to unmute you. Ask to unmute there. Can you hear me? I can. Yeah, there we go. All right. Can you see me as well here in the front? You do.

Okay, good. Awesome. Well, I don't know how to start other than to just start by saying we're live, if that's okay. That's fine with me. Okay. My name is Jonathan Couey. I was a biologist before the pandemic, and I have a little tiny stream where I'm one of these fools who's trying to make some sense of the biology. And one of the things I ended up doing was reteaching or relearning a lot of the immunology that I learned during my Master's degree and during my PhD and during my undergraduate, where I was always doing something related to biology and immunology, always had some sideshow, but was never really part of a focus. And I was really intrigued to hear about your recent, not revelations, but kind of the things you're trying to teach and the messages you're trying to impart. So I'm sure you're already a little bit practiced at it. I'd just like to give you the floor and introduce yourself and let us know what observations you're making. I have a couple of questions. I mean, you were in medical school? No, not in medical school. I was working at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, actually, as a research assistant professor.

I have been a biologist for, as a neurobiologist for almost 20 years before the pandemic. I mean, since I started my PhD and started killing mice for a living, I have been doing that for like 22 years. And looking at stuff under the microscope and, you know, it's all academic science and it was all in vitro science. But I had spent those 20 years reading and I had always been a biologist my whole life. I actually started as a high school biology teacher while I was treading water trying to get into med school. And then I stumbled into research as part of that treading water to get into med school and I never left. I think I was better off not being a doctor. But when I was in undergrad, I was kind of convinced that that was the right idea. When I tell the story, when I was younger and answered the question of what do you want to be when you grow up, the ways that adults' eyes light up when you say you want to go to med school, it's kind of hard to change stories at some point if you've been telling whoever you're going to be a doctor. So that also there was a lot of inertia there as a young adult, accepting that that might not be the way I went. But once I got into bench biology and the whole idea of research, I really took to it like a duck to water and I really enjoyed it a lot. And so teaching was also a big part of that.

I've always been a person who enjoyed giving a presentation and teaching and having people come to the same realization that you want them to. Well… How nice is that if you can do that? Yeah, definitely. But I tell you, Joseph, one of the things that really frustrated me about academic biology is that's really not important. Your ability to communicate as opposed to just get grant money or just complete the experiment and get the data. It doesn't matter if you can talk about it. We can find somebody to talk about it. And so, you know, teaching was something that you could do it if you want to, to put it on your CV. But you got to find time outside of the lab and it can't be a priority. And that was that that after a long time of being in academia became frustrating because it's almost a kind of half failure if you become a lecturer, right? It's it's not exactly being successful. And that that's also something you buy into as an academic. You really get on this treadmill and everybody's running on the same wheel and nobody wants to admit that they don't like it. And so everybody keeps using the same stair master, even though it's a stupid machine, you know?

Yeah. Well, when I was in medical school, I applied for that Howard Hughes Fellowship for medical students. They give like two out a year for medical students. And my friend happened to be in that. And so he got me in because, you know, we talked a lot and he felt I would love research. And boy, was it horrible for me. I mean, all the data comes back negative and they're only impressed with positive data. And I'm thinking, you know, it was so bizarre because there was a time when I don't have a perfectly clear memory of everything that happened. I just know that I was verbally abused every Sunday in front of 10 people. And he would just tell me how stupid I was. Oh, man. And it was nonstop. And I'm thinking, hey, look, you've been doing this forever. You're like the young investigator of the year awardee recipient. And I'm a medical student. What the hell can I possibly know? And why would you yell at me? Yeah, right, right, right. But, you know, I mean, it didn't affect my confidence in myself. I'm like, that's kind of silly what he's doing.

But what it taught me was, wow, the emotional pressure to produce positive data. And most data is going to be negative. Why would we always have positive data when we do research? There are all kinds of weird anecdotes you hear from mentors like you can only tell stories with big signals. I don't know. There's lots of lots of… This is a time when David Baltimore's lab. I don't I didn't even know who the guy was. All I heard is his name over and over because there was a huge scandal. And apparently there was like fraud everywhere and all his work and his fellows and all the people that work with him. And that broke out when I was doing research in medical school.

So my my trust for the medical system wasn't very good from that point because I thought, OK, these PhDs, these postdocs, they have to produce. They have to happen. Yes, I'm thinking, OK, I can just back out and be a doctor. But these guys, they have to take the yelling and the verbal abuse and the emotional abuse. And if they don't produce, they're out. They don't have a job. They're on a PhD. So the pressure to actually produce positive results is ridiculously huge. You know, that replication crisis that they discuss in Nature. Twelve years ago or so, they published that paper that said half the published data in science can't be replicated. It's just it's that whole thing of, like you said, the you know, the grant money. You have to get the grant money. You have to do interesting research. So some people are going to fake it. Yeah. And I can't it's almost hard to blame them.

No, I guess I think one of the other things that a lot of people don't realize is that peppered at every institution is someone who has chosen by serendipity or chance, a research line that for a few years is going to be productive, and is going to be interesting. But surrounding them are people who've chosen places where the gray areas are never going to be shiny for a while. And where a lot of the details are pretty ho hum, mediocre, no positive or negative results. And they're still forced to raise their their perceived answers to a level that is equivalent to that real discovery level. And I really think that that's what I saw in neuroscience was a lot like that, where it's like a keeping up with the Jones's kind of thing, just because someone else is making big claims. You are required to make big claims and extend beyond the data that you have. And people get away with it in a lot of fields where it doesn't matter. But once you start doing it in certain fields, it can really create a precarious situation, I think, where where important basic ideas are now misunderstood and people are taking advantage of it. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, you know, the academic world. Yeah, I definitely got thrown out. I mean, and I should have I should have left on my own accord. That's actually in retrospect. They threw you out because of what? Well, I mean, I was they said it was because I wasn't following the covid regulations. And when they interviewed students and stuff, they said they also found people willing to say that I was misogynist and racist. But that's all weird. They just didn't extend my contract. I was a research assistant professor with a one year contract every year and I had been renewed for four years. And then I I tend to tell the story that in the background, there was a YouTube channel where I was doing Journal Club about neuroscience. But in the pandemic, I had pivoted to doing Journal Club about coronavirus. And I was advocating for the possibility that it could have come from a laboratory. And when I was doing that, what happened was I don't want this to be about me, though, so I'm going to stop after this. I was asked by the Washington Times about why I thought this. And I said very briefly what I thought. And then they put that in their publication right underneath a quote of Tony Fauci saying that it was a natural virus. And here's Jay from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine saying it's not. And so they contacted me and said, that's not your expertise. You can't speak to the press again. And then a few weeks later, my boss and I were having so much just friction in the research way we were doing it and whether we should be wearing masks or not. And that he asked me not to come in and that I never was asked to come back. They took my badge and keys and just kind of ended it. And it's pretty hard to move out in academia if you can't get recommendations from your last place at work. So I kind of lost those research lines, too, not that they're really big papers, but there were papers that have been published since that have a lot of my data in it, but don't have me as an author. And so it's not that ended, but it's fine. I'm OK now. I eventually hit the ground running. Well, you probably have more publications than I do. I think I have one. Well, yeah, I was doing this. I was part of the sausage machine. So, I mean, you know, whatever it is.

But so tell me where at what point were you already one of these people who was who was against the whole narrative from the beginning and skeptical or did it take you a while? Did something. I mean, I figured out most of this in January 2020. OK. So, I mean, I'm going to talk to you like I'm talking to you because I need to be interested and I know that you understand things. And so I'm not really going to worry about the audience, but this is what happened. So in 2020 January, I said, you know, I was on a phone with my friend and I said, you know what, sometimes I get a cold. That's a rhinovirus. It infects a cell. It replicates inside the cell. It infects other cells. That's one cycle. And sometimes that whole process stops in three days. Now, if I can feel it in the back of my throat, that means at least 10,000 cells have been infected. So that process of infecting a cell, replicating, going out, infecting other cells, that process, why would it ever stop? And I told myself, if I can understand why that stops, maybe that's the reason why every respiratory virus stops.

And I said to myself, and it can't be the antibody. Why? Because there are plenty of times when I've gotten over a cold in three days, it stopped. That process stopped and antibodies don't form in three days. So that was my first realization that it wasn't the antibody. And of course, I filled out my arguments after that. And so I asked myself, OK, so if a cell, if my lung cell is infected by the rhinovirus and that RNA inside that cell, I ask myself, what is that to me? That rhinovirus is the enemy. That RNA inside my cell is the enemy. What would I want to do with that? Well, I would want to destroy it. It's the enemy. What else would I want to do? I would not want to assist it, meaning whatever the enemy wants to do, I can't help it. So this enemy happens to, it's RNA, happens to want to be made into protein. So I can't help it. The third thing I have to do is all the friendlies, all the other cells, I have to let them know how to fight this enemy. And the best way to fight this enemy is to not grow.

So those were the three strategies I said. First, I want to destroy it. I don't want to help it. You just cannot help it. And I need to let all the other friendly cells know how to fight the enemy. And the way to fight the enemy, destroy it, obvious. Don't help it, obvious. So then I went back to my, this was on the phone with my friend. Then I went back to my room and was on the computer. First thing I found, how do you destroy RNA, ribonuclease? How do you prevent it from growing? It needs amino acids. Starve it. You starve the body. If you don't have the resources, if the building blocks for protein production isn't there, if the building blocks are not there, then the RNA, virus RNA, which is the enemy, has a harder time growing. And then how do you spread this message? Interferon. What interferon does is when a cell is really sick, it produces interferon. Really sick with the virus, it produces interferon. Interferon goes around and kills all these other cells. Don't grow. One of the main mechanisms is interferon causes, when mRNA becomes protein, it needs an initiation factor. When that initiation factor is phosphorylated, protein production doesn't occur. Interferon activates that phosphorylation of that initiation factor. That's one of the main things it does. So interferon goes around all over the place and tells cells not to grow. We know about interferon because, and we named it interferon because it interferes with viral growth. Almost any virus, it interferes with it. And humans, we make it.

So here's three strategies. One, virus comes in, you want to destroy it. Name any other thing that destroys RNA. No one can seem to. Two, don't help it. Don't eat. How simple is that? Three, let all the other cells know. Well, interferon gets produced by the body. Now, in some people, interferon gets produced later. And there can be a lag in time before it's produced sufficiently. So the best way to let all your cells not grow is to not eat. Because in six hours, every cell will know, hey, there aren't resources. We shouldn't be growing so fast. So when I went back and, you know, are you telling me that a star of a cold is actually real? It's actually real. Because I've heard that a lot. My grandma used to say it all the time. You starve a cold. Yeah, they say feed a fever, starve a cold. I edit it for the nurses. Nurses are women who have taken care of humanity from the beginning of time. So nurses have been around forever. And what they always said was feed a fever, starve a cold.

And I just slightly modified it for them. I give them credit because they did bring it down throughout history. For a billion years, they taught us that, right? It's starve a fever and starve a cold. That is crazy. OK, I like this. I like this. This is a helicopter view, and I really like it a lot. For me, the moment I found this, and then I went back and looked for the papers to confirm everything, clearly what destroys RNA? Ribonucleases. There's nothing else I know that destroys RNA, but ribonucleases. And we have them all inside ourselves, outside ourselves. Ribonuclease enzymes are everywhere. What's incredible to me is, you know, Pfizer and Moderna, they have their vials, their vaccine vials and mRNA vaccines. They had to be frozen, and it was amazing that they were able to ship this sub-zero product all over the world. Well, did anyone ask why it had to be frozen? Why did it have to be frozen? Is RNA that unstable? No. It's unstable because ribonuclease enzymes are everywhere. Everywhere where you have humans, you have ribonuclease enzymes. It's even in the vaccine vials.

It's really strange. You know, one of the things that I noticed, I'm sorry, but it's really pertinent to this, is one of the things that I noticed is that very early on in the pandemic, it's so weird that you're saying this right now, it's ringing a bell, that early on in the pandemic, there was this insistence when they started talking about the mRNA that one of the aspects of mRNA that people don't understand is it's not as fragile as you think. And it's not as vulnerable to degradation as you think. And I was thinking to myself, wait, I know that there are entire laboratories where they don't like you to walk down this row because it's an RNase-free zone. And so everybody needs to wear gloves and they clean the counter all the time. So wait, all that's bullshit or that's real. And what you're telling me now is bullshit. See, because that's what that's really where the disconnect came because people were trying to tell me that me saying RNA is really vulnerable to degradation. That's kind of a myth. I was like, what? Then why don't why do these people have these RNases free zones in their lab? Are they full of it?

That's exactly the point. Whenever you see inconsistencies, there's a lie going on every time. Yes. This is one that's been gone from my memory, though, dude. This is fantastic. So ribonucleases, we shed it. We shed ribonucleases everywhere. It's on your hair. It's on your skin. Most proteins, most enzymes, if you heat it up and autoclave it, the protein stops working. It coagulates. It loses its function. Ribonucleases are unusual. They don't. Now, I don't know what percent retains its function, but it's such an efficient destroyer of RNA that autoclaving it, if it only destroys half the molecules, the other half will zip through that RNA and the vaccine and destroy it all. So that's why it was frozen. I bet you 99.99% of people don't know why. I bet you most of the scientists at Pfizer and Moderna don't know why it was frozen.

And this is the most bizarre thing. The ribonucleases inside that vial, they consider it to be a contamination. And they think that mRNA that leads to that COVID spike protein that leads to the COVID antibody is a hero that saved humanity, the molecule that saved humanity. It's not. It's what they considered to be the contamination. The ribonuclease enzyme is what saved us.

A lot of smart people aren't that smart. It's just incredible because, you know, I have a very common sense approach to this. Treat it like the enemy. Then what would you do to the enemy? Well, you would want to destroy it. And what else? Don't help it. And what else? Let all the other friendlies know how to fight this kind of enemy. So how do you destroy the viral RNA? I have a bet on Twitter. It's a million dollar bet. I say my enzyme, the ribonuclease enzyme, destroyed a million times more COVID viral RNA strands within lung cells in the year 2020 than your antibody molecule did. A million times more. My molecule has destroyed not just one COVID RNA, a million times more. If I can't do that, then I lose a million dollars, and no one has taken me up on that bet.

Okay, I mean, this gets a little complicated, but in order for them to win, their COVID antibody has to actually get into the lung. There's that lung barrier, and it can't get in. It actually has to go into lung cells. It doesn't do that. Once it's inside the lung cell, it actually has to bind to the mRNA. The COVID antibody binds to spike antigen, not to RNA. And then even if it binds, it doesn't destroy things. It just binds. It's basically a tag. It's really just a tag.

I mean, this is the paradigm shift. The paradigm shift is this. If there is a cop that does a great job, he's an amazing police officer, but he's made an oath to never go into homes. So the bad guy goes, cops chasing the bad guy, the bad guy goes into a home. Oh, he can't go in. The bad guy kills, steals, rapes. The cop can't go into the home. What point is it to have a cop like that? The antibodies don't chase viruses into cells. What kind of defense is that? It's the most ridiculous thing on Earth. So my whole thing about this paradigm shift is somehow they believe that antibodies were useful against viruses. They concluded that. I don't think it is. I think antibodies are very useful against pathogens that are outside the cell. Bacteria are outside the cell. Antibodies always attack them. They do a great job. All the bacteria start growing in one little area. Antibodies clump and they tag, like you say, they tag all these bacteria. Then they have the FC regions and the white blood cells recognize it. Platelets, everything else comes and helps because it's been tagged.

But that tagging system doesn't work inside a cell. And viruses do almost all their damage inside cells. I mean we have police officers. Should we use our police officers to chase our mice and get rid of our ants? They are our enemies. But we have different ways of defending against different enemies. And antibodies are very useful against extracellular pathogens. That's what they were designed for. Now see this is the basic concept of an antibody. Okay, it's a medication that evolution produced for us. Is it always going to have a useful, purposeful function, beneficial function for us? No. If an antibody attacks our heart valve, remember the rheumatic fever, streptococcus bacteria, strep throat. You make bacteria to that. Antibodies to the bacteria, the streptococcus bacteria. And those antibodies, the streptococcus bacteria antibody can cross react with your heart valve and destroy your heart valves. That's rheumatic heart disease. That was the scourge of the early 19th century. Number one cause of morbidity and mortality in children under 20 was that antibody. So no, antibodies don't are always beneficial. I didn't know that story. That's really cool. Well, every cardiologist should know this story because it took us decades and decades to make that connection between the streptococcus bacteria. Oh, this is a fabulous story, dude. Well, you know, I knew this a long time ago because I hate to say it, but when my children were little, every time they got a sore throat, antibiotics, amoxicillin, every time amoxicillin. Why? Because if they have bad strep throat, then what can happen? They can ruin their heart. So why would I not do that for my kids if I understand this? If I understand that rheumatic fever was the scourge of the early 19th century and the number one cause of morbidity and mortality for children under 20, one antibody, why would I not do that?

So see, antibodies are very useful for us. They're excellent against, in our fight against bacteria and extracellular pathogens, but they can have side effects. So when you find an antibody in your body, you have to say, is it serving a useful function or is it a side effect?

I've been making, just to fill in this gap, I've been making the argument for a long time that the immune system is organized in such a way to minimize antibody response, that only when an overabundance of antigen is present and you need to clean it up and it makes it all the way back to the lymph node and there is a B cell that can be taught and there's a T cell that recognizes an epitope that that B cell presents, then you might get some antibodies to a target. But just by the organization of the immune system, you can see that the immune system can pause in a million different places before it starts to make an antibody to an antigen.

And so along those lines, I say, if you are 70 years old, at the time of 2020 when the pandemic came, if you were 70, you had no vaccine, you had no prior COVID experience, if you get COVID then and you heal from it, for 70 years you had no training, you had no antibodies. And if you healed within a week, how did you heal? Why do you think this training by a vaccine is so important when you had no training for 70 years and yet you recovered from COVID in a week? Now this amazing training that the vaccine gives you, it gives you amazing training. It's gone in six to eight months and you need to be retrained. But this 70 year old, he hadn't been trained for 70 years and he handled COVID in a week. If you were 70 years old at the time of 2020 and you got COVID, you handled it, had never had COVID, having never had previous training, no vaccine and you healed. How was it? How did you heal?

And then they talk about this amazing vaccine that's so important and they train you with it and then it's gone in eight months and you need to be retrained. The sheer stupidity is incredible. So basically, when I found out that strategy, look, destroy the enemy, ribonucleases do a great job. And I got sidetracked with that. But the point being that Moderna and Pfizer think that the contaminant in their bios, that was a hero. Their antibody that they produce was just a tagging system. I like the way you put it. That's all it was. So, you know, everyone that healed in the year 2020, how many were there? 20 million people got infected, 99% healed, 80% healed within a week. There was no time for antibodies to form. Has anyone described how we healed in the year 2020 without antibodies, without training? How did we heal? Because understand how we actually healed and 99% of us healed.

We can facilitate that process. Whatever the body is doing, in order to help the body, you have to know what it's doing or else you're not being helpful. Like, you know, if you're a surgeon and you have somebody trying to help you, if they don't know what you're doing, they're not doing a good job helping you. If they know what you're doing, they can help you a lot better. So if we know what the human body is actually doing, we can help it a lot better. And what the human body is doing is it's using ribonucleases at the very beginning. That's why every infant on earth, when they're three, they're toddlers. They get sick, they get fussy, and they do not eat because that behavioral instinct was strong. And a million years ago, the humanoid babies that got sick and that didn't like {liked?} to eat, they just died. They're not our ancestors. So it's all... It's really... Oh, I'm loving this. I'm just... This is laughter in my head. So, I mean, you're a teacher. You like the stuff that people can understand and it makes sense.

Well, everything that Fauci has been saying, none of it makes sense. Fauci doesn't know... You know what was so frustrating for me? He can't even define herd immunity. I'm like, if you're going to use that, at the very beginning of the pandemic we talked about, if you're going to use that, please define it. Okay, I know what they're thinking it is. Herd immunity in their mind is you get an infection, now you've been trained somehow. So you have neutralizing antibodies in your lung. So the next time COVID comes around into your lung, your antibodies fight it off so you're not sick. So then some part of the population is more resistant to being infected and more resistant to... If you're not infected, you can't pass along. And that's what they think herd immunity is. But that requires the antibody to actually be inside the lung. And that's the second point. So our lung is like an air pocket in our body. Our body is 70% water. If our lung can't keep water out, we drown in our own fluids. So our lung has this lung barrier. I didn't invent the phrase, blood-lung barrier, air-gas barrier. There are millions of Google hits. There's tens of thousands of papers on this blood-lung barrier. And it can stop water molecules from passing through. Water molecules weigh 18 daltons. COVID antibodies are made in the blood and lymph, and they weigh 145,000 daltons. So if a water molecule looks like a diet coke, a COVID molecule looks like a car, why would it be able to just willy-nilly get through the blood-lung barrier to the inside of the lung where COVID is infecting lung cells? So herd immunity can't exist.

So I tell it like this. If there's a village of 100 in the year 2020, everyone gets infected with COVID. Five people die. 95 people did not die. In the year 2021, if those 95 people that survived COVID the first time, like it was a bad cold, if they get COVID again, are they going to die? No, they didn't die the first time. Why would they die the second time? So you see, there is no true herd immunity. What you've done is you've changed the herd. You've removed those most vulnerable to this virus. So when they say, oh, Omicron is less severe than COVID, really? Well, COVID-19 came, killed off a million people out of 300 million. Now Omicron comes, kills less. Didn't you just kill off a million people, the most vulnerable to a corona-type virus? And population and population prime aren't the same. How can you say Omicron is less severe? Well, yeah, it's less severe to the population that survived COVID. If Omicron came first, it would have easily killed a million people too.

This is the lack of... See, to me, all intelligence is simply about being able to compare well. When you're comparing COVID-19 to the population of 300 million and Omicron to the population of 209 {299} million, that's a bad comparison. How can you even say that you're comparing it to me? They're apples and oranges. But this is how silly scientists are today. How long did I do research? A year? Less than a year, six months. And I know how to set up an experiment. It's just appropriate controls. Controls mean you compare correctly. You know, when I sent my first letter to Fauci, I said, look, there's a blood-lung barrier. You know about this. And antibody is gargantuan. It has no path into the long airspace. He passed on to Dr....my email and letter off to Dr. Emily Rebelding. And she tried to respond for him. And, you know, she did a very poor job. And she basically said, our data looks great. We're going to keep going. Basically is what she said.

I wrote a 73-page letter, February 2021. I said, look, I don't believe you're all liars. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I think you got good data. But you couldn't have gotten that good data in your trials based on a neutralizing antibody that went into the lung. Because there's no path for it. So let's look for another reason why you got good data, because I believe you got good data. So when you get the vaccine, they gave the vaccine to 20,000 people. And of the 20,000 people, 10 got infected. They gave the placebo to 20,000 people and 200 people got infected. And that's where they get the 95 percent number.

I said, look, you helped people. Less people got COVID. You think it's your neutralizing antibody. I say not possible because the antibody has no path into the lung. So I figured out another reason for you. Here's my alternate hypothesis. Your vaccine, every major review study on mRNA vaccines says exactly this. The major side effect is induction of chemokines. Your vaccine cooks your body into thinking there's a war going on. And your body cells start pumping out all sorts of chemokines into a loop and interfere on, which are antiviral. Your side effect is the reason why your medication worked. Your side effect is the reason why your vaccine worked. Now, knowing this alternate hypothesis, this is what I would do if I were you. I would compare the COVID vaccine against the flu vaccine. Because the flu vaccine doesn't produce the COVID antibody. But it will trick your body into having muscle aches. And it will trick your body into producing chemokines, some of which are antiviral. Now, if the flu vaccine also works against COVID in this new study that I propose you do, guess what? That it is further very good evidence that your vaccine didn't work because of your neutralizing antibody at all. It worked because of its side effect of tricking the body into having muscle aches, producing interferon, interleukins, chemokines.

So I laid this out in 73 pages for Dr. Fauci. Because any scientist that reads this, at that time, if they read it, they would say, you don't even have to agree with me. You just have to say, holy shit, this guy brings up some really interesting points scientifically. There is no other path to take than what I recommended. Because obviously, you know a lot less about your vaccine than you thought you did. You don't even have a path for your antibody into the lung airspace through the lung barrier, which can stop water molecules. And your antibody is gargantuan. It's not there. So look at the picture. In the year 2020, the COVID antibody could not have helped a single person. It was late to the game. If the COVID antibody were actually to have helped anyone in the year 2020, it needed a time machine, which makes it science fiction. And then when the COVID antibody finally arrives late, it can't get through the blood-lung barrier to enter the lung airspace. It needs a teleporter. Again, it is science fiction. Now, you know what? Hey, I am open. I'm willing to debate.

I'm willing to have anyone tell me, no, no, no, this is the way it works. But why won't they tell me? See, science is about debate. Science is about creating hypotheses, doing research, debating, drawing your conclusions. That means discussion. If you're not willing to discuss, you're not following the science. You're actually following the science fiction. And it was infuriating to me that Dr. Fauci was always talking about following science when he got all my information. I have proof of it. I have a copyright I sent into the U.S. Copyright Office. I had my followers on Twitter go to that copyright office and download it and have it emailed to them because I thought, oh, this Democrat, the leadership right now is so corrupt. They could even go into the U.S. Copyright Office and take that down. So I think about seven people did that for me.

So Dr. Fauci was not following the science. He was actually killing people in many, many ways. Here's the three ways he killed people. One, the vaccine isn't a vaccine. It looks like it's a medicine. It looks like the reason why it worked is it's a medicine. And if it's a medicine, in the history of medicine, we don't give medicines when you don't have the illness. I mean, I can get meningitis two years from now or next year. Should I take amoxicillin every day of my life until I get the meningitis? No, because the risk benefit of any medication, it doesn't work out when the benefit is zero. When you don't have the illness, the benefit is zero. And then the risk benefit becomes astronomical. And if their vaccine doesn't work because of the neutralizing antibody, but it works because of its side effect, it's a medicine. And then you really can't mandate that crap.

So, you know, I wasn't this confident when I talked to Dr. Erbalding. But over the past two and a half, almost three years now, no one's given me a response. And even if they somehow show, oh, there's this magical little way where some antibodies get across the blood-lung barrier into the lung, even if that happens. Antibodies weren't there in the year 2020. And 99 percent of us healed. How did we heal when no antibodies were there? And this amazing system that healed us in the year 2020, why would it not work in the year 2021? In the year 2022, it would keep working. It was never their antibody. Now, you know, obviously, the logic I use is watertight. No one has an argument against me. Dr. Pete Hotez runs away from me like I have the plague. But see, in science, we have to be open to debate. If you think you know something really well and you're not willing to debate somebody who is very qualified, you don't know your shit.

I just don't know how, in the 21st century, we got to this point where we vaccinated over 10 billion people with a vaccine where the antibody doesn't even reach the target organ. You know, every pharmacist I talk to, pharmacists are very straightforward. You know, they don't have a human aspect that they have to deal with nearly as much, and they understand the bioavailability of drugs. And if a drug isn't bioavailable, it doesn't work. So to be bioavailable, it actually has to be there. So certain medications don't get through our gut. They don't get absorbed into our body because they can't get through our gut lining. And we don't use those medications that can't get through our gut lining. It doesn't help. That's why we give IV antibiotics sometimes, because the gut absorption can be very poor. Or we want to bypass the liver, right? Or bypass the liver, whatever. But the point is that medication actually, the molecule actually has to be present in the organ where you think is providing benefit. And they didn't do this.

Now, the reason for not doing this, I think, is they were modeling the COVID vaccine after the flu vaccine. And the flu vaccine has been around, I don't know how long, it's been around since I was in medical school, maybe even longer. And so they didn't vet this last step because they assumed that the flu vaccine people did vet this last step. But the flu vaccine people, it was long ago. And the flu vaccine people didn't think about this very carefully. And they had a hit and miss result. Everyone knows that the flu vaccine is iffy. But they had a built-in excuse. Oh, the strain changed on us this year. We missed it again. Oh, you missed it. Well, if you missed the strain, how can I fault you? If the virus is a bad guy and he changed on us, how can I blame the scientists? So they had a built-in excuse for never vetting this whole process. And, you know, after the first few years, it's just going to stay in the system. That's why paradigm shifts are hard. Once something becomes established, it's hard to say it doesn't work, even if it works as badly as the flu vaccine.

So then the flu vaccine, OK, so Fauci modeled the COVID vaccine after the flu vaccine. So they didn't vet all these steps. And the main step is they never checked to see if it could cross the blood-lung barrier. No, I've been arguing for a while that there is a consistent pattern since really about 1985, where because it's so difficult to characterize T cell memory or B cell memory, or really what's happening in an experimental animal when it's infected and recovers, the only proxy that showed up with any regularity was a seroprevalence that they could measure in these animals' bloods. And so they couldn't even find a specific seroprevalence in the mucosa. And even if they could, that's a much harder measurement to make. It's real easy to take the blood. And so for 30 years or so, Fauci has been funding grants which use that as a proxy for an immune response. And it has, in my mind, slowly created this huge blind spot where everybody has gone from assuming to correlate of something much grander and much more complex to assuming it is evidence and, in fact, the primary mover of immunity, which is absurd.

I just love the way he just said all that because, see, temporal correlation is not science. Cause and effect is science. And so what he has is he has this amazing temporal correlation. You know, I break it down into analogies for people. If I live on a farmhouse and I have 30 cats, and for years I never see a mouse, not a single mouse, because I've got 30 cats, then one year I put out a mousetrap and I kill a mouse and I see it. Can I now say I never had mice because of that one mousetrap? I agree. You killed one mouse. I agree. But cats killed 10,000. OK, so something was taking care of this virus for us in the year 2020. I like the cats. It wasn't the antibody. All he has was a temporal correlation. And this goes all the way back to the first vaccine ever, polio.

OK, so this is the way I break it down for people because I've had to debate so many people. They're like, well, vaccines are one of the amazing miracle success stories of medicine. They always mention polio. So I say, OK, polio. I'm a 14-year-old boy at the time of polio. And I just saw my friends, neighborhood friends, they're paralyzed. They can't move. Neck down. Can't play ball with me. I'm like, I don't know. There's nothing to talk about anymore. And everyone's scared to death because who wants to be like that? You don't know if this strange polio is being given to us by aliens shooting missiles at us, lights, laser lights, ants could have some weird new zoonotic disease. You have no idea. And the moment the researchers develop the mode of transmission, once they find the mode of transmission for polio, fecal, oral, break it down. The 14-year-old kid, I'm 14-year-old, what does that mean? It means that somebody infected with polio has to have a bowel movement. That feces has to end up in your mouth and you have to swallow that shit. Literally that shit. Then what happens? Then you get polio. And I'm thinking, hmm, I can handle that. No one else's shit is going to come into my mouth. My lips are sealed. I can handle that. Of course you can handle that. Now the person who thinks keeping other people's shit out of your mouth and swallowing it, if you think that's hard, look at the reward. You don't get paralyzed. Now why can't it be just the understanding of the mode of transmission that eliminated polio? You know, more wipes. I don't even know if they had disposable diapers back then, but we sure have them now. More chlorine in the swimming pool is because every kid is wiping their ass in that swimming pool. Every adult too. You go in the public swimming pool, everyone's wiping their butt in that water. I know a lot of people talk about a swimming pool as a big poop soup. It's very funny. The only time I was going to, you know, like a pool. Every time I see kids blowing water between their teeth, I'm always thinking like, yeah, that's a step too far, man. Come on.

So you see what the polio vaccine had, I agree that they had it. They had a virus in the test tube and they had an antibody that bound to the virus and they had that same antibody in your blood. They had all that. But that's not the reason why it went away. It was a temporal correlation. It was not the cause for polio going away. Now, once I propose a theory like this, an alternate hypothesis in science, you have to test it because you cannot have your vaccine take credit for it all when I have a very viable hypothesis that makes more sense. Now, it's impossible to test. It's just too big of a study. We're already very clean. We can't make people go back to the dirty ways we have. Now, it's interesting. We're going to do an experiment. I bet you could set up a dorm. A dorm could be made to go backwards that far. I think it's possible. Or a frat house.

You know, I was talking to a nurse in the hospital and, you know, I talked nonstop. She happens to be from Pakistan. They still have polio there. And I was a little bit surprised. I'm like – and I was thinking, you know, I know vaccines don't work. So I'm thinking, do you guys know the mode of transmission? Hey, do you guys happen to eat with your hands like they do in India? Because I had four really good friends in medical school who were all from India, and they eat with their hands. And she's like, yes. I'm like, oh my God, that's it. Everyone goes to eating with utensils for six months, being more careful about their personal hygiene. You've got to clean up your sewer system. That, you know, public sanitation. It has to be improved. OK. Keep your drinking water separate from your, you know, dirty water, right? You'll handle polio. But if all your energy is directed at making sure everyone is vaccinated, it will never work.

See, I'm not just talking about – I'm not just saying that the COVID vaccine is stupidity. I'm saying all vaccines are stupidity. But, you know, Joseph, I've got to say that it almost brings me to tears to hear you say that because before the pandemic, I just was a guy who – I had two kids in Norway, and then we had our daughter in Pittsburgh. And I did not act on my instinct fast enough to stop the shots going into my kid for the first three years of her life. And I knew that she was getting way more shots than we ever gave our boys in Norway. And I knew that there was a militant attitude about it that really bothered me, but I couldn't actually act. And then the pandemic happened, and it started to clear so fast that I almost had a panic attack about it. That was I really this – you know, anti-vaxxer really meant something to me, that there are people who are skeptical about things they shouldn't be skeptical of, and it's all a rumor. And I didn't really have much doubt in my mind that that part was probably right, you know, whatever. And now I work for Bobby Kennedy, and I meet people through email and whatever who have had a personal experience where a talking child has stopped talking and stopped making eye contact and regressed in development. And I was part of that group of people that either ignored them, considered them crazy, thought it was something else. And – Me too. I don't know. I'm just –

I mean, my kids are 19 and 20, but, you know, well, they got vaccinated for everything when they were little. And I remember the one time – I went in a few times. One time I went in, and I was furious because I saw three vials on the table. Now, I'm a LASIK surgeon. I've done a lot of surgery. Even at that time, I had done a lot of surgery, and I, you know, I have a little ego. And I'm going to speak my mind. I'm like, I told you, no more than two vials at a time. Why are there three? I'm a surgeon. I'm going to pick it up. I pick up the vial and it's a combo. There are eight vaccines that he was going to inject into my kid and one fucking sitting. I never forgot that. And I was furious. Now, you know, me, surgeon, I'm going to mouth off to this guy. I just went off on him. And I said, I told you I'd come back more often. I can send my mom, my nanny, anyone. I don't want you to do this shit. Now, what about the housewives, stay-at-home moms? Do you think they're going to challenge it like I do? Oh, come on. No, I mean, I've been – I was bullied and anyone can be bullied, especially if there's a doctor and a nurse in the room. You really need to know what you don't want, otherwise you're going to be convinced. And they did the same thing with this. And in a way, they used a lot less reputable resources, like late-night shows and comedians and Hollywood stars. What's the name of that person on earth? What's his name? John Oliver? The smugness? I just despise people like that. It's very, very frustrating.

But what do you think about then your story – and I'm not criticizing it, I'm just questioning you – your story focuses very much on what people might put in the innate bucket, things that generally protect us. Are you also open to the idea that because we've been exposed to coronaviruses in the past, if there is an acquired immune response, it was already tuned enough so that those two things are really in combination here? There's also a previous memory from previous cold viruses that has… Whenever they say that to me, I say, you're an amazing vaccine, which you're getting a full dose of. It loses all efficacy in eight months. But some prior coronavirus experience from 20 years ago, there's going to be enough memory from that to have helped you with this one? See, the consistency of thought isn't there. It's just… I'm going to break it down.

The vaccine basically focuses on training and memory. So what is memory? Memory is when an event occurs and you register it. If the event occurs again and you take a slightly different action that improves your survival, that's memory. So take a six-month-old human infant. Never had a mom with COVID in the year 2020. Never had COVID itself. Makes less than 10% of the antibodies by concentration that an adult makes. Gets COVID, clears tens of billions of viruses from its body within a week. I think that baby had memory. Having never faced the enemy, it knew exactly what to do. I would argue that that baby cells are the latest version and have the latest software updates in a billion years of evolution. It didn't need to have faced the enemy before to know exactly what to do. And it did it. Because if you're going to say it didn't know what it was doing, but got it right by chance, 10 billion, 100 billion viruses, it wiped out by chance, no, it knew what it was doing. And now why do you need to train it more? We've only been doing this training, what, 50 years or so, this vaccine? Meaning we live with respiratory virus. Here, I have, you know, I went so deep into this. I know so much more about this than anyone else on Earth.

You know, I explain it in a very, very bizarre way. Okay, so which came first, the DNA cell or the RNA virus? The RNA virus came first. Now, in order for the DNA cell to have any chance of survival, because RNA viruses will keep infecting it, the DNA cell has to be, because the DNA cell has to use RNA to make proteins. But if an RNA virus usurps all its resources, it can't survive. So it needed, without being able to take care of this RNA virus, it would never have existed. So it made that ribonuclease. It had that ribonuclease from very, very early on.

Now, if your blood sugar is 300, you need insulin. If you need insulin, you first need RNA for insulin. Then you make your insulin. Then your blood sugar drops to 100. If you don't destroy that RNA for insulin and you keep making more and more insulin, your blood sugar goes to zero and you're dead. We have tens of millions of feedback loops in our body. Every feedback loop requires an off. We're not electrical parts, mechanical parts. We don't have electrical switches. Our master off switch is a ribonuclease enzyme that destroys the RNA for insulin. You don't make insulin anymore. I'm not saying it's perfectly, that's how it works. But I am saying destroying RNA is essential for complex feedback loops. This person that we are, all the complexity that we are, our consciousness, our awareness, our intelligence, was made possible because of the ribonuclease enzyme that is our master off switch. And why did we evolve the ribonuclease enzyme? Because of RNA viruses. So what allowed our consciousness, our amazing complexity? The RNA virus. So we evolved in the presence of oxygen. We still need oxygen today. We evolved in the presence of sunlight. We still need sunlight. We evolved in the presence of RNA viruses.

Now, why do we still need them? Imagine me. There's only eight ribonuclease enzymes, genes. Imagine that I got four really bad ones from my mom, mutated ones. And I got three mutated ribonuclease enzymes from my dad. Now I have one functional ribonuclease gene. They're all totally different. They all have slightly different activity. So then I have one. Now all my feedback loops, I'm supposed to destroy RNA. I'm not very efficient on it because I've got one. I'm going to have chronic illnesses. I'm going to have problems. I'm going to have all sorts of weird issues. So we evolved in the presence of ribonucleases, which allowed our complexity. What is that? What are RNA viruses doing for us today? What do RNA viruses do for humanity? It prunes our human genome of defective ribonuclease genes. And why would ribonuclease genes not mutate and not go bad? They will, just like everything else. We have to keep pruning them. Because if we don't prune them, we'll have more and more chronic illnesses.

Now, you know, people worry that I'm talking about eugenics. You know, when Mother Nature does it, it's not eugenics. Eugenics is when one person decides who should live, who should die.

I am saying, I'm not saying people should die. I'm saying the way you help people is understand what our body did to overcome the virus. So lots of people at 90 passed away from the virus, 85, they passed away from the virus. Well, if they knew that fasting could help, if you knew that food could kill you when you got COVID, would you eat? My 99-year-old grandmother was in a COVID unit in Georgia with the flu. I called up the doctors. I'm in LA. She's in Atlanta. I called up the doctors. This was a year and a half ago. I called up doctors and said, don't you dare give her any food, no sugar and no glucose, nothing. Four days later, she walked out on her own two feet. And, you know, every time they went in to see her, they're all gowned up. And do you think they change all that garb from patient to patient? No, they're actually infecting her with COVID.

The way to help people, if everyone on earth knew that when you get a sore throat, the next two days food can kill you, who's going to eat? They worry about masks. You know, if you've ever seen that video, you know, the N95 mask, you're out in a cold winter day in Michigan, you cough, you see all... Sure, sure, sure, sure. You're not getting any of the viruses and all those smug people who are making fun of everyone, giving everyone a hard time when they don't wear the mask. I say, this is what you are. You think masks are scientific? Science is about comparing. You think a little bit of good is good? No, a little bit of good can be very bad. Why? Because I can use a spoon and grow a garden, grow 10 years of corn and donate to Africa, and that's a tiny little bit of good. But it's really stupid and bad because I could have done something much more useful with my time and made a lot more money and donated that. So this is why your mask is stupidity, because you have this fire going on and you're trying to catch all the smoke particles, and they're tiny. Why don't you go to the source of where the smoke is coming from and stop that? And the best way to stop that? Not eat.

Every kid on earth knows viruses don't grow on their own. They grow within our cells. Our cells aren't always growing at the same rate. When we don't eat, they grow a lot slower. You can see foster kids, they've been adopted by somebody who's not going to take good care of them, did it for the money. They're 14 years old, but they look eight. They didn't grow because they weren't fed. Our cells don't all grow at the same rate. And so every school kid on earth knows this. So why are masks stupid? They're stupid because you're not going to the source of the problem. Infinitely more useful when you get a sore throat to fast for a couple of days and not grow the virus. And so you're creating billions of viruses, and you're trying to catch 99.9999% of them. When clearly you go out in the winter day and you cough and it goes everywhere. What the fuck are you doing? Why do you think that's scientific?

I don't know where all the scientists lost their brain. It's just the stupidest shit show I've seen in my life the past two and a half years. And Fauci was a leader of the stupidity. It could all have been stopped October of 2020. Yeah, I agree. One of the main things was masks. I didn't wear a mask when I was in the lab, and that pissed my boss off really bad because he wore two for a while and then was wearing like some combination of two like a cloth and a thing or a thing and a cloth. It was nuts. And you know why? He's afraid because you have a fear when you don't know what the hell is going on. Yeah, sure. I agree. I mean, I'm not blaming him for being nuts. But in a way, if you have a few conversations in a row where you think you're convincing someone that how big is this and what is your mask doing and how much is getting out and what about the idea that when you had a cold before the pandemic and you coughed, your body was trying to get stuff out. And so now you're going to cough it into your mask and then breathe it back in. And he said, maybe it's making you sicker. And he said, well, it's protecting you. And I said, well, that's the thing. I don't know if it is. And anyway, just having a conversation like that was very painful and not welcome. And it spiraled out of control very quickly because, again, their rationale, my brother took the same rationale with me who I don't speak to anymore either because he's written me off as a know-it-all. But he was saying that if masks help one percent, then why wouldn't we wear them? I know. I face that. I face that.

You know, that's why I wrote that whole Twitter thread when they say a little bit of good is still good. So you see, I hate to beat up on the Democrats, but their thinking, their basic way of thinking is flawed. You know, when promo said every life is sacred, I said promo. A five-year-old's life is instantly more sacred than an 85-year-old's life. Absolutely. And even the 85-year-old will agree with that. So they're not equally sacred. And if you don't get this understanding that the Democrats, everyone thinks we're equal. They want to close their eyes to differences. Differences exist. And we should celebrate our differences and not pretend we're all the same and all equal. You can't do that because, see, the basis of intelligence is being able to see differences. That's the basis of my intelligence. I can see, I can compare and see the difference. They don't want you to compare anything. You will never improve. You will not – oh, a little bit of good is good. I just showed you an example where a little bit of good is really stupid because I can be doing a lot more good with the same amount of time.

You see, that's where science comes in. See, oh, the mask, the stupidity. Put out the fire. Stop the fire. Don't make the viruses in your body. That's a lot of good. Your little mask, it's – I mean, I didn't even take up the mask debate because every scientist can handle it. You have a chain-link fence. The chain is titanium, and you have a plastic link in the middle. It doesn't matter. OK, you have all N95, but on the sides it's N00. So what the hell? I mean, it's just – the stupidity is beyond me. And the Democrat Party, their way of thinking contributed drastically to this. And then, you know, reasonable voices like me, mine, oh, they want to shut up?

The campaign against misinformation. Come on, everyone knows in science… In science, just because you're losing a debate, if you shut up the other side, that doesn't mean you're right. It just means you're not scientific because science can handle debate. It can handle it if you're correct. You can't be made fun of. But look how easily I can make fun of them. It's sheer stupidity. And the fact that it's gone on for this long is just, to me, I'm almost wondering if I'll just wake up from my bad dream. I just can't believe it, how stupid they all are. And now they've made their bed and they're going to be embarrassed and they're going to lose their jobs. Of course, they don't want to talk to me anymore, right? Yeah, I don't know how to break through because – Where are you? You're in California, right? I'm in LA. But that's not a very good place for you to have this opinion. Oh, but look, I'm proactive. The California Medical Board, I sent them all my information like a year – almost two years ago. I said, tell me if it's misinformation because I'm going to keep saying this stuff. And I called other board members. And Harold Krauss is one of the board members at the time. He said, Dr. Lee, I get it. And he tried to help me. He emailed me back and tried to help me.

So I have got all that evidence. So what am I worried about? I mean, when Gavin Newsom wanted to pass this Bill 2098 into law, I wrote him a 17-page letter. I said, here's hundreds of questions. You tell me which of these questions will be illegal after you make your new law. I mean, if I just read the questions, is it still illegal? What if I don't understand it? Is it still illegal? If I just think about it, is it illegal? You're going to get me if I think about questions now? The stupidity of the Democrat Party is beyond belief. I mean, I can almost understand the conspiracy theorists. And I'm not one, but I can almost understand them right now because at least I have science to explain things. But the stupidity on the Democrat side, it blows my mind that which of these questions?

And then, of course, the California Medical Board, their chief counsel, legal counsel, emails me back because I talk to all their staff. I try to call every doctor board member. And the president isn't a board member, isn't a physician. But I try to call all the doctors and I called when I would get through, it would be their staff and I talked to them. And they were all just shocked. They're just shocked that, oh, my God, you know, because I'm very convincing. It's all stupid. The COVID vaccine is a science fiction. And so at the California Medical Board, at least three people and the staff members were on my side. They put my facts out for all the board members. They give them all out. They really try to help me because they saw the stupidity. And so the the legal counsel, chief legal counsel, he emailed me, says, Dr. Lee, don't worry about it. This only applies if you talk about the vaccine to your patients. And I'm like, that's what I'm doing. And I'm going to keep doing it. And I've been doing it for two and a half years. So what the fuck? And I said, no, I'm going to turn this around on you. Let's keep that misinformation… you know, that law, because, see, the COVID vaccine produced an antibody and the antibody has no path into the long airspace.

Now, if you don't tell all the other doctors, you're propagating misinformation. And if those doctors know this, but don't tell their patients before they vaccinate, they're not giving informed consent. Because what mother would vaccinate their child when, hey, not a single scientist can explain how the antibody that's gargantuan enters the long airspace to neutralize the virus? Who, which mother will vaccinate then? So I said, let's keep the law in the books for a while so we can punish doctors like you. There are Richard Pan, the pediatrician who backed this bill. I'm going to make the California Medical Board punish you for your misinformation.

But you would definitely side on the side that I've kind of wandered into, which is that if you're intramuscularly injecting a target of any kind that you hope that your body is going to build seroprevalence to, if you're intending to prevent infection of the gut or the lung, that's not going to work. I mean, basically, it's not working against polio. There are people who say that, and I say, but you still think it's the IgA antibody. I'm saying it's not. It's not antibodies at all. It's not antibodies. Antibodies are not for viruses. Let me give you the math example. Let's say I have 100 viruses come into my body. That's my inoculation dose. Let's say I give the neutralizing antibodies a 95% kill rate, which they're not here debating me, so it's fair. So I have five viruses left. Each of these five viruses go into a lung cell. Each infected lung cell creates between 1,000 and 50,000 virus particles. So I'll be fair. I'll just use a really small one, 1,000. So I had 100 viruses come into my body. Now I have 5,000 with a 95% kill rate. That's a 50 times growth. You know, every school kid knows when a penny doubles every day in 40 days is a lot more money than a million dollars. That's a two times growth. This is a 50 times growth, and I conceded a 95% kill rate for their antibody. The math doesn't work out, and this applies to every vaccine on Earth. The vaccinologist did not do third grade math on their shit.

They come debate me, and then I say, oh, you don't like my 95% assumption. Okay. When you get vaccinated with anything, a month later, you have whatever your max concentration in your blood, I'll call 100%. At three months, you're at 80%, aren't you? And how can 80% antibodies give you a 95% kill rate? It's a stupid thing on Earth to think that it's been propagated for a long time. But they found the most amazing temporal correlation, which you call the tag. When you have a virus infection, antibodies form. You didn't know how it helped, but you jumped to trying to make more antibodies without having any science. Now, you see the weirdness of all their studies. Any paper on Earth about a vaccine that they bring me, I'll say, oh, you got a good result. Okay, here's a car with 30 different engines in it. You take out a electric motor out of the car, you see that it works, you put it back in the car, and you assume the car is running because of that electric motor. But there's 30 other engines in there. How do you know? You never... The human body has been healing us forever. And suddenly, we're completely dependent on your vaccine that provides this amazing training that's gone in eight months.

See, inconsistencies are a problem. If you really think you need to be vaccinated every eight months, you're one of these diehard jabbers, and you believe it, then you're children. The measles antibody is no different. My son's last measles vaccine was at four. He's 19. He doesn't have any measles antibodies left. He had none left when he was five. You should give your children the measles vaccine every year. Please, please do so. And the mumps and rubella and every other vaccine that you vaccinate your children for, now, every year they get them all again. The stupidity.

See, the Covid vaccine, it just shone a light on the stupidity of all vaccines. Antibodies are very useful for us. They're useful against extracellular pathogens. Against viruses? Okay, so useful. So you get bacteria, come in, B. lymphocytes, pump out antibodies. The antibodies code it. They have FC regions, platelets, congregate. It's a mass. It's a nightmare. And you take care of the bacteria. Okay. So a pathogen comes in the body. It happens to be a virus. The B. lymphocyte doesn't quiz and say, what are you? Are you a virus? Are you a bacteria? It just makes it. It's not sentient. But against a virus, it has no usefulness. It's just a tag. What it does do is pump out a lot of them. Okay. It's a side effect. It's not useful.

Not everything that's in our body is useful. When the antibody attacks our joints, we don't say, oh, great job, antibody. No, we hate it. It's rheumatoid arthritis. When the antibody attacks our heart valve, we don't say, good job, antibody, good job. You're doing awesome. No, we don't celebrate that. We need heart transplants for that. Valve transplants. See, you have to decide when an antibody is in your body, is it just a tag or is it a useful function? And against viruses, it's a tag.

And I mean going through this whole journey for three years, everyone gets on my case because I yell at people. And I'm like, well, I give people a chance. Like this morning, Ron Johnson said, oh, tomorrow they're going to expose all the truth about the COVID vaccine. I'm like, I dealt with you guys a year ago. I talked to your staff just like I'm talking to you. I explained it. Your staff loved what I had to say. And then they found some doctor who said, no, his stuff is shit. And they stopped communicating with me. And now, Ron Johnson, you're going to expose. See, Ron Johnson is known to say weird stuff. And he rejects my stuff because it's too weird. You know, I had no nice words to say to him.

But see, I just don't know how to break through, right? Because logically, it wasn't there, the antibody, in the year 2020. And if everyone knew, some people would say, oh, this whole thing could have been over if everyone just stayed home for two weeks. If everyone just didn't eat for two days, it would be over two. The fastest way to end the pandemic ever, theoretically, is if everyone didn't eat for two days. And it doesn't even matter if it didn't end. It doesn't even matter if it's out in the population. Once you know this, then next time you get a sore throat, you'll gargle with salt water, and then you won't eat for two days. You won't grow the virus.

Now, obviously, if you're diabetic, you have to be careful. A follower told me that if you have porphyria, they can have all sorts of weird metabolic issues if you don't eat. I'm now referring to the average person.

If you've diet… look at women. They're dieting all the time. They had a lot less severe COVID than men, consistent with fasting. And everyone says, oh, where's your peer review papers? I'm like, OK, all your peer review papers were all wrong for the past three years, every one of them. And I debated the chief editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Rubin, Eric Rubin, I think his name was. And he wouldn't leave any comments for all the papers. He said, oh, you missed your deadline for that one. I'm like, choose any of them then. They all talk about the same shit. Choose any of them and apply my comments. And he goes, well, I researched it and there's evidence of bronchial alveolar lavage and there are antibodies in the lung. And he said, I found 30 or 40 of them. I go, I have three or four thousand blood lung barrier papers. Then do I win? Because I have more papers. I mean, if you find gold on a table, wouldn't you want to know where it came from as a scientist?

To just say, oh, you found it. And, you know, I don't talk about this to the average person, but they find antibodies in the lung. Oh, OK, I find 10 grams of salt on the table. Please tell me the concentration. You can't. It's dry. The lung is a dry space and you find concentrations of antibodies that are identical to serum values all the time. It's amazing how good you guys are. It's a dry space. Tell me how you did it. How did you do that? The silliness of bronchial alveolar lavage to detect the you know, you know how scientists work. I mean, I just. They have to publish. They're going to have to fudge numbers. You've got dry antibodies in a lung and you're going to tell me the concentration. The stupidest thing on earth.

So my frustration is through the roof. But, you know, I'm getting the word out on Twitter. There was a night where I was ranting and raving in. I thought Elon's thread. I'm like, OK, here I go. 15 threads. And I told all Republicans, please don't post above me. So this this bet, this one million dollar bet stays up really high on Elon's thread. And then I have suspended for two hours. I couldn't get into my account. And I'm like, fuck, I did it again. And I go, I get canceled, right? I did it again. And then two hours later, I was back up and I felt Elon read my thread because this was at midnight. And I go back about two thirty and I thought he read my thread. Now I'm feeling I faced the Twitter God and I can't be killed. Wow, that's pretty optimistic. Well, then maybe you need to tweet that I need to get back on. But so far, I'm keeping the chicken off. So we'll see.

What I want to ask you, you said earlier before, and I didn't get to stop you because you were rolling too well there, that in your imagination or maybe in in other people's imagination, RNA viruses came before DNA cells. Most evolution biologists think that. OK, they think that RNA appeared before DNA. It's called the RNA world. That's what most believe. I kind of see the way science is. We can't prove everything. No, no, I get it. I just wanted to know what I would look up to see that. I just wanted to make sure I understood you.

I really like the idea that you mentioned about about ribonuclease diversity being a a mechanism or avenue of our own diversity. We can't have such a diverse set of tissues and a diverse set of regulatory mechanisms without a diverse set of ribonucleases. I think that's a really it feels like an extremely insightful statement. I mean, I'm going to read more now because it really feels also this point of making that there are are infinitely many feedback loops in our body at various levels. And they all ultimately require an off switch. Most of those at the molecular level, the off switch is the degradation of the RNA. I also really like that a lot. It's not something that, on the surface… Yeah, it's not something on the surface that I didn't know.

But I haven't heard it expressed so eloquently in the in with regards to RNA viruses and how the thing that really wanted that first came to my mind, though, when you were saying it, and I wrote it down here is that there are papers where they look at phytoplankton in the ocean. And they're they're the subtle differences or the subtle molecular gears that they use for their metabolism. I'm just the molecules that they use in their metabolic pathways are influenced by the viruses that are in the water. And and they provide a feedback loop that they can see has like 100 year or 200 year cycle where the the metabolic genes that are being expressed in the phytoplankton is kind of reversed, reversed, reflected in the genes that the virus is currently carrying so that they're always in our ecology.

It's really hard to say something is morally bad or good. Because everything seems to play some kind of role. And the more common something is, the more important it happens to be. We're all getting colds and rhinoviruses and respiratory viruses. We've been sharing respiratory viruses since the beginning of time. And it does play a role. They just never talked about it. And if you understand exactly what you know, it medicine is a weird thing because medicine is now this new environment, right? And I'll give you an analogy. And I don't like to talk too much along these lines because people think I'm really dark.

But if you go to Indonesia, there's not a single kid with a peanut allergy, peanut and all the food. They don't have to have this massive company that makes these EpiPens for super expensive and hoards all the profit. There is not a single kid with a peanut allergy. In America, we were smart. We figured it out a lot. Like, this is the way to solve it. And then help them. And we did it. And we kept them alive. And I'm not saying they should die. We kept them alive. And now they have children. We kept them alive. Now 10 to 20 percent of the classroom has peanut allergies. So we had a system in Indonesia where they're all fine without. Here we need the EpiPen. And that's a whole… To me, the definition, I'm not going to go over crazy with this, but the definition of health is the more that is contained within the male and female of the species, the better. So EpiPens and manufacturer isn't contained within us. I see what you mean. Yeah, it's not quite as good. And the vaccines. Whoa. That picture of the baby with needles all around it. That's the direction the pediatricians want to take us without having any understanding that the baby already has memory. Doesn't need training to handle it. I like what you said about EpiPen. I can clearly see the benefit of an EpiPen. It's right there. I can't even see the benefit of a vaccine.

And so throughout this past three years where I learned was how to debunk bad theories in science. And this is my theory to debunk theories. Whenever the cause and effect are separate in time, like I pushed speed dial for my dad three seconds, I'm talking to him. I am never going to debunk the cell phone theory. But you have a rain dance. You do rain dance. Sometimes it rains in a week, sometimes in a day, sometimes three months. I'm going to debunk that because of time between the rain dance and the rain. And they're 100 percent correct. But whenever there's too much time between the cause and effect, you got to wonder, is it really correct? The theory. Now, you know, at least with rain dancers, they're saying exactly what's going to happen. Precipitation, condensation, your crops will grow. The vaccine-freaking-people won't even say what's going to happen later. The cause of the vaccine. What effect are you trying to promote? What did you say you were going to do? What is it? Are they going to live?

Well, we've been living for a billion years without vaccines. People survived measles all the time. When I was a kid, everyone had measles parties so they could just get it over with. So what are you saying? We got over it anyways. Here's my theory on measles. Here's why measles vaccines should be ended forever. If I come up with an alternate theory, hypotheses on why the incidence of measles plummeted in the U.S. in the past 40 years, well, then they can't take all the credit. So a mother sees a child with red dots on their face, visualizes red dots, doesn't send Johnny to school, isolates him. In science, is there anything more powerful than isolation to prevent viral spread? No? So then visualization and isolation can account for 99% of the decrease in measles in the U.S. in the past 40 years. I can't prove it, but they can't prove that their vaccine did all the work. And isolation is extremely powerful, and every scientist knows it's best thing on earth to prevent viral spread. So I should get at least 60% credit. That means the vaccine gets only 40% of the credit you thought it did. I definitely agree with that.

That means there's no point in mandating that crap, aside from all my other millions of arguments. That simple visualization of red dots and isolation, and I figured this out because even after I discovered all this stuff about the COVID vaccine, I thought other vaccines were good, and I was reading this paper on the measles vaccine subsidy in Africa, and the numbers they were posting were like 70%, 80%. I'm like, whoa, I thought it was like 99%, and then it hit me. Red dots don't manifest on dark skin so they don't have the usefulness of visualization and isolation until the red dots really inflamed and elevated, and they're already spreading it.

Did you see the paper or the study that came out in Samoa in 2019? They had a vaccine campaign in Samoa for the measles because they claimed that there were a lot of people there who didn't have it. And about a month after the campaign was started, they had a huge outbreak of measles. It's a really well-known thing. So did the white people bring the measles? Yeah, right. I don't know exactly. Like we did to the American Indians, yeah. Yeah. Wow. I mean, I don't even know. We could keep going all day. I feel like I'm meeting a brother from another mother here. Wow. Can we just agree to talk again and to keep in touch? Because I've written way too much and there's going to be too much dead space if I try to compile all this and then ask you again. Absolutely. I just think it's really great that we finally connected. I'm really happy to hear that somebody like you has been awake this long, and I hadn't met you yet, which gives me hope that there are a lot more people like you maybe that need to be linked up and brought together.

This is really the first time. So the first thing you mentioned, which is interesting, is David Baltimore. Didn't he work on viruses? Is any a virologist? I don't know anything about the man. I just remember the name because it came up so many times during my six months of research. Where was that? Where was that? I was at University of Michigan for medical school. Okay. And that was in around 88, 90. Okay. I graduated in 94. No kidding. I graduated from college, from undergrad in 94. Yes, that's correct. Wow. So you're only a few years older than me. And you did a lot more science because I was doing LASIK most of my career. I get it. I get it. I mean, I did a lot more science just means that I sat on stools in different places. I wasn't. I mean, what I did was very specific. I was a microscope jockey and I had a lot of fun doing it.

And is there any place that they can find you? Do you have a website that you're promoting yourself on, writing articles, a substack, anything like that? Lungvirus. Lungvirus.com and on Twitter, Lee LASIK. I had this Twitter handle from like long ago and I got on two months ago. And there's still something a little bit wrong with my account. But there was the first day, I think about six weeks ago, some nurses found it and it grew to 10,000 followers in one day and then 8,000, 4,000. But, you know, I heard Fauci's daughter worked at Twitter and I think she messed up my account so it doesn't grow so much. And a lot of my users will say, well, look, I had to re-follow you like four times. No, I know a lot of other people that are still on Twitter that still claim that that's happening. Even though they're growing, nobody's experiencing the exponential that they probably should. People like Charles Rixey should probably be more popular. You just got on there so maybe you're lucky and you missed the window and we can get it to happen. Well, I can't thank you enough for joining me. I guess I'm just going to leave it there. I'm so happy to meet you. Have a great day and I hope we stay in touch. Okay. See you later, sir. Bye. Bye. Well, that was pretty fabulous. I certainly enjoyed that conversation. I hope you did too. I'm going to end it there because this is a recording or is going to be a recording. And so I don't want to ruin it with a bunch of babble at the end.

I might just go through my notes here really quick as a way of sending us out. So we talked a little bit about David Baltimore in the beginning, and then we talked about no seroprevalence in the blood. Anybody couldn't do it. RNA was the enemy. And so he tried to outline some ways of working against that enemy. One way was, of course, ribonucleases. Another way of starving the protein. So stopping your body from growing. This might have a reflection on autophagy as well. Lots of people were trying to encourage the upregulation of autophagy and starvation and fasting does do that. Stop spreading the message that's interferon. Of course, we've talked about that before, but coronavirus people point out that some of the sub genes or the non-structural proteins and even the spike protein can interfere with interferon signaling. So while I'm sure he's right about this as a general mechanism, the question is, you know, what part is, you know, I'm just saying we recognize this. I thought these stories were really cool. The story of rheumatic fever and how streptococcal antibodies from strep throat can cross-react with heart valves. I did not know this story. I wanted to ask him a little bit about natural antibodies and care funding both T cells and memory B cells, but we did it only a little bit. So I guess we're going to have to have him on again. I like his immunology thing with cats and the cat and the mouse trap. So it's really about the blood brain or blood lung barrier, the antibodies of the mRNA not crossing, and therefore really not having a viable mechanism to save you from anything.

And with that, I 100% agree with Dr. Joseph Lee. Thank you very much for joining me. I'll probably see you guys again tomorrow morning. Thank you.