McCairnDojo.comPast episodes & related streams

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, I'm flying on a new ship here. So you're going to have to forgive me if some of this is not as fluid as you're used to because there are new things in front of me. So let's see how far we get.

We're getting there, ladies and gentlemen. This is pretty fun. I'm really excited.

It's been a little while, so I'm a little rusty and I got a new computer over the holiday to try and improve my capabilities of making sure that this, even if they take my sink away, I can post quick. So let's see where we get. All feedback, all feedback would be greatly appreciated. All feedback at this time, sound, the whole nine yards, whatever you see, whatever you hear, please feedback. Another thing that might be helpful is every once in a while, if you could type in the number of viewers that you see on your end, what does Twitch tell you how many people are watching? I mean, I'm really curious because I don't think I get a very accurate read on my end.

Thank you very much, sir. See if anybody can guess, see if anybody can guess who the next dude is. Oh, man, I got to switch this. I forgot that needs to be next.

Oh, look, JC on a bike was timed out by Risa. Oh, time out, JC on a bike. JC on a bike. JC on a bike. It's JC on a bike. Yeah. Well, I'm wise enough to know when a chump needs banning and I know just the one. Look it round. It's JC on a bike. Who says Vader didn't study music in college?

Did you guess who that is? Did you catch it? That was from last night. That was Z dog, baby. Z dog. That's right. Z dog. That was sweet.

Okay. Here comes our sound check. I'm going to see if I can get myself on screen here, if I can figure out how to do that again. I think I go like this.

Hey, there's a sound check. How does that look? Are we okay? Is that all right? Anyone? Great. Oh, I'm so excited. Good mistakes. I might work. It might actually be working. You never know. Could actually work tonight. Wouldn't that be fantastic?

You might even say we're disenchanted and we need to become re-enchanted with our humanity and with nature and with our fascination with what we can't understand. They've led us to believe that everything is solved and it's not. The mystery is still there. They're just selling you that it's not. We've got to be like Galileo and think while it's still legal because your consciousness is prime real estate. That's what they're competing for. And there are multiple versions of what's true. Lots of back doors, but it doesn't really matter what's true. And they know that. That's why they've separated our scholars from our warriors.

And that's why we disregard our family members and friends as crazy because they've taught us how to do this. While they've stolen from us.

And if you are one of those people who can be shown, then you are also one who can show others.

And if you have seen, then you should be showing others already because there is a game that's there is something they're doing here. I guarantee it. I guarantee they're up to something. And the key to understanding it is in history. That's for sure because you have been bamboozled and you have given up power to a charlatan. And if you don't take it back, then we, your kids, your grandkids may never get it back. That's the deal. That's where we are. And the bricks are visible. The bricks are definitely visible. I'm sure of it. That's what this quote's all about. I mean, that's what this quote's all about. That's why I show it every night. This is not some, this might be the most important speech anyone's ever given. They tell you it's not about reality. They're just, they're just lying to you. The same people who killed him.

Sooner or later, we're going to have to accept this reality. Whoops, that was the wrong one. See, I told you. A little bit shaky. A little bit shaky.

It's time to learn some biology, ladies and gentlemen. This is big picture time.

Year four is starting and we are still standing firm.

We are still remembering what they did to us three years ago. I can almost start crying already when I think about how long it's been and how long we've been fighting, how much stuff we are enduring for these people. We need to break the illusion this year, ladies and gentlemen. If we don't break it this year, I'm afraid we might not ever break it.

The people who are learning biology are starting to penetrate, but man, oh man, do we, do we have some, we got some problems. And so we need to learn the biology. The hope is in the history. I'm really happy that Mark Kulacz, Mark is still working because the history. Oh, I don't have this up. I'm not ready. I'm just not ready. I'm sorry. There I am. The history is where this is at. And let me get this volume right. The people is where this story is. I think if we start to put these people together, this story together, then we're going to be able to get the history together. We're going to understand how we got here. And I think if you want to reveal from the present, then you got to work from the biology. If you want to reveal from the past, you've got to work with the history and the people. That's why I think Mark and I make a very complimentary dual stream, independent contributors to this free state where the tongues are still free. I don't know how long they're going to be free, but you know, Mark's website is backed up. I think it's got, I think it's got a few more than, well, it's more than an Excel sheet.

So here we are still swinging, still learning the immunology. Unfortunately, for the people who, who have been at this the longest, it immunology has taken a back seat. I think we're going to change that this year as well.

If you've been following me for a while, you might be up here at the top of the wave, but honestly, we haven't always been at the top of the wave. We thought we were, sure felt like we were, but we haven't always been on top of the wave, but we've always assumed we could, we could drown. I think that's why we, by staying focused on the biology, not taking the bait on television and loving our neighbors, we've managed to survive this far. I know why I've managed to survive this far. It's because of Greg and Rodney and Piper and Ben and all the people on that front page that aren't listed yet, because I've been working so hard to try and get this dumb computer working. It's not dumb, it's not fun, it's not fun. It's dumb computer working. It's not dumb. I love you. It's powerful. It's great. I'm the chief biologist. I'm not an IT guy, so I might have to fly somebody in from Massachusetts to figure this out. Hello ladies and gentlemen, this is GigaOhm Biological. It's a high resistance, low noise information stream brought to you by a biologist. That biologist is Jonathan Couey. That's me. It's good to be here tonight. It is the start of year four. It's January 9th, 2023. And we're still trying to put all the pieces of this puzzle together and understand how they are connected. I'm not sure it's going to be very easy to get there, but we're sure going to try. If we're still in sync, that would be another thing I'd like to see in the chat. And if the sound is okay and you don't hear any noise in the background, it's also something I'd like to hear. I used to have an electronic noise in my ear that I don't hear anymore. Maybe you could turn it up and listen and see if you hear that as well. Harold says the sync is good. That's already a good sign. So this is an illusion that's only sustained through your active participation. Most of us haven't been participating, but we are surrounded by people who are participating. If you are here for the first time, we have a general policy of united non-compliance. That's you, me, and everybody just not listening to these people anymore. But if you are joining me for the first time, you're going to need some justification for that rather radical stance against the TV people. And so that's what I want to start out year four with. A rather succinct, you know that I'm not very succinct, but I'll try to be tonight. And then a kind of kickoff in terms of what I hope to do for this year, and I didn't do last year, which is a more consistent presence.

I'm human just like you though. I've got a family of three. I've got in addition to those three kids, I've got this best friend of mine who gave me those children and supports this work that I'm doing now. And so I do need to spend enough time with them as a father and as a husband in order to make this even possible. And so that limits some of the things I do, and it required me to take a week off or two for the holiday. And so I'm glad to be back and thank you very much for tolerating that. Like I said, it's January 9th, 2023, and I'm just shocked that we are still playing this game with the TV people. You will see over the course of this week and next that we're in pretty dire straits at this stage, because nobody on television is really flexed at all. Some people on YouTube have flexed, but basically we're still inside of this illusion. The green hand is still there.

The sand is still pouring down, and some people think that it's great. Other people think that there's more fighting to be done. I think that we have fundamentally come nowhere. And that's not to be pessimistic. It's to be realistic about how much work we have to do in the future yet.

I want to give a shout out to Michael Singer, not everybody.

I really liked the guy. I don't know that he's the utmost of Chinese experts. I haven't read his book, but I do know that he is skeptical of this narrative of a master virus. And in so being, he found my latest presentation to the UK Doctors for COVID Ethics quite compelling.

And I had him on my show. He recently tweeted, actually, in support of me getting my Twitter reinstated. I'm not really interested in that other than to be able more easily communicate to you that I'm going to stream, because I'm not going to use that platform anymore. I am rarely using the decentralized that a fellow viewer and supporter of the channel set up just because it's been the holiday and I've been focused, razor focused on trying to get this rig to work again. I got some advice from Carlos said that I probably should stream once more after New Year's before I set up the new computer. Of course, I said to myself, I mean, how long could it possibly take for me to get a new rig set up with a few new pieces?

So anyway, we're here now. It's the ninth, and I'm very happy to be here. There's also a podcast that I was on, which is called geopolitics and empire right before Christmas holiday. In case you missed it, it's pretty good summary of where we are. If after this, you're still curious, or if you haven't seen it, maybe you want to check that out. I do still have, I don't know, some general, I think I'm not exercising enough, you know, I'm not JC on a bike anymore. So it is taking a toll on my lungs, I guess, not exercising as much as I said, so I'm gonna try and pick up a basketball with my kids. They've been trying to change the way you think for a reason. And tonight, I'm going to try and explain what that is while giving you an overview of where we have come since 2020. And that is a long time ago. There is a recent stream that I did with Meredith. And I think if you're interested in really where we are, from the neuropsychological spiritual perspective, this is the place to go. It's basically the Stockholm Syndrome. I think Bobby's also said that it's the Stockholm Syndrome. We are complying with our captors in order to make the pain of captivity the least it can be. And we are hoping that compliance will keep them happy with us. This is really well explained by Meredith in the stream interview that I did with her. And I still think it's a very valuable place to start. If you're interested in understanding what's really going on here in an alternative perspective to this mass psychosis thing that some other people are pushing, which I think is probably less relevant. And the reason why they are engaged in this kind of disorganizing of society and turning us on one another is to completely prevent us from engaging in informed consent.

I made a statement at the FDA meeting that I still think is relevant here. Our first speaker is Mr. Jonathan Couey.

Hello. Can you hear me? We can. Please go ahead. Thank you. My name is Jonathan Couey and I have no conflicts of interest. The ethical principle of informed consent has been effectively ignored for the duration of the pandemic.

The FDA and the CDC long ago failed to meet their responsibility to ensure informed consent in those healthy adults who have been already transfected, most egregiously in the healthy college students and teens for whom there was never an emergency. The CDC and FDA failed again just days ago to provide the opportunity for informed consent, this time for parents of children under five, when recommending transfection as safe and effective. After nearly two years of calling transfection by lipid nanoparticle and investigative vaccine, you have failed to provide informed consent by pushing a false equivalence between transfection and traditional live attenuated and recombinant vaccines. You have failed to inform the public that transfection, the expression of a viral protein by injection of synthetic RNA, is a highly variable and tissue dependent process that we are unsure can provoke meaningful immune memory, the goal of any vaccination. You have failed to notify the public of the potential for autoimmunity while also failing to look for this known downside of this technique. The FDA have no data support recommending transfection for any healthy human in 2022. After more than two years, you have failed to inform the public that you know the studies upon which these recommendations are based are woefully underpowered. In place of informed consent, you have pushed the vague concepts of safe and effective until they were devoid of meaning. The studies used to specifically recommend transfection to the under five age group are statistical jokes without clinically meaningful endpoints. You know immunoviruses are clinically meaningful endpoints. You know immunobridging to noninferiority is useless. Do your job. Of course, the CDC, NIH, and NIAID also failed to inform the public that they knew late in 2019 that the virus had already several key molecular aspects that indicated both its origin and the many known countermeasures that would be expected to work. Instead, they said they knew nothing. They could see nothing unusual and that our immune systems were equally vulnerable if you ran with it. Data from your own presentations demonstrate the vast majority of kids have been infected, a primary counterindication for the administration of any vaccine before 2020. You are pushing products under the guise of a regulatory framework that we know by your actions is pro forma only. You failed to inform the public that you know from studying influenza and other viruses that the developing immune system is an impossibly complicated process that involves printing mechanisms that cannot be reversed. The catalog of molecular immune memories that protects us for a lifetime is formed through the countless exposures of pathogens in our childhood and you have failed to inform the public that you know the transfection to a 2020 viral code protein cannot be useful in augmenting this process. You know it will not meaningfully protect these children because there is a planet worth of data informing you of this. It's biology. Please get some and then do your job.

So yes, I completely agree with the chat here saying that the integrity of the mRNA transfection seems to be assumed by more and more people on our side. That is absolutely, positively the case and more and more you're going to hear and I'm going to give you lots of examples of it this week. People on the left, if you want to call them the left, but you know people that are voting for Biden the Democrats saying that mRNA was being used before the pandemic safely and so it's not just now but even before the pandemic RNA RNA like RNA methodologies were safe. It's absurd. I can't believe it. So the way that they did this basically and we've gone through this many times is just trying to check this out here is to tell you not to think about all-cause mortality. A novel coronavirus it means that everyone is vulnerable that's antibodies and seroprevalence matter. Now the reason why that's the way they did it was because they wanted to set it up with as many unknowns as possible with the idea of trying to convince you that that something to the effect of a mystery needed to be solved and that mystery included the virus, it included where it came from, it included what medicines would be. Everything was unknown and we were all watching in real time different parties figuring out what's going on and competing notions of what's going on based on the party's interests and conflicts of interest. And this carefully orchestrated, maybe not even that carefully orchestrated, but reasonably orchestrated, remember they can serve up whatever videos they want to you. They can serve up whatever videos on TikTok, on Instagram, and on YouTube. They can serve up whatever tweets they want and so you think you have a lot of control over these of what you see and what these algorithms do. But by the time the pandemic started most of us had given the algorithms all they needed in order to know how to get us to click on things in order to direct us to where we wanted to be and to give us the impression of something happening. And that's what they did to everyone in their own way through their own channels. I assure you and in so doing what they set up basically what I think is happening right now is this and I know I can't really push this on you all at once but I'm going to try and teach it over the next few days. I have to be very careful what I say here because I don't want to make anybody upset. But very recently some people challenged me and in an email CC'd two senior members of Children's Health Defense. In so doing what they did, I guess I'm just going to go back here, what they did was they kind of insinuated that if I didn't go on their stream and talk to them that they would use previous videos of mine to talk about me. Now it doesn't really mean that they're going to take things out of context but let's just say that if you got an email that was CC'd to your you know favorite client and the two favorite clients that you have, the only two clients that you have besides the people on the internet that fill your can every week, and you had that email CC'd and said hey you're going to come on my stream and talk to me about no virus or prove to me that there is a virus then I'm going to go on my stream and use previous videos of you to make fun of you. Something like that. And that's very frustrating because it's just not a very genuine way for adults to communicate and to make fun of you. It's not a very genuine way for what people who should be on the same team to try and come together under terms that they can all agree on. That seems to be nothing that they're interested in but those people are the people that are represented down here in the pink.

Whoops that's not what I wanted. Those people down here are the people in the pink here. I'll get my up here. There are no pathogenic viruses. Western medicine is nearly all fake and it lies all the way down. Those people would like to debate me about the existence of the coronavirus or wild coronaviruses and they want me to send them papers that prove that there are wild coronaviruses and then they want me to come on the stream three days later and talk about all that proof with like four of them. And so we're trying to arrange an alternative to that where Children's Health Defense will host the debate and maybe a couple of them will debate me about the existence of wild coronaviruses and about the specific existence of SARS-CoV-2. And I find it very extraordinary because these people seem very keen on not listening to what I say and trying to characterize me as someone who is definitively a person who knows everything about viruses and can prove that they exist and knows everything about sequencing and can prove how it works and is a master of phylogeny and a master of immunology. It's very frustrating because these people don't bring the same level of systematic analysis to the problem. They have done a couple things which I think we could argue yes or no they're good and then they've stopped there. One of the things that they've done is that they've done this I'm not even going to worry about it right now in fact it just snapped in my head I don't need to talk about them but that might happen in the next few days where I will be on a stream with them trying to figure out how to convince them that stopping there is probably not the best place to stop if we want to get through this as humanity in one piece. And there is an argument to be made here this list the red are all the tv narratives the yellow are the the things that I get very frustrated with a lot of people on our side seem to say and the green is really where I am right now the green includes gain of function is exaggerated on all levels to their advantage and that the entire vaccination schedule in the U.S. should be re-evaluated. That's right. I said it. That's where I am. And I'm not afraid to say that that's where I am. I'm right there right now. The entire vaccination schedule, the entire vaccination schedule in the US should be re-evaluated. I don't know how to say it any more diplomatic than that. And anyone who is on our side, and is arguing that that there's gain of function viruses that got out in Wuhan and killed millions of people around the world, but is not questioning the transfection, and it's not gotten to the stage where they're also questioning many of the vaccines on the teen and childhood schedule of the CDC, then they are not being genuine players at this stage. That's how I feel. You know, I can only tell you how I feel because I'm one of these people who just puts it all out online. Everybody wants me to be a persona or something like that. My wife wants me to be cool and, and you know, just smile into the camera and everything will be fine. I can only be me. And what I usually am is a biologist who's trying to recover from having completely misunderstood the contribution of academia to our general understanding of science and biology in particular. And instead thought I was, I was a part of a system that was doing a lot of good. And maybe part of it was, maybe a lot of people in it were. But the way the system is organized, especially around the real medical issues, the real medical system itself, of which I was not a real part of, that is completely and totally howled out and broken. We are owned. And so if we're going to get out of this, we're going to have to realize that immunity is not taught in school or in college. Well, because they don't want you to know how complex it is. They don't want you to know how much we don't understand. So they make it real simple. They tell you it real black and white, and they teach doctors flow charts. They don't want you to look at the history and know that we haven't been able to successfully immunize ourselves, but we do want you to know that we have been able to successfully immunize ourselves, but we have been able to successfully immunize against a coronavirus in any laboratory animal before this. They don't want you to know the gain of function doesn't produce viruses that can fly around the world because they know that because coronaviruses don't work that way. But instead, they do everything they can to perpetuate that idea that if you put the right genes together in a dish, there it goes and it'll fly it all around the world. It's not how it works. My goal this year is to teach as many people as possible. The reasons why I think that's the most parsimonious explanation, the most solid understanding of the cutting edge of coronaviruses. So something changed here, but it wasn't a novel cause of death. Wasn't like there was a bug, not before the red arrow and then after the red arrow, there was a bug. That's not no, that's not how this works. That's not how this works. But here's Tom Frieden. Approximately 95% of the people dying today from COVID aren't up to date on their vaccines and three quarters of the people are highest risk for severe illness don't receive Paxlovid. Vaccination and quick treatment save lives. We must continue to focus on reaching people with both. According to Tom Frieden, former CDC head and former WHO, I think head of the WHO as well, American guy telling us that people aren't up to date on their vaccines and that's why they're dying here.

Tom Friedman participated in catastrophic contagion on 23 October 2022.

The virus could cause a severe pandemic if early containment and mitigation efforts are not successful.

There he is right there. That's Tom Friedman. Frieden. Not only is Tom Frieden in this video, but he's wearing an N95 mask at the table when he's not talking. In 2022, at a rehearsal for a highly contagious viral outbreak to happen in 2025. Do not for one second think that they have told anything of the truth on television. Do not for one second think that the truth was available on alternate media. The real truth is available in very few places. This might be this might be one of them.

Honestly, I think the only other place you might be able to find the truth is Mark and and maybe Kevin McCairn. Because I think Kevin McCairn has shown some degree of open mindedness throughout the pandemic, even if I would say that he's gone too far too early on some aspects of his claims, he would argue that a lot of his claims came true. So the point of it is is that I'm hoping that that Kevin is one of those people that remains open minded to trying to reorganize in his head the proportion of damage done by these different sources of of destruction. And I think once he recalibrates in the way that if he's able to find a way to recalibrate in a way that I have by looking at the American data, looking at the American outcomes and realizing that so much of it can be explained by that blue wave, which is which is pneumonia. And before 2020 pneumonia is a very predictable number of people dying every year. There's a lot more people that got pneumonia every year, but this many people died and in 2020 very sharp change in the number of people dying of pneumonia happened and it never came back to baseline until the beginning of 2022. It never came back to baseline the pneumonia deaths until the beginning of 2022. Interesting because we also had a directive by the WHO and governments all around the world in 2019, I wasn't sure if I was on the screen, to reduce the amount of antibiotics used during a respiratory infection. Interesting correlation when we dropped, when we started preaching that antibiotics don't work for a viral infection.

That is the heater in the background and I know you can hear it because I can see it on the thing now. I'm going to get this guy on.

I'm going to go over here. So this is the hypothesis as it stands right now. The WHO declared a pandemic of a novel virus is detectable by a nonspecific PCR test, meaning it wasn't really detectable. It was just they had a test that they said detected. It probably did in a lot of other stuff. That enabled a larger percentage of all-cause mortality than pneumonia and influenza as seen in that graph there to be prioritized as a national security threat composed of a vaccine preventable deaths. The trick here is to remember and to hear this that is a national security threat. It has become a recent revelation that because this was a national security threat, a national security situation where the PREP Act was activated by HHS, that it means that the Department of Defense was basically in charge of the rollout of the vaccines. The Department of Defense was basically in charge of all of the swabs and the Department of Defense was basically in charge of all the sequencing. Now they may have had some help from the CDC, from the FDA, from DARPA, from DTRA, wherever they had help from, I don't know.

But the bottom line is that once this became a national security thing, the Department of Defense was controlling all of this information and all of these supply chains. And so we can look to them as being part of the integral organizer of our response, the integral organizer of our coordinated response, which had very specific objectives in mind.

And most of those objectives were not, you know, saving hundreds of millions of people from a deadly virus that was never on their radar. What was on their radar was what countermeasures to use, what countermeasures not to use, and what technologies to use for the investigational vaccines, because those were the decisions that were important. And again, the goal was a total surrender of individual sovereignty and an enforcement of global fundamental inversion from basic human rights to basic granted permissions.

That's why they're taking the human rights and these other kinds of concerns out of the World Health Organization Treaty. And they're replacing them with equity and equality and inclusion, things that don't have real fundamental definitions in the Nuremberg Treaty or in the Belmont Report.

This vaccine showed an adequate immune response.

What does that mean, adequate immune response? Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is joining us this morning. Dr. Fauci, good morning.

Good morning.

Let's talk about these new numbers that were released. 92 to 96 percent of pregnant women who had this vaccine showed an adequate immune response.

What does that mean, adequate immune response? How likely are they to be protected from the H1N1 virus? Highly likely. What we do is that we did a clinical trial, which I reported on yesterday, in which you vaccinate women with a single dose or two doses.

And you find out that a single standard dose of the H1N1 vaccine would induce an immune response that you would predict would be protective from the experience that we've had over decades with influenza vaccinations. So when we say that 92 to 96 percent, that means that close to more than more than 90 percent.

So almost everyone, you know, the difference between 92 and 96 isn't really that much.

It means that the overwhelming majority of women who get vaccinated will mount a response that you would predict would be protected.

That's very good news for the people who have already been vaccinated because they can know that that one shot of H1N1 would be effective. Now you have to see what's happening already. More than 15 years ago, they were already, they were, he was already selling the idea that antibodies are a correlate of immunity that I can talk about on the news, that I can sell as an immune correlate and that we can use to tell a story about how these vaccines work. I don't know if you caught that, but that was an intranasal vaccine that they were showing on there, which we didn't get for COVID, even though this is a respiratory disease.

As women who are wondering whether they would be protected, these are very strong data to indicate that vaccination would protect you.

Have any of these women had their babies and have the has the baby been OK? Well, first of all, we have decades of experience of vaccinating women with influenza and there's no particular vaccine.

Well, you're talking about weeks, so I can't tell you whether one or two women gave birth to babies, but there have been no deleterious effects on the women or on any children that might have been born. But you're talking about a relatively small number of people. You rely much more on years of experience with very similar vaccines and there's been no effect, deleterious effect on the baby or on the pregnant woman.

That's an extraordinary statement for him to make. It's an extraordinary statement for him to make because they don't, they don't, he doesn't know that answer. And I just want you to see that they have been trying to push the idea that flu vaccination and other vaccination during pregnancy is fine.

Even though they're still trialing it.

Which is just crazy to think how many babies may have been damaged by needless intervention during pregnancy. But they have been doing this for decades already. You need to see that and be clear about why this is so.

He didn't explain anything to her. He used very broad terms. He didn't explain what immunity was or why they thought that or what it means or how immunity works.

He was extremely vague because he was selling a product and it comes down to this hyper specialization. The specialization should make you suspicious because if it's gotten harder to evaluate what's going on, then it's presumably gotten easier for people to lie and to exaggerate.

Oh, interesting point.

This is Ab. Ab Osterhaus.

Well, let's hope that what's happening now, that this is just a warning. That we realize that what's happening now could end in a real pandemic outbreak of influenza, which could kill millions of people worldwide.

And also in the country like the Netherlands, tens of thousands of people might die in addition to the normal mortality.

So I would say seriously consider to stockpile these antiviral. The normal language. So you could already collect these genes from viruses that are in migratory birds.

And in this way, you could already make vaccines, candidate vaccines that you have on the shelf.

You have to update it because also in the birds, the viruses change gradually. But what we are proposing is to make a system by which you collect these viruses from birds, characterize them, and then use the genes of those viruses as the basis for future vaccines.

And then the point is that, of course, you make, let's say you have to make 20 or 30 or perhaps even more candidate vaccines. Candidates only. So you make the seed viruses for those vaccines that if indeed the pandemic strikes, that you already have one of the vaccines that you could start expanding immediately.

So you might recognize him.

The specialization should make you suspicious. Because if it's gotten harder to evaluate what's going on, then it's presumably gotten easier for people to lie and to exaggerate.

That's the same guy. He might even be wearing the same shirt and the same vest that he was wearing in the airport there. Have a nice Queen's Day. So it's April, because Queen's Day is at the end of April.

That's the guy who enriched avian flu in ferrets sitting across the table from this guy about to discuss the Ferris wheel. That's the guy who enriched avian flu in ferrets sitting across the table from this guy about to discuss the first case of Mexican flu in the Netherlands in 2009, I believe.

What is the background of the patient?

A child came back from Mexico.

It's a kid coming back from Mexico on vacation. That's one patient that we just looked at, also from the RIVM. Charles had contact with Mayon. Matrix positive.

Knetter positive.

It's about 99%.

Yes, you have to look more closely. This is a serious suspicion.

Where is this kid?

No idea. Somewhere in the Netherlands.

They don't know where he is. He's just in Holland.

It's coming from the RIVM. It just came in from their CDC.

So that would mean we have the first case in the Netherlands.

That means we have the first one in the Netherlands.

Better get the whiskey.

Last week, next Tuesday, always two.

Where did the whiskey go?

The secretary asked for it.

Do you want to ask if the bottle needs to be added?

Bring the bottle.

Let's have a drink. The flu made it.

And I just told you in that other video that we should be stockpiling.

I wonder how many vaccines they'll buy.

The Netherlands has about 17 million citizens.

I wonder how many vaccines they'll buy.

What's 17 times 2?

Is that 34 million?


34 million doses.

34 million doses. And a fist thereby.

So what is the game?

Ask yourself what the game really is.

If that's the way these people behave.

When the first case of flu comes to the Netherlands.

And the company orders by SMS to you.

35 million doses.

34 million doses.

What is the game that they are playing?

How long have they been playing this game?

Quite some time, I'm afraid. Quite some time.

The specialization should make...


Do I have to push play on this one?

Why is it not playing?

Ah, there we go.

This is probably the most important video that there is. I was asked to tell you about my experiences being the crisis manager, the flu commissioner for Belgium and highlighting the communication aspects there.

These are some of my conflicts of interest over the past 20 years.

Merck, J&J, Abbott, et cetera.

It all started for me at that time.

Same weekend we were just talking about there.

That's the same weekend.

So it's not a profession or a function, whatever.

It's really a hobby that flu commissioner thing. On April 24, 2009, that was when WHO said, okay, there will be a pandemic and that's when the thing started.

And then you have one opportunity to do it right.

Day one is so important.

In day one, you start your communication with the press, with the people, and you have to do it right.

You have to go for one voice, one message. In Belgium, they chose to appoint a non-politician to do that.

I mean, I have no party affiliations.

And that makes things a little bit, at that time at least, a little bit easier because you're not attacked politically.

Majority, minority, that doesn't come into play.

And that was a huge advantage.

The second advantage is that you can play in Brussels, the complete naive guy, and get a lot more done than you would otherwise be able to do. So one voice, one message.

That's the tone that you set on day one, and you have to be very transparent in that.

My name is the Interministerial Commissary for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Planning.

That, of course, is too long.

That became the Flu Commissary, and that was a lot easier.

You have to be omnipresent that first day or the first days so that you attract the media attention.

You make an agreement with them that you will tell them all, and if they call, you will pick up the phone.

When you do that, then you can profit from these early days to get complete carpet coverage of the field, and they're not going to search for alternative voices there.

And if you do that, that makes things a lot easier.

And then you convey the message, and you can do that if you do it that way, that our country is ready for a pandemic.

That is a gross overestimation for sure, but it is crucial to go into that pandemic.

First of all, what's in the name, if you talk about the pandemic, it's quite important.

People are talking about the swine flu, the pandemic H1N1/09 virus, novel influenza, 2009 A H1N1 flu.

At some point, it was called the North American influenza, the novel flu virus.

That was way too difficult, so we called it the Mexican flu. That got me into huge trouble with the ambassador of Mexico.

Damn it. I'm very sorry.

I'm going to have to get used to this with my head in the way I got to move it.

That was way too difficult, so we called it the Mexican flu.

That got me into huge trouble with the ambassador of Mexico at that time, and she was furious afterwards. This is a very similar trick that they pulled with us, with Tony Fauci and Pelosi and Trump, with the China virus or whatever.

The same sort of ridiculous logic, the same sort of ridiculous play, argument over nothing, to get you to think that there is a flu, because we're arguing about how to call it.

There's one proper name for it, so get it right. There's a crisis coming, and it has a proper name.

By talking and arguing about the name, the actual virus itself starts to become real without you even realizing it.

They did the exact same thing with this virus.

I'm good friends. I still get invited to their New Year's reception every year.

People are making fun of it, and okay, that's probably unavoidable. But the fact to have a clear and recognizable name, which was easy for the lay public to understand and use, was actually quite important.

It also worked. This is the word of the year of 2009.

Defriending on Facebook became number one.

To my big disappointment, Mexican flu was second, and flu commissary was number six.

So the term works.

That switch is not very fast yet. I apologize.

I've got to maybe organize that differently. I thought that that was a little sad, that they made a joke about the unfriending became the number one word that year.

What did the unfriending happen as a result of?

Was the unfriending because you didn't get the flu vaccine? Just be careful.

Just be careful the jokes that they're making here, because it hints at what they did to us this time. Unfriending was the most popular term, new term, term in Belgium, the same year that this, this flu was second.

Think about how frightening it is that we're joking about that, which is a fundamental indicator of the fabric of our society fraying at the edges and just joking about it as, oh, well, you know, that's what else what happened. A lot easier.

These first weeks, that's easy street.

When you have no opposition and everybody needs news and they can come to you for news, you can bring quite a lot of neutral information and it is picked up.

And, and it is, it is well, the news is brought the way you bring it.

And that is, it's carefully orchestrated.

Please understand that what he is giving you evidence of is that you are the victim of your families, our nation and the nations of the world have been victimized by a carefully orchestrated plan.

It is a plan to respond to a worst case scenario, even when most of the people inside know that the worst case scenario has not arrived.

And it is fine tuning that response to the worst case scenarios so that more and more people buy into the fact that we are legitimately responding to a worst case scenario.

That's why you would want everyone to take up the vaccine because if this was a real emergency, you'd be required to put on the mask that drops from the ceiling.

And so when they say drill, they want you on the floor with your hands over your head with your hands over your head and under the table.

When the siren goes off, they want you in the basement.

And when they say pandemic, they want masks and they want governments buying and distributing vaccines as soon as possible.

The only dubious thing is, is who wants that?

Are there, is it the legitimately elected governments of all these countries around the world that are organizing to put together a group of people that's capable of orchestrating a response when necessary?

Or is it a group of unelected people funded by global pharmaceutical companies and global philanthropy, disguised philanthropy, pushing for these kinds of measures? Because that's who's at this meeting.

That's who this guy works for. You saw his conflict of interest slide flash.

This is central to understanding.

What happened is to understand that they've talked freely about tweaking the worst case scenario response for decades.

Fauci's talked about it.

Friedman's talked free. Friedman's talked about it. They all talk about it. It's a planned thing.

You can only do that in the first couple of weeks or months.

One of the problems that we have or that we had is that we did not have a media budget that was really zero euros that we could spend.

That means that you have to use every opportunity you can get to, well, it's not Britannia rules the waves, but rule the airwaves to bring out your... So he says that they had no budget in Belgium at all.

No budget at all for the media.

In the United States, for the coronavirus response, we not only had a huge budget, not only did we have a huge budget to promote the response, but we had a giant dispensation of money to universities to encourage them to uniform, respond to this, to respond in kind, to follow the directives, to force the mandate on these kids.

He's talking about child's play. He went on the radio a lot.

He was on the TV a lot, and it was just him.

He's not talking about censoring social media. He's not talking about changing the algorithms. He's not talking about the kinds of things that have been going on for three years around the globe, this time around.

He's talking about child's play.

You need to get your head around how bad it is right now, because this is nothing. And that's something that you can do for free on radio, on TV.

If you have good pre-existing relationships with the media, you can try something else. We tried the following thing.

We asked all of the anchors of the different TV stations, are you willing for free to participate in a sort of infomercial that you would pay for, all of you?

And they said, yes, we'll do that. And that was hugely influential.

Nobody would ever be able to pay for something like this. But if you have pretty good pre-existing relations...

I find this a very interesting comment.

In the bottom here, it says the DOD right now funds 50% of the research and development at Pharma. And if that was the case, that would be a very interesting flip in terms of influence. I would be very curious if you could produce any evidence of that, if you have any lists or links that I could check out. I would love to follow up on that. I think Mark would love to follow up on that as well. Sorry, I'm looking at the wrong camera over there. Dang it.

...ships with them, then you can ask for a return favor, or they might do that.

One of the things that we tried, but it's 10 years ago, was using Facebook and Twitter, but, well, there were not enough people on Facebook and Twitter at that time to really have an impact. If we would do that now, that would be a prime channel to communicate. However, that works both ways. I mean, also the fake news would be transmitted much more readily through Facebook, through Twitter, than...

But the fake news is not censored, right? The fake news is not censored and it's not throttled, it's not blocked, it's not canceled.

The fake news gets promoted by the algorithm, gets put in everyone's face.

And so the top of your Twitter feed is always the CDC. The bottom of every YouTube video was always the WHO.

He's being very disingenuous when he says that this is somehow an even playing field when the state, the United States government, was telling Twitter and Facebook and YouTube what to censor. That's a level of control this man never dreamed could exist. But it exists because they made this a national security, emergency priority thing.

And so then all bets are off. Don't you see?

Then it did 10 years ago. Answering the question of the day, no matter what the journalist's question is, is quite important. So we had a call center which was gradually becoming more and more populated. And every, almost hour to hour, and later day to day, you have to get an idea what are the questions that the people are asking. And every day these questions were delivered multiple times so that I could work them in into the interviews no matter what the question was. The first questions, that was the first peak, and that peak was about 900 calls per day at the moment, per week at the first peak. The first questions were travel related. Can I still go to Mexico? I have planned a vacation. Can I get my money back? If you solve that problem by declaring an emergency, you help quite a lot of people and that first peak goes away. Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay. What he's explaining here right now is something that even I have a hard time conceptualizing in my head. Imagine if you knew all the questions that were being asked in real time. All the contents of all the posts on social media in real time. And you had some computer programmers working on analyzing those patterns to pull out big signals that you could respond to in real time. Because he's just talking about a call center. So it's a place with people. And then the people tell you what they called about. And so the general subjects can be addressed as the people call the public helpline. Imagine what would happen if the NSA, if DTRA, if DoD, if a combination of DTRA, DoD, DARPA, the NSA, and DIA were using the infrastructure set up by Palantir and other companies to monitor communications in real time, to respond to currents of trending information in real time to make sure that they most effectively countered any narrative that they wanted to stifle. He's talking about child's play compared to what they did to us the last three years and continue to do to us because it's not stopped. We are being puppeteered, ladies and gentlemen, puppeteered. That's hard because the future has not happened yet. Predicting the past is a lot easier. But you have to predict the future in order to prepare the public and not have an over-exaggeration or an exaggeration of the information in the press. So I said, OK, Belgium, small country, we will also have H1N1 cases. When you bring that, it is front page news. When then, a couple of days later, the first H1N1 case arrives in the country, it is the second time that they have to bring that news. So they bring it in a more muted and, I think, appropriate way. But you can only do that when you prepare the scene for that. That was the second wave of questions. People were asking more questions about what do I do when I get sick and so on. And that gives you the opportunity to work with that. And then you have to say, OK, well, we will have H1N1 deaths. Of course, that would be unavoidable. I used there Sir Donaldson's quote where he said that in the UK, by the peak of the epidemic, 40 people would die per day at the end of the summer. So 62 at that time, million people in the UK, 40 deaths a day. I worked it out for Belgium. That would be seven deaths a day at the peak of the epidemic. I used that in the media. Seven Belgian flu deaths per day at the peak of the epidemic would be realistic. That is true in every year. Even inter-pandemically, that is very, very conservative. However, talking about fatalities is important because when you say that, people say, wow, what do you mean? People die because of influenza. So he's telling you, he's explaining and the people in the room are laughing. We looked at this video before. They are laughing about the fact that these people are being told the average number of people dying all the time, a very conservative number. It's exactly what I've been trying to explain since the last few months of this revelation. They've never talked about all cause mortality because if they did, they would not be able to produce meaningful evidence of a new cause of death. And so they have to use the normal numbers. These people die every year, but they told you it started at zero. And he's explaining exactly how they do it. Only in this case, we converted everything from RSV, rhinovirus, coronavirus, flu and pneumonia. Everything all became COVID, either suspected COVID or by a test of PCR. And it was the most disingenuous conversion of all cause mortality to a single, targetable national security priority. Somebody did this to us. Somebody executed a plan that included hijacking social media and controlling the information to the extent to which hydroxychloroquine was barely on anyone's radar. And while Cadlec, under the direction of Stephen Hatfield, was filling the national stockpile with hydroxychloroquine. Ladies and gentlemen, they did this to us. That was a necessary step to take. And then, of course, a couple of days later, you had the first H1N1 death in the country. And the scene was set and it was already talked about. That was the third peak of questions. Well, the first that it had an impact and you have to deal with that. I went to the first couple of funerals. You have to be very quiet, sit in the back. But it shows that you care. And I think that was, at that time, quite important. So all in all, at that time, the overall feeling in the population, in the press was the Belgian approach is reasonable. In fact, we wanted to be calm, cool and collected. And our mantra was, and that was from day one, at this moment, it is comparable more or less to seasonal influenza in terms of outcome. But we have to prepare for severe scenarios. Like in 1918, the first wave was rather mild and you could not predict that a second wave would carry high mortality. We focused on low cost basic hygiene measures. We did not do any school closures. We used antivirals for high risk groups. Actually, we used antivirals in the beginning for people who were ill. I had pre-positioned cars in the different provinces and they would drive antivirals to patients when they would be diagnosed by influenza in order to delay the onset of the epidemic. And that worked until the end of the epidemic. OK, so just be clear. We're not talking about vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc, none of them. Presumably, the antivirals are still patented pharmaceuticals. Just keep in mind what he's describing here. It can sound to some naive ears, perhaps, as though he's describing a pretty reasonable response. He's still pushing product. Yeah, over the school year, we only purchased one dose of vaccine per person. And the vaccination plan would be to vaccinate more or less the same high risk groups as for seasonal influenza. And then the vacation came. And that is, communication-wise, a very dangerous period. It's a dangerous period because the more untrained journalists are at the helm. And you get the weirdest questions. They're understaffed, so more articles from other countries. This might seem weird, but what he's trying to describe to you is a thing that happens a lot of times in the flatlands, in Belgium and the Netherlands in particular, is they all go on vacation. And it's not like vacation in, you know, the United States where you go for like five days. We're talking about like a week or two where you go to Spain or you go, you know, and then they also go skiing. But in this case, the summer vacations are real. You leave. And so what he's describing is also newscasters and reporters and the staff of media outlets go away for vacation. And so you have these other go-getters that get on there. And so it creates a very awkward time. He's got to explain a lot of this stuff all over again. That's what he's talking about here. So, again, it's on message. It's maintaining the message and it's monopolizing it, being the only guy that they call. We'll come in and contaminate your message. And that was a weird period. That was pictures that my father took from the holiday with the grandchildren. I was not I was not the most social guy, I must admit. And my son was born two weeks before the pandemic struck. So that was not good timing. And then comes the time, inevitably, that they're going to talk about you. The flu commissioner is a really a great guy. And then you then you get the feel good articles about what does he like? What music does he like? They did an awful lot of this with Fauci. They did it for almost half a year. News specials about how long he's been working. Children's books about his childhood and how he used to bike and get tips from people that he would drop off drugs from his dad. Bobbleheads. Saint like candles. I mean, come on, guys. He's he's talking again about child's play compared to the Fauci ouchy t shirts and all the other things that they did just for Fauci, just like he's describing here. Sure, they went after him a little bit, but not nearly enough, not nearly enough to describe 38 years at the head of this organization, not nearly enough to describe the conflict of interest represented in his wife, who's never given a lecture about the Belmont report in all the years that she's been the head ethicist of NIH. It's despicable. But this is an apt description of what has happened to you, minus the amazing technology that's currently available and at their fingertips for them to use against us, which he describes repeatedly in this talk with much envy and regret. Just from my first laboratory when I was 13 years old, it's all feel good. But when they do that, they also sharpen the axis at the at the same time. And then then your your personal life, your your personal life becomes a little bit compromised. And then they come to your home and you have to really limit that, because if you do not limit that, then then you have no life. And then comes then everything is set about the pandemic, about you. And then they search for controversy. At a certain point in time, I had a controversy about the the payment of the physicians for the mass vaccination that would happen in in a couple of months or a couple of weeks later. And then the the quoted I gave them in terms of how much money they would receive that was far too low. And I had to be fired. You can solve that quite easily. I said, OK, you want me to be fired. I would like to win the lottery. The odds of both of these things are happening, are fairly slim. And that and that passed. And then you come to the the face where they're going to be much more critical. And the first one was the government does not do enough. The H1N1 vaccine will arrive too late and there will not be enough vaccine. Get it while you can. That was the that was the first the first really atmosphere that was created. So not enough vaccine. What did he say? That was the first atmosphere that was created. The government does not do enough. The H1N1 vaccine will arrive too late and there will not be enough vaccine. Get it while you can. That was the that was the first the first really atmosphere. I would argue that they used a slightly different method in the United States because first of all, I know from firsthand knowledge that they brought first batch of Moderna and Pfizer to Hollywood sets and to Hollywood parties in early 2021 to get everybody on board behind the scenes before the official rollout so that no one would speak out. Probably gave them high purity, probably gave them extra good doses. I don't know. But we know that Bieber and other people were injured by the vaccine. So we know that a lot of them are getting hot doses. But they did that before the official rollout. I know this. OK, I know this. They did it on movie sets and they can fire anybody they want, right? They can find a million other people to come on set. So if you're not going to take the shot, you're not working. You know that Tom Cruise did that. You know that they did it across the board. I know that they were distributing these vaccines at Hollywood parties before they were going to newsrooms before. And what this sets up is not a you get to get it while you can. But if the NBA is already doing it and the NFL is already doing it and everybody's taking it, then I better take it. It must be safe. It's the same kind of play the different games that they've done. If it's not exactly what this Belgian guy is describing, understand that what this Belgian guy is describing is what they did for swine flu. That didn't work that well, as he will show you in a minute. Again, with regret, he didn't have the tools that were available to the people that executed this in 2020. Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake about it created. So not enough vaccine. Get it while you can. So at that point, I had to say, OK, I will be the last one to be vaccinated. I mean, you can all go in before me. I'll be I'll be the last one. And and that later on, I regretted that message. That vaccination campaign got a huge number of questions that were actually they're laughing about that because he said that I'll be the last to get vaccinated. And then when people were injured by the vaccine, they said that he should have. See, why didn't he take the vaccine? He's about to explain to you that this is the year that Wolfgang Wodarg became infamous or famous for showing that the who in combination with GlaxoSmithKlein organized contracts so that when the who declared a pandemic, that all these governments would have to buy vaccines from GlaxoSmithKlein and GlaxoSmithKlein or whoever it was that sold pandemic tricks had worked these governments against one another, saying that we're only going to be able to make 25 million doses in the first six weeks. Denmark's already buying eight million. So if England buys eight, the Netherlands buys eight, there will only be four left for you. So you better get them while you can. And basically coerced a number of European governments, including Germany's government, into buying doses triggered upon the who declaring a pandemic. And he got that acknowledged by the committee. And now this guy's going to make fun of that in a minute. But anyway, you need to know that because Wolfgang Wodarg is a hero who also spoke out at the beginning of this pandemic and was lambasted and discarded and ignored and canceled. The crux of the of the campaign was the vaccination campaign, and many people had questions there. So you had to show them that you had the stockpiles, you had to walk there and walk in the in the rooms where the where you could show them that we have the vaccines. And there they are already in the country. A lot of a lot of reassurance was necessary there. And then you had to pick who is going to be vaccinated first. And then, well, women and children first, whatever I mean risk groups, they were important. And then I misused the the fact that the the top top football soccer clubs in Belgium inappropriately and against all agreements vaccinated their they made their soccer players priority people. So he said he misused this specialization should make you suspicious, because it's gotten harder to value. He said that they misused it. You heard him say it right he said they misused it. They misused the where to go. They misused the football players they said that the football players should not have taken the vaccine. And so it made people think that while the football players are taking it they must really be serious must be really serious I better see if I can get it while it's still the population really believes that this this vaccine is so desirable that even the soccer players would be dishonest to get their vaccine. He's lying to them so I made a big fuss about this. He's lying is raving mad. He's lying. It worked. And actually these vaccination campaigns by the GPS went really really well in a number of weeks, everybody could be could be vaccinated that's still a fairly relevant portion of the of the panel well it worked fine in Flanders. So you know Belgium it's a complicated country. And this is the the vaccination coverage, and you could see Flanders they really well. There's many interviews in French than than in Dutch. However, in, in the Flemish part of the country we listen to the Flemish media in the French speaking part of the country they equally often listen to the or watch the French television, where all the other messages were coming across and that was really polluting the, the vaccine polluting the vaccine message was the French media in the French speaking part of Belgium, look at the difference between the vaccination rates in the Dutch speaking portion in the north to the French speaking portion in the south and understand that they understand this. And point to them it's millions of data points to them. They have this problem not in America. They have this problem not in 2022 with Twitter and Instagram and tick tock and Facebook and WhatsApp, they do not have this problem. They are not fighting any media they are canceling it they are D platforming it they are, they are ruining it, its performance in the algorithm while promoting the ideas that they want to. They are doing things that this man never dreamed would be possible. And then of course people say okay the vaccine is unsafe and then you get the swine flu hoax and the vaccine could kill you say no to the vaccine that atmosphere starts, and then after the crisis everybody becomes smart. And you have to accept that from the from the get go. And then the overall statement was no the government did too much, of course, because the number of deaths were disappointing to some people, and then all the books are written and and everybody uses all the data and forgets that you had to take the decisions based on a fragment. You had to take the darn it. I gotta learn how to get that to click right. You had to make all the decisions based on the worst case scenario is what he should be saying here. They always respond to the worst case scenario, the description of the response with all the laughing and the lying and the deception of the general populace is based on the pretense that it is a worst case scenario response, even when he himself knows that a worst case scenario response is unnecessary. And while talking out of the other side of his mouth he says that I couldn't have possibly known that it wasn't going to kill very many people, I wasn't, I wasn't, I didn't have the data available, just like, just like, just like Fauci and Bill Gates have said that we couldn't have known that coronavirus was mostly going to kill old people, and was going to largely spare everybody that was healthy. It's the exact same scam. You cannot justify a worst case scenario response, every time, and then backpedal on it years later, after you've damaged the lives of and destroyed the lives of millions of people. They have done this slice my friends they have done this a fragment of the data that were available, or that would be available later on. It was turned into a scam, people were really making money out of it, and I think the Council of Europe played a very bad role in this. This is Wolfgang Wodarg and I want to shame him actually, because he in the Council of Europe had a motion for a recommendation, fake pandemics, a threat for health, basically said that all these, all these virologists, they all have money in their pockets, they're dishonest people, that's easy to say. This is when you Google for H1N1, of course there was a peak in October and November, you didn't hear Wodarg. That's easy to say, he says, you didn't hear Wolfgang Wodarg over here in the peak, you heard him here afterward, because again, the damage needs to be done before you can complain about it. The, the extraordinary situation of the contracts for pandemics across these countries wasn't exposed until after the SIOP was run. So this clown, this person is being very disingenuous when he says that Wolfgang Wodarg was being very smart because he had all the data afterward, and he didn't, and therefore you can't say that people were profiting, they had contracts with the WHO. The WHO is funded by those people's contracts. Those contracts were tied to declarations of a pandemic by the WHO. We need to get out of the WHO treaty, we need to get the WHO out of our lives. At that time, when you Google Wodarg, you see that it starts nicely after the pandemic. Unbelievable, unbelievable. People were very brave at the end of the pandemic. Unbelievable. That's not good. Then as time goes by, I still have one minute and 51 seconds, I would like to actually issue a warning. This all started in, well, April 2009, many years have passed. In fact, 3,560 days today, 508 weeks and almost 10 years have passed. And that has an impact because people are forgetting about the pandemics a little bit. This is when you look for influenza and pandemic in PubMed. Until 2003, 2004, there wasn't much. Then H5N1 came and some interest was raised. Then the 2009 pandemic arrived and there was a lot of interest. And that is what happened since. So the interest is, scientifically, is going down. Also, the leadership is changing. There he is. I recognize that guy. It's a big pandemic. I agree. But when we're moving farther away from 2009, that experience is being lost. At that time, Margaret Chan led the WHO, Tom Frieden, CDC, Suzanne Jakop, the ECDC. Well, we're now one or two directors further. And that experience from 2009, there have of course been other experiences, but that one is not there anymore. The same for the leadership, the political leadership. At that time, Obama, Brown, Sarkozy in Belgium, Van Rompuy were there. And well, we're two or three political leaders further down the road. And a lot of what was learned in 2009 has been sort of unlearned and would have to be invented. Well, there is still Angela Merkel and Apple Storehouse. Oh, that guy right there. That guy. We can always count on them. So are we ready for the for the next pandemic? I don't think we are. But I would say that pandemics are like a box of chocolates. And then I would like to invoke the words of the philosopher Forrest Gump. You never know what you're going to get. Thank you. There he is. That guy right there. That dude right there that's standing up in the chair. That guy is Osterhaus, the dude that we just watched. Give a fist pump in the black vest and red shirt for fear and dare take million doses from the swine flu vaccine. The very same campaign that this guy is retrospectively describing. He would be the Dutch guy who did that, not the Dutch spokesperson for the flu commissioner or whatever. He is the dude who made money. His lab made money. He's advocating for stockpiling of flu vaccines. That's the guy right there. He's still busy. Even now, for this pandemic, he was on Dutch News regularly telling us about how it could never have been a lab leak. The same guy. The specialization should make you suspicious because if it's gotten harder to evaluate what's going on, then it's presumably gotten easier for people to lie and to exaggerate.

Why don't we blow the system up? I mean, obviously, we can't just turn off the spigot on the system we have and then say, hey, everyone in the world should get this new vaccine we haven't given to anyone yet. But there must be some way that we grow vaccines mostly in eggs the way we did in 1947. In order to make the transition from getting out of the tried and true egg growing, which we know gives us results that can be, you know, beneficial. I mean, we've done well with that to something that has to be much better. You have to prove that this works.

What has to be much better? RNA has to be much better. That's what he's talking about here right before the start of the pandemic in October of 2019, one month after the vaping disease pandemic started or epidemic started and peaked in America. One month after it is presumed that the virus started leaking by the standard alternative theory. Now is September 2019. That's not my idea. That's the gain of function people's idea. That's Andrew Huff's idea. So it leaked about a month before this video as they describe something that must be better, which is mRNA, the thing that he has invested billions of dollars in for more than a decade before this date.

And then you've got to go through all of the clinical trials, phase ones, phase twos, phase three, and then show that this particular product is going to be good over a period of years. That alone, if it works perfectly, is going to take a decade. There might be a need or even an urgent call for an entity of excitement out there that's completely disruptive, that's not beholden to bureaucratic strings and processes. So we really do have a problem of how the world perceives influenza, and it's going to be very difficult to change that unless you do it from within and say, I don't care what your perception is, we're going to address the problem in a disruptive way and in an iterative way.

So he's really talking exactly about doing this, about shifting away from a flu vaccine, grown in eggs, to shifting to a different kind of vaccine that has to be better, and we don't care what you think about flu and respiratory virus, we don't care what you think about the existing system, we need to change it from within, and we will change it in an iterative step-by-step manner in the way that we want to change it. That's what he's saying. Rick Bright is telling you that we're going to need some kind of disruptive entity that allows us to do this. Keeping in mind that a month earlier, according to Andrew Huff, a month earlier, according to the Wall Street Journal, there were outbreaks in Wuhan of a novel pandemic pneumonia. There was an increase in the smoke from the incinerators that Andrew Huff correlated on his computer to show that there were deaths happening at the same time of the peak of the vaping disease that had all kinds of young people sick from what looked like ARDS. Cotton candy lung, it was called sometimes, and other times it was just called ground glass opacities. But these were not respiratory disease, these were not SARS-CoV-2, these had nothing to do with it, even though, ladies and gentlemen, you need to be aware of the fact that this plan has been planned, it has been developed, it has been discussed over roundtables, it has been rehearsed over exercises, it has been executed over previous pandemics, and what we have experienced over the last three years is the latest iteration in this worst-case scenario response. You do need both. But it is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of a novel avian virus could occur in China somewhere. We could get the RNA sequence from that, beam it to a number of regional centers, if not local, if not even in your home at some point, and print those vaccines on a patch and self-administer. The printing on a patch and self-administering didn't occur, but that's again the, you know, there's got to be some smoke and mirrors in all this talk. So I had a YouTube channel and was a member of a group called Drastic in 2020. That group was only revealed to the public artificially in 2021. The group was founded by someone by the name of Billy Bo Stixson on Twitter, and the reason why I say that is because it had to be, because Twitter groups are only founded by one person, who invited me and everyone else to the group that later was called Drastic, was Billy Bo Stixson, a foreign national whose identity we still do not know, who didn't care at all that Tucker Carlson gave him no credit for having started the group. Lancet led her to censor anyone on social media who mentioned the possibility of a lab leak. It can't be true. The Lancet says it's not true. 27 eminent scientists say it's not true. Only a few scientists in the face of all of this dare to speak up. One of them was called Gilles DeMeneuve. He formed a group of researchers called Drastic. No. That's an acronym for Decentralized Radical Autonomous Search Teams. Billy Bo Stixson did. Something that all scientists should be. Jamie Metzel, the former NSC official, soon joined the group. No. He never joined. Almost immediately, as early as April of last year, it was becoming clear to Metzel that the lab leak theory was not a conspiracy theory. When are those videos from over there? Does that say February 21st? That was my third ride already. Based on what I've read and logic, I would bet it's most likely this was an accidental leak from a lab. So it turns out that Metzel wasn't exactly speculating on that. Unlike the scientific establishment, he and Drastic had evidence that they had bothered to gather. They found that the official scientific consensus had in fact been doctored at the source. In one instance, they discovered that Xi Zhengli, the bat lady in Wuhan, had collected samples of a bat coronavirus that were virtually identical to COVID-19. Where did she get these samples? Well, she found them in a cave in the Yunnan province in China. Several miners had been killed there after inhaling the bat guano left by these bats. Lancet let her to censor anyone. There you go. So there you have the basic gist of how this all was shuffled. And that convinced me that, wow, this is really a lab leak. And they're trying to split America and the world based on a discussion about a lab leak or a natural virus. And I was firmly on, it's a natural virus. Of course it is. Jeffrey Sachs. I don't know whether this came from nature or a marketplace or a laboratory. I know that you're seeing this again, but it's important. But I can tell you, two years into this commission report, the US government knows more than it's telling us. And it is redacting the information. In other words, rather than... And so you feel as though in the mainstream media, people are figuring this out. So you invented the phantom virus, hoping it would scare Eric away. Just like a Scooby-Doo episode. That's right. It is a Scooby-Doo episode. You guys showed up. You were afraid that we would find out who created the virus. So you beamed us into cyberspace. The prize would have been all mine. The idea... Us meddling kids. The idea was to convince you that this was a gain of function virus that spread around the world as the result of ill-advised experiments. So that you would believe that there still is a coronavirus going around the world, infecting millions of people, creating variants and morphing and ever-changing, escaping immune memory of the vaccine that has saved millions so far. They want you to think you've solved the problem by first thinking, well, maybe it's about you as a bad... maybe he was a good guy. But now maybe... I don't know if he's such a good guy or not. Maybe... Hmm. Interesting. No. They are fooling you into coming to this conclusion because they don't want you to know the truth. Because the principle of informed consent requires understanding. Listen carefully to Mr. Peter Thiel.

Scientific questions, I think, are very hard to get a handle on. And the reason for this is that in late modernity, which we're living in, there's simply too much knowledge for any individual human to understand all of it. And so in this world of extreme hyper-specialization, where it's narrower and narrower subsets of experts policing themselves and talking about how great they are, the string theorists talking about how great string theory is, the cancer researchers talking about how they're just about to cure cancer, the quantum computer researchers are just about to build a quantum computer that will be a massive breakthrough. And then if you were to say that all these fields, not much is happening, people just don't have the authority for this. This is somehow a very different feel for science or knowledge than you would have had in 1800 or even in 1900. In 1800, Goethe could still understand just about everything. In 1900, Hilbert could still understand just about all of it. What I would like to argue is that he's kind of wrong about this because in the current state of affairs, not understanding all of science means more like not being able to absorb all the wrong information that's out there and still not listed as wrong. Because the Popperian model of science is that you can't ever prove anything right or wrong. You always got to check again. And the use of p-values in science has muddied the water of all theories to where nothing can be certain anymore. And so we never really make any progress, which is what he's really describing there when he says cancer researchers are about to make a breakthrough. They've been about to make a breakthrough for 20 years. And the same goes with the heart disease people and the Alzheimer's disease people and the consciousness people. And all of these fields that he's talking about are about to have some kind of epiphany moment or singularity moment where we're just going to be, it's just everything's going to be solved. These things are illusions. And they are illusions that have been generated by the Academy magicians that work in our universities and the people that direct the funding to them. I'm looking at you, Tony Fauci. I'm looking at you, Francis Collins. I'm looking at all of these NIH people. A lot of them mean well, a lot of them don't. And we need to sort that out because right now we are at a stage where we can't really evaluate what's true and what's false because they can lie. And so even really smart people like Chris Martinson can get fooled into the Scooby-Doo and think that, wow, because of these emails, it's obvious that this was a lab leak. I believe that Chris Martinson still thinks that Omicron was also released from a laboratory, maybe even by a friendly person, which is so absurd and so far from parsimony. Let's have five viruses from a lab instead of none, instead of viruses that were already endemic, instead of infectious clones that were seeded around the United States and the world in order to give us the impression that this was happening. Thank goodness Chris Martinson is still on board with the blood clots and the possibilities that these transfections are causing damage to people. But he, like many others, like Bret Weinstein and a lot of others, they think they know. They think that a coronavirus that was produced in a laboratory is capable of going around the world for three years. They believe that. And that is because they don't understand. And that's not their fault. They have been working against this machine that has made sure that they thought the seductive narrative of the Scooby-Doo was definitely what happened. The political cut I have on the specialization is always that if you analyze the politics of science, the specialization should make you suspicious. Because if it's gotten harder to evaluate what's going on, then it's presumably gotten easier for people to lie and to exaggerate. And then one should be a little bit suspicious. And that's sort of my starting bias. That's his starting bias. That's my starting bias. That's where I live now. I live under this pretense that there is a reason why they are doing this. There's a reason why they have done this. And that reason has to do with the amount of genetic data that's available on the planet now and the need to collect it. I played this for you the other day. Imagine this future where every single baby is sequenced at birth, where we can get all this genomic information that physicians can then use to provide not only treatment recommendations, but also health care monitoring recommendations to the families. This information can be used for treatment options, for providing patients with the ability to access clinical trials in a way that is unprecedented. Obviously, this information can also lead to some family planning opportunities, genetic counseling, health care planning, and so on and so forth. Importantly, in this potential future, the data that we get from babies can be used to monitor longitudinally the phenotype of these people and patients over time and collectively get all this genomic information to continue to understand what's the clinical impact of genomic data. They need millions of genomes, my friend. Millions of genomes in order for them to succeed in what they think they're going to do. Let's listen to Craig Venter explain what they're going to do and how close they are to understanding the human genome. Introduce who? And I thought, you know, does anyone actually need Dr. Venter to be introduced? And I think we could talk about, you know, the fact that you've been a fire starter and a renegade for your whole career. You've done things people, you know, have said could not be done. And you've inspired a whole generation of geneticists and biologists and physicists and health entrepreneurs, doctors, with your science and your ability to harness technology to understand the potential of our DNA. So my first question is, where are we in terms of collecting and parsing the data that will be required to really understand the human genome? That's a good question. So not as far along as most people think. It's still extremely early. We're somewhere still around 1 percent of the knowledge that will be ultimately obtained. And that's already an exaggeration. We're not even at 1 percent yet. It's a joke. That's the basis of why we started Human Longevity, is that we could collect hopefully tens of millions of genomes, but in conjunction having phenotype and clinical records on every person. And we're using machine learning to make correlations between them. So it's the way discoveries are being made in the genome is the way genetics has been done for the last century. And it's very slow, tedious. And I would say at least half, if not 80 to 90 percent, of the papers published in this field are wrong. Wow. And we made a fundamental decision when we started HLI. Well, would we use the literature to validate our data, or would we use our database to validate the literature? And we were glad we chose the latter, because our team has found as much of a third of ClinVar, which is the reference everybody uses for annotating their genomes, is just riddled with false data. So there's all kinds of false data out there, says Craig Venter. And we're less than 1 percent of the way of understanding anything to do with the human genome. And we only have a few hundred of them fully sequenced at best. He's going to tell you in a minute they only have 3,000 genomes correlated with like MRI and a bunch of other measurements. And he's actually interested in building a database, and people pay money to be sequenced and then scanned and then added to this database that he wants to make big enough so that third parties like pharmaceutical companies will want to buy the results of the database, the output of the database. He's talking about exactly what I've been talking about, which is the amount of diversity that's on the planet right now and available in America in the form of college-age kids is never going to be available again in the history of mankind. And the COVID tests, after they are sequenced for their presumed PCR amplicons are remnants, and those remnants still have human DNA on them from a single individual which can be sequenced. In fact, those remnants from all the university testing that was done, all the neighborhood testing that was done, all of the tests that were done, those remnants can be sold legally to third parties that want to use those remnants for genetic analysis. And they have been sold for genetic analysis at several universities in the United States to do exactly what this guy is talking about, to take those genes, those genetic, those genomes, and correlate them back to the EPIC database, which is the largest medical database in America, and a lot of these college kids will be in it. There are many different aspects of the pandemic narrative that are false. There are many aspects of the pandemic theater that are false, but they have specific real objectives in mind. The testing of college students regularly wasn't necessary, but the testing of college students regularly provided a source of the data that this guy is describing, their desperate need of. I think you need to see that this is going to come to a head very soon as more and more universities have whistleblowers and more and more university students realize what has been done to them. And it will happen if you keep sharing the stream and you keep spreading the word. That's what they're doing to us. And the principle of informed consent, it does require your understanding. You've got to know what's going on. And so for me, the key to this was thinking about which of these biological phenomena have pandemic potential, a virus, a quasi-species, or an infectious clone. And once you understand what an infectious clone is and how it is manufactured, you will understand that it represents a level of purity and a potential level of infectivity that can't exist in the viral quasi-species that are found in nature. What do I think was done to us is described in this video right here. This is what I think was done to us. ...exists within the medical range and how we're able to treat a variety of neurological disorders targeting the brain, being able to get in there more specifically, affect certain neural cancers, etc. And what we can do with some of these drugs is we can also use these techniques that we're learning on the pharmaceutical side to modify certain bugs. And we spoke earlier about a technique that's become very well-known, CRISPR-Cas9, that allows us to literally modify bugs in a variety of different ways. So I now may be able to take a relatively harmless microbiological agent, a bacterium or a virus, do some gene editing, and make this thing far more morbidly viable, make it far more virulent, and in some cases even make it far more lethal. But I don't want lethality, at least not necessarily. What I want is high morbidity. I want people to complain. So what do I do? I go to Des Moines. Ladies and gentlemen, the people on the screen, I have nothing against Des Moines. I lived there for four years. I go to Des Moines. I infect a couple of Sentinel cases in Des Moines. I go to Seattle. I infect a couple of cases there. I go to North Carolina. I go to Wisconsin. What I'm doing is I'm using a dispersion methodology to be able to infect Sentinel cases with a highly morbid condition. These individuals complain. Again, this is a central nervous system condition. So they're complaining of whatever the bug may do. It'll produce some cascade of neurological and neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms. And then what I do, the real bug that I use, is the internet. I take attribution for that. Yes, I'm a terrorist group. And I have done this by infecting with a highly lethal agent, and the first signs and symptoms of lethality are X, Y, and Z. These people are really sick with this. But then I say, others who are also infected will show pre-dromal signs of lethality, and what that will be is anxiety, sleeplessness, education. Asymptomatic transmission. Asymptomatic transmission. What I've now done is I've got every individual who's diagnostically hypochondriacal, and I've got every individual who's the worried well flooding the public health system banging on the door. The CDC comes back and says, nonsense, that's not real. I come back and say, that's fake news. And as a consequence of doing that, what I do is I create a schism between the polis and the public health system. I fracture the integrity of trust and reliance upon the population and its government. And of course, I'll be able to then incur a ripple effect. And if you want to see what this looks like in action, all you need is look back at those days prior to or post 9-11 when individuals were sort of sending white powder through the mail and everything was anthrax. Real story. We had a scare at my institution, and I was at Houston at that time, at my institution, where they literally called in the public safety works, the fire department and EMTs, because someone had spilled equal the sugar all over a set of envelopes and left it in the mail room. Panic. All exists within the medical. So what we are talking about here is a carefully orchestrated plan that would allow the execution of a worldwide worst case scenario response. This plan likely included the use of infectious clones. It would produce a uniform set of symptoms and a uniform set of PCR positives in a number of different places in the world. And the overall prevalence of disease in those places would have been directly related to the amount of the clone that was released or perhaps how it was released. One of the things that has put forward is that seen a Bavari and other people had noticeable patents and publications describing various applications of virus like particles, aerosolized DNA and RNA. And so there's a number of different ways that as Dr. Giordano just explained to you, a pandemic could seem to be seeded in a number of places, perhaps by the contamination of certain supply chains. I think we know of someone who has some expertise on the, the, the contamination of supply chains by the name of Huff and Puff. And so there are a lot of disparate threads that are starting to line up that are starting to point to an action in 2019. That was known to occur, known to be there, understood in the background, but presented as the Belgian guy did presented as the Belgian guy would have had he had the chance as a single novel cause of death to roll up all the disparate unrelated, undescribed, unvaccinated, ununpreventable respiratory disease, because flu couldn't do it. Fauci just explained to you that, I don't know, they just don't really have an appreciation for flu anymore. In this video is where I started talking about this and what's really happening and that the likelihood that flu just disappeared or that pneumonia just got out of control is very, very unlikely. And instead, what is most likely is a very small number of these people, maybe a few thousand died of a real respiratory virus, maybe tens of thousands were infected by a real respiratory virus generated through an infectious clone. This allowed for a brief period of time where PCR positivity would have been real, a brief period of time where sequencing might have been real. Maybe even a brief period of time where some of the sickness and spread was real. But at a certain moment in time, this went back into the background. The background of previous coronavirus is the background of previous respiratory syncytial virus flu and everything else. And with the continued misuse of PCR, they have been able to extend this pandemic indefinitely by the continued pushing of a gain of function viral narrative. They have been able to sustain the fear and uncertainty so that lots and lots of people still think they've kind of figured it out, have kind of seen people confess, have kind of seen the eventual truth come out. And it's not out yet. You can find a little bit of this discussion. I still think it's a really good one with me and Matt there on rounding the earth. There's something changed here and it wasn't a novel cause of death. I think another person to really pay attention to is Dennis Rancor. You can find his work on ResearchGate. He has been able to convincingly show using a number of publicly available databases in places like Canada and America and India. There are many signs of number one, the change in protocol in response to respiratory disease may be a primary cause of death throughout the pandemic. And also that the the rollout of transfection seems to have added to that all cause mortality that was not present as a result of some novel virus. And so what I've been trying to explain for a very long time is that the TV narrative wants you to believe that when you get infected with a virus, it's a single virus and it goes into your lungs and it replicates. And when it replicates, it makes many perfect copies of itself. But that's not how this works. And in fact, it's a lot more complicated than that. Most of the particles are actually non their their their non replication competent particles. And the generation of these particles is not well understood, mostly, I think, because virology as their head in the sand. Virology wants you to believe that they understand exactly how viruses replicate. And they want you to believe that their experiments prove that they understand how viruses replicate. And I'm making the argument that that's not in any way, shape or form true. And I think that's part of the reason why I might have something to say to some of these no virus people that they might like to hear, but they don't want to listen. Because they are right about a lot of things. They are right a lot about about the inconsistencies and incongruencies in the data about the immune system in the data about coronavirus infections, respiratory. In fact, they are they're right, but they're not right about there's no viruses at all. That would require them to come up with an alternative explanation for decades of molecular biology data, which can't be all wrong. It has to be misinterpreted and the no virus position takes the stance that all of that data is incorrect or fake or wrong rather than misinterpreted. And that's why the no virus stance in my humble opinion is a very it's an untenable stance to take if you're not going to bring science to the table and give hours and hours of lectures explaining the things that they purport to explain. Instead, they rely solely on or almost exclusively on this idea that they FOIA requested records about isolation, not even understanding that if you request records that don't exist, then they can't give you any of those records. They can't make records for you. So just because no records exist that fits your description doesn't mean that the coronavirus doesn't exist that there isn't a there isn't an infectious clone behind this that there isn't an operation behind this that there isn't real molecular biology behind the sequences. But the sequences are based on this. This real representation of what a viral swarm infection looks like. That's why the sequences are erroneous. They're not likely to be all right. That's why DTRA recorded and controlled the production of all those sequences. And so the TV would have you believe that bat viruses from a cave or viruses that are passage in a laboratory or viruses that are passage through animals can change from being natural to being pandemic potential viruses. And this is part of their gain of function mythology. Because if you believe this, then the transfection can't be that bad. If you believe that viruses have infinite potential to kill billions of people, and that molecular biologists like Andrew Huff with the right equipment in northern Michigan could make a gain of function virus of his own. If you believe that, then the uncertainty and fear under which you live is so overwhelming that you're not going to be able to disbelieve the rest of the stuff on TV, they know that. Add that in that that somebody could use CRISPR Cas9 to create a new bug. And now you've created a mythology that can't be dispelled anymore, both inside the secret meetings and outside the secret meetings in the private newsroom and in the public facing newscast. That's what you're seeing here. If none of these things are real. And the only thing that's real is infectious clones, then you know that the only way this happened is through man intended operation orchestrated by some group of people. It's not an accident. It can't be an accident because if it was an accident, it would not have resulted in a pandemic. It would not have resulted in simultaneous global infection of people with a highly homogenized agent. It's not possible. You see, but there's lots of evidence that all kinds of weird stuff started happening in 2019. Not only is there evidence of things happening in 2019, but there's people on the internet behaving crazy in 2019. Brett Weinstein and Sam Harris talking about how the next pandemic we won't be able to tolerate anti-vaxxers anymore. Rick Bright talking about how we might need a disruptive entity. An avian flu virus might break out in China and we would beam the sequence around the world in 2019. I think we were bamboozled. I think we were scooby-dooed into believing that this stuff. These molecular signatures that the Indians found, the fusion inhibitors that they obviously knew about for a long time, were they real? Or is this also part of this bamboozlement? Part of this story of super technology and cure-alls like a universal coronavirus inhibitory protein that you could inhale. What an interesting mythology that is. It could be right. It could be true. It could be part of the things that they covered up. I'm not sure. But I do know that there's plenty of examples of people explaining how exaggeration is useful. How lying to the populace in order to get them to execute faithfully a worst-case scenario disaster plan. They've admitted to doing this. So you have to assume, you have to start from that standpoint that they did that here too. And if you start from that standpoint, then you understand that they scooby-dooed us. They fooled us into believing this had to be a virus. Fauci must be responsible for this. They fooled us into believing this so that they could convert our individual sovereignty into a national security priority that they could override. Everything. National security overriding everything. It's still happening now. They wanted us to believe that all this stuff was going on in the background and that they concealed and denied it. They want you to believe that there was some kind of live attenuated vaccine candidate. And that if that escaped, it might de-attenuate and go nuts. RNA viruses don't work like that. And it doesn't matter how many stories we came up with or how well they orchestrated it. Even the way they promoted Alina Chan's book and didn't promote Alina Chan's data, it just disappeared. It's all part of the same bamboozlement to try and get you to believe that this is a lab virus and that a lab virus, if released, could go around the world. That's why I show that video all the time. That's what they've been doing to us. That's what this is all about. That's what this whole operation is. And you heard him say it many times on this stream. It is the oversimplification of the immune system, the oversimplification of the immune response as they talk out of both sides of their mouths for vaccines versus vaccine injury for versus disease versus whatever. It's all upside down. And they've done this by changing how you think. They have changed how you think. And they've convinced you that these things are real when they're really not. They've changed how you think about all-cause mortality. They've changed how you think about the coronavirus swarm. That's what's represented here. Instead of there being lots of different causes for respiratory disease and lots of different causes for death, they've tried to convince you that there's only really one cause, suspected coronavirus and coronavirus deaths. That's it. Flu disappeared. RSV disappeared, right? They just disappeared for two years. Now they're back. It's a triple-demic. They changed the way you think about your immune system so that only antibodies work. They have not shown you the difference between linked recognition in the context of a novel infection versus how it works with this transfection. And that's because they don't want you to understand. If you understood, you wouldn't take the countermeasure. You would exercise your informed consent to decline because of the lack of perceived beneficence. You've got to compare infection to transfection to understand why they're completely different, to understand why these are different than the regular vaccines that are already bad. The regular vaccines that can cause the bolus injury, that can cause the injury to the gut and blood-brain barrier, the injuries that include the gut-related autism in these children, but also include a whole host of other symptoms that occur in teenagers and young adults that take other vaccines besides the MMR, besides the polio, besides the vaccines that have been associated with various injuries. We're starting tomorrow with watching the movie Vax because if you haven't seen it, you need to see it. You need to understand that at some point in time, you are going to know the truth about the vaccination schedule in the West. You are going to know the truth about the vaccination schedule in the United States. Even a year ago, ladies and gentlemen, I don't think I was questioning my own kids vaccines. It brings me almost to tears to think that I injected both of my boys for this school year in both arms. But I will confess to you right now, I am full on never injecting any of my children again. And so if you want to know where I am on the scale of this thing, I am here. I know in my heart of hearts that the operation at hand here is to take away your kids sovereignty over their own bodies, to take away your kids right to privacy, to take away your kids right to their genetic and medical data because they're planning to harvest it all under the pretense of national security. Because if they don't do it and the Chinese do it, then we're going to be in big trouble because the Chinese will have biotechnologies that we can't even dream of and AI technologies that we can't even dream of because we weren't collecting the data like they are. And they are collecting our data. They are taking our data. They've already collected our face from the Sony face cam for 10 years. Everything has been collected already. America is behind in these secret meetings, so we've got to double down. And we're going to use this pandemic to do it. That's what I think is happening here, ladies and gentlemen. I think they played us. I think they played us all. You can find me on GigaOhmBiological or You can also find me at Please stop all transfections in humans. It's really time that this end. We shouldn't really be talking about it anymore, but we still are, which is pretty impressive to me. I don't know how to say it any other way. It's pretty impressive. Please stop transfections in humans. The number one danger is still the elimination of the control group. I'm sure of it. I'm sorry that I'm a little bit juggly on these slides. It's still getting my rig ready to go. Can you tell me, is the stream still in sync? That would be a first. This has been GigaOhmBiological. It's a high resistance, low noise information stream brought to you by a biologist. If I have my way, you're going to see me a lot more this year. I'll probably see you tomorrow morning for a study hall. Study hall is going to be what we're going to call, what I was calling office hours. Office hours will be very specifically question and answer only. We're not going to do that too often, but study hall we're going to be doing every day, probably multiple times every day in 2023. I don't know what to tell you other than Greg is still behind me and Rodney is still behind me and Bobby is still behind me. So just share the stream and watch it all happen because we're going to win this year or succeed or something. I don't know what it is. Thank you all very much for joining me. I'm really excited. Thanks. Sync is so good. I'm so happy. See you guys soon. Thank you. Thanks, guys. Thanks a lot.