Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 26, 2023 - Viva & Barnes

01:52:53

DNA in the Covid Jab? Interview with Jessica Rose! Viva Viva Frei Live!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Give a vaccine.
	Antenovirus, but some of the other vaccines are.
	We were very good in doing that.
	Protein vaccines, we were very good in doing that.
	And plus many other technologies.
	Yes.
	mRNA was the technology that we had less experience, only two years.
	No, that's no experience.
	Actually, mRNA was a technology that never delivered a single product until that day.
	No experience, no product.
	Not any other medicine.
	Nothing.
	So it was very counterintuitive and I was surprised when they suggested to me that this is the way to go.
	But they were very insistent.
	And I questioned it.
	And I asked them to justify it.
	How can you say something like that?
	They were very persuasive.
	They came and they were very, very convinced that this is the right way to go.
	Very, very, very, very convinced people.
	...of war on mRNA since 2018, together with BioNTech, to develop a flu vaccine.
	Mature.
	After two years.
	Two years.
	I follow my instinct.
	This is science now.
	Very costly, very profitable decision.
	Now, hold on.
	I want to show you all this.
	It's a wallet that is shaped like a hundred.
	The problem with a wallet like this is you take it out and someone might actually think you're flashing a wad of cash.
	So this has become, I don't know, a desktop toy.
	Good morning, everybody.
	And good super-duper early morning.
	West Coast, good evening, afternoon, and happy tomorrow, Australia.
	All right, how is everybody doing?
	The world is, um...
	Oh, it's always darkest before the storm.
	It's always darkest before the dawn.
	Or until it goes pitch black.
	We're going to talk science today.
	It's been a week of science.
	I had Dr. Drew on Monday, although Dr. Drew was science and life.
	I think we briefly brought up this new publication.
	It seems to be new, and yet when I Google it, or when I look on the interwebs for it, it seems that what's now new has been long known and was at first, as it goes, denied.
	Then admitted but minimized, and now it looks like we're at the stage three of how fake news deals with reality.
	Admitted, acknowledged, and stated risk unknown.
	DNA, allegedly, and by the way, we are only, I'm not even taking a chance with YouTube who determines, you know, YouTube, the unlicensed medical practitioners, sanctioned Dr. Francis Christian for, or not him, but me, for having him on, where he expresses his medical opinion.
	The unlicensed professionals at YouTube said, that's medical misinformation, Dr. Francis Christian.
	I got two fingers for the YouTube and neither of them are thumbs.
	So they are now finally at the stage of admitting that it's a problem.
	Or it might be a problem.
	Potentially.
	Unknown.
	Denied.
	Admit but minimized.
	And now it's admit and we don't know.
	DNA.
	And we're going to talk about it.
	Jessica Rose has been on at least twice.
	The first one was always the marathon get to know.
	So you know everything about her, but we'll do a little overview today.
	Second one, time was to talk about the Lahaina fires, which, you know, that's...
	News cycle has moved on.
	It's moved on, but the people of Lahaina haven't.
	That's in Hawaii, the fires, for anybody who doesn't remember.
	And now we're back to...
	We're going to talk science today.
	Allegedly, apparently, DNA fragments found in every vial of the Jibby Jab juice coming out of wherever.
	What does it mean?
	Et cetera, et cetera.
	Let me just make sure that we are...
	Currently live, we are on Rumble.
	We are currently live on Burla is a POS, TimeBandit66.
	We're live on Locals.
	And now I'm going to bring in Jessica Rose, the person, the woman of the hour.
	Jessica Rose's PhD, but we're going to let her explain her credentials.
	We're going to talk about everything and more.
	Maybe even a little bit of surfing.
	Jessica, you ready?
	Three, two, one.
	Ma 'am, how goes the battle?
	Yeah, good!
	And speaking of surfing, how did you enjoy it?
	Tell me.
	Okay, well, I'm learning the, what's the word for the physics of it?
	I can let the wave push me in when there's enough of a wave.
	What I find happens a lot is when the wave is sufficiently big, I nosedive because I know I'm not taking it angle-wise.
	I'm taking it straightforward.
	The waves out in Florida suck, so I have to go for a storm and get them.
	But I understand the...
	Physics of it.
	I just need to get the practice of it.
	I have not been able to like, you know, go sideways and right away, but it's mesmerizing being out on the open blue ocean, just going up and down and just looking for a wave, thinking of nothing else, although still thinking of stuff.
	It's hypnotic, but yeah, I'm getting the hang of it.
	Well, that's amazing considering like you just found this.
	Like it took me a lot longer.
	To get that thing about nosediving and, you know, taking your board physically on like a 45 degree angle to get into the wave is a really good idea.
	Rearing up is a really good idea and maybe moving a little bit back on the board is going to help you with that nosedive.
	Also, you have to be going a little bit faster than the wave by the time it gets to you, so you have to like really, really puddle!
	And you have to, like, there's no doubt in that mind when you're going for that wave.
	Like, I'm getting on this wave!
	But it's terrifying because you do go fast.
	If the wave is big enough to push you, it's big enough to smash you into the ground, roll you.
	And I've been watching...
	All of the...
	I mean, I've been, like, not deep diving.
	I've just been...
	The algorithm recommends it now.
	Big wave surfing.
	What is it?
	No, no, no, no.
	That'll terrify you out of the sport.
	No, I want to do that.
	My wife will kill me.
	It's amazing.
	What is it?
	The Puhuna?
	The Puna?
	It starts with a P in Hawaii.
	The massive wave, and you, like, you look at it.
	Jaws.
	It's called Jaws, yeah.
	That's a very dangerous wave, and you have to know what you're doing.
	But Cho-pu is also in Tahiti.
	Please forgive me if I got that wrong.
	This is also like, just type that in, Chi-o-pu.
	I think it's Ti-ha-pu.
	That's how you spell it.
	And it's like...
	Well, that was one I'm thinking of, the Ti-o-pu, where they bring him in on jet skis and then they go rescue them afterwards.
	And it's like...
	You understand, like, a heavy wave versus just a wake wave.
	Like, the entire weight of the ocean behind a massive wall of water, it's magnificent.
	It was very thick.
	So, like, when it's big, it's seriously dangerous.
	Like, there's a professional female surfer.
	She's so righteous.
	She got, like, her face ripped off on the reef, literally.
	And they had to, like, put it back on.
	You never know.
	I mean, the surgeon is genius.
	But, like...
	It couldn't have been a good experience.
	But yeah, she's still big wave surfing.
	I mean, I can't remember her name.
	Sorry.
	I'm going to bring something up after this ad here.
	Let's just have a look at it.
	Well, then we'll get into the science.
	But the biggest wave ever successfully ridden.
	Okay, here.
	This is it.
	That would be Nazare, I think.
	Oh, God.
	What was it?
	Ireland?
	The coast of Ireland?
	Portugal.
	It's so amazing.
	Okay, but just look at this.
	Let's get some wave of the day.
	That looks like Choco.
	Look!
	And this will put you under the water for like a minute or two minutes if it crashes over you and you get stuck in the white.
	Oh.
	It's just...
	And that's slow-mo, dude.
	Oh.
	I mean, it's crazy.
	How do you not just definitively die if that crashes over you?
	Some people get hurt, yeah.
	It's not something you just start doing.
	Choco's not always that big.
	You can ride smaller waves at Choco.
	I have a friend who told me about that experience and it sounded like something I might even be able to do myself.
	But I'd have to get to some kind of next level training before I would even attempt it.
	I mean like lungs because I can't stand a water for very long.
	I'm not so good that way and my ears are...
	They kind of don't work underwater.
	I have like narrow tubes or something.
	Anyway, yeah, I'd have to physically, physiologically prep for something like that just in case it took me down.
	Because if she takes you down, you are down.
	Down for an extended period of time.
	Did I ask you this?
	Can I call you Jess?
	Because my sister is Jess.
	Okay, I don't want to be disrespectful, but it's the force of habit.
	I don't do that stuff.
	You can call me whatever you want that feels comfortable.
	I'll call you Jay.
	Someone in our locals community put up...
	No, I'll call you.
	Jess will be easy.
	Someone in our locals community put up a tweet or a post from Steve Kirsch.
	And it says, "I'm not aware of a single prominent..." Well, no, no, I want to hear the point here is it says, "I'm not aware of a single prominent scientist who went from anti-vaxx to pro-vaxx, so I asked Bard, I suspect that's AI, you are not going to believe the response, check this out." And then it goes down to you.
	No, it's not me.
	They're mixing up.
	I didn't know if you were a model actress before becoming a scientist.
	They're mixing up Jessica Rose, who is a model actress.
	So before all this started, if you typed in my name, she would come up.
	I think she's still an actress.
	She's going to get a lot of notoriety for this.
	No, thanks.
	I don't need any applause.
	No, I'm kidding.
	But anyway, she's a real person.
	But the weird thing about this weird bard thing, I guess it's an AI.
	I don't know it.
	Is that it mixed the Jessica Rose on the...
	That's her, yeah.
	Jessica Rose.
	Right here, yeah.
	Well, now I'm thinking there's a UFC fighter named Jessica Rose.
	There is, too.
	So there's a bunch of Jessica Roses who will come up when you type in our names.
	But the weird part is, it's not just that it's a mix of people.
	And I don't seem to be a part of it at all, because this Jessica Rose founded ICANN.
	And she used to be an anti-vaxxer, and now she's promoting the COVID shots.
	What the hell is this?
	Well, hold on.
	What is ICANN, Jess?
	The Informed Consent Action Network.
	They're in Syria.
	It's like Del Victory's thing.
	So it's like, yeah, I didn't found that.
	I only founded a flamenco troupe a long time ago.
	That's the only thing I found.
	Okay, so that answers the question.
	AI cannot be...
	Well, you also have...
	It's a relatively common name, but AI cannot be relied on, and anybody relying on it is going to get embarrassed by the results.
	But, Jess, now explain to the world who you are for those who missed our first two live streams.
	You know, the very summary overview, just set out your credentials so anybody watching this for the first time can either accept your expertise or write it off as you're not a...
	Whatever subspecies of scientists to talk about things.
	All right.
	So you can always go to my website, Jessica's Universe, and find my CV if you want to check me out.
	And you should.
	I think that's why CVs exist, so that you can look at what someone's done and what they've published.
	So I've done five postgraduate degrees in applied mathematics, immunology.
	Computational biology, biochemistry, and molecular biology.
	And the thing that brought me to what I'm doing now, which is basically using all of these backgrounds, like putting it all into one.
	It's kind of beautiful in a way because I'm drawing from every single thing I've done for the very first time.
	I'm utilizing it for one purpose.
	Lots of data analysis, which is always a part of what I've been doing.
	But yeah, I'm looking at pharmacovigilance databases.
	I'm studying the immunology of what's going on when you get injected with these modified mRNA products.
	And learning a lot about genetics, oncology.
	I mean, there's like so many subject matters that I don't officially have training in, but it's cool that I have the background that is enabling me to learn very quickly.
	Yeah, it's all I do now because there's nothing else to do.
	There's been so many rank lies and there's so much breakage in every single system now.
	It's almost as if you're not using whatever it is that you have in your background, whether it be an artist or a scientist, to bring some kind of truth, reality, or light to To the world, it's like, I don't know, I find it easy in that regard because it's like there's nothing else to do right now.
	I've been listening to you on quite a few podcasts, and they seem to be definitely more scientifically oriented, both in terms of the interviewer and the audience.
	And so I'm sitting there saying, I would have stopped every few seconds to say, what does that mean?
	What does this mean?
	So I'm going to ask some very childish questions today.
	The toughest thing for a scientist is to not...
	Dumb it down, but just explain it in terms that allow a layperson to understand what's going on.
	I know a lot of words.
	I don't know what the hell they mean.
	So, I said, before we get started, I said, like, can we start from the very beginning?
	Like, if I ask you something that's beyond your expertise, please let me know.
	But let's start from the very, very, very beginning.
	A viral infection itself, because one of the things that we hear, we're going to get into myocarditis today at some point.
	One of the things we hear is...
	Viral infections themselves cause myocarditis or can.
	They can cause inflammation.
	They can cause shrinkage of the brain from what I think I understand.
	Very briefly and summarily, a viral infection or COVID in particular, how does it work?
	What does it do to the body so that we can distinguish it from what the jab did to the body?
	Right.
	And there's one more thing we should talk about, the distinguishment.
	You brought this up earlier, the distinguishment between Like conventional vaccines and these modified...
	Well, we're going to get there when I ask you to explain mRNA and all of that jazz.
	Okay, but first things first, you get sick, you get an infection, what's going on in your body?
	Well, you can...
	Bacteria are also, you know, there are some guys that we should talk about.
	They're notorious for causing, let's just say, symptoms in people.
	When something gets out of balance...
	Immune system-wise, that's when things tend to go awry.
	This can happen because you're, I don't know, because you're stressed out.
	I mean, let's just put it this way.
	You can be introduced to a cold virus, or let's just say flu virus, and you can get really, really sick, like really symptomatic.
	You can have lung involvement.
	It can evolve into, say, a bacterial pneumonia.
	Like, all sorts of bad things can happen.
	But on the other hand, if your immune system is optimized, let's just say you are not vitamin D depleted.
	This is a really good example.
	Then it's likely that you either won't have symptoms or your symptoms will be very mild.
	So it's very important for people to understand the ebb and flow of the constant virage of viruses, bacteria, fungi.
	We don't talk about them.
	They're very important to talk about because they can really mess with your brain if they're a certain type.
	I don't know a lot about that yet, but I will.
	So when you get under the weather, it's basically a battle being fought between Whatever it is you are introduced to and how new it is, and the strength, the optimization of your immune system.
	That has a lot to do with everything.
	Your diet, your state of mind, your health in general.
	It's a complex thing.
	The thing about...
	Oh gosh, I forgot what I was going to say.
	Should I go into the modified mRNA?
	Well, SARS, for example, is a coronavirus.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, there are cold viruses.
	I believe there are four strains that are also coronaviruses and E2 somethings.
	I don't know.
	They have these names.
	And so that's what I was going to say.
	When this all started, we were hearing the word zoonotic pathogen, which basically means when...
	A pathogen jumps from one species to another and that can be very dangerous because the new species won't have any immunological recognition devices for this new pathogen so it can take you down before you even start mounting a response.
	That's why everyone was scared.
	That's why for about eight days until I started realizing what was going on, I was concerned because I knew what that meant and I knew that.
	I'm trying to think if there's been a historical example of a virus that jumped from an animal to a human.
	I want to say the swine flu, but I'm not sure.
	Yeah, you can say that.
	There are, but I'm starting to question how often this actually occurs in nature versus how often it's happening because humans are being stupid in the lab.
	I'm serious.
	I mean, chimeric viruses are...
	You know, there's something real.
	And yeah, I mean, I don't know actually how many viruses have actually jumped, but of course it's a thing.
	It's a real thing.
	But again, I think it happens more often when people are screwing around with viruses in labs.
	And so in the early days of COVID, the whole thing is it came from eating a bat or a pangolin from a Chinese wet market.
	So the idea was it was a, I forget what the word was, but it starts with a zoo.
	It was a virus that jumped from animals to humans.
	And that was the terror in humanity.
	Yeah.
	And they say that it had a very high infection fatality rate, which means that it kills a lot of, like if a hundred people got it, like 20 would die, which I don't.
	I honestly don't think that that was true, even at inception.
	Ebola has a high fatality rate.
	But don't get me started on Ebola.
	Anyway, so they needed everyone to not believe or even start to question whether or not this jumped out of a lab, either accidentally or not.
	So they needed to, in my opinion, this is what I've learned.
	And that I've formed my opinion on.
	This was created in a lab.
	There are fingerprints and markers all over it that indicate that.
	So yeah, maybe it was more dangerous in the beginning.
	That would make sense in terms of whether or not it was a virus or some kind of clone or not.
	But yeah, I mean, viruses, as they pass through people...
	They get weaker, generally.
	Now, it's not impossible for something to get more virulent if you put it in the right environment.
	This is what Jörg Bendenbosch is talking about all the time that he's worried about because they've injected everybody with all this other crap all at the same time of every age group during a pandemic, like during the most spready time of this virus, which is kind of creating...
	The circumstances for it to try and escape.
	Because that's what viruses do.
	And bacteria too.
	They try and escape.
	And they're very good at it.
	So mutate, mutate, mutate.
	And it's all just a numbers game, right?
	So if you get the right mutation, and that thing mutates away from being, you know, not dangerous, you could have a problem on your hands.
	So that hasn't happened.
	What has happened is that this thing apparently has tapered off to something that gives you the sniffles.
	Which is why all of us are scratching our heads saying, why are you pushing an injection on us that has ingredients from something that's extinct that has already kind of been proven to be ineffective and unsafe?
	So it's like, yeah, it makes you wonder.
	Yeah, by the way, just for the future, if a very...
	So-called dangerous zoonotic pathogen did come into the population of humans, it would burn out really quickly.
	What I mean by that is if it kills people readily because they don't have, you know, the immunity to it, there's going to be like a small pool of people that are, you know, they're going to die if it kills you, but that will burn out really fast because there won't be a possibility of transmission.
	It's better, the best scenario for a pathogen is to have something really infectious and not virulent, not something that makes you really sick.
	So that's why when I started hearing about, like, it's highly transmissible and nobody's getting sick, it's like, that's beautiful!
	That's a vaccine!
	I remember them saying that about the, I think it was the first variant.
	But okay, so backing it up to COVID in particular and this thing called the spike protein, which is what, this is what I'm sort of like, I feel stupid that I just can't get my head around.
	You get a COVID infection and it produces a spike protein in your body as a response to the virus?
	As a response to fighting the virus?
	You're talking about the injections?
	No, no, I'm talking about the viral infection itself, where they say they both produce a spike protein.
	And I just don't understand what that spike protein is in terms of it being a response to the infection.
	If you could flesh that out for thick-skull me.
	Yes, so it's very much along the lines of how we used to vaccinate with proteins.
	So you can take a whole virus.
	And modify it so that you take out, like, an essential gene that makes it dangerous.
	Like, if you take out its ability to replicate, you can put that whole virus in, minus that gene or something, and your body, and this is the same for SARS, like, SARS is this little ball with spikes, whatever.
	Your body's going to, like, analyze this big ball of different kinds of proteins as peptides.
	And it's going to be able to, like, say, okay, this is foreign, this entity is foreign, and these peptides are foreign.
	So these antibodies and T cells that are going to be responding to these new proteins that are mounted on these little flags on cells, they're going to respond to all the components, all the different proteins that are associated with this.
	Virus, let's call it.
	So you're going to have spike protein bits, you're going to have core bits, you're going to have nucleocapsid bits, any bits of proteins presented as foreign molecules on these things called MHCs on the surface of cells.
	So it's like the same thing if you introduce proteins to induce this immune response as it is when you're Basically introduced to a new viral pathogen.
	Your body's going to like, you know, churn it up and present it in order to give the command to all the different arms of the immune system.
	I mean, you have your innate immune system, which are the front-enders, like NK cells.
	Your skin is even part of the innate immune system.
	And then you have this acquired branch where it learns.
	That's why we call it acquired.
	Which epitopes, which of these peptides, these foreign proteins, that it needs to destroy?
	And which cells that are showing these foreign proteins they need to also destroy?
	So we're talking about T cells and B cells.
	And B cells are the cells that produce these antibodies that we're always talking about.
	So these antibodies, they have like a...
	A part that doesn't really change.
	And then they have this why part that changes a lot.
	It can literally become the...
	I don't know if it would be the lock or the key.
	We'll call it the key that clicks into...
	This is hard to do backwards.
	I am noticing it's a mirror.
	I was actually just looking at my face and the wrong eye seems to be narrower than the other one.
	Alright.
	Yeah, sorry.
	And it takes it away.
	So this is very adaptable, this little antibody Y. And it clicks onto this, like, this danger guy.
	And it takes it away.
	Like, in a nutshell.
	The responses are, their primary responses, which is like the buildup of the army.
	And it's a little bit slower.
	It takes a few days to, you know, generate all of these cells.
	That's why your lymph nodes get kind of swollen.
	When you're sick, because that's actually like expansion of clones, T cells, and other junk.
	So it takes some time.
	But when you get challenged, which is when you meet the actual pathogen or a similar pathogen in the future, those ARMYs are there because of memory cells.
	There are these cells that actually have a jaw to recall, like if they've seen these specific...
	Peptides or proteins before and they say get to work guys!
	So they send in the troops and the troops are like they grow really fast they know where to go because of these things called chemokines and and and they illuminate the invader very quickly so you don't even notice like symptoms.
	That's basically how vaccination works or supposed to work.
	Primary response, secondary response.
	Okay, and now, as we all, this is sort of, it'll be repetitive for those who've already heard it, but as we've all sort of become accustomed to the idea of vaccines, it was typically, or as we understood it, not inert, but what do they call it?
	Dead virus, or it was basically, it was supposed to be the...
	Say it again?
	Attenuated, like weakened version.
	And that would trigger something of a weaker systemic response so that the body would be able to fight a true, not a true infection, but would be able to fight off the actual invader later on.
	Which is not...
	Well, that was the technology used, I think, with the Johnson& Johnson jab for COVID.
	The technology was different, right?
	Johnson& Johnson used the traditional vaccine method, whereas...
	But it's still DNA-based.
	It's an adenovirus vector with DNA.
	So, yeah, it's not completely innocent.
	But, yeah, it uses a vector, like another virus, this adenovirus, which doesn't really cause illness in humans.
	So, you know, a vector is anything that carries something in.
	So, yeah.
	Okay, so setting aside the Johnson& Johnson, because I think we're going to get into the DNA, Okay, now, the mRNA technology, in terms of triggering the immune response, I guess you have to explain how that is, because there's no inorganic, attenuated COVID virus in Pfizer or Moderna.
	It's this new technology, which basically, as far as I understand it as the idiot lawyer, I mean, it tricks the body into thinking it's responding to something like COVID, but it's actually not COVID.
	I guess the preliminary question.
	We heard Albert Bourla intro there, mRNA very counterintuitive because it had never made a single product.
	I have been told by people much smarter than me that one of the known risks of mRNA was systemic inflammation.
	That was one of the dangers, as far as I understood, of mRNA in whatever lab testing they had done prior to.
	Do you have any knowledge about historical known risk of mRNA technology?
	Why it had never been used until now in humans?
	Yeah, I mean, in humans, we have terminally ill cancer people being tested on with this kind of tech.
	It never worked out so good.
	And it's hard to know anyway, because someone who's terminally ill is going to die anyway.
	And they've done some work with animals, and I believe that there are huge problems with antibody-dependent enhancement.
	But as far as...
	As far as it ever being proven to work, no.
	That's not true at all.
	This lipid nanoparticle technology, that's the packaging.
	Lipid nanoparticle.
	Now, lipid is fat.
	Yeah.
	Nano is small.
	Particle is...
	So, a lipid nanoparticle, what is that?
	Like, what is that as a thing?
	Okay, so...
	Just let me, like, continue the previous thought that you had.
	So these things have been in development, like, research and development pipeline for probably 20 years or more, and they're notoriously problematic because they're toxic.
	Now, a lipid nanoparticle, fat nano 100 nanometers, which is a pretty small particle, is a fat bubble.
	You can call it a fat bubble.
	It's special because of one of the four component fats.
	So one of the fats, it has four fats.
	It has cholesterol.
	It has some kind of phosphate fat.
	It has PEG, which is polyethylene glycol, which is the coating on the outside to neutralize the charge.
	And it has cationic liquids, which are highly positively charged.
	And the genius, and it is genius, but it should never have been injected into people, behind using an ionizable cationic lipid, and I'll explain what that means, is that you can nestle negatively charged entities inside the fat bubble in discrete packets.
	So, RNA...
	The fat bubble allows it to be absorbed by the body?
	Yeah, well, the idea is, once it's injected, it can transfect cells, the lipid nanoparticle, it sheds the peg over time, and it either enters cells by endocytosis, it gets kind of enveloped by the cell.
	Based on charge differentials or it gets taken into the cell by a receptor called receptor mediated endocytosis.
	So this is a receptor on a, this is really hard, on a cell and it's not going to work.
	Anyway, so there's a grabby bit on the outside of a cell that has like a specific bit that it likes to grab.
	So, and I want to talk about that in a second because it's important.
	It's something that I wrote about recently.
	So these things, these lipid nanoparticles, transpect cells, which means that they get into the cells somehow, and they dump their payload into these little spheres that they get absorbed into called endosomes.
	And the ionizable part of this cationic lipid, which is not only...
	Creating these nice little discrete bundles of the modified mRNA and DNA, and we'll get into that too.
	They're also scattered around the perimeter of this thing.
	So the genius and the idea is that these things decombobulate, or discombobulate, whichever way you say it, at a lower pH.
	So a physiological pH, which is about 7.4, They're meant to be staying intact.
	They're not supposed to be dumping their payload.
	When they get into an endozone, the pH as it matures goes down.
	So as the pH goes down to like 4.5 or something, this thing is thought to like explode its contents.
	So then you have this modified mRNA and whatever other junk is in there, including DNA.
	Just to get back to the beginning, though, because I'm getting a little bit, like, inside my own head of how I'm visualizing this.
	This is extremely different from this conventional stimulation with proteins that we've always done as part of vaccination, and that is the modus operandi of viral pathogens, for example.
	this is these fat bubbles Encasing these discrete bundles of modified mRNA, and we have to talk about that too, are Trojan horses.
	It's very hard to get, from my research now, DNA or RNA into cells that's not supposed to really be there for this purpose.
	So this is another genius part of the plan.
	Gallipid nanoparticles literally are the Trojan horse.
	Like I said, they can get in there by...
	Receptor-mediated endocytosis or envelopment.
	And they dump this payload by that method I just spoke about for translation of that genetic material, whatever it is, DNA or modified RNA, by the host cells' machinery.
	We call these ribosomes.
	So it's basically the recipe.
	Given to your cells, whichever cells are transfected, to produce massive amounts of these foreign proteins.
	Foreign being the key word there.
	So as part of the cell's defense systems, if it detects with these special molecules a foreign entity, let's call it.
	It's going to do the same thing it always does.
	It's going to chew up these little proteins.
	It's going to mount them on these little flags on the outside of the cell.
	And what's going to happen?
	It's going to flag that cell for destruction because it's got a foreign pathogen inside it, for example.
	So it's kind of like tricking the cell into making massive amounts of protein, but it's really bad for the cell.
	So bottom line is, it's probably well into the majority of cells.
	If not all of them that get transfected, that will be terminated by the body's own immune defenses because they're mounting these foreign proteins.
	So the foreign protein that they chose was really bad.
	Oh, sorry, go ahead.
	What was that foreign protein?
	The spike protein, which is this little protein that they embedded into the coronavirus backbone.
	And I do mean they embedded.
	It's a hideous thing, this spike protein.
	It's made up of all sorts of really questionable stuff.
	And so we don't know what percentage of these actual proteins are being manufactured by the body because the RNA template, the modified RNA template, which is like the recipe.
	Given to the body to make the protein is not complete.
	In leaked documents, it was shown that for the commercial batches, or that were sampled, that were put into the commercial batches of the ones that went to the people, are 59%, on average, 59% integrity, like RNA integrity.
	So they're really, really not close to 100%.
	Coding the spike protein.
	They're coding something, but we don't exactly know what.
	And it's pretty much impossible to find out what.
	Because everybody's different.
	We don't know which cells are transfected.
	Different cells are going to make proteins, you know, at different rates and stuff.
	So there's so many question marks about this new technology that Albert Bourlau was convinced to use.
	I'm not even sure I'm going to be able to pronounce it.
	We all say DNA and take these terms for granted.
	Deoxyribonucleic acid is DNA.
	But then RNA is ribonucleic acid.
	So if you could flesh out for us, I mean just summarily, functionally, practically, what's the difference between DNA and RNA?
	So, DNA is like the building blocks of life.
	Like, we're all made up of DNA.
	It's this double helix thing with these four, you know, the adenine...
	I'm not going to remember.
	And they...
	My cat's bombing me.
	At least we know what that is now.
	I saw that thing coming out of the corner.
	I wasn't sure what it was.
	Okay, sorry.
	It's my cat.
	He always has to get involved.
	So let me back up.
	So there's this central tenet of biology whereby we have DNA, RNA, messenger RNA, and protein.
	So the messenger RNA is kind of like the intermediate between DNA, which is us.
	It's like what we're made of.
	The major recipe book that makes all of our proteins and stuff.
	So it's like the intermediate between that basic material and the proteins that we actually have to make all the machines that we have working in our body.
	Everything that we are, basically.
	So you have transcription from DNA.
	To messenger RNA.
	And I'm going to talk about this because we need to talk about this in order to understand this DNA contamination thing.
	And then you go from your messenger RNA to protein by translation.
	So they call it the central dogma or tenet of biology.
	So yeah, messenger RNA, this is really important.
	It's necessary.
	Part of the parts of who we are.
	Without this intermediate, it would be hard to get from DNA to protein.
	Let's put it that way.
	Some people would disagree with me.
	So the difference between messenger RNA, that they all said, yeah, don't worry about it.
	This is very, you know...
	It's degradable.
	It's not going to last at all, you know, two days most and then it'll all be like removed from your body.
	But what they didn't tell us and what people still really aren't saying enough is that this isn't messenger RNA.
	It's modified messenger RNA.
	So you can specifically modify RNA by adding like tagged You know, tagged dyes.
	You can, like if you want to tag a uridine, for example, to make it glow or something, you can swap out uridines for pseudouridines or N1-methyl pseudouridines.
	And that's what they did.
	That's exactly what they did in the case of Pfizer and the Moderna products.
	So within this coding sequence, You have a certain number of each nucleotide.
	So let's just say you have, for example, I don't know, 100 uridines, which is one of the coding guys, the nucleotides.
	You can replace those with 100 N1-methyl pseudouridines.
	And basically what you're going to do is you're going to effectively change what that is.
	You're going to modify it.
	The reason they did that is because when you do that, apparently it allows this entity to evade immune detection via innate immune system detection methods, like these things called toll-like receptors, but we don't need to talk about that.
	So basically what it does, in layman's terms, is that it makes it very stealthy and it makes it durable.
	There are also some other problems that come doing this, though, which I'm going to talk about.
	This is modified in a very specific way, and the idea was that this is a good thing because it's going to help this thing stick around a little bit longer because it's stable and stealthy so that it can make more, so that more protein can be made.
	So it was kind of like An optimization step, but there are also like everything involved in this.
	There are so many potential problems that weren't actually explored.
	They didn't do like studies to test what's going to happen if this goes wrong, this goes wrong, or they didn't even ask the question, what's going to happen?
	To a cell that's all of a sudden introduced with all of these N1 methyl pseudouridines, because it's not used to seeing these things.
	What's going to happen?
	So, if I keep going, I'll tell you...
	Actually, we know the term mRNA, and we've been using that as a messenger ribonucleic acid, whatever that is, but it's actually modified mRNA, which I'm not sure that...
	People might appreciate the importance of.
	Okay.
	I'm still like the child who doesn't even know how to ask the question.
	Oh, it's awesome.
	So the DNA, we know the DNA are the building blocks of your body.
	The interplay between DNA and proteins, which one makes which?
	DNA has to make protein.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And DNA can interact with proteins.
	This is really interesting.
	For example, and this is important for what we're going to talk about, so I'll bring it up now.
	There's this thing called P53, which is called the guardian of the genome, and it actually locks onto the DNA within your cell.
	It lives in the nucleus, and it acts as a surveillance molecule.
	Actually, I'm not sure I should be talking about this yet, but anyway, it's very important in surveillance of double-stranded DNA breaks.
	I'm going to talk about this after because I'm kind of jumping the gun here, but just to go back to what I was saying, DNA and proteins can actually interact, but DNA...
	Is required.
	It's the building blocks for proteins.
	So it's the one, two, three step process.
	Maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves.
	Maybe it'll be the segue.
	Damaging your DNA is bad, just to put it so well.
	It happens all the time.
	The key thing that we need to all come back to is that damage is being done all the time, but repair is also being done all the time.
	So it's this gorgeous balance between damage and repair that if it gets disrupted, you can get into trouble.
	So if you have this, I'll go back to P53.
	If you have this surveillance guy, let's say it gets a mutation, and it can't click onto that DNA anymore to run along it to determine if there are any breaks, then there's not going to be anything.
	Signaling to all these other guys who repair those brakes to say, hey, hey, problem in aisle four.
	Come on, clean up aisle four.
	It's a bad analogy.
	Anyway, so my point is...
	I understood it.
	I mean, maybe it's the perfect analogy.
	I conceptualized that.
	Good, good.
	Clean up in aisle four.
	So if the cleanup guy is out having a smoke forever, Then you're not going to have cleanup of your double-stranded DNA break pile.
	Anyway, my point is that if you have any kind of imbalance, and let's just say you have a number of different kinds of imbalances.
	Let's say for some reason you have a mutation in your p53 gene, and you also have some kind of damage of a double-stranded DNA repair break.
	And then let's say you have, I don't know, you have some kind of dysfunction with this RAS gene that is in charge of proliferation of cells.
	I mean, if you have a number of different, let's call them defects or mutations at the same time, then your chance of having, say, a tumor form, which is just, you know, it's an overproliferation, an overgrowth of cells.
	Then that's cancer.
	So, and again, I mean, it's funny, but we're cancering all the time, basically.
	It's just that we have these counter mechanisms that basically keep everything in check so that our bodies are normally functioning most of the time.
	When you get, say, like a tumor, or like I was saying before, if you get really sick, then it's some kind of...
	normal mechanism or bunch of mechanisms getting out of whack.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Now, before we get into the DNA, you've been tracking a lot of the data.
	I don't know what the latest is now.
	From what I understand, Pfizer has added to their list of side effects, myocarditis, a number of other things.
	What have been the demonstrable nefarious side effects and what is the state of those in terms of Stats and confirmation as of this point from the jab.
	Wait, can you say it again?
	Do you mean only from myocarditis?
	Let's say myocarditis in particular, but also now, if you've been following it, I don't know what's the latest updates, but what have been the latest trends that you've noticed from varus and from noted and documented side effects?
	And I guess the next question is going to be the why, but where we're at now in terms of the various trends.
	Okay, I finally got you.
	It took three times.
	And I guarantee you it was me and not you.
	No, it wasn't me.
	I was like, shit, it's getting dark.
	I've got to get the light on without showing everyone my armpit.
	And I didn't succeed.
	That's how my brain works.
	Okay.
	So...
	Well, first, everyone should know something with VAERS.
	As of October 6th, which is, what, three weeks ago?
	Three weeks ago.
	They stopped updating VAERS weekly.
	So my friend at OpenVAERS told me that it's because they've reverted to what they were doing pre-COVID.
	So since I don't know anything about any of this stuff pre-COVID, I mean, I came into this by accident.
	I'm taking her word for it because she knows this stuff.
	And so we're only getting updates monthly.
	So we're getting data less frequently and probably what we're going to get are very large data sets every month.
	So something has changed in bears.
	But as of October 6, all the trends were on the up, still going up.
	And this is partly because of backlogs being, you know, fixed up.
	It's partly because new reports are being filed.
	There are surges in reports being filed for babies, zero to four.
	Big one, the rate of reporting is going up much faster in that age group than for the other age groups, the CDC age groups, which is pretty alarming.
	A lot of administration errors going on.
	Myocarditis is still on the rise.
	the exact same profile for like, if you pull out all of the myocarditis reports in VAERS and make a graph where you have all the ages on the X axis, like zero to 120, and
	all the reports on the y-axis, like just the number of reports, and you overlap on the graph, if you can imagine this, the number of reports per dose, what you're going to see is that after dose two, in 15-year-olds, and this is for boys primarily, there's like five times more reporting going on.
	So it's absolutely indicative that there's something different going on in the boy, and also with the injury from the shot between dose one and dose two.
	It's good that they're, I mean, I don't know what to say about this, because you know that I penned this paper with Peter McCullough in 2021, right?
	It was force withdrawn.
	We have it up now.
	It's going through review again now, the updated version, but we've known this.
	Anybody who looked at VAERS, the owners of VAERS are the CDC and HHS.
	You know, anybody who looks at it would have seen this safety signal, and that's what VAERS is for.
	It's a safety signal generator meant to be assessed using causality assessments or whatever.
	And so, yeah, it's a safety signal that's been like boop, boop, boop.
	What is the temporal proximity of the VAERS report to the second jab?
	Because the argument is going to be, and you hear it, it's just all over the place online.
	COVID causes myocarditis.
	So the question is going to be, how do you track the spike after the second jab temporally to the jab itself?
	What is the time frame within which you're seeing that report?
	So you're talking about the time, like the percentage of people, say, who reported an incident of myocarditis, say, within 24 hours.
	No, let's say within a week.
	Yeah, let's say a week of the second jab, yes.
	Right.
	After dose one versus the percentage of people who reported a myocarditis incident or the number of people, let's say, after or within seven days of dose two.
	Correct.
	I'm trying to put my head around this.
	No, no, exactly.
	Because for those who say, well, look, it could all be from COVID itself.
	The question, they can say that, but if there's a demonstrable temporal proximity.
	There is.
	Okay.
	And not only that, but like, I'm just going to be a horse's ass here.
	The number one reported adverse event in VAERS continues after about a year to be COVID-19.
	And this is based on a positive, you know, SARS test or, you know, one of the other metric codes is vaccination failure or COVID pneumonia or something like this.
	So it seems to be when you combine that.
	With some of the peer-reviewed literature, that there is a susceptibility acquired with multiple shots to COVID-19 itself, which is, these are the symptoms.
	So it's actually susceptibility to SARS, and whatever the symptoms are.
	Either that, or people are getting COVID-like symptoms from something else because their immune system's been depressed by something in these shots.
	There's also this issue of tolerance.
	So you can get a shift to a tolerizing situation in your body, which basically means your immune system isn't seeing these guys as bad guys anymore.
	They're just like, eh, those aren't trouble.
	We'll leave them alone.
	And so they wreak havoc in whatever way they're going to.
	And when you're talking about the spike protein, which is, you know, it's really bad for cells and red blood cells especially.
	It's like...
	You don't want that stuff running rampant in your body.
	You don't want any foreign protein running rampant in your body.
	So, yeah.
	So VAERS is showing what it always has from January 2021.
	That's a really important point.
	Safety signals were like this death included.
	January 2021 is going to be March, April, May, June, July, August.
	Six weeks.
	Well, no, it's going to be January 2021 is going to be like eight months into it.
	People might say like...
	I understand that they're...
	Oh, I see what you're saying.
	Yeah, COVID.
	Yeah, they're filing these reports within proximity of the release of the jab, but it might have been delayed responses or they might all be related to infection itself.
	But this is where I had, you know, I had Dr. Drew on Monday and he said, look, yes, myocarditis inflammation can be a risk of any viral infection, but he said, and I defer to his...
	Better expertise.
	When it comes from a viral infection, typically those symptoms are all resolved within a year, and what we're seeing is not the case in terms of myocarditis resulting from...
	Sorry, go for it.
	No, sorry, I cut you off.
	Typically, any inflammation resolves itself within a year of infection, which seems to be not the case with the jab, but I don't know any better.
	No, it's true.
	There's something continuous going on here.
	You know, it could just be because people keep injecting themselves.
	It could be this integration issue that we're going to talk about, the continued production of spike protein.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, Occam's razor would say, if something isn't resolved, its presence is probably still there.
	So, you know, it's probably that.
	I mean, if you're suffering inflammation anywhere, and it's persistent...
	Then that's some kind of ongoing, you know, loop between whatever is causing the inflammation and the inflammatory mediator.
	So it's like, yeah.
	Now, I almost feel, I feel stupid asking the question, but I still have to ask it.
	The questions are awesome.
	The jab.
	This is just the cause and effect that I've not yet understood.
	Does the jab triggers the spike protein response in the body, or does the jab introduce the spike protein to which your body is supposed to respond?
	So, the jab template gives your body cells the instructions to make the protein against which your body mounts an immune response.
	Okay.
	And that is what is being referred to as...
	It's tricking the body into creating the spike protein.
	Well, it's not tricking.
	It's a mechanism of action.
	I mean, if you introduce coating material to the right places, you know, near the ribosomes, then the ribosome is going to ribosome.
	You actually said ribosome.
	That's from Billy Madison, where the teacher's like, and the ribosome's not happy, and then Billy Madison's looking and was like, the ribosome.
	Okay, so it is tricking.
	It's stimulating the body to producing the spike protein.
	It is the prolonged...
	Production, dealing with the spike protein that is causing all sorts of inflammation issues and then arguably other potential risks.
	It's having that spike protein in the body for prolonged periods of time, which is bad.
	Whereas if you get an infection, your body produces spike proteins to fight the infection.
	It goes away after a week or two.
	In this case, with continual jabs, your body is just basically continuing to produce spike protein.
	It's lasting longer in the body than it was announced, and it's going everywhere.
	And is that a sufficient layperson understanding?
	Yeah, it's more peptides of spike protein.
	But yeah, another thing that's really important, a lot of people ask, like, okay, so what's the difference between, you know...
	Getting the infection and, like, getting natural immunity and getting the jab to get immunity.
	And it's like, well, besides all the toxic shit and the stupidity of the technology, your dose, so-called, is, it's not comparable.
	Even if you get a really big punch of virus, you know, upon introduction of SARS, like, say someone sneezes right into your nostrils.
	Like, even if you get that.
	Anyone with kids knows, like, you're sitting with your kid, the kid goes, blech!
	And it's like right up in your face, in your eyes, everywhere.
	So yes, I know exactly what you're talking about, Jessica.
	When that happens...
	Yeah, that's funny.
	So you have a much better chance.
	First of all, you're going to get your mucosal immunity on the go, which is, like, why it's really stupid to try and use this kind of...
	You know, methodology to fight a coronavirus.
	But the dose that you get, there are billions, billions of lipid nanoparticles being injected into you all in one go, per dose.
	And then it's estimated that there are trillions of these, you know, spike protein derivatives, whatever they are.
	Think about that.
	I mean...
	That has to be relativized, like trillions introduced or produced by the body.
	Is that compared to a baseline of zero, or do you always have billions?
	Well, yeah.
	In this particular instance, yeah.
	I mean, you know, in terms of virions, well, it's a good question.
	How many virions would constitute, like, virion is a viral particle, so how many would constitute a really good dose?
	I don't know.
	But it's not...
	I don't know exactly, but it's not the same scale.
	It's quite clear.
	You're jacking something up into your body.
	I was just flabbergasted just going back to Trust the Science where they said you could do it within six to eight weeks of a prior infection.
	And I'm not a doctor.
	I'm just a reasonable person.
	I don't know what sense that makes to go get a massive boost shortly after an infection.
	And it seems like you're just maximizing risks for everything.
	Exactly.
	You are.
	Yeah.
	I just want to make this point for all the spike people.
	The lipid nanoparticles themselves, these fat bubbles with these cationic lipids, they're really bad too.
	And there's a possibility that...
	I'll try and...
	Okay, so a paper came out called A Deadly Embrace, and it's about hemagglutination, which means your red blood cells, which look like these little red discs.
	Which are in your circulation clump together.
	That's hemagglutination.
	And they clump together because antibodies stick them together.
	So the reason why this can happen is because they have this thing called, they have detractive forces between them, and it's called a zeta potential.
	So it's kind of like if you try and hold two magnets too close together, they won't be able to touch.
	So that's why red blood cells aren't constantly sticking together.
	So if you introduce a spike protein, this is published paper.
	It interferes with this zeta potential, this detractive force, and pulls them together.
	So that's why I think that we're seeing a lot of clotting and we're seeing low formation.
	Some people are showing that, which is, it's like when you, you know those candies called Rolos?
	Oh yeah.
	Yeah, so it looks like Rolos, except it's actually called a Rulo.
	So I'm hypothesizing here based on what I, like, this much that I know about zeta potential, which is this, you know, thing that keeps things apart, discrete, is that lipid nanoparticles themselves might also exercise this effect on red blood cells.
	So the thing is, we don't know!
	We've never done a study.
	After all of this time and all these billions of people injected with this crap, we do not have a study that shows the effects of lipid nanoparticles alone.
	Empty lipid nanoparticles on human physiology.
	We know now, based on these Freedom of Information Act requested documents of pharmacokinetic studies, which basically just means where's this drug going in the body studies, That these things, the lipid nanoparticles, go everywhere.
	And if I may, I just want to tell you guys what I found out recently.
	Fat bubbles are...
	A fat bubble is a fat bubble.
	This is going to turn into a poem.
	It sounds like a Kamala Harris poem right now.
	A fat bubble is a bubble of fat.
	It's a fat bubble that bubbles.
	And we know that the past in the West was the East and the stars.
	And that's why.
	No, so a fat bubble is a bubble of fat.
	Okay, sorry.
	So go on and explain what the fat bubble.
	A fat bubble, fat bubbles.
	But what does it do?
	I'm going to try and do this.
	This is hard.
	I've learned all this recently.
	It's really cool.
	So when we eat.
	You know, we have a mixture of carbohydrates and proteins and fats.
	And if you're like me, you eat a lot of fat.
	And that has to get metabolized.
	And some of your cells, they like fat.
	They store fat or they use it for energy consumption.
	And so when you eat fat, it goes through the thoracic duct first and gets passed through your circulation for biodistribution of these fats so that you can...
	Nourish the essential cells in your body, like your muscle cells or adipose tissue.
	This is so flippant.
	It's so ridiculous.
	This is all just happening right now.
	I just had breakfast and it's all just happening.
	And I'm sitting here worried about...
	Oh, God.
	Okay.
	It's mind-blowing.
	But I'm sorry.
	I just had to interject.
	It's all getting broken down.
	Circulated around.
	So your body can distribute the nutrients.
	Okay.
	A fact.
	So it's like, this is specifically for facts.
	So ultimately, and I know this is a scary word, it's called a chylomicron.
	It's a special fat bubble that's got cholesterol and what's that other one?
	Triglycerides.
	And so it's these fat bubbles that travel around and they make these pit stops all along the way.
	And they're like, hey, you need some fat?
	And they're like, yeah, I could use some over here.
	And so they pass out their fat along the way.
	And then eventually...
	They get depleted, and it gets converted to a chylomicron remnant.
	And as that's happening, there are these things called apolipoproteins, which are basically just fat proteins.
	They have the ability to be with fats and proteins at the same time.
	And they stick onto the outside of this chylomicron fat bubble.
	This is also a fat bubble.
	And so you have these proteins embedded in the surface of this fat bubble, these lipoproteins.
	And like I was saying before, a lot of things in the body have specific receptors.
	So these guys, these little depleted fat bubbles with these specific lipoproteins, now get targeted to the liver.
	Because the liver is really rich in the receptors that bind these lipoproteins.
	And that's by design, because Mother Nature is so freaking cool.
	This is how it cleans out your body from the residue stuff.
	Yeah, it's fat metabolism.
	It's how the fat gets metabolized naturally.
	So it ends up in the liver, and then the liver does...
	You know, some more like, you know, yeah, I could use this and yeah, you're going to go over there, make some other types of fat bubbles and then sends them back out and the cycle continues.
	But my point here is some biotech people learned about this, this fat metabolism thing with this, I'm going to call it ApoE, okay?
	It's ApoLipoprotein E. It's the thing that clings onto the chylomicronium, sends it onto the liver.
	Some brilliant biotech people found out a way to exploit this and target drugs using fat bubbles that they made to the liver.
	And so the thing about that is, and it's successful, this is all published too.
	There's a drug on the market called Onpatro, O-N-P-A-T-T-R-O, that uses, it exploits.
	This fat metabolism system, this APOE molecule, to target fat bubbles that they make to the liver.
	Now, here's the important part.
	And this is conjecture now, but it's seriously like, why wouldn't it?
	The lipid nanoparticles used by Moderna and Pfizer are exactly the same formulation as the lipid nanoparticles that were formulated for this drug that functionally...
	Target these drugs to liver, except for the cationic lipid.
	But it's still a cationic lipid.
	It's an ionizable cationic lipid.
	So property-wise, shouldn't have any different effect.
	The only difference between the drug that I was talking about that they have in circulation and these COVID things...
	Is the package, the thing that they're packaging.
	So it's silencing RNA on one hand, which is a different kind of RNA, turns off a gene, and modified RNA in the case of the COVID shot.
	So what I'm thinking, you probably already figured it out, is that since they're so similar...
	And they do make it to the bloodstream where this APOE is ubiquitous because as part of normal fat metabolism, it goes to these phylomicrons and brings them to the liver.
	Why wouldn't it do the exact same thing to the lipid nanoparticles?
	And that could actually be the mechanism of action for why we see, second to the injection site, the highest accumulation of lipid nanoparticles according to pharmacokinetic studies.
	It's not the only place, but that's probably because, and this is also an hypothesis, the receptor, the ApoE receptor, is expressed in many places in the human body.
	Many places.
	So it could actually be that it's specific.
	It's a specific lipid nanoparticle, that's what we call it, when it has this property of being targeted.
	For receptor-mediated endocytosis, which is basically bringing something into a cell via a receptor.
	That's all I have to say.
	Okay.
	It's good, because I don't even know what question to ask about all that.
	Okay.
	Jessica, it's fascinating.
	It takes me some time to get it.
	When it clicks, it's going to click.
	If we can get into the...
	I guess the story of the day.
	We've gotten one hell of an introduction.
	So now, the news.
	The news or at least the concern of the day.
	Of all the other statistically demonstrable issues.
	Now, I brought up a couple of articles.
	Let me see which one this is.
	Here, look at this.
	It's so funny watching how this works.
	Which one are we looking at here?
	We're looking at this one.
	Claim that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contain DNA contaminants based on study of vials of unknown providence.
	No evidence COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can alter DNA in people.
	You see, they did the two things here.
	Undermine the study.
	It's unknown providence.
	We don't know where it came from.
	And there's no evidence that it hurts anyhow.
	But then if I go to the next article, which I think was more recent than that, and it starts with contrary.
	It's right over here.
	I think this one was, I think I got the right order.
	I hope it did.
	Let me see here.
	I did.
	Okay.
	Contrary to viral claim, regulatory agencies knew of residual DNA in COVID-19 vaccines.
	No evidence this poses health concern.
	And this is from Steve Kirsch.
	Now, so, and I heard you, you know, I'll give the good news first, is that as you ended one of the other podcasts that I listened to, you said, look, if you feel fine, you're probably fine.
	There's no, there's no, look, there's no...
	There's no statistical, verifiable, demonstrable issue yet, known as with, say, myocarditis, for example.
	But the concern now is that what they had denied and written off as conspiracy theory, there's no DNA in the jabs.
	It's unknown provenance.
	We don't know where they came from.
	Now it's confirmed.
	But this is the question.
	Okay, this is where I feel just terribly stupid.
	What the hell is the big deal if there's DNA in a jab?
	Now, I presume there's DNA in a lot.
	I mean, there's DNA in the food we eat.
	That goes in through a different spot.
	It gets dealt with differently.
	I don't know what you would ever inject into your body that would have DNA into it.
	I'm thinking like, not that anybody don't do drugs, period.
	I don't know.
	Is there DNA in heroin type thing?
	Like what is, what is, why would there be DNA in there in the first place?
	And then scientifically, what could possibly be the concerns of DNA in a jab?
	Okay.
	So your point first, I just want to say exactly.
	Just like I said when they said, no, it stays at the injection site.
	You people are spreading this information for even asking a question about whether or not this is going to biodistribute.
	Of course it does.
	Now it's proven.
	Same thing here.
	There's no such thing as integration with these products because it's mRNA.
	First of all, I want to say that a paper came out a while ago that showed that this reverse transcriptase, to DNA, it's an enzyme that can allow that to happen, exists in us endogenously, like we have it, it's called line one, and it acts to do this reverse transcription, which means that there's a DNA form of these things in us.
	It has not been shown whether or not integration ensues, but I just want to point that out, that we already have a looming question mark over integration before any of this started.
	Back to manufacturing process.
	And I'll horrify you with another story before I tell you about that.
	So there's two ways that you can make this modified mRNA production-wise that I'm going to talk about.
	One is called process one and one is called process two.
	The clinical trials that Pfizer did, and I'm going to talk specifically about Pfizer here, utilized mRNA, modified mRNA.
	Packaged in these lipid nanoparticles that were made one way.
	And the commercial batches that went into all of the billions of people, the modified mRNA from those things, was made in a completely different way.
	And that you might say, so maybe the second way was better.
	But it might be better in terms of we needed to scale up the product for cheap.
	But there are all these problems that might come into play because they switched out this manufacturing process.
	Josh Getsko is the best guy to talk to about this.
	He calls it, he's penned it, I think he penned it, the bait and switch.
	Because nobody was told.
	We learned this recently that there were these two processes and that one was used to test out this product in these people.
	The 20,000 or so people that got the drug in that trial and the billions of people over here who got injected, they got a product that was made using a completely different process.
	So on to the process.
	Instead of making the modified mRNA from DNA that was made using PCR in the process one, we have modified mRNA that's made from DNA that's Mass-produced using a plasmid E. coli system.
	So, there's a five-step process if you want to make modified mRNA.
	I'm going to...
	So, you said plasmid E. coli?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So, you make your DNA template in a computer, which is going to end up being your little gene.
	So, plasmid is a circular DNA.
	This is really hard.
	And it has all the things that you need to make stuff.
	Let's just say, like, really simply.
	You have a gene of interest, which in this case is the spike gene, because we want to make lots of spike DNA.
	In the beginning, we're talking about DNA.
	We have antibiotic resistance genes, so we can, like, pull out the bacteria that only have the plasmid of interest.
	The spike DNA.
	We have things that allow for transcription to ensue.
	Anyway, we have all these little component parts as part of the circular DNA.
	And in the lab, this is all in the lab now, we get these circular DNAs into E. coli bacteria.
	And we use E. coli bacteria all the time.
	I've played with more E. coli bacteria in my protein biology time than I can tell you about.
	It's fun.
	They're stinky and they love sugar and shaking.
	Well, and E. coli is the one that if you eat it, you'll get very sick, vomit, diarrhea.
	Yeah, I suppose if you did that.
	E. coli is what they warn you about.
	It comes in the poo-poo and it gets on...
	Say that again?
	Lettuce, yeah.
	You don't eat the lettuce because you'll get E. coli, yeah.
	Sure.
	Okay, anyway, so yeah, it's in your poop.
	So we use it in bioreactors because it doubles every 20 minutes or so.
	It's very fast growing and it doesn't cost any money to grow up bacteria.
	You literally just need to give it some sugar and some antibiotics, some warmth, like they like 37 degrees, and some shaking.
	So they really do like to party.
	When you transform these bacteria with the plasmid, which basically just means you put it in certain circumstances so that the plasmids get into the bacteria and the bacteria multiply, they're bringing those plasmids with them as they double, double, double, double, double, double, double, double.
	So you can imagine after a very short period of time, you have a shit ton of plasmids with this DNA in it.
	So that's the point of this upscaling because they wanted a cheap, fast way to make a lot of DNA for making the modified mRNA but I'm going to get to this after linearizing which just basically means like taking your circular DNA cutting it and making it into a line instead of circle you do something called in vitro transcription which converts it to the modified mRNA
	in this case because you're inserting your pseudouridines during this process so You know, it's adding these guys at the right places.
	And at the end of this process, finally, you have this mix of modified mRNA.
	You have some DNA remnants.
	You might have something called lipopolysaccharide, which is part of the membrane of the E. coli.
	You have all of these bits as part of the manufacturing process.
	So we use filtration, physical filtration.
	To remove DNA with DNAs, we chop it up with this thing called DNAs1 usually.
	We filter it out.
	We get rid of endotoxin.
	And at the end of the day, at the end of your process, you have this pure, like mRNA typically, and in this case, modified mRNA product.
	Teacher, endotoxin doesn't sound good.
	No.
	It's...
	If you inject endotoxin, you're either going to die or get anaphylaxis or sepsis.
	It's pretty bad.
	So I'll get it.
	And that actually answered my other question.
	I was just about to ask you, like, what happens if you just inject straight E. coli into your body?
	I wouldn't do it.
	I wouldn't do that.
	Yeah, I also wouldn't inject heroin.
	So yeah, the thing about this that everyone needs to understand On the subject matter of good manufacturing practices and deception, at the end of each of these stages, quality control is supposed to ensue.
	We have to, especially at the very end, when we're cleaning our product, which is the most expensive step, by the way.
	Gotta make you wonder if they skipped some steps, cut some corners.
	You check for DNA.
	And they did!
	But some of the DNA levels were pretty high.
	There shouldn't be any residual DNA of any measurable level.
	Definitely not over the so-called threshold for the allowable amount of DNA following this process.
	Because injecting foreign DNA can be bad.
	And we'll get to that.
	There should be no endotoxin at all.
	Because even if you inject, and I don't know exactly what concentration you need to inject in order to kill someone.
	I'll find that out soon.
	But I imagine any amount is not good because you can also have an anaphylactic reaction.
	And so there are a number of tools, machines, methodologies that you can use to ensure a pure product.
	So that's the part that gets me.
	It's like, where are all the documents, not redacted, that show The DNA levels, the endotoxin levels, for each lot, where are they?
	The only ones I've seen are completely blacked out.
	And this is because you make a vat or a batch or whatever, and you test it for all of this before it goes out, systematically without exception.
	Yeah, as part of the process, of course you do.
	So, what the hell happened?
	Because I'll jump to the punchline now.
	Five labs have reproduced this result in every single vial that they randomly tested.
	And this is not something that they, you know, some anti-vaxxer gave them.
	Like, these are vials that were, like, gotten from pharmacies, for example.
	Not opened.
	Not doctored.
	They all, all have DNA in them.
	You know, it's like Kierkegaard's expression over and over again.
	I was just going back to this article.
	This is from...
	April 2022, where Moderna recalls vaccine batch after foreign substance found.
	And then I was just trying to find what the substance was and all that they're referring to it as a foreign body.
	And now I'm wondering, was it DNA or...
	Sorry, say that again?
	Was that in Japan?
	That was...
	Hold on, let me get...
	I think it was Europe, if I'm not mistaken.
	Hold on, where's...
	Oh, I didn't know that.
	I'll give you the link.
	I remember all of the...
	There were multiple batches that were recalled.
	It was...
	That was in Spain.
	I didn't know about this.
	The batch contains 800,000...
	Deployed across Norway, Portugal, Spain, yada yada.
	Moderna yanked the shots because of a, quote, foreign body found in one vial of the batch.
	I'll flip you this article.
	I still don't know.
	I was just doing a word search to see if they identify the substance, and I don't think they do.
	Here, I'll put it in the private chat.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	So they're now finding, at least in every one that they've tested, DNA.
	It's going to go from there was no DNA to we don't know where this batch came from to, okay, there's DNA in there, but it's not harmful.
	And I guess that's where we're at now.
	They've already gone there.
	What would be, what could be the risk?
	Other than it shouldn't be there, it might indicate a manufacturing Okay, so the reason why we have these methodologies for removing contaminants from products, especially ones that you're going to inject, is because we have decades long, you know, case studies, research, publications.
	That show what happens if you have a contaminant exposure.
	Let's just say, to be really extreme here, if you inject glass particles into your blood, it's probably going to be back.
	So we're talking about DNA here and possible endotoxins.
	So let's focus on the DNA.
	You're not supposed to inject foreign DNA into the body.
	You're definitely, like this is why I call the lipid nanoparticles a Trojan horse, because This is a brilliant way to, to, what's that word that Philip used?
	It's like, use a gun, but it's like, like shrapnel going everywhere.
	What is that called?
	Buckshot!
	That's what he said.
	So it's like, invade, like, this is a way to buckshot a bunch of stuff, let's just call it stuff, that's not supposed to be there, into a cell.
	Imagine the poor cell, it's like, What the hell is all this shit?
	And it starts doing what it does.
	It responds immunologically.
	It envelops what it can.
	It sends some things out of the cell.
	And in some cases, things get into the nucleus.
	So this is where it starts to get really sketchy, okay?
	This is where it starts to get really complicated.
	I keep hearing it.
	The DNA gets into the nucleus, and I don't understand.
	What nucleus?
	Okay, so every cell, except for anucleated cells, anucleus means it doesn't have a nucleus, has a nucleus.
	And that's where the genetic material lives, for lack of a better word.
	Your DNA.
	That's where your DNA lives.
	It's highly protected because it needs to be highly protected because everything is our DNA.
	If we have all these beautiful Mechanisms to conserve the integrity of our DNA as we age.
	It's harder to do as we age.
	Very hard to do if you're exposed to pollutants.
	But our bodies do a really good job.
	Imagine, like, I'm almost 50. I used to be a smoker.
	I live in, you know, air pollution central.
	I drink alcohol sometimes.
	I expose myself to a lot of shit.
	That's what I'm saying.
	And it's like, I'm really freaking healthy because my body's, I'm lucky, but my body's got these, you know, these ways to keep the things that need to be kept intact intact.
	And your DNA is one of those things.
	You need to close those double-stranded DNA breaks when they happen.
	They're happening all the time, like I said, but they get repaired, and we have these mechanisms to detect anomalies.
	So this is where it gets complicated.
	I have to go back to the plasmid, okay?
	The circular DNA.
	So Kevin McKernan is the guy who originally did this research, and it was quite by accident.
	He was actually looking for...
	An RNA positive control.
	I kept saying negative, but I think it was a positive control he was looking for.
	And someone had passed him those bivalent vials, I don't know, for something a while back.
	And so he had them in his freezer and he was like, wow, that would work.
	He was doing something else.
	He has a genomics lab that's called Medicinal Genomics.
	This is what he does.
	He's a serious guy, really serious.
	He worked on the Human Genome Project.
	Anyway, so as part of this, you know, stuff he was doing, testing this product, he discovered, like I said, quite by accident, that this double-stranded DNA plasmid, like it had the principal components for an entire circular DNA.
	And within this...
	Like, that's not supposed to be there, first of all.
	Within that, he found component parts.
	Now, I'm going to something I haven't mentioned yet, that were not disclosed in the plasmid that Pfizer has in one of their disclosure documents.
	So what I'm trying to say here is that we have two plasmids that are supposed to be exactly the same, but they're very, very different.
	And they're different in scary ways.
	So the additional components that Kevin found are called the SB40 promoter, an enhancer, and he also found a neomycin gene.
	And I don't know about that yet.
	So this isn't the virus, the simian virus virus.
	That's what SB stands for.
	These are some component parts.
	This very strong promoter, which is used in biotech, and the enhancer.
	Which is used to enhance transcription.
	The promoter is the little guy that starts transcription.
	So what's weird about this is that in your E. coli system, when you're talking about growing up this DNA that I just described, you need a promoter for a prokaryotic system because these bacteria are prokaryotes.
	So for every system that you're using, if you're using mammalian cells, There are promoters that you can use to optimize the outcome of that system.
	And in a prokaryotic system or E. coli system, there are promoters that you use to optimize the outcome of those systems.
	They're specific to the system.
	So we didn't need, there's no need for these SB40 components to be in this system that typically uses something called a T7 promoter, which Pfizer did disclose.
	So they disclosed a whole bunch of stuff that is there by Kevin's analysis, but a lot of stuff that he found that's really inexplicable.
	What the hell are these things doing in this plasmid?
	And I'll tell you why this is alarming.
	The enhancer, there's a guy named David Dean.
	You can look him up.
	He's a gene therapy guy.
	He has a lab.
	His life is basically dedicated to gene therapy, which is like a way to fix people by swapping out genes.
	And the way that you're going to do that is you're going to have to get something to the nucleus and swap out the gene, as far as I understand it.
	So you're actually going to alter a genome.
	So he studies this stuff for a living.
	One of the things he studies and one of the things that he found...
	is that this very same SB40 enhancer is the very best thing to use in biotech if you want to get something to the nucleus.
	Think about what I just said.
	You want to get something to the nucleus of the cell for gene therapy purposes, for example.
	What the hell is it doing there?
	A, it doesn't need to be there.
	B, it's functional.
	And the other thing is, I mean, the promoter is the same story.
	It doesn't need to be there.
	It doesn't have a function as far as I understand it.
	It wasn't disclosed.
	So this is the part that we have to call attention to because of the potential.
	And we're talking about potentials here.
	We're talking about hypotheticals.
	We always do this as part of the precautionary principle when we're drug developing.
	It's a part of the normal procedure to make sure.
	That we know what we're doing, usually before we put shit into billions of people.
	But in this case, it's after, but we still need to do it.
	So if you...
	Sorry, go ahead.
	No, no, no, no, continue, please.
	If you introduce a cell, let's just go to the cell, okay?
	With however many, let's just call it an onslaught, a buckshot of foreign DNA pieces, because that's what Philip Buchholz found.
	He's one of the guys who confirmed...
	Kevin's results.
	He actually set out to disprove Kevin.
	He was like, this guy's full of shit.
	I'm going to prove it.
	And he has his own lab.
	He's a molecular biologist and studies cancer, too.
	And he found exactly what Kevin found.
	He used a different method, different vials.
	The chain was not suspicious.
	He got them at a pharmacy, these vials.
	And he found not only...
	Not only a lot of DNA, but a lot of little pieces of DNA, like less than 100 base pairs.
	And so his claim is that because you have this huge quantity of small DNAs, just by probabilities, in the presence of a nuclear location sequence, which might also be there, you could have these little pieces of DNA getting into the nucleus and potentially integrating into the genome.
	Someone had said, I don't know who said it and I don't know where I read it, but the likelihood of that is like lightning striking in the same place three times in a row.
	Some astronomically minimal probability.
	I guess on the one hand, when things are happening trillions of times every second throughout billions of people, then it's just a matter of time.
	But then it's to argue about any real risk or theoretical risk.
	But first question first.
	The tiny bits of DNA.
	Are they intact DNA?
	Or some people have described it as shreds of DNA, which leads me to believe that it was DNA that was like itself, I don't know.
	It's not.
	It's shredded by DNA's one, by an enzyme that cuts DNA into little bits.
	So some of them are going to have sticky ends.
	Some of them are going to have, you know, there's a word for it, flat ends.
	But it doesn't matter because there's another paper that studied the effects of having different kinds of ends.
	So anyway, I'll get to that.
	So listen, on that obnoxious comment about why you have a one in million chance, you know what?
	I don't stand in puddles during lightning storms.
	And I know that this isn't the same thing, but what the hell?
	Like, why would you want to take a chance when it's not just about...
	Like, this contamination thing, the DNA thing, is just another thing that's potentially...
	Problematic associated with these products.
	And I want to, like, just bookend that with the fact that there's something that everybody has heard of now called turbo cancer.
	And I'm not saying that it's directly because of integration, you know, but I'm not saying at all that it's not because of that, because I'm not a stupid idiot and I don't have the studies to prove that.
	You have to have done the studies and proven.
	Beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not happening before you can say it's not a problem.
	Jess, look at this.
	I just have to do it in real time and I was doing it.
	And let me open this up.
	Turbo cancer is an anti-vaccination myth.
	This is from Wikipedia, people.
	It's a myth centered on the idea that people vaccinated against COVID-19, especially the mRNA vaccines, are suffering from a high incidence of fast-developing cancer.
	The myth, spread by a number of vaccine opponents and related influences, has no factual basis.
	Well, now I know.
	Alright, Jessica, now Wikipedia has chimed in.
	I'm going to read that afterwards.
	Don't call it turbo cancer, that's the bad word.
	Aggressive, fast mutating cancers.
	There's statistical evidence to support that claim?
	Well, I can tell you that I do VAERS stuff, right?
	From a very long time ago, there's like what I do is I look back 30 years because there's like 30 years of VAERS data plus the three since COVID.
	And I compare the number of reports in the context of all the vaccines combined to the number of reports in the context of the COVID products.
	And in every single adverse event case, and I normalize this to like in the case of flu, I normalizing it against a million doses.
	So this whole, oh, it's just because there's more doses is bullshit.
	It's always like this.
	Like, yes, there are reports of cancer associated with all the other vaccines combined, but it's negative.
	And it's not over-reporting.
	Theirs is under-reported as a passive pharmacovigilance database.
	So it's not just the numbers, though.
	I don't only always go with numbers.
	I go with, like, it's not just quality.
	Sorry, it's not just quantity.
	It's always quality with me.
	You have to look at both.
	The rate of increase of male breast cancers.
	There's another article that I saw on this the other day.
	Some little boy died of male breast cancer or something.
	I was having chest pains before, Jessica.
	Now I'm thinking maybe it's...
	Hold on.
	There's nothing there except for a massive bicep or whatever this thing is called.
	What is this thing called?
	Pectoral muscle.
	Okay, sorry.
	So a massive increase in male breast cancer.
	Yeah, weird cancers.
	Acute lymphocytic leukemia in old people.
	That's a childhood leukemia.
	It's not common in old people.
	And the majority of reports in VAERS are in 50-plus people.
	It's atypical.
	I always look for anomalies.
	And then I ask, why?
	What's different?
	What's causing this?
	It's a sensible approach, I think.
	I'm not making a claim most of the time.
	I'm just saying...
	Here's what's shown.
	I want to know why.
	This isn't normal.
	This isn't typical.
	So, what was I going to say?
	Oh, I will also really want to stress that I find it really gross in general, in normal, let's just say Western society, how normalized cancer has become.
	I'm not saying that humans...
	Aren't predisposed to get cancer.
	Obviously we are because we keep getting it.
	All different kinds.
	By the way, cancer is just like overproduction of cells.
	But when you combine all the things that I was talking about before, environmental toxins from the air, from the food, the endocrine disruptors, we will like eat by the kilo, you know, we can't avoid it.
	Plastics, you know, like we're the generation of plastic consumers.
	If you're a smoker, if you drink, all these epigenetic mutations that are going on all the time, when you combine, when you just add layers to this onion of toxic waste, these balancing factors in your body that are normally really good under regular conditions, let's say, they can't handle it.
	It's all about losing the race.
	And so this is, if you just want to look at it this way, these shots are yet another, like, toxin that you're introducing to your body in a massive dose.
	And if you're repeating it, you're getting repeated doses plus immunological dysfunction.
	So if cancer rates are increasing, I have zero doubt that these things are at least involved, if not the cause.
	So it's important that people acknowledge we're already a big tumor.
	Westerners are walking tumors.
	I can't even believe it.
	It's like every single person I know has someone who's got cancer or dying from cancer.
	I don't think that's normal.
	Do you?
	I mean, I'm just Googling it.
	I'm going to go read it.
	I don't want to come to conclusions too quickly.
	Why are cancer rates rising in adults under 50?
	This is January 2023.
	And it's not, again, like you say, not to point it all at one thing.
	Just there's a trend.
	I don't know when they're measuring it from.
	Yeah, look, my father-in-law died of cancer.
	I don't want to make anyone uncomfortable.
	Family members have had cancer.
	I'm trying to think of...
	No, I mean, it's like everybody knows someone who's died of cancer, without a question.
	I mean, also everybody knows.
	But at some point, people get old and they die, and then it's either cancer, heart attack, you know.
	It seems like when you get shots, it kind of pushes, like it tips that scale.
	So this is another point about the cancers, a lot.
	And this is coming from oncologists that I know.
	They have patients, and these are cancer doctors, who have patients who have been in remission for years.
	They got the shots, boom!
	Aggressive cancer, stage four, blah, blah, blah.
	I've seen people, it's like...
	Some people are going to say, okay, well, it's not the jab, it's the three years of isolation, it's the three years of lockdowns, it's the three years of stress.
	I had a note, cortisol.
	Can you speak to cortisol levels in the body?
	Cortisol.
	I was always told that stress releases cortisol.
	Cortisol in the body is bad for you, which is why people tell me...
	It's a stress hormone.
	It's totally normal.
	But I believe...
	I'm not an expert on this.
	I'm going to take a shot in the dark.
	If you're stressed out all the time, like I am, your cortisol levels are probably elevated for a prolonged period of time.
	It has damaging effects.
	I think it has something to do with pre-radicals and shit like that.
	So if you're not, like, supplementing with antioxidants or don't have an antioxidant-rich diet already, you're probably going to be, like, you know, cancering a little bit too much there, to use that terminology.
	But it's not good to have elevated levels of anything for a prolonged period of time.
	So whatever effects cortisol has, Being elevated for a prolonged period of time, it's probably not good, and that's what I know.
	Good.
	Okay, now, so the DNA fragments, it's a massive unknown, but it's an unknown in terms of long-term effects, but it's now a confirmed known in terms of reality.
	It's there.
	What the impact is, we'll find out in, you know, six months to five years' time.
	So let me just put a cap on the SV40 promoter.
	This is a very strong promoter.
	And what that means is that it's really good at doing transcription.
	So it starts transcription of genes.
	So the reason why we're all kind of concerned, well, it's two reasons.
	If integration events are happening, you could be talking about a little bit of DNA integrating into an existing gene that's really important.
	Remember that P50 gene, Guardian of the Genome guy I was talking about?
	If you have a foreign bit of DNA, you know, splicing itself somehow into that P53 gene, it's effectively mutating the gene.
	That's not good.
	You lose your surveillance system.
	This is an extreme example.
	And yes, the chances are not high, but they are possible and we need to answer these questions.
	In the lab, we need to find out definitively by looking at people's cells.
	The other thing is this SB40, which is a very strong promoter, if that gets into your nucleus and lands itself, integrates upstream of an oncogenee, which is a tumor-promoting gene, how is that not going to increase your risk of cancer?
	And you have both of these things as a possibility.
	On top of what you were already going through.
	So let's just say you already have a BRCA mutation.
	Let's just say you already have a P53 mutation.
	You know, like these are studies we need to do because we could really get definitive answers by asking these really valid questions.
	They're not scaremongering.
	They're not, you know, they're not, what's that word they call us?
	Fear porn?
	Conspiracy theories, it's not that shit.
	This is how we've always done science.
	We find something anomalous, we go back to the lab, and we find out, oh my gosh, what's this possibly doing to mammals?
	First we look in mice, and then we go to humans.
	And that's really important for everyone to know now.
	We need to test more vials to confirm these findings even more.
	We need to test people's cells.
	Because we can check right now if integration has ensued.
	And if we can, like, test, I don't know, what would be the number of people?
	100,000 people?
	We find zero integration events?
	That's a good start.
	We can test a million people.
	If we find no integration events, that's awesome.
	Then we can go like, okay, we probably don't have a problem here.
	But we cannot say there's no problem, like, all of these...
	Regulators and health agencies are definitively saying until we can actually say it.
	It's gross.
	It's like your job.
	Health Canada has literally admitted to the presence of the SV40 promoter and then followed it with it's not a problem.
	No.
	What is it not a problem?
	They said it was safe and effective, while in their manufacture and supply agreements, they said we don't know the long-term effects and efficacy.
	I mean, it's just...
	They have a lab, Jessica.
	It just happens to be the world now, so they've got a lot of samples to...
	Oh, I will volunteer my...
	What would it be?
	A DNA?
	I'll volunteer a DNA sample so they can see if I've been...
	What did you say was the word?
	Transfected?
	What was the word?
	You've had an integration event.
	Integration.
	You didn't get the shots, did you?
	I got two.
	When you have a nagging mother...
	You can definitely, if you want me to, I can put you in touch with Kevin.
	For sure.
	There are all these things like you're not allowed to test on people or you could go to prison and shit.
	So you need like the IRB and you need like special permission.
	So you can't just kind of do it.
	Like you have to, it has to be legal or whatever.
	Well, put me in touch with them anyhow.
	I'm willing to be a guinea pig.
	I've already volunteered.
	We all are!
	I volunteered myself once already.
	Jessica, I want to be respectful with your time because you've given me so much of it.
	Do you have a few minutes for a little after Q&A on Locals if I just end this on Rumble?
	Because there are some questions there.
	Sorry, what did you want to say?
	Can I get a glass of water?
	Can you?
	Of course.
	I'm going to do that.
	I'm going to kill some maritime here.
	Viva Frye, transfected American, says Bob of Atlantis.
	Come over to Locals.
	This has been amazing.
	I mean, look, it's...
	Holy crap, I'm just reading.
	I want to go back to that.
	I want to go back to that Wikipedia page.
	I've got to read this one more time.
	Turbo Cancer is not a thing.
	It's a conspiracy theory, but wait until you read this.
	It's a short entry.
	Turbo cancer is a vaccination myth.
	We got that.
	It has no factual basis in late 2020.
	As COVID vaccines were emerging, anti-vaccine doctors and social media personalities began circulating the unfounded idea that people vaccinated were developing rapidly spreading cancers.
	These claims have tended to misrepresent single case reports or speculate based on anecdotes.
	As though anecdotal evidence is not a form of evidence, but...
	Dr. Gorski summarized turbo cancer phenomenon as the usual misinformation.
	Oh, that's good.
	Used by anti-vaxxers.
	Citing anecdotes, wild speculations, yada, yada, yada.
	And then, just to compare and contrast, we then go right over to why cancer rates are rising in adults under 50. So, turbo cancer is an anti-vaccine myth.
	But...
	Cancers in people 50 and over are rising.
	All right, what we're going to do, I noticed a lot of questions in our locals community.
	I haven't missed anything.
	Oh, Finboy Slick in Rumble.
	Oh, I see a dog who's rubbing her face on the ground.
	Let me see here.
	Was it here?
	We got one Rumble rant here.
	Calling it, Viva tests will be inconclusive, but they will have irreparable proof of the neurotic gene.
	Guaranteed.
	In fact, they're going to say, like, we didn't know that there was actually...
	A neurotic gene.
	They'll call it the Viva gene.
	I'm going to stop screen here.
	Jessica's back.
	Okay, so hold on.
	I'm going to give everybody the link one more time to vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're going to get questions in there for everyone.
	Big data is nuts.
	I'm just reading some of this.
	Who will have the authority to decide what is public health emergency and will control this distribution of health products in the future?
	Be good to each other, get some sun, and get some friends.
	Okay.
	Everybody, come on out of avivabarneslaw.locals.
	I'm being spammed out of my own chat in Rumble.
	Rightly so.
	Come over to avivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	We're going to use as much.
	Take Jessica's insights for as long as she has left.
	Ending the stream on Rumble.
	Everybody out there, if you're not coming over, have a good day.
	Thank you for being here.
	I'll thank Jessica here for the Rumble crowd, but I'll thank you really after we're done on Locals.
	See you all there in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Now.
	Okay, so now we are good on locals.
	So when you say antioxidants, I'm trying to think.
	Like, I eat so much arugula.
	Like, raw arugula.

▲