REFERENCE

John T. Hoffman, United States Army retired Senior Research Fellow at Food and Protection and Defense Institute. I didn't even know we had one of those, by the way. University of Minnesota Colonel Hoffman is a Senior Research Fellow with the Food Protection and Defense Institute, a U.S. Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence at University of Minnesota. Colonel Hoffman has extensive experience in developing, operating, hardening, and sustaining extensive cyber systems. With the recent growth in cyber attacks targeting our nation's critical of infrastructure, including the Food and Agriculture Tax and the reduction of vulnerability to such attacks. Prior to joining FPDI, Colonel Hoffman served as an advisor to the U.S. Department of Justice and as a post-9-11 appointee with the United States Department of Homeland Security. Colonel Hoffman has previously served in the United States Army and Military Law Enforcement Intelligence and Anti-Terrorism roles. Also, please welcome Mr. Charles Rixey, United States Marincourt, WMD, SME, and Open Source Intelligence Analyst for DRASTIC, D-R-A-S-T-I-C, a global group of 20 scientists and researchers who have investigated the origins or who are investigating the origins of the COVID-19. His Substack can be found at promethiashrugged.substack.com. Also, some of you recognize the beautiful face up here on our panel, Texas Lindsey. she hosts remarkable spaces. If you're not following any of these folks, please do so. Lindsay is a communication strategist with a focus on medical whistleblowers. She's also serving the industries of science and technology. Her literary work can be found at texaslindsay.substack.com. Please also give my regular co-host, Tinfoil Tricorn, a follow. Also in speaker position somewhere in here, I believe, I think I just heard him come up, is Christopher Marino, know, who's also one of my regular co-hosts. And without further ado, Dr. Huff, thank you so much for asking me to partner with you on this. I'm very excited. Yeah, the floor is yours, sir. Well, thank you so much for helping me host us and set this up. My main goal here is to really help everyone understand how we got to this point today. I think, you know, with the world waking up to what happened, everyone one sensing that there's more of this lab leak, it was all by design. And that's really sort of the point that I want people to make is that we actually created a whole infrastructure and system to play out exactly like it did. So unfortunately, Colonel Hoffman is having technical difficulties. Colonel Hoffman was my mentor, actually, at the Food Protection Defense Institute. And he introduced me to many of the leaders, the technocrats and bureaucrats across government agencies. So Charles and I, I guess we're going to have to be, as I say, in the Marine Corps, semper gumbi, always flexible and execute in the military because it's a fragmentation order. And I guess it will be the Andrew and Charles show until Colonel Hoffman can get his Twitter space working. So without further ado, Charles, Charles, you want to say hi? Yeah, I mean, I was already introduced, but I, I guess, I kind of want to point out that Andrew comes from a more of a science background or scientific perspective. Mine dealt with perspective, WMD from a more on the front lines perspective. And so I, in a normal context, he would have been the technical reach back. He was the scientists that we would have been calling for expertise if we came across something that we didn't know or unusual circumstance. and I've, all I've tried to do is kind of carry that with me as I just on my own independently started investigating the origin and then met up with a group of people. And since almost everybody that I work with all the time are scientists, I try very hard to, to try to bridge the gap. So hopefully today I can do that. I, sometimes it can be really technical, I try to wear two hats at the same time. So Charles, don't sell yourself short, short. I think you're brilliant. And I think we have a good way to start off this conversation is so what happens after 9 11 in terms of bio warfare, bioterrorism, and can you explain the relationship between that and what WMD is and maybe what WMD is to the audience? Well, WMD is simply weapons of mass destruction. The, ever since the 1960s, the United States does not maintain a stockpile of offensive biological or chemical weapons. And we only keep nuclear weapons as a last resort. So all of the biological research that we do is officially biodefense or biodefensive in nature as opposed to offensive. And the difference being that the intent of the person who is doing the research really, that's what I don't want you to say, but it's true because in order to, to protect yourself, to learn how to protect yourself against something in a real world environment, you have to have that agent or something very close to it. So, um, and they've kind of danced a very fine line, that September 11th really kind of changed that. I mean, actually there's things that happened before September 11th as well, but, but after September 11th, the, the, the nation was kind of in shock. And then immediately after that, there were the anthrax attacks and those, those served as a way to a very good motivator to basically raise funding in those areas. And the real mistake I think that was made was, was that the next year they decided to, instead of keeping it all in the military, they reached out to the National National Institutes of Health, to Anthony Fauci in particular, and he became like a civilian counterpart working with our biodefense system. And after that, well, the things went downhill fast because as we learn time again, the one thing you really shouldn't do is country's mixed politics with defense any more than you absolutely have to. And, well, I think we see the result. That was, that was really the genesis of everything that's happened now. It's more complicated, but basically if, in order to have a reason to you're trying to justify our existence, it kind of creates this atmosphere where it's unhealthy. And that's really, that's really a big problem. So Colonel Hoffman, are you, are you there? Yes, I'm here. Great. Well, so how much of Charles' response did you catch? No, I got it all. I was, I was able to listen. I would, I would point out that this actually say it goes back further. What's interesting is that in the early nineties, we determined that the Russians, while they had signed the bio treaty, you know, bioweapons treaty, they had not adhered to it. In fact, they continued their research into bi, offensive bioweapons all through, through the eighties and even were continuing in the nineties, including some pretty ugly, you know, viruses like smallpox and other things. And that that also gave rise to great concern in the WMD world about being prepared for bio. That was one of the major drivers behind DOD investing so much in the civil support teams at the state level to be able to provide detection, just for chemicals. And for the audience, what, what your, what your timeframe are you referring to? Well, the, the civil defense, the civil support teams that were created between the active reserve army and active military in the, in the, in the National Guard was actually in the nineties that that was created. They were usually called raid teams and they didn't like that name. So they changed it over to civil support teams. But the discovery of the Russians failing to comply happened at the beginning of the nineties. And once it was realized that, that, you know, that capability was still being developed by a potential adversary, even though at that point in time we were cooperating with the Russians, the Soviet Union had fallen. It was a pretty strong signal that we needed to have better preparation, better preparedness, both in the standpoint of detection, but also the ability to continue to fight in a bio environment and be able to respond to any major bio event. That's really good. So what kind of things then do, does a military or a population require to fight a biological warfare or respond to a bio terrorism event? So what are the things things that the government would want to, to be in a, have a good defense posture? Well, you have to be able to detect it first. And part of our problem is we had not deployed sufficient capability. Some of you may remember back in the very beginnings of Nunn Luger and then PDT 63, when we had threatened bio kind of events, the best thing that the military artillery could provide a civilian community at that time was a thing called smart ticket, which basically would, would tell you that there was a organism, but it didn't tell you whether it was a good, good organism or a bad organism. And police and fire were out responding to, you know, letters with powders in them with smart ticket. And because it might be cayenne pepper that that's a, you know, a biological organism, it would give them a positive reading and everybody would react like it was an actual threat. So realized this wasn't going to cut it. We needed better, better capability and we needed things that can be deployed to the field. Well, how are you going to do that? So that's where they came up with the idea of putting a civil support teams together and equipping them with a sophisticated bio detection, not just chem detection, but bio detection in the field, including PCR, you know, type detection laboratory capability right in the field. So if some event happened, You could go out right away and begin to detect it. And we also began looking at projects like bio watch, which was to put a passive detectors. Basically what they were doing is collect air samples. Air samples would be policed up on some regular schedule from these detectors. And then it would go to the lab to see if there was any indication of something happening or the presence of anything. So there were a lot of approaches being taken on the detection side. Well, at the same time, if you did have a deployment, you did detect detect that somebody had done something, how are you going to protect people? And that's when I started looking into the different ways to develop very, very rapid involvement of a vaccine that could counter it as quickly as possible. Whereas vaccines in the past have taken months to years to build, they wanted something that could be developed within weeks to months. So you had the ability to protect a population or protect a fighting force in the field real quick, because you're covering a lot of stuff. So take a couple steps, steps back. So can you explain to everyone what the non Luger act is and why that's so important to biosecurity and bioterror? Well, basically a creative funding to begin to put together. You're kind of, you're, excuse me, hold on one second. You guys, you guys are both kind of doing the same thing. And then it's, it's, it's just a Twitter space wonkiness glitch. so let's, uh, Dr. Huff, if you don't mind posing that question again, because you were equally as hard to decipher. Thank you. Oh, okay. Um, Hey, uh, roll with punches. So John, my question to you was, can you please explain the non Luger act and the importance that had the act has to biosecurity, bioterror and pandemics? The non Luger Domenici act basically was the first time to recognize that we had a national additional risk from, uh, WMD and bio being a significant part of that risk and funding needed to be made available to begin to put together capabilities for both detection as well as countermeasures. And this covered kind of the gamut of, of things. And so you had fire departments beginning to have funds to train on bio events, on chem events, on explosion, you know, explosive events, high eds, those kinds of things. Um, and then you also had a ramped up nuclear training. Now we had a good core on nuclear training already because of, you know, the training we did around nuclear power plants for local communities. So they built on that. So that was a little more mature, but the others were not. So this meant that fire departments, police departments, um, and the national guard at the local level and the active component, if it's called a support would need to have better equipment, better training. And this also meant we needed new research implemented to begin to look at ways that you could counter something if it actually happened. So then this leads to the next question. So what kind of medical, what are medical countermeasures and can you explain the different types of products or vaccines or drugs, which might comprised medical countermeasures and how they would be used from a national defense or homeland security perspective? And let's give it to Charles for us first and see what he thinks.

Well, in the Marine Corps is a little bit different. We didn't have as many things available to us. As far as medical countermeasures in my world, you'd be talking about specifically regards against chemical agents. So if someone was poisoned by sarin or VX nerve agent, then we would have a.

Oh, there you go, folks. It ended. I don't know what they did there, but tell them.

I'm not sure what's going on. It's it's there and not mine. Let's see. The. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's toast. I have no idea what happened. Yeah, I guess it was just just pulled the plug on it. I guess that's what it was, unless it was something higher. It was toasters going. Yeah, it is like everybody was just kicked out. That's crazy. Can you are you getting any feedback from them? see what just happened? OK, that is weird. I've never seen that happen before. No, I mean, there's two options, right? The host either hit the end button prematurely or or.

Holy shit. I mean, I don't I don't see it yet. You burn. We won't even cover anything crazy. No, no. I mean, it was pretty standard fare up to that point. So close. Yeah, they can't handle that, right? Maybe just the title was enough to trigger trigger a response. But wow, that is crazy. OK, I just got an invite. You did. would. Yeah, OK. Let's see if this turns back on.

OK, we're back. So for those of you who are for those of you, you, can you all hear me? Yes, yes, we can. OK, excellent. Thank you. Yeah. Give me one second to locate our cohost. Wow. To those of you who are new to the to the Twitter sphere.

Well, probably. I mean, it's me and it's our topic. Are you kidding me?

I know. Well, boy. OK, good. That's exciting. See, this is good. OK, you guys tweet, tweet, It's time to retweet the space. Thank you all for popping back over here.

So all of a sudden I heard was Mr. Roboto and you guys are having this great conversation. I'm literally interrupting you. I'm so sorry, but I couldn't hear you. OK, if we see Lindsay there is 80 mind rounding up our host. Good stuff. OK. Oh, and so Tin is frozen. All right, let me remove him. You guys, this is so this may just be our reality for this space. If it happens, you know, we just we just roll back through here because sometimes this happens. And yes, people have been known to mess with Twitter spaces. Andrew, I sent you a cohost.

And let me invite Tin another time to cohost. All right, we're just waiting for our cohost to come back up. It's just glitchy. That's OK. You guys are doing a great job, by the way. Thank you so much for taking the time to be here. It looks like Andrew's having a hard time. OK, cool. trouble. There we go. Hey, I think I'm back. You're back. OK, excellent. And I'm trying to. All right, Tin will be back in whenever he can. And I have no idea where you guys, you gentlemen left off because I got put in time out. So let's just pick up right where we left off.

Well, I guess we're basically at the point where the medical kind of measures mean one where they say one thing to the military and they mean something different in a civilian context when responding to an emergency. And so. And I think it's part of the problem with this technology, but really. So what we have to understand is, is that what they wanted was to create an ability to something in an emergency in a far more rapid time than you would normally have.

And to try to prevent something from spreading or to mitigate the damage as quickly as possible.

But I think as you'll see that in pretty much every way that it could go wrong, this has gone wrong and not necessarily by accident.

OK, so I think to help to continue this on. So with traditional vaccines or other drugs, how long does it take to typically manufacture those drugs? How long does it take to bring a new product to market? And what unique problem does that cause the national security community and in the Department of Defense when responding to an event or actually trying to either either respond or prepare? Well, I mean, normally it takes 10 to 15 years.

And it's been getting progressively longer until the last few years. And obviously.

When when you're trying to solve a new problem with a novel virus, it's not going to work.

but to be honest, this this is something that all the military has across the different facets because the development time for new technologies is was lagging far behind before we've entered this even further exponentially advancing technology period that we are. So I know that was a big focus before I left the Marine Corps, trying to focus on exponentially being able to manage those exponential growth phases. And that was a struggle. So this is just another example of it. So, John, I think this is a good time for you to jump in. Can you tell everyone just real briefly about your how you came to work with the Department of Homeland Security after 9 11? Air Force? Sure, I spent a good deal of time, both on active duty and in the Guard working in this space for WMD and anti-terrorism.

In the 80s, I worked primarily or began working primarily in anti-terrorism function working both in Europe and in the United States. And then that actually led to a situation Where I became involved in kind of investigating and then figuring out how we hardened the supply chains for the U.S. military food system in Europe, the commissaries that feed both the families and the troops. When Baader-Meinhof, which was a Soviet backed terrorist actor in Germany, targeted the commissary in Frankfurt at a big military base.

And this proved to be a bigger challenge than most people would think, because while most of our shelf stable food came from the United States, most of our fresh products and dairy products, meat, vegetables, those kinds of things, were all host nation or they were sourced somewhere in NATO. And these supply chains were not secure and they were fairly easy to interdict or contaminate a food product. So this became a major area of concern for the military and how we hardened those supply chains and how we protect them. And that led to writing new doctrine, if you will, the military doctrine on how you protect things and what's called in a military theater. A lot of that got recorded and documented in different places.

And move ahead, 9-11 occurs and I get a call from Washington, D.C. I had retired from the military.

This is a fellow at the FBI. He said, we're looking for the John Hoffman, whose name is on these defense threat reduction documents as it relates to hardening foods and supply chains.

And of course, that was me. So that led to me going up there to meet with them and give them some briefings. And then ultimately led to me being asked to come work shortly after 9-11 at the Bureau to advise justice on how to do some of this and how we might harden these supply chains. and then that led to me being moved over and becoming an appointee in Homeland Security. So that's kind of how it came to be. But my background kind of crosses over these kinds of supply chains and all the things related to how they function and what they do and the threats that may come to those things. But I did spend quite a bit of time also working in the WMD area and working on the civil support team project as it was being built up. And that was a very interesting period, by the way, when all of a sudden there were funds to do things we didn't be able to get money to address. I remember when I was first in the military police back in the late 60s, early 70s as a young lieutenant, there were all these threats we anticipated happening. There were things happening in the United States. We had the weatherman and other people threatening to do terrible things. And we didn't have the tools. We didn't have the the detection capability. We didn't have the countermeasures. We were literally unprepared for biowarefare on the domestic level. So when all this began to mature, it was kind of gratifying to see finally money was being put in to figuring out how we're actually going to do those and then investing in it. So you started participating in a number of high-level meetings all across the government. I mean, I've heard the stories from you where you were basically camped out at the the White House every other night of the week. And this was pretty incredible for me and my personal story and me getting to know you over the years. And you've taught me so much. When was the first time that you heard about mRNA in either through Health and Human Services or Department of Defense or National Security Circles? Actually in the 90s. DTRA, Fort Detrick, And others were looking at what we would do. You know, it would be the doctor and I would we deal with it. And you know, this idea that it would take five or six years to develop a vaccine was unacceptable. So the various research agencies within DOD began looking at alternatives. And a DNA approach was already understood in the 90s as a faster way to develop a human body, a human to have an antibody reaction to be able to build up antibodies against, you know, an invading organism like what we've seen. Not necessarily at that time, when we're looking at a virus like this. But we were looking at smallpox. When we were looking, I say we, the DOD was looking at smallpox and looking at other kinds of viruses, because viruses were seen as one of the, you know, ideal weapons to be used because you couldn't use traditional antibiotics, you had to have something that was specific to that virus, if you were going to deal with it and try to contain it and develop immunity, protect people, or having the ability if somebody was contaminated or exposed to it to have something you can give them right away, that would ameliorate the effect of the virus and limit what it was actually able to do to you, minimize the level of infection and, and the amount of damage that it did in your system. So that's when they started looking at this approach. So, you know, this is something that had been maturing for quite a period of time as they looked at different ways to do this. And, you know, this, this was also looked at during the anthrax and the scares, you know, how could you deal with that? What, what kind of vaccine will we need? So it, it has been around for, you know, it's been in the research world for a while, went from theoretical to, you know, application to some testing. So it was, it was there. And I think SARS actually the first SARS event, one of our that occurred when I was in DC. So when that happened, Chinese were caught by surprise, they were much more open, much more collaborative in sharing, which would suggest that it was a complete surprise with them and, and put a lot of fear into the biomedical world over there as you can imagine. But it gave us a clue also as to kinds of emerging things that were out there, particularly if they come from nature. And then, you know, there's any chance somebody could manipulate it. And, you know, there's been a great fear of manipulation of these organisms ever since the early nineties, when, you know, the first indications that gain a function could actually be done or recognized. So when was the first time that you heard, or maybe let me rephrase the question. Did you ever hear mRNA come up in any of the health and human services meetings or was it purely through defense and security?

I think I don't think I heard that term outside of DOD or that kind of environment until much later. I think mRNA, I saw a paper on mRNA as a potential approach to rapid vaccine production probably after I left DC and became a senior research fellow. I think that's when I first saw a paper on that. Now that doesn't mean that's the beginning of it, but that's when I first became aware of it. Yeah, and actually, I became aware of it through you and a few other scientists that we used to work with, I want to say in 2012, probably shortly after we first started working together. And, you know, oh, yeah, we knew about it. I'm just saying outside of DOD is first time I saw something, you know, up to that time, it was it was DOD. And it wasn't all necessarily classified there. You know, there was some outreach from from Dietrich out to several universities, I think a number of universities actually were involved in doing some of the preliminary research on this. And what did they know about mRNA when they were first doing this research? I didn't say first doing the research, but when they're doing the research on mRNAs, maybe 2005 through 2015, what were some of the key characteristics or things that we had learned about using it as either, well, using it as a medical countermeasure for pandemics or bioterror or bio warfare? Well, I think the most important thing was the fact that you could fairly rapidly develop an adapted mRNA vaccine that could have the desired effect. Now, I think that, you know, at that point in time, it was it was assumed that there would have to be lengthy testing on not only how effective it actually is, and is it a persistent effect?

Or is it a temporary effect? And of course, and what are the long term issues?

And Charles, had you ever come across mRNA while you were in the Marine Corps?

Um, not, not in my day to day life. I did, I did teach at the schoolhouse and I rewrote the curriculum. I even taught army worn officers for a while. But when I went back to Quantico for my last tour, and I was involved in some of the Singularity University, just forward looking things they were doing, it was one of the things that they discussed. But at the time, and this is And this is something that that I remember, even afterwards, because the next year I went into my MBA program. And that in 2018 and 2019, Moderna was the butt of a bunch of jokes, because they had not produced a successful anything, but billions were still being thrown at them.

And part of the problem was that they were still trying to get over the hurdles associated with getting the right lipid nanoparticle. Because they by themselves could be antigenic, and making stable RNA and making a high volume of high quality mRNA. And so they were still trying to figure all these things out. And I mean, from my perspective, I don't think they did figure it out. I think they had something that they were five or 10 years away from really being ready to utilize and have tested and prepared whenever the pandemic started, and they went with this one. But this was not something that in 2018, or even 2016 or if you read or listen to Ralph Baric or some of these other scientists and Barney Graham, they didn't think that it was going to be ready in 2020. So take that for what it's worth. Yeah, I think I think it's John again, I think that it was a very immature science, there were lots of issues around it was seen as the optimum path to go, which is why they put a lot a lot of money into it. I think I think what you really need to begin to talk about, if we can, is some of the origins of, you know, SARS-CoV-2 and what happened because, because that's what began to drive things, you know, was that was the presence of this. And oh, yes. You know, that's, that's a fascinating area to look at right now. Well, and I think we're getting there. So what does any of this have to do with gain of function? Charles, you want to take a stab I mean, obviously, I have my own opinions, but I don't want to hog the conversation.

Well, I do want to point out that Dr. McCairn, who's an expert in primatopathies and amyloid disorders in the brain, he's in the audience. And he may at some point be able to come up here and throw some stuff down. He's quite knowledgeable when it comes to Incapacitating agents, but gain of function, gain of function is, is basically the genesis of this virus. Anyway, we can, that's kind of putting the car before the horse. But what you need to understand is that if in order, as we started this space, what we talked about was that when you have a threat, you want to make a counter to that threat. But at the same time, you also need to understand that threat, you want to make a threat to counter it. And so it's understood that when you're developing new defensive technologies, you have to have something that you can employ as a means of testing, okay, well, is this mask going to work? Is this therapeutic going to work?

And so in the process of doing that, that we can go a lot of different directions with this. But the bottom line is, is that they were doing these experiments. And it wasn't until 2011 and 2012, when two different groups of scientists had conducted experiments where they basically had ferrets and had H5N1, which is 60% lethal if it crosses over to humans as a flu virus. But it's not pandemic, it can't spread between humans effectively. And what they did was they passage it between ferrets until it gained, if you're in cleavage site and could, at least in one of the cases, and in both cases, it could transfer easily between them. So basically they took and ferrets are a model that are used because their lungs are very close to human lungs. So in other words, two different groups in Minnesota and the Netherlands were about to publish papers. And the only reason this came up in the news, or the reason why it was shocking was because people heard about it. And because the question was asked, should we allow these papers to be published? But before that, there had been nothing. it wasn't happening. And so imagine if you're like global scientists and you hear that these viruses have already been created and nobody was tracking that. And that really, that started the process along with some mishaps really led to the, the gain of function pause in 2014.

This is a classic case of just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Absolutely. And that's what led to what was supposed to become a pause. But as it turns out, it wasn't. But that really raised, when that first came out, that raised a lot of concern because we knew, for example, the Russian lab was still functioning. And we knew China was working on, you know, had still considered bio warfare a viable option. I mean, of course, they're in the process building, you know, the Wuhan facility. They did reach out to the kind of global communities, and we should do this together. But I think the naivete on the part of most countries, including ours was the of the dual use program in China, there's nothing in China in a commercial or civilian world that's not also part of the military, and everything has a dual use. So having, you know, building that lab, you know, created an environment where there would be the potential for the military to leverage whatever was learned there that may have also been a driver for some of the things that they did to find out what the, you know, what could be done. And if it could could be done, you know, what would you do with it? Once again, this is probably a lesson the Chinese have learned hard, just because you can doesn't mean you should. But early on in this, when we started tracking that something was wrong, by the way, was in the fall of 2019.

And at that point in time, we were beginning to hear through a number of different channels that something was happening over there. And that this was not something that broke in December, it broke much earlier than that. Just to jump in real quick, can you can you just say that real concisely so that the audience can understand that because that is a very critical component, which demonstrates how our government wasn't being an honest actor in this situation.

Well, or was it naivete? But basically, there were problems in that lab from the get go. And in fact, in 2018, as they were beginning to do experiments on new samples of SARS like viruses that had been found in bats and bat caves, remote areas of China, these FDA folks went in to examine what they were doing and how they were doing it and actually sent a very alarming cable back that there was a lack of appropriate biosecurity around what they were doing. And they were literally testing, you know, extremely dangerous viruses that we didn't know much about and did not have countermeasures. And they were not even doing it in a BSL level four, meaning the highest biosecurity level environment. They were doing it at BSL level two, which is basically just under a hood. And this meant that there was a very significant risk of these viruses they were experimenting with getting loose, you know, unintentionally.

You had to add to that that the military in China was equipping this lab. You know, there's a general over there in China, Li Xiangfu, who is a aeronautical engineer, but he is in charge of all equipment development for the Chinese military. Now, most people look at him and say, well, you know, he's out here building airplanes and building tanks and ships. Well, not only that, that, but he's putting the equipment together for biowarefare because all the components of their service could be employed in using those kinds of weapons. And so he's got to supply all the equipment and all the design and everything for building a lab or a production facility for or even the equipment to build countermeasures, you know, to be able to build vaccines and make them available. These guys were deeply involved in what was going on in Wuhan, in this research, which suggests to me there might have been pressure there to get things done. That may be why things were lax, but that also may be why, you know, the Chinese reached out to EcoHealth and other people seeking technical input to advance more rapidly their research.

And given that this is being done in a less than ideal biosecurity environment, you know, all the ingredients were there for a mishap or an escape of this organism. And I don't think sufficient attention was paid by everybody, including the US, in what was happening there and what the ramifications would be if something went wrong. Well, it did go wrong. And we first detected things in the fall. I actually sat in on a phone call in late November, Chinese doctor talking to some folks here in the US. This is outside outside of government. It was an academic environment that something was happening. There was something spreading and they were unprepared for it. And, you know, a lot of indications that the Chinese recognize something happened much earlier. I mean, this nonsense about throwing a hospital up from, you know, from not existing and to build in the end of December is crazy. There were pictures from early December showing infrastructure already in the ground and all the foundations and piping and sewer lines and electrical and everything are already in place. Well, to get that done, you would need drawings and engineers and architecture work and all that stuff. You know, they had been planning this hospital or recognize the need for this hospital months before. And we're trying to build it as fast as they could. So that's just one example of the indicators. If something was happening over there and that something had gotten loose.

So, John, I think we'll have you back on for another space where we start to get into the meet of that. That's really the goal of coming out of this one. I wanted to be able to everyone understand how the relationship between dual use research are concerned, gain a function and medical countermeasures so that people can understand why we're doing these things in concert. So, and I can put this out this question to both of you.

So is there a justifiable civilian use for gain a function?

I I've kind of been an absolutist. And I think that in the past, I would have I would have pretty much said what what a lot of other people would say, which is that, well, you need to be to be able to counter what other people can do. But after after spending a career kind of on one side of it and knowing that, for instance, that, oh, gosh, Ken Alibek, who was one of the two or three defectors who came over from Russia in the early 90s, they basically told us that 20th century, but they were not only were they actively engaged and had tons of warfare agents, but they they were ahead of us in many areas in terms of technological capability.

And I think there was some hubris. I mean, I was obviously not there back then, but I think there had been hubris to think that I know they were surprised, but I think there was also hubris.

and at the same time, now that I haven't watched this pandemic, I mean, I obviously understand the importance of and the value of being prepared for something. But I also understand that the I've been investigating the origin from it from a different point. I've been trying to figure out what happened. And the bulk of my research has led me to the place where I know that if we had used the capabilities in the technology that was available to us in 2020, when this first became apparent, then this would have been a very different pandemic. But instead, we regressed. We made decisions that were antithetical to what we had known to do in dozens of areas. And I know that, you know, you and I have talked a lot about this, but but the reality is, is that we had technologies, we had antivirals that weren't ivermectin hydrochloroquine, that had been invented in America, including by one of the authors of the box origin, Starscript two, that targeted specific parts of class one, fusion protein viruses that weren't used specifically because they did not want to highlight the fact of these specific parts of the virus were in there. Why? Because these specific parts of the virus were highly homologous or similar to several pieces of the HIV genome. And they knew this.

And they intentionally chose not to address it. And they also intentionally chose not to remove These pieces from the spike protein when they made the vaccine. And in addition, there are other things that I will eventually testify to.

Because there was more than just the DEFUSE proposal that was that was given to me by our DARPA source. But the bottom line is, is that their detection technologies they had, but they didn't even use the stuff that we knew to use already. Instead, they went in completely different areas with unproven technologies and refused to bring to bear the weight of our expertise and our ingenuity. And I know for a fact that DARPA and the other a long time that they were being struck down by the very same people who had been encouraging this kind of action work, including Dr. Fauci. So that kind of encapsulates the problem, but it's a massive problem. I agree. So John, problem. I agree. So John, I think the follow up to that is, do you think the Department of Defense just wanted its platform, that being the mRNA platform and the weapon at the end of the day? Is that really what the push was here is to get the new technology to market at all costs?

I don't think I could say that. I think, in fact, I know that there were people a way, it's the same attitude as I did. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Now, once the SARS virus had been adapted and COVID was on the street, as it were, and infecting the world, even before it was an issue here, as early as when Italy really was having a major break in December, at the same time China was now highly public and admitting time, something was happening. There was a push in DOD, hey, we're going to do something.

What do we have? A lot of decisions were made there, but I can't speak, don't even want to try to speak to all of them. But what really bothered me was that once we knew something was happening, we didn't follow the plan. To put it in simple terms, we had a plan. We had a plan for a major against the SARS virus. The plan was originally written around A.I., but, avian influenza, but it was a viral plan, and it was how we would maintain function in the country, how we would do all these things, and we didn't follow it. And because we didn't follow the plan, we created more problems than we were solving with it to a great degree. That's right. So how heartbreaking was it for you, since I know that you worked on versions of that plan for different sub-agencies and agencies when they didn't follow it? what was it like? Oh, I was crushed. In fact, myself and Dr. McGinn were raising cane in DHS. I was on phone calls every day saying, what the heck is going on here? We're making decisions we knew we shouldn't be making. We're doing things we shouldn't be doing. Shutting down the food service supply chain in this country was illogical, was not part of the original plan. And what we tried to explain is 50% of the meals consumed in the United States are in food service. Only 50% are at home. If you shut down food service, the grocery system can't supply everybody. There wasn't a shortage of food. There was a shortage of food in the grocery supply chain. And we actually created mass hunger and food insecurity in this country with those decisions. We knew it would happen. We warned against it. And people told us, shut up. Don't say anything.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up my experience of being a government scientist.

it. Unfortunately. Well, I think this is a good place to stop and ask the audience if there's any questions. I think we have time for, I don't know, two, three questions, see where it goes.

Monica, how are you? That's excellent. Yeah, that's great. Let's do that. Because I know there's a gentleman who I'm about to bring up. He was in my space. He is an Air Force pilot. He was in my military Readiness space just the other evening. I'm going to add David to the conversation. He has a question that he posed online. So I think this would be a good place to start.

Wow. This has all been very enlightening gentleman for sure. And I, and I do hear kind of the, the, okay, is this naivete, right? Or was this intentional? And if so, what part, and it looks like we're trying to get it like we're now getting into some of the meat and potatoes of that. And it sounds like there's a difference of opinion as to what part was reckless, what part was intentional. And this is such a blessing, I think, for us, because the American people are very confused and they don't trust DARPA. They don't trust the DOD. They don't trust DHS. They trust nothing. They certainly don't trust, uh, Fauci. So, or the NIH or the CDC. And so I appreciate the candor and I certainly hope that we'll continue along in the same vein, you know, as we're moving forward. So without further ado, David Beckerman. Welcome, sir. Hey, thanks. First of all, thanks for bringing me up. And wow, I'm learning so much from you guys. Active duty major here. My opinions on my own do not represent the Department of Defense, Air Force. Hey, so I, with eight other officers, we submitted a whistle the report that I was talking about earlier, I was talking about a possible report to Congress. Senator Johnson picked it up. The focus of that report was the fraudulent licensure, right? The EUA issue, the mandating of an unlicensed EUA. It didn't really gain traction. He put off on the wrong piece of that report. We were talking about fraudulent labels as well. But then I went licensure. So with the expertise in the room, I'd like to ask how does BARDA and Project Bioshield play into all the things that you guys are talking about? Because from my perspective, just for this particular pandemic, like Project Bioshield is what lays the ground, lays the groundwork for the financing of the research. And it allows, it's what granted this immerse use authorization category. So just to sum it up, the question is, how does that play into what you guys are bringing into the table? Well, so I just want to say real fast that the, yes, it allows for the funding. But from what I understand from what you're talking about, know, if they were just slapping new labels on the EUA virus and calling it Comirnaty, I would think that that would kind of negate that because the whole point was that it doesn't really matter how it was funded because they still skirted the rules to do it. And I, correct me if I'm wrong, but because that is the problem, right? Is that they, so as long, If it's not going to be, if they already lied about that, I don't know that they, it might not be the problem of the funding if they were just lying about putting labels on, but maybe I'm hearing that wrong. No, well, I guess the problem is twofold. One, we lied to the public about what vaccine was available. We said Comirnaty was approved on August 23rd, but then it was never produced. In the military, because we were, you know, writing to the inspector general and writing article 138 complaints, what they did for us was they produced Comirnaty labeled and they used that term uniformly and consistently. They say Comirnaty labeled, Comirnaty labeled. And I made, one of my fellow whistleblowers made a joke, like you wouldn't go to a restaurant and order a Coke labeled soda. You would just order a Coke. So we're dealing with that. And I'm trying to make the public aware that, you know, there are know licensed injections, vaccines, whatever you want to call it. And I'm not going as far as you guys are, right? I feel like the lie, this initial lie is enough to get people worked up and upset at the government. But what you guys are bringing, it's just so fascinating. And I'm hoping that we can connect after, because I'm sure I'll have questions as my research, as I continue down my research rabbit hole. Well, once on the rabbit hole, what I find is it's just, you never think that you can be one up to one more time by your own investigation, your own research, and then you'd find one more shocking thing. And from what I've looked at, it's just one fraud on top of another. And one thing that didn't come up earlier in the conversation is that, so here Colonel Hoffman only asked a question. What did you know about the ability of the mRNA platform to prevent transmission? And when did you learn that? that? Wow, that's a good question. I have to think back. You know, the assumption, the working assumption that I had in interpreting what I was hearing was that it wouldn't necessarily prevent transmission. And all of the original things that I read, the original research was Ron and RMNA is that basically the idea was that you minimize the effect of an infection. You weren't necessarily going to prevent infection, or you're not going to make people immune to infection. And I think that one of the mistakes made in the legion of mistakes was this representation that somehow getting the vaccine would mean that you could not catch the virus. That was never indicated in any of the early research on this. It was never one of the primary goals. It was to limit the severity. When you're looking at this as something you would use in a fighting force, you would still have functional soldiers even if they had a bad cold, or bad infection, but it wasn't debilitating. And that was the whole idea here is that you created something that could minimize the effect, keep people out of hospital and lower mortality and severe morbidity. That's not how it was presented to the American public. And how that came to be, there's probably going to be a lot of retrospective on that for years, but it was a huge mistake because it misrepresented exactly what they believe this was going to do as a vaccine. But I think people might laugh or cry when they hear this. Could you estimate what year that was when you came to that determination about the transmission characteristics of the mRNA platform?

Well, it was a working assumption early on. I mean, I think that goes back to the early 2000s. And remember, there were events happening- Hold on. I think I just got to jump in because how shocking that probably is for much of the audience. So Colonel Hoffman says that through his experience that he knew that the mRNA platform did not prevent disease transmission in the 2000s. I myself learned this fact in the national security setting in 2014.

I become aware of this. And fast forward six or seven years, that hadn't clearly changed. But yet the government went out and told everyone that this platform would prevent disease transmission. Well, that's correct. And actually, when we released the DEFUSE documents, one of the reasons that DARPA rejected that proposal from EcoHealth Alliance is because it was a very similar concept to the lipid nanoparticle mRNA.

mRNA. And one of the main problems was that it produces partial epitope coverage. So by definition, it's ultimately going to spur viral evolution. But with coronaviruses in particular, they are more prone to evolution because they're easier to recombine as well as mutate. so that problem is going to be exacerbated. And DARPA in 2018 rejected that. And what the DEFUSE proposal actually shows, and this is the point that I tried to make after we released it whenever I was writing articles and working behind the scenes to kill the mandates in the military, is the fact that the DOD rejected this idea in VATS in 2018. And then 18 months later, it became the primary basic platform for NIH and HNHS. And then 18 months after that, the president ordered universal coverage for all of the troops, even though this was the the same things that DOD had rejected three years earlier. And when you pile that on top of the attempt to then cover it up just so they could keep it universally vaccinating, as the major was talking about, it was disgusting. It's horrific. It really is. Well, I think you have to have a little perspective. Excuse me.

No, no, no, please go ahead. I just noticed that David had his hand back up. Please, Colonel, go ahead. I'm sorry. Yeah, I just want to put a little perspective on this. And it was very logical at the time for DARPA to refuse that. There were people who were against doing this at that time. And there was no, at the time, imminent threat.

I think that the fact that the threat world changed with the advent of the manipulated COVID virus coming out and having the effect it was going to have is going to cause people to rethink and make decisions. And we can question those decisions for years as we go forward. But from the early standpoint, the assumption was that you may not be able to give you full immunity.

have heard immunity. But the belief was that if you had something like this deployed, it would spread through a community of people. And eventually there would be a certain level of inherent immunity, herd immunity, if you will, that would occur in that group of people as the virus mutated to deal with whatever the agents were using to counter it. Because viruses, they succeed, if you will, they only change through time and morph through time as a way to survive and not kill the host. Because the virus always kills the host, and eventually the virus dies off when everybody else is dead. So the viruses don't really, nature didn't configure them that way. That's not the way they're programmed. And so they were trying to leverage that aspect of the virus that, yeah, it'll evolve, but it becomes essentially less virulent. And it becomes, it doesn't mean less contagious, but it means it's not going to have the damage that it that it has at the beginning, like high mortality and high morbidity. So that was part of the logic behind using this as an approach, but it was not mature. There were many, many questions still about using it. Then the COVID pandemic broke, and then people started making decisions.

That's where this, and plus misrepresenting things. And that's where this creates problems.

Thank you for that. Texas, Lindsay, do you mind, Lindsay, telling us what you just put up in the nest? And then, Andrew, if you don't mind, I'd like to go back to David.

So I just added the EcoHealth Alliance DARPA proposal that Project Veritas is the one that kind of put this really in the semi-mainstream news with everything. It's the proposal that Colonel Hoffman was discussing and how it was denied initially when it was brought forward, the first time initially because of the ethics behind it. They declined because it was essentially trying to bypass the gain of function that was already, the moratorium that was already in place. So I just pinned that up there. The documents are there. The documents also disclose how hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin were known effective treatments as early, I think, as February, March 2020 is what they say. And those were, that information was suppressed in order to get the emergency use authorization approved for the DoD vaccines. So our gene therapies is technically what they are, but they relabeled those as well as vaccines. So just went ahead and posted that there so everyone can see those if they haven't seen them yet. Thank you. And for those of you who are not familiar, please follow Lindsay. She is hosting some amazing spaces and they, you know, she covers a lot of this and she's doing a lot to help people behind the scenes with this as well. David? Yeah. So Colonel, I think you would have been around for the Anthrax and it's refreshing to hear you guys talking about it. Anthrax was the, you know, the first EUA that they mandated for the military. And then that order was, you know, became, SCOTUS ruled that that was an unlawful order. And here we are repeating that same mistake.

Major Murphy, who wrote this Invest Inspector General report, he actually were enrolled in in the same school. I've been trying to get a hold of him, in fact, to kind of pick his brain a little bit more. But he's a distance learner, so I can't reach out to him through like the school messenger. But I just wanted to say, you know, again, the more I hear you guys explain it, the more I'm convinced it was planned, you know, and Project BioShield, by the way, which they renamed in 2013 to the Pandemic All Hazard Preparation Act. I think that has a key piece to the puzzle. And I haven't quite figured it out what that puzzle is. And I right now what I'm seeing is that it gave it allows funding. It was allowing them to research. And it's what allows to fast track these treatments, products, vaccines, whatever, under this EUA umbrella. And where the lie and the manipulation comes into place is telling the public that, yeah, it's FDA licensed, don't worry, go get this thing. And then it was never produced. So it's fascinating. I thank you guys for your time. And like I said, I'm hopeful we can, I can you guys are doing more research.

Thank you, David. I appreciate that. Nas, it came up. Nas, do you have a question?

Yeah, I'm first of all, you know, thank you, Elon, for allowing spaces like this.

Dr. Hoff, John, Charles, you've plugged a whole bunch of holes in the information that I've been able to dig up over time. And just in Texas, thank you all, regardless of the pressure you're put under thank you for coming forward and continuing to do do the work that you're doing.

It is appreciated by more people than you could possibly ever imagine.

And our gratitude to you forever for the work that you're doing. What you're doing is bringing together a model of what's happened and how it happened and where it happened.

But I would add a little bit, I've got a whole bunch of other stuff, and I'll leave it up to Monica, whether you know, she brings me back to do some other things. But as far as the history work. She goes, I've been watching this since 2012. When they first started the bat operations in Wuhan, and the bat lady started collecting her her stuff because the danger involved in that was huge. And at a level two level three lab that they were working in, it was a problem. And then when I believe it's the French started work on the level four lab, it became a little bit better. But the requests for cleanliness assistance that came back to the Canadian level as well as to the Atlanta level four labs have already been documented. And we know that the labs just were not up to up to snuff either for cleanliness or for sealing things up to sit down and do it. And I don't know if you followed the export of by a I forget what her title was, but she was a a viral researcher employed by the Chinese army that was working in the lab in in Winnipeg. And she and her husband, I believe were the ones that took virus samples, deadly virus samples out of Winnipeg, at the request of shipping, it didn't go outside normal shipment channels or anything, but they still took these these samples to the Wuhan lab. And when you ship stuff in and out of China, there's a whole set of biologic forms that you have to fill out. And my, I suspect what happened is that when those forms made it up through filtering in China, somebody finally looked at it and said we have we have a leaky lab with gain of function work being done in it. And we're now shipping in a deadly virus. If there's a combination in there, this is going to be a disaster. And my understanding, again, trying to get go back in time and get all of this, you know, proven is is weak. But it looks like the Chinese sent in the army to clean out the observers in there that we're observing the lab, and now you've got soldiers walking around a lab that have no idea how to how to maintain cleanliness in a lab that's not clean anyway. And so the guess is that the the virus, one of those soldiers or several of the soldiers ended up getting infected, took it back. And then the military games that took place in Wuhan.

In the fall of that year, there were many Canadian soldiers that came back that had flu like symptoms that were specifically ordered by the commanders not to be tested.

And we're still looking for evidence of the other people that went to that military game that sit down and got got ill and trying to trace it back to see whether or not there were other ones that were there. But that was in the early fall. And some of the blood samples that that came out of China that were tested showed that by September, there was a fair degree of known infection that was a new vaccine that was taking place. And the Chinese government, I think, was just trying to save whether this was done on purpose or was just a simply a door that people saw and could take advantage of in a given circumstance. So I'm sure the military people are aware of if you set something up, eventually someone will pull a trigger, someone will shoot somewhere, and you'll end up a massive set of accidents. And I don't think anybody let this loose on purpose. But they did set up either by accident, by naivete, by whatever, the ability for this to occur and subsequently had it occurred. And I'm really happy to hear you sit down and present the naivete argument. I just came out of a social event where a whole bunch of people from different public health organizations were there. And the degree of we're willing to accept certain amount of deaths in order to sit down and inoculate the entire population, because that's just part of whole process, I think at heart of people sitting down and making some of these naïve mistakes is the belief that a certain number of critical illness and certain number of deaths is acceptable to sit down and protect the rest of the population was at the heart of some of the decisions that were made here. But I'll let this go for now, Monica. But while this is a great space, and I thank all of you people for being here, please do press on with Monica.

Thank you. Absolutely. And we will we've got we have a whole series. This is a six per series for those of you who did not know. You know, I mean, I'm certainly I'm not quite where you are Gnostic about believing, you know, that that this was all naivete. And I think two, 10 things can be true, right. And so I'm really looking forward to digging back into this recording. For those of you who are just joining us, thank you, by the way, we're going to be coming to a close here soon. However, the first part, the first space crashed, shocking, I know.

So what I'm going to do is take both spaces, and I'm going to merge them into one show. So I want to encourage you to please share this material far and wide. If you are media, and you're sharing my want to share my material, I thank you in advance for crediting my show, and my space, Monica, Matthew show. And you're right here at my space at Monica on your talk. And thank you for joining me. Please continue to come back throughout the series. I think there's a lot of golden nuggets in here, as you can tell. I'm already getting the conspiracy theorists blown up my DMS. And that's fine. I'm used to that, too. But but I think if we can put all that aside want to encourage you to please share this material far and wide for just a minute and really dig through the information we owe it to ourselves. Right. We owe it to ourselves to take new information and bring it to the table. These are new puzzle pieces. And more importantly, I see it as we finally quite possibly have the box to the jigsaw puzzle. Right. And have you ever and that's kind of what we've all been doing for the past few years, driving ourselves crazy, and becoming extremely divided in the process. And even the process has become criminalized.

Right. And so I'm honored to have been a part of it. But please also just share the show. I will put it up. You do not have to subscribe to my podcast, although I would encourage you to do so. I would love to have your patronage. But if you if you don't, you can share this without having to subscribe. So please share it within your respective circles. But if there's unless, you know, I would ask you, Dr. Huff, if you would just please kind of encapsulate briefly what we've discussed here today to give people who just came in a little bit later an idea of where we began and where we're ending in preparation for the next episode. Thank you. Sure. So this episode This space began with us examining the need or the rationale for medical countermeasure development, the development of drugs and vaccines and how that has a symbiotic relationship with dual use research of concern or this other jargon term called gain of function. So how we evolve and advance infectious diseases because we need to to be able to test the drugs or vaccines or gene therapies that we're trying to develop and the mRNA platform itself is a unique was in a unique position because it could be rapidly deployed and developed and scaled faster than any other product. Well, I'm sorry, winking why I'm saying that. But that was the was the argument put forward that the mRNA platform could be manufactured and scaled to meet a nationally emergency and through that process and through people's fear and there was a number of deceit deceits that took place by a number of different actors to bring this platform to the market. And then we eventually got into started going into the weeds and a number of different aspects of the pandemic its origin and the politics around it. And I think that's probably a good place to stop. Okay. Excellent. I did bring one other person up because he's an investigative journalist that I follow and he's been in my spaces and I trust him to be succinct and to have his question ready to go. And I know you guys can handle it. So if you all would not mind obliging just briefly that would be great. And then I'd love to go to my co-host who had his hand up and I would love to get some closing remarks from Lindsay because I know she has a lot of knowledge and she's doing a lot of great work and I want to give her an opportunity to chime in before we I give my closing remarks and and we sign off. So George, welcome. Yeah. Hey, Dr. Hoff, George Webb. Thank you, Monica, for the ability to ask Dr. Hoff a question. I bought his book on audio and on Kindle. I recommend that to everybody to search the Kindle. Dr. Hoff, I was just wondering about digital detection. You talk about it a lot in your book and the evidence that you have for the early breakout in September, and I think you may even reach into August with your digital detection. Is that published anywhere your satellite photographs or the detection of the cell phones or the Google lookups?

And just what's the body of evidence that we have so far? for? Yes. So much of that information is available online. It is very deeply buried and difficult to find. They've broken the powers to be a broken link links to it.

The websites will get scrubbed where it pops up. I'm happy to send you some of the information if you'd like to like to see it. I know that's your thing. And as far as digital disease detection is concerned, I'm one of a handful of experts that built platforms for the Department of Defense and three other agencies using machine learning and artificial intelligence. And because of my previous work in the national security space, I know what types of data that the US government has access to. And that being the intelligence community or the military health intelligence folks. And it's not difficult for me to see or know when they likely detected the signals on this. I actually I saw something to this effect that a civilian came up with and posted to Twitter today where they were looking at pandemic or infection emerging infectious disease signals from Google search terms, which was published today on Twitter. So there have been a number of other people working in that area. And if it helps you anyway, I'm happy to share that that information with you directly. Great. If you want to put it in the nest for everybody, or if you I don't know what you prefer. I hate to be the only guy getting the sole source, although it sounds like a great exclusives. So maybe I'll do that instead.

Well, it'll take me some time to I'll have to go pull it off my my one of my hack devices. I haven't looked at in a while. My computers are actually getting hacked at such a frequency. I was rotating them out and refreshing the operating systems on them. So it'll probably take me half a day or day to put it together. And then I could probably put it in a we transfer link. And then and I could post it to Twitter. Awesome. Thank you, Dr.

Thanks, George. Appreciate you. Ten. Yes. Good afternoon, Dr. Huff and also our panel, Texas and John. I had a question about the in your book, you mentioned the 1977 lab leak in Russia that led to H1N1. Are you aware of any further lab leaks that happened in North America between the timeframes of 2005 and 2009? I mean, there's probably so many lab leaks, you wouldn't really know about it. I'm speaking here from putting my academic hat on here. So I used to be a professor at Michigan State University. And I worked in the center for a comparative epidemiology, both human and animal medicine as an epidemiologist. And I was also a hospital epidemiologist. And I've run BSL two labs and lab leaks happen. And it's just, it's a function or a part of the business. And the question is whether or not those lab leaks get accurately reported within either the university or academic community or the government system where they happen, because there's huge incentive for faculty, clinicians, laboratory techs, students, and people working in and around infectious diseases, not to report these things, because there are consequences for it. But there's actually a long list of documented, suspected and confirmed lab leaks which have happened within the United States, but typically with infectious diseases, which do not pose a pandemic threat, if that makes sense. significant risk. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Huff. Excellent. Tim, thank you. Okay, great. We have Charles back with us. Lindsay, go ahead.

And well, one thing that I can add here is about the Google searches and being related to COVID is a Harvard study was done on the COVID origins being found as early as late summer, early fall 2019. and I actually shared that study on Twitter and Twitter put a COVID misinformation label on the Harvard study link that I shared. It's absolutely outrageous, but basically it was an analysis of WeChat. And WeChat is, you know, like Google, Facebook, social media in China, where there was a huge uptick of people searching for flu-like symptoms. And they also did an analysis of parking lots compared with prior year from satellite imaging, showing that the parking lot was essentially empty the year before around the same timeframe. And then around August 2019, it was completely full of cars. And you combine that with the people searching for flu-like symptoms, and you get a better picture of the virus starting much earlier than the official narrative states. In that same timeframe between August and September, fact, Bill Gates was meeting with BioNTech and officially became a big stakeholder of BioNTech and bought in $50 million promising to buy in at 150 million if things went well.

As you know, Bill Gates has ties to the World Health Organization, which was directly linked to the investigation in Wuhan along with EcoHealth Alliance. So you have all these components going back in China with ties and knowledge of what was happening. And then you follow the money and it leads to a really nefarious scenario of people knowing things that were going on before the public did and before they admitted to their own knowledge of it.

So I just kind of wanted to add that I can also add I can't pull up the link that I shared. I think I ended up having to delete it. I was also censored for sharing the very first time I was and I was ever locked out of Twitter. It was about something about Peter Dasik when I was working with Andrew. And I shared a tweet that he deleted, and it was about the Bat Lady that I can't remember if David or Nostick mentioned her, but she gave a speech and, you know, of course, all these academic sponsors were involved in the speech that she gave. But just pointing out, I said, why did Peter Dasik delete this tweet if he wasn't worried about a lab leak, about it being a lab leak, something along those lines. And UncoveredDC covered my censorship and the fact that it happened to me, but I couldn't believe that this happened. I was never even on Twitter until January of 2022. And it was shocking to me that you could get locked out of your that they didn't even have a Twitter account for asking why someone deleted a tweet. So, all these things, there's obviously a huge cartel behind the scenes, behind a curtain of mystery, and hopefully we'll find out who these actors were and what their involvement was on the censorship with that, because they were all shadow banning all of these scientists, especially the members involved in participating in this. And they didn't seem to censor Andrew too much. He got away with just about anything that he was willing to share. But, you know, it just goes to show that there's a much bigger thing involved behind the scenes. And hopefully that curtain will be lifted soon so we can know exactly what happened. Well, I think they did something strange to me. And I've reflected back upon my Twitter experience. I mean, I think I was placed into essentially a limited hangout with my followers and it never expanded. Same. Yeah.

Both were subjected to that. And then Andrew was telling about all these when I guess we worked together for like two and a half months, like every day we're talking to journalists around the world. It's funny how the US media wasn't beating down our doors, but the major outlets in other countries in Spain and Germany and everywhere wanted to interview Andrew. They couldn't believe that the New York Times wasn't beating down his door when to cover his story. And I was like, well, you need an education there because the New York Times has been captured for a long time. And this doesn't fit their narrative. So they're not going to cover it. Even though it had nothing to do about vaccines, it didn't fit the Fauci narrative about the evidence showing that it was a lab leak. So that was really concerning how the press acted. But everyone one side that it would change in November. And it did. And Andrew made a huge media tour since once that happened. But I think the shift in power to the Republicans taking over the House made a big difference there. But it's just it's wild until you're in it. But Andrew was telling me about how that either FBI or CIA was breaking into his house and going through his things. And I thought, well, that just sounds so wild. It's hard to even like wrap your mind around how that could be happening. But I was carrying my laptop with me everywhere. I left it home one day when I went to a work lunch. And when I came back home, every single thing on my computer was gone. All everything I'd saved. And I like I just remember thinking, oh, my gosh, this is this is real. This is this really happened. There was a car parked out of outside of my house for over a week. And I'd never seen it before. After this whole thing happened. I and I never saw that car again. And luckily, a lot of my documents were backed up in iCloud. But it really hits home when it happens to you. And it's not a conspiracy or anything anymore. It's very real. So yeah, just to kind of give some credence to that it it was it's very real and it does happen. And didn't it didn't scare me or deter me. It made me very determined to me from going and try harder because that just means you're they want to know what you have. And they were determined to figure it out. So it's real. And now all they have to do is tune into Twitter spaces. So yeah, or at least mine. So and Lindsay, for sure, the ones you heard you're hosting with like Laura Logan and those guys, you know, yeah, that that's the whole like DOD over there in some of your spaces. Yeah, yeah, a lot of truth bombs. I love it. I'm sorry, Andrew, did you have something that you wanted to add? No, I was just trying to laugh with the group. Okay, sorry. Yeah. So well, I'm like, okay, for the record, my breaks are new. I am not trying to end my life anytime soon. And thanks, Andrew, now that you brought me into your into your atmosphere. But you know what, I'm used to it. And to be honest with you, when you asked if I if I would do it, I was like, absolutely. Because because because of the acquisition of Twitter, we have been given a relative reprieve as media to actually bring stories like this and bring information to you without quite the level of censorship or at least I have now I am extremely money throttled and shadowbanned, I will tell you that. But I'm still here. And so that's a good thing. But for the past two years, like I said, are my spaces in particular with 10 and my regular co host, Christopher, we have been you know, we've had people coming in to really try to mitigate the damage and the fear and the terror and the dread that people are going through across the globe, not not just to your state side, with regard to COVID and losing people and they're confused you know, this whole disinformation campaign, and this information and just lack of information. And so I was 1000% on board because I feel like, you know, we're at least in an atmosphere now where we can be, you know, relatively open and free with our dialogue. Again, if for some reason, you don't like just disappear off of Twitter, you can always go to my website at Monica matthews.com you can sign up for my newsletters there as well. And I will push this out to my respective audience as well. And again, for those of you who are just joining us, thank you. We did crash earlier, I will combine the two spaces and you will have one full show from what you can pull and circulate to your respective family members, friends, you know, the people who just are still wearing 16 masks in their car or jogging down the street, which I will never fully understand.

and yes, I do hear all of you serving in our military. Thank you very much. And you know, I love you. That's why I gave you a space the other night because your voices need to be heard all the time. And I do realize that this is the 12th iteration of a COVID emergency, you know, use and that you guys are still being harassed by your commands regarding your lack of vaccination.

so or whatever status you happen to have. I also want to say this in this space. Congratulations to all of you listen to my spaces. You have helped that, that young lady who was in our military space and readiness space the other evening, private first class Carolina, and you've helped her over like $4,000. She lost her job the next day. After being in my space, she is very sick and vaccine injured. And she's needed help. She came into our space with a hundred dollars. She left our space with over 4,000. She was on Emerald Robinson today and Emerald is also sharing her. We've kind of worked together to get her more exposure so that those of you serving in uniform have more exposure. So please go and retweet Emerald's work as well and make sure that you're keeping up with Carolina in as much as it's possible. If you can give that would be amazing. So thank you for joining us, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you to our special guests. You guys were wonderful. Please come back anytime. And I hope to see you back for the remainder of the conversation throughout these episodes. Thank you for taking the time to educate us on the genesis of COVID-19, what it was, why it was made, where in the correlation between bio warfare and pandemics, please follow everyone on our panel and mark your calendars for this podcast Wednesday, 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. We continue our series, Risk Factor, Why COVID Was Made. Episode two will introduce the bio surveillance and health intelligence episode. I hope this space has served you in bringing perhaps new information to help you while navigating this global disaster. My hope is also that you'll leave the landscape of anger and you can share this with your family and friends. I know you've been through a lot of pain and wrath because I hear you. I see your tweets. I feel your pain. I get your emails. I hear about your wife dropping dead in the kitchen. I mean, I get it. I've walked through this valley of the shadow of death with you all for two years. So I know it's easy to be angry and you don't know who to believe, but I'm hoping that my spaces are going to offer you a place to put the actual series. So it's time for us to really grasp the depth and the breadth of the medical assault, I think, on our collective psyches and our bodies and our spirits. And, you know, while we're all waiting for justice to prevail, I'd like to offer a word of hope. I end every single one of my spaces with prayer. So no matter what or who you believe in, I think it's safe to say that we could all use a word of encouragement and hope. So Father, I thank you for this time together. I thank you for the courage of Dr. Huff, for Lindsay, for our guests respectively. Thank you for these air waves. Thank you that the earth is yours in the fullness thereof and that we're not going to be afraid and we're not going to back down. And as you reveal and you uncover that we do in fact move forward to pursue justice and to bring healing to our brothers and sisters who have been injured, not only psychologically, but emotionally, physically, spiritually as well. So I thank you I thank you for your power and your grace and your mercy. And I thank you that this message is amplified and it gets into the ears and the hearts and minds of people who need it. We thank you that you, our Father and creator over all, over every single cell of our bodies was created perfectly. So I thank you that you're absolutely going to show up and show out in your magnificence and through your Holy Spirit, you will heal people miraculously throughout this globe. Thank you for every scientist who's in this space. Thank you for people who have taken the time and sacrificed for our country, worn the uniform in and out. Thank you for Lindsay and her courage as a young woman who is traveling the globe to bring truth to people. And I pray that you'll magnify her work as well. In the name of Yeshua. I pray. Amen. Thank you guys very much, Andrew. I appreciate sir. And, and we'll be back on Wednesday. Sound good? Sounds good.

Well, didn't get a chance to speak, but what was my impression there? It was, it was on the vanilla side. And personally, I would have liked things to have gone deeper into more technical detail, go, but that's the, I guess they've got to break the ice somehow and raise the issue.

Um, you have watched your wife drop dead in the kitchen. Just get over it. Not up. Um, some, um, let me try, uh, Charles.

Bear with me, folks. Um, so it seems like you've got to do some jiggery-pokery to get into spaces.

um, on a PC. Seems more set up for phones, but, um, there's Charles. uh, can you hear me, dude? Yep. We see you. Um, what's up? Yeah. Um, um, stream. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

okay. Well, Hey, I tried to get you on. Um, but did you go, I think you went away like right before they started. They actually asked, like, I was, I was in there. Um, it seems to me that spaces is set up just for phones from what I could tell. Yeah. You, you cannot, you cannot, um, talk in a space unless you're using an app on a mobile device. It has to be a tablet or phone. um, I only just figured, well, I was getting, uh, cues from the chat. Um, but the, I dunno, what was, what was my impression? It was, um, I guess good to broach the top, the topic at least of bio warfare. Um, nice to, uh, what was his name? Hoffman, Colonel Hoffman.

Nice of him to, um, yeah, he was wanting to ease into it, which I think is also part of the reason why, um, I might be coming back and doing more of them because it makes more sense because that was kind of a condensed and that was an intro. There's so much more. Yeah. Yeah. So, so like my goal, I think that's what we're going to do. I'm not sure of it, but I think I'm going going to be there for at least some of them. Hey, we, we'd even talked about like doing it in a, um, like where, where we were just co-hosting and we have, there'd be one guest and it would be the two of us. Um, cause I think that would go better. Um, plus there's so much more to cover. Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's the thing. There was, there was so much more to cover and the, um, the, the question as well with on the, on the space itself was, um, it didn't even sort of crack the, um, why COVID was made. Oh yeah. And ironically, ironically, um, he, he's trying to, that to hone it in, have it more, you know, like structured, but it's also too short. Like, I mean, there is an obvious answer here and you know what it is, right? Yeah. We just need to do it ourselves. Yes. Yeah. I think so. We need to, we need to like, I don't know, we, we need to have somebody who has, you know, and if we're falling or whatever, but we need an open space where we can opine and have people that don't normally get, um, necessarily like come into contact or interact with you and me or others to, to be able to hear what we're saying over on the Twitter side. Cause now it's, now that it's more of a free range. Um, I think it, it would be guys, I mean, to be honest, I think we could just do better because there is so much to cover.

And I mean, you and I don't have, our structure of the plan is we're not going to, we're not going to like put it, have the lube sitting on the side, give you a nice massage.

Yeah. But before, uh, Yeah. Yeah. We're going to cover the bases that aren't already being covered or, um, I mean, to me, it could be more. I was, um, you know, when they were talking about the mRNA and when, when they'd sort of heard about it, I was itching to get in there and, um, you know, I wanted, I wanted to know what interaction they've had with, uh, Andrew Weber to start with, um, his, uh, his enthusiasm for mRNA as a countermeasure. Um, I think, I think was a reflection of what, what was permeating for you or through the bureaucracy and the DTRA and I, I need to, Well, so like, like I have the list of like the, like I said, the, the, the guest that he wants to have going on and it's going to be moving into to like Malone and like he's going in there. I think that the title is a little deceptive because it implies that we were going to get there now when that's, this is really more like, to be honest, this probably. you know, I think we lost Charles there.

Trying to get through right now. Yeah. And you know, what, what Charles was just saying there was, um, yeah, the, the title was a little, a little, I was a cock tease. What can I say? A little deceptive and, um, go Dr. Lee style. Yeah. I mean, I was trying to, I got my phone set up right at the end and I asked to sort of join and, um, like I say, it seems, it seems that their plan was to, yeah, to, I don't know, shorter, um, spaces and try to build, to build out. But do we, do we have the time for that? Should we, should we not be going for the, uh, advanced level class for the people that were in there? Because like I say, a lot of the information from my perspective was like, yeah, we, we know that. Can we, can we get around to the, um, the real technicalities of what it is that we're dealing with?

And unless we're, unless we're deconstructing the nature of the weapon, um, you're just pussy-footing around. So, um, I'm, well, yeah, I think, I think what Charles said is, um, is to host our own space. The problem is we need to get someone who's got, um, a significant following and, uh, you know, my Twitter account just gets slapped all the time, so it never builds up. And the, um, I don't know, maybe, maybe Richard has, uh, a significant number, but we need, we need to do, um, something. And yes, Viper, I know the Discord is not, um, coming up on the, uh, the chat. I'll, I'll try and fix, I've got to fix a bunch of stuff. Um, fix it with something. Um, like I said, I don't, I can't get through to Charles, actually trying to get through. Um, maybe, maybe you got a call from someone else if you come back, back. But the, um, the, we have to, we have to move quicker and more forcefully. And the, like I said, the Pussy footing around, um, academic niceties. The time, the time has come and gone for that.

And, you know, as, as due to them actively censoring and, you know, again, it comes up, it did come up as a discussion topic towards the end. Um, I think that we just have to, um, accept that as it was done. And now we have to, uh, move forward with the space that's been allowed to us. And, um, it means getting to the, the nuts and bolts of the agent itself. And then once we've done that, then we can begin to, um, uh, hold people's feet to the fire. And yes, karma doc. It was a total surface level BS space. Um, just, it should have been, uh, should have been done, uh, quicker. Hello, big boy. You're up early.

No, you got to walk to school today.

Yeah. Yeah. Walk to school. Mom, you wake up. No. Um, sorry about that. Uh, so So you need a phone to successfully spy on me. Yeah. Yeah. Um, again, it is what it is and, um, we'll just, we'll just keep working towards it. And like I say, the, not just me, Charles, other people need to be working on getting into different, um, in different platforms, different spaces and ask how he will bring people. Yeah. I think, I think that's, uh, probably a good, um, a good approach as well. And, you know, um, Um, myself, Charles and Andrew are part of the, or did the crimes against humanity tour. So the, yeah, let's say it's, uh, uh, opportunity let slip by and, um, the, me with both in my legs. Uh, I don't know what that means, Nick, but, um, let me, I want someone to talk to. Let me do this and call Nick.

Um, he's, he's literally just walked in here, like half asleep and, uh, hey, Hey, all right. I was making fun of your son. That was all it's sort of walked in half zombie asleep and it's just the reflex to go and sit in front of computer and play games. Um, I guess it, I need to get a handle on that situation. Um, Karma doc said in the chat surface level BS, uh, talk, what was your, uh, what was your impression? Did you catch it all? I just got the end of it. So I was hoping to go up and drop a in the punch bowl myself, but, uh, they were, they were not letting people come up on the mics at that point. Um, I, I heard, uh, just a little bit of like the general's final comments there.

And, um, I, uh, you know, I, we, we've gone all around about, uh, sort of second guessing everybody that's in this public debate and what are their influences and things like that. Um, and it's nice that Charles was in the discussion. Um, I still haven't had a conversation with Andrew, um, since that one time he was going to be on the round table with us in the spring and he couldn't get on the call. It wouldn't let him in. So I, I'm, I'm still forming opinions about, about all of the factors, but yeah, I think for Twitter spaces, so that's the, here's the deal. It's, it's very lightweight. It's like a keyhole. Think of it, like, you know, family sitting around the radio, listening to the updates on the war. It's, um, you, you can't present anything if you present links and anybody in the hosting panel disagrees or doesn't know what it is. You start getting snarky comments about, well, our posts are getting diluted and that can be true. You know, people can shit post, but, um, that's, that's one of the drawbacks of that space, the upside is it can be linked right in with whatever multiverse you've got wired together here in your normal platforms. So all you've got to do is get that emulator up and running, log into your Twitter app with it and it'll behave just like the phone up on your desktop. And I was, I nearly got it up, but it seems, it seems to have crashed. I think, um, I don't know. I mean, I'm not a sound engineer. I'm, I am brand new with voice meter and all of this stuff. I mean, literally Simon is just helping me sort out the bugs. Um, so, uh, that's the only other piece is to get it successfully connected to the rest of your stream. Um, you probably just want to work with him offline and test it. Yeah, I didn't, I didn't know the, um, the issue with the phone. So, um, I don't know. Why doesn't it have my apps installed now? I installed, uh, yeah, it's it's frustrating. Um, and again, for me, I felt that that was a opportunity missed because you had, you did have people, you had the whistleblower there about the, uh, the labeling. Um, you had the mentor of Andrew, who was obviously in the biodefense space for, well, it seemed like decades. He said it was from the nineties. Um, and for it to be so superficial, I was, uh, chomping, chomping, chomping at the bit. And well, I hope, I hope they do sort of better, um, next week.

Um, and you know, it's, that's another thing, which is, is a week too long between the, between in between segments in between, in between portions of the conversation. Um, I don't think so because it's not going to wait. Anyone that is starting to, so think of these spaces kind of like, uh, honey and they, they collect bees and people that start buzzing around them will start following hosts that they don't necessarily always follow. They'll start seeing up in the spaces. There's a little ribbon at the top on the phone app, uh, for what's playing right now. And they're going in there more and more and more. And some of them are crap. There's a million them on Bitcoin. And that doesn't mean, you know, I just, you know, it's just, it's just like, there's so there's only so much you can present, um, in a technical, like in an educational space, or if you're trying to share information, there's only so much that fits through the keyhole of just the spoken word. It has to be ideas. It has to be important conversations between, I mean, I think the people they had gathered were great. I don't think there were any hardball, you know, topics or questions. And I think that they were trying to guard against that. They're trying to keep it, um, civilized. And I, I saw a comment and I think I heard you, I thought maybe it was you that said something about apologist, you know, being an apologist for, um, this, you know, there's, there's so much more. And yes, I agree. I don't want some kind of a milk toast, red herring, watered down concession to what's been going on behind the curtain to take the place of the real evidence and the real crimes. So yeah, I agree. Um, also though, um, I mean, just this morning, I lost my shit with somebody in one of those little private discussion threads that Mark was kind enough to invite me into. And it had, it had several folks that you're probably familiar with. It was, I think it's Jay, I think it's Jonathan's original private, you know, one of his, one of his side conversation threads. Uh, and someone went in with the full, you know, very snide HIV denialism. You know, I hadn't had my coffee, I hadn't gotten out of bed. And normally I wouldn't have taken that bait because it's not good for my brand to get, you know, to, to lose my shit. Um, but I just had two deaths in the last it was a week. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. A aggressive pancreatic cancer. Uh, she's a mother of two, um, 52 years old and, um, another cardiac event. COVID vaccine related.

Well, and, and pancreatic fluke, you know about the fluke, right? Yeah. Yeah. The high, high, high number of incidents. There's a correlation of, of pancreatic fluke infection, you know, being a slow, like kind of like a lentivirus, a slow ticking time bomb for, for pancreatic cancer. But so I was just raw and I, and I went at somebody and I copied their comments and I pasted them right back. And I said, look, um, how do you want me to go about this? Are we gonna, you know, are we going to talk about data? Are we going to attack each other with With ad hominem, you know, this is real basic ignorance. It was just germ denialism and, um, and then I, you know, called them a cunt and then I left the discussion because that was, you know, well, I, I, that wasn't good. Well, I'm, I'm raw. I'm hurting right now. And, uh, to have somebody do that. And it's just, you know, it's those are the point of all of that is that we have to have these meaningful, uh, well packaged, well considered pieces of the truth ready to go in small, medium or large amounts. So that when, if you do pop into one of those spaces, which you can, you can, I think you can get it lined up so that you can do a space and be a speaker in a space through your blue stacks app and still, and have all of that audio, uh, in line with everything else you do on the stream. Um, but then you can, you can go in there and maybe just be ready to ask a really good question and then drop one post people who go in and try to carpet bomb, you know, I think everybody has sort of, uh, there's a, there's a visceral reaction that people have to someone who comes in and is overzealous. So, I mean, you've you've got the right, you've got the right temperament for it. Well, you can keep your vocabulary, keep your behavior, put on your Sunday school clothes. Yeah. I can do if it's, uh, if I, if there's company, uh, if it's just me, uh, um, I don't know, feels like, uh, a degree of, uh, me going bananas. I feel, I feel like I'm, uh, losing, uh, the reality is getting a little slippery, Nick.

Uh, well, we've been through, uh, hell. We've been through a war and it's a war for our minds and a war for our lifestyles and a war for our health and all of that. So where it, I'm, I'm seeing, you know, we've all seen people starting to emote, um, who normally keep it wired pretty tight. Um, and that's okay. We've, we've also lost a lot. There's been a lot of death and there's a lot more to come. So, you know, we, we, uh, I, I appreciate, you know, everything that we continue to do as sort of a little community. And I wish you were more, um, if, if you would be, uh, in, you, you know, bring your Sunday school behaviors to all of your Twitter behavior, you could continue to grow your following. And you know, I, I wish you luck in that respect, but I know you don't, you don't hang all of your success in, in, as a messenger on that channel. No, no. Um, and you know, it was obvious it was being, um, well, you know, monitored and censored anyway, so a lot of it seemed, uh, pointless, right? May as well. Well, the, the, the operating principle for me was I, if we can get in and just jab someone quickly, cause you'll get, you're going to get taken out anyway, regardless, like YouTube. Um, so, but, but the ground has and so, um, that means we can do, yeah, like saying, um, different, different approaches. And you know, the, the way to, the way to do that is I think like Charles was saying, uh, we need a, to host our own space. Um, I don't know a couple of accounts that have 50, 100,000 followers and just tear into it. We've got to, um, can't keep, um, pussy fighting around, right? And you know, this was something I've spoke to Mark about and Charles about, um, we have to be using the language of, um, asymmetric warfare that these, um, organizations are using against us. Um, obviously the, the gas lighting and the, the, well, the, the psychological operations that can send in retards that will say germs aren't real, right? Um, you know, I was getting ready for the, the spaces.

Just this, you know, earlier this morning, getting a bit confused about the time.

And, you know, I was just thinking about the, the censorship and how successful that, time that, that operation has been, right? The, no, viruses aren't real, yada, yada. And them sort of tying it to, um, yeah, we are, we are barreling toward this tech fascist state. and they're, they're taking, they're taking a big dump in the, in the punch bowl and it, and it's, yeah, it's been supremely effective.

It really is the divide and conquer, um, principle is so, it seems like we're just wired for it. You know, Mr. Mr. Neuroscientist, um, that there's, um, a stimulus response that we love to, um, just, we beat our chests and, and we, and we get confrontational very, very easily. It, it's, uh, it can take very little to put us into a state where there's no learning. There's no objectivity. There's certainly no inbound traffic of information or, or allowing another concept to, to even be, um, modeled or considered. Uh, there's hostility and there's denigration and there's ridicule. And then it just becomes in us versus them, this very classic, you lose the whole point emotionally and psychologically of the conflict. And it's just, I want to put you down. It becomes a focus on, um, the ad hominem attack.

And you know, you can call it out as it's happening. You can try to lead someone back to the conversation and say, okay, we've, we've, we've gotten a little heated. Let's come back this morning. I just blew the lid right off. It was like, you know, kettle on the stove that just suddenly exploded and there's tomatoes paste all, you know, all over the kitchen. It was, I just suddenly freaked because I was really in a bad state and I, and I lost, you know, I lost any ability to have a conversation, let alone an argument or to bring someone to additional information. So we all, we're all coping with that. We're trying to be the tour guides in this house of horrors and say, Hey folks, there's lots that we need to learn about. There's some important, there's, there's, there are things that are kind of designed and occurring to distract you and sap your energy and pit you and I against each other while behind us, someone is, you know, is winding up the big cartoon boulder that's going to, you know, land on both of us. You know, we it's, that's the, that's the danger in all of this is that we're, we have to decide what do we teach? Where do we focus people's attention? What can people still go and get their hands on for themselves? That's actually meaningful in creating that a tipping point, that, that critical mass where they, even if they don't know it, they haven't necessarily applied try themselves, like, you know, a lot of the, a lot of the investigators have, they begin to believe and they begin to see a bifurcation between, you know, that they start feeling the cognitive dissonance and they say, okay, I've been repeating these things and now I'm seeing some very difficult to dispel information or evidence in another space. And both of them are true. I And that's, you know, that's where we want to get them to so that they can come. That's what we want is healthy, critical thinking, not to just instill another, you know, hey, we've found the truth and here it is, and you better believe it. We need to be able to present things that people can connect to. And then through the conversations and experiences in their own lives, their friends and family in the military, in science, their friends and family involved in medical injuries, like kids that have been getting injured by vaccines well before the COVID era, you know, can begin piecing it all together. Yeah. And this is a, I had to get traction, man. Look, it's not like Richard hasn't gone around all the podcasts, right? Is it, you know, he's even been on Alex Jones and, you know, any of, and he's relayed there's a lot of this information. I mean, it's in the COVID space, but I don't, I don't get how people are not, not grabbing onto it or grabbing it and then just running off in odd tangents. And, you know, the, and, you know, this is what I was talking about with Charles is that the vaccine space has, as Charles said, it sucked all the oxygen out. And as a consequence, we're, We're, you know, we're trying to fight that, in a sense, even though it's part of the, it's part of the evidence that we're trying to bring forward. It is interrelated, but I don't know, maybe it's my own bias, right? That's clouding my judgment here. But, it. Well, I, it has to do, I think, with what, what is the strategy? What, what are we communicating? Are we trying to trigger scientific understanding and a big, you know, a big rushing in of people that are learning more about the history and the details of what have occurred? Are we, are we trying to promote that people examine how this occurred in the long term, where defense industries in many countries became, got in bed with academia and their national health apparatus and positioned all of us in this precarious situation?

It, you know, I think different people will have different expertise and bring more convincing arguments or encouragements like Doc Keck, you know, as far as what he's learned with cases at the state level. I think there are wonderful ripples of that and how that could be beneficial or meaningful in other states or at the federal level or in other countries. So that's where I like the blockchain sort of aspect of it, that we, we don't ever burn all of our ammunition and, you know, like we're going to take that hill. We, we need to maintain our, Our rational grounded approach to it. We have a sense of respect and understanding that in adult learning and in general human psychology, there are boundaries and limits to what you can get someone to wrap their head around in any single encounter. Despite all of the black sticky tar that we've got, all the stuff that oozes out of us that we make the black pills with, we, there's only so much and you can create, you know, you just, you trip the mouse trap, you know, you trigger them to just say, I can't take any more or I don't believe it because it seems categorically all too horrible. So that's just, I just, I can't approach that. I opt not to even try is really what's happening. So those are all things that you've got to be aware of, you know, in, when you come into these cold call, like when I go into spaces, I've been brought into a number of the doctor spaces where they started, like it's an OB GYN, Dr. Hank, talking with other front care providers about what they're encountering. And they're talking about morbidity and mortality in infants. They're talking about pregnancies. They're talking about the whole spectrum and all of the things that, you know, you've been we've been examining, exploring with the other investigators. And I post papers, I'm a repeater station between the raccoon cave and his space. And it's been a good synergy. And that's, that's why I'm trying to just be generally a quiet connector. And some of us will be more vocal. You know, when I do my horrifying little lesson plan things, then, you know, that's when I have to stand up on the stage and show everybody the scary stuff. In the meantime, it's very nice to make really good use of people like Dr. Mary and yourself and Dr. Johanna and everyone who's contributing in different spaces and say, Hey, you don't have to waste time. Someone has already looked that up. Here it is. Well, you know, that was the, the feeling that I had listening to that talk. I was like, come on, man, we've, we've, we've covered this ground. Ready? Let's, let's, let's move on. And, you know, the look, I get it that, you know, it wasn't like the young lady who came on at the end, and she was talking about the satellite imaging and the Harvard study, etc. And, you know, that's a study that I point to if I'm doing a, you know, more formal presentation, but God damn it, that's, that's like two, two and a half years old. And the, you know, there's, there's more, we've got a lot more data and evidence since then, right. And this is Charles frustration as well, right. And, you know, Charles has done, you know, over time, what will be a far more effective approach is, you know, he's done his job, which is collect data and put it into a format that makes a situational report.

And well, the problem is, is that it's already, I would, I don't want to speak for Charles, would say, it's already gone to the top of what we would consider the frameworks available to us, right. It's with senators, it's with Senator Johnson. And one thing I wanted to, someone in the chat said that Johnson got pulled over the coals yesterday. {kang D: It was chuck todd on meet the press} And I wonder if, whoever that was, I'm trying to find the comment right now. If someone's got a link to that, I would like to see it. I would assume this was a public exchange. I'm guessing so someone's put it in the, and was this about his interest in investigating COVID origin? Apparently. Well, wouldn't that be anybody that's on the payroll? Meaning, anybody that watchdogged him would be someone that's trying to keep the narrative on track. Yeah. And there was a name put with it. Where is it? If you're still listening, please dropped that comment again or a link? Cause I would love to, okay. That's, I'm not seeing it. it. I can't wait for inhaled mRNA. I think it's already, it's here with us already. Just. is. I'm preparing to do a space with apothecaryl. She's a registered nurse in Texas.

Yeah. And she's been, you know, apothecaryl. Yeah. We're going to do GMO glyphosate toxicity, hopefully Dr. Hank will be there. He's, we've been, you know, helping him get into better, better food advice for expecting mothers, you know, for the, for her health. Did you find what you're looking for? No, true. Drew said it was about Hunter Biden.

So was, I thought it was, it was Johnson, but not, not COVID related, which is disappointing. And the, and you know, I'm that aspect of it, right? The, the countermeasures that people can deploy as well. It is important. You know, my, I guess my position right now is look when, if it, if you feel like it's working for you, do it. And you know, I can, I'm taking advice from the internet right now. I don't think there's any, any sort of shame in that because it's, we're, we're in unusual territory, right? And so, you know, there's, but there's probably a lot. We've never had this capability before. You've never been able to learn how does a Chinese mother on the other side of the world, well, you're closer to that side of the world, deal with a particular malady or what kind of herbs do they grow in South America that keep the population clear of certain types of parasites. And it's just in their diet. How does that work in all of the blue zone countries that have, you know, noticeable significant differences in certain disease and disease rates and length of life, like Ikaria in Greece, where they just quite, sorry, I've got a cat rubbing on the microphone, where they quite inadvertently live to 105, 110 years old. Oops, you know, I'm, I'm over 100. So yeah, I, I'm, I'm not naive. I don't think, wow, you know, if you clean up your diet, everything's going to be butterflies, but I think that it's, if you're, if you're going to be serious about surviving, if that's the purpose of all of this, not just to get past this crisis with the clear is sort of trapdoor spider of pharma combined with, you know, health and Homeland Security services all rolled together. If we're going to get past that, there are other aspects that we want to clean up.

So that's where, you know, I don't, I don't want to be, I deliver such horrible, horrible news to people that have never heard that research that I've been living with. Believe me, I know how you, what you and Charles are saying. I have been hoping to get other people to just have a, even a debate, even to just to argue scientific merits or dates or data points for a long time. and in my own community, there's none of it. They, they won't touch it. They're just, it's kryptonite. So I'm very happy to have finally found, you know, folks that are a willing to do it and B it, it might really have some relevance in helping with insight on, on how we fix this thing institutionally, because it's an institutional problem. Wow. That's, that's when I say let it burn. Well, some things probably do need to have a flash fire. And when, if we pull back, you know, if you pull back the curtain and there's so much rot in the wood, it's like, yeah, what, what, if you're doing nothing, if you're doing 0% of the public charter of your institution, if you can go out and read all of the lofty things chiseled in the marble in the lobby, of their mission statements and their guiding principles and all that rubbish. And, and then you come to find out that they're just, they're basically a two channel whore. They either take money from pharma to push things through the regulatory gateway or just, you know, just shoe it open, just leave the gate open and say, run through children, or they're in bed with bio-defense doing things that Nixon said we don't do anymore in 1969.

should still do it. That came up in the discussion today. And that was that it was Hoffman and basically, basically saying that the Russians, the Russians were doing it. We weren't.

And I'm well, I think I even made a comment at that point. I was like, Nick was here. So you'd probably challenge that, that point. And, you know, the, I guess the question you have to ask is, is he lying? Or is he, is he just, are both things true? They're doing it and we're doing it. We've just always justified, when I say we, the US have always just justified our activities in that space as preemptive, as precautionary, you know, we play a semantic game, and then we go and violate international weapons conventions. You know, I just, I'll tell you this, this doesn't, I'm sorry, but I know some people use a lot of different cultural, we'll say, they couch these events, and they interpret them through a lot of different lenses. And some of way that some of them are religious, and some of them, they tie to satanic influences. The more and more I look into these people, I just see behaviors that little kids display that never got corrected, you know, that got malformed. And I, and I, I'm saying that about what happened during World War Two, what happened after the war, what's happening today with the war, just everybody getting a little, you know, out of control with their own personal impunity, and they want it their way, which is, there's nothing evil about that. It's just human impudence.

And, you know, it doesn't scale, it doesn't work harmoniously in large systems. Not everyone can be accommodated, you know, and I don't think that that means burn it all down. But I think coming me back to institutional reform. We need to start with Nuremberg and say, look, kids, this is how Nuremberg was a paper tiger. Here are the names of the people that slipped not only right through the Nuremberg, you know, trials, but were actually recruited at the trials. They went up and testified, and then they were interviewed by Henry Kissinger and given a nice for life and a salary and a place to live in New Jersey at Merck for the rest of their lives. And what are their grandchildren doing today? You know, that's, that's where I want to go.

Well, and you know, I bought this up, I think, in the last stream, I was commenting on Eric Weinstein being on Joe Rogan. And the, you know, the general tenor of the stream was okay.

but there was this, again, I felt that very strong narrative pushing, which was, we have to have amnesty, right? Joe saying, look, I don't want to be like the people who were, you know, losing their shit about what he did. And, you know, he obviously had the kerfuffle about Ivermectin. And, and to me, I'm, I'm not prepared to go into that space, when I know that there's been such egregious abuse from, we know the individuals, we know the institutions, and we know the history now. And there's a time for being forgiving. And of course, the average Joe on the street, you know, you can't, you can't drag them all up in the net, but for, for sure. Did I say, did I say Eric, maybe Brett? And I'm not, I'm not prepared to take Joe's advice on this one, when we're, well, I would say we're still very much tumbling down as a consequence of the actions that have been taken.

Well, I, so there's very little in our lives. They're probably, I mean, for most of us, there just isn't anything else you can compare this to. So there's no basis to say, okay, what, you know, how did I, how did I manage this last time? There hasn't been one of these. And I think what we're going to see. I made a comment in the Raccoon Bunker, I don't know, maybe Friday or Saturday. And I said, you've all been demographically zero sorted. And what I was, you know, I was, I was being catty that based on people's, I don't know if those are genetic predilections in their psychology that made them question and apply critical thinking to this decision about whether or not to take these products, who knows. But as a result of that gene expression, you know, you and I have talked about FunVax and all of that, you know, influencing psychology with genetics. They have now essentially moved and cleaved the population into those who eventually will comply. And those who are just steeled against it that are absolutely, you know, will not. And I think that's going to be a fascinating, I think, I think demographically, if we talk about the species as in zero sorting, we're going to have phenotypes that are removed from the gene pool as a result of that. If we continue to see the numbers and the fatalities moving in the direction that they appear to be. This last week was pretty shocking for me. These week, these were people that I lost that were my age. And we're not talking about losing parents or grandparents. And it was sudden and aggressive. And I knew that, you know, I knew that there, you know, there'd be incoming, I'm, you know, and I hear that, that siren going off, I would, I've been in this state since the beginning of 2020. And I was really hoping that I would be wrong. We've all said that, you know, we really hope these outcomes don't continue in the direction that we're not going to. So coming back to your point about being ready for amnesty, I tell you what, I support your stubbornness about that. I don't, I think you have every right to feel the way you want to feel about how folks have behaved and how they've treated us because it wasn't a slight, it wasn't, I want my candidate to win this election. It wasn't anything so trivial. It was life and death and it was lifestyles and it was families and it was kids.

And so I fully agree with you that it's not a done deal. But I'll tell you at the same time, it's a difficult, uncomfortable situation because I don't want the division. I think we'll do much better if we demonstrate a big brother compassion, not a Disney happy lovey dovey, you know, at the end of every 30 minute episode when everything gets magically buttoned up, nothing like that. I think it's going to have to be, yeah, you were wrong and here's how and here's the shit we are in. I think we're going to have to bring the hurt in the way that we've all been in trying to do is get the truth clearly excavated and check it archaeologically and then say, look what we found folks. And I think that's where it's going to be. It's going to be, what do they call that? Tough love. Yeah. You know, that doesn't sound melodramatic, but you know, this in a sense, what you watched was this century's equivalent of the purges and the mob being used to leverage to affect policy. Yeah. And they did it with consummate ease, right? And, you know, everyone always asks that question, you know, how did those historical events happen, whatever your interpretation of them are those, those events did leave a fingerprint in the historical record, right? There are piles of bones out in fields and well, if you were gone up in smoke, but the think about the. And rain down on Japan. Yes. By the way, did you ever go out and take samples of that black rain? Black rain? Yeah. You didn't read about the black rain across Japan that was from all of the incinerators in China? No. I know my roof is leaking at the moment.

You… Oh, God, it's leaking in your house. OK, sorry. Yeah. In the bedroom, my bedroom.

Oh, my God. We'll get up there, get some bamboo leaves and some banana leaves and my fixture. What made my house is already get over the tops and. Oh, you're oh, you're Filipino. OK. Yeah. But no, I didn't I didn't catch any black rain. And, you know, the the issue is like in Japan, everything is not subdued. What's the word I'm looking for?

I'm. There's not a. I don't feel the public discussion. Right. And so I had a tab. It's introverted. Yes. Yeah. And, you know, Japan has become the one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. Right.

And now, look, it's not it's not huge numbers. Right. But they're losing free free to free to 400 a day dead. And, you know, it's it's been in the thousands in other countries with comparable population sizes, but the data doesn't lie.

Now, that's careful saying that the the plots as we have, unless you're the CDC. Right.

But the plot says we have them. And I would put forward the premise that Japan tends want to say undercount, but they're very conservative in how they categorize Covid. It's not it's not like you can be pretty sure that those numbers are deaths from Covid, not with. Right. There's no financial bias. There's no incentive to code for Covid is what you're saying. There is some. But again, the the.

I want I want I want to say there's a there's a there's a bureaucracy is function functional.

Right. And so I think gaming the system would be seen as dishonorable. And so I don't I don't Think there's as much incentive to to game the data that way. And, you know, the there are Japanese drugs that have been approved. And I think they're sort of getting preference over other other brands. But the. over the. Well, I guess the point I was making in the stream was that what what we're seeing now in in Japan and, you know, I made a corollary with China, there's a high possibility that that is coming to the Western Hemisphere.

Or the Western… It's not not hemisphere. Yeah. To the Western world. To the West. Yeah, to the West. And we're and so that will be on top of the mess that we're already dealing with.

And… I'm interpreting what you're saying is essentially operationalizing the great reset, social controls, social media controls, facial recognition. Is that is that sort of the the bailiwick you're you're talking about? Well, part of it. And, you know, what's what's the response? it's how do we temper the response this time? Right. Because, you know, the people are on edge already because they have what they feel has been a swing to extremes with how data has been collated. So obviously, they were pumping numbers at the beginning to try to force down that the the vaccine pathway. And now we're in a situation where potentially we're seeing what could be a sustained wave of excess death because of those medical countermeasures. I'm not saying it's 100% that. And again, it could be a combination of virus and and opportunistic infection, opportunistic infection as well. And so this time, we should be ready, right? To to leverage this information to to our benefit. We know we know they're going to try and gaslight but we know that we have to be we're trying to bring this body of evidence to the to the public discussion. And yeah, I guess I guess if I had to hone in on something would be to pull the pull the discussion away from just vaccines.

There's a whole lot there. And the fact that, you know, the whole nexus around what occurred in 1986 with, you know, the Childhood Vaccination Act, what began there and then just got worse and worse and worse in concert with the changes in public health, the real world changes in demographics and numbers of people affected by things that appear to correlate to their vaccination status, particularly in kids, it's going to be the number, you know, you talk about the mama bears, boy, you know, I'm around some of those GMO moms that are, you should hear how intense they get just about food, and they're dealing with it, they're dealing with the real world health in their family, and how it was affected by something in the food supply. but the point being is that I think we're going to see a whole lot of sticking on this on this point. And there's a whole lot of good evidence and history that I people get tired of hearing me talk about Stanley Plotkin deposition from 2018. If you're just hearing this, and you want a really, really good interesting insight into the gaps in vaccine safety, go out to YouTube, it's still there, and look for the Plotkin deposition, there's a version that's got a time index, so you don't have to listen to the nine hours of interview. But it's wonderful, and it can equip someone who is looking for solid information from the patent holder about these gaps for the biological products. But that's where I like the blockchain concept, Kevin of of a it's always too big, it's too big to fit into a single podcast into a single discussion, it's very difficult to even give proper respect and the right amount of detail to almost any individual piece of this, you know, you pick a product, a disorder, a side effect, and there's barely enough time, there's so much information that needs to be comported. So the blockchain concept of people who naturally like when we met Chris Newby, I mean, that was brilliant.

And she, she brought me into places that I have never been and will never have access to, I'm not going to know those people, or have access to those places. And she she, you know, illuminated the cave. So you let those who, you know, and like myself, obviously, everyone knows, my pet beef, you let those people gravitate and really fill in the good data in those spaces, you replicate it, you you lean into simple and I'll say, automated tools, like we might have with transcriptions, when you upload a video, and if it has an automatic transcription bot running, there's your text right there, then you can take that and drop it into Microsoft Word, and just pick another language, pick Spanish, or Japanese, or French, or German. And it's machine translation, it's not the world's best, but we can begin helping really permeate other countries who need to be doing their own work. That really came to mind when I met Johanna. And it's like, I can't penetrate all of that content, a simply because of the language barrier, and because of not understanding, you know, the structure and the dynamics of where the information might be, it would take a lifetime to do it. So we need to let other people help and sort of cluster their stuff together. And there will be an infinite number of, you know, relationship links, there will be a whole lot of concentricity. Yeah. And I guess this you get into the realm of data presentation and how to to how to sort of link it all up. So people are feeling that their section, the pain that they're carrying is being documented properly. I guess there are probably people who could teach you and I and Mark and everybody the way to do that even better, I'll bet there, I'll bet those people are there. And they, you know, like the timeline tool that Mark and I keep spinning around, we want the ultimate Star Trek timeline tool that just lets you pop from a very high level from a storytelling level, down to the finest level of scientific detail that we've got in the archive. And, you know, I've seen things that kind of do part of it. But they're, they're clunky, they're just not elegant. They're not as fancy as I've seen in sci fi. But there's folks, the point being, there's folks who are going to bring in great insights, like when we met Dr. Mary, that was another blessing, you know, like right on, you know, that's that was just a great little, not little, that was a big addition to the family. So, you know, that's why I keep with the incessant hope, this is all heavy shit. And it's, it's traumatizing me again, it's bringing me back to the AIDS era, I'm watching you, you and other people go through the things that I went, you know, I went through and other people went through.

And I never wanted that for the world. But still, it's, it's like, hey, you know, you look at your kids and your family, I look at my loved ones, my community. And we keep finding, you know, we keep keep finding a way to recharge. And, and be, you know, what's the next approach? What's our new tactic going to be? And it isn't about blase optimism. It's horrible. The work is yet to be done. We still have a war ahead of us. It's about thinking about how what kind of weapons we're going to put together to be effective in that war. And that's just my concern at the moment is that they, they're going to use real, real blood and guts war as a distraction in the coming months.

Or it's a chance to hunt a Biden stuff, any anything and everything to to muddy muddy the waters right now. And yeah, kick the hand down the road.

people's memories fade. And yeah, memory hall. Yeah. And, you know, I'm, I'm wishing that space could have gone better. I think, I think the, the conclusion is we've got, we've got to do our own. we've got to do our own. Whoever that lady was that was presenting, she didn't, she didn't drive the, the topic enough from, from my perspective. And I think, I think a week is, is too long. At the moment, the landscape just changes too quickly.

Right now. Yeah, yes, yes, yes. But okay, so let's talk about something that you and I have kick around before less is more. It's why I've been taking when I, you know, if I've done a good presentation and I'm like, Hey, I did a deck. And this is really kind of a midpoint between the timeline and the more scientific level of the 200 material. I'll go in and I will trim it and trim it and trim it. I'll cut out little distractions and, you know, whatever, and, and try to get it it is that you're trying to produce here, Kevin. So we're not, we're not all creating the same wares, the same material, but I, I, I, I would say that in, with this topic, you've got to tap like a jeweler. You've got to tap, tap, tap, tap, tap gently in the same spot a hundred times. And then that hundredth time it will cleave and there'll be the facet in the jewel. But if you come in with a hammer and smash and say, I've been traumatized for three years, and here's all my emotional vitriol, blah. And you do an Alex Jones on people. Hey, you'll get some people who love you, right? Because you can do that. You can, you know, you've got, you know, you know what you are as a quantity, as far as being a host and a facilitator and a commentator, you can get people to gather around the campfire. But why do you want them there? And what are you hoping to accomplish? That's the thing that I keep driving all of us to ask.

Just the, you know, the title of that stream should have been leveraged better. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. But you could turn on a hundred shows right now on the mainstream crap across the globe and find 98% of them are milk toast crap. They didn't say anything. They didn't discover anything. They didn't unveil anything. It's just, you know, you might as well have just had a camera shot of the clouds going by. Um, you know that, you know, most, most investigation is not biting. it is not aggressive. Um, and it isn't necessarily well positioned to do that. This one, yeah, you, you and others are well positioned to ask really, you know, really aggressive and, and strong questions about the timeline dating back into the early 2000s, about the backstory of all of the patents and the activities over the years. And then, you know, the bullshit that's happened since 2020. And yes, you can do it. You can, you know, you can, you can, once in a while, you can be over on the space aside and then you can be back in your own domain for whatever level of, uh, you know, material or content you want. If you want to have harder discussions about it, but you know, part of that magic is you've got to keep a Twitter persona that is, um, you know, the, the, you know, the, when companies hear that, that sort of of behavior. If you can just keep that account alive, you can tap into that space, have those conversations, and then have your own freedom to be who you want to be, you know, over here. And yeah, I guess, I guess that's, uh, a constraint I need to think about that, um, on those spaces that can we, are we, are we going to be allowed to push the envelope? You know, look, if you've got a Colonel there who's, who's been in that program for 30 years, uh, there was so much, there was so many missed opportunities there.

Um, okay. But also you're, I see where you're going. I think, but you, you tell me, you think that you're going to do an expose a journalism cutting biting question on an open unscripted platform like that and have a defense retiree actually spill the beans? Well, I mean, you could do it in a don't know, more, more sort of inquisitive manner just to, um, just, you know, the scope of these programs and, you know, so they, they touched on when did you hear about mRNA? Oh, in the 2000s, right? Well, yeah, you know, this is when biologics were being sort of touted. I I don't like back then. I don't think it was so much the vaccine space. It was more, um, cancer treatments, um, you know, oddities in the lab with respect to, uh, protein expression. Um, but the, the, the, the, well, mRNA is just one small, one small part of it. And, you know, the, well, even if you were bringing up the issue around, you know, what, what was, what was the doctrine, right? So, you know, there was a clip I had where it was was a Russian defector and it was in the year 2000. It was just, I really, I've lost that clip and, um, I really, what was the gist of it? What did he say? Well, basically he was being interviewed by the precursor of Homeland Security and they were, they were asking him, were they putting snake toxins into, uh, viruses, basically. Um, that, that was the concern.

And, um, you know, there was, and he, he basically said they were trying, if I remember correctly.

And, um, correctly, um, with the, with the underlying premise being that it triggers an immune response in a, in a particular way that was beneficial. That it was a, that they were engaged in a form of gain of function to, to, um, increase pathogenicity. Okay. Thank you. And the, The, you know, if they're asking that question, right, it means, it means that there was some, I don't know, I don't think it was just a discussion around the drink fountain one afternoon that would bring those questions into, um, something official, like, I was essentially like a deposition, right? And, um, I, I think the public has a right to know what, what the operational, not readiness, but, um, posture was, um, in the U S and the Colonel saying that, oh, we were, we were being left in the, the dust by Russia. Um, it just didn't sit right with me.

And so, um, it, it, in my view, it seems like we could, we could navigate through that, um, and, uh, get, get more to a ground truth. And, um, yeah, the opportunity was missed. I see Charles back in the chat, let me see if I can pull Charles in.

This is a friend. and, do you need to, do you need to collapse the call and start again?

Maybe I might do it with, uh, zoom. I don't know. I don't know if, I don't know if, uh, if you'll pick this up. Yeah. Cause you got to have the app open on your phone and, unless you've got it all set to notify you, you might miss it.

We'll chat them up to see how he wants to connect. He's in the rumble chat right now. Um, let me see. He's just dropped the document for, uh, Yeah. Any, I'll tell you this, Kevin, for me right now, the bottom line is us, anybody that keeps pointing a finger at China, including Dr. Huff, I'm, I'm concerned about that motivation. I, I just, as an American, there is nothing meaningful or, or, or purposeful or ethical about just creating a war so that we can have a war.

You know, I know there's, there's a big, long, complicated history of, of geopolitics and we can, we can get a PhD in that, but, um, I'm a little, I'm, I'm a little suspect of anybody that's coming into the space. And that's one of the things you're going to encounter in Twitter, uh, is I think a little less sorted than what you've got in this space. You're going to have people that come up for a mic and it's just going to be a roll of the dice. And they're going to be people who technically and behaviorally are not necessarily, you know, the best for your space. Um, and there, and there are people who try and hijack it. Um, but also you'll get connections, you'll get new unexpected connections and resources and data that people will drop in.

So I think it's worth, uh, moving towards. Okay. What's the deal with Charles? Uh, I am just trying to, I'm going to call him on, um, zoom because I'm not sure I've got the right. I'm assuming there's only one Rick's in the server, but let me just, and I'll send you the zoom. Oh, gotcha, gotcha. Um, let's see if he picks up.

Yeah. And you know, there's, uh, uh, yeah, you're right. You're right about, um, a deflection towards China right now. That is a major concern of mine right now. Um, you know, the, all right, I've got Charles, let me, um, drop the invite to you into zoom and, uh, into discord.

I will hang. Okay. Okay. All right. See you in a minute. All right.

Yeah, I got you bro. Okay. Yeah. We, did you get the video?

I've seen it before. Oh, the Russian, uh, yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about. I'm trying to find it. Um, I don't know. I don't know how much of that conversation you, um, caught there. I literally just got back online because I had to get my hotel room and the phone died soon. So, um, yeah, we were, we were, we were sort of breaking down the, um, I heard you talk about like how he, he was focused on China and that was down there. on, um, yeah, but we, we, we were sort of covering a lot more prior to that. So, and you know, the, I, I felt that there was opportunities missed, let's say as, as we were talking, um, particularly with the subject title of the, of the talk and, um, um, you know, it was too short. Yes. Uh, for sure. And he, yeah, it was, I mean, I know he's trying to do because it's a series, but, um, I don't know. Um, who's, who's actually organizing that then? I don't like he and the, The, the, the host, I don't know who came up with the format, but I think it was him.

Yeah. Uh, so I, I don't know to, to give you a two sentence summary was too short, too superficial and to get that sort of group into, uh, a space together to be exchanging information, opportunity lost. Especially because like right now we're kind of past that point. It's not really what, you know, it's like last year stuff.

Yeah. But to be honest, I think that's part of the problem is that that his, his contributions are, are different and not the same as ours and ultimately probably not as, I don't want to say not as important, but because there's things that he can say that we can't say, but he's, he's not been following all did all of the, the, like the investigation of the science and everything the way we have. So he, he, he's, he's trying to, he's trying to do something and I understand what he's trying to do, but I didn't really, I didn't really know what it was going to look like until they actually did it.

but yeah, having it be like an hour, an hour, 15 minutes and not really, I don't know. I think the audience interaction is important and I think in the spaces, it's, it's good to have them longer and it's good to have deep discussions and still have plenty of like audience interactions. Well, a conversation as well because that keeps them, that keeps them more interested, I think.

Yes. But more importantly, he's trying to, he's trying to treat, I think, treat it like it's a PBS special when that's not what we need. We need, you know, headline news And he's telling us where we are and what we need to know because I mean, if, if the investigations are ostensibly supposed to start the next couple of weeks, we have a lot of ground to catch up.

Right. And we need people to start hearing words and phrases and things because we have to limit the fire hose as much as possible.

Well, we need to, we need to focus the hose as much as possible. And like I say, the pulling into the public dialogue that these these, this vernacular, right, the biowarfare lens, it doesn't happen enough, right, because it, it got dismissed so comprehensively over the last few years.

Right at the beginning on purpose because, because those, you know, frankly, you'd say the inserts and everything, the reason they had to be dismissed, or I guess, if you're going to go that route is because they're not natural. And the way that they were in there indicated that they were part of the bioevidence program. And so you either have to go with that or you have to ignore it completely. And so they chose to smother it and pretend it didn't exist and they had to keep doing it. Now, do I know, I can't tell you that the reason, I don't know if Fauci, you know, smothered fusion inhibitors and ivermectin and everything because he didn't want to make the connection to HIV or because he didn't want us to have things at work. So it's tough to say. Well, I think, I think both reasons could be a factor here. Yeah, neither is good. And it has to basically be one of those two. So I don't think we have to, we don't have to know the answer to start asking the question.

So, you know, you gave the answer to the issue right now, which is we have to do our own space with essentially the same title. I mean, like a repeat, but it's got to be the full full focused session. It's like a, you know, I don't know, like two, three hours of...

Well, so we have to start our series and we have to do like a, you know, a DRASTIC or a, or just a, whatever we are, the actual investigators, we, we have to be able to have a series where we can, where we can talk about different things at different times.

Well, and make the link. It spans a long amount of time because you need Nick, you need Johanna and you need me, you need you. And, you know, it does get unwieldy when there's too little, or there's so many people that's hard to focus with bioweapons. To me, you have to have Johanna, if you can at all costs, because she understands that it was more than just Fauci who was aware of all that, and she can speak to that, and then, and in a way that... Because she's also been a doctor who has treated patients and has seen the harm inflicted by a bioweapon and being forced to with non-bio-weapon treatments, or pretend that it's not aerosol, and Nick obviously, I don't know how familiar Nick is with the 80s, like the later 80s, in terms of the bioweapons research they were doing. That kind of bridges me, I don't remember your exact coverage, but that's starting in the 80s. They were using GP120 as a bioweapon, and so I think when you trace, when you show that that was going on, and you show that everybody knew about it, I mean Robert Gary was probably involved in it, Lipkin was probably involved in bioweapons, Merrill Nass thinks so, and so all of these, and Jeremy Farrar, you know, Mintel, so these people were not just scientists, even Angie Rasmussen, I don't know that she did anything of consequence, but she he worked on like six or seven different grants on the DoD, underneath Lipkin, so she's, I don't think she's smart, but she's definitely guilty, and so, you know. We're all thinking it, we're all thinking it. Yeah, I know, I know, who's gonna say it first? We're trying to be grown up. We're trying to be grown up. But yeah, no, we need to assert ourselves, because it's clear that we won't be able to do so much of that. Who's got the biggest account? What do you mean? On Twitter. Charles does. I mean, I guess I got like 23,000 now, I don't know. It's crazy, because like, two years ago, I had two, like I had two followers. Actually, yeah, because I didn't have more than two until February 16, when I actually started being active on Twitter, so I was, I'm from 2D, whatever I have now, and I don't really understand why, because all I've tried to do is just like interact and put stuff, but I don't understand that I passed Yuri. And so, I don't know. I don't know, maybe I'm just sexy, and I don't know it, but Well, literally, people are fooled by something I do, so I guess I should keep doing it. Thanks, Nick, for not saying anything, I appreciate it. I'm not going there. You guys kick that down the field, and we'll keep going. Rule one gentleman. I appreciate that. Yes, yes. I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't mind getting complimented every once in a while. Geez, I have feelings. Now I have to write sentences on the board after class, Charles. Thanks a lot. Professor McCairn is not happy. No, I did not know to your point about bioweapons development in the 80s 90s and GP 120. I was in the absolute depths of despair and feeling basically like I was on fire, just not every moment of the day, but in general, life was a nightmare in the late 80s early 90s. Oh no, just wanted to say… Research. Yeah. Yeah, no, no, no, I wasn't I was I had no chops at that point I was just surviving and trying to cope with it. So, no, I have a blind spot to activity there but I'll tell you what's immediately comes to mind is the department at the NIH that I've got now of their I mean I've got a whole pile enough for us to look at for a long time of the DNA recombinant sorry recombinant DNA technology division, and their activities. And certainly they don't say now here's our formula for a new illegal bioweapon you know it's not couched like that it's, it is public content, but they have tables of all of the oncogenic viruses that they were working in. they categorize them from mild to moderate to dangerous, they have I mean they've got thousands of pages of stuff that I would assume continues that same public private perversion that we've seen about masquerade you know by warfare masquerading public health research. So there's probably a lot of good analysis that could happen there, because they yeah they're talking about HIV, SIV, all kinds of stuff they've got catalogs of stuff. So, so that's one thing that people like just that I didn't know, but super antigens of which HIV later, like, GP 120 was looked at as a super antigen, even though it never really officially went into that category. was super antigens had been a thing since the 50s and 60s. Because, once they found these, these toxic, you know, this segments. And, you know, if they weren't already in the bacteria they, they could drop around. And the whole purpose is to, like, overwhelm your immune system. And this was 50s and 60s. when you have a, when you have the fear and cleavage site. That's part of a super antigen like sequence. And there were dozens that they that they weaponized. No one basically has said that no one has talked about it. But it's, it's literally When they took their two pieces out of the gag, and they took out the middle. And so you had four and four amino acids. And you put them together. That's what they make. So, I mean, and it's I don't know if there's ever been that in nature. It's analogous to a sort of cobalt salting right. You get all those other, you've got all those other nasty epitopes and then you give it the sort of keys to the kingdom. And it becomes a, well, it becomes a chaotic agent.

Well, right. So superantigen. And I'm still, I'm still learning that. If your, if your immune system sees a pathogen. It goes in and it turns on like one percent or like, I'm sorry, point zero one percent. It's power and it focuses attention goes to starting the process to raise antibodies and whatever against that virus. A super antigen normally takes up like 20 to 30 percent of that attention. Which is like there's a reason why toxic shock syndrome is called toxic shock, because that's exactly what it's doing.

Well, you know, just just sorry to sort of break your flow, Charles, but now it's OK. This this is coming on. You know, there's a sense of urgency now. This sort of class switching phenomenon {IgG4} has dropped. Right. And it's in it's in the consciousness now. And, you know, we've we've we've we've gone and injected people with it. And it's, you know, the impact in the environment. Again, I would presume just it's going to be synergistic in some in some fashion. And I think we're seeing that in Japan right now and Asia in general. And so part of part of the discussion I was having with Nick is that this time we should be more prepared for if what's happening in Asia now appears in the West in a month's time on top of what what's already happened. how are we going to be able how are we going to make sure that this conversation is wrapped around that new data that people people are going to have to be dealing with? and I'm frustrated that we're not we're not we're not getting the coverage that we that we should do right now. Well, they're every time that they don't say what needs to be said can point out something that they know it causes collateral damage. And and you're right. So now, personally, I think that Japan Japan's surge maybe kind of a little differently because we're already into like the coronavirus is largely gone endemic. And I just looked at the data today and it's not we're not seeing the the rise that we have, which tells me that that are really just it's it's endemic. And in fact, right now, people are sick just in general. That's it's actually staying stable and it's staying really low. So it could just be a lack of testing. But I think in general that it may be because the Japanese are more vaccinated enough to the point that it's that's easier for the coronavirus to be to take the lead there as opposed to here. But then again, I don't I don't remember how much more vaccinated they are when it comes to like the boosters and stuff considerably. So so it might just be that the only reason that it's not more of a tridemic there is because they're just that much further along in the weakness in the epitope.

Well, I mean, I've got to put it in the context of this class switching. Right. So they've gone and done third, fourth, fifth boosters and pull the numbers up from that article. right. And so I remember because I think it was you that talked about them. So third, third is 91 percent, fourth, 82 percent, fifth, 56 percent. So the presumption here is that class switching must be playing a factor. And so that's going to give us an indication. So I see you're saying that also I guess my answer to that then is not that it wouldn't happen in the US eventually, but that as long as it's if it's actually become a seasonal thing, then we won't see that wave until, you know, you know, next September or something. Do you think that long? I'm not I'm not so sure. Well, yeah, because the the priority in January. But we can see from the previous surges that they they had sort of, Well, you know, I guess the question of medical iatrogenic. Right. So, yes, but remember, because there's because there's so many other things circulating around, what it may mean is that we in the United States are not seen. It's not IGG4 that's driving this as much maybe. I don't know. Well, does anyone really at this point that the Well, no. And and because they're not asking the question, not funding people to ask the question, we're just ensuring that whatever is happening will kill more people than it should. And the Well, you know, I guess people listening are like, well, you know, what do we do? Well, what do we do? You take the vitamins and crap and you I mean, you don't get jabbed. And the reality is, is we don't actually know because this has never happened on a population scale. Now, I will say that it's not I don't I don't know what I'm at. I don't know that necessarily the doomsday camp.

But at the same time, if the government literally does nothing and doesn't even talk about it. I mean, who knows? Well, you know, I think I think we're in a stage of fatigue, right, with respect to, you know, the public messaging screwed up so badly the first first round that I don't care. Yeah. And my my concern is, is that, you know, the manifestation is, you know, it emerges as sudden deaths, right, that don't appear to be COVID related, right, unless unless they're really going and looking for it. And unless they get turned into a meme on Twitter, in which case it's very clear. I mean, it's so it's so disturbing because I mean, you're right. They've been able to, you know, whether it's vaccine related or in terms of like cardio or whether it's some of these other mechanisms. I mean, it's we're still not there yet in terms of having a public debate. You arrange to be and I mean, how many people do you think have died suddenly? I don't know. I mean, what what seems to be a consistent number across multiple countries is that there's it's around 10 to 15 percent increase in excess mortality. I wouldn't put that down just to lockdowns. A year ago, there's none of this is lockdowns because whole concept that I mean, they would be reset after two years is bullshit. Yeah. Does your immune system reset when you go home for the weekend? your home? You know, this is the dumbest thing you've ever seen, because when we had after the flu pandemic, like they had more waves and stuff that they didn't have, you know, diphtheria and typhus killing people in 1920. I mean, they did, but not in like stupendous numbers. so it's not like there was this deficit that had to be made up.

They it's an excuse because they're trying to destroy the trying to smother the temporal correlation correlation. And he erased the control group. That's what the booster push was, is if everyone has a compromised and shifted biology. first of all, what would happen to the blood supply and and how do you you know, it's that's the same prints. Yeah, they've been it's the principle they've been using for vaccine trials for years and years and years that Stanley Plotkin's concedes on the stand and his deposition that instead of giving the other half of the cohort an actual inert saline injection, they gave them a vaccine, another product that has its own level and, you know, essentially median of adverse event and reaction. So they compared an apple to an apple instead of an apple to an orange. We're fucking Satan. Well, and and but the the the the it comes down to this. So let's let's practice for when we have our own cutting edge expose journalism spaces that don't get Charles nuked off of Twitter. Here's a question, Charles, in in the 1980s when all of the HIV discovery had happened and there was a big buzz and a change. Can you describe if you're if you're aware how the US Army was allowed to take an isolate of Army and other parties were named in a Mycoplasma patent? I can pull it up. OK, so it was I did names in the patent that it was isolated from an AIDS patient. I'm like, how how in the hell did you patent that Mycoplasma patent? I mean, it's a very specific kind of patent. I mean, it's a very specific kind of patent. I mean, it's a very specific kind of patent.

I'm like, how how in the hell did you patent that Mycoplasma unless you had a hand in creating it? And how did it get in that patient? So if I remember correctly, if I remember correctly, that Supreme Court ruling is more recent. So it's possible that back in 85, they were able to get away with that. got you because I want to say that it was like it was something afterwards that that they that they ruled. I would have to go back and look. There was I actually took patent law in my MBA program. But I have to go back and look because I don't remember. But I want to say that that the rulings that was done, I think 2012, I think was. OK. And so prior to that, it was the Wild West with trying to patent genes and got it. OK, it's what some of the behavior that be that predicated the new legislation. All right. Thank you. Yeah. And I think there's I think it was like a process of back and forth over the years. But but my straight up assumption would be during that time they could. and I think that's another part of the problem is that well, the fact that there's money in this at all is is sickening because of course, if you create if you can patent something that only exists for the purpose of biological warfare or ostensibly to to test to make sure you can protect against it. Well, I mean, what is your incentive going to be? Because you can have a much larger pool of of people that you work with. If you're doing something offensive like this vaccine, if you create this awesome vaccine against this crazy coronavirus and it's patented, well, what would so what do you do that? And I don't know. It seems like you're you're begging them to come up with these new things just so they can create the fear. And then hopefully we have to trust that they don't, you know, mess up and it becomes worse or out of control.

No, this is exactly what President Eisenhower was warning against. We both know. Well, yeah, I mean, it was one of them. Yeah, but yeah, but to create. So, yeah, the the unwarranted power, you know, the it's just creating a problem so that you can come in as the big brother and fix it. and fix it. And no, there's nobody else that can fix it the way we can. OK. Of course, you design it. Yes. If you design the problem and you have the solution, then by definition, I mean, it becomes extortion is what it is. But but equitable. I sure. Yeah. I mean, I mean, maybe if you if you kill more white people or something, then you can get support from Democrats, I don't know. But anyway, I feel like you always going to say next. Next hard, hard hitting expose a question since we're practicing for for space. I can do this all day. Yeah. OK. OK.

We we have a at this point, an intractable combination. And, you know, it's soup. you can't make soup between our NIH and the Pentagon. How do we tear that Velcro apart? Go.

Well, the answer is, well, that's because so so well, unfortunately, when it comes to this, it's the intelligence agencies that are driving the bus because they've it's not public health, because public health is always I mean, it's asinine. They've subsumed public health as a subcategory of biodefense. Is that what you're suggesting? Well, first of all, the deep state has kind of wrestled biodefense. Like they've taken biological weapons away. Well, I think this is like Mark's thesis, right? That there's a new struggle taking place in the bureaucratic apparatus. I would say that's fair. The Pentagon is essentially that's old news, right? It's the I haven't heard him discuss this, but I can I can kind of guess what it is, is that he's saying that the Pentagon has always been, you know, it's gotten the meat and the potatoes. But by merging with Silicon Valley, the deep state has outstripped it. state, it can do it can do Intel and info warfare and it can do basically everything that Department of Defense can do. And it's aided by the fact that it's all for decades, it's been using illicit money through drug trades and all sorts of crap. And so it just adds to its black budget. And so you have Silicon Valley money and And all sorts of crap and even printing money like we have the DOD can only compete so much because the DOD doesn't control all of this. It doesn't control all the humans. And so it and as the balance of power moves away from having giant planes with giant bombs, the duty is not placed to take the lead in that. And that's that I would say that we look at it as a public health problem. But I would say that the real problem is that it's not public health. It's just the Intel communities, the deep state. That's it's asserting itself because the deep state took over the biological weapons program, You know, and can I owe me from the DOD after 1969 and they kept dabbling with it and they didn't do large scale. But the problem is now that nothing is large scale. So it almost makes you wonder if if the CIA was funneling money into Wuhan because the DOD wouldn't share its own coronavirus research. And so the CIA was trying to stay competitive in that realm by hitching a ride off of the Chinese and Baric, which is disturbing. But I mean, don't forget, Johanna brings up that there's a German virology lab right across the city and a third, of course, from 2009 to 2017, they were working on a bunch of immunology projects, including HIV things. And there are a lot of ties and you're right. And so if, you know, if we see maybe it's five eyes or whatever it is, the Intel community has the upper hand because it is Google integrated as all social media integrated. like in Britain, you have units that do this work that are part of the military, more so than than like Intel, GMI five. And so there's a there's a little better balance there.

But Silicon Valley is born out of our DARPA, but it was born out of our intelligence capability. And so I don't know. When you have when you can tap. Wikipedia told me that the Internet was born from the colleges and universities. So I think I might have. Sorry. Just being a jackass. Sorry. I mean, yeah, it's sad that I think that that's where we are. And I don't know. I think that the military is in the losing battle. And that's scary because the military has always had the upper hand because it had the guns and the bullets and the beef. Have the actual soldiers that could occupy the force. And the CIA doesn't really have to be paramilitary anymore. They can just be straight dicks.

Well, how many paper clips went right into the CIA? Charles, do you know? Have you studied that? I I've studied that I haven't stayed like a number. OK, but I don't have lists. It's all it's all little cameos and anecdotes. I would say I would say that there's so much that went to the space program and to biological weapons. Well, mostly from Merck, Japan. But there's people from Merck. And I don't think that was the point. I really don't think it was until the 60s and 70s was when they started killing presidents that they. Once they asserted themselves, they've kind of gone just crazy. And what we're seeing now is. The end result of the turning the massive shift into the left away from nationalism and towards like left wokeism inside our intelligence agencies, which is probably the dumbest and most dangerous. if there's any part of our government that could could make that shift, I would say that's even more dangerous than having the military just become straight, worked hard because. OK, so sorry. Well, no, no, I'm done.

I was going to say, let's let's let's opine. Let's reflect on Kevin as a case study. OK. So so a citizen of another country with a unique demographic path, different experience with different religions, different influences in his neighborhood when he was growing up, there was no way that, you know, anybody could predict where he would end up demographically in the world. But he reacts and has a an antigen response when certain woke culture is pushed out in images, particularly photographic images. of the, you know, the trans head of, you know, the the the she's a she is in a defense church. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Oh, no, no, not the church, not the British, not the British vicar at vicar, vicar, vicar, vicar, vicar. I'm not sure. OK. You've heard of you've heard of licorice is the vicarish.

So I but as far as coming back to what we're what we're talking about, you're talking about, not not to dissect my spirit. He's got every right to have every feeling and every conviction and every every action. I'm thinking about specifically the CIA or whoever else is is using the current PowerPoint deck because, you know, that's what it really boils down to. It's that frickin two dimensional of pushing all this rainbow stuff, stuff, not because they have any they give two rats asses about gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgenders, but because they know it will affect a bifurcation social sociologically, that it will start to polarize certain people, move certain people towards extremism potentially and violence. And not that that's the big master plan to take care of everything, but it's just one more bullet point in the playbook to wedge people. for people. What do you think? And I definitely think wedge nudge. Yeah, that's all that's happening is it's happening because what can I do? Let's take a 30,000 foot view of this. Right. Sure. Sure. And this is the concept that this deep state apparatus, for whatever reasons, has gone to war against its own populace. Oh, I don't know what it whatever it whatever it feels it needs to do to affect change. But what its end goals are and who's pulling it strings. There's there's language. There's very specific language if we're going to be historically accurate. It's called full spectrum domination. That's their language. Their their objectives, not mine. And in achieving those goals, they they've got a playbook and it's being implemented in ever, ever faster strokes of the brush, I guess, on the canvas. The the the bigger issue here is that regardless of the tactics they're using, it's the point that they have gone down this pathway. And now now we're in a situation where I like to say we're in a highly unpredictable environment.

I get that's what they're trying to achieve. because of its destabilized perception. And so you become easier to nudge, I guess is a good good term of phrase. And yeah, I guess I guess the what's their end goal that they want the surveillance, the full spectrum dominance means surveillance, right? I know what the end goal is. It's it's actually not that complicated. if because you have to remember that these people, they've kind of you have to look at Silicon Valley and you have to look at from their perspective because the Intel community or whoever these deep state people are, they know that by latching themselves onto these technologies, they can they can win the race, at least they have, it's much easier for them to do that.

And so there's no, there's zero incentive for them to to shift from social media to shift from Google because the power that they control just elections. I mean, if you guys have seen it's Richard Epstein, but Robert Epstein, I don't know. it's an Epstein, unfortunately, but he's his research that he's done on search engine manipulation has been excellent. And he has come across that. I mean, I mean, he's been on Joe Rogan and other stuff. He has peer reviewed papers. He's got a series of them that he's still researching. and there's a whole story. The bottom line is, is that the amount of power that they have is is so disturbing that to me, it's it's completely within the realm of possibility that that, you know, people who are can who are being pushed into the more conservative arena, they might be 60 percent of the population, but they don't know it because they they don't see that. They don't see it in election time. They don't see it on the media. They don't see it anywhere. And so they I mean, it's causing this. It's it's continuing the bifurcation, but it's I think that it it might be far more far less of a problem. like I think there is an actual majority and it might not be like conservative, but it is common sense. And I'm terrified that that they've had this ability.

And well, so the bottom line is I bring all that up because this is a sprint for them. like they came to the main core and I went through several symposiums with a bunch of officers and we're talking about the future and all this kind of crap. But this is a sprint. They want to win. They want to be what we call the singularity or just they want to maintain themselves at the forefront because they know that once it reaches the point where you're you're in the lead and you you have this brand new technology that nobody else has, that that's when they can really clamp down. And we don't know what it could be a combination of technology or whatever, They want to win that race. They want to beat China. They want to be who are real and it might be a consortium of people trying to prevent China. But the problem is that they're not doing it necessarily with Western values in mind. But that's their goal. It's their only goal. Their goal is to do whatever it takes to remain in control of everything. So that way, when that day comes, they can keep control with much less effort. That's the goal.

And just in the chat, this word keeps coming up, eugenics, right? And testing and a corollary. I don't even think it's that. I don't think it's that because if you really understand technology and you track it over the last 50 years, what you've seen is that, for instance, crop yields, that top yields have been reduced, have been raised 100 fold, which means 100 fold less land to produce the same amount of rice. And this is happening in all different areas of technology. I think that they know that all this climate change shit is bullshit. They know that they don't care about that shit. They're not concerned about running out of energy because they're confident that we will invent the sources of technology to be able to do it. energy and to be honest, I agree with them. Like, I'm not concerned about those things because I don't think those things are existential. It's the technology itself that's existential. So an offshoot of eugenics is life extension for them, right? Of course. What's the trajectory here? Is it some brave new world type dystopia? What they want is to... this is such a great... I'm not going to go through all this now, but I'll go ahead and just kind of enter it because it's pretty much at the point where we got to start talking about it. This is exactly why all these little technologies that they've been suppressing during the pandemic. Because if they really just want control, it doesn't benefit them. It certainly doesn't benefit them to give us the power to hold them accountable. and so the power to withhold technologies and the more they do that, the greater the disparity becomes and the harder it becomes for us to fight it because we don't actually understand what exactly we're fighting. It's incredibly unfair advantage and there's zero incentive for people who are gaining that at an accelerating rate to give it up. So it's absolutely... I would say that's writ large just right now with respect to the... in the context of biowarfare.

A lot of people just can't keep up with the technical demands of understanding what's being deployed against them, which is why I think you see the reflex towards towards, oh, it can't exist, right? A sort of flat-eartherism of the biology. If that's already in play, then of course they can continue to accelerate down a path where they hit that singularity horizon and maybe they already have, I don't know. haven't. We would know because there would be no reason for them to hide it if they had because there would be nothing we could do. But that pervasive sense of helplessness, is that not an expression that they're sitting on? Yeah, I think so, but I suppose it's possible that the reason for the arrogance that we've seen in a pandemic, I guess it's possible that it's fueled by the sense of superiority that they know something that we don't. But I mean, they're so fucking stupid. And, you know, if I can figure some of this stuff out, I mean, I really hope that that they've not already, I really just that they're arrogant because, and I think that's what it is, but the problem is, is that the reason that they're arrogant, I don't think it's because of technology. I think it's because they know that the deep state will protect them. And so there's a sense of invincibility. And just like in Plato's Republic, everybody talks about the allegory of the cave. But the one that strikes the most to me right now is the ring of Gaijis, where a guy finds a ring that makes him invisible, kind of like the one ring. And he gets so used to being able to walk around and do whatever he wants. He can stand in the corner. He can point and laugh at people. He can steal their food, fondle their women, you know, whatever he wants to do. Yeah, that would have been top of my list before standing in court. Sorry. If I remember correctly, one day he loses it or he doesn't realize that he doesn't have it on. And so like the emperor with no clothes, he, you know, he's sitting here and doing know, doing all these things, not realizing that people can see him. And to me, that's Fauci. That is somebody who has, at the beginning of this pandemic, he was given this power and he knew that they were going to protect him. And so he did whatever the fuck he wanted. And, you know, I think that everything that we've seen in the FOIA requests, you…

You know, J.C. thinks that they only release it because, you know, they can. No, I don't think it's true at all. I think they're arrogant pricks who didn't care because they thought they could get away with anything. They thought that the science would occlude their tactics. They thought the public couldn't potentially ever get through the amazing detail of our science. Because think about it. Look at what Robie has done in trying to, you know, he he's come to be the savior of the of the proximals by saying like stupid arguments. And every time a paper comes out now, there's 10, 10 of us on our side just ripping a new asshole into it. And it doesn't matter because it still gets printed in Science. After after nine months of us telling people, yeah, this is fucking dumb. And here's all the flaws. The science editors didn't care. They just printed it. Why? Because because Fauci was still there. All these people are still there. And Fauci was protected and everybody knew it. And so it becomes arrogance. And so they know that as long as they continue to lie, that the only way that it continue to be protected, the only way that it can be overcome is if is if they lose the favor of their protectors.

Well, you know, go ahead, please. This just for me falls into the domain of them being able to cleave off network as damage control. And, you know, the analogy you made to put in a sprint. Yes, very much so. I feel I feel that, you know, the whatever wherever you want to take the start of the race, the the firing gun has gone off and we we're not we're not and we're not we're not focusing on where the finish line actually is. There's too many. There's too many disparate lines right now that are that are pulling pulling for attention. And, you know, it's please cue the Benny. Cue the Benny Hill music. Yeah. Yeah. But the, you know, I would point to Colonel Hoffman in the discussion you had earlier where, you know, he just drops that. Yeah, we knew I was in meetings early with respect to SARS being a recognized entity. Right. OK. So that the conversation could have stopped at that point and said, OK, we're drilling in here. What did you know? How much of the pathophysiology did you know at that point? How much does it, you know, favor hypotheses that put forward by ethical skeptic, for example? standards, for example? I think that's a really good.

Well, I've talked to Andrew about this because obviously he he said the same thing basically in his book. He talked about, you know, analyzing sulfur patterns in the air based on smoke coming from crematoriums. Because, if they… And I want to say it was like Octoberish. But the bottom line is that they didn't they didn't know the sequencing because if they well, I don't believe that they did. Now, it's possible that other people in our government did, but I don't China were actors outside of China that were they're also involved in this or that were the ones who caused it in China. It probably wasn't enough. You know, it's not enough to know those people. He wouldn't be in that circle. And so I think that I wasn't too concerned about what they'd be able to add to that particular discussion because because I know that Andrew knows him very well. I really, when we had our conversation, I didn't get the sense that he he knew much like it wasn't like he had that much more notion than anybody else. They just knew something was there and. They knew China wasn't talking. And, you know, so…

But it opens it opens the possibility that all all kinds of how would you say mechanism mechanisms kicked in the you know. I mean, if we took if we took, for example, the idea that the vaping illnesses, right, because I still think that that's a data point that needs it needs clearing off the table one way or the other. And to me, that's an easy, easy data point to get if the will is there. Right. Well, OK, remember, so let's just go ahead and clarify. People need to understand. We have had the capability and we currently have the capability to go to go back and test athletes who were in Wuhan from October 2019. Or people who got sick or sent samples from people who had a volley in the earlier in the summer and then the fall. We could know definitively the answer to that question. Why? Because we could know when they got it. We could know by doing a saliva test. We could know when they. But we can know what strain it was, at least verify if it was the earliest strain that we've record of or if it was something before. I'm sorry, strain variant, whatever. And we we could do that for all of the athletes in Wuhan. We could do it for all those evaluated cases for which we still had samples. And we could definitively answer that question today. were able to do that since at least. Twenty twenty.

And why didn't we? Because that technology was presented by DARPA to Dr. Fauci, and he said, fuck no. He didn't say, I don't think he said that, but. But he flashed across his frontal cortex. It flashed across his frontal cortex. He said, yeah, that's a great idea. You mean we could have we could have basically 100 percent accurate diagnostic tests? And prognostic tests? So we can only know if you have it. Or if you're infected, we could know before you got sick, if you're going to get sick or how sick you're going to get. it falls into the issue of, you know, this idea that they've got a cabinet full of technology that they could unroll and, you know. OK, but they don't. So so here. But what I want people to understand is what I just told you. That is true. And that is related to technology. That was the original reason that I was contacted. Before DEFUSE was found. And I've not talked about that publicly. And there's reasons. But we're going to need to start doing that pretty soon.

You… People need to understand that the lying in the gas lighting extends to all of this. And and so. Now, the reason that we that we didn't talk about this and we went with DEFUSE is because at the time DEFUSE seemed like the there's a more obvious thing that needed to be published. But in the long term, as I look back at it, I couldn't I couldn't release that information without also releasing how I knew it and how I knew that Fauci had rejected it. But I can assure you that we'll be testifying about that. And that's that's another.

See, every time we think about this now. We have been. We've been get this false premise that that we don't have a capability to know the answers to these questions. But it goes even beyond what Kevin said. He's like, OK, yes. I mean, if we had the will, we could. And he's right. Of course, I've talked about this, but. we could have answered this immediately. And it's beyond that. We could have known. We could have had home. There are companies, including one called it was fluid. I think it's six standard tools or something now. There are companies who brought forward contracts to HHS and NIH in mid 2020 to make these tests to start distributing them to replace PCR. And Fauci didn't do it. Now, of course, why would he not do it? Because if you could take a test that you knew was accurate, that could tell your doctor everything you need to know, then they couldn't control you. And that's it. They couldn't control you.

Which lends credence to the fact that at some level, they've made the decision to wrap it in the WEF archetype. Whatever banner it is, it's not science. And that's the problem. And of course, that's one of the reasons why I've been so mad with JC why I decided with J.C. is because he knew that. And so I had told him that why would they release DEFUSE if they also gave me the knowledge on how to test it and falsify it if it wasn't true? because they're retarded. And we could go into how that would work. What the bottom line is is that it was asinine. So no, they wouldn't have done that. Those are two things that the intelligence community would not have released because the intelligence community was right there with Fauci. They were approached. The FBI was approached. Why? Because you could use this for crime scenes. Because you could use it for temporal forensics and crime scenes. Because once people really understand this technology.

For people that are listening, just to clarify, this is to do with epigenetic. Epigenetic signatures. And it's one of the things that people call it. The bottom line is that every time your body is invaded by a virus or there's a cancer that's growing or there's a trauma that your body's chemical processes respond to your body turns on and off different parts of your different genes along your chromosome leaves little markings on them. It's called methylation. And it does this for all sorts of things. There's methylation markers to tell you if you have ever been a smoker. What about vaping? I'm sorry. In the very near future, insurance companies, this is actually going to be a big thing that nobody knows yet. But insurance companies are going to be able to tell if you've been a smoker or not. So you can go get a lung test and maybe you didn't smoke that long. They will be able to read your genomes on your cells and know that you're a smoker or have been in your lifetime. They will be able to diagnose cancers that are growing long before you can see them. As you keep looking, as you amass data, as you amass the data and the amount of these signatures, you can read them more accurately and more accurately. And that's part of the crime here is that we've already, there's peer-reviewed papers now that nobody knows about where they've already been able to tell asymptomatic from symptomatic diagnosis and prognosis. you just got infected. I can tell that four days before PCR. And I can tell you if you're going to have a serious case or not. Imagine if your doctor had that information. Well, guess what? He could have. So if you know somebody that died because they didn't get treatment in time, talk about the doctors, talk about the doctors being pissed off about early treatment. They could have had early diagnostics and they could have had them two years ago.

Well, the frustrating thing about that right now is that we could be applying the technology to all these mystery. Yes, this is another thing I've been talking. You've probably seen some of it, but I've been talking to our select we'll crew and also to a certain darker friend of mine, former darker friend. And it took time to really grasp what this means, because this goes beyond even testing or forensics being able to identify. You could you be able to tell if your injury, if your myocarditis came from the shot or if it came from the virus. because over time they would they would learn the signals well enough that they could differentiate even if they had never seen you in your life. Over time, you build up a database big enough. You'll get that accurate. And so now this is actually keeping us from being able to investigate and figure out these problems and then fix them, which is just another crime against humanity. but I would I was just going to add that maybe maybe all the aggressive PCR testing was just part of the building up of that database. I mean, it that's actually it's a possibility. I mean, because obviously they're doing this somewhere. Yes, I mean, it's obvious that they didn't just forget about this, there's a list of like 80 papers from just last like six or seven years showing where they've learned. Hey, we now know the methylation pattern for gastroenteritis for just all sorts of like everything. And eventually they'll be able to do this for anything that your body responds to. I mean, the technology is incredible. And DARPA actually tried multiple times to get the HHS and Fauci to fund these tests, these rapid tests that could go into stores. And and he wouldn't do it. He wouldn't do it. Disturbing. So obviously, wherever they are gathering this information, they're not sharing this information. They're not sharing it.

And, you know, it's ironic that in a way it could it could explain in that way that I think is more logical. This the sampling idea of the J.C. has. Because I mean, personally, I don't I don't think that the genetic diversity at eight billion versus eight point five billion versus seven point five that. Like, I think they're going to have enough A.I. is going to have enough to work with if they want to, you know, really fudge around with it with the data. I don't think that's it. I think that this is far more valuable because because eventually they'll learn they don't know how exactly yet, but eventually they will learn how to un-methylate. So say that your epigenome is is marked and and ultimately that causes damage and that reduces the life of that cell. And so your age, your that those parts of your body cells are going to live is going to be less than otherwise would have been because it causes damage. They can be able to reverse that or at least stop it. Like, OK, wipe the marker clean. People don't understand the scale of this. Well, it wraps into I wake up. I wake up and I'm watching like all of this shit, you know, and I'm seeing the fact that this IGG stuff is happening and all this stuff is happening. And while all of this has happened and they're not telling us where this all came from, they know that they could be working towards actual actual solutions And they're not. Well, this is maybe they are working to it. Maybe, you know, it's part of it. But it doesn't matter because they're not telling they're withholding it from us. And that's sick.

And I think the only way that we can like, to be honest, the real way that we can be liberated from all of this crap is to have the technology as well. I think that's the only way. I think if we allow this, this breach, it will get to a point that we can't compete. Yeah. And, you know, kind of Elon Musk's thesis, right, that we have to be. I don't know, like the AI component, the computing side has to be. I don't know, open sourced and we have to be. Well, it can't be hidden from us. I mean, when I think that Elon Musk, obviously he's complicated, but I think that he was willing to buy other people's money, mostly, but, he was willing to take a massive amount of investment and buy Twitter. And for whatever reason, he at least understood that time is short. I think that's really what this is about. I think he understands that whoever is in charge now, like, they're not smarter than we would be as a group. Maybe he's in some weird charitable way, he realizes that it's such a dangerous path that he wants to help level playing field. I don't know. It's obviously important to him.

So I saw a good discussion, which was the, it's the corralling of, well, you talked about the bifurcation and the different political domains in the US. Maybe this is a very US-centric way of looking at it, but, you know, Peter it. Peter Thiel, Elon Musk close, and, you know, with Trump and truth social, they're looking to cleave off and, I don't know, maintain the shadows on the cave wall for a good proportion of the population. And, you know, I don't know. We're straying a little bit from a sort of core topic, but I would, yeah,

I guess the question is, would that be a factor in where we're going right now? I've, I'm not a big fan of Plato. I think that people don't realize that he's always like, authoritarians have always liked Plato because they love the concept of a philosopher king because they think that they're the philosopher king. It's natural for people who are in charge to feel entitled to this position. But at least back then there was a sense of noblesse oblige, whereas now no, you don't give a fuck.

And so I, I don't, humanity is so much richer and more vibrant and better than what represents us at places like Davos. that is. The worst of us, those slime creatures who have, they've so developed this sense that they, they can't possibly, they can't possibly be the capable of the type of leadership that they think they deserve. They're just evil and they're pathetic. demonstrated their, their incompetence and, and hubris just sold, sold out everyone's free will and autonomy and their own individual nations and identities. They're not winning through their, through their goodness or their greatness or their, the fact that they, they're casting a vision that's so awesome that everybody wants to follow it and believe it. &hey are winning by stabbing their own humans in the back and calling themselves superior because of it. And that's not superiority. It's, it's sin. It's disgusting.

Who is the little weft, who's the little weft Chihuahua, the little bald, weird one that gets out there and talks about… Harari. Yes. So I mean, are they purely avatars? Are they, are they put forward more as a caricature as are they clowning an organization and there's, you know, Kissinger is just in the back. They couldn't be drawn or, or, or written more ridiculous. And sitting, sitting and talking about, oh, you're just going to give it. You're just going to forget. Harari said, I last most recently heard him saying, you're just going to, it's very important that you just forget how the world used to be. Basically was his message. And I'm like, we're, we're going to start with you. Do you understand? How inspirational. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

And this, this is my issue here is that it seems too cartoonish. And so, so I'm well, that's because it's quick… When you, when you're in a vacuum for a long period of time, you start to lose sense of, of, of how far you've, you know, You've drifted from whatever it is that used to be normal. Common sense. I mean, they don't. It's it really is hubris. And to think. To me, like. Like the one thing. There's always driven me since probably since I was 20, it was that, I want to ensure that however much we progressed during the time that I was alive. That. Whatever we progressed into. Was dictated by. The values of civil society and Western civilization, not, you know, now it's China. But the truth is, is that. It's our own. Western governments. Who are doing that. They've been lulled into the sense of. Well, in order for us to maintain our grip on power… the people are more accessible to us, they can see that we're full of shit. So. We can't. We can't win this in a normal way. So we have to gain the system. And. That's a violation of, of capitalism. It's not capitalism. It's not, freedom. And. I mean, this is why. This is why I always focus on one thing. Whatever the most. The thing is. In terms of what I've been doing for COVID because. Because I know that if. We start on that road. To our justice. That is the only way. And. I think. There's no victory in. Being put into cattle cars and. Put into smart cities and. Chips with IDs. While they reap the benefits of technologies. That they've they've gained by, By siphoning off the labor of, of people who are better than them. Because I would. those people. And I believe that. That the waiters. You know. At the slummiest slum place and. And Phuket are. Our better human beings. Then those people. And I would rather them. The leader. Lead us into the future. And that pile of scum. So. You know. I think that. They're going to be. The only people who know more about what matters. They cannot. No one can come to you. And say. With a straight face. That something is more important. Than justice for millions of people. Now. They can try to, try to distract you. But they can't say. You’re wrong for that. They can't say that your controlled. Opposition for that. They can't say that you're a limited hang out. If all. If. We deserve to know the truth. Because because more American males between the ages of 25 and 49 died in the second half of 2022 and died in 13 years in Vietnam.

So we lost a Vietnam generation in six months. What a number. And and they are insulting us. They are insulting us by telling us that we should focus on January 6th. We should focus on some classified papers at Biden's. Or that we should forget and just leave Pharma alone. Or, you know, tell the deep state that it's OK. No, fuck that.

Yeah, this came up earlier whilst you dropped off. And there was a discussion between Brett Weinstein and Joe Rogan. and that it was a sort of, again, a plea for sort of amnesty from Joe Rogan saying, you know, we've had enough for the last few years. I don't want to be part of a or be like the the worst of the Karen archetype that was paying for blood of people who were just saying, hang on, something something's not smelling right. and I'm I'm not comfortable with that position right now. And again, I would just say that the average man on the street who was forced into decisions that they probably would rather not have taken were their jobs not on the line. It's not it's not those that we need to be rounding up. But there's for sure we can't just drop any any momentum we have towards holding people to account for what's transpired over the over the last few years. And, you know, I get that. So I listen to that show and and here's my thought on that. My thought was. You know what? Like if I was talking to Joe Rogan, like hopefully I do someday in the near future because I will fucking in this. but but I'll be honest. Joe Rogan has done enough. OK, now the truth is is that we need Joe Rogan. We need anything that he can give us. But at the same time, Joe Rogan, just because he was able to do some things, that doesn't mean that he's a leader and that he wants to be a leader. He's already sacrificed a lot more than people have. I mean, he's got a lot more to sacrifice. But but but he's people have to understand. This is why leadership matters. OK, because not everybody leadership requires sacrifice. Now, there are times when people all have to sacrifice. But leadership requires you to do it because it needs to be done, not because. Like what else forces you to. OK, and so, yes, we need his help, but that doesn't mean we need him to be the leader.

And this has been a problem with all the scientists. They don't get it because they're willing to place other priorities above the one that matters most. They're not willing to sacrifice whatever it takes to achieve it. And what that means is that if we follow them, we will get to some halfway place that is not a victory. And this is too important. And I mean, I've said this for three years, but I'm going to keep saying it because it is true. And I don't care how long it takes. This is not me being a leader or somebody else being a leader. people need to understand that, you know, Bret Weinstein, he's he's helping the cause. OK, and Robert Malone, he's helping the cause mostly. But the reason why they get distracted, the reason why people like J.C. get distracted or all sorts of people, it's not because they're failures. It's not because they don't get it. It's because it takes. You have to be willing to set everything else aside. And that includes everything of yours, because that is how far the people that we're fighting are willing to go. They are willing to allow millions of people to die and gaslight them. So if you think that you can you can go up there and, you know, talk about psychology and mass formation and you're going to you're going to win the argument against people who don't think twice. You don't think twice about taking a swing at kids, right? That's that's the. They are evil. They have the gravity because they're either evil because they're evil or they're evil because they're pussies. But it doesn't matter because the result is the same.

Because if you're if you're a pussy and you allow evil and you enable it, then there's no difference, because at the end of the day, that kid is gone or, you know, that 26 year old maid of honor is gone. It didn't have to be. And so that's what people have to come to accept. And I don't care who it is, but they need to hear it because they need to understand that if they're going to if they're going to bitch and complain. That that somebody doesn't like their ideas.

I don't care.

I don't like the idea of millions of people dying and then getting away with it.

Well, and rinse and repeat cycle of forever wars and the worst excesses of, I don't know, a fiat currency system that forever seems to impoverish more than it seems to enrich.

And I'm well, you know, I began streaming today at this position of that they're escalating everything. It's at the as each day passes and each data point is aggregated. that the premise that they're engaged in a asymmetric war for full spectrum dominance, it becomes more and more apparent. And they have no choice. They don't want the rich and they have stocks. And so they don't want them to be cut in half or in three quarters or whatever. But they can also overcome that because they can just create make the next currency at the end of the day. They're pussies and and they don't want to go further than they have to because it's uncomfortable. And trust me, pussies are not leaders, so they're not made to persevere.

And the general sat in the lines on the map, moved from side to side. Unfortunately, pussies sit in the general's tent sometimes. Well, they do. And I think that I think that we give them too much credit that they're forcing the issue. I think that they they have no idea what to do except to try to maintain control. And if that means to make things crazy to them, that's like the logical answer. And so what we need to do is we need to we need to get a voice to a wide enough group of people to say, fuck all of this. OK, do you care about do you care about the people that you know that have died? Do you care about the fact that they were murdered, whether directly or indirectly? Do you care that this will never stop? Unless unless we say no. And the truth is, is that. People. Will respond to that. the problem is that there is no one with the balls to say it. Well, or the people that are positioned right now trying to say it are that they're not relaying the full picture. Well, they and they also. They are afraid. And. And people don't understand. But I'm afraid, OK, I'm afraid, I'm afraid for myself, I'm afraid for my family. But. Fear. Fear is there and you can either accept it.

Do I need to play the Bill Paxton clip from Tomorrow, Tomorrow Never Comes? Was that what that movie called Tom Cruise?

I. You see, I haven't seen it. So I always play that I make my own speeches.

You need to steal a line from that. Well, I mean, the bottom line is just that people need to be afraid. They really do, because.

This is disgusting. But we're not fighting against.

We're not fighting against Alexander the Great. or Caesar. OK, these aren't tactical geniuses who inspire men to follow them.

These are disgusting, spineless weasels.

Who? Control people through wealth.

And driving others in poverty and propaganda.

So. And you're seeing the result of everybody In other places, starting to realize this.

But, you know, if.

People have to hear the truth, people respond to the truth, but they have to hear it if they do not hear it, then.

They they don't know. But when they do hear it, it's an it's an instinctual thing.

It's why it was so refreshing when, you know, Robert Malone is on Joe Rogan and 70 million people went and listened to it.

As soon as I knew he was on air, I didn't like Robert Malone, but I knew that he was going to say things that needed to be said.

And so within 24 hours, I'd already listened to that episode. OK.

And 70 million people.

I say it all the time. 70 million plus the 50 from Peter McCullough in two appearances over six weeks span, that was more than one hundred and one hundred twenty million.

There were one hundred and fifteen million that watched the Super Bowl.

That year. And so.

People are desperate for the truth.

They don't care if Ron Sanders says it, they don't care if Joe Rogan says it.

They don't care.

But at the same time, Robert Malone needs to understand that if people start paying attention to him, that doesn't mean that he's figured it out and he's the second coming of Jesus. OK.

That means that. Yeah, sure.

He has a responsibility to not fuck it up, but he also needs to know when he's not.

When he when it's not his job to do. And he's a scientist, so of course he doesn't know that.

Well, that's the.

Ego trap.

He's the.

Well, I don't know, I think was it Keck, Keck said that he's, you know, he's wanting he's kind of wanting the fame for the RNA and the. But also sort of co-responsibility. He wants to be the he wants to be the guy who he was super smart and then he goes and fixes his mistake and ruins redemption.

OK, congratulations. But I don't I don't really want this to be like a biblical story of redemption because it's not about him.

And I mean, he's not the one and I know that. there have sometimes been people over the course of the last 20 years. Who who meet me and sometimes their first impression is, oh, OK, well, he's cocky or he's well, he's really confident or he's really confident about his ideas or whatever.

And.

Competence comes from, I'm sorry, confidence comes from competence.

real confidence that is.

So, yes, yes, I have.

I've been in situations where I had to make hard decisions and I've made them and I've made people's lives better and sometimes I've made them worse.

But.

But I've been there and I've done things. And, you know, when you talk about the brain, you know what the fuck you're talking about, you know, you don't stutter.

know, Nick talks about.

Well, monkeys and HIV and shit, he he understands that.

Yeah, he's got that bit down, right?

Right. And, you know, I wasn't super confident about talking about any of this crap at first, because I didn't know shit.

And so I know that scientists sometimes hear me and I make mistakes, of course, but they think, wow, this guy, he's just pretty confident about that idea that he has.

Well, you know what?

Probably because I've read more than you.

OK, I've read three thousand papers.

And I've listed them out for you. So if so, yes.

And that's that's not because I'm cocky, it's because I want people to stop dying. to stop dying.

Because because some scientists made stupid fucking decisions.

And you know what? I want it bad enough that I will do whatever it takes.

Well, the issue is not just it's not just scientists and it's this it's those, I don't know, Kissinger types who would who don't think twice about engaging in this asymmetric warfare that they've pulled on us.

and that, you know, we might we might be sitting, talking and, you know, saying we've got the got the problem solved. But are we going to be able to convince enough people?

Well, it doesn't matter because I don't have all the answers.

But see, I've never I've never had the time in the platform. I've never had the opportunity to say things that are already known to people so that they know them.

I mean, I like my ideas were on a Glenn Beck show that got seen by a lot of people.

But not in the back to call the credits.

But you know, it's OK. He dipped it in barbecue sauce.

Because fuck it. It pissed me off. It did. OK. But.

At the end of the day.

It was a good show. I got the honest and also at the end of the day.

It's what is my goal is my goal to become famous.

Or is my goal to.

To solve this problem in this fight. And, you know, it hurt when J.C. was being deterred and hurt when.

You know, Robert Malone and call it back, it didn't hurt that much.

But you probably dodged a bullet there.

Probably probably because according to what I'm hearing about D.C. right now, she's going insane, but it doesn't matter. OK. I mean, did I want to sell my house? No.

But I had to.

I had to.

And.

All of us.

We're going to have to make hard decisions. Yeah, listen up, lickpittles, step in at the breach.

Sorry, bitches, sorry, bitches, but there's going to be sacrifice.

Now, I don't want people to have to sacrifice any more than absolutely have to.

But I want them to do whatever it takes so that they don't end up as wef slaves.

And I don't know what I don't know what that the demarcation line is, but I can tell you that.

But we're not going to win that by suing each other.

And we're not going to win that by by trying to play, who's got the biggest dick? You know, when we're on the front lines. I mean, sure, yeah, Marines like to to compete.

I mean, I was a twin before I was a Marine. So and I was like the smallest Marine.

So it was I either be vicious or be beaten.

So I was just vicious. It's going to be in my new children's book, The Littlest Marine.

I actually I mean, there was midget Marines like, but I was very thin and no.

But I made it. I mean, I don't know. I thrived in that environment. I had a really good sarcasm. And I I could do what needed to be done.

And you know, I've tried to keep doing those things.

But we're so close. We've we've actually come a long way and people don't really understand that. and people understand that how important the next few months is.

But the doctors like it's been it's been a decade since January 2022.

It seems like we've all we've all aged.

Kevin, we've been watching you age on camera. Oh, yeah, we have. But I mean, we're but we're still here. But, yep.

But at the same time, we could have done so much more.

had people listen to the advice that there's a so hard on yourself, there's an issue around, you know, this time last year, you know, the murmurings about censorship and, you know, oh, you were being paranoid. That's just that, you know, that's not happening. But no, there was a concerted effort from the very top of these bureaucracies to stifle actual scientific study and discussion.

It was very premeditated.

Again, I don't know how much of that was a degree of hubris that allowed them to think that they could get away with that.

But the disturbing thing is, is that all that apparatus was in place and it took that wasn't something that was just signed as an executive order a few weeks before.

This was it was years and years in the making.

And yeah, I think they had a they had a filmed dress rehearsal of it months before. Yeah, that's true.

I'll give them credit for for their arrogance.

But they they wanted to be out in front. yeah, it's got to be it. They really enjoy. There's something that I heard that sounded spooky, something about, I don't know, secret societies, things like that, and that they really need it to be out in the open.

Because if if people accept it, when it's right there in front of them, then the perpetrator is absolved of karma and guilt.

Because they had every opportunity to see for themselves and they did it anyway. you know, that's that's something I saw.

It could have been in the raccoon bunker. Probably what? Well, I mean, it's this idea that you've given.

The fact that you haven't objected is a tacit consent. And and with that, they they move inch by inch, slice by slice towards their goal.

and yeah, I don't think that they were expecting the the pushback that they did get. I I honestly think I don't think we should be seeing Robert Malone.

Right. And this was this was something that Mark said had had had there not been a sort of a stubborn and resilient core pointing out the the holes in in their narrative.

We could have been.

And a digital gulag locked and bolted and whatever comes next, Soylent Green. but we I think people should take take the win that we got. And, you know, these are this is history in the making.

And we can.

There's still moves to make, right? And so keep keep keep making them. I mean, look, if if they if being on TV, if we do it out in the open, it's OK.

Then I would love to go to Davos right now.

Is walk up to.

Klaus and kick him in the dick.

Apparently, he's not there, right? Oh, that's right. That's right. Sick.

It's on the chart. His dick isn't there or he's not there. OK, sorry, it's that he is.

I mean, I think that. The reason why I make memes.

In the midst of, you know, the serious things I try to do is because these people deserve much worse than that.

They don't they don't even deserve. My good means. But the other people like everybody else needs to see that they deserve to be made fun of.

Yeah, because they are ridiculous. This has always been my position that there's no you're not having a scientific discussion with these people that have built this censorship apparatus.

Right. There's no there's no common ground on which and which to be having intellectual back and forth. That was obvious from very early on. And, you know, people are sort of getting wind of that right now. And, you know, if it's some island news in the chat saying that we're having to watch.

Brainwashed family die off.

Maybe maybe that's what it takes to shock people out of the trance. But the. It's still a.

Well, I don't want to say it could be worse. It can always be worse. But yeah, there's a chance that you're going to have to sacrifice.

And there's there'll be pain along the way.

still a long way to go.

And you just crack on.

Keep doing it. I try and sit here most days.

Pointing it out and, you know, the the thing like the the spaces today. OK, we saw it.

The scope needs tweaking somewhat, so it hits the hits the target more.

the hits the target more. But I would take the wind that, you know, you've got a bunch of it. Well, you have more whistleblowers there.

Charles. Yeah.

The and I remember the the complaint first time. Yeah.

And he should have got more traction at the time.

But well, he didn't know he didn't know who I was and he didn't know that I've been working behind the scenes. I mean, it's not the main thing I've been doing, but.

That that those are fights that I'm fighting in.

And I think that. Ironically, I know it sounds dumb because I have the most followers, but once again, I didn't I didn't seek that out.

so maybe it's because they like the fact that I'm that I don't quit and.

You know, I'm willing to punch people in the mouth or and I actually find occasional pieces of things that are important or whatever. I don't know.

But maybe I'm just sexy. I don't know. But.

All of the above, right? All of the above. If he isn't sexiest man of the of the year this year on, I don't know what, what, what cover is that Charles?

Time is not the time doesn't do sexiest man.

I think it's something like that's like people. Time makes. I can tell you of the things that I would rather.

Be and do is very long list, but.

And what I have to do, I have to be assertive because because I've realized that.

That I can't wait around forever. We're running out of time and the things.

The things that I that I know. I know are important because because it was other people who told me that they were important. And either all of them are wrong.

Or I'm kind of on the right track and.

I know it sounds strange, but I have to be more certain. and all these doctors and everybody, God love them.

But they need help.

And I mean, there's people better than me.

But I don't see them either, so. You know, we got to do, we got to get a conspicuous in their absence right now. Yeah, well, whatever we can do. You know, they may not have applied themselves academically, Charles. they may not just have the chops and you if you feel like that you're wading into a mud fight and you're you get in there and you're not really able to grapple. There's a lot of folks that avoid that. So I'm I'm you guys, I.

When when AIDS was happening, totally different situation, I think they did try to take away our world to try to take away housing. they tried to allow anybody that wanted to to just destroy someone's life because they were found out to be HIV positive and gay.

And I don't know if any, you know, beyond the biological pinnings that we've talked about, I don't know if the same people were really administering that that are in charge of this. This is a totally different scale. But I would say that, like Kevin said, we we have come a long way and there's only so much that we can influence and affect at any one point in time.

We're not going to suddenly have our hammer and go pink in the dam and just it's going to break. I mean, it's it's been happening in bits and pieces very recently as far as the ability to even have the conversations on Twitter being a major landmark. So I think that we can. We can continue in our own spaces, kind of like in a block chain.

we do we all have different levels and areas of expertise, different ways of bringing the message. And we keep pushing and connecting with people and bringing larger and larger circles of people together.

And, you know, I the whole we've got to hurry, we've got to hurry. That that's because the world is on fire. You know, there's there's we're going to we're going to wear ourselves out.

If we stay in that distressed anxiety emergency state, we have to we have to learn how to rest.

So it's true. But you also understand that I spent a career where we trained very hard and we we went through things.

So that way, when moments came where you had to persevere, you'd be able to.

And, you know, it's it's I think sometimes people get this idea that, well, he's just crazy, he's going to drive himself to death. Well, maybe, yes, that is possible.

But I don't think we really understand.

That I don't care because because because I because I I know what's at stake and I know what I can give and I know that I have to give what I can. And I think well, people, there's something to chat. This guy says they use Rixi in the same way that they use Yuval Harari.

The goal expose point the point zero one percent of the conscious population and eliminate it. And yes, I would say that. That is certainly a tactic that they would use. What I want you to understand is that.

That doesn't matter. OK, people are going to do what they're going to do.

Because the statics. But I know that it doesn't matter because I can either do something or I can do nothing.

And if I do nothing, I'm guaranteed.

to fail.

And the problem is, is that there's not enough people willing to stand up.

You know, in Nazi Germany, there were there were there were people.

Like I can't remember his name now, but there's that.

Who are Kerbels the propaganda king, no, not because I was a good guy was a priest.

I know who you're about. Yeah, I can't remember his name at the moment. But yes, it was him. And he was willing to stand up and say, no, this shit is wrong. And he didn't change everything by himself. But it doesn't matter, because when you stand up and other people see you, they see you. And then some of them become willing to do what you're doing. And then the perfect example of this is the reason why Marines became famous in the first place. Because before World War I, we were just nobodies. But after 3 and 1 half years, the Marines showed up with the rest of the American troops. we entered the war and the Germans pushed like 40 miles outside of Paris to a place called Belleau Wood. And then they'd set up in the trees across like a thousand yard field. Darkened trenches, and then they sat there. And as. As you know, as Kevin can tell you, this is you know, this is what we're trying to avoid now. OK.

And in three and a half years, whenever this trench warfare would break down, the only way like it just bogged down and didn't go anywhere. Like they would fight over every inch of territory in millions land.

Like they would push forward a couple of miles, they'd break through and then get pushed back.

push forward a couple of miles, they'd push forward a couple of miles. And so.

So you have to be. So you have to be Johnny Appleseed as you do it.

No, you have as you do the skirmishes, as you do the operations, you leave behind data that leaves people the capacity to convert on their own to examine for themselves.

kind of with it kind of. Well, I mean, if it doesn't boil down to actual truth, to quantitative truth, then what are we doing?

Well, right. But see, you know, if you do things long enough, you do you have pretty good instincts about what's ahead of you. So I'm not worried about that because I don't have to have all the answers.

But it's important that I be moving forward because people need to see that. No, you're right. I'm not saying that we owe the whole thing unfurled down to the microscopic level end to end. That's going to take a long time. But the critical components that will begin someone on a path to questioning the narrative, going back and looking something up that's easily externally verifiable, that kind of behavior is what we're hoping to instigate. So that's what I'm saying is some pieces that are dropped in these conversations, the papers here and there that we review and post people. People are not gathering together these massive libraries like we have, you know, like the obsessive inner group.

We have to decide what to parse out. But it is important to empower people with the same evidence that we are, you know, maintain our arguments based on. We have to we have to share it and open source it. And I like the things that I see happening with teams that are, you know, opening up their whole like here, here's my one drive and they're sharing thousands of documents.

We all still have a ton of work to do to get. I mean, I'm using more inspirational analogy, though.

OK, OK, not that I don't like Microsoft Teams, but.

So let's think about this field.

OK, and you have a couple of thousand troops.

hmm. And and you have the Germans in the trees and in three and a half years, the same thing always happens.

Where they just they get mowed down and they die.

So what they did and people don't know this, but my great grandfather.

care about that. What they see is they see that the great grandfather.

Fought in the in France and then all three of the sons fought in different islands in the Pacific, including my grandfather, so.

So like.

The swords are kind of real for me.

And in fact, the one thing that my great grandfather said was that. or anything else, but we're lucky names kind of fit in. It's nothing to diminish. You're here and I saw your family picture and it's always nice to hear about this history. Yeah. So, I mean, like, so, but there's this field and they had a regiment and I forget, I don't, I think at the time that was, that meant like 4,000, if I remember correctly, maybe it was 2,500. Anyway. 4,000, but this was important because the Germans were pressing on, and this is 1917. Well, I didn't, I didn't a little bit later than that, but the bottom line is that it was bad. It had been going bad for France and.

They needed to stop them and.

So these Marines.

Got up, they charged across the field. And.

I want to say that 2,000 of them fell down.

Not all of them.

But there are 2,000 casualties.

Ish.

And.

They.

They kept going because there was a couple of.

People.

I mean, I know their names. It's not important, but there's a couple of Marines of leaders who.

Kept, you know, having them go and they move forward a little bit and then they'd stop and go.

And so even though they lost half of the regiment, which is the bloodiest day of any Marine unit in history until. in history until that Tarawa, which my.

My my uncle was number two in charge of that operation.

But.

They.

There wasn't anything special.

About them.

And I think that's what.

A lot of people don't.

Like people get wrapped up in.

Okay, well, I don't have this skill or that skill. I don't have. I can't do this or I'm not a scientist or whatever.

All these people did was keep running.

Towards machine gunfire.

And they did it because they saw somebody.

Who's willing to do it.

And that was the only difference between.

Because there's always a point in the three and a half years previous where there's English or French or German or whatever.

At some point, it would stop.

And they wouldn't make it any further.

And as a consequence, I mean, that was the bloodiest. was the bloodiest. I mean, they took more losses than any other unit.

American Union during that war. And we were only there for a year.

But they broke through the line. And so when that happened and it had never really happened up to that point, the Germans didn't know what to do.

And so like they nicknamed them devil dogs. And so. That's how we got that name. Because they just kept fucking coming. I wouldn't stop.

And.

I gotta be honest.

It's not like a secret.

Well, I would just say.

What we're doing now is infinitely more easy.

Yeah, we're not doing that. But the point is that people are afraid. And we don't know what's going to happen. And we don't know. And every time we stand up, someone gets taken out and.

And we're frustrated and we're tired of our freedom being violated. We're tired of.

Bullshit happening and nobody's standing up and doing it.

And you know what? It sucks. It sucks.

But.

If we don't do it.

No one will. it, no one will.

And maybe someone will. I don't know. Maybe there are other people out there.

But if I wait.

Until somebody else comes. It might be too late.

I mean, they might still be fighting. We were one. If you know, if the Marines didn't land and just.

2000 and become casualties in about 45 minutes.

But.

But they made it across the field.

And ever since then.

I was in Iraq in 2005.

We rotated and took over an area that had been a army unit. army.

And the number of incidents that occurred.

In the six months that followed.

We're cut in half. Why?

Because.

The insurgents knew that when the Marines came.

That if you fucked with them.

They would fuck you back.

So, and they need it because. And they'd be like, you know, army does a couple of guys and they shoot 20 bullets.

And I remember seeing one in particular where.

There's a Humvee with a 50 cal. It was maybe, I guess, a 249. And.

This this Humvee. It was kind of part of a convoy. So a.

An Isuzu truck. Suzu truck.

With three military age males in it.

With some rifles. Like.

Drive towards them. And. And they shot more than 300 rounds.

And a tow missile.

And they killed all three of them. So. I mean. To succeed. So Marines are.

Wasteful with their ammo.

Get some discipline in the ranks.

Kevin, did you calculate that ratio really quickly? Yes.

Bullets to kills. Yeah, sorry. It wasn't always like that. But the point is.

That they knew. Like. They knew because the difference in the uniforms.

That. If they want. If they were going to fuck with us. They had to really, really want to fuck this.

Okay. And. And yeah. So. We don't have the luxury. Of that here.

Okay. These people don't give a fuck about us. In fact, they want to marginalize us. They want to do everything they can.

And so you know what?

I don't care.

Yes, of course they want to expose. The people. Who are actually willing to stand up and fight against them. to stand up against them. Because they're dangerous. But you know why? It's because they're willing to stand up and do it.

And the only way that. Other people are going to stand up. And have the balls to do anything.

If they're not the ones doing it themselves.

They only learn how to do it. Bringing the curse to do it. When they see somebody else. Willing to do it. It's the only way. At this stage, folks. It just. Literally. Non-compliance.

Mass non-compliance with what they're.

Trying to roll out on you.

Just refuse.

It's time to stand up.

Whatever it means to you.

Whatever it takes for you.

Just.

I mean.

Know that you're not doing it alone.

Charles, do you feel. Do you feel a targeted focus on the WEF folks?

Because we've got over in the way. I mean as say for example.

Just getting in the middle of their campaigns. Their legislation. Their bills.

Is that a space where you feel. A particular focus needs to be maintained. Extra pressure.

Governor Newsom. I mean. I mean.

Governor Newsom. Governor Inslee.

Premier. All. That's. That's.

I mean. People. Wherever you are.

Wherever you see.

You know better than I do. Like. What's the thing that you can do.

To contribute. I mean.

For me. I also could be doing this better than this, just based on, you know, I have this experience that I've done this from now, so this is where I need to be. There's nothing else I could be doing to be a better father to my children than to be fighting this. So whatever that is for you or for anybody else, you'll know. You'll be able to figure out some way. The reason I ask is my gut says I'm very concerned about their role in the superstructure of what appears to be a coordinated transnational operation, deployment, whatever this is. You're probably not wrong. Trust your gut. I mean, about that. I mean, look, I trust them. I get.

And people call me fuck.

What are you doing? You're not a scientist. You have no idea what you're doing.

So. OK. Oh, I saw. I really have loved your work. And the only thing I complained about to Kevin was recently was I just I wanted to pull you away from all of the Wuhan individual, you know, your geo plotting and, you know, put commitment towards the laboratory stuff and back, say, in the last 20 years of the literature. And you've gone there yourself, you know, but.

Well, yeah, yeah. And it sucks because I wish I was I wish I was more people.

But, you know, it is what it is. know, I hate it because I have to I have to use my judgment knowing that.

I mean, all of us are stubborn in the dark.

And then none of us have answers.

And so I just try to do the best that I can.

Wherever I am, and that's why I realize that now that I have to hear doing this, because this because this is this is the priority and has to be the priority.

And the data is accruing to what your.

Where your aims were going, where your hunch was taking you right. And it wasn't it wasn't a wasted mission. You've you've got the data, you've you've put it into a format that's accessible. it in a way that's accessible. Again, if you haven't read Charles Watchmaker series, you should. It's a concise summary of all the evidence. And I guess there's a whole bunch more.

A follow on that Charles will let go in the coming days.

And yeah, that's what I'm working on. yeah, just that's everyone, everyone doing their little bit right now that sort of enables that. And I would I would say sort of having met with Charles and spent time with him that this just being able to do this, to talk it through and it counts for a lot. and, you know, people in the chat.

Thank you for sort of being there and.

Well, I, you know, moral support, it's important. And there's a.

I won't say light at the end of the tunnel just yet, but We're not we're not in the dark like we were a year ago.

The environment is radically different. Now, I would I would just add it's veering towards a little bit unpredictably.

or potentially unpredictably dangerous. But we are we can be prepped and ready for whatever's coming next.

I think I just I just linked to the video, I think that you were looking for. It's a 97 video. No, I know. I know this one. it was in 2000, it was just before 9 11. OK, well, then there's more than one. Let's see, there's. Oh, yeah, here we go. I think this might be it, too.

Alive today. Air Force Air War College around 2000. Yeah, so I just send you all these and we'll see what happens. I mean, so one of the one of these will be it. I know about it, but, you know, sort of I'm going to have to wrap up because of the kids. But, you know, in in that video that I'm describing, whether the defector is well, the questions put to the guy who's defecting were are you are you splicing in neurotoxins from well, the question, funnily enough, was snake venoms. And in in his reply, he alludes to that they tried with the snail toxins. And it was it wasn't it wasn't that well, he claims it wasn't that successful. sales sales begs to disagree. But the I guess the point I want to get to is that that was over 20 years ago. And leading up to that 20 years was decades and decades of this type of nefarious bullshit research that's dragged us to this point. to this point. And if we can, if we're able to climb out of the metaphysical trench that they've dragged us into and move, move across and make progress, that is something that can, you know, take solace, comfort, drive all those things and keep going. That's what I would say to everyone.

deep crack on be the the phrase from down my way. Just wake up every day with a goal.

Pissing off the left as much buzz became.

Yeah, I just I just I'm concerned. It's not as simple as the weft. That's probably it's probably not. I mean, that's not who I focus on. But but you have to you have to search somewhere. you have to search somewhere. And yeah, that's an easy one for people to wrap their heads around, right? Because it's it's so in your face. So there you go. Pick at that. Get to the get to the Epstein links. Get to, you know, find it. Find out that there's no good institutes left.

Was it you said to me the other day, we're the cavalry, right? That's I was like, where's the cavalry? He said we're it. Yeah.

I would rather be the cavalry than.

Well, it's it's better to feel that you're you're doing something, right, rather than rather than just being on the receiving end of.

That's a torrent of shit rolling downhill and the sluice gates. I mean, some people some people do prefer that. But, you know, I think that I mean, you wouldn't have been you wouldn't have been seen as a good Roman. You may not be aware of it. But yeah, I mean, if.

I refuse to die, I refuse to let anything happen to my kids and sit here and say, OK, well, is there something else I could have done that. Is there anything else I could have done?

Was there another documentary on Netflix I could have watched that would have helped figure this all out? Sure, that is true. I mean, you know, whatever it is, you know, it may not be the sexiest thing on the planet, but.

No, and we all need our brain breaks. So definitely we need our we need our tube here and there. I mean, it's no lifestyle earlier. You were there earlier, Nick. But I switched because I had like this little cabin condo thing. And the reason why I was in my car earlier is because anywhere there, but is because I was I had to wait to get into the hotel here. But I had to wait until the end of this conversation to start the jacuzzi tub. It's all to myself in this king suite. in this king suite. That sounds nicer than the suite that you and Kevin were transmitting from when you were on the road together. You didn't have to. You didn't get the jacuzzi, did you, Kevin? I had a bad dream. It was all right. OK. Yeah, it was good digs. But I could get it for, you know, like 72 bucks a night here. It was a pretty good deal. So sweet. Gallenberg is stupid expensive, but there's a lot of shitty hotels with. so I mean, it's a crappy hotel. It has a jacuzzi. So I'm just going to sit in it probably for three days and do nothing but add more fucking links to Zotero. Keep adding to your Zotero. There's an infinity of space. As long as you don't include your full text uploads or don't add the PDFs, you can fit a million citations in your library. OK, well, I'm literally I'm literally just right now. Putting them in there because there's about 550 to 600. That are going to be. That I need to be able to automatically put into bibliography or at least much faster, so. Hey, one of these times I'm going to do a demo and I'll ask you and whoever. for Doc Heck probably knows tools like this. He can probably up our up our game, Karma Doc, and we'll play with the tools I got from a university in the Netherlands. And it lets you do bibliometric network diagrams, associative diagrams. So you take your your abstract, you take the scientist names, you take the institutions, whatever data you propagate. Right. It can be sometimes you get an excitation off of a site and there's six fields. field and sometimes it's got the entire abstract and that's 500 words. And, you know, it's got every single bit of data, but you you take your data set. You export it and then you can model it and pivot it with relational diagrams and heat mapping diagrams. So we'll we'll fiddle with that like in the raccoon cave or we could do a live stream and just play with some data sets together. Kevin, thank you very much for having us on. Really appreciate it. We know you got daddy duty going. So let's get you let's get you to it. Mummy is home as well today, but I can hear I can hear. You didn't sleep, did you? I've been up all night. Yeah, so yeah, you should go do something. Yeah, I've got a fixed PC as well. But the like I say, I think the take home from today is let's quickly spin up in our power and space and, you know, Twitter. Twitter is a different venue to be talking about this. And, you know, hopefully we can drag a few more people in. Maybe maybe if we can pull Andrew over, that would be great. And his mentor would be would be kind of cool. We can attract the guy that the whistleblower as well. Yeah, I think I think there's a lot to dig out about the mechanisms of this this type of warfare that people need to understand. Got to understand white man's boomstick. All right. Well, what about what about leveraging all of the kids out there that have podcasts and have them host the space and we be the co hosts. and then there's another extra layer of being able to maintain the narrative not dependent upon Charles account or your account or my account. What if we shifted it around and we were, you know, the traveling Wilburys, just a thought. I don't mind what whatever's the quickest way out to spread the word. You know, I just. You know, the mechanisms need to be laid out and, you know, people, people get the vaccine now, I think I should do. Start wrapping your head around the nitty gritty details. That's important. All right, gents, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Charles. Enjoy the. The jacuzzi. The bubbly. I will. I'm looking quite fortunate. Okay. All right. See you guys soon. Yeah, please. There's. All right, folks. God, that was long. But interesting. Thank you very much for listening. Be good to each other and I will see you in the next one. Take care. God bless. Oh, I'm not even on the screen. Never mind. Nice.