In this 194th in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), we discuss the state of the world through an evolutionary lens. In this episode we discuss the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, which was awarded for nucleoside base modifications that enabled the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19. We discuss the innovation for which the prize was awarded, what some of the known effects are, and what has been claimed about t...
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast livestream.
I happen to know for sure it's number 194.
I also know for sure that I am Dr. Brett Weinstein and you are Dr. Heather Hine.
Actually, we know nothing for sure.
How confident are you of this?
You know, I suppose one could tell a story in which none of these things are true, but Assuming that any of the things I think are true, these things are also true.
It's the 194th live stream of the Dark Horse Podcast and we are raring to go because history just refuses not to march on.
Yes.
Yes.
Life marches on and as soon as it is marched, it becomes history.
I think it's how that works.
Is that how it works?
I don't know.
I guess that would make sense.
Yeah.
I'm going to think more about it and get back to you and tell you whether I agree.
Yeah.
At which point this will be history.
This will be history.
Yeah.
All right.
Here we are on Rumble and elsewhere, of course.
We're also on YouTube and Spotify and Apple Podcasts and all of those places.
But if you have a choice, if you're deciding between those options, please join us on Rumble And also on Locals where the watch party is happening right now as we live stream.
And also on Locals you can find our monthly private Q&A which we did this last Sunday.
We're going to be doing another in a couple weeks because of upcoming scheduling anomalies.
And we also have occasional impromptu AMAs on Locals.
We've got Access to the Discord server soon, if not already.
I don't know yet what is happening with that.
It's supposed to be happening, but the Discord server brings us a question every week for our Q&A that happens after our live streams, which we will be doing today, and lots of other great stuff.
So please consider joining us there.
Okay, we're going to be talking about a number of things in mRNA space and pharma space today.
Ooh, sounds like fun.
Yeah, in part prompted by the announcement of the Nobel in Physiology and Medicine, and in part prompted my research this week into a drug that purports to be excellent in preventing cardiovascular illness, and that little dive into into PharmaLand, which I also published on Natural Selections this week, so I encourage you to go there.
We'll also be talking about it.
But yeah, without further ado, what does that even mean?
I know that you can have a lot of ado, and sometimes it isn't about anything.
You know, language is weird, and there are just some words that you only use in the context of a phrase, and if you try to pull them out, they are glaringly obvious as not actually being standalone words, which makes them maybe not words at all.
When was the last time you went traipsing without gallivanting?
Right?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I think I have never.
Right.
And when is the last time you encountered Flotsam without Jetsam?
I mean... Well, no, those exist.
They all exist, but... No, I'm not sure they do.
I mean, you actually have been the one to point out the precise and different definitions of Flotsam and Jetsam.
Those actually exist as distinct entities, so I don't think that's a good example.
I have been pointing that out for a long time, but apparently I had the definitions wrong, which our friend Brad corrected me on.
I'm now up to date on these things, but yes.
You just keep on going back.
What are you going to do?
You know, I mean, as you point out, history is history, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it.
So we have three sponsors this week, as usual.
There's yours, and we are going to read these ads now at the top of the hour.
Seed, Uncruise, and Mindbloom are our excellent sponsors this week.
As always, we choose only sponsors.
For whom we actually have affinity, and these are those.
Our first sponsor this week is Seed, a probiotic that really works.
If you've tried probiotics before and got nothing out of it, try Seed.
It's designed differently from other probiotics, it's designed better, it actually works.
Seed helps improve the health of your gut microbiome, which means that it supports you becoming healthier overall.
Our resident gut microbes directly impact the development and function of the immune system even before we're born, Microbes inform our immune system, teaching our body how to distinguish between benign substances and pathogenic antigens, that is, substances that our body doesn't recognize as its own.
You can support your gut immune axis in a variety of ways, including by prioritizing sleep.
New research suggests that the gut microbiome has its own circadian clock, and that changes to your normal rhythms can disrupt your microbes and the important functions that they perform.
Prioritizing regular sleep can thus help get your gut immune axis healthy.
Seed's DS01 daily synbiotic also supports your gut immune access.
Seed is a plant-based prebiotic and probiotic with 24 strains that have been clinically or scientifically studied for their benefits.
16 of those 24 strains are specifically geared towards digestive health, and 4 of the 24 probiotic strains are known to promote healthy skin.
Your skin, like your gut, has its own microbiome.
Seed supports both gut and skin health.
Seed is free from 14 major classes of allergens, including but not limited to sugar, animal products, soy, gluten, peanut, glyphosate, dairy, shellfish, and corn.
And seed is basically double-hulled with its capsule-in-capsule design.
It is engineered to maintain viability through your digestive tract until it reaches your colon, where you want it.
And the same design makes it resistant to oxygen, moisture, and heat, meaning that no refrigeration is necessary, so you can travel with it.
Seed's Daily Symbiotic supports gut, skin, and heart health and micronutrient synthesis.
We have heard from several people who have used Seed and report improvements to their digestive function in 24 to 48 hours.
So, start a new healthy habit today!
Visit Seed.com slash Dark Horse and use code Dark Horse to redeem 25% off your first month of Seed's DS01 Daily Symbiotic.
That's Seed.com slash Dark Horse and use code Dark Horse at checkout.
Now, when you say our resident microbes, it sort of sounds like microbes that are here living in residence with the podcast.
And that's not what you mean.
You're talking about the... I figure we have some.
I mean, I guess we do, but they're not official.
I mean, I haven't named them.
Right.
Well, for one thing, there are bound to be a lot of them.
I mean, I think that's true in the gut as well.
Yes.
That is part of the point here.
That is the point here.
Yeah.
All right.
Well, I'm glad we cleared that up just in case anyone... Well, I'm glad we muddled that up is what I'm really glad about.
I believe that you are.
You've known me a long time.
Our second sponsor this week is UnCruise.
Small ship adventures.
UnCruise explores by sea and by land.
They have boats that hold orders of magnitude fewer people than most cruise boats, and they take their passengers to some of the world's most magnificent places.
Panama, Costa Rica, Galapagos, the Sea of Cortez in Mexico, Alaska, even our own backyard, the San Juan Islands.
When UnCruise first approached us, we were skeptical.
Our standards for travel, and especially anything bordering on adventure travel, are high.
We have years of experience leading trips to the scablands of eastern Washington, the Columbia River Gorge, as well as the Andean Paramal, Galapagos, and the Amazon.
We know that most trips do not meet expectations.
UnCruise, in contrast, exceeds expectations.
The small boats of UnCruise allow passengers to get real, deep experience.
Their largest boat can accommodate a mere 86 guests.
The boats of UnCruise take small groups of people to places that larger boats can't go, and the excursions are designed to bring people into deep nature without destroying it.
When we spoke with CEO Dan Blanchard, we discovered a shared ethos—the value of wild, roadless nature, of exploration, and of observation.
We took an uncruised week-long trip through the inland waters of southeast Alaska in early May of this year and were blown away by what we saw and what we were able to do.
We saw sea otters with their pups, mountain goats, eagles in their nests, brown and black bears, puffins, orcas, humpbacks, arctic terns—too many species to list, really.
Mile after mile of the most breathtaking scenery.
Each day we got off the boat to hike or kayak, and the crew and naturalist guides were, to a person, kind, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic.
The food was surprisingly good as well, and food preferences and sensitivities were handled perfectly, and every sailing with UnCruise is all-inclusive.
Transportation, drinks, farm-to-table cuisine, daily excursions, everything is included.
UnCruise understands that the boat is just a tool.
Their small ship cruises take guests to communities and locales on the ground so that they, the guests, can have actual experiences.
UnCruise is giving Dark Horse listeners a fantastic deal.
$500 off their current cruises, an offer that you can combine with other offers as well.
So start thinking about winter in the tropics now or spring trips in Alaska.
Plan a trip with Uncruise today and take advantage of our great offer.
Go now to uncruise.com pages darkhorse.
Remember to save $500 on your trip.
Go now to uncruise.com pages darkhorse.
Once more, that's uncruise.com pages darkhorse.
You won't regret it.
As you know, when we were on our cruise, I spent a lot of time making these little video postcards where I would just hold the phone perfectly still as the ship moved and some beautiful unnamed piece of wilderness passed in front of us.
And I find myself going back to those things a lot because it was really so majestic.
So I've never heard you call them video postcards before, but it sounds from your description just now that they were postcards that you sent to yourself?
That is strange and a little awkward, but yeah, I guess that's how it turned out since I haven't sent them to anybody else, but that was not the intent when I made them.
All right, our final sponsor this week is Mindbloom.
Mindbloom is the leader in in-home ketamine therapy, offering a combination of scientifically robust medicine with clinically guided support for people looking to improve their mental health and well-being.
If you or someone you love is struggling with mental health issues, those issues may loom large in your life.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but you know that you and your loved one need something that will help you achieve a real and lasting breakthrough.
Maybe it's time for you to consider a guided ketamine therapy program from Mindbloom.
Mindbloom could be your next and most successful chapter in improving your mental health and well-being.
Mindbloom connects patients to licensed psychiatric clinicians to help them achieve better outcomes with lower costs, greater convenience, and an artfully crafted experience.
To begin, take Mindbloom's online assessment and schedule a video consult with a licensed clinician to determine if Mindbloom is right for you.
If approved, you'll discuss your health history and goals for mental health with your clinician to tailor your Mindbloom regimen.
Mindbloom will send you a kit in the mail Complete with medicine, treatment materials, and tips for getting the most out of your experience.
After only four sessions, 89% of Mindbloom clients reported improvements in their symptoms of depression and anxiety.
Reports one client on their site, Mindbloom has enabled me to release the hold of negative thought patterns in my life.
Mindbloom has guided so many people into a better chapter of mental health and well-being.
Right now, Mindbloom is offering our listeners $100 off your first six-session program when you sign up at mindbloom.com slash darkhorse and use the promo code darkhorse at checkout.
Go to mindbloom.com slash darkhorse promo code darkhorse for $100 off your first six-session program today.
That's Mindbloom, M-I-N-D-B-L-O-O-M dot com slash Dark Horse, promo code Dark Horse.
And we've also, I failed to mention in the run-up to this, we've also got a new look to our store.
A new look to our store, indeed.
Yeah.
So we've got all the cool stuff that you have come to expect, with designs including Dark Horse, Welcome to Complex Systems, Do Not Affirm, Do Not Comply, First Against the Wall Club, Epic Tabi, all of this, plus one that's new to us here.
No, and it's really a symbol of a much bigger project.
We are going into the pizza business.
Now the reason that we are going into the pizza business is that we noticed a little something during the past wave of mask mandates.
What we noticed was that for many of us who came to understand that masks were not an effective way of controlling The spread of the virus that there was, I wouldn't call it a loophole, but there was an opportunity that you didn't have to wear your mask.
While you were eating, which means that for those of us who don't think that the masks are an effective controller of the virus's spread, we could just simply eat all the time.
But the problem with that plan is that it will make you very, very fat.
And so then put you at greater risk for illness.
Exactly.
Put you at greater risk for the virus in question.
So, oh, that was probably fat phobic on my part.
No doubt.
I do not apologize.
If it was fat-phobic, then it's inherently hydrophilic, I believe.
So, that's good, I think.
Unless you're trying to dry off.
But, I digress.
The point is, the solution to the problem of eating... Wait, we want this still up, don't we?
Yeah, of course we want it still up.
The solution to the problem of how is it that you can eat, thereby not having to wear your mask, but not grow incredibly fat, the solution is Jake's Micro Pizza.
Jake's Micro Pizza!
Jake's Micro Pizza, which I must say is fantastic, and the slices are so small, they are zero calorie, and we have literally not found the threshold where you have eaten enough slices to amount to any amount of calories.
Sounds like a Buckminster Fuller sort of universe.
It is.
These have been ephemeralized to an incredible degree.
So we're talking about delicious gourmet pizza.
It is, among other things, organically grown, humanely harvested, gluten-free.
Humanely harvested?
Well, the ingredients.
You don't harvest pizza.
Pizza doesn't grow on trees, but many of the ingredients do.
We harvest them humanely.
We produce the best pizza you're ever gonna have in such tiny slices that you can afford to just keep eating them.
Point of order.
Yes.
Name a pizza ingredient that grows on a tree.
I knew you were gonna call me out on that, and I will come up with one.
It's not a tree.
Yeah, I don't.
You're really looking for a tree.
No, wait a second.
You went there.
Wait a second.
I can't.
Pineapples?
No.
Tomatoes?
No.
Milk?
No.
Wheat?
Not a tree.
Uh, wait a second.
I got it.
Oh, do you?
I got it.
Arugula.
Nope.
Ah, wait.
There is, there is here in the San Juan's a bakery that makes the most amazing pizza.
And on Fridays they have a specialty pizza, arugula and limon.
Yeah.
And the lemon.
On a tree.
Yeah.
Perfect.
All right.
How many of you have actually had lemon on a pizza?
But I have to, I have to correct you.
I don't know.
I can't believe that I saved you here.
Well, but you've also... Erred?
You have erred, significantly.
You have emboldened our competitors, saying they make the most amazing pizza.
No, no, we make the most amazing pizza at Jake's Micro Pizza.
Now... That wasn't... I did not mean for that to be a superlative.
Right, exactly.
They make a very acceptable pizza, not as good as Jake's.
I mean, in fact, they make an excellent pizza, it's just not quite as good as Jake's.
Now, I will point out, right, for those of you who are sticklers for the truth, Jake does not exist.
Jake is... Oh, I was just going to ask about his origin story.
Well, I'm going to tell you.
It's rather a lot like Mr. Zingerman's origin story.
And let us hope that the fate of Jake's MicroPizza is like that of the Zingerman's operation.
For the few people in our audience who aren't familiar with Ann Arbor, Michigan, you might want to explain that.
Well, Zingerman's is now world famous.
Well, so too will Jake's MicroPizza be, but that doesn't mean that everyone knows that he doesn't exist.
Zingerman's is a very lovely and, I will say, decidedly expensive deli in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
So good.
It's really good.
They have incredible sandwiches made to order.
Tom's New Job.
Tom's New Job is a fine sandwich, a variation on the Georgia Reuben, which is a local favorite in Michigan.
But anyway, I want to interject something that I believe you guys forgot, which is the new store can be found at darkhorsestore.org.
Darkhorsestore.org is where you too can get your merchandise advertising that you are a fan of Jake's Micro Pizza and perhaps are eating it right now.
Right, now Jake's Micro Pizza may or may not be available in your neighborhood yet.
We are expanding very rapidly, but the shirts are available anywhere.
Wait, aren't the storefronts also micro?
These are, it's delivered by, it's a truck-based service.
There's no address to Jake's Micro Pizza.
And the truck's not micro as well?
No, that is illegal.
So no, we are a by-the-book operation delivering Jake's Micro Pizza produced in a sanitary facility, mobile, but a sanitary facility.
It's just good stuff.
And has there been processing of wheat or soy or peanuts or anything in that facility?
Or is it Our trucks literally avoid roads on which there are facilities that process either nuts or wheat.
So it's really... But not soy.
No.
We don't care deeply about that.
No.
But nut and wheat.
Nuts and wheat.
Right.
But in any case, check to see whether Jake's Micropizza is available in your town, but get your shirt now, just so that you're ready at the point.
So at the point that you are told to mask up, you can... Just start eating Micropizza.
You can plausibly argue that you are in fact eating Jake's Micropizza increasingly Uh, well known and available soon from a truck near you.
Yes, from a pizza delivery truck near you.
And, uh, given that you are eating, you don't need to mask up?
No.
No, you can mask when you're done eating Jake's micro pizza.
That's, that's the idea.
All right.
Excellent.
All right.
And what was the URL on that again?
That's, uh, darkhorsestore?
Darkhorsestore.org is where you can get that and, uh, all, all the rest of the good stuff.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay, um, where do we want to start?
Maybe we should start with the news of the Nobel Prize announcement and the various associated questions and issues.
OK.
All right, so the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine was announced not yesterday, but the day before.
And the winners, I hope not to mispronounce her name, but one of the winners is Katalin Kerikou, I believe is the way to pronounce it, and her
Fellow Laureate is Drew Weissman, both from the University of Pennsylvania, and they were awarded the prize for the modification of the nucleosides that are involved in the mRNAs that facilitated the production of the current crop of mRNA so-called vaccines.
Now on the one hand it is interesting That this prize was awarded to these two people for the thing that it was explicitly awarded for.
So, for those who are aware of the backstory, there has been a lot of debate about who is responsible for the technology underlying the mRNA vaccines.
Our good friend Alexandros Marinos has done a deep dive on this topic, and he has vetted Robert Malone's claim to be the inventor.
And it turns out that Robert Malone is the inventor, and that is not a subjective claim.
It's not as if There were not other people involved in the work, and it is not as if other people have not added things to it, but the fundamental underlying technology is technology on which Robert Malone sought and was granted patents, and he has the publication.
So, Robert Malone is the inventor of this technology.
And they did not give the Nobel Prize for the mRNA technology in these vaccines.
I think it's fairly clear that because they gave it for a much narrower discovery, that they explicitly say facilitated the production of the vaccines, it seems a tacit acknowledgement That Malone is the inventor.
They did not wish to empower him because his critiques of the way these vaccines were deployed and manufactured have been so devastating that they preferred instead to give it to two people who, yes, did some important work, but no, were not the inventors of the fundamental technology.
So that is an interesting tacit acknowledgment if a strange turn of historical events in science.
Now I want to drill down though on what they did give the award for, and what its implications are, and then I want to look at a couple of pieces of video in which first the committee that awarded this Nobel Prize speaks about its beliefs, And then another earlier video from long before the prize was awarded, actually in January of 21, in which one of these now Nobel laureates speaks about his invention.
Which at that point was just brand new being unleashed on the world, and people had a few questions.
Right.
Okay, so the thing for which the Nobel Prize was awarded was the modification of the nucleosides in the mRNA.
So just a little bit of biology.
mRNA involves four distinct nucleosides And those nucleosides are a component of all of the mRNAs in your cells, and the ordering of them contains information that then instructs a ribosome, another component of your cell which is actually made of RNA, To produce protein.
And protein is the workhorse of biology.
Protein are the little machines that do stuff.
It is the product.
So your DNA produces a message in RNA, that's mRNA, messenger RNA, which then becomes, is translated into protein.
And those proteins are doing the work.
The proteins are the target.
And the way these vaccines work is they insert an mRNA message that describes a particular protein that your cells do not normally make, and it effectively tricks your cells into producing that protein.
The idea being that your immune system will then See these foreign proteins, learn to react to them, and then when the virus that also carries these proteins arrives, your immune system is alerted in advance and it goes after it and shuts down the virus before it gets a chance to make you sick or to move to anyone else.
That's the basic outline.
The nucleoside innovation for which the Nobel Prize here was given was the conversion of the uracil, that is the natural nucleoside in mRNA, to something called pseudouridine.
Now, pseudouridine is something that is chemically sufficiently similar that it fits in an mRNA chain the same way that a uracil would, and it allows the translation by the ribosome to occur, but what it does is it interrupts the body's natural tendency to break down the mRNAs.
So imagine that your body produces a lot of mRNAs that produce proteins, But those mRNAs are constantly being taken apart and so the way the body regulates whether or not you're producing proteins or not is whether it introduces new mRNAs, the old ones having been broken down.
So by introducing So the weird caveat here is that pseudouridine is actually something that nature does occasionally introduce into mRNAs, but it does it very sparsely.
That is to say, if nature decides that a particular mRNA would be better off in a more stable form, it may introduce a pseudouridine, but it doesn't do it across every uracil in the message.
So what these folks have done is they have introduced a whole slew of pseudouridines, making the mRNA transcript extremely durable.
Just a question, you said a whole slew, so not all the uracil?
I believe it's all.
Okay, that's what I thought.
Now, there's also a question about manufacturing and technique and how effective... But the intention is all.
It's not, you know, a whole slew sounds like there's a lot more than one, but if it's uracil is replaced with pseudo-uridine, that's a different kind of situation.
Right.
Now, a couple of interesting points.
One, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and by them I do not only mean these now Nobel laureates, but Those involved in the program to produce these vaccines who did not initially know whether or not they would be successful at producing enough protein to induce an immune response.
They might have thought, well, one of the challenges is that the mRNA is going to be rapidly broken down and that that may mean that even though we have introduced something that might technically be able to produce an immune response, it won't be around long enough to succeed at it.
So they may have turned up the dial on stabilizing the mRNA, thinking that that was necessary to get any effect at all.
That said, what they did was absolutely reckless, especially in an environment in which the testing was extremely truncated.
So they've They've stabilized the mRNAs to a degree that they cannot say in advance.
They've done it in a way that is most unnatural.
And now they've been given a prize for that stabilization, which the Nobel Committee, in awarding the prize, says was essential to producing a viable vaccine.
Now that's not true.
And I would ask people to go look at Chris Martinson's analysis of this.
But Chris Martinson points out that there are versions of the vaccine, even mRNA-based versions of the vaccine, that were not pseudouridine-stabilized and were initially tested and did produce a detectable antibody response, which means that the choice to do this was not inherently necessary.
It's possible that a version of the vaccines which had not been pseudouridine-stabilized might have worked, but we never got a chance to find out.
All right.
So with that as background, I now want to look at these two pieces of video.
The first one from the Nobel Committee itself, which held a miniature press conference.
And the first thing you're going to hear is a Chinese journalist in English asking a question about the long-term safety of these vaccines.
And then you will hear the answer as delivered by the committee.
Go ahead and show that.
Hello, this is Caixin Media from China.
And with mRNA, we don't know the long-term effect yet.
So do you have any concern over that?
Richard, would you like to respond to that question?
Yes.
Of course, you know, mRNA vaccines have only been given for a certain amount of time, which begs your question.
Having said that, of course, the mRNA vaccine that is given is very transient, and the fact that 13 billion people have gotten the virus, vaccine virus, and the amount of side effects noted to date is extremely limited, so I don't think it's and the amount of side effects noted to date is extremely limited, so Anyone else want to add to that?
That's fine, I guess.
Well, it can't be integrated into the nucleus, into the DNA, and that's a safety precaution.
The adverse effects that's been noted is mostly mild myocarditis or perimyocarditis, mainly affecting young males, but that normally resolves without any long-term effects.
Okay, now I find this piece of video shocking because nobody who is familiar with the actual Vaccine technology and the evidence that has emerged could possibly deliver this answer in good faith.
This answer is too far from reality to be believed, and yet these people appear earnest in delivering it.
They do not appear to be knowingly lying, and yet they essentially have to be.
Now notice that the first thing that the person identified as Ricard says is that we don't have to worry about the long-term hazard of the mRNA vaccines because their presence is transient.
Now, notice, this exact committee has just given the most coveted scientific prize there is for specifically the innovation of making the mRNA less transient.
Precisely.
They have given it for this thing and yet he says transient as if he is not just calling into question the wisdom of this committee that has awarded a prize for making it less transient.
Now how not transient is it?
Let's talk about specifically the mRNAs.
The answer is we don't know how not transient it is.
What we do know is that it has been found Two months after inoculation.
It's not that it stopped being findable after two months.
We stopped looking after two months.
We know that it persists for two months and then how long after that we cannot say.
That is anything but transient.
It is, um, preternatural does not begin to describe the way this mRNA behaves.
In fact, when I spoke to Robert Malone about it, I used the analogy that this was like a fiberglass log in a zoo exhibit, right?
It looks like a log, but it's not being broken down by termites and fungi because it's made of fiberglass.
This is a permanent feature of the environment.
But it's even worse than that, As you well know, which is that it's not just a static permanent feature of, you know, we don't know permanent, but it's not just a static, very long-lived feature of your body now.
It is a factory.
It has the instructions to make the, in this case, the spike protein, and so presumably will continue to do so, so long as it exists.
So it's not just floating about, ready to be Disassembled by your immune system as the effects the the product of a normal vaccine of a traditional vaccine would be.
It is a factory for the production of the antigen that you are trying to get immune response for or against that is itself been stabilized so that it can attain a less transient state.
Yep.
Okay.
Ricard also says that the side effects to date are limited.
What?
Actually, the side effects, the severe ones, are off the charts in every place that we have monitored.
Now the only place that you can claim that that's not true are places where we haven't looked.
But in the VAERS system, the Yellow Card system, the military system, we see an off-the-charts adverse event signal.
What's more, when this has been looked at carefully in a scientifically rigorous way, we have seen evidence of an off-the-charts signal even in the clinical trial data.
So there's a paper which we will link to the description of this video.
First author is Joe Freeman, Peter Doshi is the last author, that looked at the clinical trials and found something like a 1 in 800 incidence of a severe adverse effect.
So that is not a minor level and what's more, That measurement, 1 in 800 severe adverse reactions in the clinical trials, is the tip of the iceberg inherently because it was measured over such a short period of time.
That is to say, anything that happened months down the road from vaccination was not captured in that.
In fact, Pfizer's data only goes one month.
So, in one month, they saw a 1 in 800 level of severe adverse events.
That's not rare, and we are not talking about minor adverse events either.
And then the next gentleman says that mostly what we see is myocarditis.
He is, for some reason, he says, well, but that's mostly in young males.
I don't know why anybody is supposed to be comforted by that.
But he says mostly myocarditis, mostly in young males, and mostly it resolves.
Without any long-term effect, which is nonsense.
Myocarditis is an inherently serious condition.
We see a very powerful signal that looks strongly associated with vaccinations, with these vaccinations of all-cause mortality that does not begin with the onset of COVID, but does begin with the onset of the vaccination campaign.
So there's every reason to think that this isn't true, that it's not limited to myocarditis, and that the rate is very high and serious, and some of these things are life-shortening.
In fact, one of the things I wanted to talk about a little bit later, but I think we can go there now, is this published in Nature this last week, COVID Vaccines Linked to Unexpected Vaginal Bleeding.
A large cohort study measured how frequently women reported bleeding after receiving COVID-19 jabs.
And I was going to bring this up on the last show because this is relevant to the lambasting of Naomi Wolf by the mainstream media, including by Naomi Klein and her new book, Doppelganger, because Wolf was one of the people who was saying this over and over and over again and got, you know, roundly mocked and demonetized and deplatformed and all of these things for
for saying this, and of course now that it's in nature I guess we're allowed to talk about it, um, but, but, oh no, did I have my screen back?
Thank you.
Um, now that it's in nature we're allowed to talk about it, but there are We are being assured, nevertheless, that they are safe and effective, and the link in the piece in nature as to their safety and effectiveness is to this article, which you can now show, Zach, from February 2021.
Their evidence in an article published now from a cohort study now demonstrating that actually the people like Naomi Wolf who were yelling from the rooftops about menstrual effects in women who were getting these shots, our assurances that these are safe and effective goes back to February 2021, COVID vaccines and safety, what the research says.
And if I may have this back, thank you, so I can go to my version of this.
Yes, hold on.
Yeah, I don't have anything.
You can show my screen again if you want.
So COVID vaccines and safety.
What the research says as the vaccines are rolled out.
Researchers learning about the extent and nature of side effects.
They assure us that it's basically fine.
Again, this is proof now that these vaccines are safe and effective from February 2021.
But even so, they acknowledge that there are side effects.
I got the vaccine.
Six hours later, I had chills and high fever, muscle aches.
I went to bed for 24 hours.
These, uh, yeah, so you read it.
Yeah, I was going to say that this, you know, in the, um, The large quiver of tricks that pharma plays, this idea of looking way back into the early days in order to figure out whether something is safe and effective, is clearly used again and again.
And it's used, in fact, in the trials themselves.
So one of the things that happens is in these trials there is an ethical requirement that if a drug is so good It is demonstrated to be so good in the process of the clinical trial that it would be unethical not to give it to everybody.
Then you unblind the trial, effectively ending it, making it impossible to find long-term effects.
So pharma targets this.
And in fact, if you couple this with what we've covered here before, the Norman Fenton and Martin McNeil piece, the so-called cheap trick,
Where they create the impression of efficacy by using a cutoff date of two weeks and they classify everybody who gets sick in those two weeks as unvaccinated, thereby generating, I think it was 83 plus percent impression of efficacy just simply through shifting categories, having nothing to do with the effect of the drug in question.
So Fenton and McNeil, just to remind everyone, are uncovering the statistical trick by which anything could be demonstrated, could be demonstrated in quotes, to be effective simply by categorizing things in the way that these results have been categorized.
Yep.
I am experiencing a bit of terror.
It's McNeil, not Neil.
Did I mess it up?
Have I added a syllable to his name in any way?
In any case, maybe you could figure that out.
But let's continue.
Yeah, go ahead.
So in the middle of talking about the awarding of the Nobel in Physiology and Medicine to the two people who have invented, I think, rather than discovered in this case.
And of course, the award could be given for either invention or discovery.
But the invention of a way to make less transient and more stable the mRNA that is used in the mRNA platform that is being given in these so-called vaccines, we are talking about, we are, you know, seeing the committee saying, oh, the effects, any side effects are going to be transient because the vaccines themselves are transient, when in fact the award has been given precisely
For the scientific trick, the impressive, if not necessarily safe, scientific trick of replacing uracil with pseudouridine and thus making the entire object more likely to stick around in the body, we see new evidence of
Even nature saying, ah, there's work out now that says, yeah, all those women who were saying they were experiencing weird menstrual effects were actually right, but nothing to see here, folks.
They're still safe and effective here.
Check out this thing that we wrote back in February 2021.
And just one more link in that chain before we go back to the Nobel story.
As long as we're digging deep in the Nature archives, which we didn't want to do, it was Nature that is citing their own archives pretty deep from two and a half years ago as evidence that these vaccines are safe and effective, they have in that same safe and effective article from February 2021 a related article called, um, How COVID Unlocked the Power of RNA.
This is from January 2021, so we are going way back in time, right?
This is, remember, the first people were getting their vaccinations, and this was mostly medical providers, in December 2020.
So in January 2021, there are not that many people who have, at that point, many people are clamoring for these things, that people are trying to get vaccinated, but they're just, it's the rollout, is careful.
I mean, it's fast, but what we are told is there's not enough, right?
And this, of course, increases demand, because people want something that's in short supply.
But in the middle of that, we have how COVID unlocked the power of RNA, published in Nature, January 2021.
Let me just read a couple of sections from this.
from this article.
Five years and one global pandemic later, RNA vaccines are proving their worth.
Last month, two RNA vaccine candidates, one from U.S.
pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and BioNTech in Mainz, Germany, and another from Moderna in Cambridge, Massachusetts, won emergency approval from regulators in several countries to fight COVID-19.
Remember when that was new, right?
So go down in this article a little bit more.
Side effects can be troubling.
The RNA technology has proved itself, but it's not done yet, says Philip Dormitzer, head of viral vaccines research at Pfizer, and a former colleague of Geel's at Novartis.
And now that we've seen it work for COVID-19, it's tempting to want to do more.
And I think I have one more little section.
Stability and safety.
Despite its many potential advantages, today's RNA vaccine technology leaves room for improvement.
This technology is still super early, says Robin Shattuck, an immunologist at Imperial College London, and we're going to see multiple generations and iterations over the coming years, I suspect.
And then we have three examples of the problems, the potential problems, with this vaccine.
Again, first there's the issue of cold storage.
There's another challenge.
So far, RNA vaccines tested for human use against disease, COVID-19 or otherwise, have generally required a double dose to be effective.
And judging by poor compliance with other multi-dose vaccines, many people who get the first shot probably won't get the second.
Well, that didn't turn out to be the case by and large, although some people stopped at one.
New delivery systems could fix that.
Wow.
At VaxS Technologies in Cambridge, Massachusetts, for example, researchers have developed a wearable skin patch started with tiny silk-tipped dissolvable microneedles that slowly trickle vaccine into the body. - Wow, that's lovely. - And finally, administering the vaccine in drips instead of all at once could help to solve a third drawback, side effects.
Severe reactions, although transient, do seem to be more common with COVID-19 shots than with other immunizations.
More than 80% of people who received the Moderna vaccine in clinical trials had some type of systemic reaction to the shot, with bouts of fatigue, muscle pain, and other issues that often proved briefly debilitating.
share that to remind us and to alert those who weren't aware that back in January of 2021, even nature was pointing out that one of the problems with this platform that the entire world is being encouraged, nay, in some cases mandated to get, was severe side nay, in some cases mandated to get, was severe side effects.
Side effects so much more widespread and also severe in individuals than other vaccines had that it was worth mentioning as a possible reason that maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all.
Well, but they're allowed to say stuff like that.
We are heretics if we say things like that.
Right.
So, you know, you have to check your privilege and by doing that that means you've got to check which privileges you are allowed based on your position in the universe.
Right.
All right, so I wanted to cover one more thing from that video before we move on to the next one.
Okay.
He makes the claim, the second speaker makes the claim, that the mRNA Now, this may technically be right, but it ought to be no comfort based on what we now understand.
and therefore that is another reason to imagine that long-term effects are not a problem.
Now, this may technically be right, but it ought to be no comfort based on what we now understand.
And mind you, this is a modern video, so he has every reason to understand everything that you and I understand.
Whether or not the message in the mRNA finds its way into the nucleus and is ever integrated into the nuclear genome of your cells, something else does appear to be making its way into the nucleus from these vaccines.
And this is a mind-blowing story, which we have yet to cover in detail, but this is Largely the work of Kevin McKernan and an anonymous account, JikiLeaks, on Twitter.
And I would say it is clear that McKernan has unearthed a tremendous amount of DNA contamination in the vials.
This is work done where somebody, one of the people who was involved in the vaccination campaign, saved every vial and that left a residual that could be tested.
for its contents.
So this is a fairly large sample of vials and what what McKernan unearthed was a huge amount of DNA contamination.
What the hell is DNA doing in there at all?
And the story behind this is mind-blowing and it will have a resonance to something that you were talking about a couple weeks ago.
The explanation for this DNA is that there were apparently two mechanisms for generating the contents, the active contents of these vaccines, the mRNA transcripts.
The first one was used for the clinical trials.
It was not sufficiently productive to be able to scale it up to vaccinate billions of people.
So a second mechanism for generating these transcripts was utilized that involved plasmids in bacteria.
So in other words, they involved DNA in the production of these mRNA Transcripts and they did not purify the stuff out.
The stuff is there in huge quantities.
What did they do?
They broke it up.
They used restriction enzymes to break up these DNA fragments.
So what you effectively have is a chaos of different length pieces of DNA that do appear to be integrating into the nuclear genome.
Now this It's a disaster, because there's all sorts of stuff in there.
There's a great set of evolutionary opportunities for that DNA, potentially.
It's, at the very least, like broadcasting a powerful mutagenic signal arbitrarily into the tissues of the body.
And I would point out... Why that phrasing?
Broadcasting a mutagenic signal into the tissues of the body?
Let's imagine that the chopping up of this DNA effectively produces a random distribution of lengths or, you know, a bell curve.
You're going to have some intermediate and then, you know, some very long fragments, some very short fragments, okay?
But some chaotic assortment.
And then those things are going to integrate based on idiosyncrasies of the nuclear genome, what has an affinity for a particular piece that causes that piece to stick there and then insert itself.
Now, the problem here is that you are introducing stuff Stuff that is not biologically inert, inherent.
Some of these fragments are going to be so short that they can't really encode anything important.
The most they can do is disrupt something important, which can be catastrophic.
But some other things, like there's a simian virus 40 promoter that McKernan has found, Uh, that could actually take stuff that's supposed to be inactive in the genome and turn it on.
Now, the question is, what might this, for example, have to do?
This whole story is so crazy.
The turbo cancers.
Remember turbo cancers?
How people were reporting, oh my god, you're seeing people who've been in remission for a long period of time who suddenly have rapid growth of their, their, their tumor.
Or people who were free from tumors who suddenly are diagnosed with them.
This is a pattern I first learned about from Ryan Cole, a pathologist, who noticed this in all of the samples coming across his desk.
Now remember, a pathologist is a unique kind of doctor because he's not seeing tons of patients, which limits the number of people he can see.
What he's seeing is huge numbers of samples from all sorts of doctors who are sending him stuff and saying, what is this?
So, he was in a position to see much more broadly than other people, and he was bold enough to say what he was seeing, and he was talking about the cancers he was seeing very, very early on.
And the reason I raise him specifically at this moment, not only is this potentially relevant to the integration of random DNA fragments from these vaccines, but Ryan Cole is currently fighting to preserve his license.
He is literally facing a, I don't know what the right term is, a tribunal evaluating whether or not he can continue to practice medicine, which is absurd.
Ryan Cole has been ahead again and again and again on this topic, and he's being punished for it, and this is happening right here in the West.
That's terrifying.
What do we know about what conditions are necessary and sufficient, if we know that much, for chopped up pieces of DNA that are floating about to integrate with your own?
I don't think, let's put it this way, I'm no expert.
My guess is that because what you have is an elaborate set of machinery in the cell designed to do all kinds of things, like repair broken DNA.
So if you dump a bunch of broken DNA into the cell that the cell is not expecting, it may respond by going into repair mode and that may end up integrating things.
That you wouldn't want to integrate.
So I would say look... Okay, so maybe nothing extraordinary is required at all.
Maybe.
I think nothing extraordinary is required.
Why nothing extraordinary is required is a story others would be better positioned to explain, but let's just put it this way.
It is reckless to be dumping a chaotic assortment of DNA fragments into a human being because, you know, it's a welcome to complex systems moment.
What's going to happen if you do that?
Well, the answer is almost anything can happen.
But high on the list of things you would expect would be cancers.
Why?
Well, this goes back to my work, actually.
The idea that we are riddled with what I called proto-tumors, which are would-be tumors that have been arrested as they've run out of the capacity to duplicate.
Those are tumors except that they don't have telomerase turned on.
You know, could random fragments introduced into the genome activate telomerase, for which every cell in your body has the code?
It could.
So, I don't know how all these things fit together, but it's like, of all the reckless things you could do, dumping a bunch of random fragments of information into an information system like this, on which your health depends, Couldn't be crazier.
But the link to what you were presenting a couple weeks ago is they ran the clinical trials with the vaccines produced under Procedure 1.
Oh right.
And then they switched to Procedure 2 to scale it up.
Thereby not providing any information on the actual hazard of vaccines produced by Technique 2 when they very well could have used Technique 2 for the stuff that they tested in the clinical trial.
So the different method may very well have, and there's no reason to think it didn't, have created a different product.
And therefore having tested Product 1 but bringing Product 2 to market means that the product that is on market has not been tested.
Yes, exactly.
Has not been tested.
And this would, you know, a witting pharma attempting to obscure hazards from their, let's face it, utterly crappy production mechanism that is utterly riddled with not just the design defects in the vaccine itself, but the impurities that come from lousy quality control.
Right?
Of course, in order to hide those things, it would do this.
It would have some very careful, you know, it's like giving the reviewer of an automobile a version that was specifically tailored to make them happy rather than reflect what the consumer is going to see.
Right?
It's slight of hand.
Okay, before we go to the second piece of video, I know this is taking a long time, but before we go to the... I want to highlight one other odd fact of this award having been given for this narrow piece of the mRNA vaccine technology.
Not only does that effectively admit what Robert Malone has been saying and what Alexandros Marinos validated, that he is the inventor of the mRNA vaccine technology, long since out of patent, but... I don't think that this award Demonstrates that.
That is an interpretation.
because what they're trying to do is validate the vaccines, and they've given the award for a narrow piece of technology.
That is an interpretation.
I did not think that that is the only interpretation.
I can't find another one that would make sense, other than they don't want to validate Malone because Malone has some things to say about how this technology has been utilized.
But anyway, we can leave that aside.
Nonetheless, the pseudo-uridine stabilization of these vaccines, of the mRNAs in these vaccines, is, I think, The greatest design defect on a long list of design defects in these vaccines.
Now, I said that to Robert Malone the day the award was given, and he said, no, he thinks the spike protein, the choice of spike protein, is the greatest design defect.
But let's just say that there's a debate to be had between those.
The spike protein is cytotoxic, as we were famously fact-checked for pointing out on Dark Horse, but anyway, it is cytotoxic.
It is.
But the mRNA transcript means that it is produced far longer in the body.
So I guess there's a debate to be had about which of these things is dumber, but they're both pretty dumb, and one of them just got a Nobel Prize.
So that's a fascinating fact, right?
This Nobel Prize was literally given for a design defect of the vaccines, not arguably one of their strengths.
All right, so let's go to this next piece of video.
This is a podcast from January 2021.
So that same moment that nature was describing the many side effects of the mRNA platform brings.
Right.
And the guest on this podcast is Drew Weissman, who just won the Nobel Prize for this.
At that point was still two and a half years from winning the Nobel Prize.
Right.
And I will say I'm going to criticize many of the things he says, but let us remember that some of these criticisms have to be tempered by the fact that we hadn't yet vaccinated billions of people and therefore the amount of information about the actual consequence of that was much less.
So how can we be sure?
That this vaccine will not cause long-term negative impact in humans.
Like that's one of our big questions that we hear a lot.
So the first is to understand what the vaccine is.
The mRNA in the vaccine is identical to the RNA in your cells.
So the RNA in your cells isn't causing long-term adverse events.
So the RNA in the vaccine won't either.
The RNA is degraded probably within a week.
It's completely gone.
The lipid nanoparticles contain four types of fat.
Two of the fats are identical to what's in our cells.
They're physiologic.
The other two are present at incredibly low levels.
They are gone within 24 to 48 hours.
They're just, the body degrades them, they're gone.
So nothing of the vaccine is left after days to a week or so.
The question that comes, well then how do you get a long-term adverse event?
Well, you can't from any components of the vaccine because they're gone.
The mRNA does not integrate into the DNA.
It doesn't affect the DNA.
It doesn't.
All right.
So there are a number of things to point out here.
The biggest error that he makes, he makes right up front.
He says that the mRNA is identical to the mRNA in your cells.
And from this, he derives a tremendous amount of comfort.
His point is essentially, look, this is in you already.
How could introducing a little more of it possibly hurt you?
And this is the biggest piece of garbage one can imagine.
For one thing, this is the guy whose invention is making this a very unnatural thing for which there is no natural analog in your body.
So, put aside what his actual invention was for a moment, which makes what he said just patently not true and he knows it.
Even if it were true, mRNA is built of certain things.
And even if the mRNA that was in his invention was built of exactly the same things, which it de facto cannot be because the whole point is that he's using something new.
But even if it were, the fact that it uses the same materials, but has instructions to make a particular protein is the point.
So the idea, we don't have in us the instruction set to produce the spike protein.
We don't.
You and I don't.
Many people do now, right?
If they receive these vaccines.
So, the grotesque, obvious error there is, no, but dude, you literally did the thing that changes the mRNA such that it's less transient, such that it's more stable, such that it stays in the body for longer, and that's not what we have in our bodies already.
But even if that weren't true, The whole point is that it is an instruction set.
It's a factory for creating something in particular, which in this case they chose the spike protein oopsie.
Right, so this is crazy at three levels.
Three, okay.
The first level is the mRNA itself isn't like a natural mRNA because you altered it, dude.
Right?
So that's one.
Two is that it is informationally novel and it is therefore causing your body to produce something that is not naturally in it.
And so the thing that is produced could be good, could be bad, but it ain't Just your stuff.
So the whole argument that you're doing this anyway, this won't, this doesn't change anything, is like an argument designed to fool people who don't know anything.
And then the third thing, so we've got the modification you made makes the mRNA itself not natural.
And it's not the only way it's not natural either, by the way.
This mRNA was codon optimized for the human environment.
It has had modifications to the spike protein sequence for various functional reasons, but the point is, this just is not natural.
The informational content produces something which could be a toxin, it could be a substitute for something that you should be producing, but don't.
But the point is, it's saying that, you know, that thing is not dangerous because it's made of the same materials in your toaster.
Yes, but it's a firearm.
Right?
Yeah, but it's made of the same stuff in your toaster.
You're not arguing that, you know, toasters are deadly, are you?
Right?
So it's like that kind of argument.
Okay, so that's one and two.
Yeah, and then the third one is, if you produce a protein that you were not producing early in your development, it is a signal to your immune system to attack your cells.
It tells your immune system that your cells have been infected by a virus and the correct response to that is to destroy your own tissue.
So, even if the protein itself that was encoded by the mRNA was itself inert, the fact that it is novel to your body means that it will trigger your body to do damage to itself.
That's three different ways this is nonsense.
The trigger your body to do damage to itself is the same trick as in traditional vaccines.
I'm going to introduce an antigen that can hopefully get your immune system's attention quickly and efficiently and cause it to recognize, kill, and remember.
That is the basis on which traditional vaccines function.
Well, yes and no.
There are various traditional vaccines.
There's one traditional platform, and it's actually the one that I would say is the safest, that uses this trick, but in a very different way.
Yes.
An attenuated virus does cause some of your tissues to produce a foreign protein that will get them attacked.
But, and I believe this point, this is, this is a point that I believe has only been made here on Dark Horse.
The lipid nanoparticle encoding An mRNA message is effectively a pseudovirus.
An actual virus that has been attenuated has an ecology, it has a mechanism of action that will inherently limit what tissues it invades.
The next thing that this guy, this now Nobel laureate, goes on to talk about is the fats that are used to get this into tissues.
And the key thing to understand, you probably all learned in high school, Like dissolves like.
Fats like fats.
Fats dislike water, they like fat.
They've coated this mRNA in fat.
Your cells are coated in fat.
This is a mechanism of distribution that has no targeting whatsoever.
That means it will... By design.
Explicitly, right?
So as to protect the mRNA in the intercellular space from the mRNAases long enough for it to get into cells.
Well, it's not just to protect it, and in fact it probably doesn't even need protection because it's so pseudouridine-stabilized that the mRNA aces aren't going to take it apart, but the idea is, just as soap bubbles join, soap bubbles are made of the same stuff.
When they touch each other, they join, and they can become, two soap bubbles can become one big soap bubble.
So that's how cell membranes work, too.
And this is like a pseudomembrane.
The lipid nanoparticle is functioning like a pseudomembrane, and it bumps up against a cell, and then it spills its contents into the cell.
But the point is, it doesn't choose what cell it's going into, unlike any virus.
To the extent that you might make the argument that this is doing the same thing as an attenuated virus vaccine, the attenuated virus vaccine is inherently self-limiting in terms of what tissues it will attack.
Just note that we were talking about one, two, and three ways that this is Not just, you know, just like taking stuff in that's identical to what's in your body.
And your third item on that list, I was saying, sounds very much like what traditional vaccines do.
But the rejoinder that you make is the critical one.
And yes, we have talked about that here before, which is that An attenuated virus vaccine actually has an organism or a virus that exists in nature and that has some experience with you as a host, not you an individual, but you the species.
If it didn't, then you would not be getting vaccinated against this thing.
And so it will go after particular tissues, not be indiscriminate, whereas a nanolipid-covered piece of mRNA has no evolutionary history in a human host at all, and therefore will be indiscriminate in what cells it attaches itself to.
Yes, and the other traditional kind of vaccine that is now used, where fragments of a pathogen are introduced in order to induce an immune response, that doesn't enter cells at all.
And so that is not causing your immune system to target your own cells.
It doesn't do this in any way.
So, in any case, what he's saying is pure nonsense at multiple levels.
This is not a natural thing that you should feel like, oh, I'm really, you know, It's a little bit like saying, GMOs, we've been genetically modifying organisms for a thousand years, so relax.
Right?
For thousands of years.
So relax.
And the answer is, no, actually you've genetically modified that organism so you can dump a bunch of pesticide on it.
How good is that pesticide for me?
Right?
Should I be worried about GMOs?
Yes, I should be for multiple reasons, including that one.
On selective breeding.
Right.
Not the same thing.
Right.
It's sleight of hand.
It's logical sleight of hand designed to fool people who don't know a lot.
And not knowing a lot isn't the fault of anybody.
It's just you didn't study this thing enough to spot their lies.
But those of us who did, this is a really weird thing for somebody who just got a Nobel Prize to be saying about their own invention, because he's got to know it's wrong.
Again, this is him talking two and a half years ago.
True, but he sure as hell knew that this wasn't just mRNA like the stuff floating around in your body because he's the world's expert in modifying mRNA to stabilize it.
And put it into people's bodies.
Right, I mean, come on.
Okay, so just a couple more points.
He says that this is degraded within a couple days or at most a week.
Well, let's put it this way.
If that was comforting in 2021, if you really believe that in 2021, then he ought to be alarmed in 2023 because we now know it doesn't limit itself, that it's there for months.
So why is he not now sounding the alarm?
If that was comforting then, he ought to be alarmed now and he doesn't appear to be.
He then says, well, there are four types of fats and two of them are natural, so don't worry.
In the nanolipid.
In the lipid nanoparticles.
Yeah.
And then he says, the two that aren't natural, they're there at very low levels.
What does very low levels mean?
Is this the same very low levels of the assurances that the mercury in the vaccine that you want me to inject into my kid isn't a problem?
Is it that kind of low levels?
What does low levels even mean?
And then he says, and it's gone within 24 to 48 hours because the body degrades it.
Now, wait a second.
Are you telling me that you've just introduced a novel lipid that doesn't exist in my body but my body's expert at disassembling it?
I want to check that.
Maybe that's true, but that is not a slam dunk, and the fact that you can't find it doesn't mean it isn't there, especially if you're not looking very hard.
So he says nothing of the vaccine is left after days or a week, which again, if that was comforting in 2021, it ought to be alarming now.
And he says the mRNA does not integrate into the DNA, which again might be true, but he says it does nothing to the DNA.
Again, maybe that was believed then, but we now know that there's lots of DNA contaminating these vaccines, that it is getting into people, and it appears to be integrating into their nuclear genomes.
Well, that's a different response, though.
If, so I'm seeing your notes rather than remembering what he said, that these mRNA, like the mRNA vaccine does nothing to the DNA, is not a response to these mRNA vaccines are contaminated with DNA.
I agree, but again, I'm not arguing that from his perspective in 2021 that he necessarily knew how these things were going to be produced or that there was going to be contamination.
Maybe he did, given what he's willing to say about the naturalness of the mRNAs, which he knows aren't natural.
I wouldn't put it past him.
But even if he was naive then, We should be seeing a different thing unfold now.
We should not be seeing a Nobel Prize be awarded by people who say that there isn't an adverse event signal.
Really?
This is just pure theater.
You've got the most prestigious prize in the world being awarded by people who can't even avoid saying obviously wrong things in a press conference.
They can't, you know, There's not enough vagueness in the world for them to avoid absolute lies in their press conference.
That's stunning.
They would give a prize that can't be defended without having to lie?
Oh, okay.
Well, I guess that's where we are.
But the final thing I will say is that I believe We knew that the Nobel process was corrupt.
Many people have, in the aftermath of this, pointed out Obama's Peace Prize, which is ironic.
It was given to him before he had the chance to do such terrible things, and then history reflects very poorly on that choice.
This is not the only place.
These prizes are really quite a political phenomenon.
But the degree to which PharmaCapture and whatever travels with it has obviously completely owned this process and is now delivering prizes for design defects in products that it wishes to expand the market for, that's pretty amazing.
And what dawned on me in reflecting on this was we are now living in an era In which it is literally true that anything plugged into a major institution is compromised.
Anything scientific that is plugged into a major institution is compromised, which does not mean that there is no science.
There's lots of science, but the only science that is in any way trustworthy is ragtag fugitive science.
You've got people who still know how to do science existing outside of the institutions.
You've got a band of rebels who insist on still doing the job, even though pharma and its cronies have attempted to stamp it out everywhere that it's supposed to be done.
That's a strange era to be living in, but at least if you start with that premise, You will not be so confused by all of the garbage that is emerging from all of the places that at one time might have been trusted to tell you what was going on.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's not very helpful.
No, but thank you for not saying it's worse than that because that was pretty bad.
I mean, I am relatively certain it is worse than that.
Yeah, I mean, it's definitely worse than that.
I just didn't have anything to follow it up with directly.
Although, I have a story to tell, which is About as bad as that.
It is the same kind of thing.
It's the same kind of corruption.
So, in Natural Selections this week, where I write on my Substack, I wrote a piece called Fish, Fishy, and Fish Adjacent.
Why eat like an Inuit when you can pop a pill?
And the story is this.
I encourage you to go read it, but basically in 1913 some researchers on the northwest coast of Greenland described what were known then as Eskimos, and we now call Inuit people there, as the most exquisitely carnivorous people on earth, which I love as a phrase.
And specifically they Found that these people eat almost entirely the meat of whales, seals, seabirds, and fish, and specifically among the fish, halibut, capelin, I don't even know if I'm pronouncing that correctly because I've never heard of it, and salmon.
Okay, so exquisitely carnivorous, and whales, seals, seabirds, and fish.
Half a century later, in 1971, we had researchers going to the same place and looking at markers of disease and found that these same people have far less heart disease, far less cardiovascular disease, than do, for instance, modern Danes and other northern Europeans.
Um, and no diabetes at all.
And this, in modern times, I feel like, in 1971 is kind of modern, but also a long time ago, um, might well have caused collective hand-wringing at how horrible it was that people with such an appalling diet, right, uh, could have possibly ended up being so healthy.
Um, but, and, yes.
I just, there is a part of me that cannot get over, I mean, you and I live around a lot of seabirds, and I must say I admire anybody who can eat seabirds.
I mean, I love seabirds.
I love like cormorants.
Oh man, I could watch them all day, but they do not look delicious.
Those oil glands.
Yeah, so and I think basically the upshot of this research from 1971 was, ah, it's the fish.
And I really, I don't know, I'm curious as to why it was that they decided on it's the fish when it's whales, seals, seabirds, and fish.
And I think probably it's because they know that us weirdos, right, those of us who live in the Western educated industrialized rich democratic world, would be either incapable of or unwilling to eat whales, seals, or seabirds.
Um, and because fish is already part of many of our diets, especially halibut and salmon, like, ah, that's the ticket, let's go there.
It's definitely the shallow end of the pool with respect to the Inuit diet.
Exactly.
So, okay everybody, eat more fish.
Eat more fatty fish, in particular cold water fatty fish.
And everyone who's alive now has been, you know, has seen what happened downstream of that, which very quickly we get fish oil as the supplement that is pulled out of fish by, I think, just rigging them.
At both ends.
Terrible.
Well, I don't know how they're getting fish.
I bet it's a pretty gross process.
I'm sure it's gross, yes.
So, fish is understood.
So, trigger the reductionist science machine, right?
And so very quickly we get, okay, there's two primary omega-3 fatty acids that fish have, and Asterisk here, apparently there's a lot of suspicious work over in, oh, omega-3s are actually awesome for you, land, but we're going to put that aside for the moment.
And the short, the three-letter abbreviations for these found an extraordinarily high amount in fatty fish, fatty acids are DHA and EPA.
And, you know, suddenly, not suddenly, but, you know, by, you know, fast forward by another 50 years, And fish oil supplements are one of, by far, the most common supplements that at least Americans take, and I think that's true in all of the weird world.
But oh wait, fish oil doesn't turn out to be living up to the hype.
It turns out, you know, there's a look at mainstream media from even five years ago, but 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and it's pushing, you know, the heart-healthy effects of fish oil, the reduction in things like, in inflammation specifically, But then it turns out maybe not so much.
Maybe we should have just kept on eating the fish, or maybe we should have been eating the whales.
It's hard to do the analysis with the reductionist lens.
It's especially hard if you're a poor enterprising pharma firm who just wants to make a buck.
In that case, if you've created a drug, as Amarin Corp has, the drug Vesquipa, and I may be mispronouncing it, but I really don't care if I am, Vesquipa is the only product that Amarin Corp makes.
It's an Ireland-based pharma firm.
And the single active ingredient in Vescupa is a slightly modified version of one of those two omega-3 fatty acids found predominantly in fatty fish.
So EPA is the non-modified one, they've got something called IPE, it's just lab tweaked a little bit, which presumably makes it patentable, and boom, off to the races for them.
But what are they going to do now?
Fish oil is now getting a bad rap.
And it's not that people are thinking that it's dangerous necessarily, except again, asterisks the omega-3 fatty acid stuff going on over here, but really what people are realizing is, ah, the research on fish oil supplements specifically does not seem to have the promise of people who just pop fish oil supplements all the time are going to be healthy like an Inuit.
They don't seem to be.
And we aren't getting seabird supplements or whale supplements or seal supplements, so, you know, maybe it's time to go back and eat the actual fish or just in general, you know, eat a diet that is full of actual, whole, real food instead of popping pills to solve your health problems.
But Ameren, maker of Vesceba, has a problem, because they've got one and only one product, and it has one and only one active ingredient, and that one and only one active ingredient is a slightly tweaked modification of an omega-3 fatty acid that is predominantly found in fatty fish.
So, what are they going to do?
They need to keep on convincing people to take their drug and not fish oil, because when people take fish oil, they don't win.
And they also need to somehow separate themselves from fish oil, because people are cottoning to the fact that fish oil isn't actually as effective as we've been told, even though what their drug has is, well, presumably lots of inactive ingredients.
God knows what's in those.
But also a single active ingredient that is half of what is considered the useful active ingredients in fish oil.
And it's even tweaked a little bit, so who knows what that does.
Okay, so in response, they have on their website, and you can put up my screen here.
This is on the Veskipa website.
Veskipa, again, being the only product of the Ameren Corporation, a closer look at fish oil supplements when it comes to protecting your heart, Learn how fish oil supplements are different from VASCEPA.
Let's go to the right first.
VASCEPA has proven cardiovascular benefit in the landmark REDUCE-IT trial.
It's made up of one active ingredient.
All right.
Fish oil supplements, by comparison, the FDA found that fish oil supplements do not meet the standard required for a significant scientific health claim.
They contain lots of stuff, and you don't want lots of stuff, do you?
You want something simple with just one ingredient.
Oh, and also fish oil supplements may make you smell like fish.
Not intended or approved to treat heart disease.
I love this one.
This is a sleight of hand where they're basically saying fish oil, because it's from fish, was not generated as a medicine, therefore you shouldn't use it as a medicine, because if it wasn't created by us or God or whoever knows what as a medicine, it must not be useful.
The American Heart Association advises against, and the most expensive product is one that doesn't treat the intended condition.
I don't even know what that one means.
I think they found a fish oil supplement that has on the label, like, this is good for something else entirely, so I don't even know.
This is a remarkable thing, right?
This is a remarkable thing that I find on their website, and it's replicated in my natural selections piece, Fishy and Fish Adjacent.
But I would like to point out that the entire basis of their claim are two.
I mean, other than the ludicrous, right?
Like, don't take fish because or fish oil because that wasn't made as a medicine and therefore it couldn't work as a medicine.
I don't know how many logical fallacies are in that claim, but there are a lot, right?
Then they appeal to authority over and over and over again.
It's the FDA.
It's the American Heart Association.
It's unnamed medical societies who really say you should take our product and not fish oil.
But then there's the REDUCE-IT trial.
Oh, well there's a clinical trial that shows that this is better than placebo, so you really should be taking this.
Clinical trials are the gold standard of scientific evidence.
I would even say the platinum standard, Brett.
That's gonna confuse people.
Okay.
But the gold standard for sure.
Yeah, no, they are the gold standard.
And so, I mean, really that ought to be good enough for you as a consumer with cardiovascular concerns when deciding whether or not to, you know, eat good food and get outside or take fish oil or take Veskipa.
You probably want the Veskipa because the Veskipa is the only one with the positive results of the clinical trial behind it, except, oopsie.
The placebo that they use with the control group in their REDUCE-IT trial, it's heart toxic.
It's mineral oil, which is understood to cause heart toxicity.
And when this clinical trial was replicated by a group of researchers who didn't have perverse incentives, because as I mentioned, the REDUCE-IT trial was actually funded by this corporation.
I was gonna ask.
Um, when a group of independent researchers, independent of this group, of this corporation, did the trial with an actually neutral placebo, the beneficial effects of vescuba disappears.
So, the entire reason that they can trot out to take their drug is authority, authority, authority and a clinical trial which was um which is fraudulent.
And I do want to just read the last couple of paragraphs in my piece before we um before we get to I want to show you a job listing for Ameren at the moment as well.
Okay, here we go.
Note that there is no science backing up any of these claims.
The one study they have was self-funded and used a toxic placebo, and every other reason they trot out is based on authority.
Trust us, because the FDA says so.
Trust us, because the American Heart Association says so.
Trust us, because unspecified medical societies say so.
Science and medicine are not supposed to take marching orders from authority ever, even actually trustworthy authorities.
In addition, though, consider the obvious.
In a system where science is being bludgeoned to death and those who are witness to the crime either yell about it and are shoved into a corner, or remain silent and continue to collect their paychecks,
Where the only evidence necessary to make scientific or medical claims is to refer to the recommendations of organizations, like the FDA and the AHA, and publications, science and nature, in an era when those same organizations and publications are strapped for cash and looking for new ways to stay afloat, those organizations and publications will absolutely get gamed.
They will become corrupt.
They will get captured.
And so they will remain in existence.
Sort of.
Still draped in the aura and gravitas of their former reputations, they may look like the august sheep of old, but they are very much wolves on the inside.
And here's the kicker.
The real reasons that Ameren would have you use Vesquipa are these.
In 2021, Vesquipa brought in over 550 million dollars net for Ameren in the United States, and Vesquipa is the only product that Ameren makes.
Once you know this, the story begins to make an easy, smooth, and so very quantifiable kind of sense.
Wow.
Yeah, it's the... well, I don't know how rare these cases are, but because the company makes one and only one product, and that product is a simple one, comparatively, you can just see the game of pharma played out very clearly, right?
This company exists to sell this drug, which means that It has to create evidence that there's a reason to take it.
It has to obscure evidence of any harm.
It has to create the impression that competitors are not something that you should be interested in.
And I think I noticed on that beautiful little comparison chart that they have the image of a fish compared to the image of a prescription and a rubber stamp.
Something like that, right?
And the fish smells, too.
That's what I was going to point out, is that they just very subtly suggested that that's not the precious fish.
They're trying to induce disgust.
Disgust is actually a well-trodden marketing technique for those things that you want to have negative emotions associated with.
Disgust is brilliant.
It disgusts.
And frankly, unfortunately for all of them at this point, that rubber stamp on the prescription pad, that is the thing that most of us are recoiling.
Most of us, I hope.
Many of us are recoiling from that now.
Yeah.
They also throw in the term rotting there.
Oh yes.
Yeah, because the idea of rotting fish does not make you want to get any... Right, so as soon as you've had somebody who's going through the thought process of evaluating this, and the idea of rotting shows up, right?
It's like, okay, well that is now a little flag that is going to append that thought every time I go back to it.
Rotting?
Right.
So something occurs to me in your describing this.
Many months ago or more than a year ago.
We discussed explicitly something that I called the game of pharma and it was a game about finding a Patentable molecule or technique so getting some intellectual property and then coming up with something to which it is plausibly a solution and
And then generating the evidence that suggests it has a good effect on that thing, obscuring the evidence that it does harm of some kind, and then, you know, getting it to be, you know, the great thing is if it gets declared standard of care, you know, that takes a lot of money, but you can maybe get it to happen.
But anyway, the game of Pharma is something that the rest of us are kind of unaware is being played out, but it's being played out every day of the year.
And another element of it occurs to me.
The word supplements is ringing in my ear.
Supplements has the connotation of woo or con artistry, the idea that what you are doing is you are adding a little something to your diet, right?
It has a very different connotation from medicine.
And so I actually now see the game of Pharma playing out over three different kinds of properties, right?
There's a general category.
Pharma digs the stuff that can be sold under patent because that's where the The profit is, right?
So a medicine is something where there's intellectual property that allows it to be promoted and a huge profit to be made.
Supplements are something to be derided because it's from an unregulated woo-woo, you know, word-of-mouth, superstition, blah blah blah blah blah.
Most people probably hang out in pyramids.
Right.
And the way that you can see that this is actually an illusion is that medicines effectively change categories when they're out of patent, right?
What happens is an out-of-patent drug gets derided, you know, Merck went after Ivermectin, its own drug for COVID, because there was no profit left in Ivermectin.
So it had no interest in saying, hey, actually, our drug works great for this.
So anyway, the point is, the fact that drugs, which are the darling of pharma, become a pariah at the point that you can't patent them anymore, is An indicator of what the game is.
And the human mind, especially, I would argue, the Western mind, and maybe very especially the American mind, has this attraction to the idea that the best thing is the latest version.
Right?
There's no doubt that the latest cell phone is going to be way more powerful than the top of the line from three years ago, because technology marches on, meaning that there's more and more power available, right?
And so there's some sense that the latest version is the best.
There's some metric that is more.
Right.
progress, but more doesn't necessarily mean better, even on that variable.
And it certainly doesn't necessarily mean better across the board.
Right.
Well, my point would be, with respect to technology that has not matured to some final state, it is not surprising that things that emerge later Whether they're, you know, better built or anything is another question.
But does the newer laptop tend to have more capacity than the same version from years ago?
Yes.
But what that does is it creates a bias in the mind towards newer is better.
That is exactly not true when it comes to something like molecules that you are thinking of taking into your body to do yourself some sort of physiological good.
In fact, there's reason to prefer the older stuff, which is, A, we know a hell of a lot more about what it does.
The idea that somebody's going to tweak a molecule so that it can patent it and then introduce it to you and say, take some of this.
It's like, well, if there's one thing I can tell you, we don't know what the long-term consequences of that thing are.
Whereas this other drug that's been around forever, we might know an awful lot.
And so the fact that pharma, if pharma was really interested in health, it would be really interested in all of the drugs in the pharmacopoeia that have demonstrated effects that might be repurposed for other things because, frankly, that's a very rational process to expect. it would be really interested in all of the drugs But I think that's a very important thing But the fact that what it's really interested in is the new thing tells you that it is not interested in health, and in fact it's willing to dispense with health in order to sell stuff.
Indeed it is.
Remember though that Vasquipa, the fish oil derived, the omega-3 fatty acid fish oil derived drug that Amarin makes, brought in 550 million dollars net to the U.S.
in 2021, the latest year for which they post the numbers on their website, which is where I got that number.
So they're making bank And they're hiring!
So if after that story you're interested in the job and you happen to be in the London area, here's a job that they're hiring for.
This is their key account manager job and they've got a few key account manager jobs open.
I think there was also one maybe in Lisbon.
So there's a few available.
This just got posted.
I don't know if it has been filled yet.
At Ameren you'll make a difference, they say.
I just want to read two paragraphs from this job description that Ameren is hiring for.
Role overview.
This role offers a unique opportunity for highly successful key account managers to help to continue to build the UK organization and launch and grow a product in cardiovascular disease that has blockbuster potential.
Note, nothing said yet.
This role will have full accountability for the territory business.
The key account manager will be responsible for ensuring an optimal environment for the market access of Ameren's product, Driving through to the commercial launch and patient pull-through in each account?
The key account manager will be responsible for the design and implementation of the strategic key account plans and development of relationships with national key opinion leaders in order to drive Ameren's commercial agenda.
They're hiring for a number of positions right now.
One of them might be R&D, although I don't think so.
Most of them are key account managers.
This is entirely about selling.
It's the game of pharma.
This is the game of pharma that you were talking about right here.
This is the job description, literally the job description for the company that I just described, which is trying to convince you to take their product, which in this particular case, unless they tweaked that omega-3 fatty acid in a particularly egregious way, in this particular case, I doubt that their drug is less safe than Taking fish oil supplements.
It's probably not as effective, but you're probably not going to end up killing yourself with their drug, unlike a lot of the stuff that they have on the market.
Not these guys, because they've just got the one drug.
But 550 million dollars to the US net alone in 2021 for a drug with that Banal and unimpressive a description?
Well, of course they're going to be putting their money into key account managers.
They don't need R&D.
They've tweaked the one omega-3 fatty acid they've got to tweak.
That's all they need to do.
There's no R&D necessary.
They've literally got one product.
They've got one product.
They've got, sounds like one study, which they did themselves, which suggests something.
I mean, it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, Brett.
Oh, goodness.
That does make it good.
But anyway, the idea and the description that this drug has blockbuster potential, there's nothing here to suggest that this has massive capacity to improve...
No, but the FDA.
No, it's this one.
Everything is about this drug.
But the FDA panel or the advisory panel that then took this to the FDA did vote 16 to 0 to approve.
So we must be in good hands.
This is what I'm saying.
The idea that a drug, you know, we already know the dimensions, right?
This drug might do nothing or very little, but it still has blockbuster potential because the potential is realized if you get it declared, for example, standard of care.
So that the... I guess the point is supply and demand is very different in the context of medicine because where does the demand come from?
The demand comes from the person in the white lab coat with the stethoscope over their shoulders looking at your chart and soberly saying, I think we're going to put you on some...
Yeah.
Right?
And that process is where hundreds of millions of dollars flow from, irrespective of the consequence of the thing in the capsule.
Yeah.
So, yeah, it's a lovely example of what we have all too painfully been able to infer must be going on in pharma and the places where it's dispensed and supposedly regulated.
Yes, it is.
Stunning.
All right.
Well, I think that brings us... Two things.
One, it is Martin Neal, not Martin McNeil.
I'm really sorry, Martin.
That's a terrible error, and I don't know where McNeil came from in my head.
But anyway, I want to make sure that that is properly corrected.
That was one thing.
Well, the other thing, it's probably out of place here, but I did want to point, Kevin McKernan had the ultimate tweet with respect to this Nobel issue, and he declared it a Nobel lie, which I thought was so good that we should call attention to his beautiful formulation.
Thanks a lot.
All right, so we're going to come back with a Q&A in a few minutes.
We're going to stop this here after talking a little bit about some other places you can find us, but then we'll be back with our live Q&A in about 15 minutes, and we'll start that with a question from our Discord server, as we do when we have Q&As, but you can also ask questions after that at darkhorsesubmissions.com.
Okay, if you are at the Watch Party on Locals, congratulations!
Hope you're having fun, and if you're not and you want to join us on Locals, please do!
We also have AMAs there, and our private monthly Q&A, and lots of good stuff.
It's a really great community that's growing.
It's only a couple months old, but it is growing, and we're excited to see that happen.
Please check out Fish, Fishy, and Fish Adjacent at Natural Selections this week.
We'll link to that particular piece in the show notes.
And I encourage free subscriptions where you can get stuff to your inbox many Tuesdays, and paying subscribers get more pieces and more perks.
We have Gen's new store.
It's darkhorsestore.org.
Is that right, Zach?
Did I get it right?
Darkhorsestore.org, where you can purchase many things, including evidence that you have been eating Jake's Micro Pizza.
You want to say anything else about Jake's Micro Pizza?
It is hypoallergenic, so those of you who have sensitivities needn't worry.
Yeah, and nothing on it grows on trees.
Except we have not yet deployed the lemon pizza, but when we do, then there will be a certain amount of growing entries.
Still humanely harvested, though.
Of course, always.
Let's see what else.
Yeah, you actually continue to have great conversations on your Patreon as well, a couple times a month.
Actually, those are coming up this weekend, I believe.
That would make sense.
Yeah.
So that is happening soon.
You can join Brett there.
Check out our amazing sponsors this week, which once again are Seed, Un-Cruise, and what did you do with your shoes?
Mind Bloom.
Mind Bloom.
Thank you.
And we will have links to that in the show notes.
We're supported by you.
We thank you for tuning in, for talking amongst yourselves, for sharing, for liking, all of that.
Please join us on Rumble, and please join us on Locals, and until we see you next time, be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside.
