Let’s do this. I’m sorry folks, I know this is not optimal and I don’t know, could you just play it that end?
Yes, father of raccoons, I’ve got a new t-shirt. I’m trying to do a stream with Charles, we’ve been talking about this for a while and it’s just technical glitches right now. My laptop just is unable to cope with live streaming, which is odd, it’s 16 gig of ram, it’s not that old. It should be able to put some video and OBS is warning me that encoding is overloaded and yeah, it just looks glitchy as hell.
We’ll see. It’s working, there’s people in the chat. Yeah, it’s just, it’s choppy. Choppy. You see those goldfish Costco here, mega sized, yeah, it’s not me. That’s Commander Rixie. This is bigger than my head, dude. Yeah, we didn’t want to clean up I guess. No. Alright, can I just turn the sound off on that and let’s do this. Alright, so two of us should be on the screen right now and I don’t know what the bandwidth it’s pulling like that but give me a sound check bro. Testing, testing. Alright, so I know what I need. We need the chat. Okay, that works. Let’s do this. Copy. Reference. Okay, and let’s try. Just say you’re not. Okay, if it sounds good, I’m not gonna mess with anything too much. I think we’re sort of stretching the tech as it is.
So, yeah, I apologize for the lack of streaming. It’s not for want of trying. We’re in a hotel right now that has somewhat decent internet and I’m caught between a rock and a hard place and wanting to sort of do streams and then people and discussing important issues and one of those, not just one but many of those important issues revolve around the work that Charles is obviously doing a position in which I’ve had to plant myself and take the slings and arrows off which is the overlaps with bio warfare research and the pandemic. And in this particular set of variables, you’re taking heat from many, many sides.
And what we wanted to do in this stream was maybe work through why Charles and myself think that the bio warfare paradigm is probably the stronger one. What evidence we do have that we think is crucial to holding that and the and a few other bits and pieces that have come up so I’ve been keeping an eye on the discord somewhat, and you know I’ve seen the treacherous cloned discussion going on there so I think we’ll try and address some of that right. Yeah, and the. Oh, and I saw the, I watched the rounding the air stream this morning with Mark. Hello, I think it’s how you pronounce his last name. Yeah. And I’ll just give my two, two pence worth on that so. I just say this is momentous, because Charles is literally right there next to me. Yeah. So, with my goldfish head with big massive goldfish. It’s got real cheddar though so it says on the box so let’s be true. So yeah, take, take it away. I’m going to grab mine. We’re obviously a little more relaxed today, and probably because we’re in the midst of surviving our experience here in Austin, Texas.
There’s actually a lot going on today. We have the election in the US, going on as we speak. And I’ve already voted, I voted Democrat, a week ago for Donald Trump all the way or whoever’s on the ballot so.
Obviously for the last two years, I’ve been talking about censorship and research, and talking to people in Congress about censorship, and to people who are in litigation right now but. And so, we will, we will. What I’d like to do is just kind of throw out some thoughts about the election. I want to throw out some thoughts about.
There’s all these little various little stories that are developing and I want to give my, my take on this, this bioweapon debate this debate over. The best like explain it but just the, the fight over. Okay, what is an infectious clone. What is a quasi species, quasi species swarm. But, but just more generally, what is that actually like, what could that look like and and offer some, some constructive thoughts on why we probably shouldn’t just close the door on DEFUSE or close the door on gain of function research. Well, so the violent swarm will. I think the violent swarm is misunderstood by all of us. And there’s a lot of questions that haven’t been answered and we just want to clarify what we do know, and what we can say really what we can’t because we’ve been brainstorming. Yeah, so it’s it’s a case of working towards common understandings of technical language, and like all language. You could argue that it could be sliced and diced indefinitely if you’re into deconstructionism and reality is completely slippery. We are I don’t think, or I think in science there’s less scope for that and we should be to be careful about what we do change when we change it. And there has there has to be good reason to think about, or, or, etc. So, and this is a thing within the sciences anyway. So, this is normal, normal scientific discussion and so let’s, I think I think the biggest one on the discord is just the infectious clone debate and so obviously that’s been Jay.
And I guess if the premise of infectious clones negate the premise of gain of function biology and or the concept of gain of function biology, and I’m, I’m with the opinion that, particularly when we have to put it in a bio warfare context. And, I think that’s a big part of this problem is it’s there’s, in many ways, are not that far apart in what we’re arguing. In fact, I would say that 95% of what JC or other people who have that perspective have been arguing is exactly where we are. And even with the, with the concept of it what is, when we’re talking about gain of function versus clones. I don’t see the. I’m not seeing the distinction is being made I think that is an unnecessary distinction. And so part of the problem is that when we make moves to make a distinction between what gain of function is, and what an infectious clone is, demarcation arguments that we don’t have to get rid of. And then it hurts our, our own arguments without providing much benefit. Spread, or any other by the Biological Weapons Convention.
There’s no medical for it, medical or research. Exactly. And so, in order to get around this, the powers that be in different countries said, well we will, we don’t want to give up all of this so we will just call some, we’ll just say research that it can be either biodefense or a defensive bioweapons research, or offensive bioweapons research. And I would just like to say for the record that this is a first grade test. And with those two statements, what’s the, if you say bioweapons research and bio defensive research.
And the truth is, as a military person who is dealing with CBRN for years, which is what NATO calls WMD. Everybody knows that that, that’s a dubious distinction at best, because none of us can ever, it’s very difficult to say one way or the other, without more like specific evidence, what someone’s intent is. That’s the way, that’s the way the United States wants it to be. So I’m going to make just a mental note that as we get into this we should, we should, again, through this discussion, looking at the timeline. And I think that that tells us a lot about what it is that we’re dealing with and so that provides a lens through which to look at the current phenomenon.
Well, exactly, because we need an investigation. You start with your conclusion and then work your way backwards to the evidence, to find the evidence that you want to support that conclusion. You go to the evidence that exists and put it together to see what conclusion it leads to. That’s the proper way to do it. And in the analyst world that I was familiar with, we don’t figure, that’s what we do. We start at the details. We put these details together. And then from those details, we have, we have a way of like, okay, framing, okay, does it meet this criteria? Does it meet this criteria? I mean, basically flow charts, and it’s rather unambiguous. You can, you can figure this out simply, simply following the evidence. And right now, as we’ll, we’ll discuss more in depth, it does not lead to someone that was, whoever this was that created this virus, it does not lead to an intent that was for the betterment of mankind. So, do use research of concern. I would just add that that’s the phrase that should be used more commonly.
Rather than trying to imply, saying something like gain of function. You could take something away, right, and impart function, right, so it’s more blurry, that the distinction, whereas dual use research of concern is just, you’re working on something that can be weaponized. And in this instance, every, every technique that’s available to the bench is potentially, as I said, dual use, right, that you could, yeah, you might be trying to look for a countermeasure. But in looking for that countermeasure, you’ve had to go through multiple steps that are, were it other countries doing it, and we got wind of that, I would have said 10 years ago, there would have been nuclear armed aircraft carriers steaming your way very, very quickly. Absolutely. And I think, so there’s been a big argument about the DEFUSE proposal, because some people believe that it is an example of, you know, propaganda or disinformation itself. And that’s, people can argue that, but I have enough information that the only way that that could be true is if I was actively and knowingly engaged in that effort. Because I know where the documents came from. I have seen sufficient proof of that. I know the, I did a background check through, through channels that I have. Those documents to me. So I was able to verify that their, their credentials. When we analyze the DEFUSE documents, in the introduction, I wrote that Dr. Fauci was manipulating the language. And what Kevin just said, where he said that the DERC part, the dual use research of concern is important. That’s actually vital. When they made the new P3CO oversight board that was going to analyze risky research, in that document that talks about the new regulations.
Guess what words never appear in the five pages: Gain of function, dual use research of concern. At all. They just, they just erased the entire phrases. And this is, this is partly why when DARPA got this request, literally two months, three months after the ban was lifted. They were, they used gain of function lingo because that’s what the rest of the government was using. They, they, they didn’t realize that what Fauci had done with this new program was basically create a new program that covered almost nothing. It made a very narrow definition. And it completely ignored and left unaddressed the prior gain of function and DERC regulations. I want to check that we’re still streaming, bro.
This has lots of glitching and the chat has stopped. Right, this is saying it’s okay. Do you still have that tab open? Yeah, it’s right here. Can you, oh, it is playing? Yeah, it’s playing. Okay, so I don’t know. YouTube, YouTube looks pretty good, folks. Yeah, hopefully we’re still getting, we’re getting through. Okay, it’s still streaming.
So yeah, so basically what Fauci did when I wrote, I was very careful with the introduction that I wrote to our analysis of the DEFUSE proposal. And I explicitly said that he reformulated it so that way all of his vaccine research is what he wanted to do. He wanted to make sure that everything was focused on his pan coronavirus and pan influenza vaccines was not going to be in any way affected by these new changes in regulations. So they took the, they took the recommendations from something called the NSAAB or NSABB and basically ignored them. And they, they literally created, if you look at the document, they simply erased all the previous regulations, created a new term that only applied to to pandemic pathogens or pathogens with pandemic potential that they were with known pandemic potential.
Well, guess what? If you have a coronavirus that hasn’t caused a pandemic and is different enough that you can’t like say for sure that it’s going to cause pandemic doesn’t apply. And if you have pandemic influenza, but you think it for vaccine research, you can do gain of function research because gain of function research, the term no longer exists. So when Fauci sat in front of Congress and Rand Paul said he was doing gain of function research by one perspective, he was being honest, but what he wasn’t saying is that Dr. Fauci had erased these regulations completely. He could literally do whatever he wanted. And so within the context of them being able to do what they want, there’s a list or a set of aims laid out in DEFUSE. And in part of that is to use infectious clones as a method to, in their words, I guess, study. But if you’re if you’re studying nuclear physics and part of your research aim is to enrich a nuclear fuel beyond beyond what you would need for regular power generation, for example, I think this is probably the easiest metaphor to use. Once you step past from what I remember, it’s quite low, right? Twenty percent, twenty percent, thirty five percent. There were different thresholds, but basically you didn’t have you only have to enrich it to a certain point to make it viable for use for processing in a nuclear reactor for fuel. Whereas for a nuclear weapon, you’d have to take uranium to thirty five out of you to thirty eight to really be effective above 90 percent. And that’s they didn’t want to. And so basically what he’s saying is that what we see, what we see is that is going to 90 percent. Yeah. So if we so if you’re taking the swarm and you’re you’re taking a infectious clone and distilling it or enriching it down such that all you have is one type, one type that’s deleterious to humans and is deleterious through well understood mechanisms that had been that were frowned upon in the in the bio warfare domain.
Right. They knew that there were certain thresholds not to not to go past in order in order to stay within the letter of the law, irrespective of how definitions got changed by Fouch’s bureaucratic attempts. And in in this instance, both myself and Charles are of the opinion that it matters not how you get to the enrichment. It’s the fact that the enrichment has taken place means that you’re bound to you’re logically bound to hold to the fact that we were we are dealing with a defacto by warfare. That’s a phrase that’s Charles phrase. I use it a lot. But he he used it first when I first spoke to him and until until that premise is either removed by saying that they find a completely natural version of stars that looks and we think that I don’t think we’re at that point now. People come along in years and say that they find something in some blood sample that no one else can reproduce. But the idea that you could. I’m concerned about the the way you’ve reached the criticality threshold. Right. So you could you could make an argument. And you could say, OK, I’m going to make an argument. I’m going to make an argument. I’m going to make an argument. I’m going to make an argument.
So infectious clone is a intriguing idea, especially if you want to maintain or control outcomes somehow. The you know, there’s questions about SARS that for me, I think, need addressing. Where does all six and when you’re dealing with an infectious clone, it’s very easy to add peptide sequences that maybe they’re found to be pathogenic in some form. And that’s currently where my suspicion lies with those particular reading frames.
But with in the bigger picture, you’re still. It’s. Biowarfare research, and it’s it’s in context that we have to look at everything. It’s not it’s not how much we’ve been fooled by, you know, systematic censorship and the gaming of the scientific system within the last couple of years. And in you can make an argument, I would suggest that in a biowarfare situation, they’re going to probe program in those types of elements like the psychological warfare. I can. I used to teach all of these elements and I rewrote the curriculum for the Marine Corps, for the Marine Corps CBRN School. So I’m very familiar with how NATO approaches these things because we’re using NATO doctrine and teaching it to our new government officers and our new basic enlisted students, and we would teach all of them. And inside these aren’t public documents if they are unclassified, and they literally lay out that in situations where there’s WMD potentially being used. There’s always an element of psychological operations because if, especially if it’s at home, you don’t want the population to panic. Typically, it’s kind of backwards in this pandemic, but typically you don’t want the population to panic, and you want them to be. Well, you want them to trust you. And so it’s ironic is that in this instance, our government has done. They follow this, but at the same time, once it’s become apparent that this is obviously what they’re doing and this is narrative driven. They’re continuing to do it and continuing to alienate the population, even as it becomes more obvious. So, like I said, this is a fact. This is a NATO Seabourn doctrine. So every country in NATO has the same perspective. Even if the event 201 or the Crimson whatever, all these different things that they’ve been doing, all of this is tied to psychological operations that has been standard Western protocols for controlling messaging like this during events potentially like this. Which tells me a couple of things. The fact that it has been so pervasive is concerning because the pervasiveness has covered even the origin. Whereas in a normal situation, finding out the origin of this event would be the first thing that we would do because that would determine how a lot of our response took place. So everything we’ve seen in the last three years almost, we’ve seen a perversion of what is supposed to happen. They’ve done the censorship, they’ve done the narrative control, but they’ve been doing it against their own people and they’ve also not been interested in finding out the origin.
So even if I knew nothing, I could look at this and say that something is wrong and people need to be held accountable. And obviously now, as we sit here on Election Day here in the United States, after researching this for two and a half years and having been in contact with members of Congress, I can tell you that whatever happened, we have been lied to on a massive scale. And whatever they are protecting, they are not protecting the citizens that they swore an oath to defend. They’re not protecting the Constitution that they swore an oath to defend. And I’ll just, someone asked in the chat, so saying that you would need a, in order to have a pandemic of Corona type viruses, be it flu, et cetera, that you have to have polyclonal cDNA to ignite it. I don’t think that that’s the case because we haven’t had pandemics in the past. It’s a long branch to go out on and just say, just in this instance, it’s all down to one particular method, the use of polyclonals. Well, I guess the best, so the best, I’m sorry, infected, without even getting into the arguments of which there, I have many concerns about the basis of the rationale to state that that infectious clones being not gain of function is concerning to me because it doesn’t follow with science, but more importantly, everything they were witnessing, they aren’t treating it. They aren’t treating any of this like it’s not gain of function.
And, but since we’re, since that has been a big topic for the last few weeks, JC, who I have every respect for is, he and I have been working together on many projects. We are currently working together on projects, and we agree on almost everything. But in this case, you cannot draw conclusions and then work backwards just because you have two points and you think it might be a straight line that connects them because that’s not the case.
And so, for example, first of all, what is an infectious clone? An infectious clone is literally, it’s in the name. It’s a clone of a virus that’s infectious, which is not, okay, viruses, there are factors, and JC talks about factors in several streams. But first we must note that any, per the Biological Weapons Convention, any change to a virus or any pathogen that increases the lethality, the transmissibility, the receptor recognition, antibiotic resistance. There are seven key things that make a gain of function. So gain of function is not a term tied to the way that you construct a virus that’s irrelevant. In fact, it doesn’t have to be a virus. It doesn’t have to be a construction technique. This is talking about if you have something and you make it worse in some way for humans, if that’s the end product, then Biological Weapons Convention says that it’s not necessary. Now, there’s obviously this gray area, this corollary that’s been developed specifically and led by the United States to create this distinction whereby you have biodefense and like offensive bio-weapons research and defensive bio-weapons research.
And I dare tell you, as an instructor of this, teaching new warrant officers in my field how to provide guidance and advice to commanders in the field making decisions based off of WMD suspected events, I will tell you there is no distinction in the real world. This is a distinction completely made up to protect liability and protect against external or internal accusations that you’re violating the Biological Weapons Convention. There is no scientific difference. You cannot look at somebody and there’s not a list of attributes that you would say, well, this person is doing something offensive or defensive. The only way you can really tell is what they do with that thing that they make. So that is, it’s known to everybody in the civil world and I would do this to pretend that that actually means anything. All that means that is what the DoD takes when it goes to Congress to get funding to protect itself and to get more funding without getting a bunch of questions asked about the type of research that it’s doing. That’s it.
So, the, so the chat is saying, I just want to make sure I’m reading it. By the way, this has been brought to you by Goldfish. Bioweapons, CBRN grade, weapons grade Goldfish. Okay, well, there was a question about, let’s see if I can see it. Also, he specifically mentions coronaviruses, is that the one?
Look at that, look, just dead screen. Okay, well, so I see one question here where they’re asking, he specifically mentions coronaviruses. He doesn’t think that you can do gain a function on coronaviruses and start pandemics. Okay, so he’s referring to a real problem that has existed in microbiology and biology, which is the coronaviruses by the very nature are hard to culture. And as I explain this to you, what I want you to understand is, if this is the case, why can we make vaccines against it? Why do they work? Because one of the reasons that they’re hard to culture is because the virus is part of a quasi species swarm. So if you have a cloud of virus, that is a mixture of a dominant virus that’s infecting, but it’s really a consent, when you see a sequence, it’s a consensus sequence that is the best approximation for what, because it’s the most numerous, depending on how they do it. It’s, it’s representing what they think is the virus that is able to do these things. And it’s incredibly complicated, but he’s absolutely right when there’s this cloud, there are ones that are not replication competent. They can make babies, but those babies can’t make babies. And whenever they’re transcribing, they’re creating the new virions. Sometimes there are errors, and then it gets, the process gets paused, and you end up with these special virus particles, which they might be a third of one or half of one or whatever it is, and they’re just, they’re junk, they’re filler. And that’s absolutely correct. Just to get pulled off, just to get pulled off on the tangent. I wonder how much they really are junk when they can be sort of setting the, I hate to use the word terrain, right, to kill the biology in favor of replication competent particles to actually have success. Right. This is, I’m not a mathematician. But this is a sort of a math problem. And the argument that I’ve heard that’s going around and people are, there’s a lot of people who are hearing this and saying okay well that makes sense. So here’s one thing I would suggest. We know that this swarm is not perfectly homogenous, so there’s a mixture of things in it. And the reason why an infectious clone overcomes this, especially at the very beginning, is because when they use bacteria to replicate the viral sequence, it creates basically a perfect copy. And so you get a mass number of perfect copies, which is not what happens in nature.
Well, first of all, if you’re listening to this, if they’re doing something that isn’t happening in nature. And this will make it more effective in infectious capabilities, then by definition, we’ve already crossed the line into gain function, because this cannot happen in nature. It’s making it more, it’s making it, if you get this, if you get a dose of these, the deleterious effects are much more likely than if you get a dose of the normal quasi-species swarm. So right off the bat, I have not heard a convincing argument that goes against what I just told you, or goes against the Biological Weapons Convention definition of this, or the definitions I learned as a marine just dealing in what a biological weapon is, or it’s the biological agent of any kind. Because we can have a toxin virus, rickettsia, apreon, anything that’s biological that is better off after we mess with it is, that is a gain in function. And just because Fauci magically changed the United States, or just the HNA Department of Health and Human Services definition of what this was, it doesn’t change anything else. And all it means is that Fauci literally destroyed the recommendations that he mandated to work with from this governing body, this advisory body, NSABB. So someone’s saying, are we getting into internet purse fight or semantics? No, this is not semantics. I used to teach these concepts. And I’m telling you, this isn’t a scientific debate over minutiae. The Biological Weapons Convention discusses this. In fact, this is why Dr. Fleming is able to be fighting to get a grand jury to investigate the violations that were done by the NIH, because it’s a matter of international, settled international law, that when you do these things, there has to be a justification, at least, of a biodefensive nature. And that’s the only one. And what we’ve, there’s plenty of evidence to show.
And the next question is, so fascist clans are off, but can they start two year long pandemics? Yes. So the next question is, if it’s, whatever it is. If you see the swarm such that the swarm becomes skewed yet stable in a particular direction, and we had evidence enough that whatever was in Wuhan, that they were detecting it a few months later in multiple countries. Now, you could, there could be an argument made about, well, under, I don’t know, more natural type conditions where there isn’t international and what have you. Maybe you could say that it would peter out and burn out. You’re right. And so I wrote down a list of things. Problems with this, with this argument that basically the argument is that the quasi species swarm is too unstable. It’s too easy for all these other, it’s basically impossible for these replication competent perfect clones to sustain themselves as the as the primary quasi species pathogen within the quasi species swarm. And on, on, if you just look at it, and as you asked a question, that’s Dr. Cooley, my friend, Dr. Cooley, he is right to state, because over a long enough time scale, it will reverse the mean. Now, the first thing to note is that that doesn’t mean that the, whatever the equilibrium state is, will not have parts of the genome that have become, that remain as part of the dominant. So if the spike is extremely superior, then you can have a lot of other changes, but the spike might still be there, for instance, because it’s all a matter. At the end of the day, it comes down to evolutionary selection, regardless of these other factors that are taking place.
But the other factor to this is the math that’s involved when you have a perfect swarm and a natural quasi species. The argument that has been made is that it dissipates so quickly that it, that this, these infectious clones swarms could not be responsible, because it wouldn’t last long enough to produce what we were seeing throughout 2020, because basically, by the time it left Wuhan, very quickly, it would dissipate. There are a lot of reasons why, first of all, the medical evidence from doctors, the clinical testing that was done on patients that had severe cases was very much the same in December of 2020 as it was in January of 2020. If you go back and look at the first Lancet articles that discuss the first 41 cases, the first 99 cases. And I just want to add this, you know, from my field, okay, you can have all theory as much as you want. Neuroscience is replete with it, but you have to, we have to ground ourselves in clinical experience, and to not do so means that you can get swept up, you know, small minutiae can shift your perspective somewhat where it didn’t need to.
And, you know, the question comes, are you dealing with an objective repeatable clinical phenomenon, and I would say that the evidence would point to yes, and it’s distinct from flu and the other pneumonias, the pneumonia, the way it expresses is unique. The ground glass opacities, also the fact that we know that it’s coagulopathy now, the disseminated systemic coagulopathy, and these are all important metrics that you cannot just discard. And so, from that evidence, we would say even if it was an infectious clone that was the ignition, it was stable enough to last a year, at least, until the selective pressure being put on it by medical count measures, I guess. And which I believe absolutely it was the case, I know J.C., like, we’re all in agreement that, or most of us, that the vaccines or other medical countermeasures, monoclonal antibodies, these, sorry, the V word, I’ll use vagina instead of vaccine. That is good. So, all of this, we’ve seen, there were clear temporal signals showing that there was diversity in the phylogenetic tree as they were doing these testing of these various countermeasures. Now, that could be coincidental, I suppose, but that leads into the argument of if we have a quasi-species swarm that is that variable, then it would almost, it would very much weaken the argument that it was the countermeasures that were causing this, because why would the countermeasures even work?
So, how do we differentiate between an infectious clone and an endemic coronavirus like H12-OC43? So, this comes down again to clinical presentation. Yeah, because H-Code, okay, so NL63, 229, so there were four human coronaviruses. Two of those human coronaviruses had furin cleavage sites, and as just so happens, those two of the four were more likely to cause pneumonia than the other two. The other two were more likely to be upper respiratory infections. So, when these, it’s absolutely likely and probable and possible that when the CDC and these other countries, they were rolling up a bunch of different things and putting them into the coronavirus basket, I absolutely agree with that. The problem is, is that there was still more that was happening that could not be covered by that. And in the stream that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did, where he had J.C. and he had Robert Malone and Meryl Nass and Tess Laurie and Jessica Rose and maybe one more, in that every single physician, every single MD who had been working on it was very much, like they explicitly stated, well, it was definitely still there. The original virus, whatever was causing it, it was different from flu. And what Meryl Nass said I think is incredibly important. She said that what she had seen was that PhDs, and this is almost a quote, but not quite, that PhDs were looking at the all-cause mortality, the excess death numbers, and saying, well, they reallocated deaths here and there and put flu deaths and pneumonia deaths and everything under COVID, which I have no doubt was a part of it, and a big part of it. But the MDs to a person, and this is her, Meryl Nass, she also treated them. And Johanna as well. So all the MDs that we know, they were treating patients during this time. They had no doubt that there was a clinical manifestation of something that was different than the annual flu. It was different than the annual RSV and HCOV mixture that causes pneumonia. So we can’t just disregard that, because that is actual evidence. And from my perspective, when we look at all these things and we say, okay, well then how can we explain this? When we know that the quasi-species form exists, we know there is a reversion to the me, to this equilibrium state. We have to remember, when we have two clouds, well I don’t use my marine, the things I used to teach my young marines, I had different examples of, good for public consumption, but you have two clouds that are meeting. And one cloud is an infectious clone swarm that is virtually perfect, 100% homogenous. And then you have the natural swarm of coronaviruses that exist. Well, first of all, selective pressure is going to dictate ultimately what emerges from that. Because even if you revert to a mean, it’s a mean. It’s a range of probabilities. We’re talking about quantum fluctuations between two clouds that are floating around with Brownian motion in random gyrations. So right off the bat, it’s complicated. And it doesn’t always mean... But it’s even more complicated than that, because it’s not just random clouds, and you’ve got particular... All right, geographical temperature things, pH levels, there’s all these different things. It’s not just like one or two... It’s skewed in such a way that it’s never resting, and you can change from what could essentially be benign, and especially in checking in. The other thing is that because we know that these processes are going on, we have to consider that we don’t know the time and the number of cycles, replication cycles, that it takes to shift this perfect swarm into more of an equilibrium state. I would argue that there are many reasons why this process is not as immediate as we might think. Because, first of all, this perfect swarm, it has 100% replication competent particles. Also, not every human all the time has a large number of the natural quasi-species viruses in it. So if you have an area where there’s a bunch, for quite some time you’re going to see a predominant infectious clone swarm. And how quickly that dissipates will depend on all these other factors. But once again, if this is more fit than the natural swarm, then the pressure is going to be less on it to revert to this state. So the question is, is the pandemic being created and sustained by premeditated human action? Both Charles and myself would be in agreement. Yes, absolutely. We have to clarify what actions there are, but yes, absolutely. And obviously the clinical one is somewhat nice in that many, many different clinicians can agree that there’s a cluster of symptoms that define an illness. And Parkinson’s in Japan looks like Parkinson’s in New York or London.
Okay, now there may be some differences dependent on the ethnic group, but by and large, once a disease is defined, then you tend to sort of categorize it in that fashion. The bigger framework here is we still have to account for a lot of excess death. And that has to be our primary goal in engaging in or our primary goal to try to understand that phenomenon. People don’t just die out of nowhere. There’s a reason that there’s a rhythm to it and an expected rate, et cetera. We have to... Well, I guess it’s difficult to put it succinctly, I guess. Death being people requiring... So basically, I wrote down some things as I’ve been listening to this conversation for the past couple of weeks, a list of things that deals with the questions that are unanswered that bear to this. And at the end of the day, people died, and there is clinical evidence to show that even though there’s absolutely fabrication and exaggeration of what was related to COVID, nonetheless, there were COVID deaths. They were consistent in their clinical presentation across time, across geographical space, regardless of various social conditions, like there were variances, but there was a consistent manifestation of symptoms that was occurring. And so we have to be able to... My perspective is we cannot close off avenues of evidence until we have a sufficient explanation that can cover for it, that has its own evidence. And so far, we have various theories, but not all of those have the evidence to support it. And so here’s some examples of questions that I think that all of us, whether it’s us or JC or Matt Crawford or Robert Malone or any of these people, we need to be putting the quasi-species swarm into this conversation, but we also need to be able to ask questions about what does this actually mean?
And so one of the things I wrote was that the rate of mutation in the Wuhan sequences and in the broader rate of mutation during 2020 was below average. And so it was below average against other viruses, including flu. This was abnormal. Then there was a period of time at which this changed, and it sped up and accelerated to the point where it was between two and five times what anybody else had ever seen with other viruses. And that was being driven by... Like a majority of those mutations were coming from the spike protein, just one part of this virus. There were so many mutations in this one part that it was actually enough to double the average that we would see with viruses over time. As Trevor Bedford was noting this, giving it different excuses and reasons why it was happening, but this is absolutely the case. So whatever your problems with PCR or sequencing or whatever, we saw this trend. This trend is real. Now, it took a long time for a mutation to emerge in the consensus sequence that could outcompete the wild type strain. So one implication could be of that, that the natural quasi-species form was not the one that was driving these mutations. Because if it was, you wouldn’t have seen it overtaken by something that was better by one or two mutations in the receptor binding domain. But yet, because it was already so efficient, it took one or two of those mutations to get the beta variant, or to get the next variant. In this case, it was gamma, but that was not really that important. So if the natural quasi-species swarm was the driving evolutionary force that was pushing these mutations, you would expect that the beta variant... Why would the beta variant be the one that outcompeted the others? And I don’t know the answer, but it’s a difficult thing to explain if it’s the natural quasi-species swarm. What that looks more like is that it was outcompeting the wild type strain and the natural swarm. And that’s the debate we need to have, because we continue to see that same process. Whether the mutation rate was historically slow or historically fast, at the end of the day, it was being driven by improvements to the spike protein, and from what I can tell, not the natural quasi-species swarm. So I don’t know if that can be faked completely with PCR, but we see the trend regardless, and it needs to be explained. And at this moment, it seems like a more likely explanation that it was the vaccine or the medical countermeasures, but it was one of these five mutations that could have occurred to make it that much better. It was driving this, not this amorphous heterogeneous swarm that was going around. Yeah. So, hi lady, good to see you. Just trying to see if that’s sort of a decent question.
Oh, because I need a question. And I have more. That was just the first one. And that’s the problem, is that all of these ideas had merit. And this is not to just reject this hypothesis or this view of this hypothesis, but this is to say we’re not hearing, there’s still a lot of questions that this can’t necessarily answer, or if it needs to be answered before we can adopt this hypothesis to the degree where we’re excluding other things. And this is why these discussions are so important. So the next one would be, well, I had written, this would seem to negate the argument that the vaccine or the medical countermeasures, the vaginas were driving this evolution, because if there’d be a temporal signal being driven by natural swarm dynamics rather than the vaginas. So maybe I’m an idiot and I just can’t see it. I can’t see the answer. And I’m fully willing to admit that. But that’s a question that I want to know the answer to because I think that’s pretty important. That’s an argument against.
Once again, how does ADE fit into this? How does antibody-dependent enhancement relate to this? Because if, once again, if these mutations are all taking place and there’s this equilibrium, to me that would make it seem like it’s either a super risk or absolutely not a risk. But either way, it’s a confounding thing. It’s difficult to explain if the recombination and these mutations are so rapid that... Right, that swarm just negates any emergent advantage. Well, it’s not any emergent advantage, but if we see the swarm as something that can very, very quickly shift and cause something to disappear, an infectious clone to disappear within it, it causes a lot of logical problems of things that we’ve seen arising during the pandemic. And so, once again, we have to answer those questions. The next one. In one of the streams, they talked about survival of the flattest. And I think it was Matt Crawford who explained this. And when I heard this, once again, the same concept, this doesn’t necessarily imply that the high fidelity infectious clone or portions of that clone couldn’t turn out to be better, a better fit for the equilibrium state. So maybe this infectious clone, enough pieces of it were super awesome and stable enough that it replaced a lot of pieces in the natural swarm. Because they’ve done so much to control the narrative and hide, and use the PCR and other things, we don’t have a good idea of what’s in the swarm. But if I had to guess, I would say that the swarm in 2010 or 2015 or even 2001 before SARS looks drastically different and far less like the natural swarm that we have today, if indeed there is a natural swarm. And I know that one argument that has been said is, okay, well, what if they drop infectious clones into 100 cities or into all the major airports? And that’s why we see this background level. And that’s a fair argument, except, once again, it doesn’t account for why at the end of 2020, we were seeing something that was very similar to the beginning. Because even if they were doing this all across the world consistently over time, as we saw the mutations taking place in the phylogenetic tree, it was still happening in a trend. So that trend was happening regardless of whatever seeding could have taken place, unless they were literally seeding every single mutation in batches, which I don’t give them that much credit.
So I just want to address one thing. So it says on the one hand, you have Kevin, Rixey, Sorokin, Anthony Leonardo saying it’s dangerous to avoid infection because it causes T cell neurological damage. So I would I would just refine the position somewhat in the in any uncertain set of circumstances where there’s a potential of. By warfare, accidental or not, it the default position is just to mitigate the harms to yourself. Now, does that mean that we batten everything down? Dungeons and cellars to. Well, that’s a little clearer sound. I’m not sure. Again, a lot depends on the type of illness that you’re dealing with, and we still don’t know the full clinical picture of SARS or exposure to medical countermeasures. At this point, it’s still a guessing game. This is why we need proper studies done or at least studies that aren’t going to be manipulated. Yeah. Or just as you say, skip over awkward questions. And yeah, you’ll have all sorts of research programs dedicated to SARS, the virus, but very few that will be looking at the gene transfection and that, you know, that’s a problem within the scientific community in general and is indicative of the suppression apparatus that’s a play at the moment. And, you know, we have a lot of vested interests right now, vested interests that potentially literally fearing for their skin because of what has been done. And I think that’s, I don’t know, have you run through that list or did you? I got a few more. So yeah, I guess so we’ll wrap it up because I am seeing there are lots of good questions that are being asked.
The point is that we should be having this debate. And by manipulating the debate, by manipulating the narrative, by manipulating the scientific debate and the scientific research that could be published, which I have quantified and keep publishing, updated. Like, you can see these things. You can see the impact of them. And all of this has a cost. And the cost is that every day that this goes on, people die. Every day that this goes on, that whatever is going on with these potential HIV inserts, or with other elements of the medical countermeasures, or any of this, every day that we are not figuring out where this came from, and thus, learning more better how to address it. More Americans are dying. I mean, more people are dying around the world. But here on Election Day in America, you know, I think it’s an average of like 700 per day throughout two to two and a half, almost three years is actually more. The bottom line is it’s a million, 1,060,000. And in my mind, I don’t care if they died of COVID, or if they died of the lockdowns, or if they died of the countermeasures, or the political upheaval, or the economic upheaval, whatever it is. It doesn’t matter that a lot of these people were old enough to die. We should value human life regardless of how close it is to death. In fact, the closer to death, the more wisdom and judgment those people have. And what we’ve done is we’ve allowed our grandparents, and the people with our most wisdom, to be isolated and eliminated, and with an excuse that we were protecting something else. And that is a lie. It’s a crime against humanity because the only people they were protecting was themselves. And yes, this quasi-species swarm is something that they hid, that they understood, and that they manipulated to their benefit. Absolutely. But we have to be very careful in how we, in how we incorporate this, not just over-correct, because we need to get from evidence that is viable to bring these people to justice.
We need as much ammunition in the arsenal as possible. And until we can reject the hypothesis, we cannot just set it to the side. And I’ve always been of the opinion that I won’t listen to any argument, but we can’t. Because, once again, in addition to the, this ties into everything else. I was going to say, just real quickly, that what else have we been talking about? I’ve talked about aerosol transmission. I’ve talked about fusion peptides. That was part of those counterventures that were hidden because they had homology to retroviruses. And they didn’t want to highlight this because if they highlighted the elements of the virus, they were homologous to immunodeficiency viruses, to retroviruses, then what they really would have done is made it far more obvious, even with the FCS, that these were unmatchable. Because, as I’ve explained other times, and we may or may not get to it later tonight, but the bottom line is they knew exactly what those inserts were in the Pradhan et al. paper that was published on January 31st. Why? Because that same day, Bill Gallagher, who was Robert Gehry’s mentor, he published something as well, where he also focused on the homology of those, the general homology, including with those pieces. And he had discovered the fusion peptide in HIV in 1987. He helped create the structure of the organization for this class of drugs that was based off of this.
Ironically, Michael Worobi was involved in the HIV vaccine candidate in December of 2019, based off of targeting the fusion peptide. So, in January of 2020, when this new coronavirus had a fusion peptide that was virtually identical to the one from the previous month, the Vaccine Research Center, run by Fauci, that paired with Moderna to make the new vaccine, they had that choice of peptide as a target for the vaccine, among other medical capture measures. And what did they do? They didn’t just not do that. They also hid the existence of an entire class of drugs based off of a homology that has proven more than 20 times, 20 different types or variants of this have been proven, some of a fusion peptide inhibitor have been proven to work against SARS-CoV-2, and half of them have been proven to work against all human coronaviruses. And some of those have been proven to also work against the major retroviruses. We’re talking a pan-coronavirus inhibitor. Imagine all that was against a pan-coronavirus vaccine, because what we have is something that the Chinese knew was more effective, not perfect, but more effective than any jab was going to be, because they’ve been doing the same research as the United States had been. But Fauci knew all of this and made decisions. He buried Bill Gallagher’s report, even though it included the argument that they stole and put into proximal origin about the fearing cleavage site and why it would be natural. He took the other 75 pages of the paper written by Bill Gallagher and shredded it. They removed it from the final bibliography of the final draft of that paper, and that paper was seen by almost 6 million people. And so, the same day as the Pratt and Edel paper that happened, where the NIH’s best, one of their best researchers in this field said, yes, he didn’t know that that paper had come out, but he said the exact same thing with, more definitively, offered medical countermeasures that could probably work against it, because he helped invent them.
Everybody knows, let’s flip people off, everybody knows that Fauci had censored, was, his crew pressured the Indian researchers to withdraw that paper, but no one knows that that other paper by Bill Gallagher was basically flushed at the same time. That affects the quasi-species, because the peptides, they’re a better medical countermeasure than even monoclonal antibodies, because they’re more permanent. However, that also means that when the new variant comes out, they don’t need a new monoclonal antibody to counteract it. And once again, none of those would work if the quasi-species was as supremely effective at getting back to the reversion to the mean. So, we cannot divorce all of these topics, because they all have implications with each other. We have to be very careful before throwing away evidence to not do that. So, I’m sorry, I took a little more time, but that’s just an example where it’s incredibly important for us to not just reject things until we have absolute evidence to go against it. And, well, this is a... Sorry. No, no, no. I get aggressive. This leads us into the domain of, you know, versus... And the problem is that now, in retrospect, now that we know what we know, and there’s stuff that... Well, we could... I don’t know if we can discuss it or not, but there’s elements that have come into play that points to the collusion aspect. And so... And what were they colluding? Well, that they were doing this research.
Now, okay, I’m of the opinion that was it just something approximating an accident? I think most people would have been, okay, shit happens, right? We live in a technological age, we have nuclear meltdowns, now we have containment lab failures. And it’s not the first time, it’s not the last time. It means there’s something, I would argue, and we have to think along these lines until it can be dismissed because to not do so is to leave yourself open to the same or a variation of the attack. And we... In trying to hammer home the colluding aspect, something like DEFUSE is a primary source document. And it’s not something that you can just dismiss just because you think that the stage play or the magician’s trick, the illusion is what we’re dealing with. And I’m... Well, I don’t want to engage in... Well, like I said, I don’t know what I can say and can’t say publicly on the stream right now, just with respect to the technologies that we know are available. There’s so much more that... There’s been so much censorship and narrative control that one of the main tactics that’s been used is that anytime there’s a new development, and basically it’s always a pro lab origin development because there are no developments. There basically can’t be developments on the other side because... Rehashing of different arguments. But every time there’s a new development, whether it was the DEFUSE proposal or this new thing with the restriction sites, or even just our better understanding of the quasi-species. And I give all credit to Dan Sorotkin, who was one of the founding members of DRASTIC, and he was instrumental in getting this concept out there. And so was JC, and JC continues to carry this. And that’s incredibly important. But in each case that we’ve had these new things come out, what we’ve seen is that there will be an immediate large-scale response from the narrative controllers. And the public doesn’t even know that 90% of the content that’s coming against the lab origin narrative is coming from scientists directly, not indirectly, directly implicated in parts of it. And by that I mean the scientists that were at the 2-1 meeting with Fauci and Farrar.
These are scientists that were at the 2-3 meeting with the OSTP Chair, Kelvin Droghemeier, who lied as the Presidential Science Advisor to Trump. And I know this for a fact because Congress has validated and told me that what you discovered is true, that the Presidential Science Advisor colluded with Dr. Fauci to hide all of this from President Trump at the time. So unless Congress lied to me, that is a fact. And the reason it hasn’t come out yet is because Congress isn’t – well, the minority in Congress until January 3rd, more than likely, has been blocked out by the media because the media has – continues to work with – They’ve been complicit, yeah. They’ve been complicit. But I’m telling you that just the fact alone that a Presidential appointee would withhold information about the research ties between his own NIH and this Chinese laboratory or with any of the other laboratories, that is a violation of the oath that they took. And technically, the only way to – if somebody violates the oath that they took to the Constitution, there is only one charge that gets charged, and it’s treason. Now, that doesn’t mean that it’s like in the military when you’re at war and you disobey an order and then a commanding officer can – has the legal authority to punish some person – to punish the treasonous person up to including death. That’s not what I’m saying. What I am saying is that it’s a felony. It’s a crime. It’s – it’s – it’s not unconstitutional because there’s no crimes that are constitutional, but it is a violation of your oath of office. And Dr. Fauci took an oath of office. It’s very – not exactly, but very similar to the one that I took. So we are talking about crimes that have been committed by Presidential appointees, by the Senate Presidential Science Adviser, Calvin Dragonmire, by Dr. Fauci. And President Trump learned about all of these things with the emails from when the stories broke on U.S. Right to Know and BuzzFeed. So he learned about the Fauci emails on May 31st of 2021. He didn’t learn about the content of that February 1st, 2020, teleconference for 15 months after he was out of office when he discovered that his own cabinet members, level officials, the National Security Council people had been kept in the dark by the people sworn to be in public service and protect the public health of the citizens of the United States. And so the crux of this is that when you hear in the future, in the near future, Dr. Fauci or the intelligence community or somebody else say, for reasons of national security, we were – we were not – we were protecting something.
I want to be clear. I want to be fair and honest and clear. That is bullshit. That is absolute bullshit. Because if I’m Ron Paul or whoever else, if Dr. Fauci says something like that to me, here’s what he needs to understand. National security is not a good excuse. It’s unacceptable when we’re talking about this pandemic. The purpose of securing a nation ultimately is to secure and protect its people, not to protect its bureaucracy, not to protect its institutions, to protect its citizens. I didn’t go to Iraq, regardless of how you felt about it, how I feel about it. I didn’t go there to fight to protect the Department of Defense. I went there because I felt I was protecting the American people. And if I didn’t feel that that was the case, I would not have deployed. I would never have enlisted. So I want them to understand that there are a million dead Americans. So there is no national security clause. There’s no national security project or idea, concept, precedent. There’s none of it that supersedes the need for justice for 1,060,000 Americans. I don’t care what they died of. But the fact that Congress has held zero hearings, joint hearings, about this, and we’ve had more than 20 prime time hearings over the January 6th attack, when one person died. And the same day, 3,700 Americans died of COVID. 3,700, 3,700. So when I watched the intelligence community give the Biden report to President Biden on August 27th of last year, and they didn’t discuss DEFUSE, I knew about DEFUSE on August 27th. I knew about it. And I was waiting to see what they would do. And they lied to the American people. They were never going to release them. So national security, the primary national security interest of our leaders is the citizens of the United States. It is not the bureaucrats who dole out money or gain the function of research. So if Dr. Fauci honestly feels that way, well, he’s wrong.
But I never want to hear that ever again. I don’t want to hear anything. Anybody use the excuse of, for national security reasons, we had to do this. Because that time has passed. Until there is justice for 1,000,000 Americans, we must do whatever we need to do. It goes beyond that. It’s about the world that we’re stepping into. Yes, the justice is important for the dead. But we need to make sure that the world that we’re leaving to our children is not one where these type of events can become the norm. These types of events that are utilized, let’s say, all for nefarious purposes. They’ve normalized it. Think about this. They’ve normalized the concept of this mRNA as an effective tool. They didn’t provide the evidence for that. I don’t want to get into that because this is bigger than that.
They have a responsibility to us to justify the things that they do. Because understand that they took our tax money, did this research, enabled these scientists to make foolish decisions. I don’t care if it was on purpose or mistake or whatever. They took our money away from us, used our resources for this. If this pandemic came from a non-natural origin, what that means is that the American people will have paid for the virus. They will have sacrificed for this virus. They will have paid for the countermeasures. They will have paid for censorship, the violations of the First Amendment. They will have paid for the funerals that they couldn’t attend. They will have paid for the hospitals that they couldn’t visit when their mothers and their fathers and their grandparents were dying.
When my 26-year-old wife’s best friend, who’s the maid of honor at her wedding, died on a ventilator, on dialysis, and she was 26, and her husband, who was also hospitalized, an active-duty sailor, he was released from the hospital and he could not go back. He could not go back. And for the last four days of her life, he couldn’t go back. And I had numerous frontline doctors who were trying to assist in getting information and advice and just opportunities, whatever they could do. And these same doctors did this for millions of Americans, while our own government was preventing us from being able to even see our family members. So I don’t have a lot of sympathy anymore, because they don’t deserve sympathy. These people deserve accountability. They deserve to be held accountable for the decisions that they make. And I can’t think of a...they’ve aborted all of their responsibility. And ultimately, they’ve used our own resources at a time when we should be...technology should be taking us to better places. They use our own resources against us to oppress us. Maybe I can say this. We know that they’ve deliberately suppressed technologies that could have completely changed the face of this pandemic. And when you find out this particular detail, I’m not at liberty really to say much beyond that, but it’s beyond the scale of the fusion inhibitor, I would argue. Or no, I don’t know. In the same ballpark, maybe. It’s a different quantification to me. But the fact that they would have been known, these technologies would have been known, and they were deliberately withheld from people. That means that we’re in a completely different world now, framework now.
If we’re unable to stop it now, what’s the phrase you used? It may not be terminal for mankind. It would be terminal for freedom, right? Personally, I think that as a species, we’re going to survive. But we’re at a point where we’re dangerously close to a point where our freedom may not survive. Because we’re at a crossroads. Technologically, we have so much potential. But in terms of integrity and leadership at the top, we are led by a master’s degree in history. I think in the history of the West civilization. And I mean that. I have a master’s degree in history. And I mean that with all my heart. I honestly believe that the quality of the individuals who are leading us right now is the worst that I think the West has ever dealt with. Especially at any time in our past when there were major difficulties that we faced. And I can’t speak for other civilizations, but it’s so obvious. As our framers would say, our founders, it’s self-evident. I just pray that enough people, especially today here in America, understand that whatever is wrong, something is wrong. And whatever is happening, we need to be doing something different. And it’s unimaginable to me that there are people that could do what they’re doing. But Kevin hinted that there’s more to these stories. I know for a fact. And I can’t just lay out everything all the time because to protect the people and the ways that I get information.
But I can tell you this, that I look forward to testifying in Congress, preferably, probably, based upon various things. I look forward to being able to lay out all of the different ways in which to suppress the American people, or just the people of the earth, by controlling our access to medical countermeasures, to medical technologies, to methods of detection. To all of these things that... In addition to that is leveraging technology and understanding that maybe high probability that they deliberately put difficult to detect pathogenic mechanisms into SARS and leveraging them in this respect. Not only current evidence, yes. And that’s the problem is that all of us, like I said earlier, they’ve done a very good job of whenever new evidence comes out against them, they will hyper focus on that evidence and attack it. But what they’re really doing is distracting us from the fact that if you take that evidence, and then you put it with this evidence, and then you put it with this evidence. When you put all of these things together, then when they make an argument that, well, yes, the odds are that it might be this. But it could be, you know, there’s like a one in 20 chance that it could be this from a natural origin. Okay, well, but the problem is, is when you add all of these probabilities from all of this evidence together, the probability that a natural explanation can answer all these questions is so small that it’s criminal to not even be considering, not even be investigating the origin.
Because, as of today, right now, in the United States, there is no investigation of the origin of this pendant. None. There have been partisan hearings that Republicans have done because they seek to find the answer, but they were not in the majority in either house of the Congress and so they could not do anything about it. But the entire time, for three years, Congress has had the ability to call forth witnesses, to use subpoenas, to place them under oath, to begin the process of discovery, to call grand juries, to do all of these things to hold scientists accountable, to just get to the truth, just to get justice for dead people, and understand that what they’re doing is they’re obstructing justice, preventing justice for a million dead Americans. And there’s only one reason, and it’s not national security. It is to protect themselves.
Or it’s a really twisted agenda that they’re trying to bring in with that aspect.
It could be even darker, yeah. But we don’t need to get dark. We don’t need to be conspiratorial, whatever that even means anymore. We just have to, all we have to do is ask Dr. Fauci, why are these Americans dead? Help us answer this question. And if he will not help us answer this question, then he should never have been in that position in the first place. And if he is actively obstructing our ability to do that, which, and the evidence I’ve seen is incontrovertible in that instance, then he should be held accountable.
This is not about vengeance. This is not about politics. This is about justice. I don’t care about Dr. Fauci and his, whatever he thinks it is, or whatever his political opinion, or whether he thinks this is a personal attack. He’s still alive, and there are a million dead Americans. So something, he’s better off than them. And it was his responsibility to prevent that from happening. So my patience has worn thin, and all of us deserve is the truth. And until that happens, I’m not, I can’t, not that I’ve been silent up until this point, I have to be, I have to be more out in the open and aggressive in explaining to people what’s happening here.
So there’s a question, statement here. Jeffery Sachs was naive to choose Daszak to investigate this. It’s like a fox guarding the hen house. So I want to, just to raise, you know, yeah, and just, you know, because that, that has come up and, you know, the, the discussion that we had, you know, I hoped it would be public, but he didn’t, he didn’t want to do that. And I would just say this, that a number of people were invited to attend that didn’t turn up. They were given plenty of forewarning. And Jay was one of them. And there was no, there was no secret meeting. He could have been there in on, in on the meeting. And in that meeting, it was primarily, look, I think Sachs was, you know, his language was more salty than what you see publicly. And he, he was, much of it was Charles talking about the timeline. There was, and there was, there was nothing new in terms of information. The only new bit of information that we got, who, who reviewed the DEFUSE document. That was it. Nothing else. And we got a name on who had been attacking him publicly, which was Hotez. That was Peter Hotez. Yeah. And apart from that, it literally lasted 45 minutes. And there was, beyond that, there wasn’t much done in the, or said in the meeting that people who follow me or follow Charles, wouldn’t know about, wouldn’t have an inkling of. And like I say, between, well, this has been building up for a few months with respect to the, well, as Charles said, it’s just, he can’t give away all the details all the time.
And we shouldn’t expect him to. But only because I have to protect the identities of the people who provide me with information. If I, if I, anything, anything that I absolutely could release without harming people who give me information, I will absolutely do. Because obviously I’m sitting here railing against the government that is withheld information. And so there’s, the last thing I want is, is to do that. There are people in far, far more sensitive positions who, yeah, they could leverage all types of legal recourse against them. Right. And that’s, that’s not fair on them. And I’ll say this, I’ll guarantee you it’ll come out. Right? That, that much is sure. And you’ll be the first to know about it. But I’ve said many times that, that anything that I would be willing to say here, I would be willing to say under oath in front of Congress or anybody else. And I mean it. Because there’s nothing to hide here. This, this is all about getting to the truth. And I have, I have to put my integrity on the line. And I probably, I am. I put my family name on the line. I put, I put my house, I mean I sold my house. I’m homeless now because of this. Because I refuse to quit. So I can assure you that I’m not going to, there’s nothing that is going to pressure me to stop or prevent me from saying something that needs to be said. So the only, the only things that I wouldn’t just outright say would only be if it risks, it risks, you know, the people who provided this information. But that does not mean that I’m not taking action on it.
And so you can, you can rest assured that, so all of the concepts that we talk about, right, there’s a, there’s a reason that we get shut down so hard. And the, as I said, my hobby horse being protein misfolding, etc. They shut me down because I was right about it. Charles has just had the wits and wherewithal not to sperg out on Twitter and he’s, he’s literally our sort of last public facing member who can still, still pull numbers somewhat. And, you know, as sad as it is, Twitter is a battleground that we, you know, we should concede it lightly. Because the censorship isn’t going to stop the foreseeable future. And let’s say anything that would or is fighting for its literal existence right now because I make the argument that they would, they know that when all this information comes out that they’re for the high jump or long drop, I guess. The short drop, short drop, long drop from a short rope I think is the saying, right? Well, I’m trying to look at these questions because I do want to, I do want to answer some things.
The Lake lady, she asked, why won’t you talk about the remdesivir plus Fenton plus drugs protocol? I, well, Caitlin, the person who died, she, she was a victim of remdesivir, a victim of the drug protocol, because she was not given Regeneron.
My uncle was sick the same week, deathly ill, and, and, but he was in Texas, and they had traveling nurses who went to his house and gave him monoclonal antibodies. And in Virginia, where Caitlin lived, they had the Democratic governor, and they didn’t do that because they had different rules and regulations regarding the use of Regeneron. And so, and then she was admitted to the hospital, she was already very sick, and she was not given that. She was given remdesivir, and within 24 hours she was on dialysis. And she was 26, and she had no prior, there was nothing to indicate that her kidneys would malfunction. And so, I am very much aware and I’m a big advocate for justice and understanding when it comes to the malpractice involved in, in treatment of people who are in the hospital. And I, I can’t talk about it as much as I want to because there’s so many other things to talk about, to be honest. And the, the, the areas in which I’ve been investigating are so particular, and there’s so few people investigating in those areas that I have to prioritize. And I can assure you that when it comes to remdesivir, especially, but in any, but all of this stuff, I am absolutely in support of, I know for a fact that that’s just another part of this massive tedious crime. So I don’t want people to think that that’s not something that I talk about, because I absolutely, murder has occurred on a massive scale. And I literally just talked to my mom about that a couple days ago. And it’s, it’s horrifying. So, rest assured that this is part of the argument that, that we’re making. It’s part of the argument that I’m making. But I can’t, I, you won’t hear it all the time. Because, because there’s, to be honest, there’s a lot of other better advocates fighting for that. They had PhDs and MDs, and this is something that I know, these other things I can, I can talk about. And it’s a gap that needs to be filled. So, I don’t know if there’s other things.
What’s non-hydroxychloroquine? Well, hydroxychloroquine, as it turns out, earlier when I mentioned Bill Gallagher, and that he wrote an 80-page document that was published on January 31st, 2020. He pointed out that the primary reason that the Chinese were probably working with hydroxychloroquine was, A, because they knew that it worked against SARS, and they had much more experience than we did. And, and there was a literature, in the literature, there was many peer-reviewed studies that were looking at that and the mechanisms, and showed that it worked. And, and because SARS is so similar, it only makes sense to try it. But in that document that he wrote, he talks about how specifically what the Chinese were probably doing is using it as a way to limit the ability of the virus to use the endosomal pathway to, well, to, to aggravate the infection more, especially in the lungs. And so, it was, again, that was one of many pieces of advice that he, that Bill Gallagher gave to his fellow scientists that were ignored. And what, what can I say about, like, the studies and everything that have come out? All, what I can say is from the censorship perspective, I’m not a doctor, but from the censorship perspective, there’s obvious and consistent efforts to shape the literature to prevent good science from coming out, acknowledging this.
One example is, I have a video recording of, I believe it was February 13th or 14th of 2020, where Ralph Baric and Mark Denison of Vanderbilt, who, by the way, they were instrumental in inventing and testing rendesivir for Ebola and then for coronaviruses. They state on video in 2020, in February, that hydroxychloroquine has a lot of potential. And Ralph Baric invented, or he helped invent rendesivir. He’s saying that this has potential. He also said in the exact same recording, about a minute later, that rendesivir has been shown to have positive results on coronaviruses. But what he, what he says is that it must be given early. Remember, this is, this is an inventor of this medical countermeasure. It must be given early. And he laments the fact that it only comes in a IV form, because that makes it much harder to distribute, to give out in a prophylaxis or in an early stage treatment. So, so yes, I believe that there is an argument to be made that at some point in the treatment profile, that we should have at least tried it, which they did. But unfortunately, what they did, we’ll never know, because the way that it was implemented was given to serious cases, which by the time that people get to the hospital, the viral replication isn’t the problem anymore. And so, the people who invented it knew. And, and ironically, the same day, I think it was the same day, because Fauci’s calendar just came out. And the same day, February 14th, I’m sorry to take it back, it was February 11th, Ralph Baric met with Dr. Fauci on February 11th. It’s in his calendar. And we can reasonably assume that medical countermeasure is one of the things he talked about. Also, probably gained a function. And so, to say that Fauci would not understand the limitations of remdesivir would be an insult to his intelligence. And I don’t necessarily believe he’s as smart or as deserving of the position that he holds. But he’s not that stupid. And neither of them knew how to proceed to decontrol. They knew exactly the strengths and weaknesses of that antiviral and other antivirals. They, they chose to implement them in the way that they did with full awareness of this and full awareness of the inability that it would be able to have a measurable impact, a measurable positive impact. Because they had, I mean, they had to change the endpoints just right across the finish line. But when even the World Health Organization, it was a bureaucratic and willing to ignore reality organization that you would think exists, Fauci went above and beyond in that instance.
I think we’ve covered most of. Yeah, well, I think everybody here would at least know by now that I could literally talk about these things forever. Because I get, I’m in a strange place because I’m not a scientist per se. But I come from a, from a background of, of an analyst. And so, when I see my job was to take in information, figure out what the possible implications were, and then provide depending on the unit, a commanding officer with advice on what to do in an operational context, we have this threat. And how can this affect our mission. And I can assure you, I can promise you, because I have these conversations with my fellow Marines who are still in that in January of 2020. After I think the 24th or 25th, when it was discovered, or when it became known that the lab was there, and that there was a BSL4 lab there, and we started to trickle out. In the military, in professional CBRN circles, and I can almost guarantee this is the same even in non-military, like, like Philip Alenso, so people who are part of the Biological Weapons Convention, or the people who are the oversight groups that work with him. That was the null hypothesis, because that’s the doctrine, the NATO doctrine says that these are the, these are the risk factors, these things. And so when we would go to model that on a computer, and model on like a, you know, like a map on a computer, okay, geospatially, how could this spread? What could happen? The, we would assume that the point source was the lab, or some of you were in the lab, just automatically, because you, and you would need sufficient evidence to shift that. But in 2020, what nobody knows, this is, this is something that, that, that isn’t public, that, that I’m aware of, that I’ve been told by people, senior government officials, truly, that after the 2-1 meeting, and the 2-3 meeting, certain scientists, some of whom were actually implicated in the research, were sent on a tour to advise agencies of the federal government on the origin question. And their message was that it was natural. Can you say which scientists that was? Okay, now, honestly, I don’t want to say, because I can’t remember specifically, but I can say that at least one of the authors of proximal origin was on there. And I can’t remember which one, for sure, was, because there’s too many in particular, but at least one of the authors of the proximal origin paper was sent to explain the origin science to our intelligence agencies and to other relevant agencies of our federal government. And that I’ve not spoken about publicly before, but I’ve known that for a very long time. And these are just, there are so many, there are so many questions, but you have to understand that why would anybody feel the need to go to an intelligence agency, or to HNHS, or to Homeland Security, or whatever it is? Okay, now. Why would anybody? Why would Dr. Fauci, or?
I just got to say, it’s an awful lot of kidnappings happening in Texas. Yes, and burglars, you know what I’m saying? Jesus! We are in central and south Texas. But why would any government official, or any agency, or any bureaucracy, why would they send people around to explain the science? The DoD already has scientists. The intelligence agencies have scientists. The DHS has scientists. Why would you send somebody who they know is tied to this cover-up to go around and set the narrative? It’s a rhetorical question, because you wouldn’t do it because you wanted to inform about the science. Crack out the whiskey in the blunts. Crack out the whiskey in the blunts. I can’t do that. I’m not sure that’s a... It’s illegal in Texas. Yes, we can’t support the... There was a, I guess... Anyways, that’s just one of those little nuggets out there.
But we don’t even have to know these things to understand that every action that’s been taken by Dr. Fauci, by Kristian Andersen, by Peter Daszak, by all the leading scientists in other countries, like Marion Koopmans, or Christian Drosten, or Jeremy Farrar, or Patrick Balance, I could go on. Guilty. Guilty, yes. Guilty, guilty. All of these people. Premeditated, I don’t... Well... So I guess the person asking that is saying, is insinuating that there was all of this, there’s a premeditated component to it. Now, whether these are damage control mechanisms that kicked in, or if, I don’t know, they were scheming in back rooms and saying, okay, this month we’re releasing... Last time, right?
Well, so, this is a big question, and I don’t know the answer. I can’t just categorically state that any part of this was premeditated. Is that for two decades, federal agencies, and scientists, and intelligence agencies in particular, and scientists, have been coordinating and practicing what to do in situations like this. And RFK Junior’s Real Anthony Fauci book lays out, in exquisite detail in its last chapter, it goes through these two decades and lists out all these different practice events they were doing, and the different people that they were interacting with. And I should point out, one thing that isn’t really understood by the public is that one of the people who attended some of these events was a man named Ron Klain. And Ron Klain, in 2014, was the Ebola Czar. And through that, he became very familiar with Dr. Fauci. You may or may not be aware that Ron Klain is the Chief of Staff for President Biden. And he previously had been Chief of Staff for Biden when he was Vice President, and for Al Gore when he was Vice President. So he spent eight years in the White House before Biden became President, or 16 years in the White House, or not full 16, but basically he was there throughout a couple of different terms of different presidents. It just so happens that in Fauci’s emails that people have poured over, no one seems to have noticed that one of the things that was happening in February 2020 was that Ron Klain and Dr. Fauci were trying to get together. They, they had, they had talked at conferences several times.
Have you stopped streaming? I don’t know, hold on, I’m swimming. I don’t know what happened. I really hope that it’s not over. It might have just stopped. It’s not sang live at the moment. Yeah, it might have stopped. All right, we did over two hours and 10 minutes. Wait, so are we still streaming on A platform? No, I think, I think, well, YouTube’s definitely gone down. I don’t know. Hang on, let me just check. YouTube’s definitely gone down. So, now is this what this looks like when YouTube cuts you off? Yeah. Hey, last time this happened was with the DMED stuff. Um, I can’t, if we’re streaming or not. Yeah, well, yeah, it’s all offline. It’s all offline. Yeah. Has that ever happened before? Yeah. Okay, I would just call it technical.