Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 9, 2023 - Jim Fetzer

01:55:58

The Raw Deal (9 October 2023) with Paul from CA

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Advertised within this program, Revolution Radio, where information never sleeps.
	Help!
	I need somebody!
	Help!
	Not just anybody!
	Help!
	You know I need someone!
	Help, I need somebody Help, not just anybody Help, you know I need someone Help When I was younger, so much younger than today I never needed anybody's help in any way But now these days are gone I'm not so self-assured But now I find Now I find, I've changed my mind
	And open up the doors Help me if you can, I'm feeling down And I do appreciate you being around Help me get my feet back on the ground Won't you please, please help me Well, welcome to the Raw Deal This...
	We're undergoing historic developments in the Middle East.
	I've been doing my best to sort out whether it's real or memorax, and though there's some indication that it could be a false flag, Israel was involved in the creation of Hamas, for example.
	It appears to be spinning out of control.
	I'm now relatively convinced this is for real, that it's generated an immense sense of pride in Islamic communities far and wide that Turkey has declared it's going to support the Palestinians, and that is highly significant.
	And while you're hearing some nonsense about this being Israel's 9-11, Ironic, given it was Israel who attacked us on 9-11.
	This was a plot that originated with Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Ulmer, both of whom are former prime ministers of Israel, where Bibi is today the PM again, and where he no doubt is going to capitalize on this.
	To benefit politically, domestically in Israel where he's been under assault, he's been trying to reorganize the judiciary to exonerate him very much like Biden weaponizes the judiciary and law enforcement in the United States.
	I see many parallels.
	I'm going to share with you a Russian report.
	On the first 48 hours of the war.
	That suggests to me.
	Rather than being Israel's 9-11, it may be Israel's little bighorn.
	Some of the traits that make Custer so vulnerable to the slaughter that occurred there were arrogance, cockiness, self-assurance, failure to take due diligence.
	There's a lot going on here that's curious, but I want to share with you my best Intel on what's going on, and it's coming from Russia.
	Russian report of the first 48 hours of the war, Hamas expanded the control zone inside Israel, its attack axes and targets.
	Hamas commander, military intelligence, totally successful operation so far.
	Shocking data.
	...was released by Russian analysts emphasizing Hamas until last night, aiming to expand the control zone in an attempt to reach Hebron.
	The maps presented by the Russians are relentless as they show the Israeli army floundering for a second day.
	Mikhail Zivchak, head of the Russian think tank, PIBAR, pointed out, Hamas fighters managed to block several settlements in half a day, enter Zdero, where they occupied the building of the police station and in principle fulfilled the task of occupying huge pieces of territory as soon as possible.
	The Russians conclude by saying that Hamas captured more territory in one day During its attack than the Ukrainian army has in four months of counterattack, considering that in both cases, the attacks were against a strong and prepared army.
	The movements of the Hamas forces, despite the American ease with which Palestinian groups wreak havoc on Israeli lands, they deserve credit.
	What is happening is part of the plan of a full military operation involving many operational tactical groups, each one with its own mission, Russian analysts say.
	The outline of the offensive operation north of the Gaza Strip became clear only at the end of the second day.
	On October 7, the Palestinians, having captured the Erez checkpoint, Advanced to the nearby town of Siderot.
	The main objective was to occupy government buildings and law enforcement agencies.
	There is footage of the destruction of the police station.
	The Palestinians managed to capture the building and the arsenal full of weapons.
	Then the main part of the group moved north toward Ashkelon with the captured equipment without encountering much resistance or obstacles.
	Then, Both the Ashkelon itself and further source at Zikim, an amphibious landing was carried out by boat.
	At the same time, airborne forces landed with paragliders in Ashkelon to reduce the Israelis' capabilities, disrupt their control, communication, and sow panic.
	They bombed the Rutenberg power plant that supplies the area.
	As a result of the fighting on October 7, a bridgehead was established south of Ashkelon.
	They accomplished their goal by taking large quantities of questions.
	The Russians, by the way, have lots of maps.
	The objectives of the second day.
	The second day's targets were the prison in Ashkelon and military bases in Zakim in Crimea.
	Throughout October 8th, the fighting continued.
	A landing force in Ashkelon apparently disappeared into the streets of the city and was partially destroyed.
	Having pinned down the garrison of Zikhem and Karbala in battle, the Palestinians reached the eastern suburbs of Ashkelon and began to suppress the firing points and strongholds of the Israelis.
	At the same time, They tried to break into the city jails to free their comrades.
	In the middle of the day, Hamas talked about rotating attack teams.
	Two units launched an attack from the Erez checkpoint toward neighboring settlements throughout the day.
	Fighting was reported in the communities of Nativ, Herkessar, and Yad Mordecai, which had been bypassed the previous days.
	Toward the evening of October 8th, a Palestinian unit moved in a southeastern direction.
	Fighting began in Mifflin.
	A landing was carried out at Zireh, where clashes also began.
	Later, there were parts of fighting near Ashkelon in the area of Highway 232.
	Apparently, a small group of Palestinians who at first glance appeared to be moving chaotically Went on another deep raid.
	The situation is exacerbated by the Palestinians' use of Israeli uniforms, weapons, and vehicles.
	Both Palestinian and Israeli media report chaos and an increase in involuntary killings by the Israeli military.
	Refugees refuse to stop at checkpoints, thinking they are being stopped by Hamas.
	And the IDF believes they are Palestinian fighters disobeying orders and are shooting potential terrorists.
	Battles in the West Bank and their significance.
	Throughout the day, representatives of Palestinian groups, local, LOM, and religious leaders called at six in the afternoon the population to take to the street and organize marches, demonstrations, and pogroms for quite obvious reasons.
	The Palestinians in the West Bank do not have the same capacity for resistance in armed struggle as the militants in the Gaza Street.
	However, some managed to get their hands on weapons, possibly disarming Israeli police or patrols in the settlements of buried Yerucho, Abu Dis, and Bethlehem.
	There are full on street battles.
	Between law enforcement forces and scattered groups of Palestinians.
	In Tuku, Shoei, and al-Azhar, only protests, very violent or absurd.
	There are also clashes at the al-Jabal checkpoint.
	As well as the southern and eastern entrances to Nablus and large groups of their youth arriving in Kuriat Arba by the end of the day at the Al-Jabal checkpoint.
	The clashes turn into full-scale fighting with the Israeli side going as far as using artillery.
	There were demonstrations in Balat, and Shafat camps and fighting in Asawe village.
	Locals report gunfire at the over prison area in Ramallah.
	Despite the rabid escalation, there is no one to fight fully in the West Bank.
	Therefore, the emphasis will be on the mass of the world.
	The protesting Palestinians will try to overwhelm the security forces with their bodies and disarm the Israeli patrols.
	And perhaps such tactics are not without meaning.
	While some of the Israeli security forces are busy restoring order in the West Bank, the militants will continue their assault on the Gaza Strip.
	Last update.
	Hamas confidently controls a section of the highway from the Gaza Strip.
	Bat Hadar, the eastern suburbs of Ashkelon, the raid of the IDF military base west of Zikrum, is unknown.
	In Omsk, there is no Palestinian control of the city.
	Palestinian sources claim the main forces have reached Highway 232.
	Neither side has firm control of the section from Kifruma to Ofakim.
	Palestinians are also leading an attack on IMOs, expanding their zone of control to the south.
	Fighting continues in Tucumán, where the Islamists managed to take several Israelis hostage.
	Israeli authorities and security forces this morning began the forced evacuation of residential areas in a four-kilometer zone along the border of the Gaza Strip.
	See, maps, with the expansion of the zone of control of the Islamists, it's considerable.
	Here's one showing the areas under Hamas control, more than doubling the size of the Gaza Strip.
	I'd say two and a half times the original.
	Multiple maps.
	The Russians are very thorough, very meticulous, and in this situation, in my opinion, are the only truly reliable source of information.
	I thus share with you with great confidence that what I've just reported is correct.
	For background, you need to understand what happened here was aggravated When over 800 Israeli settlers stormed the Alaska compound during the Jewish Sukkot holiday.
	Rabbis, heads of settlement associated with far-right university lectures were among 832 who stormed the Alaska mosque compound on Thursday morning.
	Now, this is the third or fourth most holy site in Islam.
	This was absolutely outrageous.
	More than 800 Israeli settlers stormed the Al Asqa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem Thursday morning under the protection of Israeli forces.
	Rabbis, heads of settlement association and far-right university lecturers from among the 832 who forced their way into the religious site compound, a source in the Islamic Endowment Department in Jerusalem, It comes during the Jewish religious holiday of Sukkot, which started on 29 September and ends on Friday.
	Israeli forces imposed severe restrictions on Muslim worshippers entering al-Azhq, and those under 60 were prevented from accessing the site.
	It comes during the Jewish religious holiday of Sukkot, which started on 29 September and ends on Friday.
	The holiday has seen thousands of Israeli extremists storm the al-Aqsaqon, with almost 1,500 entering the side on Monday.
	Israeli extremists also continued Thursday night's provocative marches, both inside Jerusalem's Old City and outside its walls, attacking Palestinians and their property.
	They also beat and spat at journalists in a market area near Al-Asqa, where sharps were forced to close for the sixth day in a row.
	The old city is home to Alaska, as well as the Western Wall and Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
	The Alaska compound is the third holiest site in Islam and the most important Muslim place in Palestine.
	Some Jews Believe the compound is the site of a Jewish temple believed to have existed there in ancient times.
	Many Jewish extremists wish to either destroy the mosque and replace it with a temple, or divide the site between Muslims and Jews in terms of time and space available, while non-Muslims can visit the sacred site.
	Prayer in Alaska is reserved for Muslims alone, under the long-standing status quo agreement Governing the compound.
	The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by the way, and of Qatar have released statements holding Israel responsible for the Hamas attacks.
	The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the state of Qatar have released official statements concerning the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestinian factions, including Hamas.
	Both nations have expressed deep concern over the escalation of violence and have called for immediate de-escalation and the protection of civilians.
	Interestingly, both statements hold Israel responsible for the current situation, albeit with nuanced differences in their approach.
	Qatar's statement, a direct accusation against Israel, The state of Qatar's is more direct in its accusation against Israel.
	It holds Israel solely responsible for the ongoing escalation due to its ongoing violation with the rights of the Palestinian people.
	Qatar specifically mentions repeated incursions into the Al Asqa Mosque.
	Under the protection of the Israeli police as the latest in a series of violations.
	Qatar's Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls for urgent international action to compel Israel to stop its flagrant violations of international law and respect international resolutions and the historical rights of the Palestinian people.
	The statement reiterates Qatar's firm position on the justice of the Palestinian cause and calls for the establishment of an independent state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.
	Saudi Arabia's statement, a call for restraint and a two-state solution.
	The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's Foreign Ministry issued a statement that begins by acknowledging the unprecedented situation between Palestinian factions and Israeli forces.
	The statement calls for an immediate halt to the escalation and emphasizes the need for protecting civilians.
	Saudi Arabia also reminds the international community Of its repeated warnings about the explosive situation that could arise from the continued occupation and deprivation of the Palestinian people of their rights.
	The statement goes on to criticize what it describes as repetition of systematic provocations against Palestinian activities.
	The kingdom concluded by renewing its call for the international community to assume its responsibilities and activate a credible peace process leading to a two-state solution.
	This, Saudi Arabia argues, is the only way to achieve lasting security and peace in the region while also protecting civilians.
	Now, there have been a lot of Efforts going on here to roughly protect or speak for Israel.
	Here is one, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	We stand with our great friend and ally Israel as they declare war against Islamic terrorists.
	Over a thousand Iran-backed Hamas terrorists invaded Israel.
	Slaughtering Israeli citizens right at the end of Sukkot, a feast of tabernacles.
	Make no mistake, this is Islam's holy war, and their ultimate goal is to wipe out all of Israel.
	America will not allow it.
	How much of the $6 billion Joe Biden gave back to Iran funded this attack against Israel?
	President Trump would have never given that money to Iran.
	May God protect Israel.
	The responses to her comments were not what she might have expected.
	Buttaki says, F Israel.
	Another, we please lift the specific reasons that gave Israel the title of ally.
	Another, they aren't an ally, basically an occupying power in the U.S.
	government.
	Another, our greatest ally has never done anything for us.
	Another, F Israel and F you, C word.
	You support white genocide and sex trafficking.
	Those kikes are getting what they deserve.
	Another, don't you dare speak for America.
	Israel is not our ally.
	Hamas is not our ally.
	Let them kill each other and be done with it.
	Another, Israeli settlers under protection of the IDF invaded the Al-Asqa Mosque on Thursday morning.
	The IDF then barred Muslims from entering the site.
	The violation has been part of a pattern.
	Never mind the longtime practice of Israeli settlers stealing Palestinian homes and property.
	Israel brought this upon themselves.
	Anybody shilling for the Jews is a deep state operative.
	Very, very bad.
	Another.
	Nobody cares about you anymore.
	Now go suck up to Jim Jordan like you did McCarthy.
	I support the nation Israel because of the Christian Jews, but you are useless.
	Another.
	The Jew will always tell you what happened to them, but why?
	More, more, more, more, more.
	I think we've given Israel enough money to take care of themselves.
	Hope they've spent it wisely.
	What happened to their fantastic missile defense system?
	I'm not buying it.
	I'm thinking this is another Gulf of Tonkin event.
	Another.
	Israel is not an ally.
	They've been subverting the USA since their inception.
	Have you missed the Israelis spitting on and harassing Christian women, Marjorie?
	Guess we know whose pocket you're in.
	There's much, much more.
	Not surprisingly, prominent American politicians have asserted their support for Israel.
	Jim Jordan held off making a statement, but I think he believed that if he were to speak out Forthrightly for the Palestinians, his prospect of becoming Speaker, in which he can do great good for the country, would be precluded.
	And I suspect that's right.
	So I believe that what he has done in supporting Israel is a pro forma gesture.
	However, if you want to consider the possibility that we may be headed for a Full-scale war.
	Joint U.S.-Israel plan for full-scale war launched.
	U.S.
	carrier—this is, by the way, our most sophisticated carrier, Gerald Ford—directed to Israel.
	The U.S.
	is rushing the state-of-the-art Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford to the southern Mediterranean off the coast of Israel.
	With a reinforced battle group, as the two countries joint defense plan for a full-scale war in the Middle East is activated.
	The Gerald R. Ford is the largest and most advanced aircraft carrier in the world at this time.
	But let me just tell you, aircraft carriers are extremely vulnerable.
	The Russians have the best anti-ship missiles in the world.
	But, of course, I do not believe Hamas would have access to that.
	Israel and its leadership now fear a full-scale war with Hezbollah during the ground invasion of Gaza.
	And this is why a joint plan with the U.S.
	had been activated.
	Hezbollah, by the way, has now joined the Palestinians.
	And you recall from the past, Hezbollah was successful in Most would say defeating Israel in their latest engagement in Lebanon.
	Pretty stunning stuff.
	David Icke, by the way, has a nice piece on Israel, Palestine, and Hamas.
	Let me make just a few observations here about how rapidly it could escalate.
	If the United States were to enter, I believe Turkey would come to the aid of the Palestinians, and very probably Iran as well.
	And Iran has warned that any attack upon it will lead to a full-scale attack upon Israel, and they can't carry it out.
	We'll be right back with our special guest.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Unfortunately, this platform for free speech has never been free.
	We need the support of the people.
	It is the people like you, yes, you, that keeps the station in the front lines of the battle against tyranny and oppression.
	Please help support Revolution Radio so free speech will not be silenced in a world that seems to be going deaf to the real truth.
	With your support, we will be able to become an even bigger pillar of light in a dark world.
	Revolution Radio.
	Freedom Substance dot com.
	The number one listener supported radio station on the planet.
	Revolution Radio.
	Hey, everyone.
	It's Barbara Jean Lindsay, The Cosmic Oracle.
	If you have questions about your past lives or future plans, need answers from the cosmos about your love life or career, or just want to keep your finger on the pulse of the planet, check out my show, The Cosmic Oracle, here on Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	Thank you.
	Join Revolution Radio every Wednesday, 8 p.m. Eastern. 8 p.m. Eastern.
	Eastern Time on Studio B for Momentary Zen with host Zen Garcia at FreedomSleeps.com, The People Station.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Well, as most of you are aware, last Friday I featured Dave, who has a technical scientific background in defense of the existence of viruses and virology. who has a technical scientific background in defense of the Paul, who's convinced that either there are no viruses or there is no legitimate science of virology,
	Rick West said the opportunity for rebuttal, where he has a colleague who will be joining him as soon as we connect.
	For reasons I don't quite understand, he's not already here.
	I will mention he has a couple of clips he has to be set up to play during the show, and Mitchell has those and is prepared to play them.
	In the absence of Paul and William, I'll make a few other observations of what's going on that are all highly relevant to the developing war in the Middle East, where President Putin made a keynote speech in Sochi with any number of important observations.
	Let me share a few on Ukraine joining the NATO alliance.
	We have always been against this, and our position has a serious basis, because NATO expanding to our borders directly threatens our security.
	NATO is, in fact, first and foremost, a tool of US foreign policy.
	There's more, but it appears we have Paul here now.
	Paul, join the conversation.
	Well, thanks for having me on, Jim.
	Did you want to go ahead and start in with the virus rebuttal, or you want to continue talking about the virus?
	No, no, no, Paul.
	I was only temporizing until your arrival, and you're welcome to introduce William here and explain how you want to proceed.
	Mitchell has the audio clip set up to play at your request.
	OK, great.
	Well, I had tried to call in earlier, but for whatever reason, I wasn't able to get on.
	So we just got connected right now.
	That's fine, William.
	I sent William the call in number, so hopefully he'll be calling in shortly.
	But yeah, I wanted to let me shut my car off here.
	I was driving.
	So I wanted to start out by essentially saying that, you know, obviously I listened to the entire show on Wednesday when you had Dave on.
	And I think it's important for everybody to understand exactly what I think is going on, and what a lot of other people suppose is going on as well.
	So Dave has made it a point now for over two years to call into RBN, and I'm not sure where else he calls in, it probably could be other places as well, on many different shows, including Michael Rivero's show, John Stattmiller's show, JR Moore, And of course, he called into Richard Carey when I was on multiple times as well.
	And it seems he has taken upon himself the mission of continuing to promote the virus narrative that viruses exist and that, quote, viruses cause disease.
	Even though on your show when he appeared, if you listen back, which I have done now a couple of times, he's very careful not to say, you know, that Dave's a Jew, Dave's an agent, Dave's a shill, this that and the other.
	I really don't know.
	Okay, we can make our own supposition.
	He actually claimed, oh, I never said that, right?
	You can actually hear him admit that.
	So what exactly is going on here?
	And in my opinion, okay, many people have said, oh, Dave's a Jew, Dave's an agent, Dave's a shill, this, that, and the other.
	I really don't know, okay?
	We can make our own supposition.
	But again, when you listen to what it was that he said versus what he didn't say, in my opinion, it amounts to a whole lot of nothing.
	And it promotes this false debate, in my opinion, of the idea that, quote, viruses exist or viruses don't exist.
	That's not the question.
	And I've heard this on many shows and come to many conclusions about all these various videos that have been produced about this concept of, quote, do viruses exist?
	In my opinion, that's a false argument.
	All right?
	So what I have always said, and I've been consistent with this, is what exactly is a virus?
	What are you saying it is?
	What do you define as a virus?
	And then once we have that on the table, then the next question would be, is this thing that you're defining a virus, has it been proven or shown to cause disease?
	And of course, this is not what this is what is not heard on the mainstream media, basically at all.
	So just briefly to recount, I made this point back in 2020.
	I went online, and I typed in definition of a virus, or what is a virus.
	And of course, you get millions of links.
	And you can just start clicking and reading and listening and seeing what it is they say.
	And my experience showed me that almost nobody has done this because in a two year plus period of just walking around, getting in conversations with people, I met 40 or 50 people.
	Normally it was in a conversation involving the mask and not one person could tell me what a virus was or what they had they ever looked it up to find out what the definition was.
	So here's what I found.
	And this is all from mainstream stuff like WebMD and other places.
	I spent three hours or maybe at the most four hours reading on that initial day back in March or April of 2020.
	And then since then, I mostly have watched videos online.
	But here's what I found.
	A piece of RNA or a piece of DNA in a protein coat.
	Okay, so I don't think anybody's going to deny that that exists.
	And that's what they say a virus is.
	So take your choice, a piece of RNA or DNA and a protein coat.
	And then here's these characteristics that they said it had.
	It doesn't have respiration because guess what?
	It's not an organism or a cell.
	So there's no respiration or no cellular respiration.
	It doesn't consume or excrete anything because they claim it's inorganic.
	So therefore, it's not living.
	It has no functions of metabolism.
	Well, isn't that interesting?
	And of course, there's no sexual or asexual reproduction because once again, it's not any sort of a living organism.
	Well isn't that interesting?
	Now here's the key phrase that clicked my mind back then to say this is broad.
	They said it tricks or hijacks the cellular machinery into replicating itself.
	In other words, replicating the virus.
	So apparently this virus thing, this piece of something which is not living, doesn't consume or excrete anything, doesn't have respiration, doesn't have sexual or asexual reproduction, its whole modus operandi is to get into a host And to trick the cells into reproducing this thing.
	Now, you can find this on your own.
	Anybody that wants to type in definition of virus and start reading.
	And when I saw this, I thought to myself, bull!
	It made no sense to me at all from any kind of a logical perspective.
	And I thought to myself, first of all, how do they know it tricks the cell into replicating itself?
	How do they know it, quote, hijacks the cellular machinery?
	Which is a term I read over and over on these mainstream publications, Jim.
	Cellular machinery.
	What is it that they mean by cellular machinery?
	Right?
	And how does it do this?
	And how do they know it does this?
	These are things I think you can agree you've never heard talked about on CNN or MSNBC or, you know, Fox.
	They don't talk about this.
	They don't give you the definition of virus and they don't tell you how exactly it's supposed to cause disease or respiratory illness.
	So, for example, this respiratory illness, this difficulty breathing, It's mostly due to fluid buildup or phlegm buildup in the lungs, right?
	Mucus.
	So, are they saying that the virus irritates you and causes your body to produce mucus or phlegm?
	I don't know.
	I've never seen that.
	Have they ever talked about that on the news, to your knowledge?
	And yet, we're all led to believe that this thing, right, this virus, they tell us it mutates, that there's different variants, right?
	And that we don't really have any defense against this, except Some sort of vaccine concoction that they inject into us, which is supposed to give us some sort of immunity.
	They throw out all these figures about 90% effective, 80% effective.
	You know, you don't know what to make of it.
	And the reason is it's deliberate.
	It's deliberate confusion.
	It's deliberate fear propaganda to get us afraid of something which they know at the highest levels doesn't really work the way they say it does.
	I'll take a rest for a brief moment.
	If you want to respond, I have much more.
	Oh, sure, Paul.
	I've only now begun to get my feet wet on these issues.
	I've looked at one of the videos about it, relatively 15, 20 minutes for overview.
	I've been reading a piece entitled Farewell to Virology.
	The author, a woman scientist, I think her name is Bailey, is very good.
	But I've read only about a third of the document, which is, I don't know, 57 pages.
	I do, however, believe that I've already seen enough to recognize there are important questions here about the nature of viruses.
	And as you are Asserting the separate question of whether viruses cause diseases.
	Now I know there are departments of virology, there are journals of virology, there are a staggering number of papers that have been published in the area of virology, no doubt especially related to the alleged source CoV-2, which is supposed to be
	The coronavirus bringing about the pandemic, and I think everyone within the sound of my voice knows my position, that there appears to have been no increase in deaths in any age category as a consequence of the pandemic, but that the consequences of the vax have been overwhelming.
	It's neither safe nor effective, indeed highly deadly.
	The best calculation I've been able to make That's brought about over a billion deaths worldwide, and very, very good people have been debunking the whole idea of this coronavirus and the pandemic, and I regard that as a more or less settled issue.
	I am, however, open and therefore welcomed Your contributions about the nature of virology.
	I mean, look, there are millions of papers about astrology, but astrology is not a science.
	It's sometimes claimed to be.
	It would be a pseudoscience at best.
	In my judgment, it's relatively easy to test astrological hypotheses, which, of course, are claiming At the configuration of the stars in the constellation at the time of your birth makes a significant difference to your character and personality.
	And as long as you formulate those hypotheses sufficiently precisely to test them, I think they are easily refutable.
	Where Sir Karl Popper emphasized that the way you test a theory is by attempting to refute it.
	And if you're unsuccessful in your attempts to refute, Then either it turns out to be true or you simply haven't figured out yet how to test it the proper way to reveal.
	But I like the idea of attempting to falsify claims made by the science of virology.
	So, Paul, I was very open to your.
	Request that you have the opportunity for a rebuttal and I invite you to pick it up from here.
	And if William joins, that's good.
	And at the break at the top of the hour, maybe you can or Mitchell can figure out a way to bring him in.
	I'd suggest if you give Mitchell his number, he can call him and we can have him join yours.
	The floor is yours.
	Well, Jim, there's a lot there, and I wanted to jump in and say let's not go off into the woods here on other topics such as astrology and so forth.
	But here's the thing, all right?
	So I've been in contact with a very intelligent listener who's contacted me a while back.
	She's actually got both a master's degree and a PhD and, you know, has, you know, done a lot of advanced studies on actually many topics, okay?
	But she's also very Jew-aware.
	She knows the way of the world.
	And here's what she sent me recently about this concept of peer-reviewed, because, see, these people like Dave and other such, you know, individuals love to talk about the journals and the articles and peer-reviewed science and all this other stuff, and we have to really get clear in our minds what Henry Ford said back in the early 1920s by the late teens.
	Henry Ford said that at that time, okay, this is actually prior to 1920, at that time the Jews were in control of all publishing.
	So just think about that for a second.
	Now, you know, I don't have to convince you of the absolute control they have on all media at this point.
	And we can look at media as the, shall we say, the dissemination of information and news.
	Plus, as you know, it's not a surprise for anybody to hear that, of course, the control of other publications, newspapers, magazines, and even textbook publishing.
	So anyway, here's what she said recently.
	She said, bottom line, peer review is not authoritative because editors control what goes in these journals and many of these journals are controlled by Jews.
	You don't get published if you aren't approved by them.
	You don't get published if they don't like what you say.
	For example, Dr. McCullough had a paper removed that they didn't like.
	Jews own all the mainstream journals and they say what gets in and what doesn't get in.
	Monsanto, for example, has paid scientists at universities and on staff of many of these journals who write papers for them.
	So peer review is not settled science.
	It's controlled science.
	And in many cases, it's controlled by corporations that are owned and controlled by these Jews.
	And they say what gets published and what does not.
	They choose who they will allow to review papers as well.
	Paul, let me comment on that.
	Well, I'll comment when I'm finished, which is another paragraph.
	Their people are the reviewers.
	They're the editors.
	They own the journals, and they say what science is and what science is not.
	And it's already been admitted by Lancet, because they were caught, that some of the studies that they talk about were fake.
	Right?
	So what Dave would deny anyway, Dave would deny anyway, he will only address what he wants to address, and they use a particular tactic.
	So there's another paragraph or so, but go ahead, I think you get the gist of this.
	Yeah, I just think it's an exaggerated statement.
	There are plenty of journals that aren't controlled by the groups you refer to as Jews.
	I really think Zionist is a better term.
	For example, I mean, I founded an international journal, Minds and Machines.
	I was on the editorial boards of many.
	I was associate editor of Synthes, a prominent international journal on methodology, epistemology, philosophy of science.
	I founded a book series, edited, you know, I was the editor-in-chief.
	The point I'm making, Paul, is that that's just too strong a statement.
	But I think in certain fields, I think there's no question about what the outside Very, you know, prominent and financially well established, have bought chairs and taken over departments, and in some cases with devastating consequences.
	I do not deny that at all.
	It's unfortunate and deplorable, because in principle, peer review works pretty well, but when it's corrupted, it does not.
	Jim, this is going to go a whole lot better if you don't attempt to rebut particular points I'm making.
	Just let me make them.
	Okay, I'm not going to argue that they control minds and machines, okay, or anything else, right?
	But we're talking in particular this world of medicine, just like law.
	It's completely corrupt, right?
	That's the point.
	So I don't know in particular what journals they do or do not control, but I think it's important to understand that peer-reviewed is a nonsense concept.
	I've had many discussions with a friend of mine who's a physicist.
	He's taken a look at a lot of science journals, including physics journals, Peer review doesn't mean that these people actually did the work or took a look at the work that was submitted.
	They just looked at it.
	They read it.
	They don't verify.
	So many things can get in these publications that are, quote, not settled science, but they're just somebody's contribution.
	And in many cases, these contributions are not vetted or checked.
	But if you don't mind, let's return briefly to this whole concept.
	What a virus is or what it isn't and what it supposedly does or does not do.
	Okay.
	Now, the very first thing that I ever watched after I read the definition of virus going back in March or April of 2020 was a video called Pandemic Theater, the History of the Infection Theory of Disease.
	It just so happened to come up on Bitshoot and I watched it by Stefan Lanka.
	It's actually German with English subtitles.
	Now, he happens to speak English perfectly well, but this was just a presentation that apparently he made in Germany.
	This is excellent.
	I watched it maybe four to five times.
	Now, when I mentioned it to you the other day, you'd not heard of it.
	And most people, of course, have not watched this.
	And that was just one of, subsequently, I was to watch dozens and dozens.
	If I was to say 40 or 50 over the last two years, that would probably be accurate.
	The reason I mentioned having William on the show is I know he's done as much work or more than I have, including reading some of the books that I have referenced, but I've not read myself, such as Virus Mania.
	Virus Mania is a PDF.
	I've dabbled in that.
	I've skimmed around in it, but I don't really need to be convinced.
	It's quite lengthy, right?
	And it's very, very thorough.
	Also, there's a book and a website called What Really Makes You Ill.
	The website is whatreallymakesyouill.com.
	And when you listen to the interviews of this man and woman team, I believe they're husband and wife, but I could be mistaken, but they give about an hour or so presentation of what led them to write the book and how long it took them to put it together.
	10 years.
	Okay.
	What really makes you ill dot com.
	And of course, immediately they dispense, excuse me, they dispense with this notion of contagion or virus.
	Now, if I can just briefly mention something that I said on your show probably more than once, and I've said it since, because this is my opinion of what I think is the best analogy, and I've never really heard a better analogy.
	Now, we're living organisms, okay?
	We're not just cells or materials or bacteria or virus, but we are actually a living system.
	And similar to the way we'll take, for example, a car, a running automobile, right?
	So, when I think about my car, which happens at the moment to be a 92 Mercedes 300e in good condition with 135,000 original miles, if we were to put my car through a giant grinder, chip or shredder, and it would reduce it to particles smaller than the size of grains of sand, and then we were to separate out all the constituent particles, right?
	The metal and the plastic and the wood and And, you know, the copper and the aluminum and so on.
	You get the idea.
	The rubber, right?
	The whole car just goes into a giant, you know, grinder.
	And now we were to examine all these constituent particles.
	What conclusion could we really draw about the car?
	And could anybody make the claim that, oh, look, this particular particle here is the reason that the car didn't run well?
	Or the reason that the engine seized?
	You know, it makes no sense to me at all from what I call a living systems point of view to take small particles from cells, right?
	Which is what they're doing, okay?
	In other words, a piece of RNA or a piece of DNA and a protein coat is a particle.
	It's not a cell.
	It's not an organ.
	And it's not the living thing.
	It's a piece of something, right?
	That's all they're doing.
	And now they're extrapolating from This piece of something which they say, well, they will find in the body, right?
	And they're saying, oh, this is a pandemic, this causes disease.
	Meanwhile, at the same time, playing with your mind, saying, if you remember, 90% plus were asymptomatic, meaning they don't have symptoms, right?
	Or that the disease was 98% survivable, or 99%, only 1% of people died from this disease.
	Now, how much sense does that make?
	What kind of science is that?
	Now, I use this crude example as well, and I still like this example.
	If you line up a hundred men, okay, against the wall, and you kick them all in the package, every single one is going to claim, God damn, that hurt, right?
	You would basically have a hundred percent that would say, okay, getting kicked in the package causes pain.
	That's science, okay?
	That's like hypothesis, experimentation, confirmation.
	That's real science.
	But yet they tell us this piece of something, this quote-unquote virus, SARS-CoV-2, doesn't cause symptoms in most people, and it doesn't kill most people, right?
	99% or something?
	If you remember all this stuff?
	But yet we're supposed to be afraid of it, and we're supposed to get vaccinated to protect against it.
	Again, I saw this as Jew fraud from day one.
	I said it on your show.
	I was fired from my job in May of 2020 for saying it was a Jew fraud.
	I have my termination letter as proof of that, okay?
	So I've been correct on this from the very beginning, and anybody that comes on and talks about this nonsense has just not really looked at what's available online to see.
	Other people have done this work, or they're just lying.
	Right?
	If you look at Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, Stefan Lenka, Robert Young, and you watch just one or two of their videos, and I've watched more than that, right?
	There's no other conclusion to draw.
	These men are not frauds.
	They're not shills.
	They're very deliberate, and they have actually deconstructed the so-called scientific papers in which these scientists claim to have isolated the virus.
	And they're all nonsense.
	Every single one of them.
	And you know, Jim, because I think you covered it on your show, That multiple people from all over the world have sent various agencies, including the CDC, including the National Institute of Health, including various laboratories in this country and other countries, asking for a sample.
	Can we see SARS-CoV-2?
	Can we see an isolated sample of this virus?
	And you know that the letters they got in return were, hey, sorry, we don't have any such things to give you right now.
	So how can they claim that something exists and causes disease when they can't even provide anybody with a sample of it?
	How much sense does that make?
	Well, if you're asking me, Paul, of course I agree on all this stuff on SARS-CoV-2.
	They have computer models, they have been artful and inventive, but that was a giant fraud from the beginning.
	You're making a more profound and sweeping claim that Virology itself is suspect, as opposed to that specific example.
	And the reason I mentioned astrology, of course, was not to change the subject, but to talk about a field for which there are staggering numbers of publications, and yet that does not establish that it's scientific, which it clearly is not.
	That was the sole purpose for my introducing astrology.
	But I like what you're saying, Paul.
	I think you're making great sense, and I want you to persevere.
	Well, it was an excellent point that you made.
	I'm sure the reason you were making it might be a little different from the way I was taking it, but yes, making this point about astrology and then all the papers that exist on it, right, is the same point I'm making, okay?
	I don't care how many papers they publish on this topic, alright?
	When you recognize fraud, you have to say it.
	And the fact of the matter is, I'm not making the claim that virology, the whole science of virology, is a fraud.
	Many other people have made that claim.
	I'm not going along with it.
	Paul, we'll continue right after the break.
	See if you can track down William and have him join us.
	Listen to Revolution Radio at freedomslips.com.
	We'll be right back after this message.
	Was it a conspiracy?
	Did you know that the police in Boston were broadcasting, this is a drill, this is a drill, on bullhordes during the marathon?
	That the Boston Globe was tweeting that a demonstration bomb would be set off during the marathon for the benefit of bomb squad activities.
	And that one would be set off in one minute in front of the library, which happened as the Globe had announced.
	Peering through the smoke, you could see bodies with missing arms and legs.
	But there was no blood.
	The blood only showed up later and came out of a tube.
	They used amputee actors and a studio-quality smoke machine.
	Don't let yourself be played.
	Check out And Nobody Died in Boston, either.
	Available at moonrockbooks.com.
	That's moonrockbooks.com.
	If you think for one second that the Capitol will ever treat us fairly, you are lying to yourself. - Oh!
	Because we know who they are and what they do.
	This is what they do!
	And we must fight back!
	You can torture us and bomb us.
	Fire is catching.
	And if we burn, You burn with us!
	Good evening.
	Are you awake yet?
	I hope.
	We've tried and we've tried for years and years to use passive resistance and loud voices to make a change.
	But time is over.
	Your governments around the world have no other goal to decimate your entire existence at the hands of the bankers and the elites.
	The war is coming and it's your choice to decide if you want to be a warrior or a victim.
	Denial is not a choice anymore.
	Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, the number one listener-supported radio station on the planet.
	Not giving up.
	Revolution Radio.
	Radio, radio, radio, radio, radio, radio, radio, radio, radio.
	It is no secret that the so-called mainstream media is best described as controlled propaganda.
	Countless news stories are either totally ignored or spun with half-truths.
	And because of this, essential facts and vital information are often compromised.
	Join Dr. OTT every Friday night on Studio B at 10 p.m.
	Eastern and learn why the story behind the story was nominated for a Peabody Award in its second year of producing unparalleled broadcasting excellence in 1997.
	That is, if you really care about learning the truth.
	The opinions expressed on this radio station, its programs, and its website by the hosts, guests, and call-in listeners or chatters are solely the opinions of the original source who expressed them.
	They do not necessarily represent the opinions of Revolution Radio and freedomslips.com, its staff, or affiliates.
	You're listening to Revolution Radio, freedomslips.com, 100% listener-supported radio, and now we return you to your host.
	Well, Paul was, of course, correct that my show with Dave was Wednesday.
	Friday, I had Deanna Spengola.
	And, Paul, I don't know if you've been able to track down William and bring him in, but the floor is yours.
	Well, I spoke to him by phone during the break.
	He actually had just, he did not listen to the whole first half hour that I was on.
	He listened to part of it, and I invited him to call in if he wanted.
	He had trouble connecting it initially, and he said he was going to listen a little while, and if you wanted to join in, you would call in.
	But he said that I was doing a good job, and that he mentioned a few other things I could cover.
	So just briefly to recap, the way this started is this, again, you know, this idea, in my opinion, that viruses exist or don't exist is a false argument, okay?
	Tell me what you say a virus is.
	What's your definition?
	And then what is it you're claiming the virus does?
	Now, as you know, Jim, We didn't get just very little of that.
	We basically got none of that from the mainstream news for two years, okay?
	I have newspaper articles that I kept, right?
	I watched a little bit of mainstream television during this period of time, and I saw the sort of stuff they were promoting, and it was cartoonish.
	They literally showed us in newspapers, which I have, magazines as well, and online, they showed us animated or cartoon viruses, okay?
	Now, here's this guy that you had on, Dave, claiming, oh, they have, like, electro, x-ray, graph, crystallography, photographs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	In my opinion, this is the same as the analogy I gave of grinding up a fully running automobile into its constituent particles and then making some sort of claim from one of these particles that it does this or that or the other, okay?
	It doesn't matter if they have pictures of any particles, right?
	That doesn't prove anything.
	I'm not making a claim that these pictures of particles exist or don't exist.
	That's not the discussion, okay?
	If you are making the claim, such as mainstream science, medicine, whoever, the media, if they are making a claim, it's up to them to prove the claim.
	This is the same principle in law, okay?
	Whoever is bringing the cause of action must prove the cause of action.
	So if you're saying that viruses exist, you first must tell us what you say a virus is, And if you're saying that viruses cause disease, this must be shown.
	And guess what?
	According to everything I've looked at, and again, I've not done the experiments myself, I've just listened to and watched Cowan, Kauffman, Dr. Robert Young, Dr. Sam Bailey, you mentioned her earlier.
	They've all looked at the work and or dissected the work, the papers that have been submitted.
	And found the obvious flaws.
	Now, typically, if I was to sum it up, it would be this.
	They have these cell or cell cultures or cell line cultures that they basically grow in a laboratory, like in a Petri dish.
	And then they basically starve and or poison them.
	And then the cells die.
	And then they look at the particles.
	And then they make this extrapolation that these particles, which they're calling viruses, cause the death or the disease.
	It's complete and utter nonsense, and I think probably Thomas Cowan has done the best job of deconstructing this, but many others have joined in as well.
	And all I can tell you is what I've already said, right?
	You cannot go online and read and look for yourself, okay, and find any proof that these viruses that they're claiming exist cause disease.
	And I think it's always been that way.
	And if one were to watch, again, I mentioned Stefan Lanka's excellent work, Pandemic Theater, The History of the Infection Theory of Disease.
	They have been doing this for centuries, trying to scare us to get us to take their poisonous concoctions.
	Yeah, go ahead, Paul.
	I mean, I think you're making valuable points.
	Well, I mean, I just thought that was a good point for me to pause if you wanted to, you know, interject.
	So would you like to play, just so you know, the reason I sent those clips of Dave calling in is because Dave had attempted to get me or William and other people who said such things banned from the air.
	And he also said that RBS should be shut down by the Biden administration.
	So if you want to play one of these clips, you know, we can hear himself so we can see what the true agenda is.
	Mitchell's got them lined up, Paul.
	OK.
	Let's play one of them.
	Which, which, which, you mean any of them?
	Yeah, whatever, just, just click on one of them and we can, we can see, you know, which one it is, because I didn't label them, I don't believe.
	OK, Mitchell, go ahead.
	Play one of the clips.
	Sorry.
	We are back.
	Dave in New York.
	Hello, Dave.
	Hello, John.
	Good evening.
	I was looking for somewhere to move to.
	It looks like things are going to get very bad.
	Do you know any property available on a different planet?
	You've got to wait in line because Bill Gates is looking for it right now.
	Oh, he's probably already on the train for that.
	I mean, yeah, it's, uh, you know, the relocation thing is, is one of the biggest, uh, difficult questions in the world here.
	And, um, but, um, I wanted to address something regarding, um, regarding information with regard to COVID-19 and... David, how did I know you were going to bring that up?
	Well, you know me pretty well.
	I sent you an email the other day.
	I don't remember what it was in, but...
	I don't know.
	But, you know, I was talking to this fellow, Steve O'Neill.
	As far as I can tell, he's one of the most intelligent people who's ever spoken on RBN.
	He was a guest and has been a guest on Tuesday's roundtable with John Moore.
	But he says, he suggests that we have some sort of a peer review system, a system merely where people who want to talk about Uh, the issue just, uh, come together and put their minds together and listen to each other and then go home and think about it.
	And I think that would be, that would be very good because, um, from my experience in industry, and I sent this to another host is that if, if we, uh, spread things, which are misinformation, because we maybe don't understand the situation well, it leads to a lot of inefficiencies and confusion.
	And we really can't make progress.
	It's more like what the major media is doing.
	I mean, you've got Trump saying one thing one minute, and one thing another, and you've got Fauci doing the same.
	You're conflating a lot of stuff here.
	Get to your point, David.
	My first point was we should have a peer-reviewed system where people can examine things.
	Wait a minute.
	Stop.
	What exactly do you mean by a peer-reviewed system?
	A peer-reviewed system is where people who have an opinion on a scientific matter put their heads together and go over and try to find out, they go over the information and they review what was said.
	For example, Mark Anderson put out a pamphlet recently without any peer review.
	From others, and that's okay, but if it has errors in it and we put that out to people, that's not a good thing at all.
	My second point is that the shock article about the CDC, to me that's just baiting all the Trumpers or all the, there's no virus.
	Yeah, here you go again, David, with the same stuff that you called in last week on the program with.
	And the area issue was, well, this has not been peer reviewed and the numbers at the CDC.
	And I ask you the all important question.
	You yourself said you were going through the numbers.
	And it didn't add up, but you were looking at the CDC's numbers.
	You weren't going anyplace else, so now you're talking to me about peer-reviewed stuff on something an individual or a journalist or an investigator turns up, and then he's got to throw it out there for peer review to see if there's a dot missing or a T's not crossed?
	What are you going after here, David?
	If there's a big problem, listen, for people going out and saying that the CDC claims there's under 10,000 deaths to the COVID-19 That's absolutely false.
	Yeah, there you go again.
	And you know what, David?
	But it is false.
	David, I don't know what you, you know, I asked you this question before.
	I've been doing this for 30 years, you know what?
	And I've developed this good BS meter.
	And right now it's pegging all the way to the right.
	You tried the same stuff with me last week.
	And I'm not having any of it.
	That's exactly the truth.
	Well, show me that they said it then.
	They didn't say it.
	Show me that they did.
	I'm willing to listen.
	Thank you.
	I don't know why you listen to this program.
	Why do you listen to this network?
	Because there's some very good information.
	For example... Okay, I don't need your examples.
	I know.
	I'm the head of the network.
	I know that there's a lot of good information we put out.
	And if we are in error, and I catch it, I rectify that error.
	Thank you for your call.
	I don't know who this guy is or what he thinks he's trying to do here.
	We can go to another clip, Paul, if you like.
	Do you just not want to let me comment on this one?
	I think we can stop that right now.
	Paul, you want to add or comment?
	Sure.
	So just as an example, before we play the next clip, which I think is also going to be informative, you know, it's important to note who he's calling.
	In other words, He's not just calling anybody, okay?
	It's RBN and he may call other places, I don't know, but this kind of information that we have discussed, for example, right?
	It's not on the mainstream network, so Dave would never waste the time to call Fox or MSNBC or CNN or ABC because they all were in unison promoting this virus narrative.
	So, in my opinion, it bolsters my case that he's on a mission Go of reality or something?
	So this is from, as you know, John Stetmuller died, right?
	So this is from 2020.
	So he had a history already of calling his show as well as calling other shows.
	So go ahead and play the clip of when he called another show, and he tried to basically say it should be shut down.
	Go ahead, Mitchell.
	Go of reality or something?
	I don't know.
	That's the same clip.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Mm-hmm.
	Anyway, so John Stattmiller did the same thing to him he did to you, Jim.
	So let me see.
	Stattmiller actually fired me on the air.
	I thought that was pretty funny.
	I think we might get along better today than we did then.
	Anyway, Mitchell, can you just play the one of the others?
	I think that.
	Revolution and Dave from New York is giving us his.
	Yeah, that's good.
	Thoughts on COVID-19.
	Go ahead, Dave.
	Yeah, I'm I was actually not talking.
	I was talking about the SARS.
	I'm sorry, was that the same clip?
	No, no, that's a different.
	That's a different clip.
	OK, let me let me get.
	The real topic here is a fifth grade book report I've been talking to, which is what we had basically last night, okay, on these guys talking about this stuff.
	I talked to Steve O'Neill about this as well, and it's absurd that these folks are claiming that they haven't seen only computer-generated pictures, and they apparently haven't looked.
	Because in Google, John, I sent you a few, they've got numerous high-resolution electron micrographs of what they're saying is SARS-CoV-2, of what is particulates in tissue that was taken from infected people in all sorts of areas, and other corroborating information in those articles about this, and about other disease structures that they see in there.
	I mean, this all fits together, that there's a disease occurring, and that these particles are present.
	Now to say that the cells produce these uniform particles all with spikes on them, I understand that a lot of the genome of man, especially according to Judy Mikovits, it contains viral DNA.
	Fine.
	But you know, I think there's very strong evidence Was that you talking?
	What we're seeing here are SARS-CoV-2 particulates.
	But everyone needs to look for themselves and decide.
	And if they don't read the papers, if they're saying garbage like there's no imaging of viruses, And anywhere on any of these viruses, first of all, and then they're saying there's none for SARS-CoV-2, but it's clearly in the literature.
	They haven't looked at the literature?
	Are they lying?
	What's going on?
	How can you tolerate this on RBN?
	I mean, this is the utter misinformation.
	It should be shut down by the Biden administration, but guess what?
	I think they want to discredit this whole network, and they allow it.
	So, I mean, Really?
	John, you've seen the articles I sent you on this, right?
	Not necessarily.
	I get too many emails to read all of them, Dave.
	Well, I told you about it.
	I thought you did look at the... Well, take a look at the structures.
	Take a look at those papers.
	I mean, this is so key to the whole issue.
	I mean, if the virus doesn't exist, then they didn't engineer it, and there's no problem.
	There's no problem with all these guys paying for this and doing this gain-of-function research.
	But sorry, virology is much more advanced than that.
	It's not that they're just surmising all of these things.
	There's good evidence.
	So, can we prove anything?
	In science, you only prove that the data fits the theory.
	You don't prove that the theory is correct.
	Because when anomalies arise at the date that the theory doesn't fit, you come up with a new theory.
	And that's the way theories are just ideas.
	So, absolute proof of this, that's one thing.
	But, Kirk, the cells are not budding off these uniform-looking particulates with spikes coming out of them, and they're not exosomes either.
	I'm not going to go into all the structure of that.
	Like you, I'm not a virologist, so I don't know that I'm qualified to even comment.
	I guess I have a gut feeling about it, which scientists hate to hear.
	Gut feelings are gut feelings.
	I just have a gut feeling.
	And I think that, you know, one thing I think we can all agree on is the absolute importance of maintaining, nourishing and fortifying our own immune systems.
	And, you know, I'm- I'm a big proponent of that.
	The other thing I think that we need to emphasize is the truth.
	Christ was the way, the truth, and the life.
	But these guys are saying things that are clearly not true.
	And they're so fifth grade.
	I mean, they're following one guy like Cowan.
	Cowan, a non-scientist who learned from Kauffman.
	I mean, I think these images of the SARS-CoV-2 virus put the nail in the Kauffman.
	The Kauffman whole non-virus theory.
	Listen, it's crazy.
	But that's all I have to say from RBN.
	Or just, you know, just shut it down.
	It's intolerable.
	It's ridiculous.
	It's not doing any good for anybody.
	That part of it is not.
	It's throwing people off.
	You got all these people going off on this non-virus thing.
	I'll talk to you later, John.
	That's good.
	Paul, your comments.
	And by the way, of course, I let Dave know that you would be doing a rebuttal today, so we won't be surprised if he Calls in, I invited him to do that.
	Go ahead, Paul.
	Well, it, it, it won't be fruitful, uh, you know, limited have a half an hour, but you know, here's, here's the thing is that when you listen to what he just said on that call into JR Moore and you try to make sense of it, it's, it's all gobbledygook.
	Okay.
	Really is.
	I mean, he said maybe a couple of things that you could make some sense out of.
	But literally, he was all over the map.
	I've listened to that call, and his statements on there, at least four to five times now.
	And literally, there's nothing of any sense that you can get out of it, okay?
	Meanwhile, when I say stuff, and a lot of times when you say stuff, Jim, it's pretty clear what you're saying, and there's a reason for saying it, right?
	But he's all over the place, and you heard him say, shut it down, right?
	Now, there's another call, I think the other clip is where he mentions me by name, me and It basically says, essentially, that we shouldn't be allowed on the air to say what we're saying.
	So I just wanted you to have a sense of the fact that there's a history with this guy.
	Seems like he's on a mission, and as you know, I've made clear before that I'm a betting man, I'm a gambling man, and I will, on occasion, put my money where my mouth is, and I will make a bet right now That I don't believe anything about this guy.
	I don't believe that he's got his PhD or his master's degree in organic chemistry or whatever.
	And I don't believe that he's a for real person who really sincerely believes in this cause.
	OK, well, go ahead and promote viruses exist narrative.
	I think he's all right.
	I think I'm in a position to contradict those claims, Paul, because he's sent me You know, articles he's published in scientific journals.
	I think you're just mistaken about that.
	Now that, of course, does not mean he's right about this issue.
	I wonder whether you wanted to address, and I think maybe William has joined us.
	I wonder if you would want to address a claim about having, you know, the microscopic images, whatever, of the SARS-CoV-2.
	Which would surprise me if it were true, but I'm interested in what you have to say about that.
	Okay, so I won't go in.
	If we have William, I want to give him his say.
	I will just briefly comment that this guy, David New York, called Richard Carey's show multiple times when I was on, and I believe he called when William was on too, and he kept talking over and over again about 30,000 bass pairs.
	They've done all this isolation.
	He kept mentioning 30,000 bass pairs.
	Yeah.
	Correctly made the claim, as well as I did.
	This is all in the computer, okay?
	It's not part of the real world, okay?
	Right, right, right.
	Well, let's see if it is, William.
	415, caller, caller, is that William?
	Yeah, hello, can you hear me?
	Yes, we can.
	Go ahead, William.
	Okay.
	Yeah, hey, Jim.
	Nice to meet you.
	I haven't talked to you yet, but I've been on my radar for quite a few years now.
	And it's good to finally make your acquaintance.
	It's the first time, so.
	Glad to have you here, William.
	Well, thank you, yeah.
	Yeah, this Dave in New York guy, he's been like, he's called in to our show before, about a year ago.
	Actually, that John Moore clip that you played there was from August 4th, 2022.
	The one where he called in to, where he called in to John Stattmiller, I don't, it must have been in 2021 sometime.
	It's on past the November of 2021, so it would have been, you know, sometime before that, obviously, so we, this wasn't even something we were discussing at that time.
	So, trying to, you know, not allow people talk about, you know, some of these other alternative theories that have come up since, you know, we're actually spawned by the fact that your code was rolled out.
	Uh, in, in October 2019 with the, uh, event 201, which was the planned Democ.
	So I never referred to this as a pandemic.
	I refer to it as a planned Democ.
	And, uh, and it's true that they have never produced any evidence that this virus exists, let alone causes a disease.
	So, um, even they admitted this, um, even Deborah Birx, um, with Trump's, uh, what was she health minister or whatever her position was.
	On, you know, mainstream news admitted, oh yeah, we are, you know, we're calling deaths COVID, even though they weren't COVID.
	I mean, she pretty much just admitted that on mainstream news, where, you know, if they had the COVID, which is based on a totally fake PCR test, which was not actually a valid test to test for any disease.
	So yeah, so she was, this was, they were saying that.
	Okay.
	So, you know, this thing, they were in our faces telling us what they were doing was BS.
	And this is all like, this is all like 101 COVID, you know, research that we don't need to review all this stuff.
	But I'll just, I'll just, I will say that, you know, Paul is exactly right.
	Dave calls in and he does not give anything except hyperbole and ad hominem.
	So, you know, I mean, Good evidence, a large book with lots of BS built on.
	So this science of virology is actually built on just dogma.
	So they have foregone conclusions that they're building this scientific argument about.
	And you're not, if you actually question, I mean, we see how dogmatic the whole Uh, allopathic medicine system actually is, but without even going down that whole rabbit hole, um, you know, if you ever listened to, were you gonna ask something?
	Yeah, I was just going to say, I think you might be a little hard on Dave.
	I mean, he's talking about there being, you know, these images and so forth.
	And I think that's a legitimate question.
	And of course, he argues there's vast literature.
	I mean, it's not all just ad hominem.
	I think he's making some arguments.
	The question is whether they're sound or not.
	So, you know, go ahead, William.
	I killed the break.
	And we'll be able to take callers here momentarily.
	540-352-4452.
	540-352-4452.
	Dave, of course, you're welcome to call Reese.
	I believe you were trying to call earlier, but on this show, I take calls the last half hour on RBN.
	It's the whole second hour.
	So go right ahead, William, with a few more thoughts, and then we'll open it up to callers.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Hold on, Paul.
	Okay, again, there was just something I wanted to add real quick.
	Well, go ahead.
	Go ahead, Paul.
	Okay, so now that we're talking about admissions, so William mentioned a couple things about admissions.
	So if you recall, and I mentioned it on your show, Jim, in October of 2020, the CDC admitted, I believe it was on page 38 or page 39, Yeah.
	a lengthy report, okay, that John Rapoport covered on his excellent site, okay, the CDC admitted that they had not isolated COVID-19 and had no samples.
	This was October of 2020.
	So talk about the admission of all admissions, okay?
	This big agency, the CDC, said they had not isolated COVID-19 and had no samples.
	Go on, Liam.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	A picture of an electron micrograph picture of a something that they're calling a virus doesn't prove any cause of disease at all.
	It's just beer porn.
	Oh, sure.
	The question is, well, what is it, the Emmy job?
	And what does it do?
	that at all. - The question is, well, what is it the ME job, and what does it do?
	I mean, obviously, if these are supposed to be, what, exomes, if these are just some kind of the cell debris, that is something, but cell debris is not the sort of thing you'd expect would cause a disease.
	So we want to make real clear what's going on here, and if that's what viruses, or to the extent which they've established or exist, that turn out to be no more than cell debris, And it doesn't look as though we have much to say on behalf of the science that is ostensibly built upon viruses, if viruses are no more than cell debris.
	And in any case, even if there are viruses, I do agree.
	The crucial question is, are they transmitters or causes of disease of any kind?
	I think those are the two of the crucial aspects.
	Paul's been pretty clear about that from the beginning.
	Go ahead, William.
	Yeah, and I agree with Paul on that, you know, just on your last thought about how viruses spread disease.
	Well, what they claim happens is that this piece of DNA, what it does is it's either a piece of DNA or a piece of RNA.
	DNA is two, it's a double helix.
	If it's an RNA, it's just a single helix, right?
	And so what it will do is bind to other, what they say it will do, which I think is nonsense, this is my opinion just based on listening to these Different people, and the fallacy that if you're not a scientist, you can't have an opinion on anything is stupidity, and it's ridiculous.
	You can absolutely, and what happens is that people like Judy Mikovits, which got entangled in a debate with Andrew Kaufman, and then they just go into doctor talk, and they start babbling nonsense, and then we're supposed to just go, oh, well, they're scientists, and they can't explain it in a way we can understand, but They're scientists, so okay, that's fine.
	You know, viruses cause a disease.
	Well, these guys, Tom Cowan and Andrew Cotton, have very deliberately explained the fallacy with the scientific method that is used.
	And Paul touched on that when he talked about the cell culture, right?
	The John Enders of the 50s cell culture that they started to use, where they manufacture This thing they call a virus, which you're exactly right, Jim, are exosomes.
	I believe that because these the nanometer measurements of these particulates are exactly the same as what they call viruses.
	OK, so and they are produced from cell debris.
	It's just like and so Tom Cowan has had many, I mean, discussions with people, you know,
	About this, there was one with Christine Massey that he had a couple of years ago in early 2022, I think it was, or late 2021, where she tried to get Peter McCullough to prove, you know, show some scientific proof about viruses causing disease.
	And he just gave her some snarky snide comments, and this is all they'd ever get from these virologists.
	They'd never get them coming back with showing any proof, no scientific proof.
	Every time they ask them to have a debate, they won't come on and debate them about it.
	William, I would just say, you know, Peter McCullough isn't a virologist.
	What he's, in my opinion, he's one of our leading cardiologists.
	He is perhaps the most cited Medical figure in the United States today, and I'm a huge fan of Peter McCullough.
	The question about viruses and virology turns out to be fairly focused.
	And, you know, I think we want to keep on that and not be too sweeping in our condemnation of others who may be doing a lot of good work, as is the case most certainly with both Judy Mikovits and with Peter McCullough, I would say.
	Well, I agree with you.
	They've done good work, but they're controlled opposition.
	So we have to be very wary about controlled opposition.
	We can't just, you know, just say, oh, well, that's it.
	That's your take, William.
	I mean, I just I don't share that opinion of Judy or Peter as controlled opposition, but you're entitled to your opinion.
	Go right ahead.
	We don't have any callers yet, neither David nor Reese.
	So I do believe Reese is calling in.
	David may very well.
	Go ahead.
	OK, so what happens with the cell culture is they they'll take what they dispute them from the sick person.
	They'll mix that together with other biological material, like Vero cells or monkey kidney cells or the type of cells.
	Why are they doing that?
	That should be the first question.
	Why aren't they just examining the sputum itself and extrapolating from that?
	But no, they're not.
	They're mixing it in with that.
	And then what they're doing in addition to that is they're, like Paul said, they're poisoning with antibiotics.
	And starving the tissue.
	And then what happens is it's essentially like a bomb going off.
	The tissue begins to degrade and die.
	And when it degrades and dies, it produces these things that they're calling these spike protein balls.
	And then they say, Oh, look, we found a virus.
	So it's the same as this is the analogy Tom Cowan has used.
	It's the same as like, you're looking for termites in your house.
	Well, you don't have them.
	So Well, they put termites in the wood sample, and then they say, oh, we found your termite.
	Yeah, you got that problem there.
	So I'm waiting for someone to come and disprove this.
	And so Dave so far has not done that.
	He just calls in and he says, oh, you've got to read a big book, or Judy Mikovits, or I have a science background, and nobody who doesn't have a science background should be talking about this.
	You should be banned from the station.
	Well, William, he does worse than that.
	If you heard him, and I have, he basically says that Kaufman, a non-scientist, or Dr. Cowan, a non-scientist.
	He calls them non-scientists.
	But here's the thing.
	I don't think anybody of what I call a cognizant mind, okay, who has a somewhat of a mature level of thinking could watch any videos by Cowan or Kaufman And not come away with an understanding of the fraud that has taken place, of what they do.
	And it's also worth noting, as Stefan Lanke pointed out in one of his many excellent videos, that antibiotics came from the German dye and coloring industry, because they found by accident that some of the dyes and the colorings they were using killed microorganisms, killed bacteria.
	And that's where antibiotics came from, okay?
	Because they're killing living things.
	So this is the whole, when you look at modern allopathic medicine, especially as far as cancer is concerned, mostly it's all about killing cells, right?
	That's really what it's about.
	They're trying to kill various cells and they're trying to tell you it's very targeted, but in the end, this is not the proper approach to take because we are living systems, a living organism, and that's why I believe, just briefly, that my analysis of grinding up a car We got Rhys from New York on the phone.
	Rhys, go ahead, join the conversation.
	Alright, good afternoon, gentlemen.
	systems.
	We got Reese from New York on the phone.
	Reese, go ahead.
	Join the conversation.
	All right.
	Good afternoon, gentlemen.
	I've been around the truth community for a long time.
	And as a matter of fact, I've actually debunked some of the false stories, the myths being spread.
	How Am I on?
	I'm hearing echo.
	You must have had your radio on, Rhys.
	Just go ahead.
	Hang on.
	Let me check this damn app.
	Let me make sure it's off.
	All right.
	How about now?
	Is that better?
	Yeah, go ahead.
	Fine.
	OK, well, I just want to preface what I'm going to say by this.
	You remember Joyce Riley, Jim, correct?
	Sure.
	All right.
	A number of years ago, when Joyce was still alive, there was a big story going around the truth community about a guy up in New England that was talking about foreign troops on our shores, citing the fact that the people have witnessed them, they've seen them in their uniforms.
	Now, I knew this was bullshit because I heard similar stories So I did my own independent research.
	I was actually able to find out who this guy was.
	Now remember this, Jim.
	Almost the entire truth community across the spectrum of the different networks was parroting this nonsense.
	So I contacted the guy.
	I found out he was living up in New Hampshire.
	You know who he was, Jim?
	No.
	He was a pre-op transsexual whose background was he wrote articles For porn magazines, you know, like these salacious stories?
	That's who this guy was, and he invented this story, and people were parroting it.
	Now, I'm just citing that as a premise because I find that there's a possibility that we could get caught up in the science of logic.
	I know, Jim, you're familiar with polemics as well as sophistry.
	I'm sure you're familiar with that.
	So we have to be careful.
	All right, so now we're getting to my point.
	My point is this.
	If Paul, and he may be very well-intentioned, is going to question the scientists who are of, you know, high degree of respect.
	These are not quacks.
	These are not people promoting vaccines.
	We're talking about scientists that have a background in the subjects that they've studied, they've written in journals, they've been covered, they're respected by their peers.
	We have to be very careful that we're not going to operate on what is called a false premise.
	So my question is this, in order to challenge it, and I'm not saying that someone like Paul cannot challenge existing theories.
	I would welcome anyone to challenge my theory or anyone else's, but in order to do so, we have to make sure that we can back it up with verifiable scientific claims, observations,
	But Reece, Reece, Reece, people who are expert can be wrong because they're expert, there's a presumption they're probably right, but they can be wrong and non-experts can be right.
	And what Paul's challenging is the verifiability of the very foundation of virology.
	So I think they're totally in the ballpark.
	Because, you know, regardless of the source, what the source is claiming, expert or not, may be correct.
	I do have a second caller, Reece, so let me take Michael from North Carolina.
	I'm going to come back to you, Reece.
	I'm going to come back to you.
	Let me just address this really quick, please.
	I'm going to do it very cleanly.
	OK, I'm not challenging virology or any of this other nonsense.
	I said early in the show, The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, okay?
	So all these things that have been claimed about viruses turned out to be bogus.
	All these claims of viruses that cause disease turned out to be bogus.
	So I don't have to prove anything.
	I don't have to have a background or credentials.
	I challenge the one who makes the claim.
	Paul, if you're proving, you're proving they're false.
	Now you're making proofs.
	Now don't shortchange yourself.
	Michael from North Carolina joined the conversation, Michael.
	Michael, you may have to unmute.
	Go ahead.
	Michael, are you there?
	Yes, are you guys there?
	Yeah, we got you now.
	Go ahead, Michael.
	OK.
	OK, cool.
	I just wanted to say that this whole issue of there being a lack of a true scientific foundation for what is called the science of virology is not hard to understand.
	If you've got a decent mind, a decent logical mind, and you are exposed to the people who are bringing this out and explaining it logically, anybody can understand that this is the case, that there is no real scientific foundation for the science of virology.
	Sort of a pivot point that it went down the wrong track was in 1954, I believe it was, with the experiment of John Enders.
	And it was he who performed the experiments and was given the Nobel Prize for it, by the way.
	And we can see what validity Nobel Prizes have from the recent Four A's.
	It was he who struck upon this.
	Nobody could ever identify a particle, even though they'd been calling it virus, the general term for poison, for decades.
	They've been calling it that and assuming that people got sick in the same place because they were passing some particle between them.
	But nobody could ever identify it or find it or anything like that.
	So what Enders did in the 50s was come up with this process that Paul was describing earlier, and I think William did a little bit too, whereby he took some fluid that was presumed to have a virus in it and cultured it with all of these other things, monkey kidney cells and cow bovine serum and
	Uh, exposed, took away, you know, that whole process of culturing something.
	And then the electron microscope had been invented in the late 30s.
	And so then he put, after about four or five days of antibiotics and restricting the food to the culture, naturally you're going to get cell death, right?
	Apoptosis.
	So he, said in his paper that he, well, that's another thing, that the fact that there was cell death proved that it was being done by a virus.
	Now, anytime you have cell death, you've got pieces of cellular debris.
	They're present all the time, whether there's There's more cellular debris when there's more cell death.
	And so when you take a culture and you kill it, and there's going to be cellular debris in there.
	So then he did what was necessary.
	That's another whole staining process and several steps to put it under an electron microscope and pointed to something in there and said, Oh, that must be it.
	That must be the virus.
	And as crazy as it sounds, that process was given the Nobel Prize.
	I get what you're saying.
	I would just add, it's anything but simple and straightforward to suppose there's no such thing as viruses or a science of virology when you have departments of virology, journals on virology, Hundreds of thousands, maybe a million and a half publications in virology.
	That is so counterintuitive, you see.
	That's why I think the average listener is baffled by the whole idea that it just sounded.
	Michael, SARS-CoV-2 being made up is one thing.
	But to deny the whole field is a totally different situation.
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	Then I'll get back to you.
	Well, I agree with what you just said right there.
	It's very difficult.
	There's a great quote by Dresden James that says, when the masses have been sold a nice package of lies over decades and generations, the truth will sound like it's utterly preposterous.
	And that's what we have here.
	We've got all our entire lives we've been told about the existence of viruses and that viruses cause disease, and it's never been true.
	Michael, you made your point.
	Rhys, did you want to add a further thought, Rhys?
	Yeah, I would, Jim.
	Now, you remember, I have a background in science, hard science, not theoretical science.
	Just go ahead and give us the argument, please.
	I just, Paul, if you'd like, I'll give you my resume.
	No, we don't want your resume.
	We want, we want your argument.
	Jim, Jim, please, Jim, please.
	I'm having a little fun with Paul.
	Please, I'm amusing myself with this guy.
	Okay, let me move on now.
	Let me just say this.
	What I'm hearing is suppositions, assumptions, and generalities are used to criticize some straw man, which is basically because scientists.
	This is all I want to hear right now.
	Is that right?
	What does that mean?
	That the theory in question is false.
	Jim, that's a logical fallacy, Jim.
	That's a logical fallacy.
	Are you saying in essence you think virology is a viable science?
	This is all I want to hear right now.
	Is that right?
	You think it is viable?
	My commentary is on the fallacious argumentation being used to support Paul's hypothesis.
	And then someone with a background in logic.
	I'm asking you a question about your beliefs.
	Do you believe there are viruses and virology is a viable science?
	I believe, yeah, I believe virology is viable, and I think that it has been proven sufficiently in the laboratory.
	It is kind of like studying the particle physics.
	There are particles in particle physics that we've never demonstrated, and yet, hold on, we do not throw out particle physics because we could not demonstrate a quark in a laboratory.
	That's what you're attempting to do here.
	Okay, you think viruses are theoretical entities like quarks?
	not visible but Well, no, here's what I'm going to do.
	No, no, I didn't say that, Jim.
	That's not what I said.
	What I said is this.
	I'm basically saying to Paul, what I'm saying to Paul is that he's challenging the consensus of scientists that have worked, pulled on together, and there's a consensus.
	So the burden of proof is on Paul.
	We don't care.
	What proof?
	What evidence does he provide?
	No, no, no, no.
	Please, thank you.
	Can I jump in here, Jim?
	Thanks for the call, Rhys.
	Thanks for the call, Rhys.
	Jim, you can't handle the truth, Jim.
	You cannot handle the truth, I can tell you.
	I'm from, for God's sake.
	Jim, Jim, this is a logical fallacy.
	Drop Rhys, drop Rhys Mitchell, drop Rhys.
	Paul, Paul, William, go ahead, Tom, your thoughts.
	Okay, let me go first.
	Okay, it's the same goddamn thing every time with this guy, Jim, and I know you can see it, right?
	Every time he calls, he's gotta tell us about his background or his expertise.
	Let's not go there and waste our time on it.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, no, but it's just, it's infuriating.
	He's not saying anything, okay?
	You're wasting a lot of time.
	I'll agree.
	Okay, here's the thing, alright?
	What I challenge is the logic and common sense of anything we're being told, and we don't know any of these scientists.
	We don't know what they do, who they are, what they say.
	All we hear from guys like Reeves is like, oh, scientists say this, and there's an established field called virology, and they write all these papers and all these books.
	Paul, I want you to not focus on the personalities.
	I want you to focus on the arguments.
	Hey, Paul, let me jump in for a second, Paul, real quick.
	Hey, Paul, let me jump in for a second, Paul, real quick.
	Go ahead.
	Real quick.
	Yeah.
	Go ahead.
	So, Jim, yeah, no.
	I mean, if somebody's going to make a claim about science, then they're going to have to prove it using sound science.
	What we've pointed out is that the cell culture, which Michael called in and explained very well, which we tried to explain as well, the cell culture, I mean, I mean, that they're using to say that the virus that won a Nobel Prize, that should be like, right there.
	Okay.
	They did not prove their case.
	Okay.
	And all we're doing is pointing that out.
	And now we're being told the whole thing is being inverted.
	So we have Reese calling in and trying to invert the whole thing back on us, like that we're somehow responsible for proving a negative.
	Okay.
	All we're doing is pointing something out and asking them to come to the table.
	William, William, William.
	There's nothing wrong with proving a negative.
	There's nothing wrong with proving a negative.
	I can prove there's no elephant in my living room right now by going to my living room and looking for signs of the presence of elephant.
	Finding none, I'm entitled to conclude that because there's no elephant there.
	You're seeking to prove the negative, namely their claims that there are viruses or that viruses called disease are false, or at the very least... No, no, no.
	I said they were enough to prove...
	But it's okay!
	That's what we're pointing out.
	I get frustrated sometimes because I really do believe I make the simplest and most important points that seem to be forgotten as we go down the road, okay?
	And again, I go back to the very beginning.
	What is it they say viruses are?
	And William said it and I said it.
	A piece of RNA or a piece of DNA in a protein coat.
	Okay, so my response is, okay, great.
	Now we've established what they say viruses are.
	I say, so what?
	So what?
	Okay?
	Then the next question would be, is there any evidence that shows that a piece of RNA or piece of DNA in a protein coat, which by the way, all these things are endogenous to the body, right?
	So is there any evidence that these things, they're claiming they're viruses, cause us to be sick?
	No, there is not.
	I've not seen one.
	Thomas Cowan, Andrew Kaufman, and Stefan Lanca, Robert Young, Dr. Sam Bailey, they all claim they haven't seen any either, and they bring the papers, and they dissect the papers.
	It's not me dissecting the papers, in my opinion.
	I don't need to dissect any damn papers.
	My analogies are awesome, okay?
	They told us it's 90% asymptomatic.
	What kind of disease is 90% asymptomatic?
	It makes no sense.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Look, look, Paul.
	You and William and Kauffman and others and Bailey raise enough significant questions that I think the tenability of virology is in doubt.
	And, you know, I mean, it's pretty astonishing when you have all these journalists, all these individuals in a field.
	Well, it might be that they're on a par with astrologers.
	I mean, I just find that rather shocking.
	And I think it's part of the reason I've been slow to wade into this, because it seems so counterintuitive.
	But I'm going to look at more of these videos and see what I can figure out.
	I don't regard what we've done here today, including with Dave last Wednesday and you and William here today, as decisive, but I certainly think it raises enough serious questions that we all ought to be open-minded about the nature of viruses and virology and whether they transmit disease.
	I think these are all legitimate questions, and I'm glad to be grateful to you, Paul, and to William for Participating today to pursue these issues further.
	Okay, and also I'll make this point, too, that as we know, Jim, you and I know Michael from North Carolina, and Michael has done more work on this than I have.
	I mean, he sends me papers and he sends me videos that I often either don't look at or don't look at fully, but he has, okay?
	So he's as expert as I am, or that William, and certainly probably more, I've begun wading into this, and it's going to take a while.
	I have an awful lot of demands on my time, but I'm going to pursue this further.
	And I'm grateful to you and William for coming on today.
	I've begun wading into this, and it's going to take a while.
	I have an awful lot of demands on my time, but I'm going to pursue this further.
	And I'm grateful to you and William for coming on today.
	And if David called in, I would have been glad to put him on the air.
	And I'm glad Michael called and even Reese.
	Rhys does tend to, you know, give us prefaces about who he is rather than the arguments he should be delivering from the beginning.
	Paul, go ahead.
	You have the final word here.
	Give us a few of the final thoughts of yours, Paul.
	Okay, so I'm going to reverse my little scientific analogy or experiment about being kicked in the package, okay?
	And I think it's valid, right?
	We lined up a hundred men against the wall, and we kicked them all in the package, and only five of them said it hurt, right?
	And the rest of them showed no reaction at all.
	Would we conclude that getting kicked in the package is painful?
	No, probably not.
	But that's what they wanted to do.
	They wanted us to believe that this pandemic, this virus that was supposedly causing all this disease that we had to shut down our businesses for, and wear a mask for, and get a poisonous injection for, that was asymptomatic, and over 90% of the people were supposed to believe that's science, that's logic, and there's scientific journals, and there's scientists.
	Jim, I've had it.
	Yeah, I get it.
	I get it, Paul.
	You've raised a lot of good questions, and I expect we'll return to this issue on any number of future occasions and even hear more from Dave and Reese and Michael and William and you.
	So I want to thank you.
	Valuable discussion.
	I just say, everyone out there, thanks for joining in.
	Spend as much time as you can with your family, friends, and people you love and care about.
	With everything going on in the world today, we cannot be sure how much time we have left.

▲