Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 28, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:32:40

Coronavirus Update! Paul Cottrell and Stefan Molyneux

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Streaming live on YouTube.
	Let me just get all these things set up.
	I just love all this new technology that we can take advantage of.
	You know, so we get CRISPR, but we also get live streaming.
	So it's a mixed bag.
	Let's put it that way. I'm here with Paul Cottrell.
	He is back for the second time, and we are happy to take some questions.
	We're going to do a bit of a freeform.
	I guess it's going to be kind of like a group discussion of everything that's been going on with regards to...
	Coronavirus. And I will say that Dr.
	Cottrell, not a medical doctor, I just want to remind everyone about that.
	I went through your entire CV at the beginning of the show, and people are like, well, yeah, he's not a real doctor.
	It's like, that's right. He's the fake kind.
	He's the hand puppet kind. He's not the real doctor.
	So just for those of you who don't know, Dr.
	Cottrell is a researcher in chaos theory and has interest in modeling financial markets.
	I consider him a polymath, although I had to look it up.
	Just kidding. Okay, so he's born in Detroit.
	He has done engineering and design.
	He did automotive engineering.
	He trades in the markets, and he's at Harvard University as an ALM candidate specializing in biology.
	He has completed the pre-medical program at Fordham University.
	And so, hello.
	Paul, it's great to have you back on the show.
	Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
	So we're going to do a little freeform here, just chatting back and forth.
	And then, of course, what we're going to do is take some questions from the audience.
	And wait, did you get more monitors?
	No, I've had eight.
	Okay. So there's not more.
	This is it.
	Plus a laptop. Plus a laptop.
	Right. All I have behind me is decaying radioactive material.
	So that's what happened to my hair.
	Alright, so we'll let people gather in, and let's just get started with, I mean, it's been, what, about a week, week and a half since we last talked, Paul.
	How has this pandemic been playing out according to your expectations and estimations?
	Right. It is getting worse in the more condensed areas in the United States.
	It's getting worse in Western civilizations, you know, like Europe.
	It is following the pattern.
	I am concerned, like I said on your show last week, about in the United States, individuals contracting COVID-19 disease, about 165 million in 20 months.
	Now, there were some assumptions with that.
	One assumption was that chloroquine or remdosphere or some other therapeutic wasn't available to dampen the curve.
	Another was that the social distancing would not work.
	And that a secondary and a tertiary wave would be as strong as the primary wave over a 18 to 20 month period.
	So those are some broad assumptions.
	Now, if the secondary and tertiary waves are attenuated, or we do have a therapeutic, or the social distancing works, then we'll have less cases, less death.
	But I would say worst case is what I mentioned.
	Over that 20-month period.
	The relationship between cases and deaths, I just really wanted to go over that for the audience as a whole.
	They're not directly correlated depending on how the curve is flat.
	So the steeper the climb, the more deaths there will be because the medical system gets overwhelmed.
	I mean, there will be other reasons as well, but the major one, which we've talked about, is the steeper the curve, You know, it's sort of like you can take a loud sound, you just can't take a sonic boom next to your ear.
	You know, you can handle a bunch of smaller waves if you're standing at the edge of the ocean, but you can't handle a tsunami, right?
	So this is really what we talked about.
	Flatten the curve. It gives me two major things, right?
	One is that it gives us a chance to ramp up our medical And number two, it buys time for a possible therapeutic, as you say, or maybe a vaccine or maybe some sort of magic ball cure.
	Although, I mean, there has seemed to be some therapies that are quite effective, but you know, you can't just pull them out of your butt, right?
	It takes a while to get your manufacturing up to speed with that stuff.
	Exactly. There is some light, or green shoots, if you want to use an analogy in finance, out there.
	Chloroquine, for certain people, it will work.
	And if it's applied early.
	Remdesphere seems to be moving along.
	Most people have been self-quarantining for two weeks now.
	And we still are having a pretty steep curve.
	Governor Cuomo has, you know, has stated multiple times with daily briefings that the primary system, you know, the hospitals are being overloaded.
	And now we have to have a secondary operation that's at the Javits Center and other conventional centers in the five boroughs.
	So We already have over 20,000 cases in New York, and we have the most deaths.
	The last I looked was 365, so we're probably a little bit more than that as we're recording this, or live streaming this.
	But we already are at about 97,000 cases in the United States.
	We're going to hit, by the end of tonight, we're going to hit over 100,000.
	As you were talking about exponential curves and people not understanding exponential systems, this is going to continue to grow before it starts to decline.
	And this is why it's so important.
	I was watching Steve Bannon's show.
	He has a show, it's actually pretty good, called War Room Pandemic.
	And he has guests on, and he's taken it from different pillars also, as on my show too.
	But what he said today I thought was really important.
	It's to the spirit of Americans.
	And he said, don't flatten the curve.
	Smash the curve.
	We need to be more aggressive in stopping this.
	Because if we just try to have manage the curve, Or manage decline.
	You know, a lot of people have heard that term in terms of moving jobs overseas.
	You know, manage decline to Asia in terms of economics.
	If we just manage the curve, we're going to actually extend this out farther in terms of the pandemic and also the economic damage.
	But if you smash it, if the pain is acute at the very beginning, What I call the 40 days and 40 nights, then the economic damage will be less.
	And the chances of having a steeper secondary and tertiary wave will be reduced.
	But I think a lot of people, they're getting antsy.
	They want to go outside. They're just like, I can't stand it anymore.
	And I get it. It's tough.
	But it's going to be worse if we don't stay quarantined.
	If we're not in shelter in place, we're going to extend this problem out.
	And people need to be aware of that and the importance of trying to smash the curve or dampening the curve.
	Well, this is something, philosophically speaking, this is a very, very powerful moment in the West because we've been living on this drunken delirium of infinite resources, you could really say since the Federal Reserve, but certainly since the end of the Second World War.
	We've been living on this fantasy that we don't have to take compromises, that we can just have everything and the kitchen sink, that there isn't any need to balance things.
	Now, of course, a foundational principle of economics is all human desires are infinite, all resources are finite.
	So we've had this funny situation where people have gotten so used to politicians being able to promise everything.
	We can have a welfare and a warfare state, and we're not going to raise your taxes enormously because it's all done through debt.
	Now it's like a toddler.
	You know, like a silly little family story, right?
	So I took my daughter to a museum many years ago.
	She was like three or four, right?
	And there was one of these 19th century drawing rooms, but it was behind glass.
	And there was a little rocking horse in the room.
	And she wanted to go see the rocking horse, right?
	And she, you know, she started toddling or trotting towards it.
	And I said, whoa, whoa, whoa. But she didn't listen.
	And she ran into this glass.
	It didn't really do any harm or anything like that.
	But it really startled her. And that moment of like, whoa, where's our magic wand?
	What do you mean we have to make compromises?
	What do you mean there's a balance between economic productivity and the spread of, like, why do we have to make tough decisions?
	And this, seeing everybody kind of reconfigure their mental attitude, To this reality, there is no solution.
	We can balance our priorities.
	We can say, okay, well, we'll allow a certain amount of infection and we'll gain a certain amount of economic activity.
	Or we dial down the infection, we dial down the economic activity, which itself has life costs and problem costs and all sorts of issues and stresses and so on.
	And so to me, it's like this very strange Wake up to reality that we're out of the psychotic delirium where no tough choices need to be made.
	Like, what was it? I think it was Cuomo who was saying, we never put a price on human life.
	What a load of crap. That is absolutely not true.
	Have you never heard of insurance or the fact that we limit Speed on highways to, what, 70, 65 miles an hour, whatever.
	You bring that down to five miles an hour, you save 35,000 deaths every year in the US, but then you cause more deaths because it takes forever to get goods everywhere.
	So, sorry for this long rant, but I've really been sort of mulling over that stuff I've been yelling at that has been kind of drugged out of people's minds by debt and manipulation and crushed down interest rates and all of that and money printing.
	It's like, oh, we're just, we have no spine for tough decisions.
	And that's kind of a weird thing when we, at least those of us who've known this is coming, at least in one form or another, have been wondering about people for years.
	You know, it dovetails into the phrase that Tom Brokaw said a while back, several years ago, when he wrote his book, The Greatest Generation, about The sacrifice that our grandparents made during World War II. I don't see the same backbone in the contemporary generation in North America.
	They don't have the same backbone.
	But hopefully, going through this, it'll actually toughen us up.
	And maybe something positive will come out of this, that this egoism, this self-centeredness will start to erode and we'll be a stronger people, being able to withstand and take responsibility.
	Like, you know, you had a recent publication about taking responsibility.
	People need to realize that we're in it together.
	We need to help each other, help our neighbors.
	But we also have to take individual responsibility.
	And if everyone did that, there would be a Nash equilibrium that takes place.
	And the whole society rises up to the occasion.
	We can do this.
	We've done it before.
	But, you know, it's just contemporarily, we're used to this hit a button and you immediately get something.
	You know, this is going to take some time.
	Yeah, politicians can't sort of fudge their way out of this one because this is basic biological reality.
	And I'll try not to get all kinds of ranty and get all this foam on the screen or anything like that, Paul, but good Lord, the people who are comparing this to World War II, oh my God, like I'm, you know, with all due sympathy for the people who are sick and people who are dying, of course, right?
	But you go to some guy in 1939 in the UK or 1941 in America and say, okay, here's your choices, man.
	You get drafted, you get shipped overseas with very little battleground medicine, with very little cures for some of the various diseases you're going to get in Indonesia or whatever Bataan death march you're going to be stuck on, facing an enemy that is relentlessly cruel and will use you, if you're Australian, to test their various horrible weapons.
	And you'll barely get any sleep and you'll face constant risk of death and mutilation for the rest of your life.
	That's your one option.
	Or the other option is you can stay home, play some Xbox and pick up 1200 bucks a month for free.
	I mean, good Lord.
	I mean, this, this, oh, don't even get me.
	Cause I'm starting to sound like my granddad, you know, like high pants, short suspenders whittling on the back porch, yelling at the kids to get off his lawn.
	And he's going to keep their ball next time it goes over the fence.
	But Paul, kids these days, you know, like, I'm sorry.
	Maybe it's because I was raised by a generation that went through world war II. And I knew all of these stories and these realities, but, uh, People got to recognize, man, you're made of stronger stuff than you think.
	Right. No, I totally agree.
	I'd much rather have, just looking at it from a pandemic to pandemic comparison, I'd much rather be in today's situation with today's medicine and the technologies that we have to be able to communicate and talk in real time than, let's say, in 1918 when they had the Spanish flu.
	So we're in a better situation, actually, today.
	It's bad. But we have technologies and we can communicate and really get a better idea of what's happening in real time than 100 years ago.
	But I'll take this, what we're being barricade in New York right now, I'd take this than storm in Normandy any day.
	But there is something to be said about the character and the backbone Of that greatest generation, as Tom Brokhoff coined the phrase.
	But we can learn...
	Relatively hedonistic boomers.
	Right, exactly.
	But it's to learn something from it.
	What can we take from that?
	They are dying off.
	There's not that many left. But there's something to be learned from that spirit.
	Of persevering through hardship.
	We can learn from that.
	And on the other side of this, on the other side of the epidemiological curve, there's going to be sunshine and we can be better.
	We can be better off this way.
	We have to work together and we have to make sure that the powers that be, whoever they are, aren't taking advantage of the situation and eroding our civil liberties.
	Well, sorry to laugh because it's not funny, but you speak about that like it's some sort of future occurrence.
	Well, it's happening right now.
	You can see these tentacles of power reaching out from the scurvy foreheads of the Gollum-like power-hungry politicians at every single moment.
	It's so bizarre. It's like we're in a building, the foundation is cracking, the walls are creaking, and people are like, hey, man, what can I get from the...
	Oh, I'm going to root through the drawers and see if anybody left any money behind.
	They're just grabbing for all of this stuff right away, and it's absolutely repulsive.
	Boy, you see that mask coming off.
	The Crypt Keeper face of hungry power, the vampires in charge, and you've got governors ordering doctors not to provide...
	Life-saving medications to people.
	And you have people calling, of course, for the UN to temporarily adopt one-world government policies to deal with this.
	Yeah, no, I remember. I remember, Paul, back in 1917, not directly, of course, not quite that old, despite what some of my listeners believe.
	I remember back in 1917, in Canada, income tax was introduced, you see.
	As a temporary measure. And of course, there's nothing more temporary.
	You want to make something eternal? You want to make something infinite?
	At least until mathematics collides with money printing?
	Just make it a government program.
	So that is really staggering.
	On two sides. One, you've never seen this much discrediting of mainstream organizations from the media to the World Health Organization to many governors to academics and so on.
	You've never seen this much discrediting at the same time as you've never seen this much of a power grab.
	That's very true. And just recently, when they were trying to pass that bill in Congress, Nancy Pelosi had written in the bill that parts of it were struck down before it went for passage, decashing in a digital dollar.
	And the mechanism was, well, this was going to be the quicker way to reach people instead of issuing checks.
	And many people do direct deposit through Through the IRS. So they already have a connection to our banks.
	So you didn't need the digital dollar.
	But some people don't do that.
	But they were taking this as an opportunity to decash.
	Which, you know, as you know, I mean, leads to a whole set of new tyranny that's very dangerous.
	Now, my concern is that it'll pop up in another bill.
	See, in the United States and in Canada, you know, just because you knocked down the bill.
	Doesn't mean it starts to rear itself up again later down the road because they're probably going to need one or two more stimulus packages while this happens.
	And if people start to fall asleep or they start to feel more and more pain and their cortisol levels continue to rise, they're going to say, just give me something, government.
	I don't care what it is. Just give it to me and let the pain go away.
	And that's the concern I have with what I call the BioPatriot Act.
	Where they're going to take this event and And erode more of our civil liberties.
	Maybe our gun rights. You've probably seen this.
	You've got Bill Gates in an Ask Me Anything talking about implanted chips to show that you've got some kind of...
	I'm sort of off the top of my brain.
	So if people in the audience, the people who are on YouTube, if you know this better than I do, I just read this in passing.
	So if you have more details, feel free to break them out.
	But, you know, people are spitballing, half-cyborging us in the name of public health.
	And it's like, that's got to be a hell no from anybody with half a spine.
	I saw a one-hour discussion with one of the presenters, organizers for TEDx.
	He was interviewing Bill Gates.
	And it was about for an hour.
	And he was talking about his foundation and how they were speeding up test kits.
	Where the thought was it would be self-test.
	They would issue them out.
	It would protect the healthcare workers, because it's self-test, and the results wouldn't be shipped, but would actually be displayed, similar to a pregnancy kit.
	And it would determine if you're positive for COVID-19 or not.
	I like the idea, but he did mention in that interview Where you wouldn't be able to go back to work until you have papers that prove that you're negative for COVID-19.
	So it leads us into that discussion of social scoring.
	If you don't meet certain criteria, you can't get a job.
	This is dangerous.
	Well, of course, they're going to start it with a pandemic where people are like, well, sure, I don't want to be around somebody coughing puffer snickers through their nose in the next cubicle.
	They're going to start it with something.
	That's what they always do, right?
	They started de-platforming with Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer, who no decent person liked.
	And it's like, well, he's so unlikable, I don't want to stand on principle with that guy, right?
	And so they're going to start with someone where they say, well, you don't want to get sick, right?
	So we've got to put these rules in.
	And then, you know, come on, we all know how this plays.
	It's something that you'll accept.
	These rules, it's a slippery slope argument.
	It's not even an argument anymore.
	It's like saying, does a rock roll down a hill that's at 80 degrees?
	Well, of course it does, right? So what they're going to do is they're going to start with coronavirus, and then it's going to be other things.
	Then it's going to be, did you get your flu shot?
	Did you get your vaccinations?
	Have you had your teeth checked?
	Did you bathe this morning?
	Did you use Listerine?
	And then it's going to be, oh, you know, well, you posted the stuff that's highly offensive to certain groups in society.
	I'm sorry, now, you can't participate in the economic reality of your entire environment, and we're kicking you back to the Stone Age without even the benefit of anybody on your side.
	And the saber-toothed tigers of ostracism are just going to take you down.
	And that, to me, is the big danger, is that people will, in a panic, as you say, they will accept Those curtailments of liberties for the sake of the greater good, those curtailments of liberties, boy, you know, the question is then, do you see a few more people die, or do you see everyone's liberties die?
	And, you know, the example is the Red Book from Mao, and how the whole society followed it, you know, and they were cheering with, you know, and there's pictures that you can see on the internet, and I'm holding the Red Book.
	It's scary.
	It really is. But hopefully, and I've been trying to promote it, and it's very hard, but trying to promote this idea of get engaged and tell your representatives that you're awake and that you don't want the decashing.
	You don't want the erosion of the civil liberties.
	You don't want forced vaccinations.
	You want a more open society.
	You don't want the police officers.
	And this came up on Glenn Beck's show two days ago.
	Canada and the United States has two major manufacturers of drones, and the police officers in Canada and in the United States are ordering these drones.
	Now, why do the police officers need these drones if this is going to be somewhat a short-term thing?
	No, it's going to be a never-ending drone program that they'll expand over time, and it was beta tested In New York City during New Year's Eve.
	They use drones to surveil Times Square.
	So it's just like people just need to wake up and say, no, our police officers, yes, need to be supported and they need resources, but they shouldn't be Well,
	no, but to be fair, it is an airborne virus, and I'm fairly sure that a sniper bullet from a drone will take it out on its path to whoever is disobeying the local...
	Social rules. Now, so, okay, let's tinfoil it up for a second.
	And I say that knowing that that's a prejudicial face and also while I'm touching my face.
	But anyway, let's...
	Okay, I haven't left the house. So unless it's burrowing in through termite holes, I think I'm okay.
	So I've heard these stories online.
	I have not dug into them in great depth, and I apologize for putting you on the spot.
	If you haven't either, we can just move on.
	But it seems like there was quite a rehearsal for a global pandemic that was going on last year, not too long before the Wuhan virus, the CCP virus, got out.
	Have you dug into that at all?
	Have you heard about that?
	What have you heard? Okay, so there is a simulation that took place on October 18th.
	And it was run by Bill Gates Foundation.
	It was called Event 201.
	Man, I thought Windows was a virus.
	Okay, go on. So, Event 201.
	Now, there's a backstory to it.
	About four or five years ago on TED Talks, Bill Gates was promoting the idea of doing more and more pandemic simulations.
	Okay? But Event 201 happens.
	It was, I don't know, I think about 10 hours long, something like that, 5 hours long.
	I only saw, there's two videos.
	There's the full movie, if you want to call it a movie, or simulation.
	I saw the 15 minute Cliff Note version.
	And they basically had a panel of experts, quote experts, and military personnel and CEOs from important companies.
	Kind of like almost like a Bilderberg kind of situation.
	And they said, well, there's going to be a coronavirus in the world, and it's, you know, going to start to affect the economy.
	What do we do? And they're playing the simulation out.
	Kind of like Dungeons and Dragons, if anyone's played Dungeons and Dragons or a role-playing game like that.
	No, I've never heard of it myself. Come on, that would be way too dirty for me.
	Yeah, I actually was the Ninja Master.
	So, you know, when we were kids, we, you know, played it a lot.
	But something like that, where you do this role-play, and a lot of things that they were suggesting in the simulation were happening.
	And they suggested about 65 million worldwide would die from this.
	And it was a coronavirus.
	And that was in October of 18, 2019.
	To me, that's a month before this thing kicked off.
	Exactly. Exactly.
	Exactly. Coincidence or not?
	What are the odds that people who eat bats start coronavirus even when Wuhan is 600 miles from the local bat colony?
	Although it does happen to be the home of China's only level 4 biocontainment facility.
	What are the odds? What are the odds that they do a pandemic exercise or simulation with 65 million deaths one month before The category of virus that they talk about actually gets released.
	Now, to be fair, like in the movie Pandemic, they talk about a coronavirus.
	There's a Dean Kuntz novel from the early 80s that talks about coronavirus.
	So it is a fairly big and easily spreadable category of viruses, common cold all the way through to COVID-19.
	But nonetheless, It is one of these things that does make you go, hmm.
	Now, I try not to get sucked down these rabbit holes because what happens is you're never going to get the facts.
	Like whoever knows these facts has either had their mouths sewn up or they've been tossed into an incinerator or they were Jeffrey Epstein's cellmate or something like that, right?
	So you're just not going to find out the facts.
	But it certainly does make you go, hmm, that seems like more than something you would bet a lot of money on.
	Right. You know, it's fishy.
	Definitely fishy. And when you look at the research, if you're diving into how this was engineered, and you can see it in the research papers as they were moving on and building up what they call pseudoviruses, I have a paper actually on my website.
	That talks about them building up the HIV homology with the coronavirus to show how it was infecting ACE2 receptors, human ACE2 receptors, and not infecting the ACE2 receptors in the bat.
	So the bat could be the host.
	The paper, the research paper, It's on my website.
	And one of the authors of the paper is one of the key builders of this virus that I proposed.
	And his name is Dr.
	Piang Zhao.
	And what is really interesting that kind of dovetails into kind of the conspiracy of what's going on is there may be a coverup from the leak from P4 and how I can, the reason why I say that.
	There is a coverup no matter what.
	I'm sorry.
	I'm putting my reputation.
	I appreciate that you're a mathematician and you, you want to put your hedge bets in.
	I have a history degree.
	I'll go all in. You're a very caveat.
	I'll go all in.
	This is what I'm saying.
	I'm saying that there was a bioengineered virus.
	And there was another virus that bifurcated in the lab that was a black operation.
	And it happened in 2015.
	So there was two bioengineered lines, one for weapons and one for science.
	And I think that the Wuhan virus is the bioweapon that leaked out.
	And the RATG13 was the scientific line.
	And the Chinese are trying to cover it up because what happened in the NIH database for the sequencing is the RATG13 did not exist in the NIH database when I ran it on January 25th, the 27th, and early February when I was looking at the genomes to understand the HIV homology and how this thing was being built.
	Then on February 24th, The genome pops up for RATG13. The 13 means that it was discovered in 2013.
	Well, where was it in the genome database the last seven years?
	That's why I say that it was a hidden program.
	And then, to make even things worse, they've updated the database where it's now saying March 24th.
	So they did something to the record.
	What they changed, I don't know.
	It may not be anything with the actual genome sequence.
	It could have been annotations of the record, you know, dealing with professors that were involved or different proteins that were added that were sequenced because they also sequenced proteins, not just the genome.
	But there's something fishy because that genome just popped up this year.
	They were referencing that genome way back, you know, You know, saying that it was in research a long time ago.
	So there's a cover-up.
	And Piang Zhao, in these new publications that are popping up in 2020, saying that this is zoonotic, his name keeps on popping up on these articles.
	But he's the one that's on the article that was published in 2008, that's on my website, that proves that he's the one that put the HIV in the coronavirus.
	Yeah, so a friend of mine who is well-versed in this material, I won't sort of give out his name, but he's in a debate about the origin of this SARS-CoV-2, right?
	And so from nature.com, there's an article called The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2 that people are always quoting as a pushback against the idea that it's engineered.
	And he quotes from this and he says, thus the high affinity binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human ACE2 receptors, is what you and I talked about at the beginning, what you talked about really, and I just tried to follow along, is most likely the result of natural selection on a human or human-like ACE2 that permits another optimal binding solution to arise.
	This is strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 is not the product of purposeful manipulation.
	And he says, since when is most likely the result of natural selection considered, quote, Strong evidence.
	And from the article, it says, if genetic manipulation had been performed, one of the several reverse genetic systems available for beta coronaviruses would probably have been used.
	So here, he says, their argument seems to be, quote, this was not made the way we would have chosen to make it.
	Thus, it was not And again, this all seems very flimsy.
	And if you want to know where there are a lot of bat virus in Wuhan, the answer is the Wuhan Institute of Virology, specifically in the lab of Xing Yi.
	I'm sorry, I don't know how to pronounce it.
	And he said this from the article, this leaves the insertion of polybasic cleavage site to occur during human-human transmission.
	You can explain that to me in a sec.
	He said, keep in mind their theory is that the virus accumulated its novel property after it came into humans.
	That is possible. Although it is also possible that this happened in the lab, there are documented instances of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV-28.
	We must therefore examine the possibility of an inadvertent laboratory release of SARS-CoV-2.
	He says, as we all know, wet lab and microbiology people make mistakes.
	I feel the most likely answer is that someone at the lab made a mistake.
	Whether or not the virus was intentionally genetically manipulated or not is a totally separate question from did it come from the laboratory.
	That the paper conflates these two questions into one demonstrates a serious logical flaw In the paper.
	So that's a whole lot of stuff.
	Polybasic cleavage site, that sounds like, I don't know, the worst e-thought website in the world, but what are they talking about?
	This leaves the insertion of polybasic cleavage site to occur during human-to-human transmission, which I can only say...
	Paul, help me.
	Okay. All right. So the cleavage site is they're talking about the protease, and the protease that they're referring to is furrin.
	And as I mentioned on your show, furrin It adds to the infection by a thousand times.
	Okay? So in the S protein, the spike protein, that part of the genome will code for a protein, but it's not cleaved.
	It's not folded yet. So it needs that poly basic site or that cleavage site for the furrin to come and cleave it.
	And then you have S1 and S2 That will fold and create the spike protein.
	Okay? So now what's important is it goes back to the 2008 paper.
	This is why people need to know the history to understand it.
	The 2008 paper manipulated in the lab the polybasic cleavage point by using the HIV homology.
	And they were in that paper you're talking about is referencing the RATG13. The RATG-13 didn't exist in 2008.
	That's my point.
	They made RATG-13.
	RATG-13, I believe, was bioengineered.
	And I believe Wuhan, which is slightly different, but there's a lot of similarity to RATG-13, probably was the weapons virus.
	And they were running in parallel.
	So, you know, I read that paper.
	Now, that paper that it was referencing is actually an op-ed because it starts as to the editor.
	Now, who writes a research article to the editor?
	Anyone that's published a paper doesn't do that.
	So it was an op-ed correspondence to nature.
	And one of the first citations in that is a Pian Zhao paper that they're citing.
	That where Pyeng Zhao is trying to state that this was a bat SARS zoonotic.
	Now, remember, he works at the P4 lab.
	So he has a dog in this race to make sure that he's covering up his trail.
	Because most people would not have the paper that I'm talking about.
	That goes back to 2008, where he made the pseudo-HIV coronavirus.
	Because they were stating in that paper, the 2008 paper, that the SARS or the BAT-SARS coronavirus is not infecting very well the human ACE2 receptor until they put the HIV homology in.
	And that's the poly-basic cleavage site.
	And the paper that you're talking about isn't talking about the gag part.
	They're only talking about...
	I'm sorry. They're talking about the gag part of it.
	They're not talking about the glycoprotein 120, which is the other three inserts, which I'm concerned about because...
	Uh, G, uh, GP or, or, uh, glycoprotein 120 is what attaches to one of the receptors that's doing the pinballing that I was telling you about.
	All right. Which is the CD299 receptor that's in our immune cells and some, uh, AT2 cells in the air sac.
	Okay. So this is very complicated and People that are deep into the biology of this would understand a little bit better what I'm saying, but for the layman person, there are multiple receptors that this virus can attack and that it was purposely designed from the scientific point of view to understand how does it get to the human ACE2 receptor,
	which is the main receptor.
	To build a therapeutic, to design a therapeutic to fight it.
	Okay? But it looks like in around 2015, it bifurcated and became, you know, another line was designed that was probably a weapons direction, you know, a bioweapon.
	And there's some proof on this.
	That proves this bifurcation point because Dr.
	Boyle is stating that.
	So like a lot of people were saying, well, Dr.
	Paul Cottrell, he's saying that it's a bioengineer and Dr.
	Boyle was saying that it's a bioweapon.
	It's not mutually exclusive.
	That's my point.
	We're both right.
	We were talking about two different lines, strains that were happening.
	And It's a little scary on what's happening.
	It would show that if you were to make a weapon, don't you want it to pinball?
	Well, it's a weapon against the economy.
	I mean, it's not a weapon against people primarily.
	It's a weapon against the economy.
	And you don't want a weapon to kill people quickly because that's not as bad as the economy as we talked about before.
	Now, let's talk about...
	Wait, so let me...
	One last point.
	Hey, I interrupt people all the time. Please feel free.
	The CD209 and the CD299 receptors, they're upregulated in Caucasians, not Asians, and elderly.
	Well, if you want a weapon, that's it.
	Okay, so this is the race or ethnic susceptibility to this.
	And I know it was a very, very small sample size, but I talked about this, I think, in early February, just about how Asians have significantly more receptors.
	And by Asians, let's be sort of more specific, the East Asians, right?
	I mean, what used to be called Orientals or, you know, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and so on, that they have elevated receptors for the COVID-19.
	And this is one reason why they tend to be more susceptible.
	But of course, you're putting the category of the elderly in that as well.
	Is that right? Yeah, but here's the play.
	They get sick first, they get the antibodies.
	It starts to attenuate away from the ACE2. Yes, ACE2 is more upregulated for male, possibly more male Asian.
	But as it attenuates and moves towards the CD299, we get infected.
	They already have parts of the antibody.
	So what I'm saying is that the CCP has more resilience More antibody.
	While the Western nations are sick.
	Now, if you're going to attack...
	Sorry, let me just make sure I understand that.
	I almost feel like I'm sort of playing catch-up, which is good.
	I enjoy that. So you're saying that in China, let's just keep it geographically specific, all this may be true for all East Asians.
	So in China, they're going to get it...
	First, they're going to get it hard hit, but they're going to develop antibodies.
	But as it moves, say, to Caucasians, which would explain why America, somebody just posted in the chat that America is over 100,000.
	Now that the deaths in America have now exceeded that of China, even though China has a more primitive economy, more primitive health care.
	It has some fairly nasty practices when it comes to eating and personal hygiene and so on.
	That you're saying that as it moves from East Asians to Caucasians, that there's going to be an uptick in the virulence of the illness.
	And the duration.
	Because they want to move and control the first island change by 2025.
	And if we pinball this thing, this thing can rear itself back up.
	It's not a 20-month issue.
	It's a 20-month, goes away, it's quiet, and then pops up again.
	Because it gains function with those other receptors that have a higher affinity in Caucasians.
	So they're willing to sacrifice some number of their own population in order to harm Caucasians who...
	This is a two-year plan.
	This is a two-year plan.
	So, okay, so let me just run...
	Okay, so the way that I look at this, and play me out with the...
	Be kind, play out the scenario with me.
	So the three categories that I sort of look at this event at to analogize it to the criminal justice system is we look at...
	Accidents, manslaughter, and murder, right?
	So the accident is, hey, you know, it really did just come from bats.
	It was bad luck. Nobody had any clue.
	It spread. We're all in this together.
	That's the accidental scenario.
	Now, the manslaughter element Is that it got out of the lab.
	The government didn't know how.
	They didn't track it. They didn't really.
	So there's negligence, but it's not.
	The first degree is it's a weapon.
	We're going to specifically release it.
	We're going to keep our airports open.
	We're going to influence the WHO, like the World Health Organization.
	The guy was largely put in by the CCP, the head of the World Health Organization.
	So we're going to suppress how dangerous it is.
	We're not going to let the people come in to examine it.
	And so, to me, the question—and it's a really, really important question—is it accidental?
	Is it manslaughter?
	In other words, is it negligence?
	Or is it an actual homicide?
	This is important. Now, the one thing that leads me towards either manslaughter or homicide with regards to the release of this virus is quite simple, is that the story keeps changing.
	Because first it was the bats, and then to some degree the Wuhan fish market, and then they pivoted when this started to become disproven and the data came out that a lot of the early infections had nothing to do with this Wuhan fish market.
	Then they pivoted and they said, no, it was the U.S. The U.S. Army was over here and they're the ones who did it.
	And this to me, the fact that the story keeps changing, well, that's kind of what you'd expect from a guilty person.
	I just keep pointing fingers until...
	Something lands, and that seems to be very important.
	What I would want from the Chinese government would be exactly what somebody suspected of either homicide, maybe second degree or first degree murder, or manslaughter.
	You've got to open your books, man.
	You've got to let people come in.
	What they should be doing, of course, is letting independent evaluators Go in to the Wuhan bio-facility and they should have open books.
	It should be, you know, power of subpoena documents and depositions.
	It should just be all an open book.
	But they're not doing any of that.
	And now that the virus is outside their borders and spreading throughout the world, China, what have they done?
	Well, they have closed their country to foreigners.
	And that to me does not look, this to me looks exactly like you would expect a guilty person, how exactly you would expect a guilty person to behave.
	Exactly, exactly.
	Can you imagine if they admitted or the WHO said, We have found proof that they leaked out, either accidentally or on purpose, a bioweapon.
	Not just a scientific bioengineered virus, but a bioweapon.
	And it would be one of the greatest acts of war that has ever been initiated in the history of mankind.
	Yeah, exactly. Now, if it was, like I said, there was a scientific line.
	There was multiple scientific lines, not just in Wuhan.
	There's around the world.
	But there was a bifurcation that had a bioweapons component to this, a line.
	I can't tell you for sure if it was on purpose, that bioweapon leakage, or if it was on accident.
	If it was on accident, like you said, it's manslaughter.
	If it's on purpose, then it's first degree murder.
	And it's, but the thing is, is that deep down, it does matter, but it does matter big time.
	But when people need to realize, and we do this even in our governments, we have weapons programs that are secret that people don't know about that can hurt a lot of people if it is accidentally leaked out.
	We need to have a larger philosophical discussion on who's watching the watcher?
	Who's making these decisions?
	Nobody can watch the watchers.
	We can talk about democracy all we want, but if people don't know, they don't know.
	We're building up these weapons programs that could kill everybody.
	You know? And I just, like, these generals are almost out of control.
	But the good news is that the world has been spending trillions of dollars and decades of scientific intelligence trying to figure out how to alter the temperature in 100 years by 0.2 degrees.
	So that's where we've been really focusing our efforts.
	And, of course, the big fear, this is what drives me nuts, about the intelligence establishments, pretty much as oxymoronic as you can imagine, like military intelligence, but, you know, you've got to pick one, right?
	Is that what have they been focusing on?
	Well, they've been focusing on nukes, basically since the Rosenbergs gave the secrets to the Soviets in the 50s, I think it was, right?
	Or late 40s. So they've been focusing on the leader of North Korea and his nuclear program and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
	Meanwhile, I mean, China is basically cooking up a combination of Satan's armpit and the witch's brew from the beginning of Macbeth for decades.
	Hello? Anybody notice this?
	We've got Chinese scientists working away in labs.
	Ferreting and pushing God knows what information and samples back to China.
	You know, it's one thing if they're ripping off a Justin Bieber CD, it seems quite another when they're taking Western expertise in bioweapons or bio-horrors back to the homeland.
	Sorry, I didn't even know what the question is in that rant.
	You got it right.
	You absolutely got it right.
	100%. And, you know, it's just like people need to wake up and say, hey, you know, we need to have a say as citizens on what our defense department is doing.
	Because if something goes wrong, we're talking about now chaos theory here.
	You know, it's a rare event, but when it does happen, it's catastrophic.
	Look, the cost-benefit calculation is not even close.
	Like, the cost-benefit calculation, why are people, you know, it leads me down a complete rabbit hole because, of course, you know, the Georgia Stones, we've got to get the population down to 500 million, the radical environmentalists slash communists who want to depopulate the planet because they saw the matrix while stoned one time too many.
	Like, there's literally this group of people who wish and desperately thirst and desire a bunch of sociopaths who thirst for the deaths of billions and billions of people.
	Around the world because, I don't know, they view humanity as a cancer and you've just got to irradiate that mofo off the face of the planet.
	And it's like, I mean, how many of these people are in power?
	I mean, what is it? Just pedophiles and genocide maniacs?
	I mean, is that all we have ruling us?
	Sorry, I don't know. That might be the case.
	But, you know, I take it from, you know, being the Detroit auto engineer type, you know, and it's like, Society, as it grows, will have problems.
	But we can engineer solutions.
	It doesn't mean that you have to have mass calling.
	You know, whatever the social...
	We're on the same page as far as no mass calling.
	Yeah, I mean, but it's just, it's idiotic for people to think that you have to, like, reduce the population radically.
	You know, we're not even using proper agricultural techniques to feed the world.
	Not even close. I mean, it's very rudimentary how we do farming right now.
	There's lots of better technologies in permaculture and getting better yield per acre that we could easily feed many times more than what we are now.
	But people don't think like engineers or system engineers.
	People think very linear.
	I got so much good stuff out of engineers.
	Engineers, like this special autistic breed of, like, Vulcan-based robots of truth, because I got so many great arguments from engineers that really helped wake me up to how dangerous this was.
	Okay, let's switch gears for a second.
	Not much of a gear, I guess, and we'll get to questions from the audience.
	I just wanted to point out just how enjoyable it is to me that Paul is so much more popular than me on my own show.
	It's great. It's great.
	Well, you know, I guess people are looking for some expertise, which is great.
	But okay, so let's talk about what the...
	Oh, let's keep it family friendly.
	Paul, what the heck is going on in China?
	I mean, they claim to have beaten this thing, but it seems like they've got, what, 8 million people missing from their cell phone rolls.
	They've got sulfur clouds visible from space.
	Like, what the hell? Do you think, I know we're reaching a little bit over the bramble bush of propaganda here, but do you accept or believe what the Chinese government is saying about what's going on in China?
	No, I think they're covering it up, one, because of the weapons program.
	And two, they're afraid to tell the world at large how bad it really was.
	I believe it's more at the 8 to 80 million infected number in China.
	I don't believe the 80,000 because the United States surpassed that.
	Just the United States and we only have 330 million people.
	And we haven't even put a dent in the testing yet.
	And they have 1.6 billion.
	We didn't have the Chinese New Year.
	It's the biggest human movement on the planet.
	We didn't have the Chinese New Year movement that occurred right at the peak of transmissibility at the early times of this virus.
	That's a good point. That's a good point. That's a good point.
	So they should have a very high number.
	Very high number. And I don't believe only 3,000 deaths when there were lots of reports of 24-7 crematorium throughputs.
	So you don't do 24-7 for only 3,000 people.
	That's like 1,000 a day, maybe, throughput.
	And so I don't believe the numbers at all.
	I think that it's more than 100 times more.
	We're going to, once we, once the, you know, again, you know, scientists have to get enough data to make a decision on anything.
	But once all the data falls in with this, after an 18-month period, it will just show, it'll just scream that China was lying.
	I think the data right now is showing it, because if you add up all of Europe, Europe is much more infected than, and the death rate's higher.
	What China is saying.
	With the population densities in China, like you said, the Chinese New Year and the spread of that, there's no way that they contain it.
	Now, Bill Gates, during that one-hour TED Talk interview the other day, he was...
	He was praising China, saying that because of their totalitarian regime, that they could lock down everybody, and they flatten that curve really fast.
	I don't believe that.
	I don't believe it whatsoever.
	And it's sad that he's propping up, just like the WHO is, and saying China's so great.
	And I think when everything's said and done, when all the dust settles, we're going to see that China lied, and they were trying to cover up a weapons program, And, you know, that hopefully people will wake up and say, you know what, no more Chinese products.
	I like the Chinese people.
	I have a lot of Chinese friends. But the CCP is destroying this world, literally.
	And, you know, no more economic help.
	You know, we built, the United States literally built China for the last 30 years.
	And we bought their cheap products.
	Because we wanted to import deflation.
	And we shipped our jobs overseas.
	Oh, to counter the money printing. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	So, well, you know what?
	Let's bring them back.
	Let's bring those jobs back.
	Let's rebuild our supply chains.
	And let's be more endogenous.
	Or more self-sufficient.
	Less fragile.
	And let China build their own country.
	They don't need our FDI. Or foreign direct investment.
	Enough is enough with them.
	But the Chinese people, we have to be clear, because I don't believe in xenophobia.
	I believe that the Chinese people are good people.
	But their government is destroying this world.
	They're named to be held accountable.
	And to be fair, of course, it was the government largely foisted upon the Chinese people by all of the communist spies in the U.S. State Department after the Second World War.
	The reason why I bring up the xenophobia is we're seeing it in New York.
	You know, if an Asian person is on a train, people move over to the other side of the train car.
	You know, because it's thought that, well, you know, they're carrying the virus.
	They're the cause of the virus.
	Well, no.
	I mean, it's idiotic about how people act.
	To play the odds, though, to play the odds, you know, racially profiling people as being a potential source of the virus, people are, it's the cost benefit, right?
	So people say, okay, what if this guy is just 1% more likely to have the virus than some guy from Mexico or some, you know, white guy from Queens or whatever?
	Okay, so if I stand close to him, it doesn't really give me much benefit.
	But even if it's a 1% greater chance, I'm not justifying all of this paranoia, but in terms of the cost-benefit, moving away is relatively effort-free.
	Well, actually, if you look at- It reduces your chance of infection by 1%, you know, I can see how people come to that conclusion.
	Well, no, no, but think about the probability of this.
	Think about the probability of this.
	If you have fit, in this case, we already started doing self-quarantine when this happened.
	And there were 50 people in the car, in the train car, which is not that many when you're talking about New York.
	So there's enough space to walk around.
	Sometimes you can't walk around in the train car.
	So if you have one Asian on one end...
	And you have 50 non-Asians on the other end, you have a probability of getting something on the 50-end side higher than the one person on the other.
	So if I was a betting person, I'd be with the Asian, not with the other 49.
	But you're changing the variables there.
	I'm just talking like on a one-to-one person, you could say that the East Asian is going to be a tiny bit higher chance of giving you coronavirus than every other potential.
	I would agree with you.
	But yeah, I agree with you about that.
	Okay, we're going to take a couple of questions in a second.
	And man, did I have a great question there.
	This is the great thing about life, is that, you know, if the question evaporates from your brain, like a fried egg on an Arizona rock, then it doesn't come back.
	So I tell you what, let's go...
	To the questions, if people have them.
	And of course, you know, asking people not to spam us too much is not going to be too likely.
	It's nice to see over almost 4,000 people watching this live, though.
	That's really, really great.
	And yeah, the cheap labor issue is funny.
	You know, I have these debates quite a bit.
	I don't know what your thoughts are just while we wait for these questions to...
	To pop up, but I don't believe that manufacturing left the West primarily because of labor prices.
	See, as you know, labor prices in manufacturing is not a massive part of the whole supply chain issue, and slightly lower wages or significantly lower wages doesn't necessarily translate into a massive product difference at the end.
	It's not like half the wage price is half the final retail.
	It's very, very complicated, and it's only a small, relatively small percentage point of the final product is labor costs.
	I think What happened was, you know, people who are entrepreneurs, right?
	So you're an entrepreneur. I'm an entrepreneur.
	I know a lot of the people listening to or watching this are entrepreneurs.
	Do you know what we hate more than anything?
	What we hate even more than going out of business is bureaucracy and red tape.
	Oh, man. Can you imagine?
	And taxes. And taxes.
	Yeah, I know. Okay, I get that. But if I had to apply, as may be the case relatively soon, if I had to apply for a stack full of permits to be able to have a conversation with you, I'd probably go do something else.
	And you can see, of course, that the most economic growth tends to occur in the least regulated markets.
	Like I could go and co-found a software company, be chief technology officer with having no degree in computer science, just being a hobbyist since I was like 11.
	So there was no regulatory barrier for me to go and get done what I needed to get done.
	And if you want to go and try and build a factory in France or hyper-regulated places like France or Germany, America to some degree, Canada for sure, It's just so uncertain.
	It's so delicate.
	I mean, look at trying to get a pipeline in Alberta.
	I mean, it's completely mad how many, you know, you've got to consult with the indigenous population.
	And then there's the snail daughter environmental site assessment.
	And there's an environmental impact study.
	And then there's a health and safety review.
	And I mean, it just goes on.
	It can take years to actually get something built.
	And then so you plan something, especially if it's high tech.
	By the time you actually get around to building it, I bet your plans are useless because things have changed so much.
	I mean, imagine if we had to wait three months to report on coronavirus, it would be worse than useless.
	So the fact that we can go live and talk about this stuff is really, really important.
	And I think what happened was people said, okay, so I can get...
	Enmeshed in this horrible political process that could change with the next administration.
	I mean, look what they're doing. They're threatening, well, we're going to shut coal down.
	No, we love coal. No, we're going to shut coal down.
	Depending on the administration, who wants to invest in that kind of political and regulatory uncertainty?
	Who wants to wait that long for an uncertain outcome?
	You know, as you're going through the process of trying to build a factory in the West, the regulations can change to the point where it actually becomes Kind of impossible.
	At the same time as you're waiting to build a factory, stuff is flooding in from overseas, undercutting your market as a whole.
	And also then you've got these crazy unions.
	And again, I've got no problem with unions at a voluntary level, but unions that have this power of the state behind them and they can shut down your business and prevent scabs from coming in.
	I mean, they're just holding you by the balls in a pair of vices and bear traps.
	So I think what happened was it became Not illegal, but functionally impossible to do a lot of manufacturing in the West.
	And that's why people ended up going to Mexico and they ended up going to China or India or other places just because, you know, you got to get stuff done in this life.
	And just waiting to burrow your way through like Robert De Niro style, this whirlwind.
	Of paperwork and political uncertainty and hostility and bad press and all of that from all the environmentalist groups.
	I think it just kind of became functionally impossible.
	In other words, by trying to keep ourselves safe from anything negative, we may have actually helped promote coronavirus on the air between us.
	I agree with the complexity of business and why it was shipped overseas.
	One other factor that you didn't mention was quality.
	Quality was really going down in the 70s and the 80s in terms of having it.
	Yes, in the United States.
	And some of the quality experts, the statistical quality experts and the Six Sigma experts out there, It didn't take in the United States in the 80s until it went to Japan.
	They used it in part of their Kaizen process.
	And then eventually it was adopted through Jack Welsh, you know, through the NBA programs.
	But the United States was a little late to the party when it came to that Six Sigma.
	Well, it also reminds me, sorry to interrupt, but there's this book, At Our Wits End.
	And it's basically saying that we have for the West a big IQ problem.
	The reason why we can't sustain something like the Concord is we just don't have the engineering expertise.
	And of course, other cultures don't have that same issue.
	So, all right. So let me just hit you with a couple of questions here from the audience.
	Sorry, this is a nice open ended one.
	Feel free to roam around.
	How does this play out, Paul?
	Best guess at the moment with the information you have?
	If chloroquine works or remnosphere or a vaccine comes out in a year and a half, we're not going to have the 165 million cases that I project in the United States.
	But if they don't work and the social distancing doesn't work, then we will have 165 million cases.
	It's anywhere from $165 million in 18 months or 20 months to maybe about $20 million.
	But anything can happen in between then.
	This is not something that's going to go away quick.
	And people need to wake up.
	There's a new normal that's happening here.
	Okay, so this is something that I went down this rabbit hole about a week ago.
	And if you don't know, you don't know.
	But did you know that the seventh annual military games were hosted in Wuhan, China, on the same day as Event 201 in New York, October 18, 2019?
	And this, I think, is part of the CCP argument as to it came from the US military.
	Is that right? Right.
	Yeah, there is this theory about this war game thing.
	It's a theory.
	I don't know. Again, the United States is saying, hey, it happened in China.
	Something happened in Wuhan.
	Maybe it's from the P-4.
	I believe it's from the P-4.
	I believe it's a weapons program.
	And the CCP... Is trying to do disinformation and say that it was the US that, you know, that did it against the Chinese.
	So there's a geopolitical component to this.
	And people need to wake up and realize that there's going to be disinformation going back and forth.
	Why is the mainstream media so dead set against even entertaining the argument that COVID-19 could be bioengineered?
	Well, I think that it opens up that deep state, black operations that are going on at so many different levels.
	I found really odd during the Afghan and Iraq invasions right after 9-11 was how Almost complicit CNN was with the Pentagon.
	It's almost like they just took it for face value in everything they were saying about weapons of mass destruction with Saddam Hussein.
	It's something similar.
	It's like they are not being journalists anymore.
	They're being told what to say.
	They're telepromp readers.
	They don't investigate stories anymore.
	And then on top of it, the Chinese have infiltrated our industries here.
	You know, they're part of the advertising.
	I mean, China owns Hollywood.
	So... Yeah, people say, why are the celebrities not coming out and doing charity concerts?
	It's because they don't want to kill their access to their Chinese watch.
	Exactly, exactly.
	So here's an important question.
	Sorry, like the other's word.
	That's got to be something. So this is the latest hyper-important question.
	Okay. Stop with this fear-mongering.
	Fear-mongering is not an argument, but it is a reasonable perspective to discuss.
	The statistics are being reassessed.
	Let me just do a minor correction here.
	I talked about this in my live stream yesterday, that some of the estimates That came out of the Imperial College in London went down from 500,000 dead down to like 20,000, right?
	So that's a significant drop.
	And yet, the fact of the matter is that this was a range and the high end was with no social distancing and so on, right?
	So a lot of people feel that the earlier fear-mongering or the earlier dire statistics did not play out in the way that things have happened so far, and therefore we should be skeptical of warning or dire scenarios going forward.
	And as you've been tracking some of these, I wouldn't say reassessments, but people giving numbers based upon the lower end of prior estimates How does that tie into what people do sometimes see as fear-mongering, like millions dead and 18 months and so on?
	Well, I think it's very important that any model, it's based on assumptions.
	And you've mentioned this on many, many videos about simulations.
	Anyone can simulate anything, and it's with the parameters you put in, right?
	And this was talking about global warming, actually.
	But in this case, I've stated that I believe that the numbers are going to be high if certain things happen.
	And that's if the social distancing doesn't work, if the therapeutics don't work as well, that we don't get this...
	If we get a new gain of function, it'll cause a problem with the receptors.
	And the health demographics of the United States is poor.
	That's a fact. But I've been stating that the 6.9 million that will die in the United States from COVID-19, comma, through the complications of COVID-19.
	That's the key point here.
	A lot of people are unhealthy.
	And there's a lot of people that have diabetes in the United States, that are obese, they have heart disease, they have kidney dysfunction, they have liver dysfunction, and other comorbidities where if you get COVID-19, you most likely will die from it.
	Now, it may be called fear-mongering, but the reality of the situation is to wake up people to start becoming their own doctor in the sense, take responsibility of your health.
	Because a lot of these diabetes patients, not all, but a lot, the type 2, a lot of them were self-induced.
	They were self-induced because of lifestyle.
	So people may call it fear-mongering.
	The reality is it's showing a mirror.
	To the American public that because of your lifestyle choices, you've actually caused the probability of dying from this to increase.
	For example, my mother, for 40 years she smoked.
	She has severe COPD. She gets this, she will die.
	She will die. She's not going to survive, and she'll die quickly because she can't breathe.
	Those are facts.
	Those are facts.
	That's not fear-mongering. I want people to take responsibility of their health and to take the opportunity to...
	As long as you still are alive, you have a chance and you can boost up your immune system.
	There's lots of ways to do that by eating properly and proper nutrition and all that.
	It's not fear-mongering.
	Fear-mongering is like, everyone's going to die, and you don't give them the reason.
	And there's nothing we can do. It's like, the sky is falling and all that.
	That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you prepare and you do proper procedures, proper protocol, you have a better chance of surviving through this.
	But if you think that, if you just say, this is just the flu, then people aren't going to pay attention.
	With the social distancing and the shelter in place, and the infection rates will start to increase.
	And we will not bring down that curve and smash it, like we were talking earlier.
	So you have to state that this is very important to do, that this is a dire situation to get people engaged to pay attention.
	See, this is, you know, you have to sound the alarm to get people to wake up.
	So let's talk about the comparisons that are being, I wouldn't say thrown about, that's kind of a dismissive phrase, but the comparisons that are being put in are to do with H1N1, swine flu, and so on, and saying, well, look, you know, we've had these things before and infected millions of people, there were tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths, and, you know, we're freaking out over a road we've traveled before without freaking out, so what justifies the freak out now?
	This was bioengineered.
	HN1 was zoonotic.
	Ebola was zoonotic.
	The Spanish flu was zoonotic.
	MERS was zoonotic.
	SARS was zoonotic.
	This is the best of both worlds, and I've mentioned multiple times why.
	They took the best of the replicase and the best of the spike protein, spiked it up with HIV, homology, and you got a bioweapon.
	That is the problem.
	And if people keep on thinking that this is just zoonotic and this is just your average garden variety virus, you have another thing coming.
	Well, that other thing could be a respirator.
	Okay. Right. Now, he would like to, sorry, people would like to talk about, and again, this is not medical advice.
	This is simply just opinions and perspectives, but they do want to talk about colloidal silver, which is something I've heard about, and also other treatments that seem to be showing some promise.
	I guess looking for the ray of hope in the entire language that we're using.
	Right. So there are, you know, the allopathic, you know, the more MD route of treatment, antivirals, protease inhibitors, strong antibiotics, and the more homeopathic nutraceutical route, okay? They are not mutually exclusive, okay?
	They're synergies. But if you're sick, you need to see your doctor.
	But there may be a lot of people that can't see their doctor for multiple reasons, because you might have a medical system that starts to collapse.
	And it probably will happen in New York first.
	But all right, so on the homeopathic side, Boosting up your immune system by taking your vitamins, vitamin C's, zinc's, anti-inflammatories will help boost up your immune system, like the turmeric's. Having a proper mitochondrial health will boost up your ATP levels, that's your energy levels.
	That can be done with NMN as a supplement.
	PQQ, CoQ10, these are all known to be antioxidants, immune system boosters, Proper hydration, filtered water, make sure you don't have that fluoride in there, and iodine, so you have proper thyroid health, because the thyroid is really important to give you that homeostasis with your endocrine system, because a lot of Americans have endocrine disruption.
	What that basically means is your endocrine system is not working properly, and you can't fight pathogens, and you just have a poor disease state, okay?
	So you can do that.
	Now, in terms of the colloidal silver, the colloidal silver is good, but it is ionic.
	It's When it's dissolved, it's one ion.
	So it only has, let's say, one bullet.
	You can imagine it can only react once.
	There's something called nanosilver.
	Nanosilver is a tetrahedral molecule.
	And it has four oxygens attached to a silver atom.
	That allows it to have multiple attack points on a pathogen.
	So what this does is not only help boost your immune system, but it also disrupts glycoproteins on certain pathogens.
	This is a well-known fact, and the military uses it in the field.
	So if the military uses it, they don't use colloidal silver, they use nanosilver.
	So I put my bet on the guys that are in the SEAL team and what they use.
	Colloidal silver is an older technology.
	Nanosilver, because of how it's made, is more of a modern invention.
	It's much better.
	But if you do have colloidal and you can't get nano, colloidal will help you.
	The thing with colloidal is that it can be absorbed in adipose tissue and build up toxicity if you're taking it all the time as a supplement.
	So colloidal should be only taken when you're sick, not as a supplement, while nanosilver is excreted out of the body within a 12 to 24 hour period.
	So you don't have toxicity of buildup in your body like you do with colloidal.
	Colloidal, again, is an older technology, an older way of it.
	Nano is much better and it doesn't have the toxicity problems.
	Okay, so good.
	What has Russia done right?
	Well, we assume that Russia did things right because I think they're lying with their numbers.
	They did close their borders early.
	That helped. But they're also, in the news, building in record time a big hospital facility similar to what they did in Wuhan.
	So That leads me to believe that Putin has data internally that he's not sharing to the world that there's a problem in Russia.
	And he also suspended the constitution where they're not going to do elections.
	So he's going to be the president.
	So there's constitutional things going on with Putin In Russia.
	And the building of that hospital, if things weren't that bad, there's no reason to build a hospital, you know, in record time.
	And I just don't believe the numbers.
	So Russia's got a problem.
	It's just how bad is it?
	We just don't know because it's opaque.
	And I'm sorry to retread this, but I'm getting a lot of questions.
	This is from Caroline. And if you can just give the Coles notes on this, can you give more evidence of the virus being bioengineered other than that paper that was retracted talking about the four HIV inserts?
	I agree it was bioengineered.
	I just want more info.
	Thanks. And of course, I'll turn that over to Paul because it gets a bit acronym-y for me.
	On my channel, if you go to January 25th and watch the videos from January 25th through February 1st, that will be a great introduction on why it was bioengineered.
	How I came to that conclusion.
	Then on my website, you can go to the website, and there's a link on the front page, on the homepage, called Medicine.
	That will go to a bunch of PDF files.
	And in one of those PDF files, it talks about the origins of the coronavirus.
	And if you read many of those PDF files, it'll show you that That they were slowly building this thing up all the way back to 2008.
	And we were talking about this earlier in this livecast about the pseudo virus they made with HIV to improve the infection on human ACE2 receptors.
	So those are the two main sources that you can look at.
	And then if you have further questions, then you can reach out to me.
	All right. So, yes, he's not a medical doctor.
	That is very, very true.
	A basket of puppies wants people to know that fish tank cleaner doesn't work.
	And I think we can all get behind that.
	Whatever our disagreements and confusions about this entire system, I think we can all say, do not take anything to do with fish tank cleaner and think that that's going to...
	But I'd just like to add, I am working on my master's.
	My master's thesis at Harvard in biology before I go to medical school.
	So I do have a certain level of expertise in this, in molecular biology and in cancer, especially in colon cancer.
	So I'm not just...
	Yes, I do have a PhD in finance.
	So people would say, well, why would you be talking about medicine?
	Well, because I am pursuing an M.D., You know, and to get to medical school, I had to go through pre-med and I had to go through organic chemistry and I had to do all this, you know, all this stuff at a master's level.
	That allowed me to do the bioinformatics, to allow me to explain to people how these cells are working and how the endocrine system works, because that's what I learned at Harvard.
	But I'm just taking the scientific method that I learned from my PhD, and I'm just taking it further to trying to help people.
	So this is the problem with people, I think, in maybe Western society.
	They assume that they only know one thing.
	But this is the difference between a polymath.
	A polymath knows multiple things.
	I know a lot about automotive engineering.
	A lot. Because I did that for a long time in my life.
	And I know quite a bit about finance.
	At the algorithmic and the artificial intelligence level because of my postdoctoral work.
	And my work at Harvard and at Fordham University...
	In biology.
	So I try to synthesize all this.
	And that's what's unique that I bring to the table, is seeing all these different pillars.
	Well, quote, the experts, they're only one thing.
	And they have this very myopic idea.
	But here you can see that, you know, we're having this great conversation on so many different realms.
	On this COVID-19 crisis, but at the political pillar, you know, at the scientific pillar, at the financial pillar, and it flows very easily.
	So it's very self-evident, it's very axiomatic that, you know, that there are benefits of discussing this particular situation from a polymath perspective.
	Okay. Just two more questions.
	I think we'll close things off.
	The very attractive Milo wants to know if you're married.
	I don't mention my price.
	Okay, that's fine. That's fine. Because of obvious reasons.
	Yeah, okay. Now, let's close off with this question around this bailout.
	I mean, listen, I'll just do a tiny little thing here.
	I'll let you close off the show with this.
	The bailout is a huge problem for me because...
	The fact that people aren't saving means that they have to have this bailout or they feel the need for this bailout.
	We're not willing to take the tough medicine that this bailout would be, which would be, of course, a drop in prices, a drop in real estate values, a drop in costs.
	Of course, what's going to happen is people can get this bailout.
	Which means they're not going to alter their spending habits.
	The bailout is not going to be enough to cover their costs.
	They could end up in a worse hole than before.
	And of course, even if it is enough to cover the majority of their costs, all that means is they say, hey man, I don't need to save because anytime there's a problem, the government's just going to send me a check.
	So these short-term solutions, which unfortunately late-stage democracy is completely addicted to, let's talk, or if you can sort of finish up the show, Paul, just talking about, given your finance background, How is the bailout, it's what, $2,000 in Canada, $1,200 in the U.S., a variety of other measures, suspension of collection of student loans and other things.
	How is this bailout, that's a big question, I know, but how is this bailout going to play out in the economy as a whole?
	If we have sustained infection in the United States and we can't smash the curve, as we were talking earlier, then we're going to have More economic pain.
	And $1,200 a month is not going to fill the hole.
	Are they talking about it a month?
	Or is it a one-time thing?
	I'm sorry. No, I thought it was a month.
	But the thing is, they're expecting maybe two or three.
	I'll check. I thought it was per month.
	I thought it was per month. And the thought was a lot of this money would just support the unemployment insurance.
	So people would have to file for unemployment and you would, you know, you would get it through the unemployment.
	It's well north of three million people now.
	A million in Canada and three million plus in America, at least it was three million as of yesterday, have applied for unemployment insurance.
	And I guess those cheap TVs don't look so cheap anymore now, do we?
	Right, right. You know, so it's $1,200 a month isn't going to feel, you know, The plan is for individuals to get up to $1,200 and married couples to get up to $2,400 plus an additional $500 for each child.
	The size of a check would diminish gradually for incomes going up and up and up, but I don't think it's monthly.
	I think it's a one-off.
	Just one time? Yeah, yeah.
	I mean, it's even more exacerbated.
	Don't worry, I'll go to all of the Russian bots in the chat room to get the true answer, but I don't think it's...
	Alright, so let's just assume it's just a one-off.
	Then it's even worse because people are not going to be whole and the economy isn't going to just turn on once the infection in your area goes away.
	For six months or longer, you know, once the virus is gone, there's going to be an economic damage echo that takes place that may not heal.
	We may not actually see the true healing of the economy until two and a half years from now.
	So it really depends on how...
	Can we smash the curve or not?
	If we can smash it early, then we'll be able to get out of this economic doldrum quicker.
	But the longer it lasts, the harder it's going to be, and the more chance, the higher probability it is that we'll have a depression.
	All right? And, you know, it just...
	If the numbers that I'm saying are going to happen...
	Because of the comorbidity, the therapeutics don't work, the social distance doesn't work.
	That's worst case. But if that does happen, then you're seeing over 50% unemployment.
	It's going to take a decade or more to get out of that.
	So, you know, that's worst case.
	And hopefully it's not worst case.
	But $1,200 is a drop in the bucket.
	It's not going to make people whole.
	And I was hoping that the government was actually going to work with banks and say, we're going to put a moratorium on people going bankrupt.
	Because I think that's where the big problem is.
	And The thought would be you would do loan extension, not loan forgiveness, loan extension.
	So let's say if you have a mortgage and you're starting to get behind because you can't go to work, instead of them foreclosing on you, there's a moratorium on that and that the banks are forced to add those back months onto the loan.
	And then when you get re-employed, then you just start paying off.
	Paying off the mortgage.
	It's not like you go back to work and then you're three months behind.
	No, no, no. It's reset right when you start back up to work and the loan is extended.
	And we're talking about maybe two months extension.
	So it's not that big of a deal to the banks, really.
	And they could easily...
	Sorry, go ahead. Finish your thought.
	No, they could easily institute those types of policies.
	So, people are saying that $1,200 is a one-time payment, but there, of course, are increases.
	Some people are saying $600 a month in unemployment benefits.
	But, of course, you know, the government has no money.
	The government has no money.
	It is unable to...
	Pay for anything. All it can do is steal from the future.
	It can steal from those who already have money through inflation.
	And it can steal through debt.
	You know, what I talked about was, you know, maybe stop paying interest in all the treasuries to China saying, hey, man, you guys, you botched up containing this thing.
	And you wouldn't let people come in to investigate, and you put in jail people who were trying to talk about it, and you kept all your airports over, so sorry, we've got to take all the money we're paying to your treasuries, and we've got to use it to pay our people who are sick because of what you did.
	But that perhaps, I know there's a lot of volatility regarding the, I'd love treasuries to become worthless, because then people would actually have to start paying their own bills rather than I'll put my daughter on the slave block of the international banksters.
	But anyway, all right, so listen, I'll just tell people where they can get a hold of your vital statistics on the internet.
	We'll close it down. I really want to appreciate the thousands and thousands of people who came by to watch and all of the great questions.
	I will get a mod.
	I know we had a couple of bots there with some TNA picks.
	Oh, wait, no, sorry, that was me. But if you can just remind people how to find your information on the internet, we'll close it down from here.
	And thanks again so much for your time.
	Okay, you can reach me on my YouTube channel.
	That's the place that I promote mostly my content.
	And that's just Paul Cottrell.
	I do have a backup channel called Dr.
	Paul Cottrell, for obvious reasons, because of YouTube and its censorship.
	Or you can go to my website.
	It's the-studio-reikovic.com.
	All the links are in the description in my videos, so it's really easy.
	Just click the link. I know people don't know how to spell reikovic.
	You are a polymath in everything except marketing.
	I just wanted to mention that, you know?
	And I would also like to appreciate everybody who gave the life estimates of my IQ versus Paul's IQ. Very, very instructive for everyone.
	But okay, thanks, Paul.
	Hope to have you back again soon.
	I really, really appreciate the work that you're doing.
	And thanks again to everyone who dropped by.
	A great pleasure. Don't forget to check out my debate tonight.
	I'm actually on a libertarian panel tonight on a server, a Discord server.
	I'll put the link in this show.
	A great pleasure, my friend.
	Thanks again so much, and we'll talk to you soon.

▲