REFERENCE

Welcome everyone and yeah, it's going to be a good stream today because I've got the powerful, powerful Charles Rixey coming on and I'm running. It must be a crazy time if you're in the US and I apologize for that because most of my viewers are US based, but it is what it is. We're on marine time and we'll do our best. So who do we see in the chat? I saw Punjabi Prepper, KSA. Good to see you. Bruce Gustafson says Barry Weiss kicked off Twitter files. When will he learn don't trust bells in the first place? I don't know what that means. I've been kicked off Twitter again. It's non-stop. Let's see. Yeah, I think I saw DJ in the chat as well.

Alberto, good to see you. Perfect for Europe. Okay, so let us jump straight into this. I think it's just going to be a sort of free form flowing discussion based around the the Senate House report. So let's do this. Of course, remind everyone, always be aware of covert moral bio enhancement. They are a cooming for you and your loved ones. So always, always keep that in mind. A couple of good, good memes that just popped up caught my attention. Natural infections worse or vaccines worse. Why can't both be bad? And, you know, don't get stuck in binary thinking around issues, especially complex biological ones or medical ones. And this one was nice. Swarms retain evolutionary advantage. Who would have thought it? All right, so if you've wandered in here and wondering who I am, maybe you've seen me live on rumble on the test. Oh, and you know what? I think the chat for rumble is working today. No, but it's coming through on the the nose. I got one through. God damn it. So so irritating. Never mind. Pins of M says, Oi, Oi, Kev, Oi, Oi back. And yes, I am a legit scientist. You can find all my stuff there. And now I seem to be part of the ragtag resistance fighting the digital dystopia. They're going to try and ram down our throats at any moment. The digital currencies are accuming. The digital ghettos are already built. They're just going to lock the gates and your 15 minute city will become a reality. And just to remind everyone, we have our oh, oh, I've missed the most important page. Just bear with me. We have our own streaming platform, of course, WTYL.live. You can watch the stream on there or you can watch a recording. Very, very good video on demand, nice quality. And I should remind everyone as well. McCairnDojo.com is the place to go if you want to support the stream and stay up to date with ways to stay in touch with me and the channels as we get hacked down by the corporate corporate overlords. I say, fuck them. Keep going. Keep going, because remember, your government loves you. And yes, Hooper in the rumble chat. Good to see you, bro. Let's do, yeah, I'm about done. So let me try and I should probably done this before. Let's see if I can get Charles on the line. And whilst I'm doing that, I will give a, let's see, he's online, video and we'll wait for him to jump in. So where were we yesterday?

We did a little bit about Ukraine. I was scrolling through Telegram today. God damn that software. I mean, what they throw up there and the conditions on the ground. Lordy, lordy, lordy. I would not want to be there, man. We've got a small window, a small window in which to try to prevent the devolving, I would say, into that state. And they would love, they would love to get us there, right. Cannibalizing each other. Let's do this. I see Charles coming in. Let me switch off the sources and let's see. Charles, do this and do this. Charles, can you hear me, sir?

I can hear you. Very good. Are we going to be blessed by your video appearance or? Video, probably not. Yeah, okay. So, did you see the stream I did yesterday? Yes. Oh, and can you hear me okay? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's coming through good. Just if people can give any feedback in the chat, if the levels are good, I'd appreciate it. But yeah, so, you know, the topic of conversation, obviously being the Senate House Committee report and, well, what was your, what was your take and let's launch from there. Well, above all, I agree with you completely that what it does is it focuses on China and Fauci and ignores everything else, which is a problem because you and I both know that there's a whole lot more involved, mostly coming directly from the United States and it's obvious that they're trying to limit the damage in that area as much as possible.

Yes. And I have like specific things as we go through, but that's the general overall view that I have. Great. Yeah, you were breaking up a little bit there, but I think the overall conclusion came through. It's, personally, it's not shocking to me that we would see this, you know, again, it's, how would you say, narrative control. It's, for me, it's just disappointing that in such unique times that we're seeing the same kind of partisan politics because I haven't touched on it, but the Democrats as well, at the same time, they also had a hearing, right? And in that one, it was all just Trump bad. We, all the failings were due to his administration, et cetera. And again, missing big portions of the events as they've happened. Well, the Democrat version, they came out with their own version of this report and it was focused almost entirely on the Intel community, but from the point of the, let's see, I'm trying to, how best to think about it. It was all about how the Intel community can improve, but nothing about the specific things that they did to aid in the coverup. So basically it was a worthless, it was a worthless document from the Democrats. The Republicans did hit several things. They even hit bio-weapons, but they didn't at all talk about anything related to the United States, basically, except for vouching. Well, they did. Not that much. Intelligent, to be fair, intelligence community as well, but it was very vague language. And where does this leave us going into 2023, supposedly when Republicans have control of the house? What can we expect? I wish you could see me right now, because I'm sitting in the car and I've got a beanie, a Bucky's Beaver beanie on, which is staring at me in my rear view mirror. What can we expect?

We can expect a lot, but what I'm trying to figure out is how much of the vaccine issues the Republicans are willing to dive into, because Senator Ron Johnson has devoted a lot of time to this, but I'm interested to see how much more will be pushed in that direction, because most of that has come from the Republican Party. So I'm interested in how much more will be pushed in that direction, because most of that has come from the Senate, not from the House. And the House is obviously where the investigations are mostly going to take place. So aside from the problems with the report, the other half of this is, will they actually hold people accountable and get to the bottom of the problems with the vaccine? And there's no indication yet of anything, but that's also because the Republicans aren't even actually in control yet. So to be fair, I pointed people to, there was a discussion hosted by Lara Logan on Twitter yesterday that included Andrew Huff, Robert Malone, and Senator Ron Johnson. And to my... Really? I didn't know about that. Yeah. Was that a Twitter space? Yeah. Yeah. And it was, it started off with the usual platitudes around, well, you know, they spoke a fair bit about vaccines, which was interesting in and of itself. But what I've noticed and I think is important is, and Senator Johnson was involved very much in this discussion, is coming into the vernacular now is that we're in a form of hybrid fifth generation warfare, whatever you want to call it, but, well, they were calling it fifth generation warfare.

And so this idea that there is a protagonist, an entity or groups who are using, and so they were constructing this around the Twitter file releases. And what they were saying was that basically military grade psychological operations are being run through the social media platforms to target directly individuals. And for me, I'm like, okay, that's a sort of step in the right direction for trying to wrestle with the problem, because you've got to define it first, what it is that you're dealing with. And I would put forward the premise that whatever angle that you're coming at it from, be it the virus itself, the public health response and other political fallout, et cetera, each one of those are ripe for this type of weaponized information control. And I was, yeah, it was encouraging, I would say, to hear that. The question is, how far does it, how far will it percolate? Was that a Twitter space? Yeah, let me, yeah, I need to get the link to that because I need to hear that because that would be even from Senator Johnson, who, like I said, I've spoken to him, and he's very much aware of a lot of bigger pressures and different actors, trying to exploit what's been going on. But it's definitely huge if he's going to be talking about it in public, because I've not heard fifth generation warfare from anybody except for, well, from anybody in Congress. So that's actually a very welcome sign. I agree with you. This brings us to the very, very funny issue that the, I don't know what to call them, the competence, the protagonists, whatever the oppositional side is, is in the castle walls, so to speak. And I'm just, this follows on from our last discussion. The last one, the last time we spoke, we got very, very deep into what potentially could fall out in terms of a game theory perspective. And yeah, in a way, I would say that the fuse has been lit.

The fuse has been lit, but defuse has been ignored. And it was ignored in both reports. And the Republican one was surprising, because that remains the best single piece of evidence that we have. But yeah, when I went through the report and I realized that, holy shit, what are they arguing, if not the fact that Ecohoof Alliance, because I mean, defuse based on what they were trying to focus on, which is China, fits in perfectly. So I don't know why it wasn't discussed.

All I know is that it wasn't. And I don't know if you have any thoughts on that. Well, again, my view of the report was it was limited. I think there's a, you know, tactically the angle seems to be to shift blame towards China. And they did say that it's a declassification of the report. And I don't know if you have any thoughts on that. But yeah, I think it's a say that it's a declassified report, right? So we don't know the full report that's been circulated around the committee. And maybe there's more reference to it in that. So I'm agnostic as to that data point. It would have been nice to see it. But, you know, again, are we in a situation where, you know, for national security interests, they're going to do anything and everything to avoid pulling in elements of the DoD. And maybe that's why it's not mentioned, that they'll hope it goes down the memory hole. Well, it's ironic, because if, if on the one hand, they're willing to talk about bio weapons, but they're not willing to talk about our bio weapons program, then that is ultimately a failure. We do not want to go that way. Because if we do, we will waste a golden opportunity. Because whether we like it or not, the United States has a very direct role in all of this. So, you know, I don't want to, I guess, lay out tactics too much. But we don't have a choice. We have to make sure that that is a focus moving forward. Because if, if we don't hold our own people accountable, then they will have won, to be honest.

This is not just about China. And hopefully, and we need to hold us accountable, because that is also how Dr. Fauci directly ties into this. So I don't know how they, I guess they would go after him for other things, but that would be stupid. And ultimately, it would be, it would be a failure if we are not able to tie all this stuff together. I mean, my view, but, you know, this is, this is this problem with dealing with these types of organizations. And, you know, the example I gave yesterday, and, you know, I am very, very far from being an expert in it. But it's like the release of the JFK files, you know, with the American people have been promised full disclosure.

I think even Trump did it, right? He said he was going to release everything. And it doesn't look a little bits and pieces. Yes, he said he would, and then he's done nothing.

So I'm just wondering how much is going to be, again, try to be memory hold, isolate those of us who were speaking out saying there's a much, much bigger problem, because at some level, they've sat around with their Dunkin' Donuts and coffee for a meeting and said, we can't, we can't take the hit on our, well, national security interests. And, you know, we might, we might just be, you know, they'll wrap us up in such a way that we can't, we can't do anything. Again, just speaking to very, very small networks. So we're preaching to the choir. I I definitely see that as being a possibility. Yeah, well, I I'm tired of preaching to the choir. I think we've been doing that enough. And that's, that's kind of been my frustration right now is that in many ways we've, we've made a lot of gains. And like the Twitter stuff is coming out about the censorship. But at the end of the day, we haven't really, we haven't really gotten to the origin piece. And in fact, the Twitter file release related to the origin has been delayed. And I've not really heard why that is.

I just know that it keeps being delayed. And it's been delayed for at least 10 days now. National security interests. That's why.

Well, but, but that another thing that was in the report is the reason why one of the main reasons why the fuse is so important is because it is proof that the intelligence community knows more than they were saying. But they, but they withheld that even from the classified version of the original report of the Biden report from last year, at least according to sources.

But what do I know? But the sources are pretty good. And the bottom line is, is that they don't want to talk about that. And I like the way that the Republicans, like the questions that they raised, because if you look at the report, they ask things about which experts did you use. Right. And that's important because they were obviously leaning on experts who were implicated in the coverup. Yes. And I don't remember if I, I feel like I've, I don't told you privately. I don't know if we've discussed on your show, but obviously one of the things that, that hasn't really come out yet is the fact that Fauci sent some scientists, when he was doing proximal origin, or when they were doing proximal origin, he sent some of the authors out to the intelligence agencies to kind of set the narrative, to kind of give the scientific perspective, so to speak.

So right from the very beginning, any, assuming that the CIA was like involved in the coverup through USAID, the other intelligence agencies were fed bullshit from the same people that were writing proximal origin. So, and that hasn't really made it into the mainstream yet.

Well, the question is, will it? Because, you know, again, from a sort of 30,000 foot view, I don't, I don't see, well, I see them changing course somewhat that, you know, they're conceding a lab, you know, often that they'll use leak. I don't, I don't think that's a appropriate term. And they're, this is what I think is going to happen. They'll say, yes, there was a problem with, we gave money to China, etc. And an accident has happened in the laboratory and that they will carve off, you know, what they can and the infrastructure involved in that and say, and that becomes the offering to the public to sort of satiate any, um, any anger. And, you know, my, the frustration on my part is that, um, a lot of people will just, all right, either not care or just say, okay, move on. And, um, it's those of us who have invested a lot of time, our necks on the line, who are just going to be left feeling, um, well, let down. Um, and, and then when we get into the hypotheticals of what, what happens then, and well, this is one of the main reasons why my focus has been on, on the proving the things or, or raising awareness about the things that we have proof of. And the most basic being that how you knew about the fear included site, he covered it up. He covered up the fact that it was in his vaccine. And by focusing on that, if the public understands that, then they are not going to let him get away. They're not gonna let other people get away with this bullshit that they're trying to get away with because they'll realize that the real story behind this, if we didn't make it, is the fact that we responded intentionally in a terrible way. And, and once the public understands that they will demand to know why. And I think that is exactly what they're afraid of is that, um, well, obviously they don't want to be, the United States will never, um, admit more than likely, we'll never admit that they did this. I mean, that's something that, that Andrew and I talked about with Kim.com and I've heard him talk about with other people as well. And that's kind of frustrating, but we need to understand that almost certainly they're not, they're definitely not going to willingly do it because nobody wants to take any legal responsibility for the pandemic because that means some unprecedented reprisal. So the, so more than likely no one is going to do that willingly. And so knowing that we have to be, I guess, tactical about what we focus on. Um, but at the same time, I refuse to, um, accept some stupid compromise that allows most of this to be washed under the rug because the American public, well, the global public deserves to know, but also because this is in the bio warfare space, regardless of the intentions of, of, of what happened with the virus and when it was released or how, or whatever, at the end of the day, this came about because of bioweapons research. And the biggest thing is that in bioweapons research, you always work on antidotes to your weapons. And we know for a fact that there were antidotes, or at least very effective, capable countermeasures that were not employed, even though they were known about. So that's a crime against humanity. Everything else aside, that's a crime against humanity. So that's a crime against aside. That's a crime against humanity. And there's several crimes against humanity here. And we must, we must have an accounting of those or they will be worse because they will be happening again. And they will definitely be worse. Well, this, this just sort of pulls us into, uh, you know, the, we're dealing with a system that even, you know, over 70 years ago was comfortable with a operation paperclip, um, set up, right, where they would, again, for national security reasons, take some of the most heinous individuals and bring them and bring them into the scientific institutions. And, you know, the, if they would do that 70 odd years ago, um, I only imagine or predict that those systems are in place more sophisticated. And, um, you know, it could account for why we see such a hubris in the individuals that we know are implicated in, in all of this and in this crimes, plural against humanity.

And, you know, they show, they show no signs of stopping. And I'll give you the perfect, um, example is, um, Jeremy Farrer moving from welcome trust to the world, uh, world health organization.

This is, um, what did he move into? Uh, world health, the who, the world health organization.

Now he had been working with them off and on for like two decades before that. So it's not like that's the most ridiculous thing, but, um, I mean, it's not surprising at all.

And he's definitely not, it's not like he's being punished or anything. There's somebody shuffling people around. In fact, Fauci, if I remember correctly, I think he was, he actually was shifted around somehow to like, he took like an advisory position somewhere, but he's not completely gone. And neither is, um, Barney Graham, who's a vaccine research center. He has retired, but he's doing something else now. Um, so, so there's a lot of shuffling around to the pieces, but there's zero accountability and even zero interest in accountability so far. So even eco health Alliance is still getting government money, right? Taxpayer money from us. But, uh, I've, uh, hang on, let me, um, let me just find the, uh, the text, but, uh, this, this was sent to me yesterday. So this is from, uh, the spending bill that was pushed through. Was it yesterday, the day before yesterday? Um, it's, it's just two, three short paragraphs. So section 8137, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to support any activity conducted by or associated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Section 8138, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide arms, training or other assistance to the ASOF or other assistance to the ASOF battalion. Just one of those things. And then finally, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other act may be used to transfer, release or assist in the transfer or release to or with in United States, its territories or possessions Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee, um, presuming around, um, the 9-11 investigations. So we've got this. That's impressive. They literally named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Yes. That's interesting. And, uh, so in, in effect, what we see, so with the, with the shuffling and with this, uh, short little bit of text, it shows that at a high enough level, they, they know they've got to be making, um, arrangements for obfuscation and for being able to say to the public, oh, look, we've, um, uh, we've stopped anything and everything to do with all these, uh, what you, what they've, what they designated conspiracy theories, just, um, um, well, including, uh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed over the last 20 years. But so, um, yeah, it's, it's, it's a hydra. Um, it's an, you know, this is what we discussed the last time. And it's a big concern of mine is that they're able to dictate the pace and the events such that we're just reactive rather than proactive and, and you know, trapping, trapping them comprehensively. And yeah, well, they're, it's a, it's a typical combat strategic thinking of maintaining the initiative, because if you lose the initiative, then you lose the, uh, well, lose the initiative. But when you are not dictating events, the level of unpredictability is exponentially higher. And so in any, whether at the lowest level or the highest level, the goal is to not allow the opposition to, uh, seize that from you.

And I think that defuse was an example that they were not expecting. And it was, it was so impactful, I think precisely because no one knew that it was, that it was coming out in the manner that it did. Um, and that that was on purpose. And in retrospect, that's why I'm, I have zero regrets about how I released it. And like the decisions that I made, bringing it to drastic and how we did it and not using other media, because the other, if the other media had no, if any media that we were working with had no, then instantaneously, everybody of consequence would know that it was going to be released and not by, you know, equal lines or whatever. So we gained the initiative by releasing that.

And I think we kept it for a while, but basically all they did was kick, they basically slow walked everything as much as they possibly could. Um, you know, until the election and then as the election neared, they did everything they possibly could to, to make sure that the outcome was as favorable as possible. Now, obviously they, they succeeded partially and all of that. I mean, I wrote in July of 2021 that they were going to try to drag it out to midterms and that the Republicans could not, like, they could not waste that opportunity. They needed to be, to be laying this out there and hanging them hard. And of course, they didn't do it. And that's exactly what we're seeing is now it's set up to where I think the intelligence community is starting to get comfortable because they feel like they're in control and they don't think that the narrative is going to be able to get away from them again, no matter what happens. Now, I disagree. I can think of many reasons why I disagree with that, but I think that the narrative is going to be able to get away from them again, and I can think of many reasons why I disagree with that, but I think from their perspective, that's how they feel right now. And so that's, that's kind of concerning, but at the same time, at least I know what needs to be done. I just have to make sure that it gets done. So it's bittersweet. Yeah. I'm probably being a little, how should we say, they defeat us by saying that they're, they're dictating everything. You know, the fact that we're seeing them respond means that, oh, we're, we're on their radar, right? And so they, you know, if they had their way, we would, everyone would be talking about pangolins and bats and caves and how, how we've got to constrain ourselves with our, I don't know, oil consumption.

I think, I think the main, if you could like just list, but excluding like specifically what drastic has been doing, cause that might be biased on my part, of course. One of the biggest hits that they've taken was when Mike Pompeo made the decision five days before the inauguration last year to release a little memo mentioning the three sick, uh, with researchers because- Oh, the, the Wuhan, you mean that they- Correct. They're saying that, that there were three sick researchers in the fall of 2019. And I think that was a legit piece of Intel that I think Pompeo and Trump and everybody, I think Pompeo knew he, he would, he had been the director of the CIA for a brief time, but he was not a career Intel person or anything. But I think he knew that they would try to bury it. And so he, he, he released that so that way they couldn't. And I think that was absolutely huge because it was, that was an official government release. It was not just some, it wasn't even like a diffuse. That was like a legitimate, the secretary of state at the time released that and whether or not it was a political move or not, it was a piece of evidence.

Now I'm almost certain that he believed that it would not come out if he didn't do that. So while he still had the ability, he did that. And I'm not a big fan of Mike Pompeo for many reasons, but that was a right decision. And I think that was a big factor in why the United States ultimately rejected the World Health Organization report two months later, because I don't know if, if Anthony Blinken, his, Mike Pompeo's successor would have done what he did in rejecting a report as readily, if not for that, having been released. Just my, my own two cents. It's, it's an important historical point. And, you know, and I agree with you that the way that you released diffuse was the best way. You know, it didn't give them a chance to get into a damage control mode. And so they were, they were pushed back somewhat and it, it landed the discussion squarely into the lab, the lab origin space. Now the, I guess the difficult component is to once, once you've dragged it that far, is to start painting in and filling in the dots with respect to bio warfare programs. And it's, it's, ah, you know, again, there's, it's a loop, it's mentioned in the congressional report. So I guess we can't be too, too dismissive, but, you know, too dismissive, but, um, it's, uh, well, in, in my mind, it, it's the primary issue because that's, that's where everything that we're dealing with stems from. And to not, to not be able to get in there and well, you know, what's, what's the goal we're aiming for transparency, right? We want to, we want to know what they're partially. Yeah. And yeah, well, transparency and some, uh, how should we say it? Some accountability, some judgments laid down on individuals and institutions, but, um, I don't know, maybe it's a possibility in, in the background that they're deciding who, who gets taken for the chop and who gets to skirt away into the, into the sunset that they're actively. Well, that's, that's probably been happening for, you know, for, for years. At least I think once, once Blinken made the decision, uh, took care of St. Anthony Blinken, not Abe Blinken, once he made the decision to reject the World Health Organization report officially, I think ever since then, they've known that there was going to be at least some reckoning and they probably just didn't know. And, and really they've, I would assume they've just been trying to minimize that reckoning as much as possible ever since. And I think Elon Musk, I don't think they, they, they probably never imagined that Elon Musk was going to spend $44 billion to buy Twitter and in part to like expose everything that was going on. I mean, that was another massive thing that they had to account for that they were not expecting. And so I think that defuse and the department of state memo, like right off the bat, those three things, probably more than anything have really forced where we are now. I would, and also certainly in 2020, everything that drastic did, because, because really the only reason there was all this lab like information, because drastic immediately started to dig in and find things and, and ask questions that couldn't be answered readily. And, which is how I obviously found out about them six months before I joined. And then there were people like you, people like, well, Walter, Luke Montagnier, Brad Han, like there's a whole group of people that were instrumental in getting it to the point where it forced a response because, because they couldn't just keep it quiet. And I think that if not for that, and this is why I, what I think about this is, I think it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, I think that drastic, before I got here, what they did in particular, changed the course of world history, because I honestly believe that without that pressure, there would be, there'd have been nothing after the World Health Organization report, literally nothing. Absolutely. And if people cast their minds back, you know, to that investigation, where, where literally, remember like the footage of Peter Daszak arriving in China, and it's so, it's so ridiculous knowing what we know, but what, what they were trying to feed to the public at large. And so, well, it's, you know, refresh my memory somewhat, but you know, there was sufficient outrage just at that, that they, that they reorientated and they basically had to do a sort of second report. And obviously, following on from that was the Lancet commission and report as well. Right. So yeah, there was, for sure, for sure, there was pressure put on. I guess the, the, the follow on is how, how it evolves from where we are at the current milestone that we're at. And, you know, the, my, well, my biggest concern is that they escalate current events in such a fashion that people, people are just forced to, they can't they can't think about this particular problem. Right. And, you know, once, once you start making people go cold, hungry, unable to afford the basics, you drag into a conflict that, well, essentially could, could, could be a decade's long standoff, if you like. And, you know, the direction that seems obvious that they're going to pull into play is that they're going to focus on China. They'll make every issue around China a very, well, everything will be, well, everything will be done in a, in a hostile fashion. And then points of real contention get dragged into the public's consciousness. So imagine they, something happens around Taiwan. I mean, how much, how much space are we going to have in the ongoing public dialogue to be talking about the, what we're trying to bring to the issue, even though they're linked, right? Yes, they are. But that's where I think that they assumed that the Ukraine situation would be different. The Ukraine situation would do that. Now, obviously, and whether, I think that whether or not the pandemic had occurred, there, there was going to be a push in several different directions, you know, like digital ID and just gaining more control. And so really the only question is whether or not the pandemic was triggered on purpose to do that, or if it was just a matter of exploitation of something that they didn't expect necessarily. And I, but the timing of the Ukraine stuff is very, very telling because, and I mentioned this on the, on the chem.com interview too, that, you know, it was panned in certain quarters. But we covered a lot of important ground. And one of those things was that if you go back and look at the, at the timeline of various events, you can see that the news cycle was being pruned and shaped to focus on things and not focus on other things. And in particular, the, what's it called, something happened in Ukraine. It was very, very close in, in time to the release of the Moderna 19NT paper. And I don't necessarily know if that was tied, but the timing was highly bizarre. Now, personally, I don't, yeah, I don't know if they were really scared of that or not, but the bottom line is whether or not that paper actually describes what happened and how the currency cleavage site got into the virus, it at least points to pathways that could have been used that they did not want people to know about. It was obviously highlighting something they did not want people to know about. And so the fact that something happened, I want to say that the fighting in Ukraine like started like two days later. Yeah, I was going to, in my mind, it was just the initiation of the conflict. I want to say. Yeah, obviously it had been building, but it almost seemed like, like they, they wanted to push it to, to some sort of next phase right around that time. Like I said, I don't know that that in particular was like the only thing, but I definitely think it was something that they wanted to avoid talking about, that they wanted to hide. And, and that's because I believe it points directly towards ways that it was actually made. So they, they, they continue to want to sever all ties to the vaccine and the virus. Well, the truth is, is it the vaccine came from the virus and the virus has patented pieces in it. So that means that, that the virus and the vaccine came from the same place and in a different order. And that's what's unnatural. And it's, it's just another, just another tidbit that shows it. You, you can know them by what they're trying to hide more than anything. And this whole vaccine discussion, they're trying to divorce it completely from anything related to the bioweapon discussion at all, even in Congress. And that's, that's one big takeaway from this, these latest two reports is that they do not want to talk about the vaccine in relation to this at all. And, you know, just as a caveat to that, I noticed that I didn't watch it all, but so Jay was streaming today. And I think like the topic was why are we seeing emergence of flu, RSV in the young, et cetera. And, you know, with Jay's basically a couple of weeks behind me. Yeah. Yeah. And the, what he, what he was sort of angling towards was every, every counterpoint that he was making was all just vaccine, vaccine, vaccine, vaccine, nothing to do with the pathogen itself. And it looks, again, it's a very, very sort of narrow focus. It drags people off into, you know, a little, a little side canyon when the picture is far, far bigger. And we've got to be able to, you know, even, even within the small groups that listen and are investing time in these investigations and the science, we have to, we have to be looking at every, every aspect of the vaccine that we're seeing. And I think, you know, it's, it's, it's a bright governance. Both, that and what we've been looking at over and over, over and over again, and we have to be sure that we have the vaccine currently with pain. I think, and it's, it's important for all of us as, as long as this vaccine is provided. Right. And it's, the thing about hiding someone's face behind it or behind anyone's face is the one You're going to see lots in terms of trying to understand the disease mechanisms of the virus, but very little in terms of vaccine harms. And just to give you another little data point, I watched this clip earlier, but this was from Naomi Wolf, and I want to say, who else was talking about it? It'll come to me, but basically, and this was a concern I had, that they're going to start manipulating the public databases to minimise any concern that individuals might have. And so she's saying, shocking cover-up of heart damage, CDC appears to have deleted 32,000 records of heart damage in the VAERS database, this ahead of government dissenters investigation of myocarditis. Let me probably click on the link. And yeah, we should, maybe, there's even a video clip, let me share the screen with you. And we'll watch it. Let's do the sound, hang on a bit, let me do that again. Do you see the screen? Oh, tell me if you can hear this. You mentioned that V-safe should be added to... Do you hear that? Yes, I can hear it. Okay. Well, it's 10 minutes long, let me see if I can speed it up a little. VAERS, but only 4% of V-safe is added, can you explain what that means to people and why it matters? VAERS is designed specifically for medical professionals and people alike to report, hey, I got hurt, and when enough people have gotten hurt for officials to look at it and say, hey, this product isn't safe, it's got to come off the market. And V-safe was created to also do something similar to that and to make that process a little bit easier. You don't need as many records, you don't need as much information to record a report in V-safe. And in V-safe, there have been over 800,000 reports of injury. And the deal was that in V-safe, every single report of injury was supposed to also then subsequently have a VAERS report associated with it. All 800,000 should be in VAERS. But unfortunately, or by design, however you want to look at it, only 30,000, only just over 30,000 of those 800,000 have been recorded in VAERS. So what that means is that less than 4% of the records in V-safe have actually been reported in VAERS as they were supposed to be done. Holy cow. I have to also think again, journalistically, and as a political consultant, the story never matches the goal, right? You know this, you know, if you see behind the scenes in politics. So when you, you've got the VAERS system. I've just got to say, Naomi Wolfe has pulled off some less than accurate reporting, I would say. So just keep that in mind as we listen to this. Do you know who that Dr. H is? Have you come across him before? He sounds vaguely familiar, like I recognize his face, but I can't at the moment, please. He's a new actor to me currently, so. System. It's been there for decades. You create a whole new system called V-safe, right, which I think is relatively recent, correct? And you say it's an easier way to file a complaint than that kind of cannibalizes the funnel, right, for filing complaints and then oops, you only transfer 4% of them over to the more established database. I mean, what a sneaky way to basically sweep almost 800,000 adverse events under the rug. Adverse events, hospitalizations, permanent injuries, deaths, compromises data set. That's completely compromised. That's so disgusting. Let's go now to why we should, well, this is an important question that I was asked and I didn't know the answer to. At what point should 1,500 deaths from one side effect trigger an investigation? Is that a signal that rises to the level of what the CDC set up theirs to alert our government to? Well, if we look historically, and I think the swine flu shot was the one, I think this is 1976, the signal that was recorded, the bar, was 50 deaths. They got to 50 deaths in a very short period of time and it was shut the whole program down. But we are way past that. Which is true, right, as a metric for people to just keep in mind for the safety signal. Even, I think you'll probably mention it, but even in the initial experiments and the reporting data for that first report, they were at like 1,200 deaths, I think, with Pfizer in like the first six years. They obviously realized very quickly the whole, or maybe just in advance because they've seen it in other places, like with infant vaccine, that they obviously knew that if there was going to be a correlation, it was going to be within the first two weeks. And so what's really insulting is that they, at the very beginning, they just ignored all those, which is ridiculous because, I don't remember the exact figures, but let's just say 85% of all vaccine injury prior to 2020, I can almost guarantee you, were within 14 days. Typically within three days, especially for things like sudden infant deaths and stuff. So obviously, obviously, from the very beginning, all of this was shaped to hide whatever the impact was because they could not have known, they hadn't done any of the research. So they just planned for the worst and hid everything. And sure enough, you know, that's what happened, but I can almost guarantee you that it was not a reaction. It was straight from the very beginning, built into everything, but they were not going to do that. Yeah, and who can forget that they were trying to put a JFK level lock on the data, right? 75 years. Who was going to be? Well, at first, I want to say it was like 55 years, and the judge said no. So then they came back with an even longer time period, which is pretty ballsy, but that's an example of, I think, the hubris because, I mean, they were basically given carte blanche by most governments, and any governments that they weren't, they negotiated these insane deals anyway. And that's actually one thing, I'm pretty sure you've heard of the Samoa stuff that was happening in the fall. Oh, the measles thing that Jiki put out, yeah. So this was standard practice for 30 years, ever since the infant and child schedule became so beefy. I think 1991 was when it really just started getting ridiculous. So after I was born, of course, that's really when SID came into existence, because prior to the 80s, there was no such thing as sudden infant death syndrome. And basically, if you actually go back and look at the correlations in time, once again, the temporal correlations are key. It's so obvious that these vaccines were killing infants. But by creating this new thing and not at all talking about the vaccine in relation to it, they kind of severed it from the consciousness of most people, and they've been able to censor everybody else by just calling them anti-vaxxers ever since. And what's happened now is the same thing, but on a global scale. Well, I guess once you've had sort of decades of practice and it works, because I've always said America is a very unique case with respect to vaccine schedules. And it's insane. The numbers that are required for children, they force parents into it because they make it such that schools, not schools, daycare and kindergartens, they would bar entry to children being allowed to participate. Well, exactly, and I'll give my ex-wife credit because she, and before even our son had been born, so they had two children under three, like 2005, not long after I joined the Marine Corps, she became anti-vaxxers. And I didn't really pay much attention at the time, and ironically, in 2007, I had the opportunity to get stationed on Hawaii for three years. And I turned that down and went to Virginia instead because my wife didn't want to get vaccinated. I was like, okay, whatever, fine. What was the vaccination requirements for Hawaii, what was different? It's because the requirements to go overseas, I guess because of the way that it works, at least in the Marine Corps, third Marine division, everything is based in Okinawa. And so if I'm stationed in Hawaii, it falls under that, it falls under Oconus and thus it has different vaccine requirements, and she did not want the kids to go through that. So at the time, I humoured it, but in retrospect, that was incredibly wise because she was absolutely right. In fact, it was way worse than even she knew, but she was absolutely right about that. So yeah, I was always, you know, because I worked with Tourette's a lot on sort of childhood disorders, I was always very sceptical of them. I do think they play a big part in these difficult to treat neurological disorders that we get in kids. And so my kids were, you know, I made sure that they were, what they did have was spaced out and they had the minimum and the, in fact, I stopped any vaccines with my son, he came back from a diphtheria one, sort of dribbling and I was like, okay, that's it, no more. And in Japan, we didn't need it, right, there wasn't this, they'd had issues in the past. And I want to say in Japan, it was with the MMR, I think. And so Japan has been very civilized, I would say, in how they, you know, nothing is forced with the vaccines. But it's, you know, getting back to the original point, they basically had decades to refine these systems in terms of psychological pressure to apply to people that maybe they just felt confident enough to push it out and they would be able to squelch any fallout, I guess. Absolutely, I mean, it's very clear what they did. And this is one of the reasons why Peter Hotez, whatever else he may have done or not done, one of the things that he's done that's evil is he's played a central role in this attack on anti-vaccine as anti-science. And that, in retrospect, that's unconscionable, because as I look back, he had to know, because he would have had access to all the science, all the data, so he knew. And he bought in with everything else and played along, and was one of the main narrative constructors even before the, he started this anti-science crap in 2018. And now, like, it's an entire page of his own personal website, like is, you know, it's him about, you know, papers, anti-science. And as you know, he goes full-bore calling everybody Nazis and whatever. And he's still doing it, and he has never, he has never discussed his conflict signatures. Never. Not that I've seen. Maybe, I think maybe once on a TV show, like with TV appearance one time, but he does not talk about the fact that he was working on MERS co-vaccines in 2019. So, yeah, he's evil. And look, I think he's a dangerous ideologue because of his daughter, that is autistic, and you know, I do. Yeah, but he basically has used her. Yes. And who knows? I mean, her autism might have nothing to do with vaccines, but he has used her as a prop to try and make himself unassailable. And history, if it's fair, will not look kind upon him because he has just been dastardly when it comes to this stuff. Yeah. And like I say, he's, well, to the point that he even wrote a book about his daughter and how vaccines are not related to, well, the focus is autism, but I think the clinical picture is a bit more complex than that. Any time that you're initiating inflammatory cascades in the nervous system, you know, it's... In a developing nervous system, and I think this is where I think that Martin Girardot's arguments are incredibly persuasive and important because he highlights one method that's common to all injected vaccines, basically, that could explain why, you know, we're seeing neuro damage because of, you know, breaking the blood-brain barrier as a bolus or whatever. It does actually, it can explain something very well and deserves to be explored. And his problem is that he, he applies this to everything and assumes that there is nothing else. Yeah. All you have is a hammer, dude. Everything. Right. And that sucks because he's doing damage to his own cause because his argument could explain a massive proportion of deaths prior to COVID when it comes to vaccines. And it needs to be investigated. And so I really hope that he, like that other people are picking that up and we'll take it because it is important, just, I mean, it's kind of like JC, as a matter of fact, where JC had like, he's got this idea and parts of it may be correct, but he's overapplied it to everything and the evidence doesn't support that. And I think he's making the same basic fatal error that Martin Girardot is when both of them have good points. So yeah, I agree. And it's kind of, it's frustrating, but it is what it is. I don't think you're going to change any, any positions at all. I don't know. Jay, after talking with Kevin McKernan, seems to be reappraising his assessment of the validity of sequencing. Well, I mean, I've not heard him apply the conclusions that would come from that to the rest of it, which is important because his entire argument rests on this idea that the quasi-species isn't being understood and it's not being sequenced well. And so it must be a coverup. So that's the part of the problem is that he made these big exclamations, but the corrections, which are massive, he's not really discussing, they're muted. And that's a problem because once again, his audience doesn't realize that he overplayed his hand. And so they're distrusting him as a scientist when he did not have the authority to make the conclusions that he was drawing. And that's where it causes damage. Just like when any of us, like the, what's it called, the blood in the water or whatever that crap was. Oh, venom. The venom in the water, yeah. Right. There's truth to that, but the way that it was presented did nothing but discredit the rest of it. And once again, that's an example of where you take something, none of us has 100% of the answer. And so every time somebody comes out with this conclusive, like I figured it out, they've always been wrong and everybody should just be taking a step back, applying what you're learning, but still keeping an open mind. And so it's ironic that Jay was saying that we didn't have open minds because we didn't see the logic of his argument. But the truth is, is that we understood his argument, we just disagreed. And it's almost like you could basically look at everything that's happened, it's divided now. It's not even a disagreement about the methods. I mean, look, clones are, right, I mean, exactly instrumental in this. I guess the fundamental difference is how, what's the range, I guess, of the clone once it's released, the stability of the clone once it's released. And he looked at some math and said, okay, well, if X number is replication incompetent and it comes to contact with non or other stuff, well, eventually it's very quickly going to disappear. Well, the evidence does not support that. And neither did the literature on the quasi species. But my guess is that he didn't read it. Well, actually, I know he didn't read it because when we pointed out a couple of things to him, at the end of the stream, he mentioned it and said, okay, well, I need to read into this because I don't want to speak on it before I've given it full measure of thought. Fair enough. I completely agree. So unfortunately, he said that after he spent three months advocating for some new theory. They washed away a bunch of actual evidence. So that's just a case in point of why all this stuff is important and why we can't skip over all these key elements. As we're discussing with the Intel reports, why are they important and why are we pointing out things that are missing? Well, because those can have huge impacts on the discussion moving forward. So this is all part and parcel of what we're talking about. Yeah. And my position is everything that we've seen come into play is a... they're facets to part of this warfare, right? So even if we say iatrogenic death was a big factor in the clinical picture that we see. Okay. Well, that's... it doesn't mean that there weren't deaths from the virus itself. These are all combined elements to push populations, people into a particular direction. And this is... yeah, it's strange that people would be fixated on one particular element at the exclusion of others. And yeah, I think in doing so, you limit our ability to construct arguments and evidence in an effective manner. And you know, it's still a... well, you know, there was a clip today from his stream where... I can't remember. It was a news clip, I want to say. I was doing the washing up. And he mentioned how infective the virus was and basically claimed that that's where you must have got the number. And I'm just... I didn't see the face, I was just listening. Who was it? I'm really interested to know now. Yeah. Yeah. I'm trying to... God damn it. Yeah, the point was that this guy said it's got a high R0 of being one of the second most infectious viruses that we know of. And the comment from Jay was, oh, that's where Rixie has got that idea from and that point. And I don't believe that to be the case. I mean, I've seen you sort of churn through the data and, you know, it's not a... You're not just parroting someone's position, I would say. Right. So yeah, specifically with the R0, that's where I was... I was stunned that he had forgotten that literally for like 10 months, the first part of the day, starting on, I can't even remember the day, starting on March 10th, while I was sick in 2020, that was the first time I downloaded the data from the Johns Hopkins website. And almost every day until I joined Drastic, I might not have been downloading the data, I only did that like 40 or 50 times, but I was every day I checked the tracker. And then I was... and over time, I started digging into the weeds with historical flu patterns and with other things. Like all the terrain that he's covered, I had already covered. And so it was just stunning that he made these claims that, okay, well, obviously I just, you know, saw... Oh, I've just been told, it was Redfield that was talking. And so that's interesting because Redfield is the one that's just in the last few days come forward and again said, it's a lab origin pathogen and we must blame those sneaky Chinese for their... Yeah, so it must be narrative. Or maybe it's just a fact that it's very clear now, for instance, that something was spreading prior to Wuhan. And we don't know what, but the latest thing I've heard from Dao Yu, who I believe is the world expert on this, has looked into it more than anyone, is... I'd love to speak to him, have you ever spoken to him in a conversation? I have not. I've spoken to somebody who knows him and who does speak to him all the time, but I've not heard his voice or anything like that, which is unfortunate. But not only is he the person that I respect the most from drastic, he's an absolute genius. And even when he gets something wrong, so much of it is right that it's not even a big deal because at the end of the day, he's always been moving in the right direction. Yeah, it's data refinement. That's part of the scientific process. He's an absolute genius. He's a genetics genius. And everything that he touches becomes better explained. And so what he is, where he currently is, is that he doesn't believe that whatever was spreading had the fear and greed inside, hopefully I get this right, because like I said, it's changing all the time because he's finding more and more. It's a very technical discussion that he does. Exactly. There's a whole lot there. Yeah. He doesn't do anything second grade level and he comes with 30 or 40 literally links every time he's talking about a subject, which I could kind of do, but he is almost like a genius and has the memory of like Sheldon Cooper. He has stunned me dozens of times in talking with him privately. I've been absolutely amazed. He knows that there was something, but whatever it was, was not causing the same problems because it was a little bit different and more than likely. So we don't know if there was an earlier leak, but if it was an earlier leak, they wouldn't have used this next one to cover it up, or at least I wouldn't think so, because it was the next one that was worse, that had worse components to the virus. In my mind, I don't have a problem envisioning a scenario where they've had a leak, for example around Dietrich and we know that, well, we have the military games. We know that Daszak and Olivao were just in China at the same time, that they would take the same pathogen, because we have to assume that those databases were open to US side as well, so they can construct a clone, right? And then they go and they know that the furin cleavage site is a way to accelerate spread, and they go and put it around the, or somewhere where they can shift the blame to, and it takes attention away if there's a sort of slow burning, you know, pneumonia-like illness in the US and just sort of popping up now and again in susceptible individuals. And so to cut, so to try to, yeah, make it ambiguous, you clone it, you take it, you release it around in Wuhan, and then stand back and just at first say, and go with it must be the spillover, right, and hope that that's enough to sort of cover it up, but for sure. I mean, and logically it should have been enough, except, you know, the furin cleavage site, like, there's, and the HIV inserts, the entire reason for my watchmaker hypothesis is based on the fact that that wasn't natural, because otherwise they could have gotten away with that. But this is why they knew instantaneously that it wasn't natural, and they've just gaslighted everybody ever since. Yeah. You know, the problem, well, I don't know, the way to get around or to answer that question is that you need to get samples, the early samples, and have them sequenced. And surely that's not outside the realms of scientific capability. Well, whether or not we can actually sequence it, we can go back and test people who were sick and confirm whether or not they had it back then. And that's where I think, I mean, obviously that's a big component to this and hasn't been explored publicly, that, you know, I will make sure it gets brought to bear, but yes, the bottom line is, is that whatever there is, there's definitely evidence that exists that is not being looked for, whatever form it's in, and what they're doing is they're just trying to kick the can and cover everything up. They're not doing anything, even with new technologies that are being implemented and being published and talked about, they're not doing anything to lift a finger to apply those to answer this question, which just makes it, which, and that more than anything makes this very damning because they've known these things. And once again, instead of anything else, they've been covering it up. They're trying to protect themselves, protect the, whatever it was they were doing. And that is more than any reason why the public must understand the truth, because they deserve to know that they were gaslighted this entire time, because otherwise they're just going to ramp it up and continue to exploit this ad infinitum. Yeah. They've got no choice. Right? True. They have no choice. And, you know, this is where there's a, well, it's another sort of failing of Jay's approach because if I understand correctly what he's saying is that you could essentially sum it up as bio warfare or bio warfare agents are not real in a sense, right? There's not much you can do beyond the natural parameters. Yeah. It's all about the smoke and mirrors and they don't actually have the capabilities to do what they're saying. That's what I get. Yeah. And that's stupid. Yeah. It's really, it's a form of denial. It's exactly, it's exactly denial. And you know, if he had asked me, I could have told him that because I do know a lot about that particular space. And so for him, what was frustrating for me is that he literally didn't bring it up to me probably because he knew that I would disagree with him. But that's exactly why a scientist is supposed to do that. Because I mean, even though I'm not a scientist, I do know something about that. And my input would have been good in that instance. At least I would like to think that it would have caused enough pause before he went and tried to go on a media tour about his new idea. So it could have prevented a lot of what hopefully will come, which is the truth will be understood. But it causes damage when we ignore actual evidence because we don't like it. Like it's just, it's the worst possible thing that we can do, especially as investigators of the origin. Yeah. And you know, I'm of the opinion that you need to be grabbing in as much information as possible and make it as actionable as possible. And you know, I say the premise that, you know, if you follow logically what he's saying, no one really got ill and died from pathogen exposure. Everything had to come from the countermeasure side. And once you do that, you just set yourself up to be taken down by published data that's publicly available. Look, I love talking with Joseph, Dr. Lee, but you know, with respect to his hypothesis, it's too easy to find in the literature mucosal IgG and a lot of studies looking at how it interacts and modulates immune responses at the immune barrier. It's not there as an artifact, the data just, the published data doesn't support it. Right. Now, I do believe that it has been grossly exaggerated. I think he's absolutely making valid arguments that need to be investigated. And just like, you know, what Jay is talking about, or like anybody else has argued, all of this should be investigated. And all of it is being, you know, suppressed at any time. Any data that could possibly undermine the narrative is just smothered. And what is done is it's caused, this is exactly what happens when someone has spent decades shaping a scientific narrative for their own like vision, which is exactly what Fauci's done. He has been the world leader on immunology, God forbid. And this is what happened when you are at that point for 40 years and you control it for that long, you do damage to science that takes time to recover because there's so many threads that haven't been fully explored because they weren't funded because he didn't want them to be funded. And you know, I'm very sympathetic to Rosanna's position with respect to the vaping. That data in the current environment has to be reappraised and reanalyzed. Now, I would make the presumption that every one of those patients, there are in freezers somewhere, blood and tissue extracted from them. And so we could dismiss and close down a lot of the hypothetical space if we went back specifically to look for these agents and have someone do the analysis who isn't subject to pressure that is obviously being applied by the system. You're always trying to define this very nebulous, deep state like entity and in some ways. It sucks because yes, censorship creates, even targeted censorship creates a false view of reality that comes into conflict when it juts up against real reality and people look at that and say, hey, that is a problem and that needs to be explained and that's when Jay talks about a brittle narrative, he's absolutely correct because that's exactly what's happened is that reality has been pushing back and you know, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kildorf were proven correct because they were using reality. And the problem is is that some of these things are so deep and so are so obtuse that so few people know them that they've been able to get away with whatever they want for decades. So whereas, so there's not like epidemiologists who can just blatantly say, okay, this BS because all the virologists are connected to this crap. So nobody's coming out and pointing out a positive species issue. Nobody's coming out and pointing out any neurological issues. And so what you end up with is just a bunch of narratives. And then starting in 2020, the intelligence community came along and just basically censored anything that Fauci told them to censor. So this is all just the culmination of a bunch of threads, a bunch of scientific concerns that should have been addressed in their own time and in their own respective areas that all came to the fore because of this and we're suffering because millions of people died because of those things and the continued cover up of it. Where do we, well, how does it progress from here? That's the ultimate question and what is the impact of that? And if it's true what we were watching on the screen right now, which is that they're prepared to start retroactively manipulating data or publicly accessible data I would say. What chance do we have? Because it begs the question, what other environments are they prepared to go in and change data? And the obvious thing that springs to mind is elections. And is the country so finely split between the two parties or I find that hard to imagine myself. I would venture to say that that is also, I believe that's a false reality too. We saw it for decades as mostly the left has been mostly successful at progress, pushing the envelope on things and really doing it ahead of where the population was. I remember when I think, I can't remember for sure, I think the DSM-3 was still in use in 99. It may have just been turned over to DSM-4 Adam. 99? It was 4. I think the bottom line is when I started studying psychology, the previous volume was not that out of date and it had homosexuality as a disorder. Whether or not you agree with that or whatever, it's kind of beside the point. What matters is that society for however long had naturally come to that point and that's where they were and then it was artificially accelerated ahead of where the societies were. And so, I mean, all we're seeing is just the fact that society had not come to this conclusion naturally. It was all artificial and when you do that, it causes more problems, especially down the line. So, it's the issue of building fictive reality versus what is the base reality and again, if we're in a situation where they're playing the whole of the population with this game and you have to think of it as a game, sort of fixed Harlem Globetrotters type of thing where the result is pre-arranged, I guess a better analogy would be the wrestling, the Hulk Hogan type of wrestling and you have characters and what have you and it's all very choreographed to grab people's attention but the result is gamed in such a way. Maybe there's a sort of space within the mechanisms are at play with respect to actual votes being counted but when it comes to the larger data set or results that impact nationwide, they're firmly in control of how it's presented to the public. In that instance, again, this brings us back to that very, very thorny question that we were discussing last time which is, okay, what's the signal where we sort of say, okay, enough's enough. We have to radically change approach and I'm again, very, very reluctant to sort of speak down these lines because it's a dangerous line of reasoning. Well, you could just encapsulate it slightly less controversially, I guess, as it's also a symptom of the distortion of scientific knowledge for political gain and when you do that, like with climate change, with anything else, you mess with the... I mean, humans have a collective wisdom and any intentional kinks in that is going to cause ramifications down the line. This pandemic is one of those where, and it's being exploited, which is far worse... I mean, they've exploited this incongruence in the past but never to this degree and instead of claiming responsibility and holding themselves accountable and learning lessons, they are doing the opposite, which is buckling down, calling the opposition anti-science and calling the Nazis. Right-wing Nazis. Just saying, hey, hang on a minute. Can we see the raw data? Yes. You were a Nazi because you don't believe in climate change, but how could you not believe in climate change? Well, no, we just believe that you're fudging the data for political reasons. That's exactly what you've been doing. What we're seeing now is kind of like the end game for it. The problem is that so much has been fabricated or nudged or the narrative has been massaged that it really does create a problem of... If you pull off a full band-aid, there's so much for people to process that they naturally don't want to believe it because it's kind of overwhelming, but they need to believe it. Science needs to be put back in its proper place because right now it has been given a level of trust and has abused that trust and the only way that we can come out of this in a positive way is if the public understands that because we can't begin to do anything else if we don't even know what has happened. We just can't. Like I say, very, very perilous times and look, when we're on the verge of them rolling out digital ID that includes this idea of vaccination as a metric by which they allow you to operate in society, that's a very, very dangerous precipice on which we find ourselves. I think that for sure it'll be instituted first in Europe, but they're primed more... Because of the nature of the EU and the bureaucratic infrastructures that they've put into place and the fact that mainland Europe has always had a concept of you've got to carry around an ID card always and as someone who grew up in the UK, we always used to think that that was somewhat oppressive, that you had to have a government issued ID and I can remember going to start my PhD in France and having to do that and register. Because I was on a... This was before the EU integration, but I was on an immigrant type visa. Well, it's because you were a terrorist. Literally, I had to register with the local police station and I can just remember thinking, I did it because it was necessary to rent property and stuff. Already back then, the mechanisms were in place and now we've moved forward to this point where they've absolutely leveraged the last couple of years and I just got George Soros saying COVID has allowed us to put into place the mechanisms and we're now at this point where they can put the final piece in and then we're all stuck in these digital ghettos and those that are able to operate above the common man's sociological infrastructure that's required for day-to-day living have... Well, you get privilege class and of course, that's going to be stratified as well and I guess the question becomes, how far can they push that in the United States? It's definitely a race, whether it's the deep state or whatever. They're basically just kicking the can on so many different things because they're gambling that they can get everything situated before it's fully understood. You can't see it any other way because once again, there's no interest in holding anything accountable or consequence. They're going full bore and the only possible reason is because they have no other choice. They can't turn around because whatever their aims are, if they were genuine, then all these actions would include a measure of reflection and adapting to new circumstances. There's no adaptation at all. What we're seeing now is it's so obvious precisely because they're not making any change. It's like, okay, well, obviously something happened and there's literally nothing that we need to improve.

Even if people don't know any science, the fact that the bivalent booster, for instance, has the old spike in addition to the new spike, when that is extinct, it's gone. Why would you put that into it? Even common people can realize that and say, hmm, that's kind of weird. That makes zero sense. To sort of steelman their position that they would say that there's still a lot of crossover in reactive epitopes, so no need to change so much with what they think works. Right, of course, except the problem is that we could just use the brand new spike, which still has all the old stuff in it that is still relevant. This idea is laughable on its face, but they get away with it because nobody understands the science. Jay is absolutely correct to point that out.

What's the disagreement there? I guess yourself and myself are arguing that it would be foolish to dismiss the bio warfare infrastructure as, well, yeah, you said it right, as just nothing but smoke and mirrors. It's designed there to, well, again, play a pantomime on people. I don't think the science stands up for that hypothesis. If that was true, it doesn't change what we need to be doing right now, which is getting to the bottom of it and investigating every avenue.

To somehow use that to say, well, we don't have to worry about that because it's all fake, it's dumb. Until you have conclusive evidence that that is in fact the case, that it is fake, making that presumption is stupid because in the best case, you get lucky and you're right, but there's a high probability that that's not the case.

All you've done is now you're ridiculing people on our side who are looking at what is still legitimate lines of inquiry. It's just stupid. What it does is it leaves you open to say, he would say his argument is fixed around coronaviruses, coronavirus swarms, but what you do is essentially you lower your defenses and readiness for when there's something that's not a coronavirus that they decide to inject into the environment.

Myself personally, I think they must have some sort of real-time analytics and I would hope that they would say, we've kind of pushed the pandemic card as far as we can go. It doesn't mean they're not going to do it again in say five, 10 years' time. I would be surprised if we saw something outside of accepted virology as we saw with SARS. I think what they would be relying on right now is the population scale immunity and the impact on that to allow opportunistic infections to start being able to push along their agenda. I think we're seeing that right now. I want to say someone dropped it in the Discord, but apparently the flu that's going around that's causing so many problems right now is swine flu. Interesting. H1N1. Is that what's going around? I haven't seen... I haven't looked, but here's what I can tell you based off that. Once again, because I studied this, the H1N1 branch that has appeared since 2009 and even the one in 1977 has been more mild than the...I think it's H3N2 and there's a whole different ballpark, but the bottom line is that it's actually more mild and that's stayed the same even as these strains have opened in the years ever since 2009. Ironically, Michael Worobi has done a lot of research into this and has found good explanations for this, which is mostly hiding and which Fauci has taken and maladapted for his own uses as a justification for vaccine. What it's really showing is that we're messing with something that is actually more efficient at protecting people at a large scale than vaccine. That's the real conclusion that Worobi discovered is that the reason why there's these alternating patterns of severe and non-severe is based upon the previous waves and so if your population is largely...like if everybody's experienced this one, then it's going to be more mild. Okay. Hang on. I want to just check. Thank you, Alberto, for just pulling that up, but I want to check who said that in the Discord. There was no reference with that. It was just Shahia Eisen at Discord saying that it was swine flu. I can't confirm that that's the case right now. I mean, probably we should just be at Google it right now. What that means is that it would be abnormal because the H1N1 strains have been less deadly, less severe. What that really means is that the immune suppression is just worse. It's just a further sign that what we're seeing is immune suppression because things that shouldn't be hitting people as hard are...like my son, I just saw him today and he was sick with the flu last week pretty bad. He was concerned. There was the doctor. He was concerned because I had been talking to him about some of this stuff, but I didn't know until today that he had been sick a month earlier. He didn't go to the hospital and get tested, but he had already been sick. This is a kid who...I think he had the swine flu once in 2009 and has never had...he's never gone to the hospital for anything, really, and he has a somewhat suppressed immune system because he has very bad allergies. Even he this year got very sick twice in the same month, and that's terrifying to me because as I look at this big picture, that's incredibly concerning to know that my son, who only received one of the vaccinations before, we said, okay, fuck that, but he as a 15-year-old is not only seeing it in school, but he's even experiencing this too. That's terrifying to me because it implies a lot of bad things, and all of which are being ignored. Well, I'll just ask if anyone's listening that if they've got a link, if anyone can find some actual data to... What are you trying to find out? The current circulating flu strains. So I've found what they want to vaccinate for, and... Yeah, it's probably worthless. Yeah, so H1N1, H3N2. I have... Hold on a second because I can find a... I have a... Because I did the data, and so I pulled the yearly flu records, and it shows which strains were predominant in the years, and it has the death data for age groups in each year. And actually, I'll drop that in chat as soon as I find it, but I have absolutely the perfect picture. They can help with this discussion. I'll put it up whilst I sort of keep digging away here, but...

Oh, here we go. That's 2018. You would think that would be something that would just pop up. It doesn't. Oh, there we go, flu sub-times every time. And once again, I'm gonna drop this in the chat, but that was... This is something that I made as I was trying to make projections for the fall of 2020, like what the wave might look like. And so I went back and looked at historical waves, including the 2009 one, because that was the last time there was a novel respiratory virus pandemic. And that's exactly what they should have been doing. And I know from reading all the FOIA documents that only one or two scientists and advisors was even looking at the same data. Yeah, I've got the data right now. This is from... From this year? Yeah, I believe so, Pan-American Health Organization, which looks like an offshoot of the World Health Organization. So it's regional. So North America, predominance of influenza A, H3N2, co-circulation of H1N1, and B-slash-Victoria, moderate SARS-CoV-2 activity, while RSV activity was moderate overall. Oh, crap, of course. But again, the question becomes, what's the actual clinical burden right now? And of course, your son being just anecdotal in this discussion, but if we're seeing youngsters get or suffering more... It's a powerful anecdote, given what I know. And knowing him intimately, it's very disturbing for me to see it. Yeah, again, what this does, though, is it just pulls us into this medicalization type tyranny. Right. If they've screwed up people's collective and individual immunity such that lots of other illnesses begin to emerge, it gives them carte blanche to say, well, you've got to be getting your shots. And we know that they're in the process of saying, because they believe the current gene transfection platforms have been so effective, that the flu becomes part of the yearly mandated what can they legally mandate and force people to take? And maybe they'll... Dude, the fact that we're having this conversation to me is mind-blowing, because I've always worked under the presumption that medical treatment, unless you've committed a crime and you're under the award of the state, you have the right to say you don't want anything. Right? Of course. Of course you do. But that would appear to be changing. And I guess they do it as a... It's not forced. It's not officially mandated on you, but they just make it such that your life becomes incredibly inconvenient if you don't comply. And I would put that in the larger context of, in Europe, where they're gearing up for a wartime posture, that opens the doors to allow them to force many, many strictures onto society. And I had that clip yesterday in my stream where Poland is mobilizing its troops. It's a pretty concerning development. I don't know if you've seen the images, but they're saying that a lot of Polish have been killed in Ukraine in the last few months, because they've been, quote unquote, unofficially fighting there. Yeah, well. They are... Hold on, I'm just trying to figure out how to attach this photo, because the reception is not great out here in the boonies. And I realized that my computer that's in my lap, as I sit in my car, is not connected to the internet. And I don't want to share my... Yeah, it's a mess. So I'm trying to get this picture to you, because I think it'll help explain. But yes, once again, it's all part of the same, it's all harmonies in the same theme, which is they're trying to distract from the actual truth for political reasons. And it's wrong all the time, but the fact that there's been a global pandemic and the United States has not investigated itself, and it doesn't care about investigating China really, and its own intelligence community is just getting the president what he wants, which is nothing. I mean, it's just disgusting. And once again, we have to get this out there, because there's otherwise, if we do not hold people accountable, it's going to be repeated, and worse, and as we're seeing even fewer freedom. Look at how much freedom was taken away as quickly as it was, you just imagine that this was when the public was still had this notion that there was freedom. Now they're starting to get wise, and so the things they'll have to do to gain control will be worse. They'll have to be more punitive. And I'm mind boggled that people can't realize that, well, no, actually, the reality is that people need to know the truth, because I don't see any reason to kill off most of the people on the planet to protect the deep state or protect anybody. Yeah, but they do, don't they? They can justify it. Of course they can. And so this, sort of straying from the core topic, but as you've got Zelensky right now in your country, and they're making a big deal how there were squadrons of fighter jets escorting him from, I think he flew out of Poland, actually, but flying him to the US, and he's come to, why is he here? What's the end goal of this? And I would say that... It's not complicated. They want basically to establish, I would argue, sort of no-fly zone, get American involvement, because that's where the US sort of excels in that department, and okay, I've got the picture. Yeah, finally. I put it in a couple of places so you'll be able to see it. So what that is, getting back to the flu, is that's from 1976 to 2007, that's every flu season with the predominant subtypes and the numbers of deaths and the proportion of total deaths for each age group, so 18 and under, 19 to 64 and then 65 plus. But in addition to the age numbers, just the total numbers can also tell you a lot too. Sorry, the percentages there are what, mortality or...? Those are the percentage of overall flu deaths attributed to that age group. Okay, so it's deaths over there, yeah. Yeah, so it's just talk about deaths and not severe or anything, but that's enough to show you that it's very easy to see, okay, what's deadly, what's not, and H1N1 in particular, the reason why there's a higher percentage of deaths in younger kids from 78 and from H1N1 and from 87, for instance, the answer is obvious, which is that all the old people who were 60 years old in 1976 already got H1N1, or a variant of it, in 1918. So I mean, this is not rocket science, and all the data is there, it's just never used. The presumption being that because we've lost so many old people in the last couple of years that the emergent flu strain is going to impact younger people. But it can't. See, that's the problem. What we're seeing with H1N1, or I mean, really, of any flu strain, but in particular, if it's H1N1 and RSV, what you're talking about is not an increase in numbers, and you're not talking about people who haven't experienced it before. You are only talking about immune suppression, because there is no other explanation. These numbers, I mean, they don't lie. My son had a swine flu in 2009. In fact, I got the shot because I was in the military, he was a criminal, and I was the only member of my family. So three kids and ex-wife, all of them got the swine flu, and it was super serious, but they were all sick. They all felt like crap. And I took care of them for two weeks. And it got stuck out to me, hey, my vaccine worked, because I didn't get it. And in that case, it's probably true. But the bottom line is that my son has already had H1N1. So he should never, under current circumstances with a non-pandemic strain, have a flu-like illness twice in the same month at the age of 15, and the second time be pretty bad for a 15-year-old. I mean, it's insane. It's just insane. But that does not happen. Wow. Yeah, again, this pulls us into the theoretical space that if this was deliberate action, which I think evidence strongly points in that direction, that they would have had enough understanding of individual and population-based responses, again, to know that they're going to have this sustained impact beyond the COVID pandemic. And I don't like where all this is going from cover-up in organizations, which we were talking about at the beginning, to the medical countermeasures that they're planning on deploying right now. But that looks like an unstoppable train at the moment. And you raise the issue that in that Senate report, there's very, very little discussion of vaccines as being problematic. And the data, or we think that the data suggests otherwise. Dude, if we're in a situation where they will go and deliberately hide and obfuscate data, like I haven't heard much about the DMED data lately, but you know... So there's a reason. I can understand, kind of, with the DMED data, because they don't want to signal to our enemies our level of readiness. But the reality is, is that our enemies already know, like China already knows. China took all of our security, like our clearance briefing, like all the information they'd taken in security clearance investigation, they broke into that system and took all that data in 2014. They've had my fingerprints and everything about me up to 2014, as of relevance to security, for like eight years. And so just imagine, like, they don't... We're not hiding anything from them. Like if I was able to discover, like if I was told by people in last fall of 2021 about the disturbing trends that were being seen, but were not being reported anywhere yet, relating to military adversities, the Chinese already knew that. I have no doubt that they have as good of an understanding as they need to make strategic decisions. So this notion that we're protecting anybody is bullshit. But at the same time, like, I mean, it doesn't mean that we should just blatantly show everything, but the fact that nobody is talking about it on the down low or like in back channels, I'm not hearing anybody saying that there's progress in that area. And that's disturbing because we rely on our military and we need to know why they made the decisions that they made. And people need to be held accountable, regardless of if the data becomes public or not. I mean, crimes were committed and like we already have undisputable evidence, indisputable evidence, that they literally just took printed labels and put Comirnaty on the existing shots. Which is a federal crime because what was mandated and given to all the troops and still being given to the troops is not that shot. It's the earlier formulation. So and that is, it's known, they're just bearing it as much as they possibly can. Again the such a black pill talking with you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. No, but the issue is it needs to be discussed and it because if who else is talking about it? Hopefully, Robert Malone, Andrew Huff and Senator Johnson. There was another doctor there as well, get his name, Comirnaty, something like that, I think. Kheriaty maybe? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I had to go back and look at it. I heard it, I didn't watch it, but Aaron Kheriaty is one of many medical doctors slash scientists who are pushing us and fighting it, maybe Dr. Urso, perhaps. And look man, God bless them for standing up, like I say, it's a very, very small bunch. But to pull it back to that Twitter space, what they were talking about was fifth generation warfare. And in that context, what we're looking at is it's not fifth generation warfare against a state actor that we're having to deal with right now. And where did we, what position, what positions do we have? And you know, my, you know, maybe it's the wrong position to take. But I'm not sure how you, you don't fight them militarily. I don't see how we can do that. It's not possible. So what's the solution? Well, we adapt and try to withdraw from these systems that they're putting into place. But there's going to be very, very few people willing to make the sacrifices that that requires. I mean, you know, there's a hardcore prep a bunch in the US who could. But then again, you know, if we take it to its sort of one of the potentialities, which is that what they're looking to do is to break the United States, these entities, the transnationals, let's say. And they're going to use US systems or US state systems to implement the changes that they want to do. So you drag the US into another or multiple conflicts on multiple fronts. So you get pulled into Europe again, you get pulled into much more hostile posture in Asia. And you let the country sort of begin to degrade and implode. And there's enough data there, I would argue, to suggest that that program is well on its way. And to step it out into another domain, which is the chemical warfare. You know, there was a, again, I just saw the news report, I didn't, I didn't pull it. But basically, they were saying they've they've seized enough fentanyl in the last year to kill every man, woman and child in the United States, right? From my perspective, in trying to solve this problem, that's another indicator that you're under sustained assault, but through, you know, quiet weapons for silent wars type approach. Well, the biggest key isn't even that it's our response. Like the fact the fact that we've responded the way that we have it is really the bigger issue. Because it implies that they're doing it on purpose, they see what's happening and they're doing it on purpose. Because it's one thing to see the problem, but it's another thing. All that really matters in life is how you respond. But the big, big thing I learned as a leader, so, okay, you're gonna get punched in the mouth by how you respond. Okay, well, we got punched in the mouth. And we're covering up things and doing the absolute opposite of what we should be doing. And that is the real, that's what we have to figure out. Because everything else is meaningless if we don't figure out like why they're doing what they're doing. Well, let's just work under the hypothesis that it's to move towards global governance and to global governance, global currency, global control of the individual because they think the technology is ready to be implemented right now. And their perspective is, well, we've got to break a few eggs to make the omelette in this instance. So, again, what, how do we, well, you could come at it from the other direction. And it may, perhaps they're right that that's a better way of living. I don't know. And maybe there is a whole mass part of the population that agrees with that and wants to go along with it. But either way, they should be given the choice. We have no idea if they could win the hearts and minds argument because they're not allowing us to do it. They're just doing it. And that tells me that from what they've gamed out, they don't think they can win it the regular way. Because I mean, why would you do all this extra crap if it was like, if the future is so obvious, then, you know, like smartphones, nobody did anything special to promote them. They were vastly better thing. They replaced anything we could do. And the adoption was global within a decade. So those things will take care of themselves. So really, a lot of this must be about control, because I can't look at it in any other way, because the evidence very clearly shows that the free market of ideas is much better than any government group of ideas. Yeah. So what I know, I'm just a historian. So yeah, okay. Your insights, dude, are critical. You're not getting the coverage and the, well, I would say academic respect that you should get for the work that you've done. And that's, well, life sucks, dude, welcome to the suck, what can I say? Yeah. I mean, well, what sucks, I like, I don't even care about that. But what sucks is that they're ignoring the truths that I've been trying to bring. And that has consequences that causes damage unnecessarily. And so, like, I'm okay with, I've been okay with, you know, not being the center of the attention and everything, whatever, the luma chain can gobble up attention, give her whatever, as long as the truth comes out. But that's not what's happening right now. And so, you know, when things like what Jay did or anything else, all it's doing is preventing these truths that I keep hearing from people, oh, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. That looks a lot like the direction we need to go. In fact, Jay said that, yeah, I don't know what the answer is, but I know that it's down this path. It's a quote from Jay. And so for him to say that and then try to marginalize me, it's illogical, even if it's not, even if it wasn't bad, I'm trying to do that, it's illogical. Because if he actually believed that, then what is his goal if he doesn't want to win? I don't know. I really don't. Well, you know, I would give him the, I don't think he wants to see this Orwellian infrastructure put into place. No. So, you know, we can concede that he's being a good faith actor in that space. But the issue being, well, this is just obviously my conclusions, what have you. I think we have a very, very small window in which we're able to sort of effect some sort of change on these systems that they want to put into place. And it would seem put into place quite forcefully without what we would expect with respect to the political process, right? That's how it's supposed to work. And you know, there should be votes on measures that are taken, et cetera, and all that seems to be being bypassed for an end goal that we're not sure if it's benign for us, right? The untermensch. They get pushed around. And, you know, it comes down to, they know in their calculations that there's far, far more of us than there are of them. And were it, history being an indicator, should the populace be so upset with the ruling classes? It tends to end up with ruling classes, say swinging from ropes or, you know, looking at guillotine blades, historically, now whether that's the case right now, we can effect change. And, you know, this is, I've thought a lot about our last conversation and, you know, we were discussing about how they would sort of implement control and the strategy behind that, which is, okay, they hardpoint areas and then they let the country sort of cannibalise itself in a, I don't know, a holodomor type scenario. Right, like good historical transformational leaders, you know, I guess if Stalin is your leader, then yeah. But that's the metric I think we have to use. I keep making the argument that this is 21st century Bolshevism being pushed onto- It's idiocy. Yeah, Bolshevism was the worst example, but I mean, it's just idiotic. It's selfish on the part of whatever the ruling class is, and it's ultimately, like, it's terrible. Like, I don't really have other ways to describe it. It's just fucking terrible. And the fact that anybody thinks that this is okay is horrific. We've got a, we have a middle class, I would say, at the moment, and in that I would sort of class the academics and the, you know, the same scale, but like politicians, et cetera, all those that consider themselves just above, you said, the hoi polloi, right, that they still are going to be able to benefit from the system change. And well, I just think back to my position. Had I continued down the path of brain modulation, behavioral detection, and be in a position where I would be benefiting from these types of systems, the system would be interested in me and thus be opening or making life comfortable. How many, how many me's does it take to facilitate and not speak up in the current environment? Well, there's a million scientists, all of whom, I had no idea what the actual number is, it's more than that, but there's a million who know enough about certain facets of it to know that fucked up things were happening and yet stayed silent. All actively helped it. If not being contributing to it, yeah. And, you know, the classic example of that is just Anderson and the Scripps Institute and then receiving, you know, nice $10 million, I forget the name of the grant now, Centers for Emerging Infectious Diseases, I think, a CREED, something like that. Oh yeah, but I mean, that was only one. I mean, in May of this year, a FACCI doled out $577 million for antivirals, didn't include fusion inhibitors, which they all knew about, and that went to nine centers, five of which were tied to, you know, the proximal origin group, out of nine. And I would make the presumption that the other four are going to be inducted into this ideology. Well, I read the after action and this panel, there was like a panel prior to or just after the doling out of his money or something like, something concurrently with it, where it was like a big antiviral study group that came out with recommendations, and when you read the after action report of those meetings and like the other recommendations, once again, no fusion inhibitors, zero. It was all protease inhibitors, largely like remdesivir or, you know, just other antivirals that, but ignoring what the Chinese and other people around the world, like 12 different versions, like 12 different things have already been tested in vivo and vitro and shown to work as pan-coronavirus inhibitors, and the NIH has funded zero. And that included all the major players in that meeting, and that was in 2021. Well, you know, it's obvious that the focus wants to go down genetic transfection techniques. And, you know, the next generation, as they're calling them, which are sort of nasal sprays to go in and affect change. And that bothers me even more for the following reasons, that that might be an optimal pathway to stop viral propagation and spread. It may work brilliantly, but the problem with it is, if it is so effective, then what that does is that greases the wheels for these vaccine passports, because they'll say, oh, there's no excuse for you to not have them, right? Of course, they'll conveniently leave out the part where they already knew this. They already knew that the mucosa is where you develop this response. So that would also be where you tend to end up viral to be most effective. Like, they've already known all of this, but yes, you're right, they would gaslight and spin it to their advantage, while conveniently ignoring the horrific facts that they already knew this, they could have done it and they didn't on purpose. And I think my mission, when I think about, okay, what am I trying to do, I'm just trying to get to a point where I can provide that to the public and say, so where they can't do this anymore. So I can say, hey, look, whether it be in testing, whether it be in diagnosis, whether it be in treatment or prophylaxis or whatever, they knew explicitly what worked and what didn't. And they did the opposite and they censored anyone who tried in science, who tried to point these things out. I mean, they censored, they dropped the Proudhand et al paper, they dropped two papers, other than that, that talked about T cell infection. Obviously, I have mectin, so all of these things, they were intent on protecting themselves and willing to allow millions of people to die when we had solutions. And once the public understands that, then I think my job is done, because that truth is enough to blow it open, but that's the truth that they don't want people to know. It begs the question of, if they were trying to cover their backsides, right? And so to go to the extent which we've seen them go, why wouldn't they allow the most effective therapies out there to shut things down? I'm talking about disease, to stop the disease in its tracks. So again, this points to something, a conductor or operator above what we're privy to, saying we're going in this direction. And again, conflict and war is just politics in a different format, right? And they're tenderizing us, this is a quiet county. Yeah. I'm inclined to agree with that position, that they're working... Obviously, they knew that they could have done better, and they intentionally did the opposite. So the only conclusion that you can draw is that the reason they didn't do it is because they saw more benefit for them in allowing it to happen in ways that they could control than in actually solving the problem using science. They betrayed science. And the fact that that is so obvious, once people understand these concepts, that's the point we need to get to. Because once the public understands that, they can't hide behind any of this bullshit. Because in every case, we can just say, okay, well, here's all the evidence that shows you knew exactly what to do, and you did the opposite. And so it's a step... It's a necessary component to the censorship, because it wasn't just censorship. It was what were they censoring that was so important? And what they were censoring is the ability for the public to be given the information that would show that they were full of shit and they knew it. It's obstruction of justice on a global scale. It's obstruction of justice for crimes against humanity, which makes it even worse. This entire thing, regardless of, once again, regardless of who made it, or if it was bioethanol, whatever. We even need to know that, to know that they fucked us on purpose. They allowed millions of us to die when they could have prevented it, or they could have prevented virtually all of it, even if it was accident. And that is unforgivable, and the public must understand that. And it pulls us inexorably to the conclusion that the endpoint is not gonna be benign for the mass population. There's already been damage done, but from what I can see, there is no justification that rises high enough that could justify even what we've already experienced, in terms of loss of freedom, loss of life, whatever the cause. So anything that happens from now on is just further collateral damage that, once again, could have been avoided. There's no other way to look at it. So just to update here, so Shaya is saying H1N1 was being reported. Yeah, Shaya, we looked and, yeah, H1N1 is circulating with H3N2 as well. We sort of confirmed that, and they're saying hospitals are full and people are told to stay home if sick. So... Well, of course. Of course they are. Of course they are. Yeah, so again, what's the trigger here? You said basically we're on a track where we've got a year, right, if I remember correctly what you said last time, before things potentially spiral out of control. Well, I mean, so in the United States, I would like to think we're more than a year behind Europe, but once again, at any time, they can just kill all power. They can go super drastic. And I mean, I think they want to avoid that because that would hurt them. So they want to do whatever they can to protect their own interests, which I think is the only thing that keeps them from doing, you know, whatever would be most direct is simply because it would hurt them, it would hurt their daily life. And so they're not willing to do that, but they are willing to drag this out and hide the truth from us and gaslight us ad infinitum. Well, which kind of pulls us into this idea of UN 2020, 2030, that they've got milestones that they're aiming for, for programs that they've initiated. And yeah, it's just that the takeaway here is that they're winning, they're setting the pace, their programs are in place, and whatever waves we make with respect to the current circumstances, they must have gamed it in the calculation that they can handle anything that we throw back with respect to forms of resistance. So yeah, obviously, censorship being one of the primary ones, but I'm, I would have to make the presumption that they've calculated in the more aggressive resistance. So they, especially, and this applies to the US because Europe is, Europe's neutered anyway, right? So they will just push Europe along and there'll be, I think, very, very little in terms of resistance there, you know, we're watching them turn over the Dutch farmers, the French and their protests are always handled because they're essentially, they're disarmed. So it comes down to what's the tactical position with respect to the US? And I would have to make the presumption that they're ready to go in and wrap up veterans and those that they think are, well, I don't know. In my mind, they're constitutional purists, Charles, but, you know, inconvenient voices. If it's Hotez dictating the public dialogue, we're all right wing Nazis. And so censoring us isn't just an unfortunate consequence, it's a vital, it has to be done because we are so threatening that, I mean, we are the literal reincarnation of Nazis and we know what happened last time when we were appeasing them and that's literally what he's claiming. When the opposite is true, when it's they're the ones burning books, they're the ones putting marks on people and making them like differentiating out special classes of people worth less and worth more, they are literally doing what they're claiming. People who actually believe in the constitution are saying, and it's like, that's even like, it's just an even bigger gaslight, but they're not going to stop. And censorship is the match that allows them to gaslight, that's exactly what it is. Very state of affairs, folks, what can I say, I mean, I guess we have to, yeah, Merry Christmas. Maybe the last one. So I guess what we should do, I've got to wrap up because the kids got to get to bed. I think what might be a useful exercise is go listen to that Twitter space. And then I think then we can sort of formulate more the discussion because they're bringing into the public consciousness, the idea of this fifth generation warfare. To be honest, I think, like in my initial hot take reflecting upon our conversation, I think we actually did a pretty good job of kind of analyzing the positives and negatives and then within the bigger context. I really do think that, like I've learned, like I've been able to put some things together like in an explanatory way, it's helped me. So I mean, like I think, once again, I think this is the path, we're on the right path and we just need to keep pushing this path because we're coming up with like good analyses of the problems and we just need to get them out there. So I think I'm actually part of this stream. Now I might listen to it tomorrow and think it's terrible, but I don't know, I think you covered a lot of ground. Yeah, it was good. And, you know, I guess, you know, the initial part was the more sort of focused analysis, which is be aware that they're going to push in a direction that's going to cover their ass and sort of basically give us an other enemy to focus on. And, you know, this is the Chinese biowarfare programs, well, OK, that's, yeah, we should focus on them, but there's others as well that we have to keep an eye on. You know, this is, we need other people doing the political analysis, the network analysis. We have to be, you know, well, critical of our own positions as well and just keep moving forward. I'd like to speak to Andrew because I want to, I'd like to pick his brain just about the nature of the tuned, what I see is tuned bioweapons and tuned medical countermeasures that they could bring into play in the current framework. Right, but that J.C. has already made it very clear that we're not allowed to do that, so because otherwise we're perpetuating the narrative. Right. So I just caution you. Which is a, it's a stupid position to take, right, you know, I would, like I say, I'm skeptical of, not skeptical is the wrong word, I want to be cautious about individuals who we know are or were operating in that program space, right. And so that includes Andrew and it includes Robert Malone, but again, I want to, I would sort of stress, you know, do you, do you, do you, purity spiral in such a manner that you shut off information that could be available, that could help adaptive response and potentially any pushback that we, that we have and, you know. Well, the answer's no. The answer's no, which is why I'm so proud of, you know, the alt-metric score for my paper, because yeah, it was 100% social media, so the bottom line is, is that it's getting truth out. Like, we don't have all the answers, but that's what we have to be doing. And so this notion, if I have, I've not come across a situation yet in which somebody who has something to offer must be unworthy because, you know, if we're going to, if we're going to win this battle, we can't do it that way, okay. Whatever's happening, we are the victims of something, and we're trying to figure out what it is that we're the victims of. And so just because we interact with people who may have had parts to play in it at some point, that's irrelevant. Anywhere that I can find answers, I will go, and I'm not stupid. Like, I can discern the difference, you know, based on the knowledge that I've acquired, and if I'm wrong, so be it. But I've trusted my judgment this far, and anything else is just insane. It's just insane. Yeah, I've had people say to me literally, because you've been in the military, we can't trust what it is that you bring to the table. Because I must, because I must be part of the narrative. That's stupid. That was part of JC's argument, which is dumb, because what we exposed is not beneficial to the military. My very first article after we released the defuse documents was talking about the vaccines. Why? Because that's exactly why it was being used in the first place, to attack the vaccine, because we were trying to warn people that it's bigger than just this gain-and-function bullshit, okay? But the implications of this are that they lied to us because they knew. It's not because gain-and-function is terrible or not. It's because this is evidence that they knew what they were talking about, and they lied into the opposite. And so to paint it as anything else is insane, to paint it as if the DoD is going to come knocking on my door and give me medals for this is retarded. The Secretary of Defense is not happy with what I did, okay? Yeah. It's just dumb. It's dumb. It's so dumb. And our intention here is we want to improve our military posture, right? Right, of course. Our actual, I'm actually concerned about other threats, not just from our own government and the deep state, whatever, but for any number of reasons, we need to have healthy military. Yeah. So the fact that I'm prior military, and the fact that this came from a military, that's irrelevant. What is the truth that is, what is it pointing to? And it's pointing to actual evidence. And until you have something better, I mean, I've been called, I was told that because I was on Fort Belvoir at one point, that I must be part of like a CIA operation or something, or that I must be part of DITRA, okay? I was on Fort Belvoir in 2018 for PTSD treatment, and I'd said that in this chat room, and it was just a private, drastic chat with other people that we interact with. And somebody was like, somebody who now trusts me, like at the time, he introduced himself to me by saying, oh, well, you must be like, deep state, because you're on Fort Belvoir. I was like, did you hear why I was, it was insane, but yes, I've dealt with the gamut of people. I just don't talk about it, because I mean, it's pointless. I'm sorry. I know I interrupted you. No, no, no, no. I mean, it was, you kind of answered the question anyway, but what came up in the chat was, are you still under the equivalent of the Official Secrets Act? And I would have to, yes, for some aspects, right? You must be. Sure. I mean, like I had a clearance, and there's things I don't talk about, but Diffuse was an unmarked set of documents, and I'm a private citizen. The only thing, the only connection I have is I get disability. So like, if they stop that, I mean, I guess that would suck, yes, but I mean, that doesn't mean that I'm beholden to the VA. I mean, I rag on the VA all the time, like the Department of Defense doesn't owe me anymore. If they tried, I mean, I already gave up my fucking house. So like, I don't know what else I have to prove to people that, well, JC says that that wasn't really a sacrifice, but you know, whatever. The bottom line is that if I wanted, if I was owned, I would not be doing what I'm doing right now. I just wouldn't. And if I can't probably show like all the evidence behind that, I don't give a shit. I'm not doing it for you, I'm doing it for all of you. You know, just see what I'm doing, don't worry about what other people say about me, just see what my actions are. And I think they speak loud and clear, so I don't worry about any of that other crap because I know what I'm doing and my actions should speak for themselves. Yeah. And this is what I would say is just look at people's actions and you know, I know I said we'd wrap up, but you know, I've sort of pointed at RFK's very, very close associations with Epstein networks, okay? It's not, that's not conspiracy, it's incontrovertible, the photographic evidence is there, etc. But for the time being, if what he's doing is pushing and nudging the needle in the right direction, I'm not going to spend all my time focused on trying to bring him down or break what they're trying to do at Children's Health Defence. What I do have is a concern that he's open to manipulation because that's how that upper classes are controlled somewhat, right? It's the blackmail networks and the problem being that people will aggregate around an individual who has public exposure and then they can mould where people go. And it's just a risk that I would ask people to factor into their calculation. That's exactly what JC did was try to discredit us as if we weren't, you know, like he was trying to do that, which once again, like as you just said, that is the opposite of what we need to be doing right now. It's just the opposite. And so, you know, those are actions to be looking at, right? And you know, I didn't come out and say like that at the time, but that is in effect what was happening. And those actions speak loudly because I know a lot about all these situations. And so if other people don't understand that, you know, I could sit here and try to explain it and maybe, you know, try to patch up some of the things that he tried to put on there. But the bottom line is, is that all the time that I spend doing that just takes me away from what we actually should be doing. And so what it means is that I can either ignore it and keep pushing forward and just accept that, you know, I'm going to get tarred and feathered for, you know, whatever reasons, for no reason. Or I can do the selfish thing and just do nothing but try to tear him down. But I can't, if I actually believe in my heart, this is what I'm supposed to be doing, then my actions need to be continuing to do this. So and once again, that's, this is what I'm doing for a reason, because this is more important in my reputation than, you know, than anything else. So if it takes five years for people to understand that, so be it. It sucks. Don't get me wrong. It sucks. But it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make because, because I'm not doing this room. And I hope that someday people understand that. We're in dire circumstances. And like I say, if we've moved the needle enough, like I say, that, that Twitter spaces and you know, that platform has opened us up or opened up the dialogue that people are now beginning to think in these, that the terms that we're talking about, the frameworks that we're using, which I'm of the opinion that we need to solve this problem. Because we can, once it's defined, we can then say we want the, we want the opposite of what it is that they're trying to introduce. And so, you know, hopefully the end point is that we can bring in a rule set that, you know, has an impact that something like Nuremberg did. And we know that there was paperclip and all sorts of back hat, back channel shit that went on in, in history, but, and we can expect the same to come again, but we can, we can constrain it, I guess is the, the conclusion here. And you know, Charles is doing a standup job for doing that. We wouldn't, we wouldn't be halfway near as close to the targets we are right now without his work. And yeah, I'm, I think that's a good place to, to wrap it up. So, so I don't know if I'll speak to you before Christmas Day, I'll probably on Skype, I will, presumably, but if we stream again, I don't know, maybe after Christmas, what's the date? It's the 22nd today, so it's just three days or so, but yeah, for people listening, I'll probably get another stream in before Christmas Day. But Coney says, Charles, is there anyone in Congress that understands what is happening? The closest person would be Senator Ron Johnson. There are, there are many people digging into this right now, but he is head and shoulders above everybody else, from what I can see. And is he speaking to Rand Paul? And I don't get why those aren't- Yes, he is, he's working with Rand Paul. Why aren't they more public, I guess is the question, in their interaction? I don't have all the answers, and my goal is to, is to help them as directly as I can. So that's, that's what I'm trying to do right now, is, is get into position where I can help them more directly. Yeah, and well, let's, let's hope that the, they don't get sucked down just the China, China route right now, I guess. Well, it's our job, if we know, and we see things that aren't seen by everybody, it's our job to do everything we possibly can to, to make it so that other people see them. That's what we're doing. And, you know, it's easier when we're not fighting against each other, but so be it, we'll do it. I mean, I'm not going to stop until it's done, and then you're out, so we'll get there, we'll be dead. Yeah. Well, so I guess, I don't know, that if we could maybe get Andrew on to sort of discuss this, I'd, you know, I don't know, you speak to Robert Malone as well. But, you know, fifth generation warfare, folks. I'm still waiting for that too, so, next generation warfare, that's fine. Yeah, and, you know, the more, the more there's this dialogue out there, the more people listen to it, the better position we'll be in, I think. All right, I'll let you go do something, I say it's probably daylight coming up where you are, right? We've got about 30 minutes for that, maybe. So, I'll wish you a good, a good day, I guess, if you're going to go to sleep, but, take care, bro, and thank you for your time. All right, have a good day, night, whatever. Yeah, night time. Got to get the kids to bed, so, all right, take care, dude. All right, so, boom, Charles is out of here. I'm going to get out of this, do this, yeah, I'm going to wish everyone a good, if you appreciated the stream, please go to McCann Dojo, support, support the doc in his fight. That's it, Griff Link's there, and yeah, I've still got a couple of things I want to stream about before Christmas, and I'll try, I'll try to do that. In the meantime, everyone, God bless, I will see you in the next one.