All right, welcome, welcome, welcome everyone. Another stream, another day with the powerful, powerful Charles Rixie. There's a bunch of stuff that we want to, want to touch on and what better place to do it here in the dojo. So let me kind of sort of scrabble together.
So I had a busy day yesterday, so I'm going to try calling Charles on Zoom, Zoom, Zoom, Zoom. Now, why can't I see Zoom? Just bear with me, folks. All right, let's, let's do the call. I'm going to, I'm going to jump straight in because there's, there's sort of lots to, lots to cover. So let's hope this works. All right. And whilst, whilst we're waiting for Charles, let's do this to me. Come on. Okay. All right. So I'm just waiting for Charles to hop on. Chris, good to see you. Idaho girl, good to see you. And yeah, I wish I could relay more about what I was up to yesterday. Now the, is the chat feeding in from Rumble? It is, right. Test, test. Yes. Okay. So, all right. I'll try and keep an eye on the chat as we just wait for this. I know last time we tried to do this for some reason it didn't, it didn't go through straight away to Charles. So let me just give him a little twinkle on Skype. And yeah, there's, well, what, what are we going to touch on today? So Charles has a bunch of stuff that he still wants to discuss. I'm more than happy to go through that. I want to touch on Ryan Cole's appearance on Del Big Trees the Highwire and Twitch is coming through, not Discord. What's up with Andrew off yesterday at the guns at the okay corral? No. Look, this is, it's just me just getting kicked in the teeth by Japanese bureaucracy, literal, literal, literal institutional racism. Um, but, uh, yeah, I just got to suck it up. It's my choice to be here. Uh, it's Friday. Why am origami? How dare you? Uh, so, um, yeah, I wish I, I wish I could just say more about the, uh, the issue, uh, around my dealings with Japanese bureaucracy at the moment. Um, interestingly, we were just chatting on Skype and suddenly, uh, Charles has gone to a well, not like him.
Um, and he's not picking up the zoom call. So, um, yes, uh, Chris Martinson covered the unusual clots, the amyloid clots. And, you know, I actually brings up a, a good point, which is something I was watching George Webb and I don't remember the other gentleman's name. So you'll have to forgive me. And George Webb brought up a important point, which is if the amyloid clots were so common, it would be showing up in, with radiology. So anyone going for like regular CT scans, um, whatever, uh, ultrasound or anything where they're sort of doing real time imaging of, um, blood flow and the vasculature system. Um, I, I would predict or you would expect, um, the, that there would be more, uh, reports. And so, you know, this sort of puts us in the ballpark of, you know, maybe it's a legit phenomenon for sure. For sure. It's unusual. And, um, Brian Cole is, if nothing else, a very experienced pathologist and I would, I would defer to a pathologist. I think it's, um, it's not my, um, specific area of expertise. And when they say, or he says that they ha these clots are incredibly unusual, then I'm, I'm inclined to believe him. Now, the question is just how often is it happening? And, you know, there's, you know, what data can we have to work with and the, oh, come on. Everything's why, why is, I know why, but hang on, try again. Okay. Charles, let's try again. And so, you know, the question becomes, is it, we may be seeing a new phenomenon. It may be a consequence of rolling out a new technology on mass. Um, the question becomes, uh, is it 0, 0, 0.1% of the population versus 10% and you know, I would, I would have to make the presumption at the moment, uh, that we would, if it really was this massive wave that we would, we would be seeing more of it.
Now, of course that comes with a caveat that it may take time for it to show up. We obviously do have excess death, but there's the, there's a gap between that excess death and the real time imaging. But then I guess there's a question. It's a Charles is in the Charles. No, no sound from you. Mike just came on. Yes, we can hear you. Yes. Yes. Loud and clear.
All right. So, uh, I was just discussing the abnormal clots. Um, and there was a point raised by George Webb the other day, which was, um, should we not be seeing more of it in sort of radiology departments? And I think that's a, a fair, a fair point. Um, and just close one camera. So yeah, I was, I was just shooting the breeze whilst, um, you were trying to connect up, but, um, any thoughts on, you know, should we, we should write that, that would be the, um, we see the excess death. So why, why aren't we seeing the corollary in clinics unless it's just a reporting issue, right? Well, I mean, it could be, uh, well, for one, we don't know where this buildup is happening and it's going to be different for different people. Um, so I don't know how you would, I would think you would have to get lucky. Um, the other thing I might say is if, depending upon the makeup of the clots, I don't know if there might be something, like it might be hard for the, or I would just off as principles, I would expect it to show up on, um, CT or X-ray. Yeah, I mean, I would too, but I mean, the easiest part is that it just, they're not looking. And so…
If the, if for instance, the military, uh, was sharing their data, I think it'd be incredibly valuable because in the military, I was scanned any time there was any possibility of a broken bone. I mean, I would say that military members are the most X-rayed individuals on planet earth. They don't just, uh, click around the air and tell you, get on with it. Get out there. It's a bit whinging. Walk it off. Because they, because they're incredibly invested in you being able to fight in a war, they spend a lot more time making sure that you're not broken. They're typically less concerned if your mind is broken, as long as you can pull a trigger. But, um, like if there's any injury to your legs or to your feet or anything, they will go through the 10th degree, um, or to the, to the nth degree to try to make sure that you're okay and that you're able to deploy. I mean, deploying, being in a deploying status is absolutely critical. So well, till, till the last year or so, and then that all changed. Um, right until, well, yeah, until, until three years ago, which is part of the reason why the, the, the attitude that they've taken and the, the steps that they've taken in regards to the vaccine mandate have been so ridiculous because, I mean, they take readiness very seriously because that's readiness to be able to deploy is their entire reason for existence.
So there was a meeting being held by, I sort of got, I don't know, I want to say about like 45 minutes into it by Senator Ron Johnson. Um, what's there any input from the military at that meeting that you know of? It was over three hours. I didn't, I didn't see all of it. The part that I've seen, there was not any discussion. Um, I heard that there was some mention of, well, the DMED data. So the, there were questions about, um, information was leaked about numbers being reported in the health databases saying that there was massive increases in a bunch of different categories. But that in January of 2022, so almost a year ago now, uh, Ron Johnson hadn't had a previous hearing where he had a lot of the same people. And from my understanding, at least when it comes to the, the military data, there was nothing really new presented at this hearing. So, again, just as an aside, do you think we'll get any, any updates with that? Or, or you think they'll just clamp down on that data and try to confiscate it?
I mean, I can tell you what they've been doing, which is they've been trying to suppress it. I mean, after, because, because my friend Matthew Crawford basically has been the one fighting this and there hasn't been any apparent desire to look into this from even attorneys, much less from anybody doing anything on the side of the military to offer some sort of explanation. And I think the fact that the Secretary of Defense just a few days ago announced that the vaccine mandate was going to continue. I think that should give you an indication of what, of where the political side of this stands. I was under the impression that they pulled the mandate just recently.
So what I've been hearing for several months is that these services were pausing all of their enforcement. And because the impact to the recruiting and the impact to their manpower had been so significant, and they were basically slow walking it because the anticipation was that it was going to be overturned very soon. And at least at the moment that has completely, that's completely stopped. So whatever it was that has made them...
Well, I've got some good news here. So shout out to Maples in the chat. He's a warrior, a court of appeals. So this is news from Costa Rica. They've suspended mandates for under 12 years old temporarily. And the reason they were able to do it was proof of adverse events. So I mean, I don't know what the Costa Rican data looks like, but the... Look, I know dealing with legal stuff can be incredibly frustrating. It can't go your way. I was bashing my head against it yesterday, but I really think that it's our only avenue right now. What other options would there be on the table that we start running and gunning everywhere? Although that may be happening. I just caught a news report. I don't know if you've seen this.
You know about the substations being shut up. I want to say it was in North Carolina at the beginning of the week. I know, actually I do. And they were saying it was, or they were blaming that they had a, what do you call it? Sort of tranny for kids type event on. And it sort of coincided with that. And I was just reading that there's been similar attacks now in, it was Washington state and Oregon as well. All within, I don't know how recent, I'm presuming it's within the last 24 hours, but... They were shooting in electrical substations. Yeah. So the one in Carolina, I'm a hundred percent, I know someone who's affected by the power outages, but yeah, there's been some new ones as well. And this puts, it sort of goes into the bracket of, well, food processing plants burning down, fuel processing, you know, these are all things that have seen an uptick in, I would say the fingerprints of unconventional warfare, asymmetrical warfare. Right. Except I don't know if you can call it warfare if it's coming from your own country.
I mean, let's just take this as a hypothetical that because of the conflict in Ukraine, we could be looking at sort of, I don't know, Russian assets on the ground here, deciding that they were going to try and cause disruption. I think, well, I think that's dumb because if, it doesn't seem to really make sense because we have more resources than everybody else, especially in terms of energy. So it would seem... A hypothetical infrastructure? I mean, how much can you lose before, let's say the supply lines?
We don't lose so much, but I don't see why Russia would... I mean, I'm just using them as a placeholder. I know you are, but I don't know that I even want to, I don't want to pretend that that is the most likely scenario, because it's not. I mean, Putin doesn't gain, strategically he doesn't gain anything from doing that. I mean, strategically, if I was him, you wouldn't have to do anything because America on its own has been, its own leadership has been doing this. I see. Yeah. I mean, like if I was going to target something and if I was him, I don't know that I would choose random power substations in North Carolina. It's not going to attract that much of attention. Maybe it's just me, but...
Well, I mean, I sort of titled this, and we were discussing beforehand, just about the implications of Biowolf. I don't know where you want to sort of tee off on this particular stream, but... I mean, there's so many ways we could go, but... Maybe actually a good place to start is the most recent high wire. To get people up to speed, I was speaking to Charles about how, and it's been disturbing to me from the very beginning how there's always a concerted effort to push any discussion away from the defense side of the equation with respect to the pandemic and everything that we're dealing with right now. And it's sort of risen to the surface in the last few days. We were, of course, discussing Jay and his call to rally around RFK. And today we had another appeal to not go near Biowarfare as an overarching hypothesis with which to look at these events. And I know you hadn't seen the clip, right?
No, I didn't see the clip. But if he actually used the word Biowarfare... Yeah, he did. That seems a little strange. Well, it seems especially strange because for instance, Children's Health Defense and RFK, he's not been shy about highlighting these links in the past. So it would seem strange because part of the whole nexus was in the book, The Real Anthony Fauci, a big part of that is talking about this marriage of Fauci with the biodefense establishment, which kind of pulled it more to the civilian realm, which Fauci has used not only to enrich himself, but also to just share things with the Chinese that shouldn't have been shared. So it would seem like when there's all that evidence there, to me, it wouldn't make sense to walk away from it for any reason, especially if the vaccines are directly tied to all of this. So I'm just putting this out there, obviously, because I've discussed it with you, but just for the people that are listening. I'm postulating, I guess, that if we're in a situation where these networks are in damage control mode, because we know what they wanted to push initially, which was it had to be zoonosis, nothing else could explain why we would see what we are seeing. It had to come out of a bat cave in deepest China. That narrative got pulled down or it met significant resistance such that they are having to adjust in real time. And I'm wondering how much is, or right now, their damage control mode would be enough to go to someone like the high wire and Dell Big Tree and RFK and say, look, we'll give you what it is that you've been rallying to over the last, I don't know how long RFK has been actually doing this, the vaccine push, but I want to say a good 10 years. Yeah, I don't think it's longer than 10 years. I think in the mid 2014, 2015 is when we started focusing more on this. Not forever. But prior to that, there was a collective always around being sort of, quote unquote, anti-vaccine. Yes, and Andy Wakefield, I think that's the name. I think it's Andrew Wakefield. His paper came out, I want to say, in 2009, where he was discussing- 2009? Was that that late? I think it was. At least the one that I'm thinking of. Which came out, I think, because I remember that Richard Horton was involved. So he might have had more than one paper. I don't know. I'd have to go back and look. But basically, The Lancet published a study from him. 1998. That's when it was. There's another one too, because there's, well, then it may not even have been his paper. But I think that it was. But there was a paper that was published by The Lancet, and it refused to retract it for a decade. I think it was 11 years. And basically, it talked about a potential tie between autism and vaccines. And if I'm getting the dates wrong, I know that the bottom line is that there was an 11-year gap, and he refused to retract this paper, which is ironic, because he's the same person who then ran for Lancet letter later on. And ironically, guess who else has written papers in the past with Wakefield? Dezak. Dezak. Yeah. So there's a long-sorted history here of science trying to push boundaries and then being pushed back by establishment. Not that I want to give Dezak any credit, but I think that this story has been going on for a lot longer than people realize. And that story is the raising of hands of people saying, okay, our vaccination, there's something wrong with the way that we do our vaccines. And so basically what happened was Fauci has been pushing this concept of mass vaccination for all sorts of different things in young children, and he's created legislation to protect it. And so everything we're seeing now is kind of a culmination of that. And so that's where... So is it so far outside the realm of possibility that as public attention, we keep highlighting that there is this problem with these programs getting out of control and how that out of control manifests, whether we've surrendered them to interests that operate at transnational levels, whatever. But in their desperation, is it possible that they say to Children's Health Defense and other pressure groups, look, we'll give you that we goofed up. We made a serious mistake in pushing ever more vaccines, and we'll give you that victory. Just don't go the next step, which suddenly becomes, well, whether it's a national security issue or an issue that just lands us far, far closer to protagonists, which again, if the WEF archetype is having their hands involved in this. And I'm just wondering if that's what we're seeing right now. Well, I think that one of the things I liked about the discussion that Andrew Huff and I had with Kim.com was that we were covering a lot of these types of implications, but also what's coming next. What does this leave the door open to? It would seem not to make sense to me because it would almost be like there's a tension between national interests and supranational interests in that case. Because personally, what we were discussing was the fact that it's not really just China that is responsible for this. The US bears some responsibility for what happened. And so I think there's this misnomer of not wanting to use the phrase bioweapon. But the truth is that, yes, we should be able to say on the one hand that if this is a natural, the way that it's constructed is a violation of the Biological Weapons Convention. But that doesn't mean that it was going to be used as a bioweapon in the traditional sense of the word. This thing should never have been created because it's a threat, not because it was going to be used by one state versus another. And I think it's an incredibly stupid thing to do because the Biological Weapons Convention, if they violated that, that would be the violation of the treaty, which is what Dr. Fleming and others have been talking about. And that is a perfectly legitimate and direct way to hold people accountable, even if it's just within our country. Like we can't hold China accountable, for instance. But I don't see how they... First of all, if they're handing over this vaccine argument and saying, hey, we really screwed up and you know what, we're just going to come out and be honest with you and say that we've screwed up with vaccines for a long time and we've been lying to you. And if they came out and did that, it doesn't reduce their liability. Because what has killed so many people? But it takes away the pressure from larger groups like Children's Health Defense that have a sort of large activist base because... I mean, that's true. That's true. But it would cost them so much. I don't see how it cost them less in the long run. Because you're talking about... Because how many... 95, I was actually born like 98%, if I remember correctly, of kids in the United States for a long time have been getting all these shots. And so if they... I don't think Children's Health Defense would just roll over just for the COVID shots. No, for all of it, right? So they basically say, look, we can't have any more scrutiny than we have right now. And they can isolate people like yourself, myself, by carving off the other side and saying, you're going to get a victory here, a significant one. We'll open up the doors to parents being able to claim compensation, et cetera. But do not stop highlighting that we've been engaged in these programs. Because that's... I could flip that. And you could also, if we're dealing with this sort of hybrid warfare, whoever would be pulling the strings maybe would want the chaos of people sort of turning inward or sort of becoming... I don't think there's a situation here where you're too critical of these programs, but maybe they would... It suits their needs to have more chaos. And so out of chaos comes order, right? They get to sort of come in. I don't know. Yeah. It's one possibility, but I just don't see... It would require RFK, for instance, basically his organization, to trust, for lack of a better word, the deep state. If that was the case, I just don't see how he would trust them. Because he... Maybe it's not a case of trust, but it's just a case of... It's not like that family hasn't been touched by deep state machinations in the past, that they've just said, well, you want to be next? Keep pursuing avenues that are risky to the 1% of the 1%, right? We can't have you going... I don't know. I think it's more likely that they would try to sabotage what Children's Health Defense is trying to do, rather than try to deal with them. I think that's a far more likely strategy, something because I don't think they want to give up any ground, because I think that there's... Any way that you approach this is bad, and any way that you approach it, it leads naturally into a whole bunch of other things. I don't think these people are worried about making deals. I think that they, whoever they is, whether it's national or international, I think they're trying to hold on for as long as they can until the technology and or chaos allows them to have more control. I don't see them... Maybe it's a short-term solution, but maybe I just have more faith in the mission of Children's Health Defense than that. I think it's far more likely that they would just try to undermine them in other ways. I don't think that it's... No, it could be. Like I said, I don't want to say never. That's just my perspective. I mean, it's hard for me to imagine that there's something that could be offered, given the stakes and given how much I know RFK cares about the truth and how much he understands about how much has been violated by our government against the people. It's hard for me to imagine that there would be a solution there that he wouldn't be disgusted with. But I mean, literally everything could be everything at all times, but the one thing that I do know is that I'm not part of a deep state and... Yeah, I'm just trying to in real time look at the analytics. And it's not like we haven't seen this pattern of behavior already, which is... And the best example of that was Alina Chan and Matt Ridley basically saying, yeah, it's viral research, but it's got nothing to do with biowarfare programs. And they were sort of adamant all the time that, yeah, don't waste your time going and looking there and... You'll never guess what just popped up. Like just now I had a pop up on my stream and apparently I got an email because apparently I'm trying to reset my Facebook password. No shit. Look, as shenanigans go... Yeah, I like this. It's cute. I mean, this is the level of things that are happening. This is not the first time I've gotten one of those. My family's been getting a lot of strange messages. The McCann Dojo server has... Well, we've had to flip the server that it was running on because I couldn't get access into the company that was hosting it in the last few days. And again, it's just another one of those coincidences. So here's the reality. First of all, one of the things that happened in the last couple of days was somebody writing an article, I think it was Michael Senger on Subtack, but writing an article featuring JC with the title of former drastic member or founding drastic server renounces lab leak hypothesis, which is interesting, but first what we should tell people is that the lab leak hypothesis is not... That's like a really bad name for it because it's not a lab leak hypothesis. It's a lab origin hypothesis. What's that? No, no, I'm agreeing with you. Yeah, it's a lab origin hypothesis because really what matters is not whether this came from a lab, whether it didn't. What matters is whether it's natural or unnatural because if it's natural, it came from nature and if it's anything else, it came from the lab. So trying to say that him rejecting the lab leak hypothesis is a stupid title by itself because it's... I don't know the individual that you're on about. Is he generally a zoonosis advocate? No, no. Michael Singer is like a... I forget. I think he's typically like a Wall Street guy or something, but he has been writing about the origin for a little while and he wrote a book that was talking about how the Wuhan outbreak, there's a whole bunch of theater and et cetera associated with it and that it was basically, if I remember correctly, designed to create an atmosphere of fear and allow... It was exploited to... Chaos, mission accomplished. It was exploited to allow all this control and all this freedom to be taken away. I agree with a lot of that. I mean, there's plenty of evidence to say that people are explaining this, but I don't necessarily agree that that was the reason why the Chinese were doing what they were doing. Could the videos of people dropping dead in the streets of China be fake? Yeah, I mean, they could be. I mean, we have video of people dropping dead in the streets right now, dropping on television right now. So is that fake? I doubt it. So who knows? Who knows? Maybe they were testing these vaccines in Wuhan and we see these people die from the vaccine. Who knows? If we go with the premise that the outbreak was obviously earlier, and I'm a very, very strong advocate of that, that... Yeah, it was not December 2019 that this started. That's never been true. And if the Chinese got wind of it and were trying to roll out a vaccine, we know that they were working on it. I mean, I want to say Zheng Lishi actually had a paper in Nature where they published the results in primates of their inactivated vaccine, the Sinovac vaccine. Well, there was... They jabbed somebody. There are pictures of some general or somebody being jabbed in late February of 2020. So they were rushing things along pretty good. But I think that this author, he took it to that it's all theater place, which I'm sure that appeals to JC given everything he's arguing, but that doesn't mean that it's all true. And he's drawing a conclusion from that. But I mean, there was one article where he wrote about... Well, he wrote about DEFUSE at one point and basically said that it was fake. And this is a few months ago, and I commented on his thing and said, well, here's where this argument is wrong and wrong and wrong. I know for a fact that this is wrong. And here's where you can go see that what you just argued is wrong because this published thing, this published thing, this published thing. So he's basically... It's actually a lot of what JC is doing where he's drawing conclusions without knowing all the evidence.
And in JC's case, he should have known better because I told him. But the bottom line is is that they're drawing conclusions, but they don't have enough evidence to draw the conclusions that they're making. But this article that just came out, I mean, it's the wrong title because this thing didn't come from nature and that's what matters. But all you've done with this title is given an impression that isn't true because even JC isn't arguing that it didn't come from the lab because an infectious clone has to come from the lab. So he's not even arguing that. So I think just the fact that they're not even... The messaging is just off. And I don't know why JC would want that. It seems like it'd be a bad thing. If you're trying to make your case, well, then at least get the title of an article right. An article that's laying out your argument for why we are wrong. Okay. So I'm going to play a little devil's advocate around the DEFUSE documents. I think it'll be useful for people that are listening. And so one of the bigger criticisms being the paper trail for it is ambiguous because what we're seeing is a photocopied version that was released. And where's the submission documents, the rejection letter, the review of the proposal itself? Well, one thing people need to understand is that they're all different documents. Then they come from different periods of time. To me, I look at that and say, okay, well, why does that matter? Because I know that... Because even Flo Dabar on Twitter, she responded to... I think it was Christian Anderson who had been arguing that the way that things were scanned, it was like, well, it looks like it was edited or something. And she proved, no, it's not edited. And your argument is dumb. Now, these were electronic documents. They were on a classified server. So you can't email from classified server to an unclassified space, not in the way that... These are separate networks. So I didn't receive paper copies of these documents. That meant they would have been mailed to me, but they had to be printed off to be taken off the server. They had to be printed off and then re-scanned to send to me, if that makes sense. I could have only received them in one of two ways. And since I was not the person who removed them from the server, the only way I could get them in any quick amount of time would be electronically. So they were printed and then they were scanned and sent to me. And I think it's important to... Well, obviously the document itself was not classified, right? It can be argued that there's proprietary information in it. There is proprietary information in it. That is true. In fact, there's a separate ... I believe it's called source selection sensitive, is what they put on documents whenever they're proprietary and so you're not supposed to release them. But in this case, it's not classified in a sense that it deals with national security classification. It's fine. Go ahead. I wasn't the one who released them, so I don't know that it would matter so much. Well, I think I did release them, but I didn't... You were on the civilian side at this point, right? That's... Yeah, I didn't acquire them myself. They were provided for me. So I dare. I dare you go with the lines, what? Sue me? Sue me for taking your documents and releasing me? Well, I would add this for people who are... There are university institutes included in that submission, okay? And those organizations are open to FOIA as well right now and anyone who's in the US. FOIA Duke University, FOIA the... That Duke University is listed is actually their branch that's in Singapore. So it's national... I think it's National University, Singapore, TAC Duke or something. So that one school is a good collaboration with the Duke that's in North Carolina, but it's not the same. But you're right. You're right that any of those institutions, there must be correspondence that took place as they were preparing this document. Yes. Yeah. But you wouldn't be able to get that... Let's be honest, I don't know. Now, Eagle with Alliance, we probably couldn't get. But for Duke... Private company, no. But I would argue this, that any PI... So Ralph Baric is on that grant, okay? And he... Absolutely. Anything from him or related to North Carolina absolutely could be done. And I would encourage US Right to Know, all these people that have become very, very efficient getting this stuff out is to get the digital records because any grant that's submitted has to go through internal review. You're not allowed to just as a principal investigator to say, I'm filing and sending off grants left and right. You must have it go through internal audit because essentially you're doing it in the name of that institute, right? So the institute essentially becomes culpable when there's... And usually these problems are around sort of patents and proprietary techniques and you want to... And of course, to make sure that you're abiding by sort of ethical standards. But there should be emails directly from or including the grants office within the institute. There must be between Daszak, Baric, Lin Fa-Wang, Xi Zheng-Li. Am I missing any authors on there? Wasn't there Australian? No, there was a couple of different of other NIH labs and things. There was one that deals with like aerosolization of things. But I don't remember if it was at the Rocky Mountain laboratories or... But there's neither here nor there. They should be able to get documents for at least half of them. They're not going to get them from China. They're not going to get them from Eagle of Alliance. But to be honest, I don't think we need... Well, I don't know what else we could get that could help us unless we could get something that shows that they were already doing the work. But the reality is that the stuff that has already been released, the annual reports from Eagle of Alliance show exactly the work that you would be doing leading up to the fuse. And even some of the work that was in it dealing with... They were using... The same three main backbones that they talk about in the fuse were the ones that they were already doing or about to do. And so at the same time and just after, we know that they were doing these gain-of-function experiments, which is why the NIH didn't want to release these annual reports. So to me, when you look at it all together, we already know that they were doing... Like some of the things we're discussing in the fuse were being done already. It's just unequivocal. It's already public. The problem is that they're trying to obfuscate and they're trying to attack one piece of something so that way you don't put all this context together. But they were already... So here's something else that I know that I've even written about, but I don't think a lot of people realize. There was in the DEFUSE proposal... I suppose I could share my screen or whatever, but in the DEFUSE proposal, there was a cover summary document and it listed off six or seven or eight attachments that were with that file. Well, if you look closely at that, and specifically the version that Project Veritas released, I believe it's the last two attachments out of the eight, their titles are different than the other files. And I think that's because the way that Major Mercury listed them, he listed them as attachments. He was listing them as attachments to his IG whistleblower complaint. And so he gave the names of every file that he saw in that folder. And there's two files that were in that folder that I did not have. So I received all the documents, but there's two of them other that I didn't have, but that's because they weren't DEFUSE documents per se. And the first six documents all have the grant ID associated with the DARPA grant. The last two have two sets of grant numbers, one of them being the DARPA grant and then the others being a different one. And I don't know if that one was ever, if anybody's ever figured out what those other two were, because I know we tried to look for them. So I know that there was talk that, well, it got rejected, but then basically, from what I remember, the comments basically being, well, it's not dead in the water. Perhaps we should try rewriting and resubmitting, if I remember. Right. Now, they did mention that in DEFUSE, but I don't think that matters because that was the DARPA program manager saying, hey, in some future time, we might fund some of these things, if not all. But what I'm saying is that they did use these things and in those two files, they weren't associated with DEFUSE. But what they were associated with was, they were, I'm trying to remember exactly how this happened. But the bottom line is that they weren't related to the DEFUSE proposal. This was just supplemental data, or? Well, I'm not going to pull it up here, but just for myself, I'm going to try to pull that because basically what I'm saying is that what it appeared like was that they were using the same people as in DEFUSE, because I took the roster that was for the DEFUSE proposal of people who are going to be doing what, jobs or whatever, and I compared it to the rosters that were in other FOIA collections that were gathered by White Coast Waste Project, because those were basically the ones that The Intercept released. And let me go to my, because I actually wrote a story about this on my Prometheus Shrugged substag, so of course nobody ever read it. The thing is though, and this is what they're reliant on, that just every day that goes by, we're further and further away from these critical events. Yeah, they're trying to dissimulate, and they're trying to kick the can down the road. And the fact that Republicans allowed them to do that and said, yeah, we'll just kind of hold off until after the election, that was absolutely stupid. Because what were they going to try to do? They were going to try to make sure that the election results didn't hurt. They knew that a reckoning was coming. So do you think that there would be no attempt to try to mess with the election? It's stupid. It's absolutely asinine. Yeah, it's, well, I mean, I'm at the opinion right now that, again, we have such a small window of maneuverability. And it's incumbent upon us to use the cause. We have to get to the process of discovery. Now, in discovery, if they turn around and say, ah, you got spoofed into thinking that this was a legit document. Well, okay. Now, we know either way, and we've got a handle on, we've got a closer bead on what those networks are. Were that the case? I think it's very, very unlikely because of the, look, you have the interview with Ebola Chan and Linfa Wang, right? Which was sponsored by Science Magazine, if I remember correctly. Yeah, Linfa Wang said they were real. Now, if you, I need you to unblock your screen share. Oh, sorry. So I can do this. But yes, you're right. There's a whole bunch of different ways in which we know the documents were valid and genuine. So they can't, they can't come back later and say, oh, no, they were fake, because Congress already knows they're not fake. So even worse than that, like I've said before, that document shows evidence of intent. So there's not a chance in Hades that they would ever leak it on purpose because it can be used against them in a court of law. And it's just, for them to argue that is, it would be suicidal for them. They would never want to do it because it's, it's self-defeating. So all right, so let's scroll down here. What to do? Oh, yeah, there's, as we unwrap all the different pieces and parts of this puzzle. Okay, so here we go. This is the IG whistleblower complaint, right? Correct. And notice that the document, notice that my document does not have Project Veritas painted all over it. So this should tell people that this is legit. What was, what were we watching the other day that was just, oh, it was of course, Robert Malone, who's just, just kept dropping Project Veritas. And I was, I was sort of getting snippy at him not sort of mentioning you, because- Was he, was he talking the other day? I don't know what you're talking about. This was in discussion with Andrew Hough. And I want to, I want to say it was trial site news. And- Oh, well that, that's actually from February though. That's sort of like 10 months ago. Oh, it is? Oh, that was recent. Yeah, that's really old. So it's, it's, so it's not, I don't, Andrew's been pretty good. Like, I mean, he, he made sure that I got on him with, on the, with Kim.com and I've been talking to him just the last few days, ever since his appearance on Alex Jones. So like he, he's trying to, he's trying to ensure that, that I get an opportunity to, to be with him whenever he gets good opportunities. And I would say this folks, people that are listening, that these, these people have, have really gone to extraordinary lengths to batten down the orthodox news sources, scientific journals, et cetera. They have their wheels greased with respect to throwing up blocks, et cetera, just, just around discussing lab origin. And, you know, it's after three years of pushing back that, oh, there seems to be a little more traction at the moment. And whether, whether that's because, well, Fauci's retired, retiring is the wrong word, but he's stepping down from his NIAID position. And I don't know if, well, again, this comes around to, you know, you can get caught in ideation at just, at just about, you know, which network is playing which off and how, how they're, how they're doing this damage control. And, you know, this is something that Mark, who's Tonic Live has brought up. Were we not on target, would we have seen someone like Robert Malone coming forward the way that he had done if there, if there was a comprehensive control over the narrative and it coming from bats and Chinese caves? I don't know. I mean, I'm wary of Robert Malone's, just his history of being so close to the DOD apparatus that, you know, again,
I don't want to be caught in purity spirals myself. And I'm, I'm glad that he's talking. It's ironic that all these people from all these different areas are slowly converging on the same basic points. And that's what's a little surprising to see. JC decided that now is the time to, for his apostasy, because he, you know, it reminds me of, it reminds me of, I had this friend of mine, and I know a lot of people have friends like this, had this friend of mine when we were growing up, we were in high school and the band Creed came on the scene. And I know you, I'm sure you remember, and they became supremely massive. Like they were a worldwide rock group that sold a billion, billion, billion copies and returning the world. Actually, I think in Japan, they still like them. But what's funny is that, like, they gained this reputation, like, for being formulaic, I guess, kind of like Nickelback. I don't know if you ever heard that. But like their music was, they were one of those bands that, okay, well, and my friend, he loved them. He loved their first album. Then he said their second album, you know, they went pop, or they became, you know, generic, or they lost their unique magic, and they're just doing it for the money or whatever, you know, they sold out, basically. And he literally, he just refused, he would not listen to their music anymore. And he did this with all these different bands, like, as soon as they hit the big time, they weren't pure anymore. They were, you know... There's some truth to that, okay. But that does not mean, that does not mean that they suddenly suck. I mean, just because something becomes popular, or becomes like the mainstream doesn't mean that it suddenly sucks. There's this antipathy that we have, that we think things lose all authenticity just because more people recognize, for instance, you know, that Cree can make decent songs, okay, or Eminem, or, I mean, the Beatles didn't really have this problem because they broke up so quickly that people don't really remember that. But within seven years, they were basically broken up. God damn that Yoko Ono, that bitch. And so there was never this, there was never this period where they just sold out and just got over the hill and, you know, and so they were, everybody attacks Yoko Ono, they don't attack the Beatles for sucking, you know. But the truth is... She sucks though, she's really... I mean, okay, but the bottom line is just because something becomes the accepted thing doesn't mean that it's wrong. It's like, why would we, would the Beatles be less brilliant if they stayed together and they just got old? No, maybe things just changed, you know. This is a situation where we're trying to figure out the origin of the pandemic. And we've been doing this for a couple of years now. And all of the evidence that we found points to that everybody's been lying about all sorts of stuff. And now as we move towards the answer, as soon as it almost feels like, as this stuff becomes mainstream, the people on the bleeding edge of it have to somehow reject it because, oh, because Robert Malone says it now. Okay, well, I don't give a shit who says it, but what matters is the truth. What is the truth and what is not the truth? And, you know, good for JC if he wants to reject the thing that he's believed for the last three years. But just because he's come to a different conclusion, it doesn't mean that we're all dupes and we really just need to be following him. He hasn't offered a convincing reason for doing so. And the fact that there's so many people that are kind of not going down that path, it's not a sign that we're all stupid. It's not a sign that we suddenly become close-minded or married to our hypotheses. Like, why would anybody think that? It defies logic to me. It makes no sense. And I would say this, that any, you know, if there was sort of explosive evidence to the contrary of this, yeah, of course I would look at it. But, you know, from my perspective, you know, literally when I made my first YouTube channel was, are we looking at sort of lab origin? And I put some blurb about looking at edge cases to try and investigate if we're in a sort of new paradigm of warfare, something along those lines. And edge cases have, we weren't just, oh, we were initially, but edge cases have become more and more common to the point where, okay, there are converging lines of evidence. And yeah, of course, always be skeptical of any data, especially your own. Be your harshest critic. But the idea that these programs are a distraction, these biowarfare programs are a distraction, that we shouldn't be looking at them, that they don't have a long history of all kinds of nefarious project goals and mission priorities. That none of that's changed. You know, in my mind, there's not even been a compelling reason to change that. Because we've had lots of new evidence that comes out. And that new evidence can suggest all sorts of things. But what the new evidence hasn't done is negated the previous evidence. So one of the things I think that is, okay, well, first of all, for me, the biggest problem that I've had with this new hypothesis is that I wasn't told about it initially. It began being argued without me knowing about it, which is strange given the fact that I did know quite a bit about it, and I was tied to it. And so if you're going to question the legitimacy of something, then if you know one of the people who's directly involved with something, you might want to discuss it. You know, Mom just threw it out there, but hey, I'm going to throw you under the bus and just come up with a completely different proposal that has less evidence for it. But I'm still just going to piss all over your hypothesis, which was mine until recently. That angered me. But that's not even the only thing. I mean, it's the fact that I was stabbed in the back. And so the part that he's not framing it like that. So it's not just that his evidentiary support is questionable. It's not just that he's not addressing those concerns. It's also that there is more to the story behind the scenes, and he's being disingenuous in the way that he's framing all of these questions. Because he's not pointing out that most of the people that he knows are not on his side on this. But he's not portraying it as that's the case. And if he's going to do what he's doing and make his arguments, then he needs to be on point with them. And lastly, not only has all of those things been taking place, but many of the arguments that he made, that he was claiming came from me or from other people, aren't our arguments. And so he's been incorrectly arguing our case using somebody else's arguments, but not ours. So there's a plethora of different reasons why we have concerns about this. And it's not just because we feel threatened by his hypothesis. In fact, I don't feel threatened at all by his hypothesis. I don't. In fact, even if it was true, and everything that I knew was wrong, I wouldn't feel threatened by it. Because all I care about is the truth. What concerns me is that he's attacking evidence that we already have to support a hypothesis. It comes across as shaky. Right. The whole thing is just, it doesn't make sense. This is not like some grand debate that we're having. He's not having a debate. He's flushed everything down the toilet and he's calling us stupid for not following him. But he's not Moses. But if he is Moses, we're standing at the Red Sea. And he said that the Red Sea is parted and all of us are looking at the Red Sea and the water is still flat. Nothing has happened. And he's saying, look, it's parted. Let's walk to the Sinai. Right. We can't walk. We would be swimming. So until Moses can actually part the water, we have to turn and fight the Egyptians. We can't literally just wait forever. You know, it just, again, it comes down to evidentiary weight legally right now. And again, it's not even just, it's not even just that, but that is a big part of it because literally, you know, at the turn of the year, there's going to be actual investigations into this. And so if you want to make that case, you have your information, that's great. But don't attack the evidence that we already have when you're doing it wrong. I mean, Michael Sanger is one of the authors who was incorrectly analyzing DEFUSE. So right off the bat, the fact that he agrees with J.C. doesn't mean, it doesn't add weight to his hypothesis because Michael Sanger has been ignoring evidence. And I went on to his sub-stack and commented on his article and said, hey, you're wrong about this, this, and this, and this. And I know this because I'm the person who received those documents. And you're portraying his public knowledge and you're portraying it incorrectly. So he needs to, he wrote a book about Wuhan that missed a whole bunch of facts, which I was happy to know a lot about. So that's why all of this that we're talking about is important because now I do see that there is this attempt to shift this narrative. And the people who are arguing for this new narrative are saying that we're closed minded, which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my life. Because basically we've gone from being, you know, Creed on the first CD to Creed to everything else that we've gone mainstream. Well, that's ridiculous. The reason why you and me and JC and Drastic and all of these people are in the middle of this debate is because we've been finding the evidence and fighting the narrative. We've refused to accept crap without the evidence. So why on earth would somebody think that all these people from, we're not even on the same continent. Why would all of these people who've been investigating going against the grain, do we all like at this exact moment become closed minded as soon as JC came up with a new hypothesis? It's ridiculous. What if we're the people best able to analyze his new hypothesis, given the context of all the evidence that we already have? That's what I think. I think we're Creed. I think we've still got it. Rock on, dude. I'm just saying rock on. Yeah. I should play a song for you. Again, I would just, you have to have some degree of coherence with data sets, right? And when you take in the past evidentiary support and I see Nick in the chat right now and his input to this dialogue has been incalculable from my perspective because yeah, I could sort of break stuff down within the modern context. I knew that there were problems just within institutions, generally just from being in those environments. But to have these, and of course my go-tos for the history are Nick and Mark in this instance because they really put the hours in and show you step by step how to look at these evidence and the history and the networks. And those gears don't just mesh so seamlessly if there's discordances in the data sets that would allude to there being a, I don't know, co-intel type approach. The counterintelligence approach is the nonsense machine mainstream narratives that do get pushed out. And it's about sort of, well, you've got to be able to see through what the DTRA and DARPA and DOD and whatever, what the Russian equivalent is and MI5, MI6, all those organisations want to maintain a public stance and have been very, very skilled at maintaining that narrative for a better expression. And I just see them squirming right now. And I don't think that they want to be in a position of squirming ever, right? Because it's such a difficult job to push people in a particular direction, right? It's always hard to manage people. And in the case of science, you've got to deal with people being able to sort of turn up actual sort of concrete data that overturns a hypothesis from sort of one moment to the next. And the fact that we've been able to pull into the public domain the role that these organisations have and have had in the past with world-changing events, again, which seems the most coherent to you, right? And there's a... I've got a fire jet just going over. Hang on a sec. Those F4s, man. Japan just still flies. They're noisy as hell. All right. What was I saying? So the evidentiary thresholds that we have, we were discussing about the swarm threshold earlier, right? You can have a mutant pop-up, right? But you have to get to some threshold to have it sort of stick in the quasi-species swarm. And maybe that's a sort of good segue into the HIV... Yeah. I think so. I think you're right. Because let's face it, the reality is that we haven't just been making up our reasons for concern about these new hypotheses. We're just thinking that everything, everything is fake, including sequencing, including... The virus disappeared quickly. And so it's just been infectious clones that have been released in the global scale and all of these different areas. And there's been coordination. I mean, it's... It seems strange. And the fact that we... People might not even realize this, but JC hasn't actually responded just to what we said. Whenever we offered up some concerns about his hypothesis of quasi-species in particular, his argument was basically, oh, well, this paper was written by Denison and Barrick, so it can't be true. Okay. Well, I mean, is reverse genetics true to resurrect these viruses so they can be used for chimeras? Is that true? Is that real? Because they made that. We're supposed to just invalidate anything that they've ever published because they published it. I'm not 100% sure that's correct because they also published... They've obviously been able to make actual chimera viruses. So the fact that they authored something doesn't mean that it's not true. It just means that it shows us what they were thinking. And if other scientists have since borne out the results from their hypotheses, then you know what? Obviously, these scientists did something to get to the place where they're at. And so it's juvenile to write off a hypothesis without actually really going into it. Yeah. And what's the cutoff with respect to accepting, you know, all the recombinant work? Because it goes back to, well, 60s, 70s. Well, we just dismiss all that. So he's basically saying that I will not worry about this one particular slice of research that happens to bring down upon my hypothesis. But I want to invalidate everything else by the same authors because then there wouldn't even be the chimera virus to begin with. We would not have infectious clones of coronaviruses if Ralph Barrett hadn't created these methods back in 2002 and 2005. So why should we just ignore what he mentions here? Because it's silly. Because what he mentions here is actually kind of important because it's germane to the argument that you're making. I just want to respond to someone in the chat. It should be assumed to be false unless it's replicable. I would say that in terms of biology, much of the replication crisis, I guess, doesn't really concern these basic elements, this fundamental chemistry. It's when you're getting into more complex systems that things can get a little squirrely. I like to say I've used these tools, right? And I've seen direct impact on systems that I've operated. And this is okay. You can just say that I'm an N of one again, and you're sort of trusting me. But I know there are other people using these systems in similar manner and getting consistent results. And that's essentially all that we have in any discipline, right? Is a sort of, maybe to sort of take engineering as an example, right? The principles of sort of hydraulics are understood well enough that they can make a braking system for your car such that it works 99.999999% of the time, right? Particularly in modern cars. It's been a long time since I sat in a car and I had like a, you know, cars would just have spongy brakes, dude, back in the day, right? Drum brakes and shit like that. We've moved on and there's some, of course, there's always some point of ambiguity somewhere, I guess, like the interface of the hydraulic fluid and there's some thermal effect that maybe it's not quite been taken into account. But they've done a very good job of being able to get on top of that and it's, that applies across many disciplines. They've been able to get six sigma results with brakes and lots of other things. In fact, better than six sigma results, which means less than three failures or approximately three failures for every million instances of something. So what that means is if that was the case with, say, you go to Taco Bell and you order food and you get it and it's a hundred percent correct to your order, that would mean that you could go to Taco Bell every day of your life. I forget the exact numbers, but I actually calculated this up last year. So I'm just going to use, I'm just going to spitball here. You could go to Taco Bell every day your entire life and never have your order wrong once. And not just you, but I want to say it was like 40 of your closest friends before one person out of those 40 gets the wrong order one time. That's what six sigma is. So let's think about that in terms of what we're talking about. Six sigma is that. So imagine what a nine sigma increase in the rate of cancer in the United States is. Nine sigma, not six, nine. Yeah. That's not people missing appointment for a few months. That's not explained by all the pandemic shutdown stuff. So you couldn't go and get cancer screenings now, because what is the ethical skeptic showing? He's showing that the cohort that he's talking about is not the 65 plus. He's talking about the 19 to 64 or 18 to 64. He's talking about the people in the prime of their life that are having relative to all of the past century of data. They're having a nine sigma rise in cancer rates. They're having stupid rates of decline in birth rates. And that's empirical evidence. And the fact is, is that yes, excess deaths have correlated with the rise of the vaccination. But in 2020, when there's excess deaths as a whole, we're not as pronounced. That's because people weren't looking at it by age. Older people were dying at much higher rates than usual. And I know this because I was crunching those numbers. So to say that all of that was fake, or it was like medical malpractice versus with COVID, medical malpractice, it wasn't. It was not. Because doctors tell us, all the doctors that were on the ground, I've not heard a single doctor, and I'm sure there are some, but I haven't heard any, that have said that all of this was fake. But even if it's only 95%, if doctors have been treating patients all their lives and they say there's a virus that's causing a new panoply of symptoms consistently, then you know what? When something was happening that was not medical malpractice, it just wasn't. And look. That doesn't mean that all of it's, that doesn't mean there's no medical malpractice, or that the cases weren't exaggerated, or all this other stuff. Because none of us have said that. All we're saying is that there was actually something. And that's an important point because the origin of the virus is also tied in with that. That's all we're saying. Which makes his hypothesis really, really strange. It makes it an outlier that the facts do not bear out. So I guess I'll stop sharing. We can talk about this at another time or whatever, because if we do want to get into that, we can. But the bottom line is that we only touched on one point, and really just barely. We only touched on one real argument against the infectious clone thing that JC's proposing. We have like six or seven different good points that go against it. So I don't want... Well I want to look at this HIV data and the variable loops and you know, because I do think that that's... Oh, do you want to look at that? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, you're okay. Well, if you're okay with it, I know it's probably late for you. No, absolutely. So I guess I'll just say here that one thing that people need to look at for the DEFUSE proposal is that when we looked at the list of people who were on these documents, they looked a lot like what we saw in DEFUSE. And I pulled up three different rosters. What you see is the same people doing the same things. So the idea that they couldn't have done this is ridiculous, because they already had all the people doing all this stuff anyway. Now, oops, that one's good. I'll just whilst you're clicking about. Those organizations that are government and university like institutes, if they're in your country, please, foyer them. Get the... If you're that concerned with the origin of this. And I would just say DEFUSE is just like a cherry on the top that we've managed to dig out. There's plenty of stuff underneath that, which again points to this particular direction. And I guess we're going to really sort of touch on it now, which is the HIV variable loops. I guess it's dependent on sequencing, et cetera. But for some reason, they're able to keep finding these loops associated with HIV and have done for decades, right? So much so that we can define them by clade and continent and many, many other factors that just keep coming through and such that they can be patented, right? And so, well, you should talk through this. So explain what we're looking at, please, Joe. All right. So I just wanted to recalibrate everybody. In January 31st, 2020, two papers came out. One of them was written by Bill Gallagher and one of them was written by a group of Indian scientists. And both of them talked about various homology, the various likeness that the new coronavirus, as it was then called, 2019 ENCOVE, had with the HIV virus. And Bill Gallagher was focused on the fusion peptide, which is in a different part of the spike protein. And he was ignored, which is important because there were drugs that targeted that fusion peptide that could have been used against SARS-CoV-2. And they postulated that and it's since been proven. Like this is unequivocal. We know this for a fact. And the fact that you didn't do anything with that. The Indian preprint had this set of, well, first I just put it in the mode where I can't really make it as a slideshow, but basically they identified four inserts. And an insert is important because what that means is when you take SARS-CoV-2 and you compare it to the original SARS virus, the spike proteins, they're very much the same. But the SARS genome is a little bit shorter. So it was shorter basically by the exact combined length of the amino acids from these four inserts. Is it just the four inserts? What about the ORF10? Well, I'm talking about just like the spike protein. Oh, just the spike protein, right. Yes. Just the spike protein. There were mutations. There were points along the spike protein that were mutations that were different. For instance, in the receptor binding domain, there were five, but those five differences were enough to increase the affinity of the virus to the ACE2 receptor in humans, which is pretty impressive because the original SARS, that was the way, that was the primary way in which it infected cells was through that pathway. So for this virus to have an even more tightly targeted one was very surprising for something that had just jumped from nature. And the fact that it had an effusion cleavage site, it was specifically targeting a human protease was also strange because that typically for these changes for the effusion cleavage site and for the ACE2, those typically have to happen in the presence of a human immune system because that's the only way that a virus doesn't adapt to anything except the whole purpose of adaptation is to adapt to your environment that you're currently in. So right off the bat, that's strange. And so what I did was I looked at those inserts and I had been trying to figure out, okay, what does it all mean? And there's a lot of people who have been trying to figure out, okay, what does this all mean? And I went back through vaccine construction and initially I was doing that because I wanted to look and find, I'm going to figure out more about the fear and cleavage site. Like, why did they leave the fear and cleavage site in this virus this time when this seemed to be a change? And I went back and looked and had a whole bunch of stuff. Well, the bottom line is that I realized they had never kept the fear and cleavage site, ever. This is something that needs hammering home, which is that we have them on public record saying that they would always remove it. They knew it was problematic. Yeah, actually, I feel kind of bad now because I didn't, because we could have just started like at the back of the beginning of this slideshow, but I've already discussed some of it before, so I didn't really want to repeat myself. There's plenty that needs repeating. Yeah, but let's just, we'll just do for the fear and cleavage site, let me just zoom this up because I went through the trouble of taking out the background of this image. So what we see here is to do one of all these, by the way, these are all sections from the DEFUSE proposal that describes certain inserts and things that we now see in the virus. The bottom line is that you see here, these are all the different tissues of the body where the fear and cleavage site can go into. And that's not normal. It's just not. Now, we'll look at the original SARS. The original SARS could use the ACE2 receptor in TMPRSS2 to basically attack certain cells within your body. And I don't, this is kind of like an IQ test, okay, because you should be able to tell the difference between SARS CoV-1 and SARS CoV-2. Because the, now, I would just ask people to look at this and see if you can figure out what does the furan do in the big picture here on the right-hand side? What is the difference between that and the pictures on the left-hand side? Well, I'll ride my own hobby horse and just, I look above the neck and just the brain is lit up. That's enough for me too. So yes, Kevin is highlighting the brain, which is obviously rather important, but it's not even just the brain. It's just, furan can go, this opened up so many doors for this virus. And this is why when people talk about, you know, pandemital viruses can do this. The furan cleavage site makes it more pathogenic. It also makes it more infectious because it makes it easier for the virus to infect the lungs and the airway. It's just, it's so much better able. That means that if it gets into your inside your body, the odds of it being able to take hold and start an infection are just automatically right off the bat, better than they otherwise would be. And with the added thing, a point that I was making on Twitter, well, I've been making it for a year and a half, but I just recently remade the point. And I know that Jay Basacharya and some other people were tweeting and retweeting and liking my stuff on this particular one, because I retweeted my aerosol article that talks about the impact of aerosol transmission and the fact that our non-pharmaceutical interventions like lockdowns and stuff were actually probably driving evolution to make it worse in terms of being able to spread the aerosol. And I feel pretty damn confident. The fact that somebody responded and said, oh, hey, by the way, like in the intervening year, there's been this paper, for instance, that has come out and kind of made a very good argument that that is the case, or at least part of that has been proven. So I feel pretty good about that. I feel like there's some substantial evidence behind that theory. But one of the other things that this does is the fear in cleavage site is what evolved to allow ferrets to be able to spread H5N1 in what became basically the stereotypical gain of function experiment, which basically what it meant is that it gave ferrets the ability, it meant that they've taken a flu virus that kills 60% of people with infection, and they made it human transmissible. And this in 2011 and 2012, there were two experiments, one from Ron Fauci, who was the person at the 2-1 meeting who said, oh, yeah, this is definitely natural. But it was his experiment. It was his experiment that caused that giant gain of function debate to happen. His and Yoshihiro Kabaoka, yeah, the two of them basically did the same thing. And what did they do? They aerosolized H5N1 for human transmission. And what happened? The main thing that caused that to happen was a fear in cleavage site. It popped up because in the presence of the human lungs, it did that. And that's what happens with flu viruses. So that is the reason why they were talking about this. That is the reason why this was the smoking gun. So why would you put that in a vaccine? If something allows a virus to infiltrate a lot of different cells in your body, why would you put that in a vaccine? Because the purpose of a vaccine is to give the minimal necessary in order to mount an immune response. Yeah, a therapeutic immune response. And again, I don't want to get distracted too much by this discussion, but it points to malice of four-four when they understood it so implicitly. Now, good doggies in the chat. I want to shout him out. He put a paper in the Discord yesterday where they're looking at antivirals to induce prion-like cascades in order to neutralize a virus. Now, I can't see anything that could possibly go wrong. The fact that these people think like this, it just tells me that these are not the people to be messing around on the hunt for patents and intellectual property that they can monetize. A lot of people get sold on test tube experiments or in silico predictions and go, ha-ha, we'll go down that pathway. In my mind, it's even more concerning and more fundamental than something like the furin as an emergent target in the spike protein. It's a tangent. You're the one who should be talking, bro. I'll drag everything to prions always. Well, we can definitely get there because that's just another aspect of this. But the bottom line is that they knew. They know what a furin-fibrocyte does. They didn't just know that. They told us, okay, with this new mRNA that everybody was concerned about, don't worry because what is it going to do? It's just going to stay right in your arm and your body will develop antibodies to it. Explain to me this. If it's going to stay in my arm, why do I want it to have the furin cleavage site that allows it to infect my brain? Well, why would it even be necessary? In fact, I've got a quote from the guy who made the decision. I don't remember how bad actually in here yet or not. But basically, there's a quote where Barney Graham says that, oh, God, I wish I could find it. Well, whatever. It basically says, the only quote I've been able to find where he ever discusses or justifies why he left the furin cleavage site was that he thought that maybe it would cause the vaccine to provide a better, more robust response, which is absolutely the dumbest shit I've ever heard in my life. And in fact, he goes on later to say in the same quote that Moderna would not have thought of this on their own. And why? Because it is on its face illogical. So it goes against what they had previously done. This is Barney Graham, the guy who made these decisions and sent the sequence to Moderna for him to construct. And he was saying they would have thought of this on their own because it's counterintuitive is the word he used. So my question would be, OK, this is counterintuitive. How did Pfizer come up with the same counterintuitive thing at the same time? Like, that's incredible. So you need to tell me that Pfizer and there is I just skipped it. You mean to tell me that after 20 years, here's a list of vaccine, different vaccine prototypes and the way that they were constructed. And you said you can see my mouse cursor. Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK. So here right here in the red, those are the only two out of all the studies I looked at where they retain this. Now, eventually another one of the other manufacturers did. But at that point, they were the first two ever, ever. And this is not coronavirus vaccines, just coronavirus. This is HIV, flu, RSV. By the way, the reason that Barney Graham started working on vaccines was it was in the 60s and it was RSV. It was because they created because it was a failure with the RSV vaccine. And he wanted to solve that problem.
And they still haven't. Well, apparently now they have. Apparently now with mRNA platforms, we can look forward to. Oh, yeah, they have. Well, and what did I just post yesterday on Twitter?
Yesterday was a wipeout for me. I haven't even looked at it. OK, well, I kind of created a little bit of buzz on Twitter because I posted I had gone and I'd looked at some like autoimmune paper and it was looking at different autoimmune epitopes of the virus. And I did my own little I put it into Excel and put heat maps on it and everything. And guess what the number two most like antigenic epitope that could possibly be autoimmune causing was? It was the RSV glycoprotein.
I think I want to say it was ELLDKY, which is it's just an episode. It's just part of the sequence on the spike, but it matches. It matches a glycoprotein that's also found in RSV. And it's very likely it's the second most likely to cause an autoimmune response on the entire spike protein. And it matches something from it matches a glycoprotein.
So what if and what I said was, OK, so is it? Is it lockdowns? What's driving it? What's driving this tridemic that we're having right now? Is it tridemic or should it really be called antigenic? Because what have we just done? We've jabbed 85% of the American public basically. I think it's like 70 that have had the full two doses or whatever, but it's like 85% of adults. So 85% of adults have been jabbed with this with this. And it has a part that matches what's on the RSV genome that's highly antigenic and highly likely to cause an autoimmune problem.
OK, what does that mean? So what does that mean if you get jabbed with it if you get jabbed with it and then you get RSV? Can anybody can we raise your hand and say what that is? Could that be a manifestation of antibody dependent enhancement?
Well, I had a graphic that pulled yesterday. I just want to bring it up. I mean, because that's the that's the idiocy that we're dealing with right now.
And so you need to tell me that the person who's been working on all this stuff, his entire career for Anthony Fauci didn't know this.
So can you see that on? I'm not sharing my screen, but you watching the stream? No, I'm not watching the stream. Actually, I can just link you. If you want, I can. I'll send you the via DM. Right. And it just it we know about the excess deaths, but the this this graph, it's from the UK. And I generally think the UK is somewhat thorough in in their data. And what what this does is it breaks it down into male, female and age groups as well.
And if if you can't see that there's something.
That is an excellent chart. Oh, my gosh. That is stunning. Stunning. And we haven't we haven't really got into the winter months yet. Right. Well, it's too late. I told you to see what I said earlier in the stream. I said that what we saw in 2020, we did see a spike, but that spike was was correlated with age.
And so the excess deaths were lower. Yes. Well, OK. Well, why would they be lower? Probably because we were locked down. Because how do most people die before they're 50?
Accidents, I would say. Yeah. So if nobody's driving or doing anything.
And we do see this massive spike. So this whole argument that JC has made about excess deaths, he's ignoring the fact that there were spikes in excess deaths by age. That's exactly what I said was exactly what this chart shows. Hey, look, April 2020. What is it showing? Boom. It's showing a massive, massive increase. They basically called everybody 85 plus.
So that's where your excess death comes from the virus.
Well, but an infectious clone, the way he's been arguing it, that would have already been too long that would have already been too long of a time for an infectious clone to last. It would not have been possible because it would take several. It would take a decent size infection chain for the virus to really get around to that many nursing homes and get around to to people.
Like, it's just it's not. It's not born out in the data. Yeah. Well, I guess the rebuttal would be that again, that's just iatrogenic ores. I mean. Well, I mean.
But I'm not so sure. I mean, OK. OK. But physicians saw things that were different. And they saw massive floods of patients with symptoms that were different.
And you cannot just you can just wave that away and say that all of it was an astrogenous. You just can't.
Now, it may have been magnified 500 fold or not 500 fold, but like five times, maybe only 30 or 40 or 50 percent was actual COVID. But even if it was 10 percent, what he's arguing is saying he's trying to negate defeat. He's trying to negate defuse because because it's not actually a threat. Well, it still managed to kill a lot of people.
Millions of people died from the virus, and even if millions of people died from ventilators. And even if millions of people died from ventilators. And I would say this important take home from this. That's someone just put in the chat. It looks like my crypto portfolio. Yeah.
Or the stock portfolio. Equities or whatever you want. But the. If this was lockdowns, I would argue that especially in the younger cohorts, you would expect it to be closer to the immediate rollout of the lockdowns itself. If this was sort of psychological impact. But the fact that there's such a radical change from.
Well, you can say May 2022. It's June. That's June. We'll do the cutoff as June. June. Something had to be initiating this catalyst for this. And the.
The fact that there was. Well, pretty much any square. Like if you see the dark red squares are the ones you need to focus on. Because if something was 10 percent or more difference. That's a big deal. And you've got 14 and a half percent there in the zero to 24 year old.
In the in the Omicron ways, which are supposedly the more benign variants now.
I don't think all those people were in hospitals. Right. And is a good proportion of this from the vaccines. Very, very likely. But again, we don't know. I don't think we have enough data to discount the virus itself having some impact in this. And again, my my concern is the interaction between the virus and the the. I can say vaccines now. I've got this muscle memory to stop, but we're not the transfection. Right. The transfection. I shouldn't call it vaccine. It's a gene. It could be autoimmunity. It could be ADE like specifically. It could be any number of things. But the bottom line is this chart is excess death. And what people need to understand is that. That the first two age brackets cover everybody before 50. And so so 66 percent of this chart is 50 or above. So when you start seeing. Really, for me, what matters is anything zero to 50, because you should not have excess deaths. There should never be a massive shift in excess deaths in an age below 50, because that is because like what else could it be like you? You could you could make arguments about some of the other age groups, but the only reason that 85 plus has long stretches where there's where there's it's actually down in excess deaths. There's a good reason for that. So many died. So many died at first that it hasn't caught back up. In fact, not only did so many die, but there were so many people dying in the in the, you know, 72 to 74 range that didn't even make it to the last bracket. So where where where what I would add additionally to that is if if it was solely a consequence of.
Well, you could argue it from both ways, but if if if it's not some unholy mix and like say autoimmune antibody dependent enhancement and it was solely just the vaccine rollout, then I don't know, there's a there's a peak there at March 2021. When did they start? December, right, 2020. And then, yeah, but it'll take a while for it to roll out. And you could probably say about then would be when it was rolling out. So, yeah, to see a sort of peak there, if we're keying in on vaccines, you could argue there, but it's not holding for the males at that point. And then, you know, the what was the was it a month that they were doing between shots or. Two weeks, three weeks, three weeks or so. I mean, three weeks, three weeks for Pfizer and a month for Moderna.
So there's I can't I can't dismiss one one or the other right now out of hand. And so in any analysis going forward, we have to say this until proven otherwise, we have to consider that there's a contribution from both sides of the equation here. And again, getting getting back to the sort of subject title of this talk, which is are we dealing with bio warfare and the the consequences of it? And I I can't dismiss that yet. And all the time, I can't dismiss it.
You have to hold it central in anything that you're doing right now.
Yes, any analysis that you're doing?
I would say that it has. I think when we use that word, people. They, you know, they they react to it because.
Because they don't start like a diplomatic incident, they don't have a war, they don't want to. They don't want to deal with the consequences of it was a bio warfare agent. But what people need to understand is that it's entirely possible that they could have been working on something that that had that intended purpose, but it was an accident or or there's all sorts of things. I mean, it could be that it was. We don't know how it got out. We don't know if it was intentional or not. We don't know if it was from an adversary or not.
And that should scare us. OK, but what we do know is that. From all the evidence that we can gather. It's not natural and it's not meant to be beneficial and the vaccines aren't helping the vaccines aren't helping did it's really the crux of the problem and we have to be able we have to be able to admit the problem before we can. That's the first step before we can fix the problem. We have to admit that there is a problem. And. You know, whether you believe in a higher power or not. You know, we have to believe that the answer to this problem is not going to come from. Our government, because what if our government was the problem? I mean, we already know the problem with with the vaccine because they're hiding data from us. And we have to ask yourself, why would they hide data about the vaccine? Why would they obfuscate about the research that they were doing? And I'll say again, you know, we're going to hear a lot in coming months. You know, national security, you know, for reasons of national security, we have to do this and we can't talk about it because it's a threat to our national security. And what people need to understand is that the term national security, that term has meaning, kind of like public health has meaning. And public health is failing. The job of public health is to keep people alive and healthy, or at least, you know, point us in the direction of things we could be doing to make our world a better place. We could be doing to make our lives better in terms of not buying vapes and right, you know, like, like, like making us feel guilty because we smoke or something. But it's so when you think about it, the we kind of set ourselves up for this, how would you say, encompassing all encompassing attack across many, many different avenues. And they literally weaponized if, if, if there's if it's like a binary attack vector, right. So virus plus exposure via the gene, let's just say medical intervention in this particular instance, right. Because there's there's not just gene transfection out there as a vaccine pathway. And we've we've allowed ourselves to be pushed by public health policy to essentially has done the opposite of what it's supposed to do and essentially increase the carnage that we we we would predict or hope. Yes, that graph you showed that you sent to me, it was just on screen. That is an example of public health failing. Because the pandemic started in January of 2020 and the excess deaths are still escalating now. So if the goal of public health was to minimize the impact of a crisis like this. They have failed because more people are dying than should and the wrong people are dying. Because all these increases in excess death are coming from the wrong age groups. Well, you know, you can sort of take the inverse of that as well, which is and this is encourage people to think this way. Yes, failure in public health, but from another angle, it's it's it's a spectacular if it is what we think it is, it's a spectacular result with respect to deploying the weapon itself, because they've they've managed to stretch out the window where people would sort of make the causal connection. Oh, so Mrs. Jones down the road got ill two weeks ago. She's no longer with us. Whereas now what we're seeing is something that's stretched out months and we don't know where the the insults have occurred to start seeing this excess death that we're seeing right there. And it might be that the those rubbery amyloid clots are doing their thing. I mean, it comes back to the question that we were first discussing, which is, shouldn't it be showing up more in routine exams? Yes, yes, it should. But we don't know, like, we don't know what people are even looking for. And there and we know that doctors have been intimidated by public health officials to not link certain things to vaccines. And even if they do, even if they do, we don't have that much faith in the rest of our institutions to say that whoever codes the death. We'll be coding it correctly. I mean, that's what John Bowdoin or Bowdoin, sorry if I get his name wrong, but he's done incredible work. And he's been on J.C. stream. He's been on a whole bunch of different platforms now. And he went through every I want to say it was like every death certificate in Massachusetts. And he was able to show that the vast majority of these things, they were coded as COVID or not. Like these people were not dying of COVID. And hang on, we have to preface that with not dying of the respiratory. Right, right. Because there's very different or you could read that very differently or understand it. Right. OK, so I guess I shouldn't say dying because there do appear to be a lot of people dying from the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. But the bottom line is, is that what they are telling us is not what the facts are are are laying out for us. It's incongruent with the facts. It is congruent with the facts. So. And that's really the problem. And I think the shifting back over to to this. OK, when we think about all those excess deaths and we think about how they're correlated time wise with the rollout of the vaccines. Well, here on this page, what am I showing you? I'm showing you that they are. For decades, what they have been doing is making vaccines and never putting fear in Cleveland sites. But now, now that I've shown you that. I'm showing you. That it's not just if you're in Cleveland site. It's not just down here in the left bottom left hand corner. The the very. The last four. Amino acids in this little sequence. When you translate it over to the SARS-CoV-2 genome, that is. The S1 portion of the sharing people say. Now, Pradhan and Al. Found four inserts, not just one of them. And what I did was is once I looked at all these different studies. I found out first. That. The inserts of all the four of these inserts came from different clades. If I if I put in the full chart, it was on the right hand side at the top that was at the inserts. If I if I didn't cut off the other half of it, it would it would tell you. Like which clade. That type of virus that HIV came from, but it was four different ones, basically. And for a long time, that was like the reason that they the argument that was made in peer reviewed publications. Why the Pradhan and Al paper was BS. Was was partly because the pieces were from four different HIV strains. So it couldn't possibly be from HIV because nobody would ever use four different strains to make that. Which is completely BS because for 20 years, that's actually more for like last decade for this part. They've been using what's called multi-clade construction. Using different pieces from different regions of the world. Because they want they want their vaccine to be more likely to produce a response. So they want to cover as much of the different variants as they can to try to get that immune response. Now, they never succeeded. But see, that's not the point. The point isn't that these inserts are from the vaccine construction because they're not. That's what I want people to understand. I see zero evidence that this virus, the SARS-CoV-2 virus, I do not believe in any way, shape or form that it was ever meant to be a live attenuated vaccine. Which is one of like it's one of the excuses that people might be trying to make. It would be fair to say it's a competing hypothesis. Yeah, it's a competing hypothesis. OK, that someone made this vaccine. And it got out before it was ready, right? And it got out before it was sort of ready for prime time, right? And before they'd fixed it, it was either this either this was a vaccine and it either attenuated after they injected a bunch of people, which means it returned back to its natural virulent state. Or it just was never a good candidate at all. And they hadn't stabilised it enough yet. And I just want to tell you that I think we can categorically deny that. So it's important to explain. But the conformational importance structure and why. Right. So so the reason why I say that is because when I went back and this is just one graph from one study and I looked at dozens. I looked at at least 20 HIV vaccine studies. But when you do and you go back and look at those studies. This graph shows. The coloured portions, there's there's eight different vaccine candidates that this compares. And the coloured portions in each row. Represent how much of the genome of HIV from from the gag of the poll of the envelope of the NAAF, which are different parts of an HIV virus. This shows for each vaccine candidate. Like what parts of that virus are actually in that vaccine can. And they're called epitopes. And basically the purpose of this, what you want when you make a vaccine is you want to. You want to get as much as you can of an immune response. Without giving somebody the actual virus and get sick, you just want enough to where your immune system will see it and they will. They will react to it and produce antibodies to it that if you ever do get infected, it will be able to neutralize whatever comes along. So that's the whole purpose of vaccines. And what we see here is that for all of these eight different ones. Everywhere were these those four inserts would be on the HIV genome. None of these eight vaccine candidates have those in there. Now, I like for for a few of them, especially like over here in the top left hand corner, like you might say, OK, well, there's a little bit of stuff showing up there, but that's actually not exactly correct because this is counting. This is going by nine. Remember, this this isn't looking at every single amino acid. It's looking at it as it's been. Yeah, it's been basically per nucleotide. So it's taking a nucleotide bin and smoothing out. Right. So I guess, you know, what people watching this would be should be asking themselves is, do we do we have a sort of real gotcha moment like with the. Them saying that they would and is it is it Denison in that says that he would never know who's the one that says they would never put fear in cleavage site? That was isn't that Denison? Well, those dormant, sir. OK. And the answer is yes. The answer is yes. This is gotcha. Because first of all, the fear in cleavage site is one of these for inserts. It's half of insert four over here on the left hand side. So so right there is the fear in cleavage site. And if you went over to that part of the genome in HIV, it's not ordered exactly the same here. But basically, it might not act as a cleavage site. In the same way that I don't know a good, simple way to explain it, but the bottom line is they always take it out. Yeah, it may have slightly different. The appetite may have slightly different functional properties right between the two different viruses, but they're they're sure to remove them anyway because they're flagged as being problematic. Exactly. So so you would not want this in a vaccine. And so the key thing here is that it's not just that it's all four of these. And and we have and so what we need to understand is that these other three inserts, these come from what's called GP 120 glycoprotein 120, which is a part. It's basically it's it's the it's analogous roughly to the spike protein of of SARS-CoV-2 is. So as GP 160 before it splits into GP 120 and GP 41, this is how the HIV virus gets into your immune cells. And where these these pieces sit in the genome, they sit in what's called variable loops. So there are areas that are mutate very frequently, but but they're they're in the reason that they mutate is because these are the parts that interact with the with your immune cells to try to infect them. And it's constantly shifting slightly. So that way, your immune cell can't protect itself against it. It's like it's like a key with constantly shifting combinations. And there's this constant battle between your immune system and the virus. And so the virus is trying to maintain the ability to infect, but at the same time. Adjust as necessary to whatever your immune system is is looking like. And so they took those parts. They took them off of the variable loops and they put them onto the variable loops. Of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So what that means is that in order. I'm trying to remember now where I put it because I shifted this whole thing around. It might have been there on that same one when I do. So here we go. So basically, what we have here. And actually, no, I take it back. There was another page where it actually showed this. There it is. Here it is. Oh, no, I didn't take them with them. Well, anyway, we'll just put it out there. OK, so where the circles are on the left hand side, these two circles show where the. Oh, my brain is going to fry here. Well, these green segments right here on both sides of the GP 120. Those are what we would see as if you're in cleavage site. I'm sorry, I take that. That is the cleavage site. Because now we're looking at the SARS-CoV-2 virus. And but the the circles. Also, look at the. Now, let me see. Oh, see. Obviously, this PowerPoint was not addressed to receive. Yeah. OK. So right here in the on these edges. Three of those three inserts, when you look at them in 3D on the actual genome. They they are perfectly placed. Perfectly placed to be the most accessible, like an outermost parts. And and basically, that's the that that's where you would want them. If you wanted them to infect. Certain cells, you want them right outside, where they'd be most likely to to come in contact with. The tissue that they're trying to to get into and most disturbingly that. This is geared towards. Immune cells. Exactly. So you're talking about it. So if you wanted if you wanted to give another virus the the same ability that the HIV virus has. These are three of the most important things that the most important epitopes that you would want. And here's where it gets insane, because the argument has been these three inserts naturally appeared in this virus. Which means that not only were these would have been heavily random mutations, I'm sorry, random inserts, and that means there had to be some sort of recombination, which, by the way, because of genetic distance, they they probably couldn't. They would have had to come from another coronavirus that was similar enough, but they didn't. And these came from three different continents of HIV. But these three random pieces all came together in this. They jumped from the perfect spot in HIV and jumped over to the perfect spot of a completely different virus with completely different construction. Because these inserts didn't just appear in random spots in SARS-CoV-2, they appeared directly in the perfect spot. Literally, it could not be more perfect. An important point here as well is, although we're dismissive of zoonosis, the the reservoir from which this comes from is vastly different to HIV, SIV. Right, the bats are not getting simian immunodeficiency virus. And somehow, somehow, there's just this wormhole effect that positioned these, and like I say, initially you could sort of bite into the rebuttal that, oh, they're very short pieces, but no, not in the manner in which we find them, and not when they're, like you say, they're inserts and they take the most, some of the most disturbing aspects of HIV, which is the ability to assault directly your T cells.
Yeah, I mean, that's not how nature works, because you would have to also, you see this nowhere else. And in the real world, if there was this random nature to this, then you would see other inserts, completely unrelated, also appearing, but there are none.
If you go to the genome, and if somebody can go right now with the SARS-CoV-2 genome and count, how many inserts there are? How many other inserts besides these four are there in the entire spike protein, which is 12,000, or 1273 amino acids? And I'll just go ahead and spoiler alert, these are the four inserts. The difference in length between SARS and SARS-CoV-2 is basically exactly the combined length of these four inserts. So, I mean, it could be natural, but you want to, but guess what else is going on with these inserts?
And actually, I numbered, one of these is numbered incorrectly, so it's actually only three of them, that are, but it doesn't really change the overall impact of what I'm saying. Scientists went through in May of 2020, and they weren't looking at the HIV inserts. They were looking at, in the entire spike protein, what are the immunogenic epitopes, specifically looking at B-cells? Like, so what are the ones that, the salient potential epitopes that your immune system is going to react to? And guess what pops up in these? If these were random sequences, why, they can't be random. Okay. So, well, let's just look at this. So, and actually, I might have to un-apologize, because I take that back. All four inserts are in here, because here we go.
Insert one, two, three, and four. And I'm going to go ahead and do a little bit of a un-apologize, because I take that back. All four inserts are in here, because here we go. Insert one, two, three, and four. All four of these inserts are among the 13 major immune targets in the entire spike protein. So, your immune system is going to notice these. And it also has the longest single epitope. This is this 13-amino acid sequence right here, is the one that has, if you're in cleavage site, and the QT-QT-NS before it, which, so combined, it is the most accessible epitope. B-cells or T-cells? This is, it might be, but this is B-cells. But okay, so let me, so just because, so I guess I should clarify here, that T-cells is what HIV is mostly, that's what it's known for. But this was just looking at just antigenic potential, period. And there was more than one of these papers, so they were looking at, because antigenic epitopes is a big deal, and this is how you figure out what is going to work as a vaccine, or what's going to work for monoclonal antibody targets. So, most of your therapeutics is all centered upon these things that we're talking about, which is why they have the HIV genome so well mapped out, because they've been working on this for so long. So, for them to take four, that they would never, they would never do it. Here they are, dropping them and keeping them, and being just absolutely sure of themselves, 48 hours after getting the genome sequence, they're ready to, they're dung-dusted, and they're ready to go. And so, they're ready to manufacture the product. It's just insane. Yeah. Because they knew, they just knew. Well. And there's no way to... Isn't there an argument to say, well, if it's antigenic, it's good, right? Sure, I guess, I suppose. But then the counter argument to that is, if that's the case, then why would they take them out?
Because here we go. Here's, if you wanted to do, if you wanted, if you're trying to...
Because these are T cell-based strategies for HIV-1 vaccines. Why on earth, if you see an epitope that comes from HIV, even if it's not, even if you think this virus is natural, here we have, they would know, because that Korber, the authors of this paper right here, this was in October of 2019. Okay. And the different vaccine types that they were investigating, some of those came directly from the Vaccine Research Center, which is the same exact human beings who made the Moderna vaccine. So the assumption here is that they've done the experimental work, which says, we have to exclude these repertoires, right? Yes, and they've done it for decades. Yeah. So I'm trying to, what's the experiments where they said, oh, if we put these in, then it causes, well, antibody-dependent enhancement, not in this case of its T cells. So what's the pathophysiology that emerges when they try to put these sequences into these vaccines? I mean, we would have to go back and, like, there are thousands of papers related to HIV and to the vaccines to make them. In fact, the Vaccine Research Center was created by Anthony Fauci for the sole purpose of working on an HIV vaccine. And it was only after a decade of doing that with no luck that they added the mission of these vaccine platforms for flu and for coronaviruses with the goal of creating a pan-coronavirus or pan-influenza vaccine. But they learned so much from the HIV vaccine stuff that they used that as the basis for these new technologies, because the problems that they were having with HIV, because the fact that it mutates so much and it's so variable, is exactly the problem you have when you're trying to create a pan-coronavirus vaccine, because you're trying to cover all the bases all at one time. And these are the exact same problems. And so they were looking for the, they were looking for a solution for all of them. That's the reality of this, is that Anthony Fauci's wet dream was to do the HIV vaccine. And the things they learned from that HIV vaccine made them think, hey, maybe we can actually do a pan-coronavirus vaccine or pan-influenza vaccine. The problem was, they were decades away, or at least a decade, from having any viable candidate. They were nowhere close. I need to understand better what would, what the physiological consequences, pathophysiological consequences of leaving those in, when they've, I have to make the presumption that they've, have put them in, right? Because they've got such a high antigenic score, that you would say... Right. Presumably. Now, once again, I can't, I can't prove this, but we have to, this should be enough to make us say, okay, you know what, if we know that, if there's no natural pathway for these inserts to have come there, and then we go back and look at the HIV genome, and we look at, and we look at the HIV genome, and we look at these inserts, and we say, okay, they always take these parts out. Well, let's think about it for a second. Three of those inserts come directly from the variable loops of GP120. And what do those variable loops do? So, what we should be asking is, what do those variable loops do? And basically, the reason that they're variable is because they are a key part of the receptor designed to fool the cells that they're trying to infect. Because the entire point of all this is to get inside the cell. So, now, part of this, I wish Tony van Dongen was here, because he can explain this much better, but part of what this does is that these viruses, this whole type of virus, they use glycoprotein to mask the virus, to confuse your cells. Okay. So, really, so, these inserts, what they're doing, they are making, they are improving the ability of the virus to do what it wants to do. To really go deep down into it, I mean, I don't think, I couldn't say anything differently. Well, you just get to the presumption. It's very clear what they should be doing. You get to the presumption that it's specifically targeted to your T cell repertoire, your T cell population, and that just puts us into the weapons category again. Exactly, exactly. Now, this is the picture that I showed yesterday on Twitter, and I think I mentioned it briefly here at the beginning, but I don't think I showed it. But this is something, this was a different study that looked at, and the title of it at the top was, potential autoimmunity resulting from molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 spike and human proteins. So, basically, what I did was I took the data that was in one of the tables, and I added heat maps to it. And what it shows is that the number two epitope in terms of potential autoimmunity from things that resemble other things in your body, for other virus receptors, et cetera, the number two one resembles the fusion glycoprotein for RSV. Now, respiratory syncytial virus, if you haven't heard... As we prefer it around here, chimpanzee cariesa virus. Oh, sorry, yes. I used its original term, yeah, for the sake of Nick here. RSV right now is making a comeback, okay? And everybody's like, oh my gosh, why is it? And the excuses that are being thrown about are basically that we were in lockdown, so we're losing herd immunity to all these normal viruses that go around. But one key thing that I've been hearing is that they're not seeing... It's less about more cases of RSV.
The real problem is more severe cases of RSV. That's the problem.
That's what's filling up hospitals right now, is RSV flu and COVID-19.
Well, there's a couple of reasons for that, probably. One is very likely immune suppression that we're seeing from COVID-19 or from the vaccine really could be either because the bad parts of the spike are in both.
So I think that it's... And I've assumed that immune suppression has been a big reason for that because you're getting sicker because your overall immune system isn't functioning as well as it used to. But if all these people are getting... So for children under 12, most children under 12 have not been vaccinated across the world. Okay. So for them, I would say it's more likely that it's RSV. Actually, I take that back. Normally, you would say, okay, that's... Actually, yeah, I'm sorry. I just completely negated. I'm saying it wrong because it doesn't really matter where it came from, vaccine or not, because 99% of humanity now has antibodies and SARS-CoV-2.
So what that means is that if the virus is in any way affecting immune function, that would go a long way towards explaining why when you get RSV, it's worse. And another factor in that would be is if your immune system, if it's getting an autoimmune reaction to RSV because it's recently seen, because it's created antibodies, primed to create antibodies. So I'm just looking at that and actually, what's the table? And what's kind of disturbing is the TB one there as well, because if we would sort of take the view that... Oh, yeah, that's true. Yeah. The virus is one. There's more. As you can see, there's more antidotes than just what we're talking about. But yeah, you're right. Well, I mean, the point being that those that would argue it's just infective clones or viruses aren't real per se or whatever. I don't think any of them are doubting bacteria and their ability to... So we've got something here that could potentially sort of lighting a sort of disease cascade that is very pervasive and very tough to remove from the environment. And yeah, when you think about what TB vaccine is, that's just attenuated bacteria, right? So I'm even wondering if the TB vaccine could be a driver in this type. Well, there's a whole bunch of doors that could be opened. And once again, I don't think that J.C. is wrong for investigating what he's investigating. And I don't think that, for instance, Dr. Lee, who was just on the show, but he's got really interesting points and it should be investigated.
I think my argument is that we shouldn't close any door. I mean, part of it is that I don't think the evidence leans in the direction that he's talking about.
But I've never rejected anything. My approach has never been different than what it is right now. And I've never closed off any avenues. And I wouldn't do it because we don't know enough to really say for some areas. And I think that needs to be the sort of take home from this, which is that what you're looking at here is leveraging of multiple disease mechanisms and pathways have all just emerged under very, very suspicious circumstances. And we as well, it's I'll go back to what I've always said. I said this winter will be the sort of make or break of the weapon hypothesis. And if we see carnage this winter, to me, that's an indicator that we're not we've stepped outside the realm of common sense. We've stepped outside the realm of commonly understood pathogens. And we're dealing with something much, much more complex. And the fact that we see it in the not just It's not looking good so far this year, you're saying? No. All the early indicators that I didn't want to see are emerging. And yeah, and of course, then on top of that, we get the amyloidogenic.
This is the six. Those are the sequences that are on the screen right now. But the amyloidogenic portions that are suspect. So right there, what you're saying. So we're seeing these very suspicious things that have amyloidogenic potential as highlighted by people who know what you're talking about when it comes to that. And a lot of people have poo-pooed this idea. They said, okay, well, the signals aren't strong enough to justify us being worried about that. And well, guess what? What we've been arguing is that if your immune system is suppressed, then that could make it easier. It could lower the threshold, just like it lowers the threshold for cancer, because it's easier for those cancer cells to propagate instead of being killed by your natural killer cells, or just as they prop up, your immune system kills them. Every day of your life, your body is killing cancer cells.
And every day of your life, your body is producing cancer cells. And it's this constant cycle to trend, it's like mowing the grass. Your immune system is mowing the grass all the time. And then as it ages, your immune system becomes less and less able to mow the grass. And so it starts to get overgrown. And that's why when you're older, the odds of getting these cancers, most of the cancers increases because the cancer suppressing parts of your body are breaking down. It's just a natural process. And there's no reason to assume, based on the evidence that we've seen, that wouldn't also be true with these amyloidogenic properties, because that's exactly what we're seeing right now, is expanse in cancer, amyloidogenic processes and diseases that arise from it. We've Alzheimer's, I saw adolescent Alzheimer's. Yeah, it is a thing. Very, very rare.
You should never have an article about that, and how it's increasing, and it's magical, and we have no idea why it's happening. The only way you should know about it is because you're a geek like me, and you've just gone in... Right. You're a neuroscientist who studies neurodegenerative disorders in the brain.
I was just on some random website, and I saw adolescent Alzheimer's. Is it becoming a thing?
Are you serious?
Well, no doubt in the corner, there was a pop-up ad for childhood heart attacks. And speaking of which, probably the only reason that we know it, but is Rod Stewart's son. Did you see that story? You know who Rod Stewart is, right?
Of course I know who Rod Stewart is. So his 12-year-old boy had a heart attack playing soccer, and Rod Stewart's one of those mouthpieces that they've used for saying, go out and get vaccinated. He's lost two brothers to heart attack-like illnesses, and now his son playing soccer is just... I think they might have resuscitated him, but yeah, if there's a good chance that the young lad was offered up by his father. Safe and effective.
Right. It's just...
One in a million.
And that's on the back of them literally having public health campaigns, that really disturbing advert with the girl playing football, and then she just face plants into the grass. What a world, man. I'm sorry, but if anybody looks at this and gets upset at us even investigating if this was out of a bioweapons program, and they're gaslighting us about 12-year-olds having heart attacks, I mean...
You need a recalibration, man.
You need a recalibration, because it doesn't have to be a diplomatic thing. This doesn't have to be, okay, we'll start a war with China because of this virus. We need to know what this is.
We need to know the origins so we can know how to stop it. And what this obviously is, is that why on earth would anybody be censoring people who are trying to find the truth? Because what came out today, the next batch of the Twitter stuff that Elon is exposing, and the first part came out and everybody was like, oh, yeah, nothing burger, nothing burger.
Okay. Well, guess what? They just released today, they just released like explicit details of how they were targeting us, basically. Basically. What do you think the odds are that your profile and my profile have actually looked at it and published it? Does anybody doubt that we're on lists? I mean, I know I've been throttled.
And what just came out today, the exact, the ways that they throttled and lied about it. Well, I need to see these. Oh, it's only like, they're only scratching the surface. But we have, it's just proof that everything we thought was happening, was happening. And not only is it happening, but there were like official, like, this is not like some, some loose cannon.
Right, right. It becomes doctrine within the... This was, this was doctrine. The CEO, like, he was, he was part of this, this membership group, this membership group that was making these high level decisions. So like Jay Bhattacharya, for instance, like, he was in the top batch, which means that it had to come, this was the coolest part, is that it had to come from this, from this, like this top echelon of decision makers, because there was a special category. Like if you were just, you were so heinous, but also so well known, that like...
They can't, they can't, they can't just take him out, right? So they've got just subtle ways of...
Yeah, so they have to manipulate their stuff. But I mean, we're talking about like emails back and forth from these people in the C-suite saying, yeah, okay, well, we're not going to do this. Okay, let's do that. We can't, we can't delete him yet. Right. So let's just, so let's just, with ways that nobody else knows, let's just make it so he can't, so people can't see his stuff, which is exactly what happened. And that's just Twitter. Think, think of how much they've permeated.
Oh yeah, it's not like Twitter is the only place where this is happening.
But that's why it's so frustrating for, for JC to complain that we're still on Twitter. Well, I'm not, I'm not back... Okay. Well, yeah, you're not, but I was, and he explicitly has talked about the fact that I was still on Twitter and how that must be, I must be part of, you know, the narrative. Right.
I must be part of the opposition. In fact, he said, this is the only thing that I could be. That's the only explanation. Right. So, so, and like, I don't know if I, I don't remember if I put it in here yet, because I was going to talk about it. I think I did though. So let's see if I can find it.
Cause I, I, I cut out some of my stats because I wanted to show him that he was, he was wrong.
Let me see if I, it might not be in this slideshow. Dang it. Oh, well, I mean, but the by the way is my Twitter usage stats.
You know what? Why not? Let's just go to Twitter. Let's just go to Twitter.
Cause I'm not afraid. I know exactly what I'm doing. I'm not BSing.
So let's look at the last 90 days of my stats. I don't, I'm really terrible at math. So I don't remember how many days this is. Oh, I could go to another day. Let's go back even more. So I can, let's just, I want to make sure that I, you know, I'm being honest. Okay. So let's look at this.
These are my literal stats from Twitter right now.
Now, what do you see? Do you see my, my impressions going up or down here? You see them going down. They were up here at the, you know, 50 to 100 K and they went down and just before Elon came, I mean, I had a couple of days of like, like this and it was completely uncorrelated.
You know, it makes no sense, but here's the real kicker. On September 1st, the number of people that I had on September, the number of followers I had was, let's just say it was like 14,000, whereas now I have, I just passed 20,000 today.
Okay. So as my, and I can do this and I did this for all of my stuff.
Let me, let me see if I, it might not be open right now. So here we go. So here, for instance, is there's my followers starting from zero and the substack, but the substack is, it's, it's, it's three, it's three times less.
I just, I changed it.
The axis on the right-hand side, yeah. Yeah. So it's a, it's not equal in this case, but you can see that from, that's actually not true. Cause I haven't, oh, okay. So something is wrong here. Whoa. What the heck just happened? Oh, something happened with my data recently. That was not supposed to happen that way. Interesting. So anyway, so yeah, I got to go back in and fix that. Cause it's actually, it's up here, right at the top. But irregardless, let's see, what are, and I might have it hidden now.
Yeah, I think I do. Dang it.
Oh, geez. I have so many of these things that could be hidden. But suffice it to say, I track this stuff. So I can, the world owes you a debt for doing it, bro. Serious. Oh yeah. Cause I, cause I'm not just tracking mine. I'm tracking everybody's stuff. Because I want, I want to know what the impact has been as we've been sitting here, trying to save the world.
They've been trying to block us. And I wish it like this right here. Um, Oh, this, so I've been tracking all every member of drastic. I've been tracking their followership over time. And what you see is that it has no relation to our, our actual, uh, dang it. Now I'll say it. Okay. It's actually not in this one then at all. But basically I have a, I have a tab here somewhere where actually, um, crap. Yeah. Well, that's right.
One of the things that I, that I measured going back to the beginning, like, um, when I first really got on Twitter and sort of being active was February 16th, 2021.
And I went and looked at my impressions per tweet. So like how many people viewed each tweet, on average, each tweet that I did each day. And what you see is that as my number of followers went up, the number of impressions per tweet went down. So what that means is for people to understand this, that started happening like in May or June of 2021. And so at that point, I had like 900 followers. And when I, when I calculated the math this spring, I had like six or 7,000 followers. More people saw each tweet of mine on average when I had 200 followers than when I had 7,000. And in fact, I, I bet you, I bet you, I haven't done the math yet, but I bet you that until Elon took over in mid November, I bet you that in early November with 17 or 18,000 followers, it was still true that I had fewer impressions per tweet.
Yeah, that's, um, people need to understand that, that like mathematically that is impossible.
Yeah. We've been looking at a whole bunch of impossible today. Fewer people saw an average tweet of mine in now today. Well, okay. Two weeks ago or three weeks ago, whatever it was that he took over. Then when I had 200 followers, I mean, I'm terrible at math. I'm like, so I have no idea what, if I tried to kick it, I'm not even going to embarrass myself by trying. So let's just do it. I'm just curious to see. Okay. 20,000, uh, divided by 200. Okay. So a hundred times, I have a hundred times more followers, but even when I had 50 times more followers, I had, because it wasn't just flat. I had fewer impressions per tweet than when I had 50 times fewer followers. Yeah. And what that means is I should have, I should, that means that what I should have had was some astronomically different number. And that means that the rate of increase in my followership should have been just completely different. And I did the hard way. I didn't do it like a fake way, like all those scientists, like Trevor Bedford, who in two weeks got 200,000 followers. You see mine and you see a nice curve. It's accelerating because I'm all like, I don't have any bad spots. There's no sudden jumps in there. That is all hard work, working my ass off and not, I have never tried to get more followers. I just simply tried to get the word out that, that, you know, something massive has happened. And this is what happens when natural, when it's happening naturally. And then let's, let's look at this one. And this is what happens when it's not natural. Oh, fat Angie scorching her hair. Well, in second place. Okay. So fat Angie, fat Angie Rasmussen is, I think she's the orange, I think. But look at this, look at this straight line. You know what that is? That goes from 14,000 for Trevor Bedford to 200,000 for Trevor Bedford. From 14,000 for Trevor Bedford to 200,000 followers, followers in like two weeks.
Yes, that's, that is, that's grassroots, genuine followership.
All those, all those people just taking up a sudden interest in. Yeah. It's like, Oh my God, Trevor Bedford is genius. Okay. So here we go. That red line is all 20 odd members at any given time of drastic. That is all of drastic.
I just take some, some frisson of joy in that graph that David Daszak's right at the bottom with the, but that's probably artificial too, right? That they want to, they don't want him sort of. Right. They, they don't want to exaggerate his followership because they don't want his voice to be heard. Sweep him under the rug for his own good. Yeah. Yeah. So I'll give them credit that they, they didn't do Daszak and they didn't even do Anderson. But I mean, part of that is because Anderson disappeared for a six month stretch of that. But yeah, they took a bunch of scientists and said, Hey, you know what? We're just going to make your platform exponentially bigger. Look at Peter Hotez. His has been more flat, but I mean, let's face it. Is Peter Hotez worthy of however many followers he is? No. And like I say, all of these high profile talking heads, you'd have to work bloody hard to convince me that they think it's organic as well. Right. They know that they're...
Right. Well, we know that behind the scenes, they didn't think it was natural. So what you see here is what you see here is the, this is the narrative being constructed.
What we discovered was like just more and more evidence that this is not generic. It's not grassroots. It's not a consensus. This is what I called the consensus ship. Yeah. This is the fake construction of a consensus. This is censorship, but made to look like it's not.
It's an indicator of how sophisticated these psychological operations are. Yeah. Counterintelligence. Does it count as counterintelligence? Well, it'd be more than just psychological operations. Psychological operations, I guess. I assume that that's what the people who are lying to us and stealing our freedom, I'm pretty sure that's what we call it. Let me see here. Well, here we go. And yeah, so I took Twitter published their own stats and I took those stats and I said, okay, let's see what these mean.
And what this is is in red, red is the number of accounts that were closed by month. And this goes from February 21 to, well, at the time it was June of 2022.
And the data actually went further back in time, but the numbers were so astronomical that you wouldn't have been able to see this part right here. And this is what matters. I wouldn't have made up a good proportion of those, bro.
What this shows is that this is the number of punitive actions that were taken by Twitter related to the COVID-19 misinformation. And what you see is that, since it's kind of hard to show you here, but basically the green is the ratio of challenges to suspensions. So let's say you get a strike, okay, or whatever they call it. Let's say somebody flagged your tweet for misinformation. And so you got a warning. Well, that warning used to be what they did. And you would get a couple of warnings before you got kicked off the thing. And they used to give out hundreds of thousands of warnings. And that's why I can't show it to you, because if I went back to 2020, they were way incredible little warnings. And they used to only very rarely, very rarely would they ever kick somebody to actually suspend their account. And so on the second y-axis is the ratio of basically warnings to suspensions. And so the green line is the moving average of that ratio. And so the first point at which you can actually see it on this thing, because the ratio is so large, is April of 2021. But what you see is that over time, the number of challenges has gone down for the most part. It used to be astronomical. And now it's almost exactly mirroring to suspensions. Recently, there's been times where it was even lower. I made this graph really confusing, so I apologize. But the bottom line is that the ratio used to be like 20,000 to one, warnings to suspensions. And right now, it's getting closer and closer to just even.
So what that means is that they're not even bothering to tell people to knock it off. They're not even bothering to warn you that if you continue, you'll get suspended. In fact, a lot of times they're not even warning you at all, because we know a lot of our friends never had a warning. I mean, there were a lot that were, but there were some that just, no, they were done.
So when you see in January of 2022, so this January, they nuked 2,200 accounts.
And then you remember late in the spring, that's when they really started hitting it. And these are our friends. So just think, we know like, let's just say 5% or 10% of all the people, like we know these people. This is us. This isn't some random Joe Schmo. I've got it. I actually have the list somewhere on one of my spreadsheets. I've got a list from a place where we're keeping track of all these people that get knocked off. I took bad data and looked at that. And everybody that I know was getting nuked. You're literally like the only one. It's just, you got through enemy lines, bro. This is what I say, you know, that JC doesn't really know what he's talking about because all of us have been censored. And just because I didn't get kicked off the platform. I mean, I had 50 times as many followers and had fewer impressions per tweet. That's not, it's not, you can't, that's not possible. It's just not possible. Like that means that they level, the degree to which they have been limiting people to view my stuff is so extreme. I mean, imagine how many followers I would have. Shoot, I'd probably have a couple hundred. All of us would have a couple hundred thousand followers by now. Well, look, people should take a very visceral objection to what they're looking at on the screen here. Because if they manage to get away with it, and like I say, we've maybe got a window right now where maybe. Yeah, we haven't won yet. Right. You think they're just going to let it, let that power go?
As they instantiate ever more of their parabolical plans? No chance. And, you know, what comes next is the purges, right? Yeah. There's no guarantee that we've won here. And it's, but there's a, there's a possibility that we might not have won. And that's terrifying to me. It really is. Now I only brought this slide up because I wanted people to see the illustration or the animation. You showed that off, bro. Yeah. I showed it to you. I don't, I don't know if I showed it on stream. I don't remember, but I really like this one. Yeah, that's pretty good. I would just add, I don't, I don't, Fauci is just a figurehead in this, right? Oh yeah. It's not like he's doing all this by himself. There's a very large, sophisticated machinery making all this happen and essentially making it happen in real time. Well, we should all be very, very concerned right now. Very concerned. Because if we, if we don't get it, if we don't get a grip on it, well, they think that their one health paradigm and the unleashing of of endemic potential bugs is, is the, is the holy grail for, for population control.
Well, I would say it's, it's probably more going to be geared towards sort of climate and the sort of control that way, right? Limiting travel, which they're already doing. Yeah. Well, the real, I think that whatever it is, their goal is the same regardless. And they're really just, they're just trying to do whatever they can possibly get away with. So, you know, they, now I think they, they thought they had struck gold with this pandemic crap. And hopefully, hopefully they lost. Hopefully we've figured it out and the planet, the planetary, you know, population has figured it out and they won't be able to squeeze by. But we need to be very clear and we need to be very open-eyed and understand that, that we had not won yet.
No, we haven't. We've managed to. Because look, because look, look how, like if, if Elon Musk hadn't spent 44 billion dollars, billion, okay. Just for a messaging platform. Just for a messaging platform. And we would not have the undeniable proof that's still coming out today. People, you know, people have given him a lot of crap and look, he has ideas that, you know, are dumb and are part of the problem. You know, he, he's all into certain of these ideas. I get, I get it. I know. Okay. But here's what I also know.
There are no, there's no purity contest here. This is survival. This is war. Okay.
You don't have purity tests in war. Because when you do, you lose. So this notion that we should just, that what, that we shouldn't ever talk to Jeffrey Sachs. That we shouldn't let Elon Musk take over Twitter. I mean, these arguments are asinine. Just, just, just as asinine is thrown away DEFUSE. Because, because believe it or not, somebody actually can testify that that's true. And somebody's going to testify that that's true.
Well, we need to make sure you get there, bro. That's, that's me. It's not just me, thank God. I'm not the only one. It's a, it's harder to kill somebody who's in active duty when he's not deploying and, you know, and he's high profile now. So, um, but yeah, like it's so dumb. Like, how could you be so stupid to not have, to not have considered all the consequences of what you're doing and to come up with some idea and think that you have figured it out when, when it's so existential, the, the problem and well, and not, not everything is public, but let me just, let me just inform the public. Okay. The J.C. understands some of those things, which, and so for him to reject that is, it's even dumber, but the bottom line is, is that no matter what his hypothesis is, it doesn't matter if it's good or bad.
This is bigger than him and he doesn't have the answer. If he had the answer, then guess what? This would be over because the proof, the proof would be so blatantly obvious that it would, it would speak the truth itself. He would just have to expose it.
But he, he doesn't have that level of proof. And I would argue that, you know, It's, it's engaging in a sort of form of what about ism and in so doing, just, just creating noise right now. Sure. Like, like, but even if I had the answer and I knew, like unequivocally, and let's face it, I have, I have a reason to feel stronger about the evidence that I have than he does about this hypothesis that he's putting forward. He doesn't even have the majority of our friends agreeing with him and not even close to the majority. So, but even if I did, I wouldn't say, no, I wouldn't say get out of here because we're fighting a war and it might be, it might be an intellectual war array. No, it's not. It's the ground, the ground that the battle might be fought, might not have bullets in it. Yeah. But understand yet, understand that the, that the outcome of this battle will change. It's critical. It will affect the lives of every human being on this planet. Yeah, yeah. And so, well, you know, part of his argument is that in talking about the subject matter that we are, with respect to sort of biowarfare capability, I think, I think it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's with respect to sort of biowarfare capabilities, gain of function, that in effect, we're, we're ushering in the very things that we're trying to raise concern about. Right. Except we're pulling from 300,000 published papers. It's not, it's not like we're pulling this out of our ass. It's not like we're hypothesizing. And because whatever has happened has already happened.
This is a, this is a murder mystery. This is not a, this is not a projection of what's going to happen in the future. Well, we're trying to investigate. You could, you can make the argument that the battle's just heating up. Right. If, if there's already, there's already people dead, though, it's not like there's already been battles. So whatever metaphor you want to use or however you want to explain it, that's fine. But it's weird. It is happening right now.
You're being choked out. You've got to do something about it. You've got literally a metaphorical seconds. People are dropping all around us, literally. And this is not, this is not walking dead. This is not 28 days later. This is not the stand.
This is real life. Our maid of honor is dead.
There's 12 year olds dead. Rod Stewart's kids had a heart attack. So all I care about is saving as many people as I can. And every day that goes by is a day in which people die that didn't have to die. Well, that's the only thing that matters.
The problem, the problem is, is that the disease mechanisms may be so, so complex and intractable. So complex and intractable in over longer periods of time beyond the acute, acute exposure.
Maybe there's very little we can do, right? You've just got to accept, you know, of course, go for justice, but we're going to take a hit. We don't know. It doesn't matter. There's no reason not to. Oh yeah. Fight to your last breath. Fight to your last vape filled breath, people.
I'm sorry. That's why I get frustrated because, you know, like a purity test, a purity test for who? What am I trying to be pure for? What is the outcome of if, what's the benefit of a purity test right now? It doesn't exist. It's a stupid question. It's a stupid argument because look, the truth, the truth is the truth. And believe it or not, we are smart enough to discern, but give us, give us the evidence and we'll figure it out.
And well, the sad thing is, is that lots of, um, we had a good handle on this a long time ago and were it not for these, um, very comprehensive top-down decisions that were deliberately made, um, we would be far, far closer to having this wrapped up and done, but we're not, we're just, we're just getting started and yeah.
Not a, not a, not the place that I thought I'd be a couple of years ago, dude. I thought I'd wised up, given up the, uh, ideas of, uh, public profiles and, um, just go off into that sunset, but no, we've all been pulled into something.
It's gut wrenchingly disgusting when you think about it. It is. And, uh, look, maybe, maybe it's, it's different for me because I, I came from a, like a background of, of seeing evil, but to me, it's, it should be obvious enough to everybody by now that I don't have to justify my fear and my concern. I mean, I know what biological weapons existed before this point.
And I know what the United States was doing. I was taught that entry chemical biological center, which they're, I think they're at Fort, uh, they're not at Fort Detrick, but they're at basically the, like the other half of U.S. Ambrin. And, uh, they taught me how to make a ricin.
We literally, before we taught it to our students, we as instructors that we were with this a couple of days with the training. And one of the things we did was we went to the commissary and had, I think we had like 10 bucks or 20 bucks to spend. And we went there, we bought the ingredients and we took it back. And with the laboratory process, we made fake ricin, but we could have made real ricin because they sold the ingredients at the same commissary. All we did was pick a different bean. And the entire point of that was, it was part of what we were doing. And the entire point of that was, was partially to get you to, you know, understand lab processes and how to look and see based on precursor chemicals, what could it be? Um, and look, that's not, that's not to say that it's like, it could have been made in a garage because what we're talking about could not have been made in a garage. And I've never said that. And so when JC keeps repeating that he's just, he's, he's using somebody else's, this foil or the straw man, because it's not what we've said, but when it comes to this, what we're talking about is that somebody can make this.
It's this, it's not about being a garage. It's about being somebody can make this virus such a way that it can be pathogenic, that it can spread beyond more than a few generations of infections. It's just, it might not be a fact, but he, he is, he has not brought the argument close enough to where we would deny anything else, but I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Jay. I just know too much. And that doesn't make me deep state. And that doesn't make me controlled opposition.
It just means that people are stupid and evil. Okay. When I was in Iraq, I saw teddy bears on the side of the road, wired to mortar rounds with a goal to either. Now, most of the time people who would pick up those teddy bears would be kids, but they also would know that we would, that maybe a soldier might come by and pick it up and give it to a kid. You know, like we'd give him candy or something else, but you don't do that. You don't strap explosives and wire them to teddy bears or to dead bodies in the street or occasionally to live people and force them to walk towards a convoy. So I want, I want Jay to understand that there are evil people in this world. And in this case, whatever this is, it might be our government or some other government. Well, the concern is, is that it just, it goes beyond the structures that we're used to dealing with. Right. And it does, but we still have to stop it. Nonetheless, you have to try. It's just evil. And there's no other, there's no other word. And you don't fight evil by like pushing the rest of the people in your side away. You don't go to the foxhole with purity tests. You don't. Right now, all I'm concerned about is this, who's, who's looking at this target and engaging it properly. That's the, beyond, beyond that, we're in such desperate situation as I see it from whatever angle you want to look at it, whether it's from surveillance or the, the type of, the type of weaponry being deployed that requires this level of sophistication and understanding. It's not, it's not a single person project that, you know, some rogue scientist cooked up. No way, no how. Because the, because the, because the response because the response has been massive. Obviously, whatever this is, whether it was benign or accidental or not, the people who should be held accountable have resources to, to do everything they can on a global scale to prevent the truth of this coming out. So that should scare everyone.
Yeah. I mean, we had to spend $44 billion just so that one platform could, could, could be fair. So that, so that, because basically the math of this is that Angie Rasmussen has not only had her followership boosted, but she's had her tweets magnified by algorithms. And if we could look at her impressions per tweet and then compare them to mine, I bet, I bet that she gets more impressions per tweet than a tweet if you combined all the followers from all of Drastic. I bet each of her tweets is seen by more people than all of us. And that's just sick. I actually, that's automatically because combined we only have a third of followers. So let me rephrase that. Let me rephrase that. I bet that it's even more astronomically. I'm sure the ratio would be instructive. But the point is, is that all those, all of those things were done. All those people were prevented from seeing my tweets and your tweets and everybody else's tweets to protect evil. And the thing is, it was all in place, ready to go. That's, that's the harbing part, right? So at some level, all these things would have been trialed out and, you know, their efficacy understood. And that's just what we've seen so far. We don't know what's coming in six months, a year's time, because like I said, the, the Bayesian analysis that you would have to take is, is that they've gone all in right now. There's no sort of hiding behind, you know, let's take 9-11 as a sort of bookend example and then saying, oh, we can, we can push a part of the people who are querying what's going on for whatever their reasons. But they've, we can control that through just media control. What's happening now is, is going to be exponentially more, more than that, because this, like I said, their techniques are so well-owned that it's, it's, they're going to push it to the next level. And we have, I don't think, I don't think we've looked in a direction without finding evidence of, of all of this stuff in play. Like literally everywhere we look, we find that they're guilty of doing this, which is terrifying because they, they were so, there was so much more, who knows? I, I bet, I bet that if, if there was, if there's no sense, I bet that the elections that we just had would have been, well, who knows? I mean, Ronald Reagan won 49 of 50 states, legitimately, legitimately. And that was in 1984. So, so don't tell me that it's impossible that there couldn't be a massive shift politically. There may have been. Look, we have no idea. Because let's, let's just say that they, they didn't touch a voting machine. We already know for a fact that this stuff has impacted elections. And that, so who knows? Who knows? Everybody could be sitting at home wondering, how does 50% of the country feel like this? Maybe, maybe it's 90-10. It could very well be 90%. Yeah. Yeah. But they're so confident in their tools that they... Yeah. And maybe the only reason that you can get 50% of people to vote against freedom is because they don't know that they're not voting for freedom. They're voting for democracy. They're voting for democracy. And the people who are saying those words are the ones who are censoring us. Yeah. Well, for the common good, Charles. For the common good. All right. I mean, Korea is the democratic Republic of Korea. The people of the democratic Republic of Korea. So all you did was you put three words in there that weren't communism. Congratulations. But none of those words are what you are. And then just turned it into a prison camp. The people of the Republic of China. China is not a republic. And it doesn't even treat its people as people. Did you see that footage of just them following like this one Tyvek-clad individual? It's like a thousand people just walking into like those camps. It doesn't surprise me. If you go watch Schindler's List. Right. It's just mind-blowing. How many people do they have guarding those camps? Well, they had their own.
Their own to sell out. Just get a few extra rations, I guess. But yeah, we're our own worst enemy in that respect. The reality is just that what they can do now is so much worse than what the Nazis can do. There's no comparison. I would put it in Tyvek's commie bastards. Their body counts much higher. They're looking to go orders of magnitude above the very worst excesses of the 20th century. And the Reds are light years ahead of Kanye's idol. Right. Well, I mean, I don't know. I think I remember when was it? It was like 2013 when ISIS came around and they were sweeping across the Middle East and Syria and Iraq.
And they were they were murdering, butchering, raping women, children. And the West was just the West was just sitting there. We'd sort of run out of the, how would you say? We'd banned any sort of moral collateral that we had. Right, right. I mean, we had. And Obama basically begged the Iraqis to vote, to make us leave. And he didn't have to do that exactly. But the bottom line was, I mean, and then for three years, we fought a war with ISIS and then Trump took over. And 10 months later, they're denying it.
But during that time, 50,000 people died in West Iraq, which was where I'd been in. And where I'd watched is is somewhere between 80 and 90 percent of eligible voters voted in Enbar province where I was. And so the same people that they were holding their their insane fingers, their wives raped and their children butchered in front. And and, you know, I was and I remember just being incredibly frustrated at that time. And my twin brother was incredibly frustrated about Afghanistan. And the entire time. So he wanted us out of Afghanistan, but then he saw how we left and he was even more horrified. But the truth is, the horrific truth is that what's happening right now in this day and age dwarfs any of that.
Dwarfs it. People don't understand the scale of the inhumanity. Even if even if it's accidental, the scale of this is exponentially worse than the scale of the inhumanity. The scale of this is exponentially worse and it's no less evil.
It's hard for them to grasp, but they have to grasp it. It's the deployment of this technology in in a weapons like capacity. And then the, you know, we have rules about sort of warfare, right? And, you know, usually used to be okay, we're going to war and there's a rule set that's in play. And if we're right, every bit of that rule set, which has been honed over human evolution has been thrown out the window on the whims of a very, very select few. The laws of war, there are actual laws of war.
I know people might think it's crazy, but there are. And there's laws for specific parts of war, like the Geneva Conventions for prisoners of war. You're required to treat prisoners of war a certain way. And if you don't, then you can be prosecuted for war crimes. And there's never been a war, ever, where all of those rules were just thrown out the window.
Because in every conflict that there's ever been, there's been an understanding that you have to, that you can only go so far, because otherwise you're just evil.
You understand there are going to be consequences coming at you in such a fashion that it's a deterrent. And the fact that these people would be so blase about what they think are consequences coming for them right now, that they would just get deployed. That's what I was going to say, because I want people to understand that if the Nuremberg Trials were trials for war crimes, and so the prisoners that they were executing, the prisoners that they were experimenting on, were prisoners of war. So when I talk about civilians, okay, actually, I have to get back, because they weren't all prisoners, some of them were civilians. But they had prisoners, and they were experimenting on them. And so whether or not you, as an official, you think that the Nuremberg Conventions on human experimentation apply to you or not, all of them have been violated.
Every law of war has been violated. Most of the human rights in the United Nations Council on Human Rights, and the Declaration on Human Rights that came up, well, the United Nations Council on Human Rights and the Declaration on Human Rights that came up, well, most of those have been violated in the last few years. So these are human rights. If people don't understand what that means for their, for your own skin, your own wretched hide, what they could be, or not could, what is very... Because that means that your life is meaningless.
Yeah, in their eyes. And that means that whether you live or die is not a choice that they think that you should make.
And this is why the Constitution of the United States does not cover some things. This is why there is a superior document to the Constitution called the Declaration of Independence.
And it's in the Declaration of Independence that are finding fathers laid out inalienable rights. There's a couple of things they said that cannot be in the hands of any legislature to ever consider to overturn, you know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What they said was, is that they come, they're endowed by a creator. And guess what? In legal terms, none of us are creators. And so what that means is that they cannot be, as long as the political entity known as the United States of America exists in any form, in any form, then its leaders cannot do anything that would violate life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness, beyond what the social contract people laid out in the Constitution. Yeah, and the frustrating thing is, is that, you know, that was millennia of refinement to sort of get to that. And we worked it out for the best of humanity, right? And we've just taken it and just, hey, handed it over to technocrats. And it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how stable we think the infectious clone is, okay? This is kind of a side argument, right? Because it doesn't matter how it is disseminated. It's irrelevant, okay? Because if our fundamental rights, that our own Constitution cannot supersede, are being violated, if they're releasing things, either as violence or as pathogens, or as vaccines, or anything, that without our consent, without our knowledge, without our understanding, was unleashed upon us, and anyone has died, then it doesn't matter if it was a medical malpractice. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it was due to the, some other aspect of this. What matters is that, you know, for instance, Caitlin, she died, okay, and she probably, it was probably several things, because first of all, she should never have been sick in the first place. She should never have been sick in the first place. She should never have gone to the hospital. She should never have needed to go to the hospital. She should never have been denied regeneron. She should never have been given remdesivir.
She should never have been placed in a ventilator. She should never have needed dialysis.
So at each one of those steps, there was somebody who made a decision that led to that, and as it turns out, most of those, most of the people who made that decision, they were people that led to that. And as it turns out, most of those, most of the decisions were made by one person. I think under the auspices of whatever... Well, I would say he's, again, he's just...
But that's true. He wasn't all powerful. He was just, he was empowered, and we don't know who empowered him, but it was not the constitution of the United States. It was not the president of the United States. No legal authority gave him the power to manipulate all those things, doing it the way that he did, knowing what he knew.
Okay. So her human rights were violated, and she never knew. Just think that we even have... This isn't about informed consent, okay? It doesn't matter whether we knew about it or not. This is wrong, even if... Because even if they lied to us and we consented or whatever, like this is wrong. It's just wrong. It's evil. What people need to understand is, is that Caitlyn might as well have been living in Iraq and gone and picked up a teddy bear on the side of the road and been blown up. Because that is the level of person. That is the level of evil that caused her to die. Well, I'm just wondering if it's even worse, because what you're dealing with, again, is this...
A lot of the instantiation of these policies had people believing that... Yeah, a good argument again. This was the right thing to do. They drilled it in, and this is the problem with this hybrid warfare that just weaponizes literally anything and everything. And you... Yeah, well, that's sort of... They knew. That's what matters, is that they knew. Because if they didn't know, then you could chalk it up to ignorance or whatever. But unfortunately, they did know. And the reason that they've censored us is because they don't want us to know that they know. That's why they've gone back in time and censored documents and papers and research articles and news articles. They have gone back in time to destroy as much as they possibly could of the evidence to show they knew what was happening. And the only reason that we've been able to find things is because they were stupider, they were arrogant at different times. So I'm telling you, I've read more than 40 vaccine studies, including from the people who made the vaccines that we're talking about, and they knew. They knew what these epitopes were going to do, or at the very least, they knew that they shouldn't let them be in there. They might not have known exactly what was going to happen, but they knew. Yeah, just precautionary principle should have been at play. And...
They knew. They knew what all these epitopes do. So even if it didn't work exactly as they planned, they knew. And it's not just a fearing cleavage site. It's not just, you know, okay, well, but we're trying our best with what we had. No, they knew. We don't need to know the origin to know that everything they've done since this virus was created was wrong. So...
And it just sort of brings to the point, again, how it's impossible for them to sort of walk back what they've done. And so... It's impossible, which makes it existential. Yeah. There's no other direction for it to go now. But I would just add this. I'm going to have to... My boy's coming in in more and more higher frequency. He's desperate. He's been barred from the computer all day. But the... It's incumbent upon everyone to step up in whatever way. And, you know, whether you're part of the chain that's handing buckets down to put out a fire, you're an important part of that chain. We can't afford gaps. We need to minimize gaps in the process of trying to put out these fires that have been lit. And these bastards have lit a whole bunch. And literally, well, metaphorically, physically, how it counts in digital cyber now, but they've literally tried to stop us trying to put out these fires, right? Whether people can understand the totality of the problem. A lot of people get that there's something fundamentally wrong right now.
And... Well, okay. So let's say it this way. Because I think the tenebrator analogy is pretty good one. So what it means, what it really means with all the censorship that they've done, is that the teddy bear has been sitting there inside of the room, and there's been a kid walking towards it. And the people who set, who wired that teddy bear to a 155 mortar round, know it's there. And they're watching too. They're watching that kid approach the teddy bear.
And instead of stopping it, all of us that are watching and we're yelling, we're saying, don't touch the teddy bear. Don't touch the teddy bear. They're silencing us. So that way we can't stop. So somebody who's innocent, who had nothing to do with this, who just wants to live, and is being told that the teddy bear is safe, is being told to go pick it up. Yeah. That is what Fauci is doing. And that is why this is evil. Because whoever is doing all of this, they are no different than the terrorist who set the wire to that teddy bear. Because if they know that it's there, and they won't let us tell everybody, then I cannot see their actions in any other way. It's just evil. Because you know what? Because maybe the teddy bear isn't wired, or maybe it won't explode for whatever reason. But we don't know. And we figured out that there's wires on it. And it couldn't possibly hurt, it couldn't hurt any right-thinking, non-evil human being to yell at the girl and tell her to not pick it up. There's nothing wrong with us being scared and concerned. Absolutely nothing wrong. It's what every human being should be.
But they're silencing us anyway.
Yeah. As I said, next comes the purges, bro.
We can't be that far. When there's this level of evil, any evil that follows isn't that much further behind. But I'm not saying get out there and start slaughtering people in the streets. What I'm saying is... They want you to do that, right? Because then you advance their aims in that.
That's what's so sick, is that they want to ag us on. They want to give us a reason, give them a reason to really play the hammer down. And so what are they doing? They're freezing us in our own homes in Europe. They're starving us in Sri Lanka. They're further behind. They're still doing it elsewhere in the West. I mean, they're blowing up pipelines. They're closing farms in the Netherlands in the breadbasket of Western Europe. It's stunning.
Unbelievable. All right, how can I get out of this chair? Yeah. Thank you very much for going through, again, it's compelling evidence, I think. Again, I would encourage everyone, listen to this a few times. Get the primary points extracted out. Yeah. We're not finding evidence in the other direction.
And the operational metric has to be, until this idea is diffused, excuse the pun, it has to take primacy right now. Because if we don't, we're done. We're all done. And I don't want to live in that world that they've got envisioned, basically. Well, I don't think we'd make it, dude. We'd be part of the purges, first wave. The first wave is already over.
I guess. There's only one way to beat evil. It has to stand up. Yeah. All right, dude. I'll let you go. The only way for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing. I think. Yeah. So anyway. Yes. Good night, man. Yeah. You have a good night, sir. I'll speak to you later. Take care, bro.
Yeah. All right, folks. On that, just to remind you, the covert moral bio enhancement is coming for you. It's coming for you. And gotta be. You gotta know you're being gamed. Right. I gotta go. I gotta get out of this chair. So take care. Support the stream, please. Go to McCairnDojo.com. Keep the wheels turning.
We've only just got this. We've lost. We lost this website. Simon, I need to speak to you in a little bit. I've been out of this chair. I'm out of here. Take care. God bless. I will see you in the next one.