McCairnDojo.comPast episodes & related streams
Connecting to YouTube…

Good morning, good morning, good morning. It is Sunday, December 16th, year 2022. Welcome to the show. My name is Mark Kulacz. And this is a... I have a lot of stuff going on today on this Sunday, December the 18th. In particular, for the... I have a sticker over here for something called team sharing. It's really not a sticker. It's actually something I cut off for a brochure. And team sharing is a support organization for families who have lost children to drug overdoses. And other things, other related addictions. Some of those could be alcohol, DUIs. There's... it's complicated. Although the predominant... there are some who have actually... parents who have lost children due to hospital protocols. But the majority of the organization right now, not necessarily by design, but how it turns out, is families who have lost children to overdoses. And that includes, unfortunately, our own this April. Now, that event is happening today in Maynard, Massachusetts. There's going to be a Santa there, bringing our granddaughter. And my wife Cheryl has recently joined the board, the directors of this organization, lending her executive experience to it. Not exactly the dream board position you want, but you do what you can. So I start that off because I only have about a little over an hour right now before I need to get cleaned up and go myself. And I may not have enough time tonight to do the full show that I wanted.

So I'm just starting off with like a part one of this episode here. Which, if we don't finish it, we may not. We'll do a part two later on. I also highlight that little introduction because for people who haven't watched my show before or are not familiar with me, I do want you to know that I am very deadly serious about the work that I do. It was chronic Lyme, which our family... I get lots of letters and emails providing suggestions and ideas for support for that. We're okay. We're on top of it. But it was a battle to figure out what we needed to do. Right now I'm hopefully in a position to help out other people. But it was that. It was experiences with drug addiction, with the opioid fentanyl crisis, and a couple of other things. But those are really the two main things that led me to slowly creep away from a career that I gave everything I had to get into. And that was software engineering and competitive intelligence with a couple of big companies, including Dell Corporation, which bought EMC Corporation and a few others, NetApp, etc. Data General, Quart, which was bought by EMC. Anyways, I'm very serious about what I do. That doesn't mean I'm no fun. But it does mean that we're not here just to entertain. We're not here because we just want to waste everyone's time talking about conspiratorial nonsense. We're hoping to reach some people and make some change. And we know because of censorship. I mean, we're not quite as censored as Robert Malone. But because of censorship, we know the reach of our audience is going to have limits. But that's okay. The point isn't necessarily to directly reach everyone. It's to positively reach enough people who in turn will find the information valuable and then in their own ways become researchers, evangelists, and so on, of the information. So that said, I don't have a chat window open yet.

This episode is called The “The Spike Protein” Deception. And the subtitle is Hiding a Genomics Data Harvesting Agenda. Now, there's different ways that you can word the second part here. But there's so much research, there's so many names, there's so much history here. And just going deeper and deeper and deeper, it eventually just becomes where are you going with this? What's the point? So every once in a while, you need to come up with a hypothesis. Well, first off, the only way to do research is every once in a while you need to develop hypotheses. And you need to orient your research towards figuring out which part of the hypothesis isn't true. So you can refine it, come up with new hypotheses, eventually move it to theorem or validate. They're like, wow, this one is holding up. And the thing with hypotheses is that with all of the data, with all the research, with all the stuff you get into, a hypothesis is actually in and of itself, generally speaking, a way to simplify what you're talking about. Where are you going with all of this stuff? I have to whisper a little bit. I need at least a Malin sleeping in the room next door, and she needs at least another 45 minutes of sleep. So let's just review. Let's just touch on what that hypothesis is, OK? Here, one of the main hypotheses. And this, of course, is respect to the pandemic. And I, as an American, I live about 30 minutes outside of Boston, Massachusetts, depending upon traffic, 30 minutes without traffic in a little town called Southboro. By the way, we just got a PO Box, PO Box 505, and I should be doing this stuff more regularly. But I appreciate all the supporters of the channel. And these are some of the names. This needs to be updated. We've had a couple of good new additions in the last month. Thank you to the people who help support the channel on Patreon. We have a full budget listed out on housatonic.live or housatonicits.com. I try to be pretty transparent about the costs, just the costs of equipment, subscriptions, et cetera. And now we have a PO Box, which is pretty cool. Some people wanted to support the channel. And for reasons which I can totally understand, they don't trust giving their information to PayPal, Patreon, et cetera.

All right, so what are the narratives that you've heard out there, likely have heard, regarding the pandemic? You have probably heard that there are evil people, very rich, evil, powerful people. And trust me, there's a few of them, there's more than a few, who want the world depopulated. They just can't stand the sight of other people. Other people are filthy, they're uneducated, they're not cultured enough or whatever, right? They, at some point, money just, it transcends money, power transcends money. And at some point, you realize that money is, or wealth is really just a way to, as some people see this, represent their share of ownership of the world. You know, relatively speaking, what is a dollar? What is a dollar unit in terms of possessions, in terms of land, in terms of power? And what it really comes down to is you figure out how much of these arbitrary units of wealth there are in the world, you divide it by the population, and based upon some percentage, that's what percentage of the world you have some power over, I guess, right? And at some point, you realize, you know what? The best way to own more of the world is to have less people to share it with. And that's about as dark and as awful of a worldview as one could have. But there is that. Some think that there's a depopulation agenda because of a genuine belief that there's not enough resources in the world, not enough land, not enough resources, not enough air, however you term it. Now, certainly that's being spoken about. And I believe a lot of people really do believe that because they've been told by other people they trust that there's only so much. And of course, what do they do? They say, well, we should have, we should target growth rates in, I don't know, Russia. You know, someplace that has so much land per person. And at the same time, they will completely ignore Indonesia. And I don't want depopulation anywhere, to be honest with you. But it's like, you know, you're not thinking clearly here. You're not applying your thoughts clearly anyways. So that's another hypothesis. Some people think that it's all a transhuman agenda, all right? The science has evolved really far. And what we're seeing today is a way to be able to give or bring in new technologies which are going to help humans immediately start getting to that next level, the brain implants, the brain chips, whatever you want to call it. Some believe that the vaccines themselves contain microscopic or teeny, teeny, tiny robots in them or maybe other creatures. Okay, that's a possibility. Some think that there's mechanisms in the vaccines which have been ushered in for COVID-19 that allow people to be controlled wirelessly, such as transhumanism. And I certainly can't completely disprove those. But I've worked in the data storage industry. I've worked in electronics. And we're just not there. It's just not – I just don't see it. But I can't stop other people from coming up with those hypotheses, okay? Or that the end – and going back to the first things, these depopulation agendas are probably driven by, some will say, because the medicines themselves are toxic. And the whole point is to slowly kill and weaken people. Some people think that the medicines just want to make people weaker and people are enslaved to big pharma. That's a narrative. I disagree with that narrative because the big companies who run all this stuff, the governments, they can just make money whenever they want. You know, I'm not saying this does happen, but the people who own Moderna said, hey, can you give us an extra $100 billion? Just print it. That could happen, and no one would know about it. They think that all of this stuff is being done for more money. Another narrative out there is that this is done for power purposes. They want to ensure that some people who are unliked – eugenics, right? Some people are less desirable. You want to weaken them. Or you want to just impose laws and a big pharma power structure, if you will, that will ensure totalitarian control over people, over populations. Okay, possibly. But anyways, that's another narrative. And so all of these are bouncing around. And there's been times in a place where all of these had some truth to it. Like, for example, the depopulation agenda. Too many people. It is without doubt. It is without question. You look at historical quotes – 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 60s. You will see individuals at the United Nations. You will see people, very high-ranking academics. Dr. Herman Muller, one of the leaders in cancer research, genetics research. Actually, one of the mentors of Carl Sagan, University of Chicago. You will see many quotes of people who genuinely believed that there were too many people, that there was only going to be so many resources, and they saw the rate of growth. Okay, these are people who grew up, when families were having six, eight, ten kids each, twelve kids each, in developing countries, or developed countries even. So they were certainly biased by that. They were biased by seeing suburbs turn into areas of houses and deforestation. They were biased by that. There was a time of a lot of growth. I mean, just look at the era that many houses were built in the United States of America. So there was that bias. Okay, or I should say that influenced their views. So that was definitely a viewpoint at one time. Now, while many people may still think that way, because they in turn were influenced by books that they read when they were growing up. I mean, I felt that way at one time, growing up. Going to schools in the 1980s, you know, books that were written in the 1970s and so on. Oh my goodness, no one's going to have anything bigger than a house the size of a casket to live in. I felt that. That's what I was told. So these are all narratives. And some might have been more true, more powerful at some time than others, but these are narratives used to sort of like this, like as an over top, like this is a view, right? This is a view. And everything that you see right now, all of the laws, all of the new concerns over viruses and emerging diseases and the medicines that are being proposed, the new currency methods, government agencies, all of it is being suggested to fit within one of those narratives. Frustratingly, sometimes there are multiple narratives pitched and they actually, there's almost an incant, like a, I'm trying to find the right word, but there's this manic just going back and forth sometimes between different narratives that don't even necessarily add up just to explain things. People are scared. They want to know what's going on. And while we do, here on this channel, we're doing a lot of research, we're coming up with a lot of data, a lot of stories, a lot of names, et cetera, a lot of companies reviewing technologies, patents, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. At some point, how does someone who listens to this turn around and go, you know, here's what's really going on, right? This is a hypothesis that I was among the first people who put it out there. My background, again, is in computer sciences, computer engineering, competitive intelligence, research, et cetera. Others have proposed the same thing in different ways. I actually was inspired by this hypothesis by some research that I was doing based upon what other people were suggesting. So for example here, and I don't like to go full screen, but I don't think I have a choice in this case. As you can see, I haven't even cleaned up yet. But here is the IBM internal magazine called Think. This is what they would give to their employees or what they would publish. Think magazine, and obviously it's got a very, very cool cover on it. And this is May 1964. So this is an actual one, it's not a reprint, May 1964. And this is from IBM, and they're talking about how to use their big computers for calculating the weather, et cetera, the United Nations advertisements in here. But here's a big article, and that is a 1964 Dr. Joshua Lederberg. Actually, one of the cooler photos of him. I should actually scan in this photo and use this photo for my page on him because I haven't seen it anywhere else aside from this magazine. And so it wasn't this specific article, but I'll read it here. A visit with Dr. Joshua Lederberg. We call one of the world's foremost biologists a leader in the field of biological engineering, who at the age of 33 was awarded a Nobel Prize for a study of heredity. He discusses spare part medicine, the evolutionary crisis, mental retardation, and modern man's need for a plan to shape his own destiny. Now, he worked, although his first big work was at the University of Wisconsin. That's where his research is that's related to the study of how some types of bacteria actually use bacteriophages as a way to be able to share genetic information and effectively have like gene sharing so that during the reproduction cycle, they're actually merging genes between two different bacterium as opposed to just infinitely cloning, right? It was essentially a method of sexual reproduction with bacteria. So through that experiment, first of all, he learned that there's roles that viruses, or at least phages have, that involve reproduction, that involve communication, and not necessarily just related to killing things. But also, he got into this study of genetics, and it was sort of, it was merging these fields of genetics and the fields of virology. And when he went to Stanford, he was at the genetics department, and there he worked with a Dr. Arthur, I think it's Kornberg, and they were merging genetics research and computation and computing methods. Actually, a lot of the early work or early ideas about the implementation of the internet and packet switching came out of there. Even the inspiration to network together multiple computers to have more data storage and computation capabilities because they needed it for their genetic research. So I bring this up because it was through the continued push for more and more computation capabilities and the study of genetics that they realized that at some point, in order to understand the human genome, although they may be able to have mapped the genome, and ultimately by the year 2002, the Human Genome Project at least mapped it, at least told you how much information there is, right? They honestly don't know how it works. I mean, you hear words like, you know, the gene for cancer, this gene does this and this gene does that, and at best, there's been some correlation noted, at best. There's no gene for cancer. Now, there may be genes that seem to be correlated with people who experience more cancer, right? But there's not exactly a gene that says, hey, if this gene is in this value, make the person die of cancer at age 40. It's sort of like saying that, you know, let's say if there was an accident, a horrible accident, a Boeing airplane explodes in the air, right? Do you really think that the cause of the explosion was some code that was running on one of the plane's computer systems that said, you know what? After you fly a million miles, explode in the air. Just blow up, right? It'd be like saying, well, we're just looking for the code that says make the plane blow up. No, no, it doesn't work like that. It was just a collection of bad circumstances or bad decisions, errors, accidents, compounded one after the other that led to that accident, and maybe there was code that was involved that didn't run properly that might have added to the problem or compounded the problem. But there's no code for explosion. There's no one specific gene that says die of cancer. There's just correlations, at best. So in order to determine how the human genome really works, we got it mapped out, or at least mapped out all these values, but they don't really know what they were. They don't really have the code. Like, they can't interpret the code. It's just in values of four different letters, but they can't read it that says, you know, if this, then that, if that, then this, while this, do that. There's no readable code. And every time someone says, oh, they just modify the code, they're, it's very disingenuous. All right. At best, there's been correlations noted, at best. All right. OK. So, but to, it's possible, some suspect it's possible to really, to actually not just have all these random values and some correlations, but to actually get to the point where someday maybe you can actually read it in a human readable format, like you would software. People write their software in a language, an English read, a language that you can sort of read, you know, if this, then that, you set variables, you add things up, you have instructions on what to do. It's human readable in a sense. At some point, some people believe that if you collect enough data, enough DNA from enough people, you can draw more and more and more correlations. And eventually you don't just have, well, it seems to be like 75 percent of this people, if they have this gene set to this value, they seem to have more cancer. So that doesn't mean that that gene causes cancer. It just means that there's a correlation. But at some point, they believe that they may have it like down to like exactly, precisely, every little value does in every condition. But the only way to get there isn't just to figure out, first of all, the Human Genome Project was how much values are there, general construction. But now you have to figure out what they do. And, you know, collecting the DNA on a few people, five people, collecting the DNA on every single human still won't get you there. That's just a snapshot of a state of each person. You need to collect a lot of data. You need to collect the DNA of many, many people. You need to collect the DNA of many people who are different from each other, genetically different. If you only collect the data on a million people in China, for the most part are a single ethnicity, you're not going to get the full range. You're not going to appreciate what happens when people of different ethnicities bury, have children who then have new unique combinations of things. In addition to that, because our DNA actually changes over time, our data is influenced by viruses. Our data is influenced by exosomes. Our data is influenced, it slightly can change over time. Our DNA, there's tiny differences, okay, in how our DNA runs based upon our environment, based upon what we eat, based upon what our parents had to go through. That's all epigenetics. There is so much data to collect, and they need to collect it on many people over a long period of time. And the more data you collect, the more you can learn. More data each day. Cryptocurrency, for example. All this talk, oh, cryptocurrency is about government having control. The opportunity for more control is there. However, how we use our money, how we get money, how we spend money, when we spend money, what we spend it on, actually provides information about our state of mind, our happiness, what we fear, what we think we need to do, what we think we need to eat or not eat. There's a lot of metadata about the human condition that can be learned about spending, saving, and earning habits. Hence, that's a way to be able to monitor people. Now you start correlating that with their DNA. You start correlating that with what they've eaten, what they're doing, the surrounding environment. You can learn. You can learn how DNA can impact behavior, how food can impact behavior. So you see, if you really want to understand the human genome, if you really want to understand the human condition, if you want to get to the business of real transhumanism and improving people, you need to collect a lot of data on a lot of people. Collect data on a lot of things in over a long period of time. And not just collect data, but you need to influence sometimes things. And that could mean providing messages to people and seeing how they respond. For example, one of the things that you could do is you could give different viruses to different people, just eventually, or synthetic ecosystems, and see how different people react to that and collect even more data.

So we call this “The Spike Protein Deception, Hiding a Genomics Data Harvesting Agenda”. My hypothesis, or I shouldn't say my hypothesis, but a hypothesis that I'm standing behind now, so far, is holding up is that most of what you see right now, while yes, there is increased mortality, yes, there are people who have died suddenly, yes, there are clots in some people, yes, some people have died of a horrible respiratory illness back in 2000, 2019, yes, people will go to events and many people leave these events, have had a really strange illness, yes, there is a desire for government to always have more control, absolutely, yes, there are people that would like to see less people on the world, on the planet. However, however, there's one thing that ties all of this, that is needed more than anything else, and that's data, data on people. Within the last 20 to 30 years, a realization was made that they were not going to be able to figure out scientists and people who want to pursue immortality fuel, were not going to figure out how people work just by studying other animals, by studying humanized mice. They realized they were going to need people. At some point, the depopulation agenda rammed headfirst into the, oh my goodness, the only way we're going to figure out how people work is by monitoring people, by collecting data on real people. And Jonathan Cooey has done a good job at clarifying this. There's a limit on how many people there are, and the desire to create conditions that was going to lead to long-term population decreases was implemented a long time ago. And right now, although the world population is still growing, the second order derivative is very, very negative. We are currently on a path towards significant population decreases, which, a little bit like currency deflation, the more it decreases, the harder it becomes to have children because people who are at the age where they should be raising families become economically indebted to an elderly population and hence the focus becomes supporting the burden of a larger, older population. Look, I'm not that far away from 50 myself. I can see how this is going to happen. And so what's behind all of this? The currency, the new medicines, getting people on board willing to offer as much of their DNA information as possible as often as possible, this religious trust in science over anything else. All of it seems to be based in a desire to make people available for data harvesting, to collect data on them. And I don't mean just they give their DNA, but they actually even expose themselves to new therapies, new medical procedures which can be used to exercise and maybe extract even more data, such as mRNA medicines, such as standardized food, making sure the food is standardized, such as limitations on their social interactions because when it comes to lab monkeys, you keep the lab monkeys isolated, right? You don't let the lab monkeys all play with each other because their interactions and their sharing of space can contaminate the experiments, and you need to keep people isolated as well. You don't give the monkeys different food, like this monkey gets some food from this grocery store and this monkey gets food from the garden out back, without noting that, because that influences differences, that introduces variation. You need to get everyone eating the same standardized food to level set your experiments and your data harvesting. Hence, you see these vaccine superpowers, Bill and Melinda Gates Organization, want to buy farmland. Do you really think it's because they need more money? Do you think it's because they just hate farmers? No. It's about food standardization. Why do you think they don't like gardens, people gardening in the back? Because that introduces variation. They want food standardization. They want standardization and limits on interactions, on movements. They want standardization on data collection. They want, as new systems, new currency methods, electronic currencies, implemented to allow more data collection, more often on more things, and feed all this data into the big, big, big computers, as predicted all the way back 55 years ago.

Actually, 57 years ago by Dr. Joshua Lederberg himself in this IBM magazine. And the title of it, the first title, is “The Spike Protein Deception.” And the is a declarative in the English language. The spike protein, meaning singular spike protein. How many times have you heard the spike protein? Not a spike protein. The spike protein. As if there is only one spike protein. All the SARS-CoV-2 viruses have the spike protein. And all the vaccines are making the spike protein. That's it. There is the spike protein. It's a baseline. And is there really just one spike protein? Now, there's videos talking about the differences between a spike protein on SARS-CoV-2 virus and a spike protein as created or as the body would express as part of the mRNA therapies. Or even the DNA therapy from AstraZeneca, J&J, not available now in the United States. But aside from that, it's a lot of standardization. Is it really standardized? So I'm going to show a couple videos here. So first thing we're going to do is we're going to watch. And I think there's a standardization of things like food supplies, right? Or at least the ability to be able to capture food supply qualities. You just don't want people eating random food. You want to at least know the nutrients that went into making the food, at the very least. Even better to have everyone eating the exact same food, I guess. But at least it needs to be monitored, OK? But here what we're saying is this idea that's been put out there, that there is the spike protein, is a big part of hiding the big narrative. That when you hear the spike protein, you don't really understand the variability in spike proteins in this protein, which can be created as a byproduct of the therapies. There's a massive variation. And there's many things that can lead to those variations. And those variations may or may not be impactful. I think that's the point. The point isn't to show the impact. The point is to show that potentially, again, it's a hypothesis, differences.

OK, so first we're going to play a video, and this will probably get flagged because I'm just going to be playing other videos off of YouTube, OK? First one is going to be, what is the mRNA medicine? We're going to play a couple of short videos about the ribosome. Ribosome is a component, and there's many of them in each cell, which take genetic information, the recipe if you will, provided by mRNA medicine, and use that to create proteins. And then we're going to review quickly, just titles mostly, and abstracts, a few different papers, and then we're going to review at the end the difference between what's being suggested and what the reality is. And what's being suggested is there is the spike protein, and the spike protein is created based upon the mRNA medicine, OK? And what we're trying to say is that that is a gross oversimplification, because the way proteins are expressed is impacted by one's own DNA, by their gender and ethnicity. The way proteins are expressed is impacted by epigenetic factors, such as diet, where people live, what they do, overall health and age. What we're suggesting is the way proteins are expressed differs by cell types in one's body, by cell states, whether or not they're cancerous or not. What we're suggesting is the way proteins are expressed differs, of course, by different mRNA. And is anyone really certain that all the mRNA is exactly, absolutely, precisely identical across every bottle that's ever been made of this stuff? And you feed all that, and you go, wow, there are trillions upon trillions upon trillions of microscopic variations in spike protein. And you can start collecting that, and then you compare that to inputs, and you can learn a lot about how proteins are expressed by the ribosome itself, but this little protein factory of the cell, of each cell. And again, each cell has many, many ribosomes. And if you monitor that, those outputs, and again, I don't think COVID-19 is going to get anywhere near the information required. But it's a start of implementing a platform to enable more inputs and a lot more outputs, a lot more data collection, and then you start feeding that into the big computers. And I mean massive, massive grids of computers. Perhaps you can start finding real correlations and truly reverse engineering the human genome. Until then, it's not going to happen, it's not going to happen. So the more we say the spike protein, or the more we hear the spike protein, each time that's done, we overlook the potential variability in that. And by overlooking the variability, you're also overlooking the genomics data harvesting agenda, which I believe is really the root of what's happening right now. We're not on the edge of turning people into robots. Not at all. Some people may dream of it. It's not happening anytime soon. We're not on the edge of having brain chips. We're not anywhere as close to immortality. I don't believe that we have the capability to re-engineer people or small life forms. But if we're ever going to get there, we need, or humanity would need to start collecting all this data. And by keeping people off their feet, or I should say off balance, by keeping people unaware of what they are dealing with, they will never be able to protest. They'll never be able to opt out. They'll never understand the risk that they are being subjected to for a bigger agenda. They'll never be able to bargain. They'll never be able to negotiate. The rewards of this will be limited to a small population. Sadly, by keeping this big urge, by keeping people thinking it's about population control, it's about politics, it's about power, it's about money, people will not see that. And if we can have an open discussion about the scientific, being scientifically compelled or compelled by science, want to collect this data, I'll bet you a lot of people actually would be on board as long as they are not being exposed to risk that's unwarranted or that their family doesn't need. I think we could have people who really want nothing to do with it and scientists come together and to negotiate about how we can do this. What will the costs be? Should there be rewards for people wanting to participate in this in society? Or perhaps everyone in society should be brought into it, sort of like people are asked, conscripted into military, even if they don't agree with the agenda as citizens of different nations. We can at least have that dialogue if we understand the root of what's going on here. All right, so let's start off here by very first, and I'm sorry, I'm not looking at comments right now. If anyone has done super chats, I apologize. I'll open up in a minute. I did forget. I should be more, I noticed I didn't put my little thingy up here, aware that if I have that feature enabled, I should be looking at chats all the time. It's very sort of mean and irresponsible of me. And we're getting better, guys. We're getting better. Okay, so I played this video before. I think this is a good start here. I will probably take this video later on and chop out a lot of the noise. Here we go. All right, so let's go back to the beginning here. All right, beautiful. Let's go. Developing vaccines is usually a very lengthy process, taking on average eight years to get approved. Since a few years, we have the ability to create mRNA vaccines, which can be developed much faster. So how do these vaccines work? Are they safe? And how do they compare to traditional ones? But first, you must understand how the immune system works. When a virus enters your body, it will attach itself to one of your cells and inject its DNA or RNA into it. This is like a blueprint for your cells, containing instructions on what the cell has to make. So in this case, the virus's RNA will tell your cell to make more copies of the same virus. They become factories, assembling new copies of the virus that can infect even more cells. But don't worry, our bodies have a defense system for foreign intruders. The immune system attacks any protein, virus or bacteria that does not belong in our bodies. But it takes a few days for it to learn how to attack the intruder. Meanwhile, the virus factories are running nonstop, quickly replicating the virus and spreading it in your body. In other words, you start experiencing symptoms of whatever has infected you. After a few days, however, your immune system will have figured out how to attack the virus and will start producing antibodies. These attach themselves to the virus, preventing them from infecting more cells and marking them for destruction. As you can see, the immune system is remarkable, but it's slow to mount an attack. That is the reason why we can get sick in the first place. So to give it a helping hand, we developed vaccines. The main idea is to train your immune system to recognize and fight off an infection before it has occurred. Almost like showing your immune system a mugshot of the virus and saying, if you see this, kill it. There are various types of vaccines, but let's take a look at the new kit on the block, mRNA vaccines. To understand how they work, let's take the COVID-19 pandemic as an example. You might have seen pictures of the virus with its distinctive spikes. These spikes allow the virus to attach to specific cells in your body and infect them. Now, here's the key idea for the COVID-19 vaccine. What if we could train our immune system to recognize these spikes by having our own bodies produce them? To do that, researchers took the virus's blueprint, its RNA, and isolated the part responsible for producing the spikes. Armed with this blueprint, they created mRNA or messenger RNA. This is a special form of RNA that can enter your cells and give them instructions. In this case, the RNA contains instructions to build the spikes of the coronavirus. Not the virus itself, just the spikes. So mRNA vaccines contain instructions for your cells that tell them to build a part of a virus in large volumes, almost like giving them a recipe to follow. Once this is happening, your immune system kicks into action and starts learning how to attack these intruders. Again, it takes some time for the immune system to fight off these spikes, but you won't get sick because it's only the spikes, not the virus itself. And that's it. Your immune system has learned how to attack the spikes of the coronavirus. It destroys all the spikes and even breaks down the mRNA vaccine itself. The only thing left in your body are special B cells or memory cells. These can linger around for months or years until the same virus infects you again. When that happens, the B cells can produce the correct antibodies right away, preventing the virus from spreading and making you sick. What's interesting about this mRNA technique is that it's relatively quick to develop a vaccine as soon as we know the DNA or RNA sequence of a virus. And secondly, because the vaccine only makes our bodies produce a tiny part of a virus, we cannot get sick from it. More traditional vaccines use weakened versions of the actual virus. This also triggers an immune response, but could also give you mild symptoms. All right. So we know that there's a whole lot of baloney in there, which we could just spend hours taking apart. But for those who at this point, I'd be shocked if anyone in this audience wasn't at that there. I just open up the chat window. Well, it's certainly not about your health. We know that. All right. That doesn't mean that it's about the population. It's not really about your health. It may be about someone else's health, but it's not about your health. You're a test monkey. You, me, they want us isolated in little boxes, virtual boxes, with limited access to other people, other things, standardized food, and many, many vaccines, as I showed in the video yesterday. BARDA is looking at using mRNA platforms to go from the detection of a new novel pathogen somewhere in the world, or novel pathogen, meaning something that hasn't even made anyone sick. Someone goes, oh my goodness, there is a piece of tree bark in Thailand where a bat and a pangolin somehow just had an encounter, and there's a new pathogen there. Doesn't even mean that anyone got sick from it yet. Somehow the machine's determined a new pathogen just happened, or in a cave. They want to go from that moment to having the vaccine designed in 100 days, and in 130 days have enough vaccine that it's immediately going into the arms of every person, meaning every week, who knows, every week you could be getting a new vaccine to something that some big computer says happened somewhere else. What? This is absolute, absolute total insanity. And you know what? They could just drop gas and kill all of us. So it's not about depopulation, okay? It's obviously about exercising it. But how many times in that video did you hear the spike protein? It makes the spike protein. Your body makes the spike protein, and then of course you make the antibodies to it, etc. Okay, and that's how they work. Your body is making them. Well, why? Why is it important that your body make it? Why go through all the effort? Think about that. If there is all of this infrastructure to make all this mRNA, if you had to make the mRNA anyways, why not just make the... If this immunology model was true, all you need is these proteins, right? Why not just make the proteins? Why make these complex shells with this lipid nanoparticle structure around it to deliver this mRNA? Just make the stinking proteins and start injecting them into people. Again, I'm not saying I want that or I believe in that, but the concept itself is absolutely ludicrous. You don't save time by making mRNA, which is actually more complicated than making the protein itself. This whole concept that the only way to get there fast is to do it this way is bunk. It's baloney. It's BS. So, why? The only explanation that makes any sense whatsoever is because it gives an opportunity to provide an input into the body, which then challenges how the body will make a protein. And then at some point maybe those proteins can be collected and observed and determine what input led to what output. That's it. That's it. There's no other reason for any of this insanity. If the protein alone did it, just inject the proteins. This mRNA actually has the problem where they don't know how much protein is made. They actually don't know, which is why they've been screwing around with the amounts. A little bit more, a little bit less. What happens when we inject it here or inject it over there? They don't know because there's not a one-to-one correlation. There's no one-to-one correlation here. Different bodies, different people can make more or less of these proteins, and there can be microscopic variations in the proteins, which may or may not be impactful. I'm not saying that if one person produces a protein that's folded a little bit differently than another person, that that actually adds up to any difference. Sort of like if someone were to be working at a factory assembling engines for a BMW, right? If there happens to be one guy whose torque wrench is off by 10 percent and he's overtightening screws 10 percent more on average than what he should when he's assembling an engine, are his engines going to be performing worse than all the other engines being assembled at the factory? They could, but they probably won't. You don't know, but it's not really about that, though. It's about understanding what are the impacts, what are the slight differences, what are the impacts on the protein construction, et cetera. Anyways, so that's the quick intro there. The next part that I wanted to go over, and I'm trying to get better at just having a little something playing on the screen as opposed to having to torture all of you with me flipping through different windows here, is what the heck is a ribosome? We're going to play this little video now. And we're playing this video because we want to learn this ribosome, this little thing that's in each cell. There's actually 10 million ribosomes on average in each cell. I didn't know that. I thought there were only like three. Is what's being exercised by this mRNA? So let's learn about this here, guys. Here we go. And this is a two-minute video. What are ribosomes, ribosome function and structure? I should put the links down below. Let's see here. Come on. Impossible. I wanted that to become A. So boom, boom, boom. Here we go. Thanks for stopping by.

This is Two Minute Classroom. And today we're talking about the structure and function of ribosomes, which are a key player in protein synthesis. I know the majority of my audience are students, and I create content specifically designed to save you time. So if you want to spend less time studying, consider subscribing for easy access to all my time-saving content. Ribosomes are an underrated hero of the cell, and the average mammalian cell has about 10 million ribosomes. They are made of RNA and protein, and their function in the cell is to read RNA and synthesize protein. Very meta. Ribosomes have two major subunits, simply called the large and small subunits. Both subunits contain protein and RNA. The RNA in ribosomes is called, not surprisingly, ribosomal RNA, or rRNA for short. In eukaryotic cells, ribosomes are synthesized in the nucleolus of the nucleus. The location of ribosomes in the cell determines where the proteins they make end up. Ribosomes freely floating in the cytoplasm of the cell synthesize proteins to be used within the cell. While ribosomes bound to the rough endoplasmic reticulum synthesize proteins that will end up outside the cell, either bound to the cell membrane or released from the cell as a signaling protein, for example. Ribosomes synthesize protein in a process called translation, where they read strands of mRNA and bring the right amino acids together to build a long polypeptide chain that will eventually become a functioning protein. I'll make a separate video about this whole process and link it below when it's ready. Now watch this test prep playlist if you have any exams coming up, or watch these videos on topics you may find interesting. I also have some... Okay, so for those who haven't, you probably, I've talked about this before on my show. I come from the computer engineering field, or discipline from computer engineering, and again, analysis as an analyst. Not a degree in microbiology, but I understand computationally, anyways, the concepts here that matter. But these ribosomes, this unit, is the factory. This is the protein factory. So when the recipe that comes in the mRNA is provided to make the spike protein, it is the ribosome within each cell. And there's, again, 10 million ribosomes. Could be more or less, but that's a lot within each cell that make these proteins, that make the spike protein, okay? It's the factory that makes these little proteins, these spike proteins. Let's see here. God made some mistakes. I know you're being, you're joking about that, mobster. First of all, hello everyone, thanks for joining. And again, we have an event that I need to attend. I need to start cleaning up soon. I knew I wouldn't have enough time to do this later. I was afraid I'd be too tired to even start it, so I figured I'd just get the ball rolling here, and I'll do a part two later. I promise I won't leave you hanging. Let's see here. So these are the protein factories, okay? You get it? You get it? All right, so the next thing I need to show is what is, why are these protein factories so, let's see here. Do I have it towards the end? I did a video on something called, also, something that happened at the same time that the, the Human Genome Project was going on, guys, okay? The same, something that was happening is in the mid to late 1990s, a new initiative was launched called the NNI or NNT, the National Nanotechnology Initiative. And this is an initiative to study technology in machines at the nanoscale, the tiny scale. Now, you may think that nanotechnology means making little robots, little metallic robots. Maybe you can shrink people down, and they can be in the little robots, and they can swim around in the veins, just like we see in movies, like the 1960s and 70s, right? Or you make microscopic robots, like they showed in the, you know, minority report. And yes, they can make robots that are quite small, but they cannot make robots at the nanoscale. They can't make robots because the physics of metals, it's just different at that scale. The Nanotechnology Initiative, and why it corresponds to the Human Genome Project is the Nanotechnology Initiative is really about building machines, using the machinery that already exists of life. And the machinery at the nanoscale is not going to be made at the Apple Factory. Or maybe it will be, but there will be some changes there. It's made by proteins, I should say by ribosome. Ribosome is the factory of the parts and of the machinery that is going to, that they see as existing in the future at the nanoscale. So this is a 2008 video. It's a 2.5-minute clip of Dr. Lenoir, who also got a lot of his inspiration from Dr. Joshua Lederberg on going from traditional A-B testing, because it hits its limits when trying to reverse-engineer the human genome, to massive data collection. And let's hear what he has to say. The human has developed in close combination and dialogue with technology. So we've always been cyborgs in a certain sense. To a certain extent, I disagree with the way Drexler characterizes nanotechnology. Really what he's describing is a very mechanical universe, right? He's talking about a universe of machines, where we make tools that make other kinds of tools, and these sort of tools self-assemble into other forms of machines. It's basically thinking of trying to apply this machine concept to nature and to human being and so forth. And he talks about medicine and everything. Now to me, the really interesting thing about nanotechnology is that one of the interesting developments that's going on is to, he mentioned that the most precise machine we know is the ribosome inside the cell. It is a kind of machine that makes very precise products, proteins, and the molecules that organize the body. So this is a kind of example where in order to make these machines that are being described, people are harnessing biological machines. They're harnessing the machines of the cell in order to make these things work, to create self-assembly, to create very precise atomic level kinds of organizations. So essentially what's happening there is we are sort of harnessing biology and turning that into a machine. So we used to have this machine, this nature-culture, nature-human, nature-animal, human-animal kind of divide. And what's happening is that's being obliterated. There is no difference. And it used to be that, well, we used to think about nature as if it were a machine. And we would use analogies of, well, machines work this way and we can use that as models to understand how cells and other things work. But what's going on with nanotechnology is a much bolder and a much more transformative process, it seems to me, which is to think nature as already a machine and that in order to improve the failings in the machines that we can make, those metallic ones he's talking about, we just need to harness the tools of biology. That's one of the kinds of things that is going on that I think is most interesting to get back to your original question about. So there you go. And that's why I keep pushing this video. The future of machineries is nanotechnology. They're not going to be installing a brain chip, everyone. They're not going to install an iPhone into you. Nanotechnology is fundamentally different and it's fundamentally going to be built using the machinery that already exists. But they don't know how that works, really. They have conceptually understand it. But there's differences. There's things that impact it. And every time we hear this phrase, the spike protein, you don't realize that there's variability there. So let me just walk through that fast and then I think I might actually get most of what I need to in on this show. And again, I'm sorry, I'm kind of rushing through it a little bit, I guess. But I just felt as though it was important to get this out there. So going back, I mean, we can look at some different papers here. So here's one. This is a paper from 2016. And I'm just going to look at the abstracts here. Patterns of ribosomal protein expression specify normal and malignant human cells. In other words, if there's cancerous human cells, the ribosomes in them may be producing proteins a little bit differently. How do you know the mRNA that tells you to make those spike protein gets in one type of cell or another type of cell? Well, you don't. You don't. There's going to be variations there. Let's look at the next one here. Multiple ribosome types within each cell. Now, this is really fascinating. We keep hearing even just the term the ribosome itself. There are millions of protein factories in every cell, but they're not all the same. There's multiple ribosomes in each cell, and there's different types of ribosomes that are optimized to do different things. How do we know that when the mRNA goes in, there's only one type of ribosome in each cell that uses that? How do you know? We don't know. We don't know. There could be variations based upon the types of ribosome within each cell processes the mRNA. Let's look at the next one here. Racial differences in microRNA and gene expression in hypertensive women. Now, this study came up inconclusive, but the point is that systemic arterial hypertension is an important cause of cardiovascular disease and morbidity and mortality. So they're studying protein expressions across different races, African women, et cetera. Results, gene expression changes by race and hypertension. I'm just going to zoom in on that. Gene expression changes by race. Gene expression changes by race. There are different quantities of proteins expressed and differences in sometimes what proteins and how they're constructed or how they're folded, at least, by race, at least in some conditions. The spike protein is a lie. I should say it's a deception.

Let's look at another one, okay? Let's look at another one here. Differences in gene expression by effects of race ethnicity on breast cancer subtypes. That's another one. That's another article from 2013. They found it to be inconclusive, but the data was borderline enough that they say that they remain open to the possibility that breast cancer could be impacted by differences in gene and protein expression by race. Here's epigenetics in gene expression. This is huge. Epigenetics in gene expression. Transcription, translation, and subsequent protein modification represent the transfer of genetic information from the archival copy of DNA to short-lived messenger RNA, usually with subsequent production of protein. Although all cells in an organism contain essentially the same DNA, cell types and functions differ because of qualitative and quantitative differences in their gene expression, thus control of gene expression is at the heart of differentiation development. Epigenetic processes, including DNA methylation, histine modification, and various RNA mediated processes are thought to influence gene expression chiefly at the level of transcription. So this is gene expression, and gene expression, of course, can impact what we know that methylation, right, epigenetic factors impact methylation, and methylation impacts the proteins, how they are constructed. Sometimes they can be extracted, the amino acid structure, and sometimes it could just be how they are folded, if you will. Now again, similar to someone working at a factory using a misadjusted torque wrench, do these impacts, do these differences matter? They might in some cases cause a serious problem. In some cases they may not. In most cases they may not. But to review, okay, to review is what we keep hearing is this, okay, we keep hearing ribosome mRNA express protein, and the expressed protein is the spike protein. That's what we keep hearing. Let me get this to be full screen here. Come on. Why can't I go? Somehow it's having a connection problem, of course. Let me just get my little ugly face out of the way here. Oh, I meant to get it out of the way, not put it in the way. Look at that. But in reality, the DNA of a person impacts how the protein is expressed. The epigenetic factors impact how the protein is expressed. There's multiple ribosome types within each cell that impact how that protein is expressed. There's multiple cell types within each organism. We don't know if all the mRNA goes to one cell type. There's like what, 16 or 23 different cell types based upon tissue types within the human body. There's multiple cell states, cancers versus non-cancers. And then of course there's potential variability in the mRNA itself. How do you know that every mRNA, every lipid nanoparticle is surrounding exactly, absolutely identical mRNA? Some of that could just be differences at a factory when Moderna and Pfizer are making their medicines. Some of it could even be intentional. Different mRNA will result in different recipes and different proteins expressed. So it could be intentional, or it could even be from factory errors. So in reality, when we hear the spike protein, what is the spike protein? How many different variations are there? And over time, as epigenetic factors change, as people with more and more different ethnicities and different unique ethnic mixes exist, as more variability is impacted in mRNA, and there will be new mRNA recipes injected into people, because as the Department of Health in Alberta has said, there's going to be new emerging diseases over and on the pathogens over and over again, and we're just going to need to keep injecting people with this stuff. It's the only way to save life. People are being exposed to a massive data collection experiment. They will never achieve immortality unless they understand how the human genome works. And one of the things that people are being misled on when they hear how things are being engineered in the lab is that I don't think they're even close to being able to do any of that stuff. It's still a vision, I believe. The only way they're going to get there is collecting a lot of data. And I don't mean just one data snap. I mean data from birth to death on many people for many years, multiple times a day. The more data, the better. The more consistent the data, the better. The more there can be controls over food, the better. The more opportunities to have data collection, meaning cryptocurrencies and so on, the better. The more people can be controlled upon where they live and what type of air they breathe, the better. All of these things are going to be impacting the big data experiment, the genomics experiment. And in order to get to the next level of true transhumanism, of the real implementation of nanotechnology initiative, you need to understand how things are built at this level, how this little ribosomal factory works. And they're not going to get there by testing humanized mice. They need a lot of people exposing themselves to a lot of medicines, a lot of data observation. And many people are not willing to do this, or are they willing to do the risk. And the decision has been made that the only way to advance the human race is to start this now, before the data disappears, before the people disappears, before people are in a position to realize that they are forfeiting their rights and exposing themselves to risk, which they will never be rewarded for or compensated for. Instead, they are divided and hating each other and going backwards. So, that's it. I've done a really bad job. I'll tell you what we're going to do, okay? I'm going to make a promise. I have this thing that I have to get to right now. I need to clean up, you know, shave and everything else. I'm sorry it wasn't a little bit more put together this morning. And I haven't even really responded to any chats, okay? Watch this today. Watch it again if you need to. And really think about it. Revisit all of the other stuff that you're being told to be afraid of. How people are being yanked around all over the place. Think about how this model fits in. And yeah, there's going to be, you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet. So they, you know, some people will die and there's going to be some sudden deaths over here and there's going to be some injuries over there. But the decision has been made that this has to be done now at any and all cost. And we didn't get a say in it. Instead, we're being thought that there's lizards that want to kill us or it's just depopulation or it's just, you know, that the Chinese Communist Party wanting control or the Democrats or Republicans or money or whatever. And everyone's just yelling and beating each other up. I actually think that the science is actually incredibly freaking cool. And I want to use a different F word there. I think it's incredibly cool. But you know what? I don't want to throw my fellow man and woman under the bus in order to do it. There's nothing against religion. There's nothing that God says that we can't look at this stuff here. However, if we are tempted to bring out the worst in other people and to express the worst in ourselves and to embrace hatred as part of this and fear, then it will destroy us. It's that that temptation will destroy us. Or if we can rise above and not throw each other and have an understanding with each other about what's going on. It's sort of like a test we're all being subjected to. Moral test above and beyond this. So, everyone, I have to get cleaned up right now. I'm going to have a show later on. And that show, I'm going to start off by saying, actually, I'll issue a message beforehand saying, please watch this video and we'll talk about it later. OK, because again, I'm sure I'm missing things. Again, I'm giving a hypothesis. Hypothesis is not the absolute proof. Hypothesis is meant to be knocked down a little bit here, a little bit there and approved upon or completely shut down. But I think the general idea here is actually pretty sound and checks a lot of the boxes about what's going on. And if we can get to a point of having some agreement on that, then we can have some real constructive dialogue about how to go from here. And until then, I don't feel very optimistic about it. Oh, thank you. Yes, Mrs. Dallen, thank you for that. If your theory is correct, then the powers have invested a head fake of epic proportion. I would agree. Yes, I think the decision has been made that the only that this is the most important thing. In the world is to figure this out, the most important thing. It's also a possibility why you see some countries like that are more ethno. They have limited diversity, like China, for example, have have just by because they know it's risky. Or I think it's because they just don't have as much data to provide have eschewed some of the therapy types. There's not enough data to collect there. Maybe they've been collecting it and they realize that they need more genetic diversity, which again, that's a personal choice. Some people don't like to be diverse. Some do. Whatever, you know, to each their own man, you know, but to to actually have public policies that that are that are actually pushing for certain social norms only to for data collection purposes is actually deplorable. People should just love each other, love their neighbor and, you know, to each their own.

Anyways, so again, I wish I could talk more right now, but I have to get cleaned up. I think Malin in the room next door has just woken up. I have to be presentable enough for this event. Please take care, everyone. God bless. Stay positive. And let's talk about this later. I really want to talk about this as opposed to just, you know, via ranting off. I want this to captured and improved upon. So thank you, everyone. And I do have to. I got a motor on outer motor on out of here. You know, I don't even have enough time for music. Just pretend you're hearing some music in your head and we'll be back later. Take care. God bless, everyone.