McCairnDojo.comPast episodes & related streams
Connecting to Rumble…

New Year Round Table: St Nick, Dr Joanna Dienert, Mark Kulakz, Dr Kevin McCairn

Hey, he gets in every time now, god damn soundboard. Happy new year, everyone. Happy, happy new year. And let's let's hope it's going to be a less less interesting, say in China or Chinese Proverbs year. But in order to set up for the new year, we have arranged a roundtable. I'm going to jump straight in. There are people waiting, but quick, just as we're so, so heavily censored. No Twitter allowed for the good doc, no YouTube allowed. They're hunting me down, those FBI and CIA scumbags. But let's do this. Fuck you, Yasser. Stop. Stop. Stop. I don't know why it's doing that. But remember, this is next generation hybrid warfare, covert moral bio enhancement being the aim. They're coming for your mind and your consciousness. Just to remind everyone, if you've wandered in here, that's me, legit scientist. You can find me all over the internet. ResearchGate is a good place. Everything's aggregated there. And of course, please bookmark where you can find all the links where you can get a hold of me. Twitter obviously doesn't work. But please, please, please think of trying to keep the lights on, the screens running, the memes flowing, Patreon, the tip jar, Streamfags or Gay-Pal. Buy me a coffee, of course, subscribe star, digital tulips, everything. If you want to join an active community, there is the Discord chat. And if I scroll down, there's a register to be notified button somewhere on the screen. Yes, there. Look, if you scroll down, register to be notified, give an email and then you'll get an email alert when I go live. Right. So, oh yeah, one last thing. Plug our streaming platform as well. That's where a lot of the expense goes. You can watch replays on there if you don't want to give your data to big data.

And with that done, let me bring in protagonists. Let's do this. Let's do this. And I think we're good to go. So if you guys can unmute, that would be good. Maybe I can unmute you. Mark, do you hear me? I hear you loud and clear, buddy. All right, Nick, do you hear me? Good evening. Good morning. Good afternoon. Yeah. Good morning for me. I rolled out of bed trying to get all this done. I should have set it up last night. But happy new year, guys. Happy new year. We made it. Yes. Just about. I think everyone hears in one piece, right? I think so. And no one has told me otherwise. Hang on. I think Johanna is just trying to get in. And I sent links to Doc Kek and Mary Quaicuantrary. Hi, Johanna. Happy new year. We don't hear you. She's connecting. It's still coming in. Oh, it's still connecting. But yeah. All right. I think there's I don't know. I can do a review for the year. What's coming up? What do you got? I know you guys had a few issues you wanted to bring up. And I'm open to tee off anywhere. First and foremost, I'm co-streaming on my channel. I did tell my audience that they may hear harsh language. And I encourage them to go to your chat, which is equally as lively and as informed as a wonderful place. But it's not going to be connected with the chat that I have. However, as some people in my chat have noticed in this situation, it would feel it seems as though the harsh language is warranted. And I kind of agree. But just because of my audience and a policy that I'm going to keep it clean over here. But you say what you need to do. I've already warned my audience. Well, if you just drop me the link that you're streaming on now, the only caveat that I would say is my concern is that YouTube has a real hard on for me. And like they'll bust things midstream. They'll zap channels with no strikes or anything. So just keep that in mind. When doing maybe shouldn't mention my name in the in the title or something, probably not be leaving this video online on YouTube for a long period of time. All right. And if you give me the link that you're streaming on, if you just drop it in the chat, I might be might be able to integrate it here. I got a little widget that might do that. Just not necessary. That's okay. It actually it's okay. It's not necessary. I'd rather keep it separate. Okay. Okay. Just because of censorship reasons. But I really do appreciate it. I think that would be cool. Otherwise. All right. Can you hear us, Johanna? Now? Can we hear you? Yeah, I can hear you. I hope you can hear me. We can. Happy New Year. Happy New Year. Okay. All the technical issues. It's looking good. You've even got Alex. Well, no, Paul Joseph Watson, world map behind you. Get some some base. So I don't know where you guys want to jump off. So I mean, I've got a few that I heard just recently that I heard Nick and Mark talking about I think it was on separate streams. I'll start. And well, first off, just just Happy New Year to everyone. And just go around. It is seven o'clock in the evening here in the Boston area. We have people here working around the clock around the world to bring this to you. Johanna. Happy New Year. What time is it where you are now? Shortly past 1am. 1am. Okay. Happy New Year. Nick? It is 4.15 in the p.m. where I'm at. Happy New Year, everybody. Poor Johanna got the short end of the story. Hang on. I've got to find let me just close Telegram because I don't know what it is. I'm sure I've got everything muted, but it just keeps binging at me. All right. That's that. That's that done. Can I should I start with the topics? So I'm going to I'm going to tee off. I had I had a few things on my list, but this is this came up recently in recent streams. Like I say that I saw Nick doing with Macduff. Is that the stream? And I've heard Mark mentioning it on his stream. And I want to put this in the context of what we seem to be facing. I'm going to call it asymmetric hybrid warfare from a oligarch elite class that is using advanced psychological operations on the world population, I would add. But there's a long history that brought us to here. And there was a new a new data point that I heard being mentioned, which was the Hep B vaccines, I think, was the the vaccine of concern. And this this was a consequence of deployment same organizations, same, historically, the same organizations looking at DoD. And it was developed for, I want to say, because of troops developing hepatitis B in the in the Second World War campaign. I'm fascinated to know more. And that's a good place, I think, to start filling in some of the historical frameworks that we're dealing with. And then we'll move from there. And I've got Doc Kek looking to jump in. So I'm going to let him in as well. So I don't know who wants to tee off on that mark, Nick. Mark, would you like to take this? I would be honored to to take this one. So Nick has done incredible research and has had used some of the best sources out there to try to get to the roots of when the the virus, which is known as HIV, somehow got introduced into the population of the United States. And apparently, it, it would seem as though it started off with a gay men in San Francisco and New York City, and probably also intravenous drug users sometime in the late 19th, mid to late 1970s. And the vaccines that were associated with that, which did contain a component from primates. But some of that research near you keep tracing it back. And knowing that that immunological breakdown does lead to long term deterioration of the immune system, hence AIDS acquired immune deficiency syndrome. You can find research and the same researchers, same scientists such as the infamous Dr. Gallo going back to the 1960s in the United States of America, with a program, special government program called the SDCP, the Special Virus Cancer Program, which did experimentation on viruses, potentially causing cancers, and the the biological warfare component of that or the side of that. So that brings together military concerns, pharma concerns, cancer research, National Institutes of Health, etc. And there's a lot of anecdotal evidence of vaccines related to polio, infamous researchers going to Africa, and the components of which were used, such as kidneys from primates to make some of those vaccines in the 1950s. There this but this concept of cancers and viruses or cancers and even vaccines having some relationship. If you really trace it back a little bit further than that, you have to look at the Manhattan Project, which was the top level government project, the United States of America in World War Two, which research the concept of the atomic bomb, using enriched uranium to develop a an explosive ordinance that was many, many times more powerful than anything which has ever been made before. And that worked under high level security clearances. Okay. Now, the Manhattan Project did a lot of work because it involved radioactive materials, it involved a lot of research on cancers being caused by radiation, cancers caused by your radium. And that immediately captured a bit of a scientific cult, if you will, the United States that goes all the way back to 1920s using radium and other radioactive materials as a way to maybe cure cancer or even extend life. And you see sort of this this union of multiple things, multiple research disciplines around the time of World War Two in particular, which is like really where it all kind of connects. Okay. And much of the Manhattan Project was not really, I mean, of course, it was studying the the ability to enrich uranium and build a bomb, but much of it was also studying cancers, causing cancers, and of course, curing cancers with chemicals, with the treatment of cancers with the byproducts of what was formerly known as mustard gas. And this also led to other ways to research other ways to cause cancers and cure cancers. And that was the concept called with viruses. And that was a whole field which it's a word that most people aren't aware of something called viral therapy. And viral therapy was the concept that you can use viruses to cause cancers or to cure cancers. And much of the research on biotherapy comes out of New York City Rockefeller Institute and Memorial Hospital or Memorial Sloan Kettering Hospital. And the animals were often used not just in the manufacture of vaccines, but also to test whether or not tumors and cancers could be shared between animals and people and vice versa. What was the truth table? What's the number of permutations that go into that? Now, in World War II, and I don't know if this was an intentional act of harm done to US servicemen or not, I think it was actually, this was an accident, I believe. But of course, every accident is they find a way to take advantage of it. Was that just in 1941, the US is in a situation where it looks like they're going to be going to war. The calls to get the US military personnel ready for World War II, those calls were going out. And now, of course, same as today, it's like some things just never change. First thing they start worrying about is, oh my God, those dreaded mosquitoes. Not that mosquitoes don't spread disease, but immediately the concern is the disease before the bullets that they're going to throw these poor men in front of. So they start with the other rounds of injections. And one of the things that they wanted to inject the most was a vaccine for yellow fever. And this yellow fever vaccine, sure enough, in late 1941, early 1942, was traced to very high levels of jaundice and several hundred or thousand deaths in US servicemen. We'll never know the exact number. We'll never know. And it is remarkable that if you go to YouTube and do keyword searches like hepatitis B World War II or yellow fever vaccine hepatitis, you will almost find nothing on this for many years. And it might still be the case the largest known specific outbreak of hepatitis B was the yellow fever vaccine of World War II. I mean, as much as I can't stand Wikipedia, someone, God bless their heart, has managed to keep that sentence on the Wiki page. There's a lot of people trying to strike that sentence out. If you think we're just making this up, there's plenty of research papers out there that back this up. And of course, bring in the question. They can't deny it. So what they say is more research is warranted. It's like, we had 80 freaking years. Come on. The truth is you just don't want to get an answer for it. Now, digging into some of the yellow fever production methods, their claim was that the way the hepatitis B got into the vaccines was that they were actually using human serum and it came from other humans, which I could see that as a possibility. We know that disease can spread between people who are sharing needles, who are drug users. So what did they replace it with? And they weren't really clear. We know that they use more egg-based products, more chickens, but other videos such as one that I just played, a little 10-minute video, illuminates that in Columbia, they found primates up in the trees, primates, they get HIV now. And they said, well, if the people walking down on the ground are getting yellow fever, but the primates up there are just swinging away and having a good time, the primates must be immune to yellow fever. How do we get some of that goodness yellow fever into the people? It's 1942, 1943. So the opportunities to have this exchange of serums between people and animals didn't just start in the 50s or 60s in Africa. The outbreak of HIV, where HIV initially came from, very well could have been in the 1950s or 1960s. That specific virus, exosome, whatever you wish to call it, which sure enough does cause disease over time, especially if people receive the repeated injections of it. But that was not the first time this level of insanity was done. And so it was used for both the production of the, I should say the attainment of what they thought were weakened viruses, the production of the viruses, 1940s. And it's also done within the building, the very same building where Anthony Fauci's father was the lead pharmacist for 20 something years. Memorial Sloan Kettering, which was funded by the Rockefeller Institute, funded by two of the wealthiest people in the United States of America, Sloan and Kettering, who were industrialists related to World War II. So they took Memorial Hospital, which goes back to late 1800s, expanded on it and added essentially a wartime research component to it, as well as some industrialized methods for doing research and vaccine production. And it makes you wonder, at some point, some of the stories that we hear are absolutely true and some of them are, they're fabricated, right? So sometimes it's hard to tell, especially as time goes on and so many people have written about things and rewritten about it. Was it really a first time possibility of some new viruses coming from contaminated or sick monkeys in Africa with a polio vaccine? Or was that an elaborate story which was done to come up with a more digestible scenario, right? Then they know exactly what they were injecting into people several years before that. And they just wanted to see where it was going to go and which serums could make people sick, which ones can make people healthier and so on and so forth. So this is 1943, Happy New Year 2023. This is 80 years right now since that event. And anyway, to kick things off, this doesn't invalidate Nick's research. It continues to build on it and how important it is to come up with these timelines. And this is also what Nick and I have been talking about, which is we need to work together, not just him and I, but you as well, Kevin, every all the other good researchers out there on collaboration on usable timeline tools, which other people can peruse. Some people can add to as we pay licenses and so on and so forth. So that's a kickoff. Okay, there's a kickoff and run with it guys. Questions? What's next, Nick? Well, that was wonderful. And I really appreciate the tip of the hat. Yeah, we're fighting this yellow fever information was really, really important. The questions from John and David the other night were a part of this. And I'm not sure if it was David or John that brought forward a great synopsis from the National Academy of Sciences. And their little timeline shows a jump from 1947, talking about using human volunteers that they differentiated hepatitis A and B and characterized one as being casually infective and communicable and the other really being blood born. And they skipped to 1963 where Bloomberg and Alter discover the Australian antigen and give it a name. They skip over 14, 15 years of primatology using all of the different experiments and applications, all of the different stuff that's in the literature that's indelible. So that's another piece of what we're talking about here is trying to create collections that relate to specific pieces of the story that can be parsed out because it's complex. The cancer, the HIV, maybe even some of the autoimmune issues may still stem from this era. And that's Kevin, that's what we've just been chatting about in the background. And then we've been joined by other friends here in the meantime. So do we want to say hello? Yeah, don't take your mics active. I just want to wish everyone a Happy New Year. Hello, Happy New Year, all. Cheers. Just with that brief intro, I just want to quickly bring Johanna in, our resident expert virologist. Did you know any of that? Not really that part. But actually, I made some notes because from the second book of Judy Mikovits from the preface, I think that Kennedy Jr. wrote, I know of this cohort, medical personnel, the first cohort of ME-CFS, which was in the 20s, 1920s, 100 years ago. And they were part of an experiment for vaccines. And Judy Mikovits was talking about that they were growing these vaccines in mouse brains. So her hypothesis on like xenotropic mouse viruses getting into the vaccines was kind of supported with that anecdote that Robert Kennedy Jr. brought in. And I knew about the hepatitis B vaccines that Nick is talking about and the development or introduction of HIV like viruses or HIV into the human population. So I think it's interesting to look into the war at times because between the 1920s and it was right after the war. And we have the Spanish flu with these rumors about vaccines for military personnel as well. And maybe I can repeat it, but when I was 22, I got that lecture by a USAMRIID researcher about bio warfare. It was in 2002. It was after the 9-11 attacks and the anthrax threats back then. And part of that lecture was using injections to bring in a secondary attack phase of stealth by warfare. So I think it's reasonable to look into all this and I'm trying to check out the family relationships of these viruses because when you look into yellow fever vaccines and I have we were talking about this 1941 issue with the yellow fever vaccines and the hepatitis B coming after that. And then there's this next experimentation on hepatitis B vaccines and then HIV comes out and then they're experimenting on HIV vaccines and you know it's like it's an ongoing pattern as you might see it and maybe you know it's a very dramatic approach from the work of Jena which was I think it was 1700 something. It was way earlier than Robert Koch and even Robert Koch and Bering and the other researchers, the German researchers were in the 1800s. So we have a huge time span where multiple generations of humans got these measures. So I think it's a hard topic to research like the forensic approach to prove it but when you see these overall patterns and can monitor new diseases emerge after these experiments, human experiments, I think it's necessary that we look into all this for no back home reasons. Well when you talk about, go ahead Kevin. Well what I was going to say is the importance for being forensic in this historical timeline but I want to just add the caveat that you know there have been, you can't scientifically dismiss the successes of some vaccines. That's the problem that you're going to face right now and so I think it's important to have some precision in the analysis because there's a tendency to just be all anti-vax bad and I've always been cautious. My children have minimal, it's not mandatory in Japan so I stopped. My son came back from a DPT one and didn't look good and I just stopped. Any after that, so my third child had minimal but there's a need to work within the framework of what has been some degree of successful medicine. Now that doesn't mean that we don't bring them under a lot of scrutiny for the fact that they would try and particularly in the current environment where they've been given license to make any disease some type of countermeasure that they want to put on childhood schedules and that's exemplified right now by the SARS vaccines which I don't know if this is global but the US has put it on the childhood schedule as far as I understand it. I don't know about Europe, certainly not the case in Japan but for sure the US seems to be a primary node in this and the legislation that's put in place to allow for Big Pharma for want of a better expression. I don't like that expression because there's too much DOD involvement in all this but yeah I just wanted to add that caveat. That's all. Sorry, I was going to say that language perpetuates a misunderstanding, a continued misunderstanding of what it is and what it represents when we say Pharma or we say Bayer or Merck. Most people don't see the relationships and the implications. Go ahead, Johanna. I just wanted to say that the issue of does a vaccine reach what we want to aim with it and bring infections down. I'm open to all this. I'm a general practitioner. It's my job to vaccinate. I was trained in it and it was that dogmatic, it's okay and fine. We see success in the odds ratios for instance for that military study on flu vaccines which showed that there is a lesser odds ratio for getting an influenza infection but they also showed with these new influenza vaccines that you get a shift to other pathogens and then you have for instance a higher incidence of coronavirus infections like 36% higher percentage of coronavirus infections or para-influenza metapneumovirus I think it was. So there's a shift and we saw it with the papilloma virus vaccines as well against the cancer where you have to give it to the children prior to being active. So it's for the question when they introduce it into the childhood schedule it's protection from cancer not dying of a severe infection like SARS or something and they introduced it and you know what we saw is that the strains just shift and we have prevented these few strains to induce cancer but the other ones will do the same. I'm just wondering if we're seeing that right now because, you know, all the reports that are coming out, we look at the UK for example, it's flu that seems to be the problem. Mention the UK and the global map comes off the wall and yeah… I just wonder how much of the stress that's being put on to medical systems right now that doesn't seem to be SARS related COVID related it's flu strep in children and apparently the kids were given a flu vaccine in the UK There was a national program out for that. I would have to go back for my notes to check exactly what it was, but some sort of, it sounded like a nasal spray, more than intramuscular approach. But strep A apparently was known as a potential side effect. And it's, there's a very cavalier attitude to thinking that you're going to go in, surgically take out one pathogen and have a, no knock-on effects to the biome and virome that we constantly swim in. And, you know, it's, I guess where I want to go with this is that what they seem to be wanting to do is, yeah, digital ID is the future and the controller's minds. And vaccines seem to be a conduit through which to get people early, because vaccine schedules, and it just begins to cement up the digital gulag, I guess, for want of a better expression. I don't know, Doc, you've been quiet. I don't know if you wanted to add anything to this part of the discussion. Just one time you said that we are introducing, the new variants will come with the, and Fondant Osher is saying that as well, that the evolutionary pressure on the swarm, it's the swarm, viral swarm in general, you know. Yeah. Oh, I've got Mary quite contrary. It's just a first name for Mary. She's trying to sort of keep on the down low, but she's just jumped in. Let's see if we can get her on. And maybe she wants to chime in. Hi, Mary. How are you? Happy new year. Happy new year. So we would just sort of run through some history. And I don't know if you were listening to the stream at all. Maybe I should listen for a while. Well, it sort of got to the point where I was, Johanna had raised the study as a US military study, which showed where they'd given flu vaccines and there was a concomitant jump in coronavirus infections.

I want to say either like the following year or associated with that. And, you know, it was quite a large increase, 30% increase, if I remember correctly. And the issue that we're seeing right now, and I can, I'm more familiar with UK dynamics. I tend to keep an eye on the UK press. But what you're seeing in the UK right now is not so much COVID, although it's increasing, is flu has, it seems to be the primary problem that's stretching accident and emergency wards and, you know, to the point where apparently there's not enough oxygen in the UK right now. And the point was that it's, I would say there's a degree of hubris in thinking that you can come in, surgically take out one pathogen and not expect knock-on effects for the biome and virome that we have to work with or adapt to on a day-by-day basis. And I know you've got a thing about swarm dynamics, and if you could maybe chime in on that aspect.

Okay. Well, I would first say that we have to remember that we do see seasonal fluctuations in flu seasons where there are, you know, I think it was the 2008 season was, 18 season was particularly bad, where hospitals ran out of bed even for flu seasons, and they do run into limited resources historically. So this is not a new event. And it's, and they always make it seem like, oh, we have so many cases, we'll go compare them historically on the charts. They're just always within the normal seasonal ranges of cases and hospitalizations over, you know, you have to look past one year or two years into a more statistically relevant timeframe. But just wanted to comment on that first of all, but yeah, it's really interesting with co-infections. And I think that's really what hits at the heart of the matter here. And not pertaining to vaccination, but sometimes viral infections can block a subsequent infection, or they can have a reverse effect where they make it more susceptible for a secondary infection, whether that be another viral infection or bacterial infection. So it's always very interesting dynamics. It has to do with the, I think the innate immune state of the, you know, the mycosal surface there. So. I saw you waving a piece of paper, Mark. Were you hoping to jump in?

Oh, sorry. That was just to someone in my own chat to let them know that I wrote down the lead that they sent me. Okay. Thank you. Anyone want to add to the, yeah, the idea of pressure, evolutionary pressure applied to any immunity? I think that's a, that's a lot of work. I can't add much to that particular topic, not being a molecular biologist or biologist. I'm not, I don't have the facilities or the education to, what I will say is, I think I would represent what most people feel. And that is that if there's technology that can help reduce my chances of getting sick, sign me up. You know, I'm willing to do that, even if there are some side effects. I mean, the, the, what is the risk now is that there, there are some misrepresentations of within the history of, of the success of, of vaccines, which are, are so, are so important to me, you know, are, are so off the wall that it, the only responsible reaction is to have doubt about the field. The, I mean, the smallpox vaccine would be one, right? I don't question if, you know, smallpox vaccine has helped people in some, you know, has saved hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of lives over the last one to 200 years. I know it's, there's techniques to have been used in China going back many, many years. However, going through some of the, the, the archives of, of the number of smallpox, people impacted by smallpox outbreaks in England, the late 1800s, early 1900s. It was, while it was a high number, it was, it wasn't necessarily everyone. And then the numbers would assume to be approximately a factor of a hundred to 150 times higher in cities in India, which I, well, it seems to be rather extreme without, you know, some on the ground evidence. And then there'll be Ted talks where these numbers are tossed around that we've saved 500 million to a billion people with the smallpox vaccine. Like, you know, so again, I'm not in a situation to say that it hasn't helped people, but you don't need to really be a biologist just to look at the forensic data and go, maybe it hasn't saved them. To think that one out of every two people where it was once dying of smallpox sounds like a little bit of an overstatement. So can, can we please have some virologist or people that connect to that history stand up, you know, put some sensible data out there and help guide us to using the therapies that are proven to work best when those people are certain people, certain populations are at most risk. It's leading me and other people to have a real, I don't trust any of this stuff reaction. And that, that, that I have to say there is a chance that that could backfire or maybe that's the goal. I don't know, but that was based upon what you just said, Kevin. Those are, those are my thoughts on that. I'm going to pass that over to the virologist and the doctors on the left-hand side of the screen there. I like to reiterate that I'm on the molecular aspect of things and not in the medical at all, but the historical effectiveness of the flu vaccine is in the range of 30 to 50%. Right. So it's, it's like you said, Mark, it's risk versus benefit and people don't seem to know how to properly assess that themselves. So they get spoon fed information from public health agencies that have other interests. So again, it goes down to critical thinking and due diligence on your own. And I think a lot of us are in the same camp where we're starting to question the entire vaccine schedule. And I'm me as well. And why do they give the HEP vaccine to infants, newborn infants? Push that on mothers that have just given birth, have been tested and, and then just deliver these vaccines to babies that are at no risk of, of these types of virus infections. So we need to readdress. There's some good resources out there, but people have already done that sort of readdress the childhood vaccine schedule and, and, and which ones are offering benefit, but yeah, it comes into question. Where is the risk versus benefit? Maybe if you're in the, you know, the 80 plus population, you might choose to get the flu vaccine and it may offer some benefit there. I, I am a proponent of natural immunity, so it's not going to kill me. Right. I'm in a healthy age group, but I maintain a healthy lifestyle. I'm having a natural immune response. You're going to develop a superior immunity in my point of view with the balance of antibody T cell ratio, you know, and all that. But what do others think? Here, here. Well said. Thank you. I'll say, hi there. Hi. As a, as another investigator versus a lettered scientist, I get to opine from a multi-disciplinary, cross-disciplinary perspective and I agree. Um, and this is based on, uh, unfortunately strong data that has come forward in the last, I'd say 15 years about the roots of most of these products you're talking about, Kevin, and that, uh, what was a, uh, an assumed, uh, establishment of what safe and effective meant, uh, actually either had nothing underneath it. There's a trap door or it was a very, very small limited study with truncated surveillance windows, uh, and gerrymandered data or s or sessions that would just start over. Um, I'm, I'm talking about, for example, the data that I saw about the influenza vaccine being administered in New York city during the 1960s. So we know that during this era, the Vero or primate cell line was a typical substrate for certain pharmaceuticals. And we know about the contamination risks from that cell line. Uh, and we see in the data following each wave of influenza vaccinations, about three to eight weeks following, we see a wave of RSV and pneumonia deaths every year. It's a ripple effect. That's one example, the kinds of things that I've found just by reading, compare, looking back, taking one paper, looking at the references as boring as that seems and going back and saying, what did you, uh, you know, attempt to base your argument on and seeing more and more of a perspective on certain products. So sorry, I missed that. So duty called elsewhere, but, um, I like to say something because, please, um, I think it's very important what Mary said, the risk benefit, um, assessment. It's very individual, you know, just now in COVID, um, we see it with the children who have nearly no risk of dying from COVID. Um, and the risk of getting myocardial damage from vaccine is like, when you, you can have calculators for the risk benefit assessment and below 40, but the, um, um, the ratio isn't like, um, beneficial. And in the Helsinki declaration and for us positions, it's always, we have to look at the risk benefit assessment for the individual, you know, and if there's someone, um, like older person, 80, something, and just want to be, um, um, to have it for, for themselves, it's I'm fine. But if someone, um, and the risk benefit assessment is like on par or better and it's fine, but you can't mandate to, for everyone in the lower age groups to take these, um, experimental because, um, you know, mentioning the smallpox vaccines, sterile immunity, like not being able to transmit anymore. That's something that we as physicians expect when something is licensed as a vaccine and we don't see it right now. You know, the healthcare workers here just got rid of the mandates because, but it was not taken down. It was just running out. So we're not safe to say that not the next pandemic is going to have the next mandates post on the healthcare workers. And as Mary said, um, flu seasons have always been stressful. So, you know, I worked in ER for a long while from the surgical perspective and internal medicine perspective. And we had, um, overcrowding in some of these serious flu seasons. Um, it's, it's, but when you have staff being, um, prohibited to go to work because they are not vaccinated and, and you have the vaccinated stuff being sick all the time, which is reported around me from, from other colleagues and, um, from the workplaces, then you get problems. We have problems right now because, um, the, the emergency, um, services have problems with personal. So it's, um, you have to look at that incident, not only the viral shift in, in diseases, but also when you look at the historical data, there's the New England Journal of Medicine publication that shows a timeframe from the mid seventies to mid nineties or two thousands. And you can see infectious disease are still going down. They were going down after the wars anyways, before introducing the vaccines because of sanitation and all that. It's a proper sanitation and plumbing and all that. It's way more effective, obviously, or they were done before the vaccines were introduced, but you see the infectious diseases going down and then you see auto-immunity going up and deeply like, um, um, diabetes type one, which is associated with infections. We know that it can come after, um, a viral infection. So I think maybe the IGG four, um, stuff that would be a question for me to marry. I wanted to bring that up because, you know, that's a big question that people are asking right now. So let me, let me just try and frame that a little better. So, um, you know, the pre-print came out, I want to say about three, four months ago. And, uh, in the last couple of weeks in science, there was, uh, paper that sort of set, um, particularly as I would say those who are viscerally sort of anti-vaccine, um, it, it set them a buzz, which is this class switching of IGG proteins. And, you know, I'm not an immune expert. I don't, I'm not quite, all I'm going to do is frame the question because like I say, I don't, I don't, I'm not sure I can add anything in terms of, um, useful medical information, but the, as my, my understanding is, is that when dealing with disease and also looking for a metric from vaccination, what they would look for was IGG-1 and IGG-3 as the primary, um, immune antibodies that should be there to protect you, should you come into contact with, uh, the pathogen in the environment following one, one exposure or vaccination and you come, you come into exposure with it again and your B-cells will produce, uh, the relevant antibodies and sequester the virus such that your immune system can deal with it. And what's, what they've found is, is that there are these switch to what are IGG-4 and these are antibodies more associated with dealing with, um, allergens and venoms and, uh, essentially immune system dampening rather than immune system activating like the IGG-1 and IGG-3.

Um, what that means at a immunological, uh, immunological level, um, I, I would only be guessing. My hunch is it's probably not good. Um, and so I'm, I'm going to pass that over again to Mary and Johanna just to, um, what, what do you think? You did a great job in that explanation. It's probably about all I know. So, um, this is called VDGA class switching and immunology. That's one of the hardest parts of immunology to master how the, the B-cells rearrange these, uh, genetically to produce the different, uh, class switches and subtypes of antibodies. So it's, it's a really complicated topic. What we have to remember is we're still in our infancy of understanding immunology. So I don't think anybody's going to have a conclusive answer on that.

And, um, that's about as much as I know as well as that IGG-4 is induced after sort of a repeated exposure, allergen type of situation and plays a big role in immune regulation and immune tolerance. And so that can have, but you always have to think about the immune system as the double-edged sword, right? It's there to protect your body, to, to fight illness, but if it's not properly regulated, uh, things, things get out of whack, um, not just with infections that translates across to the cancers because those are typically maintained by our immune system as well. Sorry, I haven't dug deep into that, but Jessica Rose has put out a couple of great substacks on IGG-4 and she put out another one just recently and she's done a lot of digging into that specific topic. I got a shout out to Jessica.

Yeah, she does so much great research. Um, but I just wanted to take it back for a minute because, um, definitely, um, what, uh, Johanna was saying about the mandates are, are outrageous, but what about, uh, there's another level here we have to consider is that's the physicians and what are the physicians, are they properly informing patients of the true risk benefit scenario? Maybe some honest physicians are doing that, but they're taking their marching orders, at least from my perspective in the US, from the AMA and they, they repeat and they parrot what they're told to say. So we're, we're, we're very lost in our medical system where the patients can't even get, uh, proper information from their own doctors. Well, to be, to be fair, he, there wasn't a great deal of information available just because of the nature of the technology that was, that was deployed. And any referential framework that a clinician has is going to, um, it's going to be reliant on past data and experience, right? And, and so, you know, in, in their mind, okay, you're producing or you're getting exposed to the antigen and, um, your body will go through predictable steps to, uh, respond to it. Um, you know, yes. But, but you can break it down simpler. They, they can clearly see a very low efficacy of influenza vaccines and a relatively low risk for a healthy young cohort, right? But they all push the points of vaccine. Yeah. But that's, I, again, I'm just, I'm just sort of steel manning, um, that's fine. I enjoy it. Just to try not to get distracted by your memes over there. I'll switch that off. Um, the, yes Johanna. Because, you know, it's, it's really tough being in that position where you have kind of the legal obligation to do that by your job and contract and have like, um, we had forms for, for informed consent. And if you deviate from these forms, then there might be problems legally as well when you don't put everything in there. So it's like, as a physician here in Germany, you live on a, on a very small, um, um, line where, where, um, like my board was calling for people to report their own medical doctors if they are kind of skeptical about the vaccines, you know, and we have lists of medical doctors and we have had rates in the homes of medical doctors. Sometimes even when the child was, you know, it's like the pressure is really hard. You know, it's like, I don't envy the role of physicians because from my perspective, your work to death to start with, and then to try to figure out all this other information, the truths out in the meantime, it's very difficult. And it costs time. And, and you know, our job is like, it's, it's a time, we have time budgets. I have a time budget of seven minutes. And if it's a long time budget for psychosomatic consolation, then I have 15 minutes. You know, it's like, yeah, that's really, really hard modern medicine. I see Nick with a hand up. So, um, Nick, if you want to jump in, um, well, I wanted to, um, thank, um, everybody for being here tonight. This is a really important conversation before I get into my question, doc kick, uh, anything that you wanted to double click on. I, I just want to make sure you're included here. Yeah. Um, a couple of things. Um, first thing I wanted to address was the smallpox vaccine, kind of like being mentioned earlier. Uh, and there is no part of the vaccine, which is the most toxic part, uh, to humans that is part of that, meaning that people aren't injecting themselves with the most toxic part of smallpox to become immune to it. So, whereas in the case that we know now with the other experimental technology, we know that's the case. Um, one of the things that I learned, at least in the United States, uh, was that informed consent doesn't need to be provided for these medical countermeasures are released, um, at least in this case, uh, by the national security counselor, at least under their direction. And it is in essence, uh, a military operation that the states are, are participating in. So, you know, what really needs to happen is that physicians need to be empowered to put, uh, elected officials in a position to where they have to provide a certain piece of information. And the specific piece of information that I've kind of honed in on is that the S1 subunit is the causative agent for long COVID, at least according to Dr. Bruce Patterson and his observation with tens of thousands of patients. You know, ME-CFS is also part of this, you know, in terms of the CQA, but in terms of a clinical diagnostic, you know, capable, uh, definition of being for long COVID, uh, I believe that that is the Achilles heels, Achilles heel of this whole operation. And that once, uh, doctors start to, uh, one become aware that the spike protein, uh, is the causative agent for long COVID, that, that they're able to diagnose it and then pass it up. And then once those, uh, reports start to come up, then the S1 subunit itself can be labeled a biologic toxin, and then we can move on to the other face, because then we would have mass, uh, mass disclosure of the reality that we all now need to, need to live with. Uh, in terms of being more prone to other pathogens, um, you know, there's the concept that came out of original antigenic sin, um, you know, immune imprinting or immune priming, so that, you know, in these swarms, if, you know, if a person is, um, does have, have adaptive immunity for the flu, because that's what they got injected with, that tends to be the primary response that their immune system will give to any pathogen that they get. So if you're primed for the flu, then obviously, um, coronaviruses are going to kind of leak through because it's, it's a different type of virus. Uh, and, and I've kind of talked to my, my best friend, actually had a conversation with him today. He works trauma out of a major hospital system, uh, in Virginia, and he was saying how his, him and his family have been sick for the past two months. When he first started in trauma, you know, he got sick, his family got sick, but eventually they got over it. And it's been years that they've had to, had to deal with this. He's blaming it on the masks, but, you know, I also look at innate, um, immune suppression due to the experimental technology that's been released.

Uh, and that can't be denied either. And I'm telling him, hey, man, I think you should get a, um, an antibody panel. I think you should really check your count, you know, because lymphocytopenia is something that we're seeing a lot, uh, as a result of the S1 exposure. Um, you know, he, he'd even said that he talked to a nurse, uh, that's been, uh, in the business for 35 years. She said she's never, ever, ever, uh, had to deal with this level of infection, both for her and her family at home. So it's kind of like, you know, why is this happening? Where is it, where is this going? Uh, and then on the, um, uh, papers with IGG four, uh, I haven't really delved into that. I did see a cursory report on Jessica Rose. I believe she said that, uh, that pathway tends to lead to more amyloidogenic, uh, responses within the body. Correct me if I'm wrong in that. Um, but, uh, in my reading of IGG four, I believe it has to do with the fraction constant, um, of the antibodies because there's a variable region of antibodies and then there's a fraction constant. The variable region is generally what, uh, is, uh, tailored made to a specific antigen, but the fraction constant is the interaction of the innate immune system to the antibody. So the variable region attaches to the virus. The fraction constant is what the antibody itself uses to pull itself in. And at least in my reading, um, of this specific mechanism, that's antibody dependent enhancement. That's immune escape. That is generally, uh, gain of function because you're looking at a pathway for, um, virate, you know, being presented with a non-neutralizing antibody, but the antibody may attach that fraction constant pulls it in that, uh, macrophage or innate immune cells expecting one thing. It ends up being another and it, and it ends up, um, leaving it as the possibility of being a vector of infection, which is also something that we kind of see with the, with the spike protein itself. So those are my kind of like pinpoints on this so far.

Thank you. They were very good actually. And, um, yeah, something to think about there that, uh, again, throw out to, um, if I, if I may, I thought that was a doc hack and Twitter is, uh, paying loss doc P A N G L O S S D O C. Is that correct? Yes. Awesome. You're going to get a few new followers. So sweet. Awesome. Cheers. Thank you. They mentioned Twitter on this stream. I'm banned forever. Now I can't even, can't even get past the, uh, the clemency they've shown at the moment, but yes, Johanna, he wanted to jump in. Yeah. I, I like two parts are, um, um, the things that I wanted to go to, but I think to start with IGG, um, for soft classes, um, as a character that it, uh, in, in an antibody, you have this, um, variable region, which is on, on the Y on, on the, um, Y side. And we have this, um, um, FC domain where, um, sometimes if it's not neutralizing antibody, um, but a binding antibody, even antigen presenting cells are taking up the, the, um, the club, as you may might say, and then, um, you can get the antibody and dependent enhancement by the taking up of the viral, viral, um, um, genome into the antibody, um, um, into the antigen presenting cells and then, um, enhance the infection by that, because they can replicate inside these immune cells. And so, um, these immune cells have quite a lot of, um, cytokines and if they get infected, they attract all sorts of immune cells and the whole of immunology is really, as Mary said, it's not every MD is so deep into that, like him, because I have worked in transplant, you know, we were suppressing all these, these pathways and our patients, so it's like, it's a very special topic. Um, but you also have this, um, desensitization, um, um, treatments for allergic people, um, because the overreaction of the immune system in an allergy, um, is what, what's causing the medical problems, the symptoms. So, um, these IgG, um, for subclasses, as I understood, aren't as interactive with the antigen, uh, um, the, um, antigen presenting cells. Um, and so it's kind of a lower risk for antibody dependent enhancement in a way, but Mary showed me that publication, it was by Baric and the vaccine cancer, uh, the vaccine research center, where they were looking at, um, monoclonal antibodies against the subunits. And Mary and I were discussing, like, um, trying to figure out which part of the genome we were talking about when we were talking about, um, the GP120 inserts that I, um, discussed with Montagnier or, um, um, I am discussing in, in some of my presentations. And I think it's interesting to look at the S1 unit, um, because it, it's carrying the receptor binding domain for the ACE2 receptor and is also having this N-terminal domain, which, um, would carry the GP120, um, mosaic. And also, as, uh, Dr. Ketcher said, is the whole S1, and we don't know which part, um, is responsible for long COVID and the lymphocytopenia, he said, is related to the S1. So I would be interested to look at that, because in that paper that Mary showed me, there were, um, they were mentioning, um, antibodies against the N-terminal domain, which is the part that I see the GP120 being inserted into. Um, and they were not FC receptor dependent, enhancing antibodies. So it's, um, that's the concept that I, um, think that, um, might be of, of a risk. And also Jessica and others mentioned that these IgG4 are in general more risky to have this kind of silent inflammation that I see in my patients, um, a lot, that they have an inflammation state, which is, inflammation is always the, if you have a chronic silent inflammation, then it will go to fibrosis and, and, and probably, um, change the tissues anyways, without having a huge systemic, um, immune reaction, but you have this tissue damage.

It's, it's a higher risk of chronic patient to put it in a short way. So that's the kind of risk that I, where I see the long COVID part is, is really, um, long COVID post-bac S1 associated disease. You know, um, it's, it's not cared for, um, in a way that I see that the people, you know, when we were talking about the death toll of COVID and, and, you know, it depends on which we, which inclusion criteria we would put, um, how high the death toll of COVID itself is, but there were additional problems counted in, I think, but think of the infection fatality rate. It's one, it's 0.14 infection fatality, but if you have a chronification rate of kind of 30%, then we are, we are facing kind of long-term problems, probably. And that's what I think what you're concerned with the IGG for. Yeah. It seems from, it just seems like grist for the mill for, uh, more, more medical surveillance, right? That the sick population is one that, um, there's very few people that are going to just, uh, tough it out. Most people are going to seek medical help. And then, um, what, what then the, um, there's a big concern right now that, um, so Australia, the UK, I know are examples where they've taken hundreds of millions of dollars to set up, um, new mRNA, um, development and production facilities. Um, I would, uh, with SARS becoming endemic globally anyway, you know, what's the, what's the point in, or you could ask, what's the point in them investing such, um, resources into, into infrastructure and plants. So it tells you that they're looking downstream at, at potential, uh, maladies that they think that they're going to be able to modulate through this platform. And, um, I'm, I'm not sure I like where that's going. Um, and I had a second point, which was just the, um, this, is it, is it fair to say that the, this class switching and the, you know, again, I would be, I don't want to sort of overstate my sort of, um, background and knowledge here, but that, um, background and knowledge here, but that, that to me sounds like, well, if, if you're going to be encouraging the immune system, um, dendritic cells to be picking up these virions, then the virus is going to do what a virus does once it's inside the cell. And that's, that seems to push us more into this, uh, AIDS type, uh, scenario. And, um, yeah, but the IGG poor prevents this F C dependent antibody dependent enhancement. So it might be that the rapid class switch that they have observed is due to the induction of ADE and due to the F C, um, receptor like, um, dependent antibody dependent enhancement. But what, you know, that's Yeah. So I, I, I get, I get that it's trying to, um, yeah, sort of stop the over-activation maybe that you would think of as ADE, but in my mind, once, once the infective particle is being taken in and I'm, I'm struggling, please just tell me that it's not a, a concern. And the, the second question I had is how, how does that relate to, um, innate immunity and, uh, T cells? Cause I would make the presumption that T cells would still see the, um, IG signaling. You've still got to clear out that, um, debris as it were, if it was a, a pathogen or a, uh, sorry, um, allergen or a toxin. And he ends up becoming the vector. I'm sorry. Uh, Anthony, can you say that again? Yeah. CD 16 ends up becoming the vector. Yes. So this, this, this, this to me looks like a very precarious situation that we've, we've stepped into and, you know, for, well, we've got a lot of people watching right now, so there's a, over 170 watching. So people need to, from, from the doc side, can we give them some reassurance or is it, is it all just black pills for the new year? Black pills for the new year. I, I don't know if I've knew, uh, antibody dependent enhancement of disease in that way. Um, I have not read any literature that antibody subtype, uh, influences, um, more so than another, but what Dr. D is saying makes sense. Um, that the FC portion is, is not, uh, of the IGG4 subtype is not readily bound by the FC receptors on monocytes. Uh, I wouldn't think that's a, that's a big concern. I believe that, uh, the immune tolerance is a bigger issue, um, because the paper that I saw showed, um, regardless of specificity of the antibody to its target, it caused a global immune tolerance. And to me, that's, that's a bigger concern. Um, I'd like to take a couple of things just and go back and respond to some things. So, um, Dr. D was talking about, uh, FC independent antibody dependent enhancement. So how that happens on, uh, coronavirus is basically that surface spike molecule becomes activated. Once the antibody binds to some region on it, it goes, oh, I'm activated and I'm ready to prime to infect the cell. So that's that, there's a lot of different mechanisms of ADE. It's not, uh, cut dry in any way. Um, five. And I wanted to go back and also say, um, that it's always layered. It's going to be multifactorial. I discussed this, um, on our previous podcast, Kevin, um, it had, you know, you've got the innate immune suppression combined with possible, um, T cell depletion combined with immune tolerance from the humoral side. It's not just going to be one of these things, but all of them working together to make sure that the immune tolerance is, um, working together and each independent individual's body is going to have a sort of a different profile of each of those. Cause each immune response is distinct to itself. So it's, it's not an easy answer, but it's, it's a combined effect of, of all these things. And we'll just one more comment. Cause I mean, Nick is patiently waiting with his hand raised. He's so polite over there. Um, think about the vaccine platforms. Okay. Uh, they're, they're not created equal and they're certainly not equal to live infection. So depending on whether you have a live attenuated vaccine or a recombinant vaccine, like the J and J vaccine was a recombinant ad expressing spike, um, or the mRNA, they induce different in the immune pathways, each of them, and which are again, distinct from the pathways induced upon infection. So we have to just factor that into our thinking.

Um, and the mRNA is especially dangerous because of the prolonged expression as well as the widespread bio-distribution. And I think that may be causing a class switch toward IGG four, because you see this long-term exposure to the antigen with the mRNA. It's just a hypothesis.

Very urgent one. Nick, just a shout update.

No, no, no, this is, it's a round table. And, um, I think that people are getting the maximum. We're, we're doing a good job of sharing the talking stick. I think we have a much better time when we do that. Um, there was a question, uh, from someone in the raccoon chat, just saying, could you please summarize what you're just talking about? So, you know, we have folks that may or may not have been tracking some of the great content, um, that, uh, uh, Dr. D and Dr. Mary have been exchanging in their discussions about this. So the IGG four issue really is about a change in your essentially right now we're arguing, is it chicken or the egg? Is it a predictor of a problem? Is it a response to a problem? So that's, that's really what we're discussing right now. And the jury is, is out on that. Um, it's grown in both, by the way.

It's grown in chicken and eggs.

Actually, no, uh, this vaccine, I don't think uses, uh, uses eggs. No, it was, it was just, it was a funny phrase to use it. Is it chicken or egg? It was good. When I try to be funny, I'm not, I am not funny at all. I'm just going to go back to mute and hide behind my bookshelf. Your chicken stumbled over all these black pills. That was kind of the problem. So, um, I want to, I want to just throw out some thoughts here and we don't have to go downside channels about these. These are questions that have occurred to me as we've had this excellent conversation tonight, uh, this afternoon, this morning, middle of the night, uh, pharma co-kinetics. We are not getting any kind of read in my opinion, from a, uh, uh, a patient or a US European world public perspective on variances in disease presentation related to individual pharma co-kinetics. That's a big mouthful to say, everybody has something in their diets. Lots of people have a few prescriptions in their diet. And we're, we're kind of, I think we're, we're losing our insights on certain things that might exacerbate, uh, or punctuate, uh, particular pathologies. Just a thought. Another thought is this epigenetic load. We all get exposed to cysts, parasites, bugs, viruses through sexual contact, casual contact, food, animals, environment. Um, I don't know. I think right now we're, we've been sort of skating around on the thin ice of, uh, you know, co-infections or opportunistic infections. If we're going to borrow the term from the HIV era. So that's, that's an area that I think is important. And that leads to the very, um, you know, difficult question or topic of turbo cancer. I put out a, just a thought in our chat, uh, within the last 48 hours. And I said, could turbo cancer potentially be, um, the, the biological mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 or, or the spike S2 triggering latent infectious burden in our cells? For those of you that don't know, some of us, most of us have some kind of sleeping germs in our tissues over time. We get exposed to stuff. It doesn't necessarily present as a strong disease, but that's what I'm calling latent infectious burden. Some of those are directly related to psychiatric conditions like H-E-R-Vs, um, and cancers and others. The other two, three dimensions that I asked about turbo cancer was, so we've got the bugs, we've got the IgG4 shift, which to me looked like in the paper that Dr. Mary shared down, regulated our body's natural defense, right? It's sort of put the guards to sleep as far as chemical signaling and things that might progress towards cancer. The third aspect, uh, was the down regulation effect of SARS-CoV-2 or the shot, um, on P53 gene, our main guard at the gate of cancer. And then the fourth aspect is epigenetic load is the actual, uh, you know, oncogenic or other types of infections that we might have. Uh, what say y'all, what do you guys think? Anybody have any thoughts on that? I want to bring up something that I came across yesterday. I don't know how new this is, but I want to share my screen, um, just so people can listen to how, um, the degree of malfeasance that's occurred, uh, with the clinical trials. Um, this was, this, as far as I understand it, so this, I guess timestamp is October. I don't know when this was released, but this is the first time that I've seen it. And this, I'll let it speak for itself. January 19th. Uh, so this was recorded October 19th. Got it. Look at the upside down timestamp in the upper left corner, January 19th, 2022. Uh, oh no, hello. That's October. Hello. Hello. My brain didn't switch the 10s. My brain didn't switch the 10s. Sorry. All right. So I'll let this speak for itself, but just, this was a, this was a lady who was part of the initial clinical trial for mRNA and who, who had multiple adverse reactions culminating in leukemia. And this is her last discussion with the principal investigator of one, I guess, center that was involved. It is highly disturbing. And it relates to the cancer. I'm so sorry. Yeah. Well, we had, you know, over two years. And are you sharing your audio? Yeah. We did have people with various things. On the zoom side, I'm not hearing it, but I can see the sub, the subtext. I probably didn't, um, share the audio. Let me just try that again. It's my fault. Um, yeah, I didn't, I didn't do that. Sorry.

By far the worst. I'm so sorry. Yeah. Well, we had, you know, over two years and some of the folks were older. Yeah. We did have people who had various things that went to the hospital for this and that, but nothing, nothing like what you've gone through. I mean, I've been doing clinical trials for 20, almost 25 years and I've done studies on drugs that didn't make it because they had big issues. It's not a perfect process. Things go on the market that we sometimes find out later when you give it to lots and lots of people that there's issues. So it's not perfect. You are the one out of the 300. That's not a big number. No, what happened? This study was like 20,000 people in this study with data that they have. This was never submitted to the FDA. My adverse reactions were never submitted to the FDA by Moderna. It wasn't in the report when they submitted it for, um, emergency use authorization. It wasn't there. I read it. The shoulder?

Anything, any of my, my, the neurological, anything wasn't in there. Well, yeah, they don't always, um, yeah, I don't know how they write up their reports and stuff. So you did report the adverse reaction? Yeah, Moderna. Oh yeah.

But they don't always report them to the FDA. So what if you said they don't always do that? Well, I don't know how they summarize things. You know, like if they have 20,000 people and they have all these different things going on, like the dizziness or the neurologic may have been grouped under neurologic and just not easy to spot, I guess is what I'm saying. No, it didn't say anything about Cerva. I mean, shoulder injuries like Cerva wasn't in there at all. Hmm. Do you imagine like having that and just feeling that way?

It's an unfortunate crummy complication of several vaccines, not just the COVID vaccine.

Do you think that what is wrong with me? All of these health problems is a result of the vaccine or not? I think your shoulder. Okay. You don't think the cancer? I don't know. I'll be watching. I'm open. You know, there's data that will come out that will show that there's problems with just like with the Janssen vaccine. We did that study and I was like, holy mackerel, there's some real issues with that. Now we don't, we're not going to do that vaccine anymore.

Gee whiz, shucky darn. I can't believe she said, oh yeah, you know, there were problems, you know, this and that, this and that, you know, someone's life, someone's family. Yeah, this and that. I don't know. From what I understand, so there was a high wire. I'm sorry. You know, she's a study physician and she says, I don't know how that's done. You know, you get education for that. There's an ICH GCP protocol. You need to fill all the forms. You have to report every adverse event. You know, that's, that's the guidelines we have worldwide and that's kind of related to the Helsinki declaration. And it's, it's written into the law of the lens that we have to follow ICH GCP in drug development. And she's telling a patient, well, I don't know.

Hanna, you have ethics. You have passionate ethics. What is the probability that this practitioner knows very keenly, very specifically what those issues are and that she's editing herself for the patient? I'll answer that. A hundred percent. She knows what's going on. I'll bottom dollar on that. You can see it in a body language. I'm sorry, Johanna, please.

Cognitive dissonance kicks in and she believes it, you know. Maybe.

But I guess another one of the reasons that I brought it up was the very specific adverse event, which the patient is claiming. Well, she's had a series, obviously. So she's stepped through from initial, I'm not sure what the server SIRVA relates to. I don't know if anyone here has an idea as to what that is, but she said she liked neurological and then leukemia. And to me, you know, blood cancers would seem, knowing what we do know, what we're coming to understand about this class switching, I would hypothesize it's pretty high likelihood that it's consequence. Yeah, please, Johanna. You're on mute. You said it before. The reactivation, I think Nick said it, the reactivation of like germs that were suppressed before by the immune system, I don't know what that is, but germs that were suppressed before by the immune system and then you disturb the immune system and you aren't protected anymore from these like opportunistic germs that are sometimes causing disease and sometimes not depending on the state of your immune system. That's in fact what made AIDS, you know, the opportunistic infections were the big problem and not the virus itself.

Of course, the virus suppressed the immune system and we have a similar situation right now. But when you look at what are these pathogens that are opportunistic, it's like bacterial, like facultative or obligatory intracellular bacteria, like mycoplasma, chlamydia and all that and herpes viruses, like cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus. And we know Epstein-Barr virus is associated with Burkitt lymphoma, you know, and it's like we have a study from a cell culture where you have B-cell lymphoma cell line where the donor of that cell line had like a co-infection of Epstein-Barr virus and a retrovirus, an unknown retrovirus and which was later like classified as probably murine-associated like what Judy Mikovitz is saying. I talked about that paper which I pull out every time the virus deniers. It was never isolated from patient tissue. Look in that! You know, it's like in there. Her white blood cells were later investigated and she was still producing these retrovirus budding in her white blood cells. So I think when it comes to, like you said, the reactivational curve, the human endogenous retrovirus, and we know retroviruses like HIV, you know, the HIV and senine deficiency virus are lentiviruses and we are using lentiviruses in the labs for gene transfer since 20 years. So I think it's black pills for the new year but I think we need to mention all this stuff to just, you know, if there's something like in the future and we can prevent it by just, like Nick said, adjusting our lifestyle and focus on early therapy, not going on with the immunization, like giving your body tolerance to a virus that is infiltrating your immune system. You know, as a caveat to that, the retroviruses have as a first side of damage the gut and the brain because they are infecting or affecting the antigen presenting cells, the dendritic cells, also in the brain. We have a lot of the non-neurological, non-neurons in the brain are immune cells, like tissues sending antigen presenting cells and that's the symptom metology. So even HIV and that compares to the ME-CFS, which Julie Mikovits is explaining with the urine retrovirus contaminant, but it's also relating to the long COVID. But, you know, we have so many herbals, for instance, that are like raising the antioxidant capacity so you can kind of mitigate the chronic infection because it's, you know, even with the SARS, like ACE2 binding and then inducing reactive oxygen species in the endothelium, we have publications about the vasculitis aspect, the inflammation of the vessels, which then lead to coagulation problems and all that. So we have shown that in the pathology with immune histostaining, like we have these expressions of spike inflammation in the very small capillaries even. And if you have a high uptake in antioxidants and are interfering with viral infection very early and use your innate immune system, like activate your zinc finger proteins inside of your cells, it's completely independent of the whole immunology because... Actually, I want to just interject here because I saw a paper, I want to say, might have been Jikky, put it out there and he was, and the paper he was pointing to, I mean, I, again, I was, I scanned it and I didn't, I've not read it in depth, but it seemed that the spike protein of SARS has a decrease in areas where zinc fingers could, or the genome for the spike protein had a reduction in the number of sites where zinc fingers could interrupt translation. And my thought of that is, oh, you know, that sort of alludes to more sort of engineering. I'm wondering if anyone here actually did a proper analysis of that paper, because the leveraging zinc interruption of transcription might not be as efficacious as people are thinking. I would like to say that. Wasn't that in the Zelenko protocol? Zinc and... Don't remember that, correct? Someone asked earlier about that. There's several questions in my own chat and whenever time's appropriate, I don't want to derail the conversation, but that was in the Zelenko protocol, I think. Yeah.

Zelenko based his argument on hydroxychloroquine that it opens the zinc, like it's a zinc uniform and opens up the pores to get the zinc into the cells and then attached to the zinc finger proteins. We have actually, we have publications that the zinc finger proteins like prevent SARS infection. It's like there are so many viral infections that can be influenced with activating your zinc finger proteins, so it's a very reasonable approach to go that way. In my perspective, hydroxychloroquine is doing way more than just the zinc finger protein, but it's also interacting in the crosstalk. I think it's inhibiting the tumor necrosis factor alpha signaling, so it prevents the attraction of immune cells, and so it reduces the risk that they get affected, because in my perspective, the infection of immune system is possible via the S1, the N-terminal domain, and the G120, but just that's my hypothesis, and I haven't seen convincing arguments against that, you know.

We see reductions in white blood cells with SARS infection. I don't think that's a contentious issue, but Mark, you had other questions relating to therapy I saw in the chat. Yeah, one was if one were to be coming down with COVID symptoms, whether or not the underlying issue is COVID or not, and there's the oxygen sensors right now, and if they are going to, if they are concerned about their health deterioration and are going to the hospital, what would you recommend they do to prepare themselves? What should they bring? What should they do ahead of time to be sure that they receive the medical care they want and not the medical care that they are, that they would not want? I don't know if you've ever had these types of consultation sessions with your patients as far as notes that they should write in advance, and it might differ if you're in Germany or the EU versus the United States. Because we have some experts or people who have really provided a lot of help to people in the United States in my chat here, such as Murray Clarke, on things to do ahead of time to be sure that when you go into the hospital, you're not going to immediately be ventilated and on Remdesivir, which we've seen even in people who have on their charts that they have pre-existing kidney conditions. Anyways, it's an open question. What would you recommend to be for people in those situations going to the hospital or maybe even before they concern that they might have COVID symptoms in the future?

Johanna, Mary, I think you're both very well qualified for this one.

Mike is muted, Mary. Or Mike as well. You know, I counsel for early therapy basically with bicarbonate, zinc, quercetin, and astatocin and aspirin as basics. I counsel to start with that when you are near infectious people. So you have it kind of like a post-exposure prevention and like PrEP.

Like you would do in a normal flu season, keep your vitamins high, eat your greens like that. Because I can, yeah. And if you know the aspects, sometimes I counsel even for dandelion and activating your liver with milk thistle extracts and all that, keep your antioxidants high, to not go into hospital. Because I got called by people when they had called the ambulance due to low oxygen levels. And I was like, why are you calling me now? You can't take that with you into a hospital. They will go there protocol. You know, it's like, and even I, when I'm talking with my colleagues, sometimes they are just like, oh, if it's not published in that big journal, I can't go with that. You might feel secure, but I feel like I'm doing experiments. So I can't go there. It's like with me, with some other suggestions to do with the early therapy approach, I wouldn't go there.

I won't name it now, because I don't want to destroy a narrative, but it's not my way, you know. But I would counsel to have the basics. And if you're living in a more peripheral longitude, I think you mean. My English is not that good, you know.

It's better than many Americans, actually. So don't be ashamed.

Then you have the problem with vitamin D supply. Depending on your skin color, it might be more necessary to take some if you have darker skin, which is considered racist, that I say that, that you can prevent yourself because you're maybe at higher risk. You know, I'm living in the northern parts, but it's the same in the southern, you know. It depends on where you live. If you live more in the hotter zones, then you may be at more risk for some like tropical diseases coming back or having a higher risk. But basically, you know, like hydroxychloroquine is not it's not given without any reason in these areas where we have malaria. You know, it's like it's a long standing medication that is paid by our legal insurances for chronical inflammatory situations like glucose and all that. So it's this whole destruction of these old approaches is the problem. And, you know, I can't counsel on how to prepare for hospital, but because it's different, I think, in the whole world. But I would say prepare yourself with the basics at your home, you know, have good green tea or citrus tea and drink kefir or have, you know, there are many approaches that you could go. But I would always try to avoid hospital. And I have succeeded with that in people who called me even on day 10 of COVID with a pre-existing coagulopathy without getting any anticoagulation. And I was like, get anticoagulation now. And she got herself oxygen and got herself anticoagulants and was fine and didn't go to hospital. So I don't want to say avoid hospital to the maximum because I also saw people. Oh, I will. I will. If I get hit by a car, I'm a Band-Aid and a Robitussin. And, you know, that's it. You know, staying away from the hospital.

Well, I would add this that where you are in the world will depend on the hospital, and the SOP.

Outside of the hospital, you know, and as Jikky said, it's sometimes the antibiotic that is, you know, I had an old, very good care for senior that needed to go to a hospital because this bacterial pneumonia was so severe that he got circulatory problems. You know, he was starting to get a septic reaction. That's no good either. So, you know, sometimes, you know, total avoidance is not good. And, you know, avoiding everything can be risky as well. I would prescribe antibiotics and I think leaving out acitromycin was a big problem. So, but I'm talking a lot.

Well, you know, this brings us to a very critical point, which I think should be hammered home at every opportunity. Before I go, I don't know, Mary, if you wanted to add something about just people.

What is the disease burden from the current variant? I would reflect on that. It is not causing any significant level of hospitalization. Well, I will add it's going up in the northeast right now. And again, there was, it's this issue with, with, and from COVID. And so, I'm not sure what the data is really telling us. If there's a serious issue, we have to wait for the sort of mortality. I guarantee it's nothing that has exceeded past influenza seasons. And so, I just want to put that in perspective for the audience. These aren't severe cases out of what we normally see for respiratory diseases, but you can maintain your health. Like Johanna was saying, I think that's the best way of maintaining your health through diet and exercise. I refer people. I'm not medically trained to the FLCCC protocol. And I've heard a lot of anecdotal stories about inhaled corticosteroids offering a lot of benefit. In the acute stages, it seems to be beneficial. I don't, I'm not sure I would go around telling everyone to be taking corticosteroids all the time. They do have a lot of side effects. But the main issue that we have, and this is something that Peter McCullough was very good at, which was talking about the denial of what was understood to be efficacious treatments early on, and what seemed like a very deliberate move by authorities to open the way for rolling out of vaccines. And in this instance, gene, gene transfection technologies, they were itching to do it. And so, they took very deliberate steps at the highest levels that we see publicly to limit access, not only to the public, but also to hair practitioners.

That in and of itself is a massive crime against humanity that needs pursuing this, even without all the gain of function, DOD sphere. And I'm, yeah, I just wonder where we would be. I don't think we'd be having this discussion if doctors had been able to practice what, but that new worked in previous. So I recently posted an example of this such thing, have a little page, Ethical Science Council, and you guys on various channels. But Dr. David Otsuch and Iowa's filed a lawsuit against Iowa Boards of Medicine and Pharmacy over unlawful board activity. So they first outright banned the use of drugs like hydroxychloroquine. He fought back on it. They later allowed it, but then were investigating doctors. Oh, yeah, I know who you're talking about. It's atrocious what they've done to him. And then the pharmacies wouldn't distribute it. So it's all been a coordinated effort, not just one small example. And so this sort of leads us into the, well, I'm not going to say it's conspiracy because it's in your face with the data, but it's a question of who was capable of orchestrating such a synchronized response across so many different countries. I know people like to point at the World Economic Forum. It's a good archetype to sort of point people at, but I think those networks go much deeper and further back in time than the World Economic Forum. So I'll throw that open to Mark and give us an executive summary of those networks and the individuals that we should be keeping an eye on and making sure that they don't run off into the sunset at the moment. That is a big question, my friend. I know. Save the easy ones for you, bro.

There's multiple networks and they're not necessarily all friendly with each other, although I would say that they probably get along better with each other than they do with you and I, which are their customer base or their captive monkeys, if you will. There's a lot of good healthy debate right here as opposed to what was the big plan. I think most, does anyone on the panel think that this was all just a horrible situation that no one expected? No. Okay. Yes. I just wanted to be sure. The crickets do. Everyone was totally taken by surprise. It was just an accident. Okay, good. So I want to make sure I'm in good company right there. That there were some set of plans, of hopes to transition to the new era of medicine, if you will. That has been suggested now for what? Five, 10 years. You can hear the complaints that we need to get a new era of vaccines. We need to get to gene therapy. We need to get away from the egg-based methods of developing these things. We need more surveillance, et cetera, et cetera. You could see a series of pandemics, little breakouts, whether it is, well, first it was SARS in 2003. There were mirrors. There was Ebola 1. There was Ebola 2016. There was Zika. It's almost like, and each one builds incrementally on the other one, conveniently in a way that there's a little bit more legislation, a little bit more surveillance, a little bit new product technology with each one that comes into play. And it always works that the previous one didn't offer. And you could see, at least in the United States, I can't speak for the whole world, but in the United States, at the end of 2016, early 2017, Trump won. There's a lot of debate as to whether or not it was a total surprise or if it was an orchestrated surprise. I go with the fact, I suspect it was a legitimate surprise. And you could see all these events happening within the United States in rapid succession. Big changes to the emergency use authorization rules were brought in and voted on in December, 2016.

And then in early 2017, you could see World Economic Forum throwing extra money along with the Bill and Melinda Gates organization to create, in the United States, a group called CEPI, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness. And the I stands for innovation or not. There is that too. And the person who was the initial president of that was, at that time, the president of an agency with the United States called BARDA, the Biomedical Advanced Research Development Agency. And that person was a Richard Hatchet. And then Richard Hatchet left the leadership of BARDA and was replaced by Rick Bright. And Rick Bright actually introduced CEPI.

Many might have seen a video with the NIAID director, Anthony Fauci, just before Trump became president in early 2017, standing at a podium, saying that Trump's probably going to have a surprise medical emergency or something of that nature. And that was right at the podium of Georgetown University. And then were many key people with respect to writing legislation relating to pandemics and emergency powers of states, such as Larry Gostin is a key person. I got his book on, he basically is probably the most prolific writer of public law in the United States of America. That is a riveting rate. Yeah, yeah. I'm sure it's almost as exciting as going out on a date with this man. And you could just see that there was this orchestrate, like a sudden turn. And I try to put my mind in the... I try to be empathetic towards the conspirators, if you will. I'm not saying agreeing, but if I were them, how would I pull this off? And why save everything to the last minute? Roll things out slowly, get things set up ahead of time, dot the I's, cross the T's, et cetera. There just seemed to be a mad rush to get a whole bunch of things together just before Trump became president. I didn't vote for Trump. It was just a shock to see what happened during the presidency. So I'm not saying this is a fanboy. I'm just saying that there seemed to be a legitimate rapid change. Another one, 36 hours after Trump became presidency, Zika went from a WHO medical emergency to no longer a medical emergency. Now, some of that was because of the initial date that it was announced, but you could just tell in the newspapers what just happened. I thought there were all these horrible cases of birth deformities, and it just disappeared. So you can see sometimes how the potential orchestration of pandemics responds to political changes. And one hypothesis is that there was such a shock to the election system, which already I'm sure has rigging in it, but potentially the US totally turning towards a more populist direction. And well, now seems to be a good time to roll in the new era of medicine, because maybe we can shock the system in a way that we can both get to that era that we want to be in, and at the same time prevent things from slipping in the wrong direction. Because that's not going to benefit anyone, at least in terms of these government agencies, pharmacy companies, non-government organizations, et cetera, medical institutions. I mean, you're very familiar, Kevin, with the research institutes in the United States and worldwide. They're not going to win going in that direction. So I suspect that that played a part in it. But bringing it up to the pandemic itself, COVID-19, that you could see a lot of like lockstep up until like in December of 2019, early January 2020.

Like you could see the people were told what to fear next. Oh my goodness, it could cross. It could cross. This new disease could come into the United States. Sure enough, next news cycle, the disease in the United States. And then people are told, wow, wouldn't it be great if there's an antiviral? Next news cycle, good news, there's an antiviral and it's working. It's so freaking predictable. It's all scripted. But something crazy then happened at the end of January 2020, which was a bomb dropped out of India, a research institute that looked to be a lab origin pathogen, or at least a lab modified pathogen. It was there for a day and taken back. That paper doesn't say lab origin. People inferred that from the paper. The paper just specifically says there's these overlaps with HIV. It's not there in our databases. I just want to be fair to the Braddon paper and what they did present, which was just, there's an uncanny similarity.

I don't think there was any expectation to have to deal with the narrative that this could be from a lab. There was a lot of adjustments across the board. That just seemed to really shuffle things around and disrupt things and led us to where we are. I'm not someone who believes that every crazy thing that happens has been scripted 10 years in advance and has worked out flawlessly. Then things are thrown off. And as a researcher, and this is where my background in competitive intelligence and having to reverse engineer multi-million dollar storage systems, as you look at where the narrative seems to take a change, and you have one story and the next story, how do these connect? Because where they don't connect, you can get insights behind the scenes. I've got to interject Omar and just say, knowing now what I know about the history that Nick has done, you've brought to the table, 9-11, the Patriot Act, and the conditioning that went into the population scale or mainstream information that was projected at the population. And then you had Obama, the Smithman Act, which basically legalized the use of psychological operations on US citizens in this instance. Somewhere like the UK, that was just a given that they did that anyway. There's a reason I'm so cynical about the UK, and a lot of that is just the government propaganda that gets pushed through. I'll need to check. It might've been like a repeal of a protection against propaganda, but I don't talk about that subject much, but I'm well aware of that. I just want to say a lot of I's and a lot of T's were put in place before we sort of got to this point. And whether Trump was an unpredictable card or event in long-term planning, I don't know. But like I say, the idea that there wasn't a lot of legislative frameworks already in place, yeah, I respectfully disagree on that one, David, just to marry you. No, I mean, I'm saying a lot was put into place, but I think that the announcement of the fact that this could have been at least that the HIV inserts, the uncanny similarities, it was very provocatively worded, although you're absolutely right. I don't think it does say lab origin, but it suggested something like that. And now it really just seemed to really upset the apple cart. A lot of other things, individuals who were... I actually believe Malone was just hoping to retire, and he was kind of dragged back into this as well as a bunch of other people. You could see their resumes being rewritten over the 2020, 2021 in response to a cascade of events. And it's more than just the pandemic. But yeah, who was involved was your question. There's multiple government agencies, non-government agencies, and it's not just the big group, big group of demonic people against the innocent citizens of the world. There's a lot of inter-agency battle with that much power and wealth at stake. You're not going to get the number two and the number three people go, ah, let Larry take it all. No, there's a lot of that. And that backstabbing is sometimes I think the best thing that we could hope for. It keeps us in the game. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a chance.

Well, hang on. Mary wanted to come in first, and then I'll do Johanna, and then Nick or Doc. That's a kickoff, but thank you for the opportunity.

Fascinating discussion. Thanks, Mark, for the input. I didn't realize Hatchet was at Borda prior to moving over to CEPI, but that's another interesting connection. I'm going to have to jump off here. I really appreciate the conversation, but I wanted to offer a light pill that we have coexisted with pathogens for eons. So, stop with all the fear.

The pathogens are exploited to implement policy. So, we need that united non-compliance in that.

I'm going to try to listen in a little bit later. So, great discussion, guys. Nice to see you. Thank you, Mary, and happy new year. Happy new year. Happy new year. Get me a bottle of those white pills.

Johanna, you had your hand raised first.

Yeah. On what Mark just said and your question, I'm not that convinced that actually the counter-narrative to the Uncanny Similarity Paper was so much like, this is what we anticipated, but it was kind of, ooh, there's something pointing. Like, even Fauci's reaction, I think it was very, very who said maybe mouse passage is how it could emerge. And he actually, I think that was the FOIA release emails. And just for accuracy, I think that a lot of that discussion was the furin cleavage site. There was the wording in the emails is ambiguous. So, there's the Drosten reply, which is kind of, in my opinion, a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very obvious. So, there's the Drosten reply, which is kind of hinting at that they knew about HIV inserts, et cetera. But it wasn't sort of directly discussed in any of the emails that I looked at or in the discussions I had with Charles Rixey. The primary concern was this fearing cleavage site and the fact that people honed in on that sequence as being problematic.

I was in contact with Christian Drosten before he broke that mail. And I was telling him about my hypothesis that it could be a retrovirus chimera. So, the question who came up with this conspiracy theory, just focusing on the fearing cleavage site. And I was focusing on basically the possibility of it being a lab-origin pathogen. But what I would like to add to this discussion, everyone focused on the Wuhan Institute for Virology. But there's another lab in Wuhan where the Sino-German Virology Association was working since 2009 to 2018 on GP120 surfaces. Oh, we're all ears. Keep talking.

And it's funded by the German Research Association as a huge project, also investigating the immune system reaction on these surfaces. And interestingly enough, and it was just published, by I think Epoch Times and other outlets, this Sino-German Institute in Wuhan is right in between the clusters from the market. It's right there. And Ulf Dittmar from the University of Essen is our German Virology Association representative for that project. He was downplaying everything of that. And I think the discussion right now is kind of dangerous because it's a bilateral problem.

Is it from Wuhan and China and they manipulate it? Or is it done by gain-of-function funding via Soros, Fauci, and all that? And you know, the Uncanny paper, they were running basically a lot of PCR standard primers to just look if there's something in there that might be something we know already. And I think that's the perfect approach to just understand a virus, a new disease, and look where the homologies are. And if you then get a reaction on HIV primers on the GP120 aspect of HIV envelope protein, then you look further, and they have identified these insertions. And one of them was the furin cleavage site. And they focused on the furin cleavage site. And I think Charles worked that out pretty well because they had the information from Gerre Herr, who wrote that déjà vu in mid-January, where he was mentioning the furin cleavage site. And I think they had other topics in that response by Eddie Holm that he proposed, which was the text that Drosten was referring to, that he needs time to read it, and that he is a little bit... He was saying the HIV conspiracy crap, like that. No, it's not the same wording, but basically the sense of it. I have documented, because I called him because of a patient, and I have to document everything I do with patients. So I have to document everything I do with patients. So I have documented on the 6th of January that I had this conversation with him about a possible retrovirus aspect. And three days later, there was this email. So I don't know if these groups in the different countries know necessarily the same aspect, but I'm pretty sure that Hendrik Stierig and another famous virologist, and famous in the resistance as well, who was partly funded by that project as well. And he was doing the work in the Heinzberg study, which was introducing the lower infection fatality rates and all that. So I had the impression they wanted to play it down in the first place, and then when the situation was right, just kick off the pandemic. And it was exactly after the impeachment failed. Sorry, but it was the timing.

But I think there's a white pill. Sometimes it's good if you have a third party when you have bilateral problems that you can point fingers on. If I was going by the... Sorry, Mark, you wanted to...

What I want to just add on what Johanna said was that the HIV uncanny similarities was written by the Kusama School of Biological Sciences in Nidelhite, which was 10 kilometers from the Manohar Parrikar Institute of Defense Intelligence.

You'll notice if you look at all of the other Q-type conspiracy channels, etc., right after the HIV paper came out, there were accusations that it was most likely the arrested Chinese spy, Guan Gaoqiao, who worked in the National Microbiology Laboratory in Canada, who was responsible for taking Ebola and other virus technology from Canada to Wuhan.

And it was also... It was that military research institute that wrote all of the research papers on Dr. Guan Gaoqiao back in June of 2019. It's almost as if they perfectly already had a trail of breadcrumbs ready to go for the biology institute that was right down the street. Now, the author of that was not out of India. It was actually an Israeli intelligent agent named Danny Shola, who goes all the way back to doing research on 9-11. And he was one of the main intelligence agents that was used to determine that the source of anthrax, or I should say anthrax... Sorry, he's on the Pradhanam paper, are you saying? He wrote the research on Dr. Guan Gaoqiao, which is X-I-A-N-G-G-U-O-Q-I-U. He was the person who did the research on her. And he was... You can follow his trail of breadcrumbs all the way back to 9-11. So the scientist that was initially said, well, this is probably one of the people who might have exfiltrated such technology to Wuhan, that trail of breadcrumbs was set up by a military research institute that was right down the street from the school that provided the HIV paper. Now, they really wanted the blame to go to... You could see it, right? You could see it. This is all this international espionage crap. They really kind of wanted to suggest her and Dr. Zhang Lishi, and of course, the rest of the Chinese Communist Party is responsible for this outbreak.

They didn't mention Barrick, okay? They were really going in a different direction. Since then, you could see the talk about the Wuhan leak. And I do not mean to suggest that there was a lab leak at Wuhan, okay? I'm just talking... I'm referencing the narratives that were put out there. What seems to be more directing towards Barrick and other scientists within the United States, whether or not any of these scientists or the German scientists and the institute that you just mentioned, Johanna, are actually responsible, I don't know. But I'm always fascinated at all of the finger pointing and all of the... You could just see people just jump out and like, wow, we can use this to our advantage to get our agency a leg up right now and this other agency. So then there are just tended like twist and turn and over time. And I don't think any of them really care what actually happened. It's just inter-agency infighting over what I think most of us agree is going to be one of the most well-funded and powerful research opportunities of the next 100 something years. All this surveillance, all this genetic data, everyone wants to be on the top of the heap. No one wants to be number two or three. They want to be on the top. So that little paper that was thrown out there and then taken back, you could just see a whole cascade of things. China signed up for all of these Remdesivir trials. Within 24 hours after that, no more, no. Suddenly they couldn't find anyone. You just see all of these things change in immediate response to that paper. Fauci was proud that he was able to do it. Fauci was proud that Wuhan was finding people for those trials. And then a week or so later, can't find anyone anymore. No more sick people in Wuhan. Literally no more sick people in Wuhan after that paper came out. I would just add that you can't trust any Chinese epidemiological data. You can. I'm not saying you can, but one way or the other. I don't think that there was a sudden abrupt halt to COVID in China. They just make it so in their statistics. And we're seeing the inverse of that now as there does seem to be a wave going through China. So much so that Xi Jinping was putting out, and I've never seen Xi Jinping have a little sort of, I don't know, the talk face-to-face to the camera saying, we're having some issues right now, but we can handle it. It's not even New Year for them, but a sort of a country-wide pep talk from dear leader. And so this is why I'm skeptical of people like John Cullen, who would just say, you can look at China and that they didn't have any. No, you can just exclude China from any data analytics as being representative. If you want some idea of what's going on in Asia, you look at Korea, Japan, Thailand, Cambodia, the surrounding countries will give you a better indicator. It's absurd to think that if there was this pathogen spreading, that it just went from what was being reported as a high R value to just done in response to some political situation, which means it was either being pushed to begin with or it was continuing to get worse and wasn't reported. So we're in agreement on the fact that it's absurd to think that it just disappeared. Because I don't necessarily trust the numbers one way or the other either, but you could see these narratives changing and what's being reported constantly shift in China and in the US and elsewhere in response to various leaks of information and other propaganda that came out. And by the way, if you want to follow the potential motivation a few steps further, I have some things about Brendan O'Connell that have upset me regarding how he's talked about the law enforcement, but he has done some really good discussion about collusion between the Israeli government and Russia. And well, guess what happened? As you follow this cause that, A cause B, B cause C, et cetera, China got economically kicked in the teeth a little bit. And well, Russia moved into Ukraine and now China can't get to Europe anymore. So while China is dealing with this COVID thing, they have really taken a big blow regarding their Asia Belt and Road strategy. And that blow, if you will, kind of came possibly from Israel through India, right up to China. So I'm just fascinated by all of this stuff. Yeah, I'm sorry. No, I want to add to it and not forget, because in December 2020, I wrote a report to a military contact who promised to give it to people who understand what I was writing. And so I mentioned the nearly hot conflict that emerged right after the Pradhan paper was taken down. Because there is this historical conflict called Great Game India. It's an outlet. But when you look in the historical part, it's the conflict between India and China.

And that became kind of a hot conflict right after the Pradhan paper. So I think, you know, what I just said, the bilateral problems back then was at first between China and India. Because, of course, if the Pradhan paper implicated that it came from China, and if they are neighbors, that it would be the same situation like with Ukraine and the Russian. Russia is talking since years about the situation with their borders and like in Georgia, which, you know, what Dilyana said and all that. So I saw it as well. And I saw this this this leak from Canada. It was from the Winnipeg Institute, right? Yeah. You said. And then Frank Plummer died on the 4th of February. So, you know, it was immediately after that. That's what I call one hell of a week. And he was the top peer of the world. A peer of Dr. Guanggao Qiao. He was her biggest supporter.

Yeah. Conveniently just to stop dead. Yeah. So I'm glad you brought that up, Joana. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I will just add this for the record, right? He had a deep brain stimulating device targeting nucleus compounds in his brain. Okay. These are remote activated electronics.

Give me the remote for that and I could shut him down dead in minutes and you wouldn't be able to tell what happened. Right. And this leads to the shutting down of MH17 over his brain with researches. And there were rumors that they were going to tell something and MetaBiota is turning up everywhere. You know, and what did we just see that that Nathan Wolfe is involved in vaping? Yeah. Can you explain that? I know Nick's got his hand up right now before we get into the vaping. You haven't heard from Nick in a while. Come on, Nick. Hey there. No, we have so much good stuff. It's wonderful. I'm taking notes here. Well, no, and I think we do have some white pills. I put in the chat a little while back three different people on, sorry, Kevin, on Twitter that are really good followers. And why is because they hold these spaces. And it's not as it's not as content rich as this. We can present papers and do detailed content presentation in this format. But at least on the Twitter spaces, there's a critical mass.

And I just want to let you know that at least I've seen tonight about 40,000 followers getting retweeted, you know, the show. And that happens every time you send out an update. So I think it's still a good place to go. So anyway, that was just a referral. If you want to go back, this is a registered nurse, a OBGYN who's who's coming. He's waking up about all kinds of concepts, particularly he's, you know, he's very closely tied to mothers, expecting mothers and, you know, newborns involved in the vaccination track. So it's a great place to go in and find other researchers, lettered scientists and providers. And they also do speak anecdotally about treatments. They will take questions, they'll give you a microphone, and you can get some free, you know, really, really good insights on current practices and good practices like Carol. She's a she's a she said her name is apothecaryl. And she has an RN practice and and is is really, really, really a good integrated medicine practitioner, Johanna. She makes me think of you as far as, you know, German medicine and your approach, combining allopathic with naturopathic things like that. So that's that's the way I probably wanted to offer you guys. Thank you so much. And I'll throw the talking stick over to Doc Kek, if you got any double clicks that you want to circle back on or things that you wanted to share.

Yeah, one just actually kind of just really stood out to me in terms of this bilateral issue between China and India, just one thing like a little nugget that I seem to remember was that the GP 120 sequence was not on blast, I believe is like the genetic server that everyone uses. But it was found conveniently on an Indian server. And that's kind of where the basis of GP 120 came from. It was just just an interesting nugget in the context of this conversation I figured I'd share.

Don't know what that's worth. But a couple of other things talked about so much.

I guess where I'd really like to kind of go back into in terms of physiology. And actually, before that, I kind of bridge back into the focus on the furin cleavage site on the FCS that Rixey really kind of brought out and Fauci and everyone is kind of like pointing to FCS.

And I know that there is a kind of a lot of focus on the 120. But for me, the focus is PRRA specifically, you know, and because it answers all for me, it answers all of the questions like did this naturally derive? Well, if yes, then how come the the entire codon sequence of PRRA is human codon optimized? How is it possible for it to naturally evolve and arise out of nature in a human codon optimized fashion? For me, that's impossible. Okay, so once you move beyond, like, I guess you can say natural evolution, we are looking at some type of, you know, synthetic artificial origin. I did not know until you want to share today anything about any other labs other than Wuhan, because, you know, I've been laser focused on that side. And that piece is immense, you know, in terms of how... I just want to ask a question for you, Anna, quickly, because there's the CDC lab as well, or Chinese equivalent of CDC, which was the BSL-2 lab. Is that the same lab that you're talking about? Or do we have three potential labs now which were, which are the focus in Wuhan? I haven't found anything that that particular laboratory is the CDC, or the Chinese equivalent of the CDC. I'm forgetting the acronym right now. But so the claim is that they were doing the, they were working with bat viruses on the BSL-2. It wasn't done at Wuhan Institute of Virology. Again, you need Charles here to pull out the exact details of this other lab. This other lab, which was associated with the Chinese CDC, is that the same lab that you're talking about, with who had the bilateral agreement with Germany and receiving German funds? I don't know. Okay. Sorry, please. No worries. But, you know, so kind of going back to the furin cleavage site, FCS, why was it such a big deal? GP120, I believe, may be another generalization to try and get away, get away from what it specifically shows within FCS, within most, if not all, of the literature that I've read in terms of spike activation. It all starts after that specific sequence is exposed after separation between, you know, S1 and S2. That's when it's activated because FCS is apparent. You know, it's MSH3, you know, human codon-optimized, Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome. You know, if you really want to get biblical, you know, rider on a pale horse. Well, Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome causes albinism as well as blood disorders and colitis and ulcers and storage disorders of fats, you know. And, you know, some of the research that's coming out is saying, oh, these are amyloidogenic. These are amyloid-like, but they're not specifically amyloid. I'm telling you, seroid lipofuscin and its origin is PRRA because that is what it is genetically associated with. You know, so that's just one piece, though. There are many other aspects. I'm just focusing on PRRA and why the fear and cleavage site may have been on the tip of Fauci and everyone else within, you know, the medical elite's tongues and why they were so scared shitless, you know, not to mention that it's the reverse complement of a Moderna-patented, you know, sequence. So how do you get to a plausible deniability if there's a patent? Well, it's not patented. It's the reverse complement of choo-choo-choo-choo. Well, if you're producing the sequence within a genetic structure of DNA and you have one site that's patented, well, then the other site is just waste, right? Let me put this in a petri dish and just see what comes up. It's ridiculous, man. But, you know, and how this all kind of ties together is, you know, you have, from what I can see as a worldwide psychological operation, to convince the public of something that is happening in order for the true biologic toxin, which they have sequenced and shown it's such a great danger and the principal cause for the entire public health emergency to exist in the first place. So instead of doing what normally happens and, you know, some form of attenuation, no, let's just put the most toxic pathogenic part of this in people and see what happens. Matter of fact, let's put it in an experimental kind of, you know, jam sauce, you know, which will evade TLRs and make its construction, you know, completely indestructible. It'll be in there for months, but we'll tell them it only lasts for days. What are they going to do? They don't know they're just people, you know, whatever. They're dollar signs. Hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, you know, that kind of money doesn't get spent by mistake. That is planned. This is a military operation under the direction, the direct authorization of the National Security Council. So that's why anything related to this ends up becoming national security, blah, blah, blah. Okay. Because that's who it is that has jurisdiction on the release of a medical counter mission to the general public at large. And the only thing that anyone can do it, because you can go into many rabbit holes as to who's responsible, this corporation, that guy, you could have the whole chart. You can have thread around your house, showing all the connections, but really what do you do in that instance? You know, what does anyone do? You know, with all the networks that exist, what can a single individual do in order to effectuate a change on that front? And the only way to do it is to compel reporting of the S1 subunit as the causative agent. And because it's a direct sequel, the refusal to pass that information up, if you work for the government, is criminal. And I just found that out this past week. So people are asking about, you know, I couldn't establish a private right of action. Well, you know, I might not have to, you know, in the grand scheme of things, interestingly enough. So those are my two cents. I kind of wanted to start to get into the physiology bit. I just kind of wanted to leave it open on this front before I kind of really... I see you wanna itch into something. Yeah. Go, Johanna, go. You know, I always need two different evidence-based things to really talk about the hypothesis that I have. And I wouldn't say that you could point out my country if I hadn't more than that lab, which I discovered just recently, but on the PRRA that you mentioned, it's very interesting because it was published in Marburg in 1992 that the cleavage site of HIV has a quite similar amino acid sequence. It's actually kind of turned around like backwards, but biologically, I wouldn't see how... Maybe it's kind of similarly effective. But if you have then the homology of GP, the glycoprotein 41, which is the basis of HIV envelope, then the purine cleavage site and the GP 120 part above it to have that membrane fusion potential in HIV. And then you see a very similar purine cleavage site. And then, you know, I want to add the defuse proposal because maybe Fauci knew about it and then saw the purine cleavage site and that part. But to the GP 120, I think a lot of the immune effects in COVID and long COVID are actually... I mentioned a few hours ago that the internal domain of the S1 unit actually carries these GP 120. And, you know, it wasn't only the Germans researching GP 120 surface vaccines, it was also for Dietrich. So they are always, you know, it's like on markets. They are all doing kind of the same researches, but what strikes out to me is that in 2002, Oosterhaus from the Netherlands published that the GP 120 surface is actually causing the antibody dependent enhancement in HIV vaccines and in HIV. So I also think that the purine cleavage site is very important and that's the part that you can always say, but it's never been in the sarbecovirus, in the SARS coronavirus. There has never been these purine cleavage sites. And, you know, that's quite strong evidence. And if you then add a mosaic of GP 120 on the perfect position, and then you have other publications like the one of Baric describing the interaction and the FC independent enhancement for antibodies against exactly that surface, the N-terminal domain. And, you know, it's like for me, it's not about pointing fingers, but finding out how high is the possibility and the probability that this actually emerged from dual use research on HIV vaccines, because it was like, it was the, it was the, it was in the public domain that we will have malaria HIV vaccines soon in around 2016 and 17. And then I remember that this initiative, Red Initiative from Bono, from U2, where they talked about it with Obama about the HIV vaccine they will, that they will have.

It was in 2017, I think. And all of a sudden now nobody talks about it, you know.

I like this. As far as I'm aware, I'm about to be corrected on this. Robert Malone still has patents focused on GP 120. And, you know, just... Fauci has against, it's a mechanism to inhibit GP 120 binding, that's his patents.

Robert Malone's?

No, Fauci. Yeah. So like I say, if I was, if I was Robert Malone right now, I would be, you can, um, step away from patents that you've previously put in. If I was him, I would be, I would be looking to distance myself, you know, publicly from any, any type of medical countermeasure that involves these pathways, these epitopes. And this, um, you know, again, it's, again, it's Robert Malone, a white hat, grey hat. I'm, I'm agnostic on this. I'm, I'm prepared to sort of take his, um, well, the, the ammo that he's firing down range with specific topics. You know, he did step forward about not using the technology in children. Um, thank you very much for that. Um, didn't really seem to help that much in the end. Um, and I guess, yeah, I'm just going off on a tangent here, but, um, maybe, maybe it's a good, a good moment to reflect a little, because you, you said no, no finger pointing, but I'm, I'm inclined to disagree a little on that, Johanna. And I'm going to, uh, I didn't, I'm all in for sometimes, you know, being a great greyhead, whitehead, whatever, you know, I think the layers of disinformation and education are so obfuscated by info propaganda that sometimes you think you're doing the right thing. And then kind of like with Jeffrey Sachs from the Lancet Commission, who kind of thinks that Daja lied in my face, that's making him angry. And now he's kind of turning on that part that is of interest for him in his position, because it's, it's an insult. And I think there are many of these useful idiots, you know, I wouldn't exclude that I'm a useful idiot. I have been a useful idiot as well, because I was concerned. I was concerned. And I in the first time thought, well, you're downplaying that might be a danger like that might be that I got misunderstood and the whole approach of you can treat it. And we have white folks a lot and you don't need the whole countermeasure dogmatic approach. And we had it a while ago. I think it's what I'm observing on the ground is that it just feels like the decision makers and politics are counseled by an AI like BlackRock, whatever is saying, and telling you what to do now, because they have done all these pandemic preparedness, play games, and, and, you know, it's very much a sort of algorithmic feel to the last few, few years.

They focus on the process.

Yeah, just to add the third thing that I have to why I'm saying, okay, let's, let's have a look on what we in the world can collectively do and look at the labs and what we do there. Because, you know, I thought I was working on developing small molecule therapeutics for hepatitis. Turns out they used it to produce a cell culture and cultivate Japan and so the lightest virus to produce a vaccine. And, you know, I wasn't intending that, but maybe I helped, you know, does that make me a blackhead, a white, certainly then not a white head. But, you know, I realized that I was like, I'm monitoring that from now on, you know. But I think it's talking about controlled opposition and all that. I think it's not finger pointing is okay. And you can tell from the actions of people, if they are trying to manage their way without losing their faces. And there are many cultures on this planet that are very concerned about losing their face and are not able to say, wait, maybe we had made a mistake here and we need to talk about it. And like, audit our procedures. Just the GP120 surfaces, you mentioned that it wasn't in the blast, but only in the Indian. I want to remark to the historical component of it, that it was India and France with Montagnier in the HIV story that confirmed the HIV isolation in like the fight with Gallo and Fauci and why Montagnier got, the Indians confirmed Montagnier back then. And so now Montagnier also with the Pasteur Institute they have quite a lot resources on HIV samples. So it's understandable that the World Research Institute for HIV and AIDS run by Montagnier, may he rest in peace, that they have samples and and they have samples and sequences that maybe not everyone has access to via blast. What Montagnier did or let's say what the Pradhan paper made was publishing protein sequences as these inserts and Montagnier published nucleotides and homologies in nucleotides. And you need to have the translation between genome and proteome. So it wasn't that easy to overlap these both papers in the first place. You needed to have like skills and we have the GP120 directly overlap this suspicious region of Montagnier, the 275 bases with a density of HIVs, SIVs, of this 30, 72 percent or something like that. And there you have these inscribed, this genome sequences that Montagnier pulled out of GenBank as well. And yes, one of them and the last one in reading direction is from Germany in 2015 and was isolated in Frankfurt. And I just left it at that in the mind map that we discussed back in March, I think. But I had a look recently, which institute it was exactly, I'll listen. It's the Georg Speierhaus for oncology research.

It's again the oncologist and the director of it is the son of my former professor, here in my alma mater. And that one had a NATO research dependent to work, I think, in Bethesda in 1969 and was close to Helmut Schmidt, our former chancellor. He actually was part of the Friday Society of Helmut Schmidt. And it was that time that he had that NATO's dependent when Kissinger and Scowcroft and all of that were, you know, and I'm mentioning that because he was the head of the internal medicine department in my alma mater. I learned from him. You know, it's like having contact with all these people in my life. But you didn't know how close you were to something so big.

You know, it's like knowing is a difficult concept, you know. Sometimes it's just feeling that something is wrong. And I felt that for a long while. But what I wanted to mention is that it's exactly that Georg Speierhaus, where the son of this pretty famous internal medicine MD is the director, and it was isolated in 2015 from mandrill monkeys. And it's a semi-immune deficiency virus, lentivirus, which can be used as a genetic manipulation tool similar to the zinc finger nuclease, which Jiggy mentioned. And the zinc finger nuclease is a different thing than the zinc finger proteins that we have in our, but it's a genetic manipulation tool. It's easy to confuse that, I think. But that's the deepest that I read into that paper. And that mentioned by Jiggy. But the part that it was isolated in 2015 in Frankfurt by that company that is doing oncology research, CRISPR manipulation, where does the money come from? You know, who is funding all these projects? And you know, when you look at patents, then you find that our head president of Paul Ehrlich Institute, which is the FTA equivalent for licensing the vaccines and running the virus. And they are not really doing their job. The president is a biochemist, not even an MD. And he has patents on SIV vector technology.

And it's not too many SIV vectors in there. It's mainly, it's HIV vectors that are used, that these SIV vectors were proposed by Kihutek and the monkey researchers. And the HIV vectors were like published in Basel, I think. It might be useful just for the audience that's listening. What specifically are they using those HIV inserts for in a gene engineering environment, lab environment? It was developed as a genetic manipulation tool because the specialty of retrovirus in general and lentivirus is just the special clade of retroviruses. They can kind of retro transcribe from RNA to DNA, which is kind of counterintuitive to the dogma, the Francis Crick dogma from DNA to RNA to protein. And they do from RNA to DNA and then they can integrate. So that's the approach that they took. And I'm not too familiar with what they do and how they do it. But they published and developed in about 1997 and 1996 is what Kihutek had, the Paul Ehrlich Institute president had in 1996. These SIV vector projects and Basel, Switzerland had it from kind of the same year. And then in the early 2000, they published it as a laboratory tool, like from photo to workhorse in a lab. And then it's basically the foundation to all the pseudotyping. Pseudotyping meaning you take a snippet of this virus and then you add another virus surface protein into the backbone of that attenuated or not so dangerous virus to study the function of the epitope and the relevance. And that's what's considered gain of function when you have a backbone that might reproduce. They always come back with their non-replication competent pseudotype viral particles, et cetera. I'm always skeptical. But if you take a SARS backbone, why would you take a SARS backbone if you want to attenuate something? That's why I don't buy the life attenuated virus story. And I know Mark, you were itching to jump in while Johanna was…

I'm so glad I have a recording of it because there's like a week of notes that Johanna just shared. But just to emphasize how odd it is that the childhood spat between Montagnier and Gallo is so important. Gallo announced, I don't know how successful it was, but his announcement of the HIV vaccine. Remember what date that was? 1983. That was the isolation, I think, of HIV as a causative agent, but as a vaccine for HIV. Oh, I don't remember the date of the first candidate. September 10, 2001. It was actually on the morning newspapers. While the planes were flying in the buildings, most people don't remember this on the front page of many US newspapers was Gallo has an HIV vaccine. That's it, we're in a simulation. This topic, the battle for to be at the top of the stack is tied into so many of the most magnificent geopolitical events of the last 20, 30 years. It must be even more powerful than we can imagine for it to be that tied into everything. And where did the hijackers come from? You know, I even know someone was in contact with them, you know. She told me, and I invited him to have that Stipendium {scholarship}, I was like, what? Okay. We still don't have clear evidence on what happened then, right? Nick is the Gallo expert, particular the 60s, 70s. He knows it inside and out, but I don't think that's one bit. I think that's one bit he might've missed. I'll just add in, someone just said in the chat as a LOL, as well as the Pentagon losing $2 trillion. Oops. Announced by the director of the Pentagon, who was a pharma guy. And in the basement of the towers, there was this gold, how was this called, this company? I'm not sure. Yeah, there's supposedly gold vaults under 9-11, right? But it was probably a monkey lab. And our former defense minister is part of their board? Yeah. Well, like I say, Operation Paperclip didn't stop, right? It just sort of morphed into various programs. You're not talking about the Trout guy. And Mark, you were talking about Trout in the Reims as well. And in the Reims, it's involved still. And the whole training of the Ukrainian researchers was done in my alma mater, biosafety level four lab in Hamburg. They trained the Ukrainian scientists. Next to the restaurant, right? It's like next to a restaurant. You mentioned the facilities to be at. There's some nice outdoor dining facilities next door.

Look, Verona just got to eat, man.

Hamburg is famous for it right around the corner.

Is there a German word to describe? What is the German word strong enough to say coincidence for all of the things you're describing here? Zufall. Too fine? Zufall. Zufall, it's coincidence. Okay. Okay. As far as Gallo goes, I would recommend if people really want to learn about the ins and outs, the actual legal details that were acquired under FOIA by John Crudson, who's an investigative author, go back and read science fictions. Or if you want to just skip to the good parts, go out to his website and he has a huge directory of all of the PDFs. And you can read for yourself the conversations back and forth between the NCI, the US Fed Department, State Department, and the Pasteur Institute. But yeah, that was a very interesting... I like that that characterization of Gallo's conduct is on the record, but that's a good place to go. No, Mark, I didn't know about that coincidence. And as I watched HIV vaccines come out, it was always with a sense of dread. I never held hope that, oh gosh, this is going to be it. I thought, who is going to track the 2,400 people that volunteered for this product now for the next five to 10 years? And so on and so on. So that's part of... I don't know if I have PTSD or not, but what that whole experience did to me. I'm very skeptical about pharma.

But as far as coming back to the... What is the framework? How do we put our arms around culpability? One thing that I'll say is that I'm trying to prune off what is the limit, what's the outline for the HIV lab origin 300 level unit. And there's been a lot of questions, a lot of good discussions, and people want to know about certain aspects in greater detail. And it can't cover everything. It can't be scattered. But I think one of the coherent points that's very... It's going to be important for this discussion is I want to take the 1977 final progress report. And there's a section at the beginning that talks about all of the recombinant DNA slash, now we call that gain of function, teams and capabilities and suppliers and labs, et cetera, save some of the academic groups that ended their contracts. But all of the technical capabilities were integrated into the NIH. And I've got a good collection of papers on the recombinant DNA group in the mid-80s. And they go on until... I don't know if they've ever shut down that department. But that might be a good place for us to look at primarily two things, the framework of what were they driving towards if we need to go that far back to look at the science. And the other is the international exchange data that's there. There's all kinds of scientists on the roster that went through the rotating doors at different universities and in different individual contracts for the SVCP. And that might be a good insight, sort of a starting point as we scratch our heads about, is this a multicentric problem around the world? Was there a German? Was there a Japanese lab? Was there a Russian lab doing parallel things somewhere nearby? What about the Russian lab that blew up? We don't want to spin out of control, but this would be a coherent starting point to say these people, at the point at least of 1978, these countries and these institutions are all interconnected in sharing what we would assume is the sum of the activities and technologies explored in the SVCP. And just to maybe temper people's paranoia. Look, as Johanna was saying, postdocs and graduate students and even young researchers that have sort of assistant professors, et cetera, were probably sold on the mission statements and the PR that's given around a particular discipline. And just all around my head, you can see, oh, that's all recordings direct from monkey brains and putting in stimulation probes, et cetera. And look, I was sold on, and it was going to help humanity. And you could say that I was, if you wanted to look in the past and say, I was edging, pushing along this neural technology, which I don't know how much is really going to emerge in the coming years, but I didn't do anything out of malice in my mind. I was focused on trying to make interventions in intractable cases of children with Tourette's and people who had neurodegenerative disorders. That was my reasoning. I could see that there were failings in the academic institutions and the way that they were operating, but that mainly manifested in, as I saw it, as sort of nepotistic networks that would facilitate some research directions and publications and individuals getting fast tracked, et cetera, versus what I would have liked to have seen as just sort of more sort of pure science driven thinking philosophy. So we have to be careful about saying every researcher that was part of a particular program had diabolical plans running through their mind as to how they wanted their research to be used. That sort of points me to the frameworks that are operating behind the front end of the public science, for example. This is why I think it's important to be looking at, as an example, I don't think it's the only one, but it's one most people will know about, like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, things like Welcome Trust, is where the directorship level is able to aggregate what would seem like disparate threads of scientific research, and maybe they're able to pull things together to say, to enable Fauci to say, oh, in 2017, we're going to see an outbreak in the next two years. But this is where I think the efforts need to be focused on. Yes, Johanna.

I wanted to mention, we had it before, that the Zika was a very hot topic, and Ebola before that, before Fauci mentioned there will be an outbreak, and even around that time, the Zika vaccines were introduced, I think, in the US, and there were Ebola outbreaks every now and then, small things to be monitored around 2018, but they weren't pushing it too much. But the interesting part that is adding to what we started with is that the 2014 situation in Brazil was just prior to the Olympic Games, and I think they had a vaccine program for pregnant. So when they stopped that, there weren't any more cases of microcephaly.

So the reactivation of, or combination of that program, and when you look at what we have now, it's not mandated, but in the schedule, that pregnant can be vaccinated or injected with mRNA. Yeah, this is the disturbing trend that we're seeing right now. And again, unless we're able to slam the brakes on and turn into the direction that we're going, so we don't go right into the direction that we're going, so we don't go right off the cliff, this idea that they're going to go in and pre-vaccinate, I guess, would be one way of describing it, at the fetal level, we're looking at very, very dark future. Should they be allowed to pull that off? And like I say, just going back to the investment that's gone into factories that are springing up, tells me that these decisions have already been made. We're reacting all the time to, essentially, plans that have been laid out, I would say. We don't know what's said in the back rooms. Again, I don't like using just World Economic Forum, but it's there as a placeholder for these organizations. We don't know what they're talking about off camera, right, when they're at their cocktail parties and they agree to get together and they're going to push for particular directions of research. But I think what's very clear is that you can see that there's a couple of consistent directions which they want to go. One is the limiting of your growth through environmental fears, okay? And the other is the extreme medicalization of pathogens such that medical surveillance is rolled out on a global scale. That's where digital IDs come in. That's where all of these things which people are concerned about, that's the direction that they're going to go in. And I wish I had a better solution other than non-compliance, but I've got a feeling even non-compliance won't be possible if in the coming months we're unable to raise enough public outrage at what's being done. And the simple fact is, so many people got sucked in to the medical countermeasure pathway and were true believers in it. Cognitively, they find it very difficult to change track, and I wish I had a better solution, a direction to go in right now. That's my point. I have to just kill the conversation right there. Your zeppelin is heading into the mountainside, Kevin. Pull up. But look, even if you step outside of what we're talking about, the disease and the the digital ID QR code tyranny is upon us. Look, and I'll even use it. It's down in the bottom corner. It's such fantastic tech, right, and so pervasive now. I'm not sure you can pull back from it. It would be like going back a hundred years ago and telling them, well, everyone's going to have to have a little thing of plastic with your picture on it, a miniaturized picture, and it's going to have all your details printed in it in an accurate tiny six-point font that allows you to ride your carriage on the road, right? Most people wouldn't have been able to compute that, and I would just say that we're at the beginning of this century. We're in the same same situation, and the same tactics are being deployed, whether it be warfare, either physical, psychological, and you know, my concern is that the fact that they've unleashed this psychological warfare component as part of a much, much larger scheme, and the next thing to make people go along with it, because when, you know, there's enough people, I would argue right now, who probably, you know, could get disruptive in each country. Yellow Jacket, France, right, that they were doing that, Yellow Jacket, whatever they called it, Yellow Vest, right? What comes after that? Well, hunger, man, you control people through hunger and disease, and this is my concern right now, and you don't think that they're not psychopathic enough to go down that pathway? They have even nudge units included in the virology department. Psychological nudge units to push for vaccine against vaccine hesitancy. It's like, it can't be more obvious. It's over in your face, and shamefully, it seems driven by the five eyes, six eyes countries. Again, I will pull people back to the tell let out by Benjamin Netanyahu. I handed over Israel as a lab to give tech advantage to Israeli biotech companies, to enable this big data aggregate to enable this big data aggregation with medical countermeasure interventions, and the impact… Produced in the Webernwerke, where E.G. Farben produced Pokatstädt-Buchenwald. Great idea. History never repeats, it rhymes. In this set of scenarios, there's white pills with respect to treating the diseases that are emerging. I think that's just biology, right? We've just got to learn to use it properly. What God gave you, just look after it, and it'll look after you.

But the technical, computational side is where I think all the effort is going to go now, right? Their first stage was a success, right? Look at the vaccine uptake across the industrialized nations. It's in 80, 90 percent, right? They don't need to do that type of exercise anymore. I mean, they might just do it because they're vindictive psychopaths again, but the…

They can build on it, and you know, now you have kind of crippled or stressed out immune systems, and every influence on that, and be it from nutrition, or from other medical countermeasures, or glyphosate, like Bayer's new Monsanto, or give it to the ones that rent I.G. Farben, you know, they are guilty enough. You know, it's like… But the concern here, though, is that people now are going to be fixated on what just happened in the last two years. This is my concern. So it becomes a little like 9-11 did, where people were just like, well, you know, and it was easy… A memory hole. A memory hole. Not just a memory hole, but they'll keep people fixated on the discussion around what happened, and they'll be back and forth about mandates, and you know, what was wrong, etc. And yes, pursue all those legal avenues. I'm for it. I've put my name down for it. I'll stand up, and I think we have to do every legal avenue possible, but they won on that battlefield. And I think by sort of allowing people to sort of go on to Twitter, all the scientists and doctors who were silenced right now, they can let them back on, because now what happens is the discussion keeps focusing back on the origins, the vaccines, etc., while the next step is coming, and it's likely to come at us very, very fast. And you know, whether that's an escalation out of Europe and Ukraine, and historically, Europe has these paroxysms every 50, 60 years. That's why I think people should be looking at the next threat in the environment. I won't stop talking about this, but just, or this topic, but my concern is I don't want to get punched in the face again. So I want to know what they're going to do. And yeah, as Johanna said, they can build on it, what's already happened, but IDs and forced compliance beyond what we've already seen. And my concern is that it will be food, food and access to basic medicines. That's, I think, the next step. A lot of waves about virtue signaling with getting incentives, getting discounts at your employment. If you participate in their wellness system, they have a whole bunch of questions and checkpoints that you're supposed to complete each year, getting certain checkups, getting vaccines, and you get discounts on your health insurance if you do it all, if you get the points. So yeah, there's been a nudging process in motion. We are much further with that, obviously, because we have this electronic card medical record like Israel has. It's in the way of implementation. We have vaccine mandates for healthcare professionals. So it's like 98% of them being waxed. So we have stress in the system right now, not because the cases are higher, as Mary said, but because the person personal is sick, and they are running the show on like a quarter of their stuff. They have lower capacity due to that. It's not that they're, you know, and they are stories about the medication that is being like artificially held back, but also we have ADE is not always at the site where the infection usually presents. It can be in the vasculatory, and we have problems with thrombolytics, for instance, and that, you know, you can kind of force the crisis with taking out some essential medication.

Which they did with SARS. They turned around and said, you can't. All those treatments we know that may be helpful. Boom, gone. Mark, I know you wanted to put your hand up and say something.

You're mute still, bro. Oh, hey, guys. I just wanted to say it's been awesome. I'm going to be signing off.

Please keep going. Johanna, thank you for sharing. You have so much that I need to re-listen to.

The audience over here is really super appreciative. It's great to meet you, Doc Kek, and of course, Nick. Always a pleasure, man. And Kevin, you're okay, too. Thank you, bro. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. Have a great night, and I hope we'll do this again soon. Yeah. Thank you. And happy New Year, of course. Thank you. Happy New Year. Keck, you've been quiet. Do you want to add anything, too?

Good stuff, man. I'm getting schooled over here, man. A lot of good things. I guess what I want to kind of just add is some things to your point, you know, kind of like worried about the next thing that comes out, you know, seeing kind of like this whole structure being built up around this new kind of technology. And it's just rinse and repeat for them. So what are they going to do next time? It's the same thing. It's rinse and repeat, nothing new under the sun. And it all starts from a declared emergency. Once a declared emergency is given, that gives them access to, you know, give release of a medical countermeasure to a virus, a public health threat via emergency use authorization that people can participate in or not, right? They cannot be mandated. Okay, you can have, well, they can, but the entity which chooses to mandate it is participating in unlawful discrimination. It's clear cut. It's, that's what it is. So Even with all of the indemnity language?

From a private entity standpoint, right? Because when you're dealing with private entities, it's different from government agencies. You know, I kind of learned this, because usually government agencies have different statutes that govern them as opposed to private entities, which are either administering it or mandating it. Because then you're assuming a private liability as a company by giving it to your agents. If you don't make any accommodations according to ADA, American Disabilities Act, then you are liable on that. And then it becomes like an EEOC kind of labor complaint that has already won. So the Fed is responsible for DOD employee mandates and potential adverse events, whereas perhaps a state might be standing in the way of risk or litigation for say, a state employee, a school teacher that took it and got an injury. Is that correct? So Section 564 is the governing law for emergency use authorization.

It says that anyone participating in the release is held to its statutes, which is part of National Defense Authorization Act of 2004. However, when it comes to mandating this from a federal level, it cannot be done. Federal courts already ruled, federal mandate was struck down. Zuchtby King, I think it was 1922 is the case, said that it's state police powers that govern non-economic activity. The distribution of a medical county measure is non-economic activity. Therefore, it falls within state police powers, state jurisdiction, and state law. So it's the state executive which chooses to participate in the release of a medical county measure in their jurisdiction. And it is state law that governs that distribution to the private entities that are then either distributing it or participating in its release as like a medical facility. In which case, if you're instituting any type of medical treatment in a medical facility, informed consent then usually falls under those statutes and those laws. However, from a state jurisdiction standpoint, because they're participating in the federal side under an MCM, under an MCM, it is considered non-investigational. What makes a medical county measure or emergency use authorization what it is, is that it is considered non-investigational. So it's exempt from that portion of the law? It's not research. So I was actually, my suit that I did was under human research statutes. And that's how I learned all of this stuff because it ultimately failed on the merits when I was going against the state agency under human research that said you don't have standing. And then when I started to read section 564 and I came across the fact that it's non-investigational, I'm like, well, if it's non-investigational, then it's not research. And if it's not research, it can't be human research legally seeking. Thank you. It was not a failure. It was vital discovery on your part, and we appreciate all of your effort. Johanna, I know you were trying to contribute.

Yeah, it might be that I lost what I wanted.

So it's odd in that it's not considered research. I can't sue under those statutes, but as it is for release under the private side, their informed consent does kind of come up.

Hang on, before you, Johanna, please, as I try and afford, let her get it. Sorry.

It's very interesting because I consider the U.S., the rights you have as citizens, as what could make a difference in this situation. But what concerns me are the approaches that are done or the ways that are planned to go further from the WHO, because there is this council for the pandemic preparedness rulings, and that goes back to a law from 1800 something, where they primarily agreed on specific diseases that require international collaboration.

As you mentioned with the emergence of the SIPI and Bill and Melinda Gates influence on WHO, and also these international treaties laws were kind of changed and variabilized in ever-repeating new discussion. And they are planning, as far as I understood, to implement what we just did with Corona for the future as international WHO law, and they just cancelled human rights from the WHO statutes. So the problem with that is it's all about preparedness and response, and not about justification and effectiveness, the research that they are presenting. And as far as I understood, and I'm repeating that over and over, because one is the president of the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut with the SIV vectors, and the other one is the president of the Robert Koch Institute in Germany, Lothar Wiener, who's a veterinarian. And the veterinarians are working on CRISPR tech and all the gene manipulation techniques. And when you listen to Bibi, he wants to put the genome on the records as well to sell it to the most bidding for the next time, just to put it in clear words for everyone, what he's doing with the population of Israel. But it's the genetic manipulation. You didn't mention that as aims for the future, but I think that's quite where they are going. Yeah, it's a very eugenic centric approach that they're trying to wheel in. I don't know the status of this WHO pandemic treaty. I know it's in discussion. I don't know how far it is along to be ratified, but if people are sort of tuning into this, you have to, you have to wrap your mind around the eugenics aspect of this type of legislation. And whether it was by accident or deliberate this time around, there has been a hit on birth rates. And, you know, we can't, we can't ignore the fact that the animal studies tell us that the lipid nanoparticle will make a vector for the ovaries. And they haven't stopped to incorporate that data into their planning. Well then that to me just points towards a more nefarious agenda that they're playing out or discussing in private and looking to wheel out. And again, I would just say a lot of it will be done via ecological green legislation, I guess, for one of the better words. Sustainable CSG. Yeah. But the wrong measures like vaping to be healthy, you know, and then you have Nathan Wolf in that vaping... Well, I'll have nothing said about vaping nowadays. It's my new favourite hobby.

The mints rot in my teeth. I'm hooked in on the vape. But yeah, that's a mind-blowing little data point. And I want to say on Twitter, it was BitSonicCoin, I think, who dropped that little gem. And yeah, I checked it. And Nathan Wolf was a scientific advisor to Jewel. And in, you know, looking at the parameter space in which we have to operate, if they were looking to leverage a disease outbreak and you're dealing with hostile actors, why wouldn't they put it into delivery mechanisms like this? That's how people have got to think right now on what's coming for the future. Because, you know, it wasn't that long ago that we had... DARPA already said they did it.

...put the spike protein into... Yeah, put a spike protein onto a proto-virus as a vector for aerosolization.

It wouldn't even be organic, it's just a spike protein. How about that? Oh, and they call it Max Fascination.

Again, folks, you've got to be aware of the potential of combinatorial agents emerging in the environment that bad actors could be using to commit your health and your family and any... Well, what do they want, right? You'll own nothing and be happy. Be happy. Right. Yeah, the own nothing part is always their goal. They'll own it. And the happy part is just, you'll be unable to breach dissent of what it is that they're doing.

Actually, AI will own it. They'll just be getting a slice. All right. Really. And the point I was going to bring up when I got sidetracked was, it wasn't that long ago that they had AI spitting out, I think of a number was like 40,000 new binary agents that they hadn't even thought of or come across in the environment. This is chemical warfare more than the bio warfare component, but chem-bio warfare goes together. And the running axiom that I have at the moment is that the next world war that your grandpappy was warning you about, it's started already. We've already seen worse than the equivalent of a first strike on the United States, at least in terms of excess mortality. Yeah. And Mark's not here, but I'll sort of state this right now. I'll put the fentanyl overdose crisis in that axiom. From where I'm sitting, which is outside the US, right? No one else on the world seems to have this problem with fentanyl. It seems specifically directed at the US population. And I think that the orchestrators of much of what we're seeing realize that they have to break the United States. Britain, Australia, Canada are broken, subjected countries already, but there's an element of resistance still possible within the United States. I was going to say there was a demographic bifurcation that occurred in this whole recent Kabuki theater of COVID. And those who resisted and had critical thinking engaged were also mathematically a high percentage of second amendment proponents. So that was a little miscalculation on their part.

I want to add on the fentanyl crisis that I was shocked when I was in the US first time and the whole advertisement and the influence of pharma companies in TB, and that this is allowed. That's totally unnatural for me.

My first time in the US, I was like, what the fuck? I can't do that.

What I wanted to say is that with chronic inflammation, and that's basically what the discussion of the IgG4 leads to, and fibrosis, you get pain. And if you have that increase, and that goes back, the fentanyl stuff goes back to the iron contrast story and the introduction of opioids into the market by CIA-run operations. And now I think it was even discussed with bilateral between Xi and Trump why China doesn't have this problem, but is producing all the fentanyl and flooding the market in the US. I think it's sometimes it's the policy that enables specific actions on different countries.

So with the German kind of training to be obedient, the Prussian style, maybe you got us more easily into the mandates. And we were just prior to get a general, we had the discussion this last year that we have a general vaccine mandate like Austria had. And we were lucky that we could avoid that. But we had this health care worker mandate. But I think it's necessary to look into the history as well of this NACO crisis and the poppy fields in Afghanistan and all that. It's a big, big industry. And I think it's also relating to dark projects like MKUltra and all that, like with the LSD experiments. Similar, the same time the special virus cancer program came up. This is what I grew up in Germany as a child of someone who was from Western Berlin. So I may look young, but I was always aware of the former conflict and the occupation and the special rules in Western Berlin. And that might not be for everyone. But I was growing up in that tense situation in the 80s. And they are, I think the historical context is really, it's really helping me to understand it. So on the NACO crisis, I think it's very fair that Mark puts a huge attention and focus on it because there's a high risk that ever more people get hooked on opiates because of the pain. And why are they investigating synovial fluids, meaning joint tissue? Because arthritis is so painful that you can sell everything to them. And just so I want to frame what you just said, because it's important.

These are documents that are related to Ukraine where, I want to say it was DITRA, were part of programs where they were specifically, this gets back to race-based weaponry. They were specifically looking for the Russian genotype, not Ukrainian. It had to be Russian samples of synovial fluid and the associated genome. And yeah, I mean, that's an interesting hypothesis to induce chronic pain.

And post-viral syndromes, et cetera, do do that. I can attest to that, right? Life is a bloody misery. You look for, you'll scramble for anything that will provide a degree of relief.

But you know, the question still comes down to why is the US only dealing with this mass fentanyl assault, right? There's always been heroin addicts. That happened loads where I grew up, right? I haven't seen or heard it. Heroin killed them or booze or combination of. But I don't have any news of fentanyl flooding those markets. And those were people that were injecting between their toes and anywhere they could get a vein. So it seems a very unique phenomenon to the US that, again, I think in the bigger picture has to be pulled into this asymmetric warfare framework that's being unleashed on the populace.

Is it China, someone just putting the opium wars, Chinese taking revenge? Maybe. I'm more inclined to put it in the context of, again, these transnational groups looking to maneuver populations into a particular direction. And, you know, the US is sort of prime for addiction, hedonistic-type behaviors. And so that's a weakness that's going to be exploited.

I think they're trying it everywhere. We had a huge crisis of that in the 70s as well in the hippie times. And we have programs. At first, I want to say that we have different pain, many medications, and we have a step in between to getting to the opioids, which is not licensed in the US. And it was a dramatic situation. Just one single patient died of that medication due to lower suppression of bone marrow production, basically. So, yes, of course, these things have adverse events. But if you take that from the market, and it is more efficient in some situations than the NSA aids with ibuprofen and Tylenol, then you have an in-between. So I see that. But we have programs to taper people from the opioid addiction, and they get it medically provided, the polamidone. So I don't know if that's an option in the US, but I think it's also the policy that enables that with the not being so restrictive to the pharma industry and influencing the people via TV. And that's like a psychological operation on the US citizens. And I think that's the part of having chronic inflammation introduced as well, because there's something very interesting happening when your body has a chronic inflammation, then the body, it's not going to be a chronic inflammation, then the body tries to starve pathogens and viruses of tryptophan. And so the metabolism changes and your brain wouldn't get as much tryptophan, an essential amino acid, which we get by the way, only by our food, it's essential means we can't produce it. And the round up is interfering exactly in the production of this amino acid. And this amino acid goes to the pineal gland and gets translated into serotonin, which is the be happy lucky hormone, and which the SSRIs are interfering with when you have a lowered level of serotonin. I'll just add the nucleus in the brain is, I want to say the dorsal raffi nucleus for serotonergic production. I'll just, is dorsal raffi or... Okay. It's not pineal gland, but... The serotonin goes to melatonin and that's basically produced in the pineal, right? Melatonin, yeah. But I just want to check I'm right with dorsal raffi nucleus. The activation of TH1 receptors can also help to produce melatonin in the pituitary as well. Yeah, but maybe there are many locus, but what I wanted to go to is that it's the metabolic chain from the tryptophan, which in a chronic inflammation situation, the brain doesn't get too much. So if you want to introduce something that is kind of mind control possibility, and you would add it's serotonin, melatonin, and DMT, what's in the metabolic chain, wherever it's produced exactly, Kevin. But that's an approach where I think all the serotonin hooks on serotonin people. We know of some of the shooting incidents that were committed by... Yeah, and look, I would add this. I don't want people to feel guilty about if they're taking medications. What I would say is this, they're not meant for children. That's where, again, that's this hard stop. We have to have this hard stop all the time. You can't keep taking medications that are meant primarily for adult type disorders. It's not often you have a depressed eight-year-old, or the use of amphetamine-based drugs for drugging young boys because they're young boys, going to do young boy things. That has to be stopped. And again, right now, at a 30,000 foot viewpoint, I would argue that that's long-term chemical warfare. And again...

But its basis is psychological, and it can be psychologically overcome if you have the basis for it. Because most of what's happening right now is people who are in some form of authority are introspecting their conclusions of the behavior that they're viewing on other children. And they're saying, oh, well, this is the right way. And in order to get to this way, then you either have to get medicated or get surgery or whatever.

But the thing is that its whole basis is introspection. And introspection was proven by Wilhelm Wundt in the very first experiment of psychology to not be reliable in an experimental setting. Introspection has to be specifically accounted for to make sure that it does not taint the results of the methodology or of what you're going to observe. People are projecting their idea onto others, and in essence, holding others to their own account because of the authority that the state gives them. And its whole basis is introspection.

And all of the results, everything can be fought on from that basis alone. Because if they're not a licensed psychologist, then what the hell do you know? And when we start to get into some of the more egregious things where people are changing their gender, well, then that's sexology, which is basically a study on sexual dysfunction. And they call sexual relationships, but dysfunctional relationships at its heart. How many licensed sexologists are out there introspecting this shit on children? Hey, can I jump in and ask a question? I think right off of that sort of branch, right off of your topic there, and maybe ask either Kevin or Johanna to respond. What do you think the probability is, considering the strong endocrine disruptive function of glyphosate in the food supply since the early 1990s, what do you think that might have to do with this strange, sudden shift in human sexuality where we're seeing, A, because of mass media and social media, everybody has this TV studio in their pocket, but suddenly we're seeing all kinds of people coming forward as needing to transition in a way that is different than we've seen before in history. Could the endocrine disruption in the food supply be playing a biological or functional role in this? Johanna, if you want to go first. I've got lots to say, but you, Mike. It's hard to say. I think it's endocrine disruption, and generally what I see is that if you have a disturbance in one endocrine organ, then it will get to the other organs. I think it's speculation to go there, but I really see the endogen disruptors as a problem, and it's basically the plastics, microplastics as well in the food supply and all that. It adds up for certain. I think quite a lot of it is sociological. That's just my feeling to it. I don't see it too much as endogenously... I think it's normal for a developing human in puberty to question sexuality. If you have such a broad variability in what might be possible, you might want to try, and then maybe it would have been a phase, and then in puberty to find yourself. It's normal in puberty that your brain is doing all sorts of stuff. I'm concerned with that, that children are changed before they have their identity by people who think they understand what the child wants. How much of it is implied on the child and interpreted because it's a hype or something? I don't know any parents. I'm an uncle to a lot of kids, and I don't know any parents who've gone through a transition process like this. I don't have any anecdotes to draw on. That's one reason why I'm very interested in anything. It comes back to me to one of those items that I'm concerned about, and that's the effect of glyphosate across pharmacokinetics, across any kind of psychological, neuropsychiatric medications that kids are on in combination with these other chemicals like the plastics, like the PFASs, things like that. What I see is expression of rather a female phenotype in young adults and males. It might be that there's an estrogen overload or disruptive overload in estrogen, but maybe for some chemicals it's the other way around. I'm not too deep into that, but I'll just take this. I'll add this. Neuropsychiatric disease is an issue in children. Depression, less so. As you get into teenage years, that can happen. I would say that's, again, the scope of normal developmental trajectories. Of course, there are kids from broken homes, et cetera, who are going to have some emotional trauma, PTSD. We have to accept that there is that landscape. Again, at that kind of young age, I'm of the opinion that good quality mentoring is a better treatment avenue than drugs or surgery, but there are instances where, and I can tell you that Tourette's is a good example, that they do need some intervention sometimes. With Tourette's, you have not just the tics, but the neuropsychiatric issues as well. Obsessive compulsive disorders, hyperactivity, behavioral instability, and inability to focus, et cetera. These are real phenomenon. I said earlier that kids don't have the psychiatric disturbances that adults do, but they're there and they can have an anatomical and physiological basis. A lot of my work was primed around trying to map out what those circuits were and why they would misfire, et cetera, et cetera. To get to the question about glyphosate and being endocrine disruptors leading to what we see right now, which is this weaponization of sexuality that's being targeted at ever younger demographics. I'm skeptical of the ability of foods and plastics to have that much of an impact on the normal biology. I'm not saying it doesn't occur, but I would say that what we're seeing right now is very much ideological driven assault. I don't use those terms lightly. I do think it's, again, weaponized. The idea being to assault the family unit. These are well-honed programs. You can look at the Tavistock Institute as an example or an institute that's been there for a long time that's driven much of what we would class as the Fabian or Gramscian march through the institutes. I would put this in the context of a form of bureaucratic collectivism that is epitomized by, again, these transnational groups that want control. It's hard to nudge adults in a particular direction. It's far, far easier to nudge children in a particular direction through susceptibility and things looking cool on TV or the internet, et cetera. You forget TV, right? Kids watch TV nowadays. It's all internet, right? Children is the mother of all learning. You put these concepts in front of a child, then the child is always curious about stuff that's put in front of them. They know this. I would argue vehemently that the push for gender-bending ideology is very, very deliberate. It's part of this asymmetric warfare that's being waged on us, the Untermanned. Unrestricted warfare. Yes. I don't have easy solutions to it. Don't let your kids watch internet, but my kids are on computers all day, right? There's no kids to play with outside. It's not like when I was growing up or any of us were growing up. You and I grew up in a similar, we all grew up probably in a similar time frame. A couple of us are older, but I'll posit this then. I will say, okay, thank you for those comments. About the concerns- Hang on. I just want to address something in the chat as well, because people are saying people's pineal glands are calcified. I've looked at many in MRI, and we would see if there was this issue of calcification in pineal glands. I've looked at many neurodegenerative brain scans. Yes, but were you holding your pink and your purple crystals? I guess not. I guess you didn't have the magical vision. You wouldn't have seen it in the scan. I don't appreciate that. It would come up on CT, MRI, and this, probably lesser MRI, but more CT. It's not this big issue that everyone's making it out to be. Your biology is far, far more robust than you could imagine. Life finds a way. It's the ideological targeting, which is the primary problem. That relates to whether we're talking about the synchronization and lockstep. I don't want to use the term plandemic, because it just got coined by no virus cranks. It's a psychological warfare being waged at a mass scale to weaken countries so that they're ripe for taking over, whether it's a sort of, call it turbo capitalism if you want. There's a group at the top that are just looking to get all the chips on the table, and they'll use any method. Pick your two-minute hate group of the day, but I would make an argument that- How about The Family in Washington, DC? That's my hate group pick of the day. Which Biden family? Yeah, look. No, no, no, no. There's an organization that's been around since the 40s or 50s called The Family. They've had a couple different names, and they are the groups engaged with countries around the world trying to be preemptive about redefining marriage. That's part of their work. I haven't heard of this group, so tell me more. There's a special on Netflix. It's really well done. Eyewitnesses who are part of the organization, people that are still in the organization, and the investigative journalist can tell the story the best. It's a short series. It's like, I think, four episodes. These are people that created the National Prayer Breakfast. You may have seen that. Every year, the president is there with the National Prayer Breakfast. It's just a blip on the news, but this is part of the structure that The Family created. They like to be unknown. They like to be invisible. This is one of the groups that Kennedy was discussing about secret handshakes. They have agendas, and they have relationships in the public-private domain, that hand-in-glove situation. They have a lot of influence and access. I would really recommend going back and watching The Family, but that's a pick. First of all, I want to acknowledge, thank you for having a good discussion about this. I don't have answers about what is occurring with human transsexuality, with the change from one gender to another. I know that there are sociological influences, and I agree that there's been a weaponization of sexuality, meaning minority sexuality foisted upon people at a level and at an intensity that is not right. We all need to keep talking about that. I think there's also a second issue, and that's the biological changes in people that are prompting them at all levels of life to change. I've told you before, I thought, well, maybe critical mass is part of it, but I just can't help but think that the things that Johanna listed, the glyphosate effects, just because they're not visibly... I'm not saying that you based all of your science on what you could see in an electron microscope, but there may be very strong but subtle effects, just like the IgG4 shift. I wouldn't say that they're not there, but I think just the pace that we've seen, because it's exponential in its effects, that's not a toxin in the environment that we're seeing. Have they maybe primed the battlefield in some way? Potentially, but look, I've worked in colonies with thousands of monkeys, and they get the shittiest end of the stick when it comes to their food. I've yet to see any gender-confused primates in my career. Never saw it. Yeah, they didn't have parents that were facilitating that process, either were engaged in it or them even able to have a conversation, but no, I agree. It's a big complex problem, and I certainly respect and appreciate your distress about it as a parent. I get it. The thing is, it's not so much an issue in Japan. Again, it's me looking at, you could argue, editorialized news feeds that I'm going to be drawn to as a conservative-type parent and being horrified that they would be doing this. But look, man, I can remember when there wasn't issues or confusion around bathrooms. It was just an understood thing that ladies needed one set of facilities, the gents needed another. It won't be tied to anyone going into the wrong one. I can give you an anecdotal example. I was in Japan, and I hadn't been here long, so I'm still sort of culturally adjusting. I was in a very large train station, and I'm desperate to get to the bathroom. I can't read the label so much, and the coloring was subtle for the little pink line, right? It was green, orange. Look, Japanese call green blue. I don't know why, but they call the color green blue. I think there's some differences in how they see things. But I'm beginning to make the turn into the wrong toilet, right? I was literally sort of mobbed, because it was busy station and there were people coming in and out. And you were doing it wrong. Yes! I was just literally, physically sort of, you can't go the other way. So there isn't this confusion in the East, right? I'll grant you that there's an element of these malevolent forces see the East as a sort of optimal way for society and cultures to operate. Regimented populations, yes. Very compliant. Those messy Westerners are not conforming enough and not going along with the program. So they need to be broken far more than the East needs to be broken. But the East got broken in the Second World War. And the emergence of China, you can argue is essentially a manufactured issue that was instantiated by the U.S. Kissinger was part of the offshoring of all the industry and tech from the U.S. and moving it out East. He was a hand-picked curator of post-war scientific talent at Nuremberg and in other locations. He was right there with Colonel Corso and others among multiple operations. And Johanna, would you please confirm for me, what is the proper pronunciation? De-spinne? De-spinne. De-spinne. De-spinne. I learned about De-spinne when I watched the excellent, excellent on-the-ground investigative series called Hunting Hitler. And it started, I think, in 2017. There are three seasons of it. They send teams all over South America and Europe. And at the headquarters is a former CIA person, which is interesting, considering paperclip. They don't say a word about paperclip. But they have the combined resources of all of the U.S. intelligence agencies, Interpol and several international, several overseas agencies, intelligence on watching De-spinne. And they understand the paths of the rat lines, the North Rat Line, a couple of Southern Rat Lines, one through Italy, one through Spain. They confirm many things about the roles of different entities. I don't want to give it away if you guys want to go and watch it. But in the language of some of these declassified- I don't have Netflix. You can tell me whatever you want. Spill the beans. It's Amazon. No, Amazon Prime. Oh, but no. But I had mentioned De-spinne to her in chat earlier during the week, and she just wasn't familiar with it. And that's apparently the name of those who left after the war and not into the hands of the U.S. paperclip program. And they were all over Argentina. We're not supposed to know that. Oh, you're saying as a German citizen, that's something that is scrubbed from your education or your awareness? Yeah. Paperclip and De-spinne and all that. You know, it's never been big of an issue. We lost and then the allies were here and we were, you know, assimilated. If we had a bug, it would be assimilated. But 707, I'm sorry, but- Well, Johanna does have a seven of nine kind of look to her, right? Oh, she- Resistance is futile. She's seven, she's seven. But unfortunately, all of those scientists come right into their muddy footprints are all over this conversation we're having tonight. They went right into CIA roles and roles at Merck. There's a whole village called Huntsville, Alabama, you know, that has institutions now, you know, run by their grandchildren. We have, you know, there was a large group of the biological scientists went to Merck in New Jersey. There's another enclave there. And apparently Angie Rasmussen, according to one scientist, was accused of being one of these grandkids. I don't have names and that's not my business, but it's an interesting complication to the- Fat Angie. I just had to play my fat Angie clip. Oh no. Just remind people who we're dealing with. That would be hilarious if she is a paperclip progeny. Dr. Katz maintained that quite seriously and he was always quite serious about everything he said about, you know, he was, you know, the Katz-Niacin protocol, that Dr. Katz. Johanna, I'm sorry, go ahead. No, I just wanted to, you know, what you were mentioning is something that kind of repeats over time in history. And I wanted to add something that I found pretty early and actually before the pandemic was called, because, you know, with now the ones who are kind of controlling the narrative with their former CIA and former intelligence here and former Obama counseling there and former Hillary Clinton counseling, look at the German Marshall Fund and the Alliance for Securing Democracy. They have the Hamilton 68 platform to monitor Russian bots on Twitter. And there are none other on the board of that Securing Democracy Alliance, German Marshall Fund than Podesta and Cernovich and like all the heads of all the intelligence, like that's their place after they got out of the whole theater there. And if you then... You mean if they don't go to Saudi Arabia? Huh? Oh, I said, you mean if they don't go to Saudi Arabia after they retire? There's a lot. Yeah, or wherever else, you know, Germany, maybe, you know, it was, wasn't it a CIA safe house that they found the Skittle server in? Do you know something about that? I don't know. Which server? Skittle. Skittle server. Skittle. Skittle is a program that seemed to have been monitoring all the election machine during the 2020 election. And the traffic really hit records. And you know, there was this investigation about fractional votes that always a fraction goes to Biden and a fraction goes to Trump. And you know, if you split it in an unbalanced way, you would, you know, they were cranking up the fractions because it was looking bad. And some weeks later, or I don't know when it was, but they raided a CIA safe house in Frankfurt, a mine in Germany, and confiscated that server. And it was interesting because... So who seized it? German authorities or? US Special Forces. Yeah. Oh shit. Where's that server now? Let Mark have it. They had it in a jail cell, but it committed suicide. And it didn't kill themselves. So I remember vaguely hearing about this server and I didn't realize it was in Germany. Frankfurt, the place that the SIV was isolated, you know? Yeah. I mean, look, it makes sense that there would be such strong overlaps, you know, considering paperclip type operations and, you know, the US intelligence had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted there, right? And the simple fact was that that was the front lines of the Cold War. And so all kinds of infrastructure, I would imagine, we'll never find out. Oh, yes, we will. It's called the German Bell, Kevin. What? UFO? Is that what you're talking about? Seven of Nine just lit up. I think I saw some nanoprobes light up on her face. You know, before the whole covid stuff got me back into virology, I was actually doing rocket science, physics work, working for a US physics lab. So and it's interesting because I inherited publications from the 60s from my uncle. It's called, the journal is called Implosion and is written by the son of Victor Schauberger. And there are models about UFOs and published in there. And I was reading it like, what? Mercury vortex engines? I think that part that they described was basically the Schauberger, the technology, not Mercury. With the vortex effect. Yes. But it was basically describing the history and it was in the 1960s. And then they were blatantly describing that it's now produced like everywhere outside of Germany in factories. I was like, what? Put them online, get them out there. Yeah, I can put it in the channel on the discord. On a side note on this UFO thing, I don't know if any of you guys are familiar with the work of Salvador Pais. He's a physicist who in essence has published the propulsion patents for Project Aurora and the TR3B. And he was explaining the propulsion mechanism. And in essence, what he said is that you use microwaves and they reach a certain resonance to where there is no matter within a given space. Mass cancellation effect. And what ends up happening is that matter ends up flowing into it. So propulsion is generally thought of as pushing. But in essence, what this would be doing is creating a void in front of a craft that would then be pulled into it. And because that space is void, I mean, it has no electrons, there's literally no friction. You're moving into basically a wormhole, a gap in space time. Should we let Kevin go and get his foil hat? Look, we're in an age, right? And again, you've got to put it in the context of psychological warfare that's being waged where, oh, suddenly the DOD, oh yeah, we see UFOs all the time and now we're getting fighter jet flur videos coming out of them trying to track these objects and turn them into the big bad bugaboo. Until I see them coming out offering gifts, I'm going to be, how should I say, agnostic to their intent. But I guess the point I wanted to get to is that it's being brought into the discussion now. And again, it's another data point of where narrative framing could potentially go. And if the old tricks no longer work, then yeah, expect a 21st century equivalent to be emerging out of the ether. I don't have an opinion on that propulsion. Please, Johanna. I have a strong opinion on that propulsion and I would agree that it's rather the effect that Doc Kek described. Was it you? Yes. Because in my work, I was looking at the whole pattern of physics because it's repeating its scale invariant in many scales that you can see the basic dynamics of the fabric of space, you might say, which includes my profession to translate it to bio because basically I run the show on Newton physics because all the quantum stuff is nearly not really understood. Or we are just at the point that we are trying to explain the body with quantum physics. But from my perspective, I apply to sociology as well, that basic principle. It's past five o'clock in the morning, so I need to go soon. I wanted to ask you to, or not ask you to, but maybe suggest that one of the people who sort of took this unified approach and was trying to apply it to biology and people, well, there's a couple of authors that people don't really know about and I should, I can, I've got the papers, I can put them up. I'm trying to look at consciousness as well. You should look into someone called Lancelot Law White, Unified Field Principles in Physics and Biology. This was written in, I want to say, the 30s or the 40s. Very accomplished scientist. And another one is a person called Leah Boranski. And their thesis and books are hard, is one of those things, again, that's hard to get hold of, that tries to extrapolate from the rarefied mathematics to the everyday that we see. And yes, we have to, modern biology has to take these concepts into account. And, you know, we're potentially on the cusp and threshold of new paradigm changes that, you know, I think it could be a benefit to everyone, but please, Johanna. What I wanted to go to was the group I work with are proposing a unified field theory as well, based on topology, based on gravity, quantum gravity, quantized gravity solution of the vacuum catastrophe is published. And actually, the biophysicist published a work on what makes kind of movement possible. So that would go to the question of propulsion. And it's basically the focus of intention, what's pulling the energy and the direction. So it's interesting to have you talk about propulsion in a way that it's not pushing away, but sucking in a way like, do you know these experiments with these sticks that walk up a stream of, it's like counterintuitive to think of that. You would always think in the rocket style to push away, but it's the other way, like leveling out the balance. But I think from the sociological part, it's very interesting to understand, like, exchange between people and attraction to people and sociological interactions. So what I want to close with, because I'm tired, is that I think it's also sociologically important what we focus on. That's why I love these white fields that was placed all over this stream, because we're going into a new year, and starting with black fields isn't the most joyous one. But focus of intention and appreciating that we all have different perspectives and are building in complexity when we listen to each other and have these kind of round tables is fundamental to gaining knowledge for me, because it's the basic principle in physics from my understanding. And I wrote an article about that, that it's basically, you can understand the sociological surroundings in a very mathematical way in objects and relationships. And it's in conversations, it's different roles that we take in like positive, negative, and neutral. The talker, the receiver, the observer. So it's boiling down to basic principles, but I think if we want to overcome this situation with benefit, then we need to focus on solution where we want to go and not too much to the pointing finger and where did it originate. I'm much more on the perspective where Mark was kind of frustrated about the opioid crisis and that it's not talked about because of the whole COVID shenanigans. I think it's necessary that we look at all the problems and I hope and try to help because I haven't told you, but I'm elected, officially elected medical board member. Congratulations. Congratulations. That's awesome. So I'm going to ask some hard question I already started. And I'm, you know, I wrote down that I'm planning on changing or doing further stuff despite being on Twitter. I applied for my accounts, but I don't have much energy to be kind of harassed there. Why should I? But I think doing stuff in the real world and filing lawsuits and doing everything you can engage in, that is what brings in the traction to the future that we will create as a co-creative, as a collective. So I think it's also really necessary to be aware of where our focus and talking points lead to. Thank you, Johanna. That is a perfect white pill on which to wrap this up, I think. Yeah, I need to go sleep in. The last nights were rough as well. I enjoy the alcoholism waiting. So I'm going to say bye now. Okay. Thank you, Johanna. Happy New Year. Many blessings. Happy New Year. Congratulations. Yeah. All right. Jed, I think I'll wrap it up as well because I could do the getting out of this chair. It was, what time did we start? Nine? You can turn on your dirty meme scroll again if you need to. It's off for the day. Give the monitor, let the monitor regenerate for a little bit. But yeah, thank you very much for a fascinating discussion. I guess I would just end with, yeah, I agree with you, and I think pursue all these legal avenues, use them or lose them, I would say. Temper expectations, though. They're human institutes and as prone to failure. We're all fallen, I'm afraid. So in that respect, I would say, yeah, just my view right now is when are they going to punch me in the face again? I want to know where that's coming from. And we can see it. Everyone knows. And non-compliance, people that are doing the legal stuff, give them support. So dot keck, please, people follow what he's doing. Maybe you want to shout out your Twitter handle, bro. I'll throw that on there. Yeah, put it in the chat. And yeah. Can I offer one other thing? Sure. Just on this legal side, and it's to a point that was addressed earlier, like if you're sent into hospital and put on a vent, you know, what do you do? And really, legally, what you want to do is you want to prepare beforehand. You want to get advanced directives in writing. You want to have a legal guardian established because a legal guardian makes decisions about your body when you're incapacitated and can bring your advanced directives to the hospital and say, no, he's not supposed to be there. Get him out legally on his guardian. And it happens. And then the other thing you're going to want to do is also perhaps get a legal custodian to take care of all of your financial assets, property, things like that, two things that you should do ahead of time in the event that you have any types of health issues existing right now, especially, and want to control what happens. Good point. Good point. I just don't try to avoid the hospital. People look after themselves as best as they can. And it's been an honor, Kevin. Thank you so much for having me on. Ranger Nick, blessings. Thank you so much for helping to facilitate and have a wonderful evening. Thank you so much. Happy New Year's. Good time speaking with you. Happy New Year's, brother. Cheers. All right, Nick, any last thoughts or words for me? No, I'm glad that we got some genuine laughs in and lifted some spirits, I hope. We forget sometimes when folks wander into such a concentrate of black pill stuff that we've had our nose down in this and you develop, you get a little bit of stamina to keep dealing with it. I was really happy that you took that left turn with us at the end and that Johanna came in at 7 of 9 and she's like, no, no, no, you just don't know, Kevin. It doesn't matter. You don't have to know everything, but there's a whole lot you still don't know and that's okay. So maybe we'll have another, maybe we'll have, I was really, I was really grateful for her conversation about De Spina and I don't want to, particularly since she's like, we're not supposed to know about that. I don't want to press that issue with her. The same issue is in Japan, right? That they don't learn really much about the Second World War, right? It's just scrubbed from their curriculum and that's actually a tragedy in my mind, because for all the architects of it, there were many, many innocents that were dragged along and families destroyed, et cetera. Oh yeah. History changed for everyone, yeah. I guess it comes, it sort of leaks into the, they're angling for the same thing again from my perspective, right? They know it works. They need to instantiate change and they can see they can get a lot of people to go along. Now they've learned a whole lot. Oh yeah, yeah. Far more than we can imagine and how it's going to be deployed. Again, we can make broad strokes towards it, but the details, I think, you know, you'll have to wait till they unroll it out. Again, I would just say it's likely that they're on an accelerated timeframe right now, right? The button's been pressed or the trigger pulled. And they're closely watching the work of folks like us to stay ahead of the curve. Like Stanley Plotkin somehow got himself inserted into the HIV lab origin discussion over email with folks in the late 1990s. And then he went to the Royal Society and they lynched Ed Hooper in public and they were loaded for bear because they knew all of the angles, the biological, the history, you know, the history, everything that they were looking at. They had some kind of a counterargument, whether there was good substantiation or not. And that's a gameplay that works really well. I know a little discussion about Robert Malone and is he, could he, should he, would he, all second, two layer agents, double agents, controlled opposition. There's so much we can go fall back into that rabbit hole. And I know you do a lot of good investigation and critical thinking. So, I mean, I know I like to hand out compliments and I really appreciate this last year. This has been transformative. And I know you don't just take every little bit that I bring to you as gospel. You question it and you, you're fair about it, but I appreciated the discussion and the people that you've helped connect me with. You're welcome. I'm grateful for the data you brought to the table, dude. I'd say I don't think I would have been looking there. And yeah, to see this Fred running through everything. HIV is a little, or not little, it's a critical piece of the jigsaw puzzle that people need to understand. And at least four surface protein code insert spots. It's a very important piece of the puzzle. To Johanna's point about the here and now though, I agree about, you know, keeping our nose towards good health and eye on therapies. And there's the critical mass accumulating behind the investigation. That's the good part is, you know, we're no longer a band. It's not Robin Hood and the Merry Men anymore. Well, but there comes issues with that. It'll be a bit like 9-11 stuff. All the time that people were focused on buildings falling down, there was a whole bunch of geopolitical stuff taking place and they've got their way. I don't see... The classic art of misdirection. Yeah. Yeah. Who doesn't love talking about 9-11 and those buildings coming down? Hey, you let us talk about alien ships. So, you know, I won't begrudge you. I really appreciated the grouping of scientists who got together and tried to make a concerted effort to say, these are, this is our data, which is, you know, quite well founded and repeatable, reproducible. And we disagree with whatever this narrative is. And all kinds of people just like, hello, look what just happened with the Kennedy. I mean, the whole coining the term conspiracy theory came about. I mean, it was not invented by the CIA, but it was employed quite well from the mid sixties on as they were trying to counter people who were digging and picking at the Kennedy issue. And here they come out of the closet all these years later and say, oh, well, actually, you know, yeah, we did. Yeah. Look, they're in your face right now with Twitter and the FBI, the CIA, NSA. There's a revolving door between the government and the private entities. And you've got to, well, that's why I'm, you know, sort of fixed on just having the streaming and the, I mean, maybe the streaming's not necessary on that platform for the moment and just the archiving stuff there right now. But, you know, Rumble's doing great, but do I trust Rumble to be here in six months? No way. If it gets a critical mass that, you know, more than it has right now, that it becomes problematic. Look, Peter Thiel is an investor in it. That's Palantir. And, you know, that's all AI driven threat analysis. So, yeah, it kind of makes sense that Rumble's doing well. It's data aggregation for them.

Well, so let's go ahead and Borg, let's assimilate that technology and turn it on them. Do you know how many of the paperclip scientists in the US created their own private back channel when they got here so that they could communicate outside of all of the conventional telephone systems? I imagine most of them were smart enough to realize that they would. Ham radio. They used coding. They used all kinds of ciphers. That's part of the weird shit that started happening in the fifties around here. And to that point, I'm saying, you say Rumble's going to go. So adapt. Don't mean whip Simon to build another server. Shout out to Simon. Yay, Simon 2022 kept it all going. Yeah, he did, man. Brilliant. He's a war hero.

But just stay ahead of the curve. Just stay and stay adaptive. Stay, you know, don't worry about having the big overarching platform like YouTube necessarily, or continue to find ways to hack into the matrix. Be the captain of the, what is it, the Nebuchadnezzar and broadcast your pirate signal into the matrix. Find simple, annoying ways to get around. Use VPN. Use a simple little bank. Have asked the raccoons, say, everybody, please go create five YouTube accounts and use your own VPNs. So you randomize the IPs and you'll have a bank of accounts ready to go. And you can just pivot, you know, and you'll, and you'll have to be maybe enigmatic about your identification about keywords you use in your content. Um, but you know, you won't be able to edit your mouth as that's happening. So you'll need a few of them. Yeah, it's, um, you know, I miss the, uh, the chat being as dynamic as it is with YouTube. I don't, I don't know what YouTube allows the, I don't, I don't watch it. Look, I don't have any accounts on there. So I like any subscriptions and stuff. It's kind of pointless for me. So I just haven't had YouTube account for, or, uh, one that I've watched content on for a long time. I just have to be, uh, non-signed in. Well, we'll stay ahead of the curve. Well, we'll help reach out. Remember that there are simple things like that, where if 10 people did, uh, like got three accounts for you in different places, they could help you be a network of repeater stations. Right now gets burnt out. Then the others are still going. They'll take streams, uh, midstream. They'll, um, there's no, uh, warning steps anymore. Community standards. Yeah, it's just boom. They'll take it out. And you know, there was, um, there's commemoration for Kev Baker and they were asking me to stream it and they wanted to have me the YouTube, um, platform for it. And, you know, I sat there and thought about it and I was like, Oh God, no, if I, if I do that, then the commemoration for Kev Baker get nuked. And, um, you know, I had to sadly sort of, uh, decline from it, but, um, that's, it means, it means that, you know, I'm irritating enough people that those sort of steps are being taken. And so that, um, I guess I can be, you know, well done painting myself into a corner.

Well, no, but see, so now you, now you turn into Spider-Man and you crawl up the wall, right? We help, we all help you adapt and keep the voice going, but at a manageable pace, like tonight, what was the high point as far as people that were, um, all listening, was it like over 200? Yeah, 200 cross platforms were listening. So, okay. That was good. That's great. And you know, there's, there's easy a thousand people that will watch every, every stream. So, um, you know, I wish, I wish they were, I should do it right now. I get out this chair, dude, and I've wasted. Oh yeah. I know, I know it's been five hours. So let's, yeah, we'll, we'll bring it in for a landing. All right. Thanks. Thanks again for including me and, uh, and happy new year and, uh, get some sleep. Oh, it's mid day. I got to do kid stuff now. Oh gosh. Oh no. Time for tea. Get a tea. Yeah. Well, just, uh, I can just let them back in on computer. My son will be, uh, crawling the walls right now because he hasn't had his fix. Oh, he's not, he can't get to his computer when you're doing the show. Okay. All right. Dad, dad. All right. Have a good one. We'll talk to you soon.

All right, folks, uh, good, good start to the new year. And, um, can I say to that we did, we covered a lot and, uh, including UFOs fascinating, uh, conversation. What can I say? So, uh, support the stream, uh, help me hit that goal. And, uh, yeah. Uh, happy new year and blessings to everyone for tuning in. So with that, I'll hit the, uh, outro. Uh, take care guys. God bless. See you in the next one.