What Jessica Rose Knows: Dr. Jessica Rose on DarkHorse
Bret Speaks with Dr. Jessica Rose on the subject of the rift within the COVID dissident community regarding the existence of a novel pathogen.Find Dr. Jessica Rose on X at https://x.com/JesslovesMJK and on her Substacks at https://jessicar.substack.com and https://jessica5b3.substack.com. *****Sponsors:Fresh Pressed Olive Oil: Fresh Pressed Olive Oil Club: Scrumptious & freshly harvested. Go to http://www.GetFreshDarkHorse.com to get a bottle of the best olive oil you’ve ever had for...
Three years before there was any hint of circulating SARS-CoV-2, Moderna patented a sequence that fully contains the information in the fern cleavage site and the flanking regions.
Yes.
The flanking restriction site.
Yes.
It's 19 nucleotides long.
And these guys, I really...
It's kind of like...
High-level paper for people who don't know the terminology, but I still, I think everyone, that's why I read the title, should go try and read this and understand what they did.
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse Podcast.
I have the distinct honor and pleasure of sitting this morning, well, it's morning for me, with Dr.
Jessica Rose.
Dr.
Jessica Rose is a freelance scientist with a complex background.
She started in applied mathematics, moved to immunology, then to computational biology, then molecular biology, and then to biochemistry.
Did I get it right, Jessica?
Yep.
That's the sequence.
Excellent.
Well, welcome to Dark Horse.
Thanks!
Jessica and I have known each other online for quite some time and we have now met twice.
We've met in Romania at the International COVID Summit and then in Geneva battling the World Health Organization.
I have become quite fond of Jessica and her work in the COVID dissident space.
She's a very unique person.
You can find out more about her at her website.
Just a point of interest.
I know that Jessica is actually a competitive surfer.
So that is an interesting fact about her, which may or may not come up here.
I was a competitive longboarder, so I don't do that anymore because I think everybody in their competitive trajectory, no matter what it is, gets to a point where it's just not fun anymore.
So I wanted to get back to the fun.
And yeah.
Totally get it.
But Charlie don't surf, but Jessica does.
All right.
So we are going to talk today.
I don't know where this conversation is going to go.
There's a tremendous amount of territory that would be worth discussing with you, Jessica.
But one thing I know that you and I are both focused on is a rift that has shown up in the space of the COVID dissidence or the medical freedom movement, as it might be described.
And this is something that I think...
Requires a deep dive and it requires a careful hand because I see a couple different kinds of people who are doing damage, as I see it, to the medical freedom movement.
Over what should just simply be an analytical disagreement.
There's a disagreement between a group of folks who believe that there was no novel pathogen involved in what we call the COVID pandemic.
And then there are those of us who believe that there was a novel pathogen.
And just to be perfectly clear...
The fact that some of us believe that there was a novel pathogen does not mean that we believe that there was an actual pandemic.
Pandemic is a term that has a definition which was changed, changed in a direction that made it...
Vastly broader and therefore included the phenomenon of COVID by removing the requirement that it have a severity above a certain threshold.
So if we had a pandemic, it was only by a new definition that appears to have been engineered for the purpose.
And I will also just say, for my part, I'm not claiming that you could not have had an emergency of the style that we had in which there was no pathogen.
But all of that said, the evidence that I see suggests that there was a novel pathogen in circulation, that there is at least one, and that it is still circulating.
And so, there's nothing wrong with people disagreeing with that and taking the position that there was no novel pathogen.
That is a viable hypothesis and one that is testable.
What I think you and I both find sad is the folks who behave as if anyone who thinks that there was a novel pathogen is stupid and or just doesn't get it.
The fact is, that is not a viable position.
Nobody is stupid.
There is evidence and that evidence is embedded in a background of noise and smart people might fall out in different places on this.
So Jessica, how should we think about this puzzle from your perspective?
Well, from my point of view, so first of all, there was an engagement between Denis Rancourt, who many people may or may not know.
He's a brilliant Canadian researcher.
And I don't like speaking for people, but I think it's pretty clear that he believes that there was no novel pathogen and that all of the damages, not some, but all of the damages incurred in terms of injury and death We're the result of what the humans did.
And I think that there's a lot of truth in that.
However, I am of the opinion that it doesn't exclude the possibility that there was a new pathogen circulating.
And the truth of the matter is that nobody knows for sure.
That's number one.
Number two, a lot of people reported, like millions and millions of people reported experiencing quote-unquote symptoms that they've never experienced before, which has yet to be explained.
And we have evidences of both a novelty and something that's pathogenic.
And we can talk about that till we're blue in the face.
So I agree with you.
I don't like fighting with people.
And I believe that people can have their own stance on this subject matter.
As much as they want.
And I liked that Denis was kind of...
He made a comment about, don't say anything about anosmia, which is the loss of sense of smell.
So we spoke since then and he was...
We're invoking a discussion, which I think is great, because whenever there's a disagreement among intelligent people, like you and I were talking about before, all we need to do is talk, and maybe some minds can change, and maybe we can improve our situation.
And by the way, I think that's really important, because Nobody doesn't want to improve our situation because there's been so much devastation for whatever reason.
And no one's going to refute the fact that most of the damages that were done were at the hand of man.
Like, everybody who knows who I am know that I'm not an advocate for modified mRNA LNP products.
Yeah.
I think anybody who has Honestly evaluated the evidence knows that the vast majority of damage and certainly the vast majority of deaths were the result of interventions, including and maybe most especially the mRNA pseudo vaccines.
Our first sponsor is Fresh Pressed Olive Oil Club.
We love these guys and their olive oils so much.
Extra virgin olive oil is delicious and nutritious.
There are all sorts of health benefits that we can mention, from being heart healthy, to preventing Alzheimer's, to being high in antioxidants.
But you've been living on this planet.
You know these things.
Olive oil is, of course, a cornerstone of Mediterranean diets and is used in everything.
If you've never had excellent fresh olive oil, however, you may wonder what all the fuss is about.
Fresh Pressed Olive Oil Club is the brainchild of T.J. Robinson, known in some circles as the Olive Oil Whisperer.
He brings the freshest, most flavorful, nutrient-rich olive oils from harvest to your door.
When we tasted T.J.'s farm fresh oils, we couldn't believe how delicious they were.
There are several varietals with noticeably different flavors, and we've used them in all the usual ways.
A light dressing on a caprese salad, marinade for grilled chicken, tossed with carrots and coarse sea salt before roasting.
We've never been disappointed, and Heather has also made an orange olive oil cake, recipe sent by Fresh Pressed Olive Oil Club.
It's amazing.
You will not believe how good this olive oil is and how many uses there are for it.
Olive oil is a succulent, delicious food that, like pretty much all fats, is best when it's fresh.
But most supermarket olive oils sit on the shelf for months or even years, growing stale, dull, flavorless, even rancid.
The solution is to have fresh-pressed, artisanal olive oil shipped directly to you after each new harvest, when the oil's flavor and nutrients are at their peak.
As an introduction to TJ Robinson's Fresh Crest Olive Oil Club, he's willing to send you a full-size $39 bottle of one of the world's finest artisanal olive oils, fresh from the new harvest, for just $1 to help him cover shipping.
And there's no commitment to buy anything now or ever.
Get your free $39 bottle for just $1 shipping and taste the difference freshness makes.
Go to getfreshdarkhorse.com.
That's getfreshdarkhorse.com for a free bottle and pay just $1 shipping.
Our second sponsor is Ancient.
It's Armra.
Armra is colostrum.
Colostrum is the first food that every mammal eats.
It is produced in the first two or three days of an infant's life and is nutritionally different from the milk that comes in afterward.
Colostrum serves many vital functions, including that of protecting and strengthening the mucosal barriers for infants before their own barriers mature.
Modern living breaks down your mucosal and immune barriers, and Armra is the superfood that builds them back.
Armra colostrum protects and strengthens your body's barriers, creating a seal that guards against inflammation and everyday toxins, pollutants, and threats.
Armra uses their cold-chain biopotent technology to concentrate colostrum's 400-plus living nutrients into their most pure and bioavailable form.
According to a review published in the journal Clinical Nutrition Open Science in 2022, bovine colostrum has been used to treat cancer, AIDS, polio, heart disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.
It is a general anti-inflammatory and its use in adults is known to increase lean muscle mass, improve athletic performance and recovery time, support healthy digestion, and reduce allergy symptoms.
Armora starts with sustainably sourced colostrum from grass-fed cows from their co-op of dairy farms in the U.S., and they source only the surplus colostrum after calves are fully fed.
Unlike most colostrums, which use heat pasteurization that depletes nutrient potency, Armora uses their cold-chain Biopotent Technology, an innovative process that purifies and preserves the integrity of hundreds of bioactive nutrients while removing casein and fat to guarantee the highest potency and bioavailability of any colostrum on the market.
The quality control is far above industry standards, including being certified to be glyphosate-free.
Benefits of Armour's colostrum also include clearing of blemishes, shinier, thicker hair, stabilization of blood sugar levels, and acceleration of fat burning.
And colostrum has been shown to significantly improve fitness endurance and significantly decrease recovery time after intense exercise.
Armora has a special offer for the Dark Horse audience.
Receive 15% off your first order.
Go to tryarmora.com or enter darkhorse to get 15% off your first order.
That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Our final sponsor for this episode is The Amazing Helix, which makes truly fantastic mattresses.
Have you ever been traveling and climbed into bed only to discover that the mattress wasn't comfortable?
If you've traveled at all, that has almost certainly happened to you.
Conversely, have you ever experienced the feeling of relief when you discover a great mattress, one that lets you sleep comfortably through the night?
Helix is that mattress.
It's amazing what a difference it makes.
Helix Sleep is a premium mattress brand that offers 20 unique mattresses based on your unique sleep preferences and your size, including the Helix Plus for big and tall sleepers and a mattress for children.
Take the Helix Sleep Quiz online and in less than two minutes, you'll be directed to which of their many mattresses is best for you.
Do you sleep on your back, your stomach, or your side?
Do you toss and turn or sleep like a log?
Do you prefer a firmer or softer mattress?
All of these are taken into consideration with the Helix Sleep Quiz.
Once you've found your perfect mattress, it ships straight to your door, free of charge.
Then you'll have 100 nights to try it out without any penalty.
If you love it, which you almost certainly will, you won't need to use your guarantee.
And Helix mattresses all come with a 10 to 15 year warranty.
Every Helix mattress combines individually wrapped steel coils in the base with a premium foam layer on top, providing excellent support for your spine.
Helix mattresses are made in America at their very own manufacturing facility, and both mattresses and facility are 100% fiberglass free, which is put in many mattresses as a flame retardant.
Helix mattresses are built for human bodies and built to last.
Helix also supports military, first responders, teachers, and students by giving them a special discount.
We've had our Helix mattress for over two years and look forward to it providing many more years of excellent sleep.
Helix is offering 30% off all mattress orders and two free pillows for our listeners.
Go to helixsleep.com slash darkhorse.
That's helixsleep.com slash darkhorse.
This is their best offer yet and it won't last long.
With Helix, better sleep starts now.
So there's no disagreement in the dissident community about that.
In fact, I don't know a single dissident who doesn't see substantial harm, even those who believe that the pseudo-vaccines had some utility, which many of us do not believe.
Except that there was a high level of adverse events and that many demographics did not need them because they didn't suffer a great enough risk from COVID. I do want to go back to Denny Rancourt for a second.
Two points.
One, do you know exactly what Denny Rancourt's background is?
Because I think it's actually relevant here.
Yeah, I don't know it off the top of my heart, but I'm going to just pull it up here.
Just a second.
That's funny.
Wikipedia calls him an activist.
You wouldn't say that, I don't think.
He's a physicist.
If you want to say what he is by field, he's a physicist.
He was at the University of Ottawa and also the University of Toronto.
Apparently, there's some kind of conflict that he was engaged in before, which I don't know much about.
But from the point of view of The rigor and seriousness that he approaches questions in science.
I really respect this guy.
He's not messing around.
No, he is highly rigorous, highly intelligent, but not a biologist.
And I don't think that that has to exclude him.
But to the extent that I think he might be making an error, I do suspect that it has to do with being used to physics, which, you know, there is complexity in physics in certain branches.
Not most of them.
There's complexity.
But what you don't have is any complex adaptive systems.
Right.
Those systems require you to get into biology.
And so when we are talking about things like pathogens, we are inherently talking about complex adaptive systems which abide by a different set of rules.
Again, I'm not saying.
You know, I think a lot, I think highly of a lot of Rancourt's work in this area.
But to the extent that he has the sense of, well, if there were a novel pathogen, we'd see it in the data and we don't.
I think the error that he is making is that he's not understanding the level of The noise and the nature of the noise in a complex adaptive system.
Now, anyway, that's a claim.
We will get back to it.
Interesting.
Just a moment on that.
For people who don't know, who aren't academic nerds like us, it's so interesting to me over the years.
Basically, I've been nothing but a student.
I mean, I worked at a restaurant as a manager once, but basically I'm an academic nerd.
And you'll know what I mean.
People are very protective of their own field.
And you'll see this if you ever get into somebody's specific work.
A lot of people aren't like me.
They'll have started on one point and followed that trajectory through until the present in the same field.
I've jumped around five different fields, so I'm really not typical.
But I get that most people in academics are very, this is my baby, about what they do.
And I think that's the innocent part of why people come to the conclusions that they do.
And with someone like Denis, I think it would be easy to convince him if he just knew a little bit more about why this thing, in my opinion, is new and pathogenic.
That was circulating in 2019, that maybe he would say, oh yeah, it is possible that both things were going on at the same time.
Yeah.
I actually think, having nothing to do with Denis, that the focus on a single thing has been a disastrous trend in science.
I agree with you.
It is the selective consequence of, you know, the cutthroat nature of academia.
At the moment, there just simply aren't enough jobs.
And we train far too many people for the number of jobs there are.
And the reason we do that is mundane.
It makes the work of the university cheaper because you can offload it on graduate students.
But anyway, what it has done is it has caused people to narrow their focus and instead of becoming, you know, masters of a large realm, instead of becoming generalists, they focus very narrowly to become completely dominant in some area so that they increase the chances of getting the job.
This was a catastrophe during COVID. People might have a high level of expertise in vaccinology, but they don't know enough about virology, and the virologists don't know enough about evolution.
Anyway, I also, like you, am a generalist, and I think that that was actually a necessary toolkit in order I did not get everything right during COVID, but what I did do was get smarter over time.
I took the stuff that wasn't right, figured it out, and got rid of it, and I'm still in that process.
But a generalist toolkit was essential for that.
And I think one of the things that we're tripping over is a lot of people have seen something, right?
They've seen, well, there's no evidence of a pathogenic spread in the death data.
Right?
Well, it wasn't a very deadly disease.
Yeah.
Right?
So, you know, the question is, you might conclude that the common cold doesn't exist if you looked at the death data, even though I'm sure it has a tiny little impact.
It might be buried in the noise and it wouldn't be enough to convince you of its existence, but if you've ever had a cold, Well, I'm not going to say there aren't people too foolish to believe that colds exist.
There are obviously people out there who claim there are no viruses at all.
I don't know whether that is an absurdity that's been seeded to confuse things to make it hard, because I know that even the people who think there was no And I guess
my point would be, look, there's a medical freedom movement.
I'm sure there were people who were at the forefront of it before COVID, but a lot of us found ourselves there watching what was done to humanity over whatever it was that took place in that period.
We've been educated about tyranny and about the way public health is being abused in order to infringe people's rights.
And that group of people is essential.
We are going to have to fix a system that has forgotten what the Hippocratic Oath is, that has forgotten what informed consent is, and we can't be shooting at each other.
Which doesn't mean we can't be disagreeing with each other.
We should be disagreeing with each other.
I welcome the people who think that there was no novel pathogen.
I don't agree with them.
I think, in the end, it will become clear that they are wrong.
They think the same of you and me.
That's fine.
That's how science works.
But the idea that you're not welcome here if you're too dumb to realize there was no pathogen, that's not a scientific position.
That's a strategic position.
And the two things have to be separated.
Yeah, just a comment about that.
I've discussed this a few times in interviews.
It's really fascinating for me.
Every now and then I sample what the public is thinking on all of this subject matter.
Stuff that seems so obvious to somebody who's looking at it for years and years and years might be completely oblivious.
It's like I've written a couple of articles on Substack about this, about how there really are bad guys.
There are good guys and there are bad guys.
And I don't think people realize that.
Like, you often get a lot...
Sometimes I'll get comments about, oh, I hate seeing infighting.
And I wrote a whole article on that, too.
Go read it.
And how, you know, I wish you guys would stop fighting.
And on the subject matter of this so-called medical freedom movement...
But it's like the reality is there are, in my opinion, people and even probably organizations whose job it is.
They're actually getting paid to disrupt the hard work and efforts of good people who are literally putting themselves through hell to get truth and information out there.
Good people who are being fired from their positions, their careers.
Losing their medical licenses, like Pierre Corrie just lost his license.
Pierre Corrie and Paul Merrick just lost their licenses.
How many people have we seen pushed out of positions?
We've seen Jay Bhattacharya, we've seen...
Robert Malone, the literal inventor of mRNA technology, slandered as an anti-vaxxer.
You couldn't get any more absurd than the demonization.
And I agree.
Some of it is organized.
We know it's organized.
We know some of the organizations involved, right?
We know that Gavi is involved, the Trusted News Initiative.
These are organized, well-financed entities that are intentionally Attacking the credibility of people who've spent a, you know, an entire career coming to understand scientific subject matter that's difficult and then taking the risk of speaking openly about what they see.
And, you know...
It is organized.
Those are bad people who are doing that.
And I agree with you.
It's not that everybody thinks they're doing the right thing.
Some of these people are getting paid to do the wrong thing.
And even if a few of them are confused, many of them know exactly what they're doing.
And you would expect this.
In fact, it would be shocking if it didn't exist, given how many hundreds of billions of dollars obviously rest on questions like Is the mRNA vaccine platform safe enough to use in humans?
Never mind the COVID version of it.
If it's safe, there are hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, that will ultimately flow from it.
If it's not safe, then those dollars will not flow.
Yeah, and there's accountability too, which is huge.
It's like, you got a lot splainin' to do because they injected this stuff into billions of people and there are a staggeringly high number of people reporting adverse events and who have died or are permanently injured.
So it's like there's accountability and then there's, whoops, we can't go ahead with the program and all of our investments are out the window.
It's really sad, but that's the reality.
I've learned...
And by the way, for people who don't know my nature or who I am, I... I came into all of this a child of academia.
I've always worked under the umbrella of science.
I'm the peer-reviewed literature girl.
I'm vaccinated at the yin-yang up until recently.
I never had a problem with vaccines.
I never had a problem with the three-letter agencies.
I wanted to work for the WHO and the CDC for crying out loud.
Not anymore.
So it goes back to what you were saying about the process of learning and updating.
It's like once you start to see evidences of things that are contrary to what you have come to know as the truth, In science or in life, you have to keep investigating and you can't go back from that.
So at this point, like I said, I'm absolutely advocating against the use of these modified mRNA LNP products.
And we don't have enough time to go into exactly why.
But then, you know, it's yeah.
Can I go back to the novel pathogen thing?
Because I made all these notes, and I want to make sure...
Yeah, hold on, hold on.
We will come back to it, but there's one other thing I want to clean up, which is that the comment about anosmia that Denis made will be mysterious to a lot of people, and I want to clear up what that's about.
So, in this ongoing dialogue about whether or not there was a novel pathogen circulating, To steel man the position of those who claim that there was no pathogen, They will frequently say, look, a certain number of people every year get the worst flu they've ever had.
And the fact that there was a symptom which seemed to accompany COVID that involved the loss of smell and taste, many people regard as slam dunk evidence that A novel pathogen existed because it triggered a novel symptom.
And their point is, that's not novel.
Losing smell and taste is a feature of many illnesses.
And it's just that we started to notice it.
And so people convinced themselves that they were dealing with a novel pathogen.
But basically, people get sick.
What symptoms you get for a disease vary a lot, and if you start looking for patterns, you start shoehorning whatever disease you have into the thing you've been told is circulating, and we convinced ourselves that there was COVID, but there wasn't.
That's more or less their argument.
Now, there's other evidence that they bring to bear.
On the other hand, I never lost taste and smell.
Heather did, and it was quite profound.
It was like a switch.
It wasn't like the kind of, oh, you know, food tastes weird that you have when you're sick with something.
It was like, actually, suddenly, I detect nothing on this channel.
So that is not, in my opinion, a familiar symptom.
That was a novel symptom.
Is that a fair summary, Jessica?
Yeah, and I love that you brought it up and used the personal example because that's one of my points.
So just so that people know, anosmia is the loss of sense of smell because you have an attack on your olfactory nerve.
So this...
This response basically causes overt inflammation, and I suppose it can cause death of some of these cells as well, because some people are actually reporting that they didn't recover their smell.
I was literally talking to someone the other day who still hasn't gotten his smell back.
So...
I think about this a lot.
Years ago, I was on a call with a lot of smart people, and I was starting to get mocked, or there was some mocking going on concerning this exact subject matter about the loss of sense of smell and how it absolutely doesn't prove that there was something new.
My trajectory on this might have been totally different if it didn't happen to this chickie right here.
But it did.
And I can tell you, I lived in Newfoundland for 17 years.
And for anyone who doesn't know about Newfoundland, it's basically a rock on the east coast of Canada.
And it's very cold and it's very wet and it's very foggy.
It's beautiful, though.
And so, oh, and there's very little sunlight.
There's something like 30 days of sunlight a year.
So we suffer there from seasonal affective disorder, which is, you know, just this name for not getting enough vitamin D. So the bottom line is we are susceptible to circulating pathogens like the flu and the cold viruses and stuff.
So every year I would get, and I was healthy, I've always been healthy, At least one flu, what I suspect was the flu incident, that would nearly land me in the hospital.
Every time I get sick with a respiratory guy, I have lung involvement and I have sinus involvement.
I've had chronic sinus infections for most of my life, which was always a problem when I became a surfer.
Until a surfer told me about turmeric, and I'm not going to go on about that, but it's a life-changing herb.
Never, ever, ever, not once, did I even have...
A tingling of losing my sense of smell or taste.
And it's never happened to me.
I'm 50.
Well, I'm 49.
I'm going to be 50 in a couple months.
I know this body.
I take real good care of it.
I know how to deal with that feeling that you get just before you know you're about to get sick.
You know, you get a little achy and a little headachy and tingly.
I know how to deal with that stuff.
I'm not, you know, I'm not perfect, but it's, you know, I've learned, you know, by experiencing these things.
So when I got SARS, when I was introduced to whatever this, what I think is a new pathogen was in the summer.
So, you know, there was plenty of sun, plenty of exercise.
I was perfectly healthy.
It hit me like a brick in the head.
Now, I can hypothesize as to, you know, why that was.
Maybe it activated some latent Epstein-Barr.
I don't know.
But the thing that was absolutely unique to whatever this was that hit me was this loss of sense of smell.
And it was just like Heather.
It was just gone.
It was gone so fast that I didn't even recognize it until one day my pot on the stove started catching on fire.
I didn't smell it.
And I started crying.
And I was like, oh my god, I didn't smell it.
For anyone who hasn't experienced this, it's traumatizing as hell.
Because not only can you not smell, but you can't taste.
And so my point is in this long personal story, and I'm telling this in this way to make a point, is that this was my personal experience as a rational thinking person who knows a lot about this stuff.
I study pathogenic viruses for a living, quote unquote.
And this was new to me.
Something new came into this thing, this watery sack of flesh that I walk around in.
And so my point with Denis, when I wrote a response to his tweet that there was no new pathogen and don't make remarks about anosmia, is that I don't think that it's wise if you're trying to form an argument or take a position to exclude a huge population of people who've had personal experiences.
So I've always been individual, pro-individual.
I like hearing from people's mouths, what their experiences were, learning from them that way.
I don't like hearsay.
I pay no attention to rumors.
I like looking at people in the eyes.
And that's what this comes down to.
It's like, I don't like groups, I don't like labels, and I don't like saying it has to be only this.
Like, we're not Sith Lords, right?
It's not all this or all this.
It's always a mix.
It's always complex.
And so the idea, again, going back to the pandemic measures, That and the novel pathogen circulating that induced these symptoms, these specific and unique symptoms, are not mutually exclusive.
I think both things happened, absolutely.
It was exactly what you said.
We're not dealing with a novel, deadly pathogen.
We're dealing with a novel pathogen.
There's a big difference.
And Robert Malone actually made this statement as well.
And I remember that a lot of people were like, and it's like, no, you didn't hear what he said.
Listen to what he actually said.
So what I wanted to, sorry.
Hold on.
I wanted to go follow up on a couple of those threads before we move on.
One, there's something analytically illegitimate about saying, and don't tell me about anosmia.
That implies that the anosmia Question has a completely satisfying answer.
It's not worth going down that road.
It's a bluff.
The fact is a lot of people experienced anosmia.
That anosmia could be the result of them noticing a symptom that they have had in previous years in a new way because of the information they're being fed.
But it is not inherently that.
Many of us who know people who had it don't believe it was that.
And I think this actually speaks to the earlier point that we were making about what kind of scientist you are.
There's a conflation that people make when they mean evidence, they say data.
And in my opinion, the term data is part of a cryptic coup against a theoretically robust kind of science.
The way science works, you come up with a hypothesis, you collect data in light of that hypothesis to attempt to falsify it, right?
Data is something that you collect systematically.
There is a tremendous amount of evidence that is not data.
That evidence can compel you of things that aren't in your data.
So if your data is, for example, focused on deaths, Then, of course, you will view COVID as a near non-entity or non-entity.
Because as we know from what emerged late in the so-called pandemic, we know that to the extent that it was having an effect on deaths, it was actually killing people who were already beyond their life expectancy for the year it was actually killing people who were already beyond their life expectancy for It was pulling them forward probably by months.
So it's not that there was no death involved, but the point is that does not show up powerfully in a data set.
if your data set is about death COVID didn't cause very much And to the extent that it did cause it, it caused it to people who were highly vulnerable to death by virtue of their advanced age or other pathologies.
So evidence like anosmia doesn't exist in that data set.
But it is evidence.
It's powerful evidence.
Likewise, and I'm sure we will get there, but you have many clinicians who saw something come through their offices that convinced them that they were dealing with a novel pathogen.
Now, There are many places to trip over the claim that there was a novel pathogen.
I'm pretty sure there was a novel pathogen because of what came through my family multiple times.
Do I know that it was SARS-CoV-2?
I do not.
Do I know that it was one pathogen?
I do not.
Do I have suspicions about it?
I do, because for one thing, when you got symptoms that seemed to imply SARS-CoV-2, It was very likely that you still tested negative for the disease.
Now, I don't know what that was about.
Cruddy tests?
Clearly the tests were cruddy.
On the other hand, you know, you've got tests that are designed for an average member of the lay public to test themselves.
Heather and I are biologists.
We've done enough lab work that we ought to have a little edge on a layperson who's never run an assay before.
And yet...
In the middle of maximal symptoms, unable to trigger a positive test raises questions.
Was there a novel pathogen that wasn't what we were told it was?
That's a possibility.
Were there multiple ones?
That's a possibility.
So anyway, the point is you need to contemplate a larger set of potentials here in order to be able to understand the sum total of the evidence, only a small fraction of which is actually data.
Yep.
I remember once a person told me that the approach that a rabbi takes to solving a problem is to engage every possible Every possible notion, every possible opinion, and to like have a rounded off version, go from here and focus in to find a solution.
And I really like that because I think that's what we need to do.
It's like if you cut yourself off by saying that, no, this isn't data, which none of us know.
That's what I started off by saying.
We don't know.
Just like you just said, we don't know if this was actually SARS-2.
It was something.
Then we're cutting ourselves off from a possible actual answer.
Or even from the truth itself.
So that's what I don't like about the approach.
Just to make a comment, you inferred an idea in me.
Oops, sorry spider.
It's interesting that this SARS-2, let's just call it that, that induced what we called COVID, sped up the death of people who are already infirm or aged.
It also did a couple of other things.
So I find that really interesting because the connection between that SARS thing and the shots, the spike gene, You know, that is the genetic material that they used in the modified mRNA LNP shots.
They seem to have that same effect, that spike, once it's translated, seems to have that effect adverse event-wise in a lot of people.
It seems to me, and I look at adverse event data, that's like what I do right now, it seems to advance Whatever it is that the particular person might be dealing with, it rapidifies, you know, the process, whether it be cancer.
We've all heard that people who are in remission for cancer have come out of remission, and now they're like, they've jumped into stage four.
So what you're talking about in response to the shots, or you're talking about in response to COVID? I'm talking about a connection between both of them, which is probably Spike.
I mean, that would be the logical conclusion, right?
So it's not evidence that SARS-2 was actually actively pushing people forward to their death or to whatever condition that they might have had.
But it's interesting, just as an observation, that it matches what we're seeing with the shots.
So maybe it provides leaves rustling in the wind evidence that there was something indeed circulating and that this spike entity, you know, is quite insidious and inducing, you know, these symptoms and even death in some people.
All right.
So let's...
Be a little more systematic.
And let's talk about the various kinds of evidence that we see that suggest to us that there was a novel pathogen.
Anosmia being one.
That this was a pattern that seemed to track...
Seemed to clearly track a contagious pathogenic entity.
That is to say...
One detects a pattern if your kid brings something, I'm not talking about COVID now because kids were especially likely to be highly resistant to COVID, but if your kid brings a cold home from daycare, And then you catch it.
And then your spouse catches it, right?
It creates a little pattern.
And the point is, you know, it excludes not 100%, but it excludes the possibility that it's an environmental exposure, right?
That your new couch is off-gassing because the pattern involves...
Which it probably is.
Oh, your couch is no doubt off-gassing.
But the point is...
A disease that takes three or four days for you to get on the other side of it, that gets passed from one person to another as they are at sort of maximal symptoms, moves through a family.
If it was your couch off-gassing and your spouse was sensitive to it, then why should you be getting sicker as they're getting better?
Because the level of off-gassing is either consistent and they should remain sensitive to it, or it's not, in which case everybody who's sensitive to it should have declining symptoms at the same moment.
So this is suggestive that you've got a pathogen that entered your house and moved from one person to another.
And then, of course, as we all know, these things often jump a person.
Right?
You know, one of your kids gets sick, the other one doesn't.
Why is that?
Maybe that one of your kids has a prior exposure to some similar enough disease that they have a cross-reactive immunity that protects them.
Or it may be that the thing isn't all that contagious and they just simply were careful enough about the way that, you know, they didn't rub their eye at the point that there was virus in their environment.
Yada yada.
So anyway, the fact that there was anosmia and the fact that anosmia seemed to move along with what was obviously a contagious pathogen that moved in the way contagious pathogens do through families, through workplaces, through classrooms is suggestive.
What else?
Okay, just to back up the boat here.
Now, I assume all of your listeners know what a novel pathogen actually means.
But novel to immunologically means that your immune system hasn't seen it.
So it's going to mount a new reaction, a new immune response.
And pathogen is just something that causes disease.
And we can debate what that means.
But I mean, basically, when A pathogen can be a virus, a fungus, a bacteria.
It can be a toxin.
If it induces a disease in you, then that's a pathogen.
I wanted to make sure that everybody goes on the same page on that.
I think you'll like this.
One of the ways that I imagined we could approach this subject matter is by assuming that there's no new pathogen.
So what that would mean is that there either wasn't something new, or that it wasn't a pathogen, a disease-causing entity, or both.
So, like, maybe we could approach it from that way, and the first one I would attack or provide evidence in support or against is the new part.
So, the way that I would start to do that, and I don't know if your public is lay public and if they know about this furin cleavage site thing, but they probably do.
So, there is this This set of amino acids, this 12-MER, it's basically like 12 nucleotides in a row that encode four specific amino acids that is encoded in the SARS-2 Entity, let's call it that, that is not found in SARS. That's very weird.
It's also not found in mammalian genomes or previous viral genomes.
It's a new thing.
It's absolutely, definitively novel.
Not found in any Sarbeco virus, which is the clade from which SARS-CoV-2 emerges.
Right.
This is very interesting, and I've done a lot of reading on this, and I've seen counter-arguments that go something like, well, that's not true, because MERS has a furin cleavage site.
And in fact, it does, but not this sequence of letters, not the P-R-R-A-R. So the significance of that is that arginine, that's the R, the letter that's encoded, is something that humans, human organisms, Like to use.
And this has to do with some stuff that I don't need to get into technical detail about, transfer RNAs, blah, blah, blah.
But it's suspicious to somebody who works in these fields that you would find three R's, like, novelly three R's, which are, like, these are They're amino acids that humans like.
They're not amino acids that a virus would choose, you know, quote unquote.
It's also interesting when you start reading about the codon optimization that was absolutely done in the context of all of the DNA that was used in the injections.
These things, this DNA, was codon-optimized, which basically just means that it was modified.
The nucleotide sequences were modified in specific ways such that the amino acids didn't change, the sequence didn't change, such that the humans would make the most amount of protein possible.
Once that coating material got to ribosomes, for example.
So it's suspicious.
Now, this isn't like evidence per se.
It's just weird.
And it makes you tilt your head and go, hmm, that's interesting.
So we have something that we never saw before.
We have arginines, like lots of them.
That's kind of weird because that's not something a virus would pick.
I'm imbuing them with human qualities, but you guys know what I mean.
It's not something that selection is known to be biased towards in viruses, and it is known to be biased towards in humans.
Exactly.
Thanks for making it sound better than I made it sound better.
And I really want to piggyback before I lose my train of thought onto the next thing that basically is the so-called mic drop.
Some researchers have discovered that there's two things that should make the mic drop, actually.
Flanking Now, I don't know if everyone can visualize this.
If you have a string of amino acids, just think of it as a line.
Flanking this specific peptide, the sequence of amino acids...
I'm just going to make this clear for people who don't speak this language.
Amino acids are the molecular subunits of peptides, which are the subunits of proteins.
So when we talk about nucleotides, we're talking about DNA and RNA. When we talk about amino acids, peptides, and proteins, we're talking about the actual machinery that does the work.
Yeah, it's the genetic versus the protein level.
The information versus the mechanistic level.
The protein does the work, the nucleotides, the DNA and RNA store the information.
That's right.
So...
Flanking, you can think of it as bookends, this peptide, let's just call it the furin cleavage site, for lack of a better way to say it, are these things called restriction sites.
So restriction sites are something that's found in nature that, like the CRISPR-Cas9 system, has been absconded from nature and And slightly altered for use in biotech.
So restriction sites have a one-on-one relationship with something called a restriction enzyme.
So if you have this little site, which is just, you know, it's a short sequence of nucleotides, you have a one-on-one restriction enzyme which acts on that.
All right, so let me try an analogy so people get it.
Okay, good.
Imagine that you had a diagram on a piece of paper, and it had five different patterns of dotted lines around different items.
And each pattern of dotted line was matched to a particular kind of scissors that That were useful for cutting it.
So imagine that these were circular dotted lines that you were supposed to cut on and that you needed scissors that were, you know, of different lengths to optimally cut the different kinds of dotted lines.
So when you see a, you know, a dash dot, dash dot, dash dot, you use scissor number two.
And when you see dash, dash, dot, dash, dash, dot, dash, dash, dot, you use scissor number three.
So the restriction sites are like the dotted lines and the restriction enzymes are like the special scissors that cut only that line.
Exactly.
Exactly.
They're molecular scissors.
I just remembered something I really wanted to say about the PRRA. It's the chances that this...
Oh, here it is.
So somebody did these calculations.
It was Archmedic.
That's a substack everyone should follow as well.
And the chance that you would have...
This is another piece of evidence.
Besides the fact that the PRRAR has never been, You know, in this particular form before in a virus, the chance that this particular sequence of 12 nucleotides that encode the PRA, for example, Occurring by chance is like one in over 16 million.
It's like really, really, really unlikely that this would ever happen in nature.
That is the probability that if you were going to have a fern cleavage site, that it would be spelled this way?
Or that's the chances of this sequence occurring ever under any circumstances?
Yeah.
That that sequence would occur.
Okay.
But that is a little bit questionable to me because, you know, if I... If I roll...
If I deal some cards and I deal a random hand of seven cards...
We can look at that hand, no matter what hand it is, and we can say that is a hugely improbable hand.
The chances of that hand are, you know, they're going to be 52 times 51, whatever.
It's going to be a large number.
And so the point is, the fact that the hand you got is improbable Doesn't mean anything because all hands are equally improbable.
Right.
Right.
So I guess the question is, I'm curious about what this calculation, you say one in 16 million?
Yeah, it's based on one in the number of nucleotides that we have, which is, you know, the options that you can choose from the ACGT. To the power of the MER, which means how many of those you have in a row.
So in a 12 MER, you have 12 of these nucleotides in a row.
So if you're thinking about rolling the dice or whatever, you have a 1 in 4 chance of getting this and then this.
So the calculation or this number that I'm giving is based on that.
So it's 1 in 4 to 12.
So that's what that number is.
Okay.
I hope I got that right.
I'm still not sure how to think about that probability.
There's something about it that needs a context that I can't quite figure out in order to understand exactly how improbable that actually is.
Yeah, I concur.
But I mean, basically, my point was, it's very unlikely that this would happen in this way.
So am I correct?
This is your specialty, not mine.
But am I correct to say...
A fern cleavage site has never been seen in a Sarbeco virus.
That's the subfamily of viruses in which SARS-CoV-2 lives.
So that's anomalous.
It's not impossible that it would show up, but it's certainly conspicuous that it exists there and none of the relative viruses have it.
And that no fern cleavage site that is known from nature has ever been spelled this way.
That's right.
And further, that the way it is spelled is suggestive of something human, not viral.
Exactly.
And so I cut myself off.
So it's flanked by these restriction sites, which is a biotech tool.
And we use this in reverse genetics to make viruses, basically.
So it's a way to stitch little fragments of DNA together.
To say if you wanted to produce a virus in a lab or whatever.
So these are tools that are used to cut and we also have the annealers to repaste segments of DNA together.
So again, what are they doing there?
It seems really strange that these things are there.
And I could argue with myself and say, well, you know, this happens in nature.
But the thing is, it's like, why is it flanking this particular region, this particular furin cleavage site so tightly?
That seems really weird.
And somebody else has done the math on this, the unlikelihood of this da-da-da-da.
So it's like...
It's another piece of evidence that in my books, you can read Anandamide's Kevin McKernan Substack.
He's written a lot about this.
For the details on this, this is his specialty.
He's a genomics expert.
This is just something that I think anybody who's claiming that this wasn't novel, synthetic created, Would have a really hard time explaining.
It does seem sort of smoking gun-like.
Yes.
That you have essentially the signature of laboratory activity flanking this very unusual, unusual in multiple dimensions and significant fur and cleavage site, which unusual in multiple dimensions and significant fur and cleavage site, which I will connect for those who haven't followed the The reason that the fur and cleavage site is so important is that it is necessary.
If you wanted to take the ancestor of SARS-CoV-2, the wild ancestor, and turn it into a human pathogen, it would need a fur and cleavage site.
And that was well understood by the biotech folks who were studying these viruses regularly.
For whatever actual reason they were studying.
In other words, the fern cleavage site's significance was known.
The idea that if you did install it in one of these related viruses that you could make a human pathogen.
And then to find that very thing phylogenetically out of place in the very virus that seems to have started circulating in Wuhan.
With a signature of gene, of human gene editing, of laboratory editing, the tools that you would use, the sequences that do the cutting or the sequences that cause the cutting to be done in particular locations that flank this very thing happen to be there.
You know, I'm not an expert on viral biology, but unless Restriction sites are A, very common in viral genomes, or B, there was something about the ecology of this virus in which a restriction site at that location would somehow be useful.
That seems like...
Very powerful evidence of laboratory involvement in the creation of the virus.
100%.
And by the way, everybody, maybe those two things are true.
But it doesn't...
I would say, no, they're not.
It shifts the presumption.
The presumption when you see those sequences is...
It's everything together.
There's another thing that everybody should know about.
And this is a little more...
It might be harder for me to explain, but I'll do my best.
Oh, by the way, yes, the furin cleavage site makes SARS-2 more infectious.
That's why it's worse, the SARS-2.
It acts on a ligand on cells called TEMPRS2, which is an acronym for something I don't know.
And so it's a very specific mechanism that's well known.
That's the thing.
It's part of the mechanism that allows the virus to gain access to a cell so that it can drop its RNA into the cytoplasm and cause the cell to produce more virus.
Exactly.
It's a very, very sequential ordered series of events as we understand it.
It's just like the HIV receptor.
This GP160 opens up GP120, GP41 pokes a hole.
So it's the same thing.
So I just want to also add that in the story of what happened in Wuhan, a story we don't completely know, but I think we can begin to tell a pretty coherent version.
There was a virus related to what circulated during the so-called pandemic, a precursor.
That infected six miners in a cave in Yunnan years before.
And the folks at the Wuhan Institute went and started looking for viruses in Yunnan because six miners had become sick.
Three of them died, but significantly, that virus, which did not have the fur and cleavage site, was not able to jump from one person to another.
These people had contracted the disease, but it was not capable of creating a pandemic because it couldn't jump from one person to another, which is obviously necessary.
If you were involved in a cryptic weapons program, if you were looking for viruses that would be useful as human pathogens, you might look at a virus that knew how to jump into people but did not know how to jump between people, and you might think, Fur and cleavage site is the difference between what we've got and what we're looking for.
And how would you get it?
Well, it would involve restriction enzymes and restriction sites.
And lo and behold, in the virus that was circulating, we find exactly these things.
We find an unusual spelling.
And it all begins to fit, especially in light of the fact that the very experiment that would have created such a virus was proposed.
Rejected, but proposed.
Yeah.
And I will just say finally that for those who think, well, it was rejected, so maybe it wasn't done, very often in biology, the cutthroat world that it is, people propose experiments that they've already run in order to get them paid for.
So the fact that the grant was not made does not mean that the experiment that was proposed wasn't done at all.
That's right.
We're all the same in some regards.
Some of us are a little crazier than others, but I think everyone should really, even if you're talking about the guys who wrote the defuse proposal that we were just alluding to, and go read that, by the way.
You know, everyone's a human.
And I mean, if somebody has an idea, like, let's just say what it is.
It's a brilliant idea conceptually.
It's madman when you're talking about actually making these things in real life and putting versions of them into people.
It's immoral.
Yeah.
But it is scientifically rational.
It's fascinating, really.
If you look at it completely from the bird's eye view, we're never going to do anything with this, which is what they probably are always saying.
If they need more money to do it, I agree with you.
I think that they probably already did it.
I think it's highly likely that they already did it.
And this was just a...
What's that word when you have to make it look good for the books?
Oh, wow.
Two sets of books.
Yeah, well, clearly.
Yeah, we need government approval and we need money in order to proceed with what we've already done.
It's like, it's a ruse.
As long as we are detoured off in what these cryptic weapons makers are thinking, I do want to make this extremely...
Oh God, do you know what they're thinking?
Well, I kind of do.
Yeah, I think I do.
And it's grotesque.
Let's hear it.
But I think the idea is...
Well, you know, we've looked at all the human pathogens, and it seems like there are a lot of them, but most of them are not weaponizable for one of a dozen reasons.
And we're left with this list of, I don't know, 20 critters that have weaponizable potential.
But we've looked at them all.
We've got a few.
None of them are that exciting.
But you know what?
Nature is full of viruses that could be weaponized that we don't know anything about, right?
It's like a gigantic shopping mall of viruses that don't infect people but could be turned into powerful weapons.
And if we don't do it, our enemies are gonna.
So let's go shopping.
And let's go shopping is a tough project because most of these viruses are so far from anything that could be useful in humans that they just don't apply.
But you get word, oh, six miners have gotten sick shoveling bat guano out of a cave.
That means you've got a virus that's within shooting distance of a human pathogen that nobody else knows about.
Let's go get it.
And then let's do what we know needs to be done in order to turn it into a human pathogen.
Why they did it?
I don't know.
But that people who were interested in broadening the list of potentially weaponizable pathogens would have seen six...
Seriously ill minors as a, you know, a flashing neon sign that there was a virus they might want in a cave that the new location of, that makes perfect sense to me.
Again, you know, it's absolutely immoral.
Whether you know it or not, you are a terrible person.
If you are taking viruses out of nature that cannot infect people and turning them into viruses that can infect people, you are betraying your obligation to humanity.
I completely agree with you.
And I mean, there are probably a lot of people who are listening who believe in God or variations of God and Jesus and all that.
But like, it defies nature itself, in my opinion.
Like, you just, you shouldn't cross certain lines.
And the thing about it that's probably going to end up being really ironic is that we're All gonna end up with egg on our faces because of the actions of this small subset of people.
The irresponsible, amoral, and unethical actions.
It's like, there are some things you shouldn't do.
Like, messing with the genome of things, I don't think we should be doing that.
It's not that I don't see the glorious conceptual beauty of eradicating disease by getting rid of gene mutations, for example.
I get it.
I really do.
I see that as potentially a great idea.
But...
The problem we're having here is that the people who are in charge, apparently, like it really does appear this way.
And again, we're all learning as we go.
Their motivations are mucky.
They don't have these benevolent intentions to make every single human being diseased And mutation-free, for example.
They're not trying to make healthy humans.
In fact, I would argue that the way that we're living right now, especially in the West, is that the system is making humans sick.
And this is great for the pharmaceutical, you know, this industry that is the manufacturer of injections and pharmaceuticals.
But I mean, we don't need to go like...
Into that arena too far, but it's important to mention because it's like, you know...
Well, it's going to be hard to phrase this properly, but look, people make mistakes and they can be very disastrous, right?
People start wars that kill hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of people.
That is actually in a different category than transporting a pathogen across a species boundary that humanity will be stuck with forever.
No human has the right under any circumstances to take something that cannot infect people and turn it into something that can because what you will end up doing, you know, Anthony Fauci is an old man.
At some point, he's going to die and the cost he is going to pay for this thing is We'll be done, but the cost humanity will pay for it will go on potentially forever.
So that is not any individual's right to decide.
This is a good idea.
We have to do it.
Our enemies are going to do it, so we should do it.
You don't get to do that.
This is you taking something that is going to shorten human lifespans It's going to degrade the quality of life.
At best, it is going to rob every human who's susceptible to it, which seems to be most of us, of weeks of a life that is precious.
You have no right to do that, Fauci.
None.
100% I agree with you.
It robs you of your choice as well.
It's like nobody would be okay with that if they knew about it.
So this behind closed doors thing, I mean, wow.
I agree with you 100% though.
It's nobody's right.
You can't just seize the right to do something that's going to affect absolutely everybody.
That's crazy.
Like you got some weird ass megalomania on the go if that's how you're operating.
That's clearly there.
Yeah, we all see that.
It seems to be a quality that many people have these days.
But there's just one other piece of evidence that I can inject here.
Pardon the pun.
So there's a paper.
I'm going to read the title for everyone.
It's called MSH3 homology and potential recombination linked to SARS-CoV-2 furin cleavage site.
And I'm going to try and get this right.
Basically, what these guys found is a perfect...
I'm going to read this.
First of all, the MSH3, for short, is a DNA mismatch repair protein.
So it's implicated in cancer.
So when this thing isn't working properly, you can get cancer.
It's used in research to do, like, experiments to see, like...
If this happens, if it binds this, what are the types of cancers that are associated with that?
So this is like, again, it's another tool.
So it has a sequence in it.
It's a gene.
It has a sequence.
And it's exactly the same Now it's not a 12-mer, it's a 19-mer.
So there's a sequence of 19 nucleotides that have this furin cleavage site inside it.
So there are little entities flanking, which also includes these restriction sites.
That is found in this, what is called a proprietary sequence, which means that it's been patented and it's being used for research.
And you guys might not believe this, but the owners are Moderna TX. So they patented this tool that contains this sequence.
It is in the reverse complement, but it's still there.
It's 100%.
Convergence, yeah, coverage and identity when you blast it.
I hope everybody knows what I'm talking about.
And this was submitted...
No, you're going to have to spell that out.
I think I know what you're talking about, but you have to spell that a little more clearly.
Moderna has a patent that exactly...
I'll read it out because I like people to do their own homework.
It's US 9587003 from 2016.
From 2016.
Yeah.
Okay.
So, three years before there was any hint of circulating SARS-CoV-2, Moderna patented a sequence that fully contains the information in the fern cleavage site and the flanking regions.
Yes.
The flanking restriction sites.
Yes.
It's 19 nucleotides long, and these guys, I really...
It's kind of like...
It's a high-level paper for people who don't know the terminology, but I still, I think everyone, that's why I read the title, should go try and read this and understand what they did, because they also did some probability calculations, and they're not making claims in this paper.
All they're doing is saying, that's weird.
We found this perfectly matching sequence That's never occurred anywhere else, that is in SARS, in our MSH3 guy.
It's like, how can that be?
So they're begging the question, How can this be?
The likelihood that this is going to happen, they predict.
I'll read you what they wrote.
The probability of the sequence randomly being present in a 30,000 nucleotide, that's how big the SARS is, viral genome is 3.21 times 10 to the minus 11.
So again, it's very, very, very, very, very unlikely that this would happen by chance.
So it's like if...
Let's say that an assassin took a shot at somebody important and...
That never happens.
Let's say it happened.
And let's say that they were wearing a shirt that they had scrawled in Sharpie the words potato rendezvous.
Nobody knows what it means.
And then we discover that three years earlier, a manuscript had been submitted by some other person to, I don't know, some publisher, Random House, under the title Potato Rendezvous.
I don't know what the connection between the assassin is and the person who submitted the manuscript.
Maybe we can't find that connection.
But it is too bizarre to find this sequence described with precision in a patent that existed three years before there was SARS-CoV-2 circulating in the world.
It is effectively...
The unmistakable prediction of a future historical event that turned the world upside down.
So what it tells you is you don't know what the connection is, but somehow, Moderna is aware of a key piece of genetic information before it becomes relevant to the world, and then it becomes central.
Yeah.
That's what you know.
You know that there was some foreknowledge of something.
Involvement, yeah.
It's really, honestly, everyone, go read that paper.
I want you to draw your own conclusions.
I find it, like, if you don't think the other two things, like the existence of the fur and cleavage site only here, the restriction sites isn't enough, like, this to me is like, nah, nah, nah, nah.
Like, okay, I don't believe in coincidences personally, but this is too many coincidences at one time, which I also don't believe, like, For somebody who's thinking rationally and logically and trying to solve the puzzle, for example, of what happened or to answer a question, is there a new pathogen?
Did they make this thing?
It just seems like it would be defective of me to draw a conclusion that, no, this doesn't prove anything.
I mean, sure, it doesn't prove anything per se, but it's pretty...
Well, if anything proves anything, it's pretty damning in the sense that there's some connection between these things.
Now, in the interest of not...
I think we will be accused of strawmanning those who claim no novel pathogen.
If I know them Well at all.
They will claim that whatever was circulating at first went extinct, and the rest of the phenomenon was the result of stuff that was already circulating, you know, coronaviruses that were already circulating, that were capable of triggering diseases.
PCR tests with high enough cycle thresholds, yada, yada, yada.
And no doubt, every trick in the book was played to make SARS-CoV-2 look more dangerous than it was, more common than it was, right?
There was a lot of PSYOP scare tactic bullshit.
So that's true.
But how much can we say about these anomalies that were seen in early SARS-CoV-2 and what is still circulating?
Was that a question?
Yeah.
Can you ask me again?
Yeah.
How much of the anomalies that seem to be smoking guns remains in what is circulating today?
Right.
Yeah, I don't know.
I don't know.
I will say I don't find this argument compelling on the part of those who claim no novel pathogen, because A, if there was a novel pathogen, that's a novel pathogen, right?
A novel pathogen that was involved in some level of harm.
But also B, these things are embedded in a wider ecology of viruses, including closely related viruses like the many coronaviruses that circulate that cause other diseases.
including colds.
So, the idea that something would have been introduced into the pantheon of human pathogens via a laboratory, presumably the Wuhan Institute, but who knows, and that that thing would have interacted with circulating coves and created Some descendant that has some capacity
to create disease, but may or may not contain the same smoking gun signatures that existed in the original doesn't really matter.
The question is, did they change the circulating pathogens in ways that we are stuck with descendants we wouldn't otherwise have?
Right.
Okay, so in terms of the evidence, we've talked about anosmia.
We've talked about the tremendous smoking gun oddities in the genome of SARS-CoV-2.
What else belongs on our list of evidence?
I have several others at whatever point you are done.
Yeah, I totally want to hear those too.
Well, from my point of view, my three primary points were...
Well, I think we covered what I was saying because basically it revolves around the idea that I don't think that you can just put to the side...
The personal experiences of people.
So that's the anosmia and all the other stuff.
And yeah, the evidences of an actual novel pathogen, something that's new because it was made in a lab.
Come on now.
And it's a pathogen.
It causes disease.
That's what this COVID phenomenon is.
So It is associated with a set of symptoms that can be, and the thing can move from person to person.
So yeah, that was the guts of my reply to Denis, to go back to the original question.
So I'd love to hear your evidences.
Okay.
Well, let's start with this one.
There is something about what has been circulating since at least the dawn of 2020 and actually probably back to September, October of 2019, at least, that is highly anomalous, not just in the sense of causing this very conspicuous anosmia in some fraction of the people who get it, but in when you get it.
The The fact of substantial flu-like disease circulating in the summer is not normal.
Right.
I know that I had whatever this is in the summer.
Summer colds, we all know about them.
They exist.
They're not all that common, but people get them.
Significant disease of a flu-like nature in the summer.
We see it now.
It was apparently circulating at the Olympics.
That is...
Not normal.
In and of itself, from my perspective, in and of itself, that suggests we are dealing with a novel pathogen, period, the end.
Is that novel pathogen derived from SARS-CoV-2?
I don't know, but I will say SARS-CoV-2 was seasonally anomalous when it showed up, and it continues to be seasonally anomalous four years later.
So is there a novel pathogen?
I think that's a slam dunk.
The seasonally strange nature of it is profound.
Not only did people experience Odd symptoms that seemed to be indicative of a novel pathogen.
Maybe more than one novel pathogen, but at least one novel pathogen.
But doctors saw patterns in their practices that were profound.
Could some doctors have been tricked into thinking they were seeing something?
Undoubtedly.
But many of the doctors who saw this saw something unambiguous and they have had plenty of time to reflect.
Many of them believe in the tyranny that was imposed on us.
They believe in the psyop that was used to mesmerize people.
These are not people who are shy about the possibility of us being induced into a kind of mania and induced into self-harm.
So When those doctors tell me, no, actually, here's what I saw in my practice.
Here's what made it different.
I think we are obligated to listen.
So you've got people's personal things, may I ask?
Say again?
What were some of those things?
I mean, beyond the anosmia and like tinnitus was a big one too, right?
Or, well, I guess it's more associated with the shots, but what were the docs that you heard from saying was kind of a trigger for them to, like, it's something you feel inside.
It's not really your brain, it's your heart.
It's like, yeah, something's different here.
Well, I mean, you know, let's just take the obvious one, which is the one I mentioned before, which is the seasonally strange phenomenon, right?
If people are coming into your office in the summer with something flu-like, that tells you something.
I would say this one is going to be controversial because, of course, at least in the US, people have not really woken up to the fact that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine Actually work for this disease.
They still think that that was a promising start that turned out to be incorrect.
But the fact that the disease in question clearly responds to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine is a kind of evidence.
Now, it's not As narrow as it might be, because ivermectin at least has broad activity against RNA viruses.
And in fact, I want to come back to that because I think it actually...
Say again?
And Helmin's and ectoparasites.
Sure.
It's really, it's no wonder it got a Nobel Prize, man.
That stuff does a lot.
It's an amazing, and to be so safe while being able to treat such a wide range of parasites.
Can I ask you something?
Sorry to interrupt you.
Sure.
Specifically, I guess I should have asked more specifically because I would find this intriguing.
Do you know a subset or pool of doctors who in 2020 now, before the shots, had patients coming in off-season Like females who are having menstrual problems?
That's a great question.
I don't think so.
I will ask the doctors that I'm close with if that was one of the things they saw, but I have not heard them mention that.
So, let's just say...
Something personal?
Yeah, go ahead.
So this is a case of one, but my experience with whatever this new pathogen was, Did disrupt my menstrual cycle.
Really?
Yeah.
Before the shots.
And I know you didn't get me.
I didn't get any of those things.
Yeah, me either.
Before.
It was...
Actually, wait now.
New.
That was while the shots were being deployed.
I think it was 2022.
So they were all over the place.
So yes, it's possible that I was getting the effect of some shedding or whatever.
But...
The timing was very interesting.
It's like, not to be too personal, I've told this story before, though.
I'm very regular, and I totally skipped the cycle.
So some women say that they've experienced, in the shot context, excessive bleeding, even come out of menopause to start bleeding.
But for me, it was like, you know, the opposite end.
So I'm like, this is really...
And I'm not saying it's...
It's directly because of the experience I had with this, whatever it was that knocked out my smell, but it's kind of suspicious that it all happened at once.
So there's no doubt in my mind that whatever it is that's embedded, and I kind of know because I've studied this, in the spike protein really messes up human physiology.
Yeah, spike protein's a doozy.
And I want to come back to that one also.
But if we go back to our list of things that are suggestive of a novel pathogen...
You've got personal anosmia stories and other weird symptoms.
You've got doctors who are seeing weird patterns in their practices.
Among those patterns, you're seeing the circulation of a severe disease in summer when it shouldn't be circulating.
And for doctors who dared prescribe it, they saw it react to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.
Now, I don't think that nails down the identity of the novel pathogen, but I do think it says you had a novel pathogen circulating, and it is strongly suggestive that it was an RNA pathogen, not a DNA virus.
An RNA virus, not a DNA virus.
So that includes SARS-CoV-2 in the list of suspects, but it doesn't nail down its identity precisely.
But of course, what we're here talking about is whether or not there was, in fact, a novel pathogen, which I think is a slam dunk.
And the last thing on my list, maybe we'll come up with something else, but the last thing on my list is the bizarre fact of SARS-CoV-2 not being transmissible outside.
Now, that's just a weird one.
I think it is suggestive of a laboratory origin in which they have inadvertently selected for this pathogen's capacity to function in a laboratory environment, and it happens that they selected against its ability to function outside.
But I would also point out The people that we are challenging here, their perspective is, no, this was all a PSYOP. Well, why on earth, if they were going to go through the absurdity of telling people, you can't go to the beach, you can't go to the skate park, you're not allowed to walk Outside of your home, except if you're exercising for some brief period.
If they were going to go through all of this insanity, where they were going to restrict people's freedoms outside of Would they create a pattern in which the virus in question didn't circulate outside and they had to back off that stuff?
I don't get it.
If it was a psychological game, then all they had to do was pretend that, you know, oh, it circulates worse outside.
Go home.
But they didn't.
The fact is...
The evidence suggested you had a highly contagious, not very virulent, RNA-based pathogen circulating that you can't catch outdoors.
That does not sound like a psyop.
That sounds like somebody created a frankenvirus in a lab and it had weird quirks.
You know, I never heard this thing about not being able to get it outside.
Yeah.
Does that make me weird?
How come I haven't heard that before?
Heather and I were...
When we realized this, we were shouting this from the rooftops because it was in the middle of all this madness about we're closing the parks, don't go for a hike, don't go to the beach.
And it's like, what are you talking about?
A... You want people to do those things because they're going to lose their minds if you lock them up at home.
Anything that restores psychological health by allowing you to go out and feel normal in nature is a huge benefit.
B, to the extent that you are disrupting people's lives, you're going to lock them up at home.
No, look, don't disrupt your life.
Fall in love, but do it outdoors.
What?
They were worried about the fomites.
I mean, I can forgive them.
I was worried about the fomites at the beginning, too, and then we discovered that they weren't there.
And so I guess my point is, look, either it was pure PSYOP, in which case they could phony up whatever freaking set of symptoms they wanted, and they would have phonied up ones that mirrored the restrictions that they put on us.
Or there was a pathogen and they were helpless to pretend that it could do certain things that it couldn't, like transmit itself outdoors.
But that's really smart.
I've never kind of gone down this line of thinking before as to the design of what they did.
But that's really smart.
I don't think they did this.
I think they absolutely have no idea what they unleashed on people, whether or not it was released on purpose or not.
You can't predict what's going to happen once it gets into a real human population anyway.
So it's mad science.
But how brilliant is it that they could use the fact that there's something going around really, really transmissible, not virulent, so that people even, you know, like, it's amazing what the mind can do.
If you get...
If you get symptoms that are outward, like runny nose and red eyes and stuff like that, it's far easier for you to convince yourself that you're sick.
But if you don't have these, you can still convince yourself that you're sick and get symptomatic just by your mind.
It's incredible.
You're right.
They didn't have to actually...
To disseminate, whether by accident or not, some kind of pathogen to play on the psychological aspect of this, to scare people into preventing themselves from being sick.
But it's like, wow, how effective would it be if you could just get them a little bit sick?
And like I said, I don't think that's what happened.
It's just a really interesting thing to think about.
It kind of...
It aids in this idea that this whole pandemic thing was an imposition of control to see how far they could get for whatever purposes they have in their minds.
Well, that's what I think.
I think most of what happened was a PSYOP. But I do think there was a novel pathogen and that, you know, I don't think it was necessary.
I think their PSYOP tools are pretty sophisticated.
But it's hard to imagine why a pure PSYOP would have told us don't go to the beach and then have to back off that because it turns out you can't get it there and everybody figures that out.
Well, I have an answer to that that's possible.
I'm a surfer, and so to be restricted from going to the sea, which was a thing that they did, is torture.
A surfer knows.
If there are waves, we don't get waves often where I live, so it's like when there are waves, you go.
You paddle out.
You have two sessions in a day.
And so for a...
It's so crazy for me to think about this.
Not only were we instructed for our safety not to go into the sea or near the sea, they enforced that.
There were police choppers.
There were boats.
There were jet skis.
There were land soldiers.
They forced it.
We found ways around that, by the way.
We just paddled out in the dark because they weren't working then.
But perhaps the motivation was to deprive people of vitamin D and electron exchange and earthing and all these things that you do When you go outside into nature, if you take your shoes off and walk around, I don't know if you believe in earthing, but I can't see it being not beneficial to take off the old shoes and put your little feet on the ground and walk around and create some electricity.
I mean, that seems like a good thing to do if it's something that happens.
I mean, psychologically, it certainly is.
I don't know whether there's anything beyond that.
Yeah, it feels good, right?
And being in the water, the other thing is what you said.
They want to actually impose psychological terrorism on people because it's like, As opposed to getting in the water and having that lovely experience of being submerged in the water, in the seawater, for example, if you're lucky enough to go swimming in seawater, to have that Lots of people have routine, right?
To have that taken away from you, it's psychological torture in a way.
And nobody can argue with me on that.
It is.
You can't just disrupt somebody's routine that is directly linked to not only their mental health, but their physical health, and then tell them that it's good for them.
You can't do that.
Well, at the very least, you know, as I've pointed out many, many times, Everything they told you was the inverse of what you should do.
They sent you home.
No, you should go out into the sun.
For many different reasons.
You should go out into the sun.
You should socialize there.
In fact, if you can figure out how to dress, you could move your entire social life outdoors and be perfectly safe.
And this would be an imposition because the things that you might once have done indoors, you can now do outdoors.
But it didn't have to turn the world upside down.
And yet, they isolated us from each other.
They shielded our faces so we couldn't see facial expressions.
They disrupted the development of children.
They forbid doctors to do what doctors are supposed to do, which is to figure out how to treat sick patients that come into their office.
They mandated shots that did a tremendous amount of damage and did not control the disease in question.
They then told you to get boosted up the wazoo in spite of the fact that the more boosters you got, the more of this IgG4 attenuation signal your body produced.
Every single thing they told us was wrong.
Right.
So this is the thing I was going to ask you before.
I'm on record saying this a number of times with various people.
I believe, and I know that this is just a belief, it's not scientific truth, that...
The SARS-2 thing, like this novel pathogen that they created, was the segue.
They might have necessarily created this and launched it, I don't know, as the segue to introduce the new technology that they called vaccines, this modified mRNA, LNP stuff.
Because...
It's this problem-solution thing.
It's like, oh, we have this thing and they had to make it real, right?
Maybe they couldn't just make it up and say, oh, there's a Dudley pathogen.
Maybe they had to actually disseminate something that was going to mess you up in an unpredictable way in order to To use that against people to convince them that this magical Operation Warp Speed solution is going to save us all.
So it makes sense to me, and it's weird, because all that speculation, but when you start thinking about what At least what we're told these modified mRNAs, you know, LNP things comprise, the main thing, according to them, the manufacturers, is the spike gene.
So it's like, hmm, that's interesting, because we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that at least the spike portion was Franken-made in a lab.
Like...
It's possible based on...
This is another point I wanted to make, actually, for the people who are denying that we have a novel pathogen on the go.
Reverse genetics is...
They're doing it all over the place.
There are published papers that have protocols on how to build chimeric viruses by stitching together these pieces of DNA. So I've also gone on record as saying I think it's very possible that they had a coronavirus backbone And they made this frankenspike protein, which is just something that they embedded, you know, just by manipulating some fats or something into this backbone.
And maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but it seems really odd that nobody's questioning The template from the original Wuhan chicken recipe version of SARS is exactly what they used in the shots.
It's like, doesn't that make people scratch their heads?
I mean, this thing is one of the things that the virus uses to do harm.
Especially when Moderna has a patent on it from three years prior to the first indication of it circulating.
Now, I will say I have also, in fact, in Romania, the talk I gave at the International COVID Summit there, I proposed this exact hypothesis that the...
The reason for much of what we saw was that the mRNA platform is far too dangerous and destructive and frankly unrescuable for it to come to market by a normal process for reasons I'll explain in a second.
But it's too dangerous to bring it to market the normal way.
So they needed an emergency in which people would take the idea of this shot, they would mistake it for a vaccine, and they would feel desperate to have it because their life had been so heavily restricted.
And that that would allow the platform to become normalized.
And then every vaccine on Earth could be reformulated as an mRNA vaccine.
And all the new vaccines could be formulated as mRNA vaccines, which are frankly a cash cow for pharma.
A, it means that every old shot can now be patented as a new shot.
They all work the same way.
So the point of view, it streamlines both the production of new vaccines.
It streamlines the testing.
No doubt they will argue, hey, we've tested the mRNA platform.
It's safe, wink, wink.
So all we're going to do is test this new antigen that we've loaded into it this time.
We don't need to retest the platform, do we?
And so the point is, pharma can grow into a much bigger, wealthier industry than it already is if the mRNA platform becomes accepted by the public and an emergency was the only way that was going to happen because the thing is so freaking dangerous on its own, which then...
Tells you why, to the extent that the public has been allowed to understand that there are harms, those harms have been blamed on Spike.
The idea being if the story half breaks and people realize, oh, yeah, a lot of people were injured by those shots.
Sure is unfortunate that the spike protein was so dangerous.
Well, that's the lesson of covid.
But it means all of the rest of the mRNA vaccines that they're going to produce are all free and clear.
The point is, well, then then the hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars that could flow from this thing will continue to flow.
So, to just clean up the one last thing, I've said it a million times in different places, but the reason that the mRNA platform is so dangerous and unfixable is that it has no targeting mechanism.
And that means that the mRNA messages will be picked up by whatever cells they encounter, Those cells will produce this foreign protein, as they're being instructed to do, and that will cause T cells from your own immune system to attack your own tissues that are now producing a foreign antigen because what the immune system does is it looks for cells that are yours but producing foreign antigens,
and based on the assumption that they are virally infected, it kills them because that's the best thing you can do with a virally infected cell.
So, why do you get myocarditis from an mRNA shot?
It doesn't have anything to do with spike.
Spike may be making the problem worse, but the fact that your heart cells are producing a foreign protein means that your immune system will spot them as virally infected and it will destroy them.
And myocarditis is not the problem.
Myocarditis is a symptom.
Myocarditis means inflammation of the heart.
What is that inflammation the result of?
Damage to the heart.
Heart damage.
Right.
So you've got this highly dangerous platform that can either be worth nothing because you can't use it, or it could be worth hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars.
Which is it going to be?
Well, an emergency would allow you to bring it to market and get everybody to accept it so that mRNA vaccines would become normal.
And at that point, you're good to go.
So I do think that there is a strong chance.
It doesn't mean that the virus was introduced for this purpose, but it means that as soon as the virus was in play, they spotted it as the opportunity.
Now, could they have introduced the virus for this purpose?
Sure.
Would they?
I wouldn't put it past them.
But I haven't seen the evidence, right?
Right.
So I just want to add to what you just said.
So I've also gone on the record many times saying that the idea that some three-letter agencies are promoting that this is plug-and-play technology is false.
It's false exactly because of what you just said.
Whatever encoding material you put in there, in this little cassette, this little lipid nanoparticle, It's going to be seen by your body as foreign.
You're going to mass produce that protein.
And it's going to mount these things on its cell surface.
And that's going to flag your immune cells to come and kill it.
Because it says, hey, there's something in me that's not supposed to be in me.
That's what happens.
That's the process.
That's what lots of people don't understand yet.
But here, I don't want to freak everyone out.
But...
This is something I heard in an interview Jay Bhattacharya was talking to, and really forgive me, I don't remember his name.
A brilliant man with expertise in immunology.
And he got me thinking with what he was saying about this concept of dose.
Now, people are being told that they're getting injected with 30 micrograms or 100 micrograms, depending on the Pfizer or the Moderna product of this pro-drug.
Okay?
But the reality is...
That when you inject that intramuscularly, those lipid nanoparticles are going to traffic wherever they're going to traffic.
Let's not speculate where they're going to go, but they're going to go somewhere.
They're going to get inside the cell, some cells.
They're going to dump their cargo.
And there's absolutely no way, not one single way to predict how much of that coating material, first of all, is intact.
And second of all, how much and what proteins that coating material is going to And that goes into this frame-shifting idea.
There's this paper published in Nature that clearly demonstrates, because of the N1-methyl-pseudou substitutions, that there's a problem with frame-shifting, which basically takes your codons and shifts them.
And the byproduct of that are off-target proteins being produced.
Who knows what they do?
Let me make that clear.
Because genetic information comes in three letter packets which define which amino acid is supposed to be included next, if you get your frame off by one or two spaces, You create entirely unprecedented stuff.
It's not what selection created or what the laboratory created.
It's just effectively random.
Imagine that you took...
War and Peace.
And you advanced every character in the book by one space so that the spaces between words fell arbitrarily in the middle of words, it would be gibberish.
And so what we've found now, this frame-shifting phenomenon suggests that a huge number of things that the cells are being instructed to create by these mRNA messages are not even, in fact, the unfortunate spike protein target.
They are random garbage.
And so that random garbage can have anyone, you know, it can have Significant effects.
It's like if I throw a bunch of stuff in the cylinders of my car, What are the chances it's going to improve the way it runs?
The chances approach zero, right?
The chances that it's going to screw stuff up are high.
How is it going to screw stuff up?
It depends.
You know, what was the size of the grit?
Where did it go?
So that's what you're talking about, is this frame shift thing sounds like, you know, it sounds like nitpicking, but it's like, oh, do you want a coherent message or do you want gibberish?
Oh, it's very important, technically.
You know, because if you just want to go from the point of view of what we were told was going to happen, you're going to produce spike protein using, you know, the host cell machinery and then mount an effective immune response.
It's like, well, actually...
And the thing about it is these off-target proteins...
Probably for the most part, they just get degraded by normal processes.
But there's also evidence, and I've written a ton about this, of the presence of amyloidogenic peptides in the spike protein itself.
There are many published papers on this.
This is not speculation.
And what that means, an amyloid is a very tough protein.
The normal degradation processes in us aren't really effective at breaking down amyloids.
And you can think of them as little...
Here, I'm doing what you do now.
You can think of them as little fibers, like, you know, piling up on each other and creating like a...
A wire.
It becomes very resilient to degradation and accumulates.
And it's kind of interesting how a lot of people are having thrombotic issues.
It could be accumulation of garbage in their blood vessels, perhaps.
I wonder if that has anything to do with amyloid protein production.
So you're talking about the kinds of stuff that certain courageous morticians have revealed about these giant calamari-like clots that are being pulled out of people's circulatory system.
Could be, although I think that's more...
I mean, I think amyloids...
Now, first of all, these are on-target proteins that would be being produced, like these little bits of protein, not off-target.
So this is by design what's being manufactured.
And there are also these enzymes that we have in us that cut these things at certain places such that they have amyloidogenic properties.
But the plotting pathway itself And the wound healing process.
Let's just say that we have transfection of cells lining the blood vessels.
And those cells are marked for destruction by the immune system because they're producing foreign protein.
The T cells come along, the CTLs, and they kill those cells.
Let's say you have a bunch in a row.
So you have a local site of destruction and inflammation there now.
And the wound healing warriors are going to have to come in now.
You know, you can think of it as, you know, when you get a cut, you have wound healing processes that create new tissue, and it generally ends up being a scar because of the types of proteins and stuff that are being deposited there.
You'll notice that a scar, for example, is less flexible.
This is also why heart scarring with myocarditis is really bad.
So if you think about that happening on the...
This is just what I'm imagining.
On the lining of your blood vessels, which is what I'm imagining is actually happening to people, you're getting buildups of these wound healing factors like collagen and fibrin.
And if you have amyloid, you have platelets and all these normal things.
That are also out of control, according to many people.
Like the clotting pathway itself is messed up.
So you have this cumulative and multifaceted bombardment of problems.
I think that this explains the micro-clotting, actually.
I think it's local destruction and just the normal process is kind of out of control because there's something going on there that shouldn't be going on there.
And it's because these lipid nanoparticles traffic all over the body.
By the way, just to throw that in, those lipid nanoparticles that are part of this platform, they're highly toxic.
And we don't know anything about them besides the fact that they traffic everywhere, which we were also told doesn't happen.
If you think that this is plug and play and you can just insert the coding material for a new virus, quote-unquote, into this lipid nanoparticle and inject it, And think that, you know, going back to what I was going to say, that you're getting a specific dose, for example, you're not.
And those things, this is my main point whenever I talk about this stuff.
It's completely unpredictable, pathophysiologically, what's going to happen to you.
No one can predict it.
It's based on an enormous number of factors.
Between the random question of where these things end up, or not random, but the arbitrary nature of where they end up in the body, the quality control issues with respect to what the transcripts actually say, all of these factors mean that the range of pathologies It's indefinitely large because you have no idea what it is that your cells are going to produce.
You have no idea which cells are going to produce it.
And this is all based on this terrible platform.
Which has nothing to say, you know, Spike was a terrible choice of antigen, but that's the minor factor here.
And to the extent that they are gung-ho about this platform still, even after all of the horrifying injuries that they've produced, Tells you that they don't really care about the injuries and that what you know this is now a shell game where they're going to try to pin as much of the harm on spike as they can so they can go on with their cash cow platform and i'll tell you the people in the know they know how dangerous this is they're not going to take the same stuff yeah yeah
exactly um i mean even even if you have kind of a like A heart awareness that something is wrong.
I think with the number of people now who are Who are just getting up to date.
I don't know how else to put it on the real deal of this situation.
I think they're going to say no, thank you, ma'am, the next time.
I hope.
I really hope.
There's also this issue of symptom laundering.
I think that they're going to try and hide some of the devastation from this first round of modified mRNA shots.
In, you know, this new so-called pathogen that they're going to release on us.
Like, you know, this Mpox thing is...
They're starting up with that now, which I think is...
It was...
It's kind of a good one that they picked because no one's going to buy it.
You know, the bird flu thing didn't take off, so I think they had to pick something else.
And maybe they picked it because it looks so bad, you know, because you get, like, pop marks and stuff.
But, you know...
What I'm saying is tangential, but I really think that the symptom laundering thing is important for people to acknowledge.
In association with the shots that maybe you got even a year or two ago, if you have something weird and new happening, don't discount the fact that it could be from that, and it's not from this new thing that they're convincing you is going to kill you next.
Yeah, well, I think a lot of us have come to realize that as much as we don't want to live in a world where you cannot trust what you are being told about pathogens, about remedies, that we all need to be on high alert and we need to figure out who actually has been...
Trustworthy.
And we have to let them function outside the institutions and tell us what they see.
And, you know, they're going to make mistakes.
But at least if they move in the direction of getting smarter, then there's a good chance that they can get those who are listening to a place where they can at least take the right actions to minimize the harm.
Yeah, 100%.
Couldn't agree more.
All right.
Well, this has been fascinating.
Where can people look at your work?
They should go to your sub stack.
I know you have two.
One of them is unacceptable, Jessica.
Yep, thanks Trudeau.
And Unconditional Jessica.
So yeah, one is More Currents of NC. Like if there's an interview or a movie that's coming out that I think people would benefit from seeing.
And one of them is more like...
It's more than that, but it's a summary of like...
I did a big write-up of that frame-shifting paper that we discussed.
So if you want to find a layperson's summary who often throws in really bad jokes, then go to unacceptable, Jessica.
And you're on Twitter?
Yeah, but...
You know, of 104,000 people who are following me, allegedly, like, about 2,000 see my posts, so I'm pretty shadowed.
I don't know, maybe sometimes I say things that somebody doesn't want me to say.
I can't imagine you doing that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
All right, well...
This has been really interesting.
I'll be interested to see what comes back.
And in the meantime, keep fighting the good fight.
