REFERENCE

We're here today to share the findings of the World Economic Forum's Global Security Outlook Report 2023. This is a result of research and collaboration with the forum's communities and our partner, Accenture, which we've interviewed and sought input from over 300 executives globally. The most striking finding that we found is that 93 percent of cyber leaders and 86 percent of cyber business leaders believe that the geopolitical instability makes a catastrophic cyber event likely in the next two years. The lifeblood of a democracy is your ability to understand and act upon a problem once the facts are presented to you. The purpose of this motion picture is to give you the facts, and then you, as individuals and citizens of a democracy, must take action. We're going to do a sound check in a few minutes, folks. Just hang in there. I'm sorry I'm very late.

This is going to be well worth it, I assure you. Even if you can only hang with me for half an hour and then see the rest tomorrow, this is going to be, I hope, one of my more welcomed presentations in a long time. I'm really excited to be here with a real slideset again. You can download it at GigaOhmBiological.com for free. And I hope you will and share it with your family and friends. Good morning, Colin. Hi, Mosquito Garden. Watch your bee, all y'all. Hi, Pamela.

If you try to download and you just change the price to zero, you should be able to download for free. There's no cost for anything ever. It asks for a price. You just have to put zero. And that's it. It might ask for you to put a number in. I don't know, but it's not going to charge you. Send dollars real trustworthy like that, at least as my thing goes. I'll try and send it up a different way, if that's a problem for some of you. I'm sorry. Housatonic.live's got a couple homeruns coming. I can't wait. I'm chomping at the bit. Get that stuff edited, Mark.

Oh, look, JC on the bike was timed out by Risa. Oh, time out, JC on the bike. JC on the bike. It's JC on the bike. It's JC on the bike. Yeah. Well, I'm wise enough to know when a chump needs banning, and I know just the one. Look it round. It's JC on the bike. Who says Vader didn't study music in college? I'm not sure exactly who he is. His name is JJ Couey, and I believe he's a consultant for CHD, and I believe he has a PhD in some sort of scientific discipline, from what I understand. It did not take me long to read up on infectious clones and read up on, you know, quasi-species dynamics. And guess what? Every single time I read one, there was not the support for his theory. There just wasn't there.

Good evening, everybody. Hello from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This is a sound check. Can you see? Are we in sync here? Are we doing okay? Can anyone give me a call clear? If so, I'm going to go ahead and fire up the big show. Yeah?

I am glad to hear that the echo is gone. And I hope it doesn't come back.

I got to really say thanks to everybody who supports this stream. We wouldn't be this far without a guy named Greg and a guy named Rodney and the people on this screen and the people that are on this screen, plus a lot of people who aren't people who gave one time, people who canceled their membership after a year, and they all mattered to me getting this far. So all I can say is thank you.

We are here again to learn some biology tonight. I'm excited because I think I finally have something to say after a few weeks of listening and paying attention, trying to hear what people are saying to me and respond to it. And I think I'm ready to do that tonight. It's going to be a positive message. It's a message of unity. It's a message of let's get this out there. I'm not interested in being the one who's right so much as making sure that the people who are with me are fighting for the same things that I'm fighting for and don't have something else going on. And as long as we're there, then I'm fine. And we're fine. And we're all going to win. So let's just keep going and make sure we break through. The way we're going to break through is with history, of course, you know that we've said that many times. The history of biology in America is a contorted one. Clues are on this screen right here. Clues are in these groups of people right here. Clues can be found in our history. And if we look back, we follow the threads, I think we can pull ourselves out of this. As long as our tongues remain free to talk about it, we're going to escape. I'm really sure of it. Doesn't matter how many cyber warriors they turn on, it just doesn't matter. As long as we keep swinging, we're going to get out of this. And I, for one, am going to keep swinging. And I know you are too. The high road is the truth. That is correct. And it is my idea that make gentle the life of this world. I think that's a wonderful, wonderful idea.

If you've been with me for a while, you're here at the top of the wave. This is GigaOhm Biological, where we stay focused on the biology. We don't take the bait on television, and we love our neighbors. That's really what it is. The way this is done is that the people on that screen, they are supporters. There are people big and small, it doesn't really matter. The other best way to support is to just share and tweet it out, post the links, download the videos and post them elsewhere. Just share the biology. I am chief biologist around here. I don't know if that's a racial slur or a joke or what it is, but I am the chief biologist of GigaOhm Biological. We've been here for a long time now. I'm pumped you caught me live too there, fella. It's going to be a good show tonight. I'm real excited. You caught a good one. Good one. I'm really pumped to bring you guys what I think is my best pitch, my best elevator pitch. I'm just taking a few more minutes for those of you who are impatient to make sure that everybody can catch up. You're going to see a major paradigm shift over the next few weeks that's going to be resisted. I think you can't believe the resistance is going to increase. It's really going to be ugly. And so we've got to be ready for it. And so yeah, this is GigaOhm Biological, high resistance, low noise, information stream brought to you by a biologist. That's me. I'm Jonathan Couey. I am going to very quickly escape from this show and start the new show. Because my intro deck has gotten so big, I can't really use it for also my slideshow. Fade that out a little bit, and let's start this from the beginning. Fade over here again, and put myself down here in the corner. I'm a human just like you, and I actually might not want to be in the corner yet, but I'm going to sit over here anyway. We are trying to escape from this hourglass metaphor of how we are trapped actually behind the glass of our phones, and the glass of our screens, and inside of our house, and behind our ID. And that's not gone away, even though as the little boy or the little man in the hourglass here is celebrating, he gets to take his mask off, the green hand stays above. In reality, I think his more recent cartoon, which shows zombies on the couch, and that hand above is maybe even a more apt and direct message about how we are entrapped, right? I don't think you'll find that to be especially surprising. It's not like I'm telling you anything that you don't know. Let me load up something here just to make sure in case we need it.

The idea is that the principle of informed consent has been ignored for the duration of the pandemic. I did have that big because I wanted it like this. A lot of my viewers have written to me lately to make me re-emphasize that this is really the foundation of what we should be approaching this from the perspective of our sovereign rights as citizens and our sovereign rights as humans. And that has been codified in a number of different legal documents that we won't go into here, but that's the best foundation from which we can object to what has happened over the last, let's say, three years. I want to admit to you that as part of this operation where your informed consent was lost, I was a participant. At some moment in time, I got dragged in and convinced through my association with a group DRASTIC and through my own investigation and through the people that I talked to and the people that I chatted with that I became convinced that it was a lab leak. A Lancet letter to censor anyone on social media who mentioned the possibility of a lab leak. It can't be true. The Lancet says it's not true. One of the most impressive things that was, for me, very convincing was the outright denial that occurred in the media and the editing of the people that were in DRASTIC. And I saw that as an immediate affront on what we had done, what we had discussed and what we had talked about. And if I look back in retrospect, I think this was a key moment in the development of the trap in my own mind, that once I had become convinced that this censorship was a key piece of evidence, which indicated that not only was it a lab leak, but it was a significant one. And that maybe the narrative that they were telling us on television wasn't so far from the truth. Maybe they were covering it up. Maybe it was even worse than they were saying. And this possibility became very real after this media theater that was done in a combination of Newsweek, Vanity Fair, Tucker Carlson, everybody talking about drastic but saying none of the people who were in it, even more frustrating, some of the people who were in drastic with me and communicating at the time didn't seem to bother them at all.

And so a principle of informed consent requires understanding. And so if you are in a state where you think you know, but you don't, then you are not exercising informed consent. And for the last two years and 11 months, I was involved in the maintenance of this false narrative, what I believe is a false narrative that entrapped all of us. And it is only recently that a combination of biological understanding and interpersonal relationships and the behavior of people has lined up in such a way that I've been able to connect the dots and pull myself out of this trap. And so today's presentation is going to be in four parts. It's going to be a Clone Wars overview, which will take me probably about a half an hour, which is unfortunate for everybody, but it needs to be done because I want to bring everyone up to speed and for everyone to realize that much of what we cover as a general overview is never discussed by most people who discuss their particular part of this narrative. And that's because it is these basic portions that outline the you don't need a very dangerous virus for most of these people to have suffered. That part of our narrative is covered in this beginning part, the Clone Wars overview. Then infectious clones will be defined. Then we're going to do the infectious cycle of an virus and try to see if the infectious clones or nanopore sequencing can shed any light on how the infectious cycle should be interpreted or imagined to happen. And then finally, we're going to talk about the biology of exosomes and see how this all, oh shoot, how this all ties together. Sorry, my headphones just came out. So let's move ahead here, shall we? Clone Wars overview first, please. So this is the graph that everybody starts with, right? You see in the light blue here is all cause mortality. So that's all the people that die every week on week on week from year 2014 to the end of 2021 right here.

So the light blue is the total number of people that die every week in America. And it's around between 60,000 and 50,000. And it's seasonal, as you all well know. Down here in the darker blue, you will see the pneumonia cases. And in the yellow, you will see, can you see that? Yeah, the yellow you can see is influenza. That's, I guess, confirmed cases of influenza, but I'm not absolutely sure. Here is where the pandemic starts, if you can see my green arrow. And when the pandemic starts, you will notice that a significant number, there's a significant overlap between the rise in any given number of weeks of pandemic cases, and also the rise in pneumonia deaths. Now, the first thing to make clear here, because we're doing this from the from the dirt, is that many more people get pneumonia than die of it. And so every year, if you were to graph how many people got pneumonia, it could be many, many, many, many more thousands than die of it.

Because generally speaking, people don't die of pneumonia. But a significant number of people do die of pneumonia every year. And it's a far larger number than the people that die of influenza as an identified cause of death. Now, the rest of these pneumonia cases are made up of a wide variety of respiratory disease thought to be caused by anywhere from rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, noroviruses. The list is endless. Any respiratory virus can potentially set you up for a secondary pneumonia. And so as it stands right now, most of these pneumonia cases every year on year are not explained by any particular cause. And some of them result in deaths. And those numbers of deaths increased by more than two or three fold during the pandemic. And that's never happened in all the years previously, right? And all the years, all the very bad flu years, which are here in yellow, the bad flu year here in yellow, is not really backed by a really bad year in pneumonia. But this year, suddenly lots and lots more people than ever before have died with pneumonia. And that's the first clue that you should have, that something very strange happened. And so this is basically my hypothesis. My hypothesis is that the WHO declared a pandemic of a dangerous novel virus. This novel virus was detectable by a non-specific PCR test for RNA viruses applied to low prevalence populations. What this means is, is that if you use a PCR test on a population where what you're testing for is quite rare, then the vast majority of the positives that you get will be false. And then that scales depending on the overall specificity of the test and all kinds of other factors. But the basic starting point is, is that if what you're testing for is not very prevalent, then you're going to have a lot of false positives. And that's mathematically provable. And Matt Crawford and other people have done a lot better job talking about that. So the point is, is that if you use that RNA virus, and then apply it to populations and correlate, you know, with poor detrimental health protocols, through financial incentives to follow orders from above. So what I'm saying is, is that they are applying a PCR test to a low prevalence population. And they are also correlating this dangerous novel virus with poor and detrimental health protocols. So when you test positive, they treat you unlike they would have treat you if you test negative. For example, if you test negative for COVID in 2020, and you have pneumonia, they'll give you antibiotics. Same in 2021.

But in 2020, if you tested positive for COVID, you were not going to get antibiotics. You would be ventilated to prevent spread. This ventilation could lead to you dying from the pneumonia because you really just needed antibiotics. And so these kinds of basic scenarios are only the tip of the iceberg for the kinds of mistakes that were made regularly because of this false pretense of this test indicates a novel protocol is necessary, whereas if the test is negative, we know how to cure pneumonia. So that enabled a larger percentage of all cause mortality than just pneumonia and influenza alone to be prioritized as a national security threat of vaccine preventable deaths. Because again, the novel virus has a vaccine. So that's pretty handy. And since we have a vaccine for it, and we have a test for it, the test overlaps, has lots of false positives. So if we apply it widely, we can rope in, we can collect, we can include a bunch of the all-cause mortality that otherwise wouldn't be classified as a respiratory death. But because they test positive, and testing positive in 2020 and 2021 was enough because of the financial incentives, then we have this giant number displayed in red here. And incidentally, that red is the only thing they ever showed you on PBS NewsHour. They didn't show you that red in the context of this light blue behind it, which is the total mortality in America. If they had, the perspective would have been quite different than when they start from zero and ramp it up to here. The reason why this is significant is because an NIAID-funded infectious clone may or may not have been involved in the initial biological incident, but a natural coronavirus swarm cannot sustain a pandemic.

My argument is that if a coronavirus is released in Wuhan, it might spread, but it cannot spread for three years through hundreds of millions of people. That's not possible. And it doesn't matter what kind of infectious numbers you make up or how many times more infectious it is than measles. The RNA virus, as we understand it, is not capable of this level of infectivity. In people's imagination, it is. But biologically and mathematically, there are no models that support this idea.

So why would they lead us to believe that a natural coronavirus swarm could cause a pandemic? Well, there's a reason. The reason is, is that they would like us to surrender total individual sovereignty, and they would like to enforce a global inversion from basic human rights to basic granted permissions.

That's the goal. And that's why you would create what I consider to be pretty much almost exclusively an illusion of a pandemic. And, and we will see how that illusion breaks down on multiple levels. But right now, this is a very 30,000 foot presentation that can't get into all the details of the biology. It's really designed to bring together a certain group of people that I think can unite and move forward on these pretenses.

So these three tenets are the way that the TV and the governments of the world have bamboozled their societies into accepting that a pandemic is possible with a natural occurring batcave virus. The first thing is that they haven't couched the data in all-cause mortality ever since the beginning of the pandemic, because all-cause mortality will reveal that there's no new cause of death, and there's certainly no new prevention of that new cause of death. A novel coronavirus means everybody's vulnerable is another thing that everybody had to believe from the beginning. And it's incidentally, we'll talk about it later, a great reason to eventually convince everybody that it's a lab leak, because that makes it even more novel. And finally, you have to be convinced that antibodies and seroprevalence matter because these are the only measurements of infection. They're the only measurements of vaccination. And so since they are the benchmarks for really the products that they would like to roll out, then they need to teach you the biology that says that their benchmarks are measuring relevant biological markers, but they're not. But that's the reason why they had to tell you this. And these things were told to you, because this is a national security crisis. And so it's okay to lie to the the United States population and the world, because it's a military operation.

And just to cut anybody off at the past, don't think that I'm now going to say that the DoD did this, because I'll start out right by saying that the DoD can't really do anything, because the DoD takes orders. And ultimately, the DoD takes orders from the president. So the DoD can't declare an emergency or a war or a crisis anywhere. All they can do is report to people and then those people tell them what to do. So anyone that's telling them what to do, telling you that the DoD did this, is really telling you that the executive branch told the DoD to do this. Okay, just to be clear, if we're taking off the mask, and we think we're, we're figuring out the Scooby Doo, that's where you need to be very sure that you're familiar with how the American system works. And the DoD, while it is a, you know, a very scary, you know, trillions of dollars and all this other stuff, it is a bureaucracy that is wholly beholden to the executive branch, punt out. Um, so…

Something changed down here, but it wasn't a novel cause of death. And I think once you get your head around the idea that there are so many other sources and explanations for why these people died, and so many reasons for the institutions that record the deaths to call them COVID, even when they weren't, even when they admitted it on television that up to 30 days before death, if you tested positive for COVID, you were still going to be called a COVID death, they said that in multiple states, just right off the podium, under the pretense of national security, make sure we don't miss any of these numbers. And so the latest, let's say TV narrative can be can be best seen here by Tom Friedman's tweet that approximately 95% of the people dying today from COVID aren't up to date on their vaccines, up to date, meaning maybe even four transfections, and three quarters of the people at the highest risk for severe illness don't receive Paxlovid, a patented pharmaceutical product, not pushing for hydroxychloroquine or vitamin D and C and zinc.

Vaccination and quick treatment save lives. We must continue to focus on reaching people with both. After three years, absolutely no wobble from the straight line. That's impressive. I really think right now we have about four basic narratives. I think GigaOhm Biological is firmly in the green here, where immunity is a natural killer cell T cell based oriented inside out. So at the barrier, the lungs or the gut.

Transfection is not equivalent to immunization. We've never successfully immunized against coronavirus, attempts often result in enhanced disease after immunization, gain of function exaggerated on all levels to their advantage. They want you to think that there are scary viruses in bat caves, and that you don't have to do very much to generate a pandemic other than to walk into the wrong cave and then leave the cave on the wrong train. They want you to believe that with very little molecular skills, and the right set of tools in your garage, that you also could be a gain of function virologist. But that's not true. However, cDNA clones are real. And it's something that since I've started talking to them, talking about them, everybody from all sides is calling me a looney tune, that I've lost it, that I'm burning bridges in all directions, and basically losing everyone. I hope I'm not losing you. The entire vaccination schedule in the US should be reevaluated. It's a pretty, pretty bold statement for me to make seeing as even only last year I gave my kids their shots for school. But it's part of the growth process, ladies and gentlemen, you're witnessing it in real time. And on the side of this basic green list here of what I think are pretty solid, biological, foundational principles to stand on, are a group of people who say that there are gain of function viruses, and they can endanger billions of people, transfection of the masses might have helped save some old people, and the previous vaccines obviously work great.

There are also people down here on the bottom that say there are absolutely no pathogenic viruses whatsoever. Most of Western medicine is fake. That's not so crazy. And that it lies all the way down. I'm suggesting to you that somewhere in this, in this bottom narrative here is a potential hazard. Not necessarily, but a potential hazard. I'm saying that in that narrative up there in the yellow, there is a definitely a potential hazard, which is this gain of function narrative and the idea that that it's possible and will be possible forever. And so I think if we see it this way and think about it this way and start here, move forward, it might be the easiest way for us to explore these ideas together. And so the TV algorithms have told us that coronaviruses have pandemic potential, that the pandemic potential can be accessed through cell culture and animal passage, as well as human engineering. That's what this is over here, right? And so global populations must surrender sovereignty to the WHO, and I believe that this is again an inversion from freedoms to to permissions. So again, they change the way we think about how the human, the coronavirus swarm, how we think about all cause mortality, how we think about the immune response, and how we think about vaccination. Let's just go through this quick.

For everybody who hasn't joined me in a while, for Karen, if you're there. These are some really important basic points that are biologically sound and have nothing to do with whether or not this was a real giant viral leak, a little tiny baby virus leak, a whatever.

This just has to do with the basic biology and what they have changed about the way we think. So the first thing is the human coronavirus swarm. What you see depicted here is pre pandemic, there were lots of different ways to die of respiratory disease, and most of the time we didn't even test. And when we did test, we were testing for lots of different things.

And the medical textbooks told us that there were somewhere between 100 and 200 different coronavirus types that caused respiratory disease and that 30 to 35% of all respiratory disease was caused by coronavirus. That's before the pandemic. After the pandemic, they're telling us that really only one coronavirus matters, and it causes the only disease that matters.

That's especially how they talked in 2020.

And so they used, there used to be several hundred possible causes of respiratory disease that led to pneumonia, and they were included in this general category of PNI. But from 2020, we've reformulated counting all deaths based on hundreds of these EUA products, many of which are gone.

And they only tested for a single novel deadly virus. That's what they said. The tests were purportedly the and the sequencing is really the only evidence that we have that there was a virus. Everything else is indirect because people get sick all the time. And if you don't treat people with pneumonia, you're going to see all kinds of very wacky things happen.

So it's not completely clear to me how long it's going to take the average doctor to realize that if you change the way you treat secondary or primary pneumonia drastically, that you're going to kill a lot of people. That if you send people home with pneumonia, you're going to kill a lot of people. That if you ventilate people when they don't need to be ventilated, you're going to kill a lot of people. When you treat people with remdesivir, when you should be just treating their pneumonia, you're going to kill a lot of people. And so they also change the way we think about all-cause mortality, because again, they tried to convince us that there was a new cause of death that killed nobody before 2020. That's a real distinct signal. And if you look at all-cause mortality, there should be a real distinct signal. But it wasn't. What increased was the number of people that tested positive for something, but the number of people that was dying year on year didn't increase in 2020. And that's pretty extraordinary, except for in these little places. These little tight, sharp pockets in 2020. New York. New York is responsible for a surprising amount of the first wave of data. They convinced the publics and governments around the world that the PCR tested evidence of a novel pathogen, and they purposefully omitted all-cause mortality, again, because there is no evidence there. The evidence that you find will reveal other things than a respiratory virus. They also changed the way we think about our immune system. You've seen this before, but again we're just going through it to make sure that we're all on the same page. They've misled us about the value of seroprevalence for national security purposes. The DoD was told, for example, I don't know if that's the case, but I'm just trying to tell you the DoD can't do anything. The DoD could have been told it's seroprevalence that matters. We tell everybody that antibodies are the way that you fight off a virus. We're gonna make lots of videos. We're gonna say it. We're gonna stay on point. Antibody levels, seroprevalence. Understand? Yes, sir. They have accomplished this by disingenuously emphasizing amputee bodies to structural proteins. That's the spike as correlates of immunity. And they've oversimplified the public's understanding of the immune response to avoid any loss of this countermeasure. Again, we have to lie or mislead the American public because otherwise, we will not reach the national security objective, which is shots in every arm. You heard that from the beginning. That's not a joke. That was the order. And so let's just look again at this video that they simplify the immune response with a nice pretty cartoon. Hey look, it looks like that it just has to touch those proteins and then it goes in. Hey look, it looks like if those proteins bind to those proteins and then they just bump off and they can't bind. That's cool. Now I understand immunity. I M M U N I T Y. That's what I got. Bodies anti. You see, this is crazy. But that's what they did to us. Fancy videos. As opposed to like scientific proof and scientific explanations. So they misled the public about the biological definition of a vaccine. They changed the definition like three times in 2020, everybody's aware, but that's not an insignificant observation. Again, emphasizing antibodies of correlates of immunity and then even using antibodies to do to do comparative titers for justifying injecting younger kids. They currently focused on convincing the public to accept these transfections as proven safe and effective as a serendipitous consequence of the pandemic, i.e. the transfections have saved millions of lives, therefore they're safe. And yet we almost know nothing about these products, what was in them, the various purity levels, amount of actual active protein produced, where these things go, etc. etc. etc. We're learning still, if we're learning at all, but a lot of people don't even want to learn about it. We were told that taking this product would protect your grandmother. That's pretty terrible coercion. We all have a duty to society to cover our faces, to stay away from one another, to test regularly, and to get transfected. This is coercion. They are currently moving forward under continuing emergency to justify further transfection products. That's absolutely true, including the bivalent booster as just a general thing now, transfecting pregnant women. There's a paper now that's come out that says that, well, we retrospectively looked at a bunch of pregnant women and they had normal babies. At least they had the same number of normal babies as the other people had, so it must be fine. My wife was told she shouldn't eat unpasteurized cheese while she was pregnant. And so what did this result in? Well, it resulted in many people being ventilated to prevent spread. It results in remdesivir still killing people to this day. It resulted in on secondary untreated bacterial pneumonia killing people to this day. It results in shutting down schools that hurt children. It's masked children, masked children. I have a mask that's made by a music company that my kid had to wear while he was playing the trombone or the trumpet. Social distancing hurt families in the communities in which they exist.

All of this killed people that that the virus didn't. All of this list killed people that the virus did not, but we were told by those in charge that they were all dying of the virus. These are all consequences of the pandemic over and over again on TV that we can't understand this pandemic. This is nothing we've ever seen before. This is a new phenomenon. I'm sorry, folks. This is bullshit. This is bullshit. Don't listen to this. It could be an especially severe respiratory virus. It could. But the biological facts are that this virus, no matter how bad it is, is not going to have crazy different effects from any other virus that's not going to have invent… we're not going to need to invent new math to understand this break… outbreak. We're just not. The reason why I show you this video and why I showed it the other night is because in April of 2020, when this video was shot, I was convinced that even if it is again a function virus, most of us don't have to worry about it. And I believe it is at this time that I became dangerous because I had dropped the idea that a lab leak mattered. I had already decided that from an immunological perspective, our T cell immunity was going to be enough that it would always be better to take our chances with the virus because if it's a leak and it's going around, there's nothing you're going to be able to do about it anyway. I was already convinced that masks wouldn't work. And then I was engaged by a full court press of like minded dissidents who over the next three or four months, really brought me to understand how this was a lab leak, they really were covering it up. And this was a pretty big deal.

And that convincing really culminated with a visit from Charles Rixey to my house to talk about the DEFUSE proposal and convince me that that was that was a real document and that the whistleblower was real and that I should stay in DRASTIC and that we should stream about it and I did.

And I was convinced that these that all of these things on this list were part of the reason why we had figured it out. They were covering up a lab leak, a lab leak of their own design. And that's probably why they were covering it up.

What a disaster.

And then I wrote this article with Charles and with Bobby Kennedy Jr.

And it is about the fact that restriction enzyme sites, fingerprints of ligation of an infectious clone are seen in this virus so that it looks like this was a virus that was essentially constructed in a reverse genetic sort of way.

And in coronavirus, there's only one guy who does it as good as as Ralph and that's Ralph.

And so we wrote this article about this this this thing saying that these that this virus had to be from from US technology, whether or not it was released in Wuhan or got out in Wuhan. I don't know, but it's based on US technology, it sure looks like it.

And then I kept reading.

More importantly, I was challenged to really explain why I think the clones were so important because I wasn't allowed to put it in this.

It didn't fit in the article. It didn't make sense to explain what clones were and why it mattered. So it didn't make it in the article.

But I was challenged by Bobby, you know, I'm happy to write another article if you can explain it to me. And so I tried very hard to learn what infectious clones were. And if you want to learn what infectious clones were, you actually have to go back pretty far. It's not like, there's only one or two seminal papers you have to know. It really depends on the virus you're trying to recreate. It depends on the year you're working in, because there were ways to make recombinant viruses all the way back in in 1996. In 1999, these are these are two different papers showing how to generate basically DNA clones of influenza viruses, which is something that I wondered out loud in my previous stream, I wasn't sure whether they could make influenza viruses using RNA clones. And it's interesting if you read these papers, you'll see that what we talk about later today in this article apply or in this then this discussion will also apply to these papers. They really don't know how many of the virons that assemble in these papers contain all of the elements that they would consider to be a full virus. They don't do much work to try and differentiate between those things. There are some things in these papers that do that. And there are other papers we can look at. But one of the reasons why I start back here in 1996, and show you this is that it's kind of frustrating. I was on this podcast with a guy by the name of Aaron Capilino. And he's quite good friends with Andrew Kaufman and Mark Bailey and Christine Massey. And I gave a three hour interview about the clones and about viruses and whatever. And he was pretty hard on hard in the paint, always trying to box me in on isolation and on proving that the virus exists. And and so I understood very well that I was always walking around his argument. But after that talk, he was asking me or he should send me these papers with infectious clone and I couldn't really understand what he meant because if you just search infectious clone virus on PubMed for any given year, you're going to get like 50 papers. If you just go to 2010, you're going to get a paper about infectious clone. It's right there in the title, propagated of Oat Blue Dwarf virus, full infectious clone of X4 Tropic HIV, construction of infectious clone, infectious clone, infectious clone. There are so many papers about infectious clone, and one of the real gotcha moments with Eric Capilino was when he sent me this really jovial email. Thanks for the great conversation. Here's a copy or here's a link to the video and here's a link to my sub stack where I basically kick you in the crotch and and call you something something. I don't know what but not straight shooter kind of guy because I didn't send him the papers that I promised about infectious clones. We talked for almost three and a half hours on screen but before and after and both are more than one time. I said you don't need me to send you papers. There's actually thousands of them and you don't need to have any special search terms just do infectious clone and virus so that you can see the ubiquitous nature of this methodology and then try to think about what that means. But of course they use their their chance interaction with me to completely try to dunk on on RFK jr. via my poor performance on that podcast. And so that was unfortunate because I had reached out in good faith really trying to see if there was a way that we could we could come together as a as a group of people that agreed that something terrible was happening without having to just tattoo on our foreheads no virus. So the the way that you get through this is to understand what a virus does in an infection and what virologists think versus what they can prove. That's one of the things that I think Mark Bailey has done really well with his farewell to virology literature writing, is that that review really succinctly points out where these control experiments fail, where these, where these virology experiments fail. And so the only frustration I have, and I'm gonna say it later, is that I don't think that they should then stop and drop the ball right there and say now the game's over. I think there's a way to advance the ball further by trying to explain all of the observations in biology that are explainable with an alternative hypothesis, without having to just dismiss all of these observations outright.

So what happens when a virus infects your lungs? Well, it makes copies of itself, right? That's what the TV tells us. The question is, why is it that it's so hard to culture coronaviruses from infections? And so when animals are sick, or when we try to culture them, it just doesn't work. It's really hard to do. Zhengli Shi's publication list is full of partial sequences of coronaviruses that they've been kind of able to amplify with PCR, but none of them are ever culturable. And they, they publish a whole paper, if they're able to culture one sequence that they get enough, you know, replication or whatever, so that they can get a whole sequence of it. So it's not really impressive how their cartoon, which is that the virus goes in your lungs, and it makes lots of copies of itself, doesn't result in a very easily, you know, harvestable, growable and inoculatable pathogen. And now I understand that there are lots of reasonable explanations for that. One of the most reasonable explanations is that not all of the particles are replication competent. We've heard this from a number of virologists. We heard it recently from Vincent Ransom Yellow in his infectious psycho lecture that we watched a week ago or so. We also heard it from Robert Malone more than two years ago, in that podcast with the naturopath from England, where he says that lots are the majority of the particles are non infectious because they are misassembled or they're missing a gene or there's a mistake in them. So that's what apparently explains why it's pretty hard to culture these wild coronaviruses. So one of the ways that we have overcome this, and again, the reason why I say you should search on PubMed for infectious clone viruses is because we make infectious clones for so long, we have made them for so long. It's like a laughable joke. And the way we've done it for a very long time is to make a DNA construct of the RNA virus and then make lots of copies of the DNA because DNA is double stranded. The DNA, the enzyme that copies DNA is a DNA that has proofreading. And because the DNA is double stranded, it gets proofread when reassembled, right? And so even the errors that are present after and escape the original proofread can still be proofread again by a proofreading enzyme.

All of these things don't exist because of single stranded RNA being single stranded.

So if you make a copy of your single stranded RNA into DNA, then you can make very high fidelity copies of that DNA over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, DNA is very stable because it's double stranded, you could freeze it, you can share it, you can put it in a library, you can make lots of aliquots of it, can put it in lots of animals, you can grow more of it. And that's all possible because of the high fidelity of DNA relative to RNA. Not RNA is not crap.

RNA polymerases aren't terrible, but they're not perfect either.

And so it's about an order of magnitude more errors for any given number of copies in RNA than DNA. I think it's like 10 to the sixth minus six versus 10 to the minus fifth. It's I mean, somebody can correct me on these things. It's not an incredibly high error rate, but if you have a genome of 30,000 bases, then there's going to be an error in every genome that gets copied from beginning to end. If it's RNA, but you can copy a 30,000 genome DNA, high fidelity for millions of copies. And that can be done in a wide variety of ways. Usually it's done in a vaccinia virus culture, with a helper virus, or with a bacterial culture, and circular DNAs as depicted here in these green teardrops. And so if you insert these plasmids into with the right promoters and stuff into a bacterial culture and just let the bacteria do their work, they can make liters and liters of high fidelity copies of this DNA. And if this DNA is is the right length, you're good to go. If it's not, you can ligate them together, join them all together with unique sites so that they don't mix.

And then you add that to RNA polymerase and you make RNA. The RNA gets translated from the DNA.

The RNA will be pretty good copy because it's always being copied from the DNA in this sample.

And then that RNA you put on a cell culture. You'll electroporate it in. You transfect the cell culture with that RNA. And what happens? The cell starts making copies of the RNA and packaging it and making so many copies of it that it kind of dies. Because if you transfect a cell and cause it to overexpress a protein that it normally wouldn't express, eventually it will die from it. It will become toxic. And so you get cytopathic effects here that when you harvest those cells, they will have vesicles which contain the RNA that you transfected that cell with, and that RNA will be infectious. It will it will express itself in other cells that you put it in. It will infect animals or at least cause an immune response in animals, and it can be stored in a freezer, it can be shared with your friends, and it can be reintroduced into that bacterial culture up there, make more copies of it. Again, none of that, none of that can be done with a virus that you take from the wild and put in culture, even one that grows will eventually disappear, because it's an RNA. And so there's only one real way to explain this. And that's to go with an old metaphor that for the kids in the audience, you're going to have to bear with me for a little bit and use your imagination. But you know that these items exist. What they're called are cassette tapes. Cassette tapes are a thin cellophane tape that goes from one reel to the other. You put this thing in and then a little head goes in there and reads the tape as it moves. So you got to rewind and fast forward this tape if you want songs and the songs come in one order. You can't skip them without fast forwarding through the tapes. All of us guys that are older 50, if we were lucky in high school, we had a car with a cassette player in it. But that would have been very, very cool. And not everybody had that. Anyway, cassettes were cool. Because in addition to getting albums on cassette, you could also buy blank cassettes. And there were dual cassette recorders so that you could take songs from your favorite albums, and you could make a mixtape for your girlfriend. But when you did that, you would be taking your tracks from a very high fidelity recording like Van Halen Jump, and you would be putting it on to Fearless Mix. But when you did that, you'd lose a little bit of quality, because you're copying it. And that copying process just loses a little bit. And there's no way to avoid that. It's it's very similar to how you copy an mp3. And then you share it with your friends, and you share it with your friends again, each time it's a deterioration. I think the same thing happens with JPEGs too. So this is like how it happens with copying RNA. RNA cannot be copied at full high fidelity, it just can't. And so as a result, there is a deterioration that occurs with reach reiteration. What that basically means is that if you started in Wuhan and 20 people, there is no way for that mixtape to make it all the way to 2023 to my back door. Absolutely positively not. And yet that is the story that we've been told. However, what's even worse is that once you've made that mixtape, although Fearla might really love it, she can't make copies of it either because a copy of a mixtape will be even worse. So if you have a mixtape, it's not like you can share it with your friends because they won't want it. It will already have blues if you see the asterisks there. It goes from five stars to four stars to three stars. This one will have too much noise for anybody to enjoy at a high volume or in earphones, so it's kind of pointless. The same thing happens if you try to take a virus that you cultured from a patient and then make enough of it to share with all your colleagues around the world. That won't work because you'll be sharing a copy of a copy of the mixtape and it just won't produce the cellular effects. It won't produce the sickness. It won't produce the immune response that you want to.

However, if you start with a cDNA copy, a cDNA CD, a cDNA copy of those songs, and you mix them to another CD, now you can make a copy of Fearless Mix and it'll be perfect. And you can share that copy with as many people as you want. You can store it on a hard drive. And that is the difference between harvesting natural viruses and making copies of them and trying to share them and culture them in a laboratory versus making a cDNA version of the virus, which is far more stable, far easier to copy. And when you make copies of it, they're always identical. So the starting point is the same. So everybody likes the mix. All the animals get sick. All the cells show cytopathic effects. And the viruses that you harvest are competent. Do you see? That makes a lot things a lot easier. The most interesting thing about this is is that the original RNA needs to be transfected. It needs to be transfected into those cells. It's not just gonna go in. Once it goes in, the cells make copies of it, and then they do package it. And those packages are what people have been calling viruses. This is the only methodology that is required to do virology. This is how between 60 and 80 percent of all virology is done, maybe even more. And so the question then becomes, what if the natural infectious cycle produces a non infectious to infectious ratio of say 50 to 1? What if it's 500 to 1? What's different about that model than what they showed you on television? Because they have some explaining to do if this is the model. And my question is, can nanopore sequencing shed any light on this question? I think it can. The question that I would really like you to keep in mind from now until the end of the lecture though is one that really struck me about four weeks ago or maybe even longer. Maybe it was eight weeks ago. And it is this one. What is a virus? And before I could answer it, the little gremlin in my brain giggled in my ear and said, well, whatever your answer is, viruses cannot force cells to do things that they do not already do. Just take a minute to think about that, because that I believe is the the the revelation that got me out of this. It is the understanding that I think is most important to see here, that viruses don't hijack your cells to make them do something that they don't already do.

So let's look at direct nanopore sequencing, and we're gonna look at full-length coronavirus genomes to provide insights into structural variants, and look at modification analysis. What we're gonna do here is we're gonna take an infectious clone, which I just described, a clone made in cDNA, and we're gonna create RNA from it, and then we're gonna look at how that RNA replicates in a cell culture, and what kind of sequences we get out of it, so that we can look at the infectious cycle within the context of a controlled environment where the clone is the starting point. And so what we're really thinking about here is what's depicted in this video, which is the assembly of the RNA, that's the little red strands there around the end protein, and then the invagination of those assembled genomes into an endosome that has the spike protein expressed inside of it so that that invagination results in the formation of full virons inside of the endosome. Then the endosome will bind with the outer membrane and release the virus. Now, there's two things at play here. The first one is, is how well can you copy the genome? That's the the tape versus the CD issue above my head. The other thing that we're thinking about now is how is it that the genome is assembled? Is it really just one long 27,000 bases wrapped nicely around end proteins, like you see here, and they just casually all go like this and stick together and then go into a ball? Or are there alternatives? Like what is the what results in the non infectious particles, for example, because this cartoon clearly doesn't explain that either. So those are some of the questions. It's two different things, though. It's the fidelity of the translation of the RNA, but it's also the assembly of the genome and the packaging of it and how that is done with with high precision or low precision. Let's say it that way. So if we look at what they do in this paper, I'm just gonna use my arrow here to help you find it here. We are going to do total RNA samples that are made from the post infection of HUH7 cells. I don't know if they call them HUH7, but I'm gonna call them HUH cells. And so the generation of recombinant viruses in total RNA isolation were performed as previously described briefly full-length cDNA copies of the genomes of of human coronavirus 229e as well as these other two were engineered into recombinant vaccinia viruses using previously described methods which I can show you right here and that is they use a foul pox helping virus and they take this recombinant vaccinia virus genome, they put the the human coronavirus genome inside of it, then they put that inside of these CV1 cells, and then with a co-infection of the helper virus, what ends up coming out is a recombinant vaccinia virus that contains inside of it the coronavirus genome, and then that genome, those viruses are harvested, they can cut that genome out, that DNA out, they take that DNA alone, and they put that into an another cell line. And then that cell line takes that DNA, sorry, that RNA, shoot, this is a DNA virus. Then they take this DNA and they translate it into RNA. And just that's this the coronavirus one. And then they put that in the second cell line, the second cell line produces the recombinant human coronavirus. So we're going to look at what happens here when the infectious RNA that is generated from the cloning is put into this cell. Now this is different than how Baric does it, because I think Baric uses cDNAs that are ligated inside of bacterial cultures. This is an older way of doing it. But a vaccinia virus is a DNA virus, so that's why that works. We'll look at that paper in a second. What they then do is they look for genomic and subgenomic RNAs, because according to the mythology of viruses, or according to the standard story, the genomic RNA is translated into subgenomic RNAs and full genomic RNAs. The full genomic RNAs are packaged. The subgenomic RNAs are translated into many copies of the proteins that will be assembled around the full genomes. So you need the subgenomic RNAs to go into the ribosomes and produce the S protein, the N protein, all these things. And you need the full length RNAs to be packaged in vesicles containing those proteins and then sent out. So we expect all of these things to be there. The question is, in what proportion do you expect them all to be there, and what do we see when we do this experiment? And so what we see here, the longest read they get, one of the neat things about nanopore sequencing, in case you aren't familiar, Sanger sequencing, the fragments that you can measure in Sanger sequencing is limited to some length. And off the top of my head, I'm not sure if it's as small as 300 nucleotides or as long as 2000. I think it's as short as 300, but it might be as long as 2000. But that still shows you that if you have a genome of 30,000 nucleotides, then you will need to sequence several fragments and hope that those fragments overlap so that you can then line up the consensus genome. The shorter those fragments are, the more difficult it is for that overlap to occur, the more amplification you need to do. Nanopore sequences are neat because they use an ion channel and an entire sequence of 30,000 bases can just go through it like a rope, and you get the whole sequence. So in theory, nanopore is much better than Sanger sequencing in some respects because of how long of a sequence it can do. In theory, there might not be a limit. However, because of the nature of it, it's more erroneous. And so you don't, you get a full read, but there will be lots of errors where a Sanger sequencing, you get a lot of reads, and so you can kind of correct those errors. And so nanopore isn't a be-all end-all for sequencing, but it is in certain scenarios. And in this scenario, it's very interesting because at least we can get a read on how many subgenomic RNAs are produced versus how many full genomes can be harvested in a given experiment. And we see here clearly that we see long reads and short reads, we see 224,000 reads of the wild type, the longest read was 26,000. So that's nearly the whole genome of 27,000 bases. That's pretty good. If we look at a more detailed description of this, and we see coverage here, so this would be the number of fragments, which cover this portion of the genome. And you see that there are some pretty steep changes. Sorry about that. I gotta go back. Pretty steep changes here, which indicate that there are an order of magnitude, more copies of this little tail than there are, for example, of this section of ORF1A. There are very few copies of this section of ORF1A, and then these copies are increasing. This line would then be 10 to the first, right? This is 10 to the second, so that's a hundred copies of this subgenomic RNA, and then maybe a hundred copies of this subgenomic RNA, and then here there are thousands of copies of the N genomic RNA. Hundreds of copies of the S. If we look at the total harvested fraction, we see that they actually have only found two full genomes. So whereas the cartoons are always showing us this, you know, overwhelming flood of viral particles leaving the cell. Here we start with a cDNA clone and transfect the RNA directly into a cell culture and force them to copy it and make viruses. And then three orders of magnitude more end-protein subgenomic RNA is made than full genomes. It could be that you need thousands of copies of the end protein in order to wrap up a single genome. Maybe that's possible. But does that really mean that there were only two full virogenomes found in a cell culture that was transfected with a a cDNA clone of human coronavirus 229e? Apparently that's what it says. There is no other way to read this. There are only two full-length genomes, but thousands of sub genomic RNAs, thousands. Now, if we look back at this paper that was referenced in this in this study about how they manufactured this virus to begin with, it's curious because in this paper they do a very similar thing with human coronavirus 229e here. It's the same thing. So it seems like they're using the same preparation in this newer paper that they did in this paper here, the old one in 2001. In this paper, they look for RNA with a with a gel. And when they do that, oh sorry, I thought I was pointing. When they do that, they find, is it going to give me it? Yeah. Here's the whole RNA. And again, here's a depiction of the of the subgenomic RNAs and their weights.

Here you see those same weights here displayed on this gel.

It's a northern blot, it looks like. And so what you have here is the the heaviest ones move the slowest in the gel. So you're using electricity to pull these things down through the gel, and the smallest transcripts move the fastest, and so those are the ones that go the farthest in the gel, and then the heaviest transcripts they stay up here, because those are the ones that move the slowest. And what you see here is what we've seen from the very beginning for decades in virology, that when you initiate what they call viral replication, the infectious cycle in a cell culture, you do not get a preponderance of full genomic RNAs that you might expect if you were producing all kinds of full genome containing variants. Instead, you find extremely rare copies of the full genome, and orders of magnitude more copies of subgenomic RNA. And again, the virologists and the molecular biologists that are that are down with this, wave that off as saying, Well, that's just because those those proteins, you need a lot more of them. So you make a lot more of that RNA to make a lot more of those proteins. And you make comparatively few copies of the full genome.

That to me doesn't work. But that's okay. I'm just throwing it out there that that's their explanation for what this is. So let's think about this infectious cycle and see if this jives with what what we've learned, or I think we've learned from infectious clones. So we're gonna probably just take a look at this again, to be sure again, what I'm questioning is not only the copying of RNA. But I'm also questioning how it is that we get this very rare number of full genomes packaged, and then what's being packaged in all these non-infectious particles? Then it can't all be erroneous, because as Brian Mowrey and Robert Malone have argued, it's not... RNA viruses aren't that bad at copying themselves. They make mistakes, but they're not that bad. So the non-infectious particles can't be just errors, and that the preponderance of particles is not infectious because of errors. That would be an exaggeration of the way the swarm works, and I totally agree. But then we've got to figure out why it is, that what's going in there. How should we explain it? I think it is that subgenomic RNAs are being packaged. I think you just get subgenomic RNAs because there's so many more of them, and I think we'll figure this out, or at least we can have a clue of figuring it out. Scientists believe that influenza virus is spread from person to person through exposure to large respiratory droplets, direct contact, or airborne dispersal. Infection takes place mainly in the respiratory tract. Infection begins with attachment of virus proteins to a receptor on the surface of the host cell. The virus is then taken in the cell by receptor-mediated endocytosis.

As the virus enters the cell, the virus is internalized in a membrane-bound capture vesicle that carries the viral core. The vesicle is transported on microtubules inside the cell by host proteins called kinesins. During transport, the membrane of the vesicle fuses with the membrane of the virus, and the capsid undergoes uncoding. The viral core, RNA, and proteins are then released into the cytoplasm, where they are guided by host proteins to the nucleus of the host cell. At the nuclear membrane, the viral core uses host protein channels to enter.

Inside the nucleus, cell machinery is utilized by the virus to replicate the viral genome and make messenger RNA, mRNA. Some viral mRNA exits the nucleus to exploit cellular ribosomes to direct synthesis of viral proteins. Viral proteins go back to the nucleus to associate with viral RNA. These nucleoproteins again leave the nucleus and use cellular processes to travel to the cell surface. Viral surface proteins are made and processed in the cytoplasm and also travel to the cell surface where they combine with the encapsulated nuclear proteins to form progeny viruses which depart from the cell by budding. The virion now goes on to infect other cells. At present, vaccines to stimulate the production of antibodies against the virus and stimulate host cellular responses to ingest the virus remain the best strategy for controlling certain viral diseases, but they are of limited effectiveness against rapidly mutating viruses and are ineffective against viruses that cause the common cold and AIDS.

So interesting video that has so many incongruencies, it's hard to really start. And I didn't want to belabor you with that. Rather, I just point out one thing. If we go back to this paper where we're talking about negative strand RNA viruses, the life cycle of negative strand RNA viruses differs from that of other RNA viruses in many ways. Specifically, the genome, genomic RNA of negative strand viruses, is not infectious. And the infectious particles must also deliver their own RNA-dependent RNA polymerase into the infected cell to start the first round of viral specific mRNA synthesis. It's interesting because that video didn't seem to acknowledge that issue at all. And maybe this is just an old paper and that video is newer.

But that video showed the RNA going into the nucleus to be translated into messenger RNA, and then some of the messenger RNA would go out into the cytoplasm and find ribosomes. It's just the whole infectious cycle is essentially hand waving. That entire video is hand waving. The virus gets brought in, it gets carried by kinesin, it gets uncoated, it releases its RNA and some of that RNA gets shuttled by host proteins into the nuclear pores. It's hand waving, hand waving, hand waving, when all we really know is that if we transfect these cells with what we call viral RNA, they will replicate it and produce vesicles that apparently have some of this RNA in it.

The problem is, is that oftentimes in these experiments, they harvest the entire cell culture, and then measure the RNA. So they're not even taking the supernatant, the liquid, which should really contain the pure virions, as we saw in that cartoon. But they're taking the whole cell culture, and then extracting RNA from it, and telling you that that means that that cell culture was making virus. This is a problem. And so we have to really ask ourselves the question, have we been misled about the infectious cycle? What if? And who would benefit from lying about the composition of this swarm? Who would lie? Who would benefit from telling us that all the viruses are competent, that all the viruses are one variant, that another variant is sweeping America?

Who would benefit from lying about the dangers of wild virus versus infectious clones or other purported gain of function methodologies? I think the answer is quite clear.

And so what if the natural infection produces an n ratio of 50 to 1? And I asked the question, can nanopore sequencing shed any light on this question? I believe it can. And I believe the answer it sheds on this is not helpful to biology because it underscores the preponderance of likely non-infectious particles that still can cause an immune reaction in those around you. If a clone produces this ratio, like 10,000 to 1, like we will see in the next paper, then what does that mean a natural swarm produces? What does that mean about how we understand how viruses might actually work versus how we're told on TV that they work? And so this got me to think again about how viruses are found in the wild and how they are cultured in the lab and how they are purified or isolated, which purified and isolated is this thing that that Andrew Kaufman and and Mark Bailey and Christine Massey talk about a lot. And at the same time, I've been thinking again, you know, how long or how often are these DNA clones used as the source material for viral experiments? And it turns out it's all the time. And so what the TV algorithm has told us is that there's pandemic potential and it's access through cell culture and animal passage.

And what I'm suggesting to you is that those things aren't true.

And we're going to get there because again, we're still thinking about what is a virus and the fact that whatever they are, they cannot force cells to do things they do not already do.

So now we're going to talk about exosomes.

Health and disease, our major goal is how do cells secrete molecules that influence other cells in a good way or a bad way. Exosomes collectively are a very powerful way and a new way of thinking how cells communicate long distance. So when we're talking about exosomes, we're talking about really, really, really small bubbles that are released from cells. It's much smaller than a bacterium, for example. You know that there are only about 100 nanometers in size, which is about one millionth of the size of hair. Exosomes are blebs that are released from cells, and they end up outside of the cells and can be isolated from the liquid. It's been found in all mammalian cells that have been looked at. One of the problems with exosomes is that they're very heterogeneous. Those are very different kinds of vesicles, and it's been difficult to come up with a definition that encompasses all the different types of vesicles. If you want to kind of envision what we're dealing with here, I guess maybe you should see Manhattan as one big organism with all these different cells. Every building is a cell, and then how do all these buildings, how do they communicate with each other? And that's through these small objects that are running around through these streets. When you look here from the 28th floor, you see all these taxis driving around, but they're so small, you can hardly see them. And I guess only when you go really downstairs, perhaps, when you take a big microscope, and all of a sudden you see that a taxi is much more complex than just a yellow dot. Actually, there's a lot of things going on in there. Exosomes are supposed to be very powerful mediators. They carry all the signaling and the machinery necessary to go and change the behavior of a neighboring cell. There is genetic information in these vesicles, meaning that they're not just getting to these vesicles, but when these vesicles get taken up by other cells, that they have a biological activity. Our cells produce large numbers of different small RNAs, they're called microRNAs, and they regulate about half of all the genes expressed in our cells. Now, we did find RNA in the exosomes probably around seven years ago. The major question in the field is, do cells communicate with other cells in the body by secreting exosomes carrying these microRNAs, and then affect the metabolism in other cells? Only five years ago, the principles of communication in the body were either hormones or immunology or neurology. And now we found another way of communicating and sending genetic signals between cells. So curiously enough, that guy that was from the Netherlands that was talking in that video by the name of Michael Pigtel had a position at the University of Amsterdam where he had an exosome research group that even had a website that was called Exosomes Punkt NL {exosomes.nl}. And within two years of the existence of that group, he was absorbed into the infectious disease and cancer department, and this website was taken down. Exosomes and the Exosomes Research Group cannot become popular or strong or important, but instead was absorbed into the infectious disease and cancer group. So my first experience with exosomes and endogenous viral particles was actually the neuronal arc gene. In 2018, Jason Shepard's lab in Utah published a paper where they showed that the neuronal Arc gene encodes a protein that forms viral-like capsids. An Arc protein exhibits similar biochemical properties as the retroviral GAG protein.

Endogenous Arc protein is released from neurons in extracellular vesicles, and Arc extracellular vesicles and capsids can mediate intercellular transfer of Arc mRNA in neurons. Arc is an immediate early gene that is associated with the reorganization of the actin skeleton to allow the physical reorganization of the dendritic tree and synaptic connections of a neuron. And it is used as a marker for neurons that have been recently activated by learning, because those neurons have been shown to express Arc RNA very quickly after activation. And how do I know that? Well, I've got a couple papers with those kinds of things and those kinds of techniques in it. In this paper, me and Priyanka are using mice where neurons that are recently expressing arc glow in the dark for about five hours. And so you can train an animal with fear conditioning and then look and it's dentate gyrus and the glow-in-the-dark cells are expressing arc. But when we did this paper, we had no idea that those cells were also excreting viruses that expressed arc mRNA and that several days later, several other neurons close by might also be expressing arc where those arc RNAs were released. Now that's really cool because Jason Shepard's paper came out simultaneously with another paper in Cell, which basically showed a similar thing from a different perspective. It was nice that they could publish them simultaneously back to back, but it really changed for me at least how I think about the brain, because here you have yet another way for neurons to communicate to one another, another variable in the mix. And anytime you add another variable into the mix, it gets pretty exciting. But one of the things that you can notice here is that despite this extraordinary discovery, it's not like everybody in neurobiology suddenly scratched their head and said, wait a minute, does that mean that we don't understand viruses? And they probably should have scratched their head and thought that, but they didn't. And that's because when these discoveries are made in their little pigeonhole context of arc protein and learning or neuroscience and this particular person, it doesn't go very far because if you're not working on arc protein and learning, then this is only a nice story. And so, while it's extremely important in terms of our ever evolving understanding of the brain, the impact that this had on biology as a whole is very compartmentalized because still takes a pretty sophisticated individual to find themselves studying arc protein in the context of learning, and then to take that out of that context and ask yourself, Hey, wait, how many other genes are also sent around in RNA capsids? Do I have to ask that question? Well, that's too much work for me, because I've got a grant to write, so forget about it. But we can ask that question, because we are general biologists and we just do this from an armchair. Interestingly, I think you'll find this very interesting anyway, that Jason Shepard has been chosen to be a host by Vincent Ranson-Yellow for this week in neuroscience, which is the neuroscience part of the micro TV channel selection. Make of that what you will. I think it's to make sure that Jason Shepard's discovery never leads to a full-on undermining of basic viral theory.

And so we keep Jason very happy with a job, and keep very happy with extra funding and extra attention and extra publicity as a neuroscience expert, and make sure that if he ever starts questioning virology, he'll have a real nice relationship with Vincent Rancinello. But you know, I'm just a conspiracy theorist. So again, keeping in mind the main question of the talk, what is a virus, whatever they are, they cannot force cells to do things that they don't already do. So then I'm keeping the work on the exosomes going and trying to figure out what's going on here. I noticed that there's a whole panoply. I mean it's it's hundreds of thousands, I would guess, papers on exosomes in the context of cancer. Turns out that cancers release exosomes, and sometimes those exosomes can actually cause other cells to turn cancerous. In other papers you can find exosomes that are instructing the nervous or the immune system to activate and come and kill the cancer. There are also exosomes that can activate nearby cells and then cause those cells to cause send signals that cause those cells to go into apoptosis. So the whole exosomal signaling pathway is now central to understanding the detection of cancer, the location of cancer, and the immune targeting of cancer. And so again, we go back to this question, what is a virus, and whatever they are, they cannot force cells to do things that they don't already do. So I think you already know where we're going with this, right?

If viruses are real, they're not obligate pathogens that turn endothelial cells into viral factories. They are infectious RNAs which hijack the normal exosomal communication pathways of epithelial cells and cause them to send exosomes that contain viral RNA. And now you're starting to see where we're going with this, right? Because now we're not talking about the perfection of the virus or the perfect genome, or the viral proteins that we haven't yet isolated, or the magic trick that the virus does when it goes into the cell that we can't yet explain. We don't need to, because these cells are packaging exosomes all the time to signal to their neighbors, to signal to other tissues, to communicate with the immune system. And so if there is such a thing as infectious RNA, the only thing it can do is hijack a system that already exists. Maybe the best example that I've come up with today is that you can't make a cuckoo clock sing a sonata. You can make a cuckoo clock cuckoo at the wrong time. You can make it read the wrong time. You can make it go backwards. But you can't make a cuckoo clock sing a sonata. You can't make a cell make viruses if it already doesn't do it.

And so now you see what the problem is, because the virologists have made us believe that the only thing that exists at that size scale, between 30 nanometers and 100 nanometers, are viruses. When in reality, when you spin down any living plasma, urine, blood sample, at the bottom of that centrifuge, at the very bottom where the tiniest things go, you will find a preponderance of exosomes from all the tissues that are served by that liquid. Do you see where we're going here? This is a paper from 2020. Exosomes are a subgroup of nano-sized extracellular vesicles enclosed by a lipid bilayer and secreted by most eukaryotic cells. They represent a route of intracellular communication and participate in a wide variety of physiological and pathological processes. The biological roles of exosomes rely on their bioactive cargos, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, which are delivered to target cells. And so I got back to this again and thinking about what is happening when these people are putting lung samples onto a cell culture. What is happening when they put RNA on a cell culture and then transfect it with electricity and force the RNA into those cells? What's happening? What are they doing? What's being produced? Viruses?

And then I gotta say I've got to thank Kevin McCairn because through this entire journey, Kevin McCairn has been there from the very beginning. He was there when I was believing in April and May of 2020 that this was gonna be fine. He was there to make sure that I knew it wasn't, and to make sure that I knew that the spike protein was dangerous, and that it could be amyloidogenic. It's going to the brain. And so I fought this. Then I saw Kevin debate on Tim Truth. And he debated a guy by the name of Mark Bailey. And I was moved by that debate, because Kevin was my friend. Kevin was a colleague. We were fighting together. And I couldn't believe how disappointed I was in how he behaved in that Tim Truth interview. I couldn't get it. And I made a video about it. And that video was responded to by Kevin with the most aggressive counter video that anyone's ever made about me anyway. I don't know if that video is still available on You Talk We Listen, but it is or You Talk We Listen, whatever it's called. But the thumbnail is still there. And you can see something like Dr. Couey's felivities or something like that. This was the interview that I was talking about. I'm not going to dignify Kevin with a response here. I mean, I think that was because you can't. You can't. You don't have the science, dude. You don't have the science. Well, Dr. Mark, what I would ask is if you could address the audience, because there's so many people like myself who are trying to figure this out, whether viruses exist. We're so thankful for your time. I'm sorry for the low blow there from Kevin, but we're all ears. We want to hear what you have to say. Yeah, no worries. So with the animal studies, Kevin does not seem to be familiar with virus mania. I don't think he's read it because the SARS-CoV-1 alleged viral studies were dealt with there pretty thoroughly. And also Sam's made several videos now about the animal studies. I think Kevin misunderstands between transmission and inoculation. So with the monkey studies and the other kind of animal studies, what they tend to do is pour the biological soup directly into the lungs. So now I won't let this play, because you can find this video if you want to watch it. And that's not the point. And I see you people thinking that I'm attacking him, but I'm not. What I'm suggesting to you is, is that his behavior here led me to think certain things. His behavior here made me investigate his writing, made me investigate the things that he's saying calmly, but Kevin wasn't saying very coherently. In fact, I would argue... Let's just look at the precision that we get with modern day technologies. This is the same interview. What's been hypothesized in the scientific literature again and again, the same feature which we associate with coronaviruses, and SARS is a coronavirus, where here we can see the individual virions and the spike proteins. We can work through that, and we can slice through it nanometer by nanometer. And there you can see them.

Now, from what I've shown you so far, he's not showing you anything that I'm disagreeing with. He's showing you that the production of exosomes that seem to contain RNA that is SARS-CoV is being produced in this thing here. I'm not arguing that that's not the case. And we can make predictions about the proteins that are on that slide. And all of it matches or converges onto an extent phenomenon that we can make predictions about. The genomics, the proteomics, the visualization, and then we can go to the disease models. So we'll just go straight to monkeys. They can take this pathogen, put it in the nose or the eyes, and it spreads to other tissues. So what paper did he choose there? He chose a paper by Albert Oosterhuis. Albert Oosterhuis is the guy that I've shown you a video of a number of times in 2009, where he's celebrating the first case of Mexican flu in the Netherlands, and then walks out into the hall and goes like this because they bought 35 million doses of his patented vaccine. He's citing a paper by Albert Osterhaus, which does the original non-human primate model for SARS-1. That's fine. If you want to say that SARS-1 proves that SARS-2 is also a virus, that's okay. I'll give you that. What's in this paper? What's in that paper? The one thing that's in that paper is an infectious clone model of SARS-CoV-2. That’s Syrian hamster where they start with a cDNA clone of the urbani strain, which is strange because that's not culturing and isolating a virus and showing that it causes disease, that's starting with a cDNA clone that makes exosomes, and then those exosomes make those Syrian hamsters sick. That's very different than what's done with a natural virus can be done with a natural virus. Now, the virology people will say, but a cDNA clone is just an approximation. It's a it's an easier way to do it. I disagree wholeheartedly, but that's that's that's fine.

We also have in this paper, a paper by Drosten. Oh, no, sorry, Fouchier and and Osterhaus. So Fouchier is the guy who enriches avian flu in 2011. Fouchier was at that time a PhD student with Osterhaus. And he shows that Koch's postulates are fulfilled using two monkeys that show RNA replication in their lungs. They're sacrificed so quickly, I'm not really sure. And again, they are also, they are exosomes from a four-time passage patient sample in Vero6 cells. So they take a patient sample, they put it in Vero6 cells, they passage it four times, whatever exosomes and RNA are present there, then they take that and they put it in the monkey. And so again, Mark Bailey's objection is that that's not really taking virus and putting it in there, and then the virus causing disease. That's something else.

What I find frustrating about Mark Bailey's arguments is that he doesn't really know about exosomes. It doesn't seem. He doesn't seem to know that there's 15 years of science that in this fraction, in that centrifugal fraction, it's all exosomes, not viruses. And it seems like such a wonderful weapon to have in his in his quiver. If instead of just saying they don't isolate viruses, he could also say that whatever they're isolating from these cell cultures that's causing cytotoxic effects, or replicating DNA, doesn't need to be viruses per se, because all of these cell cultures, all of these tissues have the machinery to package and excrete exosomes that are the same size and basic construction that you call viruses. And so I got frustrated because I felt like that these observations were good, but then you just dismiss the molecular biology, the symptomology, all of the experience of people around the world, and all the measurements that we made as wholly false, as opposed to being observations which require an alternative explanation. Some of them may be false, some of them may be incorrect, but not all of them can be. And that's where I think we differ. And that is the reason why I reached out to Christine Massey. That's why I asked Mary Holland for permission to contact these no virus people and see if I could make a bridge. Because I thought I had finally figured out a combination of plausible biology that includes synthetic viruses, infectious clones, used as an agent to seed different places around the world, that would give you a brief period where PCR would be highly specific and correlated with symptomology, but a background of SARS-CoV that would provide this false positivity of the PCR test that would allow them to roll it around the world and make it look like the pandemic was continuing, even though the initial seeding events probably didn't go very far in any of the places that they were seeded, and the worst seeding event was probably in Iran. Do you see? So I reached out to these no-virus individuals, and instead of... I'm not sure exactly who he is. His name is JJ Couey, and I believe he's a consultant for CHD, and I believe he has a PhD in some sort of scientific discipline, from what I understand.

So instead of talking to me on Zoom, instead of having a meeting with me and Mary in private so that we could talk about this stuff, they told me that they didn't have time. They told me that they don't pick up their phone very much. They couldn't talk to Mary on the phone. And so they went ahead and did this video anyway. And then they did a bunch of substacks saying that Bobby Kennedy Jr. is obviously an op, and JJ Couey is obviously an op controlled by him. Otherwise, they wouldn't be denying our obvious evidence. And the ways that they communicated with us felt very disingenuous because they weren't communicating with us in a friendly way, but in a very antagonistic way, often trying to seemingly disrupt the trust that Bobby and Mary have in me as an advisor or as an opinion in biology. And also at the same time, openly suggesting again that Bobby is a bad guy, despite the fact that of all of the people that are trying to fight against this, he's one of the few that was out against this early and can even be said to be out against this before it even started.

And so I hope that we can find some common ground here. I hope that this is starting to make sense because I just kept reading and I kept finding more and more things that lead me to believe that there's a whole section of academic biology that could wake up the world to what is a gross over-exaggeration that is virology. Exosomes are extracellular vesicles containing different biomolecules with bioactivities such as proteins, miRNA, long encoding RNA and DNA. Extracellular vesicles are efficient platforms for intracellular communication, especially during immune responses, but also some pathological contexts such as tumor cell growth. How are exosomes isolated? Well, funny enough, they are pelleted using a sucrose gradient. Well, isn't that weird? That's exactly how you find viruses. Funny. That's cute. Whatever they are, they can't force cells to do things they can't do that they don't already do. They just can't. That's the truth. And so what is being collected or passage during these experiments? What's passage or collected during these experiments? The answer is definitely exosomes. And virologists will like you to believe that there are no exosomes. But there are almost exclusively exosomes, and what viruses are, are infectious RNA that hijacks that natural machinery. There's no other way to explain what viruses are. The description of a virus as an obligate pathogen that hijacks normal cellular machinery to make copies of itself is an inadequate explanation. Because what viruses are, if they are anything, are erroneous, infectious, annoying RNA or DNA sequences packaged as exosomes that have the capability of replicating themselves, perhaps. But we need to think about viruses in the context of exosomal communication, not exosomal communications in the context of viruses.

That's how the virologists would like you to think, but essentially there is a 180 degree turn that needs to occur, where all virology needs to be reevaluated under the pretense that all those cell cultures that they use generate exosomes when you transfect them. And all of the major virology experiments that are done nowadays are usually done with an infectious clone that is transfected into a cell culture. And so I think that none of these things are real in the sense of endangering hundreds of millions of people. Sure, people will get sick when they go into a bat cave. Sure, you can you can take exosomes from one mouse and put them in another mouse and that mouse might get similarly sick. If there are viral particles that are only packaging the end protein and into endosomes, you can still have an immune response to that. It can still be respiratory, but it's not the same as every particle being infectious and virus variants going around the earth for three and a half years.

Have they done infectious clones with SARS-CoV-2? Could we see a similar result with SARS-CoV-2? Of course you can. Of course you can. Here's a SARS-CoV-2 right now. This is a SARS-CoV-2 made reverse genetics, and it reveals a respiratory tract gradient done by Ralph Baric. Isn't that cool? And this paper here is a SARS-CoV clone made with Vinit Manashree, one of the guys that's worked with Ralph Baric for a long time. He works in Texas. So let's look at what they find when they look at the architecture of the SARS-CoV-2 transcriptome by starting with a cDNA clone of SARS-CoV-2, because that's what this paper is about. Here's the subgenomic RNAs you can get again, the NH776Me3A and S, or the full length, which is about 29,000 base pairs. So we do two kinds of sequencing here. We do DNA nanoball, and we also do nanopore direct RNA sequencing. So that's what's so cool about nanopore. You don't even need to translate it to DNA. You can just do the RNA. So there's no excuse. How many full transcripts of this do we find when we grow it in a in a dish and we use nanopore direct RNA sequencing? How many do we find? A hundred and eleven.

A hundred and eleven full reads from a dish that's supposed to be producing thousands of infectious particles. What the hell's going on in that dish if there are only a hundred copies of the full genome but there are what is that that's 400,000! 400… it's higher higher than 400,000 copies of the end subgenomic RNA but only a hundred and eleven full genome copies despite nanopore direct RNA sequencing, the latest technology, they can't demonstrate a significant amount of full genomic infectious virus in the form of an RNA, nevermind a packaged full RNA. You see, the… these RNAs are naked that's why they're going through the nanopore they have not even shown you that they're packaged into variance that's a separate experiment. That's a separate paper. This is the whole reason why Mark Bailey and all these other people have so many easy openings into objecting to these papers. Number one, because exosomes are off everyone's radar. And number two, these papers aren’t done very well. Because the assumptions that are made are all encompassing through all these papers all the time. They assume that cytopathic effects are not the production of exosomes. They assume that their transfection isn't causing exosome production. When they do these cDNA experiments, they don't transfect a mock one that doesn't produce exosomes and cytotoxic effects. Because they produce, they put in non-infectious RNA, there's no such thing. If you transfected the cell culture next to it with whatever RNA that's not viral, it's still going to make copies of it.

Because that's what transfection does. You're putting RNA into a cell, so it's going to translate it. And so the question is, why is it that when they put this full thing in there, they don't get full copies of it back out, but they get enormous, like many orders of magnitude more of these subgenomic RNAs? And isn't it a much more parsimonious explanation that a lot of these subgenomic RNAs get packaged into the non-infectious particles that make up this swarm? And if that's the case, then the non-infectious particle to infectious particle ratio could be as high as ten thousand or a hundred thousand to one. Which would explain again why lots of people that are around people who are infected build an immune response to these non-infectious particles that still have relevant epitopes on them. Why some people might even develop mild symptoms from those non-infectious exosomes being produced by the limited amount of viral RNA that's actually present. So these numbers of like it's twice as infectious as measles and also it's nonsense. It's impossible. They all know this. That's not how this works, but it's part of the illusion. And if you understand how a clone works and you understand the kind of particle ratio that a clone produces, now you can see why releasing a clone on a city or in a water supply could produce a lot of irritation for a few weeks. A lot of unrest for a few weeks. A lot of problems for a few weeks, but never really go anywhere. Because it doesn't work like they show it to you on TV. It doesn't work like they've drawn it up on paper.

Because when they look for signals that it's working like they say it works, they find signals that are very different. And because they have no idea what exosomes are. They haven't even come up with that axiom that I'm putting in here, which is viruses can't make cells do something they don't already do. People in the 50s should have already thought that. Robert Gallo should have already thought that when he thought he found AIDS. What if the natural infectious particle produces a ratio of 500,000 to one? Has nanopore sequencing revealed an alternative infectious cycle? Have clones been used to create an illusion where the natural exosomal communication machinery is hijacked by basic transfection, and people have taken this for evidence of natural viruses? Why have we not heard of the Arc protein in the brain all around the world that our brain uses viruses?

Why do these papers talk of exosomes as central to the immune response, but Fauci has never said the word? What is a virus? Well, whatever they are, they can't force cells to do things that they don't already do. It did not take me long to read up on infectious clones and read up on, you know, quasi species dynamics. And guess what, when I, every single time I read one, there was not the support for his theory. There just wasn't there. So since it's very easy for Charles Rixey to read into infectious clones and to read into the quasi species swarm dynamics I would suggest that he teach a little bit of it because apparently he can pick up a paper and read it, and decide whether it supports my theory or not. And he's done it with a lot of papers he puts them in an excel file so I think he should go through that excel file and see if he can find some papers and then take the time to explain to us what it is about. My, it's not my theory about the biology that I'm presenting that is incongruent with the papers that he has in his quiver. I'm really curious because if this is the only rebuttal that these guys are going to give me after seven or eight hours of streaming non-stop about Epstein and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., then I don't think there's anything to respond to here. It's very contrasted if you think about how far back you can go into these papers, how many papers that I just randomly referenced today from only one year of infectious clone papers. So I don't know what he means when he says every time he reads a paper, it doesn't support my theory. Every paper that you read about infectious clones supports my theory. But Brian Mowrey has also helped me push this forward, I think in a much better way. And despite my inability to respond with objectiveness all the time, and my inability to keep my ego out of the way, Brian is very good at it. And even after I responded a bit aggressively on my stream to him, he took the time to make a diagram to try and describe his understanding of my stance and comparison to his. And while I think he gets it wrong, it's forcing me or helping me to develop a counter model to his, which may help him understand me and maybe help you understand me better as well. So we both agree that the gain-of-function Wuhan story is smokescreen to thwart the questioning of the novel virus narrative. He seems to think that I think that PCR isn't accurate, but what I'm trying to do is come up with an explanation for where PCR can work, but not in the way that these people on TV say that it's working, and not with the specificity that they claim that it's working for this one particular cause of death. Also, he says here that RNA viruses can't have stable genomes. It's not that I think that RNA viruses can't have stable genomes. It's that I don't think they're stable enough to sustain what is portrayed on TV, which is a point release and then branches, which actually only seem to be linear, right? It's not like we have 40 different variants around the world that are spread over all geographic locations. Every time we have a new variant, it takes over the planet, and that's the kind of genomic dynamics that's just impossible with an RNA coronavirus, as I understand them from my reading. So if we were to take this to what I would say is a better thing, the first thing I want to acknowledge is that this is the reason why I struggled with the Mark Bailey and, and, and Andrew Kaufman position, Alec, Zach, all those people, that they say that the virus hasn't been isolated, the virus hasn't been purified, therefore stop. Because if they really think that there are proof of viruses, then exosomes is such a wonderful path forward for them to justify their stance based on other observations in biology that also allow them to use those observations and piggyback so that they can then say, alternatively, the way to interpret your virology is X, Y, and Z, which is what I'm trying to do here from the 30,000 foot perspective, and will continue to push over the next couple weeks. And he acknowledges this as well. Can the molecular biology all be fraud? I would say no. And I would think a lot of molecular biologists would also say no. And I think Brian Mowrey also says no.

That's why his position here is PCR is accurate. RNA viruses can't mutate this fast. So what I would say is that PCR is not specific for SARS-CoV-2 because there are many EUA products. They over-cycled them in the beginning, which caused a massive amount of false positives. The manufacturing quality control and the processing quality control is zero. And SARS-CoV, SARS viruses were endemic already before the pandemic started because we didn't just find them in 2002 and before that they were aliens. They were always there. We just hadn't isolated them yet. So the PCR can be positive on a real background that the TV narrative is in denial of. RNA viruses cannot pandemic. That's because the infectious cycle is clearly imperfect, as we've seen today from the nanopore data and we've seen from even the RNA data from the early 90s. Non-infectious particles are a majority. This is a problem because that can now explain why people can have symptoms but not pass it on again. It can explain why viruses appear to be very contagious but aren't really. Millions of cases from a point released, therefore, is impossible. Single root spike-centered phylogeny. So the phylogeny that they show on next strain is centered around the spike, even though there are 31 other proteins, and many of them are much more conserved. We might learn a lot more from this virus if we were looking at the whole genome, but they're selling you on the idea that the spike is primary. That's part of the reason why you can look at that phylogeny and know right off the bat that it's baloney, because nobody would make a phylogenetic tree about viruses and focus on just one gene. But that's how they do it with these variants. And then finally, overlapping T cells, T cell immunity to previous RNA viruses prevents this pandemic. So our previous immunity to RNA viruses, both innate and acquired, was already present at the start of the pandemic and would have prevented anything resembling what they have portrayed on television with the silly numbers. And what a lot of people quote as 1 million people have been killed since the start of the pandemic is just nonsense.

So if we make this a full thing, like what Brian Mowrey did then gain a function as a mythology that thwarts the questioning of natural virus narrative, hides the spread of synthetic virus use, it discourages speculation, it provides a recyclable justification for policy, and it coerces citizens into compliance. That's the best reason not to release a particularly dangerous virus, but just say you did. And the idea that this is somehow fifth-generation warfare and therefore it has to be a biological agent is almost, it feels almost directly contradictory, because a fifth-generation war is almost exclusively about you believing things that aren't true, and not about real physical threats and real manifest dangers, but making you think that you're surrounded by all these manifest dangers. And then no one is really in danger, but if you think you are, and the people in control know that you're not, it's a win-win for everybody. So that's what I think is the reason why we don't need to say good job Baric, he made a gain-of-function virus, but we need to say almost certainly that this was a vector delivery of a purified product, and probably delivered in several places at the start of the pandemic, and not necessarily any other time after that, simply because everything else could have been done with smoke and mirrors.

The final thing that I would like to end with is this nice article from Quanta Magazine in 2018, Cells Talk in a Language That Looks Like Viruses. Hmm. I wonder who would be writing this interesting thing here. For cells, communication is a matter of life and death. The ability to tell other members of your species or other parts of your body that food supplies are running low or invading pathogens in your ear can be the difference between survival and extinction. Scientists have known for decades that cells can secrete chemicals into their surroundings, releasing a free-floating message for all to read. More recently, however, scientists have discovered that cells could package their molecular information in what are known as extracellular vesicles. Like notes passed by children in class, the information packaged in extracellular vesicles is folded and delivered to the recipient. A small group of researchers led by Leonid Margolis, a Russian-born virologist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and Robert Gallo, an HIV pioneer at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, has proposed that this similarity is more than a coincidence. It's not just that viruses appear to hijack the cellular pathways used to make extracellular vesicles for their own production, or that cells have taken on some viral components to use in their vesicles. Well, crazy isn't it? That this guy, the guy who told us that AIDS is a retrovirus, it's a disease from monkeys, is now the foremost proponent of the idea that exosomes are actually immune signals. Hmm. Yeah, immune signals. Yeah, right.

Immune signals that are very similar to viruses and infectious viruses. And this is interesting. So the vesicle virus connection is is that viruses hijack the exosomal communication system. And that the fraction in that in that ultra centrifuge is going to be exosomes from the cell culture and not just viruses are actually you won't be able to tell the difference because they're the same thing. And so what was he doing? When? When he did this video? What was he doing way back? Way back then? What was this guy doing? What did he do? retroviruses and recombine of the earliest hepatitis B vaccine. Here is the exchange Dr. Gallo eventually apologized to me for. He was obviously aggravated. Do you have any concern that your early experiments in taking simian virus 40 in the presence of simian foamy retroviruses and recombining them with cat leukemia and chicken leukemia sarcoma viruses might have given rise to HIV or its relatives following their culture in human tissues, and that these mutants could have contaminated some live viral vaccines produced in contaminated monkeys and chimps supplied to vaccine manufacturers through your affiliates at Lytton Bionetics. Quite frankly, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I'll cite your paper, Dr. Gallo. If you can, you've got a paper that I don't know I ever published. Okay. I sure like you decided. Would you begin? I'd be happy to. National Academy of Sciences, 1970, Gallo et al. It was an oral presentation that you presented before NATO and NATO audiences in 19- in Molde, Belgium. You published it. It's in the National Academy of Sciences. I'll be happy to show you the paper. Okay, stop, stop. I mean this is is beyond asinine. In Molde, Belgium, my first trip to Europe, so I can remember it, a NATO meeting did take place. NATO meetings fund all scientific meetings all over the world, even east-west at that time, biologic meetings, scientific chemistry meetings, all kinds of meetings, meetings about motherhood, fatherhood, everything. And what I talked about in Molde, Belgium, was in the 1960s, long before gene cloning took place, before I ever worked in virology. What I talked about was cellular transfer RNA, okay? And that's Molde, Belgium. Proceedings in the National Academy of Science and SV40, I never published a paper in my life on SV40, except the transfer RNA species in SV40 transformed hamster cells compared to non-transformed cells as a control. You've got pineapples, kiwis, grapes and cherries mixed in with some other tutti frutti. I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Excuse me. I'm a little bit tired of this kind of nonsense and crap. Okay. And Gallo, Soren et al. were Lytton Bionetics researchers, were your co-authors in which you combined cat leukemia and chicken sarcoma viruses to create, to evaluate, sorry, leukemia sarcoma complex.

Please be sure you understand here that the terms that they're using are not adequate. If they say that they're taking leukemia viruses, they're taking leukemia exosomes and mixing them in cell culture and getting other exosomes to come out, which have combinations of the contents of the exosomes that they transfect with. So at the time these people think or purport to say that they are working on viruses in cell culture, when in reality they are stimulating the production of exosomes and then transferring exosomes from one cell to the other. We know that now because we've looked at it in cancer. We know that. So they didn't know what they were doing back then. They are starting to learn that it is not as simple as there are viruses that are smaller than bacteria and their pathogens that are obligate. They are starting to realize that viruses can't do anything to a cell that the cell already doesn't do. And that is a very significant revelation that you can't discount because they are now purporting that this guy is the one who's figuring it out, which is absurd. And so this is where I was at the beginning of 2020, likely a lab leak. Kevin and the others say the spike protein is toxic, but I'm not sure. In 2020, my estimation was that they were covering up something, that they were suppressing early treatment, but I was pretty sure that masks wouldn't work. I did not wear one at Pitt. It was one of the reasons why they asked me not to come in anymore. My position on transfection was immediately that it can't work as expected because I transfect mice all the time, and I used to in my lab, and so I know how it works and how it doesn't. And my position on the childhood vaccine in 2020 was that it was a fantastic schedule. It would be fine. Maybe they have too many shots over here compared to Europe. I mean, I'm going to do it in 2023. I think that the origin of the virus is a lab leak drama. Probably there was a bio weapon in the beginning to seed everything because that would be necessary. But I don't think that there is any evidence for a virus that has gone around the world for three years. And the PCR tests and the sequences are not evidence of that irrespective of what, you know, anybody pounds on the table and says that they're evidence of. We don't have any of that data from pre-2020, so you don't know whether those PCR tests and whether those sequences could have been found in 2019, 18, 17, 16, because no one was looking. Not with those, not with the methods that they now purport to use to say they can find it. And so just on the basics here, the antibody position was the number one main bamboozle. PCR testing works, but it's not specific as claimed. Virus versus stupid is like, how do you estimate how many people died because of stupid or how many people died of the virus? I would say that it's nearly all scripted stupid, but there had to be a bioweapon somewhere in there, a clone, in order to get the initial thing to kick off. The swarm position is part of the biology that says the coronavirus can't pandemic. My clone position is that that's the methodology that they used. And my gain of function position is that that's a methodology, a mythology rather that hides all of synthetic biology. So they want you to be afraid of bat caves. They want you to be afraid of Peter Daszak's inserts into a spike protein and furin cleavage and all this other crap, because they don't want you to realize that it's not making a funny natural virus, but it is the production of synthetic viruses in the way that they do that creates the real danger. And so Rixey and McCairn often argue that that's gain of function, but then gain of function has been done ad infinitum since like 1984. In all the labs that have used vaccinia virus to make any of the virus, just one year had like 30 papers in it. So if that's gain of function, it's not gain of function as defined by whatever we're doing here. And if it is, if it is gain of function, then you should be arguing for my argument because it is currently outside of the discussion, whereas it is the primary source that if that's gain of function by your compliments, then all clone making of any kind is gain of function. And so that is not being discussed as gain of function in Congress by Richard Ebright or anybody else. And so you should be on my team to try and get them to realize that this is more ubiquitous, far more spread throughout the world, far more, far less scrutinized than these things over here, shiny objects that are called serial passage and gain of function of pandemic potential viruses, but you don't. And that's what confuses me about your position. But we're going to go through that now, so that we can see it once and for all, for all you kids out there that think you know what's going on. We're just going to do it for everybody. What did Fauci think? Zoonosis, spike protein, what's that? Natural crisis that I told you was coming.

Nothing will work for early treatments except remdesivir. And if you use masks, right, they work great. His position on transfection in 2020 is that it must be better. And his position on the childhood vaccine schedule is it's fantastic. In 2023, his position on the origin of the virus is that it's zoonosis, most likely market, but it could be a lab. But if it was a lab, it's still a natural virus. His position on the 2023 spike protein is it's a great choice for the mRNA. His 2023 position on the situation is that the success of the system saved us, but it will never end. You can see that in his New England Journal of Medicine paper. His position on early treatment is Paxlovid and Mopolvinir here. His stance on non non pharmaceutical interventions is that we could need to lock down again, and we could need to institute masks again, it's possible. His position on the transfection is that it saved millions. And his position on the, the, the childhood vaccination schedule is that it's missing a COVID shot. And so if you do the same thing that you did with me for the antibodies, it's the correlate of immunity for PCR testing, it works great. virus versus stupid. It's all virus swarm position. Well, I used to think about it, but he doesn't anymore clone position. Same thing he used to have. No, he never had a position on the clones. They don't exist. And gain of function position is they're doing it. They've done it, it must be done. It could be bad, but they control it. So it's not. So you ready? That's, that's that's the one end of the spectrum. Now let's talk about the other end of the spectrum. In 2020, I think that that Bobby thought it was a zoonosis because that's what the TV told him. And I don't think he knew anything about the spike protein being bad or good. I think he estimated that it was a natural crisis. But he spoke out about doctors and patient relationship and telling doctors what to do was crazy. And he spoke out in Europe about the lockdowns being a terrible institution policy, a terrible one that should be resisted, and was a sign that they were going to do something much worse. His position on the transfection in 2020, what it was that he was aware that it was an up and coming idea for a long time. And his position on the childhood vaccine schedule was yikes. If we move to 2023, he's now really convinced that this is again a function lab leak. And we often get into arguments about it. He doesn't like my clone position yet, but he's coming around. The 23, 2023 is wondering whether the spike protein is toxic, but it's not foremost in his mind, as I understand it. In 2023, he thinks that the whole situation is a clusterfunk. He thinks early treatment of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and whatever else the doctor wanted should have been allowed from the beginning. And the sovereign rights of citizens were violated. His position on the transfection in 2023 is yikes. And his position on the childhood vaccination schedule is yikes. So we can put that up in the corner, I think because he knows that the antibody position is scam for all vaccines. He knows that PCR testing is probably a rube because he remembers AIDS. The virus versus stupid, it's virus and stupid. The swarm position is that he doesn't really get that yet. His clone position, he's gotten to the stage where he gets the CD versus mixed tape thing that I did to you earlier. So he kind of gets it. And the gain of function position is that they're doing it, they've done it, it must be done. And it could be this. Okay, that's, that's Bobby's position. And I'm going to put Bobby on the far corner there, because he's about the polar opposite of Tony Fauci.

Is this happening? Is this working for you guys? All right.

Peter McCullough. At the beginning, he thought it was a zoonosis. He didn't know much about the sprains protein. He thought it was a natural crisis, but he was a doctor and he can do whatever the hell he wants to. So he spoke out very early when people told him he couldn't use hydroxychloroquine. And he noticed that this was a threat to the doctor patient relationship. He noticed that the lockdowns were a problem. His position on the transfection, I don't know, and his position on the childhood vaccination schedule, I don't know, but I would assume it was that he that he didn't mind it, like me and a lot of other people. In 2023, I think he now believes that it's probably a lab leak. I think he does think that the spike protein is toxic, but more in relevance to the to the transfection. In 2023, he thinks it's a cluster funk. He still advocates for hydroxy chloroquine and ivermectin and whatever else the doctor wants. He knows that the sovereign rights of citizens have been violated. I do think he's afraid of the transfection now. I'm not sure what he thinks about the childhood schedule yet, but I am pretty sure he knows that antibodies aren't the answer. He was on the first paper that objected to the WHO PCR protocol, so you know that he knows that's a scam. I think he thinks it's probably about virus and stupid. He's never talked about the swarm or the clone, so I assume that he doesn't really understand that. And his gain of function, I guess, is he thinks it's been done and it could be this.

So I'm going to put him up by Bobby.

So Robert Malone. At the beginning, he thought it was a zoonosis. I don't think he talked about the spike protein in 2020. I think he thought it was a natural crisis. In early treatment, we know that he spun up his DITRA team after he got a call from his buddy Mike Callahan. And I know that he followed all the recommendations, including masks, that he took a shot really early. I know that in 2020, according to some people's research and documents that we've copied, transfection wasn't on his resume, as far as we know. And his position on the childhood vaccine schedule, as far as we can see, is that everything was fine. And in 2023, he's sure it's a lab leak, I think. I'm not sure if that's his opinion or not. Spike protein was the wrong target for the transfection. His stance on it is a clusterfunk. I feel like he's a little wishy-washy on the early treatment stuff. I don't think he really talks about it as being a violation that often, so I call it wishy-washy. He knows that the sovereign rights of citizens were violated. He calls it a fifth generation war. His position on the transfection is that he claims, now that he claims he invented the technology, and it isn't perfect, but it probably saved some more than zero people. And I do believe his position on the childhood vaccine schedule is still that it's fine. If we go to the bottom list here, antibodies are still something. They're not everything, but they're worth talking about. And he explains the roles that antibodies play all the time. PCR testing, he hasn't really commented on it at all, which is notable. Virus is much more important than the stupid, although he does acknowledge the stupid virus is what happened. He doesn't talk about the swarm at all, doesn't talk about clones at all, and gain of function has been done doing and probably resulted in this. So because, because I think he was mostly involved in getting EUAs and trying to get in on the game of the pandemic in 2020, and because if Inovio got the contract, he would not have been the dissident that he is. I think I'm going to put him over here a little bit in the middle, because he definitely believes it's a gain-of-function virus. And so there's a certain disconnect between him. And keep in mind that Robert Malone is a direct advisor of Bobby Kennedy up here in the corner. So it's not that these two don't talk. It's not that Bobby doesn't hear his opinion regularly.

Pierre Kory. Pierre Kory, zoonosis, most likely a market, didn't really talk about spike protein in 2020, a natural crisis. He just wanted to treat patients. He actually left his post in Madison to go to New York City to be on the front line, because he was frustrated that they weren't doing much in Madison. He fought for early treatment, but became a very strong vocal ivermectin advocate, in particular. I don't know anything about what his positions were on transfection or the childhood vaccination schedule in 2020. He now thinks it's also a lab leak, I think, in 2023, and I think he's also vaguely aware that the spike protein was thought to be toxic.

I think he's basically advocating for hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, zinc, and anything else the doctor wants is what he should. And he knows that the sovereign rights of citizens have been violated. I'm not sure how he stands on antibodies. I'm not sure. I don't know if he has a position on PCR testing. I think he thinks it's virus and stupid. Swarm, clone, nothing, and gain of function could be this. So I'm going to put him up above Robert. It's probably where he belongs there.

Wolfgang Wodarg. This is one of the heavy hitters from the beginning. He called it nonsense from day one. He didn't care about the spike protein. He was already sure that this was an orchestrated WHO pandemic scheme in February of 2020. He was one of the people that made me have the courage to say what I did in April of that month of that video that we showed earlier. Lockdowns won't stop the pandemic, never mind the fact that they're illegal. I don't know about his position on transfection or the vaccination schedule in the United States. In 2023, I'm just continuing his stance here. He had this position in 2020, and that there are hundreds of unknown respiratory diseases. Spike protein still doesn't care. Sovereign rights have been violated. Early treatment should have never been forbidden. He didn't really buy the antibody position. I don't know about his position on the spike protein or PCR testing, rather. He thinks it's probably all stupid. And then the swarm clone gained a function. I don't know what he thinks, but I'm definitely putting him up here because in 2020, in February, he already called this a bluff.

And he called the bluff in 2009 on the swine flu as well. Again, not saying that there's no virus, but saying that an RNA virus cannot justify the policy changes and the tsunami of funding shifts that occurred all around the world as a result of this excuse. And that is the real warfare.

It's not a biological agent circulating the earth and the response to it. It is the response to the idea of a biological agent surrounding the earth and the hyping of that idea, the hyping of that possibility.

Sasha, Unknown, 2023. It's a clusterfunk. And the transfection has quality control issues. I have no idea what she thinks about anything else. But she's got quality control issues with the thing. And I think she thinks there there's a virus. So I'm going to leave her in the middle there. She was introduced to the world by Robert Malone. So I put her there. Andrew Kaufman, a favorite of many of ours for the last three years to lambast and attack. 2020, he thought it was a plandemic. He already thought that in 2020. He knew that there was a violation of rights. He spoke up very fast about that. He's been pretty wishy-washy about transfection. I don't know how he thinks about the childhood vaccination schedule. I've heard him and Tom Collins say things like, we don't even have an immune system, which I think is probably wrong. He says that the PCR doesn't detect anything. And I think that that's for some of the tests, I think that's true. And for other tests, I don't think that's true. I don't think for the sequencing, that's really possible all the time. He thinks it's just planned stupid, which you know, it's hard to argue with it sometimes, depending on what data set you look at. He doesn't think there's a swarm. So clones don't really matter. At least he wouldn't listen to me about clones, the synthetic biology portion of this story. And he thinks the gain of function is fake, which is kind of how I feel. But I'm going to put him up here. Because of his, his differing stances on Western medicine and pathology in general, and this kind of thing. So I'm gonna separate him a little bit, but he's way ahead of saying no.

Bret Weinstein, zoonosis or bushmeat or something like that. And then he converted to a lab leak pretty quick in 2020. The protein was altered. He was also on that in 2020. It's a worldwide emergency. There were no treatments for this novel virus and bandanas worked for him. And he had a bandana on his stream for many, many months before he started to think that he was maybe mistaken. His position on transfection, I think in 2020 is that he hoped it would work and works on paper in his mind. And I think he accepted the vaccination schedule as it stood in 2020. In 2023, he's sure it's a lab leak. In 2023, he's sure that the spike protein is toxic. In 2023, he advocates a little bit for hydroxychloroquine, but mostly for ivermectin. And he doesn't say much about non-pharmaceutical interventions because he has months and months of a track record where he didn't get it. So he can't really say anything about that. 2023 position on transfection is that harms were done, but it also might work. And his position on the the childhood vaccination schedule, as far as I can tell, is he's not openly questioning it by any means. And he hasn't voiced any overt support for for Bobby stance or anything like that. So he has become aware of the antibody myth, but it took a lot of work. It's unclear what his stance is on the PCR test. I think he thinks it's virus or viruses, because he's said many times that he thinks that Omicron was also a lab leak, plus stupid. He said repeatedly to me that he doesn't get the swarm, even though evolution of grasses and everything else, insects, everything is a genetic swarm, but he doesn't get it. And he wouldn't talk about clones, but he did work on telomeres before, so I had a hard time getting through to Brett about any of this molecular biology, but he's pretty sure this is a lab leak and the gain-of-function works. So I'm gonna put him firmly in the gain-of-function virus category there.

Steven Kirsch, I think he thought it was a zoonosis, a worldwide emergency, and he tried to get ahead of it. He tried to get an EUA or apply for an EUA for something. That was the reason why he called Robert Malone in the first place in 2020, as they said on their little podcast together a couple weeks ago. So I think he had a position that transfection might work, and I think he accepted the vaccination schedule as it stands or stood. Now he thinks it's a lab leak, I believe, and I think he thinks the spike protein is toxic, or I could be wrong. It's not really clear. He doesn't focus very much on early treatment, and he doesn't say much about masks, although I'm sure he knows that masks don't work. It's just it's not a focus of his. And he's definitely not scheduled. He's not questioning the childhood vaccination schedule at all. Although he did make a weird statement a week or so ago about starting a super PAC or a political action committee to try and explore the possibility of Bobby running for president. Now, some people might say, well, I would never that Steve Kersh and Bobby and what I see there is Steve Kersh trying to influence Bobby Kennedy in the same way that he's trying to get Bobby to hire fact checkers from from his his group and all this other things. I see Robert Malone as probably trying to influence Bobby's thinking as well. So it's not so much I don't think Bobby has any interest in running for president. And so the statement that Steve would make that, and then people would imply that means that Bobby is controlled as opposed to everybody wants to control Bobby. I don't know. It's interesting to speculate about a guy whose father and uncle were killed by the CIA as being deep state. But you know, it's fun. Steve Kirsch, his position on antibodies is unclear, his position on PCR testing is really unclear. I think he thinks it's more virus than stupid, honestly. And I think he probably thinks that gain of function is the result. So I can't, you know, he didn't come out early or anything like that. Wolfgang Wodarg was out in February. You know, Kaufman was out very early. McCullough was out very early. Bobby was out very early. None of these people here were out very early. None of them.

Nick Hudson, from Panda, thought it was a plandemic from the very beginning. Didn't care about spike protein, was sure that it was a plandemic, couldn't believe the doctors didn't have the choice, and were sure that the lockdowns were a sovereign rights violation. I think he accepted the vaccination schedules as they stood. And the spike protein still really hasn't taken a front and center at all with him. And he's sure it's a plandemic. The changes in protocol actually killed the majority of people. And the sovereign rights have been violated, obviously. And I think he's questioning almost everything now, especially the American vaccine schedule. I think he's seen the myth of the antibodies. I know that he knows false positives on the background virus swarm theory that I have and doesn't think that it's crazy. I think he thinks it's almost all stupid. I think he understands the idea of the swarm doesn't help the virus narrative. I think he understands that the clone position doesn't, is being ignored. And I think that he estimates that gain of function is a mythology, as you can see from his last sub stack. So we're going to put him up here also at the top, because he took the position that there was likely silliness from the beginning.

Michael Yeadon, also another guy, almost off your radar at this point, he was sure at the beginning that this was a plandemic, that even the variants were baloney. He was also very, very adamant about natural immunity. He was sure that doctors should have choices and that lockdowns were a sign that something very, very sinister was going on.

His position on transfection in the very beginning was that this can't be anything but a poison. The way it works, it's poisonous. And although he did accept the vaccine schedule in America as it stood, he still thinks it's a plandemic. It doesn't matter anymore, except for the poison. The spike doesn't. The changes in protocol killed the majority of people. The sovereign rights were violated. He actually thinks the transfection is a depopulation event. And he questions everything now. So I'm, he sees the myth of the antibody was on the first paper calling the PCR fraud along with with Peter McCullough. It's just stupid. He doesn't know the swarm and the clone and the gain of function stuff that we've been talking about, but I think that he would be at least interested in hearing it, even if he ultimately said it didn't matter, but I'm going to put him up there again because he objected early and and never really took the gain of function and things seriously. Um, Sucrat Bhakti, also plandemic, don't need a vaccine for a coronavirus, doctor's choices, sovereign violation. Transfection of the spike causes endothelial damage. He was one of the first people to say that. Terrible methodology, not an immunization. This is the guy that discovered the complement system. The changes in protocols killed the majority of people. He sees the myth because he discovered the complement system. He was sure viral variants were a mythology. He thinks that this is just stupid, and we haven't really talked about the swarm and the clone. But I think he would probably also be down with what I'm teaching lately. Sam Harris, genius level, zoonosis, didn't know anything about it. It's a crisis of public health and leadership. There were no treatments for a novel virus, and they worked when done right. Childhood vaccine schedule is fine and great. He still thinks it's a zoonosis. Still not paying attention to the spike protein. He thinks that it's a crisis in belief of science and misinformation. Early treatment is whatever I say, who am I? And NPI stances probably need more of this in the future. His position on the childhood vaccine schedule is probably better than ever now that it has mRNA in it. He doesn't understand basic immunology, so he can't explain why antibodies are an illusion. The PCR testing did its job. He thinks that that is virus plus anti-science stupid that's causing this problem. He doesn't talk about the swarm because that's not his specialty. He doesn't know anything about the clones. He knows the gain of function happened, but he probably thinks it's necessary and should continue. So I'm going to put him right down here by his buddy. Let's see, Vinay Prasad. That's pretty easy. No novel, no treatments for the novel virus, the masks work when they're done right, and he thinks the vaccine schedule is right. And so his idea of where the virus came from didn't really change. I think he's realized that masks didn't work, which is nice. I think he realizes that there's something wrong with the system, but he still sort of walks the line because that's his faculty requirement, that it's a crisis in belief and misinformation. I still think he thinks the vaccine schedule is fine. So he hasn't expressed any objection to antibodies as a primary correlate of immunity. He hasn't also expressed any objection to the PCR test. He, I think, believes that it's much more virus than stupid, although there is stupid there. Nothing about the swarms, nothing about the clones. And I assume that he thinks that this viral research should continue, so we'll put him down here. Of course, you know that that ZDogg also thinks a very similar thing. I don't really need to do very much with him. Again, he's pretty much the same as Saad, so we'll put him down there. What about Jessica Rose? That's an interesting one. I don't know how she thought about the origin of the virus in 2020. I do think that in 2020 she was already on this tip that the spike protein was toxic. I do think that she maybe thought it was a natural crisis in the beginning, but quickly came over to the lab leak side. I don't know about early treatment and non-pharmaceutical interventions. You'd have to check her substacks. She could have also written against lockdowns and masks. I'm not sure. In 2023, I'm sure she thinks that the spike protein is toxic. It was a plandemic. I think she's kind of on that tip now. I'm still not sure what she thinks about early treatment and P, but I'm assuming she's figured that out already. It's bad for a lot of reasons, though, right? She knows that the transfection is bad. But I have to say, she was also very aware of natural immunity. She hasn't taken a very clear position on PCR that I remember, but she could have. I apologize, Jessica, if you have. But I do think that she thinks it's a combination of virus and stupid, and that the idea that there's very little, if anything, that needs to be explained by a virus is not something that she's yet fully been able to absorb and think about. So I'm still going to put her here in the middle where there is a data function or a natural virus that's circulating the globe. Dr. Kevin McCairn PhD. In the beginning of 2020, or early on, he thought it was a lab leak, and he was sure that the spike protein was toxic. A lab leak or an intentional novel virus release is what he thought in 2020. And I believe that he's advocated for the wearing of masks and lockdowns and the effectiveness of both of them.

In the beginning, at least I don't know if he still advocates for those things as being effective. But I do think that in the beginning, he certainly was in 2023. He thinks that this was a lab leak or an intentional release. He thinks that the spike protein is toxic, I believe. He considers this next-generation warfare and that the transfection is a bioweapon, which I can't necessarily disagree with. He has expressed awareness of T cells and natural immunity, but I don't think he's ever really expounded on it at all. I do think he thinks that the PCR tests work. I think that he thinks that the virus was much more important than the stupid, even though I do think he acknowledges that there's both of those. I think I can interpret this correctly that he doesn't think that the swarm really matters because there is a gain of function virus going around the earth at this time. I don't think he thinks that the clone really matters except that it's gain of function. That's how I understand it. But it's the ubiquitous use of infectious clones and their absence from the regulatory framework of gain of function that suggests to me that there's something much more sinister going on here in virology. And it is a general mythology created by the use of clones and the belief that experiments using clones are producing viruses, whereas they're probably just exosomal experiments. Again, I'm not suggesting that I understand.

I'm suggesting that virology presents you with a set of assumptions that is wholly incorrect. Having done and still doing it is likely the gain of function is likely the intentional ecohealth pandemic that we're experiencing right now. So I'm going to put him also right here next to Jessica and Robert and everybody that thinks that there's a gain of function virus going around. Charles Rixey. I'm not sure what he thought in 2020, because he wasn't around in my little network. I'm not sure if he thinks that the lockdowns and masks work. I think he was opposed to the control of early treatment. I can't believe that he wasn't. Now he's pretty sure though, that the spike protein is a designer toxic protein, that it's a lab leak or intentional. I do think that he thinks it's a lab leak that is an extremely contagious, stable variant. And the level of stability and contagiousness is the two variables that allow it to explain the whole sequence of events from 2020 up until now. And that's the biological set of assumptions that I think we need to really throw out. His position on transfection is a bioweapon, and he has expressed awareness of T cells and natural immunity, but that doesn't matter because this is a very special virus, right? That killed millions. PCR tests, as far as I know, in the sequencing, he believes in that stuff as evidence of the virus. I believe that he thinks that there was a lot more virus than stupid, but there was stupid.

Swarm position, according to his rebuttal, it doesn't matter. He's read lots of papers and the infectious swarm dynamics don't matter. Gain of function.

Sorry, the clone position of his is that it's gain of function, but he's he's opposed to the idea that clones are the only dangerous form of viruses. And that's really my stance.

It's the use of the gain of function mythology that hides that whole field of synthetic virology as as innocuous and irrelevant when it's actually the source of all this crap.

And so he thinks that it has been done and that this is an intentional probably or accidental release of an eco health pandemic.

So I'm going to put him there too.

Andrew Huff, same thing.

Andrew Huff opposed the early control of treatments. I don't know. I don't know.

I know that he thinks this is fifth generation now. I know that he thought it was a lab leak and moved to move to Northern Michigan, right?

I think he's expressed some awareness of T cell immunity, but I don't know. I think he thinks it's a lot of virus. I think that he thinks that gain of function is real and that you can make a much worse one than this one.

So his position is basically the same as all of these guys.

Ryan Cole.

I don't know what he did in 2020, but I know he was opposed to the early treatments and I know he was against lockdown and masks. He eventually came to think that the spike protein was a toxic designer protein. He opposes still the control of doctors period. He doesn't think that masks work. And I think he was the earliest advocate for natural immunity and T cell immunity that I saw in the media. And so I really latched on to him very early. I still still think he thinks that there's a virus and that there was stupid. I haven't been able to talk to him about the swarm and the clone, and I do think that he thinks this is a possible lab leak. So I can't really differentiate him from any of these people, but I will put him up closer to Bobby because he spoke out early, and because he was the first person that I heard talking about T cells besides me. He didn't have any positions in the beginning, but he was aware of transfection as a methodology. But when he came on the scene, he was very quickly talking about the spike and all of its wonders. And one of the things that he said a couple times is that the spike has nonspecific T cell epitopes in it. I think he thinks that the transfection works, but it shouldn't have been used during the pandemic. And that's why it's generating the variance that it is now. He's been pretty wishy washy on early treatments and pretty wishy washy on non-pharmaceutical interventions. And as far as I know, he hasn't spoken out against the childhood vaccine schedule. He still talks about antibodies. And in fact, I got into a zoom discussion with him over two years ago now, where he yelled at me that there were no there was no T cell immunity being made to SARS-CoV-2 and that there were no papers and that he wasn't going to talk about it anymore. I think he thinks that PCR tests work. I think he thinks that virus is much more important than the stupid. And that I think he thinks that gain of function might be the source of this pandemic. He's right there in the middle. And he's telling you that the transfections work, and that they're generating the variants.

Ryan, sorry, Denny Rancourt was skeptical on day one, and he was aware of transfection and methodology, but didn't oppose the vaccine schedule. He's skeptical of there being a significant virus because he doesn't see a sign of a novel form of death in the all cause mortality analysis. He now believes that this is a crisis of a false flag nature. He's pretty sure that the transfection has caused an increase in all cause mortality rather than a decrease that would be expected from a vaccine or a cure for a novel virus. And he is questioning a lot of things. Now, I don't know how he thought about the antibody position. I know that he's investigating the sequencing in the PCR. I do think that he thinks it was much more stupid than virus. And he's reading up about swarms and clones with me right now. So I'm going to put him up here because he was out there very early in the beginning. Who's this guy? Who is this guy? This is the hero of the heroes right here. He is the late Vladimir Zelenko out very early against lockdown out very early with early treatment, including hydroxychloroquine and zinc and later ivermectin. He knew that this was a sovereign rights violation. He knew this it was against God. He knew that this was super wrong. He was outspoken from day one. He's sure that these shots are dangerous. He's questioning the entire vaccine schedule now. And yeah, he's passed away. So if you'll let me just fill this in, I think we can all agree that these four people, Christine Massey, Sam Bailey, Mark Bailey and Tom Cowan all belong up here with the people who were out early saying that there was nothing really to be afraid of that the PCR didn't work that this was a big big hoax and I'm still not saying that they're right about everything but one thing that they were right about is objecting to the policies that were enacted very early and so you got to give credit where credit's due we can put all these people down here right I want is high morbidity so let's think I want people to complain so what do I do I go to Des Moines ladies and gentlemen and people on the screen I have nothing against Des Moines. I lived there for four years. I go to Des Moines. I infect a couple of sentinel cases in Des Moines. I go to Seattle. I infect a couple of cases there. I go to North Carolina. I go to Wisconsin. What I'm doing is I'm using a dispersion methodology to be able to infect sentinel cases with a highly morbid condition. These individuals complain, again this is a central nervous system condition, so they're complaining of whatever the bug may do. It'll produce some cascade of neurological and neuropsychiatric signs and symptoms. And then what I do, the real bug that I use, is the Internet. I take attribution for that. Yes, I'm a terrorist group, and I have done this by infecting with a highly little agent, and the first signs and symptoms of lethality are X, Y, and Z. These people are really sick with this. But then I say others who are also infected will show sub-dromal or pre-dromal signs of lethality and what that will be is anxiety, sleeplessness, agitation. What I've now done is I've got every individual who is diagnostically hypochondriacal and I've got every individual who's the worried well, flooding the public health system, banging on the door. The CDC comes back and says, nonsense, that's not real. I come back and say, that's fake news. And as a consequence of doing that, what I do is I create a schism between the polis and the public health system. I fracture the integrity of trust and reliance upon the population and its government. And, of course, I'll be able to then incur a ripple effect, and if you want to see what this looks like in action, all you need is look back at those days prior to or post 9-11, when individuals were sort of sending white powder through the mail and everything was anthrax. Real story. We had a scare at my institution, and I was in Houston at that time, at my institution where they literally called in the Public Safety Works, the Fire Department and EMTs, because someone had spilled equal the sugar all over a set of envelopes and left it in the mail room. And so when we talk about bioweapons, and when people rant about how we don't understand what bioweapons are, because we're not looking for deadly pathogens, we're looking for infectious pathogens that spread very far, but are very mild and easy to detect, so that we can infect lots of people and overwhelm the the health care system. Are creating an illusion of a biology that doesn't exist, that there are such a virus that could be so infectious and so stable that it could infect millions and millions of people. That virus doesn't exist, but as Dr. Giordano has so nicely and eloquently outlined as a summary to my lecture, exosomes exist. Cell cultures produce infectious RNA when they are transfected with cDNA copies of infectious RNA clones. Those exosomes are infectious in other cells and can produce disease like symptoms in animals, can be stored in a freezer, and shared with other labs around the world as a common molecular starting point for synthetic RNA viruses.

And so by using a synthetic RNA virus, which would be extremely uninfectious, non-infectious, you could seed a few cases without endangering very many people. You could create the illusion of a pandemic without actually endangering very many people. And you would result in a pandemic that Denny Rancourt has described accurately as being centered around poverty and income level, as opposed to viral infection. And so now you can kind of start to get a grasp on what's happening if you start to see these people in the groups that they exist in, and you start to see that the people over here have attacked Bobby. Some of the people down here attack Bobby. Some of the people here advise Bobby. Some of the people here would really like to advise Bobby and were pissed that Bobby didn't ask for their advice. Other people down here attack Bobby. And people attack me now, because I work for Bobby. Which is really weird, because in reality, we're just trying to figure out what's going on. I contacted the people up there, because I thought that exosome biology and the idea of infectious clones being ubiquitous throughout this field were two strong handholds with which they could lift themselves higher in in the public eye, and lift their idea that there is no SARS-CoV-2 virus to a higher level of sophistication so that the idea could penetrate into more influential circles, rather than being confined to the people that it's confined to now. And I still think that this is possible, because the biology that I've talked about tonight, the exosomes, the infectious clones, the infectious cycle, and what we can learn from sequencing exam, examination of the infectious cycle, that the basic tenets of virology are incorrect, the basic cartoons that describe how viruses work, how viruses work, how viruses work, how viruses work, how viruses work, how viruses work, how viruses work, are probably incorrect. And the reason why is a foundational assumption that what gets spun down in these centrifugal gradients at the bottom are viruses. And that assumption is fundamentally false, as we've seen tonight, because that fraction is dominated by exosomes, most of which we don't even understand and have not characterized. The only way to penetrate that layer is with PCR, which is not an adequate way to penetrate that layer of isolated material. The political cut I have on the specialization is always that if you analyze the politics of science, the specialization should make you suspicious. It's because if it's gotten harder to evaluate what's going on, then it's presumably gotten easier for people to lie and to exaggerate. And then one should be a little bit suspicious. And that's, that's, that's sort of my starting my starting bias.

And that's exactly where I am. I have started there in 2020, migrated all the way to the other side of the coin, where holy cow, this is crazy. These people are nuts. They're playing with fire. And now we're seeing the back end of it, and come all the way back to where I was in April of 2020. Again, starting with this assumption, which is that the specialization, the compartmentalization has allowed these people to lie and deceive us. And there are trillions of dollars at stake. So you can better believe it that people are going to damn well lie in order to get a piece of that pie. They're going to damn well lie and create illusions that they can control, that don't endanger themselves, that allow them to dominate the policy space, dominate the funding space, dominate the idea space. And that is something that you see done with grant applications, calls, funding opportunities, and publishing. That the very direction that people look in biology is directed by the money. So if they direct you away from exosomes, you're never going to see them. If they direct you away from these phenomenon, you're never going to understand their broad meaning to all the fields of biology. And I believe that's what they've done with exosomes.

The reason why that they've done this, the transfection, you can think, wow, they must have put something in it, but I don't think they needed to. Transfection was never going to work. They know it in all of the experiments they've done. They know how it works. They know its limitations, and none of those were adequately addressed at the beginning of the pandemic. They just went forward. The reason why they did it is because that's not the objective. The objective is to get our young people into a societal stance situation where they are no longer aware of the sovereignty that they have over their body and are freely giving up their medical information, their genetic and phenotypic information to these people who know that there will never again on this planet be as much genetic diversity as there is right now and will be in the next 10 to 15 years. Because the population is evidently going to peak and crash. And their plan is to regulate it quite down from 10 billion to maybe 1 billion. There will never be 10 billion people on the planet again if they have their say. And in order for an AI to learn a complex system, it needs many repetitions of the same complex system. If you think about chess, or you think about the game Go, it needs many games. They set the AI to play itself with Go, and after millions of games, it was better than a human. But they can't open the hood and look in there and see what it learned. They just know that the Go computer was gotten better and better and better. For the human genome, the only thing that Craig Venter can say is that we need lots of genomes, and we need lots of medical data from those genomes over the lifetime, and then we need to feed all that data into a database, and someday there will be an AI that will convert that to a transhumanist agenda. That's as far as they've really gotten with this plan, but they know that that's what they need. They need genes, they need genetic data, they need medical data from every baby from birth to death. They need everybody on that system collecting that data in order for the AI to have any chance at all of making any meaningful progress into understanding human biology. That's the reason why they need to convert this society from a place where human rights are the foundation of our existence to human permissions. Because then you have to pass through their data gate all the time. Then you need your digital ID all the time. Then you have given up your sovereignty over yourself and your children to public health authorities who say that they need your data. That's what this is about. That's what I believe this is about. That's why they changed the way you think about these four things, the human coronavirus swarm, all-cause mortality, respiratory virus immunity, and the vaccination. They changed your mind because the principle of informed consent requires understanding, and they did not want you to understand this stuff. They didn't want you to understand what happened here in this graph. Again, this is all cause mortality in light blue.

This is pneumonia in the darker blue. This is flu in the yellow, and red is COVID. You can see they have roped in all kinds of stuff. This is not a meaningful respiratory virus. This is an iatrogenic disaster, where the mistreatment of pneumonia, the lack of using antibiotics, the ventilation of people that shouldn't have been ventilated, the use of remdesivir, all of these things, including the use of testing and then classifying these deaths of COVID that aren't deaths. That's what they get this graph from. This is not just a novel virus at all. And it's unfortunate, but I think a lot of the people on that picture know it. I think a lot of the people on that picture know it and won't admit it. Hi, hypothesis is that the WHO declared a pandemic of a dangerous novel virus detected by nonspecific PCR tests for RNA viruses applied to a low prevalence population and correlated with poor and detrimental health protocols through financial incentives to follow orders from above. And that pandemic that enabled a larger percentage of all-cause mortality than pneumonia and influenza to be prioritized as a national security threat ."Composed of vaccine-preventable deaths, the order was given to the Department of Defense to vaccine everybody, to vaccinate everyone, and there may have been an infectious RNA clone that was seeded around the world to start this event, but a natural coronavirus or a point release of a gain-of-function virus cannot cause a pandemic. The goal is total surrender of individual sovereignty and enforcement of global fundamental inversion from basic human rights to basic granted permissions.

And can I get another slide there? Yes. The way to get out of this is to learn linked recognition. So if you don't know linked recognition, we'll do it again soon.

You can look it up on the internet. You can look it up in any immunology book. Learn what linked recognition is, and how it describes the antigen selection of the B cells and the T cells. If you learn that, then you're going to understand why the transfection doesn't work. You're going to understand why natural immunity is so beautiful. If you want to read Dennis Rancourt's papers on all-cause mortality, you can find them there on ResearchGate. He shows that poverty level, household income, serious mental illness, obesity, they all correlate directly with the excess deaths. It's not anything to do with virus, and it's not anything to do with the pandemic. It started later. I think we've got to stop all transfections in humans, full stop, ladies and gentlemen, because they still plan to get rid of the control group. I'm sure of it.

I know it sounds really crazy, but that's really what they plan to do. They plan to get rid of the control group. That's their goal. They're going to do it by any means necessary, because once once everybody's been transfected, then all of the problems of transfection will just be background.

And you'll never know what it really was that did this to you, which is really unfortunate, because it's not really, it's not really, it's not really nice. I don't really like this either. I don't like fighting this fight. I don't like trying to figure out what's going on here. I don't like the idea that I'm feeling like I'm delivering an anti-biology message, but it's not. It's a wake-up call to realize that academic biology is so compartmentalized, that exosome biology is hidden, and that virology exists on this assumption that it's not really relevant, on this assumption that that virology is virology and it can't be questioned, and I think that we need to come around to the idea that it actually, parts of it should be questioned, and that Mark Bailey isn't as crazy as everybody wants him to believe, or wants you to believe he is, and that all we really need to do is take that starting point and then work forward with what we know about observed biology and come up with a better explanation that gets us all to move forward. That's what I want. GigaOhm Biological is the website. GigaOhm.bio is the soapbox, where it's kind of like a Twitter thing, but it's just independent, and you can just see it on Mastodon and all these other things. GigaOhmBiological is where you can download the slide deck that I use tonight underneath the brief, and you can also subscribe there, where then you'll get an email when I have a new slide deck. And I have a few slide decks in the barrel yet. There's probably going to be some office hours and that kind of thing before another slide deck comes out, because these are getting harder and harder to make. And it's harder and harder to justify. There's a lot of reading to do. There's a lot of listening to do. And there's a lot of discussion to happen. I hope that this three hours and nine minutes wasn't too long. I knew and I wanted to say it in shorter. But you know, when you try to cover most of it, it's always too long. I hope it wasn't too laborious. I hope you enjoyed it a little bit. I hope it was helpful. Thank you to the 132 people that are watching right now, and everybody who will share this with your family and friends. It's been a real pleasure. I'm going to take a break now. Get a drink and relax. I can't thank enough everybody that supports the stream. You guys are just too great. Thank you very much again. I don't know what to say. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks.