Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 17, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux

01:26:28

#CORONAVIRUS UPDATE: Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai and Stefan Molyneux (HD)

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And we are live.
	Welcome, everybody. This is Stefan Molyneux from Freedom, Maine.
	I am very, very pleased to have Dr.
	Shiva Aradurai, and he is an MIT PhD and more acronyms than an alphabet soup in a windstorm.
	And he has, of course, four PhDs, if I remember rightly.
	He also invented email.
	He's actually come on. He's offered to recompense everyone for spam, which I consider to be highly generous on his part.
	Dr. Shiva, thank you so much for taking the time today.
	Thanks, Stephen. Just to correct, I have one PhD, but four degrees from MIT. Four degrees.
	All right. Thank you. I want to take credit for stuff I didn't do.
	All right. So we're going to stop big picture stuff with regards to health because I consider this a free consult because, you know, it hurts my elbow when I do this.
	But no, I want to start with the big picture with health.
	As you know, of course, Americans are suffering enormously under SARS-CoV-2.
	And one of the things I think that's a big issue is Americans have a natural state of relative ill health.
	And it seems like this is cracking the foundations that are already severely cracked.
	What is the story with Americans and lifestyle and profit motives and health and all that kind of stuff?
	Yes, Stephan, it's a great way to start the conversation.
	If you look at the arc of history, sort of medicine in America, it's been sort of unfortunate.
	It's unfortunate in one way, and in another way, it's very fortunate in some of the events that are taking place.
	You almost have this two tracks taking place.
	So, let's talk about the first part, which is the unfortunate part.
	And that really begins with the consolidation of the scientific establishment, the creation of big medicine, big pharma, and big insurance.
	And the turning point of all of that, in my view, I mean, you can go to various points, but really all of that occurred in 1970.
	It started with essentially the Mansfield Amendment in science, which was an act that was passed, a set of amendments, which basically in the late 60s, early 70s, Which moved large amounts of funding to political institutions like the NIH and the National Science Foundation.
	So what happened was, if you look prior to that, and if you look at it prior to the history of science and innovation in the United States, it was always occurring by hobbyists, right?
	It was occurring on the edges, which is what made America significantly an amazing country.
	I mean, you look at the founders of the country, these guys were children of the Enlightenment, right?
	They studied science and engineering, and they had an appreciation, particularly for innovation.
	The founders of the country really created the patent laws, right, to support innovation.
	So anyway, you have that whole journey.
	And around, starting in 1940s, after World War II, with essentially the consolidation of this scientific establishment, which began post-Manhattan Project, post-Sputnik, the goal was out of fear, the goal was we needed to bring everything centralized.
	And so in 1970, up until that point, the military, which had a massive budget, and it used to take a very small slice of that budget, which was still a lot of money, and sort of just throw it everywhere.
	So you had guys doing wacky stuff, you know, really cool stuff.
	Some people were doing number theory and cryptography and topology and places, you know, just went there.
	And these guys, they didn't have to fight for grant money because they were good.
	They got this money and no one ever thought about it.
	But at late 1960-70, during the height of the Vietnam War, as it was ending, it was decided that we would not fund any of this basic sciences research unless it was for weaponry.
	So a lot of that money got moved to these highly political organizations.
	So that was one important trend that was taking place.
	So the consolidation or the beginning of sort of the end of real science.
	1940s, the reason I gave that date was that was when Vannevar Bush, the president of MIT, spun out Raytheon.
	David Noble, one of the profound giants in the history of science, said that's when really real scientific research started ending, because you had all this public money which started going to the military-industrial-academic complex, and that's who Raytheon represented, what Vannevar Bush created.
	So between the 40s to the 70s, you had the creation of big science, And concomitant with that, if you remember, 1970s is when big insurance companies, big pharma companies, and big hospitals started coming together to lobby government.
	And then as that process went forward, You had the creation of something like the Safe Harbor Act in the late 90s, in the early 2000s, which allowed the creation of GPOs, group purchasing organizations, and PBMs.
	A lot of people don't know about these, but if you look at hospitals, let's say you and I were hospital administrators.
	We owned our own hospital.
	The equipment we bought in that hospital, be it ventilators, catheters, insulin, whatever it was, we used to pay, let's say, $10 for a bedpan, and I'd pay $10.
	And all of the hospital administrators said, hey, look, why are we all paying $10?
	Why don't we come together and group purchase?
	So GPOs were created.
	Now, initially, these GPOs served the hospitals because they lowered the price from $10 maybe to $5.
	Eventually, these GPOs were controlling so much of the supply chain, they said, wait a minute, we're going to flip the model.
	We're going to not give $10 to $5.
	We'll give $10 to $8 or $10 to $7, and we'll give a little kickback to you.
	You and I was legalized corruption, and that legalized corruption was allowed by the Safe Arbor Act, which was supported by Congress.
	So you had big academia being created, big science, and now you had big hospitals, and they created these in-between guys called GPOs on the in-house side and PBMs, which control the supply chain to three or four major like Walgreens.
	So you had middlemen who didn't do anything, Stephan.
	But essentially, it owned the supply chain contracts.
	And then you had essentially big pharma, big pharmaceutical companies, which basically recognized that there was profit in sickness.
	And pharmaceutical advertising was allowed, right?
	You start advertising industry, basically.
	There was a time that it wasn't allowed.
	Okay. So you have big hospitals, big pharma, and big academia, big scientific establishment.
	And that's what we're witnessing right now.
	We'll talk more about that. But what we're seeing is a total convergence of those three entities, which don't give a damn about people's health.
	Because it's not really about public health.
	This is about making an enormous amount of profit.
	And the reason that's being motivated right now, you know, when I finished my PhD at MIT in 2003, I had created a technology which could model molecular pathways on the computer.
	The reason that one of the motivations of that was we were recognizing in biology that biology had become dysfunctional.
	That biologists were looking at the parts, right?
	So you get a Nobel Prize if you understood how two proteins interacted.
	You could win a big Nobel Prize for that.
	But the notion of interconnecting those parts and understanding the body as a system was not part of the biologist's repertoire.
	So what was happening in biology was when the Genome Project ended, we found out we only had 20,000 genes.
	We don't have 100,000, a million genes.
	And in fact, we have the same number of genes as a worm.
	So biologists thought complexity was a function of the number of genes, which means more genes, more complex.
	When an engineer knows that's not true, you could have 50 parts and someone else could have 1,000 parts.
	You could organize one linearly, you know, the 1,000, or you could organize the 50 in a very complex way.
	So complexity is really a function of interconnections.
	So that put biology in a new trajectory called systems biology.
	It was a new department at MIT, created under the Department of Biological Engineering, or a new field.
	And I was one of the first graduates.
	And to me, it was great, because I'd always wanted to do medicine, went in and out of MIT, did a bunch of degrees, grew up in India when I was a child, where I saw my grandmother practice a traditional system of medicine, heal people.
	I started doing medical research as a research fellow when I was 14 where I created the email system, but I never could want to become the MD because something never felt right, Stefan.
	But in 2003, what happened was Because biology was frankly failing, and it recognized it had nowhere to go except taking a systems approach, one of the fields that evolved out of that was precision and personalized medicine.
	And it recognized the right medicine for the right person at the right time.
	You can't say everyone should get the same vaccine.
	Everyone should get the same drug.
	Which is going back to what traditional systems of medicine were.
	But the important thing that took place was pharma.
	This is where I think this has been motivated.
	When I created this technology Cytosol, the reason I created it was the National Science Foundation said the grand challenge is imagine you could model disease on the computer.
	Because if you could do that, you could get a directionality at minimum.
	Hey, we shouldn't be even doing this drug.
	It's going to cause us toxicity.
	Or you know what? These combinations of things could cause toxicity.
	Or, hey, this thing has a lot of promise.
	Maybe when we mix curcumin and resveratrol, it can lower inflammation.
	Maybe we should pursue that.
	But these are complex molecular equations and reactions.
	So I created a technology which could, in fact, model disease, which people thought was intractable.
	So when I finished that, my advisor and I were like, wow, who would want to use that?
	And we said, wow, pharma would want to use that, right?
	And the reason we said that was, when we had done the data analysis, pharma was, since the 1980s, they've been tanking.
	They've been failing. And there's a very great research paper I'm just finishing up.
	It shows how the entire pharmaceutical engine, this is where Bill Gates and Hillary Clinton and Gabby will talk about, They're really the front-end marketing personnel for this because what's happened is it's a multi-trillion dollar industry globally,
	pharmaceuticals. And what's happened is A pharmaceutical drug, if you want to understand the regulatory framework, you have to go through a whole series of processes before, let's say you discovered in your lab today, hey, I have this compound.
	By the way, when I say pharmaceutical drugs, these are molecular compounds that do not appear in nature.
	They're not natural compounds.
	They're made in a lab. And today we have about 30,000 of these compounds in what are called these libraries.
	It could be more, but let's say around 30,000.
	So how do pharmaceuticals develop?
	Someone takes a test tube, and they throw in some cancer cells, and then they test compound A, compound B, compound B, compound C, and they say, wow, I see something happening here.
	I see it potentially killing these cancer cells.
	That occurs in, let's say, a lab at Harvard or MIT. The professor then, one of his graduate students, they leave, and they go raise $40, $50 million.
	Then they go get a bunch of lab space.
	They do more test tube testing in vitro.
	Then they'll go kill a bunch of animals for another six years, see if that same phenomenon, where they'll buy mice from companies like Charles River who create these mice with tumors or a particular thing, and they'll give them the same compound and say, wow, it reduces the tumor and we're not killing too many mice.
	So what they're trying to figure out is a dosage.
	That may take around six years.
	They may spend close to a billion dollars just in that, or let's say half a billion dollars.
	If they get to that point, then they will go to the FDA and file what's called an investigational new drug filing, an IND. And by the way, I've gone through this myself.
	It's quite an interesting process.
	And then the FDA looks at all your animal data, and they say, okay, we're going to give you an allowance where you can now go do phase one trials on humans, small sets of humans.
	And then if you do that, then you can go to phase two, phase three.
	Well, that entire process can take upwards of 13 years, Stephan.
	Mm-hmm. Up to $5 billion.
	Now, think about this business model.
	Now, the day that you discovered, and remember I said in the test tube, that's when the clock starts ticking because you may file a patent.
	Patent life is only, you know, 20 years, right?
	So they got 20 years to go down this path.
	Now, after 13 years, you only have seven years of patent life left.
	Let's say you spent on the high end about $5 billion.
	And let's say your drug only has around, I don't know, 100,000 people, you can use it, okay?
	So that's 5 times 10 to the power of 9 divided by 1 times 10 to the power of 4, which is 5 times 10 to the power of 5, which is about $500,000.
	You're going to have to charge for that drug for, let's say, potential market share of 100,000 to make back your costs.
	Now, that's just to make your costs back.
	So if your market size is only 100,000, you're probably going to have to charge a million dollars, right, a chemotherapy agent.
	And they only have seven years before it becomes a generic.
	So what's happened is, and if your drug goes out there and it causes side effects, you and I can sue that company.
	And we can recoup.
	So what Pharma has realized is, Jesus, we're spending $5 billion.
	Then we have to go do...
	By the way, the marketing costs aren't even included in that.
	All the marketing they have to do.
	And then we may get a set of customers.
	Now, those customers may sue us.
	High liability, high risk.
	Sorry, but you also have to cover the costs of the trials that don't make it through to the end.
	Exactly. Right, right. And by the way, only 20% of the things entering phase one make it.
	So when I created Cytosol, I said, wow, I could help these guys understand toxicities way up front.
	The problem is they move quarter to quarter to quarter and they weren't interested in my technology.
	And frankly, I wasn't interested in them either.
	I really was interested in natural products.
	In fact, I could have helped them figure out if their vaccines worked or not.
	We put that out there. In fact, we applied for a DARPA grant.
	But they're not interested in that.
	What the reality is, is that their business model is already, it's like a locomotive engine.
	They do this and they do this.
	Remember, it's all about getting funding and getting VC money.
	And then when you make it to phase one, phase two, your stock price just takes a tick.
	They already have it figured out as a business model of moving it down that pipeline.
	It's about, okay, I made it through in vitro.
	Okay, I'll raise another $100 million at a higher valuation.
	Now I'll do my animal studies.
	So the entire pharma model is pushing it down that pipeline, and you're cranking up the valuation of your company, and that's that model.
	It's not even about solving a disease.
	It's about making enormous amount of money.
	But the problem is once the regulatory framework came in there, And even the FDA, which is pro-pharma, was not releasing their drugs because of the side effects.
	They were in a conundrum.
	And to give you the numbers, year over year over year, pharma is putting a 30% increase in their R&D budgets.
	And they're finding year over year over year, 30% less allowances.
	So their model's freaking failing.
	So that's happening over here.
	They're literally seeing the burning down of their industry.
	So pharma companies are now moving to a different area.
	Vaccines and what are called cell therapies.
	These do not need to go through the same regulatory framework.
	In fact, they're treated as another class called biologics.
	So this is why if you look at the 30 vaccines for kids that were pushed forward by the CDC as guidelines, not one of them, Stephan, has gone through double-blind placebo-controlled studies.
	It's quite extraordinary. And one HPV vaccine that they did, and I want to come back to talk about it, was absolutely fraud, what they did.
	And we'll talk about that. So they don't have to go through the same regulatory framework.
	And If you look at the history of this process, starting in 1962, John Kennedy signed the National Vaccine Act, and that was based on a very, very rudimentary understanding of the immune system, which is what's still used today by guys like Fauci and Gates to put forward it.
	It's very different than the understanding of the immune system that I've put forward, and in fact, I gave the prestige lecture at the National Science Foundation.
	I'm on this.
	They didn't invite Fauci or Gates to give that lecture.
	They invited me because of the knowledge I have around them.
	We'll talk about that. But the fundamental issues, the very rudimentary understanding that they had of the immune system in 1962 was the basis post-polio vaccine, pre-measles vaccine, That John Kennedy instituted the National Vaccine Act, which gave rise to the CDC and the powers for them to come up with the vaccine guidelines.
	So now follow after Kennedy signed that into law from 1962, 24 years later, 1986.
	Well, people were starting to report injuries from vaccines.
	They were suing the vaccine manufacturers.
	Now, instead of eliminating those vaccine mandates, because in those 24 years, we'd started to learn very different things about the immune system.
	What did we do?
	They were getting, you know, 10s or 20 everyday vaccine court filings.
	So what they did was this National Vaccine Injury Program literally in some ways destroyed the Constitution.
	They carved out part of the court system out of the U.S. judicial system, and they put it under Health and Human Services, a vaccine court, Stephan.
	And that vaccine court said they would adjudicate on behalf of the vaccine manufacturers The lawsuits.
	This means you shielded, you indemnified the vaccine manufacturers, and you set the limitation of liability, I think for death, was around $250,000.
	And they made it a very bureaucratic process.
	Now, Reagan signed that very unwittingly because it was embedded into another bill that he wanted to get through, okay?
	So what ended up happening was the other Kennedy with Orrin Hatch and Waxman put together this massive Band-Aid, which basically created a Chinese wall, For the vaccine manufacturers.
	Now, since then, there's been more injuries.
	And what's unfortunately happened is, instead of the movement bottoms up, trying to say, get rid of all this nonsense, you've had guys like Bobby Kennedy, so-called anti-vaccine fighters.
	What they've done is they're part of the not-so-obvious establishment.
	And when I got into this, it sort of took me a while to figure it out.
	Instead, they've been tweaking it, you know, begging to legislators, oh, protect our religious exemptions, do this.
	Instead of saying all of this stuff should go away, all of it.
	And what's interesting is, who has been behind, so when you come back to now, the big pharma, the big academia, and the big hospital establishment, that triumvirate, you know, centered and founded by something very,
	very powerful, three foundations, two at least, and one more recently, the Gates Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, both together With the WHO, CDC, UNICEF, all these other people we didn't ever elect, okay? Together, the Gates Foundation created what's called GAVI, you know, Vaccine Alliance.
	And if you look at their consortium, it's Vaccine Manufacturers, UNICEF, World Bank, and they funded that to about a billion dollars.
	And so the Clinton Global Initiative and the Gates Foundation are sort of the two double numbers, sort of the twins in this, are part of this with a whole consortium.
	And the goal is they're really the frontsmen for big pharma.
	They're the frontsmen pushing, and when you actually work out the numbers, they're basically carving out the different vaccines, and they have the pharma consortium behind them.
	And what's their business model?
	Let's just look at it from pure, their quote-unquote entrepreneurial business model.
	This is the goal. Pharma is crashing.
	They're saying, wow, you know, I create a drug and I only have 200,000, a million people who have cardiac disease, you know, or 300 million.
	Imagine if I could create a product that everyone had to take, right?
	That's like the biggest business opportunity, right?
	You know, email was one of them, but, you know, you couldn't make money off that because I couldn't patent it at the time.
	But imagine everyone had to breathe air and you had to charge for that.
	So imagine if we could get everyone having to get a vaccine, right?
	Well, it's a replacement for the carbon tax, or at least a supplement to it, I suppose, because everybody uses energy.
	Exactly, yeah. And so what's fascinating is the people who support the mass immunization of everyone are the same people who support the carbon tax nonsense.
	You know, I did this video exposing the Paris Accords, which is out there, but if you look at those two, and in fact, if someone supports this and they don't do this, or they do this and not this one, they're probably the not-so-obvious establishment, okay?
	Okay. Because, you know, they play both sides.
	So, for example, you have a Bobby Kennedy who attacks Bill Gates, but on the other hand, is mum on Hillary Clinton, in fact, endorsed her three times.
	He is against vaccines, but is pro-climate change.
	So we have the not-so-obvious establishment sort of being a chameleon to try to manipulate activists at the bottom.
	So... So if we look at this, where does all of this come from?
	If you look at the history of Big Pharma, they're enormously, enormously successful at amazing PR and marketing.
	And I'll give you an example.
	Many years ago, I, you know, separate from the invention of email in 78, in 1993, while I was at my PhD work, I had my next sort of life with email.
	Where if you remember, remember in 78 to 93, email was really used in the inter-office mail environment.
	But in 1993, something happened.
	Remember, the World Wide Web took off.
	We created that GUI front-end, and email moved to the web as a consumer application.
	Well, the White House was getting tons of inbound email in 1993.
	And they didn't know how to handle it.
	It was email overload.
	And the White House sponsored a competition, an AI competition, where there are technologies which could automatically read the content of the president's email and categorize it so we respond.
	Anyway, I ended up winning that context in the middle of my PhD, left MIT, and I started a company to analyze email for customer service.
	It could be used for understanding marketing, et cetera.
	But one of my leads was Burson Marceller.
	Burson-Marcel, if you look at them, is one of the number one PR agencies in the world.
	You know, large corporations call them in for crisis management when there's a crisis.
	Like, let's say Toyota has to do a recall.
	They bring these guys in to massage the public.
	Well, so I was meeting one of the senior VPs.
	We went out to dinner, and I said, tell me one of your greatest things, because they were interested in using our technology to watch email so they could see a crisis emerging from our analytics.
	So he said, well, you know, I was called in to help Eli Lilly.
	I'm the guy who saved Prozac.
	I go, really? I said, what did you do?
	He goes, well, Eli Lilly's stock was tanking.
	No one was... People were stopping to take Prozac because of side effects.
	And so I said, what did you do?
	He goes, well, first of all, I rebranded themselves.
	I forgot what their branding was.
	Like, it was something like they were a drug company.
	He changed it to, like, we helped the world.
	Okay? Number one. The second thing he did, which I thought was quite amazing, and it was unbelievable, he said, you know, we...
	We created two non-profit companies.
	One of them, I forgot what one was.
	One was, I remember this vividly, he said, we created a company to stop battering of women, a non-profit.
	So this non-profit took out ads, front page ads in newspapers, and it said, you know, we have to stop women's battering.
	And it would say, if you know someone's husband who's not taking his Prozac...
	Very insidious, right?
	Putting forward this thing of we want to help the world.
	And then on the back end, selling people, pushing people, community pressure.
	You see what I'm saying? It's fascinating. Community pressure to make sure your husband, you know, domestic abuse, that kind of stuff.
	Layer in Prozac sales.
	And I go, what happened? He goes, enormous, huge success.
	So now fast forward that to, and there's many examples of this.
	You watch the typical pharmaceutical ad, you know, a horrible situation, you take the pill and utopia.
	Well, in 2015, the World Health Organization, the UN, etc., a bunch of these collaborators created the Strategic Development Goals 3, SDG 3.
	What was SDG 3?
	It was essentially similar to this process, we're going to paint a utopia.
	We're going to have no more pollution, no more income inequality, no more poverty.
	17-point stuff and 17-point plan, clearly architect.
	Anyone can go read this. It's not even hidden.
	SDG 3. Now, adjunct to that, so that's a utopia that gets painted.
	By the way, supported by Gavi.
	All right, Gavi's one of the big sponsors of SDG3, supported by the Clinton Global Initiative and the Gates Foundation.
	So this is the PR. We're going to deliver you utopia.
	Right behind that is IA2030 about immunization, which says, the front cover of that says, we must not leave anyone behind.
	The front sentence says, everyone, everyone, everywhere, everywhere will be vaccinated.
	They must realize the health benefits.
	And in the connection between these two, they say, to achieve at least 14 of those points, of the 17, which will leave us a utopia, we must immunize.
	So they've connected immunization to everything.
	The workforce, climate change always also needs vaccination, everything.
	Let me start the question again.
	What could be the conceivable logic behind needing people to be immunized in order to achieve utopia?
	Think about it. Let's just step back as a business model.
	This is People sell, I don't know, I want to sell coffee, right?
	Nescafe. Oh, you feel great when you drink this coffee.
	Everyone should be drinking coffee. That's what every CPG company wants to do.
	Procter& Gamble wants everyone to be using their toothpaste, right?
	We create a toothpaste as a phenomenon.
	So the model here is to create vaccines as the standard procedure, SOP, for protecting yourself from infectious diseases.
	That is the ethos.
	Now, if you can get an audience, a market of 7.2 billion people, let's say on average spending about $1,000 a year, that's a $7.2 trillion recurring market.
	Now, imagine this, if you could get the government, its public, so afraid that they impose this as a mandate.
	Now you've created a consortium.
	So Gavi is leading this consortium with two of its cylinders, Gates Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, which are probably being funded in all sorts of, I mean, many incestuous ways.
	Back-ending that is a major big pharma companies who are part of Gavi.
	They're the consortium partners.
	In fact, the SDG3 goals is supported not just by the WHO and United Nations, but the IFPMA, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers.
	The three leadership council of that is Eli Lilly, Shinogi from Japan, and Roach.
	All right? So this consortium, it's an ad campaign, man.
	That's what it is. Massive ad campaign, filtered through fake science, which we can talk about.
	And the goal is 7.2 billion people, a captive audience, don't even have to market to them.
	So imagine taking from a verticalization model, which Microsoft was very enormously successful at doing, By the way, the strategy brought to you by McKinsey.
	McKinsey, Gates Foundation hired McKinsey to map this out.
	So the model here is that The mandate of vaccines takes place, and just like it's no longer countries, right, before the empires split up portions of territory, now you're going to split up portions of people's bloodstreams.
	Okay, you own hepatitis B1 bloodstream.
	You own HPV. You own this bloodstream.
	So if you think about it from a pyramid model, you have God knows who the trillionaires names who we don't know, but right behind them is a visible deep state, The CDC, the WHO, the foundations, Chan Zuckerberg, etc.
	And behind them, you have the pharma companies who need this to serve their masters who invest in big pharma.
	Oh, wait, wait. I've had a thought.
	What if, Dr.
	Shiva, what if you could face a disease that mutated every year and then it wouldn't be like a one-time smallpox or polio vaccine, but you got the hamster wheel of infinite cash coming your way?
	It's recurring revenue. Look, when I did email, right?
	Interesting enough, in 1978, people ask, was it commercialized?
	Well, in the old timesharing systems, we used to charge for it based on how much time you spent.
	So it was a recurring revenue model because the more email used, you made more.
	And the idea was to make email a necessary app.
	Fast forward to another application when I built this company, Echomail, to analyze email.
	In our contracts, we made it a recurring revenue model.
	So once we put the license in, you paid us for so much email usage, and it was an annual contract.
	So every investor knows, every VC, every big guy in the market loves, not just you have to sell services, right?
	Services companies only get a 1x return.
	But if you have a company which you get recurring revenue, you get a much higher multiple on your stock price.
	So imagine, to your point, every year you have a new need for a new vaccine, new variations, new mutations.
	Now you have 7.2 billion people.
	Again, I use that $1,000 number.
	It could be 2,000, it could be 100. My point I'm making is you have a beautiful recurring revenue model.
	And in order to get that recurring revenue business, what do you need?
	You need an amazing marketing campaign, a global marketing campaign.
	And that's what we're right in the middle of now.
	Whenever you do marketing campaigns, what do you do?
	You typically do a soft launch and then a beta launch and a gold launch.
	Well, the soft launch was Event 201.
	Test it out. How does it work?
	Work out the kinks. We're, in my view, we're in the middle of the beta launch.
	Seeing how you do it in live.
	Now, the full launch will probably be next year.
	If they pull this off and scare everyone, and that's why I've been doing my videos and I've been out there educating people on the immune system, is that the full launch looks like this.
	Okay, do you want the economies to be crashed again?
	Do you want everyone to be in their homes?
	Look, let's just put everyone gets a vaccine card.
	You don't want your neighbor screwing up the economy, do you?
	Do you want Bob screwing it up?
	Or do you want to have a driver's license?
	It's a nice economy you've got there.
	It'd be a shame if something happened to it and you weren't allowed to drive.
	Exactly. Or you weren't allowed to take your kid to daycare, or you weren't allowed out of your home, or you couldn't go to your gym, or you couldn't visit your parents in another country.
	So that is what the goal is.
	It's a 7.5.
	2 billion person market opportunity worth upwards of $10 trillion year over year.
	So from their standpoint, everyone says, well, why would they do this to the economy?
	Well, it's a return on investment.
	You put enough fear, you crash the economy just enough.
	By the way, they get a double whammy because the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese involved, they have a lot of dollar reserves.
	You crash the economy, you buy things on a song now, so you're going to make your return anyway.
	Because as you kick this back up, you're going to make money on that and you're going to also get indentured servants because many of the large Chinese financial houses actually are the ones who funded lenders like Wells Fargo.
	So when the U.S. working class crashes or the world working class, well now they're going to also get a rental revenue.
	They'll get two sets of revenue.
	They'll get revenue from recurring on rent because people won't be able to afford their homes and they're going to also get the bloodstream revenue.
	So it's really a recurring revenue model.
	And Bill Gates knows about this because Microsoft realized that they weren't going to make as much money selling just simple software.
	They had to move to the cloud where you could get a recurring revenue model.
	So this is a well thought out business model.
	And that's why Gates funded hundreds of millions of dollars to McKinsey to do all of this.
	So those people listening out there, you need to understand these people are very sophisticated, highly organized, very adept.
	And that's why they not only have the overt front men like Gates, but they also have the people who confuse people, Stephan, who try to say, yeah, I'm fighting against vaccines, you know, for medical freedom.
	Guys like Bobby Kennedy. He hasn't done jack for vaccines.
	He's misled the movement.
	And when I got involved in this movement about, you know, I've been in the health thing forever, right?
	Studying health systems, immune system.
	When I came into it, I said, something doesn't smell right.
	You're basically telling everyone should get the same vaccines.
	There's no vaccine safety assessment standards.
	But I said the only way out of it, we have to build a bottoms-up, militant revolutionary movement, not this negotiating with legislators.
	That's what these non-profits were doing.
	You know, they take money from these poor moms who were afraid.
	Everyone was giving money to Children's Defense Fund and these guys like Big Tree, right, who are starting to want to build his own media thing.
	But they didn't understand the fundamental issue, that this is so fundamental, we have to have an uprising bottoms-up.
	So I led one of the big movements in New Jersey, which I said, screw this negotiating with these corrupt legislators.
	Let's march on the streets.
	They were so afraid they didn't pass the bill.
	They didn't even bring it up. That was January 6th, 13th, Stephan.
	And right after that is when you see the coronavirus start coming.
	It wasn't accidental that we saw all this dissension taking place globally.
	In Hong Kong, millions of people protesting.
	In Wuhan, anti-pollution protests.
	Not anti-CO2, pollution protests.
	You know, in France, Venezuela, India, a populous leader gets re-elected.
	The United States, Trump, in the midst of all this anti-establishment commotion is when we impose this thing called a, quote unquote, a pandemic.
	So all of this is beautifully well-orchestrated, but I just want people to think about this.
	Forget conspiracy for a second.
	By the way, there is a deep state.
	But just think about it from a marketing campaign over here, We're good to go.
	They get to keep the other 95%, and then on top of it, they make us think they're the saviors of the world.
	So they get triple whammies out of this.
	They get to keep their money, they get to look good, and then they get to control public policy.
	That's what's going on. Okay, so hang on.
	You've dropped Dr Fauci's name a couple of times.
	Why is it that you have such distaste for our friendly little garden gnome of global health?
	What is your issue there? Well, a number of things.
	As someone who's gone through, you know, the academic world in and out, I used to teach at MIT, has done science, I've been, you know, I published in the major peer review journals, a Fulbright Scholar, I get, you know, I'm known as one of the leading guys in personalized and precision medicine.
	Now, the notion of science Two things that emerged from the biological sciences was we need to move to a personalized medicine.
	One size does not fit all.
	That's an understanding that even comes from conventional, modern medical science starting in 2003.
	One size does not fit all.
	In fact, if anyone wants to Google personalized and precision medicine, it is the now and the future of medicine, which means you don't give everyone the same medicine.
	Now look at Fauci and look at the history of the NIH. The NIH starting in 1970 again, a guy called Shannon comes in and he wanted to consolidate immense amount of power underneath him with the NIH. And that's when you saw the explosive growth of the NIH to become a multi-billion, 10 billion, 20 billion dollar entity.
	50% of the NIH funding goes to the biological sciences.
	So if you want to become a professor, Stefan, at any of the major universities, how do you become a professor?
	You don't just be a nice guy and you just publish papers.
	That's not how it works. You have seven years from the time you graduate with your PhD and you start on that tech, seven years to get tenure.
	Well, how do you get tenure? You have to publish a series of papers in a specialized field, get yourself known, and this is the big and.
	You have to get your peers in that field.
	So if you're in cancer oncology or retrovirus oncology or you're in mitochondrial membrane protein folding, I don't know, some very specific field, you have to publish papers in that field in those seven years and you have to get the other leaders, the The people who've been doing for 20, 30 years to say, yes, Stephan is a great researcher and they have to write reference letters for you and they have to cite your research in their papers.
	So what this means is you as a young researcher must You know, must regress to the mean.
	The mean, what they have set as a standard.
	Okay? You can't do wacky research.
	All the wild, innovative research.
	In fact, the NIH grants, you know, I've applied for them.
	They're no longer about innovation.
	You have to, when you apply for a grant, you already have to have data for the thing you claim you're going to try to do in specific aim one.
	So it's all rigged for people who already have the data, who already are insiders.
	So this is one thing that needs to be understood.
	So when you look at that, Fauci, the NIH, where he's a central part of with Francis Collins, funds 50% of their money, billions go to biological sciences.
	So if I'm a young researcher, I'm never, ever going to say anything against the accepted narrative.
	I will never get funding.
	I will never, ever get tenure.
	Now, I know a lot of guys at MIT who know, you know, I know the stuff about the immune system.
	They say, Shiva, everything you're saying is correct, but I'm not going to say anything against it.
	They have families to feed.
	Remember, science has become a factory, Stephan.
	It's not the old days where you looked at science, you came up with cool ideas.
	It's not a hobbying thing, you know, on the edges where people are doing, you know, they went and got private funding and they had to figure things out.
	It's become a machine.
	And Fauci, the reason I have such...
	Anger towards him is he represents the ultimate worst part of science.
	He's a scientific bureaucrat.
	A bureaucrat.
	He's an academic bureaucrat.
	You know, Kissinger said, if you want to learn how to be a politician, go to academia.
	Look at this guy. He's been there across multiple presidents.
	And his entire foundation from the infectious disease area he owns was based on a very fake science fear-mongering rodeo that he ran once, which is the HIV causality to AIDS. HIV does not cause AIDS. This is gonna seem mind-boggling to people.
	That was one of his first PR campaigns that he did.
	His predecessor, or his compadre in this, Robert Gallo, was brought up on scientific misconduct charges when he was trying to do this, where he was trying to show that HIV was causative to AIDS. He stole the viral data from the French guy, the actual virus, and he created a bogus HIV test.
	Front page of New York Times, you can see it.
	He was brought up on scientific misconduct charges.
	Well, you know who came to his rescue?
	Fauci. So Fauci came to the forefront.
	Gallo stepped back. But he built his career, you know.
	Oh, I hung out with Bono.
	I got to meet Elton John.
	The whole thing...
	With moving the discourse about HIV and infection was a cause of a non-infectious disease called AIDS, which is Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, where your CD4 T cell count goes below a certain level.
	So they attributed that to a virus.
	Again, and what did that do?
	It created the entire multi-billion dollar AIDS industry.
	It resurrected a drug which was never working called AZT, Off the market to an off-label use for AIDS, which, by the way, killed a lot of people.
	The reality is, you know, I think 60% of Zambia has HIV. They're not, you know, they're not dying.
	And one of the people that really exposed this was a real scientist, Peter Duesberg.
	Peter, one of the earliest tenured professors at Berkeley, one of the earliest people to get into the National Academy of Sciences, a multi-NIH grant award winner, he said, wait a minute.
	This causal relationship doesn't fulfill Koch's postulates.
	What are Koch's postulates?
	It's the foundations of virology for which Robert Koch was honored.
	You know, he won a Nobel Prize.
	And Koch's postulates go like this.
	Before If you're the district attorney, you want to pin the crime on this virus or bacteria, you got to show four things, at least four things.
	One, if you have someone with the disease, let's say scurvy, by way of example, and you want to show this virus causes scurvy, you have to find an abundance, not like one little virus, because everyone has one, a virus of something.
	An abundance of that virus in that person who has scurvy, step one.
	Then you have to be able to culture that virus in a test tube or a petri dish.
	Step three, you have to be able to take that virus, inject it into an animal, a host, and show that that animal also experiences the same disease state of that original.
	And then you have to be able to culture that back from that animal.
	Now, HIV never fulfilled Koch's postulates, and this is what Deuceburg brought up.
	And to give you an idea how serious this is and how real it is, Stefan, when I was at MIT, I had read Deuceburg's work back in 1993, and it all made sense to me because And I'll come back to that.
	But Fauci built his career on that.
	I remember taking John Essigman's class.
	John is one of the leading toxicologists in the world, an amazing professor.
	And John, in our class on systems biology, we got to viruses.
	And John was talking about viruses, virus infections, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And we were talking about the AIDS virus.
	And I was in the back of the room, around 40 PhD students, very smart people.
	And I said, John, is it not true that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? The entire class comes to a complete silence.
	Now, because it was the, you know, that was a narrative.
	Now, this is at MIT, the number one institute in biological engineering.
	Now, John Essigman was very honest.
	He said, you know, what Shiva's bringing up is a very good point.
	He's bringing up Peter Duesberg's work that HIV's relationship to AIDS does not fulfill Cox's postulates.
	And then John Essigman also went on to say, and John's a tenured professor at MIT, he said, you know, I know Peter.
	He's a very well-respected scientist.
	But what happened to Peter Duisburg was they vilified him, they attacked him, they marginalized him.
	Peter stopped getting any of his NIH grants.
	So, who was behind all this?
	Fauci. Now, Fauci has built his career as essentially a prostitute for Big Pharma.
	That's what he really did. Wait, wait, wait. Hang on, hang on.
	Sorry. I'm really, I'm hanging on to the back of the sled here as we go bouncing down this hill of knowledge.
	And I just lost one of my hand grips here.
	Okay, so we've got HIV, the virus.
	I guess that's like SARS-CoV-2 versus COVID-19, the manifestation of the disease.
	You've got HIV, the virus, and you have AIDS, the syndrome, which is the...
	I mean, it's not the HIV doesn't kill you as far as I understood it.
	It lowers your defenses against something else, which is going to come and kill you like pneumonia or something.
	So just help me understand where the causality changes based upon the common narrative.
	Okay, so in one of the early works, Peter and other researchers looked at the first 87 AIDS cases.
	Remember, they always, if you ever see how they write it, HIV slash AIDS. Just look at how it's branded.
	HIV slash AIDS. HIV or AIDS. And I remember my sister's an MD, when I found out about this, I said, hey, you know, this is not true.
	She goes, oh, you're crazy, blah, blah, blah.
	Now, 15 years later, she says, you know, you're absolutely right.
	It's AIDS-related disease.
	Let's get down to the specifics.
	What is AIDS? What is AIDS? It's a term used to describe a condition in your body, in your adaptive system.
	Remember, you have the innate system, which is all the macrophages in your body that react when you first get hit with some type of pathogen in your gut, bacteria in your eyes, etc.
	That's your early stage immune system.
	There's another part of your immune system called your late stage immune system, the adaptive immune system, which are sharpshooters.
	And those are controlled by T cells and B cells respectively.
	They create an antibody for that pathogen.
	Okay. So the thesis here is, oh, you have lower T-cell counts below a certain level, and when you have that, you have acquired immune deficiency syndrome called AIDS, okay?
	Now, is that clear?
	So your T-cell count, so that means your adaptive system is compromised.
	Well, how did that happen?
	How do you get there? Well, HIV caused that.
	That was what the thesis was.
	When you actually go look at the first 87 AIDS cases, by the way, CDC statistics are horrible.
	You notice that most of those people at AIDS had all sorts of other viruses in themselves, Stephan.
	They had CMV, you know, and stuff.
	But everyone has viruses in them all the time.
	Exactly. They had all these viruses.
	So they peg this HIV to AIDS, but let's really look at the data.
	If you look at the first set of cases, a preponderance of these people, 90% of these people, plus or minus 5%, whatever that number is, I can bring up the numbers, but it's in that order of magnitude, range, where people who are gays, males, predominantly, And this was at a time in the 80s, lots of drugs.
	And no one wants to talk about this, right?
	It's politically incorrect. Lots of drugs.
	A gay individual in that environment may have 1,500 partners.
	That was not rare.
	And they were consuming something called amyl nitrates.
	People should look it up. No, that's a vial.
	You break it under your nose.
	And it increases our gas.
	Sorry, I sounded way too experienced with that.
	I've just read about it. I just want everyone to know.
	It's not my weekend activity. Remember, there's not one paper still written showing HIV causes AIDS. People should bring it up and we can have a debate on it, okay?
	So, Duisburg brings this point up and he says, however, there are 200 papers, 200 papers, 200 unequivocal papers showing amyl nitrites cause, is it carcinogen, and cause carposis sarcoma, which is what the, you know, people get their skin all screwed up, those blotches, that's carposis sarcoma.
	200 papers written on that.
	Well, these guys were doing tons.
	Tons of amyl nitrites, partying all late at night, having multiple, infinite number of partners, lots of drugs, okay?
	So that was that majority of the group.
	Well, you know what happens when you do that?
	You lower your T cell count.
	You destroy your immune system.
	Now, when you destroy your immune system, you're going to have all sorts of viruses in you.
	That's why people started cooking the books.
	Wait, wait, wait. Okay. So this is why the fabled jump to the heterosexual population never occurred because majority of heterosexual people are not doing amyl nitrate and having 1,500 partners.
	And remember, this was a decadent lifestyle at that time.
	It was. Look, I had a very close friend of mine at MIT. Many years later, he came out of the closet and he ended up getting AIDS and they put him on...
	AZT and he died. And I said, Arnold.
	And a friend of mine, because when Deuceburg's work first came out, those 87 people fell into three groups.
	First group was this 90% of the people, okay, who were these predominantly male, gays, partying amyl nitrates.
	The second group was IV drug users.
	And people said, oh, the needles, the needles, the needles.
	Bullshit. That's not what it was.
	It was a fact of the enormous amount of drugs that they were doing that also lowered their immune system.
	The third group was people were getting blood transfusions.
	But wasn't the virus traveling through the blood?
	You know what it was? It was when I give you, if I were to, you know, knock on wood, it never has to happen, you have to get a blood transfusion.
	What do they do? They give you immunosuppressive drugs.
	Because you don't want your immune system to attack Right?
	The foreign agents and the blood you're receiving.
	Well, if you get two shots of immunosuppressive drugs, you probably have to go to the ICU because you're in an immunocompromised situation.
	That's what the three groups were, Stefan.
	Wait, wait, wait. Sorry to keep interrupting.
	But doesn't HIV attack the T cells?
	And if not, if it's amyl nitrate, how do you explain the prevalence in Africa?
	HIV is a virus that's everywhere.
	In Africa, lots and lots of people have it, and their population is explosively grown.
	People aren't dying. It's another virus.
	And this comes back to what we need to talk about.
	We have 380 trillion viruses in our body.
	380 trillion! Okay?
	The mythos that has been created...
	Is this fear-mongering that viruses and germs are all going to kill us.
	What actually happened, Stephan, now let's talk some science.
	The true science is you have this thing, an operating system in your body called the immune system.
	It's one of the most oldest operating system that has gone through, in fact, invertebrates, vertebrates to create you.
	We would not exist if we didn't have an immune system.
	And if that immune system hadn't gotten, if you believe, In the evolution, this entire process, or even if you believe in natural design, human beings would not freaking exist if we didn't have this amazing operating system called the immune system.
	And it's gone through various, various, various revisions to make us come here to be these human beings who build all this stuff, okay?
	That immune system, the way it interacts with the outer world, is to live in coexistence with it.
	When a pathogen attacks you and hurts you, it is not the pathogen that's destroying you.
	So everyone needs to get the science here.
	The science that is assumed by the fake news media and is promoted, unfortunately, by MDs who are not well trained at all.
	They don't learn this in medical school.
	They learn maybe the innate and the adaptive.
	They don't learn about the microbiome.
	They don't learn the following. If you ask a typical MD, what does the virus do to you?
	How does it work with Ebola?
	Well, the virus enters and it destroys your heart tissue.
	That's what you'll hear, right?
	And you start bleeding from inside out, or the virus will attach your epithelial, and you're going to start getting edema.
	Well, that's not what happens. This is what actually happens.
	Virus comes in.
	Your innate system, which is all the things in your skin, your eyes, your throat, First, it interacts with it.
	Your macrophages, neutrophils.
	Now, if your body is reasonably strong, you may have a sniffle, this.
	That's why in a family, five, ten people, the wife may get the cold and others don't.
	Depends on the stage of the immune system.
	So if you're in that condition, based on your stage of your innate immune system, you battle it.
	Maybe you get some sneezing, coughing, a little bit of fever, and you're done.
	Now, if that system doesn't work, you have what's called the interferon system, which is another amazing system, which upregulates all these different kinds of cytokines, which further protect your body.
	Okay, hang on, hang on. Upregulate cytokines, please.
	Break that out for me just a little.
	Yeah. So, you know, my PhD work was on what's called the interferon system.
	So just stepping back, remember I said in 1962 they had a very nascent understanding of the immune system?
	So in 1962, the understanding of the immune system was the following.
	You had two boxes. One box was called the innate immune system, which was everything I described.
	The early stage infantry, the Marines, when you get hit with the virus, they just start shooting everywhere.
	The secondary part of that system was called the adaptive immune system, which means it was very specific.
	It was like Navy SEAL sharpshooters.
	For that particular virus, it would create what was called an antibody using the T cells and the B cells.
	All right? Now, that was basically the understanding of the immune system, and part of this understanding is, oh, in order to mimic immunity, we're going to put a vaccine in you, which will be a pale shadow of the actual virus coming in, like the measles virus. We're going to kill it a little bit, and we're going to force your body to create those antibodies, to create what's called immunity.
	Now, the problem is the vaccines weren't working when they just gave the dead and form of the virus.
	The body wasn't creating that inflammatory response.
	They said, shoot, let's start adding other things.
	And what did they add? A little bit of aluminum, some mercury, some other stuff to create that.
	So the goal of that was for your body to create this inflammatory response to create the antibodies, okay?
	But that entire understanding was just based on these two-box model of the immune system.
	When I gave my, you know, the Distinguished Prestige lecture at the Science Foundation, the reason they asked me to do this is because when you take a modern systems biology approach, you realize there's many other boxes, Stephan.
	There's a gut microbiome, which is essential to a strong immune system, the balance of all these amazing microbes, 60 trillion of them.
	And then we also have viruses, the 380 trillion virus, they're not our enemies, they work together.
	And then we have the connection between our gut to our brain, the neural system.
	But in between all of this is a very powerful system called the interferon system.
	The interferon system was also discovered around the 50s.
	A lot of work done by the Japanese, which showed it's a missing link that interconnects a lot of these systems.
	That when you get a virus, guess what your body does?
	It actually turns on Another set of chemicals called cytokines.
	These cytokines are used to not only, they're used to interfere with the viral replication process.
	So what's a virus trying to do?
	It comes in, it's sort of non-existent until it interacts with you.
	It wants to use your own cell machinery to replicate itself.
	The goal here is to stop viral replication.
	That's what you don't want, because when it gets bigger and bigger, then you get sicker, etc.
	So how do you stop viral replication is the key, right?
	So when you really look at a virus, now go back to the HIV AIDS issue that I'm bringing up.
	So if your immune system is compromised, What actually happens?
	Well, remember I told you you have the interferon system?
	I mean, you have all these different subsystems.
	So it's like you got a nice V6 engine working with all your pistons working.
	Now imagine what happens if you're consuming tons of amyl nitrates, or for that matter, tons of sugar in your diet.
	What does sugar do?
	Sugar turns on candida.
	Candida creates gliotoxins.
	Well, those basically suppress your macrophages in your early stage immune system, and the others knock out your T cells.
	Well, now what do you have left?
	It's like I've tied both arms.
	You've tied both arms behind my back, and now you're coming at me, and I'm going to kick at you crazy, right?
	In fact, I'm not going to kick at you just a little bit.
	I'm going to go violently crazy using my legs, and I may actually harm other people in my way.
	When you knock out some of these subsystems, which are part of a beautiful choreography, which all turn on and they modulate.
	It's called immunomodulation.
	Immunomodulation is where, like an orchestra conductor, all these instruments come to life, they modulate the virus, and you don't have this massive hyper-response.
	But if you suppress some of these, Stefan, You've tied the arms, so now your legs are kicking.
	In this case, the cytokines, not just the interferon, others, go and attack not only the virus particles, but also attack the tissues where those virus particles are in.
	So let me walk you through this.
	This is the storm that I hear talked about, is that right?
	Yeah, so let's walk you through this carefully.
	I have virus, coronavirus, flu, whatever.
	I sneeze on you. Well, it goes through your respiratory channels.
	It goes down your nose, and it goes down into your lungs.
	It comes into one of your structures in your lungs, a very small structure.
	It's called the alveoli. Well, the alveoli is surrounded by epithelial cells, and I'm giving you sort of a shortened version of it.
	And inside of that alveoli, you have macrophages in the mucus, which is the innate immune system.
	And so what happens is when that virus lands, in the best case, your macrophages go, attack that virus, and they blow it up.
	Okay, they stop, it's consumed, it's taken out.
	If that doesn't occur, the virus will then attempt to replicate itself.
	And that replication process, if that proceeds, it's going to hurt you.
	But in the case, to stop that replication, first a macrophages attack, then your body produces the interferon response, it recruits other T cells, and, you know, all of the stuff you don't even know about.
	That's why many people are asymptomatic.
	This is all happening. Well, what actually supports this process is a healthy, working immune system.
	That's the discussion we need to talk about if we truly care about public health.
	Well, who is actually being affected?
	Who got affected by AIDS? Who was it affected?
	People who frickin' took amyl nitrates, people who are IV drug users, and people who are getting blood transfusions where their immune systems are suppressed.
	When I was out in Hawaii, I remember reading Gooseberg's work on this, and the woman I was staying with was the mother of a friend of mine, And she had gotten AIDS. And after I read this book, I said, wow.
	I said, can I ask you a personal question?
	She goes, sure. So I said, you clearly don't, you're not gay.
	Because you didn't do that.
	Clearly, you don't look like you got blood transfusion.
	I said, I must assume that you were a heavy drug user.
	She goes, Shiva, I was a serious heroin addict for seven years.
	Okay? So...
	She fell into one of those three groups, right?
	And she's the one, and she healed herself through really boosting up her immune system, had to go to Canada, got some very interesting treatments.
	The point is, it's suppressed immune systems.
	Let's go to this COVID fear-mongering nonsense here.
	Who are the people who are actually dying?
	First, we don't really know because there is a political and an economic interest to brand everyone as COVID-19.
	And the WHO created two codes.
	Remember, the WHO creates the diagnostic codes, which, by the way, they charge for.
	It's a very interesting business model they have.
	So they created two codes for COVID-19, as I understand.
	They may have created three, but it's definitely two.
	One was you were actually labeled as having COVID-19 through a test.
	Well, what was that test?
	It's a PCR test, polymerase chain reaction.
	What does that mean? That means you're looking for a piece of the nucleotide in your body, and then they magnify it and try to match it To one of the coronavirus nucleotides.
	By the way, coronavirus is one of the most common, common viruses.
	We all probably have pieces of it, okay?
	And they're not even looking for the entire sequence of the COVID-19.
	It's any corona, actually.
	And even Kerry Mullis, the people who created PCR, will tell you...
	Wait, wait, wait. Hang on.
	The COVID-19 test, which is supposed to be testing for SARS-CoV-2, is looking for any coronavirus, such as common cold or flu?
	It's a nucleotide sequence, which doesn't necessarily have to be that, okay?
	Because, furthermore, the PCR tests are highly, highly...
	Kerry Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Medicine, who also supported Duisburg, I mean, in chemistry...
	Amazing scientists. Kerry said the PCR test isn't even quantitative.
	It's qualitative. It's a qualitative test.
	Like binary. Okay?
	It's not quantitative.
	It's qualitative. It's a guesstimate that's made.
	That's one code that the WHO has.
	The second code they had as well sort of looks like COVID. So when people are coming to these hospitals and they're branding them into one of those two codes, in fact, I was privy to a letter that the CDC sent to hospital administrators A very good friend of mine who's a pediatrician shared, the letter basically is incentivizing hospital administrators to conflict one and the other.
	That's what's going on. So, Stephan, we don't really know what the numerator is.
	And I dare ask any one of these people, including Cuomo, to put all of this data in the cloud so I and other professionals can review it.
	And you don't have to put the names.
	You can follow HIPAA guidelines.
	Give the pre-existing conditions of these people.
	We had just a very close friend of ours who was a big smoker, friend of ours' husband.
	Big smoker. Always would get pneumonia.
	Had multiple incidents of going to the hospital and getting intubated.
	Well, he was just COVID-19.
	Let's say, God forbid, something happens to him.
	What are they going to brand him as?
	COVID-19 death?
	Or forget the fact that he ate horribly, was, you know, 40, 50 pounds overweight, was a smoker.
	That'll be forgotten. So that's what people need to understand.
	We have created, remember, because of big hospitals, because of the big academia, because of big pharma, these three people have colluded in a beautiful way to create this fear-mongering.
	Sorry, but hospitals also get paid extra.
	They get paid for these diagnoses as well.
	So there's a financial... This is, I think, one of the reasons why New York circled back and said, hmm, I think we found a whole lot more of COVID-19 patients now that there's money dangling from this guy.
	There's money dangling, and you have to understand that the ventilator companies...
	Remember I talked about the GPOs?
	Every hospital supply goes to a group purchasing organization.
	The hospital administrators get a kickback.
	I've spoken to... When we launched this petition, Fire Fauci, Nearly 3,000 medical doctors have signed that.
	This is not because MDs are realizing before they thought they were top of the food chain.
	They're realizing, you know what?
	This COVID-19 quote-unquote crisis has diminished them to become frontline medical workers who get treated like crap.
	Or they're realizing they're basically part of the machine.
	They're really not any better than the other hospital line nurses who they used to actually step on.
	So that's a phenomenon that's occurred.
	But the bottom line is no one knows what the numerator is.
	And furthermore, the denominator is probably massive.
	Okay? It's, you know, this is a virus.
	There's many viruses that we get.
	Now, we can start talking about bioweaponry, was it created, etc.
	My point is this.
	Whether it's a bioweapon or not, it comes down to this fundamental issue.
	What do we do to support the immune system?
	That's the fundamental question.
	And how does the immune system work?
	I've got one idea.
	How about you don't stay inside and away from the sun?
	That's just one thing I'm going to toss out there for funsies.
	That's one. Let me give you something even more powerful.
	I just did a video on this.
	Something even more powerful than that.
	Forget even foods. I can talk about supplements.
	Let's talk about something even more powerful.
	You know what that is? Social interactions.
	The number one reason, there's been a longevity study done many years ago, the number one reason, when they looked at many, many cultures, they wanted to figure out why people live long.
	The number one reason, Stefan, was the top, here are the top three reasons, and the top three did not include food.
	You know what the number one was? Social interactions.
	We're social animals. We're dogs, not cats.
	We need each other desperately.
	Health is communal activity.
	Well, you can even, I mean, you can see dogs, you know, you don't give a dog enough.
	I mean, anyone, you can destroy someone.
	You can actually destroy someone.
	By way of example, you know, I was brought up here, but there are sometimes Indians, you know, Indians have this arranged marriage model.
	It's very interesting. Stuff that's not talked about.
	Indians, after they emigrate here, some of them still want to maintain connection to their culture.
	They'll go back to India and get back in an arranged marriage.
	They'll find some woman in a village.
	Poor woman has a huge social community.
	Bring her out of that. Bring her to the United States.
	They're married, and the husband goes to work, and she's now stuck in a little...
	You know, little suburb with no friends.
	So many suicides.
	These people, you know, we just had a very close, another close friend of mine, his wife had depression 40 years ago, you know?
	Very extroverted person.
	Completely well for the last 40 years.
	She just relapsed into massive depression because she can't go to the Y, she can't play bridge, she's lost all of her connection.
	There are a set of people who need those social connections.
	I would argue most of us, and if you don't have that, The research by Stephen Cole, by the way, there's a 1988 landmark study which clearly showed that lack of social isolation would lead to detriment worse than high blood pressure, worse than obesity, and worse than even smoking. You might as well start smoking, okay?
	If it gets you friends, if you have a cigarette and you have friends, you're better off.
	Right. But that's been scientifically shown.
	And then at the molecular systems level, the work of Stephen Cold with humans and macaw monkeys socially isolating them.
	At the gene expression level, it's shown that your body will upregulate, upregulate genes which are inflammatory and downregulate, which means suppress genes, which cause viral antiviral activity.
	So think about that. So social isolation leads to viral infection and cancer and a number of other diseases.
	And I'm sorry, I just wanted to interrupt as well.
	I've noticed that, you know, the left often has this goal of getting you deplatformed, of getting your reputation so shattered that you're socially isolated.
	To me, this has always struck me as a kind of biological attack.
	It's an attack upon your immune system.
	It's an attack upon your very health because reputation and social gatherings, they're very, very important to us.
	Yeah, so it's really the old model of some religions that guilt and shame, right?
	So you guilt and shame somebody, and that's how you destroy them.
	So the goal is to guilt and shame people.
	And part of that guilt and shame, that's what we're seeing.
	We're seeing people with masks, people without masks.
	And what's fascinating for me to observe is, you know, we have to...
	I'm running for U.S. Senate, as you know.
	We ran last year against a fake Indian.
	This year, we're running against both the GOP establishment and the Democratic Party on the Republican ticket.
	But... We have to collect 20,000 signatures to get on the ballot.
	We actually do it by hand.
	We have an amazing network of volunteers who love us.
	We have huge friendships. We're very close.
	We actually go collect. The other sort of cheaters, the three lawyers I'm running against, they hire people to collect their signatures.
	We've never seen them out there.
	We go out there and collect signature stuff.
	And what's fascinating is we will go to working class neighborhoods in Central Mass.
	Plumbers, electricians, they don't care about this nonsense because they know it's bullshit.
	They come out and sign.
	Where we go to Cambridge, all these educated elites, people wearing ventilators, ski masks.
	It's wild. You see the actual difference with...
	With common sense folks who can appreciate what's going on, and really people are the vulnerable elites.
	As my friend Dick Lindzen used to say, when he talks about the climate change, people fall for that.
	But that's what we've seen here.
	We've seen the fact that, getting back to Fauci, If you truly cared about public health, he's not making one comment.
	Let's take the really bad people.
	When I sent the letter to President Trump, I said, one of the groups of those people are the people with serious crisis situation.
	They're about to go on ventilators, and we know there's only a 10 to 15 percent chance they're going to survive.
	Well, what are they doing with those people?
	Well, here's a person, supposedly COVID, whatever it is, doesn't matter.
	They're in a crisis situation, which means our lungs are filling up with water, edema, fluid.
	And so that little alveoli, one of those alveolites, let's say, has fluid in it.
	It's half filled. And let's just take simple physics, simple Boyle's Law.
	You have a structure which has a certain volume, and now it has less volume.
	Well, the pressure is going to increase.
	So now you're putting hot...
	I mean, these ventilators are not just oxygen.
	They're actually pumping air, you know, pressure.
	So what are you going to do? So the edema is taking place in the lungs.
	And what is that? It's caused by the cytokine storm.
	Your body is in an overreactive stage.
	It's eating away at its own tissues in some sense.
	And then now you're putting more pressure in and there's a beautiful paper I shared, which really shows how the high pressure ventilation exacerbates that.
	So that's why you're basically one of those doctors were saying that you're basically you're basically drowning people in their own fluid.
	The solution to that has been shown over and over and over again in multiple studies is high dose Therapeutic dose vitamin C. So cheap.
	It's not $100,000.
	I don't know how much this ventilator costs, $3,500,000.
	It's probably pennies on the dollar.
	Well, and you don't need an expert to administer it.
	And you don't need an expert.
	High dose. I mean, I told...
	When I wrote to the president, I said 100 grams over 24 hours.
	Even if you take a less dose, which is, by the way, in the literature...
	10 grams to 15 grams over 6 hours.
	What do you find? Why is vitamin C powerful?
	Well, first of all, it eats up reactive oxygen species, which is an antioxidant.
	It modulates the immune system.
	There's a chemical called GAPDH, which your overreactive macrophages start putting out.
	Well, it blocks that. So now you've modulated the immune system.
	It stops viral replication, and you've supported that.
	And it inhibits NF-kappa-beta, which really causes inflammation.
	So it's a four-part thing.
	And what are you going to lose?
	Why aren't they doing it?
	Stephan, I had one of the large newspaper reporters call me.
	She goes, Shiva, can you tell me why you're recommending IV vitamins?
	And I had a long talk. She says, you know, everything you're saying makes so much sense.
	You know, I take care of my health.
	I take vitamins. I said, are you going to publish anything I said?
	She goes, I probably won't be able to because my editor will stop it.
	And I said, isn't that unfortunate?
	But that's because the ads from the pharmaceutical industries own the media.
	Exactly. So you have...
	You have a situation where none of these people like Fauci care a damn about public health.
	What he cares about is whether he creates his legacy of winning some medal.
	Look, he's on their leadership council of the Gates Foundation.
	They created a plan called the Global Vaccine Plan.
	He's on their leadership council.
	Okay? So we didn't elect him on that.
	So this guy is an institutionalized creature who knows how to manipulate people.
	That's how you survive in academia.
	I mean, academia is totally about...
	I'm not talking about science. Academics make it by total manipulation.
	They spend 90% of their time how to get this graduate student, how to write this grant, how to phrase things.
	They're the masters of fraud.
	Okay. Well, and the whole peer review system is utterly garbage.
	I mean, the replication crisis is hitting just – it's even hitting physics, which used to be – it's already hit the social sciences.
	It's hit psychology. The replication crisis is huge in science.
	And then when we criticize this, we're considered to be like medieval, superstitious, anti-science people.
	It's like, I'm very pro-science.
	I'm anti-government programs like pseudoscience.
	Well, if they also revere Einstein, Einstein didn't publish one paper peer review.
	His last paper he submitted to, I think, Physical Letters, they said, Dr.
	Einstein, we want to send it to peer review.
	He goes, what are you talking about? His view is how could peers review anything?
	You see, peer review is about regressing to the mean.
	That's what it's about. So you're eliminating people with new ideas.
	So the issue should be citizen science.
	That's one of the platforms. So my platform for our campaign, Stephan, is quite unique, and that's why I think it's created a global wave.
	Sorry to interrupt.
	Give people the website for your campaign before you go into that, because I do want people to be able to find you.
	So everyone should go to shivanumeral4senate.com.
	That website is our campaign site.
	When you go to the top of that site, you'll see our logo is Truth, Freedom, Health, which has been one of my things for nearly 15 years.
	So just as part of me. So it's not like I'm running a campaign.
	We had, you know, consultants help us.
	This is me. You're getting the authentic person here.
	So Truth, Freedom, and Health. And what do I mean by that?
	We have to fight for freedom.
	You talked about censorship.
	Without open discourse and debate, without the ability to have disagreements openly, we will never practice the scientific method.
	We will get into scientific consensus.
	That's sort of fascism, right?
	That leads to fiction, not truth.
	So scientific consensus leads to fiction.
	Scientific method leads to truth.
	So we need freedom to get to truth.
	One of the things I've promoted as a solution to that is we need to have a Digital Rights Act, which means a United States Postal Service, which this sounds really weird to people.
	When I was doing a thing with Scott Adams, Scott didn't get it, and then he goes, oh my God, what you're saying makes sense.
	And others now get it.
	The Postal Service was created by the founders of the country so I could transact a communication with you.
	It just happened to be in paper mail.
	And if anyone interfered, it was a 20-year sentence in prison.
	The Postal Service has a police force.
	So 1997, when email volume overtook postal mail volume, I could see the writing on the wall.
	I went to the heads of the Postal Service.
	I said, you guys should be offering a public version of email, a public version of YouTube and the Facebook equivalent.
	Oh, that's covered under the Non-Interference Act.
	Exactly. Yeah, yeah. Encryption ain't going to do it, Stephan, because we don't have any rights, because everyone will try to, you know, encrypt.
	But, and the Postal Force is a police force.
	They thought it was a crazy idea. Anyway, it's interesting to see the Postal Service is going down again.
	And I was actually commissioned by the Inspector General in 2013 to write two reports to show how they could make billions, because my thought was you and I would probably pay about 50 bucks.
	And remember, this will be a competitor to Facebook and Google, but more importantly, they couldn't interfere.
	If you want to use Google, great.
	So that's the Digital Rights Act.
	That's how we get freedom.
	We can start conversing in the digital world.
	Freedom and truth comes from Citizens' Rights Act.
	That's my second solution. What does that mean?
	That means we need to destroy the scientific establishment.
	And that destruction will only occur if we recognize that when we fund...
	Public research. That data is my data.
	It's your data. When they do research experiments, it should go right to the cloud.
	If someone does an experiment on a mice, whatever they do, put it to the cloud.
	It's my data. I'm pretty smart.
	There's a billion other people or 100 million other people in this country who are smart.
	Download that data. So first thing this will affect is where is all the climate change data?
	I want to see it. Oh, sorry to interrupt, but was it the original hockey stick graph?
	Once they released the methodology, they realized you could plug random numbers into it and get a hockey stick graph.
	Exactly. So the issue is we need to go to citizen science.
	We need to take the power away from the academics, because remember, in the Indian caste system, the academics were the Brahmins, the scribes, and that's what we've created.
	Fauci is really a quote-unquote a Brahmin, okay, who's a scribe who advises the king, in this case the politician.
	He's always there, right?
	Presidents come and go. This guy's always there.
	They shouldn't allow these guys to be in there this long.
	In fact, we should eliminate tenure.
	Tenure should be taken away.
	Let these guys teach and then go back and work.
	Tenure, of course, was originally to keep people who had unpopular opinions from getting fired.
	Now all it means is that people with unpopular opinions will never be hired.
	Exactly, exactly. The third part of this is on the health side, we need to decentralize medicine to the edges.
	Health can only emerge from the relation between me and the healer, because the body is such a freaking complex system.
	To mandate medicine top-down is a concept of a depersonalized view of the body, whereas modern medicine is realizing one size does not fit all.
	So when you look at a guy like Fauci, he's practicing everything which is anti-human, anti-medicine.
	Number one, he's practicing exclusivity.
	A small cult of people are going to decide.
	Second thing, he's practicing centralization of authority.
	A few set of people. Opacity.
	How are all these decisions being made?
	You know, the other piece of it is it's all about depersonalization, treating everyone like a lump.
	And based on that is why we're all locked up.
	Everyone is being treated the same when the reality should be we should take the immunocompromised, give them high dose vitamin D, which creates cathelicidins, which are antimicrobial.
	Give them high dosage vitamin A. And by the way, those two are very few, no side effects solutions.
	Give them vitamin C. And for the rest of us, let's take around 5,000 to 10,000.
	I use a vitamin D and A. And if you want to take other herbs, great, but we should be out there freaking working.
	This is total nonsense.
	And all of this is based on the imposition of fake science by Fauci.
	And he knows what he's doing.
	And I think the key is, I'm willing to...
	Let's talk the science. Let's talk molecular systems.
	Let's talk infectious disease.
	Openly in a round table, if Gates wants to show up, who has no knowledge of this, if Hillary Clinton wants to show up and if Fauci wants to show up, and they can bring all the scientists they want.
	I'll take them all on, but the bottom line is that they are actively created this fear mongering on a fake science model, on the ignorance of people's understanding of the immune system.
	So what we're seeing, Stephan, in closing, you know, if you want to sort of summarize this, we're seeing the conversion of big science Big, you know, academia, big pharma at one point, and it's all to make sure that we have mandated medicine, we suppress dissent, and if it means printing through quantitative easing, $6 trillion to crash the economy, they're fine with that.
	That's like, I'm going to make a $6 trillion investment today, which I'll get, you know, if you look at over at 20-Year Horizon, about what...
	You know, $7 trillion, $140 trillion over the next 10 years or whatever that is, right?
	So this is relatively pennies for the global elite.
	And if people can really understand that we're looking at the consolidation of a corporation, a global elite corporation that spans national boundaries, which is intent On securing their power through a model where all of us are mandated to take a medicine, mandated right into our bloodstream, mandated where if we don't do that, we'll be tracked and not allowed to move.
	This is one of the most dangerous times we're in.
	However, the good news is that there's a lot of smart people, common sense people, working people, plumbers, electricians, nurses, engineers, who know something doesn't make sense.
	And that's why I think we're at a very interesting inflection point in human history with this occurrence.
	And it's probably a huge opportunity for people to get awakened and smash these people.
	They need to be obliterated because what they are doing to humanity is destroying humanity.
	Because what they're really saying is that I want to make you a machine in the Chinese factory.
	And China was, you know, China from the elites was their testing ground.
	And if you think about it, China's being exported.
	Made in China means made in China.
	We will consolidate.
	We will, you know, create the Chinese Communist Party version of mandated state medicine, mandated state academia, mandated state media, which will deny.
	It doesn't matter what the truth is.
	It doesn't matter that a 14-year-old kid wrote all the code You know, the inbox, outbox, called it email, has a copyright, doesn't matter.
	The first thing they do, and it doesn't matter, my four degrees at MIT won't matter, right?
	Because when you go against them, they will attempt to attack you.
	And the only way out of this is to go viciously after them.
	That's the only way to win, Stefan, uncompromisingly go after them.
	And that's the way we're going to win.
	And we also have to recognize that the establishment is always not the enemy.
	It's the not so obvious establishment.
	Those people that they put, like the Bernie Sanders.
	So all you Bernie Sanders people listening out there, he sold out to Hillary Clinton.
	And all you people who think Bobby Kennedy is going to fight for your medical freedom, he endorsed Hillary Clinton.
	He attacks Gates. You know, some people say, oh, Bobby attacks Gates.
	Well, you know what? He endorsed Hillary Clinton three times.
	There's nothing more to talk about.
	Period. So the way we're going to win is to wake up and realize this movement's going to come bottoms up from working people like me and you and others, Stephan, who speak the truth, and it's going to be bottoms up.
	It's not going to be top down.
	Hollywood celebrities, we don't need you.
	You know, the Kennedys, we don't need you.
	And it's going to be bottoms up.
	And when people get this, we're going to have a revolution like that.
	I'm telling you, if you look at history, and it won't have to even be violent, it'll be an awakening that says, wait a minute, this is my body.
	I'm going to decide what goes into my body.
	No one owns it. And you know what?
	The sun is an amazing vehicle.
	It produces vitamin D. It produces catholicidins.
	And you know what? Fresh vegetables without pesticides are what I need.
	Clean air, clean water, clean food.
	Meanwhile, in the United States, we have a D plus in infrastructure.
	Massachusetts, the home to MIT, the home to Harvard, the home to all the elites.
	You know what they got by the American Society of Civil Engineers for infrastructure?
	An F minus minus.
	125 points out of 350.
	The worst, the third worst infrastructure, which means crumbling bridges, crumbling roads, crumbling water systems.
	Who the hell are these people like Elizabeth Warren, all these academic people?
	They have nothing. They should shut the hell up and talk about public health.
	You have no credibility.
	Nothing. So we need to understand that we need to stop, stop Paying so much respect to these people.
	They've lost all of our respect.
	F-minus-minus in infrastructure, Massachusetts.
	And Massachusetts got a D++ in the worst corruption.
	The 10 most corrupt state, the third most breaking infrastructure.
	I think we're good to go.
	Vitamin A, nutrition, sanitation, refrigeration, elimination of child labor.
	And how did we get that? Well, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, there was a massive true working class movement, militant movements that people said, hell no.
	And they knew that the bourgeois in this country, like the Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were part of the global elite.
	They're not going to give it to them.
	They went to the streets. They fought.
	That's how we got it. And after that, we had the Red Scare.
	All of those, you know, organic workers were made to be communists, right?
	So they branded everyone as communist, communist, communist.
	That was part of this, that was part of the recognition that you don't want indigenous popular movements coming up.
	Populism. You had to brand them as something.
	Nazis or communists or whatever.
	But we need to understand that infectious diseases, the plumber and the sanitation worker did more for infectious diseases than any pharmacist or doctor.
	That's what actually happened.
	Now, if they truly care about infectious diseases, let's start by talking about how much pollution that's in the atmosphere and how much the Paris Accords allows China to pollute.
	Paris Accords allows China to go from 11 billion metric tons of carbon to 22 billion.
	That's why even the Chinese in China were protesting out on the streets, risking their lives.
	And let's talk about clean water, clean air.
	You know, we allow companies like Monsanto, which now is a part of Bayer, who have polluted, destroyed the topsoil of this country, have enslaved many, many farmers.
	But they don't want to talk about that, the 70% of lawyer lobbyists, because they're part of the problem.
	They do not want to talk about clean air, clean water, clean food.
	They don't want to talk about the 30% obesity.
	They don't want to talk about that, you know, 800, 700,000 people die of heart disease and so on.
	They don't want to talk about the 1.9 million hospitalizations that occur every year from pharmaceutical drug adverse reactions.
	None of, let's shut, I say we shut down everything and solve that.
	And during that shutdown, let's start doing farms, let's shut down Monsanto, if we cared about public health.
	But that shutdown is not what I see.
	What I see is a shutdown to destroy the American worker, to seize people's assets and properties.
	And to basically destroy this economy on behalf of Bill Gates, Hillary Clinton, Deep State, the WHO, the Chinese Communist Party, to basically seize power of not only the American worker but the world worker.
	Everyday people. So we become a factory.
	We become automatons in a large factory, which is what China has done, and we lose our humanity.
	That's what this is about, Stephen.
	This is about freedom or slavery.
	This is not just about a freaking vaccine or a virus.
	This is about an important point in human history.
	And this has occurred over and over again, as we discussed.
	But I think we have an enormous opportunity, actually, to rise up and to reclaim our destiny as human beings.
	Well, I've said from the beginning that SARS-CoV-2 is doing a much better job of attacking our liberties than attacking our bodies, and that to me is the real—it's the body politic that is really succumbing to this horrible virus.
	Listen, I really, really appreciate your time.
	I really feel illuminated, educated, mind-blown, and please go and check out Shiva for Senate.
	And thank you so much for your time.
	I'm sorry, sorry that we didn't get to people's questions.
	Perhaps we can lure you back on.
	Certainly, this has been, wow, quite a number of people watching this broadcast.
	Let everyone go to shivaforsenate.com.
	If you support the campaign, I've actually created a book and a tool that people can actually understand how their body is a system.
	It's a very powerful educational tool.
	And in this time of economic distress, if you can't Donate to get it.
	Write to me at vashiva.com.
	And we're also giving away scholarships.
	And anyone in Massachusetts that's listening or people you know in Massachusetts, tell them to go to Shiva for Senate.
	Scroll down and have them click a button where we will mail you a nomination ballot so you can sign it and get it in so we can get on the ballot.
	Everyone should do that. We need to win.
	This is not about winning a Senate election.
	This is about... We're good to go.
	Well, I actually just would, I mean, if I were in Massachusetts, I would do it just to see you cross-examine Dr.
	Fauci, which would, I think, be something for the ages.
	So thanks again, Dr. Shiva.
	A great pleasure, and we'll talk again soon.

▲