McCairnDojo.comPast episodes & related streams
Connecting to YouTube…

Uh, good evening, welcome to It is Sunday, December 18th year, 2022.

My name is Mark Kulacz and this is a live show and it's sort of like a part to follow up from an earlier program. The earlier program called “The Spike Protein Deception”.

Uh, I would recommend watching the first show.

I've, uh, taken an edited, I've made an edited a version of it with, uh, it's a few minutes shorter.

Cutting out my many, many ums and ahs.

I'm always terrified at how many ums and ahs there are when I watch my self found replays. It's mumbling and a-stumbling as I go about trying to do whatever it is that I do and we do research and we do archival, mostly topics over the last 50 to 150 years.

Um, and how they led us to the current challenges that we have or that we've been entrusted to work with and understand where we are going and how to best impact these challenges. Uh, these, uh, roadblocks, I don't know what you want to call them, uh, transitions. I don't know, but anyways, trying to get the, the best understanding possible of what is driving things such as the pandemic, allowing ourselves to think the worst and consider all of the possibilities, but ultimately coming up with something that is, makes sense, is concrete and that we can agree upon, uh, and use that as a, as a, as a guidepost in this case.

So I'm not going to spend too much time with the introductions guys.

Uh, let's see who's here.

Hello plastic, oy, oy, hello titanium.

Um, the, the spike protein, the, the, the spike protein. I can only find one case where there is, seems to be some real legitimacy given to, I should say, uh, uh, the real, it's truly admitted that there's at least two and that is of course one on the virus.

Don't ask me like about the virus, the whole virus thing right now, just say does the virus variant and then there's the variant that's made via, uh, the, at least the United States, uh, the mRNA, uh, uh, therapies, uh, transfections are called, uh, vaccines, uh, differences between that and a, uh, uh, the, uh, subunit vaccine, which has been made by Novavax, haven't studied that yet.

Uh, but, uh, because the Novavax vaccine doesn't necessarily stress, uh, the ribosome, uh, in a way that's not using all the same mechanics, um, that's actually not part of the discussion. Um, uh, in this case, the, uh, the, to review the discussion is, okay, the hypothesis is all, you know, all these crazy hypotheses out there, the hypothesis is that, uh, over the next 20 to 50 years, there's going to be unfathomable levels of data collection and analysis done on us humans.

The mRNA platform is a key tool in exercising, uh, providing inputs to the human body to see what happens in response. And that is going to be, of course, monitored as well, along with DNA, along with lifestyles, along with food, everything, uh, you can imagine will be collected and analyzed, uh, from as many people as possible. And I, the hope is that there'll be enough data collected and enough computing power out there to maybe start to find some real correlations, some real, maybe even get to the point of taking all of this, these values, these amino acid sequences and converting them into readable code, you know, and will they succeed? Well, I don't know. Uh, but what else are you going to do? Yes. At some point, you just have to start throwing the spaghetti on the wall. And hope something sticks. If that's the, if the goal is to understand, uh, those mechanics.

Uh, Edward, yeah, I, I do actually have a, a HUSA tunes, uh, playlist on YouTube. I don't have all the videos, of course, tagged on YouTube because some of them are only on BitChute and Odysee.

When it comes to, uh, cool tunes that I've found, I post copies of them, uh, on other platforms, not necessarily because I want clicks. Sometimes it's just for my own convenience. They tend not to get a whole lot of views. Uh, but yeah, it's certainly not my whole music library, personal library anyways. Uh, but as I find a song is just cool and, you know, I mean, I do, right up to the minute stuff. Uh, I do, uh, much older music as well, 60s, 70s, 80s, it all depends upon the situation. Uh, a little classical music here and there, whatever, whatever, uh, fits the bill. If it, even cooler, if there's a way to work a pun into it. Um, hello, it happens, Celia, Lance.

That's all right. It was, um, it was just, uh, earlier, uh, uh, yesterday, Lance or earlier today, excuse me. So we had, uh, uh, an event to attend to attend today and I just happen to have a little bit of time this morning. So I just, you know, I said, you know, uh, I'll, I'll spend hours and hours, uh, building up, uh, slides on this thing. And while maybe that would have made it for a slightly better presentation, I just wanted to put the idea out there. And mostly because there's a couple of people who I do a little bit of research with, I wanted them to see it, kick the can around a little bit, say, look, is this, is this completely absurd idea? Uh, and the, uh, the feedback there is, uh, is, is pretty positive. Um, I'm, I'm, I'm working with public sources, you know, it isn't completely conspiratorial. Uh, the public papers, the research papers show all of the variety, all the variations of, or all the in things which can influence, uh, protein expression by the ribosome. There's many factors, even the ribosome itself and the different types of ribosomes, uh, within individual cells. There's so, there's more factors than even I thought at first. So, and then the other part, well, the other part, right. It's like there's two parts now, but the whole fact that we're using this corny mRNA technology, think about it. And I mentioned this in the first show. As a matter of fact, what I'm about to say is such a, it's so brutally simple. I can't believe more people haven't noticed it. I can't believe I never really thought about it until I said it just several hours ago. Why use this mRNA technology for this purpose? Why? If the whole point is to provide these proteins, uh, which are similar to the agent, the virus, the synthetic, whatever, whatever it is, right? Why, why go through all the hassle of making this complex convoluted method of, of, of, of, uh, instructions and having to wrap it in a nanoparticle and knowing that you need to inject it in cells, need to take it in and produce it. Why not just make the stinking protein itself? It can make everything else. You got to make all this mRNA anyways in a factory, just make the stinking protein. And, you know, I'm not saying I want that, but just the logic. Why? Why? There's no good reason why. Even if it said, oh, well, you know, why, even if it said, oh, well, you can print the mRNA. Well, yeah, you can, but you still got to clone it somehow. You still have to clone the stuff. You still have to reproduce it somehow.

It's not like you just make a file and you do an email spam of it. You still have to manufacture it. You still need to clone it. You still need to bottle it and distribute it. Just make the proteins. You know, and then this way everyone more or less gets the same thing.

And, and this is no, there's no good answer to it. The only, the only answer I can, I can think of or I've heard is, well, well, I think that would make sense as well. It's because they, they obviously want to exercise the ribosome. They want to exercise the body's react response to this gene, to this transfection technology. There is by no means all the infrastructure in place to monitor all these results or make heads or tails out of it. COVID-19 is not the whole thing. It's not the whole, what's it called? The kitten caboodle? I don't even know that phrase, right? It's not the whole thing. This is a kickoff. This is like, this is like tossing the football pre-season. This isn't even the four game pre-season. This is just, you know, barely the draft. This is just, they're just trying to figure out what needs to be done. And there will be platforms. There has to be massive amounts of infrastructure still put in place to monitor all this stuff. And it's going to be happening over years and years and decades. And it's going to move forward. And there's going to be a lot of costs and casualties to it. While everyone is arguing over, is it the Chinese? Is it the communist? Is it Bill Gates? Is it a bioweapon? Is it depopulation? Is it aliens? Is it, are they making tiny little robots that are going around? Is it, you know, all of these ideas, and there's little fractions of the little things, which, you know, can sort of make sense here and there, but it puts us in a position where we are not capable of having any constructive dialogue. Because if the world leaders, if, what do you want, Davos, if they've all decided that the most important thing to reorient all of society, to advance this technology, if they've made that decision, well, I think we should be involved in it, right? We should weigh the pros and cons and how to balance out the risks and rewards and everything else, as opposed to nonstop pandemics. And there will be nonstop pandemics.

There's legislation being written right now to handle nonstop mutating viruses and nonstop demands for people to take more and more stuff. It's, it's, and I can go through some of those.

This is the NFL combine. Exactly. This is just a kickoff. If you think this was just, and there you go. Okay. This is one of the, and I, by the way, I deleted the two videos I did about the, the drastic group and the diffuse proposal, because I want to redo them. I knew that there was, I actually learned some stuff along the way. So I had made a couple of mistakes about the, the nature of the methods that the, some of the evidence came forth and some other cool stuff that they actually did have. But I want to revisit that at some point and probably within the next few days. So I am a believer. And if I have, if I have errors in my, my work, admitting it, but usually I want to, you know, limit how many people have to get misled. That's like the most important thing, not hiding it. It's just about, I don't want people to be like, Oh, you know, having to repeat a mistake. So we'll redo that this week. Why did I even bring that up? Oh yeah. I brought that up because of the, while we're arguing about, you know, is it natural, or is it lab leak, natural or lab leak, or even it was a bio weapon, right?

Just consider how much premeditation was involved in this. The factories were being permitted and built years before, 2015, 2016, you'll actually find the permits in the factories being designed.

The, the initiation date of CEPI, just look at how many moving parts were put into place by how many people and how many agencies, two, three, four years ahead of time. Two, three, four years ahead of time. Now maybe something didn't go exactly as planned, but come on. Clearly this is a massive thing. And to even consider the possibility that's Zhengli Shi and Baric, you know, making a couple of idiotic decisions in a lab somewhere.

Come on, you know, it's whatever. That, I just, I just can't buy that. But we'll, we'll revisit that at a separate thread. Let's see here. It's going to cost a fortune. It's going to cost a fortune. Christie said, yes, it is going to cost a fortune, but maybe that's a fortune people want to spend. I'm, I'll bet you, I'm not alone here in this chat saying, you know what, this, some of this research is pretty cool. Maybe we should invest a lot in it. Right? Uh, you know, the advances tech, you know, there's a, there's a lot of interesting stuff here. Um, it's, uh, it's not in and of itself immoral. It's just the way, which is going about right now is awful. Maybe many people go, you know what? Well, uh, we're not getting to the moon anytime sooner on Mars. We want, uh, this to be a major national strategic initiative, all this genetics research. That's fine. Just put it on the table that that's what's going on. That's what's going on. That's all. That's all I ask. Of course, why is it not on the table? It's not on the table because some of this stuff is risky. Sometimes lives are being lost. People are taking needless risks or risks, which they don't fully understand, not being properly compensated for their, the risks that they take, the sacrifices that they make. And also probably there are, is no one group. There's no one individual, uh, who's on top of the pyramid here. So to say there's multiple individuals, agencies, non-government organizations, all fighting, uh, all the, that game where they're just, you know, hand over hand over hand over hand trying to get to the top. So, uh, they are trying to, uh, not let other people see what's going on behind the scenes. But anyways, um, just get it out there. Just, just, let's just flush it out. And we can't flush it out if we don't have solid, reasonable hypotheses. Uh, and I do not, but I'm not saying that this is the absolute truthful hypothesis, that this is it. Uh, but I believe it really does point in the right direction. I think it's something to build on and it really does fit a lot of what we've seen and the inconsistencies of what we've seen. So, uh, either it's, it's glaringly wrong for reason. I can't quite understand and that's fine. I want to stop wasting my time and your time if that's the case, or, you know, we're going to keep beating on it and refining it. How many people would volunteer to be the monkey? Great question, RT3. So let's, let's, let's review why that is an important question. RT3 asks, how many people would volunteer to be the monkey? Okay. So, uh, a really good, one of the better videos I've seen, useful videos on, uh, it's, uh, James Corbett, the Corbett report, was a review of a, of a, uh, of a court decision over a hundred, about a hundred or so years ago in the United States of America. And it's, it's a well-known court decision regarding the, uh, the right of a U S citizen to decline vaccination. Okay. Uh, if it is, uh, said to be necessary by the government. Now the result of that was the, I don't think that the person actually had to get vaccinated at the end, but they did have to pay a fine. And one of the parts about that decision was that if the government can enlist citizens to go to fight in a war, right. Uh, and to defend national security, then the government should also have the right to defend national security. Have the right to demand citizens get, uh, certain medical procedures. If those medical procedures, vaccines protect against threats, which, uh, which put the whole nation at risk. Okay. Same logical sort of like you conscripting people. I don't know where I fall in that, uh, the, the opinion here. Okay. Uh, but if the law right now suggests where the interpretations have suggested that that is, you know, the government does have that right, uh, in that sense, then the law is the law. That's the interpretation. We can always pass amendments to overrule that. Right. It's not an agreeing that that's the right thing to do, but the law should be followed how it's been interpreted. Um, a little bit of a traditionalist in that sense or constitution, whatever they want to call it. I don't know. Anyways, so if it is the national, it is, it is the majority decision. Okay. Uh, that this is the way they want to go that, that, you know, advancing genetics, genetic research is, is the most important mission of the, of, uh, of the nation or the civilization, whatever. Right. Then perhaps we do live in a world where people can be enlisted.

Like you have to do this. They're going to be drafted. You have to do it. Sorry. It's the national initiative. Uh, maybe you don't like it for religious purposes, tough cookies. You're going to have to get jabbed. I'm just throwing stuff out there right now. Okay. Uh, but at least, at least we can, those conversations be had. Now, many people will go, you know what? I'm, I'm afraid. Uh, but, uh, you know, I'm also afraid to pick up a gun, uh, and go off to a war in a, in a new place with people that aren't going to like me very much because I'm trying to kill them. Uh, I can understand that logic. I can understand that logic. So the conversation just should just be had, just put it out there. Or maybe, maybe if individuals put, you know, say, look that their, their bodily autonomy, they're going to sacrifice some bodily autonomy for the greater good, whatever that is, you know, research, right? If they were to suffer an injury, what's the compensation? Should they be compensated as if they were injured, uh, going off to war or for the injury or, uh, or there should be a death benefit. We should have those conversations and maybe people who decide not to have to pay higher taxes or something, right? Uh, because they in turn will actually someday benefit from the sacrifices made by other people as far as some, you know, making their bodies available for genetic research. These conversations should be had, get it out there, flush it out. We're not here to go over what the right answers to those things are. Okay. Um, that's a, that's like the next level, but we can't even have those conversations if the conversations are being framed as, oh, it's just Bill Gates and he wants to kill people.

You cannot have any constructive conversation at all. If the fundamental hypothesis of what's going on is Bill Gates wants to kill people, you can't, you, there's no, there's nothing to repeat. So you need to have a basic hypothesis that's solid and that you can use that to understand what the heck is going on and why, and then, and then move from there.

Oh, I know by the way, it's also not, oh, uh, the new germs are happening all over the place in order to protect people from the, the volatile, uh, uh, uh, the dangers of mother nature. They just have to do this. That's also garbage. I'm sorry. That's also a garbage narrative.

Um, a lot of wrenches. Yeah. I am, I'm very liberal with my wrenches. Um, I don't like wasting time. Uh, you know, people are free to have contrary opinions, but, uh, trolls, boom, all of those triple X things, just get it out here. Right. Uh, there's no reason to waste time. I just don't believe that. Um, uh, let's see here. Hey, good to see, uh, uh, Jonathan Cooey here. $5 fine, $5 fine. I think inflation adjusted. Why is it being like a thousand dollars? I don't, something like that. Right. But yeah, yeah, there was a fine associated with it. So there's, you know, what to do or rolling it back. You need to have a solid understanding of why things are happening right now. So you can then facilitate constructive, hopefully productive conversations and have a dialogue, uh, where they're, um, you know, people, people can choose, uh, people, but I'm sure, uh, let's go back here a little bit. Hey, Christie, if they could fix me in my body, I might volunteer. Uh, but I want to see the evidence costs first.

I don't believe they can, Christie. I don't believe they can. I think that there's a lot of mythology being pushed about the capabilities of gene editing right now. I think a lot of it's hype. Uh, I suspect that, uh, even what you've heard about the genes for cancer, as I said in the previous show, just the whole concept of a gene for cancer, a gene that says die of cancer. Think about that. Do you really think that there's a gene that says die? Now there's probably some combinations of genes, which in response to unexpected environmental conditions, all right, might yield, uh, cancer happening or occurring somewhat consistently. There may be some correlations which have been observed. I respect the fact that there have been many women who've had, uh, um, uh, who've had their breasts removed because of concerns over family history of, uh, of breast cancer and an absence of knowing anything more definitive. They made a decision because they wanted to live longer for their family, for the kids, et cetera.

That doesn't mean they made a bad decision. It might've actually resulted in them not having it, but to think that there's just a gene that just says die is a little absurd that, you know, babies are, when the, when, when the egg is fertilized, you have this beautiful, brand new human being that's going to occur, uh, that there's just defects near that says die easy. It's just an absurd concept. It's just as absurd as I said in the previous show. If there's a, if the, if the Boeing airplane explodes in the air because of, uh, some horrible combination of like, uh, of, uh, I don't know, a fire, uh, a leak and, uh, uh, electrical failure and bad software. Should the people who are looking at the, uh, the, the airplane accident, should they be looking for code in the, in the, in the Boeing software that says explode and kill everybody? Oh, we just need to get rid of the explode and kill everybody code. Then it won't happen. It won't happen. It won't happen. It won't happen again. No, because there is no code that says explode and kill everybody on board. There's no code that does that. It's like, there's no code in your genes. It says die.

So these are absurd concepts, but they're being pushed out there as if, uh, these things are, this is reality. I suspect that the actual state of the technology, it sounds like it's far more and very sophisticated. It's actually way behind where they, where they think it is. There are so many variables. There are so many variables that factor into how, how we work. It's such a massively complex system, uh, which makes it so cool, but also, uh, there's going to be a long time. Most of what we see right now is, uh, when we're talking about data harvesting, we're not talking about like traditional yes, no, does something work? Right? We're not talking about take the vitamin T bills and, uh, and we're going to see how long you live taking a certain amount of supplements every year, something like that. This is not a yes or no answer type of research. These are, and that it actually leads us to exactly why they need to do this type of data collection. There are so many combinations of genes, right? That you can't turn one on and have like a hundred people live and see what happens and then turn it off to see, uh, have all of them live to see what happens and then turn the next one on and then the next one off. Uh, and then think of every permutation. There will, there will, there haven't even been enough people that have ever lived since humans evolved from apes to match the combinations, the permutations possible in DNA and there probably never will be. So not only does that many unique people will never even live, but you actually need to do repeatable experiments with persons of identical DNA and then subject them to a variety of inputs and, and a multitude of, of outputs need to be monitored over many, many years. It's impossible to do traditional testing against such a massive dataset. The only thing that can give anyone any hope is to collect as much data as possible from as many things as possible. And this is why all this 5G stuff is being pushed, more devices, more data collection, and maybe, maybe the big computers will crunch and crunch and crunch and crunch and crunch and might start to find some real answers, some real, uh, correlations, maybe even getting to the point of turning it into somewhat human readable code or something like that. But we're a long ways from that. We don't even really have all of the infrastructure in place or even in many cases designed to collect all that data. They're still just talking about the general concepts of what they want to do with cryptocurrency, much less actually monitor every transaction and the behavioral characteristics, uh, or the, which can be suggested by every transaction someone makes. And then correlate that with everything that they eat and where they eat it and what they do and who their family was and what they do for a living, et cetera. They're so, this is just moving in that direction. And some decision was made in the last few years that said, you know what, we're not there yet, but now's the time to roll out the new vaccine technology, the transfection technology, one more way to provide an input, one more thing that can be monitored. They went for it. Why it happened starting, why they started planning for it big time at the end of 2016 and 2017, I don't know. I suspect that the Trump victory was so completely unexpected that there was actually a risk of a tidal wave of populism in the United States, that the risk of populism was so fantastic that they realized that they needed to immediately roll out this technology and crush it.

I suspect, you know, again, that's just, um, that's, that's me speculating there, but I, I said, because it just, something happened. Trump won and you could just tell the world went berserk and I don't think it was all an act. There was, it genuinely went berserk. You could feel it. And I didn't even vote for him. I voted for him on the reelection. Obviously he lost, but I didn't even vote for him. I was like, wow, what's going on here? There's something else in the world. I don't quite understand. So I suspect that they actually pushed it forward just to, uh, impact the elections to make sure that there would be less roadblocks politically, uh, to, uh, to the, uh, bigger agenda. Again, speculation. Uh, are they taking samples of blood regularly from someplace, uh, to test effects of vax? Not that I know of it happens. Not that I know. I mean, you know, there was that database of PCR tests and so on. Uh, but there are no regular tests that I know of. Again, the infrastructure isn't really all there. 99% of it is not even built yet or more. This is a long term path. Perhaps, perhaps the rollout of this technology wasn't really support, at least the MRNA platform, right? Wasn't really supposed to happen in mass for another 10 years. Okay. Maybe they rolled it up because it was so urgent to have an impact on the election. I think that's a possibility. You could just see laws being rewritten, uh, at the end of 2016 in response to the election. Big changes were made to the, uh, uh, to legislation involving the food and drug administration at the end of 2016, urgently, like two weeks before Christmas. They're all huddling in Congress, figuring this stuff out. Why? And you know what? They could have done it earlier too, and no one would have ever known about it. We've had three years of pandemic, and most people still don't even know about it. And this doesn't make, uh, I'm not saying Trump's a hero here. Okay. You know, that's not the point. The point is it was so unexpected. It was, he was just supposed to lose.

There was the, it was, the election was probably already rigged. I'm not, uh, again, I'm not a Putin apologist or anything. I'm not, uh, I'm not a Putin apologist or anything. I'm not a Putin apologist or anything. I think that it was so shocking that they, that all of this stuff happened in response to it, I suspect. But again, that's a speculation and that's not even really part of this, uh, thing here. Um, uh, this thing here, it's just the highlight that there was a lot of the, uh, uh, to your point, to your point, very, very well said. Most of this infrastructure is not there. There's not regular blood tests everywhere. There isn't, uh, there's no, there's no standardized cryptocurrency right now. They're still trying to figure, there's still a lot of things they're still trying to figure out. But if you think about, if you took off the, if you, you know, let go of what is, exists right now, think of all of the behavioral things, which can be learned about a person. Think of all of the behavioral things, which can be learned about a person through digital currency, learning what they buy, when they buy, what type of food they buy. Uh, you know, are they buying things like candy to make themselves feel good? Uh, are they spending money on travel? Are they spending money at the gym? You know, are they buying a big car, small car? Are they, uh, you know, buying stuff to build on their work on their own house? And then you start correlating all of these things, how much they spend on their education. You start correlating all of these decisions and behaviors to everything else in their life. And you can start to, again, you can, how else are you going to say that certain genetic conditions cause certain behaviors unless you start collecting all of that data and correlating it. We're a long ways from it, but that's the direction of things.

That's the direction. I, I bet almost anything on it right now. That's the direction of things. It's not because of control. Hurting cats is a little big pain in the butt, you know, getting, you know, maintaining control of a whole lot of people is not really easy and it's not really fun. And it doesn't really make the rich people all that much richer. Um, this is really a big data exercise, I believe. And also we may be an opportunity to recruit more people, to get more people together and have healthy dialogue about where do we go from here? How can we enable this research, which is some people are, they're not going to stop and do it in a more humane way. Um, as opposed to, again, just saying, oh, Bill Gates just wants to kill everyone. That's it. End the story. Bill Gates bad. Fauci bad. Fauci wants money. These, these narratives are, are absurd.

They're missing some of the important, they're missing tons of data, tons and tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of data, tons of data, man. This is a long-term thing, 20, 50, a hundred years.

This is long-term. Just having one snapshot of each person's DNA at one point in their life, in and of itself, doesn't really say that much, but it's a step in the right direction. Uh, you need more people doing more things. You need to test more. You need to exercise it in more ways.

Um, uh, and having a platform where you can provide some sequence of genetic instructions and then monitor outputs such as, you know, what type of proteins are made and the variations of proteins and so on. You're going to learn a whole lot. You're going to click, be able to click a whole lot of data about, um, um, uh, protein expression, uh, no social credit tie. Maybe that's a possibility where there may be a social credit tie in probably. Um, um, some people will be okay with it. Some won't, but I, I don't believe that's what's driving it. I don't believe that that's really fundamentally, at least in the United States and many countries outside, I don't believe that's what's driving this. Uh, the social credit thing, um, it will probably be done or at least they'll try to do it, but I'm not the best person to comment on that. Um, uh, there are some other channels that have really gone into digging on how all the social credit system has been implemented in China.

Uh, and they have more on the ground data of how it's received, how it's liked or not liked, uh, you know, uh, then there's the Western media, what the Western Westerners think the Chinese actually think. I don't, I'm not really the best person to comment on that. No soup for you. Hey, quirky, uh, waiting through comments, Marie and, uh, reviewing recent, uh, insights. Uh, hello, Julianne, uh, nosy, busy bodies. Uh, every human being is sovereign and entitled to write to privacy. Maybe, uh, we're, I'm not disagreeing with that, but not everyone, but not everyone else believes that some people believe otherwise. Some people believe it, have a collective view, you know, human vanity has some needs to travel the stars, whatever it is. And the only way to advance it is to do some real big data analytics and collect lots of data points on all kinds of aspects of people's lives and, and see what can be found. Cause right now, I think that the data right now is very crude. It's very, very crude, simple, uh, correlations made, which are probably not incredibly valuable right now. Uh, this is a hypothesis I've been putting out there. And I think that there's a lot of, I think this is going to go a long way. I really do. Um, it's just, it's just right in front of everyone. And my real inspiration for it didn't come out of molecular biology research. Again, it came because I've, I've been reading so much about Lederberg.

You know, I've been reading, you know, the genetics, how, how genetics research impacted the whole field of computing. I mean, look at these books I have, look at the overlap. It's shocking. I have no, I had no idea that there was this much overlap. The internet itself was driven by need to network together computers and, uh, concatenate data storage capabilities. Uh, it's, it's amazing. Um, so I don't come from this, from a, from the viewpoint of a molecular biologist. And I, and I have to be honest, I was really more of a computer engineer than a computer scientist. Uh, I mean, uh, you know, I, I took a few, uh, distributed algorithms courses at, uh, MIT, but, you know, I'm not really a, you know, a scientist, if you will, I was really more of a, you know, get it done, uh, and balance, uh, you know, release schedules and so on from that perspective of code writing. Hello, Holly. Uh, very kind of you to say Corky, seeing over the horizon in, in his field, social credit scheme is a system is akin to pickpockets. Uh, it may be.

Um, oh, these are not good traits. Uh, 15 minute cities. What's a 15 minute city?

Oh, Kate brings up a good point or a good backstory and a shout out to Kevin McCarran for talking about this one. I believe it was Kevin's, uh, chat channel. Uh, and you know, like when I'm sharing something and usually someone shares something with him, but, uh, I'm glad he covered it. And that is the cities where I guess you have to be within a 15 minute drive of everything, or you can only drive 15 minutes a day. Uh, it's some weird metric like that. Uh, so another stupid thing to reduce carbon footprints that it's one of those, those insane laws. I don't even know what to say about that one. I don't know how that one fits in. See, there you go. So Kate brings up a point to me, that just sounds like incredible inconvenience, to me, that just sounds like incredible inconvenience. But when it comes to all of this social distancing stuff, right. And social isolation, think about it.

The more controls are, uh, are, are put out there on who can see who and what direction you need to, uh, you know, uh, advance yourself and moving around the grocery store and, uh, you know, when you can shake hands and when you got to wash all this other stuff, right. You are getting closer and closer to, to putting individuals, humans, into virtual isolate, virtual, it, they're sort of beginning to live lives, which are more and more physically isolated.

In order to do real hardcore data collection and testing on people, you would actually need them to live as life, as close to a test monkey as possible. You want them in their cages, you want to monitor the food, you want to, you make sure they all get the same water from the same source. You want to have regular data collection. You don't want them like shaking hands or sharing, uh, you know, anything between them. You want that, you want to keep that, uh, those barriers up, but people are not going to just volunteer for that. So what's even worse than that is to implement, create all these narratives about bat viruses and scaring people and breaking up families and getting them to live lives, which virtually put them into a situation where they are living, where they are providing this isolation, which, uh, which isn't as clean as a lab, but it gets in that direction. So this is a hypothesis again, right? But think about it. What's the benefit of that? Just to inconvenience people, make people mad, lead to revolts, you know, it is part of facilitating the scenario of getting more data that's more clean, um, and destroying people's souls in the process. Now we could have a conversation about, oh, it's just, Bill Gates just wants to kill people, but, and now maybe that does kill souls. Uh, it's not really because Bill Gates wants to kill people. It's, it's putting people in situations for data collection. Now, uh, there's another article. Hmm. Cream soda. I know I shouldn't drink it, but at least it doesn't have high fructose corn syrup.

If, uh, if, uh, uh, Mrs. Huse-Tonic is in the chat, uh, you can, uh, you can get mad at her for feeding my addiction. Okay. So, uh, so, uh, so, uh, so, uh, so, uh, so, uh, so, uh, so, uh, okay. So someone sent me a, as Karma Doc, thank you Karma Doc. I don't know if she's in the chat right now, sent me a link to a, uh, a video about, uh, artificial wounds and the ability to, uh, grow humans in a completely synthetic, uh, environment, getting women out of the business of, you know, uh, having babies. Now there may be some, uh, conditions where, uh, such technology could save a life, enable a childbirth. Certainly. Okay. So it's not the, the concept of the technology itself. Is it going to be pursued for other vanity reasons? Well, that's another thing, but, uh, let me see if I can find the article here. I probably won't actually be able to pull up on it on the screen, but at least I can say it by name, right? Let's see here. One second, almost there. Here we go. Okay. It's a video. It is on YouTube. Uh, uh, Everett Roeth, R-O-E-T-H. Okay. Uh, and the title is this is beyond scary. Germany is now growing them or babies in labs.

So maybe there's been, if maybe there are conditions where you can save lives, you can enable a childbirth, et cetera, with these, uh, technologies, maybe some of these technologies could even be used to, you know, off world colonies land on another planet, just like in that movie Interstellar, right? You got a whole box of baby, baby eggs, which, uh, when you think about it, uh, where are you going to move them all? You know, you, you can't just, you know, it's not like the box of baby eggs, just like self, you know, expands. You need to, you need to have a, a baby size incubator for every baby. I guess the movie Interstellar didn't quite get into those details. Anyways, um, so let's look at another thing that can happen with this type of technology. Okay. Pfizer right now, the wonderful people at Pfizer have said that they are working on an RSV vaccine technology to protect children against the horrors of a bad cough for a couple of weeks.

RSV does kill a few people, but it's, it's, it's extremely minimal. And by the way, there has been no RSV since certain vaccines started to be introduced. All right. But, uh, so this technology, which Pfizer is this new vaccine technology that Pfizer is proposing uses the mRNA technology platform, uh, as a way to be able to provide limited gene editing capabilities to unfertilized eggs or, uh, a, um, uh, like, uh, something, uh, a human that's like only like, uh, weeks into development. Preferably, I think they actually want to target women of childbearing age who are not yet pregnant. So what they're looking to do with this new, uh, tool is gene editing of the unborn, not the unborn, the unfertilized, um, to, to protect them against RSV. Do you really think that they understand the human genome that well that they know, oh, here's the gene that says die coughing of RSV. We just need to change that. So the baby dies. Die coughing of RSV. We just need to change that. So the baby doesn't have the RSV.

Think of how freaking absurd of a concept that is. Okay. Even if true, right?

This is what they're promoting now. Maybe they don't know. Maybe this is all part of trying to understand what are the implications of flipping the value here and flipping another value over there on the yet to be conceived. And then, well, let's see what happens when they grow up.

Huh? That's interesting. You know, looks like an octopus, but he has 145 mile an hour fastball. I don't know what, who knows what the impacts of these things are going to be, but if part of this isn't really protecting the unborn, the unconceived against RSV, it's really about getting into gene editing of the unconceived. There's going to be limits on how many times that can be done.

What's the birth rate in the United States right now? What? Three, about three million a year, I think, give or take. Uh, how many women will sign up for it? How many will be able to be monitored? You get down to a limit. So it can only advance so far, so fast. But let's just say that a company works with Pfizer and says, you know what? Great idea. There's only so many women who give birth every year in the United States. You're only able to test gene manipulation so many ways every year. I have an idea. We're going to build a warehouse and in this warehouse, we are going to fertilize 100,000 eggs every week. Okay. And then, uh, and then, uh, like on the, on day one, we're going to, we're going to, uh, we're going to change one molecule of their DNA.

And then we're going to see what happens after a week. Well, some of them seem to start looking a little funky and the rest of them, well, show some promise, right? Uh, or maybe some were unable to be edited, uh, and they, they, they fell apart in the process. And then after the week is done, you go, well, we learned a little bit. Let's try it again. And you take all 100,000 and you flush them down the toilet, you incinerate them, and then you take out another hundred thousand.

Why deal with the limits of the child birth rate, which is only a few million every year, like you just need the United States. When you can have factories making fertilized eggs by the million and trying all kinds of funky inputs with them and seeing what happens because after all, they're not human, right? It's just a pile of genetic sludge. It's not really a person. Heck, most people actually feel as though they are more human for celebrating their abortions. It's just garbage. It's stuff that wasn't going to go anywhere. Anyways, don't feel bad about it. It's advancing the human race.

Those conversations, I guarantee you have been had. I guarantee you those conversations have been had. We have been conditioned for a long time to be prepared for those situations. It's going, someone's going to try it. Now, most, there's a certain number of eggs that female humans are born with, and most of them do not become humans. So if there's the whole, well, if you fertilize all of them, does that really mean that now you're committing murder? I don't even want to get into those discussions. I'm incapable and ill-equipped to have them. But if this is what's going on, the conversation should be had, if that's the direction that things are going in. And why would it be done? Would it be done to increase the population? No, it would be done to have more people to do more things with that can then be thrown into the incinerator when they're done, because the only way they're going to collect more data is to have more people monitored. That's it. Every time someone's pushing eugenics and depopulation, concepts have definitely been discussed in the past. It's hiding up this possibility or the reality that people are the most valuable resource. People walk around, they're in debt, they're depressed, they think the government wants to kill them, but they're not going to kill them. And it's not that the government really cares, you know, any individual, specific individual, but in reality, do you really think that these agencies, these companies, these non-government organizations want everyday people to know that those everyday people actually already own the most valuable resource in the world? That the only way life extension is going to be attained is if millions or billions of people volunteer for this. Do they really want people to know?

No, they want people to get an mRNA jab for a cheeseburger.

And a lot of people actually did it because they don't know how valuable their lives are, their bodies are, the data that be collected from them. So, I know I have some very different ways of viewing things, but I'm going to look back at the chat here. Designer babies. Designer babies is one part of it, but I don't think we're there yet as far as, you know, I mean, you can clone people with, I guess, desirable traits, but the whole ability to just go in there and, you know, flip all the switches, flip all the levers and say, I want someone that has these particular characteristics. I just don't think we're there. It's not like opening up, you know, human, human dot c, you know, and making modifications to the code, and this is what the person's going to be like. We're not there yet. I think Kim dot com showed how naive he was in some of his recent interviews by just saying, oh, you're just bringing up the fact that you're a designer, you're a designer, and you're a designer, you're a designer. It's not like a design, you know, that's what he was in some of his recent interviews by just saying, oh, you just reprogrammed the virus. You just add a little bit of this, and you take away a little bit of that.

It's not shell script, everyone. Sorry. Maybe you can add in values and flip a few values around, The cheeseburger story, do I have, am I bringing up cheeseburgers too often? Looking for immortality, I believe some people are wizened, I believe some are. Wyzen asks, looking for immortality, eh? Let me find that old video that I did. Let's look at that old video here. It's a short video. Let's see here, I don't really do a whole lot of the Clinton stuff here. Come on, where is it? Clinton genome, come on. I'm looking for a video short that I did. It's actually a clip from, I think it was from 2000. Let's see here. I made this clip in June 15th of 2021, okay? It's the year 2000, and President Clinton is announcing the near completion of the Human Genome Project, which is all about eliminating genetic disease, right? We're doing it for genetic disease, not to live longer. Let's see what he has to say about this. On behalf of the American people, I would like to thank the Prime Minister, the scientists and the British nation for the brilliant work you have brought to this international effort. And Mr. Prime Minister, I would like to salute not only your unwavering support for genome research, but also your visionary commitment to sparking ever greater innovation across the full spectrum of science and technology. And on a personal note, I can't help but think that the year of your son's birth will always be remembered for the remarkable achievements we announced today. I think his life expectancy has just gone up by about 25 years. Can you see it? You know, they say, oh, we need to do all this gene editing to save, you know, protect against cancer, all this horrible cancer, and this RSV, and we can fix that. And maybe there's a few cases where it can be corrected. I know there was something, there was an eye condition, which there was like a local fix that had some DNA edit made it available. I don't know what the long-term impact of that edit has been. But it's really rooted in living longer, knowing how to rebuild the body as it ages. That's the goal. It really is to live longer. But there's, you know, it is believed that the way you're going to be able to live longer is by having more data and knowing how to reconstruct the body. I guess as it falls apart, reverse the aging process. It's been out there. And that was a completion of the Human Genome Project, 25 years, 50 years. What is the goal? It's to live as long as possible, I suppose. All ethical considerations, not scientific ones. Yes, there's a lot of ethical considerations, Al Corky. I'm not the right person to have those. I'm not. Let me listen to how I fumble these philosophical conversations. I'm not the right person to have it. All I truly believe in here is that you can't have a productive conversation about what's going on and how to fix it or what debates to have if we're all working with fundamentally flawed hypotheses and views of what's going on and why. Everyone's wasting their time, and our time's being wasted for us by being dragged into debates that have stupid dialectics. Let's see here. She just digged the Duke Report. What'd I miss up there? What'd I miss up there? Sorry, I missed something there that Kate responded to. Sounds interesting. Troll hunters needed. There's going to be trolls. If you have a moderator, if someone is bringing up a good counterpoint, that's great. I just don't believe in getting into stupid, wasteful debates. That's all. Thank you for just... Adios. As well as all the pornography stuff that gets pushed into chats, stuff like this. Hello, Kathy. How you doing? Long time, Kathy. Long time. Hyper-normalization. Clinton going to live to be 120? I don't know if Clinton will live, but again, that's what they were talking about in this video as a goal. Let's see here. Let me pull something else back up onto the screen here. I had all kinds of stuff to go over here as possibilities, little videos to play for this show tonight here. Let's see here. Here's a bar of paper. I mentioned this bar of paper in a video short that I did, I think it was yesterday. I don't even know why I was... Oh, come on, you're not even going to do that, are you? Of course it won't work because I didn't copy the last zero in the link. I think I was actually... I pulled this paper up because I was trying to learn more about the interim director. I think he became the lead director after Rick Bright leave of BARDA, United States Agency for Biomedical Advanced Research Development.

This was received for print July 29th, 2022, five months ago, and it became official, accepted September 24th, published online October 27th, so published online less than seven weeks. Let's give it seven weeks, okay? Advancing development of medical countermeasures, incorporating COVID-19 lessons learned into future pandemic preparedness and planning by Robert A. Johnson, Richard C. White, and Gary L. Disbrow. Maybe it's Disbrow, but I say Disbrow. Abstract. I will read the whole abstract, it's a little painful. The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly disrupted and out of necessity accelerated innovation of research and development of medical countermeasures to combat COVID-19. Did it really? Well, the way it was presented to us, it sure did. We had no choice but to take an mRNA vaccine, I didn't take it, or maybe I did. Keep you guessing. We have no choice but to take something that makes no sense. Not that I would even believe in it if it was done in a traditional way, but the whole process of it was so stupid. They pushed some medicines like remdesivir, they made it, they outlawed virtually hydroxychloroquine. You could still get it, but the whole EUA thing made it very difficult. They incentivized bad medical procedures, really? After all that and all they can think is that they had to accelerate out of necessity. All they did was accelerate mistakes. Although countermeasures were developed with unprecedented speed, they were developed so fast that the factories were being permitted four years before the pandemic. As a result of decades of long-term federal investments in platform technologies and existing partnerships, the pandemic also revealed gaps in our preparedness and response capabilities that threaten our readiness posture. Challenges include limited federal funding. I guess an extra $10 trillion of debt just isn't enough, is it? That voice, that an insulting line, huh, guys? Hinder sustainable development and manufacturing of an equitable access to medical countermeasures. They gave away the stuff for free. It was free. They would virtually put you in first-class ticket airplane seat to get you to a hospital to take it. Oh my goodness. Here we discuss lessons learned from the development and production efforts of medical countermeasures such as vaccines and immunotherapeutics to combat COVID-19. This commentary highlights some of the key gaps and challenges that must be addressed to ensure preparation of future outbreaks caused by viruses, not bacteria, viruses. Bacteria no longer exists, everyone. You can take your little triple antibiotic lotion, or if you do have a bacteria, they're going to say, tough cookies, you're actually dying of a virus. Don't take your antibiotics. It's all viruses right now. That's it. That's it. That right there should scare the freak out of people. But it is further down here, and I did have the paper open the other day, maybe I still have the PDF version of it open. Nope, obviously I don't. I closed it. That's fine. It's the, of course they talk about the rate of approval being a big problem. I mean, come on, seriously, they're still talking about that? It's a paragraph here. I have to read it again. I read it in the last show, but I have to read it again. Okay, preparedness suite of license and stockpiled medical countermeasures. Sorry, I should have had this up line. Okay, finally, here's this paragraph. Current platforms, vaccine platforms, and product development pathways are insufficient to achieve the APPP goal, something pandemic preparedness, whatever, of developing a vaccine within 100 days after a pandemic threat appears and producing enough vaccine for the US population by 130 days and the world by 200 days. That is a terrifying line right there, so they're saying every time a new virus appears somewhere on the planet under some leaf, under some tree bark, on some animals behind, even if it's never impacted a person, within 100 days a vaccine needs to be designed and within 130 days they want everyone vaccinated against it. You have to believe an institution that says Building 7 collapsed because of a small fire in the printer room. You need to trust that they are going to be injecting you with things that save your life based upon their word that deadly pandemic viruses have just emerged somewhere on planet Earth. So a new mRNA recipe is going to be injected over and over and over and over and over again. No more testing, all to see, well, what happens now? And you have to believe it. You have to, otherwise you're a conspiracy theorist. This is absolutely obscene, and it's all going to be mRNA. No more traditional vaccines. It's just, let's test the ribosome again, let's test the ribosome again, let's test the ribosome again, let's test the ribosome again, and over and over and over and over. How could anyone look at this and not realize that this is only about generating and collecting data? That's it. All of us have been reduced to machines which are to be monitored without any compensation or even the respect of letting us know what's going on. How can anyone view that any other way? Somehow humans have gone through all kinds of catastrophic challenges on this planet, but now we need to have gene therapy probably every few days with something new and to be monitored from conception to death. That paragraph right there, that's the goal. That is absolutely obscene, obscene. And everyone right now is divided over what? Is it natural or from a lab? And whether it's natural or from a lab, guess what? You still got to take your gene therapy. It doesn't matter. That is a losing battle. And that's why right now I am happily, gratefully, openly at war with this stupid narrative of it's a lab leak. It's not a lab leak, it's a lab gush. It's a lab gush implanted around the world. There's not germs, cooties leaking out of labs that make me have to submit myself and my family's bodies for the rest of our lives to this type of insanity. Sorry, that's not happening. And that's what the lab leak theory wants you to believe. That's not my side. That's the same side as what I'm against. That is not revealing this big data agenda that's going on here. It's pushing the same the spike protein deception. We are the product. We are the product and we are the value. That's the thing. We are supposed to believe that we're worthless, but we have the most valuable thing. We have our lives. We have what can be monitored. The goal cannot be achieved without people accepting this, these stupid narratives. The last thing that is wanted is for people to realize, oh, you mean that bats can't do something on the other side of the planet in a rainforest that puts me in a situation where I need to subject myself to experimental medicine every few weeks? You telling me? Is that what you're telling me? Unlimited access to our bodies is a non-starter. There are probably thousands or millions of people tasked. That would be happy to volunteer. Some people, if the reward, if there's a big financial reward, okay, or some people they really want to advance these sciences, they really believe it's part of a bigger mission. I'm not against that. That's fine, but that's doing it above board, openly, knowingly, allowing some people to opt out. They don't want to do it. You know what? If someone wants to submit their body for this regular type of testing, give them a tax break. Really, that's fine. Because maybe some miracles of genetics will come out of it. I'm actually okay with that. But to just put everyone into this battle, no, this is what I'm not going to tolerate. I should say, I'm not going to accept that as the answer, until I can find evidence otherwise. This view, the spike protein deception, holds up, hiding a genomics data harvesting agenda. That's why I chose this title here. Think about it. This data harvesting agenda cannot be seen if you think it's just about one and done, if it's just about saving your life. Why would there be this expectation that there's going to be new viruses, nonstop, and the only thing that we can do is submit ourselves to more data surveillance, more data harvesting, and gene therapy, nonstop? Once we see that, there is no way that what's going on here is not just everyone creating one protein and then being saved. No, there's a lot going on here. It's hiding behind the very, very, again, my hypothesis here, a very simple phrase, the spike protein. When you think about it, when you just think about that, you completely forget about all the permutations of what can happen after that. The different natures of blood clotting, some of that, possibly, could be a byproduct of the way different people are reacting to it based upon their DNA. It could be because of different batch numbers. It could be because of a dietary supplement, which is reacting to this. It could be a lot of things, right? But it's not just one protein doing the same thing to everybody unknowingly. It could be that there's slightly different methods of protein folding in those individuals, maybe, maybe. Medicine has gone nuts since 1957. Well, at least ibuprofen is cheap. Should we be concerned about other people and shedding? Great question, Delight. What I'll say is, my son's, well, I've been at events where people were shaking hands and hugging, and then afterwards, lots of people got sick in a rather unusual way. I don't fully understand the mechanics of it, but there does appear to be, it's just, and again, people have always gotten sick. So I'm always wondering, am I being tricked into this as well? Is the SIOP wall rubbing off on me, so to say? Or is it really a different illness? And when I got sick a few weeks ago, it felt different, I've had the flu before, it just felt different. I don't know what else to say. So I think that there's a possibility of that, of that happening, but again, there's probably other channels out there that will do a better job at covering that, I believe, could give you a better answer to that. 46 and two, 46 and two ahead of me. Love it. My first cold, years after spending time with a freshly boosted person, yes. Ignore this question if you want, but in short, how are you so sure the virus isn't dangerous? I'm not afraid to ignore that. Maybe the virus is dangerous. Maybe it's extremely dangerous, but define that. Too many people, when having conversations about is the virus dangerous, will not start then breaking down actual causes of death. They will not talk about how 120,000 give or take flu deaths, which didn't happen officially, were shifted over into being COVID deaths. They don't talk about the massive increases in drug overdoses over the last few years. They will not talk about the changes in hospital protocols, the denial of antibiotics, the pushing of remdesivir when people didn't need it, which caused kidney diseases. They will not talk about the increases in suicides. And when you break it all down, let's just say the virus is 50% lethal. Even if it's 50% lethal, the total number of people that would have died pales in comparison to the other things. And if you look at the average age of death of COVID, it's actually a statistical anomaly, but true to say that if someone's dying of COVID, that's good news because that means they actually are going to be living longer than the average life expectancy right now. So if the goal is to save lives, even if COVID was 100% lethal, the number of people that actually died from it is minor compared to all of the other increases. That's the problem. Hence, the more pushback I get about that, the less I actually believe it in and of itself is a dangerous virus. And most likely, because COVID didn't seem to spread in any organic way, how does a virus just pop up several areas of the planet simultaneously with no clear way it got from here to there to there to there, almost as if it was seeded? Again, what killed those people in Wuhan, what killed those people with vaping illnesses, lots of very similar things were impacting all of them. It didn't seem to spread. It didn't seem to be spreading. That was a lethal biological agent, which very easily could have simply been an aerosolized version of mRNA. It would have caused many of the same symptoms. If we want to save lives, we need to go down exactly why all the people died. And the virus is awful and killing everyone crowd very seldom wants to get into that breakdown of causes of death. Every time Andrew Huff gets on the air and says a million people died of COVID, that man is including my son. He is using my son's death to push his agenda. Think about that. Today I was at an event with all these children who lost a parent to a drug overdose. Andrew Huff, every time he says a million dead of COVID, he's using some of their deceased parents to say, to push his agenda of how deadly the virus is and how bad the Chinese are and Ralph Baric is. And the only thing we can do is have more biosurveillance and more mRNA vaccines. And DARPA is bad and ditch is actually kind of cool. Do you know if the ninth international mRNA health conference in 2020 was broadcast online? Great question. I didn't even know that there was a ninth international mRNA health conference. And if anyone does find that there is, that they have any data on that, please email me and I will hopefully remember you, Huffman Aviation. Great question, Ray. 97% survival rate, yes, well, that's what was measured. Of whatever that agent was, there's no doubt here that there was an agent, synthetic bile agent perhaps, maybe a modified virus that didn't spread that well. Not really sure. But most of the deaths in the end could have been prevented. And every time that there's no attempt to break down all of the stupid reasons why so many people died, unnecessary reasons why so many people died, oh, and then take it to the point where you go, well, gee, if this virus just appeared in several areas simultaneously, that means it was a biological attack, which means those deaths also could have been prevented if somebody or some organization didn't sanction a series of events to simulate what looked like the start of a natural pandemic. Paul says the same with spontaneous identical mutations happening all over the globe. Oh, the mutation thing, Paul. One thing I agree with Andrew Kaufman on, I shouldn't say agree with him, but he has mentioned, thank goodness, at least he put the idea out there, that what we think of as viruses are really exosomes. They are communication mechanisms between people, between animals and people, between plants and animals, that there is a massive ecosystem, if you will, of communication and synchronization going on in the world, which we are completely unaware of. If that's the case, well, guess what? If you can hack into a network, a computer network, and if you can start flipping around bits and packets of information and somehow get around the checksum verifications, you can cause computers potentially to start having problems inside. You could actually probably even blue screen a couple of Windows servers on there. If you can hack in to these communication systems, you can cause problems. Where we go with this is to suggest that what is actually being viewed by some people as this massive tree of little viruses, right, all mutating, could actually be people simply monitoring packets. Imagine someone capturing packets of data off the internet and then trying to draw an evolutionary tree out of it, like, oh, this one's all zeros, and then I found a packet over here has a one and this one packet has a one. That means that this packet actually is a descendant of this packet. Imagine the insanity of that. Is that what's going on with all these stupid virus mutation trees? Trying to actually look at the internet as if the packets are spawning each other and have some hereditary parent-child relationship? All of that stuff about the virus hereditary trees, I don't even remember the organization, somewhere out of Seattle, of course. The moment I realized that they will not acknowledge that something, whatever the heck it really was, who knows, called West Nile virus, it didn't just spawn in the United States in 2000 off an airplane, that it was actually being injected into people. The moment that they refused to do that, it became clear that it's all controlled nonsense. There's something really happening there, and it really probably can be manipulated to cause illnesses and maybe some other ripple effects, but it's not there to kill people and to make animals and people sick and die. This whole viruses are just there to kill people. Again, so stupid. It's so stupid. It's so insulting to all of us. There's something really big and cool there. We're being hidden from it, or the real nature of it is being hidden from it. Again, probably to advance the genomics data harvesting agenda, probably. It's most likely that's what it is. We're not going to advance things unless people volunteer, submit themselves to this type of surveillance. Not surveillance because the government just wants to have power, but genetic surveillance allowing more and more data harvesting with no reward for it, with no shared benefit, with no compensation should there be any injury. Very, very sad. GenBank? I think it could be GenBank. It could be GenBank. Hey, Leslie. How you doing? Thanks for joining. Thanks for joining. Oh, Corky, cool it with a compliment. Wacky science. Mutations are rare and unknown. How is it that viruses always mutate? They're always mutating, always. Every time a virus replicates, it mutates, yet, yet somehow, and I'm not really sure how this happened, the SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan virus perfectly replicated itself in massive quantities and spread to multiple areas around the world overnight. Which one is true? Which of these two is the reality? Viruses are always mutating, always. Oh my goodness, it's so dangerous. It cloned perfectly all over the place. Which one is it? It's definitely not both. It could actually be neither, but it's definitely, absolutely, positively not both. One of those is absolutely false, and it could be that both are false, but at least one is not true. So every other... You shouldn't have to be a PhD to understand how mutually exclusive those two statements are, right? There has to be a group of geneticists out there who are just infuriated with all the idiocy that's being shoved at them every day. Where are they? Come on, come on, guys. And when I say guys, I mean men and women equally, it's just a phrase I use for people. Come on, guys. You have an opportunity to take the lead and become the leaders of this field right now, because the field right now has been hijacked by whatever, I don't even want to describe it. Step up. Please, I'm begging you, please, please step up. Apologetic tree, yeah, it's... Yeah, exactly. Kary Mullis. I think Kary Mullis was an okay dude. I think he was okay. I know I've been tough a little bit on him. I'm not upset with the Kary Mullis. Kary Mullis was discovered by Lederberg. If you guys could help me with that, when you talk about Kary Mullis, when others mention Kary Mullis, and Kary Mullis' own words, in his own words in the paper about the PCR technology, in his own words, he said, no one liked his idea, Lederberg found him at a trade show and lifted him into prominence. Now, whether or not that story in and of itself is a little bit of a fake, I don't know, is it possible that Joshua Lederberg actually used Kary Mullis, who was a cool, likable, well-spoken person, as a way to promote the idea of the PCR test? I think that's actually possible. Not to take anything away from Kary Mullis. But I keep highlighting how critical this figure is in all of this. And Mullis, who is a hero in many's eyes, and I think Kary Mullis took some big chances by calling out Fauci, and I think he deserves a lot of credit for that. And again, to Kary Mullis' credit, when he wrote his white paper about the PCR test, he openly admitted that Lederberg found him. He didn't hide it. I like that. Smart people give other smart people credit, right? They don't go, well, I myself invented that thing. That was my, my brilliant idea. Don't give me that. People get ideas from other people and build on them. They innovate in small increments. I like the fact that Kary Mullis gave Lederberg credit for at least finding the idea, right, or for helping take it to that next level. But it's a great way to be able to, instead of, to broaden the conversation, to show how important this genetics angle is. And you can read Kary Mullis' paper, I think it was in 1990, 1991, I do have a copy on my Kary Mullis page, you can download it yourself, where he talks about the trade show where Joshua Lederberg found Kary Mullis at the booth and realized that there was more potential to his idea than even Kary Mullis realized. I think it's a great story to talk about and to share. D-Lite says the people at the top who designed this plan seem to be of a similar ethnicity. Maybe, I don't know. I think whatever we see at the top is just optical, right? The, what's the, was it the Forbes top hundred, what's the company right now, fill me in, that has like the most respected, or the most definitive, like richest people list. I think it's Forbes, right? Maybe it's Bloomberg, I don't use, I think it's Forbes. What do you win by being at the top of the list of the world's richest people? Nothing. You don't win anything. There's no, you don't win extra money. You don't get a door prize. There's nothing there. The only thing that happens when you're at the top of the list is a lot of people are actually going to not like you anymore. For the people who really have the most power and money in the world, I think one of their best inventions ever, at least that we know of, at least I know of, is the Forbes top hundred richest people, because it's a great way for everyone to channel all of their hatred and questions at another group of individuals. There's probably some guy right now who has $1,000 trillion, he's just totally relaxed and he says, hey Bezos, here, because we've done the Bezos research, Bezos, I'm going to give you a trillion dollars, you're going to pretend to make a big company selling books or use books, okay, and you're going to have lots of money, you can pretty much do whatever you want, all you need to do is just be willing to play along a little bit and have people throw all their hatred at you. What a great idea that is. We don't really know who's at the top of the list. We don't. Because there's nothing, there's no winning, there's no benefit to it. That's a drawback. I think KM would have blown the narrative. It's possible, Kate. Again, Kary Mullis' wife said that he genuinely had pneumonia or something. Kary Mullis died, he was in his early 70s, I think he was 74. Now some of the best video testimony of Kary Mullis, he was around 50 or so. So it's easy to think that when Mullis passed that he was still that same 50 something year old and well, he was healthy for his age, he served a lot I guess, but he wasn't as young as the amazing testimony he gave or at least in presentations about some of the horrible things that Fauci was up to. It's possible his wife has not seemed open to talking about any conspiracies about that. She doesn't seem to want to pursue it and well, that's that, rest in peace. I actually think quite well of Kary Mullis. It's my opinion that his legacy would be better served by when the Mullis topic comes up talking about how Joshua Lederberg found his invention and brought it and helped refine it and bring it to reality. It broadens the conversation beyond Mullis good, Fauci bad. By the way, I had that opinion a long time myself. I wasn't until like six or eight months ago that I realized that Lederberg found Mullis. That really changed things. Again, it just keeps highlighting how important Joshua is to all of this. Mullis's wife said he had no history on this. That's a possibility. We'll never know. I don't think we're ever going to know, but he's gone and I'm not trying to say that's that. I believe people have reached out to his wife. She has given her statement. Unless someone's going to do a crime scene investigation or dig up a body, there's nothing else to be said about it. It is interesting timing, but we'll never know what he was going to say. Maybe there's a notebook out there of stuff that he wrote down, which hasn't been shared maybe, but I don't know of that. The best thing you can do for Mullis is to highlight that Joshua Lederberg found his work. It brings Mullis to another level. It brings a whole history of genetics into the picture. It gets beyond Fauci. Fauci's gone. He's retired. It's over. If the world view is Fauci was bad and now Fauci's retired, well, then the world view must now be all the problems are gone. We know that are not gone. Everything's still there. Maybe it's going to be even worse. I don't know. I think Mullis was a pretty cool dude. I'm thankful for what he did share, and he didn't hide his interactions with Lederberg. I just think that they're underappreciated. I think other researchers, by highlighting that, can expand the horizon of what Kary Mullis interacted with and did. It brings them up to another level. It is far more impressive, far more impressive, that Kary Mullis had those interactions with Joshua Lederberg than Kary Mullis had a dispute with Fauci. Fauci's gone. I mean, Lederberg's been passed for 10, 15 years now, though, also. What the point is is that he was a far more influential person. Hope everything's okay, Debra. Everything okay, Debra? I missed a message that was... I wonder if I can actually see it. No, I can't. Julie says, hey, Julie, how are you? It's the ecosystem AI research sector that's influencing everything. That's coming down the pike right now. I don't know what the ecosystem AI research sector is, but this machine of research of data collection, if it's tied in with harvesting, collecting all this data from people, I guess I would agree, if it's the same thing. The movie Genius was a movie on Kary Mullis. Everybody wants to rule the world. Well, I don't want to rule the world. I can't even finish my front steps. I don't want to rule the world. I don't believe it's about money, it's about control. It is. It's about control. It's about immortality. What could be more powerful than living longer? Think of what a competitive edge that would be. Being able to live, on average, 30, 40 years longer than other people. Save 30 or 40 more years, have 30... Really, think about it. Wow. No one would ever be able to catch up. Are we making progress? Who, Leslie? I believe we are here. I know I've made progress. I'm 100% confident of it. It's slower than I thought it was ever going to be, but I know I have. I feel good about what I've done. I would like to do a lot more. I'm hoping to see some more things to completion, whatever that is. I believe we're making... Is humanity making progress? Well, I don't think so. It's not looking too good right now. Life extension and space exploration. That's what we're told. The age of synthetic biology has already started, Huffman says. It has. This mRNA medicine is synthetic biology. It's a synthetic exosome. I think the test is, can we actually pursue science and research in a humane and ethical way? I've said this before. I think that's our test right now. Can we do that? Because it might actually be such that we could do all of this horrible stuff to one another, right? And the belief that we'll live longer, we'll be able to explore the stars. Well, first off, why does anyone want to explore the stars? Can you tell me that? You really want to be in a box, a metal box, for 1,000 years while it goes to another planet where there won't be Chick-fil-A? Really? Who wants to do that? I just want to finish my stairs. Really. I have enough on this planet to keep me busy. I'm more than happy to watch computer graphics about what it's like elsewhere. I'm set. Thank you very much. The insurance has to be in on it, man. Adam and Eve lived about 1,000 years, bro. I have heard that, those studies, that the ancients, if you will, that the lives used to be much longer. Maybe it just felt like 1,000 years. And that as humans succumb to sin, our lives became shorter. I think that's part of the narrative, right, S90, or end of day's prophet? Don't you want to finish your stairs and concrete from Pluto? No, I don't, S90. I want to finish them here. I have a beautiful planet. My family's here. I have a few friends, too. The internet speed is pretty good. Last thing I want to do is to have to connect to YouTube from 1,000 light years away. I'm fine. I just want to finish my stairs. It's true. We've lost a lot of ancient knowledge from cataclysms, 46 and 2 says. That's a probability, yeah. It's naive to think that older civilizations were just stupid. There is so much history that is not known about civilizations that have lived in North America. It's absurd to think that some Mongolians got lost. They came over the ice bridge. They just kept walking and walking. We should have took a turn back at the lake, or whatever their names were, right? And then they wind up in Oregon. And they just sat around a campfire for 780 consecutive generations waiting for Christopher Columbus to go, you know, there's a better way to cook chicken. It's just insulting. And they've been able to find, finally, there's evidence of some cities and ruins and roads and everything else. But there's all kinds of technologies and capabilities that have just been lost in the past. It's just funny how we've been conditioned to think that everyone was so simple and uncivilized for so long, just because you can't find evidence of it because it's deteriorated doesn't mean there wasn't a whole lot of stuff there. I just went to lay on my back on a warm summer night and imagine the stars. Oh, I love that. That's beautiful. Imagine them. Just imagine them. This is our home. It's a beautiful, it's a pretty freaking perfect planet, all things considered. Okay. You know, if there was an Earth without mosquitoes and yellow jackets, everything's the same, but no mosquitoes and no yellow jackets, I might consider it. I might, if it had people, I don't want to go to a planet all alone, I might consider it, but it's going to have to be, there's not many other things that are going to make me even want to look into that option. S90 says, human remains in Australia 50,000 years ago. Wow. Implying crossing the Austro-Asian ocean flow without language. Maybe they had boats. I mean, we still build boats out of metal, we'll build them out of metal. Up until recently, we used wood. Think of, just because there were no plastics, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. No fire ants. No fire ants. Fortunately, we don't get many fire ants here in New England, L, but I hear that they are not fun. So you know what? If you want to join the rest of us going to the new Earth with no yellow jackets, what else to say? No mosquitoes and no fire ants. Okay. All right. Okay. We'll make that a third condition. The sun will be, end of day's prophet, the sun of man will be in the heart of the Earth for three days and three nights. God bless. God bless. God bless the Christmas time being upon us. Now that's interesting, David. America is called America because it is the land of Ameru, the plumed serpent. I'm not familiar with the plumed serpent. Yeah. They had to have boats for a large enough population. Yeah. There's much that's been lost and it's, there are some channels that really cover that stuff. You guys are probably familiar with them, that get into those topics. I have to admit, I'm getting a little tired talking about germs all the time. You guys probably are too and that's enough. Oh my goodness. We're closing in on two hours. Any last minute thoughts, guys? Any other questions? I have a slightly shortened version of the part one. I'm going to post it on BitChu Odyssey Rumble and use the email. Get back to me if you have, saying this stuff is all absolute garbage. Let me know. Let me know. I don't want to waste my time thinking garbage is right and I certainly don't want to waste your time either, nor is it doing any service for people who support the channel on Patreon. But I ran it by a couple of people already and I'm just reading out of, I'm reading out of other official docs, if it's not really a stretch, talking about the ribosome, talking about the number of permutations there and how this reality, it's just staring everyone right in the face. What do you think will happen to the people who don't want to play their bio data game? You know, Dee, I used to think that we were going to be more and more ostracized. I'm feeling confident that eventually this big, this agenda of data collection and what it's really driving towards is going to be flushed out. Right now there's just a lot of lying going on to get things jump started for everyone wanting to get to the top of the heap, if you will. I'm confident it's going to be flushed out and I actually am confident that people have the capability of sitting down and having very rational discussions about some not wanting to be part of these experiments, some not wanting to not have their data collected. Some people are okay with it and having talks about trade-offs, you know, maybe because some people are willing to deal with more inconvenience, more risks, but that offers some benefit to medical research, you know, that maybe they get a tax break or something like that, I don't know. I'm actually more and more optimistic about the capabilities of this being resolved. I'm not optimistic that it's going to happen anytime soon, though. In the short term, there could be a lot of discomfort. There could be, you know, continue to be ostracized, there could be community set up, but it's very, very difficult to, you know, to totally live off grid and be disconnected, it's possible. But there's a lot of benefits, the efficiencies that come with working together. So in the short run, I'm not really sure, but, you know, next few weeks or whatever, I think it's okay. I think people will lose friends, obviously. They have already lost friends. I don't mean just to injuries, but I mean just to disagreements on these things. People lost jobs, definitely impacted many people that I know. Long term, I think it's going to be flushed out, and I'm optimistic about our potential of being constructive about this and doing it in a way where we don't lose our humanity and we become closer to each other and to God. I really believe that's possible. You have to be driven by what's possible and walk in that direction, right? But no one's going to be walking in that direction if we're working under false narratives. That's why it's so important to get this view right. And if this hypothesis I'm putting out isn't right, well, let's not look at it anymore. Let's look at it elsewhere. I truly believe, in my heart of hearts, this is not just about killing people, it's not just about control, it's not about money, that there's something bigger going on here. And the best way to be able to come to terms with that, start having some better conversations is to really nail down fundamentally what's going on and why. So I don't know if that really answers your question or not, it's just what happened to come to my mind. Yins, this is a reference, it's some phrase that they say in Pittsburgh, I think. Come back to Pittsburgh, I will come back at some point, I'm looking forward to it. Really need to hook up at some point, man. We are moving the, yeah, keep archiving, keep trying to, you know, don't waste your time on negative things, guys. Don't waste your time, don't consume your life on Twitter. Take breaks from the computer. Find something to do where you put the phone down and keep it away, right? The data collection, the data archival matters, but why? It's all part of helping us to establish, to see past all of this friction and nonsense that we're being pushed. And I'm not saying there aren't real risks to the transfection. I'm not saying that deadly biological agents have not been used, no, they absolutely have. I just think that the best way to go, move forward, is to agree upon the fundamental baseline of what the heck is going on. And one of the things that's slowing that down right now the most is being jerked around in a thousand different directions of a thousand different stupid narratives that are changing all the time to distract us. Some people, they mean well, I believe. It's not all nefarious, but we need to get past that. So it's about two hours, guys. I really appreciate you being here. I appreciate the question and the answers. I'm even happy to do a part three on this tomorrow or the next day if you have any questions on it. And we'll keep moving that ball forward. So what we do here, very exciting, very fun. It's an honor to be one of the people who's been able to be in this fight here. So with that said, what are we going to do here? What are we going to do here to move things on? There we go. I like this. I like this song here. It's one of my favorite songs, at least for this purpose here. All right, guys. Take care, everyone. Talk to you soon. Great day and God bless. Oh, of course it doesn't play. Of course it doesn't play. I queue it up. Nothing happens. Ah, how embarrassing. And now a commercial comes on. Oh, my goodness. This is a very, very big emergency. This is absurd. There we go. All right. God bless everyone. All right.