text:
Right, so we're setting up for roundtable. There's going to be no intro here. I want to try and keep this as this as well. And serious face on today, folks.
Let me just send out alerts. And what I will do is I will let in in All right, so let's see. So I can see Walter. Walter, I think your audio will be off. I'm just sending out alerts right now. We're running, we're actually early, so me and you can just just shoot. Do I need to unmute you? No, I can unmute myself. There we go. Okay, wonderful. How are you, sir? Good. How are you, sir? I made quite a discovery last night. With the SPED, I didn't get a chance to read the one this morning, but the, is that what you're referring to? Well, the SPED is definitely part of it, but it's the entire autoimmunity, and I believe the prion disease too, is because of from injury and repeated injury. And here's an amazing paper I found, which confirms my thoughts.
Let me get you this link. Oh, the paraquat one? No, it's one from last night. Let me put the link in the chat. I really think that the autoimmunity we're observing and also the prion disease is from injury and repeated injury. And here is the, let me put this in the chat. There's an amazing paper that proves what I had hypothesized, hypothesized, and I'll put the paper as well, which is linked in the, I think this is fascinating.
Let me just try and bring that up on the screen. "Working: the autoimmunity and prion disease being observed post COVID 19 and spike protein exposure may be due to the injury caused by spike protein, S1 unit in particular". You get no objection from me there. The autoantibodies and site of damage can present B cells. Okay.
As you look at the last article I referenced in the quote, I think this is why, I think it's because of the damage that the S1 unit is doing in the brain. I think this is why that, this is why it's setting off prion disease. I think this explains it perfectly because the S1 unit is just injury, injury, injury and repeated injury. And with every booster exposure it's, and the only reason we're not seeing the lung injury with the boosters, of course, and the vaccines is because it's not being put into the lungs, it's being put straight in the body. Yeah. Yeah. Which is why we're not seeing the, well, I mean, you get no objection from me there. I mean, it's, it's, seeing the, well, I mean, you get no objection from me about repeated injury and CTE. So, exactly. I'm a believer. I really think this is, this is what's, this is what's causing it. And the autoimmunity as well. So, let me, let me just check. I've sent everything out. Is that you, Spartacus? Yeah. Can you hear me? Very nice to finally meet you, Spartacus. Hey, nice to meet you. I, I noticed something interesting as well these past couple of days. So, someone mentioned to me in relation to COVID 19 and so I mentioned to me the PISO1 gene.
And then I started going over it. Let's see here. I'm going to put this in the, in the chat real quick. I noticed at the end here, I had mentioned in myoblasts, the flipase mediated phosphatidylserine enrichment at the inner leaflet of plasma membrane triggers channel activation and calcium influx followed by RhoGTPase's signal transduction leading to assembly of cortical actomyosin fibers and myotube formation. And then I, I couldn't help but notice comparing and contrasting these two articles right here.
Do we know of a role for phosphatidylserine in the endothelial information here? I'll just hand that one over to you, Walter. I'll have to look. I mean, I would say that might, that might relate to a post from a day or two ago where I will research it. That gene has come up, but again, I've read so much. I want to make clear. I want to check before I say anything regarding it, but that gene has come up. I do recognize it. It was never pneumonia. No. It was all endothelial injury, which disrupted the gas, the gas exchange barrier. The gas exchange barrier and the ground glass opacity. If you read this post and the treatments obviously were completely wrong and did essentially more harm than good for many people because it was being, it was never pneumonia. There were indeed some secondary, you know, pneumonia caused by it, but it was the actual problem was never a pneumonia. It was, it was the endothelium being destroyed, disrupting the gas exchange. And that, that created the ground glass opacities and the fibrosis. And that's the one that mimics paraquat. Yes.
That was an interesting one. I was, because there's a, there's a bunch of herbicides, I guess, aren't they, that have come under scrutiny in my field. One being paraquat, the other being rotenone, I think it's called. Oh, really? Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. Rotenone was supposed to be one of those ones that's more benign, but they were finding, you know, I don't know how strong the, again, these correlation studies. And I remember, oh, Gunther, German Gunther, he was, if anything, fastidious in his work, could find nothing, but this was in rodents. So I've always sort of put it in the maybe category, but, you know, the, I know a lot of people are fixed on, was it Roundup and whatever. Oh, the glyphosate. Yeah, it's a glyphosate. Yeah. And I believe there certainly is something there. So, yeah, you know, that… We're not at the official start yet, so I'll just be rude. I'll be rude just interrupting you, but have you ever seen that clip where they offer the guy who's saying glyphosate's perfectly fine, and they offer him a glass? And he said he'd drink a glass. And so this is on a TV station, I think it might be in a French TV station. That's insane.
Needless to say, he refused. Who would know? You know, there's something else I'm researching, and I don't know enough about this field, but who would know? One thing I've been looking at is the binding of the spike with ACE2 and the free energy. Now, I know that there's protonation and ionization that's occurring because it is such an unbelievably strong binding, and it takes, I think, 50 nanoseconds for the conformational change in the release of the free energy. So my question is, is there a way to measure, and is it even possible that if a bind is so strong, the excess free energy can act and mimic radiation? It's not, of course, actual radiation, but can a binding be so strong that the free energy release, the protonation and ionization of that free energy mimic? Because that would answer a lot if it's true. I tell you this, that most of those studies are in silico, where they… Correct, it is in silico, the study, yes. So you're asking a lot to, I don't know if you could get some sort of bulk measure of the basic chemistry, but you know, all of it's worked up from sort of first principles plugged into algorithms, and then we're supposed to believe that they're true. So, you know, radiation poisoning would imply that there's some release of, I don't know, alpha, beta particles. No, no, no, it's not actual radiation. It mimics it in its effect on the cell. It's not actual radiation. Yeah, but what would do that in terms of mimicking? So what's the correlate of the alpha or beta particle in this instance? And I suppose you could argue a free radical of something. Well, yes, and that's what it's doing. In other words, it's causing, you know, the stealing of electrons, which is mimicking the effect of the alpha and beta particles on the molecular structures. So it's not actually radiation, of course, but it mimics it in the effect that the free energy has on electrons within the cell. Yeah. And in that sense, I wonder if it's just easier to think about it in terms of free radicals.
Well, yes, and it is generating. I'm just thinking of the mechanism. Is this a possible way? It obviously is generating an astonishing amount of free radicals, and that's been proven. But I just wonder if this is an additional mechanism that might explain the spreading paracrine effect, paracrine effect that it has. To me, it looks like it's not. I began thinking it's an endothelial issue, but I think that's just the first layer of the onion, if you will, that it penetrates and it just begins there and pushes in the tissue, constantly driving into tissue, whether it's the brain, heart, lung, kidney, liver, you know, uterus, testicle, you know, ovaries, it's just driving in and through in a paracrine fashion. And there's a lot of evidence of the spike doing paracrine signaling. So I'm just wondering if the endothelial is just because it's the first layer within the blood vessel. That's the thing, right? It's the first layer on everything. Well, yeah, of course. It's the first layer on everything, right? I spoke with my contacts about this.
Actually, it was in late 2020 and then around early 2021. I was discussing this with some PhDs who were actually connected to NASA and they were involved in doing research related to analyzing the effect of causing radiation on astronauts and on their health and on the physiology of their cells. And what they admitted to me was based on my description of the pathology of COVID 19, basically, they just straight up admitted that there were similarities to the effects of radiation, ionizing radiation on the cells. And by that, generally, I mean, what we narrowed it down to was calcium influx into the cells, leading to free radical generation. And SARS CoV 2's envelope and 3A proteins actually behave as calcium ion channels. They behave as viral porins. They draw calcium ions into the cells. And what we can see is… There is your dread, sir. It's your dread. Profound hypocalcemia in people who have severe COVID 19. I mean, you do a blood test on them, do labs, and they have low blood calcium levels. And this may provide a rationale for how vitamin D could… I mean, if provided early enough before damage and damp accumulation starts to set in, ideally prophylactically, like well in advance, how the activation of calcium ATPase to pump calcium back out of cells and reduce this free radical generation. Because what's happening here is… Hold on one second. If you want to carry on.
Well, yes. In fact, I wrote an entire post. I just put it in the chat that the spike protein mimics the mechanism of the space environment. I remember that. I saw that. This is the great thing about having people come from sort of the… I don't mean it in a derogatory sense, but left field, right? Open, not constrained by the dogma of their field to stick their spin on everything. And it's the tantalizing thought to think about that. And again, these become explorable mechanisms. I was thinking as SARS CoV 2 spike interacts with ACE2, what you see is an increase… I mean, theoretically, according to supercomputer models, what you see is an increase in bradykinin, particularly a type of bradykinin known as DESARG9 bradykinin. And that activation of bradykinin receptors actually increases intracellular calcium pathway activity. It leads to arachidonic acid release. Arachidonic acid in the presence of free radicals then leads to isoprostane formation, which is essentially isoprostanes are like prostaglandins, but they're formed oxidatively independent of cyclooxygenase.
So there's no need for an enzymatic reaction. It's just an oxidative reaction with arachidonic acid to produce these. And they're inflammatory like prostaglandins and well, even more. And the thing about this is that essentially we have proof from the biomarkers that there is considerable reactive oxygen species generation going on here. I mean, we can see from the low nitric oxide bioavailability, low hydrogen sulfide, elevated nitrotirozine, which shows that there is peroxy nitrite formation. That's all just proof positive that there's free radical damage going on here. I'm happy to announce Jessica Rose has slipped into the chat there. So I have to ask everyone to unmute. Did you have control of your mutes or do I have to? I did. I have control of mine. Oh, yeah. I'll presume Jessica knows what to do. She's a smart lady. All right. I'm still just sending out alerts because we're right on the cusp of when we said we'd go live. I apologize about the having to hone in on the times, et cetera, but which is a good thing, Walter, because that means that your meetings where you thought you weren't going to be here, aren't an issue. And so we'd get you for the whole session. And Spartacus, I hope, will…
Spartacus can, how do you say, scientifically brawl for many an hour. So I'm hoping… I'll keep my eye on the chat with questions. And I'm hoping that Charles… Well, I'm interested to see Jessica's thoughts on my injury finding with the prion disease etiology.
And Jonathan as well. And Jonathan as well, yes. He's in as well. He just popped in.
Oh, good. Jonathan is here. Yeah, that's good. So I don't know if he's… Walter, I need to read your article before I can say anything. Okay. Shall I put the link in the… I sent it to you, or shall I put the link in the chat? Yeah, it would be faster because I have too many emails.
Okay. Let me put the link in the chat. I think I discovered that both the main etiology of the autoimmunity and the prion disease, here it is right here. So I'll add to the idea of repetitive injury. I'm just sort of trying to glance that abstract at the corner of my eye here. And for things may be changing right now with sort of latest pet imaging and higher strength Tesla MRI. And CTE, again, prion like disorders, prionigenic mechanisms, however you want to sort of wrap them up, they all seem to eventually funnel down the zigzag of like those machines, right? Where you drop a penny in and it's like, you know, it's like, it's like those machines, right? Where you drop a penny in and it'll sort of, but then eventually at the bottom, at the bottom, you just get a pile of junk protein and the outcomes can be very much the same. And this was, I invited Matthew Crawford because his last discussion with Jonathan, where they were looking at the known unknowns and unknown unknowns in a system where he was discussing with what's his name, Wilson. But it's great for me because I've never put it in such mathematical terms, but that's a constant discussion in the clinical neuroscience fields, right? How do we, we've got an end product, if you like, but we're fishing in the dark a lot of the times with respect to how do we know where, that this was the initiator of this disease outcome? How come that disease descriptions and, you know, classic being Parkinson's, was first described 140 years ago? And it changes and we know that they cluster differently with respect to symptoms. And these errors are compounding all the time as you try to find the description for these disorders. And I don't know, I appreciate all the work you're doing for a unified physics model of, if I just, I've reached a point where I have to accept ambiguity in the system as a sort of operational principle, because there's always something that breaks the rule.
And in this instance, I like to say, if there's, if there are all these, you've no idea the amount of times that I think I've sort of stumbled upon something and done the proper tests. And then someone has said to me, and it'll always be some obscure Russian name that has some mathematical objection to my use of the stats in that way. And I'll go and grumble and slink off. Well, I'm really beginning to think that everything is injury and wash, that the entire is, I think that's why there's the heterogeneity of the autoimmune issues is because it's all based upon which injured site is the first to have these plasma cells. So I think that the entire thing is injury and then the generation of Ross. And I think that that's, the more I look for a unifying theory, I believe that that's what is going to end up, at least a significant part of it is going to end up. And again, my whole spike protein endothelial disease hypothesis, I think is actually just, I might change it to spike protein injury disease, because I think that of course the endothelium, as we were speaking before, is simply the first the first thing to be attacked. Yeah, it's the first thing to contact. What's that? It's the first contact. It's the first contact, but I think it invades, I think it pushes. So I think the question is, why are some people, for instance, there's a very fascinating post I made a day or two ago, where they checked for spike protein in the blood and for people who were not vaccinated and never had COVID zero, zero spike protein in their blood. So the question is, why are some people having zero spike protein? And I mean, I believe at this point, almost everyone on the planet must have been exposed to the virus by now. I would find it very hard to believe that there are people, at least in developed countries at this point, who have not at least been exposed to it. So why are some people not, you know, have zero spike in their, like zero in the controls that had not been vaccinated and had not had COVID, they found absolutely zero. Oh, it's a good question. Again, I would, these are these unknown unknowns that you can't formalize. Okay, so we've got Johanna here. And the only two that are missing is Charles, he called for this meeting. I smell weakness, Rixey. I smell weakness wherever you are. So, Johanna, good to see you. I don't know, your mic is on mute. But what I will do is whilst, if Charles is having an issue,
I did just ding him a message. But what I'll do is I'll take the liberty of summarizing what Charles said to me, which was that in terms of making a solid resistance with respect to, well, tortured scientific narratives that we all sit there every day trying to hack our way through, hacks not the right word. But I would say burning away the nonsense, trying to get down to something of a purer essence of what's going on, which is a scientist, that's our job. He wants to have a stream where we coalesce where we are right now. And that means we can give a, each give a sort of five, 10 minute statement about what we've found, what we're planning on doing, and how we can, ideas for more effectively pushing that, pushing home the idea of resistance in this sense, because that we're obviously dealing with such a monumental failure at a systems level. So I always say that last in, first to go. So Johanna, I know you've been out to a lot. So, and let me just see how many people know. I put out all alerts. Did I put the email? Yes. So, Johanna, why don't, why don't you, in lieu of Charles not turning up, tell us what you've been doing. Like I said, I know you've been very busy and where, where, what are you going to do and where do we go? It depends, but yeah, the last contact we had was for the crimes against humanity tour. I was canceled on Twitter. So I had a little bit of time, the time that got invested in the Twitter contacts, which we are, was kind of free, but I had COVID and we had summer holidays for the children and all that. So it was kind of, the plan was different. And then I engaged with the crimes against humanity tour. And actually we had a physician society being founded in June and I, somehow I know these people and everybody told me about it. So I'm, I engaged in that and actually I run now, now I'm running for my medical board. And I need to do that because I can't work anymore. I got, I got my sentence from them because I was, I have a patient that I have given a mask exemption and her employer reported me at the board and now they are telling me, or not they, I called there and asked some questions. And the day after the president of that medical board sent me my sentence about 500 euros and said, I am not allowed to trust what the patient said, because the patient is the third one. And we have a differentiation between the doctor patient relationship and the third from outside. And a physician is usually just, according to the oath, we are responsible for the patient and not for someone else. So they twisted that totally around. So I had the choice to go against them on court and I have to prepare that now because I, I'm not taking that sentence because that makes me, you know, how do I objectivate pain or something or some psychological issues, you know, and they are telling me they need to be sick as hell that you can give them a mask exemption. And it's not true. People suffer from these masks, not everyone, but some people do. And yeah, I would just say this. I would wear a mask all day at work, right? But I was paid to do that. Okay. And it was part of the job to do that. And look, even, hands up, man. None of us are, none of us are perfect. When it was me and the monkey alone in that room, I'd hang the mask off my face because he's logged in the thing.
And I'm, I know how hard they are to wear. And these are, again, asking someone like myself, who's said, okay, I want to do that, right? I accepted that as part of the, the deal package, as it were, is way, way different to the idea that you're dealing with civilian type jobs, where the idea of PPE was the last thing that most of these people would have thought about doing on a daily basis. And being alone in a, in a park room for cars, you know, walking around there alone, you have to wear N95. It's totally insane. We still have, just recently, they traded the physicians against the flight attendants. We still have the mask mandate in the physician's offices. But the flight attendants don't now? That's part of the sales pitch, though, for the airlines, right? It's the good looking airline attendants. Maybe not so much for the doctors. You put that, well, you don't need a mask, but the lady you showed me, she does. You know, and we can't decide now. We're free. Like, how do you say it in English, "Beruf"? Not a job. It's, you know, a profession. It's a free profession. And we have laws that are, and guidelines that are international. So that's basically the other things I got involved with these physicians and the expert council, which I invited you to. So, and it's necessary to have these exchanges and international connections because it's so different in the world. And the flight attendants, they couldn't argue anymore to just do the mask stuff in Germany. The rest of the world doesn't. It's kind of like alcohol on the planes, right? When you're flying over Saudi Arabia, they refuse to serve you alcohol. I've had that problem. We're in Saudi Arabia in airspace now. No more beers for the next three hours, two hours. But that's, again, you know, well, for the small talk aside, I would just add this. There are big steps and sacrifices that some have to make. And Johanna being a medical doctor is very much on the front lines. And there's a certain degree of bravery that's involved in taking your boards and standing up to the boards that are there as your accredited professional licensing organizations. And this gives us insight into, again, the type of sacrifices being made by people who are pushing at the edges here. We're coming from the outside in. A bit like Walter's spike. And I can only see it getting worse, not better in the next few months. And so that's, again, a reason for this round table is to try to imbue into individuals that you must stand up. And I would just say this. In standing up, yeah, it'll be tough. You got to walk some fire. But if you do, and you hold course, then usually you come out, you pop out to a better side. And you'll meet better people. And you'll find yourself in a more enriching environment. Because the alternative just doesn't bear thinking about it right now. And like I said, I know you're in a lot of day to day stresses, Johanna. But it's, like I said to you, it's appreciated. And that's what I was saying to you the other day. It's vital that we keep you talking. I wanted to get you a mic. I was like, we've got to have, why was it? Oh, because the meeting Tuesday, right? You were just suffering with some sort of hum. Yeah, I exchanged devices actually. So I can't show any mind maps today because it's another device. But I got a mic and a different device to do that today. But it sounds pitch perfect today. So not to worry. And well, I think this is less about doing the mind maps. I don't think there's anyone in this group who doesn't understand the history of what it is that we're dealing with, the labyrinthine type connections, which they all seem to hook onto. I mean, if we need a mind map, Spartacus has a new one that he's put out there. If at some point we want to draw on looking at relations and the scope of these things. But I think right now just more clarity. And so, yeah, thank you for getting a better device because Tuesday was fascinating for those that don't know. We were having a, I don't know what the name of the group is, some German... Expert Council I think it's… Is that how you translate it? Okay. There was, it was graphene oxide was the subject. And look, I'll let you summarise that meeting because it was, conclusions had already been drawn before I was invited in there. And you know, people need to know what was the outcome of what was quite sophisticated research, I would argue. Yeah. I was asked by physicians I got in contact with, if I want to join there, because they needed a little bit of help from the medical virology perspectives. And I was going there and they were open on… What I really liked is they are open for many hypotheses, but they discuss the graphene oxide and… Oh, they did more than that. Yeah, but the expert council, one of these people in the expert council is the guy that kind of… He was on my press conference, where we discussed the consequences of the vaccines. It was in May, 2021. And he was in the crowd and was asking if there is participants in that vaccine, if that would be allowed. And I was saying, no, there's a quality control usually. So, he was presenting these results and he's kind of attracting many people with his way of… And he was in contact anyways with the Spanish fifth column and the people around Kalcker, the whole group. And he was around Kalcker, the whole chlorine dioxide stuff. So, there was a little bit of influence from that group because they have quite a big reach. And he was actually present in many meetings that I had here at my local place with the people I know here. So, we had discussions about that. And I'm glad that these scientists did Raman spectroscopy. And I think you can explain better what they actually did, but I heard from you that you have had their paper in their hands and that you thought that it was quite good. So, I was in contact with them and they discussed internally the results of the paper and that this Campra from South America did write a letter to them.
He did? And yes, he did. And the one was discussing to answer and some other people. And so, they did answer. Yes, emphatically, I would say.
Yes, I think so. So, I'll just take this moment to just discuss that little aspect. So, I've been trying to focus more on the practical side, trying to get something approximating experimental data that we can lean on and trust with respect to who's done it and the motivations behind doing it. And so, having, I don't know whether it was good luck or not, but having gotten my hands on vaccines, I was in the position to be able to do that. And that sort of escalated to the point of getting into a forensic materials type laboratory and looking for these signals, this graphene oxide, this graphene oxide, which again, there's a point that the orthodox side has about misinformation. And all I would say is that there's a narrow path to tread upon which either side is a ditch full of excrement, to put it lightly. And on one side, you've got these people who grab onto anything. And it's not that I'm dismissing graphene oxide technologies or anything like that, but the question, there's a specific question here, which is, is it present in appreciable amounts in the mass shots that are put out? Now, with the caveat that billions have been now dispensed, and we see a sample of, whatever, one to the power of five negative, right? The, more, more than that, one to the power of seven, when negative. I spent a lot of time and effort going through trying to draw out these structures that people were seeing, which requires a patience with the crystallization, right? And then doing the tests, as they should be done, Raman spectroscopy, the scanning electron microscopy, and the EDX mapping. And then you want to step that up to time of flight mass spectrometry, and then NMR. Now, I could do those last two steps, but I was pretty convinced that all the signals that I'd seen that people were pushing as graphene oxide were not, that's not what they were looking at. It was cholesterol type fats. Now, at that meeting was a guy who'd spent his career looking at carbon nanofibers and tubes and had all the, had access to all of this equipment as well, and literally had found exactly the same things I had. And in that instance, when there's no pretense for trying to get, this guy doesn't even want to be known, right? He's prepared to sort of talk with professionals, but he wants to stay very much on the down low. The fact that me and him get a result that concords, I would argue has far more weight than Fifth Column and Robert O. Young does, where they have an incentive for the more gratuitous end of the hypothetical spectrum.
So I hope that we can dispense with that aspect of the vaccine discussion. I think it's more important to be focused on the biology, the toxic biology that we're looking at. And that's another thing that he pointed out. Please, Johanna. Also, they, just recently, they, and it's funny, because I did exactly that for my dissertation, doctor thesis. They tried to anticipate and to filtrate and then participate with PCA, where you would get proteins participate. And they had a participant. So the next thing in step would be SDS page or western blotting to see what you have you have as a participant and in the gels. And it's, you know, we all have our special specialities. And I was doing these gels like three in a row every day. When I was present, we worked like eight students in like 15 square meters shift with these gels. So I know exactly what they're talking about. And I have done it. And it's really interesting to see it because why would you want to have protein in a vaccine? Well, like I say, my initial objection, not objection, but my suspicion would fall on to my experience with these vials is very easy for contaminants build up in unless you pop that lid off, pull this pull the contents out and deal with it straight away. The next day, you can find bacteria in the Yeah, but it was ultra filtrated and it was centrifuged. And all that it was just the clear supernatant. So, you know, bacteria won't go through through it first, their products might though. That's the thing, right? If they're the interesting part is they found in a university in Germany in pretty early in 2021. They found in AstraZeneca heat shock proteins. So that would be interesting to look at it, like, where would we want to go? What would we want to need to look at? And I love to see reproduction of scientific methods and checking on what each other does. Because, you know, when you are in a scientific argument and you have pro and con, you need to investigate. And so I'm happy that they are open to all these narratives, because Germany is strong in this resistance movement with all these narratives, including viruses. And I kind of sacrificed myself again. Again, I don't want to hug that. And if anyone just you can keep your mics on mute, muted. It's not a formal meeting, but some people want to jump in. But with respect to Germany, I would just I want to bring this example up, because it's current right now. It's unfolding in the last couple of days.
And what we've seen is that whatever the COVID, Rainer Füllmich and the blonde haired lady, I always forget her name, but Viviane. They're now they're now fighting because well, it's charges of embezzlement of money from their group. Now, what I want to know is how come that group has 600,000 euros that could be embezzled in the first place? Right? What what were they doing other than sitting around on Rumble, talking to people for an hour, two hours, and then putting it online, yet they've got $600,000 or euros, excuse me, donations, donations. And I think these class action that they promoted, they want to have the aim to go for class action lawsuits in the US, because of the German law system. And, you know, it's like, even the European Court for Human Rights, well, the German court system violates human rights. We know that. Never mind. We can't do anything about it.
Like this. So it's I think it's it's useless to try anything here. You know, I would just say this for the record, $600,000 would pay for literally a year, or I could I could literally, as broad as you're going to take sort of postdoc salaries, all of us could be working in a lab right now. And in a year, have a whole bunch of data which everyone could be pretty sure is within as good as you're going to get for that sort of money. And yet those that two free group of people managed to scratch together 600,000 euros. That blows my mind.
You know, look, the problem is that I know pretty much of the backstory in a way, because I was involved in this pathology conference with Arne Burkhardt, with Professor Arne Burkhardt, the pathologist who's now I think he's connected with Ryan Cole now. So I'm interested what they found and find. And, you know, I'm not following it so much right now, but I was like supporting. But since February 21, when we saw the vaccine injured and probably dead, not being investigated by the coroners as emergency MDs being on COVID watch, driving to the people. And actually, they needed money. And they asked Vivianne Fisher if she could support the pathology conference to get Arne Burkhardt the instruments and the microscopes and staining stuff, blah, blah. And she tried to get money. And then I think they realized that it's not available. And they discussed it. Right, and Füllmich ran off with it.
Yes. They air dirty laundry out in the open. And it's interesting if you know the history, you know, I contacted them in summer 2020. And I called and I had telephone calls with both of them in fall 2020. Like on the day that our infection law was changed. And I had a phone call with Vivianne Fisher where the water cannons were driving by. And she was like, what are these cars? But you know, I told them everything I know, and they were, they are lawyers. And so it's not easy for them to decide who is telling the right stuff and who's telling the wrong stuff, you know, and who has what kind of an expertise to be worth listened to. But they kind of realized that I was like going against their narrative, because I was saying your PCR approach is crap. I can help you to even destroy it more. But it's not Drosten the big bad guy. There are other people involved that need to have focus also. And you know, I'm not, I'm not for state courts. And I'm not like defending Drosten. I knew him once, and I phoned him once. But you know, it's a hard ground out there when you are involved in virology.
Well, I would just add this. Okay, so we've got the Reiner Füllmich group, 600,000 euros that we know of. We've got no virus group offering pledges in the half million range. And again, those two sums combined, okay, so we could stretch out two years in a laboratory with everyone on this page, getting it getting paid to do work and have I don't know if you get everything that you want it done, but you'd get a lot done. And but we're watching nonsense play out across the public dialogue. And well, and again, weaponized with money. So now you have to question their, their motives right now for everything that they've said, I would argue, I don't know if anyone wants to chime in on this particular subject, but I don't know what other people's relations are. But again, you know, a lot of what drives me is just people who are, who are grifting, I call it.
And you know what's interesting? The press and mainstream media article and like made prime time report, which had my face in it was about that grifting that these are grifters. It was in 2020 in December that they and that, and it destroyed kind of my reputation because I was in contact with one of their group, and they actually paid for an interview for one of their groups. And interview for film crew to interview me and you know, had another physician and they were trying to do something but I think you know, maybe it's human egos. I don't know if controlled opposition or whatever but you know, when I listen to these rebuttals and accusation when I hear that, you know, it's there are people involved that I don't trust, like... Well that much is obvious for the moment. Yeah, it's been like that from the beginning. But the thing I just I've lost my participant screen, I just want to make sure I don't miss Charles. Weakness Charles Rixey. Weakness. But back down to business, or in that case, lack of business. Again, I want to know how come these people are able to get this much money to hand in a fashion that's well, in the right hands, it would do an enormous amount of good. You don't have to do it to the orthodox establishments, they're drowning in money. But the actual dissident voices that have been speaking up, and literally taking a hit such that you have to do anything and everything to survive day to day. Like I said, we could 600,000 for an experiment is a less things have changed radically.
It's a terrible situation. So anyone watching this, please keep that in mind of what what these people were doing and capable of the date, they they could be sitting on those forms of money. And if the accusations are true, it's gone into Füllmich's house and property. I say I don't know, again, I'm just relaying the accusations I've heard, I'm sure it'll come out eventually. But Yeah, it's it's about they were afraid that in Germany, he put it in a house and he can get it back. When he sells the house like a security, the house was the security. That's the way lawyers think and all these finance people, you know, but if you have money that people who want this to be investigated, donated, and you put it aside as gold and in a house to have like not not the state, get your bank account and then it's gone. And it happened the same happened with the big flood in the Ahr valley. I don't know if you all remember that. It was a devastating flood. And some of these people like Bodo Schiffman, a German physician, who is now in Tanzania, like Eden, like something, you know, the people that run away, I can understand if physicians run away, if their practices get raided. I can understand that. But it's interesting if you see that they are building up like resorts and all that. But how would you want to live there? But you know, it's like, yeah, I lost what I wanted to say. But yeah, he raised money for the Ahr valley and then PayPal cancelled. You know what happens then. It was amounts like that. I think many Germans have kind of saved a little bit and its donations from people here. And that's the sad thing. You know, they wanted investigated and Arne Burkhardt would have needed help. And they did raise that money anyways, and in a different way. But if now they are accusing themselves and mistrusted in there, you know, I'm in a situation right now where I am offered a position as CEO.
And as CEO, you have to have a tight watch on your books. And if you lose grip and you don't see that your partner in crime gets seven parts and you only get one. And you know, he did write and they did work and they did call back the people and they were the only ones that didn't call back me, but they didn't help me. Well, you know, there's so many things that I have to accuse so many people in Germany. And I am running from lawyer to lawyer. Nobody says, yeah, let's do that, because it's not possible in Germany. And I think it's actually it is a way to go to the U.S. and have these class action lawsuits, you know, and you know, these discussions when actually the money seems not to be away. The gold is still there and they have both, you know, it's an internal fight between two CEOs, which haven't had their stuff right. And I'm right now looking at all these responsibility you have as a CEO, because right now, if I say something against, let's say vaccines, which are a hundred percent safe and effective, just for YouTube. And a big company thinks I really, really stretched what I said with saying what you just said. And they come with a lawsuit that has a big amount of money in it. Then the cost would be so high that you could kind of be like frozen from your because you can't pay even the cost to start. And that's actually what was discussed by the same journalist now discussing the Fomich and Fischbeck case.
And I had discussed it the same week that we need to be extensively careful to. So I was wondering if we were going to be because I had two findings from the past three days that were medical that I was going to discuss. But are we are we discussing the Fomich and Fischbeck case that I was going to discuss? But are we are we discussing policy in this in this stream? Whatever you think needs to be tied up at this point. So people have a big condensed picture of what's happening. Right. So whether it's basic science, the policy, it doesn't matter at this point. Right. It's just to condense everything. So people can come and say, I saw that in that stream. And there was and that was the point I think Charles was trying to get to at this point. So, yes, as a yes, you'll be able to discuss it well, for sure. Okay. Okay. So just for Johanna. So where are you going from now? So we obviously we've got a good understanding of what's happening in Germany sounds sounds like a TV soap opera. What's your plans? It is I'm running for my medical board now. I'm trying to raise money in a way, you know, that's independent of if I'm going to be that CEO of that physicians group. It's it's it's about 400 physicians now. And, you know, it would be great if we got the physicians in together. It's like all over the country, they are separated. But even in the starting phase, we are many. So I think that that's that's giving me hope. And I want kind of to connect these these colleagues, because I think the only way is the physicians. And the interesting thing is that the reaction of the board wasn't that bad. They actually called me and asked me if I'm submitting. And so and we did a like ad, the paper ad for the for the regular paper for the physicians out there. And they want to share it on their homepage. So it's maybe they just need physicians that have the guts to speak up.
Same scientists, same policymakers, same with anyone. It's, it's a crying shame. After two and a half years, it's literally still the same people trying to shout and scream about the issue. So I'm going around on the if you last in, then you're going to speak. So I think Jonathan, if you're there, you were the second to last.
Can you give me my is that working? Yes, that's working. So how are you?
I'm pretty good. I'm not really sure where to begin with this statement, other than to say that I think we have to be sure that we start from or try to always check ourselves on parsimony.
Hold on one second. I wasn't meaning to keep myself off of the screen all the time. I just didn't want to waste your bandwidth when I didn't need to. I've got tons of it too. Buckets.
You're in your tons of bandwidth. Does that work? That works, but we can see me twice. I don't think. Yeah. There we go. Lovely.
I just feel like we really need to be careful with, with constantly being as parsimonious as possible about it. And, and so I keep seeing from more angles, the, the huge possibility of explaining a serious amount of the fiasco of the last two years, by simply putting everybody on their back, on, on their unstable footing with regard to a novel virus. And there's no treatment and forget about what you know about respiratory disease. Just walk away. And I'm trying now to, to sort of formulate this in, in, in sort of the best succinct presentation that I can. And I'm just not there yet, but I think, I think the, the, one of the red threads that runs through what, what Johanna has said and what others have said, what other groups are doing is that the doctors were taken out of the equation. And this has no precedence in history. And a significant amount of the damage, which was done in the first year of the pandemic is, is largely this. I don't, the word people are using now is iatrogenic, but I don't, I don't have that word in my consciousness as meaning anything. So for me, it's just this change in the way that the doctors were thinking they understood the way the human body worked. And they were somehow bamboozled to think that what they had learned over the last 20 years was now irrelevant. And I think that's, that's most of my main message now. And, and I'm also trying to learn an awful lot about, about what's going on with this, with the disease progression and, and, and multiple exposures. And, and my, my gut feeling has always been that the transfection is a multifactorial nightmare. And so I'm very wary right now of the, it does still seem to have this momentum that transfection as a general methodology is still being pushed to normalization, which I'm really against. That's probably what I would say is the most important thing for me right now. So I'm going to ask a few questions. I know we'll come up in the chat and I'll just say thank you to Marty for putting all Jonathan's links in the chat.
So there's, so parsimony is important. It's one of those, one of those fundamentals like that, the mathematical constants for specificity and sensitivity that was so eloquently done on Jonathan's stream. And again, I would, I would congratulate Jonathan on just doing such a brilliant job of, well, each one of his streams is, again, pedagogic. I watch them, I learn something that makes it, if I'm learning something, then all of you are learning something more, which is, so that, that makes it of vital importance. The, so the, the issue around parsimony, if we put it in the context of the restrictions that were placed at the beginning of the pandemic, which, which were, again, summarized as completely novel and therefore required completely novel approaches to contain, in retrospect, looks very, very contrived. It's not to say that there wasn't, it's not to say that there wasn't, that there wasn't and there aren't issues. So my question to you, Jonathan, would be despite the, I'm cautious of using the language of those that were pushing plandemic, quote unquote, plandemic type jargon at the beginning. I would argue that this, that we see increased all cause mortality, which is the one statistic that I feel comfortable with. I saw the stream, I didn't see it to the end, but I saw the one you were doing with John Colin, where he says that there's all these drops in flu statistics, et cetera, and therefore it all must be, this is how I interpreted it, correct me if I'm wrong, that everything that we're seeing was flu or pneumonia like illnesses. And I'm, I, I'm of the opinion that SARS is not a pneumonia.
I, I'm very much with Walter on, I think Spartacus would probably agree, maybe, I don't know about the others here right now, but I, I do see it as a systemic disease, just maybe in a susceptible cohort, the respiratory component comes through and perhaps we've blinded ourselves somewhat by its nomenclature, and particularly the, the spike as it, as it was right now, or as it was relative to the current time. And have we, are we putting blinders on by trying to look at it just always as a, as a respiratory disease, or should we be, in your opinion, do we, is that enough, or should we broaden the scope to try to understand the disease at a more full dimensionality of the disease?
So I think that's where, and with, with, with the, the humbleness of an idiot, I say that my biology has expanded a lot in terms of what my, my, my most, what seems like the simplest explanation in my head right now is that the, and it will, it's still not something I can fully explain here, but let me, first of all, I agree with you that the virus that was, or the sickness that was present in Wuhan and elsewhere around the world is something different than a pneumonia. It may manifest as a pneumonia plus, but it's, it's not, it's not a pneumonia. My thing that I've been saying on my stream a lot is that one of the things that I've come to doubt is the fact that the original SARS virus was the first SARS virus ever to infect people and that it was cleared and disappeared and that none of the lab leaks that have happened in the last 15 years have done anything. And in that context, I think a relatively aspecific PCR test could be used to inflate the impact of such a pathogen. So in other words, even in the worst case scenario, I wouldn't expect them to be able to make a coronavirus stable enough to do what they purport this one did, but by taking a bunch of these PNA numbers and an aspecific test, they could take a very dangerous pathogen and make it into what appears to be this very fast moving pandemic in 2020. And I think it is a, it is a combination of illusions that were, were dealing with here and confusion that we're dealing with here. And the thing that I meant with parsimony is that I've tried so hard to understand to the best of my ability, what, what people really think about viruses. And up until 2020, there wasn't really anyone who thought that Corona viruses were really capable of doing what something like measles or smallpox does or could have done for a wide variety of reasons. And that's also something that is the one thing that I liked about John Collins interview a lot was that it really helped underscore my my belief that, that Peter, Peter McCullough and these kinds of people who came out very early, Wolfgang Wodarg and said that there's a lot of respiratory disease over here that we've always blamed on Corona viruses and never thought we could fix. And that has always been in the back of Fauci's mind, you know, man, oh man, if I could do something with that. And so I see something I don't understand, but I do feel like they're the best example or the best way to summarize it. There's been a lot of exaggeration. And I think if we get to the heart of that exaggeration, we'll find sorry to interrupt, is it exaggeration or manipulation? This is because I think we need to be very precise with that language at this point. Yeah, sure. And I think that's probably a better word. I mean, sure, they're manipulating everyone. And it's at all levels, right? I think a lot of people in government have manipulated to believe that dangers are one thing when they're really another. And, and so that's what, that's what for me has become most interesting, because just to say it flat out in my estimation, gain of function research in viruses in general is not at all even close to the most dangerous biotechnology out there right now. It's not even close. And so it surprises me more and more the more they talk about it. And, and so that part is starting to stand out like a sore thumb. It's almost like they're just dancing over here, screaming, yelling, look over here, look over here, look over here. And the more you're saying, are you saying in an effect to draw attention away from, well, the from other more dangerous biotechnology? Yeah, that's right. Perhaps, I don't want to cut you off. But no, no, go ahead. I didn't want to take up that much time either. I want to listen to what everybody's got to say. That's a great Jessica, you should have been next. But the dangerous technology, I think spark has done such a great job of really articulating that in a format that's in depth yet is approachable for people who perhaps don't have the, well, they'd come from different backgrounds. So if you can hear me, did I see your mic is off the the potential of modern biotechnology and bio nanotechnology and biology. Sorry, because Waldo just wants to I just got an email from Matthew, he's trying to get into the his to the call. I don't see him on the participant list. I'll send him an invite again. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. No, no, no important interruption. Spark, please go. It's the thing about it is that a lot of these things are a double edged sword, they have a great deal of potential for drug development. But at the same time, it's also important to know that they can also be used for entirely nefarious purposes, reengineering human biology, essentially, making cells manipulable, like controllable in certain ways, for example, like TRPV magneto, for instance, which is where they take a an ion channel and tag it with ferritin, and then they can open it remotely with RF. The things like like DREADDs, for instance, designer receptors exclusively activated by designer drugs. Those are designer receptors that are they respond to small molecule ligands that are specific to that receptor. So I mean, that that would be great for for certain things. I mean, if you're trying to target like a like a tumor or something, it's great. But but if you have like a neuron, express this designer receptor, and then and now it's being activated by, I don't know, some some something in people's drinking water, for instance, that that could be, you know, very concerning. There are so many different things that they're investigating in biotechnology right now, that are just, I mean, it's it's what we're talking about here is mad science. Really, it is because it's, it's multidisciplinary, to such an extent that even now technology and and biology PhDs have a hard time grasping what the bio nanotechnology guys are doing, because these guys are taking multiple fields, and multiple disciplines and integrating them together into essentially a single new hybrid discipline that incorporates all the different aspects of biology, nanotech, semiconductor engineering, and so on. So now we start looking at biological structures as though they could be computer components, for instance, like they're going to things like DNA, DNA based computing, using using DNA logic, using receptors and ligands as well as Boolean logic gates.
Like stuff like who gazettes work with with self with amyloid based self assembly, and using amyloid as metal casts. Things like using amyloid fibrils as conductive peptides, similar to like P dot PSS, kind of essentially like an organic conductor. And as well as taking certain proteins that have certain optical qualities, believe it or not, then having them respond to infrared light. I mean, it's just, it's a completely new field now where they're getting down into the physics of biology to such an extent that it's, it doesn't mean you can take everything you know about about life sciences, and throw it completely out the window, they're doing stuff with with bio nanotechnology that is, I mean, the implications of what they want to do with this are frightening. What do they want to do with it? Completely take control of cellular biology to such an extent that, I mean, you could you could view living cells as essentially just another nanomachine or soft robot. I mean, you could take what they want to do is stuff like taking bacteria, fungi, protists, and so on. And incorporating like designer proteins into their genomes that do things that you don't even find in nature. Entirely new proteins, they take motifs from, I mean, if you think about it, there are proteins out there that do bind proteins, if you think about it, there are proteins out there that do bind metal ions like zinc fingers and whatnot. Think about having a protein, an entirely novel protein that turns a bacterium or fungi or protists into essentially a little tiny miniature construction crane, an intracellular one that can construct scaffolds inside someone's cells. Things like remodeling the cytoskeleton, the extracellular matrix, incorporating metal ions into things to create novel structures that don't exist in nature, geometric structures, polyhedra, and so on and so forth. I mean, what we're talking about here is essentially witchcraft. I mean, people don't even think that this stuff is possible. They never even consider it, except for this tiny select handful of elite scientists who have taken these different disciplines, physics, nanotechnology, biology, and hybridized them into a single discipline. So, I mean, really, people need to start looking at this from a whole new perspective. This is something where, I mean, the potential for weaponization is just shocking, and the potential for unethical use, I mean, just surreptitiously, without people even realizing that anything happened at all, it's just astounding.
I'm really listening to what you're saying, and it sounds like the thinking, if there is such a thing, of machines. I'm serious right now. So, just to throw in some philosophical thoughts, what do you think the chances are that this is the so called thinking of machines, and that the potential for AIs to have kind of absconded control or not? What do you think about that idea?
They want to use machine learning for things like protein design, because a lot of this stuff is essentially, it's beyond the ability of even the most brilliant scientists to come up with a synthetic designer protein that incorporates entirely new motifs into it. It's the kind of thing where they really have to look at AI and just using like GPGPU racks, for instance. The thing about this is that a lot of people don't realize this, and I'm sure some of you do, but biotechnology is advancing alongside Moore's law. It's moving in lockstep with it. The more computational capacity we have, the more of a capacity we have to answer the question, more of a capacity we have to analyze these systems, including with things like machine learning, for instance. What we're looking at here, basically they want the ability to completely reengineer cellular biology, potentially from the ground up if they wanted to. It's a thing where we have to look at cells and biology and living organisms as soft robots, as machines, essentially.
They're kind of in this worldview where they're very, very materialistic kind of a thing.
This gets into a kind of philosophical thing, and I'd rather keep it scientific. Science without philosophy is a dead science. Matthew, welcome. Glad you could make it.
A lot of people are still trapped in this kind of thinking with Cartesian dualism, for instance, where they think that people have a soul and so on and an inviolable essence to ourselves. The people who are fully committed to this biotechnology business don't see it that way. They see people and organisms as machines that have an ordered hierarchy of chemical reactions that they undergo to create all the different behaviors that we see various organisms have, all the way down to single celled organisms, all the way up to large complex multicellular organisms.
This strict materialist viewpoint leads to the view that our actions are deterministic, that we don't have any free will, that we can't really govern our own actions.
We're just essentially like free floating chemical reactions, is the belief. From that standpoint, from that perspective, it becomes a sort of an ethical imperative for these people, I think, to try and reengineer biology to make people, I don't know, less aggressive, more ethical. I've seen articles where bioethicists are actually seriously debating whether or not it's a good idea to reengineer human beings to be less violent by manipulating various receptors and enzymes that are responsible for certain neurotransmitter activity related to aggression and so on. There's a real critical part, I don't know if you're going to come to this, but if you miss it, in those papers that Spartacus is discussing right now, they literally define it as it's obligatory first strike weapon. If it exists, they have to use it. That's where their discussion had taken them. These are bioethicists of all things. It's a stunning breakdown of frameworks that I grew up and trained with. I would hear that. That's algorithms for defense and computing, basically, not life science. Anyway, I'm interrupting Spartacus. He's really getting into it, but I wanted to get that out there. That's how these people think.
I went ahead and shared one of those papers in the chat. Let's see what else we have here. Here's another one. The thing about this is that what we're seeing, essentially, is bioethicists who are linked to the military biodefense establishment permitting all sorts of things that most of us would consider abhorrent, just unbelievable stuff. Some of them are not. Some of them have tried to sound the alarm on some of this stuff. If you look at James Giordano's speeches, the thing about it is I've seen stuff that's just shocking. If you haven't seen James Giordano speaking at the Modern Warfare Institute at West Point, he's speaking before US military cadets. Likewise, here's another video of Charles Morgan. What they're discussing is the potential of using nanoparticles to influence civilian populations, to influence enemy combatants. James Giordano speaks frankly about the possibility of, for instance, going to parlay with someone who is the head of a violent nonstate actor, for instance, and dusting the rim of his glass with a neurological disruptor nanoparticle, something that bioaccumulates in people's neurons, something that affects neural connectivity and human behavior. The way he describes it, you can either have this guy come into the meeting all belligerent or hate this other guy, and then he comes out of the meeting and he's, oh, this guy's great, kind of a deal.
After he's been neurologically influenced by this, now he's become more suggestible, more open to the viewpoint of the negotiator and so on. He further elaborates, you could get his followers to now follow this whole manipulated mindset, or you could fracture the trust of the group and cause them to disperse and disband, because they no longer have any faith in their leadership, because now he's expressing, he's pulled a 180 and expressing completely different views. What they're discussing here is quite literally neuro warfare. It's sixth generation warfare. If fifth generation warfare was information warfare, people sharing and spreading all sorts of information online, for instance, then sixth generation warfare is manipulating the sources of that information by actually directly manipulating people's brains. It looks to me like military brass and policy guys and bioethicists are now to the point where they're openly discussing the potential of neuro warfare on top of information warfare, of manipulating an adversary's mind to achieve military and strategic objectives, or manipulating civilian populations, for instance, to create unrest wherever you wanted or or political. I would just add a caveat here. They're able to do expertly via fifth generation warfare, let's put it that way. I want to welcome Charles to the chat. You can unmute your mic at any time, Charles. Same for you, Matt. It's not formalized in any way. I did put some structure on it because I wanted to relay Charles's hopes and aims for this meeting. It was Charles that suggested it. Charles, can you hear me? No. Can I unmute him? Ask to unmute. It doesn't allow me to unmute him, which is probably a good thing. You shouldn't be able to just take control of someone else's mic. I say that's good. They do it anyway, right? It's not like they don't.
Something so overt would be wrong. Whilst we're waiting for Charles, I want to just say hi to Matt in as close as probably we'll ever get to meatspace. Good to see you, Charles. I added you because we discussed it in the week. I thought what you did in the week was some top tier work.
I got to stream with you, dude. I just added you. I hope you don't mind. Good to see you. Thank you. Let's see. I think Walter is itching to get his theories on here to sketch in the dots from… I'll keep it brief, but this week I'm rather excited because I think I made two very important discoveries, which may not actually be that surprising. I've been working with the idea of spike protein endothelial disease as a foundation from much of what we're seeing with COVID and with the spike protein injections. I'm now beginning to expand that to a spike protein injury disease, where I think the foundation of everything we're seeing is based upon tissue injury by the spike protein, in particular the S1 unit. I don't think what we saw was ever pneumonia. I believe what we saw was endothelial damage in the avioli and in the lung, which caused the ground glass opacities and the gas exchange problems in precisely the same way paraquat poisoning does. If you look at the pathology of paraquat poisoning, it is the exact same creation of excessive ROS and the exact same damage to the alioi resulting in the exact same type of response that we're seeing called pneumonia. What type of poisoning? I don't think I'm familiar with that term. Let me give you a link. It's absolutely phenomenal. It is exactly a mimic of paraquat poisoning. Fun fact, kiddos. Apparently, suicide with paraquat is a guaranteed way out. By the way, there is no treatment or cure for paraquat poisoning by paraquat. This is the paper.
Oh, it's interesting. Basically, it's interstitial lung disease. That's the classification. That's the classification of disease and their different underlying pathologies that can cause the same clinical presentation because you can have it with vascular diseases like autoimmune diseases. Oftentimes, restrictive lung changes and viral pneumonia is classically interstitial lung disease. It's overlapping and also these inhalative gas inhalation can also cause gas intoxication like smoke damage or something can cause these interstitial swelling. This can have influence on the gas exchange. I'm absolutely going with you there. I reported that to the military here in May 2020. It is the endothelium that starts it with paraquat poisoning. It is the exact same—here's a paragraph. Oh, one second. Here's a paragraph. It is the exact same endothelial damage from paraquat that is—why is this not copying? You know what? I've had issues copying in Zoom. I don't want to spook people. I'll just copy the entire—you can scroll down to it. It's in my post. I can copy a link, but not text. Okay. There's the link to the post that I referenced the paraquat article from. That's my first—and therefore, all the early treatment was completely erroneous because it was not a pneumonia. There may have been secondary pneumonia caused by this insult from the spike protein, but it was not a pneumonia, and it was treated completely wrong. I believe Cameron Seitz—I can't remember his name—the ER doctor. Carl Sardana, I think. [Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell]
Yes. That said, it was like people were— Like high altitude pulmonary edema. Yes. And then people were put on the top of Mount Everest. Well, that's because the blood gas exchange, the endothelin—it's not allowing blood gas exchange. It was not a pneumonia due to an infection. It was due to the actual endothelium being destroyed, destroying the blood gas barrier. Therefore, no matter how much air you pump into the—obviously, there's no barrier for it to function with. It doesn't matter how much oxygen you're pumping in, obviously. It's worse, because in pneumonia, you usually have the bronchi being infected, and then you have like pus going into alveoli, and the people get exhausted by their muscles to breathe properly. So you could put in pressure to get in the muscles. But in this case, in this interstitial lung disease—and I learned that in my first shift with the Hantavirus pneumonitis—it's an infection of the alveoli and the little bronchi. So you need a different setting of the ventilators. You have to have low pressure and low tidal—because you damage these inflamed alveoli. And so that's the half an hour that I got in my first shift about that Hantavirus pneumonitis, because there's just BOOP ventilation. When you have lung injury, you use that as well to not move too much but have like high oxygen and all that. So with the standard ARDS settings—and I have done ventilations with CPAP and BiPAP, so I know what I'm talking about—with the standard settings, you can even—you just do more harm. That's what you said in the beginning. This iatrogenic means by the actions of the physician, you get harm more. And that's—we always have to look that we don't do it, but that's one of the main reasons people die in the statistics. So— Well, it was. Charles, I'm hoping we can—have we missed him again? God damn it. He pops in and he's popping out, so I'm hoping he'll come back. But never mind. I want to, Matt, give an overview of why everyone was here, which is—hopefully Charles will do a better job of it in a second. But the idea was to give a summation of from where you've been so people can condense and watch this stream and say, okay, I saw that person, that person talking about this particular subject and they can—it's all available in one stream. So I know you've upset a lot of people. I salute you for that, sir. I'm terribly sorry, Kevin. I hadn't—there was one other point I wanted to make. Oh, okay. Okay, okay. Yeah, there were two points I wanted to make. That was the first, if I may make the second. Please. Okay, thank you. Yeah, the other point is I believe the heterogeneity of the autoimmune issues we are seeing post spike protein exposure and post COVID due to the spike protein is because of repeated injury. And if you look at the myositis, for example, if you look at traumatic brain injury, it is the damaged tissue that is responsible for the induction of autoimmune disease. And I believe this is why we're seeing such a heterogeneic response of autoimmune issues is because it simply has to do with which individuals tissues are being damaged repeatedly, inducing these autoantibodies. And lastly, also why we are seeing the rise in prion disease, because there are papers proving that repeated injury to the brain in CTE is concurrent with developing prion disease. So this is my other big finding of the past week.
Okay. And I'm looking forward to people's comments. Thank you. I have many, Walter, we'll get through. I just want to get through the initial—whoops, was that me? I promised the sound board to stay off, but I do apologize. Oh, I think someone just subscribed. That's what that was.
Charles, good to see you, brother. I've tried to relay why you wanted to pull this meeting together.
And so I'm going to rewind and hopefully we can hear you. Can you test your mic? Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Please, if you could state for the people here, because there's no way I would have captured all that you wanted in those opening statements. So please explain why everyone is here. Well, first of all, I didn't know it was going to be this hard to get everybody together. I wasn't expecting it to be this hard to get everybody together. I mean, I didn't know it was going to be this hard to get everybody together at one time. But I do appreciate— there's actually several people in here that I've never talked to before. And I wish that wasn't the case, but it is what it is. Walter, obviously you're one of them. I've followed your work for a long time and it's awesome. Thank you. In fact, earlier today I was reading your latest thing—I can't remember all the science—but basically about how it's not a lung disease, which is exactly what we're seeing. And the bottom line is that all of you know Jay and I've been working with him, but for the last six months or so I've been working on a specific project where really I was just—I was trying to figure out what the big picture was because I had been studying censorship and I had been studying some other stuff, but I was also the person who was involved with the DEFUSE proposal. So the proposal that states we're going to put furin cleavage sites in bad viruses, we're going to mess with interferon receptors in the oral genes, we're going to try to find a bad virus that can use the DC sign receptor, and so—and all of those things are obviously in the SARS virus. And since I don't know all of you, I don't know if you're aware of the research that I've been doing, and more specifically that I've gotten to a place where there's some things I can say for sure. And because of that, I think that we can—we don't have to wait to know what the origin is to know the origin of the pandemic, if that makes sense. We know the origin of the virus. We don't know the origin of the virus, but we do know what has caused this pandemic. And so I'll just cut it short and say what we know is that whoever made the virus, a group of scientists, like leading scientists, like Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, Christian Drosten, Stefan Pullman in Germany, Marion Koopmans in the Netherlands, Patrick Vallance also in the U.K., there were four countries. All their scientists got together, and they basically on purpose suppressed the existence of the furin cleavage site and the existence of the HIV inserts. And they didn't do it because it was a conspiracy theory. They did it because they knew exactly what it meant, and they needed to suppress that. They didn't think that anybody was going to figure it out that quickly, is what happened. And what I don't know, and where I think that really you guys can help, is I don't know why Fauci decided to keep that wild type spike like it was. Because basically what all this comes down to is that I've been able to figure, I find the proof to show exactly what Fauci lied about, exactly what they were trying to censor in the first place, and why they were trying to censor it, and different steps they took to censor it.
And you can read the Watchmaker thing if you want, because that kind of covers some of it.
But then more recently, I've discovered, A, that the construction of the virus is very much like the structure and construction of an HIV virus or an HIV vaccine. Or other types of vaccines, using what's called mosaic structure, the conserved epitopes, and even the specific epitopes that they used followed a very similar pattern that they'd been doing for two decades. So first, what that tells me is that the Vaccine Research Center knew exactly what it was doing in keeping all those pieces in. And the other thing that I've figured out is that we've always assumed that Fauci learned about the furin cleavage site when everybody else did. And that's not true. Because they had to make the decision to retain the furin cleavage site by January 13th, which is important because that's a week before human transmission was even announced. So at the time that they made that decision to retain the furin cleavage site, they knew that that furin cleavage site made it, almost certainly, a pandemic level virus. And they didn't tell anybody for two months until they could get the final draft and the proximal origin out and control the narrative. And we're talking about the world's leading scientists in several countries. Yeah. Hashtag they knew. That is a fact.
There's actually, let me say one more thing, because basically what I wanted to do is I needed all of you to wrap your heads around the fact that that is a fact, that it's beyond, like, they have been writing, they've published, where they made this decision. But nobody has been asked, nobody's ever asked Dr. Fauci, when did you hear about the furin cleavage site?
Because he, he cannot, because he learned about it before they had told anybody that it was transmissible to humans. Now, why wouldn't they tell everybody that it was transmissible? Why would they wait to let China do it? And because, remember, this was a respiratory coronavirus. It was spreading. I mean, why would they wait? So let me, because I'm going to interject two things, and then I'm going to dip out for 30 seconds. And let me just switch off my restream alerts. It's if we get a bear with me. What I wanted to say is, maybe, it's a possibility that there was a legacy that Fauci was after in that he, he, he cured AIDS by sending out this live attenuated vaccine. Everyone got it and AIDS went away. Maybe, maybe, but me personally, I've, as compelling as the live attenuated vaccine narrative was, I don't, I'm not buying, I'm not buying that particular one, because there are elements that I recognise in the nature and the biochemistry that I understand, which tells me that this amounts to more, and you would, you would do everything that you could to avoid inclusion of anything related to proteinopathies, anything, right? You don't, you don't do, you don't, you'll turn over entire industry, like they did with the, in the UK, because of suspicion around BSE, right? And it was something that I know that you would look for in the medical field, because it even got to the point where medical instruments have all become disposable, rather than use them, autoclave them and re-, and use them again on the next patient, because they're concerned about transmission of these agents from person to person, right? It's not something that's new or novel in any way. And so, to see so many elements pointing in that direction, until we can dismiss that, I'm, I'm going to hold the position, we may as, we may as well de facto hold to the worst line of reasoning, constrained by science, or, or a, a parsimonious science, as, as Jay put it. Well, that, let, let me just go ahead and, and just kind of let, just lay it out in, like, one minute, so that way, because really what I want to do is I want to get your guys ideas, because the, the paper that I was working on, it, it looked, it looked at all this and said, okay, what are the, what's the collateral advantage? What are the implications of the decision to censor these two things, the furin cleavage site and the, the rest of the answers? And I, I saw early treatments, obviously, humongous, the vaccine design, because they didn't tell people about the furin cleavage site, and it was retained in the vaccine design, and I went back and looked at the, the, the vaccine design, and I went back and looked at 40 different studies over the previous two decades, and for every virus, for every major vaccine that they made, for RSV, HIV, flu, MERS, SARS, they always took out the furin cleavage site. Always. Always. In fact, I have on camera the head of the vaccine development saying, we always take it out in 2014. They knew it was, it would cause wide scale tissue tropism. That's, that's the understanding. Sorry, Jessica, I didn't catch that. It was self admitted is the point on video, right? Yes. Correct. Yes. More evidence. In other sense. So the biology was understood. Again, there's, there's nothing novel here that we're looking at, right? It's just, the circumstances are novel. Please, Johanna, just bear with me, guys. I'm just gonna nip out just for a second. Bear with me. Actually, I'll just list the topics, early treatment, vaccines, censorship, which I've already proven. And then there's really just things related to prionopathy, all the amyloid stuff. Basically, everything that all of you have been studying, and then trying to warn people about for two and a half years, you've been you've been building the evidence improving. And I've been kind of over on my side, building the evidence of the censorship. And I came to a point where I realized that they were connected, that the HIV was real. That's what they were one of the two things that were censored. And that's why I wanted to get you guys together. Because all we have to do is get someone to ask Fauci, when did you first hear about the furin cleavage site? He has no good answer. Because whatever he says, he knew and didn't tell the world, these leading scientists didn't tell the world that this thing was pandemic level transmissible. And they knew it before China even announced it. Yes. Guys, just give me two seconds. It's also the reason why we have long COVID now. So whatever long COVID is, all this stuff, it all ties back to what they the decisions that they made in early February 2020. Yeah. And so what really what I'm, what I want to do is get you guys to understand that. So to help put that into like, as you're thinking about all these other things, join with me in thinking about, okay, what does that mean? And how can we raise awareness about it? Because I believe in my heart of hearts, that we can hold Fauci accountable without waiting for the origin. Because we already have enough. That's exactly what all of you guys have been doing. Like, Matt has been working with like PCR, Johanna has been working with PCR, and so on. And so Matt has been working with like PCR, Johanna has been working with basically everything, the HIV inserts. Walter, you've been doing incredible stuff. And I hate the fact that this is for some meeting because I have so many questions. But Kevin, he was already working the prion stuff. Spartacus was kind of like me, he was looking at everything. And Jessica was doing a lot of the same stuff, you know, immunology and the vaccines. So I can't think of, and JC, I don't even know if he's here, but same thing. I can't think of a better group of human beings on earth for me to ask this to pose this to. And so really, I'm just honored to be at this place where I'm talking to you guys. But now, I think that we need to take this, we need to take what Pratham found, we need to take what Montagnier did, we need to take what you guys have done, and figure out how we're going to explain this to people. We don't have to have all the answers. But I think it's time to start laying this stuff out, at least what we do know. Agreed. Johanna, I'll be back. So now you guys, I mean, you can ask questions or whatever, but I just want to get your guys minds engaged on that topic. I just wanted to say that I have quite a strong hypothesis on the why and that is involved, or comes from my involvement with Judy Mikovits and Professor Montagnier and his group, because I got in contact with both of them in 2018 already. I was studying retroviruses and the contamination of the cell cultures in our laboratories, which was confirmed, which was put in the open by Judy Mikovits, and then she got destroyed, career assassinated, career assassinated by Fauci and others. And afterwards, there are publications by FDA on a new method of PCR testing, you know. But what did they investigate? All our lab cultures and show that these lab cultures are contaminated with gamma retroviruses and beta retroviruses, not the lentiviruses, the HIV ones, but like the mouse related, the XMRVs. And we were discussing the HIV inserts in summer 2020 on Twitter, I think with Gigi and others and and some people from connection with George Webb, I think. And we were finding like Montagnier said it in an interview, and I mentioned that he said in the RRTG13, we have the same exogenous informative elements like in the COVID. So no wonder it has this close homology. But when you look at Montagnier's work, you have these inserts being like these mosaic GP120 that you mentioned. These are from gene bank inscribed samples from Germany 2015, from Netherlands 2016, and Sweden 2017. How does that get into RRTG13, which comes from a cave in 2013?
I wonder. And then Li-Men Yang's work comes to mind. So but we were discussing this and I was like, putting up this null hypothesis on the natural origins stuff, because from the scientific method, we need to have a null hypothesis. And I said, well, we have HIV inserts. If that would be natural, we wouldn't find other, any other lab contaminant virus in there, because that would be highly uncertain that you have natural evolving and then lab origin contamination in the genome. And they ran a BLAST. And I pulled out a paper where they had built these gamma retrovirus consensus papers, primers. And 10 of these 12 primers were positive on the COVID. So that's where I got in contact with Montagnier's group directly. And I was in contract since 2018. And actually, I got confirmed, his death confirmed by my contact to him, he was in exchange with him. And they, when Montagnier died, I asked if that's true when these rumors were out there. And my contact sent me a message that Montagnier confirmed that the text was that they are using Judy's virus as a bioweapon. So, and there's this mouse culture in the Wuhan Institute of the mouse colony in the Wuhan Institute, where some people show that there's this VP62 variant of the XMRV, which is a known lab contaminant from the Silverman lab, which was sent over to Beijing. And they had it in these lab Wuhan samples, it matched its samples as well. But how come a known and published lab contaminant into these, for me, it's the lab cultures that are contaminated because these these XMRVs are published to spread vertically within a lab to the other cell cultures within 10 days. So we have like, and Stefan Perlman is sending his Viro E6 cells from Göttingen, carrying the human ACE2 receptor for investigation all over the world. So if we have this contamination, and Judy says is true, and all our biologicals were produced in cell cultures, like with the approach that Spartacus explained that these are little machines and like this.
These heat shock proteins that were found in the AstraZeneca are signs of stress for cells. So this can happen if you produce stuff, and it can contaminate a vaccine, and you need to have quality control for it. And what happens now is we don't have any quality control. Plus, and that's the point where I say all these narratives of this is probably a vaccine against HIV or something. You know, Osterhaus from Rotterdam, the colleague of Marion Kopant, published in 2001 or 2002, that the GP120 surface induces antibody dependent enhancement, specifically immune targeting.
And we have these surroundings around the receptor binding domain that you showed lately, Charles, that are all immunoattractive, like CD4, CD8, and attacking. And when you know this is known since over 20 years, and then you realize, okay, there was a little bit of time where it died out, but then the next generation of, like Kevin says, postdocs comes to place, and you put in the narrative. What you say, if you have the censorship, you build the mainstream academia in that way. Yes. And for the why, these injured, like ME/CFS, neuroinjured people, vaccine injured possibly, or other transmissible, bionogenic. I mean, what Judy says is the envelope alone of the XMRV, which is a retrovirus, can cause these damages. And this is for me, the concept prior to COVID for ME/CFS for me was, it's like a prion disease. So I have to calm down the infection and the production of these proteins. That was my therapeutic approach. And early therapy is really critical in that part, because I went with Bicoline, because it's shown that Bicoline not only inhibits or does all these COVID actions, and was patented for treating SARS, and has furin cleavage site inhibition properties, and prior analytics, but it also inhibiting the entry of HIV, probably via the CCR5, meaning RANTES. And that's what I can measure in my patients. We have a lab probability to just sign and show RANTES. And in HIV, RANTES is a very critical cytokine. It's cytokine coreceptor five, that you need to have the fusion mechanism with the HIV. But if you bear in mind, this totally new virus or not, yes, it's the first sarbecovirus, SARS like virus with the furin cleavage site. Yes, that's new. And that's why the furin cleavage site is definitely interesting. And all these retroviruses do have that in a way as well. They are not pandemic level. So I think comparing with FCS, like, but if you have an aerosolized and person to person, and that may have an add one. Where it is, depending on where it is in genome, obviously, because then, like, the part that Pradhan picked it up at is that he found it in the GAG protein. And I think P24, I don't remember the specifics, but actually, I just dropped into the chat, like, a picture of a spreadsheet that I've been building, or that basically just shows, like, all of the inserts that were highlighted by him, or by Dalgleish, and Sørensen, and so sort of, I don't know, if all of you are familiar with that one, but they were, they were the ones, they were the ones that they were, they were the ones, they also kind of echoed what Montagnier and the Pradhan papers were saying. But they... Charles, I know, I know I asked you this before, but I think,
I think this is similar inserts. I think this important point that probably we should go, go back to and look at in more detail. The Dalgleish paper and that group, they sort of exploded onto the scene somewhat. And then, where did they go? If they have they been told to shut up? Or what's what's going on there? One of them did write a short book with Dr. Quay, and one other person. So they're still trying to get the word out. But that's actually something I've been pondering myself is because there's a lot of good scientists, like Simon Wayne Hobson, who I've really talked to. And I don't know why more of them aren't coming out and standing up and saying, Hey, we know what's happening here. And they're not still pushing things. I don't know what I don't know why. Again, it's, it's, it's a near universal phenomenon, because of, I mean, there are more people speaking up right now. But it, like I said, I said earlier on, before you hopped in that it's the same people speaking up. And I don't, I don't see that dynamic changing much. And it's happening in a context of, again, a lot of people with less than altruistic motives, as we've seen with the accusations flying back between Rainer Füllmich and Vivian, the other lady right now in the last week. So but what becomes limited opposition, limited hangouts, etc. I don't know. But what I do know is, is that the sort of circle that I look at and say, that person is producing consistent work is getting smaller, not bigger, which doesn't concord with the scientific processes. Well, and the censorship, what was horrifying to me right now, what I'm seeing is I look in and see what they're censoring. They're censoring research on long COVID. So this thing that there's, there's across the world, people are saying, Hey, we need to look at this, we need to figure out what it is. In the United States, which controls 70% of the funding around the world, Fauci is funding basically nothing with long COVID. And I've seen multiple labs, I think Petrino lab in New York, there's others, where they're saying they're trying, they're speaking publicly, they're trying to get long COVID research funded. And the NIH will not do it. And to me that, that is the ultimate in horrifying, because all of us know that the things that they're hiding are the things that are probably causing everything that we're seeing. And we don't know how bad it is. But we know it's pretty bad. I mean, Walter scared the crap out of me multiple times. He manages to come up with things that are even worse than I was thinking. And And I'll just say, I'll go back to my slot machine analogy, it drops through and it'll ding and bump you on the way down. But at the bottom, it's, it's all just, it's, what I think, what I think Charles is that it's, it's all a systemic disease of injury.
In particular, starting obviously with the microvascular endothelium. And my concern is why we're seeing so many people, especially young people dropping dead is due to ventricular arrhythmias, where if the microvasculature of the brainstem and or of the heart is compromised, it will result in a, in conduction problems and an instant ventricular death. And I, I, I'm concerned that, and now standard tests initially will not pick this up. You would never have, unless you specifically did very specific nuclear imaging tests during the trials of the vaccines, you would not have picked up this microvascular endothelial damage. You would not have found it. And of course, no one was looking for it. But my concern is that we are, we are slowly, you know, there's a whole range of, as I referred to the spike routine as a, a Swiss, Swiss army knife of death that has so many pathologies it can induce. But I think that one of the most concerning ones is, is, is an overall injury in particular, the microvascular turn is particularly with the brainstem and the heart. And I think that's why we're seeing these young people dropping dead because the conduction is either being messed up from the brain or from the heart or both. And this is why they're not being able to be revived. They also noticed that they, you should, you know, a young heart should be, you know, if there's some sort of arrhythmia problem, it should be able to be zapped and, and, and, but it's not working because the pathways are destroyed again, either from the brainstem or from the heart or, or within the, the entire connection. And I think this is, again, this is why we're seeing the sleep disorders. This is why we're seeing all of these problems in long COVID and the muscle issues is, is the microvasculature is being, it's just like cancer cachexia. It's the exact same mechanism. And I think… Maybe we can formalize this a little better. Let's pick Matt's brain at this point, which is…
Well, that's all I wanted to say anyway. So thank you for listening.
Yes. It's important. And I have this question, Matt, if you don't mind. If you, if you had to lay some odds on the epidemiology, which we are seeing, Jessica, feel free to chime in as well, Jay, anyone, I guess I'm throwing this out to the floor, but the fact that we're seeing more all cause mortality right now, that they would, that they would define as non COVID related under their orthodox paradigm, right? That they, they're expecting books. What would it be if it was SARS? They would think odds or some, some sort of acute effect maybe. But if you had to put an odds on seeing, I don't know if you can even do that, but this increasing ratio of not adverse not adverse events, excess death, and then the cross correlation you've got with vaccine uptake.
At what point do you say it's not correlation anymore? There is a causal element and what, and I guess as a secondary to that, what approach would you use to establish causality like a sort of, I don't know, Granger or some, some formalized way of doing that? I always, always hate the discussion of causality because, you know, as much as, as much as people like try to talk about, you know, causality and statistics, there's no, there's no rule for it. It's always our judgment, just like everything in science, all our conclusions at the end, there's no test that means causality, right? So we're always making our best judgment. So I want to start off that way. Can I share a screen? Sure. I think, I think everyone just has, uh, control of, oh no, yeah, that's my end. Um, but you should be able to share now. So if you want to say one thing, um, that, that this is actually what I want, but like as an end state to be thinking about, I'm, I'm now living in DC and I'm, I'm trying to put together all these things in a way that I can take to people who are listening to me and explain all this stuff kind of stuff. So really that's, so if you can think of things that like this, that was a great question, Kevin, this is exactly what, like as a takeaway, this is what I'm trying to do is get bullets to put in the chamber. So carry on. Um, I, I, unfortunately, I feel at a, you know, too much of a deficit to comment much on the biology. Um, so I, I mostly focus on, um, things that I can look for within data. And, uh, I've, I've grown toward a strong hypothesis that, uh, in order to get to a point where the mass vaccination program could be begun, I believe that it was known that it was going to kill people, a certain number of people. I believe that I have, uh, that I can put together, um, signs that mortality was engineered to create the appearance of a natural wave.
Wow. So I have begun to put this together from sources and I, I probably have a hundred slides that I could create, but I just started the slide deck, but you know, for example, this is Greece and you can see, you know, the red dot is where the vaccination program began. Um, you know, with, with the exception of the children, you can see this sort of like pull, pull back effect on mortality. It's like maybe all the people who were in hospitals, who were just known they were going to die or just, you know, that was pulled, you know, that was done a little quicker, you know, um, it doesn't take much. Um, and that orange box, I mean, that's the span of a month, right. And then after, after that was done, you see excess mortality beginning all the age groups. There wasn't any before, you know, they didn't really have, they didn't really have a pandemic until that moment that, you know, these green lines right here, that's the pull forward effect, you know, pull forward or pull back. Yeah.
That's probably something that you should really dig into is what a pull forward or pull back effect is. Anyone reading ethical skeptic is going to come up against that and be like, uh, what, um, if you could give a sort of layman's, um, description of what that means with respect to data analysis. Yeah. Yeah. Like I'm not sure what I think about the ethical skeptics, um, cancer argument yet, because cancers were on an upward trend and it is actually hard to look at, um, you know, when that sort of piles up later on, when you have diagnosis that's later, um, um, that that's actually a little bit difficult to tease out. Uh, and, and I, I, I don't think that he is, he has fully shown that yet until he does the job that I think his opponents would want to do. And actually, um, as much as I tango with him, I think Jeffrey Morris did a reasonable job of explaining that on his blog. Um, that's not to say that I'm not worried about cancer in the DMED data. And, and, and wow, you know, they've done, somebody has done a masterful job of just paving over the thousand hours of work my team did with, uh, the DMED data. But, um, you know, uh, at the Senator Johnson hearing, you know, Renz said, oh, 300% increase in cancer. Um, well, that's, that's totally garbage, but I think that there are some increases, uh, um, unfortunately, um, they, um, we're just at the point at which we should be looking at the data again, because for 2021, there were so many conditions, there were so much piled into the R codes, which, which is the category of codes where, uh, the doctors don't know what's going on yet. And over a million of those R code reports, since they were, you know, since even when I was having them run new queries in February and March, even since then, over a million reports have been, um, channeled into these other categories. So in order to see what's going on, we actually have to look and see how many of those R codes got channeled to cancer or elsewhere. And those queries haven't been rerun yet. Um, so, uh, that, that whole thing is a mess, but I do think that, that there is a, you know, there's a modest and, and, you know, maybe slightly alarming increase in neoplasms. Um, but I really think that, that most of what, most of what we can see for sure are things that, that, um, point to like the endothelial damage. Uh, you know, we see that the pulmonary embolisms and we see, um, we see the pandemic shift between being, uh, you know, respiratory and, and cardiological.
Uh, if I'm, if I'm using those, using the right word there, um, it's cardiovascular. Thank you.
Um, yeah. So anyhow, uh, that those are the things like I, I try to put together a big picture in order to, um, make my own judgments about causality or to, or to figure out where do you want to look for evidence, you know? Um, where do you want to FOIA? Where do you want to, you know, point other perhaps internet researchers and say, like, you know, this Greece stuff, this is just stuff that I figured out the last couple of days or that I noticed in the last couple of days. Um, you know, maybe, maybe somebody from Greece will have some interesting insights as to what's going on here. Um, maybe if I put together, you know, 30 of these, um, there will be people who will come forward with additional evidence. Um, I think that, that it may be that the nurses wind up being the heroes, um, because they are as involved as the doctors with, you know, or maybe more involved than the doctors handling all the patients. And, um, and, uh, a lot of them are, are the ones who can see what's going on and may have the best information. So you, you make a bet, cause I think that's important. And I'm, I'm trying to make a note of this right now on the small amount of real estate I have on my desk, but, um, getting FOIAs, I think a lot, a lot of what we have to do, um, we have to have, uh, strategic planning in how we use what are essentially finite resources right now. And, um, FOIAing has been one of the best weapons, I think that's out there. And again, I, I always consider U.S. Right To Know unsung heroes in a lot of, uh, these discussions, they've really done a lot of, well, a lot of backbreaking work, I would say. And again, I, I'm not in the U.S. I don't know how those procedures work, but those that are, um, if you're listening in the audience, um, please, um, listen, listen to these solutions, the public can get involved in these. And, um, so yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but, um, I just wanted to hammer that point home somewhat as I'm scribbling it down.
I just had, I just had one very, very short thing to say. I, I really, I humbly apologize, but I had no idea. I had set aside two and a half hours. It's five o clock here. Um, I have guests arriving. I, I humbly, I had no idea this was going to go for more than I assumed it would go for two hours tops and we're at two and a half hours now. And I, I simply have people coming over to my home this evening and I unfortunately must leave. Um, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I actually need to apologize Walter. No, no, none whatsoever.
Will this be archived so I can watch the rest of Matthew's talks and what others have to say?
Yes. Yes. If we don't get struck down left, right, and center, which is a high probability. Are we live? Yeah. Yes. I didn't know we were live. Okay, well, I apologize to the audience then as well. I'm so sorry, but I must depart and I wish it was been fascinating and you're all wonderful. And I thank you all for your work. Every one of you have made amazing contributions and I will catch the rest of this on YouTube wherever it's posted. So thank you all and have a wonderful evening. Bye, Walter. Thank you, Walter. Bye, Walter. I'll email you. I'll email you. Have a good one. Thank you. Thank you and enjoy your time.
So actually, as Walter steps out, we can keep up the pace, Nick. Nick St. James steps in. I just wanted to apologize real quick. I had no idea that we were like reporting live. I thought this was more of a casual meeting. So I wasn't treating it the same way or preparing to show up. Be natural. Be natural.
He runs a laid back program. So you don't even have to worry about that.
Chill, dude.
Nick, welcome.
Thanks very much for having me. Appreciate it. I'd like to apologize because I have house guests and I hadn't checked my email for 24 hours. So I just. Well, in that case, you're out. If you didn't check prehand, that's it. So, Matt, you were starting to really get into it and this formalization aspect. I want to sort of dig into that somewhat.
In the what aspect? The formalization for this, looking for causality. Like I say, we've got the bizarre situation of all cause mortality is increased. We know it's increased. That's one of the statistics right now that I think they have a job to really mess with. I don't know how long that's gonna last.
If this winter is complete carnage, I would expect the unexpected. But I think to try to formalize in people's minds what they, some of the pitfalls that come with trying to establish causality, especially from a mathematical perspective. And just what data do we have?
Well, I mean, if we just look at the deaths, if you cut off the dates and ask people to point to the beginning of the vaccination program, most people just couldn't. But it's give or take right around here, right? But this is the global pandemic. And it mostly looks like a straight line until you get to just the last few months. I think that the number of people who are close enough to death just, it's just changed since then. And one of the things that I've looked at a little bit in the US data, the county level data. And I think this is an argument that will resonate with people when they start to realize that we've been lied to, and they start to look for, what is the realistic evidence? What is the corroborating evidence? When you lay out by county vaccinations, lay out by county vaccination rates and correlate them to COVID 19 deaths, okay, sure, you get a slightly negative correlation on average, which suggests that there is some vaccine efficacy. But, oh, look, if you look at the solid purple line, that tracks all of that apparent vaccine efficacy. In other words, what you're doing is talking about people with education, which means you're talking about people with wealth and wealth is health, right? What is it that people buy after the basic essentials? They buy the things that make them more relaxed and save their time. They're not working themselves to death perhaps as much. But yeah, wealth is health. And all we're looking at is a wealth bias, period. There is zero vaccine efficacy. In my strong opinion, every time I see any data at all that I trust, I ask the question, is this consistent with zero vaccine efficacy? And we know from looking at the flu data from historical years, the flu just kept on chugging along, kept on chugging along, despite the fact that vaccination over the years just went up and up and up and up and up.
Yeah, people are gonna see more, I'm gonna collect as much as I can in one place and tell the story as I go a little bit more. But yeah, and I had no idea of any of this. Before the pandemic started, I knew almost nothing about, you know, vaccine controversy or anything like that. But I think even just with what I have, this slideshow is gonna be, you know, very long as I put it together. And I'm probably gonna get new evidence from people. People have already started emailing me, hey, check out this paper, check out this data set. So I don't have too much to add yet. You said that was county level. Yeah. Which counties, all of them or? All U.S. counties, yeah, over 3000 U.S. counties.
I think 3100 or something. And could you pass that data even more that we could see the, I mean, is there a presumption that if it's a wealth issue that there's a divide North South that you could see or? Yeah, I'd have to pull up the right spreadsheets because we've shoved this up in so many different ways. I just, I have one that's open and I don't even remember what's in it, but here's one, a latitudinal analysis.
You can see that going into that winter wave right before vaccine rollout, oops, something I'm not interested.
Control Z sir, it's your friend. I tried that, control Z, it didn't work. Are you screwed? Yeah, cat killed me here, well, that was it.
Actually, no, I'll share one more quick story here.
One of the analysis that I did last year that convinced me that there was more vaccine mortality, Steve Kirsch and I were debating, he was like, I think there are 50,000 vaccine deaths, now he thinks there are 500 in the U.S., 500,000. I was like, I don't know, I see the various numbers, you know, maybe it's 5X, maybe there are 25,000 deaths and I was looking for some way to come up with a real answer and I noticed that in the European data that upon vaccine rollout, and that's right there, you can see this one is normalization of case fatality rate and I did case fatality rate with seven day rolling average mortality divided by seven day rolling average cases except the cases are lagged by 18 days. So the first 18 days of vaccine rollout, which goes right there, your denominator is not affected by any change in trend that the variable would cause, right? Your death should be moving with your cases as sort of a trend, right? Unless you have a newly introduced variable and case fatality rates skyrockets across Europe. Interestingly, there are a couple of nations where it doesn't, nations like France, of course, France built the Wuhan Institute of Virology, they've had as much advanced notice of anything that was coming as anybody, right? But there are only a few counter examples. But, you know, over, and if you take those counter examples out, this curve is even sharper, right? And somebody asked me, well, does this happen all over the world? And of course, like there are a lot of places where you're just not gonna see much, like Africa just never really had much of a pandemic, huh? Right? But people asked about the U.S. And last year I never finished the U.S. analysis because I was flooded out of my home and was sort of homeless for three weeks, finding a new home. But I did just recently, I went back and I looked at that and it is true that you don't see the same thing.
At day zero, you see case fatality rates start to go down before it comes back up three weeks later.
So, you know, what's going on there?
You know. Going from your previous graph, I mean, there was a sort of, you'd reach the peak, right? So you're expecting some drop off as the pathogen burns through a population. And is that… That's not it. That's not it. You're getting too complicated. I'm gonna pull over a graph right now and you're gonna see it. So look at this dip, look at the shape of this dip right here. Okay, here's your testing data for the United States. Okay. And let's be clear, this is the winter holiday.
Wow. There should be an increase in tests of travelers, right? And those aren't people who are gonna die. What decreased? What decreased in the testing regime during that period of time? I bet it's people dying in hospitals and nursing homes.
And I don't know how I can find that out. It's a speculative hypothesis, but at this point, I think it's a little stronger than the speculation given the totality of evidence and the fact that I was seeing these curves in other countries, specifically other countries that had bad pandemics.
It depends on what… Okay, normalized case days since vaccination.
Right, right. I made day zero the start of the vaccine campaign so that I could normalize all the countries in Europe because some of them started a little bit later than others, right? I wanted to know what happens from day zero for the first few weeks.
That is interesting because in Europe, that's what I would expect.
So may I ask, when you normalize that, then you can't really say, we had this British variant running, starting around the time of the vaccine rollout and I was doing COVID shifts at that time. So I realized that the cases went up and actually the sick patients started to ramp up as well in November 2020 prior to the vaccine rollout.
And I was in contact with Jean-Claude Perez. So he did work and published with Montagnier and he's a mathematician and he analyzes the global structure of the virus with his Fibonacci standing waves organization. And I remember we were discussing at that time that the new variant surface spike, like Fibonacci profile, it looks very similar to the BNT162B2 from BioNTech and was similar to something that was coming from Nigeria. So in my forensic way of looking at that, in my forensic way of looking at the genome and all of these different investigations, I think we need to count in these variants of concern when we have vaccine trials starting prior to it and then maybe that starting running through the population from shedding or something or even it's like a live vaccine or dimming down the immune system, what we all find out. But that I realized there was something happening and then it was kind of maybe it's not the same that happened in the US. And I don't know which measures you had around that time on holidays because I think it was post election time and prior to all that, maybe that's a factor that's coming in there in these data. Well, this is something that Jonathan's actually done a good job of. I mean, are you talking about vaccine driven emergence of variants of concern?
And I don't know if Jonathan's listening or not, but he actually had some good plots a while back in his deck where everywhere that I might be misremembering but my own biases on this, but I was pretty sure. The plot came from Jessica.
Jessica, Jessica, jump in, come on. I believe those were her plots. Oh, okay, so Jessica, I'm talking about. What, what did I do?
I'm trying to, I was sure it was Jonathan who showed these plots and maybe he grabbed them from you, but it seemed to me that Johanna was talking about she could see the impact in the hospitals and a concern around vaccine driven variants of concern.
And if you've got data that can sort of, that indicates that that's something that is a mechanism here, I think that would be a useful thing to throw up on the screen. Yeah, no, I think it was probably Jonathan. I've talked about that, but I don't really have any.
I don't know whose preprint it was. It was somebody's preprint and that actually has never been published, but they correlated all the places where the vaccine trials were done, Brazil, South Africa, yada, yada, yada, and they had all the different vaccines there. And there was a variant of concern in every one of those locations.
And then that was kind of more or less confirmed with the stuff that Trevor Bedford presented in September where all of these were. Yeah, I collected all the locations in an article. It's not a published scientific article, but I had done that sort of mid late last year.
There's something else that's really interesting about the sort of variants of concern emergence data that I noticed, which is that there are literally papers being published about it where the title is the exact opposite of what the data says, like literally the exact opposite. And it's so bizarre and shocking that I think people, they have to see this in order to understand, in order to believe it and to know how stupid some of their leaders are. This is a paper that was emailed, that was tweeted out by Eric Topol. Let me see if this tweet, if I included that here. So Eric Topol tweets this out, debunking the myth that vaccination promotes mutations, being fully vaccinated actually suppresses them. Oh dear. And then when you go and you actually open the paper.
So here it is, it was a preprint at the time. I don't know if it's published since, but when you look at the actual data in the paper, they're saying, okay, when you have more fully vaccinated, this is mutation frequency. And what is it that you see? Nice work there, dude. I'm putting it in right now.
Yeah, this is a bottleneck.
This is mutation frequency. It's not the same thing as mutation rate. Right.
Right, your rate hasn't necessarily changed. What you have is a bottleneck. And even here when they do, they use this statistic called Tajima's D.
And they have the UK and India where you had trials going on, you have them going below the threshold at which you would have like a variant breakout. I checked it already before I sent it that it had that finger in it. Don't worry, mosquito. Thank you very much. That was clutch. Oh, am I, I'm sorry. I thought I was muted. My bad. I'm trying to relate what Jonathan said to what I'm talking about. Could you show it? No, one of my viewers sent me one of the, one of the paper that I was just sending. So I put it in the chat and I wanted to thank him. My bad, I'm muted again. I want to see the mosquito finger chart. Can you please see that data?
I'm bringing it up on the. So one thing I want to throw out is that all of this is connected. And I'm not saying that it's not connected. It's that all of this is connected. Why? Because where are 80% of those mutations happening in the spike protein? In the six or eight inserts, the different people in. So the HIV homologous areas of the spike protein, the ones that which aren't natural are where the vast majority of these mutations are taking place. So once again, they knew. Yeah. They know what's driving these things and they're hiding. So it brings me to a very critical point, which is why I think it's critical, which is, as you said, we have enough data. We have enough articles and we have enough in theory to engage in the dialectic with them right now.
What I think is missing is the reproducible animal model of the adverse event envelope around these whatever. I'm trying to be selective in my language here, just a smidgen of chance that we step on YouTube. And I'm dismayed.
We had a discussion, Charles, just I can't remember if it was sort of pre the official start of this meeting. But again, we were talking about how Rainer Füllmich, etc. They've got they had six hundred thousand dollars floating around for what? Doing talks on Rumble. And I said that six hundred thousand dollars literally would fund everyone on this chat to do experiments. Right. You're not going to be on fantastic. You're going to be on postdoc salaries. But that's look, I spent my life on postdoc salaries. Getting science out. And you know what? My conscience is pretty clear in what I've done and clear enough that I'm confident enough to go into this next step where one of these steps that we're doing is to be encouraging the experiments be done again by people. You can. Yeah. You have to avoid people that are open to being leveraged through fear of losing funding or their their lab space being taken away. And and I'm I'm literally in a position to be able to do all these experiments right now, starting tomorrow. It's just having the the if I had six hundred thousand dollars to hand. Oh, my God. I'd have it. First of all, you'd all be on planes over here. That's that's that's a given. And we can spend three months in a lab all working and looking at what comes out of that data. And it's amazing that there isn't somebody with big like that. There's not like one billionaire who is eyes wide open as to what's going on. I have a friend who who's currently working with a couple of billionaires and we're talking about things and they are they're anti vaccination. You know, I'm not going to give any names here because you know, I'm sure that they don't talk out loud too much because of all the politics, right? But they are but you know, whatever for whatever reason, they came to the conclusion that that the vaccines were really bad news and and they even fly in and out of the country where they live in in a way that that doesn't you know, that they don't get checked or anything like that, right? But but it would be mandated to fly in there. You know, I think that the that the only reason that there isn't somebody who just, you know, throws out funding for the people who have done the most work is that the moment that they do they are the first the they're the first sort of I don't know opponent in the political war and even the people who are like there are a lot of people who are nominally on our side who seem to be interested in playing the partisan card playing the partisan board game. As opposed to the let's solve the whole problem. Well, yeah, I mean, like I believe that there that there are people that aren't talking to me as much right now like about the the D-dimer data for instance, simply because there is election strategy surrounding it. Wow. And and so and now you have you have two sides, you know, that soaks up so many people, right? So it's up so many people who aren't who wouldn't be interested in hearing the, you know, having the truth the full truth heard or funding it or something like that. And they have they have no idea how much damage they cause just by becoming a social group.
I'm literally wincing in pain at your words, Matt. That's so that's so incorrigible that you would you would strategize in such a fashion when there's you could open the door on the whatever on the I don't say left or right, but above you, you could open the door above you and lift yourself above all this and have the data and settle a whole bunch of maybe they don't want to settle it. Maybe maybe that's the... I've sort of wondered.
I've sort of wondered. You know, there is a there's an undercurrent of discussion of, you know, let's let's you know, when the next election get in and flip the script, you know, and I'm just like, wow, you know, you don't you don't see I mean, and anybody who might think that way, who might join such a team might themselves. I mean, you would need to vet that person down and knowing their thoughts, you know, because those are the people you could have three people completely sabotage that process, right?
I just, you know, the people I think and I'll tell you this about my statistics about my my viewers. I was you know, I was every few weeks. I get curious. I'm like, you know, who are the 22,000 people who are reading my sub stack? I mean, I knew when they were 800 I could see the names come in. I could even Google them and know, hey, this is a scientist. This is a doctor. This is, you know, I knew who they were. And I don't bother doing that now. But I looked at the, you know, we started doing YouTube stuff the other day. I could see the viewers. They're all like, you know, 40 to, you know, 40 up. There's almost nobody who's young. They are too, I think, financially levered or too or also simultaneously too brainwashed. They haven't had like a moment of challenge if they accepted, you know, the golden path. You know, they're working for big tech. They're working for, you know, who knows how many of them are working for defense contractors, but you know, lots of smart people to sort of sucked up into this pool of people who I mean, if those people decided to organize just a little bit, even if they did it, you know, if they did it anonymously, they could end it. They could end all of the pain and wherever it is that this is intended to go. Yes, but that's the same problem. This is this is why on several different shows and with several different people. What have I talked about? I said leadership. There's none. And that's the big problem with the sciences. But one of the reasons I have such respect for everyone here right now is because all of you were the ones who are going out and finding all of this stuff pretty much without getting paid for the most part and you all did it. You all sacrificed to do it. And there's so many people who have sacrificed nothing that could sacrifice plenty. And to me, that's one of the things that's most depressing at the same time. It's one of the reasons why we have like that's what keeps me motivated to keep going because somebody has to do it. And look what each of you has done. Has taken effort and has cost you things that it didn't have to cost you. But it cost you something because you had to do it alone. And I don't know. I know what the problem is and I know how to fix it. But I just need the evidence to fix the problem. We have that. We have that because we are because you're right. We're going to clear house. And once this is over, I think a lot of people do know that there is something like very large about this moment and what scares them is they don't know if the power is going to go out. They don't know if the supply lines are going to stop and they don't know what it means if that happens, right? And they've allowed themselves to have their life pulled far enough from the source of local production. You know, think about who all these, you know, 20 something year old, you know, the generation. Why tech people or something like that? How many of them know where the food comes from or the clothing comes from or this that or the other or what they would do if if the, you know, a switch flipped and suddenly the entire graph of economic exchange shifted. These are all people who were young. They didn't even they didn't necessarily even form strong roots in a community because they they were being raised from the beginning to go off to college to some impressive University where they would make an entirely new set of friends. So I and I've seen this, you know, having having left Wall Street to build schools, right? That's what I did. And and I could I could see this, you know, I could see the the parents during that process and the children having no idea what they were missing, you know, a lot of them would have very few friends or their friend group would be the exact people who are going to, you know, break up and and go to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, you know.
So again, you know, I've tried to in a number of discussions I've been having offline in the last few weeks because, you know, I've had a couple of people sort of step up and say, oh, here's a little bit of help. You can go and which I which I have done, right? So I've pulled the trigger on, you know, I tried to get the ideal primate study and hope that there would be enough interest in it. And oh, yeah, they'll they'll they'll let me do it. But it's two million dollars. Right? Well, OK, it's not at the ballpark of what it would normally cost you. But, you know, there was no there was no colleague or friend discount in a little bit, but not not that much. And again, most of most of that cost was just the automatic money that the Institute takes. Once you say that we're affiliated with whatever institute, I don't want to name names, but I'm in a situation where I can I can get monkeys if I want my my approach right now is because I don't have the institution around me is that I have to tread very carefully in this environment, which means I have to I want to do rodents. So this is actionable in in the current environment where I can get it. And, you know, this some of this work has been done. I don't know if you have that paper to hand that rodent paper. Yes, Joe. Which paper do you mean? So they did intramuscular and IV and you can see all the I can I can look for it. I know which one you mean. Yeah, please.
The problem is, is that they see the inflammation, but they're not looking deeper. And I think we can stop all this if we can say that there's a known amyloidogenic risk inherent in in these technologies, not just the virus, but the the interventions. Yes. Sorry, Johanna.
And just just as a side note, because I discussed with a veterinarian the risk that we are expecting with the vaccines in, I think, February 2021, and she sent me two links to animal models of for ADE. And she said it's very, very crucial to not do monkey studies for seeing ADE. Your focus is on triumph. I know, but maybe that's when you want to go at rodents. Maybe you'll have a look at these opportunities to have these studies because it's it's companies that offer ADE checking for for COVID basically. So I can give a link and I think it's it's very crucial to go there because we have had these animal testings past and like Professor Hockerts who worked at my alma mater and now left Germany because of his the attacks from the outside. He said he was in contact with someone from the island rings and they did vaccine animal trials, but all the ferrets died. And they didn't publish it. And that's against the rules when you do scientific studies and you come through the Ethic Committee, then you're committed to publish even if you're supposed to, but they have increased the control mechanisms, but you know Germany is not adhering to it, obviously.
And this I would just try and hammer home is that most drugs, in fact, any drug has what's called an LD 50 threshold determined for any drug, including all previous vaccines and all that. We don't have it. Nothing, nothing. And this is this is an astonishing state to find ourselves in. This is this is the direction in which we need to put resources in. I don't know if other people maybe maybe public messaging is is another, you know, important one to do. But again, I think this if you can we've got like say Charles says we've got this evidence body of evidence that has been meticulously set out. And then if you take that and then put it with this experimental data and you know, I can and if you scroll through this paper, is this the mouse one? Is this the mouse one?
No, that's a new one. That's one from the Laboratory Animal Society. It's a really good one because they've noticed this in a lot of different administration of substances where if you misadminister it you get these these general is that another paper to throw and I'm still looking for the other one, but this is a really good one that you might not have seen.
I haven't seen this one. Thank you for the link. The it's it's precisely this because we this and this is something that Matt talked about a lot, which is this idea of that there are constant unknowns and failures in the system and there's a presumption made by the other side that there's there's a hundred percent safe and effective delivery. Well, we know that that's not the case.
It's theoretically impossible for that to be the case. And so we have to we have to understand that and I would make the argument I don't I'm still undecided whether it's a combination of exposure to the technology plus pathogen. That might be the critical factor here and something to do with the timing of when that of when it converges on each other. It could be a binary weapon. Yeah. Yeah. And it's just it's just it's just if they get the timing, you know, they hit a sweet spot and you know right now you'd have to work very hard to convince me. They don't know when that sweet spot is.
And you know... Time in because we are running with that Omicron right now and the difference in Omicron to the Wuhan variant that we see. I think we are running into a situation like we have with Dengue and Dengue is a vascular disease as well. So what we were seeing and where I was like following up the pathology conference very very intense, you know, you all know that I'm working on figuring out bioweapons for a long while now. And yes, of course the hemorrhagic fevers are the germs that I'm of most concern and respiratory disease with that case fatality rate. Like it, you know, it's like it's not the worst thing that's out there and but hemorrhagic fevers like Ebola and Dengue and Dengue is in the first place respiratory disease. But only when you have the second contact with a slightly different surface and variant then you can have these severe courses and these severe courses are not like in the movies where you have this instant bleeding sign, but you can have blisters on your skins and or internal diseases like like all the clotting issues. That's a typical sign of vascular inflammation like like water and sand. That's a typical sign of a precondition for a severe ADE vascular reaction like in Dengue. ADE is different because it's not always vascular but COVID carries the receptor binding domain for ACE2 receptor and that one is endothelial. You know, we use it as medical doctors at blood as blood pressure lowering target. So it's in the endothelium and in the capillary where you have the highest resistance. So if they contract and you interfere with them medically then they relax and you lower the blood pressure pretty simple. But that's where your attack mode of the ACE2 binding receptor domain is. But also you have these other target tissues and from that you can kind of have a perspective on the whole issue not like Walter said but the problem with ADE is that you have these binding antibodies and not neutralizing on the receptor binding domain and the binding ones are usually against bigger germs like bacteria where they clot all these things together so that the macrophages can take these up. So it's not neutralizing as such but other immune cells are looking for these binding antibodies and taking them into themselves via the FC receptor antibody site to connect with. But if you have that with a virus and that's taking up into an immune cell recognizing the FC receptor from that antibody like this Y shape of the antibody. These are the flexible epitopes that are mutating and searching for surfaces and the one down here is for recognizing by immune cells and if you have invasion of these immune cells and they are attracting even more immune cells and they get infected it's like your police or your military gets infiltrated because all these immune cells will produce cytokines and virus and release cytokines and then trigger the attraction the cytokines are used for attracting other immune cells to get rid of the infection.
So you get like a vicious cycle in the immune breakdown and the spreading of the virus. So you have more virus and with the vaccine injuries you at least have the spikes and we have seen ruptured vessels in these vaccine deaths. We have seen ruptured aortic vessels, intraabdominal bleeding and thrombosis, you know the sinus venous thrombosis that we saw that's a typical sign for disseminated intravascular coagulation when you have a sinus thrombosis and a portal vein thrombosis at the same time that's a no go. I've worked in liver surgery and we had one in that two years one liver or two thrombosis of these livers.
Well here's another little just anecdote for say adverse events. It's not just adverse events. It's consequence of infection and I was just I was saying to Karma Doc in our community. I said in my experience clinical neuroscience experience I'd seen one spontaneous case of Bell's palsy and I just I said I asked what have you seen in the essentially the last year and she was like she said the same in 20 years. I'd seen one. She said in the last year three and the so I asked you know what and you know, it was split. I can't remember the exact ratio for but you know, it's it's a property of this virus. I again I'd consider Bell's palsy immunogenic type disorder response to say there's many many many triggers but these are these are events that these are disorders that they're quick to pile onto the virus itself, but this reluctance to look at the mirror image of it, especially when you've gone down this drastic approach of doing this gene transfection type technology again, it's unprecedented in what they're doing Charles is right in raising the point. Why are they still using the the exact copy of the that the Wuhan strain in in shots that coming out for the for this winter season again, all of this doesn't look good comes off as it's extinct. Mandates! We still have mandates. Actually, for me, we are still frontline cannon fodder for that biphasical biowarfare that I learned when I was 22 about the tactics, but it is it is basically the mandates for the primary cares and they have they have to show the third shot to up to the date of October right now.
That is the opposite. That's off label. It's off label. It wasn't in the Ethics Committee for the whole trials.
It's it's somehow in the US but not Ger… not in Europe. You can go to the NATO publications the NATO Seabourn publications and what they would say in there is that you never do anything with a hundred percent of your force at any time, doesn't matter if it's aspirin.
You don't put that medical kind of measuring and everybody at the same time because God forbid something bad happened.
It's like antithetical to strategic planning that you would universally vaccinate a population a military unit like any group with it.
It's it's literally in their publication. But that's not what NATO does except in this case you've done backwards and it's funny because I just pulled up Meryl Nass's thing. Sure last week, but it was a paper that she wrote about the bivalent vaccine like why and this is something I found interesting just a paragraph. The reason why the Omicron vaccines won't stimulate a good Omicron response is attributed by the NIAID VRC to antigenic priming also known as original antigenic sin.
This means that the immune system has been programmed by you guys now over respond over and over again to the first coronavirus infection even when encounters different coronavirus antigens later. I was saying that for them, but they said that's what this was doing and they're still doing the original Wuhan strain is extinct in the wild.
They are they still keep pushing the vaccines that have I mean supposedly the mRNA that encodes the original Wuhan strain spike and that is going to continue priming people for ADE in the future.
NIAID is telling us that directly themselves and they're still doing it.
And so again my in a bayesian analysis you cut the weighting that you're giving to malfeasance increases.
This is this is the problem. I find myself in if I'm if I'm going to stick to the rules of logical analysis inductive reasoning and it keeps tilting in that direction and it's the me personally. It's the last thing I want because in effect I feel essentially powerless because I'm I don't have a lab my lab in which I could run out those experiments. I want to I've got to scratch around to look to get ear bars for rodents. You know, I put that purchase order in today.
They're on the way. Stereotaxic frame is on the way. But why am I having to do this? Why isn't what why aren't the people who did this study that's on the other half of the screen continuing to do their work? How come they've shut up because if I found a response like that, well, I'd be exploring it even further. Where's the brain of that animal or the animals in here?
Where's that? Where's the where's the staining that's been done?
And again, you have to you have to ask yourself how well, you know, is it going to get on the archive printers? They do filter it. They do.
It's not just a free for all.
So again, you have to wonder how how strong and all pervasive this filtering is. And and the problem is we know that it's people like Kristian Andersen sitting there.
Anything SARS related will flow across his desk and the likes of not calling what I normally call her but Rasmussen and a whole host of other ne'er-do-wells that right now we know we don't have conflicts of interest that under any normal circumstances, I would have said would have finished a career.
That's that's not what we see.
So she has to go because he's just the he has the intelligence community behind him that can which has been merging with Silicon Valley for a decade or more.
Actually more longer than that.
Well, you could say Silicon Valley is the intelligence came from the... Yeah, and so and that's I mean, I like I know that people have different opinions on like what it is and what it what it could be and the truth of the matter is from it.
I like to think that the only real thing value that I can provide is that I've I am used to looking at things from a strategic like operational perspective, which isn't really something that scientists deal with in the same way.
And so well, you're charged with looking after and getting through intact and your unit intact right on the other side.
You've just got spergs. You've just got spergs that are just sitting there doing their lab time and trying to get publications if they want to say because it's not natural we know that but if they want this to be a vaccine and not not a vaccine then they need to start showing evidence of something every piece every piece says that they knew what they were doing when they left all the stuff in there and they're watching us die.
Feeding us more of the same. And censoring like I I don't I don't I can't look at it any other way as this is someone is doing this and even if it was China that like it was accidentally released or whatever whatever happened that virus Fauci saw the virus and by January 13 team knew what it was.
And he didn't tell anybody that the FCS was in the there. He kept the FCS in the vaccine and now they're still doing it two and a half years later.
So that's a crime against humanity because he knows what it's doing because his own VRC his own scientists discovered all the research or we're working with China or Germany all these places.
They know exactly what the dangerous implications are and the best case scenario is that this is an experiment, but I don't even think that's possible. I really don't and it terrifies me because I would I'm like you I don't want this to be I don't want this to be intentional.
I really don't but I need to start seeing evidence of something.
Well, let's let's do some practice something practical please Nick. What people can do instead of just swallow our black pills investigations this was for this was for Matthew as far as data, but it marked the turning for those of you that I've spoken with most of you.
I think Spartacus we haven't met but my my area specialty as far as research and the voice that I bring to this conversation is about a parallel event that occurred in the hepatitis B era meaning the you know multi decade fight against Hep B the use of chimpanzees closely in health and science and then the intersection of a lot of zoonotic primate pathogens that now continue to affect public health and out of that it appears that one of the branches took a left turn and came to the close attention of defense and intelligence agencies who were very interested in slow pathogen in slow pathogens in the lentivirus family among others things that could be surreptitiously administered to either aerosolized or a number of different vectors and then slowly kill or incapacitate a population or a target individual an interesting piece of this from the 60s to about the 90s would be to look at the pattern of South American presidents and deaths and their specific pathologies and the cancers that they died in you'll see some interesting correlations there and this leads to a fountainhead of events in the 70s that I believe was the introduction of HIV a deliberate bioweapon into the population what we're looking at now speaking of black pills is really something that I wanted to share with Matthew. I know he had to drop but this was about a turning point where they stopped communicating about their losses to follow up. This is about a 1975 cohort of gay men in New York City who volunteered for Heptavax B and at the conclusion of the surveillance window two years later. So by 77 50% of the cohort didn't pick up their phone or didn't have a phone anymore. They were gone. They couldn't be located and this would to me show the intent long slow intent of an HIV sort of pre launch. This was followed by the national campaign that went from 78 to 81 and in most of the world's consciousness AIDS began in 1981 because of an article published in the MMWR but in actuality men were dying in New York since 75 and then really spiked in 78 79 after three doses of Heptavax B.
So Kevin coming back to your question and everybody thank you very much for I know you guys are probably at the end of your arc. You've been on for a while here, but in in what you're discussing I'm watching your psychological and emotional reactions.
I'm watching are you in the strategic mindset or in the tactical and operational mindset and are you slipping in the mud there if you are in the tactical space and arguing or you know debating the benefits and the deficits of a primate model versus a mouse model versus, you know cells and immortalized cell line and administering the vaccine to a human cell line to see hopefully direct cellular relationship the best possible reactions, which I know isn't a full system, but these these choices and these arguments that you're making seem in the tactical space and I would encourage you as far as taking care of the arc of your lives keeping things as stable as they can be. I know some of you have experienced a lot more setback in that space than others, but that you would you know, unfortunately open your mind and your heart to the fact like Johanna has mentioned that there there are unfortunate very dark themes afoot and there's no way that they could have activated them. There's no other way they could have called them into action without the horrific reality of what we're seeing here and it's manifesting in emergency rooms and in practices and and now we're having the sociologic and psychological operation of a war between people who do and don't have an open mind to this and most of us are standing out at the mouth of the cave rubbing our eyes trying to adjust to the sunlight and figure out how in the world are we going to get that light to those people inside the cave. So I think I would encourage you to continue to talk to people who communicate and who educate so keeping a close, you know, tie to Jonathan's work and to other academics and it doesn't mean you know that an academic is the qualification for a good a good communicator, good storyteller. You can look to any any space. But I think that's been proven in most cases to be detrimental Nick. That's why that's the take home message for the last couple of years.
Yeah, last week I had a conversation with a long term AIDS researcher and she went right back to Peter Duesberg arguments and toxic a lifestyle arguments and you know, and then excused herself from the conversation when none of those things stood up. So there's yeah, there's we talked about the psychological barriers, but I again would say keep keep your eye trained on your day to day your quality of your loved ones, your relationships, your job, whatever it is your station and continue to shovel bits of this forward and keep in contact and learn how to repackage the story simpler and cleaner think about, you know, literally like a TED talk of condensing all of the moral and ethical and historical let alone scientific detail down to something that can be consumed by the people that don't have the benefit of where we've all gone academically. They just they're not going to go there. They're not going to read the papers. They're not going to get deep into the details where you say look, here's the DNA of my argument. Here's where I can argue at a molecular level about how this came from this. Here's the patent from 2005, etc. Whatever, whatever your your approach it has to you have to keep learning how to retell the story. Make sure you've got it right and the simpler the better.
I think this that's named more Nick, Charles, Jonathan and Johanna. I can't do anything here. That's that's what I've learned. Okay. I might be able to get some lab data but speaking to people and what have you. Matt, there's no interest here.
Very little. Rimo, I guess. And that's about it. And you know what? We've lucked out in having someone who's got clinical space that we can use.
Right. So without the overheads that we're going to be charged. Should I want to do my dream primate study? But the the real the real crux of this, I think is it's the battleground is in America, maybe Europe somewhat. And I don't know if you guys got to start working on your TED Talks. That's that's what I think. That's a good way of putting it, Nick. TED Talks. Well, I will have a lecture. I will have a lecture soon with physicians and primary care people here and they are questioning the lab origin and all that. So we are coming there bit by bit despite the information warfare. And I wanted to mention now you see that hepatitis, hepatitis B and lentiviral connection. But I mentioned Judy Mikovits story and you know, I see strange respiratory diseases that are prolonged since about three years earlier than the whole COVID stuff. In 2017, they are strange and not not really typical.
Cue ethical skeptic to step in here. And when you look at it, yeah, you can only look at the EuroMOMO. When you have the 2017 flu data, we had a huge excess mortality in 2017 and it was all over Europe. And that was what Judy Mikovits mentioned. And we have introduced into Europe's market the egg free flu vaccines, which are from Madin-Darby kidney cells. These Madin -Darby little doggies with the sand flies eating up their ears that Fauci funded that you remember that. Yeah, right. These canine kidneys are used to produce cell cultures for our flu vaccines nowadays. It's not always eggs. And these are contaminated with gamma retroviruses. This is known and published by NIAID. So think about it. When did all the excess mortality start? Just shortly before the vaccination. And when do we start with the vaccination against flu? Around October. So that's the cofactor that we all met could probably factor in. When did the flu vaccine season start? Because there's a publication by the military, 2017, 18 something, that you have a higher risk for coronavirus overall human coronavirus infection when getting flu shots. 36% higher risk. That's not a small number. You're not talking three or four percent here. And then you raise the risk for coronaviruses and to the question of Jonathan with the flu that went away.
I was like involved back then in testing and all that. And I know that my lab didn't have the option anymore to test for flu. And some people who were negative for COVID didn't get tested for flu. Which were meeting these inclusion criteria. So the whole waves and all that. There's a huge selection bias in there. So I've heard this from Europe, from someone who I trust implicitly, working with European wide data that multiplex testing was ongoing during the emergence of SARS and they were just getting less hits. The multiplex tests were being done.
It was done until April because they wanted to ramp up the capabilities and until April I could get the normal multiplexes. And I was in contact with someone from a major hospital and we had dropped to zero in the flu from April on. Which means they haven't tested anyone on it because that was my communication and on the other hand we have ramped up the whole capacities for PCR, COVID PCR in that time. So it was only logical and we were running out of materials.
There's another issue here that needs bringing up which is the ultra medicalization of everything. And this, you know, it's a revenue source and this has to be kept in mind and I can't remember, I think it was Jonathan actually again, that, you know, they've got these big industrial PCR testing machines now that are going to have been rolled out over the last 12 months.
For positive rates because they are automated. The other ones were sequential PCRs with different primers and these are like next generation whole genome sequencing multiplex designs with different primers. So we have all the time we have different inclusion criteria and in the first place we have just taken the samples from nearly pneumonia cases who had travel history and all the other ones who came from the Alps had to go through their COVID until we opened up the, you know, and then there was this time in October where everyone got tested like just when you had a traveling, travel history and came back. So then you raise the false positives anyways when you have asymptomatic tested without any history of contact and they changed the protocols for the PCR at that time. So I absolutely agree that with Jonathan on this that there is a way you can see how they exaggerated these waves and it was predictable and every time they changed the inclusion criteria, I thought well you can't describe it as a wave because you don't have all the time the same inclusion criteria. You're manipulating your data sets all the time. Yeah, it's a huge problem in clinical neurosciences again because you have these overlapping symptoms all the time and it really, you know, a lot depends on the care that the person, so this plays into the idea of prion like disorders and, you know, why we've tried to find unifying vernacular, I guess. Hang on, let me just let Charles back in.
And so the population epidemiology is only ever a blurry snapshot of inclusion criteria that depended on the last big meeting where they all sat around deciding what constitutes what. Yeah, that's where we are with the market and the whole origins because the inclusion criteria by the Chinese were only people from the market. That's your sample you get. I don't know if Jonathan wants to chime in there. No, I think the false positive thing was, I think the false positive thing was the absolute pinnacle of the debunk the funk episode because he spent like 15 minutes talking with Matt where it was extremely clear that he didn't understand that false positives were a reality and let me steal man his position a little bit. Let's see if you can get some because I what was the example he was using Australia, right? Australia. Yeah. Yeah. So what he was his his position would be well, where where are all the false positives leading up to the first wave where they were doing testing and they locked down because if the if the false positives were an issue you would still you would see a constant rate in the reported test data that he argues isn't there and in in effect. Yeah, I can I can see where he's coming from and say I guess the point he would be making is that the false positives in that instance were minimal.
I think the false positives were identified by just making the the the cycle threshold a different cycle threshold and they just we don't know so easy.
I mean, I think in the early part of the pandemic at least in North America, it would be right. It would be very common to have a test run out to 42 or 45 cycles and if they were just not doing that and and being honest about cutting it off at 24 or 28 where there's still cultureable virus and they probably didn't have very many false positives or add the Chinese criteria for COVID which is clinical and needs to show it's a clinical diagnosis COVID is not a positive PCR but but debunk was I was arguing that they were running tests on people without without symptoms. So I don't know how true that is. But anyway, didn't they lower the cycle threshold on PCR tests pretty much immediately after the vaccination campaign started? Yeah, of course they did. Yeah.
Yeah, but that's shocking.
Yeah, but there's in the first time I worked in the in the triage of PCR testing and we only tested nearly pneumonia positive travel and history to risk categories and we only had like 8% test positivity meaning 92% were not COVID positive with that criteria.
So when we opened up and had Iran and some other places in there and and the moment we opened up to some degree to our local population and you realize it's not carried in we have it endemic already we had 10% about 10% test positivity for that inclusion criteria.
It went down around April May to like the last slope of the winter wave of flu like diseases so that we had test positivity of about 2% in about May June and they were really late with showing us these data sets where we could relate how many positives we had in the overall population population but it went down and it stayed down until the flu vaccination and then the winter wave and then the next vaccinations.
Johanna, I studied a little bit of data on respiratory syncytial virus, which was originally called chimpanzee Coriza agent until they rebranded it and saw a similar bell curve on a long term 10 year study done across major metropolitan areas in the US from about 1961 to 71 and there was we'll say a strong and probably predictable correlation of influenza vaccine season followed by a wave of pneumonia mortalities now became commonly known as pneumonia pneumonia can be caused by many things but it's that's an interesting space. I'm wondering about RSV these these new RSV that this craze of let's vaccinate against RSV. It's like well RSV was introduced by contaminated substrate, you know by using primate substrate. That's how we got it to begin with. So this is you know, very strange.
It's profitable, I'm sure. But I wonder if we get an RSV vaccine as part of the schedule if we'll then begin to see a big spike in a plateau of ongoing pneumonia deaths. If it's if it's doing the ADE if it's if it's priming just like this Dengvax the multivalent Dengvax campaigns and now we're seeing large spikes in Dengue isn't that historic that the RSV vaccine has caused ADE and was pulled? Absolutely.
Oh, it's already it's the story is already come and gone. Okay, it's been I think in the 70s that they had a big big RSV vaccination campaign and then had ADE. Today I'm seeing evidence today and discussions about, you know, new excitement about RSV vaccination. So because it was in the 70s and they already forgotten what happened then. Obviously. They're, they're encouraging pregnant women to get it to prevent the RSV in their newborn children. I shit you not. Yes, they are. Yep, it's like the most bizarre thing I've ever heard that you could possibly vaccinate against something that your kid would get right after birth, but they are doing that right now.
That's correct.
Yeah, they do it as well. It's totally against every good clinical practice that we practice before COVID totally against human you go into embryo talks and you're even looking at the slightest nutrition issue for the pregnant women and now you're injecting experimentally no possible ADE inject worse than that. You I know because you're sending in something that we know crosses the blood brain barrier. There's a well, I'll start ranting at the camera. I don't want to try and keep this a stabilizers profusion spikes.
So if I want sort of practical measures to sort of come out of this and I am in my view, I know what I need to do with respect to experimentation. Johanna, Charles, what's on your to do list for the next weeks to months?
You're a tip of the spear bro. You're you're the one in in DC.
Yeah. Well, to me that it seems pretty clear we have the election in six weeks. We hope the bottom line is is that I think all of us need to start raising awareness about just a simple fact that we found Fauci knew it was transmissible before China said it was transmissible highly transmissible and he didn't just wait till after they they announced it.
They waited in another two months.
While they those same the leading scientists from four countries published 33 papers in those two months and they called him to close the borders and mentioned the FCS zero times even though they knew it was there.
They mentioned it zero times in a genomic analysis like in anything. It's sick.
And what that means is the West allowed this to spread, well China allowed it to spread, the West let it spread and Johanna is right.
What was the one thing that Fauci was fighting with Peter Navarro and other members of the Trump administration for whether or not they were going to shut down travel between China which Fauci three weeks before that he already knew that he should have shut down the border. But it's it's a case of if they shut down the borders and it still emerged then in it would have lent weight to the idea that it was already circulating in the US and they probably they were probably trying to obfuscate all that.
Or you would ask Ian Lipkin who was involved in the assassination of Judy Mikovits because in the Fauci mails you can find that he asked to import SARS to New York mid February and we know from the Semmelweis University that SARS is more stable than any other coronavirus probably surviving autoclave at 60 degrees and you know the Mailman school is up Broadway very close to Queens and the Elmhurst is not far away.
You know and six week later.
So maybe if you want to FOIA someone you could FOIA the Lipkin mails and see what he discussed with his former protégé Shi Zhengli right? there are pictures of them, right? He's in Edinburgh though, right?
Not well.
Yeah, W. Ian Lipkin is in Mailman in New York. Who's the one that was in Edinburgh?
This one that was where?
Oh, Andrew Rambaut University.
Andrew Rambaut.
Oh, that's right. That's right.
Yeah, I was going to say no chance getting emails out of there. I can assure you so well, basically I think that this point is about as basic as you can make any argument regarding the science of SARS CoV 2 and them being culpable and it's literally in writing. So first of all, the fact that they didn't talk about the FCS second of all the fact that they chose to retain it.
They've never provided a good I mean, I know they have justifications but they also have previous research stretching back a decade showing that they knew that they just did they knew they've always known this.
So to me, I think that forcing people need to understand Fauci hid crap.
Fauci censorship equals pandemic spread and now two half years later long Covid the legacy of Anthony Fauci's long Covid whatever long Covid it is.
It's his legacy.
And if the world understands that then the suppression of the of the early therapy the medicine which is involved in there all of this all of this.
So what's what's the next step then? I mean, I know you I'm trying to get a congressman or senator to ask that in writing preferably on video but it needs to get into the public discussion because the truth is have they have they not done that with Rand Paul already is right but not not but that's the thing that Rand Paul has the topics that he's been focused on are I mean, they're not necessarily going to move the needle that much but this moves the needle because this means that Anthony Fauci directly played a role in how bad the pandemic got and what we're dealing with now.
So that's not everybody's been focused on the origin and the origin obviously will tell the full story but at the same time.
He's guilty of crimes against humanity.
No matter who made the virus.
Yeah, I believe that I believe I had the proof of that and I believe that's what we need to be because once we just get him into court like Dr. Fleming has been trying to do once we start getting documents and stuff. It'll all come out. I mean, how close are we to that? I mean, I know we've all signed off on it and I'd like Jay to meet Richard and just, you know, more more public speaking and look if I could go onto Joe Rogan tomorrow, spend three hours and we could accomplish what we need to do. The problem is we don't know Joe Rogan and there's so we know people that do we know people that do and you know, I think there's a little I think there's a little gaping at at Joe Rogan. I mean one of the people that I'm I'm pretty sure there's a little gatekeeping happening at happening at Joe Rogan, but I would love to see a photograph of you next to his stuffed werewolf. That would be sweet.
I mean, but the truth is is that if we went and just laid out some basics, all of you that are in the US should be there in my mind, right? You're right.
They can't because the problem is and Chris Martinson had a very good example of he is the Emperor has no clothes.
But what his point was you have to get enough of the critical mass of people to know something to the point where it can't be denied and that in critical mass is what we're trying is what we have to get out there because we don't have that with any of these things yet people just don't 90% of people don't know anything about lab leak or anything about the virus and but they do know people who've died from the vaccine. They do know people who have long coded they do know people who died from code itself that they they want justice.
I mean if they if they knew if they knew to ask the question of Anthony Fauci, did you make this worse?
Did you did you hide information that could have helped us stop earlier?
Or my my son is long COVID and he's 27.
He'll never work again and you hid that from people because you wanted to protect your legacy. Well, I think that would get enough people pissed off.
But the problem is we have to get there think think about how much they botched the early response to the virus.
They the WHO push this notion of SARS CoV 2 being droplet born rather than being airborne even even though we had studies from including that one from like from a transit bus in Wuhan that showed that it was being transmitted at least 15 feet the whole six foot guideline that they came up with was they just made that up.
There was no so they admit to that Berks admits to that right? It was it was three feet in 2017 in the federal pandemic influenza response planning guide.
It was three feet. And the thing about it is that Prestige Ameritech offered to manufacture millions of N95 masks early on and then they turn them down and they allowed the the virus to establish a foothold.
It's seemingly like almost intentionally. I mean I knew so early on they had they published this guidance that like for surface disinfection that that did absolutely nothing because the primary route of transmission is airborne. It's from person to person and I knew people the co workers of mine who are made to load up these garden sprayers full of the didycil dimethylammonium chloride disinfectant and go around spraying down surfaces to decontaminate them. It did nothing. It was like it was literally we're talking millions or potentially even billions of dollars of wasted labor here across the nation for surface disinfection that accomplished absolutely nothing.
That's that's one example.
Another example of how they completely botched the response was how they totally failed at contact tracing just complete absolute failure at it.
I mean if it was airborne, I mean, you know, there was very little they could have done to begin with but they I think in those early crucial stages, they could have done a much better job of preventing it from establishing, you know, endemic spread in the US.
Yeah, I think this at the beginning that they admit to lying about masks and you know, they might have been able to slow it down close borders masks washing.
I don't have a problem with sensible precautions like that. It's it's this well that the charade that goes on right now and another thing.
Another thing that I had a problem with is the whole the blank slate ism of SARS CoV 2.
They didn't go back to old SARS papers for guidance.
That was one of the first things that I did in my research and back in it. I believe this was in February and March of 2020. One of the first things I did was go over all the old SARS papers and I took note of SARS sequelæ how people suffered from ME/CFS after SARS how they suffered from pulmonary fibrosis things that are now attributed to long COVID or or PASC post acute sequelae of COVID 19.
These these were already known about they were the media were acting like oh, this is something that's entirely novel. We've never seen anything like this before.
No, that's incorrect. People had chronic fatigue from SARS from the first SARS outbreak survivors continue to have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome several years later after they'd recovered from SARS. So they already didn't even have HIV.
Yeah, exactly. That didn't even have HIV inserts or furin cleavage site. So but people are amyloidogenic of proteins.
Again, there's a hydroxychloroquine. I mean that they already knew they already know the good thing about the the Bill Gallagher 80 page thing that he made was that he literally listed everything that you were supposed to do based upon what had happened with SARS in 2003.
And Anthony Fauci literally did everything the opposite in in March of 2020.
I saw a SARS paper that indicated that the SARS sufferer had this I believe this is back in 2003 2004.
They had vertebral arterial vasculitis because of SARS and the moment I saw that I was like, okay, wait a minute.
Is this causing pneumonia or is this causing vasculitis of the lungs and then a month later at University Hospital Zurich, they came out with a paper that stated unequivocally that SARS CoV 2 was causing a vascular endotheliitis.
It was it was attacking endothelial cells through their ACE 2 receptors and for months afterward the media continued to push this notion of COVID 19 being a pneumonia rather than being a vascular endotheliitis. Yeah, a novel a novel pneumonia. Exactly, even though they knew all along pretty much from the beginning from the outset that it was a vascular disease that it was then that it was causing essentially neutrophilia and viral sepsis and endothelial damage by via lipid peroxidation and the thing about this is that I mean you can you can plainly see it through the through the biomarkers and the labs on these people they have you know, they have low endothelial nitric oxide bioavailability.
They have elevated nitrotirozine. That's a biomarker of oxidative stress.
I started digging into into Martin Pall's work on something that he called NO/ONOO disease, which is a biological feedback loop where superoxide forms peroxynitrite when it reacts with nitric oxide and then this peroxynitrite actually reacts with the tetrahydrobiopterin cofactor and nitric oxide synthase and what this what this does is this uncouples nitric oxide synthase when nitric oxide synthase is uncoupled it no longer synthesizes nitric oxide. It synthesizes superoxide instead it produces more radicals.
This is a feedback loop. It just goes in a circle until all the nitric oxide is gone and you're left with nothing but peroxynitrite and superoxide and then anything that that stimulates nitric oxide synthase activity now produces more superoxide as well.
So if there's a bradykinin storm going on if there is and bradykinin actually increases nitric oxide synthase activity as well inducible nitric oxide synthase so and all those are uncoupled now. They're pumping out more superoxide. So the thing is that you started going over all these papers about how people have COVID 19 have neutrophil extracellular traps forming in their in their blood vessels and in the in the microvasculature of their lungs those neutrophil extracellular traps contain destructive oxidative enzymes extracellular superoxide this mutase myeloperoxidase and so on.
So what happens here is you're having this like kindling radical effect is what they call it where you start off with superoxide and then superoxide is then converted by superoxide is mutase into hydrogen peroxide and then hydrogen peroxide and chloride ions in myeloperoxidase produce hypochlorous acid.
This is actually a fairly normal process for neutrophils. I mean, that's how they fight bacteria is how they fight infections is by trying to engulf bacteria and use essentially peroxide and bleach to break down their membranes.
Sparks I don't mean to interrupt but this just came up in the chat because relating just to the early treatments and hydroxychloroquine etc.
And that's it's known now that a whole bunch of congressmen and politicians in the US did get access to those treatments.
Yes, it's and they were lying to people. Yeah, just was bald face lies in front of the media and everything, you know saying that it's snake oil and it doesn't work and just just get your vaccine and so on while they were having ivermectin hydroxychloroquine and various other therapeutics.
Let me ask this question then based off what you're saying. If if stars curve 2 is causing if its biggest factor is not ours, but is you know in the field your damage then isn't that automatically going to be exacerbated as soon as you inject?
I would say so it's going to be exacerbated by ventilators. I'll tell you how myeloperoxidase produces hyperchlorous acid hyperchlorous acid strips iron out of out of heme and you end up with free iron and and then the Fenton reaction.
So the Fenton reaction is this reaction where iron and hydrogen peroxide react to form something called a hydroxyl radical hydroxyl radicals are some of the most potent radicals known to man. They are they there is no enzyme that detoxifies them.
They instantly oxidize lipids.
If you look at it, it's at being Bing Liu that one scientist in Pittsburgh who was working on on COVID 19 and then mysteriously died in a murder suicide looking at his his background.
The guy was an expert in in ferroptosis in lipid lipid peroxidation and and the thing about this is what we're looking at here is really really severe lipid peroxidation to the point where you have these lipid hydro peroxides just building up continuously in the microvasculature causing damage to endothelial cells and this is this is a lot like lupus. This is a lot like how you get autoantibodies and lupus from and it's from the oxidative modification of fats.
It's be you have anti phospholipid antibodies anti cardiolipid antibodies and so on and it's it's what's called oxidation specific epitopes or OSEs.
So it's cause this is an almost I mean COVID 19 is undoubtedly trigger. I mean in the really severe cases is undoubtedly triggering ferroptosis and parthenatose in the vasculature and that's how you're getting this endothelial sloughing exposure of the basic membrane release of Von Wilbrand factor for oxidative phosphorylation that triggers of nuclear factor kappa B release of inflammatory cytokines and so on and so forth and this is essentially extreme oxidative injury to the vasculature when you you put someone on a ventilator what that does is that that pours more O2 on top of a severe Ross storm someone who has transient ischemia in their lungs.
And it's someone who has a ventilation profusion mismatch in their life in the the microvasculature in their lungs and the alveoli when you introduce oxygen it mimics the physiology of ischemia reperfusion injury those those cells that are have are now in an anaerobic kind of metabolism and they get they revert back to be having aerobic metabolism when that happens.
Hi put a built up hypoxanthine is broken down by xanthine oxidase and produces superoxide now it's producing even more radicals causing even more radical damage the tissues you're pumping oxygen into a free radical storm and causing even and basically making people's lungs melt and they give people corticosteroids to treat this but to treat the inflammation right but it doesn't matter because reactive oxygen species actually react with glucocorticoid receptors directly and inhibit them.
So now you have steroid rebound.
So this whole protocol of ventilator and steroids.
I mean it doesn't work for this.
I mean to be fair. I would posit that we've moved away from the mass venting that we saw at the beginning.
Right. I think some some lessons were learned.
I guess you can only murder so many people with candlesticks in the library so many times.
A good friend of mine died in one of those ventilators. It's exactly like Spartacus said this this this free radicals is the big problem and we had that discussed in April or something of 2020.
So after that there was this phase where NAC which is buffering these free radicals was taken out of the stores and yeah, yeah, our clinical don't even mention it. I'm giving IV if I have someone who got COVID and has high D-dimers like show signs of like vascular injury. I'm giving NAC intravenous and that's what what intensive care physicians did in the first place to get the storm down. It's not part of the protocols.
They are starting with Paxlovid and IL-6 inhibitors with with which they are focusing on on since they have these CAR T cells treatments these crystal technologies is the next thing that's going to come and they are they are publishing. You know, I know that because they are publishing that like one or two years prior to the trend in our literature to prep us for it and to say it's totally normal that you have that end of last end stage tumor therapy and have a risk of 100% that your patient is ICU afterwards because you have to give that IL-6 blocker except it will the one go into cytokine storm. It's it's it's unthinkable and the reasoning is always the same we can do that with tumors because it's end of stage things and reasons right to to choose at your end stage.
But what have they done? I just had a book where they promoted the biotech mRNA as tumor therapy and it was 2018 two years before it was introduced and then licensed as a immunotherapy for immunization. That's a total different approach. So how I still can't get how we changed the whole standards, but it implies that there was a degree of centralized planning to this and that's we we have to look for all the trouble they've caused by some of those conspiracy cranks.
You know, they were on the money with some stuff. We will cede that ground to them.
But now but now we have to turn it into something concrete and you know, we have to arm someone like Charles, Jonathan, Spartacus, Nick to be able to petition their government or government right now and the institutes that represent them because I think there's nothing we can do about China.
Is there go to war? I don't think it's not going to solve a whole bunch and I think probably make things worse.
But if you actually I just got a book translated from Chinese.
Oh, yes. Yes.
This is important point. So on the emergence of SARS 1 and I had since back then the suspicion that it was kind of tweak with because like like Jonathan I discussed it was so easily like it was so fast culturable envy really six cells and no Corona virus prior was capable of doing that of being cultured and there are actually publications that SARS 1 has homology to GP 41 which in combination with GP 120 gives the GP 160 the glycoprotein 160 the two subunits and has a furin cleavage site inside of it. It's like HIV is like the same function in the subunits and only the receptor binding domain is specifically for a to the rebuttal to that always is the evolution would just converge on a useful mechanism. And so SARS and HIV have just found similar similar tricks and personally I find that a hard one to rebut against, you know, I guess there's the you just say it's too close and the well in source of two there.
It's easy to easier to but because like the fact that there's different clades of HIV which by the way multi clade is a type of construction that they're now using in HIV vaccines and specifically like the ratio is even the same of how many elements from envelope protein or gag or pole or whatever.
So that was the main was one of the two main arguments against the Indian preprint was that these were these were geographically disparate clade pieces. They could have only come from nature, which is absolutely false. They it's exactly what you would do if you were trying if you had familiarity with the HIV vaccine work.
Now the other side of it being that on top of that if you were making a vaccine you would take out a whole bunch of stuff all of which they left in so it's but and stuff that's easier. It's the stuff that's added to me. That's the real I get the argument that you could say, oh, you know, they're still tweaking it.
Hey, you don't have the coof. Do you do?
Stay strong goldfish, you know, you want to hear something messed up. I bought 10 goldfish yesterday and all dead this morning. It wasn't expensive. They found 40 yen of fish. But it's a there's still 799 here. So, okay, it's still pretty good. Anyway, the point is is it it's not that there's one or two or three things that are suspicious.
It's that the entire spike protein, especially the first half looks like an amalgamation of all the best ideas of what you would not want to do from 30 years of research from several different viruses and put all into the same virus.
Look, I don't have a problem with this. The problem is the people like that very vocal censorious group across Twitter and social media that like Wilson is a prime example who will just believe well, it's from nature then that they'll believe it's from nature because it's a convergent mechanism. That's geographically distant and it's pretty convergent for the exact tiny inserts to be in the exact part of the loop most exposed.
Like that's pretty impressive.
These viruses are smarter. I'm sorry, I don't know. Maybe it's just me. But the fact that they literally wrote that they were going to do this and here's a virus that literally has all this. Yeah, I mean, that's that's the best comeback we have, which is that look well, actually the Doglish and Sorensen paper is a really good one because they count up the charge. They look at several different things to say. This is insane. This is exactly what you do if you were doing this, but you would never like this does not exist in nature and they break it down with hydrophobicity and with charge and some other stuff and I think that's the best argument personally, which is probably why it's been suppressed. Yeah, yeah.
Again, I just want to have concrete stuff. Jonathan, what's your immediate week to months? If you if you don't have to tell us everything, of course, some stuff for the public. I'm still at this stage where I'm trying to catch up with, you know, my old schtick, which is just trying to make sure I understand the immunology and I'm not overextending and I feel at this stage there's we have to consider the possibility that where my imagination is gone is that it might be easier to think about this as a protein released into a into a ecosystem genetic swarm, whatever you want to call it rather than a virus and so the the symptomology tracked with the spike protein and so much of what I think the illusion is that they have specific that they have specific PCR primers that can detect the different RNA dependent RNA polymerases are the different end proteins of either these variants or between these homologous proteins and other related coronaviruses. And so I think that's a huge illusion.
I think the thing with the with the with the hospitals and the changing of protocols is also a huge part of this.
And so I'm trying now to it brings into focus in my mind even more why the evidence that that Charles has amassed becomes even more suspicious because it really even even more points to this as you guys have said this coordinated deliberate creation of confusion and and whether or not there was a dangerous pathogen that was capable of a pandemic. They were they made it one.
They did it as as they did everything that they could to make sure that you would believe it was happening.
They made sure that it if it could happen it would happen.
So you could maybe we could maybe find out 10 years from now that they were disappointed in how far it went but it didn't matter because Facebook helped him make up for it.
And on the other hand we could find out that it went much farther and the way that it went is still hidden to us. And so all of these things are possible because of the way that they disingenuously orchestrated the first year and a half or two years.
That's where I think we are.
What do you think the possibility that that a lot of what we're seeing in Ukraine right now is linked to these groups involved in this planning that maybe maybe it did spin out of control and they didn't they didn't get the pathway that they've wanted everyone's turned around and look started looking at all these groups and and now we find now we find ourselves looking at a massive escalation in Europe again and with I try really hard to not to not speculate about this stuff because I have to make a fool but what I what I have was working really well for me lately is assuming whatever they tell us on TV is not it. And so my guess is is that behind Metabiota and all this other I guess I have what Charles has behind Metabiota and all this other stuff is a much larger fish line.
Yeah, I will those those those EU funds and American funds that have been laundered through Ukraine are the real story and maybe Metabiota with something also, but I bet you there's a lot worse stories in that closet and then you know about right now and so I've been trying to Hunter Biden Hunter Biden laundered seven billion dollars to two oligarchs in Russia or all of us to fight the Russians seven billion dollars, which is why he was serving as a middleman and Glenn Beck actually is the one his reporting on that has been excellent because it's absolutely true that they one of the things they're trying to do was was cover up the fact that Obama was fighting a proxy war against Russia in 2014. So now we find ourselves on what that has to do with the pandemic… I don't know. Hello, sweetie! rain is like… come here nugget.
Yeah, look at these people.
Oh, you know what? You know what my daughter asked me she said please on your stream. Can you show the pictures that she drew as she was trying to stay away from bed? So there you go, sweetheart. There I did it for you. Daddy showed you your cat pictures. So I like it.
Well, I mean, that's this is why we fight.
Yeah, but the fact that I mean, that's why I'm doing it is because I can't I can't look at myself in the mirror and say, you know what?
I don't know what happened here. And I'm just going to say fuck it.
When I have my kids are going to have to grow up in whatever world this is and and what we currently have is not the world that I wanted to grow up in.
It's not what we were given. It's a nightmare. It's not what we were given and to just roll over right now is well, I don't think my parents my father wouldn't have done.
Like I said, I think Jonathan's probably right about there's a whole bunch more around that region and the programs and money.
I asked Mark to jump in, but have you guys seen my see my graph?
Yes, I had it. I had it up.
I went ahead and put in the link there in the chat.
That's why the reason why I'm hello.
Yeah, I can hear you.
Okay, the reason why I'm doing what I'm doing and why I think this is the best path is because they're they're using the science. They're using public health as their as their Avenue to do all these other things. So the first thing we need to do is we need to break down this illusion and if and that's why I think the evidence that we were finding is so powerful because we don't have to have all the answers to break the illusion. We just need to show that the matrix exists and in like give them the red pill and people will figure it out and that's the problem is that nobody knows any of this and the only way we're going to break through the censorship is to do it on a big enough scale that that it can reach people. I mean, that's I want to introduce these things. So that way all of us can like have in our mind as we're going through. Okay, because hopefully this will help us moving forward concretize. So maybe maybe part of the strategic planning here. This is something I was discussing with you. I know earlier sort of maybe more focus on media trying to get more this discussion boiled down and then start going and doing the bigger YouTube circuits, etc. And stop these people from speculating and say look we have the evidence. This is it. Now comes the need for action and you know, we can say that we've done a lot of the work the indictments in the we just need to raise awareness that they that they gain a critical mass and you know, again, this is the group of people to this is the group of people that is done a lot of the research who had found a lot of the things who have fought without conflicts of interest. And so that's one of the reasons why the all of these people that were here today that support whether Spartacus maker or JC or me or anybody else. We're just doing this to do it. And I were the best. We're the best able to speak to all of these things. Look, I mean, I was on what's it called? Forget the radio station now. That's a big one international one, but it's surprising how yeah, people say I heard you on that etc. And you know what? I think it's happening right now. It's sort of fatigue and distraction at the moment. Everyone's fixated on who wouldn't be fix. I'm fixated on Ukraine and what's happening there. The but the problem for me, they're all linked and maybe maybe we should be trying to leverage that a little bit more. I don't know. I don't know what you guys think.
It's hard because they're the one thing that they're censoring harder than coded is all of their stuff. So and but the good news is what I can say is that there are elected officials who understand this. There are elected officials in the United States who realize the bigger picture and I think I mean, it really just comes down to like we have an hour and we have to make sure we have an election because I can guarantee they're they're doing everything they possibly can to mess it up everything they possibly can. Yeah. Yeah, I wouldn't doubt it. And I don't know if it's 300,000 or a million Russians that have been called up, but that's not insignificant and that that's enough to stop an election coming right. They will do whatever because the the the other option is a complete destruction. It's existential for them. It's existential. Yeah, I agree a hundred percent. So we just have to show them that we care more about the world that we have than the world that they want with refused. We outnumbered them a lot. Oh, yeah. And you know, I'm going to do everything I can to keep it from getting super crazy.
But to me, this is the best path could tear down the the something that I can do straight away, right is Clyde Lewis. That's National Radio. We can start with that. I could do that this week. We can I don't know for five of us six of us. Nick's been on there. It was all right, wasn't it? Wasn't that wasn't that bad? No, not at all. We had a good time. And again, it's it's a little different format. You don't get when it's radio. You don't get the visuals. You can't convey data. But still, that's that's where we're not making a whole lot of progress by presenting finer and finer granular scientific detail. We have to continue to put it into words, put it into short pieces and help people go and sniff out the you know, their own validation if they you know, they see fit. But well, Kevin has the accent. Johanna has the accent. I have the scratchy voice. You have the warm fuzzy voice. I mean, we're all good. We can go on the radio together and everybody will hear four different people. It'll be perfect. Yeah. We are five of you six. We should do this. Barker's got radio voice. We should wait instead of the proximals. We got to come up with a name. To be like the anti proximals or something because that's really what's happening is the authors of proximal origin. They were fabricating something. They're a group of people from all over the world. And actually. We already have three out of the four countries. Let's see. We have UK, US, Germany. What's the only other one? Australia. You need Australia as well. We could put Australia, but but just and we could just be like the anti dick bags. I was going to say the people's front of Judea, but I mean, there are times to be to speak to the people, you know, so I try to do that. Well, look, I will do that this week.
So gentlemen, please be ready for because they it tends to sort of happen on short notice and all of this need to have like like my key points and anecdotes and stuff and just be able to explain our own little piece. Effectively and efficiently.
I think the primary point right now is the. You can go in Charles and then each one of us. If there's a if there's a question, you can just say, yeah, the amyloid thing is the real thing. I'm a doctor. Trust me. I mean, we do have the experts in a bunch of the areas and that's really all I've all I've tried to I've been lucky that I've had a lot of people to pull from that were really smart that had good ideas. And it just happened to fit with things that I was doing. But well, I've got I've got Clyde Lewis, I think it's TNT the radio station. Is it TNT? I don't remember. But we definitely we need to have our presence more known because people don't know anything about DRASTIC. They don't know. Like the only people out there are Dr. Quay, who's actually been in like the Dan Bongino show, which is basically the successor to Rush Limbaugh. I mean, he's been able to get out there, but nobody else has been able to do it. Well, the German expert group was like when I was introduced there, they didn't know what I did and they were discussing some researchers scientific basis, many of them, not necessarily MDs, but different areas.
And then I formulated that I'm certain that it's manmade and shared my letter to the military from May 2020. And then they said, you know, the DRASTIC, the DEFUSE proposal. I was like, yes, and you know, it's known in Germany. At least in with the experts. And I think maybe it's not a national thing. As you said, we are different countries. It's an international issue. It's not only about the US. Yeah, of course, we can do anything about it. But the whole Russia and Ukraine stuff, it's not US only either. It's you know, we are starting to freeze here. And you know, it's it's kind of an ideological step. Many people here absolutely pro Ukraine and anti Russian. And so we are in a situation where we are delivering tanks in the war zone as Germany and you know, has war propaganda again and are producing these vaccines in our Behringwerke. So I think maybe it's definitely necessary to set up an international foundation and, you know, set up the infrastructure to get these supports like the grifters do, you know, have clean books, give them papers what happens with money. But, you know, but I agree.
Look, look, if people like Füllmich can have 600,000 euros, right? Just what? Swimming about to do Rumble talks? Excuse me. This like say we could do say 600,000 could have all of us again. I'll say it again in case people haven't heard it. I'll repeat it could have all of us on this talk in the lab by the end of the week next week sitting down and saying, okay, we're going to do this, this, this and you know, there's all people with that, you know, I would sit in the practice and care for the people and take that lab sample that I wish to have and not trying to convince my patient to pay for it. It's not the insurance that are paying. It's the people that are injured that have to pay for all that. Or I, I would do it. I've given so much now. I'm not giving anything else because there's nothing left, you know, but the thing is I'm in a position to be able to leverage those types of analyses that I would say probably not even cost right now. And it's well, you know, there's a, there's a, it's just funny that you know, 600,000 euros is the you can see them. I don't know. I don't know whose story is true or not, but to me, it's just the fact that there were 600,000 euros there. That, that to me is crazy. And you know, you think you've got Jonathan who's literally, literally gone the ultimate sacrifice in the academic environment, right? To stand by your principles. Just say, hey, hang on a minute. This, this ain't right, Governor. Do me a favor.
You've got Charles, a WMD expert. Johanna, a viral expert and practicing MD. And we've got the public researchers, which shows that we're open to people who can demonstrate the requisite skillsets. And yet we're the ones who are constantly, it doesn't matter what or how you do, you get, we get taken down and you know, for when it's at most, I like getting taken down for medical misinformation now, because at least, at least they're not saying it's sexually titillating. I'm sexually titillating people for a ban. And you know, yeah, these are all things that you have to overcome, I guess. And like I said, right now I can pull the trigger on two big radio shows that we could do in a week. I have offers for interviews and documentaries and all that. But it needs to be, like that documentary that just came out, I don't know what it was called, but we reviewed it and it was actually pretty good historical retelling of what happened in the last two and a half years, but the last half an hour finishes off with saying it's graphene oxide. And all that really, really good work with respect to the centralization just gets thrown away. And again, I have to just sort of ask, you know, why do that when they know that there's, at least they didn't go down, the viruses aren't real, but it was, you know, the Wi Fi tracking and all that, and the Wi Fi thing, I'm open to testing. That's something that can be tested, right? But I'm open to testing. I'm not going to disregard that completely, but I don't know, the fact after the meeting in Germany this week where I'm talking to someone who knows carbon nanomaterials and has done even more testing than me and definitively is like, no, that's, that's, it's not graphene. So, you know, at least we can put that one to bed. Well, here's what I read. I think we should, I think, well, it's only 7 p.m. here. I'm terrible at math, but I'm going to assume that that is 3 a.m. or something in Germany. I am terrible at math, 1 a.m. Yes. But I've been up all night, dude. I'm ready for more.
What we have to do, what we have to do is not, we just, whatever, I think it's time for us to start working together because I think that works better for a lot of people. I mean, we need to have another DRASTIC* or anything, but we need, we need to, we need to, we have so much expertise, but it's never all in the same place. So we need to sort of do that as much as possible. I have the offer to have a team of journalists interviewing me on a, like, PR action of, we had that in Germany. It was called Alles auf den Tisch by, like, everything on the table by artists and actors and all that who were, like, taking the pandemic and coronavirus narrative, like, on a comedian way or something. But now they introduce the idea, everything under the microscope and want to have, like, scientists explain their point of view and maybe fewer than they had with the artists, but more in depth. And I think when we would all, like, put together the most crucial part, you know, I will always talk about Baikaline because I think it's fascinating that it works against all these different mechanisms. I would put, like, a hope point in there, but maybe that's why I'm not too precise on what you said, Charles, with this timing that definitely shows that Fauci and maybe all these people that attended these Fauci meetings on first and third were pressured or were actively engaged in helping him committing his crimes against humanity. So there are so many indicators.
And if we would just, like Nick said and Mark said yesterday, last time, I know I'm not on point, like, in a five or 10 minutes thing that I could point that out, but maybe we could together boil it down to the most important part that we would transport. And that one could be made as a documentary. Yeah, that's a good approach. And maybe they are interested in getting you involved as well to show that it's not a single person, but a group investigating that, giving their all. So I have the context. I mean, that makes a good story. Documentary format is very important because it lets you transcend talking heads, looking into camera, looking professional, trying to look the part. You can have components. You have clips of that, but you can intermix it with history, with faces of the people that are involved with institutions, with data. I'd be in. I can make recordings. Kevin can make recordings. We can also, you know, I think it's a great idea. I think it's a great idea. Spartacus, are you coming in as Spartacus? You don't have to come in as Spartacus. You're published. So maybe time to unleash. We're all Spartacus. They can't think any worse of you than they do of me. I mean, I'm just, I wasn't a Mr. Marine, so. And I can tell you this. He's more than capable of handling himself. I've seen. All right. So I think that's probably a good place to wrap up because I have been up all night. Thank you everyone for because I know, I know this is a bit chaotic sort of lining, lining times and everything up. But I think, I think it was good. There was a lot of points covered. I know if anyone else wants to add anything at the end. No, we need, we need like a Manhattan project. We just need to get a critical mass together. I think we can break through. But I don't think we can do it individually. So well, Clyde Lewis first stop this week. I can definitely do it. So that sounds fun. Not on Tuesday, please. I don't know what Tuesday is for me. Wednesday. Oh, it's your birthday. Okay. Well, that's actually what day is your birthday? Because my birthday is next week, too. Yes, Tuesday. Oh, I mean, I'm the 28th. I'm so on Wednesday. There you go. So, well, so we've got Monday's choices and Thursday, Friday, Friday, Friday. Friday is the peak time actually. So if I ask them Friday, and what I'll do is I'll actually ask them to sort of, it's a special and limit the commercial breaks, that this is of national importance for the U.S. And maybe they can front load and back load the advertisements. I don't know. Maybe I'm promising too much, but I'll ask. When is it in the day? Sorry. So it's 9, I want to say it's 8 or 9 p.m. Pacific time. Pacific? Oh, Jesus. Yeah. So it's like 12 hours later for, okay, this is fine. 9. Johanna 's is plus 9 from Pacific. Okay, so it's next day morning. Next day morning, yeah. Four or five in the morning, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, because usually it's about 10 or 11 for me. I want to say maybe a bit. Yeah, then it's an early morning. Yes. I hope that's… Usually you have it, Kevin. But that's no problem. If it's early morning on Saturday, it's no problem because I have appointments on Friday. Well, I'll try and find out today.
And yeah, we'll go from there, especially. But I'll just couch it in the election. You know, I'm flexible for something like that. And I'll presume… I'll just make the presumption that everyone that was here today wants to chime in and I would… Yeah, I mean, I don't know like how they would handle the… I mean, there's so many… But I think… I don't do a lot of structured stuff. I think it's more the point of I'd let you do the talking and just say we're all there just to ask… Well, we can have one or two as a sort of main touch point and then we can give them a list of each one of the… I don't know, the experiences, like Jay's experience in academia. People need to know that, right? How broken it is. We can say, you know, Spartacus, you know, a lot of people in the US, especially Clyde Lewis's audience would know who he is. Nick's been on there before and Johanna will introduce you to the AM talk radio circuit in the US. That'll be a trip for you. The cutting edge of mass communication. Look, there's millions of people that listen to that still. But in a country… Well, you know, it might just be a way of signaling to other… And I'll follow up with the TNT as well. And again, try to put it in the context of, you know, this needs to be a special prior to the elections right now. Absolutely. That people need to hear this. I mean, if Glenn Beck was smart, he'd realize… One of the reasons I was pissed off that he didn't include me or us like as Jurassic was that… It's kind of a perfect made for TV movie kind of thing. You have people, just random people coming together trying to save the world or whatever. And we're doing things. We're cool with a lot. I don't know. It's just, it's a… It's opportunities wasted. And I think now we're getting to the point where we can't waste any more opportunities. We've got to do what we can do.
I can hear the… I'm going to have to go. Guys, thank you very much for everyone, for the audience listening. Thank you. I saw people dropping links. I don't know if anyone wants to plug a website or anything before I hit the stop button. Go away, man. Thank you very much. Thank you, JC. I think we're good. Good to see everyone. Okay. All right. Take care, guys. I'll see you all in the next one. Bye. Thank you.