McCairnDojo.comPast episodes & related streams
Connecting to Rumble…

De-Facto Biowarfare With Charles Rixey

There's a lot more than that going on. And I know you had a really good stream a couple of days ago with a group of people. And there's a couple of things that they brought up. I can also kind of talk about what I've been doing since I've literally been almost completely offline. So yeah, there's a whole bunch of stuff that we can do. I don't know, I wasn't listening to you before I got on. I was just making chitchat. I got I was just like, hey, it's an easy day for me today. I've got someone to talk to. I didn't pair anything. Rixey, they're just saying you're a little quiet. Let me try and sort that out a little bit. I'll do it my own dude. Don't touch anything your end. You're good. Let me do this. All right. Well, you can't tell me not to touch myself. What's wrong with you? Might have been a bit too much. Hang on. Just soundtrack, please, Charles. Let's just get some feedback from the crowd. Rudy Fartnick, but McStuffins. There we go. Are we are we about level, folks? Does it sound okay? Wait for a yes or a no. There we go. So yeah, that's that's a whole lot happening, right? They're obviously the class switching is an interesting one.

I don't know if you want to sort of tee off with that. It's quite technical one. I mean, I've seen, you know, maybe, you know, the sort of confirmation of what's his name? I've got the Pfizer McBrite. Is that his name? That was basically asking for people to be censored on Twitter. They were making a space. Oh, yeah. Let me just try and find his name. McBrite. But then he was part of the FDA and then went to a Rick Bright. No, it wasn't Rick Bright. Yeah, I don't know the name then. But let me just I know what you're talking about, though.

So, you know, there's what I've been sort of circling around is that the censorship and the and the programs themselves, you know, do as we've peeled back more and we see that we see that everything was just run from DoD as a as a I would, I would just Gottlieb, Scott Gottlieb. Thank you, Joe. The fact that we're seeing what are essentially the implementation of war powers or have seen the implementation of war powers is, I would guess, probably for people not who don't listen to us would be a surprise. In the in their normie look or view of the world. But did you did you sort of have an inclination that it sort of went that far into the military domain, as opposed to it just being sort of NIAID being the, the orchestrator of what we've been through and going through right now. Well, so I kind of watched all the back and forth from Sasha and a whole group of people and I would say that I think people are putting too much on the DoD side of this, not that they're innocent, but for me, the most obvious reason why we shouldn't just take it like and run with it is because, A, DARPA did reject the defuse proposal for actual reasons that mattered. They thought it was dumb and they thought it was could have bad consequences. And so the fact that they did that, and they thought that it wasn't good enough to do it at bats, pretty much that this part of why I don't see the DoD is making the decisions because they wouldn't have made them. And the other big one that they wouldn't have made is to mandate the vaccines for all troops. There's no way in Hades that the military would have done that without the president ordering them to do it. So that decision had to come from like deep state beyond DoD because strategically it's insane. And we're seeing the result of that now.

Yeah, I guess saying DoD probably needs a bit more precision, but then the deep state becomes a little bit ambiguous as well and I'm desperate to find some description as a good catch-all that is going to help refine our understanding of what it is that we're dealing with. Because I would put forward the premise that what we're seeing, what we see, saw happen in the US. We saw happen in multiple other countries as well, right, particularly, and like I say, it looks very focused on the Five Eye type countries, how they've responded. So to me that looks very much, you could say, sort of coordinated military response and maybe this is an idea that I've been toying with was that they kind of were gearing up to the current conflict that we find ourselves in right now, which is sort of facing off directly with Russia. And I just wonder if how much of this was sort of live fire test to, I don't know, drill into people, certain behaviors and... Well, I think that what we need to do is we need to realize that two things can be true at the same time. That this can be the result of bioweapons development. So however it actually happened, that's obvious what it was because the changes that they made to the virus were not beneficial. But that's one thing, but also from the perspective of DoD, because of what the virus is, they would have handled it differently. So I think that this is more of a case of you mixed bioweapons research with civilian science. And you get even dumber decisions, because at least for everything's in the military and with possible deniability and they don't have to deal with much better or much less issues with people who are in the road.

That's a better scenario. But I think it's the marriage of those two things that is really what happened. But it's not logical from a defense perspective. Now, it might be that certain things that have happened since the pandemic started were done for strategic reasons from a defense perspective, but the virus itself would not have been leaked in or whatever. It wouldn't have been released or leaked in the way that it was. Because if they didn't know that that was coming, they would have handled it better. And from my perspective, knowing how much emphasis they placed on preparedness for the military, for the Pentagon to be censoring itself to prevent the public from understanding the degree to which there's adverse events in the military and how that's affecting our readiness. That's not something that the troops on the ground or the commanders of the units would ever want. It's a giant disaster. And so I think that we can call this the product of bioweapons development, but understand that whatever is happening, the decisions or the strategic decisions are not being made by military people. Because they wouldn't make these. Like the intelligence community or scientists might be willing to sacrifice things to save themselves. But the military would not just automatically, after 250 years, say, you know what? We're just going to sabotage ourselves in pursuit of something else. And given what we've seen, the way things have played out, it makes sense to me. So I don't see those things as being in conflict. I don't know. I mean, it's such a complex landscape right now that, well, I think they make that deliberately so, whatever is driving this, so that you struggle to keep on top of the information flow. And it can be very easy to get bogged down into detail, which I do see a lot of people doing.

And, you know, look, if anyone wants to spend any degree of time just going through these contracts. So Sasha is going around doing all these blogs, whatever, streams with talking about the links to DoD. And they're the ones that sort of pushed vaccines. And if you were to spend anything approximating, not a cursory glance, just at the paperwork that she has put out, so the contracts themselves. And I sort of saw a summary sheet. It would take you months and months just to read those contracts page by page. And, you know, I'm always left with the nagging concern at the moment that we seem to be in this accelerating cycle. That as we sort of peel back one layer of the onion and say, okay, we see the links now, we see this group, and we can begin to piece together the information so that it seems coherent. And then, by the time we've done that, they've pushed ahead another two or three steps forward. And I've been trying to sort of go through it, but where are you with your reading and analysis right now?

Oh, I, so really it's been kind of, that's my focus right now is, what I've seen is things kind of, and it wasn't just because of this kind of split between, you know, JC and us and other people, but it just kind of, there's a temporal correlation, I guess. But over the course of the holiday season, I've been really busy and dealing with a lot of things, traveling a lot, but I've been paying attention to everything that's been happening. And I've been doing a lot of reading, but I haven't really had time to even sit down and do things. And then, so literally, I came here to Gatlinburg, Tennessee, to literally get away as far as I could, but not to Gatlinburg itself because it's a tourist trap, but nearby. I wanted to kind of get away from all the distractions and just be able to focus so that way I can kind of take everything that's happening, because part of the problem is, is that we're not hallucinating. There's actually a lot of different things happening that are all big. I mean, more stuff has happened, more proof has come out, and more damning things have come out in the last two months than, you know, the previous year. So it's not like, it just feels that way. And part of my problem has been that more and more stuff keeps coming out. So I was working on like the RSV stuff, and then in the middle of that, the IGG4 papers started, so we started to see part of the answer. That's obviously, I need to incorporate that. So yes, so there's a couple big things. Now obviously, one of those things has been the censorship piece.

At the moment I'm really frustrated because we're not a part of that. Like there's no DRASTIC people, there's no, there's none of us who've been in the trenches, or me, who've discovered some of this stuff. There's none of us being a part of these discussions. So, and it's frustrating because there's a lot of people who know that we have important things to contribute to this discussion. So I don't know why, like there's just a zero effort. I mean, the only person who's really assisting in any way is Andrew Huff. You know, he's apparently Satan, so I had to, you know, maintain certain safe distance to keep the... I saw a space right now with Jack Prasobiak. I saw someone mentioning in the... I mean, he might be. I would tomorrow at least talk to him, but he's also trying to figure out ways to incorporate me in that as well. He's actually trying to assist with that because he knows that there's big pieces of this that are being missed. And so, on the one hand, I know a lot about the censorship, but I also have been finding the things that explain why the censorship exists.

Like that's been my main project in 2022. And the conclusions that have been drawn from that are exactly what the public needs to hear. So it sucks because I've really not tried to be an Andrew Huff and promote myself or anything. But I've got to figure something out because I have to step in and be more assertive because we have to get the word out there because we're wasting time. There's so much that we don't know all the answers to, but we already have some things that are quality enough that if we get them out there, it'll make a big difference in the public's understanding of everything. So really, that's what I've done. My concern is that by everyone focusing on vaccines, which is primarily what we're seeing, it's all the doctors that have been let back on and them... Well, but that's because they're driving bus and some of them are gatekeepers. But that's why it's going in that direction because now I don't want to say we're having to compete with them, but they're sucking up a lot of the oxygen and not enough of them understand what we know. Because if they did, I have no doubt that they would be getting us more involved, but they don't know. And so once again, that's my frustration right now.

And a lot of what's actually getting through is that there wasn't a virus that could sustain a pandemic for any length of time. And okay, well, that's halfway to no virus. And it's in the opposite direction from the evidence. So in reality, there's just so many things that are happening. They're all happening concurrently and they're all negative.

This is what I was trying to clumsily describe before, is that in an environment where there's... I called this de facto bio warfare. I just steal that phrase from you. Every time I use it, Charles, I always say I got it from you. But this de facto bio warfare that's happening right now, they are playing the information battlefield brilliantly. How much of their planning went into, we can censor a whole bunch of people and then we'll block them and then we'll do an Elon Musk move, let them in, and then they then have six months of them talking about the issues around, oh, God, I was censored, blah, blah, blah. And then with that, they just get into, well, the vaccines, why were they censored? Vaccines. And so each one of these things will be an overton window of whatever length. Let's just say six weeks, six to eight weeks of that window will be discussed. And we're not getting this concept of bio warfare forward enough. And so it means that they've got us pinned into, they've got effective counter fire onto us such that we can't move. Well, I think what you've seen is you've seen an acceptance that they can't have the vaccine stuff anymore.

So they're still trying to drag it out, but they're letting that because that and this is why it becomes more obvious that the people driving the bus have an intel community perspective because those are the people who could censor, those are the people who had direct ties to what was going on. They have the intel, but they're not sharing. And they've been weaponizing everything from elections to wokeness against their enemies. And currently that is the people in, I guess, the right or just people in the non-authoritarian camp, which is ironic because the authoritarians call us authoritarian. I mean, if you looked at Donald Trump, who mostly just named stakes after himself and you compare that to what weekend of Bernie's Biden has been doing, actual authoritarian things. So how much I hate to use his vernacular, but the Steve Bannon premise of uniparty. And I've heard I would argue a gatekeeper still. Robert Malone used that language. How much of it is, I don't know, I can't think of it because it's not just the US, it covers so many other countries as well.

But this idea that they're aiming to reshape the world and push their geopolitical objectives. How much coordination is there between all these different departments? I struggle to wrap my head around how they're able to coordinate so well and so quickly that they can, like you say, they're still able to maintain narrative control. So narrative is easy. You just read a script. So that's the easy part. The fact, I don't think they really understood. They probably hoped, but I think this would work out better than they ever could have imagined because the censorship has been so successful that you can't go to one place and get the answers. You can't go to one place and get a clear framework for all the things that have been happening. And they're doing everything they can to keep doing that.

And so I think they got lucky. I think that this would have been over a long time ago. But for the fact that the censorship has been so successful, mostly because we're so much more connected and driven by our social media and other things now than we were, say, 10 years ago or 20 years ago. So I think it's worked out for them better than they hoped. But at the end of the day, I would just call it deep state. And whether our deep state is connected to some supranational anything. It has to be. There's no other way to explain it. You can't have the British and the Australian and the Canadians acting so... I would say there has been more of a lighter touch in the US compared to those other countries. Well, yeah, but I think that's a cultural thing, too. They could get away with that. And as you pointed out, we have guns. So it is harder. And we have to be more careful. I mean, Australia did start out as a penal colony. If you were a monarchy or still in some sense have some allegiance towards the concept of monarchy, then you're not really looking at things from the same perspective as we would be. And so it's easier to steamroll the public because they've always been that way. I think that what's happening now is that the censorship is able to shape things enough that we're kind of turning into a monarchy or authoritarian society. And the US is more oligarchy, I would say, right? That you've got, I don't know, an uber wealthy class, a privileged class still. Well, yeah. So what we're seeing now is disturbing because the deep state is really on a whole bunch of different fronts. They are going full speed. They are. I mean, they were infiltrating social media, literally dozens of executives at Twitter. They've literally been FBI agents. I mean, I'm not great at math, but the probability of that happening is infinitesimal.

And it's even worse. You know, I sort of again, I can't vouch for the veracity of it, but the numbers of Facebook, Google, and there was another one that was on there. But those numbers are exponentially higher in terms of Instagram, I think. In terms of the that's essentially a revolving door, right? As NIH has with pharma companies, the intelligence communities have with supposedly independent tech companies. Well, this is public private partnerships. I mean, I'll give Glenn that credit. The ideas that he's been championing for years are in full force. That's exactly what this is. Everything from the pharma response to the continued section embrace between Silicon Valley and Langley. All of these things. I like I didn't realize this, but it basically has to be this way that we shouldn't. We shouldn't really think of Silicon Valley as something separate from the the intelligence community for which it was. Because the level I mean, it took Elon Musk spending 44 billion dollars and the level of what has been exposed is obviously not everything.

And it's terrifying because what it means is that this has been building for a very long time. This is not something that could have been done overnight. But so what you've seen is the elections be screwy. You see the Fed, the Federal Reserve, which controls monetary policy and is tied to all of these. I mean, they're going to do what is in the best interest of the people that pay them. And then you have public health. And then you have something else. And I just it just dropped from the line. I feel really dumb. But the bottom line is that all of these things are happening all at the same time. Oh, I remember was there's more than a dozen freshmen or second, second term congressmen, all Democrats. All in purple districts and suburbs that came directly from the intelligence agencies. What's purple mean? Oh, that just means the congressional districts that can they're kind of in the middle and they don't really lean too much in any. Yeah. And so basically all the all Democrats in the past couple of cycles in key swing states and swing districts, we're seeing people jump. Just like they would did for Twitter, people jumping directly from intelligence agencies to serving in Congress. And given that the intelligence agencies already exert a lot of pressure on Congress, various members of Congress, certainly oversight committee that is supposed to control them. That that's terrifying. So it really means that all these fronts in our social media and Congress, they're they're pushing really hard to make sure that they control. That's really what this is about. Well, so whatever other things might be happening, the deep state is getting tentacles further and further in. And this was just a show of force, like what they were able to do stunning. Yeah. And and we have to do everything and what they're doing now.

So what they're doing now is what we're seeing is this this shift towards the vaccines. Well, that's turning attention away from them. It's turning away from diffuse, away from from all these other things, which is ironic because they're the ones who funded the vaccines and everything else. But they're trying to draw these distinctions and allowing that to come forth with vaccines. So, yes, I think it's concerning because we make a lot of progress, but we cannot allow them to just smother the bio warfare aspect of it. Well, you know, there's there's something there's something else to consider here as well, which is the chemical warfare. I wanted to sort of raise this issue, which is this is this could sort of come out with discussions I had with with Mark. Right. There was, I want to say, just it might have been just before Christmas, but they basically just said they've seized enough fentanyl at the border to basically kill every man, woman and child in the in the United States. Now, in my discussion with Mark, I was basically, I sort of said, you know, my, my perspective on this is you're dealing with a kind of asymmetric warfare. Right. It's not it's not just it's not just bio warfare. It's it's asymmetric and it's using chemical biological warfare and the focus very much seems to be on the United States because I don't see the the chemical component being unleashed. And look, if you if you're getting fentanyl on boats, you can ship it anywhere, anytime and there's heroin addicts everywhere. But it's it's strictly the US, which seems to be having this particular problem. And that that, to me, is an indicator that we're in a far more complex, I guess combat environment is a way to think of it because it's, it's still warfare, but without, well, under the radar warfare. And, you know, what's what's the goal here is to is to break the back of the country such that you can push your your ideology and aims onto them. And well, to be honest, I don't I don't like to call that warfare because it implies that it's somebody other than our own national security state is doing it. And the truth is that they could stop the drugs coming in if they wanted to. But instead, they're they're ushering. They're rolling out the red carpet. I heard a statistic that if the same pace we're at right now keeps going to the rest of President Biden's administration, then more people will have crossed just the southern border in his four year presidency than passed through Ellis Island in the 70 years it operated from 1880 to 1950, which was, by the way, that was where all the immigration went through basically. So that means that 70 years of immigration policy was matched in four years. On purpose, when it's a solvable problem. So they created this problem. Obviously, they're not going to solve it. But you're right, they could, they could dry up the fentanyl, they could do all sorts of things and not doing it. So, I think it's pretty clear.

So you have to what's what's the strategic aims in this. So that's, well, a big part of it is the black budget aspect, the fact that that there are illicit activities run by various intelligence agencies that they have for several decades. That have been funded by, you know, opium, or just opiate stuff fueled by Afghanistan, or whatever the flavor of the week is, you know, if they want in our war against drones, what do we really do? I think Congress actually wanted to fight it and prevent people from using drugs. But it's the CIA wanted to use it as a way to raise money because they're limited in the amount that they could spend. Not that much anymore, but they are still are in terms of taxpayer money so they, they want to be able to generate all this extra cash that they can then do whatever they want to do it. Because then, because we have zero visibility over any of those transactions. So they could have been following. Now granted, once again, they don't need to funnel money to China. But, you know, maybe they were just banging them off so they can stay in the loop.

The bottom line is, whatever they're doing, it's never been in our interest. And that's why, like, that's why I always say, and you always say, we have to focus on what the priority is. In this case, people have died, they need justice. If we can't get justice for their people, then what's good? In black pill moments, Charles, my, my thoughts sort of go to, you know, what, what if we're, if we're on the precipice of like global conflagration, right, but more akin to the Second World War or the First World War, where we have where we're stepping into an environment where we're going to see rapid loss of life on scales that we haven't seen for 80 years. By fixating on those million that have been lost, are we allowing these people to keep moving forward, such that they can, they just keep wrapping us up in, like I say, ever, ever more information drops, whether or, you know, narrative tweaks so that, you know, they can, you know, even like Twitter sort of opening the doors and saying, hey, you know, come in at a higher view level. It looks to me like great, great narrative control and psychological control, because they, people will feel that they've been given a win. And they will feel that they've been vindicated, if the, if the discussion stays around vaccines, and I just wonder how much in their contingency plans they had.

Well, you know, step one was, we'll try to convince everyone. It was a natural spillover. Step two, the denial phase of that and then stretch out the argument around lab origin. I think most of the populace have got some concept of there being a potential lab origin component now. And now, and now they'll be able to stretch out for another two years, the muck slinging around vaccines, or not vaccines, the gene transfection technologies. In my mind, that just, that's enough of a window to start maneuvering into position, serious military hardware that we could see, you know, a repeat of this global warfare, as our grandparents went through. But to be honest, I don't, I look at the situation and the one thing that we're not hearing, but it's true, is that 85% of everybody thinks this Ukraine thing is retarded. So most of the people, most actual public in Europe, if you actually go, I mean, if you talk to Joanna or you talk to other people, I mean, there's some diehards, but most people think this is stupid. They realize that it's not in their best interest. They don't want the conflagration. No, once again, if the public doesn't matter, and there is a, there's a select group, I don't know, WEF archetype, I'm not saying it is the WEF, but it just encompasses that notion that they're, you know, they pull strings, they've got endless amounts of money and influence, and they have project goals that they're aiming for. And, you know, UN type goals, 2020, 2030, that they, yeah, I'm just, I'm being, I'm feeling like I'm being strung along when we, when we sort of had a lot of this information to hand very, very early on, right? And, you know, and so it's a case of now, but we're just going to sit here and say, I'll told you so, in another year as the, as the mainstream narrative catches up. That's, that's my concern right now. Now, I mean, once again, it's the battle that we're fighting. I mean, people still don't know.

Roughly 2 million people saw the special that I did with Glenn Beck, in which we talked about Kevin Droegemeier and how he was working with Fauci, which was, which is how I came to realize that Fauci was orchestrating the censorship months before his emails came out. His emails came out. Nobody's still talking about, and we're almost two years, we're a month away from the day that I published the article that first pointed that out, hey, the original reason why I jumped into the fray because I wanted to get that word out. And so, so yes, it's frustrating. Because, because I've, I've been able to figure out so many other things. In fact, there's some new things that I've been finding related to a lot of things that are topics that are on the forefront right now. And what it is is that it's, it's obvious to me and to you and others who have spent all the time into it. But they still don't even know, they've never heard the name Drogelmeier. And that's not like the most important thing, but the fact that there's been no news stories, none. That's just one aspect of this, that's been drug out for two years. That's why, like, I said it a year ago, put me on Joe Rogan for three hours, and we can, we can cause some, some ass pain for the Deep State. Yeah, but that's, that's resuming that Joe Rogan isn't Deep State, or at least, He's not Deep State because, he doesn't want to be revolutionary, he doesn't want to lead the resistance. But at the same time, he, he just had Brett Weinstein on, like, last week, so it's not like he's completely shying away from everything. He's just not doing it very often.

And that's the problem, literally a year ago, last week, when Barbara Mullen appeared on the podcast with Joe Rogan, and 70 million people saw that over the course of like a week. That, that made a massive difference. It actually cut into the narrative. They could not hide it. But that's what we need. And the problem is that, that ironically, there's all these different directions that they're trying to distract us with. But the whole purpose of the Watchmaker argument is to show we already have a roof of things that demand answers, and we already know the answer to be terrible. So, we have the perfect angle to attack, and I mean, So yeah, you just, so that begs the question, why, why is it impossible to get this discussion up on anything bigger than, hang on a second, I've got something in my eye. Oh, gosh, maybe. Why can't we get this discussion up onto larger platforms, I kind of, you know, I see Andrew doing his thing but it's, it's very EcoHealth-centered. And in my mind, that's, that's an old part of this investigation, right, and the, Well, I said, I said, like six months ago. He doesn't have that much to add, but beyond what was already known in the public domain, like, the main thing that he can do is, is confirm a connection with with a deep state so, and it's big. But he's not as knowledgeable as we are about all this origin stuff. And, you know, he says wrong things and, and whatever. From what I've seen, he's a lot like Malone or, or Jeffrey Sachs where he's firing in the right direction. And if you actually read his book. And I can tell, I hadn't talked to a lot of times and, and reading what it was they said. And I can tell that, and just based on all his actions that he is fighting this because he believes there's an injustice. He's, he might not be, he might not see things the way that we do. But, and he might be doing a little grift or not, whatever. But at the end of the day, he's pissed off like we are. And, once again, if, if he was controlled by opposition.

Okay, well, tell me what's the logical thing that, that they're actually hiding if they're willing to let him speak. Like, it's been the same argument with, with J.C. and his stuff, but the few is, is like, okay, well, if you're going to draw this conclusion with no evidence, what is it that you, what is this answer? You can't just, you can't just disregard it without having something to replace it. So, so what is your justification for it? I don't know. I've not heard anything good. And most I just heard nothing. I just heard, okay, well, it's rejected. Okay. But then what does that mean? If they're willing to throw this out, and this is decent evidence, why would they do that? And his explanation is a logical, so. Yeah. Well, I would, I would say in, just to steel man him a little bit somewhat. So I was told to look at a time point yesterday in his stream. And so I went and looked at that and he's, he is saying that there's been like a deliberate release, etc. So it's not, it's not completely. And his argument basically boils down to a natural, a naturally occurring coronavirus type pandemic would be self limiting. Maybe, maybe. But the, the, as I see it, the evidence fits very much to manipulated and a, how would you say, you know, taking traits that wouldn't otherwise be there and putting them, injecting them into the swarm and then expecting the swarm to act the same is, is not by definition not dealing with the natural swarm anymore. But then, then we're definitely in the bio warfare paradigm. And in, in that sense, I didn't. He seemed to be, he seemed to be kind of keeping one foot in one side and one foot in another and I guess I guess there's a sort of nuance there. Yeah, my, my concern right now is just, you know, we have the immediate issues, right, which is, well, we don't, we don't see the deaths, dying back right now. And so we have to explain that for one, for one aspect. And are you saying, are you saying we're not seeing it die back as the vaccination is going down? We're continuing to see excess deaths right now. And in fact, I would, I would say they seem to be picking up and that might be that's probably a consequence just of the strain that comes from seasonality. Maybe, maybe, but it still seems to be holding in Australia, who are, who are in their summer months. So some some somehow across the board across multiple countries. We're seeing, let's say on average a 15% increase in excess deaths right now. And we have to, we have to be able to account for that in a digestible and not saying easy, easy to understand but people need to sort of grab a, grab a hold and say, okay, there's something not quite right. And, you know, the, I'm still, I'm still not convinced that a lot of what we're seeing isn't the consequence of exposure to the pathogen itself. So there was a paper dropped on the discord yesterday, which looked at, I just want to say, which makes sense, because that's what the evidence says. So this notion, what we're seeing is continued evidence. It does not point in the direction of these viruses can sustain a pandemic or whatever. And the problem isn't that argument itself, the problem is all of these different implications and conclusions is drawing from this, that aren't logical. And partially it's because he doesn't really understand our arguments. But the reality is that he's, he's using this idea to justify other things when that's a problem. We shouldn't be closing the doors and he's, he's sucked up some oxygen. Obviously, I mean, he's, he's got the year of RFK much more than I do now. So, so he's causing damage. Even if he was correct, which, I mean, it doesn't look like he is, the problem is, what he's not doing is debating us. Because if he wants to debate this, I'll go on, I'll go on his stream at any time. I'm not afraid of debating this. I mean, he wouldn't even talk to me, you know, privately, several months ago. So I don't, I doubt that he would do it now, but, but I can have an actual debate with him. And, you know, if he really is that confident, why would he have me on? So that way he could pick a school way in and lose the force. So, I don't know.

Yeah. And I said that the issue we have is, like I said, this paper, which was good doggy, can you DM me that paper? I didn't, I didn't pick it up. I just, I just scanned the, I might have picked it up, but basically ECG in young kids who have had mild infection. They have recognizable abnormalities in their, in their heart rhythms. And, and so that's easy. That's easy to explain, which is that. Why is there no cancer in the heart? Well, because the heart is a special type of muscle. And Bret Weinstein actually described this very well a couple of days ago when he said that because it has the super power where it can't get cancer. The reason can't, and the trade off is that it can't heal itself. So the heart muscle is not heal itself like most other cells do. And that Weinstein does know a lot about that because he is an evolutionary biologist. He knows a lot of telomeres and cell semesters, et cetera. So that's really, I think that's the key. Okay. Why can we detect this damage? Well, because it's not going away. There's no such thing as mild myocarditis because any damage it's caused, it's going to, it will scar over, but it will never fully heal. So it's never coming back. Like my, my uncle had a widowmaker heart attack three years ago. And I mean, he, he survived it simply because he, because he kept standing up. And if he'd lie himself to fall down, then that probably wasn't enough to, to finish the job. But he was holding a bag, a basket of eggs on his farm. He refused to give that up. And so he just stumbled back to the house. The doctors told him that, you know, because he refused to drop the eggs. I would say because he didn't drop to the ground causing, you know, cause when your, when your heart's messed up like that, and then you have a sudden shift, then your circulation will be able to do it and it'll, it'll finish the job. So, um, so, so yes, but he will never have the functionality that he had prior to that. He never will. It doesn't matter what it does because the heart will never fully repair and heal from that damage. And that's the same with any, if it gets inflamed, if there's any damage, there's going to be scarring. Even if it doesn't kill them. So I would say that that's a personal explanation for, for that.

And so, you know, this, um, the, the issue we've had in the last, you know, the Damar, the football are going down and the, um, I'm, I'm wondering how much is, you know, everyone, everyone wants to say vaccine, vaccine, vaccine. This is the, I'm finding this a frustrating, uh, environment now in which to operate because. I was on the same page with you. I was like, you know what? Um, I like, I didn't know what it was, but we already have plenty of evidence that needs to get out to the public. We don't need this to be a vaccine injury. And, you know, in part, it's, it's a natural response because we've been censored for so long. And because it is something that people are experiencing all around them that now that we can say something we want to, but maybe we shouldn't. I think maybe in this case, you know, McCullough is right. You're right. And that it could have just been a freak accident because this wasn't like, I mean, the fact that he had chest pads and stuff. This was one of the thousand issues that I wanted to point out because I keep getting a lot of information and going through it. And then I keep hearing stuff and nobody's, nobody's figuring out what, what I've been hearing and haven't had a chance to interject. But the bottom line is, is that I'm assuming that what you're trying to say is that, is that we might, we're kind of going overboard. Yeah, you're falling into Stu Peters’ territory, right? Which is exactly, that's a great analogy for it. And so this, this, this concerns me and bothers me because that, that stinks of psychological operation to me. And the damage, that's a scar tissue leftover from the, the psychological warfare. Yeah. And the, the, how to, how to maneuver around it, right? Someone with someone who is like us, who, who understands that there's, we could be doing so much more with time than we had.

And we, we need to stop basking in the glory of the fact that by spending $44 billion and all the effort of everybody that's been doing this, we're finally winning some battles. That's not what matters. The main message that, that underlies everything that I've been doing and that I've been frustrated about is that we, is that scientists, the people that are driving this bus are not leaders, but it's not. Robin Williams is not a leader. No, no. He tries to have these motivational speeches when he gives speeches and it's, when I listen to him in those circumstances, it's hilarious, but also horrifying because he's trying, he's doing the best he can. But what they're doing is they're focusing on negatives and, but there's no vision that's being cast. There's no call to action. There's no, it's all, they're, they're trying to gatekeep and can throw the nail into themselves. I think partially it's because they don't think that anybody else can do it, but they're wrong. Actually, there's plenty of people that do it. But because you're a scientist and you grew up in a world where there's been no leadership, that's why you don't have faith in it. And I'm fine with that. What you need to understand is there's a priority and the problem with scientists is that they will fight about anything all the time. You could not, you could not ask for more firm ground for disinformation. The CIA barely has to do anything at this point because they just have to trickle out a little more evidence or whatever. And then people argue, scientists will argue over it. What should we really be doing? We should just be looking at the overall big picture and saying, this is how they fucked you. It's not complicated. That is why my priority is always on the justice for the victims, alive and dead, because that is the only thing that really matters. Because if we get distracted with all these other minutia, then we start to prioritize the minutia above those things. And I'm sorry, scientists, but I don't care. This is not being right or wrong for you, for your hypothesis being right or wrong. If it turns out that you were right about something, good. But that is not why we're here. And so if somebody attacks your turf, stop turning to face them and fight them, because that does nothing for our cause. It might give Robert Blunt 25 million dollars or it might allow some people to be working in certain places and others to not be working in certain places. It's doing damage because it's distracting. It's taking us away from the goal. The goal is clear. It's obvious. And if everybody was prioritizing that of everything else, then there wouldn't be this end fighting.

You know, we could be looking at a situation where, take for example, what happened in the Senate this week, right? Yes. Things, they were sort of predetermined anyway. Sorry, the House, sorry. And the House Speaker had been decided beforehand. That's what I see when I look at a situation like that. And, you know, there might have been a few holdouts who would say, hey, we want to we want to try and, I don't know, get back to Jeffersonian democracy and extract some concessions, whatever. But I agree that whatever they were trying to do, they pushed too far with it instead of they didn't read the room. And when we are facing an enemy that is willing to gaslight an entire pandemic to protect itself, we can't see any ground to them automatically. We have to fight over everything. If we need to get ground away because we're missing away time, there's just more people that are going to die.

That's all that's going to happen. So should we have principles? Yes. Is this the right moment for what you want to do? I don't know. I don't know enough about the intricacies of the politics or the politicians because I'm not American, dude. I don't live. Well, I mean, I do. And to be honest, the politicians who were holding everything up, that's the direction that I lean. Their arguments typically I support. Once again, irregardless of how I feel about that, that is not the biggest thing. That's not the most important thing. And because they're not prioritizing, partially because they don't know the truth, it's just making it easier to drag this on interminably. And what we can't do, we cannot have this be like with the JFK assassination. I think that's what we're looking at. That's what they want. But the good thing is, is that because they don't have absolute control, we still have a fighting chance because we do have enough ability to communicate that we've been able to figure out everything we've been able to figure out. And so they won't be able to do that without, you know, taking complete control. So assuming we still have a world in which I want to live. Hey, we're not going to, I don't worry about what's going to happen 60 years from now, because if it takes 60 years, then we will have lost. So, and once again, it all comes down to what is the priority? And a leader would be working to get people to focus on those priorities. And as a consequence, he would be, he would be focusing on doing things with the most direct route to get to the, to the finish line. So these scientists are not doing that. They're not saying, okay, well, what do we currently have? How, how best can we utilize that to start attacking now? They don't, they're not thinking that way, because they're not prioritizing correctly. The focus will be on vaccines adverse events. And then I don't know what the cases trying to bring cases against pharmaceutical companies and corporations, I guess. And I'm not, I think that's going to be a, well, it takes enormous resources to do that and becomes a time sink. And it doesn't address the fundamental underlying problem of exactly what we're dealing with right now. And, but now, granted, I'm a big believer in fighting as many fronts as you can, because it, it makes it harder for them to maintain the initiative. So, yeah, we should force them to defend every nook and cranny and because

I mean, you know, there's the issue of like, you get discovery. Right. And so, you know, you're building an evidential picture that just might, my concern right now is just, like I say, I see a degree of acceleration ism from whatever, you know, the deep state component, and that there, it's not that it's not anarchist acceleration ism for the, for the, to get to, I don't know, back to a civil war moment and restoring, restoring the public republic, the. I've been, and like I'm with you, I'm fighting every, every point that we can. So, you know, if there's, if there's, if there's a handful of doctors that want to, a whole bunch of doctors that want to argue and talk about vaccines and the impact that they've had and great. But yeah, the problem is, the problem is, we don't have a leader who can look at the entire field of battle and say, and be able to know how best to handle everything, while still keeping the mission as the primary goal. That's the problem. None of these people. All of these people have grown up in a system where there's been very little of that, at least certainly that leads to anything good, like, mostly they've seen bad leadership, they're resigned to it. And so they're trying to, you know, they're trying to outsmart the opposition with, you know, mass formation. Okay, well, that's great, except we have proof of other things. We don't have to talk about psychology. The psychology would be good for people to analyze later on, but now is not the time for psychology. Now is the time for actions in the real world, before everybody, because we're going to have more neurodegeneration and everybody will have psychological issues.

So I would rather us just focus on stopping that first. Because once again, the priority is not winning the arguments, like in a court of public opinion with psychology. This is dumb. Millions of people have died. It doesn't matter how they died. They died, and they didn't have to. It was a crime. So all this other stuff, somebody, there's nobody in that group. They are, they are gatekeeping, and they're preventing wisdom. This is what I sort of piqued my interest around sort of Robert Malone last few weeks, was that he started to bring in to discussion. The things that I think were important, where he's talking about this type of next generation warfare. But the, again, I've been sort of, okay, he kind of said the right thing, and then he's not following through on the, on the, yeah, like I said, a strategic endpoint of bringing, okay, we've got onto the table. You've got the attention of millions of people, and you've just said, right, you're in a new type of warfare. You're all competence right now. Now what? It's kind of, it's, it's... Well, he doesn't, like, so he doesn't know what to do, because that's not who he is. He might, he might even at this point believe that he's, you know, he's... Dude, that's my door just gone. You just described wrong. Give me five seconds, bro. I'm pretty sure I can figure things out. I wish I had a meme or something ready. So, to the audience, who I can't see the chat, by the way. So hopefully, I am catching the vibe. Robert Malone, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about whether or not he is, like, what his intentions are, because, like, Kevin says, he's firing in the right direction. Fine by me. But I'm not looking for leadership from him. I'm not expecting leadership from him. So, I'm not disappointed that he's, he thinks that he should sue the Braggans right now. Because ironically, Peter Braggan overdid it. I don't try to go into the whole spat, but Peter Braggan was calling out Robert Malone and what he, he just did it terribly. But I can see what his point was, which was that we're not providing leadership.

So, we have to be very careful, because that's what's needed right now. The reason he was frustrated with the mass formation hypothesis was that it took some of the blame off of the people who are evil, who deserve to go to hell. And we shouldn't really be worried about their feelings right now. We need to be worried about justice. And so, to me, as somebody who spent a lot of time in leadership, he was, he had the right heart, but he didn't do it the right way. So, he shouldn't have done that, and then Malone shouldn't have sued him for $25 million. But that never should have happened, because they should have been able to at least agree on the overall priority. You're talking about Braggan, right? Exactly. Because when you have a goal, a major goal, and everybody's focused on that goal, then if everybody understands the priorities, then people will bicker and stuff, but they're not going to do it to the point where it damages the ability to reach the goal. And that is why the lack of leadership is so terrible, because Robert Malone is not the voice that we need. Because if he was the voice that we need, his actions would speak louder than his words. And he wouldn't take this moment in time to keep doing it. But he's a scientist. So, I'm sorry, scientists. I've been kind of in a bad mood lately about scientists. I know that frustration. 70% of them are assholes, bro. Arrogant nine-year-olds who have been told by their parents that they're super smart, and they feel entitled. And they have so little life experience that whatever they do have, they've drawn too many conclusions from it. And they overthink things without ever getting to the answer. And God, they're so fucking annoying. Sorry. I had to get that off my chest. It's a valid point, but the one I hop on. Once again, it's all about leadership. And there was none. This is what happens when you have none, or at least none good. And all of these things, you know, kind of tie back. Is Robert Malone a controlled opposition type? Maybe he doesn't even know that he's... I don't care. Like I said, he's firing in the right direction. So, I'm okay with that.

But once again, the things that JC is trying to argue, he's putting him being right about something above the ultimate end goal. Because if he had actually thought about it, he probably would have brought more evidence to the fight before he decided to publicly state conclusions that he did. That he can't really support. Because once again, over the last six weeks, what have I been continuing to do? Read more about quasi-species, read more about replication competence. And I keep finding more and more actual science that moves completely the opposite direction. So, I don't see this evidentiary support. But he's bluffed to the point where I don't think he wants to go back. He wasn't going to do it before. He's not going to do it now. So, whatever. But we have to move on. Which is why I've kind of been quiet and focused. It's not because I'm licking my wounds. It's because there's more important shit to do. And now that I'm seeing all this happen around me, I've realized, okay, I've got to step in now because the things that I know need to be there. Because all these people are having these discussions. And if you can have an 800-person list for some upcoming event about censorship, science, and medicine, and I didn't make the top 800.

I don't know. It kind of sucks. Not because I need that attention, but because I know things pretty well that nobody else knows. And that would be a perfect platform to all at once. You're not going to sit there and talk about vaccines all the time. And this is the frustration that I've seen in these spaces. The first one that I was aware of actually as a concept was, there was one before you. And then you did the one with Andrew. And then everything else that I've seen from there, it again just looks like very sophisticated narrative control to say, well, we'll keep talking about this subject. And of course, most people are going to, like I say, we should be able to talk about them. But if we're not addressing the bigger frameworks and we're exposing ourselves, we're putting ourselves into a sensitive position, dangerous position, where they can keep steamrolling us. That's the problem. The reason why I made the document that I did, and framed the argument the way that I did, was because the bottom line is that if we understand the overall problem correctly, it's not that complicated to realize that they knew. They knew and then did the opposite, knowing that it was going to hurt us. And obviously, for reasons that were about protecting themselves, not us, and for gaining power and stuff, and we have evidence for that. And what sucks is that I know that literally, if you force Fauci to start discussing what they knew and when about the fear and cleavage side and a couple of other things, you can bring in the vaccines. You can bring in the long COVID. You can talk about the gain of purity that JC talks about. All of those things can fit under this umbrella, because all I'm doing is trying to point out that we have a way, we have a battering ram that's already ready. And if the public understood that everything that's happened was allowed to happen intentionally, so all this other stuff is bullshit, once they know that, then... Just in my chat, Jig says, has stopped joining because he says they're running a narrative. That's funny. He's probably not wrong. I don't think that's wrong. It's very much in line with what I've seen. There's a frustration on my behalf. It very much feels like bread and circuses at this point, right? Keep distracting.

My concern is what they've got lined up for us next. What could be their end goal? Okay, so we can fill out that space somewhat. Their end goal is to survive this with their grip on power intact. At least for some. Personally, because I'm less convinced that the WEF, for instance, has power, has sway over R&T deep state. I don't know that we're at that point. They might be friendly. I just use that analogy because people know who it is now. I think it probably is a reflection of what would be the controlling type networks. Transnational. My perspective would be that our deep state would have to be complete losers if they didn't think that they could continue to manipulate and control the super national organizations and stuff. Or maybe they just hate America that much. I don't know. It doesn't really matter because what they're not doing is their job, which is protecting us. They're literally doing the opposite of that. There's so much evidence for that. The average American said, you know what? Okay, so they did know. That means all of this, regardless of what side of the political aisle you're on, that means that this didn't have to happen. It did anyway. That's the Pandora's boxes they don't want to open because they're trying to dissimulate and they're trying to distract. But the reality is they were censoring something. You don't censor for no reason.

All we have to do is get people to focus on why would they go through all this effort. Well, and we already have the answers for that. I've already found all that evidence. I mean, how can that not be? Why would we not choose the biggest target first? Because like I said, we need to get enough cracks in the dam to get it to burst. And we can't just have the vaccine. We have to have this bigger understanding that that was a symptom of the problem. That was a mechanism of the problem. It wasn't the full problem. So let's switch gears a little. I want to run this by you, the class switching that's emerged. Absolutely. As I've sort of sat here and thought about it, I don't like to say I'm not going to claim an in-depth knowledge of the immune system, et cetera. But the take home from what I can see, this class switching at an ability to degrade a populace, an enemy, right, that's another weaponizable pathway that I see. And you've got to try and convince me that they didn't know that class switching wouldn't happen with multiple fast acting or fast exposures to vaccines. For want of a better expression. And, you know, my sort of reading since then is that they knew that this does happen. It's why it's why it's why there's such long pauses between series of vaccines. And, you know, the only vaccine that I can think of that has comparable numbers of courses would be the rabies vaccine. And that's just when you've been exposed. Right. Really, like you've been bitten that you'll have like, I don't know, eight courses or eight shots of maybe it's changed with more recent vaccines. And so, well, this is where Dr. Lee's hypothesis, ironically, this is what actually helps cover this gap because he's absolutely right in that they've been using smoke and mirrors to pretend that the vaccines can do everything that they say they can do. Are they completely worthless? I don't know if I'd go that far. But at the end of the day, once again, you want the vaccine to stay in the arm. Okay. And if it does leave, well, then what would you not want it to do? Well, you'd not want to have it if you're in a cleavage site because then it would be able to go into three times as many places inside your body, including the brain.

Once again, boom, now we've married a key part of what I'm talking about because they knew this, they knew this long ago. They had a pattern of paying attention to this and working, solving, working around this problem. And then they didn't do it. So we don't have to know exactly why they were doing what they were doing. But all the evidence is right in front of us. They did it. So we gain that awareness. I think it's good in that sense that the doctor at least pointing it out because he's trying to get to the same place. He's just using a different method. Once again, at least his focus, but at least his focus is, okay, these people need to pay because it's not perfect. It's not perfect. But I think he allows other things to get in the way of that priority, but at least you can clearly see that that is a big priority for him. I mean, he's still a scientist and at heart, you know, scientist, doctor, whatever, but he's still sensitive about people who are attacking his hypothesis. But at least he's stating verbally, explicitly why he's doing it and why we can't fiddle around where this needs to get out as much as possible. So I like the direction that he's going. I'd prefer, it'd be better if he was done a different way, but at least he's walking in the right direction. So that's a start. Yeah. Well, you know, I've got a number of, well, scientifically there are people that are just going to point to a whole bunch of papers and stuff that just say, you know, we can detect. Right. And I agree with you in that aspect is it's going to be hard for him to, unless he has a lot more receipts than what was in his paper. Like he's making a valid argument, but he doesn't have the full explanation that can really cement it. So he's brought up something. It's kind of like if you're in Cleveland site question, okay, I'm not worried about exactly which answer it is. Whereas he, he has a question that he has a specific answer for.

I just, we just need to get the questions asked, and we need public to understand that they exist. Because that alone will make a big difference. And we don't know what the tipping point is. So, the tip is to get into the common narrative that you're, you're dealing with bio, bio warfare, next gen warfare, whatever you want to call it, but someone pulled the trigger on it. Right. And that's, that's, that's what we have to get to. Right. And so the they have, I think they've taken, they've gone, taken a big gamble, but they've, they've realized that the, the technical component of the weaponry involved is, is such that people are always going to be arguing minutiae all the time. Right. Whereas, you know, it's, it's kind of fixating on the nature of the primer and the compounder and not focusing on the hot lead thing coming out the other end right and this is, this is the frustration I have. And I'm, I'm looking at this, so this, this IGG4 class switching that's, that's emerged. I'm, from my sort of framework and viewpoint, you will, you can't convince me that they didn't know that this type of phenomenon happens. Right. That you get this switching ratios that would change the body's response to, to the pathogen, the spike protein, etc. And to me, it looks like a ratcheting of the, of the weapon process, such that you can, you can have more, more circulating spike protein and, you know, you have to just think of this, the peptides as just being like toxins, like, like chemical, like a chemical warfare, in fact. And so they've, they've gone and, and twisted the next, turned the ratchet to the next click in this, in this environment right now, and we're, we're now just having people relish in their, their new found freedom back on Twitter.

And all of the, everybody's been suppressed for so long. And they have so much to say, because they're invested like we are. And so, now that they have the opportunity, they want to get out and say it. And unfortunately, for a long time, the doctors couldn't say this. And so it was easy for Drastic's message to get airplay because even though we were, we were damning quite a bit, we weren't damning as much as, as the doctors were. And so, but they, they outnumber us, you know, 10,000 to one. So it's almost natural that, you know, the bulk of the people are going to drive the things that you talked about. The problem in this case is that that doesn't mean that they're part of it is everything that matters. And they can't, there's a lot of things that information that we have, and evidence that we have, that can go with what they have. But they can't win this battle on their own because if we don't get the rest of this out there, then, then we're not really gonna have a victory where they're just gonna, they're gonna throw us the scraps. And they win. And that's exactly what they want is, is, am I losing my mind in thinking that about this class switching? Because I don't know if I've got myself too paranoid. Okay, well, so, so this is what I do every time the question like this comes up. And I, every time anything happens, the first thing I do is I go and just dig up as much as I can about it. And so I go looking for this stuff and it's not an unknown phenomenon. Yeah.

And so one of the things that I think that I said to you, but, but I found a paper today from April of 2020 that warns about not class switching specifically. It talks about how the, because one way that you could explain this is it's kind of like ADE or these different concepts all kind of meld together. And, and, and that discussion was also part of what was, was largely kept out of the main literature. But nonetheless, I found several papers that do discuss risks. And, and so, yes, yes. So they knew. And so this, this tells me. I don't think that they knew exactly what would happen, but they knew that there was a risk. I said, so I, from what I've been able to gather so far, I don't know that they could have said, okay, well, this means that there's going to be IGG for in particular, maybe IGG for this concept is like the main driver of, of what we call interdependent enhancement. They understood. And once again, realizing that a good example of the allergy shots, you know, and that's how you get IGG for against certain antigens, like my son's roached egg. So, but we've just recently discovered that he's moved past that and it used to be very severe. Well, what happened? He developed his body came to understand, have a better understanding of self and non self. And so it doesn't, it provides a more appropriate response when it when it sees that antigen now. I, I don't know that there really is a precedent for what we're seeing.

It's like, I think they could have understood was a risk. But as an amplifier of your, of your initial assault, right. I don't know. It's not factored into the, I mean, I guess the question to you would be, did you in bio warfare planning militarily was that the deck come up in any of the course notes that yes. It wasn't called IGG for, but if you go back and look at the six or seven things that they would say are gains of function viruses. I think three or four of them, which you never do. I this IGG-4 phenomenon is is arises from, you know, this doing things to a virus to make it so that we can bypass your immune system. So I don't, I have no idea if, if they were that clever, because if they did that with all the other things exist. I would like to think they just got lucky with this one. Yeah. I'm not so sure that that's the case. I mean, I don't know. And I certainly, so what I'm not going to say is I think back to what you are. I'm not going to give them benefit the Dow. I think it's important to always like we should assume the worst until we know otherwise. And so I don't think I'm on a different page than you in the sense that at the end of the day, they knew they were going to be consequences. Now, whether or not they knew specifically what they would be. I don't know. I haven't seen the in depth IGG for discussions in the literature. So what that tells me is that if it was understood to some degree, it was understood in a classified sense that we were never going to see, which once again, the only reason you would even go down that rabbit hole is if you were trying to build something that you wanted to cause harm. And the bottom line is that this is just a piece of collateral damage that still goes back to what we were talking about before. They knew this by protein was bad. They knew it would drive variance. They were doing stuff. So I don't think they have to have known all the different collateral damage that was going to come because everything you already know, the lack of antibiotics, the covering of early treatments. This is just another thing. And in this case, we don't have as much evidence for it. So we can say, Hey, this is a cloud of damage.

You just can't say this piece of it was intentional. For our purposes, I don't think it matters. Because we'll probably never know when it comes to this, unless we can find, you know, a diffuse proposal that specifically talks about class switching. This, this sort of level of, right, if we look at it from the perspective of a deployed, a deployed weapon, and someone had their finger on the trigger, had to, had to game out what would be the long term consequences. There's, there's the initial infection and then, then there's the, you know, it's like you get the blast and then radiation with nuclear war, right. So there's, there's multiple phases of each, each attack and they can be compounding. But you know how, but you know how they figured they came to understand the effects of radiation, right? They, they dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and then they sent a bunch of scientists in there to, to quickly like, like learn as much as they could about radiation damage. And then over the course of the next two decades, when they were doing open air testing, they would take, you know, a couple hundred troops and put them in trenches a couple of miles away, preferably not down land at the time. And they would have them sit in trenches and they'd blow explosions, you know, test, okay, psychological reactions and other stuff. But they wanted to show people what it was so that they could be mentally prepared for it. But they were, of course, they were also doing experiments. So, personally, I think that the fact that the IGG situation exists at all is enough for me to say, boom, this is more collateral damage and this could be like a main driver of what we're seeing.

So in that sense, it's huge. And I think everybody that's looked at it has realized instantaneously, we don't know exactly what's happening, but this is bad and we need to figure it out quickly. And I think that's what really matters. So I don't know. I don't know what the intent was or the foreknowledge was, but I think right now, it's more important for us to focus. Yeah, because even if they didn't know, this could just be a part of their experiments that they're just lucky that they can do. But yeah, right now, the problem itself is worth focusing on. This is one of those areas in which I don't know if the intent matters because we already have so much evidence in other areas. We don't need this to show that it's a crime against humanity. Now, could this be a really bad one? Yeah, but we have 50 others already. So I'm more concerned about what it means because there's inconclusive conclusions that could be drawn from the paper. It raises a lot of questions, but we don't have enough answers in any of those genres to be able to say. Right. The clinical data is sort of lacking that you can sort of go and pull definitive studies and say, haha, this is what we expect to see.

And, you know, the so the problem I have right now is like the ADE is pathogen specific. Right. So like Dengue fever will be you get it. And then it's Dengue that gives you the antibody dependent enhancement again. And in this particular instance, this is probably a good question for Nick, actually. I was just thinking that too. In something that's impacted the immune system. So if we're seeing long term damage to your ability to maintain your immune system, what? Well, I guess I actually I guess the answer is self evident that it's a way to degrade host immunity population scale immunity such that other opportunistic pathogens sweep through and then take out a bunch more individuals and those individuals can be key. And my mind always goes back to what Joanna said, which is when they when they would stage these types of attacks. So this this is something that they knew 20 years ago, which was you go in and you it's a binary component. Right. So there's the virus and then you you shoot up the critical personnel that would amount the emergency response, take them out. And then when they get taken out, then then the real impact can can start to be leveraged. And I'm just I'm just wondering right now with for sure first responder personnel have been taken out, civilian and military right now. Right. Because I would make the presumption that the military for sure got boosted as well. Right. And three seems to be the magic number for that class switching phenomenon or free shot. Well, now, just today, the Congress responded and addressed that to the point where they basically passed a law saying, OK, no more mandates. And so the Biden administration did officially pull that back today. Now, the boosters had been mandated. But I know from talking to various peoples is that they were there was very little uptake. It was very much like what happened in the civilian world.

And I think because they they saw enough of the writing on the wall, enough of the people of the Pentagon that they were going to. They weren't going to push it full tilt. Maybe the Secretary of Defense was willing to do it. But the reality is, is that the leadership in the military that does still exist is they understand. Something horrific has happened. They betrayed the trust of the troops. And it's caused some sort of damage, if nothing else, in morale. But but but I know for a fact that it's causing adverse events, causing damage to our national security. So that is why it's so concerning to me, because once again, if they were just wanting to use it as like a loyalty test, they could have given them salient. But we know from the adverse events that near what's happening in the civilian world, they didn't. So so somebody allowed there were multiple people in different positions who enabled that to occur. And that's terrifying because that is not that these are undermining national security. So that can't be like that. Yeah, I mean, that goes against what you would want to do. But if you if you can maintain control. Yeah, but this gets this gets more suicidal.

Yes, that brings us to someone someone wants to be able to degrade the military readiness of the United States. Right. And so job done. And the problem, the problem is, problem is, is that I know for a fact that more than any other human being on the planet, the person most responsible for that and the decisions that were made across the globe is Fauci. And his little group of scientists and whoever they were, you know, Jesuits always, you know, whatever communications they were having with the rest of the deep state, they I mean, they didn't tell the Trump administration, but they were obviously coordinating censorship and response. So, you know, this sort of rattles around. But so that was the response. So something that could have been a mistake, could have been on purpose, whatever. But the proof is in the response. Actions speak louder than words. And the actions show disturbingly that in every case, it's whatever it is, it's actually worse. And it goes against what they would do and what they should have done from the perspective of caring about Americans. So they did. And that's what I don't know what that means, because I mean. So I want to read this to you. Right. So this this comes from National Strategy for Global Supply Chain Security Implementation. And it goes ensuring medical count measure supply during a public health emergency. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services created a new capability on June 15th, 2012, by awarding contracts to three centers for innovation and advanced development and manufacturing based in Maryland, North Carolina and Texas. Together, the centers will expand the nation's domestic ability to respond to bioterrorism threats, pandemic influenza and other epidemics. These centers offer a new model for public private partnerships, bringing together small biotech companies, academic institutions, and large experienced pharmaceutical companies to develop and deliver medical countermeasures quickly and cost effectively. Now, 2012 was obviously the Obama years.

And again, Obama to perfect Manchurian candidate, I guess. But whoever was interested in being able to position that administration, push through push through a law like that. So let me I don't know if you're familiar with this document, but I'll just send you a link for it. Well, there's a 50% chance that it's already in my Excel document. Because the majority of the time, anytime somebody mentions a study, it's in there. I've got like 30 or 40 different pandemic preparedness publications and things from the last 20 years. So where I wanted to get it to get to was that because you you lays in on Fauci is that Fauci in 2017 says, for sure that they will have Trump will have a pandemic in in the next couple of years. Right. And so that that sort of implies that there was, if you want to read, read into it, that there was foreknowledge. And I sort of look at that. At the very least, it was an option. Right. Right. And so if if Trump was a potential wild card that they weren't anticipating that the that the vote manipulation algorithms couldn't handle at the time. And he was he was literally a sort of out of left field candidate that was through that through the system for a loop. Right. So, so the deep state architecture is multi generational and they had they had a specific set of program goals to reach and eight years of Trump would have dented that in such a way that they could have been exposed. Maybe maybe Trump would have been a, I don't know, sort of died in the wall U.S. patriot that he would he would he would balk at the idea of intelligence services, defining what the what freedoms the Constitution allows. And so I think that I think one of the many things that they were trying to do. And they succeeded is that the deep state is clever.

I'll give them that because they took their biggest vulnerability, which was Ukraine, and use that and distracted people by trying to make it out to be that they even impeached Trump because of Ukraine. Because that all they were doing was just obstruction of justice. Like it was true. They knew what was down that pathway and they didn't want people to go there. I don't know that that was enough by itself to I don't think the American people. I think they would have accepted the fact that, OK, we were funding proxy war in Ukraine and we lied about it. OK, well, whatever. But but they didn't want to expose themselves. And so they just did what they had done. And because this worked, they just decided to ride the snowball down the hill and go completely overboard. But the reality is, is that they use their vulnerability against Trump and made it like they did an excellent job. They did an excellent job of this, because in truth, Hunter Biden really was involved in in finally went to Ukraine for proxy war. They should never have started because we should never been in there in the first place, because we should have just honored our agreements with with Yeltsin after the Cold War ended and not kept expanding NATO beyond all need. Because Russia, Russia was there. They were in old age. They were in decline. They're still in decline. But we've given them leverage for no reason when they will threat. We're still superior to China, but not forever. And it's almost like they're trying to distract everybody from the fact that they've totally failed against China. And so the answer is, is to waste so much money and resources in a useless conflict that we caused to occur by meddling.

I hate the deep state so much. I just really do. Because it's not all of this is just to support lies, previous lies. And the people are dead now, like, like what there's JFK documents are supposed to be released. How many people are actually be surprised to discover the CIA was involved? No one. So there's no one. So they've they've they've got their they've got their playbook. They know that they can cause institutional lag. But they don't want to delay. They don't. They will never admit accountability because, you know, make them look bad. And then the public wouldn't trust them, but they shouldn't trust them. So it's a giant circle jerk. But somehow we're always losing end of it. Yeah. That's I mean, how many trillions of dollars have to get spent in defense of gaslighting, something that isn't true? Like if we don't expose it, it's only going to get worse. I wonder if there's just an element of like systems being so interconnected and so complex now that any any you know, you you call out the support structure that holds up those organizations. And if we if we sort of said the CIA MI6 type spine and around that has built whole industries. Right. And maybe it's just the case that they're trying to maybe they think it's the lesser of two evils to try to keep keep maintaining the lies and keep the I don't know. Maybe they think the body count will be lower maintaining the lies in this direction than sort of a full disclosure in the other direction and having sunlight come in and bleach.

I don't know. It's so hard to ascribe any possibility of even neutral like goals because they they knew at the beginning of the pandemic. They could have done a whole bunch of things and drastically reduced whatever it actually was and minimized it. But they didn't. They saw the situation. You could say they wanted Trump out. And so this was this was a way to get him out by making it or making it look like he bungled. So so fair enough. But then if you know the vaccine or grab the right vaccines but if you know there's a bunch of BS smoke and mirrors and at best it's going to be a lot incredibly large scale experiment. If there's any shred of decency they could have just delayed that process and not had to deal with it ever because you know as soon as Trump was out of office they could have. I guess I guess they might have said that they needed the vaccine to prove that it had been the vaccines that got to work and so that they were the saviors. They could just delay it and had it go away and just miraculously stop testing or whatever. It kind of shifts the needle into know that there were other other bigger goals than Trump. Well just I don't know. I think Trump is just the the vehicle by which they were threatened at that point. But the reality is they just don't give up control. They know that as long as they maintain control the technology and everything then they're they're always going to the upper hand. And that's where they that's where they want to be because the future is coming and they don't just want to jump into it. They want to have control of the situation as much as possible which is dumb. They can't. It's not really the way it's going to work. But they believe that they'll be able to harness it. And that's dangerous because that means that as they fail to maintain control because there's all these technologies are going to be destabilizing.

We have no idea who's going to emerge from whatever's coming. And there's a good way to handle it that way. That way is for people to focus on maintaining control rather than focus on managing this transition in the best way for the people. And they obviously don't give a shit about that. That's not what they do. Yeah. So, you know, we can take it sort of axiomatic that they're not caring. They're not caring about people. They're not caring about the laws of the land, be it the US or Western Western type systems. I'll say it again for the hundredth time. I think the reason we see such a light touch in the East is that they see the East as a the East is controllable and they have a highly compliant population. And so we're the wild card. We're definitely the wild card. And they know that if they can beat us, there's no Winston Churchill. Who's going to stand up for freedom against democracy? Another scientist who's willing to put on the priorities ahead of the main goal. So, yeah, so I think they realized that the American people are the threat because we still believe in this fancy notion of freedom. It's just stupid to realize that we don't deserve it. And so they have to break that.

And yes, I just want to read this. So this is from Centipede in my chat. They're going for information overload now. The DoD narrative is retarded. In my opinion, the military follows orders. Whoever is able to give orders to the military is in charge, obviously, but they don't even own the vaccines. It's HHS. The puppet masters are in the NSC and they're not shy with their intentions. Yeah. Well, the puppet masters are in the deep state. I mean, the NSC is a political thing that changes every administration. And most of the Trump administration is kind of dark by the deep state. So I would just say the deep state for everything, because it's true. State doesn't capture the private component to it. It's public-private partnerships. The military has been co-opted at the Pentagon level by people who are willing to support narratives above actual national security. Personally, I see this like a bigger problem is the deep state beyond the military. And they've always kind of clashed. But right now, they're completely different cultures. Like there's the woke. They're willing to use wokeness. And the military has resisted that. But at least the people in the military realize it's bullshit and they're willing, whatever, they just want to get the job done. I don't care how you get your pleasure. I didn't care. As a leader of Marines, I was willing to respect anybody because we had bigger things to fry. And I was going to hold people to that standard. And so if you were a racist, I wasn't going to allow you to be racist. It didn't matter whether I liked black people or not, because my responsibility was to focus everybody on the mission that had nothing to do with race or with gender or anything else. So if we care about people and we want to go in the right direction, we can get through all this other bullshit.

So the fact that something was willing to weaken the military directly tells me that the military does not have the upper hand anymore. They don't. And that's concerning because the culture of the military was at least kind of a dampening against this tide of insanity. Whereas now, because there's radicals in the deep state and then they are running social media companies. The military can't compete against that. When every four years or eight years, they have to accept, they have to bend over and take whatever is going to happen anyway. So they kind of live forever in this world of, well, we shouldn't focus on this. We'll play along with these games because we need to be able to focus on this. So we'll do whatever they want to do. But once again, we were able to incorporate all these changes because we had an overarching goal. And it was believed to be a good goal. So whoever is attacking our military and our readiness, they do not have a good goal. So at some point, there's not a complete merger between the two. The deep state has enough technology and enough money through Silicon Valley. It doesn't need the guns as much. It's relying on the means to bear force like it used to be.

Well, I think as they realized, because there's unconventional warfare, they can see that it's becoming obsolete. And this is a perfect example of they didn't have to fire a shot. Well, into arms, bro. Yeah. So that's what's crazy is that. And what is that? Once again, that that is the power is emerging from these destabilizing technologies is exactly what this is. And so by not focusing on that, by avoiding that issue, we're assuming it easier for them to keep abusing us with this pathway. Then another choice. Another problem we have is that the ideological spin of any of the think tanks right now that could be arguing that could have access to multimedia. Modern modern communication methods to put forward to put forward these types of ethical objections. I don't I don't see it there. I don't see that discussion taking place. Maybe in some obscure journal somewhere that I'm not aware of, but I don't see that discussion and back and forth dialogue happening that needs to happen that gets into constraining this type of technology. And it's not it's not just in the bio domain, it's the it's the information computational side as well. And I guess you could say that Elon Musk has made sort of overtures to it as being problematic. Well, the answer is obvious in that they they don't want to… Well, I lost my train of thought. It was a really awesome thought. So now I'm annoyed.

I guess it's the WHO when those systems break down. Right. So the command structure breaks down between the civilian and the military side. And look, I class the intelligence world deep state world as just it was military in my mind. Right. It was but it's become kind of paramilitary. It's become a separate entity. And it's obvious because its goals clearly for many years have not aligned with the military goals like strategically. We may not have needed reason to go into Iraq, for instance. So there's been it's become more and more obvious and it's pandemic is the worst example because once again, you would never take something was experimental ever. And that's 100 percent of the force ever. You would never do that because even the slight chance that something could go wrong. And I can tell you talking to people that are still in that have some understanding what's going on. That is like they're starting to get that. And they're concerned privately because that means that someone somewhere understood at least some of what there's going to be some damage and they let it happen anyway. And they put they didn't just let it happen. They they were pushing. So what then you're absolutely right. What that does creates a disconnect between the military's goal is to protect the people. But what do you do when it becomes clear that whoever is giving you the orders does not have that goal in mind? Well, maybe maybe we're dealing with like a Skynet now. Maybe the technology is such as gone so far beyond humans. Maybe this maybe this is the beginning of the singularity.

I mean, because obviously, once you populate the sciences in Silicon Valley with woke idiots who, who are arrogant and think they know everything. And just ignoring all the rules and making up genders and do whatever because because I can. Well, the reckoning is going to come. But they're not going to be protected from whatever comes. Like if they bring about Skynet, they're going to die, too. And it's going to happen explicitly because of their arrogance and their unwillingness to accept that. Hey, maybe we should think about this. Yeah. And this is this is where this. Turbo not to have a cancer, but turbo inflated sense of entitlement and wanting the. I don't know about the money power life. It becomes a toxic brew. Right. And it might just be pushing pushing technologies out of our control. Well, I'd already argue that they've pushed it out of our control already. But now now we're dealing with the consequences and the. Yeah, that's just where I. From that perspective, I'm very pessimistic because the idea is. The problem with income inequality and if people didn't have the courage to say the right thing during the pandemic. It's not going to get better because exponential technologies cause exponential wealth for the people who are the forefront of that. And they control Silicon Valley.

I mean, California had like a hundred billion dollar surplus in the budget. Hundred billion. And this year they have 25 billion deficit. But what is so much tax revenue is raised from Silicon Valley and their explosive growth in the pandemic. That Gavin Newsom, an idiot leftist, was just showering money and universal health care and all that crap. Reparations, right? I heard that. That's what's going. But when money is flowing. And you control it's printed, especially if we move to digital currency, which is why we can't. So we can't only have that because. Then we literally have no way to shift around assets.

But yeah, so everything they're doing is only going to enrich the people that are in the club and it's going to make them more protective. It's going to make them. I assume that's why 18,000 NIH employees, there were zero whistleblowers. Probably because the average salary is like 120 grand. Because half of them are a PhD scientist. So, yeah, if. If your choice is you can eat ramen and own nothing and be happy with it. Or be at the top. You think that you're going to be part of the looked after. Section of society that I guess I guess the question comes down to how many how many. People with, I don't know, one expression, American ideals, right, constant pure constitutionalists are there in the U.S. subsidiaries of these transnationals that just say, well, hang on a minute. This this isn't worth it. Right. Maybe I know how many are prepared to go through bankruptcy and that repossession and not me. And so I'm going to say something that may shock people. So don't have don't have some sudden death or whatever, but I die suddenly. Andrew Huff for all of his imperfections. He was in that world. He was having a six figure income and stuff. And he's. He sacrificed some of it. I don't doubt there is a different quality of life and he had when he was making 200 a year or whatever. And so what I do know is that from what I've seen, he at least still believes that justice needs to be served. He may feel guilty because he was part of this massive insanity, but he nonetheless is doing some things in general. He's moving in the right direction. And I'll give him credit for that because he he is literally one of the only people. He's the only person with a T.S.S.I. clearance or Q clearance has come out and is willing to testify against the intelligence agencies. So whatever we may think about, you know, that's why I try not to talk too hard, man.

Yeah. I mean, the reality is, is that the safest thing for him would have been to say nothing, but even if you think it's all B.S. and he's part of the narrative and whatever. He could have just done nothing and stayed and taken a job back at Sandy again and made 200 grand and been protected and been part of this elite and just moved on. And I, you know, I don't know how much he's sacrificing, but he could have just done nothing. And so at least he's doing this. And so, once again, I mean, that's more heroic than anybody at NIH. So what is he saying? We should keep perspective. But quite I just want to comment on this in the chat. You're indefensible, dude. I mean, I know how dare I, but I'm just trying to put things in perspective. He might be evil, but he's less evil. He might be great. But he's he could have done the evil thing with zero effort. And he did.

So, yeah, and you know, this is what I kind of have a hope that there's if there's pushback anywhere, it's going to come from those. I would primarily those that probably did a bit of service first. Right. And had some sort of instilled in them some sort of the meaning of honor. But yeah, we're in perilous times, dude. If this is what Robert Malone and Andrew Hough, it's the public face. And I mean, I actually read his book. I even paid for it. Like I bought a Kindle and I read it. And, you know, like the first third of it is like pre pandemic, just his experience and like the military and whatever and reading through it and looking at what he highlighted and what he didn't highlight. And he he actually spends a good amount of time going and explaining like introducing the main people at EcoHealth Alliance and kind of explaining like their personality and how they fit into the cluster that it was. And I actually think it's there was good information there because it also shows what he's thinking about and how he's his perception of everything. And what told me is that he understood the need to balance mission with mission accomplishment with true welfare. And he was able to do that to some degree. Now, maybe he wants to make himself look better than he is or whatever. The bottom line is, is that he was at least thinking about things that a lot of people don't think about. He was thinking about how certain budgetary changes would affect other people. And then he put it in a book where it could have been not put in there and people probably they would never have noticed. But the fact that it's in there shows that at least he has picked up some of those things that are good in terms of knowing that there are other priorities. So I may disagree with most of his priorities or not, but I know that he is willing to fight and he's willing to fight in the right direction. And so that's kind of what we're lacking at the moment is.

Well, I don't know. I don't know if it's shortage of people willing to fight getting the getting the right ones to fight for the right thing because we can't just we can't just destroy all institutions. So what we need is courageous leaders that still exist in these institutions to stand up. And as I've said, indifferent for the only way, like if you're not one of those people already, the only way that you ever come to that is if you can you learn it by seeing it in something else. So that is where we can make a difference is because if we can inspire other people to have courage, become whistleblowers or at least model what the proper priority should be. Because we do need more that something else for sure. And if, if anyone coming forward is just raked over the coals for, you know, not, you know, the slightest ideological imperfection or then, you know, we're just leaving ourselves open to being picked off. Well, the perfect example is diffuse because now what is one of the many reasons why that was so frustrating to me that we would attack that a because it's evidence that everybody sees as evidence. But why, why would you do that? Somebody actually did the right thing. Even if it was fake, it has real impact. It had real impact. But it's not fake. I mean, for it to be fake, I would have to also be fake. Well, you know, I would, I would say this, you should, you should FOIA for the emails relating to rejection. I saw them. We actually already, there wasn't very many, but we already saw some of those because we saw emails where Peter Daschick actually gets asked by, by somebody to fix something. And so he goes back to, I think it's John Epstein. And John Epstein sends me an email saying here, you should phrase this this way because this, this will, and I think it was about gaining function. You should phrase it this way so that it doesn't solve your problem. So we saw them talking about how to massage it to get through and just specifically referring to the proposal because, Hey, because they want to make sure they did it right. Because $14 million is a lot of money for a three year project.

Oh yeah. And you know that, you know that $14 million is a lot of money. So they were, they wanted to cross the T's and that, and Andrew Huff could confirm that because he didn't do, he wasn't there for diffuse, but he was there. And he was doing a lot of legwork for re-upping one of the two major, because there's the USAID one and then there's the NIH. There's two grants, each of which are gaining function stuff, each of which were the perfect foundations for the diffuse proposal. And you use the exact same personnel. And so there's plenty of evidence to support its actual existence and the way that it, it came out and it was handled and everything.

None of that points to anything other than, than they did not want that to be, to come out. They did not think that the actual documents themselves were going to come out. And obviously I know and will testify to that they were preparing something within the New York times to combat like any word that might arise out of Congress about the IG complaint. But they did not know that we had the actual documents and that we were going to release them. I would still fire DARPA. Everything. Well, the problem is, is that DARPA would just, we didn't know what they would do. They would redact everything, national security. Well, I mean, even if it's redacted, it kind of demonstrates that the document is real. Right. But in their initial response, they couldn't deny that it was real. And they didn't deny that they basically said as little as possible. And what they said was DARPA never funded, or never directly funded anything that with EcoHealth Alliance, which was, unless there's something just black, we don't know that, which is probably done through USAID anyway.

That's probably true. But the fact that they couldn't say anything else and also like the same day that that happened. I was told by investigators at Congress. Yes, we know this is true. It's already been verified because the IG complaints had been verified because that came out a couple of weeks earlier. So there was never a question. I mean, in fact, when you looked at the response from Christian Anderson and other people, all they said was it was never funded. So they knew from the get-go that the best way to handle it was to just minimize it that way because they couldn't deny it outright because they would have. So if that's a narrative, then what are they protecting that they're willing to sacrifice that for? Answer that question and then I will believe that it's a narrative. But nobody has answered that question. Yeah, you know, again, it comes down to where, you know, we're in a fight. Where do we fight? And, you know, that that's obviously one, you know, one battle that has to be sort of picked up again. I agree that the vaccine fight has to be picked up and run with. They're all connected. That's the problem is that they're all connected and it wouldn't be that hard to show that they're connected.

So, and that's really my main frustration is that there's no one, even those among the resistance who are aware of my conclusions, there's no one actually picking them up and doing anything with them. And I don't understand it because it's so easy and diffusion of responsibility is the technical term. No, no, no, no one wants to be the person stepping forward in a high pressure environment. And so the responsibility for that will be, oh, so I'll do that. I can I can keep my head down and stay out of trouble. And maybe we're kind of looking at, yeah, a mixture of that versus. I guess here's here's one thing you can say is that I mean, J.C. knows a lot of these things. And I like released a bunch of these findings on his stream over several months. So he's not talking about those, not really, even though they support what he's everything else he's saying. And he should be very clear to him with the value that they could have. So so why would you not if you know that there's there's bullets and no one's using them and they could also support what you're doing, why not use them? I mean, are you really just not going to talk about it because, you know, that came from me? Because once again, if that that's case and it's putting something above that, it's the wrong priority. Because I if there was something that I was wrong about that would help us win this fight.

I want to address something in the chat real quick as well. Do whistleblowers seem to die mysteriously? No, not necessarily. Why do you think I'm at the top of Sky Mountain above Gatlinburg in Tennessee? I'm trying to focus and, you know, none of my family is around because we're getting the crunch time and I don't know what's going to happen. You're right. The whistleblowers have a tendency to die. But they don't. Like they do. They do come through. And like the problem we have after that is that comes in incredulity poured on from from the masses, I guess. Or I don't know, citizen investigators that want to say that that doesn't fit my full interpretation of the events. So it can't it can't be right. And the. And yeah, ideological or purity spirals are just as much an enemy as. Yeah, just get just biting onto the mainstream feed and being taken for a ride that way. Well, I mean, there's so many topics that we've talked about and we haven't even covered them all by any stretch. But there's so much that's not being discussed. It needs to be discussed. And this is another. There's always collateral damage when you put things above the actual priorities. There's sacrifices somewhere. And so in this case, we're sacrificing time or sacrificing cohesion. And what is really what's what's causing it's because people don't want to admit that they're wrong. And they have no balls and no integrity. And I'm not saying that that's anyone in particular. And I'm really not, because I'm saying it's entire culture. And the problem is that the scientific establishment that we set up on a pedestal saying that, you know, they they're above us. And they're the philosopher kings and they're going to protect us when when that rubber hits the road. The truth is, they're not. We've seen how that works over the last few years. They're not. And what I've learned is that it's not a it's not a single person problem. It's that none of the percentage of scientists who are well grounded because they've had examples of integrity and leadership and seen courage and seen sacrifice in defense of the truth. It continues to probably die with Carl Sagan for the most part. And I wish he was here right now. Yeah, that generation was the sort of probably not be on the side of Fauci. And so I don't blame any one person. I really don't. I don't think it's a failure, a failure, because it's a cultural failing. Yeah, it's the march through the institutes. Call me Gramsci and march through the institutes. And the problem is, is that the Academy has always tended to lean left anyway. Right. And because the universities, they're dealing with kids all the time still. They're still kids when especially when a lot of them came from Operation Paperclip. Well, it's a different branch of the left. But at a sort of mass movement scale, those people have gone through our institutes now. And now we're seeing the real time fallout of these hiring policies over the last 20, 30 more years, which valued the value, ideological purity and adherence to quotas, I guess, rather than competence. And I'm far from saying I'm the most competent scientist out there, very, very far from it. But I could I could see this rock very early on. And yeah, now we now we see the world winters.

It's the Frank saying and I'm not I'm not sure how to how to pull out of that. Like I get what people people got to go hungry and really, really feel some pain before before that happens. Well, as of right now, that's the opposite of what would happen because the people who are going hungry, who people who've been punished by these mistakes have been the victims, not the people who caused them or the enablers. And so what that tells me is that once again, if we don't if we don't expose this and figure this out, it's just going to be worse. The only the only direction from here is down. And so if anybody thinks that this is as bad as it could get, no. Oh, no, no, no. Until we until we solve that problem, until until we admit that we have a problem. Step one, we cannot move to any of the other 11 steps. And that's a problem, because if we don't start that process, then the money keep getting aggregated. And the technological superiority of the people who know things that the public doesn't know that gap is going to continue to widen. And it will become easier and easier to exploit without anybody even knowing. So this is basically like this is which which they nearly got away with with stars. So so close that they've the lesson this pandemic is is that there can't be a next time in this way. The regimes that we have in place cannot solve this problem. So we have to do something about them now, because I mean, this is it. If we do not do something about this, then we will reach the future and it will not be a free future. Well, I mean, you can make the argument it's not right now. It's it's maybe maybe we're the last spasms of the body, the lump and proletariat twitching as we were. We were in the struggle with our overlords and they got us. And I mean, the five percent at the top, which is even if scientists don't make that money, they're protected by that group because they're one of the ways that by which you get because that's where a lot of money is coming from. And so it's natural that the quality of the individuals is the only thing that stands between a good outcome or a bad outcome. And we've just seen what happens when we don't have that quality.

So we have to do everything we possibly can to put the right people in the right places or that's it. Yeah. So burn, burn, burn all the institutions and let it burn. Reprioritize. It really is that simple. It's not complicated. The fix is easy. Don't violate the Constitution. Do actually protect public health instead of enabling its destruction and then gaslighting them as they're dying. I mean, it's a pretty low bar. And we didn't not one out of 18000 employees managed to have the nuts to say, you know what? It might make the future a little more uncertain, but not one of them is going to stand up and point out all of this. And so, you know, all it takes is a Twitter account. Right. And I'm drive to disseminate some documents. It should not have been me. And you're a scientist and in a field that touches on some of the things that are happening now. So you're an example of one of the few people who's doing the right thing. There's a lot more doctors anymore. Now, there's been a lot more doctors that have stood up, but that's mostly because most of them were in some sort of private practice situation where they they could afford to do that. So they were exposed to more of the of the of the evidence and the truth and be well, they were literally on the front lines, though, deploying right. So count the measure in this instance, and there wasn't an automatic assumption in their mind that that we should listen to the authorities because their doctors that they already they inherently had authority granted by the position to make decisions about a patient's health care.

And so, you know, when I was taken away from them, it was very obvious. And so all the doctors who who didn't have a corporation buried down on them. And it was very few of the ones who were in that situation. But it was easy, easier for them to say, yeah, this is fucked up. But the truth is, is how many scientists like you that are within five years of having been an active scientist and said anything, Richard Ebright, and that's only because he's been involved in this discussion for decades. Yeah, there's very few. I mean, you're seeing more now as the sort of vaccine narrative tips, but again, the discussion is, it's the courage is relative, you know, if you respond to understand something was off in 2020 like you were. I mean, I was I was a scientist. I had a background in this general field and so, you know, I was an idiot. But there was no one like, and who knows, maybe you would never have been in a position to where this would become what you did and how you respond. I don't know. All I can say is that you have done the right thing. You know, JC, he did the right thing and he lost his job because of it. And I have great respect for all the scientists who've done that.

So because they're very few and the problem is that right now, our voices are actually being smothered. DRASTIC voices are being smothered by the doctors and, you know, doctors have a right to speak. But we can't get into the bigger picture right now. We can't we can't play into the enemy's hands by by making it easier for them. And the truth is that each piece of this needs to be brought to the public's attention. Otherwise, they will be able to escape through that part of it. And if they skip through any part of it, we're just going to have. I mean, they're going to make an ARPA H. They do everything they can so that they set up these institutions and things where they just have the protections built in, where to be classified. Nobody will ever see it. And so we have to tear that down. We have to unfund it. And because that's the exact opposite of what we need. And so somehow you and I and the people like us that aren't frontline doctors. Our story needs to get out, too, because because it's complimentary and it's just as important. And that's so as I look at the IGG four, I look at it like you did. OK, that could be the result of gain of function. And so we need to be able to explain to the public that it's not just about we need to be able to explain that that it was not a mistake. OK, because doctors, doctors might think that the scientists know better. That was not a mistake. They knew they were going to be bad consequences, even if they didn't know specifics. And that's the kind of stuff where we fill in and we have to work together. And right now we're not so. Yep.

And the yeah, well, I don't I'm stuck with what what to… what to do. Like I'm stuck in a room, thousands of miles. And well, the problem is, is that we there's more of them than there are of us. And someone like Robert Malone doesn't realize that he doesn't have all the answers. So he may be connected, he may understand like how the sausage gets made. I mean, he learned things from me when he watched that stream. Now, what did he learn or what was he trying to highlight to other people? I don't know. But but he's keep doing that. And not just with me, but with others, because that's what we need. And right now, you know, we need that. We don't need twenty five million dollars lawsuits against people on our side. People who, by the way, we're calling me out because basically mass formation is an application of leadership responsibility. So, you know, I can I can understand why an academic might not understand that there's a time and a place to make these arguments. But if you're going to talk to the public and you have a platform of 70 million people. Yeah, mass formation was a thing that you could have come up with something. Yeah, it could have been more damaging. Yeah. Yeah. And so well, in my mind, it should have been it should have. And he's in a position to be able to do that, right, which is, hey, these are bio warfare. Exactly programs. And I mean, he's using the words, but but he's not. And we're expecting too much of it. That's really all that it is, is that that's not what we need at that point. My concern with him is that he thinks non disclosure agreements maybe are preventing him from saying or pursuing something. I guess the legal spat that he's not spat is it twenty five million dollars, but is his mindset, right. That if he speaks out against programs that he knows were in place and what they were trying to do and how they were trying to leverage countermeasures, I guess, as a way to push forward these push forward the programs. He thinks that he's going to be on the hook to, you know, breaches of contract, I guess. And in this kind of instance, if he's scared of those. Yeah, he shouldn't he shouldn't be trying to position himself in such a way as being the. She clearly is. And I saw this, I talked to Matt Crawford and other people about this, a year ago, where I was like, okay, we don't need gatekeepers. Because, because all they are is they're like Rick Moranis in Ghostbusters, you know, where he was crawling around and turns into a dog and I'm the key. I'm the gatekeeper. Are you the key master? That's what scientists, scientists are doing right now. Yeah, but that that's the ego component that comes with right. They think they know. They think that they've actually fallen into this position. And that because they're instincts that may have worked out for a little bit that, oh, I'm just going to keep winging it. Okay, well now, actually, everything that I've done. I started with a purpose and understanding of what needed to be done, because I didn't know all the answers. And I've tried to maintain my focus and make sure that I'm doing things in the right way. And that's what I said to JC, and then he did the opposite. And there was damage caused because of it, which I literally said, and he agreed with six months ago.

So, you know, so Robert Malone is not the answer. He can be a part of the answer. But if he can't figure out that the vision that he's a cast right now is not suing to protect his name, screw his name. You know what? If it costs you your ranch. Okay. You don't need to position yourself for being like a philosopher came when we're living in the caves again, because we lost. Okay. We don't want to lose. So if you don't think it's important enough that you're willing to risk more than that, then you shouldn't be claiming to be in a leadership position because leadership requires sacrifice. It requires you to put the right priorities in focus. And then paint that picture for everybody else, because everybody else doesn't have your experience. They don't have that your perspective. And that's the only way out of this mess. Science science is the problem right now, not the solution. So, yeah, it's it's it's just one way of it's a tool. That's all for getting through this. You need it. You can't you can't not have it. And like you say, you need you need people who are good at legislative stuff. You need people who are good at engineering of many, many different types of engineering. You need you need people that I would say that have the honor code sort of burned into them somewhat that comes from service. And we don't we don't have that right now. And it's being being leveraged against us aggressively. And I wish I had better better solutions is that there's a sense that we don't have to have all the solutions. But once again, I mean, three years ago, I wrote that what the challenge was going to be and what the best way to respond to it was. And I never expected that that I was going to need or want or be in a position where I would having to be doing anything related to, you know, trying to set an example of what people should do from a position of leadership. And of course, I'm not a PhD. So obviously can't be in a position of leadership during this pandemic.

But it's a couple of jobs. But I literally like on April 12th, I wrote with the solution of this pandemic was it was not a medical solution. It was a leadership solution. So we have leadership. We have people willing to sacrifice to do the right thing and get things done. You can overcome anything when you don't. Then the only way you'll overcome it is by luck. So literally nothing has changed. And when I didn't know what was going to happen, what I did know is that there came a time where I said, well, I didn't go back to work full time and go back to finishing my school because it wasn't the most important thing. I could have not had to sell my house. But my house went from mattering a lot. My credit went from mattering a lot to being worthless because it won't matter if my house becomes a casket. It doesn't matter how nice my casket is. So I had to come to a decision. And now I didn't want to make I didn't want to lose things, but I had to come to a place where I was willing to accept a certain price if it came. And you've done the same. J.C.'s done the same.

But at the same time, right now, he has placed things before the actual priority, because we wouldn't be fighting really at all right now if everybody had the same overarching priority, even if we disagreed in the science. So it's the answer. It's always been the answer. And I guess what I've realized in the past couple of days is I have no choice. I have to I have to become more aggressive and accept it. But I can't wait for this. I can't keep waiting for people to to figure this out on their own. I'm just going to become more aggressive because all we're doing is wasting time. We're just wasting time. We're just wasting time. If the premise is such that, like I said, the class switching class switching was an understood mechanism and a aimed for consequence with respect to the shots. And this this is the problem with the doctors hogging all the discussion space at the moment is that they all they're going to be focused on is that just the medical side of it, right? The ethics breaches and that their their rights to treat patients and access to early treatments, et cetera. OK, we we get all that. But if if what we're dealing with was a premeditated use of that type of biological mechanism, then we're in far, far deeper shit than ethical concerns right now. Medical ethics. I mean, it's my argument is we don't even have to get to that point because we once again, we don't have to know why something happened.

Because regardless of what happened, they understood the big picture and they intentionally enabled it and suppress our ability to understand it so that we could prepare ourselves. They and this is proven. They made intentional decisions to hide things from the people that could save lives, millions of lives. That's all we need to know, because the rest of it will come out. But until people understand that whatever they did was intentional, it's going to be difficult. So, yes, we need to talk. You're absolutely right. The biggest part of the IGG for thing is understanding, not the science, because the truth is we don't is unprecedented. We don't know. We don't know what's going to happen. Nobody can tell you when there's a global population, you know, 15 or 20 percent of it has this. We have no idea what's going to happen. But the scientists, most scientists don't even know to start looking because they're not hearing this, because they're being told they're getting funding to make antibodies. They're not getting funding to even to even look at long covid or these other things. Well, maybe maybe long covid will pick up some interest because there's such a pace load now. But I mean, there's there's an easy answer to this. I've already laid it out. And it's not that I've had all the answers, but what I've laid out is a set of like a dozen now things, each of which is a single point is an argument where you say, hey, here is this is fucked up. Here's all the proof. And you need to explain what happened. They don't have that explanations. So all we need to do is get to the point where people understand this, because then it will become obvious that they don't have an answer and. And then gravity will take care of itself. But the IGG IGG for problem. Is is just one facet of this.

All of these things are collateral damage because scientists made intentional decisions and now they're trying to cover it up. That's it. There's nothing else to say. Well, I wouldn't say scientists made intentional decisions. They might have been part of a team that made intentional decisions. My concern is more just the psychopathic CEO type that just thinks that they need more, more, more power, more money, more. Well, found she needs six billion dollars for age so that we can just make absolutely sure that nobody else ever again knows anything about getting function or anything else. Just just make it all pure national security. And we just we just we've entered this age of sort of disappearing records as well and changing. I mean, Hugh Auchincloss, Hugh Auchincloss, his son is a young congressman who on January 31st, the same day that found she's sending an email saying you have things it has to be accomplished that same day. He and other members of Congress sold a bunch of stock before the market crashed. So so this notion and the problem is that people don't know that. So they don't they don't even know who any of these people are. But that's how sick we're dealing with the entire institutions have to go because there's blood on everyone's hands.

And if they are not willing to admit that and be willing to be part of the solution, then they cannot be part of the solution. It's that simple. Yeah. Long, long road ahead, bro. What can I say? Because I don't I don't see it. I don't see it resolving quickly at the moment. It's too far gone. Well, thankfully, humans are very poor judges of the pace of events, exponential growth and change and everything. And paradigm shifts can happen that are positive. And so there's there's a decent chance that we could fight and then we could be fighting one day and not realize that we have one. The problem is, is that we have to fight. The you know, someone just put in the chat, which is there are new technologies coming online with respect to RNA tech. Right. And they're just coming. So these people who they're positioning themselves into to make sure that they, you know, their beaks wide open and they get the worm first coming, coming from, you know, whatever feeds us, whoever feeds us energy and manner from heaven. Right. That they they're just getting their unfair share of it. And I don't I don't know how we we unwind it. It's it's too big. But I mean, for for universities, I can find a solution to that. But the industry side, how do you how do you how do you stop the the injunction to profit profit for the sake profit for your shareholders? That's your only directive. And a creative leader would would understand the problem and wanting to have a positive solution would would focus on trying to create positive solutions.

And I have Elon Musk might be saying he might. But as of this moment, you know, yes, Neuralink and his major defense contractor is not perfect. But he didn't have to borrow 44 billion dollars of other people's money to buy Twitter. And then after about Twitter actually keep his word and expose most of this shit. So, you know, I'm an optimist. And when you're in a position where crazy shit is happening and you don't always know if you're going to succeed, but you have a hundred percent chance of failure if you don't do anything. And if the problem is that people don't have anything to believe in, then the answer is easy. We have to give them something to believe in. And we don't have to have any answers, but we at least have to be walking towards the answers. Just I mean, it's like taking a breath. Once you can do it, you still can. Right. So you just just one step in front of the other and you walk in that direction. But yeah, I'm you know, I try to maintain an upbeat, upbeat, which is a reverent take on the events. But God damn it to switch off the camera. I look at what's going on. I'm like, I can't swear my voice next to me. It's just, you know, what are we doing? Where's the cavalry, bro? Well, we're the cavalry. Yes. That's it. It's the answer. We are the ones we've been waiting for. So people forget that in the past, when big crazy should happen, they didn't have the answers. They didn't know how it was going to turn out.

But, you know, it's not like we're being blitzed right now and bombs. Well, we didn't know that that Hitler was going to lose and we were going to beat him because it still required Americans to go over to Europe and be willing to help set things right. Because, you know, we still valued that and we could see that something was wrong. And enough of our leaders had enough integrity that they were willing to do the right thing. You know, and if they don't now, then that sucks. But that doesn't mean that we just have to give up. We just have to do it ourselves. A manifesto being, we're charging on, we're having another European war. We're going to, we're going to take out Switzerland this time. Well, the manifesto is I need to start selling vitamins. I need everybody who's watching this stream to go and become a paid subscriber. Well, no, but we need to, we need to support people who are in the fight. But I'm not going to turn it, I'm not going to turn it down. But I don't have my house because it's not the priority. And that's, that might be all that I can do. Maybe I never get on Joe Rogan so I can expose all this crap. But somebody's got to get to Joe Rogan and whoever that is needs to know what we know so that way that they can share the truth.

So, you know, thanks for saying in the chat. So, Walter, you, myself should host a panel, try and get Dr. Finn or anyone from DRASTIC or anyone that's sort of got a little bit of momentum to try to leverage the algorithm right now, whilst it can favour us. Unfortunately, I'm the person with momentum because I track all the data and one of the things I track is the followership for all of us, like each member of Drastic and then as a whole. And so I know for the last year or so that like 75% of all the gain and followership has literally just been me. And, you know, why? I don't know. I guess people like my humour or they think that what I'm saying has value. You just come across as a straight shooter, bro. Well, you know, my goal has never been to get my followership up. But at the same time, I mean, I assume that that would be a marker of success or failure. So at least it's going up. And but under people, J.C. in particular, who called out my I guess he's jealous or whatever. They shouldn't be because because I see all the data, I can also see that my impressions per tweet is exponentially lower than it was when I had exponentially fewer followers. So I have I've been fighting against the same tide as everyone else. I mean, I've been fully censored. But maybe that's just because I didn't get pissy towards, you know, one of these, you know, paid 77th Brigade people. And I try to avoid those confrontations. But you're a better man than me, Charles. But you can't but you can't say you can't look at what I've actually done and say that, oh, well, obviously, I'm supporting the narrative.

And so, you know, I've been protected. This is stupid. I started with two followers and the only person who has more followers now than me because I passed URI. That's really the only person I wanted to pass. I was going to say, I found out I've got anonymous flagging my account right now today. Well, that's pretty cool. Yeah. Well, you need to spread that love around because whatever I'm doing, URI took the spotlight. And he he could have done so many things with it. And instead, as soon as he had a little bit of the spotlight, he then attacked Brett Weinstein, Weinstein to to gain more notoriety. He could have worked with him, you know, but he chose to to say, screw you and your stupid ideas about treatments. I'm going to defend the vaccines. And he's contributed nothing since 2020. And he had he was a believer, right? He's a believer in that tech. He comes from that. Well, he said he's a believer in tech in general. He believes that the science will find the answer. And I agree with him. However, comma, the science, unless you're a scientist who can just do what you're doing and not worry about funding. The science is dictated by whoever shows out the money. So this notion that the science will save us because it's the science is stupid. And this pandemic has proven it because they threw money in a problem. We put all our trust in something and that trust was betrayed. So, well, it's worse. It was the fact that they'd repositioned the pieces in the in the scientific space, such that when the trigger was pulled, that they were they were set up. That's well set up to fail us, but set up to add advantage to to their to their position, their aims, their goals and the right. Their priority is not the main priority. That's all that matters. And it's taken decades to do that. But this is this is a problem. This is a multi generational plan or the coming together of a multi generational plan. And well, you know, well, they've gotten away with it. They've been doing bad things and they've gotten away with it. At the same time, during the same period of time are the respect with which we were holding these people was going up. And so it was like an artificial, you know, people can fall prey to their own censorship and narratives. And so, you know, the scientists believe they're invincible and that they should be in that position and that if, hey, they skim a little off top, so be it. And they got comfortable just doing whatever, you know, hey, we'll cover up HIV and the fact that it was our fault. Well, guess what? And that led us directly to here. So with the same people. So I feel like all I'm doing is just reinforcing this this fact that the history repeats until you punch in the face. And, you know, yeah, I'm just right now. I'm just covering up wanted not get punched in the face again. That's that's the that's the point I've got to go. I want to feeling under a barrage and, yeah, like I said, maybe maybe a sort of, I don't know, trying to host a space, trying to do something to make sure that people understand it's not just vaccines that you're worrying about here. Right. The medical health, medical health, freedom and advocates. Right. Look, it's important. Get it. I really get it. But until until we deal with the old phrases are the best ones right military industrial complex. That public private partnership stakeholders, I got a classic classic but document yesterday. Found it on my Twitter feed, but they've they've literally sort of got, you know, flow diagrams for what to do with adverse events to vaccines. So they had that they had this all sort of staged out already and you know easy to follow instructions and marine could understand it. That you know you just, you do this and in situation a situation B, you do this and then. And I want to sort of cover that document a little bit in another stream, but I'm going to have to go because the kids are back and that's fine. So what we should do is, because really. Okay. What was the purpose of us kind of touch looking at all this. Right. The point is to say that there's, there's a part where we're moving in the right direction, but not, not all the cats are haven't heard it yet. And we need. It's now time for us to put in our input. Because, you know, God love Lin Fin, God love Ryan Cole, and a carry already. They don't have all the information, or all the answers. So, it really is it's time for us, like all these are symptoms of a disease in which case we have to be courageous and be more direct because, well, being just inspirational, without saying anything is obviously not working very well. Because it's just, because other scientists are not following us, so we're going to be more explicit about what I mean. But yeah, we're gonna have to do that. And the problem is though that they knew very well the idea, the idea of by warfare programs, right and Elena Chan and Ridley was responsible for that, because that sort of was me to those that were out there saying that there's an issue around this lab of this dual use research. We have to get it under control but they they explicitly say this has got nothing to do with military this is just, this is just academic programs that just trying, trying to do the, trying to do science right that was science will find a solution. Because if they point out that truth, then they don't make the six figure salaries being paid by taxpayers who do actual work with physical things in the real world, and who are held to a standard because they can't just waste everything on a gamble. They have to produce something that will have a positive net benefit. And they've lost all connection with the real world. So we need to help them reestablish that connection. Well, Matt Ridley as far as I'm concerned is British establishment, and he is, he could be, he could be useful, but only if he's hearing, but the problem is is I don't think he's hearing anything that we're saying. So, we need help getting the things that we know, we being like, Walter and you and me and Joanna. Our info is not getting out to the public. And that's a big missing piece. So first step is, let's fix that. Bringing allies we need to whatever it takes. But if, if we don't solve that problem. It doesn't matter what we discover, because nobody will ever know it will be sitting here five years from now and people still have no idea who Calvin drug miners. So, maybe. What's his name Mario. Yeah, well, whoever is helping coordinate all this is obviously part of, you know, the medical side of things. That's great. But we need to figure out who they are. So, so they can help us make sure that we those are people we need to commiserate with and coordinate with because, like, that's one thing that I do do with Andrew Huffism, and he is actually making attempts to try to find situations where I can be inserted. But that's what we need and we need more than one we need a whole. And it's not just me or you. I mean, there's dozens of us, they can all provide lots of stuff. You know until Peter McCullough will actually read a DM that I send them. He was pretty good at responding to them very early on. I haven't spoken to him in a long time but all of them. They need to know that we're on their team. That we, we are the key masters of the gatekeepers or whatever, wherever they want to be, but we're the key masters. And so they can't. If they don't have us, then whatever solution that they come up with is, is not going to be a good solution. So, we have to impress upon them. That fact and I think if we do, we can we can be exponentially more effective together than we can be apart. Yeah. Well, I'll stop there. We'll get back to this conversation. Okay. Well, so I do want to come on to your stream. Whenever you have stuff planned and I can just provide color commentary. That's much more fun. I don't have to think about it at all. I can just be sarcastic. Well, I'll send you that document, just the, the planning they had for narrative control with respect to vaccines and I want to be able to spin a stream where all I have to do is brutally make fun of How we can do that. Of things. There's no expectation that I have to provide something of actual value. If you just want a shitposting stream. I mean, you do have plenty of streams like that. So I just, I'm just saying that I want to have those. I occasionally, I want to reduce my expectations of everybody. So I think that'll help. Okay. All right, bro. It must be late for you anyway. I'll let you go and let me deal with these little ones. All right. Take care, bro. All right. Yeah, I will.

There you go guys at a powerful Charles Rixey and yeah, we want to should spend more time on that working. Yeah, I'll try and spend more time sort of flashing out. Thing is, I've looked at literature, the class switching and stuff. I don't, there's not a whole lot that I can really easily summarize. If, if, if I was like, I was alluding to in this stream, if, if it's been deliberately leveraged and it may, may well have been a predicted consequence, then the, yeah, I wish I had better answers. I don't, I don't, I don't. All right. Let me just do one thing. Just see if anyone sent a shekels right now. Let me just see. You are all fresh. No, there's a couple there. I want to say thank you to, you can have a doc transcends or how about this. Thank you. I'll do. What's his face. That is me. I am a legit scientist or publishing sheet. So thank you for that. Right. I'm out of here guys. Take care. God bless. See you in the next one.