McCairnDojo.comPast episodes & related streams

Ah, things are working, welcome everyone and it's part two and hopefully I'll be, I got all the hampers off my chest yesterday and we'll be speaking with Commander Rixy today.

We'll do the, we'll do the breakdown of the first video of J.C. and get Charles thoughts on some of the more egregious mischaracterisations and straw men. So, without sort of further ado because I think he's waiting, let me see if I can get through to Charles. Come on, do you, no. What did I do? I messed it up. Ah. Bear with me folks, because that's like tech, what's going on here? I need a producer. There we go. Alright, so whilst we wait for, is this the room for an argument? Came here for a good argument. Look, again, in retrospect, I'm going to, like I say, I was hot under the collar yesterday because I watched two streams in a row that were, again, unfairly mischaracterising, somewhat me, but more importantly Charles, and the simple fact is that Charles has risen very, well, he is the tip of the spear right now and we, to be trying to break down the evidence that we have, that's legal evidence, right? That's the important distinction. It's evidence which shows intent on behalf of these programmes and the, we have to, like I was saying yesterday, we have a small window in which to push back cohesively against what is a all-encompassing push by technocrats, oligarchs, what was the, I was watching MacDuff, what did he call it? Synacopith, no, I forget. {synarchist}

The 1% of the 1% who have their fingers in all the pies making sure that they scoop off more than their fair share. They don't have good intentions for us and we, like I say, we only have the tools that were bequeathed to us and one of those being the legal system and we have to make sure that the, I've just realised that the chat is not working properly, is it? On the screen we're just getting rumble chat. Why? Why is that? Cyber Phoenix, what's going on? Whilst I'm waiting for Charles, he will debunk Charles in the layman's way. Let's see, who said that? Who said that, KangD? I just told you how to fix it, you did? Where? What do I need to do? How did Rixy get his hands on that DEFUSE document? That was a reload and pick up Restream chat. Reload what? Restream? What about if I put Restream in here? You were right, Cyber Phoenix, there we go. It not loaded, the browser was empty. Alright, so that should, should work right now. Let's see, rumble chat is not showing in Restream bot. Yeah, I know it only, it shows up on the screen, but hopefully, now, do I need to stop and start the widget? Alright, okay. Stop and start the widget. In the meantime, I want to make sure that, have I, have I messed up? Oh, tech, I hate you all. Let me just, I think I might have messed up the call. Let's do this. Meet with video. Boom. Alright, let's see if he picks up now. Restart the widget. No, it's not that, is it? I'll have to do this later. I can't, I don't find, I don't see the widget. Is that it? Off. Yeah, okay. Restart, okay. Alright, alright, so that's that done. Let's just see if, I'll try on, maybe, maybe he's got tied up. So, it didn't fix it, Simon Phoenix, let's say. Do I have to, do I have to reload and re-paste the, I don't have to do that. Copy, copy, copy. There's no sound. It's just, it's such a, it's such a complicated setup now. It doesn't make for easy, okay. Yo, is that working? Is that updating? Is that updating? No. Well, you know what? Put that up here and maybe if I turn on, restream chat. Yeah, so we can have two chats. We can have rumble chat and the, I guess that's, I guess that's one way of doing it. It makes the screen a bit messy, but I'm happy up boys. Yeah, always messing with us. Alright, let's see. So, the minute Cooey hung out with Malone Kennedy, he went AWOL. Have we been infiltrated? I don't know. Send another call. That is odd. Let me, let's do this. Messages. Meeting. Something's wrong with Zoom, folks. Video. Okay, let's see. He's been invited. Yes. In a Zoom meeting. Yes. Okay. Hey, that's working. Alright, finally. You know what? Let me just play with the setup a little bit. Charles, how are you, sir? No sound. Your mic's not on, bro. So, whilst we wait for Charles to join. Yeah, we got it. Got it. There we go. I'm just messing around with the layout because you've got text all over your face. Let me do that. Alright. I mean, it's probably for the best. No, not at all. All my screen layouts all messed up. And let me just turn off this camera. Boom. Alright, so it looks a bit tidy. This tech has been crazy today. It's a constant nightmare for me, bro. I'm just like, sit down at this machine. And there's always something not quite right. There's something I've left on. I'll switch scenes and I'll get a fat Angie interrupt me or something. And it's a constant struggle just to keep everything ship shape.

So first off, let me just, I want to say, I probably teed off a bit too hard yesterday maybe. But like I say, I was just telling the audience, I'd watched those two streams and it was so egregious. The mischaracterizations of your character, the science. I don't know. I got distracted with the chat and just got, I don't know, I lost my cool a little bit. Sorry. Well, I mean, you already know, I almost enjoyed it, but I needed to get a process more because it really is bizarre. And I've been trying to figure out what the logic would be. And it doesn't really make sense. Well, I was just, yeah, I just want to say what I was thinking, we should sort of go through that video that he did, the stream that he did, particularly the section, because in the lead up to that and during that is where there's really, he's really sort of stepping out of. Well, I guess to kind of put an intro to this, I've been trying to figure out why there's been such a defensive attitude about this quasi species hypothesis and this shift towards rejecting DEFUSE and other things, other pieces of evidence that I mean, it's not logical. And even the arguments that are made don't make any sense. They don't fit because, well, we'll talk about it later, but basically.

Well, someone's asking for a quick synopsis in the chat. So, well, basically a few months ago, JC came up with this new idea just regarding the, he'd come to believe that the quasi species facet of the coronavirus evolution was being misinterpreted and misunderstood to a much larger degree than really anybody has argued previously and to the degree where he doesn't believe that it's possible for any virus, man-made or otherwise, that gets dropped into the natural milieu. They call it a swarm, but you think of a cloud of particles in the air that are viruses that are all slightly, they're all the same basic virus, but there's it's like a family of closely related particles, but they're not identical. There is, and I think that's an oversimplification because the way that he explains it, it makes it seem like it's just, it's a function of simple math and that's all that there is. And so, we'll talk about that and why I think he's overemphasizing the importance of that. It's incredibly important because that affects basically everything else. I mean, the argument he's making, it logically follows if what he's saying is correct, then yes, it does affect everything that we understand. The problem is, is that in the real world, regardless of whether or not there's issues with sequencing or anything else, in the real world, in the symptomology and the sequences, whatever they are, the quality of them that they are, they're still trends, they're still consistent and they don't represent what he's saying. That's all I can say. And the other thing I can say is that the majority of people, the overwhelming majority of people disagree with him. And that doesn't mean that he's wrong. But the fact that he came up, that he put these two things out there and that they basically impact some things I was involved with, it was very strange that he didn't tell me about this.

I learned about this watching one of his streams a few weeks after apparently he'd started talking about this, which is strange given what we were doing at the time. And that also leads into the fact that he has accused me for some reason of being unwilling to talk about the fact that I was working on a contract as a subject matter expert for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And I don't know if he ever looked at the contract that we signed, but there was not something in there that said that we were supposed to be talking about something. In fact, there were things in there explicitly saying that we weren't supposed to talk about what it was that we were doing. So for him to imply that because I wasn't talking about that, that I was somehow disloyal or not proud of that, why would I not be proud of it? He called me after watching us on a stream, he called me directly and asked me to come work for him. And so of course I'm proud of that. I'm incredibly proud of it. But I'm confused as to, I was never told something different than what I had been told at the beginning.

So I'm not sure why he thinks that, why he perceives that I should have been more vocal. Because from my understanding, I was not supposed to be vocal. And based on what the overall purpose was, why would we want to share that? But what he did basically, was imply that I was hiding that because I didn't want to interfere with other revenue streams or something, which is absolutely ridiculous. Well, the accusation being that your sub-stack was the priority, very egregious.

People need to understand, I would assume that most people who heard of me by now know that for most of the last two and a half years, well actually it was three years now, actually it is three years now. For the last three years, I've only had an income during that six month period. And then one other month, which is when I was co-writing the Glenn Beck episode that he did a special on. When Glenn Beck lifted all your tails, funnily enough that was just in the background there. Just took your work without attribution. I mean, I'm still trying to process why anybody would say that, who knows who I am, because if you do know anything about that, you know that I wasn't working. The only income that I had was my disability pay from the Marine Corps. And I was watching one of his streams and some of his people were commenting and asking, you know, why did he only do 15 years in the Marine Corps? Well, I mean, it's not really a conspiracy. In fact, nothing is a conspiracy. I didn't realize I was the subject of all these conspiracies until just recently. And I don't understand it. But so let me just be clear. I left the Marine Corps after 15 years, not because I wanted to, but because for my health, it was important for me after going through a long PTSD treatment program for several months, it was time for me to do something else. So it wasn't something I wanted to do. But I did. And you were medically discharged.

I'm watching all these things happen and all these people talk about me and I'm trying to figure out why people would be attacking me or assuming the worst. Because I don't recall sacrificing the children in the backyard or anything. And then I watched the stream from two days ago, the JC did. And I guess it kind of makes more sense now, at least why they would assume, why they would think like that. But that just kind of left me stunned because he basically just slandered me for a couple of hours, accusing me of all sorts of things. And once again, anybody who knows me, who's watched me, I do not hide things. I don't pretend to be something that I'm not. So Charles is a straight shooter. I approached specifically to work with a year ago because the respect I had for him to come to this place where he felt that that was appropriate after not really talking to me for a few months and not explaining to me anything that was going on was disconcerting. And so I want to respond to some of these statements because, well, first of all, most of them are just idiotic and completely verifiably false and don't even relate to me. So I don't know who he's talking about, who he's confusing me with. But I've also raised questions about him. I've had concerns about the hypotheses that he's been raising and whether or not he thinks they're legitimate. He hasn't responded to the points he made so far and we're going to make more points today. And those points were the streams we did in the hotel, right? He is giving the impression that the argument that he is making has the backing of a consensus, which would be news to me because I also read these or many of the same papers and I'm not seeing the consensus argument and I'm talking to their scientists. I'm not seeing this consensus argument. So the fact that I am not a scientist, I mean, it's okay. You can denigrate me and not think that I'm doing the right things at work. But if you're going to do that, at least debate me to my face because as far as I can tell, I've held my own pretty well and other scientists would say that too, including people that I hold in high regard who know both of us very well. So yeah, so fine. I don't have a choice now that I've been called many things and I'm no longer employed. I don't actually know why. And it's just a very confusing set of circumstances at a very interesting time for something like that to happen. And I'm sorry, but if I grew up in a world where if somebody is saying something, he's saying that is being honest, he's holding to his word, then I'm going to, that's what I'm going to expect. Yeah. So because I do not, I do not go out of my way to attack anybody. And the last time that I was on a stream, which is on his stream was July 4th. And anybody who watches that stream should come away from that thinking the same thing, which is I have no idea. It was great. Really informative. Because to me, it's not the same person and I don't know what the situation is. I don't know what he's trying to imply. I don't know if like somebody has gotten to him or decided that I need to be marginalized, but if that's the case and somebody is trying to marginalize me, they're going to have to do a better job. Because from what I've seen right now, the arguments are pathetic. The demeaning epithets are pathetic. They're not professional and he's not arguing his case. He is arguing that I just don't understand. And six months ago, he, he seemed to think that I did understand at least to a decent degree. Well, you just, you just try to clarify that. And maybe, hopefully the points that we raise will actually be answered. Well, you're just a Marine, Charles. Anyway, so that's kind of like, can you hear me? Can you hear me? Is this mic? I really don't want to spend time doing this. Is this working? The things I'm doing. I'm trying to do everything I can to get the ball rolling so that we can hold these people accountable. Yeah, dude, check, check your, can you hear me? If, if I, if I despise the thought of us fighting amongst ourselves six months ago, I'm not sure on what universe anyone thinks that that's a good idea right now. Or anyone thinks that that should be a priority above what our actual priority should have been, which is what, which is obtaining justice for a million Americans who have died. It doesn't matter if they died of COVID-19 or they died of medical malpractice or they died of anything else. The fact is that they died and they weren't going to die that way. Right. During the three year period, if not for what happened. Can you, can you hear me? I have never, I don't know if you can, I don't know if you can hear me. Can you hear me?

But if, if people are going to say that I don't know what I'm talking about and attack me publicly from the position of being a paid employee of my former employer, I would assume that they would have a better argument than I'm a traitor. So dude, I need, I need to get confirmation. I don't think you can hear me. Hey, can you, can you hear or see me? Can you, you don't hear or see me, right? Yeah. Can you hear me? What's up? It's not working, right? Yeah. You don't hear me. Okay. No. Is it working? Can you hear me now? Check, check, check. One, two, one, two. No sound. Why? Can you see me? Well, as Charles sort of tries to figure out his sound, like I say, I'm, I'm, I'm in agreement with Charles after watching the last two streams as well. And I can hear Charles. I just don't think, I don't think he can hear me. You hear me now bro? It's okay. You hear me now? Hang on. Let me get the earbuds. Is this working? Check, check, check. Okay. One, two, one, two. One, two, one, two. It's, it's okay. I can't hear you. You can't hear me. Oh shit. I mean, Zoom says my mic is working. So, let's see. Just take the headphones out. Yeah.

Okay. That's working. The people have to do with the room echo. Yeah. Look, I'm in agreement with what you said. And so, look folks, get a drink and settle down because we'll walk through the stream that Jay did. But I know you wanted me to bring up one thing, Charles, which was the article that you did write on your sub stack back in June. If people have questions about Charles' appreciation of who RFK is and the family and what they did, back in June, Charles was, Charles was writing about it. I don't, I don't know how much more you were supposed to do beyond that. Flashing lights outside the front of your house maybe. But I don't know. Well, I guess because I had, I guess because I didn't, because I messaged him an email and I wrote that and he appreciated it. And he gets really kind of things to say. It was a great article. I remember when it came out, you know, inspiring stuff. Well, it had stemmed from a lesson that I taught my son when I was homeschooling in the previous year and it already, it literally already had everything except the last video, which happened to be a video of, of RFK's dad, RFK senior. And I, I've always had great respect for, for President Kennedy. And I'm a historian by, by training. So by academic training. So I'm fairly aware of American history and things in it. And among the people that I respect the most, they both happened to have been from very similar time period. And in the case of JFK and Martin Luther King, they were, they were both figures who, who were martyred. I don't know if it's the best word, but I would kind of consider that. And, well, the other M word, martyred is a more, they, they were, they were transformational figures. They were killed in the middle of being transformational and they were killed because they were transformational. And so I, like, I didn't know about RFK as much. Obviously I knew that he'd been assassinated, but he, like, I just didn't, he hadn't really come across my radar screen. And so as I was putting that article together and kind of tweaking it, I was rewatching the Martin Luther King video and where it says, I've been to the mountaintop speech. And the entire point of all of this was the class I was teaching my son, I've taught him anyone, but this is like sort of a civics class because I wanted to expose him to positive, impactful historical figures and give him an example of what the right type of man is supposed to be.

Yeah. And so the litany of scumbags we have these days, right? Yeah. I mean, I, I was, I was incredibly disappointed in president Trump's behavior. Like he was able to accomplish things that I agreed with, but I told my son, you know, I don't, I would never want you to be like him. So during the 2020 election, like I, we were, we were setting the constitution and I, and I set it up so that way we would finish going through the entire constitution on election day. And like I voted for, for Trump, but that's cause the other choice was, was a corpse and, and the corpse won. So, Well, I don't think one is the right word, but Yeah. But I told my son, I was like, you know, I, I've told you for a couple of years now, but that I, you know, I would never want you to act like that when you're an adult referring to Trump. Well, actually I wouldn't want him to act like Biden either, since he's, he's moving himself, but at the same time, these are, he has done good things and the choice is fairly clear. And I mean, he, he, he actually sent the military to fight ISIS for real. And what had been a four year war was ended in 10 months. And we didn't change there. The troops didn't change our weapons and tactics didn't change. We just, we just did it. And so, and that is something that we really lost. Yeah. Look, I always say this. He's the, he's the only president since I can remember since the first Gulf war. So I would have been in my teens, late teens, and that didn't start a major war. Right. And just, just on that fact alone, you know, another four years would have been nice. Right. Instead we've got the shit show that we have right now. And I, I'm, well, I'm just dismayed that we're looking at trenches filled with marten. People get what they ask for. Of course we, at this point we don't even know if they're asking for it because they're, it seems like they're intentionally locking up our electoral system to make it more complicated and less efficient. To what end? I don't know.

Well, I think much is to break the US as a, as, I don't know, the global hegemonic power. Right. But it's sad when it's coming from your own government. I mean, the fact that I can remember, really, I can remember two years ago and two years ago, the gas price was $2 and 42 cents. And it's not today. And you know, what's interesting is that four years before that, so in the January 20th of 2016, the gas price was exactly 2.42. And people don't realize that, but that's the first time that's ever happened. That's the first time. And so, I don't know, maybe we can ascribe it to luck or whatever, but really it was mostly just somebody was willing to do something. And that's really what, that quality is something that was prized in the military. I mean, the Marine Corps, I was highly regarded because I could do things, not because I looked good, not because I was tall and muscular. Not because, I mean, I think it was an officer. You're very effective for what you do. I mean, I was just told that I was a traitor, and a…

Let's get into that, right? I'll share the screen with you. So basically, yes. So yes, that's a good article. I think it's a good article because it lets you hear the voice and what some actual leaders are saying. And it's not hard to compare to today. And believe it or not, this is going to shock people. We can still do that today. And that's what we're trying to do. I like to think that everybody who is fighting this fight against the evil of this pandemic is following that tradition. I mean, that's why I'm doing it. So when people question that, especially people who I sought out to fight with, then I have to question both like, what was wrong that I was seeing in them? Because I didn't change. The only thing that happened during the last year is that I live in a different place. And it's not because I wanted to. It's not because I lied about that. It's because I had to leave the house that I was living in. And so once again, for the same person to attack me, knowing all of this and having seen it throughout the entire process, to then come out and lie and portray it as something it is not, it makes me wonder about everything else that he's saying. Especially because most of what he's saying is about somebody who's not me. Because you can literally go back and look at the things that I've written and done, and I don't hold most of these positions. So yes. So let's go ahead and get started.

I don't remember where we're going to start. I think that video. Well, I was thinking of starting at that part where he's... Where is it? I think it's about 1.09. Where he's basically questioning why people... Oh, I need to share the screen, sorry dude. Wait one second. Or you can just add Lib. Right. That's what he was doing. I'm not trying to touché. I'm just trying to point out facts. Let's see. All right. So I'm just looking what the time differential is between him making those comments and getting to the Kim Dotcom component. Let's just start.

So he's talking about his daughter here and basically being... Not having the courage to stand up and say no. You live and learn, I guess. Take up until now, more or less yes. HPV not. That's the first time I tried it was this one. I didn't say no. Even though I was like, wow, I can't believe how many shots you guys are going after. When we brought the boys up in Norway, they didn't give them any shots till they were like one. And yet somehow I didn't have the guts to protect my daughter. I didn't have the guts to say, no, I don't think so, because they said what you got to have them to go to school. No, you don't. You can get an exemption. But they didn't help me with that. They didn't offer that to me. I am an academic biologist who over the last three years has become full bore children's health defense. Bobby Kennedy is a hero. Bobby Kennedy and these moms and dads that have been fighting for this issue to come to light, irrespective of whether all autism in the world can be blamed on on on vaccination or just some cases. I don't know. But I do know that none of these people are crazy. And I know that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not somebody who needs to. It is shocking to me that people are taking the stances that they are while being so silent about who they support and who they don't support. And that's a dig at you right there in public. Now, it's shocking to me. Again, we've shown people go read Charles. I don't even know what he's referring to about positions or what positions I'm holding that I don't recall holding positions that that are against what children's health defense was arguing. In fact, from what I can tell, that was precisely the the points that they were making. And so I like I'm I have no idea what he's talking about, because I know for a fact that I was not denigrating any positions held by anybody there. I was questioning why he was attacking me and attacking the DEFUSE proposal as if it was saying this, that it's not real. And later on in the video, accusing me of intentionally releasing something that isn't real to further a narrative.

And that narrative being the gain of function. Well, his position is gain of function in no way is capable of making a pathogenic well, let's just say coronavirus in this instance. And you know, again, I would say you can postulate all you want, but you have to you have to bring data to the table. And, you know, he makes the claim that it's going to revert back to the mean of the quasi species swarm, regress back in such a short order of time that it would be impossible for the pathogen to spread beyond any meaningful measure. And, you know, just I've shown this before. I don't know if you've seen this from Seagal Lab. Did I show you this? I don't remember. But basically, they track SARS in an immunocompromised patient. And in this instance, it actually gets more pathogenic. Right. So it's, it's not reverting back to a mean. Right. That's what he said it would. And the by all accounts, the furin cleavage site should have disappeared because it's not a recognized sequence within the sarbecovirus clade. Correct. It doesn't exist. There's no there's no chemical framework that makes it where it should pop up at that feavage site. And this was known. And we've also seen as soon as you as soon as it jumps to another species, you know, whether through cell passage or anything else, within one or two passages, it's gone. And that is something that Dao Yew, who's a scientist, he's literally the smartest human being that I've ever interacted with ever. Yeah. And the ballet of the molecular biology world, as far as I'm concerned, he's I don't I've joked with him that I don't know if he's, I assume that he's an alien. I mean, just more importantly, I've I've I've met people who who get frustrated occasionally. I've never met somebody who says that he's an idiot. And and he has studied this more than anyone, including Jay. And so we understand this very well. And we understand that it attenuates that if it stays in humans, it doesn't. It's incredibly stable as long as it stays in humans. We also know that the QTQTNS comes prior to the PRRA is actually required for the PRRA itself to be there, which means that it's not just a 12 nucleotide four amino acid sequence that magically popped in there, which is ridiculous. But it's actually 24. So so, yes, we're aware of these. And I in fact, I've spent a lot of time and got through a lot of papers and built like a like a map of the spike genome and all the different weird special pieces and epitopes and everything that's this inside of it and the density of those things. It's not natural. But more than that, the furin cleavage site is stable.

Now, and that's just one of several things that is strange based upon the argument that the JDC is making. I'm assuming that's kind of where you're going with this here. Yeah, yeah, there's just he's he's making very large leaps in logic and premises that are not warranted. And I think those types of assertions have to be backed up with data, I'm afraid, particularly in a case where there has been harms caused. And again, I would I would say this and it's a it is a big deal within the biological sciences, you must let the clinical picture guide you rather than just theorem and abstraction. Because you can you just get into the you know, how many how many angels can dance on the head of a pin type thinking, when you're not grounded in in the clinical data. And more importantly, you're not, you're not explaining, you can't be saying that you're explaining the clinical manifestation.

When you work, when you reverse engineer the explanation, or when you try to, when you argue when you argue something and then go looking for the evidence that's there. Well, what if it's not there? There has to be a plausible mechanism that explains the, the variations or the, the, the outliers that do appear. And I want to caveat this with the following as well, is that my what I understand what Jay is trying to argue is that by pushing the lab origin hypothesis, it paves the way for the technocratic future. Because I don't know, reasons, I guess.

Whereas I'm I'm of the opinion that if we're able to prove this in courts of law, it should it should do more to it should put us more towards like a sort of Nuremberg type scenario where we can clip the the wings of these entities, institutes, individuals. Well, I mean, just think that what is the end goal, if not justice? That'd be my question. Well, what is it that you're trying to prove? Because I have never said that I'm absolutely against the arguments that he's making. I have said that I don't think that there's enough evidence. And, and, and I've positive questions. And his rejections have mostly been based on this idea that I don't know what I'm talking about. Which is fine. He's allowed to have an opinion. And I'm not a scientist.

Just a jarhead, just a jarhead Charles, how dare you? I'll be honest, I'm not a scientist. I was I was even enlisted. I earned a bachelor's and master's while I was listed, but I was listed. But you know what, I don't see how that's relevant. Because right now, I'm literally investigating this because a bunch of scientists lied to the world. So why on earth should I look at scientists as being holy or as being above? Because believe it or not, I know he denigrated once again, my the list that I made, which it seems strange, because it seems like a pretty basic and uncontroversial thing for me to compile over a couple of years.

And no one else has done that, dude. Like the world, the world owes you.

I mean, I don't I don't see anybody. Look, why didn't somebody else do it? Why didn't they scientists do that? Why didn't somebody who's getting paid at the, you know, at the CIA, do that instead of instead of messing with my Twitter? I don't know. But the last thing I would expect is for somebody who understands that I did that for free to try to make it easier for other people who wanted to do what we're doing to not have to go through that as they dive in. That was not a selfish thing that I was doing, nor have I heard from anybody else that it was trivial or or meaningless, or that I was just Googling certain phrases and then putting a bunch of papers in there. I mean, that's insulting because he knows that that one of my one of the main rules that I set when I was putting that together as I have a master's degree in history. So I understand historiography. I understand keeping records. I understand getting primary sources and secondary sources and checking the sources. In fact, I've made a lot of discoveries that way that other people didn't make. In fact, last time I was on his show, he was congratulating me on the discoveries that I was making. So I'm not sure why he would see it differently now, now that I have double the sources that I had then. And that's just a side project in that side project that I did for free that I've curated. I read every single thing that's linked in there or listened to. Every single link I have read. Now, what does that mean? That includes the 40-ish FOIA collections. So it's somewhere between 130,000 and 150,000 pages. That's a repaid shirt, but I went through every single page. Why? Because you miss things when you use Ctrl-F. That's how I discovered that Fauci was leading a censorship four months before his emails came out. So I'm not sure what else is wanted from me, but I'm somebody who cares about ensuring that that the right things are remembered. I have read every single thing that I put in there before I put it in, because I'm not going to put it in there if I don't think it's valuable. I also provide all sides of every argument. So if I find something that's arguing for a natural origin for the furin cleavage site, if I don't already have something like that, which of course I do, but I try to make sure that there's both sides of a major argument well represented within that, and I'm not going to put it in there if I don't think it's valuable.

Yeah, so we can all learn from that. Actually, to say that that is just the consequence of Googling some search terms is, I mean, it's pathetic. It's beneath him to say that, because he knows that that's not the case, because he knows that's how I've made a lot of my discoveries, a lot of which I brought to the world through his stream. Yeah. Yeah. On purpose. Yeah. So what he can say, whatever he wants, and act like however he wants. But that's just the truth. And the good thing is, is that I have cataloged all these things, I've left a trail. Yes, and I've written like 100 articles. And it's very clear that he's not read most of them. But he would know that I agree with him on most of these things already. All right. Perhaps worse, he has read them and just decided to make the pivot that he has done. It's possible, but just based on what he was saying the other day, seems highly unlikely.

All right, let's get because there's two, three hours of video to get through. So and we haven't even got to the Kim dot com part yet. So I want to make it absolutely 100% clear. I don't think there's any other banner to rally under other than Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children's Health Defense. I don't know what other banner you're going to rally under. Because if you look back on this history of this kind of pharmaceutical government cooperation, if you look at this history and you look at who's on his team like Merrill Nass, you can't come to any other conclusion. If you're being honest, that is a good guy. His father was killed. His uncle was killed. His uncle was president of the United States, and he chose to go to law school and become an environmental lawyer before he eventually realized that there was also something to be fought for here.

And has taken all the heat for all these years while most of us ignored him, including me.

And I'm being very forthright when I say that without his support, I would not be streaming right now.

I don't think I would have been able to maintain my belief in this and maintain my endurance in this. The wind in the sails that I got from his support, the wind that I got in my sails from his attention and his questions and his trust in me cannot be underestimated. And as I present these data to you now...

You know, without Jay's support, I might be getting paid right now.

Right. Just, I mean, just spitballing here. So I would ask him, I would ask why he's discussing rallying under a banner with, as if I don't know who Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is. Of course I know.

He called me and asked me to come work for him.

So I'm, but even if I, even if he didn't do that, I knew who he was before then.

Because the previous year I was teaching my son about his family. Even though, you know, they're Democrats, and I'm not, but...

Well, in the push back against the public-private dystopia that's looming down on us, I'm not sure those old left-right paradigms really mean a great deal at the moment. They don't matter anymore. And I've come to respect anybody who will stand up and do what needs to be done. And I said that to Jay on a stream last time I was there. And I said that to him, and I meant it.

And I still believe in him. I still believe he's very intelligent and he's hardworking.

But that doesn't mean he's right all the time. It doesn't mean that he does the right thing or makes the right decision. And if he really felt that way about me, or something that I was doing, he could have told me that instead of bringing this out to the public, when it didn't have to be, it shouldn't have been brought out to the public. Yeah, this shouldn't even be in the public domain, but... I literally told him in the last three minutes of the last stream that I was on with him, or that last time I was on his stream, that the most important thing that we can do is, as we're working at this, that we're doing it the right way. Because, and my exact quote was, if God puts me in a position where I'm fortunate enough to be where I can make a difference in this fight that we're fighting, then I want it to be a good difference. I don't want it to be me negatively impacting this fight. Why on earth would I want that? I wouldn't. And why on earth would somebody, knowing and having observed me, and know what I care about, and that it's not money, to call me out as if I'm not...

living up to that? It's disgusting, because he didn't bring up an actual example of where I was failing a little up to that. But he nonetheless went out of his way to smear me. And that was the reason I was frustrated, is that he had attacked Diffuse by also attacking me and painting me as if the only reason that I married his hypothesis was that to Diffuse being a legit document was because it had been given to me. And I don't know, I guess he thought that my identity would be wrapped up in it or something. No, my identity is wrapped up in trying to bring to justice the people who killed millions of people for no reason. That's what my identity is wrapped up in. Oh, it's not for no reason, bro. They've got very, very specific goals. But for an unknown reason, like right now, I mean, it's incredibly disappointing. It's incredibly disappointing. I would just add this, and you can tell me if I'm being too obtuse, but if he would do that in public, Lorde only knows what he's been saying in private conversations. That would lead to this situation. And this is where my frustration brought me to snapping point yesterday. And because his pleas to rally under a banner right now seem disingenuous. Just off the back of that statement, it's mind blowing to me that, well, he's just that unaware of his words and the thoughts that he's projecting. And I challenge him, I challenge him to go and search online, search my name and go find something where somebody has said anything like what he said. Because he's not going to find it. He's not going to find it on a Texas high school football message board. He's not going to find it from any Marines that I used to lead or serve with. He's not. Now, I'm not a perfect human being. I've made plenty of mistakes. I've made massive mistakes. I've had big successes. But that doesn't even matter because he has never seen me be a disreputable person. I can't guarantee it. And so because nobody else has. And there's a lot more people watching us than were watching us when I started. I mean, I came here 21 months ago to Twitter and I had one follower. And I've grown. I'm getting close to 20,000 now. And that was another thing that he made fun of on his stream. I mean, we'll get to that. I mean, that's something. Well, basically, so what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to cover stuff. So we do get to skip it because as I remember it, I want to say it because it's important. Because in the stream, he literally claimed that, you know, I must be part of the narrative, whatever the narrative is, because I haven't been kicked off Twitter. Well, to be honest, if you read anything that I ever did to include tweets, then you would see that sometimes a lot of times when I have a tweet and I'm talking about a continuous issue, I will do all sorts of things to try to get past the algorithms. I'll use Greek letters and insert them into the word. Sometimes I'll use like for HIV, I'll do H and then it'll be lowercase L and then a V. And so it looks like HIV. I mean, it's just little things like that. I'm sure that that probably has kept me from getting I've had zero strikes or bans or anything. Yeah. And you know what? That doesn't mean it's not a sign that I'm I'm part of the opposition. There's nothing to do with it because you're doing well tempered posts and you're not getting dragged into the shit posting that I'm bringing in the science. I'm not attacking others out of anger. And he can go and read my tweets at any time. And if he thinks that any of my tweets are actual narrative, let me know. I ask him to do that. Go find tweets of mine that support the narrative, whatever that is. Well, you've been judged already. I've been told to turn down my mic a little bit. Is that better? Sound check. Sound check. I hope that's OK. I mean, I've been judged by people because more people keep following me. And I'm not going out of my way to gain followers. I'm going out of my way to get to the truth. And, you know, he's he's made a significant attack against that. With with just like I said, just off the back of that statement. And for what purpose? To to to push to push us forward in this fight. I don't know. Like I say, I've I've I've been sat mouth to jar for days watching this. And like I said yesterday, I had enough and well, and the fact the fact that the fact that he. Spoke publicly. Like at a point where, like, I assumed it. You know, hatches were buried or whatever to come out and accuse me and attack my honor and integrity. Now. And the fact that I don't like to address that, I don't like to get into these things in public. Why? Because that's not what the public needs. Public needs needs to see leadership, they see courage. There's no courage in attacking each other. And the only reason I'm doing this now is because as a man, as a husband, as a Marine, as somebody who spent a couple of years fighting like he has to find the truth of this. Believe it or not. I feel like I'm allowed to defend myself. And I grew up in a world where that meant something to have honor and integrity, so much as something to your family name. And that's why that's why if you go to my sub stack or if you go to my Twitter, you'll see occasionally you'll see the pictures of my family. Because I have this thing where I make a statement about how she's guilty. And I list out some bullet points and then I have a picture of the three generations of Marines before me. My grandfather and my uncles, my great grandfather. And I put them there because I want anybody who sees my post to understand that what I say, I believe that these people are evil or whatever it is, that I mean it. I'm willing to put my family name on it. I'm willing to testify in Congress for it. And that has never changed. And he knows that. Well, let's we move past this bit where I don't know. I mean, like we could keep going down on. I mean, I do I do want to talk to you. Yeah, I do want to get to we don't have to go in sequence. We can just go to things that we know that we want to hit. Because he could literally be here for 20 hours. Right. So let's skip ahead of it. I believe in the science that I've tried to scrutinize him as well to try and figure out this might change things alone. Yes, that might that might. Let's go back. I think you might be some experts on his talk. So it's all to the mystery. And this is he has a puppet Jiki as well. And I just. Well, you know, should we be surprised at this? So someone, let's see, someone says, I get the feeling Dr. who is under great stress, he doesn't do as well in handling that as others who are fighting the cabal. Yeah, I would I would say doesn't handle pressure well. All right. But it's also been Scooby, dude. Now, remember, again, I'm not claiming that that I'm not I don't want to win. I just want everybody to step back and consider the possibility that the charade may have been more complicated than, oh, we're trying not to find out that there's a lab leak. Oh, there's a lab leak. OK, I guess you found out the charade might be deeper than that. And I think that there are many people that are actively pushing certain extreme versions of the narrative that allow this to go on forever. And if you're not aware, there's this guy, Kim Dotcom, who had some experts on his talk a lot thing on Twitter, whatever they do there. And so I'm going to try and see, you know, if we can get this going and listen to it, if that's OK with you, I'm going to switch to another set up here. Hold on one second. You know, I don't I don't talk a lot about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. because I try to stay independent, but there's no question that I believe in the guy. There's no question that I've that I've tried to scrutinize him as well to try and figure out this might change things along. Yes, that might that might. I've gone through several times this idea of who is Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and after having talked to him in numerous times now and having met him in person, having talked to a lot of people who worked with him over the years, it's very easy for me to see that this is a man that has been the target of influence operations since he was a child. And he's a very intelligent man who's very aware of that. And he's very keenly aware that there are factions inside the U.S. government with ulterior motives other than the well-being of their fellow citizens. And so as an ally, he can be wrong about things. But the thing that's really impressed me the most about Bobby is that he's never sure he's right, except for maybe about how to write something. But not about the science, not about the facts, not about he's always learning. He's never considered himself an expert in this stuff. And that's why he defers to people like me, why he defers to people like Robert Malone and why it's important that he's deferring to the right people. Because if that is making a massive mistake at the moment, then. They can damage his banner. If they can get rid of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., there's a huge part of the legit resistance that will go down with him. Lawyers that have put their careers and lives on the line, moms that have rallied under his banner for years will be out to dry. And that's not going to happen. This is the banner to rally under. And so you need to start questioning yourself, questioning hard if someone is disparaging Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or, more importantly, trying to tell you that he himself is not a good guy or maybe not worth following or paying attention to. Rather than using him as a rally point. When I reach out to the No Virus people, they also don't want to rally. They don't want to get together. They don't want to have a discussion with us. They want us to accept their premises. All of these stances are disingenuous. And I believe what we're going to see here is most likely a recantation of the lab leak theory. And they may even push how they're made and why they're made and how it can happen and how arrogant they are while completely ignoring all those things I ranted about a little while ago. No PCR tests, no sequences, no alternative treatments, no ventilation of people that are speaking. No, no, none of that. Just deadly virus. Let's see. Let's see if they get past deadly virus. And just just to be clear, so people know after this open space, whatever it's called on Twitter, the next interview that he did, which was yesterday, was Elon Musk, right? The the impact and reach that Charles is going to get through that and talking about these programs and the impact on us is incalculable. And here we have Jay shooting it down and basically saying that. Well, you you're being intentionally deceptive by focusing on gain of function research. We can't hear you, dude. You've gone quiet. There we go. Yes, that's it. Yes. Yes, Jay. I'm intentionally I intentionally pushing gain of function because I want to hide the truth about gain of function because that's what infectious clones are. So, yes, yes, I because I hate your hypothesis so much, Jay. When I go out and I'm on a platform that could potentially reach across the world, I'm going to specifically target your hypothesis and try to ignore it or spam it or or or try to denigrate it. No, that's actually not the case. And what's ironic is that he didn't listen to this before he started playing it, and he never does. And I get it. I guess he only has so much time in the day. He knows, dude. I would urge him. I would urge him to reconsider doing streams where he's going to offer opinions on people. And he hasn't seen the stream yet. Because I've already seen what happens when when he offers opinions and he's I came to him to have him be my partner, and he never read anything that I had written. So, so no. Now, in this particular case, I had received a message that I was asleep. And when I actually saw this message that there had been this invite, Andrew Huff had sent me an invite, or he told him he told Kim Dotcom about me and and they were going to do it. And so he invited me to join their this little thing. And so I had like a five minutes to to hop on it. And I have zero regrets. I just want to adjust someone in the chat. The prospect of gain of function makes people more likely to fall to the predations of the biodefense mafia. Well, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. No, we are already falling to the predations of the biodefense mafia. Even if we could literally have never talked, we could never said the words gain of function. It'd be pointless. The problem is, if if we can't even admit that this is happening, I don't care what you call it. But but understand that what Jay is saying about infectious clones is gain of function. And for some reason, he's trying to divorce it from gain of function. But he's wrong. That is incorrect. I used to teach the Biological Weapons Convention to Marine Corps officers and army officers. I rewrote the curriculum. I was the most junior enlisted person to ever still, as far as I know, was junior enlisted marine ever or soldier to ever teach marine or army officers in Seabourn. But that's because I had the technical credentials to hop into that spot and be a war officer instructor. And then after that, after I spent that period of time while when I went back to the Department of State for my second tour, I was chosen to be a judge under Marine Corps wide innovation challenges. And I went to symposia, including ones hosted by Singularity University, where they came to the Marine Corps based Quantico. And they and I was there with like 95 percent officers and we were discussing the the future impacts and trying to adjust to the exponential growth in technology. So I'm not an idiot. I'm not. And I do know something about gain of function and I knew about gain of function before this. Hang on. So in the chat, J.C. wants his audience to know Covid won't seed them prions. That's just fucking retarded. We've got the data in from that already. There are multiple publications which already show the misfolding of amyloid precursor protein. Ryan Cole, Ryan Cole, literally, literally has been on video talking about amyloid fibrils. And he's explaining the structure and why these things are happening. And it's not just by the way, not just vaccines. Guess who I'm on the stream with right now? Yes, that is. Do you know what his specialty is? Because I do. He opens up monkey brains to study amyloid and other diseases and neurodegenerative diseases. So I'm not sure I'm not sure why Jay would question. If if Nobel Prize winners have interacted with with this man on screen. And just because he was going to throw him under the bus with his employer, our employer. That doesn't mean that he should have been dismissed. And should Montagnier have been dismissed? No. The sorry, that gets under my skin. Yeah, I mean, it gets undermined. And look, it's it's a sort of axiom within neuroscience. OK, that these pathogens, OK, are and it could be any even either things like Epstein. That's what that's where the focus is. Usually Epstein, herpes, that that's thinking. And literally in the in the public domain, we hadn't gone much further beyond that. We'd sort of come to understand the concept of propaganda and the many, many different folding proteins can misfold and cause these disorders. And the signature is there is in the spike protein. And you want to know about OC 43 and the difference between stars. OC 43 doesn't have the furin cleavage site, which allows it to penetrate into all these different tissues. And you go back and you read the historical accounts of when they think OC 43 was, which is in the 1890s. Yeah, a pandemic back then. It wasn't the common cold. It was a severe disease. Right. But can we now I'll give I'll give you a little bit of credit, because the people who are saying that it's that it was a coronavirus, it's like we're OBI and others. So, I mean, granted, we can't really trust virologists that much these days. But at the same time, there is evidence of prior spread of coronavirus pathogens that are fairly stable. So, yes, I wonder why he feels that he has the authority to make these claims. Like I said, we will discuss that later. Also, what happened to SARS 1 in your guys opinion? Well, I think it became endemic again. But again, SARS 1 doesn't have the furin cleavage site. That's so suspicious. It attenuated. It basically went extinct, but its pieces were still in batches of SARS-like codes, which is what they were looking for, because they wanted the Chinese researchers once they saw the potential. And so did Ralph Berrick. And so they were trying to find more viruses like that. And they were specifically looking for these ACE2 human ACE2 receptor bad viruses. And they were also looking for amyloidogenic sequences. And I'll just throw up there, because I literally went through the study and I downloaded the supplementary files and I went through and kind of calculated and compared. And then I added the latest stuff between tests and tests in 2018 and in 2020 or 2021. So two papers deal with this. And what I noticed is that there are more amyloidogenic sequences in SARS-CoV-2 than there are in, well, there are more amyloidogenic sequences in SARS-CoV-2 than any other. I think it's beta coronavirus. But it has more. Three unbinding domains per tests and tests. Oh, no, no. But it has six amyloidogenic sequences just within the spike protein, which is unheard of. That's more than it. That's more than the total number and anything even remotely close. That's unnatural. And those where they're located, is it very specific sites? And he doesn't know that. He could know that because I published that. I've got a tab in the in the resource that he said was just Google crap that actually takes a bunch of stuff and creates. I created a table where it shows all these is prion like domains and shows all the the the antigenic part of the epitopes and which like immune receptors they bind to it. And it does all this in the consequence of the four patented L inserts. And the RBD and explaining where all this stuff is, so. If he really wanted to, he could look at this and he could he could dig into these things. Nothing is stopping him. But instead, he's choosing to just attack us without understanding. And it's something he's done very much from the beginning. And, you know, to try to sort of dismiss amyloid prion cascades, etc. And then try to sort of bring Walder in saying that he sort of was the first to sort of make a cogent theory out of it. And look, what does he tell Walter now since he's saying that that there was no virus? Right. I don't know. I'm curious. I don't know. But, yeah, it's a way to sort of piss on Walters work for sure. Walder does a public service in the way that he goes and digs through literature and works through these pathological mechanisms. And to make the claim that they're just then they're essentially they may as well be benign because they're unable to spread to any degree. That's a really, really naive position and posture to maintain until we know better. Right. And I don't think Siles is going to kill us all, hurt us, maybe. It's already hurt a lot of people and it's already killed a lot of people. But Jay's thing seems to want to be to deny the scientific realities. And like I say, there's innumerable published studies that show the dysregulation and the initiation of these pre-energic cascades. And right now we're getting the data, like you say, from Ryan Cole, Anna Burkhart, which is showing this. Well, we'll make the presumption that these are the consequences of vaccines. But Ryan Cole is very specific in saying that essentially infection and exposure, bad exposure to the spike protein, either for infection or via transfection. Essentially, it's going to lead to the same outcome, which is the position that I've held. So, I mean, that's a lot of infectious clones, a lot of people going around with aerosol cans, spraying it in enclosed spaces. I mean, Occam's razor dictates that if one explanation is that maybe the exonuclease is just making it 20 times more stable, like it appears in terms of replication fidelity, that maybe, maybe just maybe that could be driving this. Yeah. And another site for gain of function. No, no, no. Don't be silly. Let's get to... I don't even remember what, like, I don't think we covered the thing we stopped for, but screw it. But the other thing I was going to say is, yes, was being downplayed or denigrated by Jay. I don't know if he knows who he is, but he's not part of the narrative. He was a major funder of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. And so the United States government went after him and he fled. Well, he was a very intriguing, like, eccentric entrepreneur. And he kind of bounced around in Southeast Asia before landing in New Zealand. But he's a big believer in freedom. And so he seems like a strange person for Jay to be attacking. Sorry, I just need to respond to the chat. Centripete, yeah, he's basically saying there's no virus now. It's just it's just synthetic infectious clones, maybe. Right. I mean, we all... I have a problem with being infectious clones. We just disagree over the... Whether it's gain of function or not. Well, no, it's all gain of function. That's the dumbest thing ever. If it's not natural, it's gain of function. But more importantly, he just thinks that it evolves faster than we do. And that one difference makes a huge difference. And from that, he's extrapolating a lot of things that aren't logical. And that's the problem. So, yeah, right. And for those who just joined, if you can hear me, give me a thumbs up real quick. Just checking that the audio is fine. All right. And is the audio quality OK? Does it sound all right? You can jump ahead a minute or two, probably. There's a pretty dead part. I'm still waiting for the other two speakers to arrive. I started the space a tiny bit early, so we can bring them in as well. And then we keep it simple in the beginning. It's just going to be the three of us. I want to introduce you guys, and then I want to ask a couple of questions. And then it was my first stream with Charles Rixie that purported and it was my first and get started. I'm very excited. Let's see. Should have gotten the invite and now all Charles has to do is accept it. And then you move up as a speaker and then we can get started. So Andrew Huff is the EcoHealth Alliance whistleblower and Charles Rixie is the drastic member who I had on my stream. And it was my first stream with Charles Rixie that purportedly was the stream that Malone sat Bobby down and said, you got to watch this. And then at that stage, Bobby and Bobby and C.H.D. took me and Charles on as scientific consultants. So from about May of last year of this year, excuse me, is it this year? Has to be this year. Wow, that's crazy. It was in late April that he called me and in May it was April 15th. We were we were on board as consultants. So Charles Rixie and I have been working for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. since May, I believe, May 15th of 2022 as consultants under the pretense that we would help him fact check his upcoming Wuhan book. And Charles Rixie is not working for Robert F. Kennedy anymore, and I can't find any place on any of these streams where he says that. That's pretty cool. So. Well, why? I mean, why would he say something like that?

Wow. Holy fuck. Yeah, people in the chat is cringe, cringe.

Because because what's what's concerning to me is that.

It appears like like he may have been involved in that, because at the very least, he was not involved in. In any way, shape or form.

Like supporting me or anything is. I mean, he's gloating about this now.

Yeah. Yeah. And I I don't actually know what happened.

And the reason part of the reason I'm in quiet is because I don't know what happened. I was trying to figure out what happened. And so for him to come out on the stream.

I mean, I appreciate the fact that he clarified that for me. But given what I know that he did behind the scenes, it seems odd that he would seek out the limelight to explain that.

Or to take this opportunity while I'm to to cover something that we're doing, that the Andrew Huff invited me to do with him because I had known him for about a year. And that doesn't mean that I'm part of the deep state, but that means is that.

I'm not an asshole and people don't mind interacting with me.

It is actually Andrew Huffing introduced me to Alex Washburn.

I have great respect for.

So it just seems strange. Now, granted, it's OK for him to say this, but it's not I already know it's OK.

What I mean by that is that I'm going to survive him trying to embarrass me because, well, because this is a shitty thing for someone to do and I don't understand why he's doing it.

But I've lived a life, pretty full one. And I don't have anything to prove. I'm not here to prove anything.

I'm here to find the truth about this pandemic.

These millions of people have died. I'm not here to to advance my career. I'm not even doing my career.

I'm not a biologist.

I have a degree in Roman history.

So and I was I was an enlisted Marine for 50 years. And I have ninety five percent of an MBA.

And by now, I'd be halfway through law school if a pandemic hadn't happened. So I know I'm a scrub. I get it. I get I'm a failure.

But I mean, hey, we second afford a house or three and I know whatever.

So I don't know. I just don't understand what the. Possibly be a mature reason to. Well, to try and highlight the fact that I was fired, especially since at the at this exact moment, I don't know exactly the circumstances around that. And and given the fact and given the fact that I was hired and then I gave.

His number to RFK because I wanted him to call him because I wanted him to be part of the team. So I'm confused as to as to what could have happened that could have led to him doing this now.

And I'm confused as to why he thinks that this is this is somehow good for the cause of rallying to the banner.

I'd love to know why.

We went off yesterday. Like I say, I don't I don't think he's being honest here. Like I say, I think he's very likely had a hand in the current circumstances and that's that's sort of bleeding through in in his language. And I'm glad I'm glad he can take care of his family. I appreciate that. Like, I don't want I don't want him to fail. I really don't. I mean that.

What a thing to say, man. Holy fucking shit. Jay, man, you look a scumbag. You really do.

And since that happened, I haven't heard from him at all. Not that I've reached out to him either, but there was no real resistance or questioning. What would you do? What would I do if Bobby decided that I needed to be let go? Did Bobby decide that? I don't know. I don't know that. And I don't know what happened. And and actually there is a reason why I didn't say anything to make a big fuss. In fact, as it turns out, Jay knows that reason.

In fact, as Jay knows, it's an important reason. And because it's important, I'm not going to discuss it. So for whatever reason, he feels it necessary to publicize that to draw attention to something. I I don't understand. Again, it's like character assassination, character assassination for the I don't know what he's trying to again. Does he not does he not understand? I don't give a shit what he thinks about me. I don't give a shit what other people think about me.

What I care about is that there are dead people, including my wife's best friend, who are in the ground right now, because scientists lied to us. And the one thing that I would expect from somebody that I had asked to be in a foxhole next to me would be to not become one of those scientists who was lying.

So I would suggest that Jay should figure out what it is his priorities are. Why is he doing this? Is he in this to figure out the truth? Is this the rallying cry that that that his hero, somebody that, by the way, I happen to greatly respect? Is this the rallying cry that the Children's Health Defense is hoping that he puts forth? I wonder. I'm just curious. I'd love to I'd love to know if slander is part of their is part of their strategy. But I don't recall that whenever I was there.

I would definitely want to know why. I would definitely know what I did wrong or that maybe could I work harder or do something better? I wouldn't just leave. Don't worry, I'm going to be under your constructive criticism, Jay. It's strange because you could promote him. And I don't think there's anything wrong with promoting a relationship with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Again, with the same.

Oh, fucking cock.

Yeah, sure. There's going to be people that are going to like like debunk the funk who are going to say, Oh, of course, anti-vaxxer with anti-vaxxer and blow it off and not realize that this is the fight for the soul of the nation and the fight for a planet. And in that fight for a planet, you just don't behave the way some people are behaving if you're fighting for the planet like we are. And it doesn't make me happy to tell these stories, but it really doesn't make me happy to have to tell them, because if I don't tell them, they may be lost forever. The story is telling. I'm confused. I just think you lack all of us here. It sounds like he's it sounds like he's he's he's saying that I have no integrity. Yeah, but he's not he's not saying why. And he's the only person I can get. I can guarantee the only person who has who shook my hand. Like, I've never seen this happen to somebody else. Except, like, unless, you know, Kanye or something like, I guess that, you know, the dinner party last week. That could be an example of, you know, somebody kind of throwing something on the bus. But I have literally never experienced this before. Essentially says he sounds like a chick. Yeah, he sounds like a. And once again, I have never I've never experienced this before. And I. Yeah, because you used to work with men that have principles, dude. I've been a leader. I had more than 200 Marines over the course of my 15 years. They were my direct subordinates. And there's no disrespect. There's no hazing or being unfair. I mean, I have all of my fit reports from my reporting seniors. And I mean, I could show them. So well, the question's been asked Charles, the question's been asked. Why don't you ring him up and ask what the deal is? Go to the source. Answer that question. Say it again. Why haven't you rung Charles? Why didn't you ring Jay and ask what the deal is? Well, I already asked him that several times and didn't answer. That's the problem. So whatever. If he didn't feel comfortable enough to talk to me directly. What I don't understand is why he would feel comfortable going in public. Right. Why would he not be embarrassed? Why would he be embarrassed? Does he think that my ego is wrapped up in being affiliated with one group or another? No. I was proud to help children self-defense. Absolutely. Great organization. Led by great people. I was absolutely proud. I was absolutely proud of that organization. I was absolutely proud of that organization. As they're trying to. Stop. This this murder. And, you know, And also figure out the origin of the pandemic. Absolutely. I didn't realize that I had to say that. I didn't realize that I was bringing dishonor upon that organization. But I would, I would ask Jay. How is this contributing to the fight? Who's going to be who's going to be attracted to the banner of the cause that he that he is that he is celebrating. I don't know. This is not inspirational leadership. And I would know. I would know because I, I was highly regarded for my leadership. In fact, in the later years, I was, I was teaching leadership to people that were ranked higher than me. Because they trusted me. Because whatever I had done, at least I had a reputation for caring about my Marines. And treating them with respect and getting the most out of them. I say I'm going on the record here and saying the multiple times that he's bought this up. I'm just going with that. Jay had Jay had a hand in the reason that Charles doesn't have a job right now. I've said it. Let him prove otherwise. It's a fucking shitty look, man. He didn't even, he was off by a year in the time period in which he was describing that I was in drastic. And he was there, supposedly. So I'm not sure. I mean, if he doesn't even know when I was there or when we released a fuse. Maybe I should be asking him, like, where are these papers on the quasi species? Where are these papers on replication fidelity? Because you know what? I have some. You know where you can find them? In my resource, in my so spreadsheet. Unbelievable. Like I say, this required a public response. Jay is the one that dragged this into the public domain. And like that's why I said this yesterday. You stop myself. I was livid yesterday, dude. Like I said, I watched the stream yesterday, spoke to you. I felt what needed to be said was said. What a scumbag, man. Why am I talking this way? It won't make any sense if you don't understand that these people are not behaving like people that have their heart in the right place. They're behaving like directed parties, like an organized campaign to confuse. Directed parties. I really think what we're going to see here is part of that. No, I'm not getting paid. I didn't pay for being disabled. And someone is getting paid still and is doing this behavior. I can't fathom. If he was in my position, I guess I can understand if I was bitter. But I truly I cannot fathom why he feels the need to do this. This is detrimental to the cause. It's exactly what I said we shouldn't do to him. We all sat around. All of us sat around and said this, right? We had these discussions, I think, sort of after one of the roundtables. We're just like, you know, let's just progress like we need to. Let's not let's not step on any unnecessary landmines. Let's keep and like I say, I had forgotten about this bit. Oh, man, it doesn't come off well. You have an invite now. You just need to accept it and then you will be moved up on stage as a speaker. Speak to millions of people. Actually, there's only 88. No, that number is incorrect. It's I think it's like 500,000. Just not as much as a lot. When I send you this invite to you, then we cross to speak. There we go. Another curious thing, another curious thing that I'll start with over here just to be sure you're aware of it is that when we. When we went to the end of the slideshow here, one of the people that tweeted and suggested some some possibles to join the stream, the GK is included here. Now, GK is really interesting because GK could have come on my stream many times, was invited to come on my stream many times, but has always had an excuse why she or he can't. And now that I'm not on Twitter, there's been no effort to be made to contact me and she is promoting Andrew Huff and Charles Rixie and Kevin McCarran, but not me. And that's I can definitively say the odds have been further reduced. And looks at it and said, yeah, I've medic is the man he is. And look, I've I've asked GK to come on to dream multiple times, but he's very, very protective of his privacy or her privacy. And, you know, I respect that. And, you know, but he's always cordial with me, answers questions, feeding me little tidbits. And he's a warrior in this. And he's also part of the narrative. Right. Right. So Jay is going to take a dump on him. If Jay thinks that GK is part of the narrative, I don't know that I can say anything to help him because he is the antithesis of the narrative. I mean, I've only worked with him for a year or so. What do I know? Well, actions, I guess. It's true. It's true. Holy fuck, man. Appearing in this. I'm sorry. I'm doing all my own directing here, obviously. Appearing in this tweet conspicuously here is is a few people, none of whom we really trust for sure. And that's pretty strange. You can give it to me. What is it? Oh, yeah, that's right. And so it's a it's a very strange place that we're at here when Rixie and Huff are going to go on. We're going to just take notes and we're going to we're going to take notes on what they talk about and we'll just see where it gets. So I don't I don't have any preconceived notions about what we're going to hear. Oh, perfect. Right. OK, that's interesting. Except except you've already said that you don't trust any of these people. I don't think he understands what words mean. You're right. I'm not I'm not I'm not quite following the logic. Maybe we should reexamine quasi species then or or or bamboozle or I don't know, because Scooby Doo is right. Scooby Doo. I mean, I did make a Scooby Doo meme for drastic ones. But that was back when he was in it. And I guess it's not legit anymore. So he doesn't want to associate or something. I don't know. But Dickey is only work to. Yes. Danger Mouse. I do. I want to point out. I want to point out that we have we've gone through. He has been at this point like where the stream is meant to begin for a while. And he's managed to make five or six comments before we've said anything, which is impressive. I'll give him credit for that. He he was inspired enough that he didn't even need us to be talking. So kudos. Yeah. Oh, not a problem. I'm excited. All right. Very good. Sorry for the sound. I can't balance it all out that well into it. I'm trying. I would like to do is what this is about. I want to talk with you guys about the origin of COVID-19, what your knowledge is, what your background is, and then ask you a couple of questions. What I also then want to move to is what's going to happen in the future, you know, with genetic engineering of viruses and things like that. So maybe we start with just introducing you. Andrew, can you introduce yourself to the audience? While the intros are going on data, I've got a long, strange history for scientists. So I started off my career in the U.S. military and listed right after 9-11 and served as an instrument. I served two combat tours, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, where I did counter-terrorism work actually in Central America and also did narcotics and addiction. So a little bit different there. After coming out of military, I had degrees in psychology, that was my undergrad. I switched to engineering for my master's degree, which was a lot of work. I also have a master's minor in geographic information systems. I was going to work in the private sector and I was talked into accepting a full research fellowship for the Department of Homeland Security to earn a Ph.D. in public health, emerging infectious disease, which is a subdivision of environmental health. I'll be honest, I've talked to Andrew Huff like 23 times and I've not heard of him for two and a half years, which is pretty much unheard of. It's interesting that he says this because it sounds like to me he got a degree in engineering and something in psychology, whatever, and he wasn't thinking about doing public health and virology and infectious disease at all. And then somebody came and proposed that he should take this fellowship and do this two and a half year, seemingly very accelerated Ph.D. program that any other American university would never exist because you get a four year fellowship. You're not going to spend it and waste it in two and a half years, but you're going to spend it over four years because it will support more than that and it will. It's a very strange narrative. If you got a fellowship, it's for a certain amount of years. If you entered a Ph.D. program, it's for a certain number of years. You don't just jump through hoops in America and then when you've jumped through all those hoops, even if you do it in two weeks, you get your degree. That's not how this works. And he's telling a story that is very incongruent with how a fellowship oriented Ph.D. program would be run. It's already very suspicious, but we've heard this before on other interviews, but I just want to point it out now again. I want to point out that by that standard, then the fact that I was the youngest Seaborn instructor in the school's history, I guess that would be suspicious too, wouldn't it? So what was my, what was my chief officer five thinking? I don't know. We should go ask him, but it probably means I'm part of the deep state. It has to be, or something, but it's definitely suspicious. And I bet the full ride that I got from SMU is suspicious too. Given how, how poorly I've comported myself in the pandemic. I guess I'm finally like tapping into the well wisdom here or something, I don't know. I'm trying to figure out the logic. I'm failing. I apologize. I guess I missed a gem there from him, but I was really paying attention. I'm just, I'm just ripping off random crap that I think in my head because that's what I do. Yeah. Just a loose cannon, Mr. Rixie. Yeah, that's what RFK said when he called me too. And, and, and, and the congressman. Really? I was gonna say. All right. As a research fellow, as a PhD student. So this is the ultimate offer as a PhD student. And they're basically grooming me to be an Anthony Fauci type of national security. I started spending. I was a groomer. Right. There's something there. Yeah, another, another black mark. I must say, I must say that he has never attempted to groom me during our phone conversations. But then again, every single one of our phone conversations has been interrupted from obvious like wiretapping. So this guy's kind of funny. We have a running joke. Meeting with alphabet soup of agencies where I became an expert in biowarfare, bioterrorism, and I was presenting my work, which was becoming an expert at poisoning people actually. And then trying to figure out how to mitigate that kind of thing. So when I finished my PhD, I was offered positions at all the alphabet soup of agencies and my advisors pretty much told me, you know, if I want to work at a specific agency in the government, they can get me in there. I accepted a top secret position at San Diego National Laboratories, which is where they primarily make nuclear weapons out in the desert near Albuquerque. But once again, I worked on public health, advanced simulation and modeling, and I also completed a postdoc or I call it more continuing education at MIT and complex systems where we use supercomputers to basically war game and predict the consequences, all sorts of what we lovingly refer to as heinous shit. Well, I got sick of working in the classified space and I applied to a job at a place called Equal Alliance. I was hired right away as a senior scientist. I took over failing department and I brought in about six million dollars in Department of Defense spending to build machine learning and basically artificial intelligence platforms to predict and detect emerging infectious diseases. Okay, let's just pause here because I want to make sure we don't get too far ahead of ourselves. So in his introduction, he started in the US military as degrees in engineering and psychology and just Department of Health and Human Services or Homeland Security Public Health Fellowship got him to go into infectious diseases. And he even says that they were grooming him and he became an expert on poisoning people. Then he took a job, a top secret job, a classified job at Sandia Labs. And what was he working on there? He doesn't really tell us, which I think Mark. Yes, because it's classified. Right. That is how that works. Just spill it out there in that Twitter space. I mean, just for, hey, you know, for those people who have been familiar with security appearances, it's actually not surprising that he wouldn't talk about the stuff that's classified. The tonic would say is a little strange, just kind of glosses over the top secret work that he did at Sandia Labs. Yes, we'll work at MIT, which we all know is a great place to be and full of high ethical people where he learned how to do simulations about heinous shit, which we would understand as simulating a pandemic for maximum disasters so that you can enact maximum countermeasures. And then at that point, he took a job at Eco Health Alliance where they loved him. That's the narrative he's telling. Which is known as biosurveillance. I'll say this. I said it yesterday. Whatever you think of Andrew Hoff. He's stood up. Legally. To make challenges. And I'm looking around and it's, it's the absence is conspicuous of the lack of people who will stand up to call out these programs. He's the only scientist at any way affiliated with the NIH who has been a whistleblower. So, yes, I know he's good. He's got a book that literally comes out tomorrow, I think. He's got, he can be kind of interestingly obnoxious sometimes and some of the stuff like when I first met him, like, it sounded ridiculous. But I'll be honest that I, like, he's, I've worked with his attorneys and I've gone through all his documents. Because he just gave them to me, because I wanted to see if there's anything related to what we're doing. And I've seen his photos of drones and stuff. I mean, it's real. I have no doubt. And he's being tormented. So, there is something to be said for at some point. We should at least be able to respect people, at least a little bit, if they're making sacrifices. Now, maybe we might not trust them or we, we might not think that they're going to get that far with what they're doing. But we can't just, we can't have a purity test. Like I say, be careful of purity. Yeah. It's no one else, man. It just might happen. It just might be that I'm one of the only human beings on the planet who knows all three current whistleblowers. Well, that's suspicious. Ricky, that's suspicious. God damn it. I mean, I don't know. I guess I'm like a, I don't know if I'm like partial or something. Maybe I'm the blower and not the whistle. I don't know. We'll see. But, you know, I don't really know what to call it, but I think it should come up with a cool title. Blower probably isn't it? But what I'm saying is, is that there are actual heroes who sacrifice things. And I'm not talking about me, but like these people have sacrificed things to fight when no one else will. And so if, if we, if we approach it as we're going to denigrate them, he's integrating me and I was his partner. So I, I'm not surprised by it. But what I'm saying is that what message is this sending to the rest of the people out there? Who's going to step up now? If other, if other whistleblowers are like, oh my God, there's terrible stuff here. And I really want to tell the world that I'm scared. I'm scared. Well, why would we, why would we just discourage that by not by automatically? Like assuming that people aren't genuine or automatically discrediting them or whatever it is, because who else was on the previous screen? Yan Li Ming, Li Ming Yan. And, and why? Because you know what? Ironically, as it turned out, as we go by, as time goes by, more and more of her stuff is actually correct. I'll be honest. I, like, I have not been like a big believer in what she's selling. But the truth is, is that the majority of it looks like it's going to be true. And at some point we have to at least accept that maybe she actually is in a little bit of danger. And we should at least respect her for that. We should respect the courage of people who are doing this. Because there are only like three or four on the planet. And as it just so happens, he apparently doesn't trust most of them. I'm all under the bus. I have talked, I've talked to, actually, I've talked to in the end, too. So so I had to talk to all of them. And I find them to be driven by the same thing, maybe slightly different. But ultimately, they know somebody is wrong and they're trying to come forward and prove it. And we should be we should be very careful with who we elevate and who we bring down, because especially if we don't have something better to offer. But I want to win. Victory is justice for dead people and their families. It's not a new career. Again, I would just reiterate, be careful of these purity spirals that I know it's easy to get into. You never win. You never win. You have to trust people at some point. And if they're firing in the right direction, OK, I'll fight. Could they be deep state? Could they be some ulterior motive? Yes. But you know what? We don't always know what people are going to be like, do we? So maybe we shouldn't we shouldn't judge a book by its cover. We should actually look deeper sometimes. And look, you know, I've I've said this about Robert Malone. Look, I get I get there's a lot of baggage around him. But all the time that he was speaking up vociferously against sticking children. I'll take that. Thank you. Thank you. Please keep doing it. Keep doing that. I thought that the other stuff will sort out later when we move to the next objective. But this, I mean, he when I met him, he seemed about like what I thought he'd be. The only thing that really surprised me was it was a little hefty. You know, hey, hey, whatever. Good for him. I guess if you're riding horses, you're not like walking beside them or something. But anyway, I digress. For what you with what you wish for his life. I ended up basically ended up working on the same kinds of things at Equal Alliance, which I was doing on the classified side of the U.S. government. But due to my success, I was promoted to an executive as a vice president at Equal Health. And once I was promoted, I saw all sorts of craziness, which I couldn't really believe. But I went along with it. Unfortunately, I actually reviewed the gain of function. I reviewed the SARS-CoV-2 COVID proposal when I first started Equal Health. Please remember, keep in mind, what he's saying here is that he reviewed the proposal, the DEFUSE proposal that Charles has singularly pushed. No, that's not correct. Because what he's saying, if you listen to him, because he left in 2016, the proposal wasn't even put together until January of 2018. So actually, they put it in late. So it was actually March 27th of 2018, which was the deadline. But, you know, what do I know? Just spit on here. So Andrew Huff left Equal Health in 2016. So what he calls the gain of function proposal, he's referring to the emerging, something about identification of emerging infectious disease, one of the NIH grants. It was like the NIH or the USAD. I don't think it was a predictor, and I think it was the NIH one. But there was gain of function in both of them. And so he reviewed that one in 2014 when it was, whenever they were, because that was the first year of that five-year cycle. I'm guessing. I don't actually know that. But I feel pretty confident because the other one didn't exist yet. And so he's not talking about Diffuse. He's talking about one that was actually approved. And I just want to clarify that because, I mean, I know that for a fact. Jay, wrong again. Cal surprise. Best evidence that this is a gain of function. I just got a century in chat says it's that 25 million dollar diet. Breaking diet. T.J., breaking diet. I thought that was funny. Function virus that caused the pandemic, which again, I'm saying that no coronavirus is capable of causing a pandemic. Well, I agree with him there because it wasn't that one, because that was three years earlier. But that doesn't mean that the last part of what he said was true. And, you know, pandemic just means cases of disease in different countries. Right. So, you know, what's his what's his pressure? Is he warping the definitions, the commonly understood definitions? I mean, I don't want to I don't want to quibble over over, you know, over the definition of pandemic. I think I think examining. I think examining leadership. I think it'd be a better thing to do than than that personally. And I can assist with that, maybe. I have a number of things that found me to be a dishonorable person. And where my story gets crazy is I wanted to be a tenured professor as a tech executive, then fast forward to late fall 2019. And I find out about the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 before they're talking about the news, because this is my field of expertise. I'm always looking for these kind of things. And over the course of 2020, every time the government opens its mouth, I know that they're lying about something. I began to investigate. I kept all my documents for my time at Equal Alliance. And fast forward to 2021, I started feeding all my information to a big name journalist where I believe the Department of Defense, the FBI and the CIA have been eavesdropping on my phone calls with these journalists, namely Alex Berenson. And then I'm targeted and harassed like you couldn't believe. And that goes on for about a year. And then I publish a book, which I just arrived at my house today, the first copies. I don't know if you're aware or not, but Alex Berenson is not all aboveboard. Alex Berenson is not just a good guy. Look, I appreciate the I appreciate the advice. I've got issues around Alex Berenson. I think a lot of people do. He's one of these people who has been promoted and seemingly after thrown out of a moving truck has landed and hit the ground running and made quite a lot of money for himself. He's got a few interesting takes and a few interesting subjects that he doesn't touch. I find him very, very suspicious for a very long time. So it's already curious to me that of all the people that Andrew Huff was working with, he was working with Alex Berenson. Could be a good guy. I don't think he is. How is he being magnified? He was being censored by Twitter. Like actively. They found proof of it. Well, I guess he got back on, right? I mean, Amazon tried to take his book offline, even though it was number one. Kind of like RFKs. I don't know. I disagree with him. He doesn't believe in long COVID. So he said a bunch of dumb things, but at least he was willing to call it the insanity of him. I'm not sure Jay believes in long COVID. Is that true? I mean, he did. I assumed. Well, I guess I'm out. Oh, Wuhan, how I discovered the biggest science history. And I'm sure you'll have a ton of questions and I'll shut up because I think that's too long of an intro as it is. Well, thank you, Andrew, for the intro. And what you have learned in your time at EcoHealth Alliance and what your understanding is of game or functional research, which many scientists now believe led to the creation of COVID-19. But let's talk to Charles for a moment. Yeah. So let's codify the narrative right now. Let's just say it. And let's say that Kim said it right now, right? It is a virus that was crafted using gain-of-function techniques, and that's what caused the pandemic. Question. Are infectious clones gain-of-function, Jay? Now, I used to teach the definition, so it's a rhetorical question, but I realized that previous career seems irrelevant or something. But yes, it is, in fact, gain-of-function. So I'm not sure what the point is that you're making here. It must be a narrative. Yeah, well, it's a narrative, right? I might be a little upset. Well. I understand that he's questioned. He has made a lot of claims publicly, saying that basically I'm a terrible person with no evidence except hints of something, which obviously I'm sure is because I treated him so poorly. So I'm just, I'm truly stunned. And I'm very frustrated because there were other ways to handle this. I don't know if people understand this in the modern day and age, but there are other ways, if you have questions or concerns, to handle that. And maybe we should do that next time. And well, again, I can't have anything. I mean, if he would stop stopping and like, yeah, we've stopped a couple times, but I mean, for most, there's been like 15 stops and I haven't done my internet in like, we're only five minutes into the recording. Right. And yeah, let's say I, again, I disagree vehemently with Jay's position that, well, if he's saying that infectious clones are not gain of function. I don't, that makes no sense. Because that's what DARPA said in diffuse. They said that that was gain of function. It's a commonly understood. Maybe they were wrong. I think I forgot to ask Dr. Going of the PCR test, making it appear like there was a pandemic when there never was not brought up the changing of protocols around respiratory virus, not brought up the changing of hospital. Okay. Okay. We have, we have to cover this. Okay. Let me categorically state because apparently like there's a, there's like a sticky next to side of his computer with a list of subjects and he's got to list them off at least a couple of times a stream of subjects that aren't covered by people that he thinks should be covered. Now I want to point out something. COVID is a big problem. Now I personally have read more than 2000 scientific articles. It's closer to 3000 and then another couple of thousand articles of other kinds. And I've covered a lot of subjects in that reading material. And believe it or not, I can't always cover that in every single appearance when I'm, that I'm on a stream. So, but for him to list off these things. As if we don't care about these things or we never talk about them. He should probably listen to other streams. Now I know for a fact that he has not been reading the things that I wrote. So I'm going to assume that he hasn't been listening to our streams except more recently when he wants to attack us for some reason. So let's just cover this now. Do we think there's problems with PCR? Yes, yes. I'm pretty sure both of us feel that way. Hey, do we think that things have been exaggerated? Yes. Do we think that they were putting lots of different deaths under COVID? Yes. Do you think that there was medical malpractice killing people? Yes. Once again, my 26 year old wife's best friend, our maid of honor, who died of COVID, was killed by Ibram Dezevier. So I guess, yeah, he died of COVID, everything else was. Okay. So for him to claim that I don't care about medical malpractice as part of this set of horrific things that happened during this pandemic is ridiculous. Yeah. It's just, it's just the gallop of the binary thinker on his little hobby horse trying to, again, disparage. Yeah, because we agree. We literally agree on all of those things. I think that he's listed all of them. So he's wasting time saying something that isn't true, and he could just keep going. So Akash, again, I know that people keep bringing up phone calls. Jay was avoiding phone calls and ignoring Charles for months. Specifically, I mean, I have text messages followed by phone calls in like apps with no response. So yeah, finally I gave up because there's no point. I don't think I can do this. I mean, I don't think I can do this. I mean, I don't think I can do this. So I think that we all have to be on our toes and the financial incentives to follow the orders of the CDC and the who around the world, not brought up. We have started square one with the virus was made and now we're going to find out how this is the narrative. Ladies and gentlemen, I told you that this is the way it was going to be. Just. What was the topic that you were. I'm not sure what he was expecting or what he wants. I mean, I believe it is real because. Well, we have to, we have to make the assumption that. The. His position that infectious clones, not being gain of function, et cetera, means that we've got no. Nothing to worry about with respect to genetic engineering and potential. So it's not genetic engineering. It's it's infectious clones. Well, how do you do that? How do you do that? No, believe it or not. I actually know. About it. You know about plasmids. I'm not a scientist, but I have read a couple of things now. I'm not an expert in infectious clones, but I at least understand. The concept of using bacteria to create. A perfect replica clones. Cause you know, I also know the word clone means. Did I. I do know ancient Greeks. So I kind of guess. That it meant that it was an exact replica. Of. Of whatever it was. And so in this case, it'd be an infectious clone. Of a RNA virus. And you know, because RNA single strand is double strand, you know, so. Now, if he wants me to like, Like this layout. Like, I don't know, like a dictionary. Definition. Every time I use a big word. Just to prove that I know what it is or something. I. I don't know. On multiple, on multiple streams, he has, he's made claims that I have no idea what. What that means. Which is interesting because. I do. And he should know that I do. In fact, he believed in fact. In on our July 4th stream. One of the things that I did was, was that I discovered. That the inserts. In SARS-CoV-2. Follow a very similar pattern. To vaccine construction using the multiple. And also multi-clade. So I basically debunked an early paper that was written by some Chinese scientists. They tried to debunk. Pratt hand that out. I'm actually, I want to write like a, just a little. We'll put bourbon like submitted somewhere because. Cause I mean, I know this thing pretty well now. For non-scientists. But. But I want to get to the truth of this. And believe it or not. What do they do? They use pseudovirus. Particles or sorts of different things. And I read more than 40. Just vaccine studies. And I read more than 30. Fusion inhibitor studies. And a lot of those studies, they use pseudovirus particles and essays and stuff. To test these. So, no, I'm not an expert, but. But I understand what the words mean. And I had tried to do them justice. And so I understand what gain of function means here. And. I believe that it is a useful term in this discussion. And so. What he should never do. Like as a scientist, if you, if you have an open mind. And you're trying to teach. Why would you preface everything that's going to come. With the expected. Answer like how they should respond. That's not the Socratic method. The Socratic method is, is that you, you posit something. And then you let the students kind of work through it. And if they need help, you guide them through it. I know it's a little dated at this point. But. But it was, it worked pretty well. The play dough and Aristotle. The play dough. So I, I'm confused as to why we need to get our handheld. As we go through this. Well, he's an expert now. Why is he trying to. To set the table every time. For every single thing that's set. I mean, yes, we're doing that right now, but that's good. We're commenting on it. But. And the tragic thing is there's so much that has to be commented on. We literally can't get like 30 seconds. Without a column, the misrepresentation of straw man. Right. Because. Logical fallacies. It's so. It's incredible. What's strange is, is because apparently. When I used to appear in history. I was doing it because I wanted his input. Because I valued his input. Like that's why I did it. I didn't do it because I. I needed a platform. I did it because. I respected him. I still respect him. But what he's doing right now. Is disrespectful. And not just to me, but to others. When you're not speaking, just mute yourself. And Charles. Can you please introduce yourself? Yes. My name is Charles Rixie. And like Andrew. Formerly. In the military in the United States. And in particular. I was. The Marine Corps. And my job was, was called in NATO countries. CBRN. Was basically weapons of mass destruction and defense. And so. I did that for 15 years. And then I got out. In 2018. And I was actually in school. For my NBA. Whenever the pandemic started. And. I actually. Haven't finished. I. I stopped. I actually got sick. In the. In early March of 2020. And. I only had two classes left to finish my degree. And I basically. Ever since I. I've stopped working. And. Stopped going to school. And I've literally been working on. At uncovering the origin. Of the entire time. And about two years ago. I joined. The online group. Drastic. Which basically formed. A bunch of scientists and researchers. Who were working here on Twitter. And literally ever since. We've been. Investigating the origin. And. So I've got a background in. WND. And. I'm now. Very familiar with. Gain function research. And. Really all we do all day. Is try to. Try to figure out what happened. Yeah. So I would like to. Explain to the audience. Really quickly. What this gain of function. Means. My understanding of it is. And correct me if I'm wrong. Let me just stop here. Make sure that you realize that. Damn it. That Drastic is a group. That formed in 2020. Oh more whining about Drastic. Here we go. No so this is. Okay if I remember correctly. This is an interesting point because. He gets the timeline completely wrong. And I don't know how. Because. He was there. But I was also there. For most of it. And I know this. I am like a historian for Drastic. And I have. I have a list of every member. And information about them. And the order in which they joined Drastic. And the things that they've done. Since they've been in Drastic. Because I want to keep an accurate record. Of the things that have happened. So. I know very well. Like the. The structure and the history. Of the group. And I try very hard to ensure that. That people will be able to. To know what happened. Before I got there. Because before I got there. In 2020. They. They did. They. Almost single handedly. Kept the conversation alive. Until the World Health Organization. And. They did. A good investigation. And without that. There might. There might have been nothing afterwards. So kudos. They were heroes. And I told him that at the time. When I first joined. And I still believe it. Absolutely. So. And I want everybody to know that because. Despite differences of opinion. They. They. Kept the. Kept the flame alive. When. It. Had they managed to get their way. It would have been hushed up. And put down to. Spill over. Natural spill over. And. God knows where we would be right now. Were it not the case. So. But anyway. No doubt we're going to hear some. Kveching. Right about now. Around. Dan Sorotkin. His father Carl Sorotkin. Myself. Luigi Warren. Who was on USA Today. Front page as one of the co-inventors of the mRNA technology. And a whole host of other people that were not really part of DRASTIC when. Charles Rixie. Supposedly joined them. And I was already out. And one of the things that he was interested in doing was uniting the sides again. And he wasn't interested in listening to me when I explained to him that Yuri Dagan had split the group into. Based on the idea that we should not talk about anything other than the origin of the virus and the molecular biology of it. That we should never question the transfection and it's absurd to question the transfection. Yuri Dagan blocked me on Twitter. When I tried to debate him on Twitter about the effectiveness of transfection as immunization and that told me everything I needed to know about DRASTIC and I left. I had always suspected that they were a controlled opposition group that some of those people had other things in mind. But by the time I was gone and Charles joined there were two DRASTICs. One that was still using my name and picture. And one that was called DRASTIC Science. DRASTIC Science is the group that put out the DEFUSE proposal interpretation, which Charles Rixey covered. No, no, no, no. So there was only one DRASTIC that I joined because I joined on February 26th, 2021. They split in October of 2021. Right after we published the DEFUSE proposal analysis of it on September 20th and September 21st. So I have no idea what he's saying here because I was there before they split. And that is true that Yuri and Billy were at odds. There's other reasons, too, actually. They are public. But they dealt with the fuse. And, you know, it just wasn't really going to work. But because of my experiences, when they split, I stayed with the group of DRASTIC Science, which mostly named themselves that because they were 95 percent scientists. I was like the only non-scientist. So maybe there was one more. I was the only one without a PhD. And so most of the public facing people were in that group. So when I came to him in January of 2022, I was a member of DRASTIC Science. But that was, I mean, a lot of stuff had happened before then. So I don't really know exactly. His time was off. And I don't know why, but I just want to clarify that. Oh, sorry, I keep cutting to the wrong screen. You're trying to virus that is, let's say, in animals and you're trying to inject it in humanized mice to see if you can get it to infect them, that they infect each other. So the game of function is literally making a virus infect humans. Is that right, in a nutshell? Well, there's a set of six or seven different things that you can, or different ways that you can make a virus or bacteria, just any pathogen, become better able to infect humans. And so here's the first mythology that I identify right here. They are equivocating viral evolution and biological evolution of bacteria. Well, back to this. That's not what we said. That literally is not what we said. You can make a virus. OK, so yes, you can perform gain of function on bacteria and you can perform gain of function on viruses. But that is not saying that you would use these same techniques or like the statement is patently nonsensical. So obviously, I know the difference between the two. Once again, I used to teach these things. I used to teach toxins and rickettsia, all these different things. So I'm aware that there's a difference between viruses and bacteria and that there are different methods used to perform gain of function upon them. If we like, I can go into depth on those. But I presume those people don't want to hear that. Now, I do see a couple things in the chat that I wanted to kind of respond to because I actually have seen them in other chats before. So the first thing is somebody I've already addressed it, but somebody asked, OK, why did I get out of the Marine Corps 15 years? And the reason is because that was the end of my contract at the time and I didn't reenlist from the final time. And that was because I made that decision while I was going through several month long intensive PTSD treatment program. And it was during that period of time when I realized that I wanted to be back home in a different environment and kind of start a new phase in my life. And my wife, my family, they all agreed that was probably the best. So that is why I got out of 15 years. I mean, I don't know what people might be questioning or asking other than that, but it was because of PTSD. And I mean, that was it. So the other question was, and I keep seeing this over and over and over again. I'm very confused by it. They're asking Charles was on Discord last night and isn't with the clone things. OK. All right. I'm not quite sure what that means, but they keep talking about, OK, like this ayahuasca guy, because he said the same thing last night. Oh, yes, we know Rixie isn't with the clone hypothesis, because when questioned about it, he can't explain it properly. Now, I feel like I'm going to address that, too. But OK, so I do know what infectious clones are. And I do know how the processes work, at least some of the processes. Now, I've never done this stuff, but I've never made a nuclear weapon, but I do know the parts and components that go into thermonuclear core. So I don't know what level you're expecting. I'm not a scientist, but I do know what infectious clones are. And I am with the infectious clones hypothesis. If what you mean is that SARS-CoV-2 is an infectious clone, that's most likely what it is. OK. And infectious clones are a gain in function. So I'm glad we covered that. Now, as far as the distinction that is made between what J.C. argues and what other people argue like me is not that it's not an infectious clone. We are arguing that there is a different set of evolutionary dynamics in place than what he's claiming. But we're not saying it's a different thing. We're saying that the way that it evolves in the environment is different than what he's saying. And just to summarize his claim being that it would it would revert back to the consensus quasi species swarm, despite any changes made to it. It would it would essentially eject those genes that were not part of the original. Right. And if you're asking, OK, do I understand that what they're doing is that they're using bacteria to make DNA clones of RNA viruses and then go through the whole transcription to create perfect exact clones and that they do this a whole bunch of times and they create a perfect, you know, infectious clone swarm that's super high fidelity and then like how does that interact with the other swarms that are in nature? Yes, I'm aware of the concepts that are involved in that. So I hopefully I can I can kind of answer your question. I will ask a thirty four or whatever, but I'm aware of what it is. And I agree that it's probably an infectious clone. We just agree on the mechanisms around it. So. Yeah. Let me know if you need more clarification. And I guess this is probably an important point that just needs clarifying again. I know we've we've discussed this, but the FOIA docks, if the powers that be are truly powerful, how are these FOIA docks allowed to come out? I can understand diffuse, but FOIA would seem controllable. Well, what are your thoughts? I have thoughts, but what are your thoughts? I think a lot was done on banner phones, like they say, that you don't put stuff in writing when you know you're going to get get found out. They probably think that a lot of those emails are generally benign and not not that incriminating. It's it's only in the larger scheme or evidence set that they are incriminating. And so people are understanding that everybody seems to think that the government or governments in general are efficient, especially at cover ups. I don't know why this seems to be like this idea exists, because they're not they're not efficient at anything. The idea that they're all powerful. Right. And so it's easy then to pin anything you like on them. They're not. And as it just so happens, I've probably read more of the FOIA docks than any other human being on the planet. At least that's what Congress told me at the time a year ago. So I feel like I have some gravitas in this area. And what I've seen is that they're paying government employees, you know, going rate for G7 to sit here for 10 hours a day and and do this. And no one's in a hurry. And they're probably not paying super close attention. And they'll be different. Like if two people got the same page, they might redact a little bit differently. And they don't understand everything that's going on the pages. But there's this notion that yes, as Andrew Huff talks about in this, we'll never make it to it in a stream. But as he says in here, he was very keenly aware and Peter Dasick specifically was keenly aware that they wouldn't put anything crazy into their emails because it might be FOIA. But for 95 percent of government employees, regardless of where they were, they're not thinking about that. They don't care. I mean, I was a government employee for 15 years, like he used government email for long enough. And I mean, you you probably could put some stuff in there that you might regret later on. And it doesn't surprise me at all that they found crap because the other half of this is is. When you concatenate, when you when you go through rooms of information, the process of bringing it all together, you're able to see things that individually you wouldn't be able to see. And that's exactly what I did. I found tons of things in the 40 documents and which I spent two and a half months literally just doing that. And. Literally, I just put all these pieces together, and that's how I made most of my discoveries there, because most other people weren't actually going through every page by page. And so they weren't really reading it and they weren't paying attention. But it really is that simple. And the reality is, is that I think you have too high a bar. Because, yes, hang on, it's my daughter's school. Anyway, I don't know if anybody can hear me, but if you're on JBEX, which is the TSSEI server, the top one, then you then, yes, you're paying more attention. But, you know, the average government worker is not. Oh, it's again. The wife's downstairs, she can talk to them. How dare she. The thing is, it's always it's always a very difficult conversation when the school calls me. Me trying to use Google Translate to read out Japanese. Oh yeah, that's right. Let's crack on. We might have to do another part, and I am determined to address every minute of this, but I think. Yeah, I do want to take it. At some point I do want to cover one part, like some of the signs real fast, but if we can today. They are also equating the selection of bacteria with the selection of viruses, even though they are entirely different organisms with entirely different entirely different levels. Because what it's what it's trying to do is to undermine your position to people who maybe don't know any better. Well, this sucks. This sucks if you're if you're if you're watching these streams. And you're watching a scientist. It was again. This is my partner, like, like, this is somebody I respect. And I've never had him like, I don't understand why he's doing this. Well, OK, I kind of do, but not completely. But this is completely unnecessary. And it's also dangerous in a sense, because you if you have the gravitas of a Ph.D. and you're and you're using that to. To to to do this and continually nick and poke at the what people are saying, and you're doing it like every few seconds. This is not this isn't good as it's painting a false image. And it's not fair to anybody. Yeah. So it's the people who are buying into what Jay's selling are being dragged further from. Right. They think I'm Satan right now. They think they literally think I'm Satan. Well, I assume that they must, because all I need is a pitchfork. Maybe I could draw one on the screen for you. It's true. It's like the Time magazine. Don't let me do that, because Marines only draw one thing. Yeah, I'm a good artist at that myself. It's the one thing I can draw really well. Yeah, but strike one, Charles Rixie, this is incorrect. And this generalization is part of the mythology that these people are using to bamboozle us. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Viruses and bacteria could not be equally used in a laboratory, equally enriched using the same techniques. I literally I literally didn't say that. I got a strike for nothing. Come on, ref, step in. Oh, I don't have a PhD, so I like but I lose by default. But damn, I literally I didn't say anything. I just said, yeah, it's a very intellectually dishonest mischaracterization there. Well, that's just that's pretty blatant. Yeah, yeah. And in fact, there are no papers, none, zero zip. Go look for them where they use humanized mice to make to make viruses more infectious. And if they did show me how they measured the infectiousness, you won't be able to find it, kids. Actually, actually, they did, because that's that's actually in the annual reports that each a hid and the NIH hid that cause all the stir because they explain how they went up several logs. And is that unless I'm wrong, and that's not the answer to this question, but isn't that the answer to this question? I'm describing how they are. I think he's talking about using humanized mice as a, I guess, a passaging technique. That's what that that's what that was because they use your cells, but they also use humanized mice. They actually use humanized mice in Wuhan. I don't know if people don't realize that, but it's literally in the reports. They were given those mice from UNC, and in one report in the next report, they were using them. So I maybe I'm wrong, but I read those documents. So, so I don't know. Maybe we're me just step it back, because he might he might he might be saying that there was no, there's no evidence of using humanized mice for producing gain of function. Maybe they are entirely different organisms with entirely different genetic structures and entirely different levels of fidelity and replication. So strike one, Charles Rixie, this is incorrect. And this generalization is part of the mythology that these people are using to bamboozle us. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Viruses and bacteria cannot be equally used in a laboratory equally enriched using the same techniques. And in fact, there are no papers, none, zero zip. Go look for them where they use humanized mice to make to make viruses more infectious. And if they did show me how they, you won't be able to report. Yeah, I'm, I will, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he's arguing that they haven't used humanized mice for packaging. Well, I don't know that even the benefit of the doubt, because I mean, I recall, I don't know if I don't know if in this case, they were ace to humanize mice. I have to go back and look, but they definitely at various points use humanized mice. In fact, we have Chinese, we have like ones that were never published, but like theses and dissertations, where they did or facts and they were doing kind of construction of viruses, you know, all sorts of stuff. With under she's usually, and he was not there whenever we pull those in scanning OCR, because there's like 150 or 200 of them. I would say this thing, you don't need to do the packaging. When you've got the molecular techniques to put in sequences of epitopes of concern. But they would be your test platform in which to say, is it, you know, how, how ill do they get. And, you know, if it would be the model. Yes. Yeah. And then if it worked in the monk in the mouse, then you do it in a monkey and then. And then homeless guys you picked up the street. The find it kids. I've been searching for weeks. I'm challenging all these people out there all of them find a paper where they use to make a virus. So, again, yeah, he's trying to make the argument that humanized mice are the way of the pathway to which you make these viruses more dangerous. Not really, again, if you were of ill intent. Well, that's that's not true because it. Passaging is has been used as a as a sort of basic sped up evolutionary. Yeah, I mean, well, because that's that's what they've been. That was what they were initially trying to rule out. Which is ironic, because it probably wasn't passed just that way. A source code to probably wasn't it was actually just genetically engineered and they just didn't want to say it. Which is, I mean, we're basically talking about just different variations, the same theme, and they're just trying to differentiate so that we can confuse people. How it became more dangerous. I'm excited for someone to respond to that question. We're more stable in a in different environments or more violence, more dangerous if you actually get infected. But any one of those anytime you're doing an experiment with something that can cause more harm to a human than before. Anything like that would be considered gain of function. Yes, so that was my. No, my, my, my, my charge here is that the claim is incorrect. They cannot do that. They cannot do what? It does not work. And it is a claim against a fidelity that is not there. I can't. I guess that you talked about making them more stable. Yes, they can do that. And you know why you don't see those studies? Because they're classified. Because that's what they do for bioweapons. But believe it or not, that's one of the things that Ken Albeck talks about in the book biohazard. When he was the number two at bio preparat, the bioweapons facility to some new bioweapons in the Soviet Union. So unless he was just lying. And given that most of his story seems pretty credible. I'm going to trust him, but they absolutely were testing that they were testing it in bacteria. They were sitting in viruses. They're doing all sorts of things. They were they were putting viruses into bacteria today to get that if they couldn't do it in the virus itself. Now, I could just be pulling that out of my ass. Or I know what I'm talking about. But I don't have a PhD, so let's see where he's going with this. But I guess I know where it's going. He's going to say that I think I remember this from yesterday. So it's just going to it's it's going to revert back to the regress back to the mean. And and but that doesn't take into account evolutionary theory that if you put in a gene that's going to give it extra fitness against its. Which is exactly what I read yesterday. Which is exactly yesterday. And one of the basic main articles, the foundational articles about the species. Whatever. Can't stress enough how important it is that we understand that it's going to go back a little tiny bit. To see if you can get it to infect them that they infect each other and gain a function is literally making a virus infect humans. Is that right? Well, there's there's a set of six or seven different things that you can are different ways that you can make a virus or bacteria pathogen become better able to affect humans who are more stable in a in different environments. There are no there are absolutely no studies that look at the stability of viruses in different environments. Yes, there are somewhere where the sun doesn't shine because there is no literature supporting. He's he's he's right about that because the sun doesn't shine there because they're classified. But this is wrong. He's unequivocally wrong. This one shows just that right. I don't I don't remember like that specifically from this, but I have to go back. Are you talking about Exxon? Yeah. Well, Exxon is making it more stable for replication purposes. But if you're making it more stable for replication purposes, if you put in if you if you modify the Exxon gene or it's got an Exxon gene and you put in a furin cleavage site, that's that's a good then it's likely, especially especially if it increases replication competence or fidelity or fidelity, then both, then it will it will it will it will outcompete the other the other genes of the swarm. Yes, that's actually what I that's what I was referring to the unit I talked about yesterday, which was the one thing that JC has that I've never I've never heard him mention is that there's a there's a threshold at least according to one of the three major frameworks that they that they use for for quasi species, which is not really settled, which is which and it might be a mixture of all three. But one of the main considerations is that if you have something that's like super effective, but there's not very much of it, then you'll you'll see it disappear inside the quasi species. But if you see a high fitness variant, once there's a certain threshold, which is kind of it's not exact. But but there is a certain threshold above which it can take for lack of a better word, it can it can become the dominant portion of that quasi species. And that's just that's a fact that's in the literature. It's important because what that means is for in that paper, for instance, you're talking about a 20 fold or greater potentially difference in that fidelity, which obviously is going to have an exponential difference on everything. And then there's also selection pressure. And there's also different quasi species. So if it's the case with one, it's hard for me to not think that it could be the case with the other ones. And I feel like that should be explored because if he is because I guess then his default will be not in coronaviruses. No, I'm talking about coronaviruses. I mean, the thing that I read was specific.

If I remember correctly, it was specific to coronaviruses. I'll have to go back and look because I read like four or five articles. Do you have it to hand? Which one? We'll see. I'll let it play whilst you. It's strange that he makes the statement, because the only research that's been done is been done on virus like particles completely synthetic nanoparticles and their ability to endure UV light, their ability to be aerosolized and endure heat. Yeah, he's right about that. I might beg to differ. What is this one establishing characterization of humanized mouse NPC PDX model testing immunotherapy. Nick, I would need the cliff notes real quick as to why that article is useful. But it's not something that you can do with cell culture. It's not something you can do with a set of ferrets. It's not something you can do in a laboratory or with a keyboard. It's something you can do with known chemical processes and known chemical processes are not the same thing as Mother Nature. These guys are trying to bamboozle us and I can't figure out why. When are they going to mention the PCR tests are remdesivir or the gallop of the hobby horse. Every time every time he says remdesivir I should say Caitlin. Yes, I mean I don't know what else to say. I found the paper, but, but, but it's literally, it was written by Mark Dennison and others, so like it supports what what they're about to say, and he says it was better so. Or the protocol that we can. Yeah, I found a couple of them so I've got the answer and these are these are specifically coronavirus. And as people call this infidelity is bad for coronavirus relationships. A case study. So this is predicated on the fact that I think I have something I want to ask you. I want to ask you all a question. Okay, I want to ask you a question. Here's the question. Would you take or give a live vaccine with a virus that has an engineered increased mutation rate. Let me repeat the question. Okay. Would you take or give a live vaccine with a virus that has an increased mutation rate. Please raise your hands if you would consider this. I have one, two, three people, four or five, maybe. Okay, and some are querulous and they don't want anyone to know that they raised their hand. Okay, so the question is, why not. Okay, why not. So I'll answer this rhetorically because I've given this talk many times and after about 50 talks about two, three people have raised their hands more here than anywhere I've been. And so, and should we even allow to engineer mutator strains of viruses is a corollary question. So the reason I ask this question is because it was identified in the coronavirus genome that there is a protein called Nsp14 that was identified by sequence determinants with only three motifs and four residues as being a potential exonuclease. And that was an exonuclease that was theoretically thought to be in the super family of proofreading exonucleases identified in bacteria and eukaryotes. Now this will send a little shockwave across the bow because everybody knows that RNA viruses don't proofread. And everybody knows that they're one of the reasons they're so successful is because they don't. And so that is also known that mutations in this motif of this activity inactivate exon activity. So we wanted to know, we wanted to ask the questions about what's the effect of an activation of this on replication fidelity. So what happens if we knock out this enzyme. So this is a, you might call it a knockout, you might call it a loss of function. But what we discovered was that in fact in mouse hepatitis virus or model virus and in SARS that knocking out this mutant this making this mutation results in a virus that has a mutator phenotype with a 20 fold increased mutation rate. Is anybody worried about that. Not really or you won't tell me if you were. Both ways on that, actually. And it would it would be dependent upon the environment in which it finds itself. But then, he goes on and explains like why like how the how delineates and why it becomes somewhat counterintuitive. It was kind of the point of that little section. And I definitely think it's important for for this discussion. OK, well, it's is that OK, Laurie's worried about that. Dr. Garrett is worried about that. All right. So why can I ask you why you're worried about it. OK, OK, makes you worried. Well, that's you know, that's reasonable because everybody worried about it. I have to tell you the question is why. Well, because the assumptions about RNA viruses are that they generate populations with tremendous variation already and that their increased mutation rate equals increased adaptation and fitness, increased virulence and increased public health risk, because we all know from great science fiction movies that mutations are bad. Right. They're bad. So then if I ask you the question differently, is that so over the centuries or the thousands of years, the ten thousand years of viruses have evolved. Isn't it just as reasonable to think that they've evolved their mutation rate to optimize their overall fitness and fitness being their ability to survive in a competitive environment. So if, in fact, they've evolved fitness, then would not be throwing them into a range where the mutations are increased, be detrimental to their fitness. So that was the question we wanted to test. So here is the experiment. It was actually done by Rachel Graham in Ralph's lab in collaboration. So this is showing a direct competition. And as we talk about this stuff going forward in terms of increased risk, we need to think about fitness as evolutionary biologists think about fitness, and that's competitive. So if we want to talk about the risk of a virus, we need to talk about it in terms of its competition with its with those around it. And this is a competition experiment where viruses were mixed either one to one at 10. There's your pathogen experiment, I guess, building up the fidelity, right? Well, in this case, so in this case, they mutated so that way, the virus will mutate much more rapidly than normal, like more often. And this is a way to weaken it because once that happens, it comes so rapid that it just can't compete, just mutate itself out of existence. And there's and so there's a there's an upper and lower bound. There's a range where where this takes place. You can't go too high. You can't go too low. And one one thing that I would posit is that if if they can if they can do this and where they can they can knock out something and make it less fit, is it possible they can also do the opposite? In which case, this would just be an additional way to to make it more homogenous and along with other factors. I think yes, mostly because if they're doing this right here, I would be stunned if they weren't trying to do the opposite. So I'm not familiar enough with the the exon protein, but I mean, if I was doing classified work and I wanted to make something that could do that, I don't know, maybe somebody should look at that. Well, you know, the question is, do we see fingerprints of that? If there's work? I don't know. This is something I've never looked at. So well, just just just within SARS. And we I would argue that we saw highly stable variant emerge right and maintain these. Well, yeah, well, that's the whole point is that we're seeing what appears to be we're seeing what looks to be the result of this and and that clashes with the hypothesis that he's bringing. And it also clashes with the medical clinical outcomes that we're seeing. So there's got to be something somewhere. And from my perspective, it would be it would be outcomes razor by dictate that a mutation to make it more stable might be a simpler answer than producing super massive biological weapons like tons of infectious cloned particles. Right, and then have to be disseminated out all throughout the world at different times. So to me, that is as a parsimony, I hate to use that word because the zoo not to use all time, but a parsimonious possibility that should be considered. Yeah, especially in light of the other. Because from a military industrial perspective, it minimizes the infrastructure that you need to sort of maintain working. And actually, they were definitely doing that in the Soviet Union. I don't know page numbers, but there's a couple of documents inside my resource like so piece of crap Google resource that there was a lot of bioweapons stuff in there. Along with eight billion other things, but there's several. In fact, there's a copy of Ken Alibak's bio biohazard book, which is excellent. It's kept for free because it's a PDF is on PubMed. So I highly recommend people get that one, because we'll scare the shit out of you. And also, it also might be good for people like JC to read because because in there they remember correctly, they make a chimeric smallpox and Marburg, I think that's the one to make. And that's in 1991. Now granted, I don't know if it was a replication comment. I don't know. But it was a bio weapon that was created by, you know, the guy who could defect in two years later. So I'm going to at least assume that it was a real thing. Maybe we should ask Ken Alibak about it sometime. We could just ask Jay. Do we keep playing this one or get back. I would just say we should, we should finish this one out, or because it's, because I assume at some point, these people are all going to die. So we'll have to put this stream into sleep mode at some point. Yeah, and we'll continue this. I guess, I guess tomorrow. You can do it every one. Yeah, I mean, your kids are back. So I don't know the PhD. So favoring the mutant virus and then passage for four to five times. And as you can see, in this case, the virus was not not able to compete, even when it was given a hundredfold advantage. And this is just in tissue culture. So this is a low bar for genetic selection. This isn't the high bar of in vivo disease or in vivo replication. So this virus was profoundly incapable of competing with the wild type virus. In fact, what was interesting is when we looked in and now in an animal model of SARS, which there isn't from ours. We saw that that mutator virus was attenuated in a mouse model of lethal SARS. So given 10 to two, 10 to the three or 10 to the four virus particles for the, for the wild type virus, it was rapidly in animals, but given the same amounts of virus with the wild, with the mutant virus that there was no disease. There was good replication and I'm not showing that there was also immune response. You see, and I wonder, I wonder how Jay's hypothesis accounts for this loss of function, right? Because surely, surely it would revert back to the meat, right? That it would, it would regain its function after multiple passages in an environment that's conducive. I would say, well, I guess in this case it would be, it would be disappearing and being outcompeted by the, I don't know, my brain's kind of fried, but it's one I am here. But, but yes, this is part of the problem is that this is one of like three or four different things that I haven't really heard him talk about. But here we have the people, I mean, Dennison is sitting next to Ralph Baric. I mean, this is the same video in which he dormant sort of the other side says, yeah, we never put an FCS in a vaccine. And then, and then they also talk about Ralph Baric and he says, yeah, I have no plans, nobody would ever do a humanized mice experiment to make MERS or SARS more pathogenic in humans. And then he goes and does basically the same thing like six months later. So, so this is, this is a goldmine of information. Yeah, but this right here is, this is a question that I have not heard addressed. But it's obviously something that they were tweaking. So, yeah. Yeah, so, you know, we have the error correcting and if you make it more, more functional, more gain of function in that little exon. Yep. And there might not be any unclassified studies, like I haven't looked into it, but I would be very interested if I'm still trying to find something that does analyze it in SARS-CoV-2. Yeah, and, you know, the sad thing is that we're sort of dependent on a discipline now that is under intense scrutiny. I mean, they're, they've funded basically zero dollars of fusion inhibitor research and they just handed out five hundred and seventy seven million more in May, just for inhibitors, but no fusion inhibitors, just protease. What a perverse bureaucracy, man. It's just, I would say it's a cancer, but yeah, it's kind of redundant. Yeah. We're saying should we set up a crowdfund to get Charles a PhD? Yeah, we should. We should. He is. What should I get it in? I don't even know. I have a really good memory, so like, and I've read a lot of papers, and I think people kind of like discount that, but they shouldn't because I've read a metric. I actually calculated it. It's like 66 pages a day, not including the FOIA stuff, which if we only count the days when I was actually doing it, that was like a, it was like 1300 pages per day that I was going through. But anyway, for 890 days, I don't know. Look, it's enough to make you a subject matter expert. I mean, or at least better than the, you know, the girl at Starbucks, so I don't know. Let's play this out just so. It was protective against wild type SARS challenge. Interestingly, we've shown also that this genotype and the mutator phenotype is remarkably stable in culture and in mice. We've now passed it more than 250 times in the laboratory, and it does not revert, and it maintains the genotype, it maintains the phenotype of the mutator. It retains its attenuation. It was still stable. This is where you need gel. They've done this. I don't know. I don't know enough to say, oh yeah, of course they've done that. In fact, I don't think any of us know enough, which is why we should figure this out. Before we make, you know, sweeping generalizations around. Reversion back to. I'm just spitballing here maybe. It appears to be a non-redundant, non-complimented function that's required for replication fidelity. So now I think back about this because I think what would have been the implications if I had presented under certain guidelines that I wanted to create a mutator strain of a virus and test it in animals. Would these experiments have been allowed? And I ponder whether they would under some of the definitions that I have heard. In fact, we're now targeting this not just for thinking about vaccines, but also thinking about it for therapeutics, because coronaviruses appear to be significantly resistant to ribavirin, RNA mutagens and new nucleoside analogs. Like Remdesivir. Thanks, Caitlin. Axon mutants are highly susceptible to acute inhibition and lethal mutagenesis. And, yeah, I mean, I think the Chinese are a good metric for is Remdesivir a valid therapy. Yeah, they dropped it pretty quickly, right, and this data would appear to suggest that, you know, pursuing the nucleoside analog and the mutagen pathway, you're essentially trying to push uphill at a molecular level. So inhibition of Axon fidelity as combination prescription with ribavirin and developed nucleoside analogs. That doesn't make sense to me. Let's see what he says. Okay, people wondered why. Well, we recently published last year that, in fact, it looks like XON is why. That is, this proofreading capacity protects the virus from these mutators and nucleoside analogs. And, in fact, the XON mutants are profoundly susceptible to acute inhibition and lethal mutagenesis. This is, in fact, the basis for our proposal, our project to screen for inhibitors of fidelity in combination with RNA mutagens to identify new targets that might allow the virus to be susceptible and could be used as combination therapy against all coronaviruses, because all coronaviruses encode this protein, and everyone we've tested so far has exactly the same phenotype in this setting. So the point here is that this is an example where I would have also been concerned about a mutator phenotype. Okay, I would have been concerned about its implications. So I just think it's important to know we do experiments because our assumptions are wrong, often. Okay, in fact, increased mutation rate does not favor virus fitness, and fidelity actually can be a target for vaccines and therapeutics. The passage for adaptation and resistance in vitro and animal models are essential for components of therapeutic development. This is just a sales pitch to be continuing to. Well, I mean, it is kind of a sales pitch, but really, I'm just because there's other papers that talk about this, and there's other papers that talk about the threshold that we talked about. And there's just, in all these different areas, there's just a lot of options that could be doing what he's claiming isn't done. And I think we should just rule them out or understand how it all fits together before we do just reject it or approve of it. We need to know answers to it, and I think it could be very beneficial. Because, I mean, I would take this as, okay, if it's got this error correcting feature in it, and you can get in peptides of concern, and they confer fitness, it'll keep them. It won't revert back. So here's another thing. There's this threshold that if you have an infectious clone swarm, well, it's already at the threshold. So I would almost think that it would be very difficult for something to establish itself that's external to it and overcome it. It would seem like it would keep being a dominant strain for a while because it would have a massive advantage. I think you're wrong, but it seems like an infectious clone swarm in particular has extra advantages. Yeah, yeah. I agree. I concur, Dr. Rixie. Yes! All right, Dr. Rixie, yeah. All right. So R6574 says, Charles did more in a week than JC has done to date. Yeah. What week are we talking about? I guess just this week. It's Monday. This week? I don't know. All right. I'll wrap this up. I'll let you go. I hope that we were able to provide some analysis that was sufficient to show that we are thinking about this beyond just meme answers or something. Because that's not really what we do. I would like to think that... I was just pissed yesterday, dude. I was so angry. I was pissed too. I mean, I'm glad I didn't come on. I wasn't ready. And, you know, again, just watching this in replay, again, there was just more... The aspersions and denigration of your character and motives is obscene. And, yeah, for people that are listening, I think the premise that gain of function is not a risk hasn't been disproven by... Gain of function is a risk hasn't been disproven by J. I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I mean, why would I assume... It seems like... I don't know. I don't know what the problem is or why it's so frustrating. His thing, I guess, is that his concern is that if there is gain of function, that it's possible to tweak these viruses, then his argument is that it ushers in more surveillance state. Well, I mean, the truth is that that's what they're trying to do anyway. They could be doing a zombie apocalypse next, but the ultimate point is to accrue power and take it from us. So I think that sometimes there's a distinction without a difference if we're going to the same place and there's not really disagreement. Like, if we don't know the answer, I don't know why we should be closing off angles. Because at some point, we didn't really talk about it today, but at some point, if we do talk about diffuse, the reality is that that's the document that shows intent. In common law countries, criminal liability comes from two things. It comes from actus reus or mens rea. So if you do the crime and your mental attitude at the time that you're doing this crime is that that determines the level of liability. It determines the severity of the punishment. And so if we have a document, a published document, like a legitimate document, it's already been. And it's not it's not even like an NIH level grant. It's one specifically aimed at the DOD apparatus. Right. Exactly. So if we have that and it states XYZ, we want to put into, you know, stars like coronavirus and then stars like coronavirus appears that has all those elements in it. Then I I don't see how that's not like that. That would be like they would they would have to show something pretty intense to negate that because that is intent. That is intent. So people have like different opinions on this. But I'm just going to tell you, if the intelligence community is built on the concept of of possible deniability, you would never. Why would they do the one thing that would be impossible to prove if you're the intelligence? If somebody's trying to go against the intelligence community, why would they do the thing that you can never prove? Because there's never the documents. Well, that's what we have them now. And it shows intent. Yeah. So they would never do that now. And there's other reasons why there's why I think that's ridiculous. But that alone is enough. And I think that the fact that that's being ignored or explained away does not make sense. As long as there is a world where there is legal remedies. We have to use them. It's what I was harping on yesterday. It's not beneficial. There is no there is no possible way that they would have released the DEFUSE proposal on purpose. And I'm not just saying that because I know the person who released it. And, you know, I feel honored that the premise being that they're hanging out Fauci and Baric, right? That they're full guys that can that can take the hit, I guess. Sure. OK. But that doesn't mean it's not real. But that's the cool thing about this is that even if it doesn't matter if it's Jay's hypothesis about the positive cause or the infectious clones. And so it's there's no actual whatever after a certain period of time. It doesn't matter. In fact, it doesn't matter if there could be there could be no virus. Because if you have the intent to perform gated function. And I was saying the same thing. They're basing all this on that. That's a fraud by itself. Yeah, I was saying this last week as well about the sort of speaking with Spartacus. And we're talking about the covert moral bio enhancement sort of Spartacus. God, what a new non-scientist. Sorry, bro. Yeah, you done. The. It doesn't matter if. You know, we might not be at this point where they can beam 5G and et cetera, et cetera. And I'm quick to shut down those discussions. But if we if we can show intent. Right. And that there's a fingerprint within the literature, which would say that this this would seem to describe behaviors that we're seeing from these organizations and entities. It's incredibly important to follow through on making sure that it is shut down. Right. We can't we can't have organizations running around thinking that covert moral bio enhancement is the most ethical way to modify society and cultures. It's not it's not a it's not a working or feasible framework in which in which to exist. And if if we can. And like I said, of course, they're going to deny that they would do these types of things. But if if we can get a hint of it, we have to we have to do everything within our power to push back against it. Right. And guess what this is. This is more than a hint. Like I would argue that they I mean, they can't refuse. They've already said it's real. And it is a it is a proposal. It is literally an intent to do something where their fig leaf is. Oh, it wasn't it wasn't funded. How dare you. Well, guess what? It doesn't matter if it was funded because it was so intent. It doesn't matter if the virus is real. Literally, it doesn't matter. I can't conceive of a viable situation in which that document is worthless. I mean, I don't I don't especially especially as we're looking at furin cleavage sites, which haven't gone away. It's still there. And if it's if it's conferring wide tissue tropism and it's it's accelerating amyloidogenesis in those tissues. Well, then we're being we're being enhanced. But that's kind of function. Yes. All right. That is I'm just going to put units. It's a bio weapon, but I digress. Cool. Well, we survived. Hey, I don't even know how long this has been. Oh, I think like four, four and a half hours, I think. I'm terrible at math, but I think we did. I think we did. And like I said, I'm determined to go through forensically because there's there's so many of these. Well, and we keep getting treated as if we're, I guess, not taking this seriously or so. I do want to make sure that we are being thorough. Which is why, like, I mean, we have been looking at the quasi species. We've been looking at infectious clones. We have not just been like throwing grenades, trying to mess up something. That's not what we're doing at all. We're trying to give due diligence to something. If because if you it because it's that important if you're going to make those claims or draw strong conclusions that are very different. That's fine. But don't don't be definitive until we. Exhausted exhausted because right now, the evidence that I've seen once again, scientists, but from what I've seen in the literature, there's not it's not like a fait accompli that this is that this is what he's saying. And so I think we everybody did like we deserve to have the right answer. And if it's his and so be it. That's not what this is about. It's about finding the answer. And now you're in it for free. So, again, nice one. Well done. All right, dude, I'll let you get to bed. I will speak to you later. And I'll just wrap up here. I think it was good. I think we did good here. Yeah. Plenty more work. This isn't this isn't my first late night. So, right. Right. Yeah, you do design. No bioinformatic predicted. All right. All right. Okay, folks, kids back. I've got to fix computers as usual. I will, of course, put a plea out. You can help support this work by going to science for the people by the people. Please send send your donors my way. W T Y L dot live tip jar. That's the best way. If that if you if you're wedded to gay pal or stream fags, you can use a stream fags gay pal link. I mean, a coffee subscribe star digital tulips cryptocurrency. I'll take it all. Three hours, 45 minutes. All right. So I hope it was edifying for people. I'm sorry for yesterday, but I'm fucking furious. I am. I'm livid at what he's done. And so I will leave it there. So take care. God bless. I will see you in the next one. You don't know how angry I am. I was just leaving for fucking work. You do not understand. This is fucking dead serious. I am fucking dead serious. I'm a fucking guy fucking fighting for my fucking fucking motherfuckers. I'm a fucking guy fucking fighting for my fucking motherfuckers.