Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the Rounding the Earth podcast.
Rounding the Earth is a multimedia education project based on the popular newsletter series
published on Substack written by applied statistician and educator Matthew Crawford.
Topics of discussion range from critical analysis of conventional wisdom to Bitcoin and everything
in between, in particular the ongoing plandemonium.
Our goal is a careful examination of important topics and perspectives shaping the world
that too few people talk about.
Subscribe to Rounding the Earth on Locals, Substack and Rumble to join a burgeoning research
community and to help us unflatten the Earth.
My name is Liam Sturgis.
I am a musician, music producer and writer slash editor coming at you live from the very
sunny Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and I will be your host for today.
But of course, never doing this alone, please allow me to introduce the author of Rounding
the Earth and my cohost for the podcast, Matthew Crawford.
Good afternoon, Matthew.
Hey Liam.
How are you doing?
Pretty good.
Last night I watched the hometown hockey team here, the Dallas Stars, win game seven against
the Seattle Crackheads or Kraken, Kraken they're called.
And that means that my two favorite teams in the playoffs this year are meeting for
the Western Conference.
So we're having fun here watching them, which it's nice to be able to take a break from
all the the pandemonium work.
Yeah, you know, I feel like based solely on proximity, I should be disappointed by that
result.
But I'll give you a congratulations anyway.
Now not wasting any time.
We've got a powerhouse of a show today and at least one of our guests may have to leave
fairly quick.
So let's jump in and introduce our wonderful guests for today, Mr. George Webb and Mr.
Mark Kulag.
How are you gentlemen?
Great guys.
I'm here at the CDC in Atlanta.
So just to let you know, it's slightly resembles a fortress here in Atlanta.
But Mark, you're up there in Massachusetts, correct?
Yep, Massachusetts, about 20, 25 miles to the west of Boston and the hub, I think, of
genetics and vaccines research in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
And I'm in my little home studio here.
I guess I should wish the two of you the best of luck.
Good one.
Well, just briefly, for those who don't know, George, maybe you could introduce yourself
and just a brief background of what you do.
I've got a couple of your books here that I picked up after your last discussion with
Matthew.
But do you want to just briefly introduce yourself to the audience who may, if possible,
they don't know who you are.
Introduce yourself to them.
Sure.
I've been doing citizen journalism about seven years.
You can see the CDC logo down here.
And this is basically what I do.
I go to places and I point my finger because I'm not as smart as Mark Kulak.
And Mark's the one who does the real deep dives.
I'm not the surface diver, the show diver.
James O'Keefe kind of fits in that.
I'm kind of mid-depth.
And then Mark is if you need the Titanic raised.
So that's kind of what I do, at realgeorgeweb1.com.
I have to say, I'm a little disappointed you're only going to be able to join us for half
an hour because it really is the case that I think all the five of us sort of have a
different style of research.
And it's one of the reasons why I'm really glad to have everybody here today for what
is such an important topic.
Completely agree.
I'll stay as long as the battery lasts.
I'll stay as long as the battery goes.
Wonderful.
Now, Mark, George has already given you a bit of a glowing introduction there.
Do you want to introduce yourself as well to those who, again, somehow may not have
seen your previous work?
Sure.
My name is Mark Kulak.
My show is Hustatonic.live, named after River in Connecticut.
I'm a citizen researcher, archivist, worked in the data storage industry for a long time,
and I used my professional skills as an analyst, competitive intelligence analyst, et cetera,
to do research of historical and current events, trying to get deeper insights.
And I've been, I've collaborated with George on and off for several years right now.
He was one of the...
The first two, I would say, to do real crowdsourcing from his audience.
And while most people wouldn't have given me the time of day, George did.
So I'm still thankful for that.
Great to be here.
Wonderful.
Yeah.
Thank you for joining us.
And speaking of joining us, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome back to the show the one, the
only Jonathan J. Cooey, Giga-Owned Biological.
Thank you for joining us.
How are you being, do you want to just briefly reintroduce yourself as well before we dive
in?
Sure.
Thanks very much for that.
I'm just happy to be here.
My name is Jonathan Cooey.
I'm a recovering academic biologist who teaches biology on Twitch and privately consults for
a few people, but that's about it.
Just trying to make a living, scraping by as a biologist on the internet.
You can find me at Giga-OwnedBiological.com.
Thanks.
Fantastic.
Well, Matthew, how about we dive right in?
Yeah.
So there are a lot of ways we could do this, but I decided to take a lot of the evidence
that I had or a lot of this, there's evidence, there's story, there's some education here,
but to put it into a slideshow, then we could just sort of discuss as we go.
And maybe the way I'm going to do it is we may go through some slides and we may stop
and discuss for a little bit, but you guys can feel free to jump in whenever, but I may
go through three or four at a time.
And George, I stole a slide from you right up front, as you can tell, or an image.
And maybe you want to, what connects the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to remdesivir?
Can you do that in 30 seconds?
Sure.
This all relates to Rumsfeld here shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in 1983.
A lot of people think that Rumsfeld was the guy who gave Saddam Hussein anthrax.
Maybe they built a lab there called Wimber with 38 PhDs, not far from Jonathan Cooey's
old Penn State.
But they basically were maybe giving anthrax to Iraq.
And we might do the first war to contain Saddam Hussein for anthrax.
This Wimber lab, by the way, is where Bob Malone is on 9-11, we believe.
And then we do a second invasion of Iraq.
We need countermeasures for anthrax on both occasions.
And so all the corona players, the corona 9-1-1 players are the same players as the corona
or the anthrax 9-11 players, Bob Gallo, Darrell Galloway, Darrell Ricke, Steven Hatfield,
Bob Malone, Michael Callahan, David Hone.
So that's my interest in this, just looking at the long arc here of anthrax.
And later on at UPMC, the coronathrax, the coronathrax.
Well, let's dive right in.
We'll start out with, let's do a brief history of remdesivir.
And I did steal a little bit just directly from Wikipedia.
So I'll go ahead and any place I didn't say Wikipedia, there's the citation.
But remdesivir goes back to 2009, originally created to treat hepatitis C and respiratory
synctitial virus, which oddly just sort of emerged out of season somewhat recently.
But it didn't work.
And so they came back and tried it for Ebola and Marburg.
And it's been found to have in vitro effects on some viruses, which really isn't
that hard considering that viruses die when exposed to things like sunlight.
Right. It's actually hard not to kill a virus in vitro.
So I mentioned that just because, you know, I don't think it really ever showed any kind
of particularly great promise, you know, prior to now.
But, you know, Gilead Sciences and some U.S. government and academic institutions,
we'll come back to some of those later.
And then I guess U.S. AMRID jumped into the game a little bit.
But, you know, it never really, it was never approved anywhere in the world
for anything at all whatsoever before the plant ammonium.
So, well, it was given an orphan designation actually in 2016, which is something
that it allows the drug companies just to have a different legal status in order to,
in order to possibly have some chance of recouping costs.
So it was kind of on the back burner and not approved anywhere in the world.
Any thoughts before we move on?
Well, I mean, Rumsfeld was the chairman of the company of Gilead and his handpicked person was
John C. Martin to do all those, not just that vaccine antiviral, but also hep C
and also their HIV vaccine.
So this has had a long history with John C. Martin at Remdesivir.
Yeah. And the company changed kind of quickly.
Gilead was founded in 1987, original name Oligogen.
I don't know if I'm saying that right.
But we've got, you know, Washington University in St. Louis, which was where I went to college,
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Harvard Business School.
And so very quickly, somehow he gets in contact with Donald Rumsfeld and convinces him
to be on the board of directors like a year after the company's founded.
So Rumsfeld is not running the show yet, but he's on the board of directors and the company.
Right now, it's a biotech company in the early stages.
And so they're working on making small strands of DNA, antisense therapy.
You know, early on, this is even like pre-Human Genome Project,
which I was actually part of for a scarce few weeks in 1995,
right after they finished sequencing the human genome.
But this is before all that. So, you know, it's very early on.
But the company evolved pretty quickly. And here's Donald Rumsfeld.
And by the way, that is a make-believe picture of Donald Rumsfeld with a nuclear bomb going off in the background.
That's just the way I imagine him. I don't know why.
But yeah, he was named chairman of Gilead Sciences in 1997 and was there for a few years before,
for the second time, becoming the Secretary of Defense.
He was both the youngest man to become Secretary of Defense and also the oldest,
which is an interesting piece of his story.
So thoughts here, Mark?
Oh, you're on mute, Mark.
No, no, I'm enjoying it. Yeah, the company has a they struggle to come out with products until until Tamiflu,
I think was their first big product.
John C. Martin, who George mentioned just a little while ago, was their CEO for almost 20 years.
Starting in, I think, it's 97, 98 up till 2016, I believe.
Yeah, and they kind of bought and sold companies.
And John C. Martin's father, I think, didn't he synthesize NAC?
Is that correct, George? There was some.
I don't know that one. I was just going to say I would throw in Donald Rumsfeld as the shadow
secretary of defense during Ronald Reagan and George Bush as well, because the PEPFAR and so forth
with all the stuff with Ronald Reagan really was a shadow defense program.
And also the Scoop Jackson, Mark's covered Scoop Jackson Foundation as was a sort of a front.
Now it's Bill and Melinda Gates. But I don't know about NAC.
That's a good question. Jonathan Cooey would have a much better angle on that.
Well, one thing I noticed is that by the 90s, they're getting into the HIV game.
And yeah, they got Tamiflu.
But other than that, they seem to be seem to have started to focus more on HIV specifically.
And but then more recently, let's see, 2003.
What do we have going on here?
Well, they during the avian flu pandemic scare, Gilead Sciences revenue from Tamiflu almost
quadrupled to forty four point six million.
Wow, that seems like a pedestrian number these days.
That's the kind of number that would have been scandalous for people to hear back then.
Right. And these days, if you're not saying billion with a B, I mean, you're just talking about
like belly button lint, you know.
Well, if you want to look at their HIV drug, it was also made through a false flag terror
campaign that was 83, which created the presidential emergency plan for for AIDS, which was PEPFAR.
All the same people that were in all your favorite players for coronavirus, Berks, Redfield,
Fauci all came out of PEPFAR.
So I would argue that all of the blockbuster drugs, Jonathan C. Martin did came from sort
of terror, false flag incidents.
Interesting.
I can't remember the name of their HIV drug, but it was a blockbuster and it was extremely
expensive as well.
Well, more recently, they've been into kinase biology and chemistry.
They acquired Arresto Biosciences for 225 million.
They acquired Calistoga Pharmaceuticals for 375 million.
I don't know these names.
Anybody here?
Well, I'll just say this.
Jonathan's the expert.
So, Jonathan, I'll defer to you, but there's a lot of work in silencing the immune system.
The immune system has chemical messengers called interferons and interleukin, IL or
IN, usually abbreviations.
So if you can quiest the immune system, that acts as a sword for your side.
You can cause a cytokine storm in your enemy.
That's a good thing.
They get very tired, flu-like symptoms, shortness of breath, heart attacks when they exert themselves.
And then you quiest your system, Dr. Frank Plummer talked about this with HIV.
So a lot of these small peptide chains, 10, 12 amino acids long peptide chains can be
analogs or look a lot like these chemical messengers.
So a lot of these companies are involved, antisense and silencing RNA is what it's called.
A lot of them are these short chains that Bob Malone is modeling in a computer program
with anti-degrute of EpiVAX.
And Mark's done a lot on computer CompuVAX and the computation involved with these small
chains.
We'll get back to it.
Another one of the co-founders of, and I just had to go through back to my notes.
I haven't looked at this stuff in a while, of Gilead is Harold Weintraub.
He was born in 45.
He actually studied under Francis and Crick where he did his postdoc work.
And eventually he joined the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute up in the Seattle
area.
And Fred Hutch is huge.
They definitely were on the forefront of trying to find different ways of doing gene therapy
in the 1990s.
They got into some trouble with it with respect to some bone marrow transplants.
University of Washington had the largest fetal cell tissue bank in the world in the 1950s,
1960s.
So there's a lot of dark stuff revolving University of Washington, Fred Hutch, which came out
later, of course, in the seventies, which not many people get into.
And when you know that the Gates, both of Bill Gates' parents were reagents of the University
of Washington and their role there, you see that that's way more important than their,
you know, potential or alleged family connections to the Fed Bank or whatever.
It's always been genetics, cancer research, gene therapy, tons of money coming out of
the government programs to allow the creation of companies, corporations using college research
dollars.
But anyways, going back to Harold Weintraub, one of the three co-founders, he died of an
aggressive brain cancer.
And I think he was only 49 years old in 1995, not too long after really Gilead got started.
So the company does have a little bit of a legacy of some of the forefront scientists
there, succumbing to early demises.
Well before we go too far, maybe we'll just take a quick look at, you know, the fact that
there are a lot of the ordinary things that we expect these days from pharmaceutical companies,
funneling kickbacks, lawsuits over intellectual property and all that kind of stuff.
Well now let's move to the story that's probably a little bit more important for most of the
audience.
It's good to have some background, right?
It's good for people to get a sense that there are these connections that we've talked about
already.
Somebody could probably write a book already on what we've talked about.
But how did Remdesivir get to be the standard of care?
And on the left here, this is actually the beginning of a chapter of a book that I was
writing back in 2020.
And you know, what I'm doing is I'm going to early 2020.
February 4th, Chinese medical researchers declared the urgent need to identify effective
antiviral agents to combat 2019 in Cove, which was the original name for SARS-CoV-2 or might
have been the original name for SARS-CoV-2.
And the letter goes on to detail how chloroquine and Remdesivir showed greater promise than
other candidates during in vitro tests conducted by Chinese researchers.
Well that's interesting that for whatever reason, whatever things that they might have
tested, they have hydroxychloroquine, which for anybody in the audience who doesn't know,
hydroxychloroquine had 17 years of research backing the notion that it was going to be
a good candidate for stopping coronavirus.
Whereas Remdesivir had never really worked on anything.
So you've got literally the most repurposed drug perhaps in the history of medicine and
something that has never worked.
And in China, they picked up these two.
How amazing, right?
And then on the right, that's actually part of the letter that is actually the beginning
of it.
And so early in 2020, we've got the question that's going around.
Are there any viable coronavirus treatments?
Can I just make a quick comment on the pairing of hydroxychloroquine and Remdesivir?
Those are called pairing studies.
It's for when you have a cocktail, when you're evaluating a cocktail.
And this was used a lot in HIV.
And what it allows you to do, it allows you to put in a top horse with a dog and say it's
a teen and you evaluate it as a pair.
And the pair that evaluated that pair of drugs was Zhang Li of the Wuhan Institute of Virology
and Michael Callahan of DARPA.
And that's how we got the early signal that Bob Malone talks about that hydroxy Remdesivir
might be the standard of care.
And also you're going to find out later how hydroxychloroquine gets knocked out.
Mark will talk about domain.
I won't say it was thunder.
That's his research.
You know, maybe we go ahead and talk about domain now.
I've got it in like slide 80 or something like that.
But George, if you're going to have to go before that, maybe this is the moment.
Go ahead and explain what domain is.
It's a DARPA program run by the DTRA, Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
It's using computational methods.
Four different teams were established.
One was at the University of Vanderbilt in Tennessee.
There was three other teams.
I think one of them was the University of Alabama, Birmingham, where Michael Callahan
studied at Southern Research.
There's two others, but they were four teams competing.
There was a team up in Boston, I believe, looking at what's known as the regional binding
domain.
And what it's doing is trying to say, is there a safe, effective drug that's been successful
in the market and tested that we could use quickly to stop this pandemic?
That's what domain is supposed to be about.
And so these supercomputers were used in this process.
You have various different versions of this.
Bob Malone was involved in this program for a while.
His protege, an Air Force colonel by the name of Dan Wattendorf, is really the juice behind
this whole program.
And I believe he was one of the key guys in Operation Warp Speed.
And Wattendorf, there's a lot of information out there about him.
Yeah, I just want to throw this out there.
I feel 99% certain that domain is fake.
And here's a reason that I'll explain why.
Right now, we're being introduced all of a sudden to large language models.
And wow, artificial intelligence has moved forward so much.
It can put together paragraphs that will convince your teachers at school to give you an A.
But the fact of the matter is, people have shown very quickly that whatever biases are
behind the information that's being pulled in or programmed into the large language model,
you wind up having these massive biases, but even assuming all of that, there are still
mistakes within large language models within just one paragraph of good information.
And as far as the information complexity goes, let's say that you have approximately 250
characters in a sentence.
The level of complexity is less than 1,000 nucleotides long.
And that even assumes that we know exactly what nucleotides are to the same degree that
we know what letters are.
So the idea that we are looking at like tens of thousands of nucleotide sequences that
make up all these amino acids and that form proteins and all this kind of stuff, the idea
that we can hit that with today's computing power or even tomorrow or ever, like the idea
of getting to that level of complexity, you're going to use up all the energy in the sun
trying to compute that.
OK, let me take a shot at how they did the data reduction.
I agree with everything you just said.
It's more than the atoms in the universe probability.
What they did was the reason why the domain programs called the domain is they just worried
about the part of the molecule, the antigen and the epitope that's called the regional
binding domain, which is, like you said, a short section compared to the whole DNA of
the, let's say, 30,000 base pairs.
It's a short like 1,000 base pairs.
But they went even further.
Let's say my fingers define, I'm sorry to try to do this right, the fingers define the
regional binding domain.
They went with the subdomain strategy.
They did proton segments, excuse me, not protons, short oligonucleotides, 10 was the number
they used.
And they just did one of the fingers.
If let's say there's five fingers in the regional binding domain, they just substituted one
finger.
And this actually did happen with a company, Marcus covered as well, called Icasovax.
What they do is they take the genetic innards basically out of the inside, keep the egg
shell, and then they worry just about the antigen that's being presented.
And so you have this configuration.
And then you just do all the combinations of that middle finger, which is called a subdomain.
And that's how they actually came up with the Icasovax, the University of Washington,
Icasovax, the Kiesler lab.
That's actually how they came up.
That was, like you said, Matthew, which is very adroit, is that it failed miserably.
So I'm not saying it works.
I'm just saying that's what they tried.
Okay, so there's a simplification strategy.
We don't need to do the whole thing.
But then I'm going to point out that if it worked, we'd be doing this for every disease
that ever was.
And we would just be spitting out things and we would be testing how closely they matched.
But the fact of the matter is, in biology and in medicine, mechanisms are really, really
hard.
We are only a decade out from discovering why aspirin works.
Mechanisms are really hard.
And it feels like to have a successful program like that, you would need mechanisms.
So I still feel pretty secure saying that I don't believe that this program, I think
that it is literally a fabrication and that maybe you need a salesman to sell that fabrication.
Well there's what this program or this programming platform is, what it can do.
Or what they say it can do, right?
And those are both also complicated statements.
So George reviewed what they said it can do.
And what they said it can do is also based upon, well, I would say propaganda or foreshadowing,
just this word novel, novel virus, that there can be a disease causing agent that's so unique
that it would be impossible to survive without a unique solution to it.
Somehow, as far as we know, humans and most animals have made it pretty far without having
to use computers to design solutions to problems.
But now with something novel, the threat is so serious that this is what we need to do.
So there's been a sales pitch there that's been built up for many years with multiple
outbreaks to convince us that this is something that we would need.
And that's part of the description of what the product is.
So just right there before we even get into the technicals, that is assumed.
Because if this need of novel solutions to novel viruses doesn't exist, then there's
no reason to have this platform at all.
So right there, everything has to be built upon that.
Well, I just want to throw in that there was an attempt with prophecy.
There was an attempt with a program called Reframe.
There was an attempt like Mark you covered with CompuVac.
Each of these AI models gets better and better.
And EpiVacs, I think, is the last generation or maybe something that Dan Wattendorf knows
about that I don't.
But this, like you said, kind of limits this complexity is key to the reduction.
So many things like you talk to people with autoimmune disorders and doctors prescribe
different portions of that population eight different medicines.
Right?
Like, yeah, a lot of times there isn't even going to be a fit.
But I think we should go ahead and move on so that we can get to some other key parts
of this.
I'm going to point out right here this this article in particular, are there any viable
coronavirus treatments?
One of the things mentioned in this article is Nano Silver.
And just just for the trivia of this, I want to point out that there was a person who had
to go to court over trying to push Nano Silver as a solution to this.
And they had previously tried to push Nano Silver during a prior epidemic also.
And this woman, her name is Rima Labo.
And she just so happens to be the widow of the former head of Inscom, U.S. military intelligence,
Albert Stubblevine.
And it's it's comes at Fort Belvoir.
And my point here is that you there may be a solution that works.
They're just not going to tell you about it.
They're going to keep it as a private DARPA because if I shell out the genetics and just
make it a nanoparticle and imitate the antigen, I can now privately take all the things that
work in nature and now create a drug library that's a proprietary drug library for me.
Exactly.
And getting people to to to buy into the that they need a novel solution to a novel virus.
You also need to create this an argument to get people to fight over, you know, Coca Pepsi
or Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and have a religious war about that.
And to the point where they are so invested in that argument that they don't even know
that there's probably many other obvious things which would already work instead.
And they need a new God.
They need a new God, the new AI God.
And look who has it for them, whether or not it's real.
I guess we can put a pin on the question as to whether or not it's real.
But either way, it's baiting the same solution.
Well, there's been platforms that have tried to do something similar, right?
You know, investigative stuff, but trying to reduce the complexity of life down to,
you know, a few macros and an Excel sheet is very difficult to do that.
And we've been suggested that someone has been able to do that.
I I don't think that's possible.
They may have repurposed something else, a little a slice of it and renamed it.
And again, it's part of creating the narrative of, oh, guess what, novel virus.
There's some novel solutions potentially repurposing some things.
Oh, it spits out an answer.
Remdesivir.
How about that?
I guess we should trust it because it's a computer, right?
Well, I think one of the things to point out here from the biological perspective is that
if we follow the story and the logic that George Webb presents, which is that they focused
on the receptor binding domain of the spike protein, it's not my understanding of the
mechanism of hydroxychloroquine has anything to do with the interaction with the spike
protein, but it's it's the regulation of pH inside of the endosome that allows the virus
to to release its genetic contents into the cell and start the infectious cycle.
So the computer program, if it was aimed at this relatively mundane idea of identifying
proteins that would have likely three dimensional interactions, then in no way, shape or form,
would it be have any propensity to identify, for example, remdesivir as a drug that would
do that remdesivir is a drug that interferes with the replication process.
Again, completely not associated with the receptor binding domain of the spike.
So the whole principle that they were using that as a target underscores the idea that
it couldn't possibly have been useful in finding those drugs.
And when it didn't go, I just want to clarify it because I think there may be some confusion
as to whether or not hydroxychloroquine was one of the drugs that domain spat out.
It's my understanding.
It's not.
The only other list I have is remdesivir, famotidine, celot coxib, which is a Pfizer
drug for arthritis and then mectizan.
So Ivermectin.
I don't think hydroxychloroquine was spat out there just as a point of clarification.
And that should have made anybody in the room scratch their head.
Right.
But we'll move on.
Yeah, we'll move on.
But I think they pointed at the H2 histamine receptor and that's why they got the answers.
That's why they got all the antihistamines with high binding affinity.
Celot coxib is an allergy and then the other one is for stuffy nose.
So yeah, but we'll move on.
So this is that March 20th article in Intelligencer again.
And when it gets to remdesivir, you know, it kind of poo pooed hydroxychloroquine in
the article.
You know, it focused on the fact that it has side effects, which is kind of funny because
the side effects are lower than the average medicine that's approved.
But you know, with remdesivir, they focused on this quote, improve the clinical condition
of the first patient, which I wonder how they determined that.
I mean, most people just kind of get better.
Right.
I mean, how do you know in a one of one trial whether or not the medicine helped the person
get better?
It's kind of presumptuous, but there is this first patient.
And Mark, I've heard you talk about him.
Snow Homish Man.
Is that the right phrase?
Yes.
The first person who was identified, systematically, presumably as having COVID, the COVID-19 disease,
because patient zero, a 35 year old Asian male who lived in the Washington, Seattle
area, spent three months in Wuhan, flew back on January 15th and checked himself into a
hospital on the 18th.
And we don't know who he is, no face, no full name.
But immediately the CDC picked up on it.
And like within two days or three days, they had the x-rays and they proved compassionate
use of remdesivir.
And miraculously, it worked perfectly.
So he had a perfect recovery, which is a relief.
But that's been used as a reason that, wow, this stuff could work.
It could save lives.
Well, and so there we are.
We have, but very early on, we have kind of presumptuous literature with an anonymous
individual.
So now-
Can I just say one thing to Jonathan's point?
Because it's extremely important.
But Jonathan is incredibly correct that it's hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir is inside
the cell action.
It's not the outside binding affinity at all.
What happened with remdesivir in the domain studies, it was paired as it was paired, it's
again this pairing of subverting the remdesivir below as the standard of care.
So if you read the domain studies, it was paired in with famotidine, it was paired in
with celicoxib, et cetera.
So I just want to keep that in mind.
It was never evaluated from any kind of affinity binding or any of that.
It was always paired in as a standard of care.
On a public relations level, it allows the possibility of false dichotomies perhaps?
Yeah, you could put your dog in there and sneak it in.
Well so this is an article that just came out today that I'm going to encourage people
to go find and read by Dr. Todd Kinion, who's somebody I've talked with.
He's a good fellow.
He was writing about the Diamond Princess and I learned a little bit new, some new stuff
from this article, but it was good for me to revisit this because I feel like I have
so much better grasp of just reading about this now.
But there's thousands of people on this cruise ship and because one person had gotten off
along the way who tested positive, that was the excuse for just beginning to lock down
everybody.
Right?
So you have thousands of people on this cruise ship.
One age 69 years old.
And by the way, I looked up actuarial tables of 69 year olds.
You should approximately have like one in 70 ish of them should die each year.
And because the mortality curve ramps up so quickly, I'm going to say you would expect
one in 50 of these people to die each year out of the, let's just call it, well, you've
got 2,666 passengers.
So you would expect, I don't know, 60 deaths a year, so five per month.
And we'll look at what happens here.
You have 14 deaths over, little over two months when you might expect 11, 12 or something
like that.
But this is following a very stressful experience in which about a fifth of them got SARS, were
tested positives for SARS-CoV-2.
And this is supposed to be a pretty deadly disease amongst the elderly.
But ultimately, when you look at this statistically, this should say there's no real panic or maybe
there was nothing really wrong to begin with.
Or who knows exactly what happened here.
But I just wanted to point out that statistically, this is not an unusual death curve.
But I'm going to go back for a second because Todd pointed out something that I didn't
know.
Some of these patients received Rungdesivir.
I didn't know that.
Yeah, this is-
That's because of the guy, that's because of the guy they put out there, which was Michael
Callahan.
They put him on the USS Pike, which was the Coast Guard cutter off Los Angeles Harbor
with the Grand Princess, or the Diamond Princess.
But don't forget about the Grand Princess a month before that.
Same story in Japan for the early mass formation psychosis in February.
Remember, you had one of these in February and then the LA one was March.
So there was a similar type of mass formation psychosis around this in February off the
coast of Japan.
And by the way, my understanding is nobody actually died on the boat.
Oh, really?
The people who died had already disembarked.
So I don't know if I have that 100% right, but I'm going to jump forward a little bit.
This is May 1st, 2020, Trump announcing the EUA for Rungdesivir and he has the head of
Gilead in his office with him for this nice warm presentation.
Now I'm going to talk about dichotomies in a little bit different way.
This is something that I felt like I recognized.
The moment I felt like I saw things wrong, maybe like beginning of March, I started to
pay attention to Dede Aurel's work.
And I instantly felt that there was something wrong going on, but especially I was really
convinced on March 19th when I saw the Trump press conference.
He mentions hydroxychloroquine and Rungdesivir and I feel like I'm watching a movie.
And everything just felt so surreal.
But I've got this theory that ash conformity can be made much more extreme if you have
something like dichotomous chiefs, the chief of your tribe and the chief of the other tribe.
Because not only do we have this Dunbar number and the people within our circle we trust
more, they're going to make, if we're going to be fooled by somebody, we're going to be
fooled by them being fooled and going memetically with the flock with them.
But I think people do have like a slot that says chief.
And we live in such a parasocial society at this point.
I think that Trump and Fauci were arranged knowingly or not, but I think that they knew.
That's my personal opinion.
As the two chiefs and each one of them representing a different direction of medicine.
But I want to throw that out there just for people to think about if nothing else.
Well Berks and Redfield, I'm sorry to jump in, but Berks and Redfield is the same thing.
Berks was three times the numbers in the projections that the CDC was.
She was, you know, Silent Invasion, her book.
She was getting her data directly from Michael Callahan on the Diamond Princess and the Grand
Princess.
So that and Italy was the other outbreak that she was getting her early, you know, mass
formation psychosis doomsday predictions from.
It's like we have Edward Bernays meets A.B. testing.
It really feels that way in a lot of ways to me.
But I'm going to point this out now because we're going to talk about a trial for hydroxychloroquine
since we're talking about these dualities here.
We've got this competition going on two days before the March 19th press conference, which
was the first day most people had ever heard of hydroxychloroquine.
I mean, sure, five million Americans take it.
Six million somewhere in that ballpark.
And some people take it when they go overseas for malaria or whatever.
But probably the majority of Americans.
I didn't know it when I heard it.
That doesn't mean I hadn't heard it before.
But it means that I, you know, no one in my family has an autoimmune disorder that would
be using it.
And I hadn't traveled to a malaria nation.
Right.
So two days apart, two days before, Bullware announced a trial on hydroxychloroquine, the
first U.S. trial on hydroxychloroquine to the University of Minnesota.
And not one person in the press picked up the press release.
That's amazing when you see articles being published in the same month going, do we have
anything that might work?
And you have this drug that's been studied already for 17 years that a lot of people
felt would be the first thing off the shelf and would probably work.
So okay, what's this this study going on here?
Okay.
So the first U.S. trial of hydroxychloroquine is post exposure prophylaxis.
And you've been around somebody who has the virus.
Maybe you're going to catch the virus.
And actually, it's actually two studies in one.
They ran them at the same time.
Some people had already begun to have symptoms and some people had they just had exposure.
They were both being run out of University of Minnesota.
One's called, people usually refer to them as the Bullware study and the Skipper study.
But Bullware is the head of all this.
David Bullware.
So what what were they doing?
What did they find?
Well, you know, let's take a look at the affiliations real quick, because this is going to matter
to us.
Let's see.
I'm looking.
I don't see you know, you know what I don't see?
I don't see Gilead.
Maybe we can trust this guy.
Oh, wait, he just forgot to throw that in there.
So David Bullware is somebody who had, you know, work with Gilead before, but did not
mention it in his affiliations or conflicts of interest.
So that's kind of interesting already.
Did you pick up on that?
That's a good that's good work.
A lot of what we're about to cover are actually my notes from 2020.
When I decided we're going to do this, I went back and looked and I didn't even realize
how much notes I'd taken.
And some of it I didn't even fully understand until now.
It's a lot easier in hindsight.
Happens with me too.
Yeah.
But, you know, oh, look, March 24, 2020.
He has a real good new scientific advising job, advisor for infectious diseases with
revived therapeutics.
The study hadn't even finished.
I mean, it was only announced a week ago.
Huh?
That's nice.
Okay.
Well, there's something very, very interesting about about this study.
Now I'll go ahead and say this.
What they said in the bullware trial was, oh, hydroxychloroquine did not prove to be
effective.
For clarity, the hydroxy, the treatment arm was doing better than the placebo arm, but
P was a little bit bigger than point zero five.
So it didn't prove to be effective.
Well, something very interesting about the trial is that it didn't use an inert placebo.
Ordinarily, you would expect something like talc to be used.
But in fact, for whatever reason, bullware decided to choose folate, which is interesting
because in March 2020 also folate was being suggested as being a treatment.
There was a paper out of Iran in preprint.
It didn't get published for well over a year, but it was in preprint already suggesting
a mechanism by which folate could be a blocker or blocker or inhibitor to the ACE2 furin
enzyme and the furin cleavage site.
So here we have this, I guess what you might call a false placebo.
And this is not the only trial during 2020 involving hydroxychloroquine in particular
and false placebos.
I counted at least six.
Three of them run at the University of Minnesota.
So oh, yeah.
And let's look at this.
They said it didn't work.
This antiviral in the bullware trial.
But wow, it looks like the sooner you get it, the better it does.
That kind of looks like an antiviral curve, doesn't it?
Seems suggestive.
Like maybe we shouldn't just be computing a p-value from yes or no.
And then of course, Revdesivir has value the sooner you use it.
That's great work, man.
That really is great stuff.
That's juice.
Yeah.
And then like I said, that there were actually two trials in one because it depended on whether
or not you started having symptoms as you know, after you enrolled as to whether or
not you were considered post exposure or considered early treatment.
And in the Skipper trial, you also had a curve that showed the earlier that you took the
medicine, the better it performed.
So both of these trials, neither one of them reached statistical significance.
Oh, but by the way, the trial was cut short.
They only went through about a third of the number of people that they had originally
planned in the in the prospective trial plan.
So it was if you replicated the trials three times over, they both achieved statistical
significance.
Huh.
So, okay.
You know, what I always, always wonder too, like, you know, like, why do people even believe
that, you know, like, do people even know what p-values are?
You know, for the most part, they don't.
You know, p-values are something that are better applied to something like artificial
intelligence than they are like a one-off for a trial like this.
But it really comes down to how it is you decide your distribution should look and what
you know, and how you're modeling it.
There are infinitely many p-values that are correct.
But something that that looks at a curve like that seems like a better way to evaluate such
a study.
So I would say they're computing the wrong p-values.
But let's let's take another here's a researcher, I think he's from Brazil, Watanabe, and he
reevaluated the trial and he said, you know what, they incorrectly computed the time to
treatment because these doses were mailed out and they didn't take this into account.
And that once you take this into account, actually, you get a statistically significant
positive outcome.
There were a total of six different reevaluations, all of which found statistical significance
in favor of hydroxychloroquine.
And here's one from my friend, David Weissman.
And this is the one where Bullware got taken to the mat.
David Weissman published his reanalysis and he literally took their data.
He got a whole he actually had to go back and forth with the Bullware team and finally
pry the data out of their hands and then measure the smallest unit intervals he could.
He took out a ruler and was measuring unit intervals, like literally off of a graph to
figure out how long it was to get the best estimate of how quickly people took the medicine
after exposure or after symptoms began.
And he came up with a positive statistically significant result.
And now what happened with this is he published he published this reanalysis and he made comments
in the paper, the Bullware paper with the New England Journal of Medicine and asked
them to recompute the p-value and they would not do it.
They would not do it.
And they finally just made a statement.
We stand with David Bullware.
And that was it.
That's all they'd ever do.
So they are standing on I think they're standing on zero legs.
They're doing some kind of a guru floating in the air job.
Yeah, you could pay a team.
You could pay a team just to screw up other people's studies.
Just put flies in the ointment, introduce false placebos, introduce false timing, inaccurate
statistical reporting, all these things.
Get their molecule, get what their molecule looks like and then farm it out to your lab
in Russia and then have an analog produced and then get it to market faster than they
do because they're going through the FDA and we're going to go off market.
And we will talk about a number of ways in which it appears trials were sabotaged.
Like I mentioned, six false placebo trials.
I can't remember them all off the top of my head but the three at the University of Minnesota,
there's one Barnaby was chief researcher and one Rajasingham.
But that's one way to do it.
There were also studies out of several dozen.
I don't know how many early treatment studies there were.
I'm just going to throw out like or maybe some sort of prophylaxis studies.
Maybe there are like 80 prophylaxis studies for hydroxychloroquine.
About 12 of them were negative for hydroxychloroquine.
But here's an interesting fact.
10 of those 12 that were negative were specifically studies on people with autoimmune conditions
or else mostly people on or largely people on autoimmune largely or totally.
And that's it.
And if you took those out and you look, it's just a sea of positive studies.
And it is true that finally last year the Harvard School of Medicine did their own meta
analysis and said, yeah, this is effective as a prophylaxis.
So the Harvard School of Public Medicine and if it works as a prophylaxis, then almost
surely that's because there's antiviral action, which means it would work at pre-exposure
prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis, early treatment.
An antiviral should do all of those things at once or none of those things at once.
Generally, it's possible to treat to do well in one of those without the other.
But you know, just on the Weissman study, I want to point this out.
When he broke people down into health care workers and non health care workers.
For those receiving treatment in the first three days, you have about 65 percent lower
development of symptomatic COVID, 65 percent lower.
That's statistically significant.
P is 0.025.
That's the way to break things down.
That's most of the population right there.
That line.
That's most of the population early treatment.
So now here's interesting.
I'm just sharing this just because it's fun because in August of 2021, Steve Kirsch put
me on an email thread with David Bullware and I happened to say, no, thank you.
This is a mass murder and a psychopath.
And David Bullware said, no, I'm no longer talking to you anymore.
And David Weissman said, I will always remember where I was when I received that email.
And he called me and he said, I like the way he put it when he called me.
He said, I will always remember where I was when Matthew Crawford called David Bullware
a psychopath.
And you know what?
I tell this story not because I call a lot of people psychopaths, nor do I do I know
if he's ever been clinically evaluated for psychopathy.
It's not even in the DSM anymore.
I mean, you know, David, I'm sorry.
You know, it was a casual comment, though I think it may be true.
If there were still such a standard.
But but I think the point being there are times there are times when you formulated
enough of an opinion of somebody that there is good reason to just say so.
That's my opinion.
I'm sticking to it.
I agree with your assessment.
So who funded the trials at the University of Minnesota?
Ben and David Buzuki, and we'll talk about them.
Steve Kirsch and, you know, more than a year later, he was still communicating with David
Bullware despite this what seems like a very badly and obviously rigged study in my humble
opinion Alliance of Minnesota Chinese Organizations and the Minnesota Chinese Chamber of Commerce.
And we'll talk about three of the four of these.
But it is interesting to see two Chinese organizations amongst the funders of this trial.
So who are we going to talk about first?
AMCO, Alliance of Minnesota Chinese Organizations.
So I guess one of their amongst their leadership is Dr. John Zhang, who is a fertility doctor.
And you know, why is that interesting?
Well, according to Washington Post, he invented the three parent baby.
Didn't I just hear the other day of the first three parent baby?
Has anybody else seen this?
No, but I am thinking of that.
I am thinking of the South Park episode where they found a way to give monkeys four of some
things.
Well it goes a little bit deeper than that.
Apparently this Dr. Zhang is friends with he Jiang Hu.
I don't know if I'm saying that right.
But that's the CRISPR baby guy in China who wants to make designer babies.
So how interesting is that?
Not making designer babies, Matt.
He's curing AIDS.
He made them invulnerable to AIDS.
He created super children.
Don't don't don't mischaracterize super babies.
Super babies.
Huh.
Well, that's I kind of think this is interesting because you know, as much transhumanism talk
as there is, there is some reality to the interest in it.
Right.
And this is a guy, Brian Bishop.
I met this man in January at a dinner that I held in Austin.
And I talked to him for only about maybe six minutes because there were a lot of other
guests that I needed to talk to.
But he told me while we were there that he secretly funded one of the mRNA vaccines using
Bitcoin.
He's a Bitcoin guy.
He's an OG Bitcoiner.
It goes all the way back to like the early Satoshi roundtables.
He's in some interesting circles, some with the PayPal mafia.
He's friends with one of the guys around table media who ran the global covid summit where
we gave talks that just happened to be at Rockefeller's Mansion in Puerto Rico.
You know, interesting thing about Brian Bishop, he's he calls himself a do it yourself biohacker.
But in particular, he he was in the Human Genome Project circles funding some research
literally at a Ukrainian bio lab.
And that is that is reported here in this article in the MIT Technology Review.
But also the reason he got sort of pushed out of some of these circles is he was shopping
a business plan for designer babies.
And so there's there is an interesting question.
Would you want to prevent people from understanding that hydroxychloroquine works in order to
keep the pandemic going so that you can start testing genetic products?
When Brian and I discussed whether or not the mRNA vaccines worked, what he said was
it depends on what you mean by worked.
Did it stop the disease?
I don't think so.
Did it were cells successfully transfected?
Then I think so.
And I'm paraphrasing him, but that's pretty close to his words.
Well, you're opening up a really interesting scenario, if I may speak for a moment.
One is the whether or not hydroxychloroquine is helpful or not.
And you know, there's correlations that it has had it has helped.
And I don't really want to speak to to that or not.
The argument over the like three or four different things of the whole world of medicine clearly
gets people to forget about the fact that secondary bacterial infections are treated
quite well with antibiotics.
Very high correlation of proper use of existing medicines for existing symptoms and people
usually more often than not getting better.
So there's that.
There is the an antibiotics use started to collapse right before the pandemic in a lot
of nations.
There's there's the the potential potential misuse of remdesivir intentional or not, which
for people who are already sick, making them sicker, putting them to a state where many
times they passed, they died.
That creates a pathway for to bring in new medicines, more new generation of vaccines
based upon a sense of urgency and based upon a sense of need.
But the last thing there is you mentioned, were they looking for a pathway to test stuff
to get new types of medicine?
And this is the and I'll make this quick.
This is the warp speed story that too many people miss.
I'm not a fan of for or against warp speed.
OK, I think this whole thing is a disaster.
Right.
Be clear.
However, what warp speed forced was an acknowledgement that there were vaccines that will work.
Now without warp speed, everyone had already look at all the papers, look at the news articles,
look at the media.
We everyone was being seated.
It was going to be 18 of 24 months of continuous COVID 18 to 24 months before those vaccines
were supposed to get here, at least according to Fauci, according to Bright, according just
about everyone.
But everyone had to acknowledge that there's going to be some vaccines ready to go.
And what will they do?
They will protect people against COVID, whether they did or not.
I'm saying they did.
I don't think they did anything.
However, there was planning to be a window of anything goes.
And who knows what was going to be happening during those 18, 24, 36 months.
Who knows what people were going to be tested with unknowingly.
We don't know.
It's not as if if there was no warp speed pandemics over.
No, something else was going to happen.
There would still be remdesivir.
There will be a whole lot of other stuff going on.
So just wanted to put that out there.
Yeah.
I think it's time also to point to J.J. Cooey's theory on data collection, which is that the
pandemic needed to go on long enough for a lot of very valuable data collection to occur.
And as J.J. discovered and I was in on a meeting, J.J., I guess I won't say who we were in the
meeting with or exactly what was disclosed or can we say?
I'm not sure what you're about to say, so I guess you should be careful for the moment.
I'll just say universities.
Yeah, we have to be careful with that.
OK, well, let's just say there was a lot of genetic data collection going on.
Certainly we know how that could occur.
And just to give you guys some buffer, I've also heard that I guarantee you not from the
same source.
There's no one person who can be accused of leaking anything.
I know all we have to do is make sure that we don't say where particular suits are being
filed, but we can definitely say that the testing swabs and the testing materials that
were produced as a result of mandatory covid testing can be qualified as remnants and remnants
can be resold.
So remnants from abortions can be resold.
Remnants from surgeries can be resold.
Remnants from blood donors can be resold.
Remnants from any any potentially any material generated from any normal medical procedure
can be resold as remnants if there's some research value to it.
And there were many places in the United States in particular that I know of where pre existing
infrastructure in the form of bureaucracy and people and contracts were already in place
to share any potential testing remnants generated by any testing of the student body.
And for people here, here's an explanation that a lot of people will understand, which
is once you throw something in the trash, law enforcement can look through your trash,
right?
In fact, anybody can.
Once you've thrown it away, anybody can just take your trash, right?
But you know what, if you know that there's going to be something valuable thrown in the
trash, you can have a routine for having it packaged up, maybe even labeled.
And now you have personalized collected trash, which could include your genetic samples organized
possibly at universities.
And perhaps that is how you achieve alignment on getting universities to go along with with
vaccine mandates and making sure that everybody or almost everybody there has taken a vaccine.
This is just the mention of the Ukrainian bio labs from the MIT technology review article.
But now I'm going to talk about David Buzuki because Steve is funny.
Steve and I had talked about Buzuki once before, but he acted like he didn't know who he was.
But what he said was Buzuki wound up not only co-funding that trial with him, but also giving
$100,000 to Steve's foundation for the flu voxamine trial.
And Steve is asking why would he do that if he's a bad fellow?
Flu voxamine showed tremendous efficacy.
If he wanted to lock down kids, flu voxamine trial would be the last donation he would
ever want to give.
How do you explain that?
Any thoughts?
You mean Prozac, right?
You mean Prozac?
It's not quite Prozac.
I mean, you know, it's it's a luvox.
But we see the same things.
And let's face it, this trial that showed 100% efficacy.
I just don't believe that.
I don't believe that.
And the University of Minnesota has had a lot of medical trial scandals over the past
few years.
There was at least one scandal of like just totally faked image data.
But the bioethicist there, once he started to push back against one of these, actually
got ostracized by his peers and he just went to war with them.
But there's been a whole bunch of shady research scandal stuff at the University of Minnesota,
which makes me wonder if Steve put that trial in the hands of the wrong person, whether
or not I can't I don't know who designed the trial.
So I wouldn't be able to say for sure.
I don't think it was actually done at the University of Minnesota, but it may have been
concocted there very possibly, given that we know over a year later, he's working with
David Bullwere still.
I still think that this kind of goes back to something that was mentioned earlier, too.
And it's kind of appropriate to stick it in here.
And that is that a lot of these early treatment drugs, they don't have even a viable mechanistic
explanation for why they think that this would help with a coronavirus infection.
And everything that we know about their pharmacology would suggest that they're mechanistically
unrelated to the infection or to the immune response to it.
So it is perplexing to me that people put so much effort and time into investigating
how a anti psychotic or whatever you want to classify these drugs as would have any
potential here.
It is as random, quite frankly, as to suggest that psilocybin or LSD or or anything else
that was primarily understood as something that has psychological effects would be appropriate
for a respiratory disease.
Well, let's ask ourselves, what would a person want if they wanted to fund a trial that was
a terrible trial that tanked hydroxychloroquine and would want Luvox to work or for people
to think that Luvox works?
What kind of a person?
Oh, let's see.
Oh, my goodness.
My goodness.
His company IPO for thirty eight billion dollars in twenty twenty one.
That's thirty eight billion.
That's a three and an eight and a B. In front of the alien.
Because his company is roadblocks.
Buzookies.
If I'm saying that right.
Roblox, Rob Roblox, Roblox, Roblox, Roblox, Roblox, Roblox, Roblox, Roblox, Roblox, Roblox,
my kids have that game.
OK, you may want to think hard about that after we talk about this game.
This is like I think we are going to not need to, but I'm scared.
Go, go, go.
Yeah, this is like Minecraft.
But with people being able to create the playing field and invite each other in.
So basically think Internet, basically think Internet.
What would OK, you know, stop clear your mind when people get on the Internet on average.
What is the data being passed around?
What proportion of the data packets are you are you thinking?
Are you thinking?
Oh, no, I don't even have to tell you what to think, do I?
OK, so there's a lot of content.
If you just start looking, Roblox controversy.
You're going to run into the same things for the most part.
You know, just think children at risk, children playing games with adults online.
Oh, my goodness.
That's a video that was premiered in the Roblox game with this artist named Lil Nas X.
I don't know if I'm saying that right.
Giving a lap dance to Satan.
That was premiered in this game for children that that literally 10 billion hours were
spent playing this game by a hundred something million kids staying home from school.
How do they play?
How do they premier it?
Do you know?
Because I don't.
I've watched my child play this game and they it does seem to be a way to allow like two
kids on two different devices to play a game.
And I've never caught any kind of advertising or anything in between, not saying that isn't
there because I'm not watching all the time, but I'm wondering how they do it and how frequent
it is.
I've got to investigate.
Jay, I wonder, like among the things they can do in the game, can they go into rooms
that perhaps would have a literally just like a digital screen set up and your avatar can
sit there and watch the premiere?
Not sure if that I know what you're talking about because I've seen something like that
in Fortnite too.
Yeah, yeah.
And we are, you know, people were doing that in various like because of COVID.
You could watch a basketball game with a headset on.
So I'm sure it just can tell you that their entire school, any kid that has a device has
roadblocks and and communicates with each other.
They just recently asked me to put discord on their on their phones.
It's crazy.
I can't even believe it.
So it is it is an all out assault if you think that that guys like us are are having to question
what we should put on those kids phones.
Well, I'm going to say this.
I will encourage people to do some Internet searches.
Know that in my notes, when I had done searches in twenty twenty, when I first heard about
this controversy, that most of even like the links that I had saved were no longer operational.
So somebody goes back and scrubs or pressures to scrub a lot of things.
But if but if you just get on Twitter and you type roadblocks pedophile, you will get
dozens of these tweets a day.
And here's one that I've put right up here.
Somebody made their own meme cartoon for it.
That's you know, I'm just going to encourage people to do their own research and decide
what to think.
And then I'm going to move on from here.
Thirty eight billion dollars just bears bears repeating.
So OK, how did Remdesker become the standard of care?
You know, the first trial that went on in China didn't go so well.
So what happened?
I guess there were some studies along the way.
There was one where people got out of the hospital a little bit earlier if they took
the medicine.
If you find enough endpoints.
If you define enough endpoints on average, you're going to get one that's statistically
significant.
Think about it that way.
Yeah, you take colors out of a crayon box and say people who have red shirts will get
cancer more than people who have blue shirts and some proportion of those pairs.
You have 64 crayons.
You have about about gosh.
What do you have?
There was in 2016, I think, different pairs of colors.
And if one in 20 of those are statistically significant, you're going to have just over
100 statistically significant outcomes just pulling crayons out of a box.
That's not meaningful at some point.
And it happens to be that that in some of these studies, they just change the endpoints.
This is the NIAID.
Just changing the primary outcome of the study in order to make it fit.
That's the way I read it anyway.
Maybe you can argue a different interpretation.
I feel comfortable agreeing with the world's most published microbiologist at the top of
the screen.
But some people happen to think he's a quack.
I don't.
And I'm probably not going to say that as well as you.
I also didn't say it right, I guarantee you.
But we're going to talk about him a little bit more in a moment.
But you know, first, here's a pit stop.
Wait, why did I put the slide in here?
OK, we've got oh, oh, oh, yeah, there was this other very obvious fraud.
This one published in May 22, 2020, was a supposed big data study from six continents
published by Surgesphere.
And most people have heard of this at this point.
But you know, I'm going to say 99.99%.
It was a total fabrication fraud.
It was retracted.
I told my wife on day one, we went for a walk.
I was like, I need to talk to you.
We need to take a walk.
Tell me I'm not crazy.
I told her the story.
Like, I read the paper and I thought instantly, like, this is fake.
This is totally fake.
And she's like, tell me why.
I think I convinced her after about half an hour.
But the interesting thing about this is the head researcher, Mandit Mehra, he was at,
is it called Brigham and Women's Hospital, which is interesting.
I've seen a lot of stories revolve around that hospital in particular, including medical
kidnapping stories.
But you know, just moving on from there, they happen to be conducting a remdesivir trial
there.
Isn't that the hospital that is Harvard's hospital?
And it's also the hospital that Wolinski worked at.
Well, they all, almost a lot of them worked there.
And what's her name?
Like, Liana Wang, is that her name?
Liana Wen, yeah.
Liana Wen, thank you.
Liana Wen also worked there.
Yes.
Yeah, it's part of the same, it's part of the same like Harvard Medical School network
that even crazier is that Wolinski, the guy who is the surgeon general, what's his name
again?
Murthy.
Yeah, Vivek Murthy.
They all worked on AIDS while they were there.
They raised money for it.
They did research on it.
They were assigned to that department just just out there.
Very interesting.
Well, that's why I included this slide.
And then, oh, oh, oh, who, who is the largest shareholder in Gilead?
Well, it's BlackRock.
And we've seen a whole lot of them during the pandemic, buying homes, sitting in castles
in high mountains with fingers at the corner of their mouths.
I don't know.
Well, Ed Dowd, by the way, Ed Dowd worked at BlackRock.
Okay, so what was this one about?
In the middle here, I'm forgetting when I was inserting some of these slides for so
let's just see.
And what's that Dowd's position again?
What does he talk about?
He was he was, oh, what is he talking about?
He talks about the insurance data.
And the insurance data is showing what?
That like a whole bunch more young adults have died since the vaccines rolled out.
Exactly.
There you go.
So let's see under the direction of the WHO, Roondeskier is being tested as an alternative
treatment COVID-19.
Currently COVID-19 is treated with let's see, nine members of the panel tasked with determining
acceptable COVID-19 treatments have disclosed financial ties to Gilead, the manufacturer
from Deseret.
Okay, this is what this is about.
Pence, the vice president, Pence, had a treatment guidelines panel, I think it was called, COVID
treatment guidelines panel with 55 members.
Seems like too many to me, but maybe maybe you need a lot of people.
More guidelines the better, I guess.
So there were nine who disclosed ties to Gilead out of 55.
And what this article says is actually they found seven more.
There were seven who didn't disclose financial ties to Gilead, including two of the three
co-chairs of the committee.
That's at least according to this article.
But I'm going to tell you something that I found personally.
Oh, and they go on to name names too.
So just in case people want to take note or check things.
But I'm going to tell you what I found when I was researching that same panel myself back
in October of 2020 was, okay, there were nine originally on the website, but interestingly,
two of them withdrew their affiliations to Gilead.
Sometime in 2020, their affiliations to Gilead just disappeared from the website.
And that was Rajesh Gandhi, originally reported being on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences,
later reported just being on the advisory board for Merck, and Pablo Tabis.
Now this one's interesting, Gilead and Inovio Pharmaceuticals.
And then later on, he just reports Inovio Pharmaceuticals.
Now why would it be that out of those 16 people, nine of them would hesitate to disclose financial
relationships with Gilead?
You know the answer to that.
Question is, did they know what the plan was going to be?
But at least some of them were nervous about it.
What do you think, Jay?
I don't know.
I don't have a good estimation of these people that we're talking about here.
They're farther away from my central understanding and model of all the people that are present.
They're participating.
But they could have been very, very clear.
I mean, these are all people that are on the business end of this operation.
And the business end of this operation could have been very brass tacks about it and just
said, this is the product we're going to push.
And how many people knew that it wouldn't work?
I bet very few of these people had any concept of how it worked or why it might or might
not work or even the fact that any data that they had, as you and many others have pointed
out, was based on early prophylactic use and not about late treatment.
And so even that level of knowledge and understanding wasn't really present in the chain of command
here, I don't think so.
That's an interesting thought.
It would be interesting to go through the list and see how many of these people are
MBAs and how many are biochemists or biologists of any sort, right?
You know, who showed some surprise that it was working?
It was John C. Martin.
And I remember hearing you say that.
He was interviewed in May 2020 on a relatively unknown podcast.
So it's just audio only.
And he didn't say Remdesivir wasn't going to work, but he was told that there were studies
from Fauci that it was looking promising.
And his response was, I look forward to seeing the data, which is corporate speak for I don't
believe you, right?
You don't say, wow, I expected that.
I knew all that work was going to pay off.
He was like, huh, well, I look forward to seeing it.
And he was very gentlemanly about it.
And he dies by tripping on a sidewalk in Palo Alto, California, on the end of March of 2021.
Well, that's a shame.
Yeah.
He was no longer the CEO.
He resigned in 2016.
But still, you know, I know that Gilead's as dirty as fire trucks.
But you know, I haven't really felt the super dark vibe from what I've seen out of his work.
But anyways, just now and out there.
And all of a sudden, these guys, they should have disclosed their relationships, what they've
known.
They didn't have to know that it was or wasn't working or why, but they should have disclosed
it.
That means that they're hiding something.
Well, I had an opinion in May of 2020.
I just want to share what my opinion was.
I at least had a question.
I think anyone will serve time for statistical murder.
That was my question on May 18, 2020.
Just in case Steve is watching, because when I mentioned to him that I had in late last
year that I had been doing two and a half years of research on this, he gave a loud
guffaw.
Well, this is still, it hasn't ended, Matt.
Because what we're talking about here is remdesivir, right?
Which may seem in 2020.
First of all, it's still a standard of care.
It's still being used.
It's still people who it's being prescribed to every day.
Some live and some don't.
However, if someone were to engage-
If I can just point, can I just emphasize what Mark is saying here, that they're being
given remdesivir and the doctors who are administering it do not have remdesivir's potential side
effects on a list of watch out for this shit.
If this happens, take them off remdesivir.
There's nothing like that happening.
Go ahead, Mark.
Well, there is that.
Of course, there's incentive, financial incentives.
There was all of that, which is good debate.
But, okay, we have endless debates right now over vaccine safety, over whether or not the
mRNA vaccine worked.
And that conversation cannot be had without first agreeing that the actual risk factor
of coronavirus is not what it's portrayed to be.
Hence, Ian Copeland cleans up in his chats on Twitter because everyone starts off with,
well, the vaccine's a problem.
And he never- Ian Copeland doesn't say that that's not true, but he is building upon a
mountain of data that ignores hospital protocols.
It ignores no antibiotics.
It ignores statistical manipulation about flu deaths.
It ignores remdesivir.
So by always being encouraged to spend day after day after day and dollar after dollar
on vaccine safety, it's an endless argument that will never go anywhere.
This is why people don't want to talk about it.
This is why I suspect when Malone had this, you know, we're going to get all the lawyers
together and talk about and get lawsuits for vaccine injuries, anyone that wanted to talk
about remdesivir is kicked out.
You are not allowed in here.
Get out of here.
Go over there.
Wait, wait, I don't know about this story.
Wait.
Oh, George Webb was kicked out.
Oh, was this- was this- this was why George Webb was kicked out.
Interesting.
Yeah, he wanted- he had two questions, Domaine and remdesivir.
Okay.
And they suggested that he was going to be- cause trouble.
He was going to cause trouble.
He was going to ask the questions which needed to be asked.
But this is why we are stuck in this endless quagmire.
I appreciate the fact that people are engaging about trying to understand the benefits and
the risks and the pros and the cons of all the different treatments.
However, it will never go anywhere until we can agree upon the actual risk of whatever
this agent was in the first place.
And the more we encourage you not to have that, the more we are stuck in the mud.
I hope that some people watch this and this is enough.
What I feel like I've done in the middle of this slideshow is built a tapestry of a lot
of facts that seem to have the same polarity, I guess is the way that I'm going to put it.
And here's one of those.
It's kind of a follow the money fact.
When I noticed that Hungary had a weird policy on hydroxychloroquine, they stopped exports,
but they also weren't using it to treat COVID, at least not much.
Not much at all, if at all.
And I noticed that when I went into Gilead's financial reports, they really pumped up the
money in 2019 to Hungary.
And you have to be able to read Klingon in order to know.
You can get this translated, but 23 and a half million, you can see that number near
the bottom right hand corner for 2019 and then in 2020 back down to ordinary levels,
you know, two, three million dollars a year or something like that.
So yeah, you have to use the way back machine to get the older data though.
So middle of the year 2020, South Korea is one of those nations that they chose the chloroquines.
They chose the chloroquines early, but somehow in June they decided that hydroxychloroquine
didn't work and that they would give emergency approval to remdesivir.
Now why would they make such a decision?
After all, South Korea actually had very, very few cases, a very brief outbreak and
then almost no deaths at all.
So what happened there?
And I'm just going to suggest that the reason I call it the Plandemonium and the reason
I call it World War E is because this is about economics and South Korea pretty much has
to play ball with whatever the United States does.
But it is worth looking around.
We've looked at Hungary, we've looked at South Korea.
It's worth looking around to a number of nations to see what's going on.
And here's Uganda and somehow I did not get something out of the way there.
And sorry about that, but I'll just mention what's going on here with Uganda.
Uganda was using hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, zinc, vitamins from day one as the standard
of care through almost the end of July and had zero deaths, zero COVID deaths.
And then suddenly the World Bank came and gave them a whole bunch of money, like a billion
dollars, billion dollars.
That's got to go a long way in Uganda.
And then suddenly, suddenly two days later, Uganda had its first death from COVID and
they're using remdesivir at some number of hundred dollars a dose.
And the case fatality rate goes from zero to almost 10% before it comes back down again.
And after it was mid-October when they started using remdesivir, and you can see the bottom
right hand corner, that's what the case chart looks like.
And by the way, that's Southern Hemisphere, so that's summer, not winter.
So look around the world, look at both the hydroxychloroquine and the remdesivir stories
in a few countries.
Track it down, find the ones that you need to think about.
But you know what, let's move now to the WHO trials because there are some interesting
stories right here.
Now they tested in various of these, you know, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir.
Oh look, patients who are already receiving remdesivir can still be recruited into the
recovery trial for other medicines.
I wonder if anybody ever went back and re-chopped the data to take a look at whether or not
the arms were equal and what it showed about remdesivir.
I don't know, I don't think I've read that.
But okay, WHO says remdesivir flunks.
Huh.
Okay.
So what was the date of that announcement?
Um, October 2000?
So this is actually April 23rd, 2020.
The story here was that actually the WHO put it up on its website, leaked preliminary reports
and then scrubbed them from the website and then their shares tumbled.
So this is late April, 2020.
Yup, they had closed trading for an afternoon.
So what's your interpretation?
Anybody?
I think the interpretation is some truth leaked out via a screenshot and they needed to clear
it up.
And then the following day, another study leaked out of the University of Chicago that
showed that compassionate care was looking slightly optimistic and the shares went back
up.
See, okay.
Convenient.
And that story from the next day, that completes things for me because when I put this in the
slideshow, I was like, you know what this is?
This is a dump and pump.
Leak the bad data so you can buy the shares.
It could have been that too.
It could have been a range for that.
I would love to see who traded Gilead those two days.
Oh, and maybe I should point out the name Hayden because we're going to see that name
again.
Let's see.
Frederick Hayden of the University of Virginia School of Medicine.
He's the one who conducted the study in China.
And we're going to see his name come up again in a moment.
But effect of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients.
Okay.
This is Pete Horby's study.
Also one of the WHO trials.
But there's something very, very interesting when we, I mean, it's interesting, first of
all, that it's like seven days after symptoms.
So you're not really testing an antiviral very well.
Correct.
But it gets a little bit interesting when you look at the metadata on that document.
Frederick Hayden.
Why is the guy running the remdesivir trial in China in the metadata of the hydroxychloroquine
report for the WHO?
Can't think of a reason.
Somebody I talked to just decided, hey, I'm just going to write an email.
I'm just going to ask Peter Horby.
Can you clarify what role he played?
Good for you.
Yeah.
I'm not going to share who that was, but he was not involved in any way.
Don't know why he appears in the metadata, Peter.
Don't know why.
I'm not going to go look.
Whose computer says Hayden in it?
Yeah.
It's interesting.
He didn't push back and say, you must be wrong.
Like, that's the kind of thing you would think he would be scratching his head over instead
of just moving on from.
Yeah.
He's figuring this out, right?
Does he not care about what the metadata means?
He's a scientist, right?
I mean, metadata is a lot of scientific data you're investigating, you're analyzing.
Well, and wouldn't it potentially suggest a data integrity issue?
Who's using that computer?
Possibly.
There's a lot of questions.
Or even the way that it will look to the public.
Yeah.
So, yeah.
Okay.
Now we're getting into the surveys.
Oh, that's right.
That's right.
I started to put in the surveys here.
Though maybe this one was for a different reason first.
Understand the two months late for application.
Oh, yeah.
Okay.
So notice that even though we have the WHO testing hydroxychloroquine, like I said, it
was a late treatment study.
It was also three times the dose that most people around the world were using.
But this article in particular out of Francois walks through the fact that once Didier Rieu
started successfully treating people, and he treated like 4,000 people by May, right?
And the WHO and other people in France are telling him, oh, we're going to use your protocol.
Wasn't it also azithromycin in his paper though?
It was in the title, hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
And he wasn't using anything as an endpoint except for the PCR positivity, if I understand
it right.
I remember right.
Oh, at the very beginning, that was his study in at the end of February.
That was like February 26th.
But later on, he's I mean, he published lots and lots of reports on his data.
So he's published on deaths, hospitalization, all that stuff.
What is Francois?
It's like the New York Post.
You know, it's I think it's considered a step ahead of New York Post in journalism.
But you know, it's definitely not left wing.
I guess people are going to refer to it as right wing.
I guess it would it would be called right of center.
One interesting thing that they had, they had the June 23rd, 2021 interview with Adam
Gartner about how Ivermectin is just kick ass and he became the he became a future director
of former feds.
So yeah.
Well, the author of this one right here, I've been in contact with Xavier Azalbert.
He is a mathematician and a biologist.
So it's interesting that the editor of this newspaper is a mathematician and biologist.
I think it enabled this particular publication to kind of be all over the pandemic.
They have a lot of important stories, especially in 2020 as things were getting going.
But they covered, you know, wrote pretty well, right.
But you know, basically, the story is about the fact that rule was gaslighted by multiple
different study authors saying, yeah, I'm going to use your protocol.
And then they changed the protocol completely.
Like early to late treatment, moderate versus high dose, like everything that they could
do, you know, in conjunction with a macrolide or alone.
Right.
I mean, like in every way they could, they just gaslighted him.
But you know, it got worse and worse for him.
In particular, he had to testify to the parliament about the fact that and this guy got arrested.
There was a guy who called him up and threatened his life.
Called him up from Nantes, a guy, you know, medical doctor.
Oh, he's not just a medical doctor.
He's the medical doctor that of all the doctors and scientists in France, if I understand
this correctly, had received the most money from Gilead.
That guy calls the world's most well-published microbiologist and threatens to kill him.
Just another story.
Just throwing that one out there.
So they, you know, that's insult to injury.
They don't use protocol and they tell you they're going to kill you.
I mean, that's just mean.
That's just mean.
I did like the fact that Raoul said, you know what, this is all about the US's civil war.
And I don't think that that's a perfect description, but it is true that there are forces that
are meeting each other here.
Right?
I mean, he recognizes that forces are extending to him to put pressure on him, but that it
seems like whatever's going on, it's centering around the dollar or control of US politics.
And I'm kind of in that sphere, even if I don't want to say I can perfectly describe
it.
Anybody?
I generally agree with that statement.
It does.
It is about the US civil war to some extent.
Some extent.
My opinion, whatever it's worth, probably not worth much, but I do not believe everyone
was on board using Remdesivir, using it the way it was, improperly, or all the same protocols.
I don't believe it was just government versus people.
I don't think that's the wrong.
My belief is that's the wrong interpretation.
I suspect that it was known that like a container ship heading towards an iceberg, this wasn't
going to stop.
But I think different people wanted to get something different out of it, and they wanted
to play things a different way.
So there was definitely internal battles.
And I suspect, and a lot of people don't agree with this viewpoint, though, that the improper
use of some of this medicine was allowed to happen to knock out a few hundred thousand
people and to crush what appeared to be a rising sense of populism within the United
States.
You can see a really hard turn towards everything coronavirus starting a day and a half after
the Trump election victory.
It seemed to be in 2016.
Or, here's an alternative.
It's an opinion, though.
It's just a framework that I work with.
Maybe it's to make it so bad that the moderate populists who would not participate in an
uprising would unite in large numbers.
I was going to say, it's funny how it looks like, Mark, the opposite is what's occurred.
There's been a tremendous, because it's not just moderates and populists or preexisting
populists.
I'm a liberal.
And a lot of people I've known from across the spectrum have more or less been, quote
unquote, woken up to the idea that there is something to think about there.
So it's interesting that if that was some kind of intention, it doesn't seem to have
worked.
Or both sides could believe that they're going to get what they want out of it.
The side that wants to crush the populists could get what they want out of it, and the
side that wants to get the populists to form a new nation, essentially, like a new foundation,
a new bedrock.
I don't know.
Looking at things now, if the current therapies are correlated with injuries and fatalities,
if they are, they're not targeting, generally, the populist population, at least within the
United States.
But maybe it was unexpected that things would have been going on as long as they have.
I don't know.
At some point, we have to start throwing possibilities out there to explain it so that we can at
least try to disprove ourselves.
So I could be wrong, but it's just some general ideas that I'm working with, and I'm actively
trying to prove myself wrong to figure out, OK, so what's a more correct explanation?
But yeah, Ian, Liam, excuse me, Liam just said it well.
In some ways, it seems to have backfired.
But we'll see.
Sorry about my phone, guys.
I just wanted to throw out my remdesivir theory, which was the chimeric mutator protein, which
is you throw in a mutator protein like AIDS.
HIV had this unending series of mutants, right?
And they haven't been able to vaccinate for it or come up with a decent therapeutic.
If you do the same thing with remdesivir with patients and you have them re-breathing through
the ventilators like Callahan's set up, they create mutants.
Nine times out of 10, you don't make the protein.
The RNA preliminaries is blocked.
But in 10% of the cases, you actually change the nucleosides and you create a new mutant.
That's how we got beta.
That's how we got the different variants potentially.
That's how we finally got delta.
And you basically direct evolution away from existing known therapies toward a new novel
virus.
You actually direct the evolution toward your money pit.
You make the people go like Rockefeller toward your bridge that goes over the bridge that
takes your oil to market.
You create a monopoly for a new and novel thing with remdesivir.
That's why I see remdesivir continually showing up over and over seemingly to do nothing other
than create mutants.
By the way, our friend from COVEXIT is here to mention that Franspar has little to do
with the previous one.
Name was bought by Asselberg, but he started a new online publication, free speech platform.
So anyhow, just to mention that, I do appreciate that he has a math and science background
though.
So what I've just thrown up on the screen are studies for remdesivir.
And you'll notice early treatment studies work better than late treatment studies.
And it wouldn't surprise me if it stops viral replication if given early, though you may
have, I don't know, renal failure as a result.
But the fact that early treatment works better than late and late treatment, I mean that
11%, I mean that could be nothing.
You could have one fudge study in there that causes all of that result.
It wouldn't surprise me if that's the case.
I'm not saying that it is.
But anyway, I'm looking at this and I'm looking at the mortality.
Wow.
Those mortality numbers look so good.
Is that too good to be true?
Well these studies are listed in the order that they were published.
I want to point that out.
And that when we look at the studies that were published after the early going, after
the Jerobaldi study, suddenly they have completely mixed mortality results.
And they're all over the place.
There's no consistency.
Except that you know what?
The studies that are done in Western nations with large pharma complexes seem to go a little
bit better.
It's almost like there's an inverse proximity relationship to somebody's gun.
I don't know.
Somebody's dollar.
These are the results I would have expected.
There's too many papers that find ways to show that early use of the product has benefits.
And Remdesivir has multiple potential uses.
But one, something I think we believe that it was designed for, was for the battlefield
to protect the warfighter against exposure to synthetic virus-like particles, whether
he or she be attacked by them or possibly even involved in the distribution of them.
It just shuts your body's processing of these particles down wholesale.
It's not something that you want to be taking every day.
You better sell it for less than a thousand dollars a dose.
But how many people are going to take something like this virtually prophylactically?
It's unheard of.
So late treatment, this is because I just said this is not something you want to take
very often.
It really stresses the body.
Now if you were just hit with something really nasty, well, it sure is better than dying.
However, this is not something that you take when you're sick.
So if people are sick, almost regardless of what they're sick of, you start hitting them
up with Remdesivir, they're going to get sicker.
It's not something you need to take.
And matter of fact, that's the time your body's communication needs to be in order, in order
to heal.
So it only gets worse.
So this is the fine little detail.
I used to say Remdesivir is poison.
I wish I didn't because I was wrong.
It's a tool to use in a specific situation.
So was a mistake made to use Remdesivir in a situation where it shouldn't have been used
because it at that appears to be correlated with bad outcomes?
And was that intentional or was that just a horrible accident?
We need to know that.
And that needs to stop happening.
And that's a reasonable hypothesis.
But let's take a look at the rest of the studies because I found it very interesting that things
that you would expect to correlate with lower death didn't.
Like mechanical ventilation.
More people had to be mechanically ventilated who had been put on Remdesivir.
And if the endpoint was getting in the ICU, you would think going to the ICU would be
correlated with whether or not you died after you take Remdesivir.
But they don't seem to.
Now there's not as many studies there.
But okay, hospitalization.
Well there's no improvement there either.
No improvement for hospitalization or ICU visits or mechanical ventilation.
But there is improvement for death.
Well okay, let's go a little further.
Viral clearance, no improvement.
But you know what?
When they started rolling out Remdesivir, at least in Minnesota, we can see that the
proportion of people who are dying, who died from acute kidney injury, renal failure, is
a very high, it's well, it's the known side effect that we worry about with Remdesivir.
And it is, it just happens to be one of the highest comorbidities for COVID.
And is that simply because we used it as treatment?
Or that we used Remdesivir as treatment?
But the hospital data, it looks like it.
Now where we're going next, George, George, I'm going to quiz you.
See if you can name this person out loud the moment you see her.
You ready?
Okay.
Who is it?
It's very small.
Tara O'Toole, I can't see.
I don't remember her name.
Oh, this is terrible.
I knew it like four hours ago.
This is the woman at UAB who headed the Remdesivir studies.
What's her name?
I can't read it either.
I don't think it's on here and I've forgotten it.
Oh, that doesn't help.
Well, she doesn't look familiar to me.
I met the president and I met all these top PhDs and they had this big day for, you know,
intellectual property over there at Southern Research at UAB.
And there's a lot of tension going on here because somebody feels like they took all
of the Alabama Birmingham PhD work product and privatized it through Southern Research
and they got robbed, you know, and Michael Callahan being the key guy and now they're
trying to hold on to their IP.
That I can tell you right from the president's office is going on right now.
And that's where they do their high throughput screening.
This is why I say high throughput screening sometimes is, you know, just a robot testing
500 different things in their library.
Their library has 26,000 compounds.
So sometimes you just test the crap out of stuff and see what works, see where you get
signal.
And that's why I think they were so important with the Gilead drugs, the Gilead HIV, the
Gilead Pepsie and the Gilead Remdesivir.
But again, like Mark is saying, JJ Cooley, you could do great in the well play but that
doesn't mean you're going to do well in the mouse.
It doesn't mean you're going to do well in the monkey.
It doesn't mean you're going to do well in the human.
I got her name.
Dr. Jean or Jean Marazzo.
Marazzo, that's right.
Thank you.
Wow.
I wish I had a Liam to give me answers like that.
That's awesome Liam.
Yeah.
Interesting bit of trivia.
My wife was, if we hadn't moved to Dallas, she was going to go to work for Southern Research
Institute going, doing high throughput nanopore sequencing.
I actually met the guy who did the nanopore for the microtubulin or whatever it's called
or micro something.
But it's using the actual pore that cells use and they use it to read the ATG sequence.
That's the nanopore guy.
He's actually there at, he invented it at UAB.
Yeah, my wife may have worked with him while she was getting her PhD.
Anyhow, moving forward, I brought this up because she was in the middle of 2020.
She was preaching against hydroxychloroquine, getting on the news.
I wrote this post to tell my friends, look at what the relationship is here.
Why is Alabama the best place to get away with murder?
It's called Presidential Directive 6666, no, 33333.
No, no, all the DNA is the same and nobody has dental records.
Oh, that's the funny one.
Well, actually I wanted to tell you that JFK signed the Operation Mongoose or whatever it
was.
I think it's presidential record.
It's like 12333, but it's not.
I can't remember what it is now, but it's the record about the federal government can
go in to the University of Alabama, Birmingham to ensure the safety of the civil rights of
the students.
It's the George Washington and the doorway of the UAB.
Not George Washington.
Oh, oh.
I mean, George Wallace.
George Wallace.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and that presidential directive is now what enables the Alabama Birmingham
National Guard to do operations outside of Alabama, right there from the airline base
in UAB.
So Southern Research is more than just Southern Research, I think.
They can run actual covert operations and spraying operations, Zika type spraying or
whatever operations in the Latin American, there are a whole bunch of C-130s there or
in the KC-135 tankers that can be retrofitted for spraying.
So I just wanted to throw that in there.
I'll get the presidential directive here in a minute.
It could it be executive order 11111?
Yeah, that's it.
11111.
Yep.
Yeah.
Are you serious?
Yeah, I found it.
It looks to be it matches all the details that George just laid out.
Oh, that's so QAnon.
Read that order, though.
It allows the National Guard, which normally Capacitum Comitatus is not allowed to leave
state lines, it allows them to do operations outside of I can send a National Guard from
Massachusetts into Alabama to guarantee the right of the student to go to the UAB.
And now I can use that against Capacitum Comitatus.
But more importantly, I can send a C-130, a DynCore C-130 and I can spray some kind
of Paraquad or whatever and then do sample collection.
I can send Michael Callahan down there and I can collect samples.
So it puts them in the driver's seat or in the pilot seat, I should say, for the virus
vaccine game for testing because they have this presidential authorization, Alabama National
Guard, Air National Guard.
One more little piece of trivia, and I don't know if for sure we can answer this together,
but I bet we can.
So some of Remdesivir, I don't know why Remdesivir was developed in multiple locations, but it
was developed at UAB.
It was developed at UNC Chapel Hill, which is where Ralph Baric is, of course.
And was it also developed at University of Washington?
I know it was tested at UNC a lot.
Ralph Baric's involved testing a lot of stuff.
I don't know if it was at University of Washington.
I know UAB, University of Alabama was the one that I've heard is the place where it
was developed.
Well, that executive order 11111, I guess there has to be one.
It just seems silly.
It is silly, but what I'm saying is if you were going to try to write into somebody's
genome, you would be best to mimic genes or mechanisms, human mechanisms that already
do that.
When do we know that happens?
Well, when the cell makes protein or when the cell divides.
When does that happen?
Well, when there's RNA polymerase around, when there's DNA polymerase around, when there's
reverse transcriptase around.
And so you just basically copy those kind of molecules.
If you look at remdesivir, it's actually a form of ATP.
The ATP molecule is the energy molecule, obviously, for citric acid cycle for our bodies.
So now I can patent things that go in the citric acid cycle for the energy cycle, oxidative
phosphorylation in the mitochondria.
But now also ATP is the side chain on the nucleotides and nucleosides in all of my DNA.
So I can hang something off of the ATP and make it proprietary and make it patentable.
And they did this with uridine.
Pseudo-uridine replaced uracil as a nucleoside in the RNA.
It's patentable when you put in your own nucleotide, your own nucleoside.
Right.
Using something artificial to make it patentable.
Yeah, this is going to be so dangerous over the next few years if this is what we're experimenting
with.
Rumsfeld put together two amino acids.
Rumsfeld put together two acids at Serle and created NutriSweet and patented it.
Two natural amino acids slapped together, created NutriSweet, a new product.
And you just had a picture of Ralph Baric.
I wanted to highlight something from a paper of his from June 2017.
I think that the, first of all, Baric should have known what was going on.
I wish he had spoke out against it.
He's responsible for not speaking out strongly against this stuff in early 2020.
Doesn't get a pass for that.
However, in a 2017 paper, talking about testing GS5734 remdesivir, okay, the data suggested
that reductions in viral load after peak lung titers were achieved were insufficient to
improve outcomes after the immunopathological phase of the disease has been initiated.
In 2017 papers, he and other people had already documented that if you're using remdesivir
late, not going to help you.
This was known.
And how were these critical statements and abstracts and summaries of remdesivir testing
been overlooked?
And how is it that not one person who seems to be prancing around right now saying, let's
blame it all on Baric, pick up on the fact that they documented it, that this was not
going to work after initial exposure?
And that's what I've said earlier.
This was developed for the war fighter, for all of these synthetic agents protection and
potentially having a role in protecting them while doing distribution.
This was known.
So the remdesivir angle is, and did the domain product have any ability?
Did anything in there say that, you know, does it measure, you know, time that it should
be used or is it just doing molecular analysis?
Like oh, this is one piece of, this is one Lego and this is another Lego.
Do they fit or do they not fit?
Did it factor any of that in?
Because if it didn't, then it was negligent.
Intentionally so, I don't know.
But I'm glad that you brought up Baric's picture here because this brings up that there was
this knowledge out there already.
And again, instead of talking about this stuff, we're saying DOD bad and let's talk about,
let's see, let's have another $2,000 plate fundraiser for the Vaccine Safety Research
Institute based upon data, which we're not going to dig into.
This is where the duality model.
$2,500, Mark.
Oh, oh, I'm, I'm sorry.
You know what?
Yeah, sorry.
This is where the duality model that we started talking about near the beginning of this matters.
You know, is this intentional?
Is it negligence?
Is it accidental?
Whatever, right?
Because our next few slides, you know, I said, you know, ash conformity meets A-B testing.
We have, throughout 2020, I've never seen this before or since to this degree, this
level.
There's constant polling of what people think about these drugs.
Right, this is a fierce form of 42% of those polled about Gilead said they warmed to the
remdesivir maker.
That's an August 10th of 2020.
It didn't look anything like that earlier in the year.
Let's take a look at some more studies.
May 7th, 2020, the majority of global physicians use hydroxychloroquine.
That's just five months earlier in a large survey across many countries.
Right.
What else do we have?
Let's see.
Here's a poll.
A verdict has conducted a poll to assess which is currently the most promising therapeutic
drug or class for COVID-19.
Analysis of the poll results show that remdesivir, either alone or in combination without drugs,
is considered the most promising drug or class for COVID-19 as voted by 22% of the respondents
this year.
This is October.
We've gone October, May, October.
We're looking back and forth.
Later in the year, remdesivir, earlier in the year, hydroxychloroquine.
By later in the year, you only have 5% of respondents voting for other antivirals, and
that's it.
Hydroxychloroquine had just been beaten down at that point, but the studies looked better
and better as the year went on.
All the crap studies were earlier in the year.
Let's see.
Is this one more?
No.
This is just China approves chloroquine and kicks remdesivir to the curb.
They did exactly the opposite.
Exactly the opposite plan.
Did we lose George and Mark while I was reading?
Am I that bad at reading?
They got him.
That's pretty brutal indeed, but I don't think that's why you lost him.
We have been going on for over two hours.
I do have another 25 slides left.
Maybe I'll push through them a little bit more quickly.
I think so.
Just to clarify, Mark looks like he might be back.
I'm going to guess George's phone overheated again.
Yeah.
My estimation.
So Trump gets experimental drug curbing severe illness.
So between these two times, May and October, when the public opinion shifted, look at who
we have.
David Bullwer started advising the president in May of 2020.
The president stopped using hydroxychloroquine, started using Regeneron.
And David Bullwer said, I'm not surprised that his doctor is using Regeneron, but also
he used remdesivir at the military hospital.
So wait, sorry to clarify, Trump himself received remdesivir?
Yes, he did.
Earlier in the year, he was using hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis, but then he stopped at some
point.
David Bullwer, I think, was one of, or maybe his own doctor, but Bullwer was advising as
of I think sometime in May.
And it's funny, I was actually getting online and seeing if I could poke at him and ask
him questions and see if I could just kind of needle a message to him in the middle of
2020.
And after I'd done that for a few days, he got in an interview and complained about Russian
trolls.
And I think he might have actually been talking about me.
Anyhow, here's one more.
Gilead rebranded remdesivir as Covaphor in India.
Just to make it sound like it was like a new COVID drug, like specific to COVID, you should
take this one because that's what it's for.
It's Covaphor.
Make fabaflu better.
Fabaflu sounds really safe and effective.
Sexaflu?
Okay, wait, I really want to make sure this is correct because I think there's been contention
as to whether the R word that Trump received, it's my understanding he only received one
of the two and that it was Regeneron, not remdesivir.
Is that, how confident are you?
No, no, I'm pretty sure.
I've read this multiple times.
Okay.
I think he received both.
Or you know what, frankly, I don't, these are reports, right?
Yeah, of course.
Given what we've seen, let's just say everything here is a report.
Yeah, yeah, understood.
Yep.
It's not clear.
We've seen it both ways.
The confusion of the name lends itself, whether it was intentional or not, to be confused.
I'm not sure what he really sees.
I suspect it was just remdesivir, but again, I too am just reading reports, so who knows?
So I mentioned that there were a whole bunch of bad hydroxychloroquine studies.
I mean, Regeneron, just Regeneron, not remdesivir.
I'm sorry.
I think he just got, I'm sorry to cut you off, Matt.
That's right.
CNN does say that he got both.
CNN says that he was given a five-day course of remdesivir that started on October 4th,
2020.
And then it mentions that this became the first therapy drug issued in emergency use
authorization.
But they do report he was given Regeneron, remdesivir, dexamethasone, supplemental oxygen,
zinc, vitamin D, famotidine, melatonin, and daily aspirin.
Interesting.
And nano silver.
And nano silver, I'm sure.
You forgot about the nano silver.
Yeah, nano silver, which is not to be confused with small denomination coins from pre 1964.
Editas on Rumble just said, let's base it on which drug has more Instagram followers.
Face palm.
I thought that was a valid criticism.
Well, I'm just kind of going through here showing that even in the media, like in October,
even like, you know, even Ars Technica and science are starting to go, you know, like
the remdesivir story is kind of a head scratcher.
Mark's screen is still not visible.
I don't know if he's got an image available or not.
That's all right.
I'm kind of pushing through a little bit faster at this point.
But you know what?
Here's one that we've already discussed that we discussed at the beginning while Mark was
still here, while both Mark and George were still here.
Yeah, this is all the way, this is late 2019.
We've got this domain program.
And then Pfizer agrees to manufacture Gilead's coronavirus drug remdesivir.
And you know, I threw this in here just because I found this and I just thought it was interesting.
You know, and Pfizer does have just an amazing distribution network.
We know that much.
But but you know what?
Oh, Mark, I got this one from you.
You know what this is?
What does this represent?
I see a stock chart.
Yeah, the stocks going up in November 2019.
Is that correct?
Twenty two.
Twenty twenty two.
I don't know what we're looking at here.
Okay.
I got this observation from you.
Oh, yeah.
What is that election time?
Right.
Yeah.
Yep, when when it became clear that the Republicans weren't going to take the House and Senate,
suddenly the stock price of Gilead, Gilead surged up big time.
Yeah.
And by the way, this is the stock price for the last 30 plus years, it looks like.
And I just want to point out that it's right at the end of 2012 that Gilead just.
Booms.
2012.
When was when was.
Oh, yes.
Well, Ebola is around that point.
And West Africa, Ebola outbreak 2013.
Yeah.
But it keeps going up through 2016 or maybe end of 20, middle of 2015 is what it peaks.
What kind of sense does this make?
What's the signal?
A Trump presidency seemed problematic.
That's interesting thought, but it looks like it starts going down from the peak before
Trump is elected, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm actually just wondering if the run up like end of 2012, beginning of 2013, is it
possible that planning was underway, that the dollar was dying?
We knew something big would happen and we knew the pharmaceuticals would be involved.
But how does it compare to either the rest of the pharmaceutical market or the stock
market as a whole?
Don't know.
Didn't have time to research that.
I got the first chart watching a you know, poking through Mark's videos.
And then you made a short video of this mark a few weeks ago.
And then I just thought to look at the longer chart, but I didn't have time to look at the
broader market.
I do know this, that health stocks went up like an order of a magnitude after Obama passed
the ACA and we were post mortgage bond crisis.
So there may be some relationship there.
Oh, and look, Robert Mulan got suspended following 666 people on Twitter.
That's a little cute.
But he got all kinds of attention, you know, thrusting toward Rogan.
And you know, I'm just pointing out May 3rd, 2020, Ed Dowd has a real interesting predictive
thread may be worth going and reading.
But I'm going to go ahead and since since we've taken so much time, I'm going to try
to get us through this last part more quickly.
Just a reminder, Malone and Kirsch were kind of, you know, they put themselves out there
same time Dark Horse podcast.
Yep.
And I've got one more study to talk about that relates to Steve Kirsch, misinformation
super spreader.
And this was published three, four days ago by Charles Wright.
Turns out that that Steve funded a trial in which the standard of care for a lot of patients
was remdesivir funded by the COVID early treatment foundation.
And it's interesting to read through this.
It's also interesting to read his shirt.
And I don't know if you can read this.
I can't read it at this point.
I knew what it said before, but it's like person who shares accurate but inconvenient.
What?
Truth, truths, truth conflict with the improved narrative.
Yep.
But the interesting thing is those labeled with this title are, are, I think he's going
to say that are proved right within a few months or sometimes years.
It's Watchmen.
So something like government and it's Watchmen.
Yeah.
Okay.
And that's where I thought it was interesting because, you know, partially due to Mark and
just a conversation with Mark and just sort of rethinking everything over and over again,
I have actually grown to wonder if the plan demonium or World War II involves a non-state
actor.
And in fact, when Robert Malone talks about fifth generation warfare, it almost sounds
to me like he is telegraphing the fact that one party is a non-state actor.
Yeah.
But couldn't that also just refer to the social media companies?
If you want to call them the government.
But I think that, I think this is being a little more plain than that.
I mean, one of my hypotheses of World War II is globalist versus the United States of
America.
If you had to define the two strongest entities in the world, those might be perfectly reasonable
descriptions.
Then where do you set them?
Because for me, the most obvious place to put this would be somewhere like the city
of London or the financial industry or banking or I mean, because at some point we have to
call spade a spade.
Who are the people that are ultimately pulling strings are the people who hold the purse
strings, I would believe.
So anybody with a weaponized pile of money or control over a weaponized pile of money.
And this may also be why World War II is weird.
I've often referred to the military banking complex because I say in civilization in a
kingdom, the bank needs to side with the military and the military needs the bank for financing.
There's a symbiotic relationship.
But perhaps there is a point of instability in which one of these is trying to gain the
upper hand over the other, which previously had the upper hand.
Throwing it out there or maybe the American banking system was strong enough for a while.
But now I don't even know what I'm saying there.
But I still I do think about the Rothschild empire and the Rothschilds, of course, banked
John Rockefeller, who created pharma medicine in the US, whose whose son then created the
Trilateral Commission.
And then we had 40 consecutive years of Trilateral Commission presidents.
40 consecutive years of presidents who are mentored by or took I'm just going to say
orders.
I mean, it sounds like Reagan answered the phone and said, OK, I'll take Bush.
That's the story.
Right.
But David Rockefeller, Brzezinski mentored Obama later on, and he was there through,
gosh, Carter, Reagan, Bush.
You know, Clinton was mentored by David Rockefeller.
Yeah, 40 consecutive years.
So when I look at that and I think globalists could have been planting themselves in a lot
of levers in order to be able to fuss with the machinery of the United States and possibly
even cause an autoimmune condition by which US citizens want to tear down the body of
their nation.
Just a thought.
Just saying it out loud right now.
I don't think I don't think it's too crazy of a thought.
I mean, a lot of us have been circling this idea from different angles.
The controlled demolition of America is something that I've often called it.
It's getting both sides to call for turning it down to the studs, basically.
And Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has used that language before.
I've heard Robert Malone use that language before.
I've heard people as disparate as Kevin McCairn use that language before, where everything
just needs to be burned all down.
And I think irrespective of whether you come from the extreme left and say that the whole
system is so corrupt that it should be brought down because of the systemic racism, or if
you say that because they're lying about everything and that's why it needs to be burnt down.
But both sides of that equation result in the same outcome, which is the destruction
of the American democracy or the American republic, as I guess we should call it.
And Jay, I'm fairly certain you yourself have used that language.
I'm having a vivid memory of one of our previous conversations together.
And I think the reason this matters is if people can be sort of fooled into accidentally
doing that.
Like if we wind up.
I mean, a nice little example of it is this idea that Americans, there are this fringe
group of Americans on both sides that are advocating for one possible solution being
a constitutional convention.
And in reality, a constitutional convention could be the easiest way for us to flush everything
down the toilet because by opening the constitution up for editing, it doesn't guarantee what
edits will go in.
You don't vote for a constitutional convention and agree on what you're going to change until
after it's open.
And at that stage, if anybody lied in terms of their intentions on getting it open, we're
screwed.
And in reality, that's where we are already for 40 years, people telling us a story about
what their motivations are and then not following through with it.
And you could go and put this in a million different perspectives, but this is really
how they do it.
And the solution to the pandemic may have been a planned solution to a problem that
they themselves created.
And I think most of us are there right now where we believe that it's just a question
of what degree to which everybody understood that they were part of an orchestrated event,
whether it's you should take advantage of the inevitable or whether you should take
advantage of being on the same team or whether you should just keep your head down.
I don't know.
Everybody's controlled in a different way.
There's not one explanation.
And I said this to somebody earlier this morning on a private call that I think an easy way
to summarize how we've been controlled in a lot of ways is to give a bunch of people
a set of talking points, A, B, and C, which are largely irrelevant, but correlate well
with reality.
And then prohibit everyone from talking about X, Y, and Z, which are the crucial points
to discuss.
And as long as you keep everybody arguing about A, B, and C and have all of your performers
arguing about A, B, and C where they don't agree about one of the three things, then
it seems like a really constructive conversation to have when in reality you should be talking
about these three things over here.
And I think once we start to acknowledge that there are people who have been talking about
A, B, and C from the very beginning, even before A, B, and C should have become relevant,
you can start to identify people who have been part of the distraction machinery all
along.
Well, one way or another, I lean toward Steve Kirsch and Robert Malone being on whichever
side wanted for him, DeSivir to wind up being the standard of care, because if you judge
the motivations by the outcomes, that seems to be what they've been a part of.
Now it's very possible that either or both of them were fooled, but it doesn't feel to
me like either one of them is waving their arms around saying on this topic, we were
fooled.
So I think the reason why is because they were instructed.
And I think this is the difference.
If you were told that you could never question Remdesivir and even pro forma support it through
a trial you fund or through whatever, then at that stage they've got you.
And they could have just agreed to this.
So that's what I mean with A, B, and C. I think that they released it in different combinations
where they might have called Liam and said, Liam, you can talk about the spike protein
and you can talk about gain of function viruses, but you can't talk about Remdesivir.
Then they called Brian Artis and they said, Brian Artis, you can talk about Remdesivir
as long as you talk about Cobra venom and as long as you focus only on those two things.
Then they called Pierre Corrie and they said, I know you think hydroxychloroquine works,
but we need you to emphasize ivermectin and ignore hydroxychloroquine.
And if you do that, your star will rise.
Then they called somebody else and they said, you focus on VAERS, but don't question the
protocols at all.
Just talk about VAERS and your star will rise.
And as long as they did this across the board, the whole narrative would never come together
in terms of the history or in terms of the ultimate motivation.
And for you, Matt, it may have been that they really never took you seriously until your
hydroxychloroquine wars really started to take off.
And then they had to find a way to distract you from that.
It's very possible.
And suddenly I'm on the DMED project and I don't think that they expected me to solve
that puzzle in four days.
And I want to add on, JJ.
So I haven't had anybody tell me not to talk about stuff, but I have certainly had, there's
at least one really specific instance where I, in retrospect, feel as though somebody
was trying to aim me in a direction that would have completely destroyed any credibility
I might have.
And so I feel I've experienced at least a version of what you're talking about.
And I don't think it always comes across, I think it can manifest in ways that would
be really hard to identify.
So I think it is real.
Robert Malone will tell you, fifth generation warfare is very complicated.
And so there's a million permutations of it.
And he just knows how it's done.
He's not involved.
This is why it's best to just lean on the truth as much as possible.
And this is why the DMED project was so important when it went wrong, is because I think a lot
of good people were convinced to ignore the truth in order to go with what they felt like
and what they were told was going to be a powerful story.
And it took the focus away from where it needed to be, which was the outside contractor handling
the data.
Why does that matter now?
I mean, not only was it possibly one treason, but if that is the right place to look, that
is the company that handles the US border data.
And if there is going to be any form of invasion or partial invasion or problem created, suddenly
we have left a criminal unexamined.
But you know what, I'm going to return to this one last study that we're going to discuss
because this is the end of the slideshow.
We can go wherever we want from here or we can close it out.
We've been going for two and a half hours and I thank you guys for your time and all
your knowledge and energy.
But this was a study that was pointed out by Charles Wright that is listed on the CETF,
the COVID Early Treatment Foundation website.
That's Kersh's Foundation.
I never heard of this one.
And what Charles noticed, and by the way, this is out of Denmark, which is why all the
names are Klingon.
What Charles noticed is that almost half of the participants in this trial were given
remdesivir.
And yet no one thought to break down the study between did and did not receive remdesivir.
And of course, whoever ran the study has that data.
They hold that data.
And by the way, this is a Camistat Mesolate and JJ, you can probably explain that better
than I can.
Protease inhibitor.
I guess it's used as part of HIV cocktails.
Yeah, I don't know the specific mechanism on how it interferes with replication though.
Protease inhibitor was administered to 96 participants, which were 47% of each group.
And there were deaths in the study.
It was about the same in both arms.
So they determined that this protease inhibitor did not work.
I just want to point out though, when you search under Steve's substack for remdesivir,
you don't find much.
He doesn't talk about it much.
But he does have this one article from late 2021 that lists all the things, you know,
it's pages long, all the things that he would do if he were king, basically, king of the
pandemic.
And what he said about hospitals, I clip these, I shoved them together at the beginning of
the article on the part about hospitals.
Number two, halt the use of remdesivir for hospitalized patients.
It doesn't work and it is basically killing people.
I think for hospitalized patients, I agree that it doesn't work.
It may help, you know, antiviral early, but it's also way too expensive to use early.
And it's probably also not the best thing.
So is it killing people?
Probably.
Probably some people who are more subject to renal failure.
You know, there's probably a subset of people for whom it increases the chance of death.
That's my opinion reading through the data.
Perhaps for some people, it's fine.
Through the transcript of the 2021, the infamous, just the Dark Horse podcast show, right?
Just that one.
Steve Kirsch mentioned remdesivir, I think, five times.
Malone mentioned it once in response to Kirsch and then immediately said something else.
Malone didn't really want to talk about remdesivir.
Kirsch was putting it out there, something that wasn't working.
Now, I don't know Kirsch well.
I met him a person once.
He gave me the weakest handshake I've ever received.
So I don't think he was too excited to see me at the RFK event.
But nonetheless, I give him credit that he's back in that time he seemed he was without
being prompted, bringing up the topic of remdesivir.
Now, he doesn't bring it up anymore, unfortunately.
And if you're in a Twitter space and Kirsch is there, if someone mentions remdesivir within
30 seconds after that person hangs up, it will never come up again.
I don't know why that is.
It doesn't look good.
It's a really bad look.
But back then, Kirsch would bring it up.
And Malone did not want it brought up.
Now conversely, I do want to give credit because I made it about halfway through Malone's lies
my government told me book, which is mostly a collection of essays written by other people,
by the way.
But in the part that is written by him or Jill, more likely, as he notes in the opening
of the book, he does make a remdesivir being run death is near joke.
And he does explicitly say it's a bad thing.
So I just want to make sure we don't let that pass us by.
Okay, that's good.
That's good.
When was that book?
2022?
I think this was the end of 2022.
But also, that doesn't then mean he's taken a meaningful stance against it.
It just means he's mentioned it at least in this case.
Or that we're far enough along that, you know.
What impact could it actually have?
Yeah.
And you know what?
You might as well tell the truth.
It would have been nice if he didn't cut me off in the conference.
But at the inaugural CHD conference, I stood up at the end to ask a question.
He and Jill both yelled out questions.
Try to make sure I didn't ask Bobby a question at the end of that conference, which was about
remdesivir and a couple of cases of people who were lost to it.
But I guess what are you going to do?
You know, look, there's a lot of no-name people like myself.
I won't say you guys are there, but like myself, who I think throughout history push things,
right?
The real narrative that you see in the newspapers for forever is pushed by people who aren't
there.
And that's fine.
So I don't see my job as being famous.
But I think that, you know, myself and there's probably a lot of other people I don't know
or never even met and some people I have who you can just see the big narrative, things
that are in books like that popping up that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
So you know, that's our role right now.
At least I feel comfortable with that being my role.
And that's how I can, you know, justify, you know, keep doing what I'm doing.
So the fact that he brought it up is good.
But he, it's still not mentioned in there that programs he was on at the very least
played a role in making remdesivir available.
And remdesivir being available and pushed was part of the, led to the perception of
the lethality of this virus being higher than it was, which led to the emergency use authorization.
And now we're still having conversations not factoring that in.
So it's great.
It's in a 5G warfare book or whatever it is.
No, this is lies.
I government told me followed by 5G warfare, but 5G warfare would exactly be someone saying
that they are here to rescue when in fact they might have played a role in causing it
in the first place.
Yeah.
And even more interesting, I think you just said he didn't mention domain and he, in fact,
he doesn't, but he does in all but name, which is really interesting.
So he gives you everything you need, except what you need to actually then go and learn
more.
One more thing.
George Webb earlier mentioned the dose pairing studies, dose pairing methods with hydroxychloroquine
and remdesivir.
That's an unusual relatively, I think we know what George Webb meant by that, but it's an
unusual phrasing and it was used.
That's a phrase that was used by Robert Malone in a 2011 phone call or phone conference that
he participated in as someone as a subject matter expert on whether or not children in
the United States should be used as subjects for anthrax vaccine testing.
And a variety of people called in there as there was like a panel of like 11 people.
Right.
I saw this on a sub stack the other day.
Malone mentioned that phrase dose pairing.
He didn't say great idea.
He didn't say bad idea.
He sort of suggested, well, the funding is there and we should look into the dose pairing
part of it.
We should look at dose pairing.
Well, what the heck is that?
I can't find that phrase except for one other usage and that was seven days later, Thomas
Inglesby mentioned it in a September 11th, 2001 congressional review.
He said dose pairing and they are again talking about anthrax and Thomas Inglesby I think
was University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, UPMC.
He was also in the dark winter stuff.
He was also talking about anthrax.
So the only two times I can find that phrase are seven or 14 days apart.
Malone Inglesby both talking about anthrax vaccine testing.
OK.
So am I right in saying that that's sort of like a duality, like a rival pair of therapeutics
that you might then be able to attach to like, I don't know, ash conformity or propaganda,
correlations.
It almost sounds like if my understanding of it is right, it sounds like the way you
would converse about something if your goal were to fix the results, not test them.
That phrase seemed to have some value.
It was being used at that time for reasons I don't understand.
Sometimes I benefit from not having the molecular biology degree because I'm just looking at
the words, the phrases, the context, the patent numbers and names and institutions and everything
else.
And I'm just looking for the phrase.
And I actually had to find it spelled differently to find that match.
If it wasn't for a C-span bug on their website building the transcription, I wouldn't have
found it at all.
But it was just odd.
Those are the only two uses of it.
They're both about anthrax and they were only, I said seven days, I think it was 14 days
apart in 2011 reviewing anthrax vaccines.
Angles B and Malone.
So much of this stuff has started to congeal, if I can use that word because it's gross,
it started to congeal in my mind as really an enchantment of language.
And in this respect, I think they may have indeed tried out a number of concepts like
this to see if they would be useful enough to apply into the future.
Another one that may have originated around the same time that I'm still incredibly frustrated
with is immunobridging.
This idea that measuring antibody responses with a diagnostic in adults has any relevance
to children and instead of testing it on one group, we can just approve it in that group
based on the idea that our diagnostic says they're equivalent.
And dose pairing could have been one of these concepts that they tried out and people saw
through it or the regulatory committees at that time didn't permit it.
I'm trying to think of some scenarios where this has happened more recently.
But I think essentially a lot of this stuff is tested like that.
It's tested to see how people respond to it.
And the kind of attack that we are under, if you want to keep, we've got to keep lambasting
the expert on this, Robert Malone, the fifth generation warfare that we're being subjected
to is largely language based.
And I think this is the reason why they want you to believe that JATGDP understands as
opposed to breaking the illusion that language is some kind of higher form of intelligence
rather than an abstraction of the world as I was educated by my friend a couple days
ago.
It's an abstraction of the world that relies on patterns.
And so if an AI can figure out how to win at go, it doesn't mean that AI understands
the concept of go.
It understands the pattern that results in more winning than losing.
And once you discover a kink in that armor, now it can be beaten again.
And I think that we're at the stage where people are trying to suggest that promises
that were made 10 and 20 years ago are about to be fulfilled, but they're actually nowhere
closer to being fulfilled than they were made than when they were made 20 years ago.
And AI is one of these tools that I think can be used for almost unlimited theater.
And I made this joke in our private chat, but I'm not really making a joke when I say
that these AI image programs could just as easily be a room full of highly trained Photoshop
enthusiasts that are being paid to create the illusion of an AI that can spit out four
images relatively quickly.
And again, I understand that it's possible that AI can do some of these things, but I
also want to stress that it's possible to create the illusion that AI is doing something
that it's not.
And I think that is a far, far greater potential than the potential that AI represents to genuinely
solve any of these greater problems.
Mark your muted.
The misuse of computers and the misrepresentation, the mischaracterization of compute capabilities
is a big part of the COVID story.
It's bigger than I never, I didn't think it was any part of it at all when I started.
But getting people to believe that the computer will come up with the right answer.
In reality, it's just a bunch of scripts written by other people to analyze spreadsheets.
That is part of it.
Think of how much guidance was taken.
It was religion that these computer platforms would spit out right answers.
I worked in the computing industry for 22 years.
I loved it.
These are awesome machines, but they're machines.
That's what they are.
And they continue to have more capabilities.
But we allowed the output of a computer program that we can't see the source code to, nor
can we even know how it was tested to guide our standard of care.
How do we know that this domain platform, if it exists, whether it was just repurposed,
how do you know it gave the right answer?
What if it said cranberry juice, battery acid, cocktails?
How do you know it was the right answer?
You don't know.
And because it was defined as something that gives the right answer to something that never
existed before, that means you actually need to have had a novel disease before, and you
need to show that the thing gave you the right answer for that disease.
None of this was done.
It was just taken, and they ran with it.
And they encouraged us to ignore everything else.
They told people, don't trust your instincts anymore.
Medicine has completely changed.
Don't treat symptoms anymore.
You have to, it's all prescriptive based upon computers and some testing that we're not
going to give you the results of.
That is nasty, nasty stuff.
And it's unfortunate that there's not enough people within the information technology industry
that are willing to have the things between their legs to stand up and call this out.
They are such suckers for mainstream narrative.
I don't know what it is.
It is one of the most embarrassing and surprising parts about the modern world of computer science.
It went, I'm sorry, I'm hijacking program a little bit, but there was a nasty thing
that happened when they took computer engineers and they moved it into the world of computer
science at many academic institutions 25 or so years ago.
I am one of the last, I am age 49, I'm turning 50 this year.
That is right around the, I am one of the last breed of computer engineering graduates,
university.
You just called it.
They took it out of engineering.
It's computer science.
It's scientists.
They made it scientists.
Computer scientists.
I learned from mainframe guys and those guys, they were, those were serious engineers.
And this is why it's become the matrix.
The matrix is computer scientists taken to the corporate governance level.
And that's, that, that may be the correct description of world war E.
Sorry, it was, it was an unrelated, but it was related.
You know, so it was the right hand.
Call it computer Scientology though, because then it should be.
Yeah.
They gave all of these ordered analysis.
You don't just throw the algorithm at the cloud.
I'm like, okay, we're going to have to wrap thing up.
But anyways, if, if for no other reason, because I slept exactly zero hours last night.
Okay.
But since we brought up a computer Scientology next week, if either of you guys want to join
me, I mean, if, if, if we don't have another Liam, we don't have a guest scheduled yet,
do we?
Because I, I'd have to check.
I don't, I want to hit the Scientology thread following up this because I just watched Robert
Malone get interviewed by a Scientologist who owns a castle in England and is part of the
Ian Davos crowd.
And it's a very interesting set of relationships.
This guy's, I hear he's conservator of the crown jewels and he's a giant QAnon.
And it's weird where Scientology and QAnon are all over the medical freedom movement.
And I have some theories as to why.
And you know, it's, it's, it's a wacky topic, maybe especially when you insert QAnon in
there.
That's a, that's a wacky topic.
And we should open the stream next week with the audio of Tom Cruise yelling at his, at
his, at his set where he's like, you take your mask off and you're up there.
Of course we will.
That is how it will begin.
So either or both of you guys are invited.
But let's go ahead and wrap this.
Wrap this one up with a big bow.
Let's do it.
This has been just nuts.
I have the links for where everybody can go find you guys and I highly recommend they
do.
JJ, I know you've had a little bit of a hiatus.
Are you going to be coming back with live streams in the near future?
In the near future, as in the next couple days, I'm going to pull the trigger.
I just, it's, I am with my time off.
I've produced a number of different possible starting points.
And so I have to decide which one I'm going to pull the trigger on.
I have to apologize to all my supporters and viewers for having been gone, but I got sick
after the Boston thing.
And then, I don't know, it took me a while to recover.
That's all I can really say.
I have been recovering, but it's also one of those things where I have to confess that
you get momentum and then once you lose that momentum, there's a little inertia there.
So anyway, thanks for that.
Yeah.
And I think your supporters, well, speaking as one of them, I think there's a deep understanding
of the amount of work you've put in over the last few years and how totally reasonable
it is, whether for illness or anything else, for you to take a couple of weeks to-
You have to take breaks.
Yeah.
So I know, and I've seen, I'm not sure if you've seen these discussions as well in comment
sections, but I know people have been very supportive of that idea, even in the absence
of specific updates.
So just so you know, a lot of people still have your back.
Thank you very much, Liam, and everybody for that matter.
I know Matt has had my back for a while, so I got to give a big shout out to Matt and
a big shout out to Mark because they're two of the most important people in my corner
right now.
Now, speaking of Mark, where can people find you, my friend?
Website, housatonic.live, H-O-U-S-A-T-O-N-I-C.
I have three channels on YouTube.
I just call them Live One, Two, and Three, and I back everything up on YouTube, excuse
me, onto Bitch You, Odyssey, and Rumble.
I'm currently on my backup channel, Housatonic Live Two.
Is what it is.
I'm always so close to getting kicked off the platform.
I'm not even sure if it's worth it anymore, but anyways, and I have a large online archive
as well, which frequently starts to pop up in the Google search results right now.
That's got to feel good.
Well, yeah, it does.
Plug yourself too, would you, Liam, because you never really do that.
And although I think you do the facilitator role very well, but I think you should also
at some point realize that your deputy badge is worth plugging as well.
Liam, I bet Liam's Friday show is going to be great for people who thought this conversation
was important, and Liam's shows have been awesome lately.
But I think it's going to be a good one.
Look, Badge of Honor, I think, and I'll take Matthew.
He's decided that it was my show on the Pfizer, Jordan, Tristan, Walker thing that got us
kicked off YouTube, speaking to YouTube.
I meant to talk about that today, but you know what?
We'll let that one go for now.
Well, and thank you though, JJ, because this Friday I am going to be talking about David
Bullware more.
I'm doing a deep dive.
I've learned some very interesting things that I haven't heard other people talk about.
So on Friday, Rounding the News, come hang out there.
And speaking to Google as well, roundingtheearth.com, I've been working on getting our website further
up in the Google search results as well and posting our shows there as we do them.
And look, if you do want to hear more from me specifically, I am a musician.
And if you want to hear what that means, you can go to liamsturgis.com.
I have a fun album I put out almost a year ago.
So thank you for the opportunity to say that.
And for Rounding the Earth, roundingtheearth.locals.com is the best place to go to support the show.
And how's that for plugs?
Perfect.
Absolutely perfect.
Matthew has to go to the bathroom because we talked too long.
Yes.
Thanks very much.
I'll see you next week, I guess.
Sounds great, gentlemen.
Thank you again.
And we'll see you next week.
Thank you to everybody for watching.
Look, we've had just looking at Rumble Alone, we have 265 people watching right now, but
we have 6,000 people who have tuned in at various points on Rumble Alone throughout
this stream.
This has been completely unprecedented.
And also, just we don't have George Webb here at the end.
Really appreciate him coming on as well.
And you can find his substack in the description.
And yeah, so thank you to everybody who has been having a tremendously robust discussion
on Rumble.
Thank you to even more folks over on Locals who have been for longer than I can even load
contributing to the discussion.
And over on Rockfin and Odyssey as well.
And potentially even Facebook and Cloud Hub.
Even those of you who somehow found my YouTube channel where I'm secretly streaming.
So anyway, we'll leave that there.
Thank you all so much and we'll see you again shortly.