McCairnDojo.comPast episodes & related streams
Connecting to YouTube…

Subscribe to Rounding the Earth on, heck, all of our platforms, Substack, Rumble, YouTube, Odyssey, Rockfin, Locals, to join a burgeoning research community and to help us unflatten the earth. My name is Liam Sturgess. I am a musician, music producer and writer slash editor coming at you today live from the terribly snowy and apparently in dire straits from a single snowflake Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and I will be your host for today. Now please allow me to introduce my intrepid co-host and the author of Rounding the Earth, Matthew Crawford. Matthew, what does the word intrepid mean? It's like an avalanche, apparently. Yes, there's a meme that I meant to pull up that I'll see if I can grab. I won't spoil it, but I looked outside and there's about eight inches of snow, which you would not believe the disaster that poses for the average driver here. Anyway, you had a very busy day yesterday, two shows. Do you want to give us just a brief summary of how those went and then we'll get going? Yeah, sure. I didn't have to misdefine any words in order to... The first one, I walked through a first Bitcoin transaction with a friend who had never dealt with Bitcoin before, so I had him download an app for his phone and then I sent him $53 worth of Bitcoin. It was an instructional video, essentially, but though he and I kind of gabbed and goofed off and made jokes for an hour. And then the second one was a much longer, deeper conversation.

I had Nick who goes by pizzapicklessur on Twitter, and he's a smart guy who does deep dives into topics. He's sort of a hobbyist reader investigator, I guess you could say, but he's a pretty smart guy. He's clearly very smart, and I'd seen him do one with Mark Kulacz on Housatonic, and I said, hey, you want to come in and talk through some cool topic with me? And he said, yeah, here's a list, pick one. So I said, this is Operation Paperclip, partially because I've done enough reading that I have what you might call fragments of a deep dive for Operation Paperclip. Sorry, I'm going to bring the microphone closer here. And so he and I discussed Operation Paperclip and just went off on branches from there also as well, including the fact that I may be one of the few people alive who have seen the very first light bulb, which may have been invented in Huntsville, Alabama by people completely unrelated to Alexander Graham Bell, the other guy, Thomas Edison. But the whole thing was kept a secret after a while because the family was worried that he had been murdered by Thomas Edison's people. That's a true story. Yeah. So anyhow, we went off on several branches, several topics. Well, and just in the former episode, by the way, I couldn't help but notice you broke your cardinal rule, like the one rule that I remember there being for rounding the Earth. Do you know what that is? I broke a cardinal rule for rounding the Earth. Yeah. Did I stop spinning? Did we stop spinning? No, we kept going. Don't you worry about that. But you know what you did? You brought up Oprah. That's not a rule. You know, just not allowed to see her as a as, you know, guru cult deity. Yeah. Well, let's make just a soft deal that we won't bring up Oprah for the rest of the day, really for no other reason than it's kind of funny.

Let's use this opportunity now to introduce our guest for today. I'm going to bring him in. He's already been nodding along to a couple of the things we've said, which is a great start. Please allow me to introduce Dr. Joe Lee. Hello, Dr. Lee. Good morning. How are you? Good. And Dr. Lee does not subscribe to the religion of Oprah, apparently, judging judging by his reactions. Well, she's an average person. Fair enough. Fair enough.

So, well, we're going to discuss a little bit about infectious diseases and vaccines and and it was in particular types of infectious diseases, respiratory viruses, which, you know, it seems a little weird that that we have this this thing that we do, where we stick needles in people and inject them with with various agents into intramuscular in order to stifle a process that begins in the nose, mouth, eyes generally. And, you know, I'll let Dr. Lee kind of, you know, build up to that point. But, you know, I'll let you get started, you know, where you want to get started, perhaps by introducing yourself to the audience. So, basically, I'm a LASIK surgeon. I'm out in LA. I did my fellowship at USC Doheny, a two year fellowship in refractive surgery. I've probably done 80,000 or so LASIK surgeries in the past 24 years. So that's like 800 a year. It was a lot. I mean, I think the one day I did the most was four, five, six, seven years ago, right before Thanksgiving. 23 patients in one day. But it sounds like somebody typical is like three. 46 eyes and one day I got to the point where I could do three patients per hour. So compromising the integrity of the process. Obviously, that goes without saying. That's really impressive. I mean, I've done 80,000 surgeries and I'm not perfect. I have my flaws. I've had my complications. But since I finished my fellowship, I haven't had a lawsuit claim or settlement for LASIK. So that's an unheard of record. I've had my complications. Agreed. One of my most severe complications, I probably spent $20,000 rehabbing. That's a gutsy conversation to begin with, to even talk about making mistakes for a surgeon. I know that a lot of surgeons are not real eager to even bring up their mistakes. But of course, nobody's perfect, like you said. And doing surgery is certainly not a simple thing. But that's very interesting that you would go there so quickly. That's a humility that we would not expect very often in surgery. So maybe that sets the tone for what we're going to talk about today. You know, surgery, being a surgeon, a lot of surgeons operate on patients that are knocked out under general anesthesia. I had to operate on patients that were wide awake and on their eyeball. And they see you coming. Absolutely. And I had to come right at them, right to their eyeball. And it's not fun. So, you know, I've learned over the years, I have to keep talking. If I don't keep talking, they get very nervous. I can't joke around with my staff because anything I say, they're going to remember. And they're going to wonder, why did you say that to your staff? Why were you talking about the weather? Why did you make that joke? I mean, I remember once I accidentally made a joke. He laid down on the table. We were getting ready to do surgery. And he had such a big forehead. I said, you look like Robocop with your helmet off. And then, you know, I mean, you know, it's just off the cuff remark. He started laughing and my tech started laughing. And we just went round and round and laughed for a while. And then, of course, we got down to the business of doing his eye surgery. And, you know, I did a pretty good job, but he needed an enhancement, which happens, you know, 10, 20 percent time. Now, if he had been an unreasonable person, he could have always said, well, you know what? All you were doing was joking around and you didn't focus on my eye. And now I need to touch up. He was decent. He was good. I did his touch up. He did fine. But that taught me a really invaluable lesson. I have to stay professional no matter what, because, you know, for me, I do it all the time. But you're going to remember everything I say. And so I have to be very careful about what I say. You know, that's it. I feel like I did surgery on him. So I learned my lesson and I stay very professional. Now, if I ever say something off the cuff or whatever, I want to get around. I do it after the surgery. Then it doesn't matter because then they're like, you already did it. So this is one of the things about doing surgery. You have to and it's not fun. And, you know, other surgeons get to turn on the music, you know, make jokes with their staff and they all do this because a patient is under general anesthesia. Right. Right. Right. So I'm very careful about that.

Yeah, I had the opposite experience. I was a patient one time and making jokes that didn't seem to be appreciated. I had I had a kidney stone and I was taken to a hospital. This is in Birmingham, Alabama area. I'm actually going to name the hospital because other other than the fact other than the fact that the nurse seemed seemed kind of cranky, didn't want to laugh at my jokes. It was actually a surprisingly good hospital experience. So I'll name it. It was Brookwood Medical Center. And so I'm at Brookwood Medical Center and and they give me morphine. It's the only time in my life I've ever had morphine. Of course, you know, I don't have to explain that, you know, the pain involved in in what was going on. And it was it was exactly the relief that I needed. Right. And so, you know, the whole rest of the time, you know, going into to do scanning and whatever, I just start making jokes because that's sort of my personality. You know, it's like especially well, if I can't, if I have if I if I'm awake enough, I have the cognizance, you know, I'm probably looking for some way to just sort of like make light of of a difficult situation. So you're loopy, too, like you're on morphine. Yeah, I was also right. But I would have been the same either way. Right. But the nurse, the guy who was wheeling me around, he just for whatever reason, he just didn't seem like it was the day he wanted to to hear any laughter or. Well, you know, from the surgeon's standpoint, it's very, very critical to be professional. And I've done LASIK for a lot of surgeons, a lot of physicians, and one of them who was older than me and more experienced, he told me that's why he stays professional, because they all have side effects. They all have complications and then they have to deal with that. And so imagine having made light of everything and joked around and then the patient has a severe complication. The patient is going to remember that conversation with you. And then now you're going to have to address this really serious issue. And how do you do that then? So with LASIK, there are less complications. So I can be a little bit more casual. And I've done LASIK for lots of friends and family. But, you know, serious surgery, you can't do that. Right. Yeah, not if they're awake. Well, today, you know, we invited you on because I saw your discussion.

I had seen you on Twitter just a little bit, and there was somebody who had poked me and said, you should you should interview Dr. Lee. But then a few days later, I saw you with Jonathan Couey on GigaOhm Biological. And some of the things that you said already, you know, were things that I already felt like I was I had understood, at least to some degree. I probably don't understand them as well as you and the biologist. But there are things that it felt like, you know, why why isn't this discussion just more ordinarily visible? Like, why aren't more people happy with the discussion? Because it didn't seem out there. Right. Like none of the arguments that you made seemed out there. So I'm going to I'm going to let you find a starting point. I don't know if this is something that you've canned at this point or if you just want to start with a discussion of what you were thinking at the beginning of the pandemic or even go before that. Like you talked about the fact that you were in graduate school and you raised questions and the other people around you didn't want to think about it. Well, basically, my whole life, I've been fighting the system. So that's not new for me. No, it's not fighting everyone. I mean, starting from college, I remember I got a bad grade on a on a subject that I didn't think I deserved. And I got a C in systems physiology and my tests were A's. I felt the professor was not being fair. So I fought him hard, went up all the way to the ombudsman. He was a chairman of the biology department. And I lost. He ended up giving me a C. But then I had to apply to medical school and it was required to have the pre-med committee chairman recommendation. And he was the pre-med committee chairman. So I applied to the top 15 medical schools. I got waitlisted everywhere. When I went to my University of Chicago interview, I remember the secretary telling me, you know, I'm not supposed to show you your letter of recommendation, but I'm going to show you because I've never seen a recommendation like this. And so she shows me and it's one page. And in the middle of the page, it says Joe is an average student. That's all that was on there. So my whole life, I've been fighting the system. I just don't like unfairness. I just despise unfairness. And it's everywhere. So I have a hard time with that. And yet I got waitlisted everywhere. I remember I didn't even go to my Duke interview because I said, what's the point? Once I saw that letter, I'm like, no one's going to accept me anyways. And then University of Michigan, I was on the waitlist and I got in it off the waitlist. And that's how I went to medical school. But I was that close to not making it. That's really interesting. The average student who's done 80,000 lasik surgeries without a lawsuit. So, you know, people have an agenda. Everyone has an agenda. And he clearly he didn't like me because I remember the reason why he gave me a seat. He said in his syllabus, lab grades cannot hurt your grade. They can only help. So I didn't go to lab. Just didn't go. And then he hurt my grade. Now, he was thinking you violated the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is, you know, I want people not to be stressed over the lab experience and just dig in and don't worry about getting something wrong. My whole life, it's interesting, my whole life, I've had issues with labs. Everywhere I went, I got in trouble because of labs. And I do more research in my head than anyone I know. I've always gotten in trouble with labs. I mean, at Michigan, I didn't like gross anatomy. I just despised the smell of the cadaver. I didn't like the whole experience. And I don't like that. I had an issue with that. So I think after the first three or four lab sessions, I didn't go for a year. And at the end of the year, you know, you have to go take your practical exam and they tag everything and you have to go identify everything. And the lab TA says, I haven't seen you here. I just try to avoid him. And then the professor of the class calls me up. I remember his name, Burkle. He's written anatomy textbooks. He goes, Joe, is that correct that you haven't been going to the lab? Now, I quickly, I'm quick on my feet. I said, you know, if I say yes, he has to fail me. If I say no, there will be a big investigation and they'll know that I didn't go. So I just didn't answer. Ten seconds later, he goes, well, don't do it again. Of course, I'm not going to do it again. He passed me. So I'm probably the only one in the history of University of Michigan Medical School that only went to three lab sessions in gross anatomy. For the whole year and still passed. But so I've had an issue with labs my whole life. Everywhere I went, I had issues with lab. But really, I don't like the lab experience because all the answers are there. I like the unknown. I like the mystery. But a canned lab experiment where everything is known and you're going to redo it. I just didn't like that experience. You know, I remember organic chemistry. You have to do this three unknown thing where you have to figure out these chemicals or white compounds and you have to figure out what they are. Instantly, I realized, hmm, compress it, the crystals, put it through the IR machine. And there's a fingerprint that comes out that that print out. It's 100 percent 99.9 percent. So I just did that. And that was those were my three unknowns. And that's all I did. It took me one hour to finish the whole semester of organic chemistry. So labs are a weird issue for me. I've had issues my whole life with lab labs and I do more research in my mind than anyone I know. And yet I've always had issues with. And then during medical school, I got the Howard Hughes Fellowship for medical students, which is, you know, they give out three a year. So I go do my the proctor who was in charge of the lab, Steve Weiss. He was a young investigator of the Year Award. He was a big guy. Journal of Clinical Immunology, chief editor, I think. I don't know when. And he would yell at me nonstop, yell at me, yell at me, yell at me. And, you know, every time we had a group lab meeting, he would yell at me. He was known to make medical students cry. I didn't feel like crying. I'm like, you know, a lot more than I do, clearly. I'm very confident in my rational ability, but I don't know all this data that you do. Well, how would I? I'm a medical student. And basically, towards the end, it wasn't even towards the end, it was that six months I started realizing there's too much corruption in research. He is harassing me and beating me up and emotionally just traumatizing me. Now, for other PhDs, what are they going to do? They're going to make up data to give it to him because he wants positive data. He's not telling me to do that, but he is so pushing me that what else would I do? And I'm like, but I'm a medical student. I can just leave and go back to med school and be a doctor. But the PhDs, they can't do that. They actually, you know, they can keep them in there for nine years, eight years. In order for them to get out, they have to produce, publish positive data. Well, how often will research be positive? You're mostly going to get negative data. So that was, you know, my whole life in academia. I was never in academia, in academics, my whole life. I had this issue with labs and I realized that research can be too corrupt. And by nature, I'm not trusting anyways. And it just taught me over and over again. And then when I did my practice, I'd have drug reps come up to me. Every time a drug rep would come to me for anything, I would say, don't talk to me about your science. And they'd say, well, why? I'd say, well, are you ever going to say anything negative about the drug you're bringing me? No, you're going to only say positive things. I'm sure there's negative data about it, but you're never going to bring that to me, right? So it's not really fair. So I've never had it. They try. They try. I'm like, no, it's silly. It's stupidity. You're only going to present the positive. Why would I care about that? I'll wait until the community doctors figure out what it is. So I see I've had this issue with the information that is presented and trusting it. And people just trust information left and right. And for me, when I see information, I don't trust it. I have a very simple view on the world. There is one reality. If two facts contradict, they're not both correct. They could both be wrong, but for certain, they're not both correct.

Well, I'm curious what kind of react beyond, you know, you allude to persistence. They would keep trying to sell you. But what did you ever get the sense that you opened the mind of any of these drug reps simply by kind of calling them on their crap? Like, were they aware of what they were trapped in themselves? Well, if they were, they would never say it. But there were some drug reps. I remember their faces. There were some drug reps for the latter six, seven years. They didn't even come talk to me. They just say, well, can you sign this? Can you sign this to show that I've been here? But one of the early ones I remember, he thought he really knew his information and he thought he was really selling good stuff. And so he was he would always try to, you know, debate me. I'm like, I'm not interested. I'm not. But, you know, that just goes to show how I live my life. I just always call people out on their stuff. It was nonstop. Here's a question.

So, you know, you're going through the system, you're skipping lab work that seems like an overly ideal set of exercises at times. How did you wind up with a Howard Hughes fellowship? You impressed somebody along the way. Well, my friends in differently. Well, one of my friends, he got a nature publication and a science publication in medical school. And obviously, when people talk to me, they realize I'm pretty intelligent. And he thought I was very intelligent. And he said, you would love this, guy. You'd love doing research. And I, you know, remember, in biochemistry in medical school, I made 100 percent on my final. At the University of Michigan, no one does that. I mean, so obviously, I love science. I just didn't like portions of it like gross anatomy. The small stuff is always more interesting than the gross, big stuff. Microscopic, the smaller you get, that's where science goes. You know, you know, well, here's where the liver is. Here's where the kidney is and the names for everything. I'm less interested in because it's not as important. I can always refresh my memory on what those names are. That's the science, the Krebs cycle. I could draw everything out from memory, every molecule. So obviously, I do believe in memorizing things. There are certain things I believe are more important than other things. And I thought gross anatomy was not very important. So when I took my board exam, like part one, you know, there's at least 10, 12 sections on it. My gross anatomy score was right in the middle, mediocre 50 percentile at best. But everything else was so far off that my total score was 97 percentile. You know, if you have 10 sections and you score 50 percent in one section, to bring it up to 97 percentile for the total is practically impossible. As a statistician, you know that. But I was off the chart for microbiology, physiology, pharmacology. So see, pharmacology and microbiology, those were two of my favorite areas. And this is exactly what this is. But it's on the molecular level. And that's where all the magic happens. It doesn't happen because you know exactly how many blood vessels go into the liver and what their names are. There's no magic there ever. It doesn't, you know, who won the football game by how many points. It's never going to be relevant for anything in the future. And I knew it. And so I can't, I don't know any sports trivia. I always tune out. Don't know it. I just don't. I remember like certain celebrity names when they annoy me, like Jennifer Aniston when she was. So she hated the anti-vaxxers. I'm like, all right. She doesn't even know how to think. And she's concluding this, right?

You know, I hate to do a hard pivot here, but John Q. Public brings up a really good question, which is where's Jay? And I have an answer for you. And oh, I see we've got some private 10, 20. I'll see. Now this is where I catch up on the private chat. And Jay says, don't get me in for a little while. I'm going to bring Jay in because he's laughing.

Hey, Jay, ladies and gentlemen. Hi, Joseph. How are you? Can you hear me? Good. I hope it was OK that I brought you in. I swear I should have read the private chat before anything else, which said that you were happy to sit there for a while. And I know this is a very interesting conversation. Very interesting man to sit and listen to. But you know what? The people have been asking for you as well, Mr. Couey. Well, I'm happy. Something's going wrong. I feel like it's slow. Yeah, we got a lot of competing Internet connections here, but that is OK. We've got a lot of brain power here as well, which are surely interfering with the signals.

So I'm curious as to how this then translated. You've really painted a picture. And also, I want to bring this up. Lotus also says, I love these stories. Every heroic doctor is just human and struggles like we all do. Pierre Corey had trouble with his 2.7 GPA. And that's the sense I'm getting with you as well. As you explained, you didn't necessarily have trouble with the academic challenge. Your passion for science in general translated into success in a broad sense. And I think, though, what's coming through is the human nature of you. And I think that is a common trait, as Lotus all says, between a lot of the people that we've been talking to and non-scientific folks like myself are now immediately attracted to over the last couple of years because we identify in a way that the TV doctors can't possibly do. They really seem like robots a lot of the time. And they seem like the ones who attended every single lab, maybe did well academically, but they certainly checked all the boxes. But what have they really learned and what have they really accomplished to change people’s lifes for the better? So I think Lotus complement you here. Yeah. To me, that's what happens over and over again. It's a difference between what's fundamental and what's for display. And it comes up in every discussion on everything I do in my life. What is fundamental and what is for display? And, you know, Darwin says, oh, our genetic makeup determines our offspring. And Lamarck said, well, no, the phenotype determines the offspring. And in some way, Lamarck is correct. And I can't do that part very well, the display part, the phenotype part, the part where you do the marketing, because I like fundamentals too much. But the marketing part, like, you know, a girl who's really pretty and does her makeup and does all her phenotype perfectly is going to get a better set of better genes from a more capable guy. And then her offspring is actually going to reflect that. So the phenotype does affect the offspring. But for me, it's always this issue between fundamental and display. And it comes up in everything that I do. And I lean so much towards the fundamental because to me, the display part is a lie, it's a deception. But it's always there and it's always going to be used. I just don't use it well and I never have. And I don't think that's my core skill. And I'm not going to be able to do it well later.

Or maybe it becomes a lie the moment we start paying attention to it. Like, you know, the whole part of my problem with academia has always been what some people describe as the tyranny of metrics, which is the moment we decide that these scores are what means success. Then you get people aiming toward those scores and it becomes and the signaling aspect becomes overweighted, right? Instead of there being a balance between the actual skills and abilities and the signals, you know, instead of those two things having integrity being the same, they're together, right? The more that we pay attention to the metrics, the more the metrics sort of take over and the system has a feedback loop. And that feedback loop is the tyranny.

And you can't do that. And so I just don't know what to do because it's always the phenotype, the fundamentals, the phenotype. It's back and forth forever. And, you know, at some point, you know, to me, actions are more like the fundamental. The words are more like the phenotype. And the Democrats got to the point where words are so important. I would say the essence of intelligence is being able to compare. OK, so what's more important, an action, a horrible action or a horrible word? A horrible action has to be infinitely more serious than a horrible word. But they started focusing so much on words, the phenotype, the display that they lost sight of the fundamentals. But then, of course, then those people who pay attention to the phenotype, they get the grant money, they have livelihoods, their children can thrive. And so is the phenotype really that important? It is. But then at some point, there's a breaking point where the fundamental has to come into play. And when you get to the point where your words are so important that you think words are more important than injecting shit into children, there's a paradigm shift. And now everything is broken and it has to go back. And I'm not saying words aren't important. I'm not saying we should let our children get bullied. But I'm saying the fundamentals have to be the core.

Now, I was just scrolling your Twitter and you appear you're a self-declared anti-vaxxer. Is that fair to say? Yeah. So I'm curious what that means. So how did you go from this or the background you just laid out, the entire premise of your thinking and the way you live your scientific and personal life? So what led you into thinking deeply about vaccines and how do we translate now into this topic of virology and immunology? Give us the story there. What have you discovered? What led you to discover it?

So basically, I told Jay this, but in January of 2020, when the pandemic hit, my buddies and I were all talking about it. Everyone was freaking out. I bought those $700 masks that look like Darth Vader. I put it on for 10 minutes. I never use it again. And I realized it doesn't matter if I have that, because let's say I save my life with this Darth Vader mask. And then all my family around me are dead. Who cares? If you can't protect all your loved ones and give them the same treatment, then who really cares? So basically, I said, you know, something else is going on. I was on the phone with one of my ophthalmology friends, and in three minutes, less than three minutes, I figured everything out. I said, look, sometimes I get a cold, a rhinovirus. When I get a rhinovirus, I know that virus infects my cell. It can replicate, leave that cell, infect other cells. And it's infected at least 10,000 cells because I can feel it. Now, why would that cycle ever stop? If it can infect my first cell, why wouldn't it be able to infect on and on and on and on? Why wouldn't it just keep going forever? Something changed. And if I can understand what changed to prevent it from infecting cells, to prevent it from replicating. And I said, it can't be the antibody. Why? Because when I get that sore throat sometimes, sometimes in four days, I'm over it, completely over it. And I know that. That's my fact. I know that. That's my experience. Antibodies can never form in four days. It couldn't have been the antibody. I said, I'm going to exclude the antibody and then figure out why this occurs. So I imagined I'm a cell, the virus injects its RNA into my cell. To me, what is that viral RNA inside my cell? What is it? It's the enemy. What should I do to it? What do you normally do to enemies? You destroy it. What else do you do to enemies? You try to learn about it so you don't accidentally help it. You do not want to aid the enemy. What else? Once you figure this out, how to destroy it, how to not help it, you tell all the friendly cells how to fight the enemy. Those were the three principles. I discussed that, went back to my room, got on the computer, looked it up, found everything one by one. What destroys RNA? Ribonuclease enzymes. Is there any other molecule known to man that destroys RNA within human cells? Nothing. No one's even proposed another option. The only thing known to destroy RNA within a cell, ribonuclease enzymes. No one even has another option, alternative. No one's even proposed, well, how about this? How about that? Nothing. OK, so that's how you destroy ribonuclease enzymes. Two, what does it want to do? It wants to become protein. RNA always wants to become protein. That's what the enemy wants to do. Well, you cannot feed it then. Three, how do you tell all the other cells to fight this? So interferon gets produced, goes, runs around to all the other cells. When other cells, when interferon receptors or when interferon binds to interferon receptors, the other cells know not to grow.

Can I stop you there for just a moment? Sure. One of the most baffling things to me during the entire pandemic, there are papers that are out, that have been out since September 2020. In these papers, there have been various estimates, but let's say something like 1 in 400 people have an auto interferon antibody disorder, a particular one. I don't know the names of these things well, but that one disorder seemed to be associated with perhaps 20 percent of all COVID deaths. That's exactly what I would say. That's the communication mechanism. This bothers me so much because I feel like, especially going into vaccination, nobody said, let's test for risk factors or what is this? Even worse, as I learned more about how the holding back medicine, if you actually died of COVID, 50 percent of COVID deaths involved pneumonia. But the truth is, we called a lot of things COVID deaths that really weren't. So probably almost all of them, like flu deaths, almost all flu deaths are pneumonia deaths. It's probably the same thing with COVID. And so when you think about it that way, what might have been 20 percent of COVID cases, maybe that was 40 percent of actual COVID deaths. Of course, because they didn't test all that. This one disorder that we could have tested for, that only 1 in 400 people have, and if you didn't have it, the need for vaccination, assuming that they were excellent vaccines, was very, very small, minimal at best.

Well, obviously, if you're leading the response to the pandemic, we would have done different things, much differently. Fauci doesn't know what he's doing. Fauci, to me, his main goal is to support the companies that are making money. I just can't see him in any other in any different way. Well, in that sense, he certainly knows what he's doing. He's good at it. So basically, coming back to the cell, the three strategies.

Once the viral enemy is inside the cell, you want to destroy it. You don't want to help it, and you want to let all the other cells know how to fund it. And so within that two, three minute conversation, I figured out the basic fundamental strategy. And so, again, fundamentals, right? So I excluded antibodies from that, and then as I studied more and more, I realized these antibodies… Well, you know, the lung is an airspace. The body is 70 percent water. If our lungs are protected by a essentially waterproof barrier that can stop water from getting in, if water gets in, we drown, we're not drowning. So this lung barrier can stop water molecules, which are 18 daltons. Daltons is basically a proton. So this lung barrier can stop a molecule like water, H2O, oxygen has 16 protons, hydrogen one, hydrogen one, that's 18 protons. A COVID antibody has a hundred and forty five thousand protons. It is gargantuan. How is it going to get through this lung barrier? Because these are the incontrovertible facts. One, the antibody is made on the outside of the lung barrier in the blood and liver. Two, there does exist a lung barrier that is very tight and can stop water. Three, the lung cells infected by COVID are on the inside of this lung barrier. So the lung barrier separates the medication, the neutralizing antibody from the lung cells that are being infected by COVID. And what is the path through? There isn't a path. And how does it help?

So basically, when I figured all this out, I told my mentor, who's a director of Ophtho at Hopkins, and he listened quietly for 10, 15 minutes. And he tells me, Joe, I think you're going to be going to Stockholm. And we've chatted for the past two and a half years, every month or two, nonstop. And he's been a true source of encouragement and emotional support for me because I did feel very, very crazy many, many times. Like, what? I explain to the NIH directors. I call them up, the CDC directors, and I have chats with them and I explain to them. And they just hang up on me. I mean, what does it take through to get through to these people that there's a huge medical mistake and you're potentially killing people with this when there is no benefit?

Well, you're right. There is a discrepancy, not just between the public's understanding and the scientific community, but even within the scientific community. And there's a comment from Johnny Nice here. Geert vanden Bossche says B1a cells can produce pretty useful antibodies quite quickly. And of course, he qualifies. Johnny's not saying it's just antibodies that stop an infection. So, Jay and Joseph, can you guys first explain what Geert vanden Bossche is alleging here and then either, you know, connect what this is with what we're saying?

What are B1a cells? What are B1a cells? Do you know? Do they make IgA or they make IgG? I don't know what he's talking about here. Geert vanden Bossche is selling the same story that Joseph and I are basically trying to refute now that antibodies that aren't in the mucosal layer can have any effect on a respiratory virus. And so if he's talking about B cells that are in the mucosal layer that make nonspecific antibodies like IgM, I'm sure it's true. But I think Joseph's main point, and it's a very valid one, is that even in natural infections of coronavirus, it's very common not to find a seroprevalence change simply because of all these other mechanisms that defend us from these viruses long before any adaptive immune response is triggered. That's probably the most important thing to understand about what Joseph is teaching us is that all of these barriers and defenses need to be usurped before any of the responsive immune response is going to be triggered. And so the vast majority of the time, viruses never reach that place. They never reach that stage. And it is this redefinition of what respiratory viruses do and how they do it.

What I wanted to circle back on quickly, I think it ties this stuff together, is what you guys were talking about when I jumped in, which is this idea of words and these being different than action. One of the things that maybe Joseph meant to cover but didn't really explicitly say was that it wasn't only the argument about what words to use, but the very definition of them. And even CS Lewis has talked about how once we don't have words with strict definitions that we can all agree on, we can't even really communicate with one another or argue anymore. And that's one of the fundamental things they did with the biology here.

The first thing Jay says I just love. You know, my daughter, before she went to college, one of the lessons I want to tell people, and I make a very strong point of exactly what Jay just said. Let's say I define the word evil. 100% evil is annihilation of the human race. There are no more people. If that's my definition of evil. Okay, so there's a lot of bad things that happen on earth. And I don't want to pick any of them because I don't want to somebody say politically, I'm so world trade centers. They went down. Okay, whoever did that. Are they 100% evil. You know 7 billion people being gone. 5,000 souls that bless their soul heart, but it can't be 100% evil. So if every word had a percentage in front of it, we would communicate a lot better. He loves it. But, you know, to me, there is everything in life is great. Everything I see is great. Everything I approach is great. When somebody comes up with a question for me, if they want to debate anything, I already know how to defeat them because they're using words in a black and white way. And I see where they're using it in a gray way, but they think it's black and white. Words are gray. And if you understand, I mean the best, if we had pred, where it would be shades of gray. And if you really meant something seriously, it'd be black. And then it'd be lighter and lighter gray, you know, like evil. I told my daughter: You know, the moment you think you know words, you're not thinking correctly, because every word assumes 100% and it never is. And if you understand that lesson in science, it's so important. But people can't understand it.

I wonder if at some point we could identify a time when this wasn't true though because I feel like the precision of vocabulary. When when you look back in history or read historical writing was was much, much higher. They didn't have synonyms because synonyms were words that meant close to the same, but not quite. And I feel like some part of this is the lack of specific language in in general life. Now, I mean, still people that work in biology can have very specific conversations with one another. But the moment that we try to to bring this specificity to general conversation, it's just lost because the the general set of vocabulary that everybody uses now is like a sixth grade vocabulary that doesn't have the depth and breath to really discuss the issues that need to be discussed. And then and then now the big words that get thrown into that word salad just seem like they mean so much when in reality, as Joseph is saying, those words are great to begin with. But I don't know, I think if I could step in here, you know, words, it's sort of like predicate logic. This is a Gödel's incompleteness theorem problem, which is that you can't have some sort of beginning point in which all the words have some sort of absolutely defined meaning, right? We did our best to communicate and set up language to begin with, but we were always trying to, you know, project inner thoughts into language, right? And project them at each other. I think that that what used to take place in science is that more of the people who were scientists when they were very, very few. And it was not a discipline that had been, I don't know, infected itself so much. You had the intention of communicating and just that intentional loan, right? to convey your meaning leads people to find the right words for that situation in the moment. And so as long as you are actually trying to find the right words, you will wind up communicating most of what you need to communicate.

On the other hand, science has become such a corrupted institution. If we want to call it an institution, it shouldn't even be called an institution. It's not. We created this institution and then it was corrupted. Right. Perhaps it was created to corrupt or these things go hand in hand. But, you know, it's it's when the political gamesmanship that that involves so much, you know, wordplay in language. It's when that becomes part of science and they go hand in hand. You know, now now we see something that is different. It's a game theoretic balance that just sort of shifts and shifts and shifts and gets closer to that 50 percent truth point that, that I tell people: Well, that that's the point that's actually hardest to deal with. You know, if 90 percent of your information is false, you can always just flip it all and and know what's 90 percent. You know, true 90 percent of the time. But it's when you get close to look how important words are, definitions. Let's herd immunity. I pushed vouchers to try to find it to anyone, anyone who believes in vaccines, please define herd immunity in a scientific way, because whatever way they define it, I will break it apart. So if you if you hear it, here's a little analogy. There's a village of 100 people in the year 2000. Everyone gets covid. Five people die. There are 95 people left. They did survive covid. The following year, 2021, if those 95 people remain and get covid again, who will die? They didn't die the first time. They're not likely to die the second time. So what do you mean by herd immunity? See the epidemiologists? I'm like, I don't like them because I emailed every one of them. There's a top state epidemiologist for every state in the US. I emailed them all. What is your definition of herd immunity? Because the answers are there. You're using words that sound good. Everyone likes the sound of that word, but you can't even define it. You can't even… Look, words having black and white meaning is one thing, not even knowing what it means is a completely different issue. And so in science, we have to define it. OK, at least define it. Then I'll tell you whether it's 10 percent, 20 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent, you won't even define the term. Then what is it? See, if if they say this is what I think they'll say, but of course they won't say it because I may explain it. Now I destroy it. So if herd immunity is you have an infection and you have some memory of having that infection and those antibodies that have that memory are in your lung. And so the next time that infection comes around and tries to infect your lung cells, that antibody that has memory binds that virus and you're not going to get infected. You're not going to get sick and you're not going to pass at all. That's what the current understanding of herd immunity is.

Well, the antibody has no path through the lung barrier. You have a nightmare issue. The way you correctly understand herd immunity is more like the really vulnerable passed away and died and they're not there. So when they say this is when scientists say, oh, Omicron was less severe than COVID. So you have 300 million people in the US. COVID-19 comes and kills off one million people. Then Omicron comes. Oh, it's more mild. Well, you just killed off the one million most vulnerable people.

See why I say the essence of intelligence is good comparing. Good comparisons is the essence of intelligence. And you can't compare if you don't know what you're talking about. So you have to define what herd immunity is. Once you start defining things, I can say, well, here's 80 percent, you're 60 percent. You can start comparing. If you won't even define it and to define it, then what do you need? You need debate. You need open debate. Well, if they're just going to tell us what they think and never even allowed debate, then of course we're not going to get to the answers. And Fauci basically tricked us with his skin care. He's not intelligent.

Well, Johnny Nice is trying to help us here. Isn't herd immunity just a state in which a group of people or a country can keep the R0 of a virus under one upon any potential introduction of that virus? We've got to stop with the R0 stuff. We've got to stop with the R0 stuff because it's really just a model derived nonsense number that only works in theory on a piece of paper with some numbers and some limited variables. And then they hit a keyboard. And that's where R0 comes from. R0 is an imaginary thing that allows them to talk about infection and recovered and whatever and talk about spread in models. That's it. It's like talking about relative humidity in my backyard and saying it has some effect in Chicago. It's really crazy because only if you're modeling my backyard and using a very limited model of wind, is my humidity going to matter? I mean, it's just nonsense. It's really nonsense to talk about this relative to the virus. A brother from a different mother.

Okay. Well, the concept of herd immunity is enough of a group is pre-existing immunity so that a pandemic can't propagate. Well, there's some assumptions built into that, right? I am saying mechanistically go step by step and explain what it means. See, these are general statements. General statements, they don't work. Okay. General statements do not work. You have to say mechanistically the mechanism where one person is providing herd immunity for the group. How did that one person provide herd immunity for the group? The naught had nothing to do with the R01… Tell me how that one person has more resistance to the infection. If you can't explain how that one person has more resistance to the infection, you can't define herd immunity. I mean, they're just bypassing all the issues. The fundamental issue is you're saying one person is infected as less, has more resistance to the virus because he's been infected. Tell me how. Don't talk about R01. Tell me how that one person has more resistance to the infection and you can't. And if you can't, then you're not… What you described with all your R01 naught factors. It doesn't matter. You have to break it down mechanistically. See, this is why this B lymphocyte and T lymphocyte. Oh, those cells have memory. That's why it's so interesting because there are 300 million lung cells. And you think these T cells have memory? They're trained. And they're going to go interview every one of these lung cells, 300 million, and figure out which ones are sick and which ones to destroy and at what level they're going to destroy it. How? What are you saying these lymphocytes actually have? And you know you would have to do that every two days. This is… Okay, the lung is a microcosm of what China is trying to do. Test everyone nonstop, try to figure out where it is. It's virtually impossible to do that. Okay, so if you break it down mechanistically, say, okay, these T lymphocytes have some memory and they're going to help us fight off the infection. You can say that, but you have to tell me how they're going to do that. If you don't want to tell me how they're going to do that, you can't just say it's complex. You have to define, describe for me. That's what a hypothesis is, a mechanistic example, and they can't do it. And I know it can't be done because if the T lymphocytes are somehow trained on COVID-19, but not COVID-20, not COVID-21, they're trained. They have all this memory, all the T lymphocytes. They're going to interview 300 million lung cells every two days? Please tell me how you're doing this. And they can't. See, this is the issue with science.

When a group of scientists think we're above you guys, we made our own language, you guys don't know what language we're talking about, so don't discuss with us because you are an idiot and you don't know anything. Okay, so then it's kind of this feeling built up over and over and over again. And every other area in science is afraid to comment on another area of science, which is why later I'm going to destroy quantum physics.

Well, what you're clearly missing is COVID-23 called ahead and told them that this time it would work and this time it would make sense. That's the key part you're missing. Should have told me that before I would have known. Exactly. I appreciate that. She should have told me that before I went off on this little thing.

Okay, well here's another thing and I think this refers to Geert vanden Bossche's initial premise as well is the other angle valid. The problem is the immune compromised mutation generators. I don't even know what that means. I think he's saying, you know, the, oh, recombination maybe more specific wording of that idea. That's where you've got like, there was a very unscientific claim that was just sort of like, like a model like an idea inserted as if it were a default truth that Omicron must have developed in an AIDS patient in somewhere in Southern Africa. I mean, it was, it was so just asserted into the ether that that it just seemed like a psy-op from the beginning. But, and even worse. There was a biostatistician from UPenn emailing me about this months before it happened, which strikes me as very weirdly suspicious, almost as if he was trying to find out if I had some sort of an argument that I could already make against it.

But, you know, the difficult thing that most people would encounter examining that claim is that it's actually really hard to do something like, like count up the number of virions that would have to be produced in your body in order to get through the estimated tunneling. And so I went from, from like SARS-CoV-2 like a Wuhan strain or even a gamma, you know, or delta strain to one of these Omicrons. Actually, I got on the phone with Kevin McKernan and Joseph, I don't know if you know who Kevin McKernan is yet. We're all friends with him. He's a very, very good MIT genomicist. And he and I were on the phone like trying to walk through the exercise of, of how many virions would you need? And it sounded to me like we were approaching an answer that's more than all the virions that currently exist on Earth. I don't even know. You know, and, you know, well, it's just, you know, how, how much the argument is like, if one person never, if their immune system never deals with the virus, then it's in them constantly mutating. Right? They're acting like this, I don't know, this vessel in which the viral swarm or the virus or whatever just continually undergoes mutation process. And then suddenly, you know, they spit out this virus that has mutations in all these different places. That that's what this argument is. It's, it's, it's, you know, it's sort of fanciful, but it's hard, I think, for people to have an intuition as to how fanciful it is. And therefore, it became the argument to make like, that's the best I can explain what happened.

Even, even Trevor Bedford made the argument that that these immunocompromised patients might be the place of viral evolution. And it's strange because the argument is just based on copy numbers. So I don't understand how a million consecutive infections would be any less dangerous than a person who just had a constant infection for the same amount of time. I don't, I don't get the argument at all. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that there's a limiting factor. Like, I think I computed, like, I estimated something like 800 pounds of virions would have to go through that person, which is obviously just absurd. But why does it even matter how you, how you divide up the number of viruses there are, whether it's all in one person, or whether it's from different people, why does it even matter? Because I think that they were looking for toy explanations for something that wasn't going to make sense without, without being able to pull the wool over people's eyes. They were looking for an argument that not enough people would be able to refute because they just need an argument, I think, to push this out a few months or a year longer, right? Like, that's all they're doing. This is the word game. Yeah. I think it's completely appropriate that you brought up the word games today, because I think that's exactly what's going on in this specific instance.

I really think that's what they're going to do with China and China now because they're, they're saying that no one was infected in China in the first two years, but now there's a BA7 over there that's sweeping the nation. That's going to change in China and become relevant to us again, of course. Like, this is how they're going to feed back another year of this because the China variant that will emerge after the spring, whatever it's called. Oh, damn Chinese. Yes, right.

Well, what do you make of the fact that it's now coming up on Christmas and thus far, Canada, the US, everything, like there have been no further restrictions added. Things are being repealed. Legal challenges are mounting that start to look really promising, at least in premise as a symbol. So do you think that that will be what's different this time is we have a slightly different narrative of, hey, look, it's coming from China again, and we sort of loop back from the start. And it's, I guess we're coming up on the spring. So you could literally have this resume in March 2023. What's your, what are your guys's view on why it is that this year so far this winter has not brought back the same things. Do you think there is a narrative being set up that requires or is convenient to account, you know, for this winter not needing to go back into these crazy lockdowns. I don't know if that made sense. What do you guys think?

Well, you know, basically in February of 2021, I wrote Fauci a 73 page later letter explaining this whole thing, everything. And see, I just think that they want Fauci and the Democrats wanted it to be really serious. Because if it's really serious, they can keep everyone at home, and they can have mail-in ballots. I wrote that in my letter, a 73 page letter, and my sister said, you better take all that out. They're going to put you in prison. So clearly there's a political agenda to this. And I don't think it's going to go away. Well, that's a good point. But we just had the midterm so that that has wrapped up. Right. Right. So, the timing is going to be important again they want to keep this alive, probably. And then past, I really don't know. I just know that at the time, I felt like, oh, so kids are having COVID parties. And Trump was saying, maybe it's not such a big deal. And then Fauci is saying, no, it's really serious. Why would he do that?

See, I have this whole idea of how Fauci actually created this pandemic, and the story I tell is this. In 2010, if I'm the director of infectious disease, and out of your 30 friends, three would get the flu every year. They would stay home, sweat it out, and they'd be fine. So I said, if I'm the director of infectious disease in the year 2010, and I decide to play an April Fool's joke on everyone, and say, this year's strain is bad, you guys are going to die. OK, that's 30 million Americans that get the flu every year. And, you know, it's already hard to breathe. If you panic, it's going to be harder. 20 million are going to go to ERs. Now, there's only 5,000 emergency rooms in the U.S. And no matter if you mask up, you're going to spread this virus, the flu, to at least three or four people. About 20 million went to 5,000 ERs across the U.S. There's only 5,000. And now you've infected three more people. 60 million people that are infected, elderly, and 6 million may die. You see, I can kill more people with the flu than COVID killed if I scare everyone and make them go to emergency rooms. Iatrogenic disease is a disease that you get in the hospital. I feel like Fauci created this pandemic. Because, see, if you had realized that respiratory viruses kill elderly at a much, much higher rate than younger people, and everyone knows Cuomo screwed up when he sent patients back to nursing homes, that's a tiny little mistake compared to the one Fauci committed. He sent young, healthy patients with COVID to 5,000 emergency rooms and infected our elderly. He's the one that created this pandemic. He's the one that killed all these people. If you really understand the respiratory virus, almost all of them kill elderly at a much higher rate than the young.

What you should have done is do what Trump said: Oh, it doesn't look so serious. It wasn't so serious. Keep young people with COVID away from elderly, and the best place you can institute that policy is in the emergency room. Actually have the young people who are too scared with COVID, who really want to go see a doctor, different hospitals from the elderly, a separate hospital just for them. We wouldn't have had this pandemic nearly this big if Fauci had been using his little brain. Instead of worrying about how to make money for big pharma. And I spelled it all out. I spelled all this out for him in 73 pages. I wrote it all out and spelled it out for him, February 2021, with a copyright. And he sent me a letter. I sent him a letter in October 2020 saying, hey, there's a problem with this lung barrier. Your antibody can't get in. He gave that information to Dr. Irv Belding, who responded to me in a two page email. And then I responded back to them with a 73 page letter. So it's going to be very hard for him to say, I didn't get it.

Fauci created this problem. This whole thing is silly. OK, respiratory viruses. We evolved with respiratory viruses. So this is how it starts. Many scientists believe that respiratory viruses, RNA viruses, the RNA world, the RNA virus came before we did. OK, so then the DNA cell comes and that's where we come from, the DNA cell. So you have a DNA cell. How is it going to fight off the RNA virus? If it doesn't have a way to defeat this RNA virus, the DNA cell can never propagate. It had a ribonuclease enzyme that destroys RNA. Now, this DNA cell has DNA that makes RNA, that makes protein. If the RNA virus takes over all its functions, it can't survive. Every DNA cell on Earth has a ribonuclease enzyme.

Now, this is how interesting it gets. OK, so we're made of complex feedback. For example, if my blood sugar is 300, what do I need? I need insulin. So I first need to make RNA for insulin. Then that RNA for insulin makes insulin and my blood sugar comes down to 100. Well, what happens if I don't cut up that RNA for insulin? I make more and more insulin. My blood sugar goes to zero and I'm dead. Every feedback loop in our body requires an off switch. Feedback loops are important. We are complex because of feedback loops. We're not mechanical parts. We don't have mechanical switches. Our off, master off switch for every protein product in our body is a ribonuclease enzyme. It shuts it off. So what enabled us to have complex feedback loops? Ribonuclease enzyme, which is the off. Why did we evolve that ribonuclease enzyme? Because of the RNA virus.

So then what really created us and allowed our evolution to occur to the point where we're worse tension and aware and have millions and millions of complex feedback loops in our body? The RNA virus is the reason why we evolved the ribonuclease enzyme, is the reason why we have this off switch, master off switch, is the reason why we are able to have complex feedback loops and control insulin. So now in our body, did we evolve in the presence of oxygen? Yes. Did we evolve in the presence of sunlight? Yes. Did we evolve with water? Yes. And we need all three of those things because we evolved with it. Did we evolve with RNA viruses? We did. And why do we need them still? Because we have eight ribonuclease genes. Let's say I have four defective ones for my mom and I have three defective ribonuclease genes for my dad. I've got one functional ribonuclease gene. That means my feedback loops, my controls, my off switch doesn't work and I've got chronic illnesses and I've got all sorts of problems. Is it good for me to have these seven defective ribonuclease genes? It is not good. Is it good for humanity to have these defective ribonuclease genes? It is not. So we evolved with the ribonuclease. We evolved with RNA viruses. What do the RNA viruses do for us today? It prunes our human gene pool of defective ribonuclease genes, which will always occur.

We need it still. To pretend that we don't need it and that we will do fine, we'll have more and more defective ribonuclease genes, more and more chronic illnesses, more and more weird feedback loop problems. And yes, if we do everything we can, then what happens is we prevented pain and suffering for this generation. We extended it for ten generations down. If you're a true lover of humanity, you realize that when we evolved from this primordial cell all the way to where we are right now, every generation had pain and suffering. If you think we're going to eliminate pain and suffering, we're going to cause more pain and suffering downstream from us. We've got to take our share of pain and suffering. I'm not saying we should all die. I am saying if you understand the actual process whereby we overcome RNA viruses, you can facilitate Mother Nature and actually cause less death.

But our leaders, they don't know shit. Our leaders are clueless. I have this whole thread on what leaders are. I had to come up with a theory of personality because of this. Personality is four things. How much desire a person has. I have a lot. How much ability a person has. I have a lot. How much deception a person uses. I use very little because I don't need to use it. Now imagine if you're not very able. Oh yeah, the dog ate your homework. Your deception is going to be through the roof. So every leader out there that have a lot of desire also to be a leader, they have low ability, their deception is through the roof.

And then if I'm up against another leader and I have my real science and they have their lies, lies are always more impressive. That's why they become leaders. So by definition, the theory of personality I came up with. How much desire a person has. How much ability a person has. How much deception they use. Fear is another one. Those are the four. Everyone has this. And if you separate it out, everyone based on these four things, the percentages of each one of them, that defines what a human is. And the leaders have a lot of desire, very low ability, but very good at deception because they've been practicing it their whole freaking life. And clearly what they're doing now, everything they're doing in China, everything they're doing here, the leaders are just lying to us and they're good at lying to us. They have low ability, but they're very good at lying and they're not going to stop.

So the problem with the world, and our founding fathers knew this, the Constitution is about controlling power. What it means is it's controlling the leaders. The leaders are always the problem. When they say controlling power, it's the leaders that are the problem. The leaders are always going to be corrupt. And so every law, what do I know? A thousand laws. How many laws are in the book? Millions. And who are they all directed at? They're directed at the leaders because the leaders are the problem. Because of the whole pandemic, the past three years, everything I said, how simple, fasting is a cure. Every school kid knows viruses don't grow on their own. They grow within our cells. If you don't eat, our cells grow a lot slower. They grow the virus a lot slower. Your less of your cells are sick. You cough out less virus. Other people around you are less sick. And even if they get sick, if they know not to eat, they don't grow the virus. It's that simple.

We don't need a pandemic. We've been managing RNA viruses since the beginning of time. This is how crazy it is. The leaders are the problem. They've got all their agendas. And some conspiracy theorists, I wasn't one before, but I'm thinking, you know, OK, if a conspiracy theory is the leader wants to maintain their power, and they want to trick everyone else, then yes, I believe in it. They are. There is a conspiracy, right? Because if it's this easy, why can't they tell everyone, oh, Big Pharma won't make money? So what?

See, that's a big overview. You have to. This is what science is. You step back and you look at the picture, big picture, then you zoom in and you make sure that the big picture and your big detail matches up. Then you step back again and you zoom out. You zoom out and you zoom in. And that's what science is. And when I say the essence of intelligence is comparing, yeah, I'm always comparing facts. And if they differ, one of them is wrong. And it's that simple. And so the antibody. I compare the antibody. Well, in 2020, I didn't see the antibody. And you're saying it was so irrelevant, but I didn't see the covid antibody anywhere. And you're saying it's so important. Well, those are two facts that don't make sense. So the antibody is not relevant. And then, of course, I built up my arguments like the antibody you think is so important, but it wasn't even there in the year 2020. And whatever healed us in the year 2020, you think it's going to just take a break in the year 2021 and year 2022 and forever? No, silly people. It wasn't relevant. So, you know, this is how science is. You have to be able to zoom out and zoom in, go back and forth. And people can't do that. The problem is the leaders. That's really far out. The leaders are the problem. And why did they become leaders? Even in the opposition world, right? I'm dealing with Dr. J Bhattacharya, Dr. Gold, Corey. He's a nice one, but he's not a big threat. But Dr. Malone, all these guys, what is their problem? Why won't they accept the information I'm presenting? Because they like their power. They're not truly leading. They got there. Why? Did they get there because of good science? Did they get there because they had amazing information to bring? Right time, right place, but they have nothing. So then they're there, though. They want to protect it. And then I come along and I really have something and I'm explaining it. I explain why the vaccine is complete stupidity. I explain the cure, which is very simple, and I'm not going to make money off that. And I explain how to get recourse for these patients who suffered.

Now, that's really, really important stuff, information. Do they have that? No. The moment Malone acknowledges that I have something, what does he become? He becomes this guy that worked in the vaccine industry his whole life, and he didn't see this. He was the founder of mRNA technology, and he didn't realize these issues. See, RNA, anyone who deals with RNA and works with RNA, they know about ribonuclease enzymes. Big Pharma knows about it. The RNA is in their vaccine. That is the contaminant. It's frozen because of the ribonuclease enzyme. So they were all aware of this. They consider it a contamination. It's actually the hero that saved the world. It's just bizarre to me how wrong they can be. And so, of course, Malone being a pioneer in this RNA vaccine technology, and I show how silly it is, why would he be happy with that ever? Why would he ever accept what I have to say?

So you have been in contact with some of these leaders, but I was going to ask, why were you never invited to speak anywhere? Because it seems like you have a number of arguments against the use of these COVID-19 vaccines. Some of them are more general than these specific vaccines, but that's fine. It has been interesting to watch the process of the opposition leadership and selection. And I've been curious about a lot of it. What are people making against you? Or how is it that they're setting you aside?

Well, they're setting me aside because they say I'm insulting. But remember, I wasn't in the scene because when I discovered all these issues, I really thought scientists would respond correctly to my assertions. So I spent most of the time dealing with the NIH, the FDA, CDC, trying to call everyone up, send them emails, alert them to the issues, because I thought that was the proper channel. The New England Journal of Medicine, I have a whole email trail with the chief editor. So this is what I was doing. I thought that was the appropriate way. I didn't even consider social media because I thought I had to go to the science leaders. What else would I do?

Steve Kirsch has one of the highest volume insults per day of any human I've ever dealt with on a regular basis. So it's interesting that the idea that you would be set aside would be because of being insulting. It's almost as if being insulting, sometimes finding clever ways to be insulting is part of the game. And everybody appreciates that. It sounds like a BS excuse, right? And at the very least, what a lot of people come to do is to like pick one issue or pick one speech and perfect it. That seemed like when planners, people who run these sort of organizations and these events, a lot of times what they do is they'll call on an Ed Dowd because Ed comes and gives, he gives like the same five minute presentation over and over for like three months at a time or six months at a time. And so he sounds great doing it, right? If somebody had given you that instruction, I'm sure that you could have canned your five minutes and talked on what it is that they wanted you to feel most comfortable with. I just don't buy, you know, if somebody's telling you that it's because you're insulting, I guess I just don't buy it. Like there's something else going on. There's something political here.

Obviously, I know the reasons why, for example.

I just want to say this real quick because I feel like I'm experiencing it myself and I feel like J.J.'s experienced it. It's because you can't be controlled. Right. You can't be controlled. Right. So, you know, I reached out to Senator Johnson's staff, had very nice conversations. They were very impressed. They were very happy. And, you know, they took it to one of their doctors and then all communication stopped. And, you know, he has a couple of doctors he works with. Malone and Corey. Corey's too nice of a guy. Corey's just, you know, 2.7 GPA or whatever he is. I just find out that today. But, you know, Malone, McCullough, actually, McCullough and Corey. I think I think McCullough is the one that told Senator Johnson not to work with me. Now, you see how weird this gets because I reached out to them November 2021. I said, look, the bottom line is the antibody has no path to the fall. If you tell any mother, if you have a warning label on every vaccine that says, we the FDA don't have a single scientist that can explain how the antibody enters the lung area where the cells are being infected, what mother do you think would ever vaccinate their children? OK, so that's a pretty powerful argument. And if a senator like Senator Johnson has a press release or, you know, gets up in public and asks this, he doesn't even have to agree with me. All he has to do is say, hey, there's this weird issue. Does anyone have an answer? That's why he doesn't even have to agree with me. I explained this to them. You just have to say, raise the question. And if no one has an answer, then we know it's a serious issue. You don't even have to commit to my side. You just have to raise it.

So, obviously, I had a pretty compelling argument to Ron Johnson's staff, Senator Ron Johnson. OK, so which doctor did he talk to? McCullough. McCullough tells him no. November 2021. More and more side effects. People are dying, having huge serious side effects from the vaccine. Now, do you think McCullough will ever work with me? Because this is, it's all going to come out. And he told Ron Johnson this way back in November 2021. Now he's guilty.

OK, so McCullough gets on TV with a scene and they talk about the side effects, the heart effects and all the problems. If he hadn't blocked me, we wouldn't have to talk about these side effects. You see how weird that gets? So why would McCullough ever work with me? I call him a chicken, but he's probably a lot worse than that.

I admit that's the first time I've heard anyone describe Dr. McCullough like that. But I think what you're doing is important, which is holding and this is what Jay is doing as well. And Matthew, in fact, holding people who most wouldn't dare criticize for this reason or that. In Dr. McCullough's case, for me, he seems like a teddy bear in that I don't think he could do wrong. But I don't I don't believe that as a as a statement of fact, but that I realized was my instinct, as you're describing it. Sure. Jay, you've you've been very direct in your criticism of people who I'm unconvinced one way or the other. And of course, that puts you in an uncomfortable place as someone who, you know, maybe likes you and the person you're criticizing. Matthew, you've you've very publicly called out again people who who may or may not be acting as intentional agents. The point is, it's an uncomfortable process. But Dr. Lee, you're right. The consequence of, of a naivete of sticking so deeply to your guns, the consequences are literally people's lives. And so we don't have time for ego or to to have our feelings being hurt, being the thing that then stops us from saving lives. So I commend all three of you. You have all done this. And I think that is what sets you apart, because you're also you're bringing arguments to the table. You're not bringing ad hominem. And ad hominem is what you guys get back. So I just love that. Obviously, we have arguments on top of that.

Sure. Yeah. Ad hominems or endless mazes of jump through this hoop and then we'll we'll take you seriously. Right. I've been given that numerous times. And, you know, for for 10 months now and and and Dr. Lee, maybe this is something I'll, I'll share with you. You know, my audience has heard it, but I handled the statistics for the military health databases. And almost everything said about that publicly is wrong by our side, supposedly our side. Right. It's all nonsense. So it's been a very, very weird experience.

Yeah. I've started writing several articles calling, you know, calling out some people or calling out specific actions. Right. Because there is such thing as as, you know, well-meaning people who make mistakes along the way or or who even are not strong enough to resist all the pressure. Right. You know, if there are some people with questionable motivations, they may be behind the scenes applying pressure. I think a lot of people have tested their ability to apply pressure on me. And I have, you know, I think Jay and I have actually sort of in a sense been in the room together watching it happen with each other a time or two. But, yeah, there I think there's clearly something wrong among some quarters. I do believe very strongly there is a certain amount of controlled opposition. I think anybody who would think that something this big could ever take place without it is pretty naive. You know, and then but, but one of the pieces, one of the messages that I want people to take away because there is a very positive educational message. We have to, you know, we must constantly reevaluate, metal sharpens metal, you know, take our licks, whatever. I tell people, look, you know, the way out of this is you don't need… And and and right here, Joseph is going to like this. I keep telling people you don't need these big centralized leaders, you know, like local leaders will emerge, right? The organic kind of leadership, that strong person on the block who handles X well. And I even, you know, point to, you know, the real principle of the alpha male when we see the gorillas in the jungle. It's not necessarily a male. It's sometimes a female. A lot of people don't know that. It's usually a male, though, because it's a combination of strength and and the males have more of that. But it's a combination of strength and politics that the alpha male is the one that keeps the gorillas together as a unit. So they are constantly playing the game of give and take and, you know, make sure everybody's together. And once in a blue moon, that involves threats and even warfare.

But the vast majority of the time, it's just the competent leader who has been around the block. And then they're the silverback. Right. I think that that the world, you know, we progress better as a species when we have, you know, a silverback every hundred fifty or so humans give or take. Right. And but right now, what we have are millions of people looking at one leader, Fauci, or millions of people looking at another. You know, maybe it's McCullough or Malone. I don't think any of those people should have those jobs. That's a job that shouldn't exist. And so I don't have to take sides. Right. People have pressed me over and over to take sides. People have wanted me to like there's this invisible jockeying going on between McCullough and Malone. I'll just go ahead and say it out loud. I have, you know, I've had hours of conversation with people around them and with them, not as much McCullough lately. It's been a while since I talked with him, but, you know, for no particular reason.

But, you know, whatever is going on, you know, that's the point at which people should say, OK, what am I doing locally? You know, do I have enough seed in in the storage shed for when food gets scarce? Do I, you know, what is going to happen with technology and how are we going to roll with it? Right. How like, you know, people have become so disconnected from economics that they don't even know if the market will function without the Internet telling them what to do and where to go. Right. So there's a lot of, you know, I don't know. I think this is sort of a moment of testing, you know, what we do as decentralized human communities.

So anyway, I'm just throwing that out there. I'm going to continue to write articles on what I call chaos agents and point out things that, you know, seem like mistakes or don't seem consistent. But that's very, very interesting to find out that that you've sort of been set aside from the conversation, as have Couey and I in different places in different ways. It's been very interesting. I think there's a thread there, too.

And the thread is anybody who isn't telling a story centralized around a deadly virus and a set of countermeasures that we didn't have before the pandemic is silence. If you start talking about the fact that we didn't need help to survive this or that it could be very overblown as a danger, you get canceled. And that's very much what what Joseph is saying is that that the danger has been overblown and exaggerated. And in fact, the actual way that our immune system would defend ourselves from this has been obfuscated and hidden and erased from from common memory in a way that that that is really can only be seen as malevolence. That's I think what Joseph is saying in the end is that they wanted this for some reason. They wanted this because if we are a team and we're working together, then when when Robert Malone is open for a pass, McCullough should pass to him. And when when Bregan is open for a pass, Malone should pass to him. But instead, these chaos agents don't play like that. They're not adding things. For example, I would suggest that all Joe Joseph in this whole conversation never mentioned Remdesivir. If we pointed out to him that lots of people have been given and they probably died from it, he's not going to say that has nothing to do with it. But there are lots of people on our side who say that it was a virus. Remdesivir didn't have much to do with it. And the protocols didn't have much to do with it. It was really a combination of other things. And this this lack of ability to add up. That's the point. All of these points add together. But the chaos agents seem to want you to choose between them. Whereas, you know, the combination of what Joseph has observed, plus the combination of what Corey has observed with with ivermectin and what McCullough knows about hydroxychloroquine and what Malone knows about the dangers of the shot should all be adding up to an overwhelming team of of biological observations that end this. But instead, it's like a vying for intellectual property. And it's it's crazy to me. I should have won a long time ago.

Yeah. And you know, the best description of it could be that the people who are jockeying for leadership, they they haven't examined the root of the system in which they work and think well enough. Right. That that would be the that would be the explanation without conspiracy. Right. Is that fundamentally they don't know how to replace the old system because they're stuck in it.

All right, guys. Well, I hate to say it. We could go on forever, but I think we should land this plane. So I want to ask either of you guys or any of the three of you. Do you have any final thoughts? And as a part of that question, Jay, I'm wondering what you I'm wondering if you could share some of your highlights from your notes you've been taking because you've been very expeditiously and meticulously documenting.

I feel like I can start with that. The first one is I think that it should be somebody should do a brief investigation into what Joseph mentioned about the idea of ribonucleases in the environment and what would happen or what happened when they stopped the requirement of minus 70. Because if the contamination is is something to do with that, then the the number of of of adverse events, for example, should have gone down when they when they removed the requirement to keep it at minus 70 and that would be a huge signal that that something there was happening. That's something I wrote down.

And then the Senator Ron Johnson stuff. I just want to follow up on that that I had a contact with Senator Ron Johnson at the very beginning of my collaboration with Bobby and never heard from him again. I was in contact with him on Signal in the sense of, you know, I connected with him and then no, no messages were ever responded to. I don't know if that means he's a good or bad guy, but he definitely doesn't need me.

And then the last thing I wanted to say and then I'll just wrap it up with that because it's just been really nice to talk and listen again is I really like this idea that that that RNA viruses are interacting with us on a on a long time scale to to reinforce the, the parallel evolution of our ribonucleases and the elimination of those that don't work as well. I love this idea and it is reflected in many of the other viral ecology that we understand from the ocean and from from viruses in the roots of trees and that kind of thing. So there's, there's, it's not some magical idea. In fact, in ecology, a lot of this virology is better understood. And it is the human virology that's been twisted into this very specific form of pathogenicity without any, you know, great, great play in evolution, which it really does have. So thanks for letting me join this talk. It was really fun.

And before I forget, let me say something about what Jay said about the minus 70 because the whole point of the ribonuclease contamination is the reason why they made, they had subzero temperatures, and then they realized that they didn't have to go that low. Okay, so if they went from minus 70 to barely, you know, subzero or whatever, then they're going to add more units of the RNA vaccine, because now the ribonuclease can actually maybe cut up more RNA. And so the counteract that they're going to add more units of RNA losses, I can't hear. So Jay, you're on mute.

They could also make it expire faster than Wow, Joseph, that's really smart, it would have a lower shelf life. And they could, they could move out more. Oh, that's brilliant. Oh, well, sorry.

And you hit you hit on the commercial aspect, but what I'm hitting on is, if they actually had less than minus 70 minus 10. And they added more RNA vaccine. But then there was no ribonuclease contamination in some of the vials. Now they added double, triple the dose. And now you suddenly see people make a lot of antibodies in the blood. Antibodies are huge molecules. It makes blood more viscous. The heart is a pump system. You, whenever you have more viscous fluid, the pump is most affected. And this part, the heart happens to have tiny blood vessels, coronary vessels that supply oxygen to it and glucose. And the more viscous the blood, the less blood will flow through the coronary blood vessels. And then you have young athletes just dropping like flies from… See, Jay? Which you just said about minus 70, moving it to less. That that might be explain everything that might explain all the heart attacks and everything that's been going on. This is a great thing.

And without and without the need for, you know, alien babies in the vaccine or even clots that are difficult for most of us to get to a lab and examine.

OK, again, we can go on forever. This might be a part two. Joe, where can people find you if they want to hear more from you? Look into your material or connect with you on Twitter, Lee Lasik. OK, I'll make sure to include that in the description. And Jay, of course, can be found at GigaOhmBiological.com. Jay does multiple streams on Twitch per week, as most of our audience will know. And before the show even started, I included a link to Dr. Lee and Jay's discussion prior to this one. So definitely go there.

Is there anything else you want to direct people to while we have you? No, I just want to say thanks for letting me come. Sorry, I was late. Oh, no, that is a OK. And of course, of course, we also want to direct everybody over to roundingtheearth.locals.com where we've had all of the links and our reading list. We've started to treat these a little bit like scheduled seminars or classes coming up, but more like a hangout type structure. But we'll have stuff to review in advance of shows we do of various formats and then all of the live stream links. And I've been going in and updating them after the fact, as well as required. And we do have a live chat. Nobody's talking in this one, but we do occasionally get people in there. So go to roundingtheearth.locals.com, post your research there, engage in our research, most importantly, just hang out and have fun. Any final thoughts, Matthew, before we hit the end broadcast button?

Well, you know, it is Christmas time. So I'm going to mention this. I hate shopping like 90, 98.3 percent of the year, but I actually kind of enjoy it during Christmas. And so I've actually been, I don't know, enjoying looking for presents. And I got one for myself, but only really because I was looking for one for my wife. Oh, I got that for JJ. I got to focus it. There it is. That's amazing. Beam me up, Scotty. I don't see any signs of intelligent life, but I'm actually going to advertise for an artist. Real quick, Natasha Clark, who is a member of the of the Rounding the Earth community. I was, you know, looking for something to get my wife and I and I, you know, I went to her site, you know, when she joined the Rounding the Earth community. I don't always have time to do that, but I just did. One day I was like, oh, what's this? You know, right. And she does like handmade leather work stuff. So I was going to get my wife, you know, a leather, a handmade leather binder with some artwork that's sort of meaningful to us. And and I decided to just go ahead and get me one, too. So and JJ, like you, I'm a note taker. I sit here, you know, when I when I pull my head down, that's because I'm I'm writing down what you guys say. Right. And, you know, looking for notes to study later. But, you know, but she made one for for each of us. And and, you know, that that's sort of that consider those spirit animals. Yeah. You know, this is something where now I can I can identify the notes that I've been using recently, which is actually a little bit of a difficulty. You know, I I mostly keep kind of a clean desk. But if you looked around my office, what you would see is piles. You would see approximately 30 different legal pads that are used over the past or during 2022. And now it's organized one place anyway. So, you know, this is like the one time of the year that it's fun to shop for me.

And this is what Matthew sent me. This was a really nice surprise. This is Magic the Gathering, specifically Cons of Tarkir, a box of that, which is not it is no small gift. So a huge thank you, Matthew, again. And why is this significant as far as you're concerned? This specific set. Oh, I played for about two years. I didn't I didn't know the game growing up or anything, but I that was the set that I got in. And everybody said, oh, this is the best set for drafting. So, you know, it's like you just pull them out and play with friends. But but also, it's actually it's now difficult to find a box for like less than two hundred seventy dollars. I just had one sitting in my closet. And since he played, I was like, you know what? I haven't been playing in a couple of years, so you'll have more fun with this than I will at this point. Magic's too hard for my family. We play smash up. That's pretty fun. You know, one day we're going to have to do Rounding the Earth roundtable gaming. I think that'd be a lot of fun as a special. We can play smash up less serious for sure.

All right, guys. Well, on that note, Merry Christmas. I don't know if many of you know, some of us might not necessarily have another in-depth conversation prior to Christmas. So Merry Christmas to you guys. Happy Hanukkah as well to those who celebrate that and happy holidays. Thank you for a wonderful year of learning. This this has been simply incredible. And I know I speak on behalf of everyone in the chat who you you you three and many others. Every guest we've been able to have on Rounding the Earth has contributed to a stronger brain for I know for myself, for everyone else. And we're helping fix a pretty big problem that affects way more people than we'll ever know.

Anyway, here's to an even better 2023. And yeah, and be well. Have a wonderful holiday, hopefully with family and friends. And to those of you in Vancouver, stay safe, man. It's dirty out there. That white stuff just keeps piling up. All right. Merry Christmas.