McCairnDojo.comPast episodes & related streams
Connecting to Rumble…

Welcome, welcome, welcome everyone, it's me, me, yes, the trash panda dog is back, back in his home after a very, very, hang on a second, I'm just chatting with Charles.

And yes, we are going to do another stream with Charles Rixie and we're going to be looking at the latest FOIA that's come out again. Where's my guilty button? Is that working? No. God damn it, I'm trying to pick up all the pieces. I look well rested, neuro aligned. Well, yeah, I guess you could say that somewhat. I still, I still feels like the earth is moving somewhat. But yeah, I'm settling back in. But thank you. I had a, it was good to meet people on, from the Discord community. You'll know who you are. And of course, big heart for Karma Doc and putting, putting me up. And yeah, we just had a very, very cool time.

And I don't want to, I don't want to preamble too much. Maybe I'll just do this courtesy of Karma Doc. Remember, your government loves you. And that's us, Chateau Karma Doc and messing with boys toys. And what else do I need to do? If you've wondered in here and wondering who I am, my name is Dr. Kevin McCairn. I am a systems neuroscientist. You can follow me on ResearchGate, PubMed, anywhere that you go for boring, dry scientific papers.

You can find my previous work there. And of course, now we're in what is essentially next gen warfare. And this is the trench where you need to jump in That's, that's our little digital Chateau. And am I quarantining? No, I'm not quarantining. Should I pick again? I missed it. Okay. There you go. And yeah, just, just one last reminder, all this streaming, I'm sorry, I didn't manage to get more streaming done in the US. I was just hobbled by tech. I obviously need a proper laptop, not a little fucking, it's a relatively new one, but it's ultrabook. So it's designed for battery life. It was killing me. Shitty internet connection everywhere. And so I didn't, I wanted to stream more on my trip and didn't, didn't get to. So I apologize for that. We're back now though. And of course, the grift must go on. You can just support science for the public by the public. You could become a Patreon. You can hit the tip jar stream fags and GayPal. One of our payment processes is active, I believe. Then of course, buy me a coffee that should throw an alert up on the screen. And yeah, I think that's about it. I've got so many channels taken down. I can't keep up. Right. So with that, let us bring in the indomitable Commander Rixie. Let's do this. Good to see you, sir. Can you see me and hear me? You don't hear me? Okay, there we go. Can you hear me? Yeah, we got you. We got you. Good to see you.

It's been a long time. Yeah, it has been five minutes. So, you know, I, I woke up from my jet lag sleep, three, four o'clock in the morning, and you drop the foyer on me, which I think we should lead today's discussion with. We can get into other stuff as well. I know, I know people are sort of anxious to hear our commentary. And part of, part of this. Oh, hang on. Just give me one second, Charles. I've got two comments on the screen and I need to, boom, hide that one. Yeah, that should be better. Okay, so I'm gonna let you take it from there. Charles needs no introduction on this channel, of course.

We salute him as always, Master and Commander Charles Rixie. Please tell the world what's going on. Basically, there's just been more information come out in the FOIA that really just further proves the watchmaker hypothesis that I've been working on. And for anybody who is aware of that, you will, you won't be surprised. But unfortunately, most people aren't aware of that because we've not been able to get that information out as much as I would have hoped by now. So I mean, really, the best thing to do is, well, to kind of put it all within the context of the larger argument. I think that'll be the most effective.

Crypto Sherpa is asking, what's the watchmaker hypothesis in a nutshell? That's a good question to T.R. Right, okay. So the nutshell, nutshell is that Dr. Fauci and a group of other leading international scientists made the decision to suppress and censor information regarding two key aspects of the viral genome when the SARS-CoV-2 virus, when the outbreak first occurred. One was the furin cleavage site, and the other was what's called the HIV inserts.

But most people don't realize that the furin cleavage site site actually is within one of the HIV inserts. So we're kind of talking about the same thing. But the decision to censor those things had massive ramifications and caused a lot of collateral damage. One, because they thus knew that this virus had a furin cleavage site site, which meant it was almost certainly that exponentially increased the ability of the virus to infect other people. So its activity went up to closer to a pandemic level. And they knew this because for decades they've known that the furin cleavage site site is what, there is one of the factors that makes certain flu variants so contagious, and also makes it so dangerous because it allows a virus to infect a much wider range of cells than it typically could. So the other key, one thing that I've recently been able to conclusively prove is that Fauci, at the very least, knew about this by January 13th of 2020, which means that he knew about the furin cleavage site site and the fact that this virus was incredibly transmissible before the Chinese had even announced that it could be transmitted. Transmitted, transmitted between humans at all. So, but even after this meeting, there's teleconference three weeks later, which is the reason why the new FOIA documents are unredacted versions of emails that came to describe what happened at this meeting.

So, Charles has just dropped off, but the FOIA, yeah we lost you for about 20 seconds there bro. So you've got to, these are the unredacted emails that were FOIA'd, but that was US Right to Know previously, the first round?

Right, one second, I'm going to change, there we go, I was changing my network, that should be a lot better. Okay, so what was the last thing? So you were just getting to describing the FOIA documents and I was just adding in as it broke up that these are the unredacted versions of the FOIA that was, I want to say it was US Right to Know who did the first round of those emails, 80, 80, how many thousands of pages was it that you had to go through? That initial batch was 90, or I'm sorry, it was 83,000. 83,000, okay, so that's why you're the subject matter expert, I'm just the student at the moment listening to this, but one thing that I know and can smell is scientific malfeasance and we have a big steaming plate of it being shoved in our face right now. So, we did the nutshell, so I think.

Well, I guess I should finish that these new FOIA documents basically are unredacted copies of what, of things that we've been asking about for a long time and they literally just show that unequivocally they knew that the furin cleavage site was a very bad thing that made it much more pathogenic, they knew it was in there and they made explicit decisions to not talk about it and they continued to not talk about it for six more weeks.

Yeah, and they knew that furin cleavage site looked bad, even in the redacted emails that was kind of obvious, but there's a degree of clarity I think that's come now, I was scrolling through them as I was getting ready to do this stream, but what for you is the most sort of explosive emails in there that are new for people?

One of them, the most explosive thing for me is that there's one from Christian Drosten where he's asking, he's offering his comments on a working copy of the Proximal Origin paper and basically he says that why are we spending so much time focusing on the fearing cleavage site when nobody even knows about it yet and that's not the reason we were originally getting together to talk, we were originally getting together to talk about the HIV inserts specifically and so he was confused because he wasn't one of the authors on that paper and he was trying to figure out why those weren't even mentioned, it was only if you're in cleavage site and the receptor binding domain which is another key part of how the virus interacts with the cell but it's not tied to the HIV inserts directly. I think we probably should just do a reminder about why and how these HIV inserts are so key.

So that's kind of why I'm trying to access the brief that I gave for Crimes Against Humanity Tour so that way I can kind of set this all up instead of just diving directly into it because the bottom line is that what happened today is that there was further conclusive evidence that the watchmaker hypothesis is true and so basically they knew that the virus was highly transmissible and they waited, depending on who we're talking about, either six weeks to two months before the Proximal Origin paper was finally published to tell anybody about it so a few other people were talking about it, a few papers were published but they had known before all of that and they kept quiet and basically what that means is that the world's leading scientists and public health officials whose job it was to protect all of us waited until everybody actually locked down two months later to point out the fact that they'd known for two months that this was bad and that they should have done it sooner and then the other half of it is that the long COVID that we're seeing now with the group of the galaxy of symptoms that we're now talking about is almost certainly tied directly to these inserts as a group because the other three inserts deal with being able to infect what appears being able to infect immune cells directly which as you may notice as you may understand that's exactly what HIV does so those two things have this massive collateral damage and the censorship that is talked about in those FOIA documents once again is was directly designed to hide those two specific elements of the genome.

Did you see the, sorry to go off on a tangent but, no go ahead, did you see the White House press conference today? It's Fauci's last one. No I heard that, I didn't see it. Yeah so that was a whole bunch in it but part of it was them talking about how they were going to deal with misinformation and how the strategies were in place and oh I've got a call coming back, I might have to turn down your speakers or something but room cancellation but it was behind the language used for press conferences knowing what we know right now. These people are incorrigible and their claim right now is that the vaccines are cutting deaths and hospital stays, they said there's new data out, I haven't seen that yet but it was a major push for gene transfection, gene transfection obviously with the OG Wuhan spike plus the Omicron variant plugged in and I'm with the opinion we're still trying to figure out the fall out from that and we have to be open to as many hypothesis as reasonably possible in the current environment and yes when we're talking about complex syndromes like these post viral states it's important to know and understand things like furin cleavage sites and the impact that that would have on people's biology. The number is pretty consistent still, 30% post exposure are suffering some form of long term problem, persistent problem and so I'm speaking instead of you but yes you're very right to hone in on these details and not let them go in my opinion. Well exactly why I'm doing it because the longer that we keep pretending this isn't the case the worse this is going to be and we can already see that it's incredibly bad. If it's what we think it is then that means that everything that we're seeing now, the excess deaths about the exponentially increasing incidence of cancer and Alzheimer's disease and even Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, there's a mad cow disease basically, these are all things that are happening. All of that is tied to these specific epitopes or these specific pieces of the genome that we could have known about since the beginning but they went through great pains to suppress the furin cleavage site and actually very successful at censoring any link between the HIV inserts and anything else and people need to understand that that is all directly tied to what we're talking about now.

So perhaps tell people what their official reasoning was for why we're seeing these HIV segments. There is no official reason. They've literally been trying to hide these things. They don't talk about them. In fact, I've seen on Twitter more than one lab that receives NIH funds has been trying to get grants to study long COVID and Fauci’s NIH will not give them grants for that.

So I mean my understanding is that their claim was that these segments are short and thereby chance. Now this obviously feeds into your watchmaker hypothesis and you should perhaps expand on why being short is not a fait accompli with respect to rebuttal from their side. So say it one more time. Why the sequence is being there by random chance is not possible. Well, I think that the best way to approach that is a screen share and kind of go through all of that because it's kind of hard to answer that question without being able to show it. I will say I'm trying to merge the two PowerPoints together really fast. So if you want you can take a minute or two and just kind of cover anything else that you need to real fast before we dive in.

Well, you know, what's been my take on this? Well, right from the beginning when Pradhan paper came out, again, the whole scientific process seemed to have got turned upside down on its head. The actions that we saw, especially in retrospect, were entirely and meticulously coordinated to the point where, yeah, every sort of access point where we try to get out this type of information or get shut down. Interestingly enough, Charles, the last stream that we did, I streamed it to two YouTube channels. Both, they didn't have strikes. They nuked those channels straight away. This is my last fall-back one for the moment. But yeah, folks, don't expect this channel to be here in a few hours with the information that we're going to go through. This is, again, highly coordinated. They're very much trying to cover their backsides, their asses right now. And we're a thorn in their side. And they know to come looking for me and for Charles and to try to shut down these discussions.

They don't want you to know about it. I don't know who this new guy coming in is to replace Fauci, but he basically makes a claim in this press conference. He was like, you should listen to our top clinicians and not some random dude on Twitter. That was sort of literally his words. And that just tells me that what we are doing across these social media platforms is rattling them. And they are spooked and nervous because there's a bunch of us out here who can read through the science and can read these people and see them for what they are. And yeah, just folks, just There you'll find links. That's our streaming platform. They can't take that down. And we'll continue to fight from my perspective. I've got no intention of stopping and we'll fight to the last breath, son. How's that PowerPoint looking? There's a lot to emerge. I'm pretty sure people don't want 300 slides. We do long in-depth streams, Charles. Turn it down slightly. 200 then. No, the reality is there's so much evidence that goes against everything that they are claiming that it's overwhelming. And I think that's part of the problem is that there is so much evidence that it's hard for anybody to follow. And I think they've been banking on that this entire time. They've been using that to their advantage. Yeah, it's the technical edifice that people need to get over or come up to. And people have got to get a handle on this. And I'll say it again, science now, it's like the law. You can't claim to be ignorant of it. And you need to, you must stay on top of the data and the concepts that are coming out. These people, what's that song? She blinded me with science. What was that movie? Kelly LeBrock and where they make the girl with the computer, like the two from the 80s. What was that movie called? Weird Science. That's right. Weird Science. So, you know, this press conference, when they're saying that the gene transfections are saving lives, etc. I do and I know it's Stupid Peters, but yesterday there was a documentary that came out. Suddenly died, I think is the title. And they actually show some footage from the embalming process. Did you see that? Yeah. And there's nothing, there's nothing normal about that. And the science, we have the science to explain it. They don't want to. They're trying desperately to cover it up and confuse people in the process, right, in the hope that they sort of turn to more authority type sources. But, you know, we've seen how they've pivoted, prevaricated, straight up lied. And, you know, I think, I think people should be right to be suspicious. You should be suspicious anyway. When doing science, you should always be skeptical of any data that's being brought to you. And, you know, in this instance, we're dealing with people that can bring data that essentially have this command of infinite resources and access to the major feeds of information. And, yeah, it's a tough fight. We're three years into this, Charles. And, you know, I saw Fauci walk out the door today. He looks like he's got some gait problems, actually, as he sort of walked out, which was interesting. I hadn't seen that before. I just, I just wonder if the gene transfection is working on him. I assume you didn't say gait problems. No, gait. Okay, yeah. I just wanted to verify that that is, in fact, what you meant. Yeah, yeah. You never know. Well, not with me, right? I think I've got, I think I've got a workable set up here. So, let's see. Let me see if I can screen share. I've never been very... So it's bottom right-hand corner of... Smart with this. Skype. No, that's right, because we typically use Zoom. I mean, if it's easier to do Zoom, I can... I've got Zoom. No, no. Although it's not... Oh, there it is. Let's see if this works. And we'll do, let's do desktop, I guess. Boom, that worked. All right. There we go. Hang on. You're sort of hiding in the corner there. Can I move here? Ah, I can't. You have to be hidden in the corner, bro. Sorry. That's okay. I don't care if people see me or not. All right. January 31st, 2020. Let's get it on. So, basically, all of this can be tracked back to January 31st, because on January 31st, 2020, there were two papers that came out. One in particular... There we go. This one was written by a group of Indian researchers. It's called, Uncanny Similarity of Unique Inserts in the 2019 ENCODE Spike Protein to HIV, GP120, and Gag. And the bottom line from this was that they were pointing out that there are four pieces of... Four amino acid sequences within the spike protein of the new virus that looked a lot like pieces from the HIV, for lack of a better word, spike protein, which is called GP120. And that obviously should raise some eyebrows. And what's interesting here is that this tweet is from Trevor Bedford, who was a scientist who became part of the cover-up. And what he said was that this is a tiny, tiny sequence and in no way suggests engineering. These sorts of small indels occur all the time in natural evolution of stars like coronaviruses, which is an interesting choice of words, because that's basically what a guy named Bill Gallagher said in a post two days earlier on, which will become more important shortly. But basically, at this moment in time, the furin cleavage site was not known to the world to exist within this virus. So the thing that makes it supremely infectious to a whole bunch of different types of cells was unknown at this time. And so Trevor Bedford literally stated that it was a tiny, tiny sequence and in no way suggests engineering, which is the exact opposite of the truth. And by the way, feel free to interject at any time. This is not like a thing we can interject in between. I mean, January was a hell month for me as I was recovering from SARS. I remember the dyspnea and just struggling to breathe. But I can remember the information beginning to leak out about potential lab origins. And yeah, a lot of pieces began to fall into place for me around this time. It's just a tiny sequence, Charles, a little piddly sequence. Which is BS because the entire reason, literally the entire reason for the gain of function pause or the original reason was because there had been experiments done, one in particular that made the 1918 flu virus infectious to humans because they had a bunch of ferrets and they were making them sick with it. And the virus was passed into these ferrets and very quickly the virus evolved to be able to transmit the aerosol. And then if I remember correctly, it was only the furin cleavage site specifically that it evolved, but prior it did not have this capability. That's interesting. I didn't know that. Yeah. So Ron Fauci, I remember it was Fauci or Kawaoka now because they were both working on that same virus. I'm sorry, I take that back. One was working on H5N1 and one was working on the 1918 virus. But in any case, the furin cleavage site was known to be the thing you just don't, you don't do, you don't need to do it because you already know it's going to be bad. And nonetheless, they did it. And so for Trevor Bedford on February 1st to specifically highlight insert four, which as we now know, that was the furin cleavage site. The furin cleavage site is the PRRA at the end of that. And that was the part that he was specifically stating in no way suggests engineering, which is a straight up lie. Yes. And for those that haven't read the FOIA releases, I highly encourage you to do that because they're straight up discussing how it could be made in the lab and how that process would be needed. So Charles is not embellishing information here. We lost the PowerPoint presentation, dude. I see a picture of myself. I remember that one of the things you can do here is that you can edit to make it to where I can float. Let's try and see if I can figure out how to make it float. But show me. There we go. That's sweet. Let's take your ugly face off there. So the reason why I wanted to point this out is because I went back and I went to because on, which is a message board that all these virologists use, the guy that's pictured, Robert Gehry, his mentor had made a post two days earlier on January 29th, where he had basically announced, it was the first time anybody had even discussed in the English language the existence of the spirit cleaning site in any way that was accessible to the public. And so he explicitly pointed that out. But on February 1st, which was after this Indian preprint came along, everybody panicked. And so they called for this meeting between Fauci and Farrar and all these scientists. And Robert Gehry was one of those scientists. And after that meeting, in an email, he wrote that, well, all but the perfect insertion of 12 nucleotides that adds the furin cleavage site. Well, guess what? That PRRA, the Trevor and Bedford was referring to, is the 12 nucleotides that adds the furin cleavage site. The S2, so the other half of the spike protein, is essentially identical. So I really can't think of a positive- Just to clarify, you mean identical to other SARS-like viruses? Yes, I'm sorry. So similar to the original SARS or to other SARS-like viruses, that part of the spike protein is well known to be very stable, which also makes it strange that they would not choose to use that in a vaccine. But that's a different argument. So basically- Well, can't you make the argument that they have used it in the vaccine? Because, I mean, essentially it's a codon-optimized, full spike protein that's supposedly being made in- Yes, but they didn't need to use the furin cleavage site itself. And that's something that's been a key argument of mine. That's why I went back and looked at all those other vaccine construction, which I'll talk about at the end, but basically all the proof, the mounds of evidence that they knew exactly what they were doing, and they would always remove the furin cleavage site from the vaccine. And I should also note that at the time where this had taken place, the public didn't know that there was a furin cleavage site. Like scientists in general didn't know that there was a furin cleavage site. But Fauci had, because he knew that three weeks earlier. And so that's really what's sick about this is that not only did he know about it, but he knew that it was in his vaccine because they had to make the decision to keep it in the vaccine by January 13th. And that was the first time they'd ever done that before. And actually, they've never done it since. If this comes on the back of that video, I can't remember if we played it the last stream or not. Is it the, I want to say, one farmer head or something, where they say that they remove, isn't there a question from David Rellman in some conference? And he asked about this and they say, oh, we'll remove the, we'd never put a furin cleavage site in a vaccine. Right? As it just so happens, I've always got that saved so we can find that almost instantaneously. Wonderful. Because you're right. That is incredibly, incredibly important. And they never talk about it. Ghostery, sir. Ad blocker. That's what you need. I'm too poor for that. It's free. It's free. No sound. Yeah, so. Let's see. I wonder why we don't hear sound. Maybe it's just, okay. So hopefully you'll be able to hear when I play it. But I don't know if there's gonna be an echo for you, but hopefully not for everybody else. I didn't hear anything when it was just playing a second ago or the ad, so. We didn't hear the volume down. So basically this little segment, there's a 32nd piece where he, he basically says, we would never put, a furin cleavage site in the vaccine. And if we, if we ever find it in a batch that spontaneously mutates, whatever, we always destroy the entire batch and that's, that's what's about to happen. One thing I want to point out is that the person who's going to be speaking is Philip Dormitzer, who later in 2020 was the head of vaccine development for this mRNA for Pfizer. And the other person sitting next to him is Ralph Baric. Yeah, no sound. Send me, send me the link in the chat, dude. I'll play. Okay. Dang it. Okay. Yeah, because. It's important. It's a crucial bit of the evidence. Okay. The key part starts at 5150. And actually I don't need to, I also need to share some of that. The back cleavage meant that the virus. I don't know if you hear it. I mean, if I do this, you should be able to hear it. I think. We, you're now in control. So yeah. Yeah. So just, just tell me, do you hear this? Came out of the cell. We're ready to infect another cell. It's very quiet. Why is it so quiet for me? I don't care if I get out of here. I don't know what to say. All right. So I'll just take it. So there was a logical possibility. And yes, then there was certainly not loss of function experiments where you could attenuate. And I want to make sure I get this right. I think at some point there have been gain of function experiments. Perhaps some of the other flu virologists here could correct me if I'm wrong, if those have ever been done. But I probably, I would imagine once they knocked it out, they probably restored virulence at some point because normally when you do a knockout, you want to then put the factor back in and make sure you got it right. So my point is we oftentimes know what's dangerous because we discovered it. Yeah. Yeah. It wasn't, it wasn't a revealed truth. It was experimentally determined. Yes. Greg Koblans, George Mason University. I have two questions. First, straight from the horse's mouth as they say, that they knew the functional implications of these peptide sequences, these cleavage sites. And well, I think we're seeing the consequences of what that, what that means writ large, but let's try and bring you back on screen. Okay. So yes, they knew about these, the importance of these sites and damage control was going in. What was this February 1st? So the day, so actually, so this February 1st, this was literally just before that teleconference took place that he tweeted out this, but it was the next day in February 2nd, where Robert Gary sent in his, his comments. And he literally said, well, ironically this, when he was one of the five coauthors in the Proximal Origin paper and in that paper, they literally state the opposite of what he said in private just then. So that's kind of a big deal to me anyway. Let's just read that out. Can you just go back? I just want to say, I really can't think of a plausible natural scenario where you get from the bat virus or one very similar to it to nCoV, where you insert exactly four amino acids, 12 nucleotides that all have to be added at the exact same time to gain this function, that, and you don't change any other amino acid in the ST segment. I just can't imagine how this gets accomplished in nature. That was Robert F. Gary saying that. Yeah. Yeah. And then the day after this February 3rd, when they, when they held another meeting, both of these people were at that meeting where they were once again talking about all of this. So they can't possibly like not know. And here's, here's the real key from this paper is that the, the, in addition to the furin cleavage site insert, the inserts one through three all happened to be at the outermost points of the, of the variable loops at the exact spot. They'd be most accessible and most hydrophobic, which means most the strongest and basically the strongest connection and most attractive connection possible when for needing to infect cells and those three receptors together are what is needed to utilize or to be able to infect immune cells, certain immune cells in the human body. So the fact that not only do they exist, so they could have been random, but the problem is, is that they were, they were in the precise spots that they would need to be. And I would argue that how did the coronavirus genome, how did the virus know that these additional pieces, which are the, which don't exist in any other coronavirus, how did, how did it know to insert these and not just insert these random sequences, but in the exact spot that they would be needed to be most likely to interact with, with cell receptors in humans. That's, that's what I functional inserts, just happen, just happen Charles to it. That's statistically impossible. The, the first part, yes, it's theoretically possible that you could have these sequences, but to have the exact parts of those, but the variable loops of HIV, it would be necessary to connect to the appropriate receptors and then have them in the best possible place on a completely separate virus to make that virus also be able to do what the other one can do is I would assume that the odds of that happening are greater than the number of grains of sand and all the beaches and all the planets and all the galaxies and all of the universe. So that is what the paper did that they were trying to smother. That's what, what it was saying. Just to, just to go on a quick tangent here. Someone's asking, do I accept a pandemic amnesty from the mainstream? No, not at all. I don't know how you feel about that Charles, but no amnesty in my book. Yeah. Negatron, negatron. Yeah. How could you possibly have amnesty when they've made, they're still trying to use this, everything, all the tricks that they've tried, they're trying to use them all in the future. And that's terrifying. That should terrify everybody because instead of telling us the truth, they're trying to double down on their lies, which is disgusting. They specifically pointed that out today. They're going to keep carrying on doing exactly what we're looking at here is. Oh yeah. So, so this basically has just a little side thing just to show the extent to which they were censoring. And this is Twitter followers. And Paul Facker, who's like a science investigative journalist, he had gone to Angie Rasmussen's Twitter and gone to the internet archive and looked at it and say, okay, well, why does Angie Rasmussen, who is a non, she's not well known as a virologist. She hasn't done anything with it, any note. Why does she have 300 or 400,000 Twitter followers? And he discovered that it turns out that she exponentially gained followers just before they started talking about this narrative, just before the proximal origin came out. And so what I did was I went and looked at the whole bunch of different virologists to see if there was a similar trend. And sure enough, Trevor Bedford was actually the biggest gainer from this. And he was Angie Rasmussen. They were not alone because a whole slew of virologists had massively exponential growth in their followership all in February and March of 2020. And this is before the coronavirus was became a thing or became for the lockdowns before any of this stuff, they started becoming, they started being boosted by some unknown force. It's all those laid off workers from Twitter. Release the bots. So some magically there, they were able to figure all this out. And they all became superstars overnight. And they all also got verified, virtually all of them got verified by Twitter around the exact same time, within the same week of March 21st to March 29th of 2020. So it was obviously not random. It was not grassroots. It was not, you know, all of this was planned or at least intentionally coordinated to construct a narrative. Oh, and by the way, if another guy who was coordinating with him, John Cohen, he just got rid of his Twitter account yesterday, the day before today when some of the FOIA documents that came out are showing that he was part of the cover up too. There you go. Oh, and here's, here's another one. Here's Florian Kramer. For instance, he on, in January of 2020, he had 1700 followers. And by March 26th of 2020, he had 53,000. And that's continued to expand. And he's not an important fibrologist. I'm just saying, he's not important. Oh, and guess what? Also, the Trevor Bedford, the same guy that said the HIV thing was stupid. Immediately after that, immediately after that, he started having exponential growth in his followership. And so he went from 4500 followers to by March 29th, 187,000 followers. And I went and checked. And that actually that daily average is higher than Joe Rogan at the same time, during the same period, when Joe Rogan starting out had 8 million followers and he had 4500. The fact that expect people to just bite down on this and just believe. Right, but this is what they did. I mean, and so I'm sorry, Trevor Bedford, if you're watching, but there's not a chance in Hades that for six weeks, he was more popular than Joe Rogan on Twitter. This is not the case. That's not how it works. So obviously that was fake. And and so but why would somebody go through this? That's the whole point is why would why would they expend so much effort to try and build this false narrative? And we know the answer. The answer is because they know the truth and they don't want us to know the truth, because if we did, then we would. Well, we'd probably have different feelings about how this pandemic like what this painting was, how they responded to it, and how we should feel about science in general, because it was all all covered up. Yeah. And so like, whenever I did this brief, I made edits since I actually gave the talk, I kind of introduced, you know, some of the scientists who've been working on a lot of the things that went into my watchmaker paper. And obviously, you're one of them. Dr. Fleming is one of them. You know, thank you. You're welcome. And you know, Johanna, JC, Rosanna, there as well. And that's it, Jackie. Yeah, Jackie. Good to see you back on Twitter. You keep going, bro. And Dow you and also at the bottom left of the little square of nine. That's Major Murphy, who released the DEFUSE documents. He was he was the he was the person who submitted the IG whistleblower complaint to Headquarters Marine Corps, which is how Congress found out about the DEFUSE proposal. And they're so they learned about it not long before Drastic released the DEFUSE our analysis of the DEFUSE proposal. And so basically, as we know, well, I've got a little another graphic that shows in the very bottom corner, there's like a there's a list of three names. I don't know why that's on this slide. But that's just showing the that's showing the Twitter followership for for like me and JC and ethical skeptic. And what it shows you is that that all of us were in the top point to 5% in terms of having numbers of followers. And at the time, I only had 11,000 ethical skeptic only had 147,000. So out of hundreds of millions, ethical skeptic was, you know, number 76,500, the top point to 99.98 percentile among everybody on Twitter. So just imagine that if you go back to here, and you see Trevor Bedford, who now has like 400,000, or in your 500,000, that's a lot that puts him within the top five to 10,000 of all Twitter users. And he's just some random scientist who, you know, that's, that's, that's how we know that all this was fake. It's all fake. Sorry. I mean, and this was just me introducing myself, you know, just talking about what my background was, basically that, you know, I knew a lot about WMDs, then I started getting into human defense. And then there's my wife, there's my kids, minus my youngest kid, because there's my youngest kid. And she was like six months old when the pandemic started. So her entire life, basically, has been, she's been in a bubble created by this pandemic. So thankfully, she's not old enough to remember any of it. And her entire life has been consumed within this same span of time. And it's just disgusting. Yeah, you know, I was, I was thinking, three years I've been doing this, and you know, the little break that I've had, I needed, I needed to get away from this desk. And, you know, it was, it was good to get to meet you and hanging out. And I needed that. To know that there's real people. You know, you're not, you're not a deep fake bot. I mean, here's half of them, here's half of Drastic. And all of us, we've all spent so much time for free, trying to figure all this out. And what people need to understand is that as we've done this for free, this entire time, that all the garbage and fake science and narrative stuff that's been published in peer reviewed journals, all of that has been paid for by US taxpayers, or, you know, from other countries, all of it, the scientists who are defending this, who are lying to us, have been being paid by us to lie to us about what's actually happening. And we really, really need to remember that. And the person who doles out all this money is Anthony Fauci. So that's just, that's just my reference project. It's just other stuff. Which is on Research Gate, folks. Oh, yeah. You should follow Charles there. Yeah, this, this Excel spreadsheet, which actually now has double the number of tabs at the bottom, it has double the number of sources, it has like almost 1900 sources now. But basically, this is one of the projects that I did to kind of correlate and just gather all of the various news stories and articles and videos and everything that I could find that relates specifically to the origin in some form or fashion. And so it remains the biggest, I mean, this, the US Right to Know has has something kind of similar to this that has about 150 articles. But this, this is about nearly 2000. And this has different sections that cover it shows charts and everything with the show the intensity of the censorship. And there's different sections that have all the links to all the major FOIA collections and everything that drastic has ever written everything that Peter Daszak has ever written. There's like 450. Now there are about 450 articles on one of the tabs that relate to relates specifically to gain a function. And one of the things that's not on here is the watchmaker hypothesis. I've got more than 500 such links that specifically related to that, but has its own set of tabs as well. So yes, that's, that's a big, big project that I've always been free and available. To the big daddy of references and resources. Again, I encourage everyone to get a research gate account. Follow Charles there. It is a stellar bit of work. Just want to, there was a question in the chat, which I just wanted to address some more. Said, so everyone that got covered, even without the shots was infected with HIV more. You were exposed to peptide sequences that are part of HIV. Now I think, I think there's mounting evidence of the impact on the immune system from both sides of the equation, be it gene transfection or exposure, the, I don't personally, I don't think everyone's coming down with AIDS anytime soon, but never, never say never in the current environment. So I hope that answered the real, the real key here is that what those inserts do, it's not, this isn't giving you, this is an HIV self. What it is, is it's, it's giving another skill, it's giving another Swiss army knife tool on the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. So that when you get COVID-19, one of the things this virus can do is directly infect immune cells, which is, that is, not very many viruses can do that. But here's the real nasty part is that also on a different part of this virus, not the spike protein, there are segments which have the, which basically what they do is they suppress your body's interferon signaling. And what that means is that as you're becoming infected with this virus, normally your immune system would sense that something is there and so it would send various aspects of it to, to go fight these infected cells. Well, this suppressing the interferon response allows the virus to spread much more before the body becomes aware of it, which this is terrible because this is something that HIV does not have the capability to do. It has its own mechanisms, but this is a capability that comes from bats specifically because bats have a suppressed signaling for interferon, which means that they can get infected with these viruses, but it doesn't trigger their immune system. So it doesn't trigger the inflammation. It doesn't trigger the fever and all this other stuff that typically happens when you get infected, which is why they make such good carriers for different viruses. And I think there's good reason. It says in the Bible, right? Don't eat bats. I mean, it's, it is a good reason. They even knew back then before they had molecular biology. Exactly. They're just dirty. Don't eat those things. That's the problem is that, is that there's not just like one piece of this virus that makes it look suspicious, like it could be unnatural. There's 80 billion. And this interferon suppression is also one of the main things that makes it clear that this is not, this was not meant to be like a vaccine virus, because if you were making a vaccine, you would never put a furin cleavage site in there because you don't need the vaccine juice to spread to different cells throughout the body. You only need a vaccine to protect or to interact with the immune barrier, which is, you know, the skin is in your mucosa. So it's in your nose, your mouth, your stomach, et cetera. There's different barriers in different places. But when you inject it directly into your arm, you're actually bypassing that. And this is why a lot of inoculations in the past, they would, they would either be like cow pox, what was on the skin, or it would be like the polio virus, which the best one was oral. And the entire purpose of that was to not bypass the immune system. So if, so on top of that, you would never include, there would never be a virus, even like a live attenuated vaccine with a whole genome that would have a segment that interferes and dysregulates your interferon response. That is just what's insane. Because you also wouldn't have that and the ability to infect T cells and a furin cleavage site and a super antigen, which the sole purpose of that super antigen is to attract the attention of your, like it's like an over attraction. It turns on your immune system way more than it should because it's trying to figure out what's going on with it. And that super antigen is another thing, by the way, that was a part of the U.S. bioweapons program in other countries as well as back, far back as the fifties. So the fact that, that the F, the fact that the furin cleavage site is part of a larger sequence that just so happens to mimic a super antigen sequence, which we've seen the effects. So we know that there's some super antigen present because we're seeing the effects of it. The fact that all those things are together in the spike protein, in the same spots in the spike protein, that is that not only is that a natural, it's extremely suspicious. So somebody wanted, somebody wanted people to get this and they wanted them to have a massive immune overreaction and they wanted, but they also wanted it to be able to replicate enough before that point without being sensed by your, by your interferon. So that's insidious. So by the time your immune system recognizes that it's there, it's too late. And that's part of the problem with older people, especially is once it's, once it's there strong enough that it's able to infect the lungs and get in the lungs completely and you have pneumonia, you're toast, which is exactly what we saw. And so, yes, that, so all of that combined is, is, well, it's nasty. And it raises many, many red flags. It should do for people who work in, in the field. And, you know, we get to this, why, why have they all been so quiet? I, of course, part of it is censorship, but the lack of people standing up is distressing, to say the least. It is what it is. That's why we're here. Well, they couldn't know. And so the, the stuff that just came out, the FOIA documents, what it was, was really just further unredacted portions of emails related to this February 1st conference. And so in the little talk that I gave, which I was basically explaining what my watchmaker hypothesis is. And in short, it's that Dr. Fauci and others censored things from the very beginning of this pandemic. And then, and so, and I talked about like how, like what they did, like what that looks like, what the impact was, and then I talked to- Well, she's still not working at Twitter. Oh yeah, actually, that's, that's something I don't know, is I don't know if she still works at Twitter. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, she might have just been- I mean, ask that. I was going to ask Elon Musk that, and see if he responded. But, and then- I'm not allowed back on. I've tried getting back on. I got booted straight away. They really don't like you. Nice. So anyway, but basically there was censorship and then I talked about, okay, what were they censoring, which we've kind of already talked about. And then what was the fallout from that, what were the implications? And since we've, since we've already kind of talked about it, I'm not going to, I'm not going to follow this exactly, but I just kind of want to give you a sense for what it was I was explaining. Top tier memes, by the way. What's that? Top tier memes. Yeah, well thank you, thank you. I made that one myself. I took one that was not as good and I improved it. It was gaining function on the memes. So the key points to focus on here, and once again, I have not changed any part of this particular brief because all of it is still 100% viable. It also applies. None of it has been disproven. And everything that keeps coming out keeps pointing to the fact that it's all true. And so for us, the key thing is just the censorship, what they were censoring and what that meant. And so in this case, they released the genome in February, so January 11th of 2020. And within, and the dates are kind of weird because some of them are in China and some of them are here in the US. And so China is a day ahead of us. Well, obviously, you know, because Japan is also a day ahead of us. And the bottom line is, is that within 24 to 48 hours, the, I actually, I would have, I should have put here, it wasn't Moderna, it was the Vaccine Research Center that is, the Vaccine Research Center was created by Anthony Fauci 20 years ago to specifically work on HIV vaccines, because it was such a difficult task. And he, about a decade ago, kind of added to their mission the goal of making pan-influenza and pan-coronavirus vaccines. And Moderna had partnered with the VRC starting in, well, in 2015 and 2016. And prior to that, they'd worked for guess who? DARPA. DARPA was one of the first institutions to really fund early Moderna work, because they were really interested in this mRNA technology at the time. And so by January 13th of 2020, they had finished the prototype sequence for the vaccine. What that means is, they already knew about the furin cleavage site. Why? Because they literally told us in peer reviewed publications and in press releases for Moderna, they literally state that one of their main decisions that they had to make was whether or not to keep that furin cleavage site, and they kept it. And once again, that means that they knew that this was highly infectious, at least a week before China admitted that it was infectious at all. Yeah, I'm just reading through the abstract there. The finding of four unique inserts, all of which have identity similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1, is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature. You can see why that probably gave, I'll tell you, a bit of a fright. Right. So likely to be, unlikely to be fortuitous. And if I think, if I could get away with it, I'd make that the title of my book eventually, if I ever write something about this, I would want that to be the title, but no one would ever go for it. But that paper, the unlikely to be fortuitous, that is the exact reason why the Fauci-Ferraro teleconference was called the very next day. So we're talking 24 hours after that. They were already sitting down and talking about the implications and what it meant. And this list of 12 people includes the leading scientific advisors for four countries, the people who, if not directly, then indirectly, were in charge of all lockdowns and all the medicines and everything about the response. The countries of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands are all represented right here. And all of these people, all the, well, and Australia, and all of these people suppressed the existence of the here in Cleveland site for another six weeks after this meeting, for six weeks. So not only did they, did Fauci not say that it was even, that it was transmissible, but once everybody else knew, none of them said anything. Which, just think about it, on January 13th, on January 13th, only one country besides China had a case, which was Thailand. Well, that knowingly had a case, which was Thailand. So if they had told the world, as soon as they found out about this, there would have been a much better chance that this didn't become a pandemic. But they didn't. In fact, the entire rationale for making a vaccine for a non-infectious disease that you don't know how prevalent it is, is ridiculous. But they started it and they waited until human to human transmission had been announced. And then the next day was the first time that Moderna talked about the fact that they had a vaccine. And then it was two days later, when they were in China, locked down Wuhan, that investors started pouring in money to these projects. Because by that, because then they can see, okay, well, a vaccine might actually be worth money at this point. Right. So all of it, they knew all of this. And they didn't say anything, because they hate you. And sadly fueled by the Trump warp speed program. Well, yeah, but remember the Trump, Trump didn't know any of this. In fact, that's what this next, this next meeting, that's why this next meeting is so crucial, is because, so in the first, they talked about this threat, okay, oh, holy crap, there's this, there's this, there's this virus, and it looks like it might be unnatural, what are we going to do? And by the third, February 3, another meeting was called between, and it was hosted by Anthony Fauci and Kelvin Droegemeier. And Droegemeier was the presidential science advisor, appointed by Trump, who his job is literally to, you know, provide advice about scientific matters to the president of the United States. And he was also the chair of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which, so like science policy dealing with regulations for science, he was in charge of all that. And he and Fauci held a meeting.

And the other speaker at this meeting, the other main speaker was Chris Hassell, who was the chair of the oversight board created after the gain-of-function ban. He was the chair of that secret board. So if there was any research that was risky, he was supposed to be kept abreast of it and provide his recommendation on whether or not to have it go forward. And so he was speaking at this meeting. And so were a bunch of scientists from the meeting two days earlier, and all the implicated people as well. So Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric, et cetera. So just all-star cast right here.

And the goal, the meeting objective at the bottom of the screen says, to assess what data information and samples are needed to understand the evolutionary origins of 2019 nCoV and more effectively respond to the outbreak and resulting misinformation. Dude.

So, and by the way, Kelvin Droegemeier never told President Trump about this. And I know that because I hypothesized it. I postulated it. And I was told by Congress, if that was true, that Kelvin Droegemeier colluded with Anthony Fauci to hide all of this information, all these links about the research and everything from the President of the United States and his administration.

And that started on February 3rd. So there you go. There you go. And when I say that these, the censorship started in 2003, what do I mean? Well, I mean that they literally started censoring science after that. How do I know? Because I went through the 2,000 articles and whatever that are in my resource. And I've been tracking it for the last two years.

And I've shown in many different places and many different times who the people were and who was censoring. And I've also shown that all these people tied back to these two meetings, all of them, either directly or indirectly. And this is a page that lists like some of the key papers. I haven't updated this in like nine months, but basically this shows the ties. Uh-oh. No. Oh, no. That porky pig I just saw there. It was porky pig. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what this is about here. But here's, here's a similar, here's the previous slide, but with pictures of all the other people and arrows pointing to what they did. So when I say that they were directly or indirectly tied, I mean it. And here is the exact connections. Here's their faces. Here's the ties to the papers that they were writing. And it wasn't just these papers, but these are like the key, like the absolute key ones. So this, it's all narrative. And this is just a screenshot of what at the time was 1,300 sources. And it would, this just shows that this just shows that in the very beginning, the, the, so the green that's on this page, or the green signifies natural origin. Like the person who wrote that, they were arguing for natural origin. And the yellow, the different shades of yellow and orange are a lab leak.

If you want to look at that. So you can see that at the very beginning of the outbreak, it was, everything was being controlled by the, by the green. And in this case, the bright green means it was one of the people tied to one of those meetings or to the Wuhan Institute of Virology itself, or, you know. So we're talking about the scientists who were implicated. And over time, what you've seen is that that narrative has been pushed much to the side by, by all the evidence coming forward about the lab leak. And this was just, this list is a list of, and once again, I've updated this as well, but it's so roughly the same, that shows the bias, either leaning lab or leaning towards a natural origin for different publications. And the most important thing here is that all the key scientific journals were all completely on the zoonotic side. But every other form of media, every other form of news and commentary and stuff, whether printed or online, was heavily leaned away from the natural origin. And it has been since at least March of 2020. And the only reason we don't know that is because the person in charge was Anthony Fauci, and he was, he was working with people to censor all of this information.

We... Animation, nice. Yeah, I know, so, go ahead. I was just gonna ask, when were you last updating that list? I mean, I updated last week. So instead of 1300 articles, I've got 2000, and I've got other graphics and stuff. But I mean, it's, it's insane. It's actually gotten even more ridiculous since then, not less. How long have you not surprised? Yeah, so these pie charts are just showing the proportion of everything that's in my resource, Excel spreadsheet. Like, of all those articles, what percentage of them is neutral, lab leak, or natural origin? And you can see that whether you have the neutral or not in there, the natural origin is never more than 25%, ever. So, this consensus that everybody talks about is BS. And when I did the math, when you take out all of the, when you take out the sciences that aren't connected to Fauci, there's only a 13% consensus. Right. When you only count the, well, basically, you only count the number of people who actually are arguing for a natural origin is 13% of everything. Take them out.

Right. When you remove all this excess crap, when you remove all the Fauci directly tied stuff, it's actually 13%. And in the top six journals, it's even worse. And now I've gone way deeper than needed this, but because now out of 197 articles that have been in the top six journals, or the ones under their imprint, only four of them have leaned lab. So since I did this, there's only been one additional one. There's been a hundred more articles overall, but only one of them has been open towards the lab leak. And that was Jeffrey Sachs. That was Jeffrey Sachs thing with PNAS. Yeah. What can we say? That's another rabbit hole. Yeah. So, like I said, we could go down eight billion rabbit holes here, because, but the bottom line is, is that for the proximal origin, which the, the FOIA documents came out today are specifically talking about the Fauci meeting and the proximal origin paper, which directly came from that meeting. The thing that they're not saying is that they've removed all references to Bill Gallagher, because he was the person who, and I've got an image of it on screen. He was the person who announced that there was a furin cleavage site. He was the first person in the English language to say that there was a furin cleavage site in this virus in public. And it was just on this message board. The only reason I specify that is because on the 21st of January, a Chinese paper had come out, but it was never translated. And he basically, and he says, I would note here two new findings, basically that there's a furin cleavage site. And then that there's prediction of O glycosylation sites reveals a cluster of serine residues just before and after the cleavage site with a high propensity to form a mini mucin patch at that site. It is positioned to protect the putative fusion peptide region and the native or pre-fusion Swiss model projection of the probable 2019 structure.

So basically, that's kind of important is what you're saying. And Robert Garry, so same day, Robert Garry says, I highly recommend this article. There was a book written by him, by Bill Gallagher that laid all this out. I highly recommend that you read it. Most pertinent, it's got this furin cleavage site. This is the same type of mutation that changes H5 influenza virus and other avian viruses into more pathogenic variants. The bottom line is a new fear in site upstream of the fusion peptide makes this virus more fusogenic in more tissues. And then Fauci looked at all that and said, you know what, I'm just, we're not going to tell anybody. We're not going to tell doctors and nurses how contagious this is. And by the way, I also found on here where, oh gosh, was it Trevor Bedford, the same guy from earlier. I also was able to show, I found, I went back in the internet archive and I could see on there that he had been on that message board on that same day that this was released. And there's, there's only like two posts that week. So he, we can be pretty confident that he saw this and he knew about the furin cleavage site when he lied directly about it on Twitter. So, you know, but there you go. And then I threw out some stuff about, okay, well, why is Bill Gallagher important? And why would they censor him? Well, first of all, he discovered the fusion peptide in HIV, which by the way is kind of important because it's almost identical to the one that's in SARS. So in 1987, he discovered it. And then in 2003, he discovered the one in the original SARS. And his coauthor on that paper in 2003 was guess who? Robert Garry. And basically what this means is, is that even without these HIV inserts, there was another part of the SARS virus that was very close to the fusion peptide of HIV, which means what he, what they said in that paper was, I bet that the fusion peptide inhibitors that we've created as a therapeutic drug would probably work on this new SARS virus as well. And they said, hey, we should probably look into that.

And he did. And so did the Chinese. And they've since proven that that is in fact, you could use these fusion inhibitors to great effect, which is a big part of this.

So yeah, so there you go. So right here, we can see that all of these people knew about all these different things. And one of them was a coauthor in the proximal origin paper. And this is probably why in private, Robert Garry was so adamant that this must have been an unnatural set of circumstances because he had been working with HIV and he'd been working with coronaviruses. And so he knew very well what was there. And he understood the implications of what all these different parts and pieces would mean. And so it's not surprising that he was the number one person arguing against it being having a natural origin. And ironically, amazingly, when the, in the original, so not the version that just came out today, but in the original posting on this message board, like the preprint version of the proximal origin paper, the Bill Gallagher, there was a reference, one of the references was to this Bill Gallagher 80 page paper that he'd written. And magically, it was still there up until the day that the final draft was published in the Nature of Medicine, or Nature of Communications. But the Nature of Communications one did not have that one. Now, why is that important? You mean Nature of Medicine, right? Not Communications.

In Nature of Medicine, I'm sorry. So why is it important? Well, 5.7 million people have read the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. That article has the third highest alt metric score. So the third highest exposure of any paper in modern history, on the internet and in the media, on social media, of any paper out of 22 and a half million, it's number three. Number three.

It's got to come down, man.

Yes. And nobody who ever read that paper knew that the actual arguments from that paper, half of them came from Bill Gallagher because his reference was removed. That footnote was removed from the paper. Now, the only reason that I can think of that they would remove that reference is because they didn't want to highlight the tie with HIV because in his book, in his 80 page book, published the same day as Pradhan et al. on January 31st of 2020, he goes into extensive detail talking about the HIV ties because he knows that it's a great way to attack the virus by using the fusion inhibitors that he helped invent. And all of his references were removed from here. And not only was it removed, but Fauci has never, never funded or talked about fusion inhibitors for the use against COVID-19. Even though the Chinese and other scientists from other countries have now proven that fusion inhibitors would work excellently against this virus. So he basically, he hid an entire class of drugs from the public because he didn't want to highlight this tie between this and HIV. Why? Because, I mean, we can speculate. Now, I would speculate because he knew exactly, he knew immediately when he saw this that this virus was not natural. But if he highlighted the fact that there was this HIV parts to it and this fusion peptide piece to it, it would cause more people to be wondering about that tie. So instead, let's call it a conspiracy theory. It's important at this point to mention that each one of those loops come from different subtypes of HIV, right? Yes, yes. And that's actually another, that's another discovery that I've made after I made this PowerPoint was that one of the key arguments that was used against the Indian preprint paper, one of the reasons they said it must be a conspiracy theory, is because the inserts all came from different clades of HIV virus, so different variants, you could say. And what, and that is a pretty good argument because when you look at it, if you try to find the HIV sequences that are similar to this, they're from different continents. So we're not talking about like different variants in different cities, we're talking about different continents.

However, the reason, what people don't know is that when I went back and looked at all these vaccine studies to look and see if there's, a furin cleavage site kept or not, one of the other things I had discovered was that for HIV vaccines in particular, they were explicitly using pieces from different clades because they wanted to get a broader immune response and in the hopes of creating a vaccine that could work against HIV, they were using this multi-clade construction. And in fact, not only were they using that, but they were using the three pieces, three or four or five pieces from the GP120, and then they were using one or two pieces from the Gag protein, for instance. And that just happens to be, there's three from the GP120 in SARS-CoV-2, and there's one from the Gag protein. So we're talking about very, even the way that they were constructing, like they would have constructed an HIV vaccine, they would, that's what these inserts appear. The problem is, is that these specific inserts, these specific pieces, are the pieces that they would always remove from an HIV vaccine. So they would cut out portions and combine them, but they would never keep these specific pieces, because these specific pieces would cause a lot of problems, like with the furin cleavage site. So not only did they know, but they went out of their way to always not use these specific things, whereas in here, in this virus, they kept everything that they would never keep. That is incredibly important. And, you know, it's not like GP120 wasn't associated with neurological issues, right? That's something that's been pretty well understood for, you know, the hand domain with respect to HIV. It was a little out of my working experience. Yeah, it's a stretch to say that this was a live attenuated vaccine that they were working on. Right, because they just wouldn't, they wouldn't have done it this way, because they do, they know these parts of these viruses very, very well. And so does Anthony Fauci, by the way. Anthony Fauci literally wrote the reference for the numbering of the sequence of HIV. He knows what the Gag protein is. He knows what the GP120 is.

He knows what all of these are, because these different epitopes, these different pieces, are being cut and put into different things, and they've been used in trials for decades to try to make an HIV vaccine. So it's impossible, because even if, even if Anthony Fauci was stupid and didn't know any science, which, you know, Kerry Molissette accused him of, but even if he was completely stupid, the people, his vaccine research center, which made the Moderna vaccine sequence, they knew exactly what these were, because they'd been making HIV vaccines. They'd been pioneering all of these techniques. In fact, the VRC, in December of 2020, was working on an HIV vaccine that targeted the fusion peptide sequence. And a co-author on that paper was Michael Worobi, who is the main person who's assisting in the defense of the natural origin hypothesis now. Right. So, so to suggest that they didn't know, that these things were important. It's stretching credulity too. It's ridiculous. I mean, here, and on this slide, literally all I, all I do here is I take the excerpts from the proximal origin and compare them to excerpts from the book that was written by Bill Gallagher. And as you can see, and Gallagher wrote his first, and Gary basically took the arguments from his book and put them into the proximal origin paper. And then, in the final version, they removed all references to Bill Gallagher from there, even though he could have been a co-author. I wonder how that, because there isn't sort of mention in the emails. I just wonder how that sort of went down in meetings and how it was discussed and, you know, it was and how it was discussed and, you know, there's so much, there's so much that was done on the phones, right? Yeah.

This is why this is so important to understand when anytime we talk about the FOIA documents, it's important to understand what they already knew at the time and what they don't talk about, because they all knew, and someone made the decision to not put, to take out the reference to him. Somebody did it. And Robert Garry obviously knew about this, because he, Robert Carey was aware that they took out the direct reference to his mentor, who had come up with the argument that they used for the furin cleavage site. And so Robert Garry can't go back and say, yeah, I didn't know about that, because he commented on the, he commented directly on it before that meeting and before he wrote the proximal origin. So this is plagiarism. Like, this is scientific misconduct, like proof of it. And I just wonder if they've had the conversation with Gallagher and just said, look, we've got to try to keep this on the... Someone has, obviously. Because he's not speaking out. He's not. So either he was stabbed in the back. Well, regardless, he was stabbed in the back by his protege. But we just don't know if he knew about it or not at the time. I assume that he did. But I mean, this is proof. We have absolute proof that this was plagiarized. And nobody knows this because nobody knows about Bill Gallagher. Yeah. He was able to churn out 80 pages of scientific manuscript in literal days, hours. Yes. So somehow he knew about the furin cleavage site. He was able to figure it out, or Fauci told him or something. But they didn't end up using his arguments. And so this image right here shows the private versus public. Like, what do they actually say? Because in the proximal origin, when you compare what they said in private to the proximal origin, and I went and I took everything that they said in private, and the red lettering, the red words are saying if they spun that, or if they just omitted it whenever they wrote the proximal origin. And basically, 95% of what's in the proximal origin is a lie. Like a straight lie. Yeah. Well, read through those emails and, you know, there's all that. They're talking extensively about how the furin cleavage site got in there. And of course, it is a consistent theme that's brought up. Yeah, they weren't just firing wildly into the sky here. Very, very coordinated and very, well, nefarious, I guess. I'm not going to say anything, but... Well, yes, they were coordinating and then, and so this picture was just showing, like, the level, the intensity of the bias for certain publications. And I've updated this, this one as well, it's just not in here. Basically, this was two and a half years' worth of papers. And you can see that the six, the top six journals in the world, which, out of 25,000, the top six are highlighted in, like, the lettering is red. And all of them lean towards the lab leak. And on the Y-axis, like, going up, it shows how many articles there were in total at that, in that journal or newspaper or whatever. And then on the X-axis at the bottom, it's showing how much they lean towards the lab or how much they lean towards the natural origin. And, I mean, ironically, the newspapers have done a pretty good job with this, even the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, they've all done really well. Even the New York Times is only so slanted. But all of the top six, and when you look at science and nature in particular, like I said, in nature, there, in all the nature journals, there have been almost 90, I think, there was 90 papers now. And only one of them has actually considered the lab leak a viable possibility. In nature, which one's that? In nature, it's the one at the very top of the screen on the right-hand side. You know, which paper was considering... Which one nature paper? It wasn't in one of the, in fact, it might not even be, now that I think about it, but it wasn't in one of the main journals, that's for sure. I'd have to go back and look. It's one of its offshoots. Right. So... Is it the French group? No, because they... Is that what I'm thinking of? It wasn't... Nature might not even have been one of them, because there was one in PNAS, there was one in science. And basically, there was the Jeffrey Sachs paper that just came out in May, and it came out three days before I did this. And then the other three papers were all basically open letters written by scientists.

Literally. Like, one of them with Michael Rorobi and Ralph Baric on his authors, the one in science. So that's how much they were trying to keep this conversation out of those main journals, because they didn't want scientists to read about this. And scientists really only read their own specialized journals and then the top six. So if they never hear about it in these journals, you know... And the thing is that scientists just have a deference to these publications, the manuscripts. Because everyone sets out to get their paper written, you know, your first draft is nature and science. And there was a sort of understanding that, yeah, there was a high bar to get published in those journals. But, well, they've blown any credibility that they had. Yeah, that's a good way to put it. And so, here we go. So what were they censoring? Okay. And we've already talked about it. One of those things was if you're a cleavocyte, and then one of those things was the HIV inserts. And really, if you only look at those two things, and that's all I did for the watchmaker hypothesis, really, those two things alone have driven most of the nasty stuff that's happened in this pandemic. And so basically, the collateral damage from Fauci's decision to hide this stuff has been... I mean, more people and just in the United States, just in the United States have died because of these decisions, then the number of troops we lost in World War II, which is 400,000. So assuming that we didn't create the virus and assuming that everything else was on the level, more people have died because that was hidden than in World War II for Americans. What is that? Well, I should say, so when people say, okay, well, why does this matter? Why Fauci was trying to protect the science? Well, why does it matter? Because that was the most fateful decision for the loss of American lives in history, more than any decision by any president to do anything, even engage in a war. So this matters. Mind blown. Yeah. And once again, here's a list of the papers that were written by scientists who were at those meetings on the first and the third. So just the scientists who were at those meetings, 33 papers over, well, it was actually two months, not six weeks, but once we go back to the 13th. And the one at the very top that's in red is the Chinese one that nobody saw. And then the two in the middle are the ones, basically the post and then the book that were written by Bill Gallagher that the public really didn't see. And then the first draft and the final draft, of proximal origin. Those are the only times that any of those people or anybody tied to those people talked about the furin cleavage site. So even though, even though like the French people, the team led by Etienne de Croly, and even though it came out that there was furin cleavage site, these people didn't even talk about it. That's the paper that discusses lab origins. I'm pretty sure. That was the first one that even hinted at it, because they saw that a furin cleavage site, they said, okay, well, this doesn't exist anywhere in this type of current virus. And yet it's here, which is weird. So yes, that was the first time.

You know, I was scanning through those as we talked earlier, and just looking through those emails and so proximal origin, that they were they were aiming at nature. And they were. It got rejected. And I think that's an important piece that needs putting in here. So you should. Oh, absolutely.

Yeah, because so they tried to put it in nature, which is one of the top two and probably would be the first one mentioned. So the top journal in the world, they tried to publish their proximal origin paper in Nature, but it was rejected. And what this whistleblower who sent an email to John Cohen, what he said was, is that the reason it was denied was because they learned that the authors had been part of this meeting on February 1st, and they'd argued against it. And ultimately published the opposite in this paper. And somehow like that, the somebody who knew about this, I wonder if that was Gallagher. It may have been Gallagher. I mean, that's like, that's actually a really good point. It might have been Bill Gallagher. That's actually, I hadn't thought about that. Because that would kind of make sense. Yeah, I just wonder. Because, you know, he definitely knew he would have done and he would have dipped out on any.

Well, wrote is is the wrong word. But, you know, the use of the peptide fusion inhibitors, I would make the presumption that there would be monetary gain for him had had had his words been taken and put into practice. Yeah, I've got a feeling it might have been Gallagher that wrote to him. Well, I mean, now I'm gonna have to think about that because that is, that's an interesting little nugget. There's at least a chance that it is him. Because all the number of people who could have known about both the meeting and the paper, by summer 2020, it would have to be somebody that knew them. Yeah. So that's very interesting. Yeah, I would put dollars to donuts. Well, that's so but that's why I mean, that's why this is so bad, because, because he knew about the past history and, and in his book, he tried to warn people. And, and so, and but he wasn't the only one trying to warn people actually, because this slide, I've taken the snip, I've taken the images from a slideshow that was done by Johanna Deinert. Yeah, Johanna. Yeah, shout out to Johanna, because before anyone else, like literally before anyone else, she was coming to the same conclusion.

And what the conclusion she was coming to is that they had no battle this, they had no, they had to recognize these answers, because they've been doing pseudovirus like chimeric construction of coronaviruses and HIV virus and everything for decades.

I don't buy as she offers tangent again, this claim that pseudoviruses are safe. I'm just, just as a hunch, you did these peptides expressing that they will have physiological consequence. And yes, and we will be what we're learning is that they knew a lot about these, they understand epitopes a lot. But at the same time, they don't know everything. And so they certainly consequences even with, if you're using any sort of like virus that is it to not use the full thing, if you're not using the full original, if you're mixing with anything else, there has to be consequences. Because I mean, there's has to be this just what a frightening first sentence in that abstract retroviral vectors derived derived from lentivirus, such as HIV are promising tools for human gene therapy. They mediate in vivo delivery and long term expression. Boom. Yeah. Oh, trans genes. How about that? There we go. We've done our bit for diversity today. We've mentioned Yes, but they've, they've told us they've sworn to us that, that a, this isn't gene therapy, which of course, mRNA is, but also the fact that this can't possibly integrate into the genome, which is exactly what retroviruses do. If people don't know, one of the things that they do is, is they can, they can hide within the DNA and, and encode themselves into the DNA of humans. And as some scientists who are not these virologists have pointed out that large portions of our human genomes have like ancient retroviral scraps in them. And so, you know, large portions of our human genomes have like ancient retroviral scraps in them that have been since used and turned into things that were useful for us. Yeah. I mean, I couldn't really comment on the veracity of those numbers because it's such an extraordinarily large, like 20% or something that they claim is archaic, genetic, viral material. I mean, we can't say for sure, but I don't know. This does actually happen. So at least I trust him. So this is real, even if we don't like know all the specifics, but that's the problem is that, so when they've fiddled around with all of this, like, I mean, you've seen, I mean, if we could go through each one of these four papers, these are just four random papers, there's way more. I put a list of 500. And just from these four, you can see they were, because they couldn't figure out how to make HIV vaccines, they still realized that it'd be really effective for doing other things that they might want to do. And so for at least 20 years, they've been mixing and matching parts of these viruses specifically, coronaviruses and HIV. And so for them, for them to pretend like this hasn't happened is absolute bullshit. And by the way, in China, in Geneva, in Harvard, in Germany, so this is not just the NIH, this is everywhere. Oh, and this, this right here is just some quick images. These were a list of pseudovirus and SARS vaccine research and MERS vaccine research as of like January 6, 2020, that was found in emails, of course. And here you can see Ralph Baric, he was working on RSV vaccines, which by the way, that's big news right now. And he was working on GS5734, which by the way, is remdesivir, to treat MERS-CoV. So yeah, none of this stuff happened yesterday. This has all been going on for a long time. And then the really shitty thing about Gallagher being silenced, as we briefly touched on before, is that there's an entire class of drugs, an entire class of drugs called antiretrovirals, that he helped invent based upon this, this, this fusion peptide target. And even though he helped invent this, he was silenced. And what really sucks about this is that before the pandemic, in 2019, the Chinese had already found a coronavirus fusion inhibitor that worked from across several different coronaviruses, including MERS and the original SARS. So they'd already figured out that this could work against those viruses. But they didn't, but they didn't do anything here in the United States, even though, instead they hid it, even though one of the co-authors of The Proxima Origin, one of the people who was at these meetings, was Ralph Gehry, who helped invent the very first one that got FDA approval in 2003. Just think of the talking heads and superstars, I don't know what to call them, but that have been pushing gene transfection as the solution to this. Yep. Right? And none of them should be allowed to just walk away, just drop the, drop the responsibility and walk away. I'm sorry, that, that doesn't... Think about how many people died because this information was never shared. Because what I listed here was, like, the very first papers were, the first one, or the first couple, where Galaher and Gehry and others were pointing out this, this similarity between HIV and the original SARS and this fusion peptide. So they said, hey, we can probably use the FDA-approved fusion peptide inhibitor for HIV for SARS, and we should try that. And so the Chinese and other people in other countries did do work on this over the preceding 18 years, or the following 18 years. And what they discovered is that it works against MERS. They discovered different ones that, one that can work against different coronaviruses, and that was the one in 2019 that I told you about.

Then in 2020, in early 2020, Xi Xingli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, co-wrote a paper where they suggested, hey, we should try fusion inhibitors. And then six weeks later, they wrote it up, they published another paper where they announced that they'd found one that worked for SARS-CoV-2. And then in the two years since, they've since found out that that one, and several others from different groups, they've discovered, like, a dozen that work against SARS-CoV-2, and about half of those are pan-coronavirus inhibitors, which means they work against other coronaviruses too, besides SARS-CoV-2. And like three or four of those don't just work against coronaviruses, they also work against HIV, and HIV-2, and semi-immune deficiency virus. So three or four of these work against all coronaviruses, and all HIV. And we're talking about the last, the latest paper, the latest papers have been coming in the last couple months. So this has been known, and you know how many of these papers were funded by the NIH, by the NIAID? Zero. Zero. Except for the first one, I believe. Like the first one that Gallagher and Gary wrote.

Zero. I have to wonder, at what point that was, at an institutional level, they were saying, we're not going to pursue this as a research direction. Those meetings had to take place. They did, but unfortunately we'll never know, because, or we haven't known, because nobody even knew about any of this, because any scientist that could have, like I said, had any knowledge about this, because nobody even knew about any of this, because any scientist that wasn't actively hiding this, they didn't know about the connection, because all connections to this were removed in the proximal origin, and in every other paper they weren't even talking about the furin cleavage site, much less the actual homology between HIV and SARS. Which is the big drop today, right, is that, well, we mentioned it briefly at the beginning, which is Drosten basically saying, hey, hang on a minute, why aren't we, I thought we were doing this manuscript to dispel the HIV links. That's right. That's right. In fact, so Christian Drosten, what we learned today, let's see if I can find it, because I've been, I was fooling around with different things here, but today he said that. So like, because he realized, hmm, this is interesting, why, let me see if I can find it, because... You know what, I might have it. I mean, I've got it, I've got it somewhere, actually I know where it is, I know where it is. I'll just have to... Oh no. Wow.

So I've got it, yeah. But the bottom line is that the original intent of these meetings wasn't just to talk about the furin cleavage site, it was to talk about the HIV inserts, and it's obvious based upon what he said, that was one of the things that they talked about, but they never wrote about that, ever. Like, not once or twice or ever, here it is right here.

Let's bring this forward. So here we go. So Christian Drosten, Drosten. Dear all, I'm overloaded with nCoV patient-related work, and we'll need a few days for me to work on this text. And this text he's referring to is, they were passing around the draft of the proximal origin paper. Can someone help me with one question?

Didn't we congregate to challenge a certain theory, and if we could, to drop it? Which, by the way, was the HIV paper that came out the day before that meeting. This whole text reads, as if the hypothesis was obvious, was brought up by some external source forcing us to respond. Is this the case? It does not seem that this was linked to the HIV nonsense.

And so basically what they're saying is, why is this paper that we're writing completely omitting the HIV inserts and focused so much on the furin cleavage site, which, by the way, once again, at this moment in time, on February 9th, they were not talking about the furin cleavage site. In fact, February 9th was the same day that the French team announced it in a different publication. But the problem was that even after that was announced, none of these global leading scientists talked about it. So it took a lot longer for this information to trickle out there. And so basically he's saying, why are we drawing attention to the furin cleavage site? Because that just makes it look like this is the thing we're responding to when it wasn't. And are we working on debunking our own conspiracy theory?

Well, guess what? He was exactly right. That's exactly what they were doing. They were trying to cover up a problem that no one knew about yet. That's exactly what they were doing.

So there you go. That's a pretty damning little document right there.

And what's really cool, let me show you these since we've moved out of the other one. What's really cool is this right here, because the recent paper by Alex Washburn and Tony Van Dongen and Valentin Bertel that talks about restriction sites, that basically lays out, okay, this virus looks exactly like what you would want, constructed exactly the way you would construct it if you're making a chimeric virus. Because these restriction sites that are used to make chimeric viruses are in very specific places in the genome. And well, guess what they were talking about, but they didn't talk about publicly. They're talking about restriction sites and how suspicious they were around the fear-included site.

So there you go. This is literally from the Foley Drop from today. These slides, these images are from slides that were presented to that meeting. They were put together for that teleconference on 2-1. That's what this is from. Busted. This is exactly what they were talking about. So that's why this latest set of documents is so damning, because it's even more blatant, obvious confirmation that they knew exactly what they were covering up. I mean, that is... As soon as I saw this, I immediately, within like a minute, I sent these images to Alex Washburn, because I talked to him on Signal, and I've known him for about a year now.

In fact, I tried really hard to push him to start investigating the origin. So I can't claim the credit. I was definitely cheering him on to do it. So it's great to see that he's joined the fight and he's made a big impact. In fact, it was Andrew Huff who introduced me to him. So yes, so the biggest news that came out a month ago was about restriction sites and what were they talking about on February 1st of 2020? Restriction sites and fear-included sites and all this other crap. Well, to put it mildly, they still continue to push along the same trajectory that they have been doing. We have to hold them beneath the waterline. Well, and people haven't... So everything that I'm saying, everything that's in my Watchmaker document, the arguments that I make, those are proven.

I'm presenting facts with massive amounts of evidence for each conclusion to just point out, so, hey, nobody has ever asked about these. Here's the evidence. This is not conjecture. You've seen no conjecture. I literally, I took 10 screenshots just to make this page right here, just to make this image. I took actually one, two, three, I think 12. I took 12 screenshots from 12 different papers for them, all the same thing, just to show all at once about these peptide fusion inhibitors that the research is being done. This is all peer-reviewed research right here. This brings us into this domain of what are we to do and how do we go about restoring harmony? The discussion has been in this network about rejecting DEFUSE. That's a crazy strategy to be taking right now where we can't hold people accountable. We've got all their names on these projects, and we've got the institutes, we've got the organizations, and we've got them banked rights lying. Even if it is theater, to throw off from what? What could be worse than it? If this was theater and ultimately they were going to admit this, the implications of this are so bad that you would never do this, because even if this wasn't the truth, this is not how you would defer from something else. This is so damning by itself that you don't need anything else. It is catastrophic for these organizations and individuals to be being implicated in this way. It's literally years and decades of prosecutions that can be brought from all of this.

Exactly. I just want to say that he didn't know that that was the next slide that was going to come out. In fact, everybody watching, we didn't plan that. In fact, I didn't even remember, but it was just the next natural thing to cover. This is the reality from all these FOIA documents and everything else. What we see within this proposal is that everything that appears in the virus that we see now, that we think is suspicious, that we think is dangerous, that is causing so much trouble to the point of causing long COVID, most of the long COVID symptoms, all ties back. It was all listed in the DEFUSE proposal. Why? Because what was this in the DEFUSE proposal? Well, we're going to put human-specific furin cleavage site into coronaviruses, into stars like coronaviruses. Okay. Well, yeah, do we see that in the virus? Yes. Another part of it was, we're going to use batified mice and try to tweak, to see if we can mess with the interferon signaling. Okay. Well, that's the immune signaling in your body that we talked about earlier.

Is that in the virus that we see? Yes, it is. They also talked about, we're going to try to find a virus, try to find something that can utilize the DC sign pathway, which in a less efficient way, the first source of the virus could do. But they were looking for more efficient. And what virus does that more efficiently than the first source virus? As it turns out, the HIV virus does. So the disease of AIDS is the result of depletion of your T cells in your immune system. And what did they say they were looking for in DEFUSE? They were looking for natural viruses that had these pieces, or potentially adding them in, but they wanted to have a virus that could utilize the DC sign pathway to be able to infect immune cells. And guess what? The FCS, the interferon dysregulation, and the DC sign pathway usage, that all three of those things are in this virus. And here's the kicker. The fourth thing, the thing that was just discovered by Alex and his co-authors about the restriction sites, the same thing that was talked about on February 1st in that meeting that Fauci and Ferraro were at, and Robert Garry, the same thing that they were concerned about, is exactly what Alex and his co-authors discovered, which is that if you were going to make a virus, a chimeric virus, with a chimeric SARS-like coronavirus, and you were going to use these methods, well, they would have restriction sites that looked exactly like what Alex discovered.

So basically, all of the pieces, and so all the different pieces that would go into the construction, plus the foundation for the entire virus itself, all four of those aspects were listed directly in the DEFUSE proposal, and we now see them in the actual virus in the real world. I would be interested in seeing what they were looking for in the DEFUSE proposal. I would be interested to talk to Alex. I wonder how the restriction sites line up with ORF6 and ORF10, because those are novel to SARS-CoV-2 and these, again, amyloidogenic triggering accessory proteins. Right. So this is why the DEFUSE proposal probably shouldn't be just discarded, because if you were going to make a narrative, it doesn't matter what your narrative is, you would never have a proposal that basically admits that what you wanted to do was create a virus that looks exactly like the virus we have now, because that's not propaganda that will make people scared of gain of function, okay. That's evidence that can be used in a criminal court. So you would never show intent. One of the biggest, one of the half of a criminal act is intent. So why, if you already had some evidence, why would you show intent to do exactly what it occurs? You wouldn't. It's insane. It's insane. You would never, ever, publicly admit that, because that is a way that you could be held criminally responsible for something. It just wouldn't happen. And it's not just little EcoHealth on the line here. Right. It's Golden Boy Ralph Baric. Yeah, and a whole bunch more, including the institutes, the contiguous bureaucracies, all are on the hook here. Even just this document by itself would be down, and that doesn't include all the forensic analysis that you've done. I'm not sure if censorship is the right word here. Because it's more than that. We need something that encompasses the, wow, just how dark and how deep this all runs into organizations that don't want to be looked at publicly. You think DARPA and DTRA want a sort of public relations office? They'd rather just shut the blinds and get on with what they do by warfare. Right. I mean, of course not. I mean, FALCHU would not have censored these entire topics for three years if the narrative was to hide or to make, like, you would not want to bring attention to gain-of-function research because the answer from the public will not be, yes, let's do more of that. Or yes, it's necessary because this exists. That's not how this works. This is the narrative you would not want because, once again, now you can, you don't want to show intent because you don't want to be held accountable. It's just that simple. I mean, there's more, too. I mean, it's not like this is the only thing. But it's just, I just... Well, yeah, it leaves you a loss for words.

It does. I mean... But the normal vocabulary just doesn't quite encompass what it is that we're dealing with. And see, I know that there's more to the story, which will come out in testimony.

But the bottom line is that not very many people know that, but I mean, people like JC do.

And so the irony is that this isn't even all the evidence. And nonetheless, this is what we're fighting right now. And it's the wrong direction to be fighting because, like I said, what I'm showing you isn't... I'm not showing you narrative. I'm showing you proof. I'm not just making this up. I went back decades of research to lay out all of this stuff. And all of that research, 20 years of research, fits in with what I'm telling you right now. I'm telling you right now. Well, it goes back further than that, because you have to include HIV into the equation now. And that just drags us back and encompasses more. Right. And if Nick was here, I mean, Nick could tell you that this isn't even... Even the discovery of AIDS and how she's handling of AIDS, that was still tied back to things that happened before the purported discovery of AIDS. I mean, this goes back for decades. And one of the things that we really haven't talked about, that no one's really talked about, is the superantigen sequence that's right next to the furin cleavage site. And like I mentioned earlier, that superantigen is in particular, and there's dozens of them, but just toxins that are produced that are highly antigenic, which means they overwhelm your immune system. Because typically when your immune system responds to an infection, to an infectious agent, it's responding with a minute fraction of a fraction and fraction of a percent of its potential, because that's all it needs to start identifying the virus and then creating antibodies to it. But a superantigen overwhelms your system, because basically it takes up like 25 to 30% of the bandwidth of your immune system, which is a massive, we're talking thousands of times more than any single pathogen would normally do. Yeah, that's a huge shock to the system. Exactly. This is why toxins, because that's really what we're talking about, that's why toxins like botulinum toxin, that causes botulism, that's why it's so dangerous, because it's a very potent form of toxin. And so, I mean, it's potent enough that people inject it into their face as botox to kill their nerve cells. And the nerve cells stay dead for months.

And if people have never made that connection, that's what that is. They're injecting themselves with a deadly toxin that if it was circulating in the rest of their body, they would die instantaneously. And that's kind of a risk, you know. Oh yeah, I mean, it's a treatment for dystonia and sort of the spastic like movement disorders.

Because it's a neurotoxin. Yeah, just anything to try to shut down the overdrive of the muscle tissue. And yeah, it's a risky, risky procedure. Right. Botulinum toxin is actually microgram per microgram or pound per pound, it's the most deadly chemical compound in existence for humans. It's a thousand times more potent than VX nerve gas.

So I wouldn't inject it into my face. But beyond that, the reason we know that it's a toxin is because it started out being researched for biological weapons purposes. And it was one of the dozens of different things. And the thing that makes it so toxic, that's what a super antigen is. It's supremely antigenic to your immune system. Yeah, you know, this came up in discussion on Jay's last stream, because he's sort of trying to go down the direction that transfection of anything is essentially equivalent. And it's not. We know that there are... Absolutely not. It's just not. More different peptide sequences have different activity, and there would be a radical difference between having you transfected and expressing albumin, even if it was chicken albumin, versus the, well, the super antigenic sequence. But also those cholinergic, irreversible antagonists that are part of the spike protein. We know that those are very, very potent, and you don't need much to overwhelm the autonomic nervous system with that type of activity. So, you know, it's sort of come up in my Discord, and it would be physiologically... To think that all peptides are equal, it doesn't make sense. Well, this is an example. This is one of, you know, hundreds of pictures that I've made, and this shows... I'm not sure why this is showing this, but... There we go. So, this is a 29, or roughly 30, or sort of 40 amino acids section of the spike protein that includes the furin cleavage site there in the middle. And these four pieces that are listed on here, who these have never been adjacent to each other in any virus ever in the history of ever.

And here we have four different things, four different pieces that all have different implications that have... So, these have never appeared in nature, and they would never appear in nature. But guess where they do appear? A furin cleavage site is something that has been looked at for biological weapons purposes. A prion-like domain has been looked at for biological weapons purposes. A super antigen, SEB, that was in the United States sock pile in the 1950s and 60s. And if you said to me, okay, we want to... We're going to weaponize the pre-energic mechanisms that we know are out there, you would put in the super antigen.

Exactly, because you want to attract the attention of the immune cells.

And it's in the fire of the immune response that the proteinopathies emerge. Exactly. Exactly. This is not a vaccine, folks.

It wouldn't be, exactly. Because remember that aside from these four things that are just in one tiny section, and there's way more I could go into, but just here, just remember that outside of the spike protein, there's other sections who specifically target and mess with your body's interferon response. So basically, telling your body that this is not a foreign material, which gives this virus more time to infect more cells. And as it's doing that, it's also sending all these other signals and doing all these other things. And you would never, you would never put any of these things into a vaccine, not one of these four elements. And also, you just wouldn't. So if there's any... I don't think there are any vaccines in this particular instance, but for most vaccines, if you're using the entire genome sequence of virus, okay, in this particular case, the one part you would not use is the part that messes with your interferon signaling in your body, because that's the last thing you want if you have a vaccine, is to suppress your body's immune response as you're vaccinating with this. It's dumb. So the original virus could not have been a vaccine, because not only does this have way more antigens than a normal vaccine would, but it also has this suppressive element as well, which is completely unique. Sorry, the chat overlay is broken. All right. Let's do this, do that. All right. There you go. Fixed it for you. Yeah. So, you know, it brings us to this very dark conclusion, which is that we're dealing with next gen, it's not next gen, but the emergence of highly sophisticated bio warfare techniques that have been unrolled on the masses that not only include those elements that we were just looking at, but also the countermeasures, I would argue. And well, you know, again, I would just caution people about taking binary views. So the, the, what's his name, Gerardo, who would just point at lipid nanoparticles or anything like that, which says, I've got the answer. And it's, this is the only answer you have to be skeptical of.

It's incumbent upon you. And like I say, the way that they're trying to hide this is again, through this technical edifice that a lot of people just are not going to be able to navigate around. I struggle most days reading through these papers because I'm like, Oh God, I've, I need to check what that is. I need to, you know, all the side of kinds after I have to refresh my memory constantly as to which pathways and what, what gets implicated. And that's, that's my bread and butter. And so for, for people to most, most people would, would just struggle with this and switch off, right? You all know what it's like when you're in that lecture or meeting where you're not getting it and you've got other things on your mind. And this is, this is what they're reliant on. And yeah, let's, this looks a good slide, Charles, please.

Well, so I just, I just got a, a notification that Josh Rogan retweeted one of my tweets about these new documents. So good. So, so the word is getting out and that's, that's good because so, so this is just a list of things that only occur in this one virus in human history. Uh, no other, so beca virus has a, have polybasic fear in kilobit site. Uh, no beta coronavirus, which is a bigger group of viruses has a, has basically a super antigen analog sequence. No other one, no other coronavirus has higher human ACE2 affinity than this one ever. So including the human coronaviruses that have already been in existence, no other coronavirus has a, has a prion like domain in its receptor binding domain. And in fact, that prion like domain is constructed specifically by the five amino acid differences between this and the SARS virus. So not only did it become more effective, but those happened to make this, having to give, having to create a prion like domain within the receptor binding domain. That's insane. Bit too convenient that one. And look, it's a, it's a weak signal, but you have to put it in terms of.

In context, when you're suppressing the immune system with all these other things, the last thing you want is to have, it doesn't matter if they're weak signals or not, I, cause I've heard that it's bullshit. The distribution though is, it's so wide through the body that the impact is, you know.

You're daring your body to not respond to it is what's happening.

And so no other coronavirus contains as many, or contains prion like domains in the entire spike protein, entire spike protein. And this is tests and tests looking at all, all coronaviruses. It's entire genome. Or anyway, in the spike protein, no other coronaviruses has as many prion like domains within its genome.

No other coronavirus has an ENAK motif adjacent to a cleavage site.

You know, this coronavirus has ones that don't exist anywhere else in nature, or six and 10. Yeah, this one is a big- This also has amyloidogenic properties. That one is the big red flag for me. It's huge.


Well, I guess which one, guess which open reading frames also are responsible for the dysregulation of interferon response, you know, but it's, it's not just orphane at the bottom. It's not just orphane, there's other ones too. And that's, so, so down regulating MHC1 is, is kind of key because what is, what is being super, I want, don't use inflamed, but I'll just use it here. What's being super inflamed by the super antigen? It's your, it's your MHCs. It's all this stuff, all this stuff is in the same virus, and is nowhere else. No other coronavirus can transmit as efficiently via aerosol.

In fact, we're now learning that almost no virus or bacteria, no pathogen. This, this is within like the top three or four pathogens on earth that they can transmit via aerosol. In fact, the one, the latest Omicron variant is better at this than measles.

Yeah. Which historically has been exponentially higher infectious rate than any other virus. You just have to look at a measles kid, you catch it.

What's that? You just have to look at a measles kid and you'll catch it.

Exactly, exactly. But this virus, the Omicron variant is as infectious as measles. And measles in human history has been the most infectious virus. There's never been anything else like it. So I'm not saying that's abnormal, but you know, whatever. But then no other viral spike protein interacts with half of all human cell tissues. And that's, so those are, so all of this is within a single virus. It just happens, just so happens to have all these products that would have come directly from research that was being done by the US and China and the US Department of Defense.

And so this virus is a super virus, like exponentially better at so many other things than almost any other virus. And it's all of these, it's not any one of these things. That's part of the problem is that everything's looked at in isolation. But when you look at everything together, it's the thought that this could be natural is insulting because this is weaponized something. Yeah. And you know, that's, I don't know, I mean, it's a tough, tough road to to work, I guess, to, to keep in, keep this discussion moving forward in that context.

This, you have to, you have to think warfare, sophisticated warfare.

So this picture right here, this, if you were going to make a vaccine, this is a picture from October 25th, 2019, a paper that was written by Beth Korper, who works with Los Angeles, Los Alamos National Laboratories. And she does a lot of the computational stuff before actual vaccine sequences are put together to see like, okay, how effective might they be? How many, if you put certain epitopes. And so this one paper, they look at nine different nine different constructions. And in every single case, if you took those four inserts from the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and you looked at the HIV virus and specific parts of the virus, where they would be, for instance, in this envelope protein, that's GP 120.

And you see the gaps where there's no, where they've cut out pieces, all of those inserts, all three of the GP 120 inserts would be inside one of those gaps. That is not random. It's impossible. And the same thing, the same is true with the GAC protein, where there's a big gap right here. I don't know if you can see my mouse cursor. Yeah. Okay. But there's a big gap right here. And guess what's in that gap? The furin cleavage site that's within SARS-CoV-2. And every single one of these nine, it's gone. That is not fortuitous.

And this is the discovery that I made, or one of them that like is completely unknown.

But it's so obvious that you would never make a vaccine with this. So they're not making a vaccine. They're making something else. Yeah. And look, I'll buy into that they're pushing us into this, whatever dystopian, Orwellian nightmare for global control. I'm down with that. Okay. But I think it's important to understand all the weaponry that they're using. And that includes, again, not just the virus, but all the other interventions that have been problematic. Let's put it that way.

Well, I mean, the fusion peptide that we talked about earlier, the reason why that's so effective at different classes of viruses is because that is the part of the spike protein that is incredibly stable. In fact, it's so stable that across all these different species, across all these different, you know, I forget the phylogeny and like the specific names, but we're talking about, if you look at the species chart, this covers a wide range. This covers the genus, the species, and in each case, why would they have not used antivirals that they knew would have a high probability of being able to stop this as a prophylactic? It's just insane to me. It's criminal is what it is. And it all ties back. It all ties back to this HIV homology that they wanted to hide. And Tom Cotton did like this quote from this. This was his tweet on January 30th. So that two days before that meeting, he was pointing out, hey, this isn't real. This isn't right. Something's wrong here. And there's this lab there. And he said it was a catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl. This was, this was before it had become a pandemic. And he was 100% right. And unfortunately, in the media, he was excoriated. But what he was saying was absolutely true. And it's, it's just horrifying. And we won't talk about like all the rest of the stuff, but what he was saying was it's just horrifying. And we won't talk about like all the rest of the stuff because we have.

But there was the video that you showed, the collateral damage. I calculated it up and 58%.

Just if you look at the top three vaccine manufacturers here on this page, Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca, those are the only three vaccines in which they had, in which they retained the furin cleavage site. And all the others, they either mutated it to something different or they completely cut it out, the virus of the vaccine sequence. But those top three accounted for more than 10 billion doses. So they kept the furin cleavage site in the ones that got spread the most throughout the world. And those are the only three. In fact, those are the only three vaccines of any viral type that have ever retained the furin cleavage site. And nobody has ever asked them why. No, I mean, it just leads you to, again, that's not accidents. It's not, it's not Tony Fauci trying to immunize the world against HIV. It's something much, much, much, much darker. At least to this, they knew. They knew. Yeah.

Here's a news headline from Bloomberg from January 26th, 2020.

They knew. Yeah, I can remember that coming out. They were trialing HIV drugs. I just remember raising an eyebrow. I didn't think, dang. Well, there you go. That was real. Now, in this case, this was actually a different, I believe these were protease inhibitors that they were using, Ritonavir and Liponavir or something. But it was a combo. However, that same week, that we have published a paper where they talked about not just this one, not just that combo, but also the fusion inhibitors. And in the West, silence. Well, China was also, they were trying to get their hands on the patents of Remdesivir as well.

That's right. But then three months later, their own trials ended and they said, yeah, we're not going to use Remdesivir because it doesn't work. Because it doesn't work at this stage of the disease. And all they had was back, all they had was an IV. So you can't have a prophylaxis or an early treatment, this IV that has to be given every day. I mean, it's just, it's dumb.

Wow. They knew. Oh, by the way, so here was that protease inhibitor and monoclonal antibodies. And actually, unfortunately it got covered up in this, but there's a quote from Bill Gallagher where he's talking about chloroquine and that it works. I mean, we're in the situation where after all the gaslighting they did about ivermectin, it's now part of the CDC schedule. Right. Yeah. Unbelievable to me. Oh, well, let's keep going because not only Remdesivir or not only like ivermectin and hydrochloroquine, also vitamin D. Vitamin D as it turns out, not only was that the obvious choice for a billion reasons, but one of those reasons is that it's important for strengthening your T cells against viruses, including COVID-19. And the paper on the bottom right here, you want to guess who wrote that paper? Robert Garry. Yeah. Robert Garry. There was a paper out, I want to say it was yesterday, VA and the role of vitamin D and that's a very, very large cohort. And again, saying vitamin D is important. Now I get the arguments against being an immune suppressor, but look, in sort of, when I'm trying to keep the monkey alive because I've gone and done something, right? You throw anything at it to try to reverse the direction that you're going on and for that not to happen. That's what doctors do. That's what they're supposed to do. And they were blocked from doing it. In fact, I skipped ahead here, but I mean, this is basically the end.

But I wanted to point this slide because this is Ralph Baric and Martin Dennison, who were the key in the development of remdesivir. And this is them on February 14th or 13th, I can't remember which day, of 2020. So February 14th of 2020, these two people who have developed remdesivir said to treat those in ICU on a ventilator might as well not design the trial.

And this is about remdesivir. They're basically just saying it's ineffective at that point. Exactly. Exactly. Give active drugs that work prophylactically early in disease, but when it's ARDS settled in with complexities, antiviral alone is not going to rescue that particular disease. Boom. Right there. Oh, and by the way, on the bottom right corner, even though it's not picturing them, this is what they said, chloroquine is a broad alkalization agent. The idea is spectacular. And in that context, we have the surgisphere shit show as well. So Ralph Baric, the godfather of coronaviruses, who had done the vaccine trials on MERS and SARS, who had done, who had used all these things on mouse models for a decade, he said, remdesivir, he said in the talk that we need to figure out something that is not intravenous because it's not useful to us if we can only use it in the hospital, which is what remdesivir was. So they explicitly said that doing what Fauci made the protocol was dumb, worthless, improper use of it, and would do nothing. And also that you should use, you should look at the chloroquines because, well, they've worked in the past. So, and Fauci did the opposite. So not only was Fauci, let's think about this, not only was Fauci aware of all the research, not only was he deciding to suppress the findings of these two key pieces of the HIV inserts and the AFCS, of the HIV inserts and the AFCS, but that rolled over into all of the treatments, the therapeutics, the prophylaxis. He literally, for use, the French term, he literally did the wrong fucking thing, the opposite fucking thing that you would do. In each case, therapeutics, prophylaxis, he censored everything. Like, he could not have done more to damage our ability to fight this virus because he literally censored it and refused to allow the things that we knew could work, or at least could work. He hid it or disparaged it, all of it. We're talking about, he is guilty of making intentional decisions in all of these areas. And even now, we're suffering because long COVID, whatever it is, all the different things that come from it, these neurodegenerative conditions, everything else, guess what would drive those things? Everything that's on the spike protein that he wanted to suppress. And he won't even fund it now. Yeah. Yeah. And he won't even fund it now. He won't even fund. And it's obvious to know why, because then if people actually looked into it, it would be obvious to people that he's responsible for long COVID. What does it get showing, man?

I mean, just in the past two hours or however long it's been, look at what we've covered. We've talked about just a few decisions made in a few days in early February of 2020, and it affected billions of lives. And I'm showing you the proof of what they knew.

This isn't even all the evidence. This is just some of the evidence. But nobody is talking about this. Instead, we have people who are trying to reject evidence that we already have, which is foolish. Yeah. Look, our backs are against the wall, and we need everything to hand and academic speculation. Yeah, okay. I mean, it's got a role, but it's not the critical thing right now that we need to be. It's not the only evidence. We have evidence, and we should be following that evidence. Yeah, yeah. These people, well, I wish I had my guilty button. We need the Superman guilty. Yeah. So basically, so we can go ahead and I'll just go ahead and stop it there, because I could go on forever. So when you hear people talking about these emails that just came out today, I want you to understand that this is the context. This is the only thing we should be worrying about, because this is it. I'm going to stop sharing, so that way you can take over and we can do whatever we want. But holy cow, this is why this matters, because this is bigger than one or two aspects of this. We already have proof of all this. It pulls in, like I say, every institute that we're casting a jaundiced eye over right now. What did you say the other day? You made it, you know, we need to put a hole in the dam, basically. Yes, yes, that's right. This is essentially one of the best shots that we have, and in a way that's demonstrable to the public, right, that can be followed.

Right, you don't, you know, with the right instruction, you can see the logic, you can see the networks, you can see the history, all of it. Well, it would be insane to drop such useful evidence now, especially this. We're so far into this. We're three years into this, right. I don't see it stopping. Again, we had the press conference today where, you know, yeah, they're trying to get people to get boosted and what have you. Well, I'm concerned about how the rest of this plays out, because they've gone all in, right. They've put all their chips in the inside and they've got a lot of them and are looking to look for complete dominance over so many aspects of our lives. And yeah, to disregard it is, well, it's not thinking clearly, in my opinion.

I mean, if you can sit through the two and a half hours of just going through those slides and me expounding upon them, there's so much more evidence that I didn't show.

But if you can sit through those two and a half hours and think anything other than we already have enough proof to, to me personally, I think it's beyond a reasonable doubt already at this point. But the fact that we have all of this evidence and then we have the evidence of intent, if we couldn't at least already have a grand jury by now, then we never will, because this far exceeds the amount of evidence that you would need to start a hearing of any kind. And so really, all we've been waiting on for this entire time is for those inquiries to start. Because once those inquiries start and we get discovery and we get all this other evidence, then we'll see things like what was just seen recently with the discovery and the censorship case with the two states where they just in the discovery, they found direct proof that Fauci was Fauci and other people in other agencies were directly working with social media to target certain people to censor specific people and specific topics, which is a violation of the first amendment. Yeah. But you know, again, a warning folks that, like I said, the last stream myself and Charles did that nuked two channels. This probably won't stay up on YouTube very long. I'll leave it up.

You know, I'll, I'll burn the channel for it, but you can see the mechanisms at work in action. And like I say, they've made a point of self-congratulatory circle jerks in their press conference today at how effective they've been.

I couldn't imagine it. Like I, I probably couldn't watch that without puking. I mean, I might try. I might try. Maybe it could be a drinking game or something. But just to know, just to imagine them pretending that, that somehow this, all these violations of the first amendment were, were justified. They're not, they're unconstitutional and they would be found unconstitutional. The problem is, is that a million Americans have already died and they were banking on, if they couldn't completely destroy the system, they at least knew that they were taking years for cases to get from the Supreme court before they could litigate and, and strike down all this BS that they've done. And so in the interim, they've just done whatever they want. Yeah. And we can't, we can't get the million Americans back. So the next best thing we can do is get justice for them because what the censorship that has been done, you've seen, like I just gave a two and a half hour presentation. It was just about the reason they started all the censorship was to prevent people from knowing about this HIV homology and the fear and claim side. That was the first reason. And then it slowly spilled over into the mainstream in so many different areas. Like Fauci started that and then it spread like a virus to, to everything messaging coming from the government to the point where we're seeing within a year we had that Twitter taking Trump off of Twitter just before the election, or actually that might have not been until after, I don't remember, but the Hunter Biden story was erased. You had a letter signed by 50 former intelligence officials, including several former CIA directors, lying to the American people saying that the Hunter Biden story was Russian disinformation. But all of that, the reason they got so bold is because they'd seen how effective that the scientific censorship was and all the censorship regarding the pandemic before that Fauci opened the door to hell. Yeah. And literally all that censorship is obstruction of justice. That's the actual name for what this is. It's a federal crime because what he was doing was erasing evidence and trying to prevent evidence from being available to people to see evidence of something that he was trying to cover up that directly implicated him and a whole bunch of other scientists. And so that's what people need to understand is that what I do, what I just showed is proof that I can testify to that other experts can testify to in the court and say, uh, he broke the law, he violated the constitution and a million Americans died. And like I said, if we, if we assume, let's say that that he didn't have other negative reasons for it, and it was only due to like the vaccines, for instance, or to a few other things. When you pile everything together, more people died because of the, because of the censorship of these specific aspects of this virus. And I think this virus and the research history behind it, then in World War II for Americans, that was the most monumental decision in American history in terms of Americans that died as a result of something. And we didn't fight a war. We didn't, we didn't, we didn't, we didn't save freedom. We destroyed freedom as we were doing this. I wouldn't, um, I wouldn't say you weren't fighting a war. I think you're very much embroiled in war. They were fighting a war against the American people. They were censoring things against the American people. So it wasn't even for a good cause. It was for the worst possible cause to violate our freedom. And well, and it's, it's just a move to corporate technocracy that is transnational and is, um, not subject to redress or grievance. Well, I bet, I bet if we can get to a place and to a time where the things that I just said were not censored, if we can get the general public to hear and know the truth about what's been happening and the impact, the collateral damage it's caused, like if they understood this, there would be no doubt, like all these people would be hung. But the problem is, is that because they've censored so much, the American people will know basically none of this. No, they won't. And, you know, they, they've got the sort of real time data analysis that enables them to read where people might be straying, right? And so they can get their, their trail. And, you know, sort of realization on the trip that I had was, you know, it's the change that's coming is, is probably catastrophic as we would, as we would understand it. And what I see is that we have to, we have to find a way to make sure that whatever our tribe community continues and has, has access to this, well, the scientific data, but the historical context in which it was generated. We, that, that to me is the only workable solution that I can see right now. I don't, I don't see picking up your AR and going Rambo as being, they'll just pick you off, right? And drones will do it, you know, whatever the, that's one of those little dogs called from, do you know what I mean? The diner, right? It's sort of always sort of jiggling and I forget what they're called, but yeah, it'll be things like that, that are slowly used to replace the human being that was your peace officer and you will be forced via corporate mandate to comply. And so, you know, in, in the, in the short to medium term, I, I'm sort of, we've got to get sort of, people have got to get chameleon like and live with this system, but not be part of it and make sure that you're doing everything that you can to make sure that this isn't forgotten, that all, all these data points get archived. All these people should, in my opinion, should be scared to be showing their faces in public, right? Because they, they should expect serious blowback from, you know, people who say impulse control disorders, just going to be losing their shit and, and well, you could argue maybe rightly so in this instance, but I, I, I don't know what else to do at this point, right? Because even if we get the grand juries, are the courts not corrupted? Are the, is, is there anything that can be done beyond a symbolic gesture that they'll, what they'll take Fauci's pension, that from people in jail? To be honest, I, the, the way out of this is for the public to understand what's happened because as long as, as long as they learn the truth, um, they, the people who did this will be held accountable and I feel I'm fully confident that people truly understand, you know, just, I mean, just what I've said here today. Notice that once again, I haven't said who created the virus. I haven't said like where the virus came from. So this, what I wrote in my paper was that we don't need to know the origin of the virus to understand the origin of the pandemic. And I mean, I mean, I've spent two and a half years investigating the origin, but we already have enough information now. The point of my, my watchmaker hypothesis was to, to say that we already have enough evidence to hold these people accountable. We already had, in my opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt, but at the very least, enough enough justification to put these people in court and then let discovery happen, let the truth come out because they will not win this case. They will not be able to prove that, that what I've talked about here today isn't true because I've used their own evidence. All it did was compile the truth, the history of what's happened. And so they can't disprove what I've said today. The only thing they can do is try to prevent it from becoming known to the public. Which, which means that what we have to do is make sure that they hear this because once they hear the truth, the, the rest of it will figure itself out. Well, I mean, I, I, I hope so. I mean, it's why I do this. Um, I'm, I'm more, uh, I'm more just trying to think. Hey, we're still on Twitter or sorry. We're, we're still on YouTube right now. Yeah. We'll see. We'll see, bro. They haven't, someone, someone will flag it and, uh, you know, I'm pretty sure, uh, I have, uh, I have, uh, it's not just machines monitoring. There's, there's human, um, not anymore. I think, I think we, we've raised enough.

We've made a cousin of dumpster fires today to be exploding. I'm pretty sure they're. Yeah. I mean, typically we've been talking before about certain topics and had like, like in the midst of certain topics, like things will happen or lose connection or at that moment will be cut off. So they've obviously been paying attention and, uh, and that's okay. I don't care. Yeah. I swear they have, you can stop us. I'm, I'm determined to make sure that on my, on my last breath that I, I can say to myself, I did everything that I humanly could to just keep flagging this issue.

Right. And I'll go back to that off six and off 10. Right. Um, everyone talks about spike protein, but that all six and all 10 screams manipulation and screams weaponization of a disease process that, uh, in the public domain was, it was literally at the cutting, at the bleeding edge of what we, what we know. And for that to be in there in the positions that it's in, um, people, well, I hope whoever does watch this and in retrospect goes back to watch this begins to sort of understand the, the implications of it because, well, you know, bugs and bugs and viruses as weapons. I mean, that's as old as time itself. Right. You know, the spit in the face is biological warfare, right? Okay. It might take a few days to take that person out once you've spat in their face, but that's, you know, the instinct is there to sort of do that. But now that now they've gone and taking it that next step, it's this manipulation of the sort of underlying fabric of the biology through these amyloidogenic properties. It's the, it's the very, very worst that I could conceive of. Well, and the fact that, um, after the initial pandemic virus, after the original wildfire virus, um, this is, this is the point where I agree with JC and others in the fact that that virus is gone. That's fine. I believe that the problem now is, is that they're still, they're still using the spike. And the fact that they put that biovalent spike protein in there, it may not have, I mean, or six and of 10, but it still has 80% of it. And the problem is, is that the rest has already been seeded. And now every time you're re-exposed, your immune system is being forced to fight something. And it's, every time it's doing it with a little bit more of itself, of its arm tied behind its back. And that is so, so this is still cutting edge as far as what we're fighting today, like right at this very moment. And that's, I mean, it's just disgusting to know that they know this because not only do they know everything that I told you today already, but they know that in the context of them deciding to retain the spike anyway in this new vaccine, which is, that's the other piece of this is that no matter where the virus came from, their response to it has been antithetical to what they themselves would have done in the past.

Right. So, look, this just came up in the chat. Charles now thinks the virus isn't dangerous anymore. He agrees with J.C. here for what you guys disagreed. No, I don't think that's what Charles is, I don't speak for him. See, that's the problem is that what we have been arguing has been misinterpreted because we've not been saying, we're not saying the virus is completely not dangerous, but what we're saying is that the wild type virus is extinct. Now Omicron still retains a lot of those same features in spike protein, so it's still dangerous. And actually the Omicron, as far as I know, still has ORF6 and ORF10. As far as I know. But it's not the exact same virus. And that was part of his argument. But the other part of his argument is that it would have mutated, that everything that's happening since is basically release of new batches of infectious clones. I don't agree with that. I just don't. Well, I mean, you could make the argument that just the transfection is the surrogate of the clone. You're right, but that doesn't explain the virus to move around, unless all of that is theater. I don't think all of it is theater. I think much of it is theater, but I don't think that all of it is theater. And that's the point where we disagree. Yeah, because look, it's war. It's warfare. The problem is getting people to realize that they're in a fight for their lives right now. And we don't know who, because half of our leadership has acquiesced to this, for whatever reason. No, more than half. That's terrifying. More than half. Well, if you include the entire West, yes, but here in America, it's definitely the front lines there, for sure. And I'm hopeful that people that are perceiving the problem the way that we are, I'm confident that some of us will get through whatever they've got planning next, because I'd like to say that the dominoes are falling now, and it'll very likely be a stepping up in economic type warfare, I imagine. Just break people financially. But someone just asked the question, okay, I wonder if ORF6 and ORF10 are also in many endemic coronaviruses. Let me just clarify. They are new. They never existed in coronaviruses before, at least not in any of the human coronaviruses that have been endemic. Those don't exist. They do not exist. Which is why it's so suspect, and to have the function that they do, which is this re-energic cascading effect. Perhaps in the bowels of DARPA, they've got good countermeasures for. But in the public domain, there's not much that we can do in those instances. The treatment countermeasure that you go for is to try to limit the inflammation that would contribute to that state. But we're not good at that. We can give people who have Alzheimer's, we can suppress most of those inflammatory markers. We can bust plaques.

It still doesn't stop the disease process from continuing. You might get symptomatic relief. But the end consequences are the neurodegenerative end state. You've heard about all the Canadian doctors who had died, right? I'm sure that's happening here too. A very, very pronounced case of Creutzfeld-Jakob. I didn't hear about that one. It was a very aggressive, full-on presentation. Lots of movement disorder. He wasn't into a more vegetative state, not at the point that I saw. We don't have good treatment. It's that simple. Part of what's horrific about this is that once again, in the context of all this, Fauci is refusing to fund long COVID research.

Think about that. That's mind-blowing. The other thing I was going to say is that for Creutzfeld-Jakob disease, it was Luc Montagnier. The paper that he was working on when he died was about a series of cases of early onset, rapid onset, Creutzfeld-Jakob disease. I want to say it was like 27 or 29 that occurred just in France. I think it was 23 and there were three others that were not France, but the frightening thing from that study was... It was temporally connected to it. 11 days. You can't hide that by saying, okay, well, it's just a statistical improbability because there's so few cases generally. What they had was, I want to say like six times the number of cases that you normally have in a year, and all of those cases were temporally connected to vaccination within months, if not days. Well, we're looking at the emergence of the epidemiological signatures that we would predict from seeding the environment with these toxic peptides. Alzheimer dementia disorders are way, way above what they should be dependent on historical data. Then the other is cardiovascular and neoplasms as well. Right. Let me reiterate what that means. What that means is what's happening is, since most people aren't aware of the mechanisms that are taking place here, one of the reasons why the retention of the wild type spike is so terrible is because that means that the unmutated furin cleavage site is still present. Any time you get infected and you get sick, you're getting furan expression. Furan exponentially increases the production of cancerous cells in your body. It's one of the negative effects of furan. When you get in a state of hypoxia, so when your blood oxygen level goes below 90%, that also increases furan expression two to three times from baseline. The combination of those things means that as you're getting sicker and your immune system is being suppressed, and if you get Omicron or you were getting the wild type spike, when you got the natural infection, you were getting ORF6 and ORF10.

That was allowing your immune system to be suppressed so this could spread more before your immune system would react. Then by the time your immune system is overwhelmed, you're in this cascade of effects. It's not just a cytokine storm. It's a massive burst of cancer cells and protein misfolding because hypoxia triggers exponential growth in cancer cell growth and in amyloid production. So even if you survive, so let's say you survive a severe case. Let's say you were on a ventilator for a while or you survived a severe case. For however long, however many weeks you were sick, your body was, your immune system was being suppressed, allowing all these things to happen. So the more severe cases you had or the more times that you keep getting infected or you're seeing the spike, you're just, you're increasing the odds that you're going to get cancer or a protein or an amyloid disorder. And that is what's fueling the cancer growth rates that ethical skeptic talks about. That is what's fueling these Krutsov-Yakub disease things or the far more common things like Alzheimer's disease. Because I've seen advertisements and medical stories about early onset Alzheimer's in children, in children. So dementia or like childhood dementia that never, that doesn't exist except in a million to one cases. Very, very rare. You talk about something that's so rare that nobody's ever heard of it. But now we're seeing the incidents rise exponentially in all these areas. And this is why it's happening, because everything that was in this virus was designed to piss off your immune system, cause inflammation and suppress your immune response. And what we're going to see is diabetes as well. Diabetes, Alzheimer's, near degeneration, cardiac stuff from the shots. All of this is real and it's tied to this infection from the spike protein or the vaccines for a combination of both. All of it. And all of that can be tied to Fauci trying to hide all of this from the beginning. So here's one saying, paper that maybe ORF6 isn't as unique as we're thinking. I need to read this. Thank you, Birderman for the link. When is that from, just out of curiosity? 2021. I mean, I guess that would be slightly less terrible if it did appear in other areas. But it's still, once again, this was known to people beforehand, because these interferon suppression characteristics were being studied in other viruses. And I think that's why it's so interesting. And the WIV specifically was looking at ORF10. There's a Shi Zhengli Master's thesis that talks about that one specifically. And also talks about within that same paper, chimeric construction. But there's also literacy. So they were practicing all of these things, all of these things prior to the pandemic. Unique to SARS-Bacovirus.

So it's unique to sarbecovirus. So it's unique to sarbecovirus basically, is what that means. Because I think that's, yeah, so SARS and SARS-2, it's unique too.

So I guess it would come down to what the differences are and how reactive.

Maybe it's just ORF10 that's unique. I don't have to go back and look. If I've been telling people ORF6 was unique, I apologize.

So it might just be ORF10 that I'm thinking of then. Yeah. But I've been saying ORF6 and ORF10.

Both of them. Nonetheless, both of them, it still really wouldn't change much, because the only SARS-Bacoviruses that we've come into contact with are SARS and SARS-2.

We can see some RITG13.

And actually that makes sense. Now that I think about it, that doesn't make sense because they were working on this prior to the pandemic. So that doesn't make sense that it would be just the SARS viruses.

I don't know. I'm skeptical of RITG13 as being a real entity. So SARS-CoV-Tor2. I don't know what that means. Tor2 and Urbani are two of the original strains from 2003.

Anyway, they're not in the OC, HKU.

And that's the key.

Because that means that they've not been in circulation with the human coronaviruses. There are two of the four human coronaviruses. And I say that like the common cold type ones.

Two of those four do have furin cleavage sites.

But neither of them is close enough genetically to have given that to have recombined with SARS-CoV-2. So they could not have come from them. Well, there's some reading to do.

So is there anything else you wanted to cover?

I mean, I feel like we've covered a pretty good bit. I mean, the reality is, is I mean, recent things that I've done have included I've made a list of papers.

I mean, I guess I can like screen share just to show you like images from different projects that I've been doing, just so you can see all the little machinations that I have. Let's see. So let's go to here. Let me just read this. So it's just saying that also it's not unique, but the paper does show it's more potent in COV-2. Interesting how it acts in modern endemic versions of SARS-CoV-1 strains of circulation. Yeah, how to study it. Where you'd have to get the peptide sequence and...

Let's see, where did it go? So I hope it's in this one. Well, basically, one of the things I wanted to show was like a list of actually it's going to be in here.

There we go. I call it the long and winding road, but what it really is, is it's a list of all the research that could have directly resulted in things we see in SARS-CoV-2 that was going on prior to 2020. So like everything. And the other thing that I also show, so here's like the paper, and then I show who was working on this paper and why it was important. Okay, so it was the way of working on it, and it shows all the research connections between the organizations that were doing it. And this will be in the next update that I published tomorrow.

And literally, you can go through 15 years of papers. And everything, the trail that leads to SARS-CoV-2 is literally written in the public record. It's not like it's hidden. It's all right there. And that's just like one of the many things I've done. So let me go ahead and I'll stop sharing that. But just to give an idea, we're not just making crap up. We say the natural origin proponents who are tied to Fauci have never addressed about 95% of the evidence. They keep focusing on very specific things because they don't want you to look at the big picture. Well, and even that they'll lie about, right? And even that will lie about. Yeah, that's another thing. They've literally lied about every single thing that they've talked about. 100%. They've not said truths that I can tell about anything. And I mean, if you go and look, I'm sure you can find something.

But when I say the assertions that are being made by the natural origin scientists are almost all lies. Not even like we don't know. So we're just going to lean this way, like direct lies.

Wow. And you got them early on with the early cases and the inability to plot them correctly on a map, right? I mean, all I did was count the dots. And what's ironic is after I did that, I spent a thousand hours going through stuff. Only a small part of which I showed you like one time on one stream. But there's so much evidence that it was completely ignored by these Waropi papers. But that's one thing I've studied. I've studied the censorship. So after those two Waropi papers came out, the final versions, there were 29 news articles and papers within a couple of days. And I tracked this because that's the other big thing that I tracked. Prior to 2022, I was looking at Wuhan outbreak and censorship and just so happened to turn out that with DEFUSE, that the censorship turned out to coalesce and be a part of the purpose of the censorship was to hide the things that we discovered in DEFUSE and to hide the HIV homology. So all of it came together and I just happened to be lucky enough to pick the right things to research early on.

Well, it's all connected and they lied about all of it. Yeah. Well, like I say, if I didn't think we would be able to get some justice out of this, I wouldn't be doing this. I wouldn't be putting my face out in public and sort of. Well, it's an uphill fight, though. But sometimes we have to fight it. Because you were one of the first people and we are some of the only people who have been fighting this. And if we hadn't, I'm already terrified. Just think how much they would have just swept under the carpet and just been like, wow, you know, it's just your toxic living style. You're using too much resources. After I hung out with you for a couple of days, I went back up to my parents' house and I was talking to my mom. I was just telling her, because it took her a while, but in the past few months, she's really she's starting to figure out what I'm trying to say after she got on the ground again. And she is immunosuppressed.

I don't think she's going to care if I mention that, but she's rheumatoid arthritis.

And we didn't realize, she didn't realize, I didn't realize that after she got her booster, her rheumatoid arthritis for the last year has been way worse than it had ever been before. And finally, and once we got to this place, because I had actually recommended she get the booster, because at the time, at the time, I hadn't gotten to the point where I am now. And that's what's, that's what sucks is that everybody that we love and care about has been affected by this. And my mom, my mom, who is immunosuppressed, was told to get this vaccine. It was covered. And it included a super antigen, which in the literature, if you look, you would say that people most at risk for super antigens, most at risk for like bacterial infections that have and bacteria have these natural super antigens are people who are immunosuppressed. And we gave this, in fact, we they were the first to live at the front of the line. And that's, that's horrifying. Because basically, you know, I encouraged my mom to get it. Because even after I stopped, and my son didn't get his second one. I was like, you know, you're one of the few people who might be able to benefit still. And then I started learning that even more. I realized that really all she did was poison herself. Well, ever since, like, in the past few months, her RA has gotten better. Because she's just been eating healthier eating vitamins, like following the protocol stuff that I told her about from from my doctors and everything. And lo and behold, she's feeling better than her inflammation is going down. But that's how sick this is, is that most people still like, I am her son. And I have just like, I just, I discovered the vaccine, HIV vaccine homology, like the way that they were constructing this, I'm just one person. But if I had not been her son, and told her that, I wouldn't have been able to explain it to her.

Yeah. I couldn't stop, I couldn't stop my mother from getting shot up. I mean, she won't take any more now. But yeah, they, they got a whole bunch of people. And it just, just makes me wonder if they think job done, right? Million people, including me. Like I said, I was, I was, I tried to get the shot as early as I could. Because, you know, as a marine, as somebody who, who wanted to do the right thing, and didn't want my parents to get sick. Yeah. Before I knew anything about all of this, I went and got the shots because, you know, it was experimental, but I was willing, like for me, it was an easy decision, because I wanted to do it for my parents, because I thought at the time it was, it was the best way that I could protect them. And ultimately, really what it was, is that we were lied to. And for the rest of my life, I mean, I had myocarditis, which I'm almost certain came from the actual, like before I got vaccinated, I had myocarditis at Christmas of 2020, after I had been sick in March of 2020. So I like, this is, this is real for me. And I want, and I want, I've been trying to warn people for two and a half years, but what's been horrifying is just to understand that the people that we trust were lying to us internally. Yeah. Well, and it's the, it's the way the system's been arranged, that people, people are either unable or unwilling to step into the breach at the moment. And I'm wondering what it would take right now. But then- Probably family members dying.

Yeah. But that's, that's been happening. You're right. And that's also why we're seeing this growing awareness, is that so many people who shouldn't be dying are dying, that it's, it's become more and more obvious. And unfortunately, there's going to be, there's always going to be late adopters. I mean, just like the cycle of innovation in my MBA program, there's always going to be people who figured it out early. And there's going to be people, there's going to be people like my dad who still used dial-up internet until last year. I mean, just because they were happy with it, you know, and he would, he would play his computer game from like 1994, it was like a Civil War game. But even with a new computer, the internet was so slow that like he would turn on his computer and turn on the game and then walk out into the another room, like a living room, and come back like 20 minutes later for the game to finally boot it up. I mean, because he just- He didn't see the need to- Creatures of habit, right? Creatures of habit. So there's always going to be that 20% that will refuse, like they'll say, oh, well, this must have been a mistake or something like that. But we don't have to get all that. We just have to get past the, right now we have like 15 or 20% understanding that something is horrible. We have to get, we have to get to that majority where the inertia causes things to happen. If it hasn't happened by now, I'm not sure what could, and this is why I think it has to be a bad- Yeah, but the public knows nothing. So we can't just, we can't judge like the current response and say, okay, well, if it hasn't happened now, because the truth is, is there's been so much censorship. People have literally known nothing. So they've had no, they haven't seen any of this.

And that's the problem. It's not that we've reached that critical mass. It's that we've never even gotten close to the critical mass. Yeah, but maybe it's just not possible that they've got such a vice-like grip that, you know- No, I don't think so. But like I said, the censorship is so unprecedented. Like, I'm sure that a lot of this has been happening for a long time. Like, I'm sure that they've always tried to push narratives, and they probably even had help from the intelligence community to do so. But this time, the censorship was so pervasive, and I mean, it was hoping they were doing it, but it was so pervasive that you can't really compare people's awareness of anything right now to anything prior to this, because we've never had censorship on this scale, not even close. And we've had it, I'm sure, but not anything like this. Well, the, the, the, the sophisticated nature of it, where they can sort of come in and individually target, shut someone down such that any, any reach is, becomes minimal. Turn off your PayPal. Yeah. Yeah. To close down your websites. Yeah. Yeah. This is unprecedented. Yeah, that's, that's what we've been facing, um, sadly. But, well. But no, I'm pretty sure we've covered everything we need to cover, because we could literally go on forever. Yeah, I mean, yeah, but I think this is a good encapsulation of where we currently stand right now. Yeah. And, you know, hopefully, things do move forward on the legal front. Um, we have to try. I mean, that's, that's my current activities, that's my current goal. And I think we'll get there. I remain very optimistic, not short term, but in long term. Yeah. And the, the place that will happen, I think, is the US. Um, you know, for all the European Union MPs sort of nailing Pfizer a few weeks ago. Um, I just don't, I don't think European peoples are in a situation to be able to push back like, like you can in the US.

I mean, there's a sort of, I don't know, you've got a frontier like mentality, maybe. But there's, I don't know, there's a, there's a grit in the US that you don't see in Europe. And I hope that's enough to, to drag, drag us through. Well, on my, on my arms, I have two biblical verses in Koine Greek, because I'm a nerd. And, um, and one of them is, well, they're both philosophies that I live by, but, and, and one of them, well, one of them is Yengar Keparitho el Mesoskiastonatu ufobethisumai Kaka. Well, the first habit, which is, um, basically, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me. And that's the key part of it. It's always left out. And the reason I put it there, well, PTSD, but the reason I put it there was because it reminds me that whatever you're doing, you're not alone, or you don't have to be alone. And the fact that we're in, we have to stick together. And the good thing is that, is that we're not doing it alone, but we have to, we also have to fight against people who have been trying to separate us for two and a half years. They've been trying to weaken us by dividing us. And so we have to get over that. And then the other one is a different verse. The first one was from a song, but the second one is from when Jesus meets John the Baptist and whether or not you're Christian or not. Well, first of all, it's ancient Greek because I know ancient Greek because I studied history, but when Jesus meets John the Baptist, he asks him to baptize him. And John the Baptist says, why would I baptize you? You're literally the savior. You don't need to save me. You don't need to save me. You don't need to, you don't need to save yourself. You don't need to baptize yourself to be cleansed of anything. I'm paraphrasing, but Jesus looks at him and says, no, you don't understand. I'm not doing it because I have to. Obviously, I don't have to. But what he says is, we do this to fulfill all righteousness, which if you want to translate that, it would be basically to set the example, to walk the walk. If I'm going to tell you to do it, then I'm going to do it. It's not because I have to. It's because I want you to see what has to be done because this is the way to do it.

And that's been my philosophy is no matter what else is going on in the world, the best thing we can do is if we know that something is the right thing, then we have to do it. We can't wait for somebody else to do that. And thankfully, you've done it. I've done it.

There's been a lot of us and that's exactly what we're supposed to do right now. We're supposed to walk the walk because if there's evil and there's... Oh, there's definitely evil, bro. Oh, there's definitely evil, bro. Then we have to... We can't just stand up.

We have to actually do something. And that's what we're doing. That's what makes me feel... That's how I go to sleep at night is knowing that we are doing it. I'm doing everything that I can do to not just stand up, but to actually do something about it. And because of that, I have confidence. But like I've said, I don't worry about what will happen if the world goes to shit because I will be dead before that happens. I refuse. I will do everything in my power to prevent that from happening. Because I'm tired of people dying. I'm tired of the guides suddenly.

I'm tired of people of our own government tearing us apart, telling that the unvaccinated are unclean. They've done it again today. Yeah, they did it again today. I'm tired of raising up evil and portraying it as heroic, like the fact that he's not. Because he knew everything that I told you today. And they still shower him with praise and refuse to investigate him because the party in power tied their cart to him. And it's sickening. In terms of Americans lost, this is basically World War III. Yeah, and this is something that I've tried to stick to. I'm not a military genius, but it doesn't take a genius to realize you're at war right now, right?

There's bodies everywhere. There's pathogens everywhere. There's hot conflicts breaking out where there shouldn't be hot conflicts. It doesn't. And this is the first stream I've done. Well, the last stream I did was the one in the hotel room with you. But one of the things that struck me in the US was just the empty shelves, bro. If you'd said to me a few years back, after my experience of doing it in the US, that you would see nation-wide, you know, empty shelves. And I saw it in Pennsylvania. I saw it in Texas. And I saw it in Michigan.

And the only shop that seemed okay was Tractor Supply. I got my new clothes from them. I bought new clothes. I bought new clothes. Tractor clothes to survive. But, um, I don't know. I bought new clothes. Tractor clothes to survive. But, um, like the garage we went into, right? Did you see the empty shelves in there? Well, I mean, they're spreading things out on the shelf more. And that's the reality is that this is, this is a war. But on the bright side, we outnumber them. 99.99 to 1. Wow, for the moment. Maybe, maybe. The good news is we're still, we're still in a place in this war where we don't need a weapon. Because the truth is enough.

Because it's more powerful than a weapon. Because I can't convince, like I can, I can convince, I can point a gun at somebody and convince them to do something. But, but I don't need to do that. Because if I, if, if I just get them to pay attention, and then they actually see what the truth is, then I don't have to fire any bullets. And that's the, the entire reason that they're trying to censor us is because they know that that's true. They desperately want the world to fall apart. They desperately want an excuse. They want us to rise up with guns and try it that way. Yeah. And the truth, but the truth is that we don't have to. But that's why they're censoring, because they don't, they don't want, they want, they can try, they can, they might be able to keep control in the instance where everybody gets their guns. But they cannot keep control if everybody learns the truth. They just can't. Yeah. Oh man, that's a, that's a good place to, to wrap it up. I'll let you go. I'll run the intros, but yeah, it's always fascinating, dude.

Yeah. I feel like, I feel like we've covered, I feel like this is a pretty damn loose tree. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, it's, it's good to keep going over this stuff, right? You know, the, the thing with ORF6 just now, that's, that's the power of sort of having the, the community that is, is around is, you know, if you slip up, someone, someone's there and, you know, it's active 24 hours a day. I, I, I look forward, like I would love actual scientific discussions with scientists over this in public. So I mean, I'm not afraid of the truth. If I'm wrong in some areas, I don't mind if any man I'm wrong. But the, what, what we shouldn't do is, is give up on evidence when we, when we haven't figured out that it's wrong yet.

Like we should always, but all weapons that we have at our disposal. So Well, and hopefully be smart enough that the more primitive weapons stay in the, stay in the locker, right? That's, that should be the, the end goal here, but we'll see, we'll see. I guess, I guess we'll see how the coming weeks unfold because we've got the winter season upon us, right? We'll see. We'll see. I guess we'll see how the coming weeks unfold the winter season upon us, right? Winter in Europe, eventually investigations in the new Congress in January. And, you know, it's going to be a rough time, but at the same time, that's the truth. I'm tired of blood being shed. And the truth will shed a lot less blood at this point than force. Let's hope so. All right, well, I will let you go and then I'll, um, finish up with the stream. Um, I'll, I don't know what time is it there? Yeah, it's 1 11, Dan. Oh, I probably need to get some sleep, but, um, yeah, I'll, I'll follow up and, um, like I said, there's still, there's still more to, um, to go over. Like I said, I've missed, I've missed so much in the sort of last few weeks. I took a break. Had a break, vacation. Fuck you. Wind you now. I don't mind, I don't mind helping you catch back up. Uh, yeah, I don't, let's say I'm, I'm, I need to get, uh, caught back up on, um, but you know what, you know what I've realized? I can't, I can't sit in the, in front of the computer for 15 hours a day anymore. Um, uh, I'm too saddlesaw, Charles. Backside hurts too much.

All right, I'll let you go and, uh, you take it easy, dude. All right, folks, there we go. Uh, awesome Charles. And, um, yeah, the, uh, let's say deep, deep stuff. Right. Let me just, uh, I'll read some comments and then I'll get out of here. So, uh, yeah, thank you, Buddha man for the link. Let's see, Rick, see front of the screen. Yeah. Uh, he's, uh, he's a hard man. Uh, we should be, we're blessed to have him. These injections are triggering things, a lot of things, if nothing else reactivating latent viruses. Yes, yes, yes. And yes, Jenny, I agree. Um, and Charles did get vaccinated, but very early on. Um, let's see. Get vaccinated, but very early on. Um, let's see. Uh, I haven't trusted them in a long time.

Uh, yeah, just, um, remember your government loves you. Uh, let's see. My instinct knew they were lying their ass off and still are. Oh yeah. For sure. Put the name of face on a list and show it over and over while we're trying. How much is pure blood G's selling for? I don't know. Uh, I luckily found Kev right as the shots were coming out. Thank God this man saved my ass. I'll put them on. Thank you. Um, I'm glad you're all around. Um, I was getting information before from Reddit. Well, hopefully we're cut above Reddit. Let's see. First they tell us these injections have to be kept at sub zero temperatures. Then they realize it can’t be done and said, “oh, fuck it, Nevermind”. Yep. That's true. Uh, that's guilty working. No, where's my guilty button?

Guilty. Not working. No, nevermind. Uh, let's see. We don't need propaganda. We don't need fudge jobs. Leave our kids alone. Yeah. Uh, yes. Please support the stream. Go to

Um, we're the, the next up that I'm going to be doing with respect to sort of practical application is, uh, intracerebral. So injecting into the brain, um, vaccine. And I want to see if we can get a hit for amyloid. Um, if we do, we do, we don't, um, we'll take that data point and move on with it.

Uh, so let's move on. Uh, let's see. I don't know. It's the World Cup on. I didn't even realize, uh, time diminishes or returns. Yep. Most people are in denial phase at the moment. Uh, yes. Uh, I, I think so. Um, I do think so. Um, yeah, please use the, um, the streaming platform. We talk, you listen. Uh, let's just bring that up. Um, you know, this is just one way of trying to, um, get around this censorship and, um, shout out to our Simon Phoenix for all his work on here. Uh, we should be streaming live on there.

I need to, um, catch up with Ryan, um, Ryan Dawson. He wants to stream on the platform, but, um, there we go. There's a live stream there and all the previous streams will be in, uh, giant science show approaching 50,000 views. How cool is that? Um, not bad. Not bad for a little bitty, um, self-supported platform. Um, so salute to everyone that helps, uh, keep the fight going. Uh, KSA says absolutely amazing info. Thank you, Charles and Kev. You're welcome. Um, Kevin and Charles, what's the best way to make contact? Um, you can email or, um, Discord is a good way to get hold of me. If you go, uh, and, um, you can join the Discord there and, um, I'm available most hours, um, on the Discord. I can be reached there. Um, let's see. Jenny says the evil doers major majorly screwed the pooch. Need punishing. There's no way out. It's going to destroy. Yeah, look, um, I'm not, uh, I'm not buying into this amnesty bullshit that they're pushing. No, no fucking way. Not on my watch. Uh, Rick's is an American hero. Yes. Uh, let's see. Death squads moved on to kill them. Well, look, my, my concern is, you know, if history is any metric, um, it's the purges that come next. And so, you know, what does, what does that mean? Um, are we going to, are we going to be shipped off to the Gulag or maybe they just realize it's easier just to keep you Gulag in your home. So keep that in mind. Uh, by the way, they found even a mild infection causes your organs to age four times faster. So shaving many years off your life can also look older already. Yeah. Don't look, don't look tip top for my age.

Um, Marty, thank you for posting links. Let me just, uh, let me just check. Let me see if anyone sent a dono today. Let's do this. Come on. Oh yes. I want to say thank you to, um, let's see. I believe maybe that's Tennessee. Uh, whoever that was in Tennessee. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, makes it, uh, eases the pain. Let's see. Let's see. I believe it. Medcrams also said, even with mild infection, chance of having seizure increased for the first six months. Um, they have multiple victims after mashing at Walmart in Chesapeake, Virginia. Uh, multiple fatalities as gum and opens fire inside Walmart death toll less than 10 over 40. Okay. Impulse control disorders, folks. Uh, let's see. And Deuteronomy. And it shall be our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God as he has commanded us. I am a fallen, fallen man. I'm afraid. This retribution or retribution. What's the word I'm looking for? I hope I can be saved. I'm trying. Uh, comes from the chapter with Shima. Don't know what that means. Have we unclean when they're the ones injecting themselves with substances? Everything is inverted. Once you know that all makes sense. Welcome to mirror world. Uh, maybe, um, fucking scumbag libtards in Canada proceeding and banning semi auto rifles, including pistol caliber turbines, bastards. Um, rail strike next on the agenda. Yeah. Um, expect a lot of industrial action. Uh, let's see. Normal devil. I killed the, no, not quite. I love these little vape pens. They're great. Uh, let's see. Uh, he says, holy crap. I've been checking for days. It's all right. I'll watch replay. Very good to see both his good to see you as well. It was nice meeting you as well in, uh, where was it? Austin. What's that other city? What's that other city in fucking Texas?

Houston. That's where I was getting tired. Uh, most people think I'm not so evil. So evil does not exist. Yeah. Um, let's see. You need to disperse the information via multiple methods. Yeah, I agree, Simon. I saw the, what you're saying about trying to archiving and what have you, uh, have automation tooling to rapidly pivot, to jump ahead of various sensor shadow banning systems. I agree. Um, contact details. Um, well, you can email me. Kevin. Oops. You can use that email to get in touch with me. Um, who was it asking? Tao. I think that's her. Uh, let's see. Yes. They want armed conflict. Yeah, of course they want armed conflict. Uh, what happened to the ICJ case? Um, I submitted my affidavit. I don't know that, but some lawyers and solicitors in the UK, as far as I know, I did my bit. Um, let's see. They found just laying a body double already serving life and offered her a deal because she's prison and maybe a short sentence. We don't get many pictures at all. Like one or two. So eyebrows are wrong. Is that true? Won't surprise me. Um, let's see. 9 million refugees about to storm the EU, uh, from Ukraine. You mean, let's see, uh, much the same before in the coons for a while, but I usually listen to replay. Uh, well, welcome to the live stream. Um, uh, this is just nicotine. I wouldn't dare bring back, um, anything to Japan. Um, uh, don't mind having to catch back up. Yeah. We'll get back. Yeah. Uh, Kev audio low on your end.

Uh, great interview. Yeah. Look, man. Um, it was one of the real highlights of my trip to, um, me, Charles, and I met so many cool people. Um, so, uh, it was, it was worth doing. Um, you want to, you want to, um, you want to, uh, get us face to face with as many as possible, man, because you know, we're all in the same foxhole at the moment. Um, Epstein's bank accounts went active again several months after his death and COVID hit the news. Good timing. Yeah. Um, update the link on dojo. The YouTube link goes to the dead profile. Uh, I will, I will do that. Thank you for IP. Um, let's see. People are starting to wake up to the lies. Well, it needs to be faster. I guess the world really is rather small. Are you part of the raccoon discord? Um, should be. Please tell your friends and family about us and the work Kevin Charles are doing. Yes. Um, let's see. I'd be interested in seeing Dr. Kev talk to hell by the dashboard light. I don't know who that is, but I'll speak to anyone. Um, let's see. Yep. Go to stream platform right near the end here. Um, maybe give dashboard some dating tips. What that means. Um, you don't want dating tips from me. Uh, let's see. Um, take the YouTube link on the site. I'll do that after the stream is finished. Um, uh, let's see rumble. I, we need to get the chat synced up. So rumble is, um, working, but, uh, I didn't even, I didn't even check how many we have watching a stream, but, uh, over 110. Nice. Uh, let's see. Discord also monitors what's going on in other applications while it's opened on browser. So I'm very cautious. Is that true? I've had friends get expelled from school for using discord to cheat on homework. That is funny. Um, let's see. Uh, yeah, you're not all, I'm trying to tone that down for the moment. So, uh, let's see. Uh, I'm thinking about switching to telegram. Um, uh, telegram has problems. They all have problems to tell the truth. Um, yeah, it's why we're trying to redemption. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Uh, let's see. You are one fallen mofo. Uh, consider becoming a patron of good doc. Yes. Do that. Um, telegram seems safer, but you have to give you a number to use it. Yep. Uh, let's see. And others like Charles, Mark, Jonathan, et cetera. Yeah. Let's say there's been some that have been plugging away, uh, right from the beginning. Um, dash has said he will upload old videos. I don't know who dash is. Uh, awesome. Says wonderful. See, I was worried about the coons. She had no notifications. Love to you. You wonderful man. Oh, thank you. Uh, Aurora storm, um, reading metadata and adding to library, 15,000 books. Nice. Um, uh, yeah, I, I'm going to leave this up on YouTube. Um, I just, I think it's important to leave it up.

Um, I don't know. Do I, do I take it down off YouTube?

What do I do? I don't know. I'll think about it. Uh, anyone seen Died Suddenly thoughts? Um, yes. Uh, I watched it. Um, again, thank God, cause it was stupid. Peter's right. So, um, thank God they weren't pushing graphene or, um, magnetic nano disks. And I'm of the opinion we have the biology figured out for the, um, the plots that we're seeing there. They're amyloid fibrils. Um, the, the biology is relatively well understood. Um, but yeah, it does, it does show amyloidosis.

Let's see. I think Alex likes to tease the community with an archive release, but also wants to make money off of it, which probably won't happen. Okay. Uh, dashboard anadonic, but still has sense of humor. Um, why, why am I gone quiet? It's not quiet. Stop it. Um, unlist it and link to it. Maybe I'll do that. There's no live chat for rumble in the Android app. I think they do it on purpose. Don't want us organizing, but don't mind funneling most of us to other platforms. Yep. Um, let's see. Dash said it was against his principles to ask for money, but now that he's blacklisted, I think he needs the money, not great seller and capitalist overall. Um, I need money. Help, help the doc. Uh, keep, keep the lights on. Um, let's see dashboard light is a fringe YouTuber with a PhD in physics. He thinks world population is much lower than stated. Uh, the likes is to further drive the population lower. Interesting. Um, leave the stream up for a wee while. All right. I will do. Okay. That's me caught up with the chat. Thank you for listening. It was very, very cool. Um, I think I'll go and re-listen to it as well. Cause there was a lot of information to digest and, um, I need, I need to get back up to speed, uh, with what was going on. Um, and yeah. So with that, uh, I'm out of here. So, uh, it's been a while since I hit this button, but, um, I will see you in the next one guys.

I've got a good, um, a good paper that I wanted to, uh, do. Um, did it nature, nature, nature. Yeah. Yes. This, this paper, um, we'll do this one. So, um, we'll look at the pathology of the S2 sub unit and, um, amyloid buildup. It's broken. My computer's hanging. Um, so next stream, we'll do that. We'll get into some neuroscience. Right. I'm out of here. Take care. God bless. See you in the next one.