Great to see you again. Great to see you again, Jojo, to have you here to take us the next step on our journey.
The frauds continue. Bill Gates has announced this morning in an article that soon we're going to have a little agent.
We won't have computer programs. We'll have an agent in our ears telling us how to solve a particular problem or you'll talk to it.
Talk like this is a this is a if we get a chance, I'll show you the article. Wow, they're going crazy.
How ridiculous. Crazier by the second.
All right, everybody, let's get Stevens here. Excellent.
Let's get this show on the road.
And welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
This is a discussion with JJ Cooey, who we're delighted to welcome again.
This group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost.
Two over two years ago, two and a half years ago, during the darkest days of the COVID scam responses with a desire to pursue five things, truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a whistleblower and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology. I'm Charles Covesta, moderator of this group.
I'm Australasia's passion provocateur.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 30 years ago.
And over the past 12 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
We comprise lots of professions and we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought that vaccines were okay.
Now, many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
And it's interesting to note that more and more health experts are coming out and saying all vaccines must be halted until proper safety and efficacy studies are done.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat and where you're from.
If you publish a newsletter or podcast or you have a radio or TV show or you've written a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote you and find you.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three and that there are various battle lines as part of this war.
I say there are 12 battle lines.
The medical science debate is one of 12 battle lines in the war that we are in.
Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is never settled.
Some of us believe in the existence of viruses.
Some do not. Some are on the fence.
Others describe viruses as as cleanup mechanisms of the body.
This meeting runs for two and a half hours after which, for those with the time, Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat if you're able to join.
We'll listen to JJ Cooey for as long as JJ wishes to speak.
And then we have Q&A. Stephen Frost, by long established tradition, asked the first questions for 15 minutes.
There's no censorship. It's a free speech environment.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are genuinely not interested.
We reject the offence industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love. Fear squashes you. Love, on the other hand, expands you.
It's an interesting question. If you're a parent, I have five children.
If you're a parent and you love your children, do you let them say and do whatever they want on grounds of equality and diversity?
Think about that. What does love actually demand?
These twice weekly meetings are not just talk fest and extraordinary range of actions and initiatives have been generated
from linkages made by attendees in these meetings.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the details into the chat, the meeting is recorded, is uploaded on the Rumble channel.
And now, JJ, welcome to you again. Thank you again for giving us your time, wisdom and insights.
And thank you, Stephen Frost, for creating this group and for organizing JJ to be with us today.
JJ, over to you.
I'm assuming you can hear me okay.
I can't. I actually think I need to thank everybody here for taking your time to listen to me for 40 minutes or so.
I'm going to try and make this one a rather quick one because I was asked specifically to speak about the DNA and the transfections.
And so I want to kind of just give you a 30,000 foot view of that, that relative to the entire pandemic narrative,
and then open it up for questions. And a lot of times I think we get somewhere better with questions and me drawing it on a piece of paper and people get what they want to hear.
And I repeated myself so many times here thanks to the graciousness of our hosts. And so I just I don't want to waste too much time today with what I want to say.
So I'm going to try and be really quick as I babble now for the first five minutes.
So just to make sure everybody knows I haven't done this in a while. So I just want to do it again.
I used to be a patch clamp physiologist, which is a guy who takes the brains of an animal out while they're alive,
makes them really cold and then make slices of the brain so that small microcircuits of neurons are preserved enough so that you can make recordings from multiple neurons and characterize their physiological,
electrophysiological connections between them. And at some point it became useful to use a series of transfection agents to label different kinds of neurons
and even to control them physiologically while you were recording from their neighbors.
And that fundamental technique and how it was used to map small microcircuits in the brain was a methodology that I spent probably five or eight years of my neuroscience career developing.
So I know a little bit about transfection and how it can be used in an animal model of a in vitro model of a microcircuit in the brain.
And you can use my last name, C-O-U-E-Y with two big J's between a hyphen on PubMed or I think this is Google Scholar.
I think this is ResearchGate or that's ResearchGate. But if you know how to spell my name, you can find me.
I've had my name out there since it was the way that you trade your credentials in science.
You have to use your real name and you don't want that to be diluted by misspellings or multiple uses.
And so I've been Jonathan J. Cooey officially as a biologist for about 20 years.
And I like to start this out by saying something very succinct.
And I would like to just put out this broad challenge for anybody to that wants to discuss why these things aren't really solid biological statements.
Just one second. Do you want to share your screen or do you want us to highlight you on we highlight you as the speaker?
Yes, I think. Yes, sorry. Please go up to the top right and select speaker.
I'm going to switch myself to the lower corner in a minute. And so I can do it right now.
That's OK. I'll just do it right now. So if you still can't see me, I'm down here now.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
I don't like to use the word dumb so much, except that it has some real good, deep meaning for people.
I want people to think about why it is that I would make such a broad general statement.
Intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.
Transfection in healthy humans is indeed criminally negligent. I would say that.
Sorry, the thing is switched off.
Sorry, it's OK.
Transfection in healthy humans is indeed criminally negligent.
And the reason why I say that is because there are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of academic biologists and academic doctors who, through the course of their bench investigations,
know exactly the limitations of transfection and could not in any way, shape or form not know that this was wholly inappropriate for healthy humans.
And then the final one down here, I'm going to add for this one in case anybody wants to talk about it at the end.
Viruses are not pattern integrities.
Pattern integrity is basically anything that we can call a species and particularly ourselves.
We are each a pattern integrity and taking biological concepts that we've come to understand pattern integrities with and applying them to what is essentially a molecule, even maybe a self replicating molecule,
is very dishonest, disingenuous and dubious.
And so I think these three big biological principles are what we need to center on for this little discussion and what I want to center on now.
So first of all, this slide is actually from 2021.
The very beginning of 2021 was the first time I used this slide.
And I want to use it again because I can't believe how accurate it still is.
Our common narrative back in the beginning of 2021, I was calling the biological bifurcation of America.
It's really the bifurcation of Earth.
And by bifurcation, I mean splitting.
In the old days, that's me, 51 year old guy.
I grew up on a couch with a TV that you had to get up to change channels and there were only three channels in northern Wisconsin.
And it usually meant that the narrative about what made a good person and how you made it in life and what what constituted good people versus bad people was the same in the picture on the back of my living room wall as it was on television.
Even though there was a red and a blue team on TV, they still pretty much agreed about the narrative of the American way.
You know, two cars in a house, mom, dad and kids, a dog, you know, whatever, vacation, that kind of stuff was all kind of accepted across the board.
And for many, many, many, I mean, 20, 30 years, that was OK.
And then the pandemic comes along.
Donald Trump came along, the pandemic came along, and everything started to careen out of control.
Nothing on TV started to really be congruent with what we were reading in places, what we were following in places.
And because a lot of these people like myself were more or less locked into old mainstream media sources, we became just aware that this was going on, but not really fully aware of what was going on on the Internet.
And so we just became angry at the theater that's on TV and the fact that really both sides were working against us for the corporations and for private interests.
Now, at the start of the pandemic, we have to we have to see our populations as actually already being divided not only by red and blue in America or left and right around the world, but we were also divided in a way that we weren't divided pre social media.
Pre social media, the dinner table met something and the way that you interacted with your parents and the way you interacted with your siblings at the dinner table was like a microcosm of how you would interact with people outside of the house.
And now it can easily be that people outside of your house have more social interaction and more social influence on our children and even on ourselves than our children we have on our own children.
And that is perhaps by design, but it is the way we are right now and we have to come to terms with that because that is the context in which the pandemic was rolled out where people who are already used to using their cell phones as their primary window to the world could be more easily
And so it is on this background a very different background that what is typically on television.
It's on this background that this trap was laid. We don't have a common narrative anymore except for the pandemic.
And if we don't understand this, then we're not going to die in this trap.
But the problem and the trick is is exactly what what Mark Twain highlighted is that it's easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled and our task is to awaken people to the fact that they have been indeed fooled.
And so I apologize for maybe beating this dead horse, but I want to remind you a little bit again with slides that are almost three years old now.
The first thing that they split the earth on and it is the earth right everybody in all countries in all different languages is debating for almost three years now was it natural or was it a lab leak.
And people started debating because of being forced to I'm dealing cards here because this is a big game.
Vaccines are safe and effective antibodies from vaccines can be better than the antibodies from infection.
Another card that they dealt us was transfection is better than infection because the viral spike is toxic.
And so this this bifurcation of America that I was calling it back then is now at a stage where America has brought out a new story which is that there is DNA in the transfections and otherwise they were pretty perfect.
And so we have to be very, very careful that we don't take this bait in the wrong way that we don't move in the direction that the narrative people would like us to move in.
And that's why I like to use this this analogy of a scooby doo the idea that they've made us feel like we're a group of teenagers, and we caught the adults in a lie.
We caught the senator who was calling out the NIH guy, and we can see it on his emails and we can see it in the private communications about the proximal origin, and we can see it in the diffuse proposal and we can see it in Ralph barracks denial and we can see it in in in
And that's us feeling like we're unmasking the bad guys and solving the mystery but what it actually is is us brainwashing ourselves into accepting a story.
And what is that story.
I use this tunnel animation because it is a illusion that we are moving through this neon lit tunnel, just like it was an illusion that we that we experienced a pandemic and the way that they have gotten us to believe this illusion is with stories, consistent from the start.
One of the first books to ever come out in the pandemic by the Breggins, coven 19 and global predators is all about a bio weapon.
What really happened in Wuhan is about a lab leak by an Australian journalist, a guy who's claims to be a whistleblower says it was a lab leak in Wuhan.
A guy who claims to have invented the mRNA technology that saved millions of people on the planet thinks that the US government lied about it.
The senator wrote a book about his pursuit of the truth deception the great coven cover up and now an independent candidate for president with more polling support than any independent candidate has ever pulled as another book coming out.
Also about a lab leak gain of function bio weapons.
Four years of books, this has not changed.
Interestingly enough, the author of this book sued the author of that book and both books are selling because that gets extra attention for them.
What's happening here.
What's happening here is an orchestrated theater designed for us to accept the challenge of solving a mystery, and then watching all of these performers lead us through the dinner theater.
In 2018, the earth was clean.
In 2019 somewhere at the end of the year something leaked.
And the reason why I say scenarios one through three is because it could have been a bat cave coming back cave virus coming from a bat cave.
It could have been a bat cave virus coming out of a laboratory, or it could have been a bat cave virus that was combined with other viruses to be gain of function coming out of a laboratory.
And that virus changed every year to different variants that kept spreading and that we could track around the world.
Omicron came out of South Africa and traveled around the world again and now here we are at the end with an illusion of consensus that this happened and only real question is, you know, I understand that the lockdowns and you as we're kind of a rush but millions of people were killed by a virus.
Millions more were saved from a virus, and we should focus on gain of function and bio weapons. In this scenario this faith in a novel virus we have defeated disease and epidemics in the past using vaccination not not public sanitation or clean water or
nutrition, or better medicine or antibiotics.
Novel coronaviruses can jump from other species and campaign dynamic this is just normal in this world.
PCR false positives are very rare asymptomatic spread is very real and variants are evidence of both spreading continuing evolution of a single virus that started out as a small puddle in outside of a laboratory or in a on the shoe of somebody who walked to the market or maybe in an
animal at the market.
That quantity of RNA has now replicated almost flawlessly for three and a half years and covered the planet in itself.
We spend money studying viruses including gain of function research that's this TV scenario one through three that the people have been completely bamboozled on the left and the right to accept because they solved the mystery they know what happened.
The thing is that's a lie and it's a conflated background signal if there is a background signal that that test test for that those sequences find that's always been there and always been a minor something problem signal phenomenon, then the faith in a novel virus that
is a new way of dying is a lie.
I think I'm overloading a little bit but we're actually right where they want us because everybody by solving that mystery has accepted there's a novel virus millions died more were saved gain of function is real and a virus will come again and I say it like that because it is a religion,
it's a little bit like a religion they believe in something and they won't question that.
I believe a lot of these people can be dissected based on this I'm sorry that that cartoons there if that annoys anybody but that's Scooby Doo's original beginning. And these, many of these people were involved in, in laying down a worst case scenario narrative, and are involved in not making sure that we
never asked questions relevant to these things.
And we can always all kinds of dissident ideas we can discuss all kinds of different directions of debate as long as we don't question any of these things.
And the way that they did it of course, is with this discussion of pandemic potential and bad caves pandemic potential being available in in cell culture or animal passage or stitching things together to invert our sovereignty.
And the addition to this slide is that specifically that role of that, that story is to make people think that the worst case scenario is possible. Therefore, it was worth locking down.
It was worth using the mRNA in an impure form it was worth doing everything we did because if this had been the worst case scenario.
If it had gone south.
Then it would have been a disaster.
You know, on the order of like nuclear war. And that is indeed what in that video earlier that was playing in the background of Rand Paul that's what Rand Paul says that Richard E. bright and Kevin Esfell testified in front of Congress that gain of function viruses
represent a danger greater than nuclear weapons.
And that is the new world order that they want to trap our children and they want our children to believe that this is possible that eventually it's going to be possible for anybody that's nefarious enough and really just wants to to do it in their garage.
And this consensus was laid down by people who are still protecting it.
Protecting this idea as a possibility. Now, first of all, I want you to think carefully that the Scooby Doo sometimes it doesn't work for everybody. So I'm trying an old thing that I started with already three and a half years ago.
The subway breaks and the engine of this subway are damaged.
And so this dude is compensating for the damage to keep the train on schedule. I just want you to digest the meaning of that statement.
The subway breaks and engine are damaged and this dude is compensating for the damage to keep the train on schedule. Now I want you to do a thought experiment and I want you to imagine that I bring a bunch of my, my
my 11 year old son's basketball players that I'm coaching I bring them to this subway station, and I tell them the same story.
And they're 11 year old boys, they play basketball there in seventh sixth grade, excuse me.
And so all those boys are like what that's ridiculous. That's stupid.
Now, let's do the same thing with 40 guys, giant men dressed in in armor with some kind of blinking lights on their arms that make it look like they're electronically enhanced.
And then let's have them all synchronously pull on the train to stop it and push it to go and have them make noise and be really dramatic about it.
Now suddenly it might be a little bit harder for my son's basketball team to disbelieve that that's what's going on. Now what if I said, we're going to put 150 guys dress like that.
You see my point here because that's what they did with the pandemic.
The who declared a pandemic of a dangerous novel virus. These stories were introduced and controlled for national security reasons it's not just people pulling on the train and then pretending to push it.
It's more elaborate than that. In order to sustain this pandemic people had to agree to agree that a novel virus means everybody vulnerable.
They had to agree that this PCR was really high fidelity. It's great. It's totally useful.
They had to agree that lateral flow testing tests that were shipped in from China by the by the millions to the UK. We had to agree that those were also very high fidelity tests totally useful.
We had to agree that novel treatment debates like about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are real because this is a novel virus. We don't know what will work.
That led to this debate about you know antibiotics don't work on viruses. That's something that the Twitter people still say that the CDC will still say.
Plus this misdirection with steroids misuse disuse the novel protocols that also included remdesivir, mendazolam, ventilation.
These were all parts of people faking the stop of the train faking the pushing of the train going up there is a pandemic look of all of us.
Look at all of us trying.
Look at how hard we're trying.
And that's how this was done.
Never mind the financial incentives never mind the the elderly care home malfeasance that we now know of never mind the fact that nobody with immunologist after their name is ever given an immune immunology 101 lecture about this pandemic ever.
Never mind that not one person has done that that calls themselves an immunologist talked about nutrition never. We can go on and on on this list.
But what you have to realize is is you have to start to key into the fact that all of these people who were involved in this train pushing and pulling exercise are still pulling and pushing on the same in the same stick.
They haven't moved on to summarizing the calamity of the pandemic the giganticness of the lies.
They're still focused on their one little part of the act.
They're focused on their one little place they're supposed to pull on because it's 150 people lined up on this train all pretending together.
That makes it so convincing.
That's what the scooby doo is they've changed the way we think.
And so now you've got a really in light of what I've explained.
And I have done no details there but I can go into any details you want.
The question is, are they creating an illusion of consensus about their being D and the shot and why would they do that.
So the first thing I want to call your attention to in this card game is what happened in 1999 which is the death of Jesse Gelsinger Jesse Gelsinger had an orthenine trans carbamylase deficiency and excellent genetic disease of the liver.
And they tried to use a den of virus to replace the gene replace the enzyme that he was missing because otherwise he was just going to have this tragic life where you know being alive costs so much medical intervention all the time that he's basically just in the hospital all the time.
And so it was a really shitty life that this young man had.
And so they tried to adjust you know use gene therapy is the first gene therapy in America.
He tried to use gene therapy on his liver to fix him and for a while it seemed like it was working like three weeks or something like that.
And then he died and you can see that November 28 1999.
First in a series of articles by the same reporter was written about the biotech death of Jesse Gelsinger.
And so I just want to read this one segment from one of the articles that came out during this time.
Mark Bradshaw pediatrician of great stature was according to the New York Times report on Jesse's death the scientist hard hit by the tragedy the paper quoted him as saying that he had never before Jesse made a patient worse by his care.
The paper states that he prayed for the dead boy and that he thought hard about the Hippocratic Oath.
I did harm Bradshaw said Dr. Steve Raper the drive the driven scientist who has thrown himself into his work and committed himself to finding the treatment that the experiment was intended to find so that the loss of life would not be in vain according to the times.
As he pronounced Jesse Gelsinger dead he said goodbye Jesse will figure this out later he pondered on whether the vector had reacted badly with Jesse's medication or whether the reactions in the rishis monkeys presumably the trials had meant more than he realized as it happens.
As it happens I'm wondering about the same things and experts on the matter from elsewhere are discussing the matter publicly for example geneticist Robert Malone of the University of Maryland told the inquirer that there was adequate literature to show that the
The writing was on the wall for five years.
So in case you thought that Robert Malone was a horse farmer that just decided to come back and claim his patents let me assure you that that's not the case and in fact he tells the story multiple times that this speaking out about the adenovirus dosage change being the reason why Jesse Gelsinger died ended up burning his academic career that resulted in him getting a faculty position at a US Army hospital or Army University or health.
I don't know exactly what that was but he moved to a different university that was now even more related to the government and the military.
After this speaking out and there were three articles written by this lady, Cheryl Grace Stolberg, only one of which I think quotes Robert Malone but it's possible that he helped her with all three of those.
And if you think that this is something that he's trying to forget I mean he even used this as an argument about why the adenovirus vaccines for COVID were causing people to die and and in fact that was in October 7th of 2021.
Keeping in mind that he came out first on the Bret Weinstein show in June of 21 and so June, July, August, September, October five months later he's now saying that the adenovirus gene delivery system has its own adverse events issues separating it from mRNA.
And so why is this important? Well I think this is important because Scott Gottlieb started already in 2021 to plug nature papers about the fact that lipid nanoparticles for mRNA delivery are a natural evolution of the parallel nature of these two research lines.
Even as we've discovered what RNA does we've been working at trying to get and control it with lipid nanoparticles. I think this is a very disingenuous representation of these two intellectual pursuits.
I think we've been interested in how the genome is translated to proteins and how that whole thing orchestrates the pattern integrity that we are separately from how do we mess with it and how do we put things in places in the body that we want which is really what lipid nanoparticles are.
I don't know what particles are but again okay it's funny because this is what they want to say. This is funny because they're so obvious in their ridiculous statements to say that these two are related to one another or that some one beget the other to make cartoons in that article which seem to imply that they can put it in the dermis.
They can put it subcutaneously or they can put it intramuscularly and it will stay there.
And of course why is this comical?
This, can you hear that clapping can anybody confirm can you hear that clapping that just came up?
No.
You couldn't hear it. Okay, I'm going to change the sound on mine I think I need to change the sound on mine.
Let me see.
How do I change the sound darn it.
Not video settings audio settings I'm sorry let me just do this quick because it'll help.
Audio settings.
Personalize audio isolation zoom background maneuver off.
I think this one.
Now let me try that again. Can you hear that?
Thanks Peter. Can you hear that? I can see the video here the sound of the video.
Can you hear the video? Try it again.
Yeah, that was a fantastic talk.
Yep. Okay, great. So this, what this talk is, shoot. What this talk is, is Peter Cullis.
Peter Cullis is the guy who could have gotten the Nobel Prize with Weissman and Kirchhoff because he's the guy who spent his entire career developing the lipid nanoparticle that was ultimately used.
His technology is, is acutest I believe the name of the company is correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyway, the point is, is that in 2022 he was doing a tour around Canada because they have this pre Nobel Prize called the Gardner, Gardner, I'm saying it wrong and I apologize it looks like Gardner but with an I somewhere in there.
And it's a it's like a pre Nobel Prize so he was going around at universities giving talks about how great everything was and the whole talk is just so insightful because it's like he's not really living on planet Earth in 2022 he's living on planet Earth in 2021 right when the
vaccine just came out and they reported 99% efficacy even though it's like an hour, year and a half later now the reason why I'm playing this first part is because he ends his talk with applause.
And then the moderator asks him a question that he gives such a frank answer to. And it's a frank answer to this question down here if you can see my arrow that they can put it in the dermis they can put it subcutaneously they can put it intramuscularly.
Yeah, let's listen.
Thanks Peter that was a fantastic talk and if there's anybody who has any questions, please raise your hand but maybe I'll start with. So, silencing a protein is one thing, putting one in that's going to be up regulated how do you control that regulation.
Once you, how do you know you don't over expressing a protein.
Yeah, the, I mean one of the things about this approach course is titratable. So you can start low and work it up the other is, it's not like you're inducing production or protein forever.
You know you're going to get it going for maybe a week or two.
But that's, that's about it. And so it's self limiting in that extent too so if you're causing nasty side effects then okay stop giving it and then other things will.
So that's our normal my next question how often do you think you'd have to give something if you were dosing depends on the length of time you want.
And also,
sorry that I want to make sure that you understand first what he said there so he's he said that we can just stop giving it.
And then we can just give it back to normal. So in some applications according to this guy the inventor of it in some applications you can give it to people and when the mRNA goes away and the protein production stops everything's just over.
But in other instances when you want to vaccinate somebody, then the immune system memorizes that protein only in a few days, and makes permanent memory to it.
And so you can see how incredible it is that he just gave a lecture, accepting kudos for inventing this wonderful technology. And now he's explaining explicitly how little he understands the difference between these two biologically different scenarios, where we're
talking about up regulating a protein or expressing a protein in the sense of rescue versus vaccinating somebody and in one sense, if you're causing adverse events you can just stop giving it and then everything will go back to normal.
And in one sense, well, you give it to him one time in the end the immune system remembers it for for. I mean, come on, so it gets worse you're not going to believe it.
This is really a person who is considered by by the people who buy this narrative one of the heroes, the one of the hero biologists, you know you're going to get it going for maybe a week or two.
That's about it. And so it's self limiting it in that extent too. So if you're causing nasty side effects, then okay, stop giving it and then other things will.
So that would be my next question. How often do you think you'd have to give something if you were dosing depends on the length of time you want.
And, and also the stability of the protein that you're producing like antibodies, we can make those in the liver. So if you put the heavy like gene mRNA and and they'll circulate around for say a week or so because they're fairly stable other molecules, you know might be, you know, a matter of an hour or so and there.
So it's going to these are these are areas where you're going to see improvements in the technology itself, you know, more of a depot effect to have things play out over longer time a deep hole in the ways in which we can manipulate things and in your delivery system.
Do you think there's going to be a way to actually target it to different tissues. So right now you've been talking about like getting it into the liver. But how do you can we can we actually restrict which tissues.
It's gonna be tricky. That's gonna be tricky. People have been trying to target these lipid or any nanomedicine actually more specifically to where you want it to be cancer cells is an obvious choice without any success over 40 years of trying right so and that just points out how difficult it is.
You tend to raise an immune response or anything put on the outside, you get aggregation the difficulty with the many but this goes on and on.
I wore not five graduate students on that project. The last one refused to go on unless I change your projects. Okay, I did that. So he burnt out five grad students trying to target these lipid nanoparticles to someplace in the body and the fifth one said that she didn't.
He didn't allow her to change her topic she would quit.
But the whole principle of transfection as vaccination is is that stays in your arm and that actually that that somehow antigen presenting cells are the only ones that that are transfected meaningfully.
And that somehow transfection of antigen presenting cells is a way of getting antigen presenting cells to present the antigen which I'm not really sure has been show.
So, I'm going to let this go because I really think you need to hear the whole statement.
But the point is, there are other ways to go.
You know, for the microbiology you can start to say okay one day express in a particular cell. That's the request for a sophisticated microbiology but I think it's doable.
It requires very sophisticated molecular biology in order to get it to express in particular tissues and that's interesting because I have a maybe 10 year record of expression actually transfection in particular cell types in the brain based on what genes those cells express after the brain is fully formed.
And so I know exactly how it can be done.
And I'm sure it's not a great way to augment anything in a healthy animal, nevermind a healthy human nevermind a healthy child.
And we so lackadaisically be talking about this in the middle of 2022 and the acceptance of kudos of an award, and not realize the gigantic cruise ship sized contradiction in the biological assumptions that he's making versus that we're making versus the biological
limitations that he's describing here.
And so the question is how many of these people know how many of these people have really tried to tell us this, like Byron bridle, bridle did in 2020 when he found the Japanese things.
How many people on that last screen have been saying that transfection in its purest form is wholly inappropriate for healthy humans.
I don't know how many but not very many.
Everybody should be saying that, because transfection in its purest form with no impurities no contamination no adulteration, exactly what you want.
Still can't target it.
You still can't keep it anywhere, it's still randomly distributes, it still is wholly inappropriate for healthy humans.
Up scaling from nanograms to kilograms which was what was required to go from the trials to mass rollout was predicted to be a huge source of problems back in 2020 by people like Mike Eden and across the board everybody knew this was crazy even the people
on this week in virology laughed about how spectacular was that they were going from nanograms on the lab bench to kilograms in a bat.
And so when we saw the paperwork that was submitted whatever limited paperwork was submitted we saw that the mRNA was impure the modified RNA was impure wasn't one band.
It was a smear, which meant we had infinite quantity of fragments that may or may not have anything to do with the original transcript of the spike and fragmented RNA that has overlap with our own RNA could have consequences we don't know interference.
Modulatory RNAs we don't know any of the what can happen with that smear of RNA but we know that whatever it was making it was making protein fragments in addition to whatever spike protein it was making.
Because the spike protein that they made was not using the same sequence that was founded the virus that they reported.
It was codon optimized for maximum protein production and that codon optimization necessarily changes the protein that comes out because we know that a lot of the silent mutations.
A lot of the genetic disorders that we understand are actually silent mutations in the protein there are changes that appear to be synonymous meaning they shouldn't change the amino acid that's coded, but it changes the way that the structure of the
protein manifests as it gets translated by the RNA or by the ribosome tertiary structure of the protein is changed.
And so whatever protein is being produced by the Pfizer and by the Moderna is different than each other and the protein that is produced by the virus supposedly that sequence, if it produces that spike.
The chemically altering of it. It depends on whether you're talking about pseudo urine or N1 methyl pseudo urine. It can be more premature stops it can be more wobble basing meaning that it can be kind of a wild card.
And so again you're adding to the variability of the antigenic stimulation of the immune system if that's all that this transfection did in its purest form, it would still be doing a bouquet of unknown things.
And the protein produced then becomes uncharacterized highly variable essentially a pro drug.
So, even in its purest form we can argue against it holy we can make it completely criminally negligent to use this in healthy humans.
The LNP, we're just there now we just heard the inventor of the LNP say that he burnt for life to our for postdocs on this.
It's going to be another 40 years before they can usefully target anywhere so what are we doing.
When we say we're augmenting the immune system with transfection now we hear stories about process to the process one they printed everything with the latest technologies and DNA and RNA chemical transcription but here in process to they use bacteria vats.
And so they had to clean the bacteria out they had to clean all of this biological material out from these reactors and they already know how to do it with proteins but you can't do it like that with nucleic acids and so they had this huge problem that they absolutely
positively new existed why, because every single protein biologic monoclonal antibody you name it any protein that's produced as a biologic must be free of nucleic acids it's one of the reasons why monoclonal antibody productions is so expensive because they must use
Anion exchange chromatography to remove all the nucleic acids all the material from the manufacturer, and if they don't do it and they don't pass, it's like a half a million dollars again to run that batch so sometimes it's cheaper to just throw it away.
And all of these people have been doing this for years for 20 years know that when they make nucleic acids they can't do that.
So they knew there was going to be all kinds of crap in there.
Yeah, there are DNA double stranded DNA fragments but again even if those weren't in there this would still be a problem because of all the wrong aspects of trying to augment the immune system with transfection.
And I need to recall, please recall that for almost a year you and I and all of us in the background in the, that really thought we knew what we were doing we're exclusively focused on the bro, the biological properties of the spike.
Now suddenly it's the DNA in the shot that matters it's not the toxic spike that we've transfected everybody with.
That wasn't already a good enough story this isn't already a good enough story.
All this list is just forgotten now the fact that the, the codon optimization changes the, the G quadruplex structure of the mRNA that's just gone now we don't need to worry about that anymore.
Protein folding no big deal.
The fact that epitopes are three dimensional electrostatic shapes that the immune system zeros in on they're not parts of a linear structure they're parts of a three dimensional structure.
This is the problem from the audience. I want you to listen question here and then a question way at the back and up there so simply not going to believe it up there, so please loudly.
So first of all understand that you're not going to be able to hear all the questions but that's okay I will try to say what they say it's only like eight minutes and then I'm done talking but this is really important, because in this question and answer
session he's asked fairly awkward questions that he summarizes a little bit and then gives the most insightful answers you can possibly imagine it shows you exactly what we're dealing with this is the guy who drank scotch when he found out that the effective
rate of this vaccine in 2021 was purported to be 95% or in 2020.
And now, two and a half years later in 2022 he's accepting the kudos, and he's going to speak out loud contradictory statements in biology things that should be like, you know, his, his whole brain should be going.
And it's not it's not reacting at all. So listen carefully.
So, I mean,
delivery is obviously a time limited expression for 12 or an acute disease or, or the scene but then have you worked on the delivery system saying,
So the question is, is that it works great for vaccines because it's such a short expression but have you tried and found out how to use this to replace enzyme so he's basically asking the Jesse Gelsinger question right now.
And so that's the first question that that callous is going to answer listen carefully.
And chronic disease we were talking without any success.
Absolutely, I mean cell culture you've got rapidly dividing cells and he said it's you got to be useful in cell culture for transfection is what the questioner said no he's going to keep answering at some point, we're going to actually get Peter to say transfection out loud,
you know, so that no, but the problem is that for cells that are not rapidly dividing until therefore the nucleus isn't, you know, you can't get things into nucleus is readily, then these systems don't work.
And so that's a, which is, you know, we certainly haven't beaten that now I'm sure there are some people whose bells are going off when he says that that when the cells aren't dividing it's hard to get the delivery to happen into the nucleus, which makes the DNA construct
containing SV 40 as a nuclear relocation sequence or whatever they call it.
It is a sequence that has been used in cell culture molecular biology to assure that a particular plasmid gets transferred to the nucleus so it's not entirely crazy for people to be saying that the addition of that that potential
circular DNA or that transcript might be dangerous. And it is dubious that this guy just happens to mention that one of the problems with my technique is that I can't force things into the nucleus because you know that's not really how lipid nanoparticles work it's an interesting admission.
JJ the volume of your voice has gone down.
Yes, there's other barriers to get through for sure.
Yeah, yeah, there's no doubt we can get DNA into the cytoplasm in the same way that we can our messenger RNA.
But to get it into the nucleus.
We haven't achieved these for non dividing cells we haven't achieved that.
Next question.
Are there any plans to make different more complex lipid nanoparticles with different combination of phospholipids we've already seen talks about that and actually in his talk in this talk itself he said that.
So it's kind of an off topic come question but I'll let it run.
Yeah, I know we're fiddling around with every possible.
Well we really haven't figured out I mean it's coming to light now a little bit but are the structure activity relationships between the structure of the lipid nanoparticle and the actual activity in vitro and in vivo.
I mean, things are starting to become elucidated.
It's quite remarkable you have a very successful medicine and we still don't understand some of the basics of how it actually works. But, you know, those things are becoming clearer.
I mean there's the mythology right there we have a highly successful medicine but it's crazy we still don't really know how it works, you don't even know if it works then if you don't have a plausible mechanism when did this ever happen that we can have a biological explanation
with no plausible mechanism it's just absurdity.
And a lot of it has to do with manipulating the various components that we have in there.
So he's asking if people have to take lots of vaccines and he's listing a lot of vaccines I think he's going to ask them whether or not the reaction. If the immune system will build up tolerance to the lipid nanoparticle or whether it will build hypersensitivity to it
hold on.
So,
he's asking whether you can use the same lipid nanoparticle for all those different vaccines.
Sorry, this is such a long question. It looks like you can use the same lipid nanoparticle to deliver whatever mRNA for a whatever vaccine then it works just just fine. It looks like it he says it looks like it works just fine they have not tested it.
I understand that okay there there this is a giant assumption because their lipids how is just fat.
And that's a disingenuous assumption but that's the assumption that he's working on but this is a guy this is the guy.
So all the bureaucrats in the secret meetings all the bureaucrats in the government meetings all the CDC all all these people are working under the assumption that these experts know what they're talking about.
So, the, this is where you know the lipid nanoparticle has been used for say the Pfizer biotech vaccine is going to find that the exact same particle is going to find a lot of application for other vaccines but it can now has been tested in 3 billion people.
Here's this guy reinforcing this narrative that somehow or another we have proof behind us in the rearview mirror that lipid nanoparticles and the carrying of mRNA is is no big deal.
Now I could let this go on but I think I've gone on too long there's he says even more absurd things you can find that on YouTube.
The point I'm trying to make now is is that this was a plan all along to get us to accept that this incremental rollout of genetic technologies is going to be okay.
CRISPR sounds really scary they can't possibly be doing that already oh yes they are.
They're running a trial where they give African Americans with sickle cell anemia or sickle cell disease. They give them a month long chemotherapy treatment to absolutely ablate all of their immune cells in their bone marrow.
And at the same time they took the cells out of their bone marrow and CRISPR cast nine them and edited them so that they would express a fetal version of hemoglobin and then after that chemotherapy they throw it back into the patients.
Now that's not mRNA but this is a new super precise gene editing approach switches off a gene in the liver that regulates bad cholesterol.
Now they're going to replace statins with an mRNA that carries CRISPR and cast nine editing enzymes to make cholesterol go down in humans.
Because what Peter Cullis just said that mRNA and lipid antiparticles is totally fine and Robert Malone and the J&J shots prove that adenovirus maybe that's a little sketchy.
Maybe that's a little sketchy. But mRNAs work great.
And there's the New York Times saying that you know a nice picture of how sickle cell patients should just start taking the stuff.
So this is an illusion of consensus that they've trapped us in.
It's an illusion of consensus about a faith in a novel virus and you can dispel this faith by understanding that there has to be a background signal there and we have no data about it.
There are no PCR tests from 2019. There are no sequences from 2019.
There's no monitoring for it.
And so they have no data to establish the fact that something started in 2019 and spread around the world from a little tiny puddle of RNA to a blanket covering millions and millions of humans.
Think about the absurdity of that and understand that these people are not saying that the protocols were murder and we have to count those deaths first.
Those people are not saying that transfection is not medicine and those people are not addressing the PCR fraud, the death certificate fraud, the idea that an RNA molecule that spills on the floor in a wet market can then replicate itself with high fidelity for three and a half years to code a planet.
The idea that we understand protein folding sufficiently enough to code on optimize a protein and then transfect it in you.
The idea that we can use transfection do anything useful except for in somebody that might die anyway is ridiculous and the fact that no one absolutely no one has taken the time to teach us about natural immunity except for a handful of people.
I would like to wave my hand humbly as one of those people who's done it often.
These are the three things I want to leave you with trans intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb transfection and healthy animals is criminally negligent and viruses are not pattern integrity's please let's discuss why they might be doing this.
And yeah, I don't know stop transfection in humans. It's the same message I always end with because they're trying to eliminate the control group by any means necessary. You can find me here.
But this is not I don't want to plug myself so I'm going to get that off the screen and change back to this and answer questions if I can.
Thank you. Well, well well well JJ. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Amazing. Amazing presentation plus on top of that the technology that you use I think it's a lesson for all of us in terms of sharing ideas on a screen.
Stephen goes for the next 15 minutes I want to just while the Stevens getting his thoughts together.
I want to raise with you all that this, the fraud.
The, the game plan is continuing in yesterday and Wednesdays.
Australian newspaper straightest national paper.
News Corporation Rupert Murdoch publication that when he announced his retirement of family said I've always been into truth and sharing the truth. So, is a half page that's a broad sheet as you can see, big article.
Page, page six covert Vax alarm over vulnerable aged care. Like if I read this to you this would make you all vomit.
Some, some dude called Muhammad Al Fahri's put a complaint into the press council about the nonsensical claims in this article.
But JJ this is Australia, you know, and let's get this part more of these in. And by the way the TGA still hasn't approved this latest booster, but there's still the epidemiologists are coming out saying, we need to worry about the elderly we need to jab them everybody
not enough elderly are dying so sorry, we're going to protect the elderly from dying.
Alive and well.
Stephen over to you.
Um, yeah, am I know I'm not music. Brilliant. So, um, thank you, Charles, Charles you've got the big screen I don't know why. So for me you're, you're on there.
I don't know. Go to the top right corner, get a view and go to gallery. Ah yes okay.
But strangely.
Okay, gallery. Yeah.
So, just on that Charles what you held up that headline so they were saying all along you know the these the vulnerable people must go along and get their vaccinations and I was thinking as a doctor and thinking all the other doctors and thinking exactly the same as me.
If they're vulnerable.
They're going to be tipped over into death.
More easily than those who are not vulnerable. So they're the very last people you should inject with experimental substances.
So JJ what do you have you got any comments on that maybe not.
You're muted.
Yeah, you're muted.
Um, as I said I think that's why I'm choosing those words because a lot of these old people were healthy and had no risk, relative to transfection which has this, you know, on undescribed bouquet of risks that I've tried to summarize in that list at the door.
So they were trying to make out that they were being so when they discovered that it was possibly a problem you know with these so called vaccinations Denmark for example.
They said oh well nobody above and nobody below a certain age you know and they kept and it was in different countries the same very thing was happening.
They said but the elderly need these back so they must have them. The vulnerable and the elder you know the very people. I was thinking, well hang on a minute am I the only doctor in the world who, who's not thinking who's thinking that these are the very people who should not be injected with an experimental
substance.
And that brings me to my next question, JD.
I would really like to know what do you know is in these injections, and I'm not talking about some of the injections, all the injections around the world.
And how do you know it. I just want to go back to the first principle so if we're in an illusion. How far does the illusion stretch.
So, you're talking about all these things that are in the injections, how do you know what what you've been talking about the lipid nanoparticles, how do we know what is in any of these injections.
I think a really good answer to that would be that I'm working under the assumption that they definitely want to be able to edit the genome they want to be able to manipulate the immune system they want to learn how to use mRNAs, they want to learn how to use
retro viruses. And the reason why I feel pretty confident when I say that not all of that is imaginary is because I was able for years to order a small tube of material that if I applied it correctly inside of the brain of a living mouse, that the targets
that I wanted to change color, and also control with blue light in real time.
These were controlled manipulations that worked in predictable ways now it could be that that the, the description on the bottle was a lie and that it was just, you know, I don't know I'm trying to come up with something that does the same thing but it's not DNA carried by carried
by a particle, a virus but I was buying a virus 25 with DNA which encoded an algal protein in it and that's what they said on the label. And when I use that in my mice, the neurons that express that gene would change electrophysiologically when I shine blue light on
them with a laser. So, is this, is this then evidence that a dental virus can be used in a transfection or transformation sort of way. It's hard for me to believe that that's not the case because it works if you use it in mice that are going to die, it works if you're
going to use it in a in vitro demonstration of a electrophysiological principle in a neuronal network. But we have known all the while that we're using it, that it is a temporary manipulation that ultimately results in the death of that area of the brain or the death of those neurons that are
transfected because of course the immune system takes them out and the over expression of that foreign protein is not well regulated and so eventually that over expression kills or ties toxic to those neurons. So, long story short, do I know what they've done to us? No, but I know in my gut that they have been trying to figure out how to use this technology in humans.
And as so many of the people in this narrative have said mice lie monkeys deceive and only way to know what happens in humans is to do it in humans and so there is an onus that has been behind the scenes. I don't know the right word. There's been an impetus, a desire to get these on the playing field in such a way so that they could be tested and the limited playing field that they've been able to roll them out on up until this point has been people dying of cancer or people dying of cancer.
And so, we've tested it on genetic diseases and that field of genetic diseases was completely brought to a crashing halt with Jesse Gelsinger and they could never go back to it. So, vaccines become this new opportunity to allow the experimental use of this stuff under the pretense that exactly what Peter Cullis said we've tested it on 3 billion people is obviously safe.
Yes, so just because there is a motive for them doing what we think they've done and them saying that they've done it doesn't mean to say that they have done it. So, wouldn't it be far more satisfying for these psychopaths to actually lie about that too and get people to believe that they have tested the mRNA technologies on 3 billion humans or whatever it is?
I don't know what it is now, but anyway, when they haven't done that at all, I'm just wondering, you know, they've lied about everything else since 2020 and maybe a little bit before, but not quite as much as far as I can see. Why do we accept anything that they say? Because actually they may be leading us down, well, wasting our time to disable us.
Yeah, I mean, I can't come up with off the cuff a good response to that other than to say that I think it would be to our disadvantage to underestimate them. And I think that saying that it's just all a theater and they're not doing anything, they're just scaring us is to really grossly underestimate their intentions.
Their intentions are that if they can invert our sovereignty to permissions and they can start to harvest genetic and medical data from birth, not from us, but from our kids' kids, then they're going to be able to feed an AI and answer these questions of, you know, how does transmission work and how do ribosomes work?
The reason I was asking you, JJ, is that you're very good at going back to basics. So, you know, they might have a plan which is even more perverse than the plan that we are accepting that they are implementing now or have done over the last three years or two, whatever it is.
I mean, it could be a lot worse. And so I've always wondered this. How do we know, you know, people talk about the lipid nanoparticles and the mRNA and spike protein endlessly, particularly the spike protein. And I just think, well, how do we know that, you know, and when I asked, what was the name now?
I don't think we can trust any of them.
No, I agree. And I think that's one of the reasons why I tried to summarize this, you know, Stephanie Sineff and others have gone from, you know, stage to stage, pushing the mimicry in the spike protein, pushing the toxicity and protein folding problems of the spike protein, pushing the codon optimization of the RNA is causing different G-quadraplex structures in the RNA and therefore different translations and different stop possibilities.
And then they've also talked about how the pseudo-uridine also adds to this thing. And then all of a sudden now there's DNA and all this years of discussion about all these shortcomings of the transfection disappeared.
And now we have to focus on the DNA adulteration in SV40. And I think that's a magic trick. I think it's a magic trick that makes you think that makes the TV people think that there was just some adulteration and otherwise this is basically a win, which is what Peter Cullis thinks too.
Yeah. So I had thought of a question, but now it's gone out of my head completely. I agree with you though. There's this illusion of consensus, which they try to push. And so we know, you and I know that there was no pandemic.
And we also know that no such thing as the possibility even of endless deadly viral pandemics, which or even pandemics of concern to us in the future. So the whole obsession with this is nonsense.
And so I wonder how far the lies stretch. I really do because they've lied about so much. They could actually be lying about the...
I think they lie. The lies stretch back as far as the existence of the FDA. The lies stretch back as far as the AIDS epidemic. They stretch back as far as the hepatitis B vaccines. They stretch back as far as retroviruses.
They stretch back as far as the definition of modern virology as defined by David Baltimore and Gallo and Gardner. And I think you can trace it right back to this idea of seeding a narrative where again, viruses are a thing.
Whereas not studying mRNA and DNA at this size scale, but just insisting that at this size scale, the only thing that exists are pathogenic viruses. And that bait and switch from making an observation at this size scale to attributing it exclusively to pathogenesis is the trick that they pulled with the AIDS vaccine or the AIDS virus going back to Gallo and Baltimore, I think.
Well, you could argue about AIDS that it was a failure of diagnosis precisely as I claim it was with COVID-19. There was no proper diagnosis of COVID-19 either clinically or by test. I wanted to ask you, JJ, I don't know what your opinion...
You've talked about a lot of the people on our side, you know, allegedly on our side. I just wondered what you think about David Martin's evidence. And, you know, he talks about bioweapons. So is all the talk about bioweapons also to induce an atmosphere of fear, endless fear, and thereby which they can exploit in the future?
Yeah, I think that... So David Martin is a really interesting guy because his shtick goes back decades, more than 10 years he's been on the news talking about patents and biology. And so he's a really interesting guy. A lot of what he says is technically true.
But one of the things that he won't discuss, he's even mentioned infectious clones before, but what he won't discuss is this idea of RNA fidelity. So RNA is not a pattern integrity. A pattern integrity is something that takes energy and material in and it organizes it into the pattern and then it expels the waste material and waste energy maintaining the pattern.
So that's not what happens with a virus. That's just a protein, a lipid protein, a lipoprotein coat around an RNA molecule as we understand it according to their cartoon, which does not endow it with the biology of a pattern integrity. And another name for that would be a real living thing.
And so since it's not a really a real living thing, you can't attribute biological attributes to it in the same way that you can attribute attributes that you learn about squirrel ecology to attributes of perhaps rodent ecology in Africa. You can learn about squirrels in North America and apply a lot of that ecology that you learn to your observations that you observe on another planet.
But you can't use the ecology of squirrels and predators of squirrels to make an analogy about how viruses and our own biology interact because it's not a pattern integrity. So I really feel like this is important because what is the question I'm answering again? I'm looking down at my notes and now I got confused. Sorry.
Charles, can you remember? I honestly can't remember.
I'm sorry, JJ. I've been thinking about all things after after I asked the question. That's really important to know that a virus invades the cells of a host as a parasite. And that even is an analogy that's borrowed from pattern integrities. It's probably not adequate. It's not appropriate for whatever this cartoon is. It's not appropriate for that.
Oh, yes, I was asking about David Martin and he goes, that's right. Okay. So that's the that was the reason because that's where I went. So the idea of that he's not going to tell you is that what the significance of infectious clones is no one really making this very clear when you swab the anus of a bat and you put that into a cell culture and the cell culture dies.
And where that cell culture dies, you take all that material and try to sequence for a coronavirus using a looking for a 350 amino acid amino acid amplicon that corresponds to every coronavirus. We know the most conserved portion of the RNA dependent RNA polymerase.
And then you make a sequence from that using metagenomics analysis of whatever else is in that that sample. And then you create an infectious clone of it in DNA. He's never going to explain to you that using the natural virus that you harvested or detected or sequenced in your cell culture to make a quantity of that virus is physically impossible.
Because the chemical reaction of that RNA, that whatever you got out of that bat with that cell culture is necessarily a limited flash in the pan. Maybe you get enough signal to do your pan coronavirus test, but that's it.
There is no way to make a large quantity, never mind a pure quantity of anything that they call an RNA genome, unless you do it with DNA, grow the quantity and bacteria, and then use a commercial RNA polymerase to turn that DNA into the RNA that you want to study in your cell culture.
And he can say all the things about patents he wants to if he doesn't explain to you that even if they had that clone in a laboratory, unless they made a tank of it, it wasn't going to go very far.
And it may be, I don't know, but it may be that a leak of an infectious clone is exactly what happened with the first SARS virus. And that was a known quantity. And that known quantity went around the world and infected a whopping 10,000 people and killed less than 800.
Now, if that is what an infectious clone can do in a certain quantity, then that is not a pandemic. It's not pandemic potential and it never will be.
And I think that all of the biology about DNA versus RNA tells us that that is the trick that RNA, when you spill it outside, is a lot more like paint.
You can't expect all the squirrels in my neighborhood to track the paint that I spill in my backyard all over the United States. And you can't expect RNA that's spilt in a laboratory or spilt in a market to behave as a pattern integrity and spread around the world with high fidelity for three and a half years.
There is no biology that supports that kind of point release spread. It's just not there.
So, JJ, I think you were instrumental in getting me to realize that a lot of what they're saying that they can do or are doing, they actually can't do.
And so you actually said on, you didn't actually say it out, right, but they're not as clever as some of us think. So do you still think that?
Absolutely.
You were the one who got me thinking.
Absolutely I do.
When we're dealing, I think the best analogy I have.
Sorry, JJ.
Go ahead.
You also mentioned natural immunity.
And I wonder whether you've had more time to think about the decline of immunologists and immunology in 1980, the lack of, how should we say, emphasis on immunology and the rising emphasis on the virology.
If you could say a few words, I've got one important question to ask after this, Charles.
I mean, I don't really have anything to say about it other than this is the thing they're doing. They're trying to replace an understanding of the irreducible complexity of biology, which is what immunology is all about.
They can get little hints about how things are orchestrated, but it's very quick in immunology, very quick in neurobiology, very quick in a few of these fields, you run into this irreducible complexity where if you're not honest, you might be able to pretend that you're making progress.
But in reality, you've got to put your hands up and say, we can't get past this point.
And they have really brainwashed people into believing that there is no there is no irreducible complexity that that modern biology can't get past.
Yeah. So when I was a medical student, JJ, the kings of medicine, if you like, were the immunologists.
So it comes as a surprise to me that they're not listened to now because they know all about, of course, the natural immunity of which you speak, which nobody wants to discuss.
And then, of course, they want to talk about virologists all the time.
And but the last question is this.
So we had an Australian barrister on speaking to us on Tuesday, and his name is Julian Gillespie.
And he has he spoke brilliantly.
And I really recommend his presentation to you in particular, because he was outlining evidence which he submitted to the EU and to the UK.
But it hasn't got there, apparently.
So, yeah, we're going to try and help him with that about the evidence that so human beings who are so concerned about eating genetically modified food, because that was one of the
one of the things that they used in Brexit, you know, to frighten the British public into, oh, you know, if we have Brexit, then then we'll be getting GMO genetically modified food from the United States of America.
And that was universally accepted as bad, you know.
So that all these people who wouldn't dream of eating genetically modified food go happily along and get themselves possibly, and some would say probably, Julian Gillespie included, that they've been genetically modified.
So I wanted to and this is really important because if that is the case, then in my view, if we put present the message or introduce the seeds into people we're trying to influence, you know, then they will do our work for us, you know, they'll do Julian Gillespie's work as well because they won't.
If there's any possibility in their minds that they have been permanently genetically modified without informed consent, well, they don't realize that at the moment, but they will.
Then they will do our work for us.
So what do you think about that? Is there any possibility in your mind, JJ, that these people who have been injected with these experimental whatever they are, that they've been genetically modified?
I mean, if we could show that their B cell and T cell complement was permanently modified, would that be enough? If we could show that their autoimmune response to a particular protein or a particular tissue was modified, would that be enough?
Well, I think, so Kevin McKernan, we have that on the list.
Yeah, but this is a problem. This is a big problem. And then this is the reason why I think it's a trap. Because if you injected me with this mRNA and this double stranded DNA contamination and went all around my body, how would you propose to find it?
You could look in my sperm. You could look in my saliva. But if it's in my muscle cells and it's in every third muscle cell, how are you going to find it? If it's in every third kidney cell, every third endothelial cell, how are you going to find the integration of that in that genome?
There's no way to sample that except for maybe a small subset of your immune system, which is then they can say, well, we're not sure whether the DNA did this or the RNA did this because the whole thing was to augment the immune system. It is a nasty little distraction from the fact that transfection in its purest form was already a terrible idea. If there's crap in it, then that makes it even worse.
Sure. Yes, but the reason I'm very interested in it, JJ, is the potential for our propaganda in the future.
I understand. But what happens if we paid somebody a million dollars and it was like that Buckhalter guy, Buckhalts from South Carolina and Kevin McKernan from the...
MIT.
No, what if we tell those two guys, we got a million dollars, you do the test and they do the test and they don't find genetic integration. Now what?
Now we're screwed.
Now you're screwed and everybody's screwed because we just proved their point that well there's no genetic integration so it wasn't that dangerous anyway. And now if we can take it out, what objection could you possibly have?
Well, yes, but Julian Gillespie was quoting a paper from Kevin McKernan from I think February 2023. Have you seen that paper? I haven't.
Of course. Yeah, I mean, I know what they're talking about. I don't disagree that it's in there. What I disagree with is the idea of pursuing the potential biological...
It's going to create the possibility that we can't find it because if it is not in our germline or if it is in non-dividing cells, I don't understand how a biopsy would find it.
You can look at it.
All right, just 25 minutes already.
All right. Just say this JJ, Professor Alexandra Henri-Encourde was actually talking about the possibility of this two years ago and she's very difficult.
I agree it's a possibility. I totally agree it's a possibility. The way that we would assay for it is another problem entirely. We'd have to start with people who are injured.
So your position is this JJ, correct me if I'm wrong, but you say that if you even try to prove or disprove that you're playing into their narrative, is that correct?
Potentially, yes. I don't think that it's necessary to pursue that in that way. Because again, if what Kevin says... Let me play devil's advocate. If Kevin McKernan says what he says is true, then maybe the real problem is that they lied about the plasmid that they use.
And not that it's in there and not that there's contamination because I think all the people in the process knew that that was possible. Maybe the reason why we need to pursue it is because they lied and that's a very different pursuit than trying to address the biological consequences of this.
If it's a mythology, then we're addressing the biological consequences of mythology instead of saying that number one, they shouldn't have done it. Number two, they definitely knew. And we have all kinds of circumstantial evidence that they've known for years that this would not work like they say.
Exactly. And he quoted that evidence.
All right, come on. Thank you, JJ.
Okay, now, before we get to Albert, I want all of you to understand, to reinforce what JJ has been sharing with us today. I want you to imagine you've entered into a contract.
Any part of your life, get out of the medical space.
And, and you have agreed to pay a $100,000 for a product, a thing, a car.
And you didn't get what you paid for.
So you go to court.
And, and the plaintiff who wants his $100,000, he says to the judge, Stephen Frost didn't give me my $100,000.
And you're the defendant, Stephen or JJ and you go, I'm not going to give you the $100,000. I didn't give you $100,000 because you didn't give me the car that I agreed to buy.
But the judge having heard the plaintiff's case says, no, I don't want to hear anymore. I've heard enough.
And if you don't understand what I'm talking about, then you need to watch more of Judge Judy.
Because what we have had humanity has heard, the government has heard, we've heard the plaintiff side, we're not interested in any opposing views.
And if you're not upset about, I don't give a shit about the technology, there has been no proper defendant's case put against what's been imposed on us.
And you've got to keep this simple because we will not awaken people to say how.
And we have to use this example that you have not heard the alternative story.
You've only heard the plaintiff's case. Watch more Judge Judy get your thinking on this.
We've been sold a fraud. That's what JJ is telling us.
And the evidence of this is not a scientific debate. This is a sigh of.
Just get it. And we have to be as strong as we possibly can, just like Julian, and get fucking angry.
That was Julian's message as well. Get fucking angry that you're the defendant and the judge is ruled against you.
All right. Albert.
Yeah. Hi, JJ. Great. Great presentation as usual.
For a small disclaimer for the COVID ethics audiences, I follow JJ almost every night on his Twitch channel.
I put the link of JJ's Twitch channel in the comments so you guys could check that out.
And I did want to give a shout out to one of JJ's partners there, Mark Kulaks, who's who's satanics, who's the tonics.
I think is he the one that found the Peter Cullis video?
Yeah, both of us did. It's really because Robert Malone actually at the announcement of the
Nobel Prize wrote a substack about how actually they are skipping Peter Cullis and maybe Peter Cullis is the guy who should really get it.
And that was the only reason why I ever found out who he was. And then that led us down a real long of different companies.
And then I watched this video and I didn't even actually see the question and answer the first time I watched it because the video itself and the talk itself is already pretty mind blowing.
But then the question and answer. Well, I know how deep the rabbit hole has gone since then.
But yeah, just a shout out to who's the tonics. I want to throw my sombrero out there for him to lobby for him to come out and present to us here.
But with that being said, this particular zoom here, medical doctors for COVID ethics, man, more props to Charles and Dr.
Frost is that this this is I feel like like this particular zoom audience and channel is like the tip of the iceberg.
I mean, we can I think we can see how many how many VIPs we have just in the audience here.
You know, Ms. Vera Shirav and Dr. Nagase is here and Jonathan Engler and Jessica Hawke.
I mean, the list goes on. I don't know if you realize, JJ, but even Charles Rixie was in the audience for a little while and he split.
I was sad because I wanted the Raccoon Brigade to be on.
But I wanted to ask you a question about if you happen to see Thomas's Wren's big bombshell with Marjorie Taylor Greene a few days ago when he basically said he's got proof that this soldier in
Fort Riley, Kansas, at the Army Hospital there got a COVID-19 jab.
But in 2014, and I was just mind blowing because, you know, we all know that this is a fraud.
So the timeline of everything is so important.
But but that particular 2014 is like pushes pushes the fraud back.
You know, while it probably goes for decades, but definitely it's like, wow.
Did you have a what were the what were the details of it? Was it really it was it really a COVID shot or was it a coronavirus shot?
Well, it said it said a Moderna it said a Moderna COVID-19 shot on the on the soldiers medical records.
I put a link it's further up in the in the comments.
Maybe it'll know I don't have it copied.
I'd have to look. I mean, I don't I don't know the problem.
The problem I have and I I'm not trying to be insulting.
I'm trying to be objective.
Thomas Wren's is working with Andrew Huff.
And both of those guys have been in and out of contact with me for two and a half years.
And it goes hot and then it goes cold.
It's like, do you want to make some money and testify or or give an affidavit?
And then it goes cold. Sign this memorandum of of whatever.
And then I do that and then nothing.
And then now I haven't heard from either of them in probably a year and a half already now.
So it's hard for me to understand.
And I can't pay attention to all of these people.
And unfortunately, I've kind of stopped paying attention to Thomas Wren's because of his association with Andrew Huff, who I'm not really convinced about.
But it's it's not just trying to be objective.
We can't pay attention to everything.
And there's some other things that have kept me from.
Fair enough, JJ.
It's pleasure. It is pleasure for me to be on your team, JJ.
God bless you.
Thank you. Thank you, Albert.
Lars from Sweden, I believe.
That's correct.
I have a question for you, Stephen Frost.
He asked the question about your view on David Martin.
And I think actually that you and David are probably a little closer together than you assume.
If I could arrange a discussion between you and David in this forum, would that be interesting for you?
Absolutely. Absolutely. Of course, I would.
I'll see if I can do that, because I think between the two of you, you have a lot of interesting substance.
Sure. I've tried before to get him to let me interview him.
And it might just be that he gets inundated with emails and I'm just another blip.
So if you can do that, that would be great.
I'd love to interview him and also be on here with him. That would be great.
Great. Thank you.
I think Lex is up.
Oh, hi.
Yes, Lex. Charles is not there at the moment anyway. So go ahead, Lex.
I have a short question and then a comment, a few comments about the lipid nanoparticle.
I'll be very brief, Stephen.
So my question to JJ is, how long do you think the lipid nanoparticle stays in a human body?
Like how long does it stay like forever or does it get degraded, absorbed, metabolized?
Like what's your what's your thinking on this?
Are you going to make the comments now or you want me to answer that question first?
Well, you can answer the question and then after that, I'll talk about what I thought about the LSD.
My extremely short answer would be I have no idea.
I know from listening to Peter Cullis and others that there are many manipulations that they can do chemically to the lipids to change their dwell time, to change their uptake rate, to they can coat them with different things.
They can pass them through the liver so the liver coats them with things.
But you've heard it briefly earlier. I don't think they really know.
And I think their assumption is really based on what they're trying to accomplish in a grant application.
If they're trying to accomplish very temporary expression of a protein, then they'll tell you it lasts for a few days or maybe a week.
And if they're trying to replace a gene that's missing, they'll tell you that we can express a protein for months.
And so to me, I think this is one of the places where the most hand waving about the fidelity of understanding has occurred.
And so I would definitely not have a reasonable answer.
I don't know. I would expect that it's much worse and much longer and less temporary than they say.
And I also think that repeated exposure to it has unforeseen consequences that might be less if there was a possibility where you could just be.
I mean, I'm saying something really stupid here that I don't believe, but maybe if you only had to transfect somebody once and it would work, I could imagine maybe in cancer or something, that's a legitimate therapy.
But once you need to do it repeatedly, I think there is no example.
We can't do it in a laboratory. I mean, let me give you the briefest example I can when I do that in a mouse and when they do it in other labs with with more with more in vivo experiments, live experiments.
So I would always do the transfection of the mouse.
The mouse is just living in its cage.
And then when I want to do my measurements, the mouse gets sacrificed.
I dissect the brain very quick under ice.
I make really small slices and put them under a microscope with physiological conditions and bubbling water and they last for about four hours and I can make a few experiments and then that mouse is gone forever.
Now, we understand how to use it as a tool like that.
But we don't use those mice for years.
If you transfect a mouse and change its brain and in a way that you think you understand, you can you can study the effects of that manipulation for about six weeks at maximum.
And then the immunological consequences of that manipulation are going to outweigh, overtake and eventually destroy any meaningful data that you're going to get from the manipulation when it was working.
And so we know from working on all levels of laboratory animals from cell culture to drosophila, which is a fly to mice and ferrets and monkeys, the transfection is a very transient and potentially dangerous manipulation that that has a time limit based on the immune response.
So we have never in a biological on the bench use repeatedly transfected an animal.
We do it once we watch the changes of the manipulation and we sacrifice the animal.
That's how it's done. There is no animal model of a disease or an animal model of a therapy where an animal is getting regular injections of a transfection that end up replacing a protein and and making the symphony sing again.
That has never ever and Peter Cullis just said it never ever been done.
And so that's why they're exclusively focused right now on vaccines, because then you're not thinking about this giant limitation, which which it really is.
Well, I was more wondering, like, you know, after six months, like the lipid nanoparticle is gone or after a year or something like that.
I see. And I don't think they know.
And I don't think we can know because it would in theory those lipids would incorporate into the membranes that they fuse with.
And so then I don't know how quickly their products.
So now I'll move on to my quick comments about the particle.
I'll be very brief.
OK, I did.
I read the Pfizer contract with the European Union.
In it, there is a document called the technical specification of the lipid nanoparticle.
It's like four lipids.
And there's a form inside that document.
And the form number is I and X, followed by a bunch of numbers.
And I believe that I and X stands for I next pharmaceutical or I next by pharma, which is the predecessor company of TechMirror.
And then TechMirror in 2015 became Arbutus Pharmaceutical.
And I went deep into the financial statements of that publicly listed company.
And I found out that in 2015, Vivek Ramashwamy, who's a contender for the GOP nomination, acquired Arbutus.
So can you tell me, can you say that name better, which is the Arcutus?
What are you saying?
Can you spell it maybe?
Arbutus.
A-R-B-U-T-U-S.
OK, OK.
And what I'm saying here is that in the United States, you have like a, I would call it like a fake nomination run for the Republican nomination.
There's Vivek Ramashwamy, I think the second or the third in line.
And in 2015, using a company that he incorporated less than a year before, he acquired Arbutus.
And Arbutus is the company that owns the tech of the LNP.
I see.
All right.
So this is very interesting that on one end, we've got Trump, who signed on Operation Warp Speed.
And then a few years later, we have Vivek Ramashwamy, who's like, quote unquote, running against Trump, but I don't think he is.
And that guy acquired the LNP and all the clinical history and all of it.
And I found that out in the financial statements of Arbutus.
And I've written quite a bit about it.
And there's also like some shenanigans about how it was done.
And I won't go into those details.
So if you want to know about if you want to know more about it, you can reach out to me.
I'm very easy to find on the Internet.
You just Google my name.
OK.
All right.
Very good.
That's all.
Great work.
Oh, that's one last thing.
One last thing.
Very important.
Ramashwamy, when he was at Harvard, he wrote a paper called titled At Humanity's Boundary, Ethical Issues in the Creation of Human Animal Chimera.
Unfortunately, I'm not able to access the Harvard Library.
Would there be anyone on this call who has access to the Harvard Library and would be able to dig up that paper for me?
I would love to read it.
Me too.
All right.
So I really want that paper.
I have no access to it.
I need someone who can access like the Hollis Harvard Library.
And I can drop it.
I can drop in the chat like the name and the link of that paper.
I really want it because it would give me an indication of what's in the headspace of Vivek Ramashwamy in 2015 when he acquired the LNP.
Lex, I have I probably have access through a member of the family to that library.
Please.
I'm going to drop the details in the chat.
I'd like to follow up on this just for my curiosity.
Remind me.
Can you just email me and then I see it then.
Okay.
And Diana and Diana also put a note in the chat there, Lex.
So communicate with her.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you for listening.
Diana.
Who is that?
Jones.
Diana Henry.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
Thank you, Lex.
Again, everybody notes that you have a request.
You have a problem.
You posted here.
There's a lot of there's a lot of minds available here and one idea sparks another.
So that's the point of coming together and you get into the habit of being able to ask questions and get a lead.
I am terrified.
It's Daniel Negassi.
You are one of the people that spoke out the earliest in my view.
And I have a lot of respect for you.
I haven't really seen a lot of you since the beginning of the pandemic.
But what I saw was somebody going out in public and putting their their physical and and and their voice behind the claims.
And I just I want to say it right away.
I don't know what your comments are going to be, but you're a hero in my book.
Yeah, I agree with you.
Thank you very much.
I recently wrote a book.
Right.
But then you're shocking reception.
I've muted you.
Unmute yourself.
Try again.
No, I don't.
You got a terrible broadband connection by the sound of it.
Oh, OK.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
That's a little bit better.
No, is that better?
A little bit, yes.
OK.
Thank you so much for being here.
Thank you.
Daniel.
You're breaking up, Daniel.
And so try to try to get a connection.
Can you try and get a better connection?
No, Stephen, stop.
There's not two of us needing to do this.
We're talking over each other.
I'll moderate it.
If we can't hear Daniel's clear, he'll have to call back.
We'll try one more time.
Daniel, try and unmute, see if it works.
Otherwise, we'll go to Carla Dean and log back in.
No, no good.
All right, Daniel, you have to log back in or do something.
Carla Dean.
Hey, thank you.
JJ.
JJ's muted.
Oh, yeah.
Good to see you again.
Hello.
Hi, JJ.
This may be an oversimplification, but you had mentioned something about a blue light
with your mice that you had a blue light on.
So I'm going to ask you to try and get a better connection.
OK.
Thank you.
So you had a blue light with your mice that you were working with.
And in our neighborhood and throughout our city, about every other street light now is
becoming a blue light.
Does that have any correlation at all?
No, it doesn't.
Blue light is not really good for a lot of other reasons, but it just happens to be that
the protein that we were able to use and was optimized for that use in neurobiology,
they optimized it for the cheapest laser color.
So it's kind of a...
I mean, red's OK, but this protein can react to a lot of different colors, and they chose
blue, because that's one of the cheaper, I believe, one of the cheaper laser LEDs to
make.
So it has nothing to do with that.
So these proteins, I mean, you can talk to the inventor of this technology.
This is wholly inappropriate for any kind of manipulation or correction medically.
It's really a bench tool for the short-term manipulation of a biological substance or
a biological system.
So I don't think they're related.
Sorry.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Blue light behind your left ear that we can see on your window.
Well, I'm stuffed back in my bathroom packing, and while I'm packing to leave for the...
I didn't want to miss JJ's, so I thought, hey...
Good decision.
All right.
Yes, Thanksgiving is coming up, so all of that stuff is happening.
All right.
Hans Benjamin, often called Benjamin, JJ, to save your words.
Benjamin, over to you.
Okay.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you for a very instructive talk.
But it's rather far away from what I'm doing.
And just to connect, actually, the two fields, I was always wondering, you know, in computer
science, as you may know, a lot of victims from the medical profession, namely famous
Alan Turing.
You know, he was investigating, you know, essentially the blueprint for computers very
early on.
And one of the prime issues there is how do you bring a computer program to halt?
And as we know, this poses a problem whenever we have a machine crashing.
Now, what I've not seen actually being discussed in this context of, you know, microbiology
is so in many of these processes, you actually you try to trigger something, but it's actually
never being discussed.
How do you stop the processes, whatever you are actually trying to launch?
So why is this not the case?
Because we know that even in this very abstract, nearly mathematical sense, it's very difficult
if you have a set of operations, you know, and which consecutively trigger each other.
How do you bring this thing to a halt?
And why do, and in biology, of course, everything is way, way more complicated.
So how can we then use our technological knowledge to somehow embark on something and you don't
know where it's going to end up?
And I find this actually frightening.
Why is nobody talking across the disciplines?
Because I think this is a very vital issue.
So, but maybe, I mean, you must certainly know more about this.
Well, I would say, you know, so how Benjamin is a professor of theoretical physics, and he's an
expert on the Nord Stream pipeline explosions.
I can only answer with I think that the reference that I made before to life being a pattern
integrity and that there being some irreducible complexity there.
I think that's really almost the main objective of the pandemic and the science that preceded it.
Is this.
I mean, the trans human agenda can't proceed if the common knowledge of the average person is that
somewhere there's an irreducible complexity, a sacredness that we can't really pass.
And that, that I think is sort of the idea with regard to if you teach biology the right way and you
understand it as a pattern integrity, then then all of these manipulations seem terrifying.
And it is it is really what Peter Cullis said there.
If you're causing adverse events, just stop giving it and then everything will go back to normal.
That absolutely ridiculous assumption is the inverse of what you just said, which is how do we stop
stuff? What kind of changes are we permanently making to this ongoing process that we think we can
just tweak? A few years ago, I actually critiqued a presentation by the lady from Moderna.
And what I explained was that if you think of the immune system and its function as a stage production
that includes a orchestra in the orchestra pit and the the the play starts and in the second act, the
the director of the play realizes that there are instruments missing.
And so the way that they fix it is that they give a bunch of those instruments to little kids and tell them to
march out on stage. That's not going to be a useful augmentation to what was probably an OK show that was
just missing some percussion.
And so what we're doing here is exactly the same thing.
We're we're arrogantly saying that we can augment a ongoing set of complex processes that we can't even
describe in their in their in their default form, in their default operation.
So I agree wholeheartedly with that. And I love the fact that that you that you jumped on the idea that all of these
processes in biology are absolutely impossibly complex.
We used to have a real healthy respect for that, but we seem to have lost it.
Yeah, thank you very much. Actually, in this context, if I'm allowed to make another remark, because I came
to the book booklet by Bob Loughlin. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1998.
And I think the book is only available in German. It's German translation.
And it's more or less the title says, you know, crime on rationality, you know, fraud and in the society, in the
knowledge society. And what he actually says right in his first chapter is people are not aware that we actually have
outsourced a lot of gain of knowledge in the labs.
It actually into labs, which are completely secret. They are like defense labs.
There are labs of companies and we have a public have no way to actually know what's going on.
And it's particularly true in medicine and physics. And I presume probably the same in biology as we've learned from this
Wuhan D.O.D. story. You know, it's incredibly so actually we have no idea.
Nobody is actually telling what to do and what is allowed to do and what is not allowed to be done.
And so and I mean, he wrote this book like 14 years ago, I think, like 2008 and something.
So he already foresaw it because he was actually working in Lawrence Livermore National Lab, which is the U.S.
weapon laser weapon lab. So he knows what he is talking about.
So I just wanted to say that it's I mean, what you just mentioned for biology, that a lot of stuff is being done secretly and people are just
sleepwalking into something. The same holds true for physics as well.
So we really seem to have a large fraction of knowledge, which is just somehow put into a locked into a cupboard that it's not visible to us actually for decades.
No, in nuclear technology, it's actually it's never actually be known.
It's only you only know when it's too late.
And so would you would you could you cite any examples in physics where they have exaggerated the threat of something in order to get more funding for it
or exaggerated the threat of something to hide the threat of another thing?
My example would be that from the very beginning they have been using people and in particular the one that really gets in stuck in my teeth is Kevin Esfeld because Kevin Esfeld
working at MIT has perfected two different forms of synthetic biology, one being the gene drive and the other being directed evolution of enzymes and toxins.
These two synthetic biological processes, in my humble opinion, are actually the synthetic biology we need to be afraid of them using.
And yet that guy was the guy that they chose to put in front of Congress and say the gain of function in viruses is the thing that we need legislation about and we need to be put in jail for.
And I'm wondering if there's something in physics that's like that, where this shiny object over here gets everybody to argue.
And in reality, the guys that are tweaking over here are the ones and that's not even discussed.
Yeah, I mean, I would say it's in two aspects.
It's what I saw now with my I don't know, a diverted discussion here.
But what I saw with my reaction to my investigations is, you know, on the use of nuclear devices is that people have this also triggered by movies and public opinion.
Oh, we have this huge nuclear explosion, this huge fireball and everybody notices when this goes off and that's, you know, three seconds before the end of the world.
But actually, they have completely missed the development that there has been a push, actually, since the 90s to develop weapons between the normal conventional and quote weapons, battlefield weapons and nuclear weapons, because there was a huge gap in between.
And now this gap has been closed and nobody knows about it.
You know, you're being attacked for actually pointing it out and you can listen to Congress hearings where people say, and they say, oh, we need to, we need to develop these things in order to deter Russia.
Now, again, low yield nuclear weapons to deter Russia.
So what is actually your intention? Really? You know, so you may wonder.
And so I think it's a lot of, you know, a lot of, as you say, you know, you somehow divert attention in a very clever way.
And actually, the big things are really being hidden and nobody talks about them. And this is completely dangerous.
You will you will be silenced and that's what happened to the counter debate as we, as I said earlier, opposition is silenced and Benjamin, you're being silenced and all of us need to know it on the work you've done on Nord Stream.
So all of us have to use our resources. I'll give you another example on aviation, impending disaster in aviation of damaged pilots.
And from these jabs and Captain Shane Murdoch, who I work closely with, who I've interviewed, now he's getting traction on his article that he published months ago.
And you just have to keep pumping it out there. You just have to keep pumping it out there.
Now, before we go to Jim, I've got Daniel's question here, JJ. So it's in the chat. How I'll read it so you can pretend I'm Daniel.
How accessible is independent DNA sequencing? No university labs in Canada will sequence samples of alleged mRNA.
He goes on, I suspect 10 years in the future, the mass injection campaign of 20 to 22 has created a new market for genetic testing and then an expensive market and then an expensive market for gene unediting therapy to cure the DNA, mRNA, small fragment RNA alterations of the genomes of people who took the injection.
Oh my gosh, I really am not happy with that question.
I haven't thought about that, Daniel, and everyone I hadn't.
I hadn't thought about that.
It's definitely possible I mean even if even if even if these demons know that there was no integration. That sounds like a really good mythology that would move a lot of money.
And get a lot of emergency youth authorizations.
I think it's a extraordinary nasty possibility that I hadn't really registered yet and.
Yeah, I don't know what to say other than it's a great question. It's totally possible.
I'm still airing on the side of them using this as a distraction to try and forgive people again the story is going to be that they rushed it and that if they had taken their time.
All of this could have been avoided whatever this is and the people that watch TV think this is very tiny, and the people on our side I think it's almost everybody that took the shot and so that that debates not occurring in light of the adulteration, but it's a wonderful question.
Thanks Daniel and like I said you're a hero to me so it's great that you were here I'm sorry we couldn't talk.
And, and Daniel also put in the chat JJ that he thanks you for exposing Robert Malone so that he put that into the chat. So don't forget to don't forget to save the chat.
All right, we've got 25 minutes to go we've got Jim and Jonathan, and then we'll go back to Stephen will finish in 25 minutes JJ you okay for the next 25 minutes.
You're no problem.
All right, Jim.
Hey, thanks very much. Great work.
Your University of Pittsburgh specializes in anthrax I guess and it's going to be some very important work in the future. My question to you is what's in those vaccines, or what's in the vials, and the mRNA technology versus the DNA plasmids new recent
The recent evaluations have shown that there are DNA plasmid various fragments, and you've pointed out throughout your talks that there are various pieces of this spike protein being pumped out.
And I've been seeing some people who are who are in trials for mRNA vaccines and they have to be administered within two or three hours after thawing.
Yet these that that's for like real gene therapy, but these vaccines once they thought them, then they use them for days.
Is it possible that these MR the mRNA is not making these spike proteins. The mRNA is, you know, a few minutes after it's thought, then it does work. But the real manufacturer of these spike proteins is from the DNA plasmids that may be incorporating into the gut, or wherever, through the E. coli.
So there's a couple angles there that that I want to hit. So the first one is the incorporation into gut bacteria. That's a really big stretch from intramuscular injection.
It, it assumes quite a few things
That I don't think are very likely, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen.
I think there is more of an impetus for them to get access to exactly the same way that Daniel Legasse was suggesting there.
They want to get access to the excuse to sequence everything and anything they can sample. So if they can get people convinced that the microbiome is something that everybody should use metagenomics to sequence, then they'll, they'll definitely go for that.
With regard to the DNA versus the mRNA.
I'm still, I'm still in my mind, not totally convinced that the DNA matters relative to the RNA. And so it is really just from my own experience, but my own experience is twisted in that sense. If you were paying, if I was doing my job correctly, you, you heard me say that the tool that I used was an adenovirus, and that means it's using DNA.
And every once in a while we were also using mRNA for a similar thing. I did some small interfering RNA knockdowns of nicotinic receptors and things like that, which is injecting mRNA and then using that to down regulate the expression of proteins.
And so I have some in my imagination already bias that I can't get rid of because the way that I understand and the application of these, these technologies is really, really limited. And they're, even when we do it in the mice, keep in mind that we drill a hole in the skull and inject anatomically directly into the brain.
And so there's also the blood brain barrier, keeping that, that, that adenovirus transfection from leaving the brain and going throughout the body. And we would never think to inject the mouse with that adenovirus and hope that it would get to the brain.
And so there's a, I'm not, I don't want to discount it. What I really want to emphasize just to make sure that everybody understands is that the randomness of this, if you're taking this lipid nanoparticle and just say you're only paying attention to the double-stranded DNA in there, if it is to incorporate, where will it incorporate in your endothelial cells is one of the highest likelihood places.
How will you biopsy that? How will we find out that that happened? And what will the consequences be if the endothelial cells aren't really dividing?
The spike protein is almost certainly produced by the mRNA. The question is how pure is the mRNA? How active is it? And your question about, about temperature is really valid.
That's another reason why, just to throw that out there, why we shouldn't take the, the results of Kevin McKernan and, and Buckhalter totally seriously. Why? Not because they're liars, but because the FDA won't take them seriously because they don't have a chain of custody.
And so they'll say that, well, whatever, whatever vaccine they had is not an official vial anymore because it wasn't stored at temperature. We don't have a chain of custody. You don't have proof that your stuff was calibrated.
They'll have a whole list of things why that's not true. And then they won't ever give us a sample to use. So it's really going to be tricky. We're trying to work behind the scenes to get Kevin McKernan and, and Buckhalter from South Carolina to take samples from a colleague that we have in Germany,
who is actively transfecting cell cultures with the mRNA so that she can use that as a control when people are doing autopsies.
And so she wants to send some of these transfected cell lines over to Kevin and over to Phillip so that they can do their sequencing and see if in that cell culture, we're already getting genetic integration. That would probably be the best
first pass test. But again, if that happens and they say they don't find anything, then what? And that's the danger because we're setting ourselves up for something that we don't need to be set up for because from the very beginning,
transfection was already wholly inappropriate for healthy humans. But I understand your question. I don't really have a good answer. I just talked a long time and didn't really answer it probably. Sorry.
Okay, thanks. And just as an aside, if you if you ever get a chance to talk with Jason McClellan, who invented the spike protein that's allegedly made by the by the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, that would probably be very good. Jason McClellan, MC,
capital L-E-L-L-A-N from the University of Texas, Austin, and he designed it on a supercomputer called Longhorn. And I think that your discussion with him would be very beneficial.
Awesome. Thanks for that.
Thanks for that.
Well done. Thanks. Thank you, G. And three questions to go then, Stephen. Jonathan, welcome. Good to see you.
Hi. Hi. How are you?
Excellent. Hello.
Hi. Can you hear me okay?
Yep.
Yeah.
JJ, I just wanted to, somebody, one of my colleagues in heart actually forward me a question to ask, which was really about the book, about the RFK book.
Because the title of the RFK book, obviously, is it suggests that its theme is very much a counter to your view.
I mean, yeah, we're talking about the Wuhan cover up and the bio weapons arms race, etc, etc.
So presumably your contribution, your chapter is very much at odds with the overall thrust of the book.
And I was curious to know how hard it was to convince RFK to include that material and whether there was any form of negotiation or and it's very good that your views, which of course I completely concur with, are in there because it act as a counterweight to the overall thrust of the book.
But do you, are you sort of optimistic that your message can cut through the overall theme of the book, which is that we need to stop gain of function research because look what it did.
So I don't know how successful I will be, but I'm going to show you this here.
This is the index and you see Jonathan Cooey here and all the places where they quote me.
And then you'll notice up above there's all the references to coronaviruses and I'm pretty much in every one of those sections providing a alternative to the, whoops, to the narrative of gain of function being useful in that way.
But I do need to put a caveat out there that it became very clear early on that I was going to be allowed to put my counter narrative in there, but also Bobby's objective was to keep this a sort of historical document of what people claimed.
And that was the rubric that was running through my head.
So when I insert into the book, I'm always inserting another way to interpret this or if you listen to these words carefully, they're admitting this is a limitation, but then they're exaggerating the threat.
To be honest, I feel very good that if you take all the things that I put in the book and you just cut them out and put them in sequence, it's actually pretty extraordinary what I managed to get in there.
But the way that it's scattered throughout the book, it's still going to come off as as one of a plethora of possibilities and since 500 pages are devoted to bioweapons and only eight index things are devoted to my biological posits.
You can rest assured that this is exactly how I used it in my chat.
It's just another a compilation of of what I think we should interpret as a long drawn out process to in secret, try to discover as much of biology as we can while creating this this hypothetical threat that requires a never ending public health state because they knew that at some point this was going to be the only way that they were going to make progress.
And I think they knew that already long ago with the special virus cancer program or special cancer via whatever it's called.
They've known it since AIDS, they've known that they're going to need to make this transition I've shown a video from a guy by the name of Brazil ski who's talking about how you know we've used, we've used live attenuated vaccines to do this all this other stuff.
Now we're going to make vaccines for chronic disease, and that's not an equivalent biologically but it is in their illusion that vaccines, we can tweak the immune system to cure anything you know a vaccine for for diabetes is in theory possible with this kind of mythology I think
that's where they've taken us. And I will agree with you wholeheartedly that it was a struggle.
And it consumed us for nine months almost a year. And, and there were a few times when when I wasn't happy but I can confirm now that I've held the book that everything that I, I got in there before the final edit is still in there so now we just have to teach it I think.
Well, thank you. Thank you for your kind of, by the way I sent you an email earlier. I read it and I, I'm really happy you did. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Thank you Jonathan two questions john john be john was it the sleep john be what Google call you he came on the slope john be my grand father.
Oh, you look so handsome with your hair grown out I haven't seen you in a while you look 10 years younger man.
Oh, thanks. Yeah, no, it hasn't been this long and maybe I don't know 15 years, 20.
Yeah, I don't have time to do it.
Hey, how are you.
Okay man good to see you. You too. Look done yet.
Books been done since May, it's the editing and all the other crap finding a publisher and I couldn't find a publisher wants to even pick it up. I finally found one. So we're looking at December shipping, it'll be on Amazon pre order in a week.
But I get the Minnesota memorandum coming out. That's not going to be for everybody. It's a notice of criminal liability for a murder to the CDC FDA NIH, all the directors all their underlings it'll go to six state attorneys general.
And hopefully, hopefully it'll get before the floor of the grand Jerry, it's 100 pages of hard facts and 150 pages of graphs 400 graphs.
Minnesota and Massachusetts really comprehensive.
But hey, what do they want to ask or say or ask.
Oh, with regard to the, the whole plasma thing.
The, you know, I don't you know I don't do biology, I just, you know, my eyes glaze over. But where it comes to law.
And I think it's just the fact that they'll find it. And that the FDA didn't look for it, and that they, they, they lied to the FDA.
And no, they're not going to get away with it. I don't want to. I'm going criminal, but for all the civil lawsuits out there.
And it enables that stupid prep act willful misconduct exception.
It's almost a slam dunk so if they can prove it, then the floodgates are going to open for the lawsuits. So it's not really. I mean it's stupid as a biology thing but it's a good thing for the legal side I just wanted to comment on that so I wouldn't be too hard on that you know where I stand on that, you know,
Could I ask you a question to follow up on that what do you think about the idea that ships
that they can the FDA. What I explained earlier in the talk is that the FDA knows how to regulate protein biologics because when they make protein biologics they use bacterial culture and recombinant DNA and they know exactly how to get it out it's a very expensive process
to exchange chromatography. Now, the FDA knows that standard. So the argument that I see coming is that the providers of the mRNA wouldn't have to tell the FDA that they couldn't get that stuff out using the standard, the gold standard of, of purification because that
separate DNA from RNA because they're both, they're both nucleic acids they're both charged so the and chromatography won't work for them. So I'm still skeptical that the FDA is just not going to go yeah we knew that.
And this was an emergency, and they knew that, and this was an emergency and they said we could do it and we did it.
I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just I'm just trying to be devil's advocate and see the worst case scenario as being them just going yeah we knew that but it was a pandemic.
Millions. That's a good point. That's a good point but where it comes to what is codified. It doesn't matter if they say yeah we knew that, or they knew that, or we knew that they knew it.
Well the talk and the bullshit excuses don't matter if something's codified in law and they didn't do it so I mean, we know that the FDA is complicit in a RICO conspiracy. It's not that it's not the drug manufacturers alone.
I mean they'll do all kinds of stuff if you let them get away with it. It's the FDA that's letting them get away with it.
When it comes to these stupid legal loopholes and nuances and I think I think this is going to be a good one.
And I don't know the law well enough but in speaking to Warner.
You know I went I went down to Florida.
Last Saturday.
And did that all the John Lattell is a really great guy did that 800 people 800 people went to that thing.
The coven litigators conference was 200. I thought that was big at 800. Amazing. So I'll stop and let us ask a question but um yeah just look from the legal perspective and let's let's let's talk more soon.
It's been a while I haven't done much of anything.
Trying to get this book done. I'm just exhausted.
So good to see you. Now it's time for a book tour so we got to get on my. Oh, I know.
I'm scared. It's going to be so much time. Right. Sorry.
John, John, John, you're exhausted because all that energy is gone into growing that here. It's quite clear.
It's not growing here.
It's growing over here. Well done on your work and congratulations on getting that that point we look forward to the book. All right, Tessa and then Stephen, and then we're done.
Well, thank you, JJ. You're wonderful as usual and it's good to see you again, and I apologize I've been dealing with major targets hacking for like a couple of months now so if I can stay in line for a couple of hours it's a miracle, and I couldn't.
So, uh, I have a question and a comment adjacent to what she was saying, and it kind of touches upon what JJ, you and I were talking about, I think when I interviewed you a while ago.
So I've been working on this theory for over a year, and I have to say met with some opposition and my life became difficult when I touched upon that, which makes me think maybe there's some truth to that.
So, the theory is twofold. And by the way, Stephen I tried to email you I don't know we're going to talk, and then I don't know if you got the rest of my emails because my emails disappear too.
So, twofold. One, what was COVID, and I think a lot of COVID symptoms had to do with latent infections, bacterial parasitic fungal, and there's tremendous amount of literature to the fact of COVID lungs for example the classic opaque, you know, the broken glass lung.
There is farmers lung which is molds, there's toxo, there's bacterial, and so my theory is that whatever happened in 2020, it could be many things, it could be 5G, it could be bioweapon or not, it could be stress, it could be God knows what, any amount of things.
It kicked into high gear, the latent infections that people lived with for years, perhaps not very happily, but they could handle and then something happened they could not handle anymore.
And there could be spike protein, I'm not considered an expert in spike protein so I cannot attest to that, but even without it, there's plenty of reasons.
But then the other part of it is, it has large, very large communications implications and that would be vile contaminations outside of transfections, which is, of course, genetic modification of anything, it's a horror of horrors, I think we all agree on that, on many, many grounds.
But the theory that I was working on and desperately trying to get help to test the vials for a range of things is that if proven, and I think it's true, it would give us great ability to communicate to mainstream people and it has to do with contamination of vials with very earthly organisms, bacteria, parasites, molds, and Garth Nicholson for example is working on, you know, for many years.
On micro plasma contaminations. And again, if it is proven that, for example, those things are in the vials, and let's not forget there have been recalls official recalls of J&J for molds.
They recalled over a million doses, then there were reports of actual molds found in the room where Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were prepared, and I think it goes way back I think it's not limited to COVID injections I think it goes way way way back to traditional injections.
And there's vast literature linking those various bugs to neurological symptoms to even sudden death, cardiac death, and many, many things so if that can be proven that those things potentially, at least in some vials, then it gives us great opportunity to talk to a New York Times reader because
plasmid for example, they probably there and it's probably horrible but it's a cryptic word. But if you tell them, by the way, molds were injected into your parents arm, and that's why biologically it's easy to prove that's why they're having those neurological symptoms for example, that's a whole different story in terms of communication.
So, JJ I would love to hear your thoughts about that.
So, I don't discount the idea that transfection is going to weaken your immune system. There's, there's a paper at least one from the Netherlands that showed that there's a differential immune activation after, after transfection that changes the response to bacterial and and fungal antigens.
So I don't think that the idea is wrong.
It's just difficult for me to, it would be difficult for me to justify putting too much emphasis on that, only because I don't want to confuse people and if I have somebody's ear.
The thing that I try to focus on is that first line that if if if transfection was done in a craft brew, you know, perfect way, it would still be a terrible thing to do to your children to be a terrible thing to do to your grandmother if you want her to be around another
20 years, it would be a terrible thing to use under the hubris that these people who are advocating for its use understand the consequences of it and so if these are, if these are contaminated.
It's, it's an addition.
And, but I don't think it's something that we can lead with but I, I would not discourage you from doing it simply because we should throw as much to the wall, as we can and whatever sticks we should all push.
But it's a lot more variables then. And then there's a lot more tests that need to be done and a lot more investigation that needs to happen. I have no doubt in my mind that anything like this that you described and haven't listed but could add to this list would just be better in terms of creating the
confusion and uncertainty and doubt that everybody needs in order to be hustled into this assumption that well we made a lot of mistakes but this time next time or whatever we're going to do it better.
But I do, I do remember you talking about that. When we discussed it and I, I actually looked a lot into talks about talks so plasmasis because I didn't know much about it until our interview so I hope that's kind of an answer I mean I'm not.
Thank you know that that's a good answer I think it makes sense that each of us does what you know we feel most passionate about. In this case, it's a, it's a separate problem and when I plant mRNA is bad, and it's bad going forward no matter what it is, but then going backwards.
If the vaccines are routinely contaminated with crap and various bugs that nobody tests for because the standards are really bad, then it might have greatly contributed to the dementia epidemic and autism epidemic because all of that in literature those bugs are linked to both of that.
And fear, well not fear. My concern is that the pharmaceutical industry know too well about this biological contamination problem going back back back probably decades 1986, and probably even before that but they became bold after 1986, and they know they created
and now they're going to build a narrative saying, Oh, by the way, we have all those infections on the rise and microbial resistance so here's another vaccine or 10 vaccines, and they probably want to cover up what they created over the decades.
And so, yeah that angle helps to look at what has been historically done through vaccines in general, and even the best one, theoretically working well if it's contaminated is going to create problems.
For a person in the mainstream, whose ears I think we really need to defeat the great reset and on all that, because we can't do it in a small dissident community.
And so, yeah, I think it's a very clear idea that they might have injected their baby with mold pathogenic bacteria, and in this case with COVID injections that have immunosuppression built in by default.
And it went into blood, and there was immunosuppressant that came with it.
And it caused problems, it's a very clean explanation of problems and doesn't require conversation about genocide, or the population or any of those things that they don't want to hear about.
And so I think from the communication perspective, it would be and also lawsuits as john mentioned, if that's proven that that would be really powerful.
So I would take that as a comment, Tessa, we got to go.
And Stephen, thank you, Tessa.
Each one of us has to express it as we see it and then there'll be a piece of magic that grabs it so each one of us has to keep at it.
So Stephen next few minutes for you and then we're going to finish. Thank you, Tessa.
So, JJ, why do you think it is that so few people,
even really good people on our side, are prepared to, or seem, very few people I find are incapable or they don't want to consider all possibilities.
Very easy explanation for that. I'm sorry that it has to be such an easy explanation, but I am, I am absolutely I would bet my whole family on it.
That people like Peter McCullough, people like Pierre Corey that spoke out very early were given two options.
Either you shut up about most of this stuff and sell a book about this and and talk about this stuff or will ruin your life and will give this opportunity to someone else.
This is a national security priority.
You'd have no idea what we could potentially be facing and the American apparatus needs your help.
So here's the deal. This is the list of things you can talk about.
This is the list of things you will not question. If you stick to this list, you're going to be fine.
You're going to be a famous guy and you'll be one of the leaders that gets us out of this.
If you don't stick to this list will ruin your career, will burn your family, and you'll never work in a reasonable place in the medical field again.
And they gave that offer to lots of people that spoke up. They gave that offer to lots of people on Substack.
They gave that offer to lots of people who took the job in 2021 and said, Oh, yeah, I can cover that.
And voila, here we are. A bunch of people who all have a very specific job stopping and starting the train and that performance has all different people.
Some of them are using a broom and some of them are using rope and some of them are working together and pulling on each other.
And it all becomes this very convincing dance.
But as long as they don't question the fact that the train's on a schedule, that the engine's working, that the brakes working and somebody's driving it, then the illusion continues.
But JJ, don't you think that the people that we're talking about, you know, who won't consider all possibilities and certainly won't talk about them, that they didn't need?
I'm not sure whether they didn't need much convincing because human beings are like that.
So I wouldn't have needed much convincing if they would have come to me when I was riding my bicycle and talking about Lab Leak and said, we need your help and you're going to go on the Joe Rogan show in six months.
If you keep focused on the Lab Leak, do you think that I would not have been vulnerable to that level of ego and fame attack?
This would have been lost for me and I would have been a hero and gladly taken it.
Part of the reason why this didn't happen is because I was not offered.
There's a very fine line between being able to see through it and being bamboozled by it.
And if they pulled up and said, we're going to take care of your family, you're going to be great, you know, Alex Berenson, we're going to we're going to censor you and then you can sue Twitter and then we'll make you famous.
I mean, they could have offered that to anyone.
They didn't offer it to me, but I guarantee you they offered it to people even before the pandemic that that have risen to artificial prominence.
Yeah, but somehow I think you would agree that the lack of interest in the whole picture, as it were, you know, so yeah, I don't want to name names, but I can't see that as being that can't be random.
That has to be frustrated.
It is people choosing not to encroach on certain parts of the narrative.
But JJ, so so it for me anyway, that play that tells me that they're not authentic.
So they have their their specialty, you know.
So Peter McCullough, for example, is a cardiologist.
But McCullough has made progress.
Peter McCullough did not say until a month ago that if he was honest and an apparent nowadays, he would forego the vaccine schedule.
You understand that that is something that that if he would have said that in 2020, he would have been off the charts.
Do you understand that Merrill Nass and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. of Children's Health Defense that I now work for that this book is being put out?
Let's be very honest.
You can't find one place ever where Bobby Kennedy or Merrill Nass, two prominent members or spokespersons in the past for Children's Health Defense have never said that we should forego the vaccine schedule in America.
They've never said it, even though they're an organization full of women and men and injured people that believe that.
And the only person who I know in our immediate circle is is Peter McCullough, Pierre, Corey and and Tess Laura, who have all very recently in podcasts or in interviews said that, you know, I didn't think I would be here, but I don't think I would take any more vaccines.
And this is a statement.
I don't think that precludes the possibility that some of those people are not working for the opposition in a.
But but but if it's if they're good people, then their their soul is broken, their heart is broken and they're doing what they can.
And I think that with Peter, he doesn't question the novel virus and that millions of people died, but he's willing to go out on a limb and say that young parents, you know, I would I wouldn't do the vaccine schedule.
That's magnificent.
And remember, I'm suggesting that a van pulled up at his house in 2020 when he was coming out about hydroxychloroquine, not swelling hearts and saying that his technician and held more hearts in her hand than anyone had ever held in history.
And according to her, that hydroxychloroquine doesn't make swollen hearts at that stage.
He was a danger and they came to him and gave him instructions.
And it's not make him a bad guy because if they didn't give it to him, they'll give it to somebody else.
And he's just I feel like he's just trying to do what he can and not.
So JJ, why did Peter McCullough, for example, since you mentioned him, why did he go along with the the clearly false narrative, as far as I'm concerned, of the the false diagnosis of not only COVID-19, but also the Alpha variant.
Sorry, the Delta variant and then the Alpha variant.
The national security issue.
We don't know what brief he got.
We don't know what they scared him with.
Did they tell him that that it was going to be a billion people dead?
Did he get a secret briefing that said the likelihood of a billion people dying is about 50 percent?
And how long would it take if three guys in suits showed up in Pittsburgh and came to my stream room and said, Jonathan, we want to talk to you.
We take you very seriously as a thinker and we want you to help us protect the American public and the Western society in general.
The whole earth is in danger because what our worst fears are is a gain of function virus escaping is actually true.
We're not sure if it came from Uzbekistan or whether it's from our own labs in Ukraine.
But we know for sure that this is in circulation and we've got a big problem.
We need your help. How much lying and exaggeration would they do with three guys in fancy suits and little things in their ear before I would basically poop my pants and say, well, tell me what I got to do.
I can't stress to you how important it is to not underestimate how aggressive they were with this.
They were on Hollywood sets in 2020, vaccinating people with specially pure vaccine that they told Hollywood people they were at their their Christmas parties in 2020 with really rich Hollywood celebrities with private stock vaccines, giving it to people so that they would be on board before the public rollout ever happened.
You know, they did that at TV stations all around the United States, too.
So, JJ, why was Peter McCullough allowed to say what he did say recently then in your opinion?
I mean, was that again?
I think that one of one of the most important things in my mind is that to see that this is a controlled demolition of America, they were never not going to tell the truth.
They were just going to tell the truth in such a slow roll manner that all of the people that weren't paying attention would be trapped.
So they're going to eventually admit that the vaccine schedule was a mistake.
They're going to eventually admit that the FDA and the CDC are responsible for it.
They're definitely going to admit that the American government is in complete shambles and that America should be essentially rebooted.
That's the whole plan.
But our dollars about to be destroyed.
They're about to bring in digital ID that they've already got in the European Union.
These are all parts of a plan that, quite frankly, I'm absolutely convinced that this is just one stream of consciousness for them.
And this is just a slow roll.
And imagine if you were told that on the other side of this operation, you're going to have comfort and you're going to have fame and you're going to have power.
Because when the CDs, CDs, the digital IDs are rolled in and when the digital currency is rolled in, you're going to be on the right team.
You're going to be on the winning team.
When the shortage has happened, when the food shortages happen, when the food lines occur, you're going to be on the right team.
These people could have been warned.
All right. That's very good, Steve.
Very good, Steve.
We're over time.
I think that some of these people, they kind of expose themselves by their lack of authenticity.
And I've always thought that, for example, the leader of the founder of World Council for Health, the ridiculously named World Council for Health, that she lacked authenticity.
But I get attacked for saying that.
So I don't need to say that.
We don't need to attack each other now.
We will finish JJ and Stephen.
I remind you of one of our speakers, Stephen, you might remember who and I think it's a salutary point in to close this conversation.
Are you willing to suffer for your truth?
That's a no, no, no.
Don't expect an answer.
That's the question.
That's the history.
And that's for each one of us.
That's the self-awareness journey.
Do I believe in this and therefore I'm willing to suffer and have my family suffer?
Good luck with your introspection, JJ.
Brilliant work as usual.
Thank you for the great questions, everybody.
And that's just the point.
You said each of us, you know, that we shouldn't attack each other.
That is the problem that we need to know that we can actually trust certain people.
And so each one of us has...
Look at how many spouses have been cheating on their husbands for years and never been spouses.
You can't make that judgment.
You just go, the law says...
No, I don't agree.
I don't agree.
You can make that judgment.
Look, we're not going to have that conversation.
I've been married three times.
I'm a better expert than you are.
I'm not talking about marriage.
I'm talking about you.
You're saying how can you possibly trust anyone?
You're trying to shout me down.
I am because we're finishing.
We're not having this debate.
You do know when you can trust people.
No, you don't.
You believe, but you don't know.
You believe.
Big difference.
Exactly.
Big difference.
At least thinking about the possibility of being led astray is important.
Well, that's certainly...
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Stephen.
Thanks, everybody.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
I think we're leaving.
That's it.
We'll see you tomorrow.
Yeah.
JJ, great.
That was awesome.