If a Fiberglass Tree Falls in a Forest… Bret Speaks with Dr. Robert Malone
Bret speaks with Dr. Robert Malone in Bath, England, nearly a year after their first podcast together.Dr. Robert Malone is an internationally recognized scientist/physician and the original inventor of mRNA vaccination as a technology, DNA vaccination, and multiple non-viral DNA and RNA/mRNA platform delivery technologies. He holds numerous fundamental domestic and foreign patents in the fields of gene delivery, delivery formulations, and vaccines: including for fundamental DNA and RNA/mRNA v...
Only about 10% of the population really wants freedom.
The majority of the population, in his assessment, as a professional, I mean that's what he does, I study crowds and crowd behavior, the majority of the population wants to be told what to do.
And one of the core tenets in authoritarianism that's been documented, you know, for decades now, Hannah Arendt and Gustave Le Bon, et cetera, is that if one is going to choose, if there is a desire to implement a totalitarian structure, the best leadership strategy is to be very dominary.
People seem to want to have an authoritarian leader.
It's why authoritarianism and totalitarianism always come together like this.
Hey folks!
Welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
I am, of course, sitting with Dr. Robert Malone, who you all know.
He's a repeat guest on Dark Horse.
And those of you who have been following know that the episode that Robert and I did with Steve Kirsch was removed from YouTube.
Our channel was struck and demonetized.
It remains demonetized.
And so this is round two.
Welcome back, Robert.
Thanks, Brad.
It's good to see you again.
It's great to see you.
We've had chances to touch base, but not a chance to record anything together since then, so I really look forward to our chat.
Yeah, me too, and I will say I have thought many, many times that we should do a podcast again, and the obstacle has been, I felt it was important to do it in person, and it has been, you've been
All over the world, and that has made it hard to arrange a meeting, but we are here together at a conference, which is more or less a conference of COVID dissidents, I would say, from various parts of that movement, and it's fascinating.
It's the first time that I have been in a place where there was such a concentration of people who were awake about the questions surrounding COVID.
Yeah, you have to be pretty careful about the use of the language around that concept of awokenness, given how, you know, this is another case where language has been captured for political movements, but I'm with you.
Awake feels like the right term.
It's just now kind of politically contaminated, but people who Are not caught in the mass formation process, hypnosis process, let's say.
Yes, and I agree with you.
I even feel like the term woke had an honorable meaning that I would have aspired to, you know, several years ago and that the word has been turned on its head effectively.
Well, you're kind of the poster child for that trajectory.
Yeah, interestingly, tomorrow is the five-year anniversary of the day that I was catapulted into the spotlight at the wrong end of an angry mob who demanded my resignation.
Yeah, I gotta say my heart goes out to you for what you've experienced.
I'm so glad that I had stepped out of academe before this trend happened.
I can't imagine, for those who are not able to reconcile themselves with this current environment, how painful it must be to be an academic and not buy into this dominant narrative and culture.
Yeah, I will say.
My patience with people remaining in the Academy is running thin because my sense is this movement is so aggressive and so clearly wrong that if you're still hanging in there, you're probably not saying enough.
And you know, there are exceptions.
There are some academics that I know are fighting from within, but it's not many of them.
Yeah, Jay Bhattacharya is an example of someone who is choosing to walk that fine line.
I think this is something that a number of folks have had problems coming to terms with.
There's the argument, as you know because you were leading this panel yesterday, there's the argument to Basically self-censor and select carefully chosen language.
Or in the case of J.P.
Sears, he just mumbles instead of saying the word vaccine.
And we all know what he's saying, but it escapes the filters.
That's why he's able to stay on.
Yeah, so I think that people face that choice of whether to self-censor and walk a very fine line, even Neil Oliver was talking about it, versus those like myself that have come to the decision and the belief that I will be attacked, censored, defamed, etc.
no matter whether I choose, elect to, try to walk the fine line or not.
And it was kind of that realization that led to me My personal choice that led to me pushing the window on Twitter, which of course led to me being deplatformed because I had posted the Canadian COVID Care Alliance video about the Pfizer data manipulations in their clinical trials, every bit of which is true and factual.
It was documented right in the video, in fact.
Yeah.
But it met the current definition of mis- and disinformation, a failure to comport with community standards as defined by Twitter, which is essentially that any messaging which might be interpreted as causing vaccine hesitancy, whether grounded in truth or not, is disallowed.
Yeah, and we in fact, we learned the playbook after you were ejected from Twitter, that in fact, this was a head-scratcher back when all we had was mis- and disinformation.
It is the invention of the term malinformation that tells us where we really are.
And I should point out, I said this on the panel yesterday, that the Department of Homeland Security alerts us to three types of terrorism.
Misinformation are honest errors.
Disinformation are intentional errors.
And malinformation are truths that cause you to distrust government.
Which means, to the extent that your government is not trustworthy and you discuss it, you are guilty of terrorism.
Which of course, as you know, puts you into a very special category.
A category with no rights.
And the fact is, by virtue of this being housed in the Department of Homeland Security, it is effectively at the discretion of the executive to decide if you are or are not in the category.
You will not know that you have been placed in the category.
And once placed in the category, you have no rights.
Every time I go through airport security, Which is fairly frequent these days.
I have a moment of, is this going to be the moment where they're going to pull me out of line?
Virtually all the docs that had touch points on January 6th in any way, Um, have had that experience of being pulled out of line.
Um, uh, I'm aware of a female physician that I'm not going to share, uh, who's been strip searched, uh, um, by Homeland Security when trying to get by TSA and trying to pass through.
Um, I, uh, It's profound, the changes that have occurred that have been implemented incrementally and which we as a culture have accommodated ourselves to.
I give a rally in Oahu back last fall where I made the point, and I suspect it'll resonate with you, that
It wasn't so long ago that we all felt sorry for the Chinese people because they had to live under a censored internet in which the government controls what they were able to say and when they were able to say it, and in which the government tracked them and would implement all kinds of activities to control their behavior and their speech.
And we felt at the time, and I remember thinking, those poor people, they have to carry internal passports.
You remember that?
We were all so shocked that the CCP was implementing an internal passport system, and we all told ourselves that's never happened in the United States because we have a Bill of Rights.
And Here we are.
I think it's helpful to walk that back in your memory, to be able to kind of cognitively process how much change we've experienced and come to accept.
No, I agree.
Consciously go through the exercise of trying to preserve a memory of what it was like so that I know how big the Delta is I will say I think the concept that we're looking for was absolutely nailed by William Binney who was an NSA officer, I guess who turned whistleblower and what he said and this was Years back now as he said pre Snowden This was right in the Snowden era.
Okay.
He said we are this close to a turnkey totalitarian state and the idea that the totalitarian state might be erected around you but the key not be turned and so you wouldn't detect it right because although You and I are certainly going to discuss true things that are sure to cause distrust of the government and therefore somehow meet an insane definition of terrorism right here in this podcast.
We could hardly avoid it, right?
We will certainly not know whether or not... We've already crossed that line.
We've crossed that line, right.
So, the point is...
I didn't feel anything, did you?
Right?
Did we become terrorists in somebody's eyes?
Will somebody look at this video and say, oh, they've crossed that line?
Our mutual colleague and friend James Heckman makes the point, and this is why he was so strongly counseling that I not speak and that the physicians not be engaged in any of the trucker events.
And I did not completely follow his guidance, and I did speak out at Hagerstown, is that all of this information now is archived.
And his point is not that it's going to be weaponized in the present, but that it's going to be weaponized in the future.
Well, so I have a different version of this.
I call it retroactive surveillance.
And the idea is, if you just hoover up all of the information, all of the correspondence, people have the sense of, well, there's no way they're reading my email.
Who am I?
They're not noticing me, so I have a certain amount of safety.
But you don't, because what happens is, it exists in a bank, and if five years later, you become interesting to them, they can go backwards into your history.
That's precisely the point.
Um, uh, and I, and I agree.
And it, it leads to a, you know, we're all kind of numbed now to what's happening.
This Dark Horse discussion is sponsored by Public Goods.
Public Goods was one of our very first sponsors, and we are as pleased with them now as we were when we first tried their products.
Public Goods can simplify your life as a one-stop shop for everyday essentials.
Their ingredients are carefully sourced, high quality, and their products are affordable.
Public Goods has coffee and tea.
They have grains and oils like olive and avocado.
They have Castile soap, trash bags, and essential oils.
They have spices and extracts like vanilla and almond, vinegar and pasta, dishware and glassware.
Public Goods has everything you need to make a meal, including the materials to serve it on.
Public Goods products have a great design, too.
They have an aesthetic that is simple, clean, and will not make you want to move to another planet.
Public Goods cares about health and sustainability.
Their products are free of harmful ingredients, and the materials are ethically sourced.
Finally, their subscription service is simple and easy to use.
Public Goods members can buy all their premium essentials in one place.
It really is an everything store.
For Dark Horse listeners, we have the following offer.
Receive $15 off your first Public Goods order with no minimum purchase.
They are so confident that you will absolutely love their products and come back again and again that they are giving you $15 to spend on your first purchase.
Go to publicgoods.com slash darkhorse or use the code darkhorse at checkout.
That's P-U-B-L-I-C-G-O-O-D-S dot com slash Dark Horse to receive $15 off your first order.
There's something I wanted to mention, though, about all this, that we're in the process of building this book for Skyhorse Publishing, The Lies My Government Told Me and The Better Way Ahead.
And I'm desperately seeking The Better Way Ahead.
I have a little trouble with that one.
But the lies part is pretty easy.
But the point I wanted to make was, this forces Jill and I, my wife, Dr. Jill Glaspole, Malone, to, because we're working the book together, to do exactly this journey that you're talking about of revisiting these events, this cascade of events.
And one of the ones, you know, you probably get the question also, you actually related your answer about ivermectin with this key op-ed position piece that you read in an obscure travel journal that was, and you felt, Pulitzer Prize material covering Pierre Cori's journey with ivermectin, which was a kind of a seminal turning point you spoke about intellectually for you.
And I get that same question all the time.
What caused you, Robert, to start speaking out?
And historically, I've often gone back to that Dark Horse podcast that we shared as a pivot event.
And it was.
But before that, So, we had this experience where I got this notification that I talked about in your podcast from Michael Callahan, who was in Wuhan in the fourth quarter of 2019, called me in January 4th and said, get your team going.
And what happened then, what that triggered, I don't think we talked about it in the prior podcast, what that triggered was me setting up the team that I already had in place that I was helping lead.
that was doing high-end computational stuff for discovering repurposed drugs for organophosphate, in other words, biowarfare agents, chemical agents.
So you were working on things that effectively treat exposure to these biowarfare agents?
Yeah, exactly.
Doing drug discovery using biorobots and computational docking and the latest cool tech.
And so, I kind of pivoted that team to work on drug repurposing, which is what eventually led to the Fomodidine thing.
But what Jill did was, because she's very community-oriented, she got going and started writing a book for self-publication on Amazon that was titled, as I recall, You know, novel coronavirus, how to prepare and protect for yourself, something like that was the title.
There was no, the nomenclature that we now have of COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 didn't exist at the time.
So we referred to it as the novel coronavirus.
And she worked her can off just day and night.
I remember just sitting there working together side by side on the couch.
And I helped edit it, and I wrote a chapter, but she wrote most of it.
It was a major effort for her.
And she got it published in the first week in February.
And through Amazon, and the sales started climbing and was well received, all five star ratings and everything.
And her strategy had been as an avid user of Kindles, historically, that this would allow her to update this thing in real time as events developed.
And so it was like in the third revision in March and she uploaded the revision and it got held.
And it got held for a couple of days and she inquired and they said, oh, it's just taking us longer than usual to process.
And then she inquired again and they came back and they said that they wouldn't be able to allow it to continue to be published and they would pull it.
And she inquired repeatedly, because their policy had always been that they would give authors an opportunity to learn from the reviewers or whomever had made the decision about why they should be pulled.
You know, you used a four-letter word or whatever your sin was.
And the notification she got was what, you know, this phrase that's now infamous.
At the time, it was the first time we've ever encountered it.
You have violated community standards, okay, was the specific language.
And we looked, we just poured over what they listed as their community standards.
And there was nothing that was remotely applicable to anything that was in the content of the book.
And other people have looked at the book since.
It's entirely innocuous.
It's talking about, you know, bathroom practices to avoid fecal-oral transmission, and using alcohol wipes in airplanes, and grow your own garden, and you know, this kind of preparedness stuff.
And she advocated mask use.
And this is, I think, might have been the sin of the book, because at the time Tony Fauci was saying no masks.
And so she was, you know, broken hearted, the truth is.
I mean, it's kind of depressing when you put your heart and soul into something, work for multiple weeks, get it out, you're trying to help your community, you're trying to do the right thing, you're trying to help save people, and then it's just deleted with no appeal.
And so she dug in.
It turns out that there was a meeting convened by the World Health Organization in February with virtually all the major big tech players that we're now familiar with.
Where they, the WHO, initially discussed the need to control information about this pandemic.
Of course, we now know that this is one of the characteristics that went into the planning for Event 201.
was how to control information.
So, in retrospect, you know, none of us... Event 201, I had never heard of Event 201 at the time.
Right.
None of us really had that context.
Now, it's in retrospect that we look back, we see that there was planning for how to implement censorship and deploy these other kinds of strategies.
But I think it's important to remember And in the book we have the documentation about this, that there was a WHO initiative in February of 2020, a time when the Trump administration was still largely in denial that this represented a major bio-threat.
And then shortly thereafter, there was another meeting convened in the White House with Amazon, And others, including Washington Post, and Washington Post covered it, in which the strategy for censorship, essentially, I don't know what else to call it, was actively discussed together with Big Tech, and Big Tech was recruited.
Now we know that through, you know, thanks to, I think it was the Blazes' Freedom of Information Act, we now know about the billion dollars expended by our government To promote whatever messaging that they, you know, we have yet to discover what that messaging was in coordination with tech.
And I look forward to Jeff Landry's lawsuit in which he's suing the government and Facebook for collusion on this censorship and information control.
And I think When we get to Discovery, we're going to learn all kinds of stuff that we probably didn't want to know, but we kind of need to.
I wonder if it will have the impact that it should.
I find that there's so much shocking information that we're just inured to it, and if we realize the implications, we would be...
We would be motivated to do something because they are dire.
So, as you know, since we spoke, I've spent a fair amount of time with this interesting guy named Matthias Desmet, this interesting academic that I ran into many months ago from a podcast and have developed a fairly close friendship and we spent time in Spain together.
We cut podcasts fairly frequently.
So, Matthias, in addition to his insights in his upcoming English version of his book, The Psychological Basis of Totalitarianism, also is writing another book, and we continue to kind of develop those ideas and talk about it.
One of the things that he points out is that only about 10% of the population really wants freedom.
The majority of the population, in his assessment, as a professional, I mean, that's what he does, study crowds and crowd behavior.
The majority of the population wants to be told what to do.
And one of the core tenets in authoritarianism that's been documented for decades now, Hannah Arendt and Christophe Le Bon, et cetera, is that if one is going to choose, if there is a desire to implement a totalitarian structure, the best leadership strategy is to be very dominary.
People seem to want to have an authoritarian leader.
That's why authoritarianism and totalitarianism always come together like this.
One of the things that he and I are talking about a lot more recently Is that totalitarianism, we often think, well, it's going to be like Stalin, or it's going to be like Hitler, right?
Each time it manifests in subtly different ways.
And one of the ways that I think we're seeing this one develop is a way that was predicted a few years ago, inverse totalitarianism.
We have effectively this fusion of corporate interests and the bureaucracy, the entrenched bureaucracy.
Which is what makes it inverted.
It's not the elected political leaders or the appointed political leaders or whatever.
Typically, in a totalitarian structure, you have a small number of leaders at the summit that function as the political elite.
But what we have, I think, growing here in the United States, and really if you think about the World Economic Forum, it's kind of like that too, is you have these bureaucratic functionaries
That represent a more subtle, quiet, established leadership that are acting in unilateral, authoritarian, totalitarian fashion, but they are much less visible except for folks like you and me that are living in the moment and obsessing over it.
Well, I am very cautious about imagining that I know more than I do about what is actually driving.
I think we can feel the force that is arrayed against us.
We can say something about how powerful it is, what kinds of tools it has at its disposal.
We can say a little bit about the fact that it is at least not entirely a conspiracy.
That there is at least a component of it that is evolved, that is emergent.
But I do not know to the extent that it behaves like an inverted totalitarian state I don't know that it isn't a cryptic traditional one right where we can't see the connections and I'm especially cautious about it because I think its relationship to nation-states is increasingly It's a constraint that it must deal with.
The fact that we still believe that we function in nations is real and it has an impact.
But, for example, the apparent agreement amongst the Five Eyes countries To, well, my government can't invade my privacy, but there's no, yeah, but the British government can apparently invade my privacy and the American government can ask them to do it, right?
Obviously, that is a violation of the spirit of the Bill of Rights, but the fact that we know that it takes place and that we know that these alliances exist and that we're not allowed to check in on them and that, you know, I'll go back to the issue of
In the U.S., it is literally true that the executive branch, because it decides someday that you've crossed the line that it has outlined without any ability to question it, can decide that you can no longer avail yourself of, for example, a court in which you might be able to say, I am not a terrorist and, you know, show me the evidence that I am.
That court doesn't exist because you're not even allowed to know that it's been designated.
So, the point is that structure, to the extent that some structure can un-American me.
It can take away my American rights, right, and then expose me to who knows what that is decided at a global level, right?
And we should probably at least touch on the fact that, you know, either this treaty with the who, which many of us regard as a serious threat to sovereignty, this treaty that is supposed to provide a mechanism for managing a global pandemic.
And I think all of us would agree that, you know, if we had good governance globally, we would like somebody in a position to do rational things above the level of nations because these pathogens do jump borders.
But I don't think anybody who's been paying attention wants any governmental structure that exists on Earth today empowered to do these kinds of things because they obviously can't be trusted.
I guess I've tripped over that line again.
But I don't know what we're up against, and I'm afraid of assuming we know more than we do, because it will cause us to make errors in fighting it.
Fair enough.
I'm a little further along in the spectrum.
I'm choosing those words carefully.
Some might say I'm quite farther along in the spectrum, whatever that spectrum is.
Right, so the pandemic treaty.
First off, we need to own, acknowledge that there is no treaty between the United States government and the World Health Organization.
There's an agreement.
We've agreed to fund them.
We've agreed to engage and participate with them, but we do not have a treaty that has been reviewed by the Senate and approved.
Second point, I think what you're talking, because there is a treaty on the table.
In addition to that treaty, there is the modification of the International Health Regulations, which is basically a modification of the, we can call it operating principles of the World Health Organization, that was submitted, I think it was January 28th, by our Health and Human Services.
Which is the document that currently seems to have most folks wound up and I think is what you're referring to.
Yeah.
So these are modifications to what are functionally operating procedures that they call the International Health Regulations.
That we're proposing that create a path that would allow the Director General, currently Mr. Tedros, to unilaterally implement Declare a public health emergency for any reason, and it's been pointed out, you know, one hot button is it could be for gun violence.
A case could be made that we have an epidemic of gun violence in the United States, which is compromising public health.
That case can well be made, has been made multiple times.
We could say that we have an epidemic of depression.
Or anxiety.
Those are all true.
We do have those things.
Or it could be because of monkey pox.
Just pulling a pathogen out of a hat for some reason.
In the determination under these regulations would be made unilaterally by the Director General, based on non-transparent sources, so they could be from anywhere.
It could be Bill Gates calls him up and says, hey, we need a public health emergency.
And it would convey powers to make recommendations which nation states would have to respond to within 48 hours.
And if they did not comport with those regulations, it would authorize WHO and through that the United Nations to implement sanctions such as, for instance, we've seen with Russia regarding the Ukraine situation.
So, this pathway does not require Senate concurrence.
It's not a treaty-based, and it's ostensibly based in international law and sets a precedent of an unelected Well, he's elected sort of.
He was elected without opposition by unanimity for his recent re-election, the Director General, to implement policies and practices that our government had no control over.
Right, but I would just point out, this is the same story that I already told about The Department of Homeland Security.
Bingo!
The idea is there are supposed to be checks that prevent you from making a law that says actually at my sole discretion I can declare you a so-and-so and then having declared you a so-and-so.
You're precisely right.
This is the same thing and so I think the problem is it's very hard to, you know, it's very hard to imagine exactly how it would go down That the WHO is going to be dictating that we must impose mandates, right?
It's very abstract, but the point is once you've built that mechanism... It can be deployed at any point.
At any point, yeah.
It precisely illuminates and illustrates the point you made at the beginning.
Which is, this edifice has been built around us, and at any point the key can be turned, which makes it the Sword of Damocles.
It's always hanging over our head, and all they have to do is choose to cut the cord, and it'll cut our neck off, metaphorically.
And I think this is a key idea that you're drilling in on, because this drives Behavioral changes in use of language and communication without ever having to cross the line.
Right.
It is an incredibly effective tool to generate self-censorship in behavior, thought, and speech.
I think of it as the opposite of goose-stepping.
Right?
And the idea is, look, if totalitarianism goose stepped its way in, we'd all know exactly what it was.
Right?
This is the opposite.
It's like, it's subtle enough.
You've got to have a certain, you know, ability to track an argument and follow through.
It's boring.
It's boring.
It's so boring that you're not going to notice it.
And if somebody says it's happening, you're going to want them to stop talking about it because it's too abstract.
It's insidious.
It is.
And it is relentless.
Yeah, it is relentless.
It's the relentless aspect That sometimes I have to fight the darkness inside myself when I encounter it.
Yeah.
The relentless denial of the data, of the facts, of the truth.
We're in a world, it seems hyperbole, we're in a post-truth world.
Well, the truth, I mean, there is literally a memo that says if you say true things that cause people to distrust their government, you're guilty of terrorism.
That's where we are.
It is so deeply Orwellian.
I think I was thinking this this morning, that it's actually a step beyond Orwell.
Right.
That's a... It's like they've taken 19... So, this is an original thought to me.
It's as if they've taken the writings of Orwell in Animal Farm in 1984 and Brave New World and all those classic texts that you and I probably, because we're of a certain generation, we had to read when we were young.
Humans.
Yeah.
And in our formative years, in those key years right before puberty, most of us had to encounter this logic and these thoughts.
And it's as if they've taken those classic works and used them as textbooks, as a starting point.
It really reminds me of Machiavelli's The Prince.
But the Prince was actually written as a lodestone, as a guide for the young noble in the Balkanized world of Italy at Renaissance and post-Renaissance period.
And it's as if they had taken these warning texts and taken them to the starting point and weaponized them.
I agree.
And now I'm going to pivot us a little bit because I think this mirrors something that's going on in a different realm, one that's more home territory for both you and me and probably more fun to talk about, which is, you know, the sort of molecular inner workings of viruses and the way they interface with the body.
But the connection is this.
I learned something from you at this conference.
You caused the dime to drop on something that I hadn't put together.
Which is, I had become aware, of course, of the modification of the RNA in the RNA-based vaccines.
A substitution of a nucleotide.
But when I became aware that it had happened, I assumed that that had been information that was available all along and that I had somehow overlooked it.
That's not right, is it?
So you're speaking of the incorporation of pseudo-urine.
Yeah.
And just for the audience, so we're all kind of on the same page.
Yeah.
To kind of comprehend this without going too deep into the weeds, the process that this synthetic RNA is by which it's manufactured is that a plasma DNA, a circular DNA is manufactured in a bacteria where you can make large quantities of it.
And it has encoded in it the sequences necessary to tell a particular enzyme, start here and go there and make an RNA based on this DNA template.
And the enzyme that does that is T7 RNA polymerase.
And when it does that, it has to grab the components, the nucleotides as you mentioned, out of a solution.
The enzyme as it proceeds along the DNA track to make this be like a string of pearls kind of product that is the RNA.
That comes off of that polymerase.
The polymerase enzyme has to grab these molecules out of solution.
And the molecular mix is relatively homogeneous, but somewhat random.
And the way it's done is in the tube, metaphorically.
Of course, this is happening in a larger volume now.
In the tube, you add A, U, G, and C, these four fundamental components, as opposed to the digital world that we're familiar with, which only has two, a zero and a one.
In nucleic acids, there's four components, A, U, G, C, or A, T, G, C, and DNA, just to get the fundamentals out.
And in natural RNA, there is a uracil or uridine base that is one of these four.
It's the U-A-U-G-C that goes into the RNA and it is polymerized in the cell in the same kind of process.
And then in the cell there's a specific enzyme that will act at specific points in the RNA and we're still learning that.
We're learning about What makes that enzyme decide to change that particular uridine to a pseudo-uridine, it's a chemical modification catalyzed by an enzyme, and it's very precisely controlled.
Very precisely controlled in a biological, in a functioning cell.
In a functioning cell.
And it's very precisely controlled because the implications of where it does that modification are huge.
In the biology of that subsequent RNA and what it does, how it gets spliced, which is to say kind of molecularly recombined, how long it lasts in the cell, and it also affects the RNAs apparently influence a lot of pathways involved in your immune response.
And so all of these things are regulated, and the pseudouridine changes how the RNA folds is a whole bunch of intricate, cool stuff, if you're an RNA wonk.
And the difference is that, number one, we really don't understand how all that works yet.
So this is the part about...
Coming to terms with our own ignorance.
Yeah, well precautionary principle wise, it's a red flag.
And so what's done in the synthetic RNA that's produced in a factory, that employs this patent of Curriculum Weissman, which is held by UPenn and licensed to BioNTech and to Moderna, is that they put all of the U's, or most of the U's, are pseudouridines.
And they incorporate them randomly throughout the RNA at very high density.
And so what this results in is an RNA that is not natural.
It is something different.
It's not what would be normally in the cell.
And yet physicians were reassured by the pharmaceutical industry that The behavior of this artificial RNA in terms of how long it sticks in the cell and its underlying biology was the same as a natural RNA.
And this was actively told when physicians asked, you know, typically they would ask the pharmaceutical rep or whatever for information.
Well, how long does this drug stick around?
Which is a normal thing to ask.
Okay, we call that pharmacokinetics is the fancy word for it.
You know, how long does the drug last in your body before it gets decomposed?
One of the fundamental characteristics that is always analyzed with any new pharmaceutical.
Those studies actually weren't done.
Yep.
Nor were the, where does the drug go in your body?
The fancy word for that is pharmacodistribution.
And how long is it active?
That's pharmacokinetics.
None of that stuff was done.
It was done to a limited extent, but not rigorously.
And not looking at this full cascade that the RNA is actually not really the drug.
It's sort of the drug.
But the active principle is the thing that the RNA makes, the protein, which makes it complex and it really doesn't fit regular vaccine regulatory paradigms.
So then, fast forward, Katie Kuriko knew because I'd spoken to her.
She called me about a decade after I'd done the initial work and asked for my help.
And I said, because she wanted to work on RNA and RNA delivery.
And I said, the big problem with the system is that it is incredibly inflammatory.
And essentially, giving it common language, it causes pus formation when you inject it into a variety of tissues, and pain and swelling and redness, classic signs of inflammation.
And so I said, you know, I told her people that she could talk to, and she and Drew Weissman, who's a Fauci postdoc, At Penn had the brainstorm that they would take this new biologic finding, pseudouridine, which was known at the time to have some effect on inflammation associated with RNA.
And they said, we'll just put a whole lot of pseudouridine in the RNA.
And lo and behold, it produced a product that would produce protein for longer and at higher levels.
When it was administered into an animal.
And so this was the basis for that patent.
Moderna actually didn't want to license it.
Katie is a vice president at BioNTech, so it was always part of the BioNTech.
There's another third player in the RNA vaccine space called CureVac, which is also in Germany, and they've never used pseudouridine.
Actually the immune responses of their RNA formulations, which are basically the same except they don't have the pseudouridine, in humans are very similar.
But this was the position that was taken by these two scientists who had close ties to NIH, and that is why that pseudouridine is incorporated that way in all of the artificial RNAs that any of us that have taken the RNA vaccines have received.
Then fast forward to the present and we have these odd observations about immunosuppression.
And then we had this paper come out in Cell in January from this team from Stanford that did the fine needle aspirations.
So they actually pulled cells out of people's bodies.
It wasn't in a test tube or in a Petri dish.
And they said, how long does this RNA stick around?
And it turns out that it doesn't stick around for half an hour, an hour or two hours, which is what the pharma had been telling the physicians.
But in fact, it sticks around for at least 60 days.
They didn't test beyond that.
Right.
And furthermore, it produces more protein in your blood, more spike protein of the, remember, this is one of the things I got fact checked on after our infamous interview, that spike is absolutely not a toxin.
The spike that's in the vaccine is not a toxin.
That's what they claimed.
The spike has two main components.
S2 that kind of stays in the cell and gets cut from the other part that's extracellular called S1 that circulates and binds to ACE2 and does all this wonderful stuff.
In the vaccine and in the virus, the S1 is identical.
In the vaccine and the virus, the S2 is almost identical, except for it has two little point mutations, two prolines, which are there that makes the product, when it's expressed, more immunogenic from an antibody standpoint.
I think you taught me this.
They locked it open, they basically took the scissors and they put a weld so that the scissors are locked open, and the reason that they did that Was because the outside of the protein naturally accumulates sugars which is probably an evolved defense of the virus so that it doesn't get spotted and so by locking it open they expose a part of the protein that the immune system can then see and register.
So at the level of can you make a vaccine that stimulates the immune system this makes sense but they took a toxic protein and they locked it open When I said that to you, I got that partially wrong, and I got pushback from molecular virologists on that, and I had to dive deeper into it and correct that.
So, thanks for bringing that up.
I got it wrong.
It was my best understanding at the time.
That those two proline mutations do alter the immunogenicity, but they don't really lock the receptor binding domain pockets open like I was saying.
And now I know that those receptor binding domains, this protein that we talk about spikes so casually is a fascinating molecule as all of these viral receptors that have dual functions.
They bind and then they also trigger the fusion event that allows the nucleic acid to get into the cell.
In the case of the spike protein, I like to use the metaphor, it's like a treble fishhook, right?
You understand what a treble hook looks like?
And if you think about the barbs on the treble hook, those are akin to the receptor binding domain.
And if you think about the part where you tie the knot onto the fishing line, that's Really, S2.
That little loop down there is kind of like S2.
So, if you've got that metaphor in your mind, then you can imagine each of those barbs are completely flexible.
They can rotate, okay?
And that's what the receptor binding domain does.
And those two-point mutations alter the confirmation of that three-treble Three component trimer that is spike and alter the conformational change capability to undergo the conformational change associated with the fusion versus pre-fusion confirmation.
Remember I said it has this dual function, but so that part is true.
Um, it does make it more immunogenic.
It does alter the, the, it locks it into the pre-fusion confirmation.
Um, so it can't undergo that change, but it, I was wrong.
It does not affect the receptor binding domains, which are floating out there kind of free.
And it makes sense from a, I mean, I know you love biology and evolution and biochemistry.
And so you could imagine these things have, you know, huge conformational freedom to find their, uh, cognate receptor.
Thank you for mentioning that, but this is really in the weeds for most.
Let's go back to the Pseudouridine in the mRNA, because I really wanted to get at something actually kind of simple.
I appreciate your explanation of how it gets there.
I feel I was lied to in the same way that you're describing that doctors who were interested in the contents of the vaccine and their durability in the cell were lied to.
I was saying, I was repeating, oh, it's an mRNA, it's been encased in these lipid nanoparticles.
The lipid nanoparticles have an affinity for cells because the cells have a lipid on their surface.
That gives me some sort of a ballpark as a biologist to say, well, how novel is this, right?
Lipid nanoparticles, highly novel.
I can see that.
The mRNA It's highly novel in the sequence, but it's not highly novel to have an mRNA floating in the cytoplasm.
And so I have some sort of intuitive sense about what that would mean, about how durable the thing would be.
Because for one thing, the body doesn't like free mRNAs.
It doesn't like foreign nucleic acids.
Right.
Absolutely hates foreign nucleic acids.
It's got all kinds of barriers for good reason.
Right, so you would imagine, and in fact the story when the vaccines first came out was that one of the challenges was getting enough of the stuff intact into the cells to get it to work, right?
So, okay, this sets up in the mind a sense where the The novel aspects that are introduced into the body are not long-lived.
So, yes, there's a lot of danger in this vaccine, but at least if you survive the period where it interacts with your cells... Which ostensibly is just a few hours.
Right.
So, at the point that I found out Oh, wait a minute.
This isn't mRNA in the standard sense.
My standard model for mRNA doesn't work.
It doesn't tell me how long.
It's as if you dropped a fiberglass log in the forest.
And it's like, well, logs in the forest, they get eaten by termites and fungi and things like that.
Interesting metaphor.
I know how long that takes roughly, depends on the forest, but whatever, I've got some model.
Well that fiberglass log might last an awfully long time in that forest because it's not really a log at all.
So anyway, let's run with your metaphor for just a minute.
I love the metaphor.
Okay, so because it has a length, two-dimensional aspect, so that's good.
And it's very long-lived, and it's composed of fibers.
I mean, we don't have to go too down in the metaphor.
So, the log in the forest, as the metaphor for the RNA, One of the things that has Ryan Cole and I really worried, and we've discussed how to do the experiment, but we're all too busy and it takes money.
Okay, now imagine that log In the forest, okay?
Now we're going to place that log into the cell, metaphorically speaking, okay?
And that log has a function.
It processes something that causes something to be made that happens to be toxic.
Okay, and yet the cell, or the forest in the metaphor, can never degrade it.
Okay, but that foreign thing that it makes can cause that cell to get attacked.
Will cause it to get attacked.
If you're successful in generating an immune response, and a T cell response in particular, the cells that have that RNA that are making that spike protein will get attacked.
So hold on, I want to pause you because I advanced a hypothesis on Dark Horse, which has now just come right back up.
So I want to catch people up and then I want you to pick up your explanation.
So what I argued, and I believe I came up with this independently, but I believe Peter McCullough has mentioned something similar, as has Jonathan Cooey.
The idea is The body has a way to recognize cells that have been virally infected.
Cells that have been virally infected have a quirk, which is their surface has a mixture of self-proteins, which the body recognizes, and non-self-proteins, which it recognizes by virtue of the fact that it doesn't know what they are.
When a cell has those two things on its surface, the only thing it can be, from a biological perspective, is a virally infected cell.
And a virally infected cell... Or a cancer cell.
I guess it could be, well, yeah, because then the non-self is self, but it's sufficiently changed.
It's a mutated self.
Right, okay, so fair enough.
The point is, in either of those cases, there is one and only one right thing to do, and that is to destroy the cell, right?
And the problem is… It's a simple switch.
It's a simple switch.
If that cell is in your heart, well, now you've got two problems because you've got your immune system attacking the cells in your heart and your heart doesn't repair, it scars.
Bingo.
Right?
And so the point is, you could get a lot of scar tissue in your heart, you might get away with it, it might diminish the longevity of your heart, it might reduce its capacity to pump blood or you might have just a little damage and you wouldn't be sub-threshold.
All true.
Anyway, so the point is- Yeah, we can go down that rabbit hole if you want.
With the mRNA-based vaccines, at least, we set people who received those injections up for their immune system to attack their own cells on the basis that they had been virally infected.
And then this issue of the change, the altered mRNA, makes it vastly worse.
Because the point is, it's not that the cell stops producing the foreign protein and maybe the immune system hasn't gotten around to killing it and that cell can go back to being a normal cell.
The point is, Now that mRNA might be very long-lived and that cell is going to continue to produce foreign protein until some T-cell, cytotoxic T-cell comes and kills it out or a natural killer cell.
Or antibody-dependent cytotoxicity, cellular cytotoxicity.
So, all true.
Yeah.
Concur.
Okay.
And more so.
So, what that says is, like, what you want, at the point that they say, all right, we've got a pandemic, we've got some vaccines, don't worry, they're good vaccines, we've tested them, and you're trying to check whether or not what they're saying makes sense.
The question is, how novel is that thing you want to inject into me, right?
Lipid nanoparticles, hmm, red flag, okay?
Should have been well characterized pharmaceutically.
Right, but There ain't no natural version of that, right?
That is a non-targeted mechanism for invading cells.
It's dependent.
In normal vaccinology, the characterization of the pharmacologic toxicology associated with that component, if for instance, if we were to define it as an adjuvant, would typically require years.
All right, so that was one red flag.
That one set me off, right?
I could see that that was a hazard.
Didn't mean it wasn't brilliant.
I mean, I think it may in fact matter.
Well, it is.
It is what it is.
It is what it is, but it's at least from the point of view of the more novel your remedy is, the more likely it has consequences you don't know about that you're not going to like, right?
Now, so add on top of that, so I missed that the payload Also had a similar level of novelty here, which was that the mRNA wasn't really mRNA, it was very special mRNA that might... I suggest it should not be called mRNA.
It is a long-lived polynucleotide, single-stranded polynucleotide, which can be translated.
But it is really not mRNA.
I think it deserves its own language.
Yeah, it certainly, it at least deserves another letter, right?
It deserves another letter to something that will call your attention to the fact that there's a novelty.
S-M-R-N-A.
Synthetic mRNA or something.
Right, something like that.
And anyway, so at the point that you mentioned at the conference what this was, and the dime dropped, that it wasn't that I had missed this at the beginning.
It's that they forgot to mention it, right?
And it's like a huge thing to forget to mention.
I felt again burned by this whole story because with that piece of information, I could have been that much clearer about the novelty and the danger and, you know, we could have had a better discussion.
But There's two corollaries with this long-lived RNA or synthetic polynucleotide, single-stranded polynucleotide.
The pharmacokinetics, the degradation of it, the clearance of it in your body, is super important if one is interpreting the range of adverse events that are temporally, in other words with time, associated with the administration of the drug.
Okay, so we have been told, and it has been the dogma, that, for instance, as you analyze VAERS, or fill-in-the-blank database, that we should really not focus on any adverse events, particularly things that look like acute adverse events, as opposed to the delayed autoimmune things, but acute adverse events like
Myocardial damage that occur after about two weeks.
Those are considered probably just background noise from whatever the physiology of the person was, because it was assumed that the RNA only lasted a very brief period of time.
Now we functionally have to go back, if we were being honest, If we were acting with integrity, scientific integrity, we would go back and say, oh darn, we missed that.
We need to go back and analyze the full profile of data and adverse events and recalculate the adverse event rate because we now know that this thing sticks around in your body for at least two months.
So there's that.
This is part of the gaslighting, right?
The people who are still honest enough to try to interpret this and have the technical chops to understand what they're looking at.
This was some kind of red herring.
Because if you were trying to build a model, you've got all of these people who believe that they have had an injury from the vaccine.
What is the injury?
How plausible is it that it came from the vaccine?
Well, if you don't know that the mRNA isn't mRNA and that it might be sticking around a very long time, then the likelihood that those delayed reactions are the result of the vaccine skyrockets.
So, if you didn't know that, then the point is you think, It means that all of our prior interpretation about correlation between adverse events and the inoculation, I'm going to call it, I'm really trying to move away from calling these vaccines.
They really no longer meet the criteria of vaccines.
They're more like some sort of immunotherapeutic inoculation.
Again, language matters.
It does.
Okay?
And the term vaccine is clearly overly broad.
So we must, if we are acting with integrity, we must go back and re-evaluate our prior assumptions and re-evaluate the safety database in light of this cell paper, which by the way, they totally buried the lead.
If you look at the title of that cell paper, you would never guess that it had this crucial data about the pharmacokinetics of the RNA or the relative levels of expression of the spike protein compared to In the Naturally Infected in Your Circulating Blood.
You wouldn't know it if you'll read the title.
It's surprising.
Right.
In fact, I didn't know this until I heard you mention it out loud and put the stuff together and it was... So now there's another... I said there's two branches to this.
Yeah.
You've kind of mined the implications in cellular immunology, which we all knew historically.
The other one is that's most worrisome, and this has to do with pattern recognition, putting together pieces of information that are fragmented in the landscape.
There's this observation that has been made that there are Migratory white blood cells in your body that we'll call for simplicity, we'll call them macrophage that move around in your body and control, you know, those dendritic cells, a whole bunch of different flavors of these things, as you know, but we'll just call them macrophages or monocytes.
And there is a subpopulation of these that you can pull out of people's bodies and you can analyze them in flow cytometry, cool tech, that continue to carry spike protein for a very long period of time, months.
And they have markers on their surface, by flow cytometry, that are consistent with an unusual activated hyper-inflammatory state.
Okay.
So, you have migratory white blood cells, post-vaccination, in your body, which continue to maintain spike protein.
So, they have it on their surface.
Is that because... And in their cytoplasm, most importantly.
Are they displaying it?
Well, they may or may not.
I don't think they display them.
I think what we're talking about is cytoplasmic and intranuclear Spike, it turns out, when it's cytoplasmic, can be translocated across the nuclear membrane and has other effects on key metabolic pathways and gene regulatory pathways in the nucleus of these monocytes that have been so altered some way.
And the problem is how to comprehend that, because monocytes typically aren't readily transfected in these systems.
And they are certainly not infected.
That's been one of the paradoxes in thinking about antibody-dependent enhancement.
When we talk about that process like dengue, dengue blows open monocytes because of antibody coding that allows them to use the FC receptor and get infected.
That does not happen with this virus.
Why are we getting spike protein in a long-lived fashion in these monocytes?
It could be taking it up from the environment, but then we would see the same phenotype with the natural infection.
Maybe we would see it more with the vaccine because you got more spike, but it's a conundrum.
Here's the theoretical possibility that goes back to your metaphor of the fiberglass log.
Okay.
Okay.
If these RNAs are present, in the cytoplasm of these cells that will be targeted.
The way that they usually get targeted is they're triggered to undergo a self-destructive sequence.
You know, it's as if Captain Kirk says, hit the auto-destruct button.
Well, that auto-destruct button for the Enterprise triggers something called apoptosis, as you know.
Apoptosis, yep.
And so, apoptosis happens.
And the nucleus fragments and the cell fragments into vesicles largely.
These little packages that have gorp from inside the cell inside of them.
Okay, they're kind of like liposomes.
It's kind of like the cell blows up and releases a whole bunch of different liposomes that have inside of it whatever was in the cell before.
Okay, and what happens to those liposomes?
Other cell types Mononuclear cells, phagocytes, macrophage come in and they clean up all that debris, all that blown up enterprise.
If those fiberglass logs, so this is totally hypothetical.
Yeah.
If those fiberglass logs have no ready enzymatic way to be turned into forced litter.
Yeah.
They will still be there sitting in those vesicles.
Absolutely.
And if those vesicles are taken up by monocytes and processed, then there's a good chance that those fiberglass logs are going to be just because we know this with fiberglass.
It's a great metaphor.
You know, it's like talking about any of these fibrous molecules.
They will break free and potentially could then have a secondary transfection, a secondary delivery of that RNA into whole new cell types that are phagocytic cell types.
Phagocytic cell types and, correct me if I'm wrong, but to the extent that we understand anything about the vaccine injured, monocytes are very frequently implicated, right?
They have diseases that affect the functioning of this very important cell type involved in effectively garbage collection throughout the body all the time.
Yeah, so the vaccine-injured, if we're going to open that can of worms just a little bit, one of the things that has been fascinating, you recall back in the day, we had this conversation and we were both being so careful because we didn't want to have what happened to us that has subsequently happened.
So, there's a great example of we self-censored and it didn't do us any good.
So, we might as well just let it hang out, right?
So, we talked about these buddies that I had back in the day until I had that podcast that I used to talk to all the time at the FDA on a regular basis, weekly.
And we would talk about the adverse events, as you'll recall.
We talked about this and my communication back to the FDA through them.
And that this group, working together with this interesting biostatistician called Bill Dumouchet, who worked for this company called Oracle, that knows something about database analysis, and he being the lead biostatistician, particularly knows something about biologic databases analysis, was the guy who, together with this small group, did the initial analysis of available data, as a pilot project.
It wasn't really sanctioned by the FDA, which detected this characteristic adverse event at a time when no one, when all the party line was, there was no major adverse events called myocarditis and pericarditis.
So it was Bill Dumouchet working with those same characters that first discovered this signal.
Then he told it to, the CDC wouldn't listen to him.
And so they told it to the Israelis, and the Israelis checked their database.
At the time, CDC was totally dependent on the Israeli database, because they knew their VAERS system was a hot mess.
And then Israelis confirmed it, and the CDC confirmed it, and then it became the party line.
That was the cascade.
At the same time, these same people also knew that there was a major signal for shingles.
And other viral reactivation.
So we have these DNA viruses, many of us, and in the case of shingles, anybody that's had chickenpox, so that's those of us of a certain age, pretty much all had it until the vaccine got rolled out.
And we have latent virus, DNA virus, residing in our neurons, in our basal ganglia, along our spinal cord, etc., that under certain types of stimuli will crawl down those neurons down to the cutaneous region, the skin region that those neurons serve, and those viruses will emerge at the end of those neuron tips and start replicating in our skin, and this causes a little pox.
A little vesicle.
We call it shingles.
We originally called it chicken pox when we had it.
And so, it has this very unique distribution depending on what a nerve, where a nerve goes.
And this reactivation of chicken pox is something that's really clear and apparent.
And it was known back then when we had our conversation that one of the other major side effects was viral reactivation.
That and shingles and Epstein-Barr virus.
Epstein-Barr, yeah.
And that has never been acknowledged by the public health service worldwide.
But we all know it is a major side effect, just like they never acknowledge, you recall back in the day, we talked about the dysmenorrhea, the alteration of menstrual cycle.
Yeah.
We talked about the ovarian targeting with the lipids and that was denied and shockingly, I still can't believe it, The Public Health Service went back to that mid-20th century language that women were being hysterical, right?
You remember that?
They literally did it.
I know that from history.
I don't know that they revived that language.
They used the language of hysterical women to explain the frequent reporting of dysmenorrhea and menopetriarrhagia associated with the vaccine.
But they have never come to terms with the viral reactivation, latent viral reactivation, DNA virus reactivation.
And now, so now when we talk about, as you were, I'm sorry for this digression, when we were talking about the post-vaccination syndrome, What I hear from the frontline docs is that the bulk of those patients that they're having present to them.
Yeah.
And remember, I have a bias sampling.
I hang out with the doctors that are willing to treat patients.
Right.
With these, you know, horse medicines and such like, okay?
So, patients come to them, patients that have damages that they have not been able to get addressed by the standard medical system, by the docs that are within the system and within the, let's say, hypnosis to be general.
And so, So, they have a selection bias and the people come to them, but the vast majority of those that are coming to them with complaints of post-vaccination syndrome are experiencing Epstein-Barr virus reactivation.
It's a subset that have the shingles.
Now, COVID will also reactivate Epstein-Barr.
Absolutely, and is also associated with shingles.
Yeah.
And that's the key part of this It's so important about this cell paper documenting that the level of spike protein produced systemically in your blood plasma after receiving the inoculation is significantly higher And I don't mean just statistically, I mean like, wow!
Then one observes in patients after natural infection, which of course is coming through their mucosa typically, their oropharynx or their nasopharynx, and by the way, also their eyes.
That's why masks don't work.
The whole mask logic is based on a fallacy.
Interesting.
That there are only two portals of infection.
Hmm, minor problem.
That's quite the oversight, but okay.
You know, you can't make it up.
No.
So, yeah, you do see it, and you seem to see it less frequently.
than with the vaccinations.
And if you buy into the thesis that we were resoundingly criticized for, that spike is a toxin, you know, by all the fact-checkers that had not graduated with a biology degree.
Oh, the PhDs at the AP.
Or even worse, at Logically AI.
Yeah, that worked for Thomson Reuters.
So, that thesis that, well, these things happen with the virus, so you can't discriminate between whether they happen post-vaccination, consequent to somebody having had a cold virus infection, or due to the vaccine, yet we have these strong correlations between the vaccine recipients who have no history or evidence of prior infection,
And they often seem to see these adverse events at higher frequency and often of longer duration or with a more florid presentation.
So that gets to this problem of how do we sort the needle, you know, Chicken from the egg kind of, but I'm compelled, and so are many other physicians, that have their eyes open, let's say.
Right.
That we do have this spectrum of post-vaccination syndrome, There's a paper out that looks at the spectrum of syndromes of the post-viral syndrome and the post-vaccination syndromes and compares those symptoms.
Statistically, you cannot differentiate.
If you look at population with the post-viral syndrome, the population with the post-vaccination syndrome, and their list of symptoms, you cannot distinguish them.
Okay.
And that gets to my point, what is the commonality?
You know, we're people that live in a logical world.
What is the common thing, you know, between A and B?
This goes back to Sesame Street, right?
Yeah, Spike.
And so we, to this, just to put a nail in this one, that gets back to my point about the nature of Spike.
The two-point mutations were not put in there to mitigate safety concerns.
Full stop.
I tracked that documentation down because I was getting hit so hard with that claim.
Absolutely no documentation that those two proline mutations were put in there for anything to do with safety.
It's all the literature says.
Going back, it was there for immunogenicity.
It was there to improve immunogenicity.
That's counter fact-checked, that's false.
And then, well, no, the vaccine spike is different from the viral spike.
And so, with the exceptionalist two-point mutations, that's a true statement, except that the circulating S1 subunit, which is what's in your blood, which is what's measured in this paper that I'm referring to in cell, is identical.
And furthermore, the circulating S1 fragment of Spike, which has the receptor-binding domains which bind to ACE2, blah blah blah, and bind to platelets and all that stuff, those are identical between the original Wuhan strain and the vaccine.
Now, they are not identical.
The subsequent evolved, so for instance, if you were to look at Omicron, the sequence in the Omicron spike is different.
Right, which suggests strongly that the variants have been driven, right?
Absolutely.
Yeah.
No question.
I concur with Gert on that.
The place that I branch off from Gert a little bit Is he's making a very strong inference.
I'm using language that we understand the meaning of.
It's a precise language.
He's making a strong inference, so that's related to a hypothesis, but kind of stronger.
It implies that there is some intrinsic bias, frankly, in a particular hypothesis to say it's a strong inference.
It can be an appropriate bias, but in Gert's warnings about the probability and potential timeline for the evolution of a more pathogenic, more highly infectious variant, he is
Building that inference based on a stack of inferences having to do with the selective pressure forces at play here having to do with
Patterns of glycosylation, which well evolve very readily, as well as specific sequences, and the role of antibodies and non-neutralizing antibodies in selecting for these, as I understand his thinking, these altered patterns of glycosylation.
And he's making a statement that this will occur.
And a specific timeline associated with it.
I prefer to say that it is a risk.
That it could occur, yeah.
And I wouldn't want to stake my reputation on saying it's going to occur two months or eight months from now or whatever the number is.
And it could very well not manifest.
So, I find myself, because Gerd is a friend and a scientific colleague who I highly respect, and so people come to me, including Dell, BigTree, and say, okay, Robert, what can you say about this?
And I have to say, it is a plausibility, and I have to, I personally categorize it in the domain of risk identification.
Yeah, I agree.
It may be that Garrett knows something that he hasn't conveyed apparently to you or to me yet, but I do feel like the risks he's describing are very real, but I don't know The evolutionary part is, I think, hard to predict here.
It's my bias, too.
I'd be curious.
It's a multivariate system.
It's a highly complex multivariate system.
But I'm totally with him that mass vaccination in the face of this enormous amount of infectious pressure is We could say madness.
I think it's at the intersection of ignorance and hubris.
It was wildly reckless.
And I think he was, I want to hesitate to say clearly, but it feels like he was quite right about the driving of the proliferation of variance.
And so trying to be an objective, you know, how it is in science.
We try to live in this world of multiple working hypotheses and then design experiments or look for natural experiments to allow us to throw out as many hypotheses as we can, leaving us with the one that we can't throw out as the probable.
Right.
So this driving towards evolution of the escape variant that is the Omicron series, let's say, has some anomalous findings associated with it has some anomalous findings associated with it that get straight to your core competence.
As you probably know, when you build the phylogenetic tree structure for the relatedness of these viruses, using the standard software, and I'm choosing those words carefully, and let's look back to that in a moment, using the standard software, it projects that the origin of the Omicron branch from that evolutionary tree that we call SARS-CoV-2,
Precedes the evolutionary branch that gave rise to, for instance, Delta and the prior variants.
So, that's a conundrum.
How can that happen?
One hypothesis that I'm aware of is that, and this will get to your core confidence, I'm playing to your expertise, is as you know, Evolution is not always linear in terms of changes over time.
In a given, in a stable ecosystem, in a stable niche, you can use Base alterations as a sort of molecular clock, right?
Sort of.
I mean, all of these molecular clock things have assumptions in them that are rule of thumb at best.
Bingo!
And those, to the best of my knowledge, those core models that are used are built on the thesis that that rate of molecular evolution in a large viral population is relatively consistent.
And yet, we know, with our backgrounds in evolutionary biology, that in fact, going back to Darwin's finches, that what often happens is when an organism encounters a new evolutionary niche, it will undergo an explosive evolution and all Presumptions we have about the rate of evolution go straight out the door.
And you have these evolutionary bursts, and that is really one of the big stories of modern evolution, of modern evolutionary biology is the realization that you have these interactions between niche availability and evolutionary bursts, and you can't make those assumptions about constant rate of evolution and constant rate of molecular change.
So, it is possible.
That those phylogenetic trees represent an artifact of an underlying assumption in the calculations having to do with the rate of mutation.
The thing that plays to that thesis, supporting data,
In my mind, is that concurrent with the emergence of Omicron, with its molecular characteristics, and by the way, we don't characterize the glycosylation pattern, we just characterize the protein sequence, so that's a blind spot we have, is that Omicron also was noted to have shifted its tissue targeting.
Now, if you pick with Gert and you dive into this, he has a construction around that that shift had to do with these innate antibodies that are non-blocking, driving that evolutionary change.
But for whatever reason, There was a shift in the tissue trophism from deep lung, which is known in flu and other respiratory viruses to be associated with a more highly pathogenic virus.
And you can take an H1N1, this is where it was really made clear, was H1N1 has a variant that is very deep lung targeting, and it has another variant that is not, that is more upper airway and oropharyngeal.
And the one that is not upper airway is less pathogenic.
And so Omicron, concurrent with its emergence and its incredible infectivity, has this shift from its tissue trophism to more of a upper airway oropharyngeal, which is why the paradox of it's more infectious and less pathogenic, which on face, when you look at that, you go, what?
That doesn't make any sense at all.
It had this shift and so that means if we go back to the evolution and bursting what something happened that caused it to get a new niche.
Yes, I would also point out this is one of these places where I feel like the lack of transparency around What was going on in Wuhan that likely produced this is criminal.
Okay, that's a great segue to the third hypothesis.
Well, hold on.
I just want to put this on the table.
The point is, this virus ain't normal.
Absolutely.
It behaves so bizarrely, and the ways that it behaves bizarrely are, at least to some degree, pretty easily mapped onto, hey, we were doing some stuff in the lab and we accidentally selected for a bunch of other stuff along the way because, of course, we were.
Or we intentionally selected for it.
Well, no, they intentionally selected for certain things, but if they ran serial passage experiments in ferrets and humanized mice in order to make a virus that was... More infectious than humans.
More infectious than humans.
What they did was accidentally trained it for the ability to jump species.
The fact that they probably did it... In saying that, you're giving the benefit of the doubt, just so we're clear on that.
Right.
They also, if you take, let's say that they used ferrets, which seems likely given that this virus actually does transmit between individual ferrets and individual minks to other ferrets and minks.
If you cage minks together and then you allow them to infect each other, the natural rules that a virus would evolve based on don't apply, right?
A ferret in the wild that is infected with the virus, the virus has an interest in not wrecking the ferret because the ferret has to be successful enough at doing ferret stuff that it lives to spread the virus.
And so take, for example, the loss of sense of smell that seems to come with COVID so frequently.
If you remove the sense of taste and smell from a ferret in the wild, it's going to die.
Yeah.
It's going to starve very quickly because it depends on those things to find food.
If you do it in a cage where it's eating ferret chow, right, then it can be falling all over its neighbors infecting them.
And the point is what that does to the virus is it removes the value of being efficient, right?
If the virus gets spread best when it infects only those tissues involved in transmitting it, and it leaves the ferret otherwise intact, if that's a good virus in the wild, in the lab it's a very different thing.
And so my point would be, when we're looking at Omicron and Delta and saying it's funny because Omicron isn't the descendant of Delta, we're looking at a virus that is more likely than most viruses to have leapt species, could have easily leapt into mice because it probably was already trained in mice and so had some could have easily leapt into mice because it probably was already trained in mice and That's not something you would expect normally, but we have to leave that possibility open in this case.
And then, when you talk about it moving tissues within the body, well, we've trained it to have this extremely broad tropism, whereas nature would have narrowed that tropism, and so we shouldn't be too surprised by that either.
So, my basic feeling is, look, we know a lot about viral evolution.
We've got to be really cautious about applying it to this virus because we did funny things to this virus that nobody has explained to us yet.
Fair enough.
And you just touched on the fourth hypothesis.
So, the third hypothesis with Omicron, I think Omicron is a fascinating case study in its emergence in this context.
If you believe in divine providence, its occurrence last winter was pretty close to divine providence, if that's how you're wired.
For those of us that have to live in an analytical world of data that we can perceive and analyze, and we're not allowing ourselves to invoke the divine as we try to logic our way through these things.
I don't think you're going to offend the creator.
I'm trying to square the circle here.
It's not the creator I'm worried about.
- That's my followers. - So in any case, you mentioned that The species reservoir and interspecies transfer, which is absolutely one of the hypotheses for emergence of Omicron, particularly since it was detected in Africa.
The contrapositive for that is that it was first detected.
That doesn't mean it didn't appear before then.
It was first detected in these four diplomats.
That had a travel history that is not disclosed.
But to the best of my knowledge, three of them were European and one of them was Asian.
Um, uh, so, uh, it, it formally, since we know it infects cats, um, and it infects ungulates, ergo white-tailed deer, for example.
Yep.
Um, in, in the context of, of Central Africa and Southern Africa, there are plenty of both, uh, and not to mention the field mice and everything else.
Uh, so it had a rich, uh, palette of potential alternative hosts.
All right.
Well, I want to be careful there because there's an important distinction that people typically miss.
This virus jumps to a huge range of species.
We've seen that.
There are only a few that it jumps successfully within, and it has to do both before this becomes relevant to the story.
Now, I think we've seen it in deer.
I'm not sure we've seen it in Felids.
Bolid.
We've seen replication between felids.
Oh, I don't know that.
I think it does transmit.
We've seen this in zoos.
I know it transmits to cats.
I didn't know that it transmitted between them.
Yeah, I'm not sure about from felid to felid.
Okay.
Certainly goes in weasels.
Ferrets and minks, we've seen it.
I believe mice.
Yes.
So anyway, we've got a group, and that group is already large enough to tell us something.
Especially in the context of Africa.
Yes.
Yeah, I'm trying to think.
Are there any deer in Africa?
Plenty of ungulates, yeah.
There are, but they're bovids, not cervids.
But... Well, we got the springbuck and the lake.
Yeah, okay, okay.
So, they're primarily bovines, but nonetheless, A, we've got a virus that's really good at jumping between species and has successfully jumped once across that barrier.
So, the point, not to get too deep in the weeds, the point is that it is theoretically possible that this thing could have moved from a human host to an animal host, evolved, there could have been an evolutionary burst in the animal host, And then reinfected a human host and been more adapted in terms of its ability to replicate and displace the dominant strains at the time, and it moved through Africa, into South Africa, and throughout the world.
Or it's possible that the whole African link is only an artifact of having particularly astute virologists in South Africa who happen to be good at early detection.
So we can't disambiguate those things.
The other one that is the conspiracy spooky version of this, so that third of the four hypotheses that I've heard repeatedly from Colleagues who have intelligence community ties.
Yeah.
And I think we need to, for the audience, we need to just put a stake in the sand.
Yes, I have dealt with many people that are in the intelligence community, including the CIA.
I've actually been partnered with one in a prior corporation that we'd set up.
I've spoken about this in Bobby's book.
And one of the things that I know for a fact, I've discussed in detail the training that is performed, is that folks that are trained in the intelligence community are trained liars.
That's what they are.
They are trained to be very adept liars.
So anytime I hear anything from somebody that I know is of the intelligence community as a culture, I know that I really can't place any validity on anything I hear, and anything I hear has to be triangulated.
So that's the prelude to saying what I hear from multiple people, which may well just be an intelligence ploy, is that there were multiple viruses engineered in that Wuhan lab by the woman that is known as the Bat Lady, who had a prior title, apparently, that specifically acknowledged her leadership as being responsible for bioengineering biologic weapons.
Apparently, this was her job title.
In Chinese, in some way.
And that there was something in the range of a dozen of these variants that were generated.
And the thesis is that the parental Omicron may actually have been a predecessor virus, which was part of the developmental program, and that those phylogenetic trees actually are accurate, and that it was
Intentionally or inadvertently released so that I think that in the landscape of the world that we now live in as people committed to A multiple working hypothesis approach to trying to discern truth in biology, which I think you and I share.
Yep.
And I'm referring to a science paper first published in the 1800s that's kind of become fundamental to those of us you were mentioning the other day.
We need to retrain scientists, and one of those things we need to do is make them read that damn paper.
So, multiple working hypotheses.
I think we have to acknowledge in that spectrum of alternative hypotheses that Omicron may also be synthetic.
Yeah, that is a real possibility.
And I would just add, you know, and I'm I know nothing about whether this might have happened, but the dynamics of Omicron open the possibility that some and by the way, I would think this is incredibly reckless, too, but that some white hat entity really-- You went there, used that term.
I was wondering, I was trying not to use that term because it evokes the whole QAnon Well, I don't know that it evokes the cure-all world, but the point is somebody that was sick and tired of seeing the COVID catastrophe unfold could have released as effectively a contagious vaccine.
I think it's a formal possibility, and it was odd.
These things that come out of Bill Gates' mouth sometimes, you've just got to wonder.
Why is he so darn predictive when... And that after Omicron emerged, He gave interviews in which he was advocating for the development and there was a programmatic initiative launched for development of infectious vaccines.
I need to say here that I've done a lot of thinking about infectious vaccines, and I can think of few ideas more dangerous, because... That's totally irresponsible!
...what is inherent to such... I mean, look, you couldn't create... Talk about hubris!
Well, A, it raises all kinds of questions about informed consent because you're going to... It's like informed consent doesn't matter anymore.
Right.
But the worst part is, at the point that you've created something, even if it behaves like a beautiful vaccine, even if it gives you sterilizing immunity and it's safe, At the point that you have created a vaccine that jumps from individual to individual, what you've done is invited evolution to take that thing and modify it into something else.
And you and I that live in this, you know, with a daily awareness of the insane complexity, not a biology, just biology at the organism level, but biology at the system level of ecosystems.
We're acutely aware that if you release an agent like this, that already we know, for example, has a ready ability to migrate between species, That's why I get back to hubris.
The idea that is being promoted by various players, including apparently the chief science officer of the World Economic Forum, That we can apply artificial intelligence and other advanced digital technologies to predicting the behavior of complex biological systems is incredibly naive and arrogant.
It's nuts.
We are nowhere close.
We are nowhere close.
And to think that you've got it nailed down invites exactly the kind of disaster that we're facing.
And it gets to the culture of, um, uh, Right, exactly.
Now, I guess this is the last thing I want to mention that we got to set you free.
Now, I guess this is the last thing I want to mention that we got to set you free.
One of the contentious points surrounding the proliferation of variants is In my mind, I'm constantly running the best simulation I can for what would have happened if we hadn't deployed these so-called vaccines.
That's one question.
We'll call them inoculations.
Inoculations.
If we hadn't deployed them, where would we be now?
That's one question.
That's a good thought experiment.
And the second question, so that question comes in two flavors.
If we had deployed the repurposed drugs that seemed to be so effective and we hadn't deployed these... Which is what I advocated for and what my team was going hell-bent for leather for.
Right.
And which we got blocked by the FDA at every twist and turn for.
Right.
And this is the DoD.
My feeling is, based on everything I know, I am not certain of this, but I believe We would have controlled COVID.
We would have done so quickly.
Or in the worst case, herd immunity would have arisen without basically chasing these variants around the map.
Can I put a pin in that just for a moment to acknowledge you?
Sure.
This is another looping back to our prior podcast.
You stuck your neck way out and you said ivermectin could be our solution.
And if we boil that down, let's take away the term or the specific molecule and generalize it.
And let's imagine that you were saying a repurposed effective drug which mitigated the symptoms and essentially eliminated the mortality, but did not completely eliminate viral replication, could have eliminated the threat.
And resulted in elimination of the virus within the general population.
And I challenged you on that.
I said, no, I disagree.
I remember that.
Because it's not active as an antiviral, okay?
Yeah.
That's another one where I was wrong.
It does have some degree of antiviral activity.
I concede that point.
And furthermore, if this leads right into what you were saying, that's why I wanted to put a pin in it for a moment, just to acknowledge you.
Thank you.
That if we had An agent, whether it's a horse dewormer that's actually a Nobel Prize winning human medicine that's been administered in hundreds of millions doses with complete safety profile or some other thing.
You know, God came out of the clouds and gave it to us this thing and we deployed it and it had those characteristics.
I believe that what I think you're leading up to, I think it is a reasonable thesis that the natural process of global virus circulation would have proceeded as a coronavirus does And we would have generated broad, durable, natural immunity, including a mucosal immune response throughout the population.
And we would have been, then, in a similar situation to other viral outbreaks where the Circulation of the virus would have been quenched.
It would have gone into hiding in various reservoirs, including animal, and would periodically reemerge as the birth cohort expanded to such a point that it would sustain ongoing viral replication.
In other words, R naught would grow greater than one because the birth cohort got larger, and it would circulate in what population?
Young children.
Okay.
Do young children have severe disease from COVID?
No.
Do they die from COVID?
No.
Not if they aren't, you know, severely compromised on death's door from something else.
And it pushes them over the line.
So, that's the normal evolutionary biology of these worldwide pandemics, is they circulate, everybody gets hit, they develop natural immunity.
Natural immunity, a highly evolved system, extremely complex, provides a robust, broad-based immunity in almost all cases.
And then the virus would have found its way to occult reservoirs, And then periodically re-emerge to circulate in the world in the young, influenced population.
And then would again go quiet, typically for something like five to seven years.
Because that's how long it takes to build a big enough cohort.
And then it would crop up again.
And then you would have these little outbreaks where kids would get cold.
So, here's the thing.
In checking my model, which I really don't know if it's right or not, but... I think it probably is.
I think it probably is, too.
If we're going to live in this world of multiple hypotheses, it is certainly high on the probability list.
It's live.
But here's the thing that I... I can't shake this.
They told us a story about what happened in Japan that made less than no evolutionary sense, right?
Which was?
Remember what they told us?
The virus crashed and they said, ah, it committed evolutionary suicide.
That basically somehow its mutation rate too high, didn't sustain, disappeared from the population.
So, I missed the storyline.
Oh, it didn't make any sense.
And so, here's the thing.
In Japan, something happened.
Did they start using Ivermectin?
No.
They authorized that you could use Ivermectin, and then they kind of did some strange Japanese thing where they kind of weren't bragging about what they were doing, but...
There was a culture in which ivermectin was happening, but it wasn't officially sanctioned, right?
They sort of got under the radar.
They didn't piss anybody off, but they used this very effective tool.
And they actually had some other drugs, too, that were restricted, only available within Japan.
I don't know about those.
I would imagine they used hydroxychloroquine, but I actually don't know about that either.
But in any case, the point is, if you had the full pharmacopoeia at your disposal and you used that, then you could tell some story about basically creating pressure on, especially if it's multiple drugs, right?
You could create a pressure where the virus can't solve the evolutionary puzzle and it does collapse because, you know...
But that is all predicated on the thesis that this is a highly lethal virus, which is what we were told all the way along.
And the data are in.
Right.
Well, I don't know that it is.
I just think if the data say what we think they do about the amount of virus circulating in Japan and then its surprising disappearance at the point that it was on the rise elsewhere on planet Earth, Then the point is there's a missing factor from that story.
That missing factor could be repurposed drugs.
That could fill in the gap about why the virus failed evolutionarily.
What can't is the virus on its own failed.
Because if you have successful variants and then you have the evolution of less... It's gibberish.
It's gibberish.
Right.
And so the point is, okay, I don't know what that gibberish is hiding, but it's hiding something.
And it's interesting that repurposed drugs show up in that story at the same moment.
Yeah, and so then there's Uttar Pradesh.
Exactly.
So, what I found fascinating, because I was tracking Uttar Pradesh closely because, like you, I was friends with Pierre Kory.
But unlike Pierre, and perhaps unlike you, I don't know, I had connections in India.
I don't.
With this organization called Reliance, which is owned by this guy named Ambani, who actually is one of the board members at the World Economic Forum.
So, I own that.
I hadn't been aware of those ties and their significance at the time.
So, I had these links into India, and I was carefully monitoring it, and there was this
A crowd of voices observing that there was a treatment pack being made available, widely available, deployed in Uttar Pradesh, and there was a concurrent collapse of morbidity and mortality from the virus.
That doesn't mean the virus wasn't replicating, but we weren't seeing it in the hospitals and people weren't dying.
And it was often ascribed to ivermectin being a component of those packs together with zinc and other, you know, perhaps azithromycin or other things that was rumored.
Yeah.
And then there actually was a meeting between the White House and Modi.
The President had a meeting with Modi.
And I know, functionally, immediately after that happened, all communication channels regarding what was in there and what was happening in Uttar Pradesh collapsed.
Yep.
And so that's correlation.
It doesn't prove causation.
And then the press, there was a series of stories put out that asserted that this was a spurious association and they had no causal relationship.
And that there was actually no evidence that Ivermectin was any of those packages.
And I asked colleagues, can you please get me one of those packages or get me a photograph or whatever?
And they said, no, that is not possible.
We can't do that.
Isn't that amazing?
Yeah, it is amazing.
We're talking about a province that has a population as big as the U.S.
Yeah.
And that is observing an apparent resolution to what had been a burgeoning major public health crisis, with a precipitous drop-off after some discrete event that occurred.
A precipitous drop-off not mirrored in the rest of the country.
Right.
And so this went on, and then I had a friend who actually traveled to the region, And as she was traveling to the region, I asked her, can you please get me an image?
And this happened.
And it was incontrovertible.
The word ivermectin was right there on the packaging, okay?
And I think this may have been the first image that provided irrefutable proof that ivermectin was in those packages.
And it's funny how these things happen.
And then that was spread around, but still the official position was no disclosure of what was in those, You know, bubble pack, like a Z-Pack, products that were distributed.
Now there are more images of that that have come out and it's generally acknowledged, although the official party line, as you know, continues to be that ivermectin doesn't work and it shouldn't be used and it's toxic to humans.
All of which is a lie.
All of which is a lie.
Yeah, and, you know, it bears mentioning here that, you know, the world of people who aren't paying close attention, of course, leapt at the TOGETHER trial, you know, the supposedly largest... Which was another designed-to-fail Clusterfrack.
Clusterfrack, I like that.
Well, yeah, designed to fail, but I mean the funny thing is that the story, it looks to me having looked at all of these things now, that Pharma is very good at building trials To fail.
Designing them to fail.
It's easy.
Well, it's easy unless you're up against a drug like Ivermectin, where each of the trials that was designed to fail, failed to fail, and then they had to fudge the presentation in order to make it look like it had failed, which happened in the Kett-Together trial also.
Which is a gentle way of saying Ivermectin continually exceeded expectations.
Right, exactly.
It's crazy.
In its annual review.
Exceeds expectations.
Exceeds expectations, yes.
It's that annoying student who just slam dunks everything.
Doesn't need any teaching.
All right, well, Dr. Malone, it is always a pleasure.
I am just so, my heart is warmed watching you fight the good fight continually and bring something to it that no one else can.
As the inventor of the core technology in those vaccines, you bring an understanding of the way these things work that is so deep
That it's really irreplaceable and I am I'm of course livid, livid at the slanders that you have endured and the pretense that you are somehow elevating your contribution beyond what it actually was and I will point people before we close out here I will say I did not know him at the time he's now a good friend of mine but Alexandros Marinos checked
Very thoroughly to see whether you were in fact the inventor of the mRNA technologies at the heart of these vaccines.
And mind you, you had no hand in creating the vaccines, nor would you have deployed them, but you did, you were there and you have the receipts.
So in any case, the slanderers will continue to slander you, but thank you for standing up for us.
So before we close, because I always like to close on a positive.
And since we're on that thread, which is the slander and defamation, as Dell observed yesterday, all press is good press, to paraphrase his... I don't agree with him on that front, but he did say it, yeah.
When I was deleted from Twitter and LinkedIn, my getter account started exploding.
And then we went on Rogan and my sub stack just took off like a shot.
Every time I get hit with one of these fact checks, it's as if they reactivate enthusiasm for my position.
So, what Del was talking about, I'm experiencing.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt.
And that, for instance, the defamation in the New York Times, in which they went after my wife, that's particularly unpleasant.
Um, and it is hurtful, uh, but, um, I, it, I, I, as I said in this, uh, article, um, what does it feel like to be vindicated?
Um, it's been entirely unpleasant and I would do it again in a heartbeat.
All right.
Well, I, um.
I quite agree with you on the do it again in a heartbeat thing.
I have of course endured quite a bit of slander myself.
The one point I would argue isn't quite right is that it may be that by being thrown off of Twitter and slandered in the various places that you reach more people.
But the problem is it's very hard to know who you're not reaching because of those things.
Oh, absolutely.
That's the intention, is to create a comfortable pathway to um uh allow those who have cognitive dissonance, who have psychological pain in encountering ideas and thoughts and data that has caused them psychological discomfort, cognitive dissonance.
It allows them a pathway that they don't ever have to have that pain.
That's the logic, if you look at it, underlying the censorship.
Well, that's part of it, though.
My concern is And I should probably just say, when I started with the lab leak, looking at these questions and finding myself in a very uncomfortable, quite heterodox position, when I became a dissident, I started looking at all of the places where the lies were blatant, right?
Lab leak, repurposed drugs, and the treatment of COVID, vaccine safety and effectiveness.
And what I realized was, if we could successfully reveal the truth on those fronts so that it was generally understood, right?
We got there with LabLeak, right?
I believe people are waking up to the fact that safe and effective does not describe these so-called vaccines.
Ivermectin is the sticky wicket for interesting reasons.
Hopefully it will eventually come.
But when we get there, We will be able to say, aha, now you know how deep the rot is in the system.
You've seen university science fail.
You've seen all of journalism fail.
You've seen government fail.
You've seen the international public health apparatus fail.
You've seen the tech sector complicit, right?
You've seen the entire system is corrupted.
At that point, we will understand something about what we have to fix if we are to survive.
Now, by driving you away from the mainstream locations, even if more people find you on Getter, to the extent that you have been, in some sense, sidelined from the mainstream conversation, that's a hazard to us ever crossing that threshold.
And so, I would advise You and others who feel like, well, it's working out anyway, their thing is backfiring on them, to realize we need you at the core.
And because we need you at the core, I would just ask you to be careful.
Yeah, thanks.
I'd rather not be assassinated, that's why I have personal security.
Yeah.
And my wife especially would rather I didn't get assassinated.
I bet that's right.
But, okay, I can't leave this, I gotta keep picking at this.
Steve Kirsch, we both know, convened a conference.
It took a heavy lift, including reminding the provost that he actually has an auditorium at MIT named after him, but eventually they relented and they allowed this conference to occur on the MIT campus.
It was very sparsely attended except by the conference participants, but it was live-streamed.
There was an attempt to get voices that were, let's say, aligned with the narrative, academics, in addition to members of the Great Barrington Declaration, etc.
So, we would call those decedents, or truth-tellers, depending on where you are.
Point is, I listened to the statements very carefully of some of these academics that were willing to participate, but continued to be invested in the solutions and explanations that we call the dominant paradigm.
And what I heard was some acknowledgement of culpability.
And a justification for a truth and reconciliation committee akin to what happened in South Africa after the fall of apartheid.
Beautiful.
And I must tell you, I find that completely non-satisfying.
It is non-satisfying, but go ahead.
Well, so that what I did not see, I heard the words of contrition.
I did not see the behaviors of contrition.
I heard the words of acknowledgment of hubris.
I did not observe changes in that hubris.
And my fear is that if we go down that path of some sort of a national reconciliation, What underlies that is a push to normalize and retain the behaviors and structures that have enabled this, and they will just be recapitulated again.
And I fear that without that, if we, as we did with torture, if we fail to prosecute, Um, then, uh, this, this will become normalized behavior within our culture.
And I think it already has.
And, um, and in terms of my role, um, I appreciate, and I'm flattered by your compliments and your perception.
Uh, um, but, uh, And I'm just so grateful for the warm embraces that I receive every day, including from the airline pilots that I travel.
But I really don't think I'm that important.
I think that what we're dealing with is way, way, way bigger than the nuance of my knowing where the bodies are buried in the story of the mRNA vaccines.
Well, I disagree with you.
I think your importance is tremendous, and maybe I didn't sum it up correctly, but I think because of what you understand, you can speak with confidence to things in this story that many of the rest of us who might suspect those things can't.
And I know that it's having that effect because I also am able to listen to what is said about you when you're not there.
So, I have some sense of what role you're playing in a way that you just can't.
Yeah.
So, you are vitally important.
Well, thank you.
My wife will be very grateful to hear that.
I don't think she'll be surprised to be honest with you.
With respect to the truth and reconciliation thing though, I'm going to withhold judgment because I hear you loud and clear.
If the idea is this is how the thing escapes to recapitulate itself and pull this again on us, that can't be.
On the other hand, if it recognizing If the individuals involved in this recognize that if they actually were held accountable for what they actually did, right, that they would be in for a serious Nuremberg-like reckoning, then you are that they would be in for a serious Nuremberg-like reckoning, then you are in Well, they might consider all kinds of things in order to avoid getting there.
And so I don't like truth and reconciliation basically because I do feel like culpability requires... these people have to be punished.
There has to be some accountability.
In terms of accountability, on the other hand, if the question is, are we ever going to get to talk about what captured all of those systems and allowed this to happen?
What allowed them to gaslight us like this?
What allowed them to gaslight the people that they coerced into being vaccinated and who then suffered?
And which they are continuing to do.
Continuing to do.
If the only way to get to the phase where we say, well, now let's just look at what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again.
If the only way there is truth and reconciliation, then I am on board because the future of humanity depends on us getting our captured system replaced and uncaptured.
So on that note, which is positive, it's a hopeful forward looking.
I hope that we don't have such a long time between now and the next time we chat.
