REFERENCE

Howdy, Doc, how are you? I'm good, Chris, and thanks for the, thanks for the short abrupt intro as I'm still clicking buttons in the background we're streaming, but I wanna just send out a couple more alerts that we just do that. But if I could just hand back to you for two seconds, Chris. Yeah, we can handle it on our end. Yeah, we're just glad that you're all here today. And what the end result of today is, is we want you to have a little more knowledge about what's really happening right from the people who can see it happening. One thing we can't do as normal citizens is we can't have access to all these fine laboratory, pieces of fine laboratory equipment where we can actually get down into the nooks and crannies and see what we're dealing with.

Okay, so I'll slowly hit some alerts as I'm going on, but what I will say is that our ability to do that type of science that you're talking about, which has been critical for addressing the most lurid and obvious to me psychological operations and I've got Johanna coming in, that's great, was to be able to sort of approach, what was the biggest one, graphene oxide was the huge counter-narrative being injected into the public discourse and anyone who was trying to take an injection did public discourse and anyone who was trying to take an interest and follow what was going on at the time or still now even, but I'm hoping that we've actually finally put a bullet in that particular zombie's skull and it's shuffled off and we can now focus on bigger problems, but we were able to do that through people stepping forward and doing the science publicly and in a transparent manner and for that I wanna just say again, thank you to listeners and people who have stepped forward with support and we've got more coming because we will be able to look at the, I wouldn't call it pharmacology, I would call it genotoxicity of the quote-unquote vaccines, I'm careful about what I say, I'm still going out on YouTube, but that's something that maybe we'll discuss a bit later in the round table today, but if people wanna ask questions about the graphene, I'm more than happy to go over that work, but yeah, that's what I've been doing and if someone else wants to say hi to the camera, that would be wonderful. Well, you can introduce who we do have here right now, we have Spartacus is here, Dr. John Hayden here. So I'll say their names and they can introduce themselves because they each have a rich backstory that I'm not gonna do justice. So Spartacus, well, I'm hoping Charles will still turn up Charles Rixey, but in the meantime, Spartacus, please. Hey, how's it going?

Yeah, I've been researching COVID-19 since late January, early February, 2020 and initially, I started digging into COVID-19 pathology because I felt that a lot of these cases that we were seeing were not being treated correctly.

There was an opportunity for, like Peter McCullough said, there was an opportunity for early outpatient treatment for a lot of these patients, but they squandered it. They squandered it, the official protocols essentially for treating COVID-19 patients throughout 2020 was if someone came into the ER complaining of COVID-19 symptoms, they just told them to go home and get bed rest and then they'd come back with like, some of them would come back with severe COVID-19 and the sepsis like symptoms that that causes and then they'd do their early prone invent and pump them up full of steroids and stuff. And I don't believe that that was the correct thing to do in this instance, because well, what I discovered digging into the literature behind SARS-CoV-2 was that, you know, this disease causes injury to blood vessels via oxidative stress. I mean, very, very serious injury in the small capillaries and the alveoli.

You know, what you're looking at here essentially is oxidative cascade. The virus has what are called viral porins.

They're proteins that assist the virus in altering the cellular environment essentially to kind of enhance viral replication and so on. So SARS-CoV-2 has these two proteins, the envelope and the 3A proteins that behave as calcium ion channels. And they draw calcium into cells and you can actually see this severely ill COVID-19 patients have hypocalcemia. They have low blood calcium levels. And what happens with this is that you end up with the cells having their intracellular calcium pathway activity increased, which increases cellular respiration, increases reactive oxygen species production and so on.

And that requires some explanation as well. When people talk about oxidative stress and antioxidants and the like, what they're actually talking about is free radical damage.

A reactive oxygen species is a molecule that is missing a valence electron and it wants to replace that valence electron by stripping it out of molecules in the environment. And that process is called oxidation. It's the same exact chemical reaction behind combustion and rust, but it can also happen to fats inside the body. It can happen to lipids, it can happen to cell membranes, cardiolipin, polyunsaturated fatty acids, you know, the lipids even in someone's diet. As on cholesterol, these can all be oxidized. So, and the body does not like oxidized fats.

Oxidized fats, oxidized lipids, actually the body produces autoantibodies against them. They're called oxidation-specific epitopes.

This is something you see in autoimmune diseases like lupus because of the granulocytes, the, you know, like neutrophils and so on are releasing neutrophil extracellular traps that have these damaging enzymes that produce radicals. And then those radicals, oxidized lipids, and then the oxidized lipids have autoantibodies formed against them. So this is something that you also potentially see in COVID-19. Really the end stage of severe COVID-19 is essentially sepsis, iron overload, ferroptosis, parthenatose, and so on. So what you're actually seeing here is iron-induced lipid peroxidation and cell death from that. When they put someone on a ventilator, what that does is that actually introduces more oxygen to this reactive oxygen species storm. You end up with cells that were undergoing like transient ischemia that they have, like they were hypoxic and went into anaerobic respiration.

Those cells have a buildup of hypoxanthine. And then when they revert to aerobic respiration, xanthine oxidase produces, it breaks down that hypoxanthine and produces superoxide radicals. So you end up with more free radical damage.

Those radicals also attack glucocorticoid receptors and cause steroid insensitivity. So if you have someone that's producing radicals, it's making those cells insensitive to steroids. Now you have inflammatory rebound and so on. So, and I believe 100% that this was treatable with antioxidants to some extent, I mean, to some extent, probably. It provided that they had good bioavailability. Maybe they could deliver something with a nebulizer to someone. But N-acetylcysteine, glycine, raising glutathione levels, selenium, and so on, increasing endogenous antioxidant activity is the way to counteract this.

This could have been- Sorry to interrupt, but these were all treatments that were denied to the public to the point where quite mysteriously in the U.S., they took NAC off the cells and N-acetylcysteine. Yes, I have a paper that states unequivocally that there is therapeutic potential of N-acetylcysteine and glycine in treating COVID-19.

Because what they found consistently was that these people with severe COVID-19 had depleted endogenous antioxidant pools. They had low glutathione levels, low vitamin D, low blood calcium, where'd the calcium go? So it's, and they had elevated nitrotirozine, which is evidence, it's an oxidative stress marker and evidence that peroxynitrite is present.

And then they also had low nitric oxide levels. Nitric oxide is constantly, and for the sake of the audience, nitric oxide is constantly produced by endothelial nitric oxide synthase.

It dilates and relaxes blood vessels and lowers your blood pressure. You can actually raise your nitric oxide levels in your blood vessels by nose breathing, believe it or not. Another way to raise nitric oxide levels is to consume dietary nitrate, like through the interior salivary nitrate pathway, that's leafy greens, beets, and so on, that raises your nitric oxide levels. So- I don't wanna stop you mid-flow.

We should, Johanna was having tech problems. I don't know if those are resolved, but we should just bring Johanna in as well. She's other, is it working?

Hey, I hope it's working. Yes, we hear you perfectly, Johanna. So, before we get more into the nuts and bolts there, because as far as it was, just hit the nitrous button for whatever, excuse the pun, and we're off. So, Johanna, why don't you introduce yourself and we'll go, we'll build on, well, what, Barkas was saying, I keep, careful, try not to say your name, Barkas, sorry.

Yes, thank you. My name is Dr. Johanna Deinert. I'm a physician, practicing frontline physician from Germany, meaning general practitioner, and I have a thesis in virology. So, I'm involved in the whole COVID since I was expecting it or observing it already in 2019, but started to research in January when we were informed about the SARS related origin. So, as I said, I'm a physician, and I was listening to what Spartacus just said, because exactly that is what I also found out and what I focused on, the pathomechanism, because when you have an alleged or supposedly new disease, then as a physician, you need to understand it. So, I can confirm what Spartacus said. I think we briefly touched, maybe during the first times, but actually the vascular, the inflammation of the vessels is one of the things that really alarmed me in the early days because of the, because of the, let's say malpractice of early ventilation, as Spartacus said, and we had, in our city, we had autopsy done in the early COVID cohorts.

It was, I think it was worldwide, the first autopsy cases. So, we had the information that we had this clotting disease rather than the respiratory inflammation only in, let's say, April, May, 2020.

So, I think to break it down, the attack on early treatment, like you said, with NAC and also hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and the herbals, like I was focusing on flavonoids, which are antioxidants, but they also have capacity in directly inhibiting non-structural viral enzymes. So, that was what I found early, and I can only support, and from the other side of the big point, say it's exactly what I've seen.

And actually, I treat my patients, if they have problems, still with NAC and antioxidants, mainly, I have had none of the patients that I treated that went to hospital. I got them sometimes in a later phase when the oxygen started to drop, and sometimes it's just the treatment with the herbals and anti-curriculants helps them to come out of the decline within 25 hours, 24 hours or something. But this watch and wait only take pain medication.

I have the impression that was the moment that really went against my oath. So, that's the point where I have to raise my voice and where I got in contact with Kevin, and that's where I would open up to back to Spartacus. They told people, I'm sorry to interrupt, but they told people to take Tylenol. Yes. Acetaminophen depletes glutathione. It actually lowers people's antioxidant levels. It's the exact opposite of what people should be doing.

Well, maybe that's why I got such an ass kicking from it because they mix acetaminophen into any and all other painkillers, right? I don't know why they do that. Pretty much, yeah.

If you're on the next level up with respect to requiring pain control, which I am, why can't you just get Traumacet without acetaminophen in?

Why do you have to have the liver damaging glutathione depleting cocktail given with it? And even as a sort of long-term strategy, you remove the ability to derive any therapeutic benefit from when you could use acetaminophen at a more acute phase, right?

I don't know, maybe Ioanna has a, what's the thinking in medicine?

Doc said he's gonna be here in about five minutes. Oh, wonderful. We can get to the legal law fair as well.

Yeah, it's a shame. I was really hoping Charles would be here to lead us into the talk about censorship, which is where we should be taking this. And we'll get into the next generation, well, next generation warfare as a pass-a-term. We'd sort of settled on neuro warfare as a catch-all for what's being rolled out on people right now. So that's good that he's coming, because he can at least speak to what can be done at a US level in making sure that you have informed consent.

And both him and Spartacus are far more of a fay than I am with some of the ne'er-do-wells on the American political circuit, political science.

I don't know where that nexus meets.

But the, yes, Spartacus, you were actually kind of, I interrupted you, so.

Sorry, Bright, it's a bugbear of mine.

Just short for the painkillers. It's one of the most used medication and one of the worst thing to treat as an MD, because you don't have any painkillers without trade-offs.

So I had more, I was concerned about the anti-rheumatic painkillers, like ibuprofen, because there were rumors about that many of the hospitalized had taken that in Europe.

And there are metabolic pathways shared with the ACE2 pathways, the regulation of the blood pressure. And so it's always when you use painkillers, you have to weigh off the risks and benefits. And so I have thought a lot about it because of the opioid crisis in the U.S. And in Europe, we don't have such a big opioid crisis in the U.S. and in Europe, we don't have such a big opioid crisis.

But we use metamizol, so it's forbidden in the U.S.

I'm sorry, could you say that again, metformin you mean? No, metamizol.

Okay, what type of drug is that?

It's also a COXA inhibition, but it's forbidden in the U.S.

because you can have a depletion of blood cells if you take it on control, but it's an alternative COXA inhibitor in a way.

So it's not making so many gastrointestinal bleeding problems like aspirin. And so it's hard with painkillers, but to just tell someone to go home with Tylenol, in my perspective, in liver transplant, and guess what, in liver transplant, we gave Tylenol because metamizol and the ibuprofen had two sensitive side effects on the kidneys. So there are trade-offs. So it's- But why the need to add it to, I get why Tramadol is, they've pushed that as an opioid alternative, right? I get the reasoning behind, they don't wanna give people codeine and derivatives of codeine, et cetera. And I guess you do get them at the sort of later stages, but why can't you just get the pure forms? Why aren't they used more often than what we do see?

I'm failing to see the sort of medical reason, but that it lowers the amount of Tramadol that you do need. Is that the reasoning here? It's considered safe and therefore it's better to have the cocktail. Why do that?

Usually you combine a peripheral and a central anti-pain effect. So I can just guess that they put it in for these reasons.

We don't have it. We have single medications here, so. Okay, that's, oh, well, my bug bears, my grumbling liver always shouting at me, stop it, get a single form. Get the- I think it's, sorry. I think it's really necessary to- Get that old morphine. Get that old sticky morphine.

To talk about medication, because that's where the censorship really kicked in for me.

When you were talking about censorship, I was, in the early days, I was warning about what is going to come, because I was seeing signals since September, October, that it could, there could be something.

And actually, when I look back- Perhaps you better say why you were seeing these early signals, because maybe a lot of, we'll sort of take that for granted, but, you know, most people will have a- Hard time, yes. Yeah.

Yeah, okay.

Well, I made my thesis in virology, and so my focus studying medicine was always in that direction. And we learned that we were to expect that big pandemic around 2020. That was basically what I was trained on.

So- Okay, I've got- What I was seeing- Just to slam the brakes right there, and just, I've got to ask, why that date, and what was the reasoning for that- That they told it to us? Yeah, but what would they cite as reason for that?

I mean, that's a big, bold prognostication to be making in a science field. What was the- Yeah.

Argument was, every 100 years, we have a big pandemic, so we can expect the next one in 2018, 20, something like that. That's it. Actually, that's it. And actually, I just saw an ad, a promo video from the 50s, where they actually also said it like that in 2020.

And it was always like that. And so, I wasn't focused on the date, but I was aware of, and let's say I was in contact with Judy Mikovits since 2018, because I had a patient who fitted into her criteria of disease, like non-HIV AIDS patient, and he had an infection history traveling to Asia. So, it was very reasonable to consider her hypothesis as the problem of my patient. And I had the opportunity to have her book, what she published in April, 2020, the second book of her.

I had it in 2019 in summer, and there were signals in the US of odd pneumonia cases in summer. And then, later on, around September, October, I heard signals about odd pneumonia cases in China.

But I can't say from where. It's like sometimes just the radio news thing that made me have a look at that. But when I look back, I actually have a patient who told me about an odd incidence in November.

No, October, late October, in a kindergarten, that's at the military hospital, where the children of the military personnel are cared for. And late October, they had a cluster of pneumonia cases and this inflammatory syndrome in that kindergarten.

And the parents were just coming back from Asia, maybe due to the military games or something. But there are signals, all signals, signals also in scientific investigations.

So right now we have a publication about a grant that died from COVID, who probably got it in December, 2019, and without travel history. So when you have patients, then, yeah.

There's definite fingerprints of patients earlier. I'll count myself as one of those, beginning of December.

And there was a recent paper that just came out of, it's an Italian paper, where they were nailed on certain that they've got PCR positive blood samples, I wanna say it's PCR positive, from the September, October, the beginning of the autumn.

Now, it's a topic in and of itself, and I wanna steer the conversation more towards the, quote unquote, neuro warfare and who could be responsible for, like I say, if there's a framework that was new about a hundred year event coming and was positioning themselves, which all the tabletop exercises indicate, we have to peel back who they are.

And so with that, I wanna just take a quick moment to introduce, well, Doc Keck, Anthony, how are you, sir? Can you hear us? Can you unmute yourself? Is there any tech problems at your end? Am I, can you hear me? We can, indeed. I'm sorry, can you hear me? Am I, can you hear me? Maybe, we were doing introduction, so why don't you introduce yourself?

And then we'll start heading into the meat and potatoes of the round table, which is why they were able to so effectively shut down voices of dissent at the beginning. And who these people are, I'm, as I said, it is international, I don't wanna just think at the US, but please tell us who you are and what you've been doing because you've been doing some great work that people need to know about.

Cheers, yeah, I go by Doc Keck, guess my real name is Anthony Peña. Been working over the past year in finding, actually suing my state government for informed consent. I'm on my second lawsuit now. The first lawsuit ultimately resulted in the end of mandates for the state, going into oral arguments for the second one in about two weeks. And I am hoping to have the spike protein labeled a biologic toxin legally to be the first time in the nation so that we can have a very simple precedent with readable legal language that isn't necessarily medical but can be legally applied around the nation.

And what I've done is I've sued for a declaratory judgment. In a declaratory judgment, the only thing I'm looking for is a recognition of right. I'm not suing for money. I'm not suing anyone to do anything. I'm just suing the court to recognize my right to informed consent. And I think I've got them. I'm almost certain I've got them licked because I have not received a response from my motion for summary judgment yet. And any motion that is unanswered essentially ends up being granted.

So that's the nutshell. And then I've also written a 115 page biological report on the biologic toxicity of the spike protein, outlining everything. It is on my website. I'm also the executive director for the American Foundation for Informed Consent. The website is F-W-D-… That's frank-whiskey-delta-questionshere.com. If you, anyone in your audience wanted access to that biological report.

Awesome.

Let's, so we were, there's multiple ways.

I don't wanna be dictating to you. I'm not a dictator, only to my kids.

But I'm open to suggestions as to how we can, first of all, let's how we could cover the institutional.

And this is why I wish Charles here, I hope he's okay. It's not like him to miss an appointment. But maybe Spartacus can delve, jump in here as to the, some of the names and institutions that were on the US side responsible for public perception management right from the get-go.

I've been digging into some aspects of that. Not necessarily the PR firms that are involved, but more like the NGOs and think tanks that are linked to, well, what I've started to call the biodefense mafia, because a lot of this stuff appears to come out of, I mean, it appears to center on the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the United States Agency for International Development. And their partnerships with EcoHealth Alliance, Metabiota, and Labyrinth Global Health and the like. But it goes, actually, that's just the surface level stuff. It goes a lot deeper than that. It goes to CEPI, hold on, what's the, it's the center for the, hold on one second, let me see if I can pull it in.

CEPI is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Let me see if I can pull up a link right here.

They're also linked to the Wellcome Trust. I went ahead and put a link to CEPI in the chat there.

And maybe drop your Venn diagram, and I'll put that in my chat, just so people can follow along. The chart, yeah. I went ahead and dropped the graph in there, so we can kind of follow along. Let me see if I can.

It's the Center for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. The Center for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

They are directly linked to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. Andrew Huff claimed that EcoHealth Alliance was also linked to the Wellcome Trust. And the Wellcome Trust have this other organization called Welcome Leap that's a spinoff of the Wellcome Trust. And they're involved in essentially research into like Internet of Bodies, Internet of BioDano things, type stuff, essentially like human cattle tagging kind of a thing. So it's, I mean, when people talk about like transhumanism, for instance, well, what these people are discussing is not really like human augmentation or anything like that. They're discussing things like implantable ID, oh, brain computer interfaces, but you don't know what they're for kind of a thing. It's like, they don't really specify kind of it's, it's, I mean, the line that they sell to public with like Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and their N³ program, for instance, is, you know, this is, we just wanna use this to treat wounded soldiers. We want them to be able to control like, like bionic limbs or regain function if they had, if they were paralyzed or even like control drones with their mind or something. That's actually how they pitch it. Yeah, just slip the offensive part right there, right at the end there. So that's how they got me. But there are, I've seen papers from bioethicists that go into detail about the serious ethical risks and the existential and, well, risks to people's autonomy in terms of like having an effective brain computer interface as in effect, like emotion. And so like a brain computer interface that can manipulate, they can like wire people's emotions to respond a certain way to certain stimuli, stuff like that. So basically, and the thing about this is that some of this stuff sounds like science fiction on the surface.

I started, this was actually like, this was back in early, early 2021 when I first started kind of like getting the hint as to what might be going on here and well, what they're heading towards. And I dug into Charles Lieber and Robert Langer.

So a lot of people don't realize this, but Charles Lieber is a nanotech expert at Harvard who was charged by the DoJ for fraud, like wire fraud, essentially. He had grants from the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, from the Air Force, from MITRE, and from the Office of Naval Research and so on. So all like DoD stuff. And you go on Lieber's site and look at his bibliography and look at the stuff he's published. And it's all like page after page of, like using silicon nanowires in place of like patch clamp electrodes to monitor cellular activity. And then he has these other articles about using silicon nanowires as a wireless brain computer interface to essentially put like nanoparticles, nanowires, quantum dots and so on inside brain cells and interact with them with wireless energy like RF, electromagnetic fields, infrared, ultrasound and so on and so forth. And that led me kind of down a rabbit hole looking into the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency and the N³ program, the Next Generation Non-Surgical Neurotechnology Program.

If you go on GovTribe, let me see if I can pull this up real quick.

You can actually see the paperwork for all of this. And this is essentially their proposal.

And basically what they're after is they're after a brain computer interface that does not require a craniotomy. So that requires some explanation. So for instance, a lot of people got kind of freaked out about Elon Musk and Neuralink and all that. So Neuralink is really primitive and barbaric compared to what DARPA are after. For Neuralink, you actually have to cut away a section of the skull. You have to peel back the dura and implant microelectrodes into brain tissue. And that's a destructive process. That damages brain tissue. So even if it is- That's my area, right? That's literally what I did. That's 40 year old technology. Exactly, it's ancient microelectrode array technology. What DARPA are after is something where you can have someone like inhale or ingest or inject a nanoparticle that travels through the bloodstream, crosses the blood-brain barrier, enters brain tissue, and is then manipulated by something like a helmet where it produces electromagnetic fields and, or RF or ultrasound or infrared light.

Basically any form of wireless energy capable of penetrating the skull. And then it energizes those nanoparticles and manipulates the action potentials of the individual neurons.

They also want it to be two-way. They want it to be able to read back. So there was nanoparticles that could be energized and then produces a signal of some type that could be picked up by the helmet. And then they can figure out what the neuron's activity and what its current state is. And their proposal states that they want to get it down to a very, very fine degree of resolution, single neuron resolution, less than 50 cubic micrometers. So really, really tiny. And you need very fast signal acquisition as well to be understanding what a single neuron is doing.

Yes. I'm skeptical as to the, well, current technology as I understand it, pulling that particular feet off.

But it is real. The research programs are real. They've been trying for this for decades.

They have six teams working on this right now. Battelle, Carnegie Mellon University, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Park, Rice University, and Teledyne. I wasn't even aware that Teledyne had a neuroscience division. That's their defense contractor. So, and they normally make things like armored vehicles and armored vehicle turrets and stuff. So, and- There's a level below this where you can get very fine control. You don't need to be in the brain and having all that computation because it's an enormous amount of computation to be processing, decoding in real time. But using the feedback from eye movements, saccadic movements across a display, there's already a whole mature technology that can be used to, how would you say, give an advantage to sensory systems if you were able to extend their boundary?

So, a good example that's extant right now is the fighter jet helmets, right? So, the pilot looks around and can see, it doesn't see the floor of the plane or his legs, right? There's a 360 degree, you know, all round vision depending on where he looks, right? That's easily trackable and gives an advantage to the pilot or the, I hate the term, war fighter, but soldiers. What they want is they wanna have like heads up displays for soldiers where they don't need any display device. It just beams information directly into the visual cortex. And then they see like a picture in picture view in their eyeball. I would argue with these people and say, you don't want to, because when you're putting at the visual cortex level, you're at one level of the way that the body or the brain semantically understands that information, right? And I would just say it'd be better to have a low power retinal projection that incorporates it. It's gonna automatically incorporate all the levels that you need because that's the way evolution has sort of honed the nervous system to work, right? So, you could say, well, we could jump a synapse behind the eye and put a input into the lateral geniculate nucleus, for example. At that point, we don't know, right, the full level of processing. I mean, if you're just thinking about action potentials, we don't know if that's the real substrate of neural processing. I've always used the example. It might be a reset of the computation being done, right? It might have been doing something subcellular, I guess, if you like, but before the action potential kicks in and the action potential is saying, well, yeah, I'm ready to receive the next thing and then that propagates through the system because otherwise we have this latency problem. Sorry to geek out on the neuroscience, but we've been able to track using those old methods of cracking open the skull and putting electrodes in and we find that there's a window of information processing between node to node, which is approximately 25 to 50 milliseconds that you see. And then if you add up all the nodes serially, and even if you sort of take into account convergent and divergent projections, it's hundreds of milliseconds in terms of action potentials being able to drive even the, we know that the fastest reflexes we have are faster than the processing that we see centrally by sort of putting these multi-stage electrodes through these pathways. And you can, like about the fastest that we can see is like the superior colliculus and frontal eye field and their control of saccadic movements, but that's one axon projection. And there's that window again of approximately 50 milliseconds. And from a clinical perspective, I can report that I talked to someone who is involved in AI development. And he talked about me, about his AI and what it's doing.

And they were doing research project on epilepsy and how to predict the state of epilepsy. So when you have a set of data, like you explained the action potential, it's like most of the people can relate to the EEG, the electric field of the whole brain that you can measure not with pinching through the skull and putting the electrodes right in, but you can measure it at the skin level. And if you cannot do it like remotely, I'm not sure how sensitive the technology would be that they have, but I think it's not limited to the old technology that we use in clinics and you used in research. But from what I learned from that, I think much of it is the deep learning and prediction in disease that is kind of also a dual use research in that way.

And so it's interesting because it was one of the three AI researchers that I met and they were independent of each other. So I talked to all of them independently and two of them said the first thing that this deep learning AI does, what is different from what you would expect from a machine is to compose music. So it's, and that one who has done that EEG research said, and coming into the office in the morning, there are different like signals, like if it was dreaming, that was where the two informations that were really bringing me into that perspective to think about this new technology that is approaching and that we have to look at and find a way to come along because many people are afraid when talking about something like what we do right now, especially when it comes to the situation that we have politically right now worldwide and all the sci-fi doom and gloom stories about AI.

I want to close with the notion of the third AI researcher that I met because she's brilliant neuroscientist researching time travel of protons and having the approach to teach AI unconditional love to ultimately teach humanity proper parenting. And I think that idea is quite interesting because when we think of AI, for me it's like when I have something that has a self and is foreign to me, then I'm thinking about the story of the little prince and the fox. So if you're not good puppy parent and it would have the stage of a dog, for instance, from the consciousness level perspective, you would need to be careful with that dog if it has the potential to harm someone, but you can be a good puppy parent and maybe that's the way to focus on solutions.

Sort of preempt the conclusion there. There's still the ethical breach of handing over anything to a black box device or system that, yeah, okay, we may have soldered the pieces together or cultured the cell substrate upon which we're building this next technology, but there's a very difficult, well, philosophical block here because are we prepared to just hand over control? Even if you said that the machine does something better, are we not here to learn? Are we not here to have experience? And this gets into the consent arguments, which is who's gonna make the judgment upon what is good parenting, right? Because what might be seen as good parenting in one instance could be seen as horrendous and barbaric in another, and I could think in the most basic form with tribal type living, right? Where they, I don't know, body scarring that they'll have as tribal rituals.

And well, you can think of a few tribes that do that.

One particular, and what we're to say to them that no, they can't do that. A machine has decided that ethically that that's the wrong thing to do. Surely it should be up to them to work out themselves that it's, well, less than optimal behavior.

Because my concern here is that you're sort of, you're straying into a sort of Sam Harris-type mishmash of odd psychology that, yeah, sounds great on its surface, but then, yeah, who doesn't want the best for everyone?

That's a reasonable assumption to put to people.

But who are you to decide and change the adaptation that's taken millennia to instantiate and emerge as a complex human behavior? I'm, you know, before I would have said, yeah, it seems a logical thing to do, but I'm very concerned. Even something like unconditional love. What does that mean? Who are we to decide what unconditional love is and how a machine interprets that? So long as you have the issue of, at that point, at that point, well, something that can conceive of love, and are we then in a position to be able to pull the plug on it if we decide that it is problematic?

Yeah, I think exactly this is the discussion that we need to have because, yes, it's the freedom of choice universe. That's my belief, you know? I'm Christian, I'm believing in the God.

Even if I'm a scientist in my thinking, but I went into science to dig so deep into matter to find God, like Splank said. Scientists who reject God are usually the graduate students.

That's been my experience. And you go through the whole process, the learning process, and then you realize how little we do understand these systems. And then you're like, okay, well, now I'm getting close to there, but for the grace of God, go us all in this situation. I don't know, we're sort of straying into legal terms here. Anthony, I don't know if you wanna chip into that discussion. Then we'll get into the nitty gritty of these defense contractors, bring Spark us back in.

You there, Anthony?

No, no sound from. No, no comment. I think that you guys have pretty much hit all the bases at this point. Okay. That I'm aware of.

So when I started digging into all of this towards the end of 2021, I was, and then I saw the documents that diffuse, the diffuse documents that Jurassic Research had gathered and Charles Rixie and all that. And I was so pissed off at what I was seeing.

I wrote the Spartacus letter. This was in September of last year.

It was towards the end of the month. I was actually on my break at work. I just got my laptop and spent for about five days, spent like, I don't know, it's a long break at work. What's going on with your job?

It's, well, we had a lot of downtime that week. So let's just say, but I also, I typed very, very quickly.

So, and I just hammered it out and put it up on DockDroid. And that turned out to be a mistake because yeah, it's just, DockDroid actually has a horrible, horrible ads.

Just the worst. I mean, they had interstitial ads. They were like trying to load malware onto people's phones. And I didn't realize this because I was, I was posting it on DockDroid over from my desktop and I had an ad blocker and had no idea that DockDroid was serving people so many like malicious ads and stuff. So I was like, oh, no, I can't believe I used them for hosting. So eventually I put it on Mega and then believe it or not, Mega actually banned my account. I'd never seen that happen before.

But a few days after I started like sending it around to some people, I sent it to Dr. Malone and I actually sent it for like a dozen, like a couple dozen people over email. And Malone posted it on his Twitter and then Automatic Earth reposted him and then Zero Hedge reposted Automatic Earth. And before I knew it, like over a million people had seen it and it was translated into a couple dozen languages. So that was quite a surprise. I wasn't expecting it to spread that far. I was kind of just, you know, it was kind of a shot in the dark. But yeah, the thing is, is that, you know, Charles Lieber, one of his colleagues was a guy, was one of the co-founders of Moderna, Robert Langer.

Robert Langer. May I interrupt because I'm mixing up timelines because I found out about Lieber in January, 2020.

And I remember it surfacing one year later. So can you just put that into, how early did you know about Lieber? I actually knew about Lieber pretty much as soon as the DoJ indictment came out. It was like early 2020, but I didn't really start revisiting the topic until about a year later when I realized how extensive all of this was.

I mean, I covered him early on because again, a lot of focus on China, who was collaborating with China and he sort of, I don't know, serendipitously popped up into news feeds. And I was aware of the technology, the FET technology, but did I really know all about Charles Lieber and his dealings with, I mean, that's where he got popped because of associations with the Chinese Communist Party.

I mean, the- Yeah, so- Yeah, let me, I'm interrupted. Oh, sorry. Please. It was just for putting the timeframe, my conversation where I have introduced the Lieber story was 28th of January. And in that conversation, I said yesterday, I called the Charité Christian Drosten to tell them that I suspect the laboratory origin. So just for the record, if he tells, he didn't know about it, it's wrong because I called there.

Christian Drosten, you mean?

Yes. And I included, in that message, I included Charles Lieber.

Okay, okay. So Charles Lieber and Robert Langer actually co-wrote a paper on coming up with these artificial heart scaffolds.

Essentially, it's this artificial like cyborg tissue that allows them to monitor someone's heart rate.

And what we're talking about here is not even really, usually when people think about like implants, they think about cyborgs and stuff like that. They think about the prosthetic limbs, like people with like chrome arms and legs and stuff. But that's not really what they're, I mean, what this paper was describing. What they're really describing here is essentially something closer to like synthetic biology.

We're talking about like modifying the extracellular matrix, talking about tissue scaffolds, engineered tissue that has certain electrical properties and so on. And basically this engineered tissue scaffold, they did, I think they did it with like a culture of like heart muscle cells. Basically it, they report their own activity wirelessly.

And this was like over, like a decade ago now.

So this, this stuff has been ongoing for a long time.

Robert Langer is one of the co-founders of Moderna.

He's, he is a MIT guy. He's an expert in nanotech drug delivery. And Charles Lieber is again, an expert in these, in silicon nanowires. And has been working on them for like well over a couple of decades at Harvard. So this is like in the late nineties when he was first doing experiments with like laser ablation to produce silicon nanowires and all that. So, and then I started digging into it and then I started doing research and then I started digging into it and I found DARPA's N³ program and Battelle's brainstorms and Rice's MOANA and nanotransducer technology. So yeah, it was, I mean, some of the stuff is just really shocking because what they're after is something that could be, introduced into somebody's body surreptitiously without their knowledge. And that, I mean, so the thing about it, the reason why that's such a cause for concern is because we have people like James Giordano and Charles Morgan at the Modern Warfare Institute at West Point going up on stage and candidly discussing and describing how the brain is like the future battlefield. You know, we're past the point of fifth generation warfare and information warfare. We're now at the point where we should start thinking like practically about neuro warfare, about manipulating this, yeah, exactly, smart dust, manipulating the source of information by manipulating people's brain tissue directly, changing people's attitudes, changing their behavior, taking it like a, like dissidents and like giving them clotting agents or things that make them go crazy and make all their followers disown them, stuff like that. And they're candidly discussing this on stage in front of cadets at West Point as element of military strategy in the future. This is something that they're actually seriously considering as a new paradigm of warfare. And what disturbed me the most about it is they're not talking about going after uniformed combatants here. What they're discussing here is going after civilians, civilians of rival powers, maybe even our own civilians.

In this paradigm, everyone is a combatant. There's no such thing as battle lines or uniforms. It's really, really, really disturbing stuff.

Not even protected persons anymore because they're after the children.

Basically, it violates all the rules of warfare.

It completely violates people's expectation for protection under international law, human autonomy, human dignity. It's just, it's absolutely appalling what these people are planning on doing.

Planning? Doing?

Honestly, I have no idea what they're planning.

They're currently in the middle of it right now because they've already started it with this COVID pandemic. This is phase one. And also, be it 5G, I don't need 5G in this COVID game, but talking about 5G as such, I think it's necessary because we don't do that in medical terms. It's just being rolled out and it's rate frequency. Our bodies are, we have electrical properties in our bodies, so it's necessary to talk about all of this, including the possibility of smart dust because why would it be mentioned in WikiLeaks discussed?

The difficulty is that we have people out there that take this technology and then they take the COVID stuff and they mix it up and they create these weird ass conspiracies about what they're doing to us with the vaccines. And in fact, that's just a distraction from the real truth.

But yes, that technology has been around for a long time before the COVID pandemic was either put on the table during the exercises. But the no virus people, the people that are coming up with the hydras and the microchips and self-replicating nanopods, it's like watching a cartoon but these are really real people in the real world. And it's really truly cartoonish when we look at it because Kevin understands what's going on with this technology that they've pushed on to the global population. And the global population is reacting to it, with excess death, with all these footballers dropping dead and all the harm that's being done. The vaccines is actually worse doing more damage than the actual virus did. Absolutely, absolutely. And that's what Arne Burkhardt shows in the histology.

And I understand what he shows and I have predicted many of the things that he presents now. So I think it's absolutely enough if we focus on the path of physiology and the surface like the epitopes that Spartacus is discussing and I'm focusing on these as well but we have other problems. And it's not necessary to mix up all the possibilities of next generation warfare with this situation. But I think it's necessary to know about it, to have the possibility included in your thoughts because we don't know what is in there. And when we talk about smart dust and like nanobots, something like that. And from physical perspective, it's not necessary that these are metal wired somethings. These can be like molecules that have electrical properties that can switch and give up photons and read and send have properties that can be received maybe even wirelessly.

So that's the concept of hydrogels. So I think it's necessary to talk about it but not necessarily to mix it all up because it's absolutely enough what we have with the spike protein. And I think it's part of next generation warfare or let's say of the classical because I learned it 20 years ago. The classical binary bio warfare attack, it is you have the pathogen that is not very deadly because you needed to dive deep into the population and just do a little bit of harm in the vulnerable but induce fear. And then next you have the information warfare. And I think the overflow of information, all these like no viruses, hydras and self-assembling nanobots, all that, it's so exaggerated. If someone just says something then people spin off like snake venom stories. And then you have these epitopes in the spike where you have a surface of the spike protein like being similar to snake venom actually or to rabies toxin, to Staphylococcus endotoxin meaning inducing cytokine storm. That's, you know, it's mixing up the true stuff or the other relevant stuff with the COVID situation.

And that's making- There is a branch though. There is a branch from the pathophysiological to the technological. And Kevin and I had discussed this kind of in our first discussion regarding Orr-Corr theory and how cationic or positive charges themselves can induce apoptosis. So, you know, from, you know, a nanowire perspective and photons, you know, within and of themselves, you know, they can interfere with the genetic transmutation of information from the nucleus to the rest of the cell by interfering with macrotubules and thus, you know, changing the way that the genes are being translated.

On the snake venom side, you know, there is a part of the spike protein, which is next to the, which is on the receptor binding domain and it can interact with the alpha seven receptors of the nicotine cholinergic system. And Kevin had mentioned that, you know, when they attach, they don't let go. Well, when they don't let go, you have these esterases, which are then released within the synaptic cleft. So when, and when it reaches a certain concentration, then the body responds by producing phospholipases, which is biological acid, basically. You're looking at burning away anything like the cell membranes because all phospholipid bilayers are vulnerable to phospholipases and then you have a degradation of the cell and kind of a death within a, in a paracrine fashion, paracrine fashion, you know? So there is some connection between two in terms of the bio warfare side. I really, it does not make sense to me that the body can physically sustain the technology that they're looking to implement.

It's just not there.

It's important. Oops, sorry, I'm on mute. That's an important point is that biocompatibility is a huge area of research around these, around these technologies and just, and persistence. So even something like gene editing, you can have a problem with, okay, you can successfully get your virus in and you can upregulate and get a gene to express the interest, but it doesn't stay. And this gets back into the stuff around but what Robert Malone and all the mRNA folks were sort of finding was that they had these big dreams for being able to manipulate genes at this sort of fundamental level. Okay, it's a passive factor, I get it, but you could tweak the vector by putting some biomolecules on the surface. It's not out of the realm of possibility, but what they found was that they deliver the messenger RNA product, first off, they had to find ways to modify the mRNA so it wasn't degraded so quickly, but they just couldn't maintain persistence of the expression products that they were interested in. And what did they get, which is why it's been funneled down towards the lowest common denominator, which is one of vaccines. They always got an immunogenic response to what it is that they were trying to express. And thus, we find ourselves in the position that we are in today that all new technology must be good by virtue of the fact that we live in a technological society. So we must be able to add an extra widget to the concept of immunization. And so mRNA is the avenue down which they've gone, but they've gone down that avenue because gene engineering, it hasn't worked like they predicted it would. There are some, very, very few gene therapies available.

And I think one is for some optic condition, optical.

But the... Yeah, they need to have COVID and all the cytokine storm inhibitors developed when they introduced the T cell therapy because you have 100% risk of having a cytokine storm and being on ICU. But they are publishing that in the medical journals, like it was like nothing. And they argue always with the same thing because it's for terminal ill oncologists, patients, they have the right to try. And that's the exact way how they push these mRNA stuff because, you know, when I walked to the Bible library and had a book from 2018 in my hand where they promoted the mRNA technology by CureVac and Biotech and pushing it. So it was also for terminal ill oncologist experimental therapy back then. I think when it comes to information warfare, we have double standards in science, switching from oncology therapy with gene or messenger technology in your body.

It's an open system. These cascades of signaling, it's, you know, I'm so, I'm watching it like an explosion of a nuclear bomb in slow motion because in my understanding of the body, it's such a bad idea with all the surfaces of HIV on that expression product. And when it comes to sustainability of these next generation warfare, six, whatever, if you would have something express like nanobot capable products in your body, I thought about how would it look like?

So I would expect to see amyloidosis. So, you know, that's where I predicted amyloidosis in that instance, but you never know what these aggregates do.

There's also another explanation for the amyloidosis, which is being observed. And that is the patented MSH3 class gene for Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome, which appears at the Fearing Cleavage site for PRRA, and Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome has been known to create steroid lipofusins.

Yep, it's another good one. And there's multiple amyloidogenic sites all along, not just the spike protein, but various other peptides associated with SARS. And there's no benign way of looking at this in my view.

And there's certainly no benign way of looking at what's been this very organized systemic approach.

Hang on, hang on one second. Sorry, one second. What's up, big boy?

When the spike is broken down by neutrophil elastase, the small peptide fragments of it are all amyloidogenic.

Yes, and that's exactly what Professor Arne Burkhardt just showed, these clots that are like a phenomenon that appeared at the coroners.

We have seen clots forming in the blood sample of a living patient who has injuries that correlate with the injuries of the deceased in the vessels. So it's a vascular disease. We discussed that in the beginning. And we have living patients with vascular pathology.

And she sent in her blood sample and there is this clotting that is appearing when you cool it down. So it might be a phenomenon that is especially at the coroners and not so much in clinics, but we see also these clotting problems. And Arne Burkhardt has this technology like immunohistochemistry, meaning staining for specific surfaces with antibodies, with specific antibodies. And so you can... Well, that's actually the newest important bit of information that we have, which is that the Professor Arne Burkhardt's presentation, which he put out, well, I want to say about 10 days ago now.

Yeah. This is amyloid associated with gene transfection. And look, I'll let you explain it and then I'll say what could be an objection to it. But please, sorry, you want to... I'm stepping in where you were going. No problem. Because it's synchronicity works interesting because actually I should have been on tour to have a big lecture on a Congress, but I'm not able to travel. So I asked Arne Burkhardt if he could jump in and now even the conference is happy with me dropping out and I'm here. But we're happy, we're happy you're here.

So yeah, Professor Arne Burkhardt has this technology, immunohistochemistry, it's standard in pathology because you want to know which cells are inside of a section of a tumor, for instance. So you have these different antibodies for specific surfaces and then you can make different staining of these slides through the tissue of sometimes living patients and predict therapy from it, basically. That's how you use it in clinical medicine.

And that's the point. Professor Arne Burkhardt and his colleagues and I was involved in the scientific basic discussions in that they have now published peer reviewed with Michael Mertz, the option to say this damage is just from the vaccine because it's just expressing the spike protein and not the nucleocapside, meaning if you get an infection by the whole virus, that's what Kevin said, it's not only the spike protein that induces these amyloid-like structures, but it's also other proteins of the virus when you get an infection, wild-type infection. So, but for vaccine injury, it's necessary to show that it's just the spike protein, the expression of it. But that's now possible and even in injured people that are living, it's possible to observe if there's spike protein expressed at the injury site. Like that lady that had this suspicious clotting in her blood sample, she has a ruptured leg artery and can't walk. She was a marathon runner before that.

And now she's heavily injured. So it's not only that we see excess mortality but we have people suffering. And I think that that's the worst of the whole censorship. You know, when we want to talk a short story about censorship, I was forbidden to get hydroxychloroquine for myself, my family, and my protection, and let alone my patients in the first time. It got better, but it was destroyed politically and that was on purpose in my perspective because you would not be able to license an emergency use authorization vaccine if you had therapy.

And that's the essential part of binary warfare because if it's just harming the vulnerable and you can induce fear in it, what is it worth as a weapon? That's why you use binary and bring out the vaccine and use the fear to induce the wish of the population to get the vaccine and you get the soldiers, the medical professionals. So you get more pressure on the medical healthcare workers that the emergency response, police, all that would be prioritized and that's the situation we have right now. And then calculate in the antibody dependent enhancement and the factor with natural infection after the immunization and the waning of the immune system after repeated infection. And you get like what we're seeing right now or facing with the, excess deaths situation and the next boost on campaign and we have mandates right now still for healthcare workers. They are losing their jobs if they don't get vaccinated still here. And- It seems to be turning around a little bit in the U.S. but I mean, I'm not, I'm presuming Europe is still Germany, Germany especially, but for some reason, every hundred years or so we can make predictions about pandemics and about Germany causing all sorts of problems. What's going on there? It's just like volcanoes, yeah. Yeah, okay.

Expecting an eruption. Shall we talk about Bering? Yeah. And Pfizer and how they, where they're producing right now when we're at that topic for the audience because it's not funny actually because Biontech, Pfizer is now producing in the Beringwerke in Marburg. Beringwerke was formerly Höchst, meaning IGF. And they have produced in the Beringwerke the sera and vaccines.

Oh, did we lose Johanna?

I think we lost Johanna there.

I wish I could pronounce the, as well as she does in German, but I think we lost Johanna there. As well as she does in German, but I don't want to give away too much what she's going to say, but there's a long history of, how should we say, biological warfare going back to the IG Farben obviously and their, how should we say, de-lousing agents. I wonder if those government spy balloons over Germany just zapped her. Maybe, I mean, this is, I'm presuming from the sound quality she's using her phone. Maybe the battery just run out.

But it's this type of, you know, synchronistic interruptions all the time that we've, there is, I don't know.

What's it called? He's on live radio. He used to a long time ago. Sorry, say that again. Well, Clyde used to be on, on doing interviews and they used to just get abruptly cut off for no reason.

I started digging into like molecular self-assembly and stuff, and then I stumbled across Ehud Gazet's papers on engineered amyloids. Yeah. This is, this is such a dark. It's really shocking. Yeah. Yeah. It is for me. Maybe, maybe other people aren't quite realizing what it, what it means. So he has this paper out entitled self-assembling peptide semiconductors about essentially constructing semiconductors out of, out of amyloids.

Something that, I mean, normally we consider amyloids to be something highly pathological, let's just say. But here he's, he's speculating on all different ways that they can be used in a sort of a bioengineering context to make biocompatible electronics out of peptides. Yeah. And there's, there's the kicker here, which is this biocompatible electronics. Who says it's biocompatible? Um, we found the metric right now is eight rodents for, for being safe in the, in the current context. Right. Is this, is this where they've dragged science down to that they would, that they would abuse the argument from authority? It's just, it's, it's, it's made from biochemistry and that, isn't it? It's basically more than safe for you. What's the matter with you? We're going to show them eight rodents. We've got four of them already. Uh, yeah. Uh, so that's, um, one thing that I'd remind the audience of is that, um, I've got a trip to the U S which will take up most of November. Um, I don't know what condition I'll be in when I get back from the U S, um, probably take me, I'm not a good traveler by any stretch of the imagination, but the aim is to be doing the gene transfection properly as, as it should be with any new product, medicinal product. Um, hang on, just trying to chat with, um, you in the background. Um, the proper toxicity testing, you don't, you don't just get to unleash something on, on the population at large say, Oh, nothing, nothing's happening. That's that problem solved and move on. It doesn't work like that in medicine. Some, some, some secondary tertiary effects can take years and decades to emerge. Right. Um, how many, how many times have we had to, uh, we've, we've found wonder materials. Asbestos, that springs to mind, right? Um, the, oh, we put it in everything because it has such great properties, it seems at the time, but we, we didn't realize that there would be an associated, um, it'd be interesting to look at children in about two years and see what they're, you know, we have to ask ourselves what's, what's that increased mortality signal that we're seeing. Um, Johanna touched on it, which was the 1700 hit here last week, 1700. Well, I mean, it's a big number. Um, but that's in the UK. Just the UK. Yeah. She's a 1700 excess deaths. Yes. Her week. Yeah. Yeah. It's going up. It's going up. 15 something. I don't know the exact numbers. Um, And you know, we should let spark has talk about what these amyloids, what, what they're thinking of doing. It's, it's bananas to me. Um, it, it really is. It's, uh, I mean, if you go over some of this, this stuff, it's, um, uh, you know, with the data, um, we've already seen some, you know, the research that we've done with the data of my colleagues and others have been, uh, looking into ways to, to use, um, Amyloids as like metal casts and stuff to like, so sequester metal ions already found inside the body. And, uh, and for them into, into metallic wires. Um, and indeed to use the, um, the conductive or optical properties of, um, for the benefit of the audience. Um, amyloids are essentially, uh, protein junk. Um, they are proteins that link together in these repeating units that form these long chains or, or fibrils.

And those fibrils are highly inflammatory. They're, they are, um, implicated in, um, the progression of Alzheimer's disease. Um, and systemic amyloidosis, you know, it, it damages the tissues when, uh, when these amyloid plaques accumulate and things. So, um, they, they've tried treating Alzheimer's by targeting amyloids with, um, monoclonal antibodies, but it doesn't really work very well. That's because Alzheimer's actually has other factors that go into it. It's not just the accumulation of amyloid. It's also oxidative stress. Um, it's a mishandling of iron. Um, it's, it's lipid peroxidation. Um, it's, uh, just to speak to the iron issue, just interject quickly on a book art showed iron deposition around these amyloid structures that he was presenting just over a week ago. Yes. Just, just wanted to interject. It's, um, the thing about it is that, and that happens in COVID-19 as well. These people have, have iron overload, um, and lipid peroxidation from that as well. So, but the, um, and the spike protein from the, from the vaccine, oh boy, I mean, the potential, the, the range of, um, possible harms from this thing is just, it's just incredible. It has a, it has a super antigenic region. Uh, like, uh, Johanna was saying, it has, um, motifs that resemble, um, that resemble snake venom. Um, it has, um, uh, it, it's, it's amyloid, the little individual peptide fragments of the spike when it's, it's broken down by neutrophil elastase are, um, are all amyloidogenic. Um, um, and what that shows is that when the body forms an inflammatory response to it and you have these granular sites reacting to the spike protein, you know, those enzymes are going to break it down. Then you're going to end up with amyloid. So, um, it, um, they, they found that spike potentially localizes in the nucleus. Um, they found that, that, I mean, it's possible that, that, uh, these lipid nanoparticles could actually, uh, carry messenger RNA into the, uh, the nucleus and then you have it translated. So it's just, um, it's just, it's just ridiculous. Um, not to mention, um, having cells express this foreign protein is going to make the immune system attack and try and destroy those cells. Um, it, which is, I mean, that's basically inevitable. Um, it's, um, I mean, You get some smart aleck come along and say, oh, we'll, we'll use, um, you know, just even, even mRNA can be immunogenic, right? Uh, this is what people need to understand with this evidence in, in the scientific literature that not just proteins, but genetic material itself can induce these, um, misfolding cascades and, um, they'll, they'll come along and say, oh, well, we'll, we'll modify it with, uh, what is, what's it called? Methyl pseudo uridine. So it's not, it's not triggering the immune system, but you, you don't, you don't know the, the chemical interactions that are occurring again, long-term, because we're seeing that that product doesn't break down and it's well, we're finding it at least once later. It's resistant to nucleases. This stuff doesn't break down. It's not, I mean, it's, uh, it's, it's basically, I mean, almost inside the body, it's almost non-biodegradable. It just, it persists and it persists and who knows, uh, if it, if it's partly degraded, what are the, what are the, uh, the products of it, of it being translated then? Yeah. Um, so, um, it's just, it, it's ridiculous. Um, and this, this discussion should be happening across institutions worldwide. And I'm, I'm ashamed that it's not, that it, that it's taken citizen scientists, uh, someone like myself to drag myself out of, I don't want anything to do with that system anymore. Um, I've done my bit, the cold face, but we're having to come forward and, and speak to these issues because very, very few people, I mean, it's beginning to change somewhat now. A lot of this, um, a lot of, I mean, this, uh, whole thing of using, uh, pseudo-ureidolated, uh, mess and synthetically calf messenger RNA came from, from Katalin Karikó's research. Um, a lot of that work showed, um, that, uh, because what, what they were doing, uh, in the, in the two thousands, actually, it was when they were like, when they were investigating a lot of this, uh, this stuff of introducing, um, exogenous, uh, messenger RNA into, into cells. Um, what they, they found was that induced total like receptor responses. The body kind of like reacts to it as, as an invading, you know, as a, as a foreign object, right? So, um, what they were trying to do is they were trying to cloak the messenger RNA from, from total like receptors by, by, uh, substituting, um, you know, you're dealing with pseudo-ureidol and what they, they found out, uh, was that they were able to evade the total like receptor seven and eight response. And then I, what I found, um, digging through some pre-prints was that, um, the Pfizer vaccine actually induced, um, well, it behaved like a total like receptor seven and eight blocker actually, it, it, it induced changes in the immune responses. And that's, that's not good because, um, the body uses total like receptors for, for tumor surveillance. So, um, and then I looked over at Katalin Karikó's, uh, paper and I noticed, I couldn't help but notice going over like the experimental methodology. Um, they basically just kind of, um, tested the, uh, like with a cell culture with a, um, messenger RNA, they knew behave like a total like receptor agonist. And, um, then they, uh, they, they tested the, uh, the pseudo-ureidolated messenger RNA. And I said, said, look, look, see it evades total like receptor detection, but they didn't then like continue on and do another experiment where they, they introduced their pseudo-ureidolated messenger RNA, their, their Franken mRNA, and then introduce a unknown, uh, TLR agonist to make sure that the pseudo-ureidolated messenger RNA is not behaving as a TLR blocker. They didn't, they didn't do that. So there's, there's a possibility that this, this stuff actually jams up total like receptors. And the epidemiological data would, you know, one of the signals that they're seeing is known as near neoplasms now, but that's cancers are on the increase. Um, you know, your, your body is making, well, yeah, you could say you could, you get cancerous cells moment to moment and you, it's your immune system going around, prowling a healthy immune system, going around, prowling your, your tissues that's looking out for these abnormal cells and taking them out and to so brazenly take it, take a, and if I've no reason to doubt the, the data you're citing, to, to roll out something like that at such a mass scale for even, even if you just took the, the, the orthodox reasoning for it, right, that there was a short term need, right, to try, to try to prevent the worst excesses of SARS on an unhealthy population.

Um, what the, the can, no one, no one sat there and thought about cancer as a, as a adverse event. I think it's, it's just everything I knew about clinical sciences broke down in this instance. And you have to say it has to have been, it looks very much like a deliberate sabotaging.

Now I'm into it again. Sorry.

It does look deliberate. Um, and it's just the, the, the persistence, um, and the, the continued, um, the dogged insistence on, on protocols that are not working, um, and that are causing a more excess mortality. It's just, and it's really shameful. I mean, the way they've targeted and harassed, uh, dissident doctors and it's, and the way they've, they've, um, targeted people's social media and they've, they've gone after doctors, uh, credentials, uh, like now, even, uh, Peter McCullough is facing, um, not just the platforming, but also they're actually going after his, uh, accreditation. So, yeah, and you know, what, what a way to shut people down.

Yeah. Right. Because, you know, who's, who's in a position to be like, I've, I've got little left to lose. Right. I was, I, I decided I didn't want to be part of that, um, game anymore. And so it was, you know, easy for me to say, ah, um, you know, I was, the decision was made for me somewhat, um, by, uh, ill health. But, um, many, many people, you know, would I, would I have been speaking up 10 years ago? It's, if the same events had been ongoing right now, I'd like to think I would have, but maybe, maybe I wouldn't make, maybe it would have just been better just to keep it, you know, keep getting the salary and, um, you know, the Institute credit card to go on jollies twice a year to nice places around the world, present data. And you, you've got a, um, yeah, it's, it's very much a soft jello like infrastructure that makes up what, what should be positions of real responsibility right now. And like I say, to see it just imploding in, in the manner that it has done. And I said, beat McCullough obviously is, uh, you know, there's, there's very few ways to attack him. It was like, I don't know what it is. It's like his H index is like, he's one of the most scientists cited clinicians in history. He's not even dead yet. Right. But, um, and he's still got, still got more work that he could put out. People should watch, um, Adam Curtis's documentary hyper normalization because, um, that's pretty much what people in power are trying to do right now. They're, they're trying to split people off into these alternate realities that don't really even, um, basically that they're isolating people from, from the livers of power, essentially. Um, the thing about, about modern society is that managerialism has taken over everything to such a degree that people don't even, people don't even want to know how the sausage is made, so to speak. They don't want to know how bureaucracy works. They don't want to know how rulemaking works. They don't want to know about, about science. They don't want to know anything. They just want an expert to tell them what to believe. Um, and it's gotten to be so complex that, you know, it's, it's, um, basically the only people who can manage the system are, are people who are so deep into their own fields of expertise that they can't see the forest for the trees anymore. They, they can no longer see the political big picture. They're just another cog in the machine. Um, the thing about it, and this has been ongoing for decades, I mean, since the seventies even, um, the managerial class, the professional managerial class have decided effectively that, well, that the plebeians aren't entitled to scientific knowledge, that they're not entitled to know how, how they're being ruled, how they're being manipulated. Um, it's that whole nudge theory thing. They think, they think that they, they, they believe that that we should just, you know, obey and knuckle under that we don't know what's best for ourselves.

Um, they, they run this, they run our governments essentially as, as circus acts, pretty much. I mean, people, people vote for politicians, um, garbage in garbage out, you know, it's the same stuff every, every couple of years and nothing ever seems to change. Everything always seems to follow the same exact agenda. You know, look at, look at the state of America, massive, massive rust belt factories closed from one end of the country to the other. Um, companies being liquidated, people losing their pensions, uh, people hooked on fentanyl, um, dying in a gutter from one end of the country to the other infrastructure, uh, decaying. They, they can, they can, they can dredge up billions of dollars for Ukraine, but they can't seem to dredge up enough to fix our roads and bridges and our rail networks and modernize things.

They don't, they don't care about us at home here.

Yeah. And look, we, we live in an age where bullet trains are not high technology, but it's routine technology. And I can remember the last time I was in the U S and it was literally like taking a train from the 1950s. Yeah, it is. And it would jiggle along and, uh, you know, you're sort of bumping along with it. And, you know, I mean, it wasn't that expensive. And I, you know, I had the Institute credit card, so I was in first class. It was still, uh, not, not the most pleasant of experiences. Whereas you in, in Japan, right? That this thing glides up with millimeter precision to the platform. You know, there's that you could just roll your wheelchair onto it. Should you be, uh, yeah. And what the, the, the U S can't bring itself to make that. Yeah. My train ride up to Manchester or to Lester was a 120 miles an hour. That was pretty cool. That's, that's, that's old tech, dude. That's just, that was just a normal train. Yeah. That's, that's, um, well, like I say, you know, I often wonder, you know, where, where are they going with this assault on humanity? And is it, is it to drag the world kicking and screaming? So everywhere is everywhere is like Asia, but no, it's to drag the world kicking and screaming. So everywhere is like ready player one, ready player one. What's ready? Have you seen the movie everyone living in like, like essentially like Brazilian favelas with VR goggles, simulating, um, endless luxuries that they're never allowed to actually experience in real life. No, I've not seen this. This is this new movie. I need to see this. It's like a matrix. Have you seen those, um, Leonardo of biz parodies?

No, I mean, the, the, yeah, there's, there's this club of Rome type ideology that, you know, we haven't touched on at, at the moment. And, you know, who, who are the haves and have nots? And I, you know, this is what, this is what I think is the kink in what would be an almost unstoppable full court press from the other side is that some people who are in positions of being able to speak out that they, the Peter McCulloch, I'm, I'm, I'm hoping that, um, um, Jeffrey Sachs will, will come through and, um, be able to speak to some of these issues. And look, I don't, I don't expect all people to be each person to be all people to all things, all the time, right? But we need whistleblowers from, with, with, from within the inside that don't mind taking the slings and arrows, um, publicly that, um, enables the, the, those of us that the common people, right? The intervention from, yeah, from their perspective to be able to push back. And what are they expecting a spark? Cause I don't, I don't know. I think Jeffrey Sachs was, um, he's, he's coming, you know, his consciousness of, of right and wrong got to him when you found out that everybody lied to him and that they, it's just being used as a patsy. I think he's really, uh, you know, turned around 180 on everything.

Yeah. And they were going to say, who wouldn't be pissed off in that situation that, oh, what they were, they were setting me up, setting me up to be the, the spokesperson for a con job that again is multi-generational, all-encompassing has some of the darkest components of human effidy stapled onto it. Um, the, you know, why, why, why wouldn't these people, you know, maybe they'd realized that, and I like the term that, uh, spark has used us, which is managerialism that all those managers that fought, they were the bee's knees and, you know, that they had the parking spot and the company car, et cetera, realizing they're not part of the club, right? Kind of people were dealing with the Hunter Biden's and the oligarchs and the money men.

Globalist class.

Yeah. Um, well, you can't say globalist. It's anti-Semitic now.

I'm racist. Yeah. I don't know what, what I was watching some, some, I think it was British news, newscast. I don't know. I've got the link saved somewhere, but, um, yeah, some, some dude phoning up, right? These venting radio stations and this, this nippy bitch, she was hosting it just turns around and he's, and he's just talking about, I've got the, you know, he's angry, you know, there's a voice of the street and he just off hand says globalist and shit. I'd, I'd never heard this retort before. You can't say globalist because it's anti-Semitic.

Unreal. Unreal. Just the implication itself is telling, right? Seriously. I mean, and to Spartacus’s observation and in your observations into the United States and the acknowledgement of the managerial class being what it is, what we have are collections of international leaders that are collaborating on a global scale. Oh, so we can say earth scale. We'll come up with a different word for it. That'll maybe, you know, so on an earth wide scale. So these, these are earth whitest. How about that? Let's, let's not use the, uh, the anti-Semitic term is called them earth whitest because that's what they are. They are, they are for the entire earth. They want to control everything. Where the United States first went wrong was in the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Apparently we didn't learn our lesson after, you know, the great depression and the fact that we needed to have institutional investment banking separate from deposit banking. But, you know, let's just allow institutional banks to then collaborate with like, oh, I don't know. What is it? Swift? Why does the United States outsource our like international banking system to a European company? Question mark. So in terms of a managerial class, what we have in the United States is a complete letting go of one's own sovereignty in the United States. We are of, by, and for the people. And the people have in a sense, like dissuaded themselves of their own responsibility to govern themselves. And that's the problem. Yes. Uh, the thing about it is that our politicians have completely abdicated control over economic policy to super national institutions. Um, the, uh, bank of every national settlements, the world bank, um, and, um, the IMF and, uh, it's just, it's shocking really when you stop and think about it is like, what are people even voting for? Do they even have representation anymore?

It's, uh, your representatives are supposed to set policy, uh, for the sake of their constituents and that's supposed to just delegate all that stuff to, um, some guy sitting in an office in Geneva who doesn't care about them. Well, I mean, I'm not sure they're, well, you know, they, they main, they maintain the pretense of offices and, um, you know, the families, if you believe in them, they maintain the pretense of power through a mass media, which is paid for by the defense department and was initiated from intelligence agencies and whose whole Genesis was to like basically mind control people. Have you ever read, um, national security and double government by Michael J. Glennon? I have to, uh, yeah, definitely because, um, he goes into all that, the, the, uh, the Madisonian institutions and the Truman night network, um, how you have this, um, appearance of a, of a government, a sort of a, a pseudo government that just rubber stamps policies invented by national security spooks for real. And what are the, and what, what, what, what is the associated press, which is funded by the rocker foundation put out every 4am, 4am talking points. And that's what's driven home into everyone. As soon as they turn on that TV, Oh, let me get my programming. Let me know what to think. So I know what to talk to other people to appear normal and to gain acceptance. Bullshit. Yeah. Um, you know, and I don't, I, I'm going to have to wrap up soon because I've got to, um, I'm heading over, I'm heading over to the U S today. I'll be in Texas folks, Houston on the 5th of November. Uh, the, well, I forgot the name of that Hilton Hilton in pair view. Um, but I've, I've got to wrap up soon. Um, if you guys want to keep, keep going at it, um, you're more than welcome. Someone, someone in the, in the chat, um, and the restream they're just asked, um, what the title of the book was again, it's, uh, national security and double government by Michael Glennon.

I will, um, well, if I had time to read on that, I've still got to do my presentation for, uh, uh, uh, next week, but I'm going to be, uh, presenting your, uh, your Iceni, um, Venn diagram at that, uh, at that talk, I think, um, you know, what's, what's part of the solutions here? Well, um, you know, one of the things that I'm looking at is, you know, obviously public science, transparent science for the, for the public that are, that are interested. It's, uh, oh, sorry, not to wrap it. It's actually just a regular line graph. Um, a Venn diagram as well as one of the ones where it has the overlapping circles. Ah, it's, uh, it's Venn enough for, uh, I mean, it doesn't, it doesn't quite rotate in 3d, but, um, Venn, Venn enough, Venn, partial Venn diagram. Um, but the, the, uh, I'll be presenting that and other, other people, um, whose tonics work just, just to try to direct people. And like I say, one of the ways I think is out of this is, I don't, I don't want to say splintering off into, into Colts, but one of the discussions I've been having lately is about making, um, communities that, that, that are sort of embedded in these horrible malfunctioning systems at the moment that, that are just, um, um, work, working as a, I hate to use the word collective either. Everything's become so tainted.

A parallel society. Yes, very, very much so. Um, and, uh, little, um, archipelagos of normalcy that you can sort of hop to, and you can essentially be sort of citizens of that, uh, that can run in parallel to these very toxic systems. Now, you know, how do we get around the, uh, the, the travel, you know, I, I'm subject to corporate law as I step into that airport today. Um, and, you know, my, my sovereign rights over international waters, because I'm encapsulated in a corporate tube, um, aren't going to mean very much, right? Cause I've got a sign or all the types of, um, waivers and shit. Yeah. Pretty much. And they, you know, I might not even get in the country yet. I might have to be stuck on a plane and they might just turn me around at the border still. Um, wow. So, um, with, but I think, you know, we, we can use the same tools that they're using. Like I say, we've had this conversation. Um, it's worked flawlessly. Thank you, Chinese Zoom, even though you cut out Johanna when she was getting to the Behringwerke and the sorted sorted history there. Um, we should be using these, um, tech techniques, technologies, and, um, finding ways and solutions out of this. And you know, there's stuff, many, many people can bring different skillsets and, you know, there's, there's no way I would have, um, been able to do the legal stuff like Anthony has or, and, you know, what Spartacus has done is, well, done a Spartacus and led the, led, led from, uh, led the people in a way that, and reach far, far more people than, than I did. Um, doing, trying to be a sort of dissident in, in this environment. So many people can, can have, and I want to just say thank you to, uh, Clyde, uh, Lewis, uh, for sort of allowing and, um, hosting this, um, weapon. Um, I think most of it was streamed our end, um, so you can go watch replay. Um, and I'm going to, uh, yeah, I've got to, I've got to dip out. So I'm going to say, uh, to everyone, thank you very much. Um, yep. Uh, maybe I'll see you guys in the U S come to Texas.

I'm never going back. Back. Uh, please, uh, be very, very cool. Um, if not, I'll be in, um, Michigan, uh, from maybe the 12th, 13th, 13th, I think for a week. Um, but, um, yeah, I've got, I've got to go. I've got, I've got things to say. Take care guys. God bless. See you later. Bye.

All right. I'm out folks. Um, I will, well, I'll try and stream sort of going through the customs and everything, um, not customs border controls later today. Just see if they let me and I'll, I'll see if that kind of works. Um, they might tell me to shut down my phones, et cetera, but we'll see. Um, I'm going to try and do that. So keep, keep an eye out for stream alerts. And, um, yeah, so maybe you'll see me later today. And then when I pop off, uh, in the U S hop out, I should say in the U S and, um, if you want to, uh, help, uh, support this type of, um, cause I'm going and networking, but, um, mccaindojo.com, uh, please go there and, uh, any, um, any sheckels you can send to a much, much appreciated, uh, it's a big, uh, big expense doing this, but I think it's important. All right. I'm out of here. Take care. God bless.