Danny Jones Podcast - #270 - DNA Expert Warns of Mysterious New 'Turbo Cancer' Outbreak | Kevin McKernan

Episode Date: November 18, 2024

Watch this episode ad-free & uncensored on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Kevin McKernan has pioneered the genomics of cannabis based therapeutics, human tumor sequencing & has initiated an R&D project to investigate chemFET semiconductor based DNA sequencing. Kevin's work has resulted in hundreds of publications and 7 Journal covers from Science Translational Medicine to Nature. SPONSORS https://mintmobile.com/danny - Get the 3 month plan for only $15 / month. https://publicrec.com/dannyjones - Get 20% off w/ code DANNYJONES. https://buy.ver.so/danny - Get 15% off your first order. https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off EPISODE LINKS https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan https://anandamide.substack.com https://medicinalgenomics.com FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - Florida's Amendment 3 10:32 - Diseases linked to THC 15:16 - Human genome project 22:55 - Plant & Human DNA 29:28 - Genome sequencing to treat cancer 35:37 - Sequencing cannabis genomes 43:22 - PCR tests 56:06 - SV-40 01:06:42 - FDA 01:10:16 - New tumor research 01:15:54 - Contagious cancers 01:23:56 - Bio-defense & health 01:26:09 - Pharma & fraud 01:41:36 - Turbo cancers 01:45:43 - Decentralized medicine 01:50:20 - EMF's 01:54:08 - Defense grants & viruses 02:04:12 - Peer review process 02:15:39 - Casey & Calley Means 02:24:51 - Psychedelics & cancer treatments Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We were just having a great conversation about the amendment. I think it was three, the cannabis one. Yes. And I was telling you my understanding of it, the picture DeSantis painted about it was that there was one big company that was kind of control all the weed. And this was somehow going to be bad. Yes, this was, this is true leave. So. True leave. Okay.

So the bill was written, you know, perhaps it could have written the bill a little bit better. But what I don't think and what I tried to do is weigh in. I have some connections to DeSantis and Joe Latipo from some of the work we've done in the COVID space. And I don't think they appreciate that the federal government just kneecapped all the cannabis companies a few years ago by basically legalizing hemp, which I'm all for. I think hemp should be legal. But what they've done is they've created a two-tier regulatory structure where the people who are growing hemp don't have to safety test it, don't have to have the same labeling. They don't have to have licenses. They don't have to have cameras.

They don't have to grow indoors. I mean, they don't have banking restrictions like the cannabis field has. Wow. So what's happening in the cannabis field is everyone is, everyone is kind of removing their business out of the regulated market and into the hemp market and selling it across state lines. Because if it's hemp, it doesn't have to, it can go across state lines. So what you'll find in Florida, you can go to any smoke shop down here and see people are selling THCP, HHC.

These are all like alternative cannabinoids that we don't know much about. because they're technically not cannabis. Or like the Delta 9s and all those. Delta 8 is one. So if you take CBD, you can take CBD, which comes out of hemp and is not psychoactive, very, very helpful compound for a lot of different, for epilepsy, a lot of different diseases. But you can acid catalyze that into Delta 8, which is psychoactive. And then that is technically derived from hemp.

And you can sell that in an unregulated fashion across state lines everywhere. And so everyone is sneaking forms of psychoactive THC through the hemp bill in the to all of these states that only have medical because there's a rec market there that wants it. And so the whole amendment three thing is a real kabuki theater because they were kind of shutting down moving the medical market here that is actually using tested and tracked material, moving that into the rec market so that you would have tested and track material in the rec market. And now that that's blocked, the hemp market's going to just swell in here and take over. And I wouldn't be surprised if truly these other companies just say screw it, throw in the towel and start calling their stuff hemp. and selling it and then they don't have the same cost structure, testing oversight, and understanding of what's actually in the product.

So net, I think it's worse for consumers what they did because they don't have, you know, the one selling aspect of a tested, a regulated and a tested market is that you know what's in the product, right? It's that they test it. They know there's no heavy metals, there's no pesticides. Right. There's no, you know what the cannabinoid concentration actually is, and that's in fact THC and not some synthetic cannabinoid like spice that they,

They popped in. All of those type of kitchen chemists sell things through the hemp market. So even though things are labeled as hemp, you don't really know if it's even Delta 8. Sometimes it can be THC acetate. It can be THCP. It can be HHC. There's a long list of compounds that we don't really have thousands of years of biochemistry and toxicology on. So, yeah, it's a bit ironic.

Like the reason I know Joe Latipo is that we ended up discovering this contamination of the vaccines. And ironically, we would have never discovered that if we didn't have recreational cannabis in Massachusetts, which is a very bizarre story. But that whole discovery came about because we were sequencing cannabis plants to try to understand hop latent viroid. Hop latent viroid is a small RNA molecule that infects the cannabis industry and it just devastates grows, like 40% loss and crop yields, right? And so what we were doing is taking these plants that were infected and looking at their RNA signature throughout time to see what happens when this viral infects the plant. Why does it kill it? Like what is the 40% loss of it?

What genes does it like turn down? What genes does it activate? Where is it in the plant? Those experiments were running great for about nine weeks. And then suddenly they stopped. Our sequencing data came back and it was no longer concentrated on genes. It was like sequencing the entire genome. That's not what we wanted.

we want to look at what genes were going up and down. So what you do when something like that happens in an experiment is you have to go get a control that's a like a pharmaceutical grade RNA and spike it in to see why is it broken. Like if that pharmaceutical grade RNA doesn't come through, then you can help pinpoint, okay, this is the step in the lab that's not functioning and that's why we're not capturing RNA. And I happen to have vaccines on the shelf for another reason.

We can, perhaps go into another day. People sent them to me and honest me in the mail because I thought I would do something with them. And they probably didn't expect me to do this with it. But so I ended up using those. I spiked him into the well being like, all right, this is a perfect pharmaceutical, in theory, this is a perfect pharmaceutical grade RNA. I'm going to spike this into our cannabis sequencing to see where the pipeline's broken.

And when it came out, we found that contamination that Jack spoke about here. But that experiment would have been harder to do in Florida because we have recreational rules in mass, which allow us to actually do that type of research that's harder to get done down here. because you have to have a medical card and it's much more tightly regulated. And so it saddened me when I saw that the Amendment 3 didn't go through. Yeah. And what I loved about DeSantis and in Joe Lattapos, during the pandemic, they brought in, you know, a set of contrarians to say, you know, what's going on with the pandemic? Yes.

You know, the fringe people. Yes. This was one of the only places that had the monoclonal antibodies that you could get. Yes, until Biden came and took them, right? Right. So anyway, they were very good. I have a lot of respect for them for what they did in their pandemic because they stopped and looked outside of the box and said, hey, something's wrong. Let's get some other experts in here.

They brought in J. Badacharya. They brought in Martin Koldorf. They brought in Sunupji Kutra. And that steered them in their right path. And I wish I had the time to do that with them on the canvas front because I think they got, I understand their concerns, which is that, hey, you don't want this to go willy-nilly with all the kids, right? You don't want the kids run around with vape pens in schools and making a big mess with the cannabis run. The reality is they already have that problem. They probably don't know the source of it.

Right. Yeah. It's all it's terrible. Every freaking kid running around here has a little vape pen that they run around that they have in their car and their pocket. The gym they're hitting it. It's crazy. It's out of control. And it's not.

What finds me about that is no one's screening those things for pesticides, for metal metals. And the whole the whole vape industry is a very new industry from from cannabis plants. Like when you pull and extract these things out of cannabis plants, the pesticides, tend to enrich more than the cannabinoids. Right. So you'll get pens that are just loaded with pests. Like that whole, the whole valley crisis, that wasn't vitamin E acetate. The what crisis?

There was a valley crisis right before COVID. Many people forgot about because COVID came in and destroyed everyone's lives. But the valley crisis was a vaping crisis that killed a bunch of people. They had ground glass capacities in the lungs, all these things that sound like COVID. But it was about six months before COVID hit. And it was pinned down to some. nicotine and THC pens. And eventually the CDC said, well, about 70% of these things have vitamin E acetate.

It must be vitamin E acetate. Vitamin E acetate's been in vapeens for 10 years. It's not vitamin E acetate. It's probably pesticides that they're not looking for. And a couple testing labs we know in the space were finding high levels of pesticides in those pens. And those pesticides, the nature of them means that they can be in parts per million, maybe parts per billion in cannabis. You put them through an extraction system and they're in parts per thousand. Like, they, the cannabinoys might enrich threefold in the pens.

Like, they might go from the plant from 20% to 80%, maybe 60% in the pens. But you can see the pesticides go up 100 fold in concentration. And so they, it's, you don't want to have an unregulated vape pen thing out there when the cannabis field right now has two different regulatory structures. One where you can grow outdoor hemp and no one can really QC it or does QC it. And you can load it with pesticides. it doesn't have to go through safety testing and ends up sold into gas stations outside of whether Amendment 3 votes yes or no.

So Florida is loaded with this. You can go to all types of places here that sell pens that have no safety testing on them. And that's all with hemp products? Yeah, those are all coming through the hemp, the farm bill. But the stuff that you buy from like the dispensaries, that's actually not hemp. That's actual.

That's actual THC. And usually that stuff is more expensive too because the regulatory structure is probably overboard on that front. because they have to grow it all indoors with lights. I mean, if you look at Colorado's grid, I don't know if it's still true today, but earlier on when they legalized, something like 2 to 4% of electrical grid in Colorado was going to cannabis lights.

So, like, you know, growing this indoors is stupid. Yeah. Particularly down here, right? So that, that creates overhead. So if that bill passed, you still wouldn't be allowed to grow your own? That's a legitimate complaint. Like, there shouldn't be, you should have home grow. You should be able to do that.

Just like you can brew beer at home. And the reality is most people who do grow. grow at home. They don't turn it into it's a freaking plant. It's not like you're just not like your Walter White. No, no. Yeah, you can grow one or two plants and have plenty for yourself for a year. Like you don't need to have an orchard of this stuff. One of the one of the goofiest complaints that I heard was that people are saying, oh, now they're going to be at all the parks. So I don't want to go to the playground with my

kid and have some stoner sitting there on the park smoking his. I'm like, I talk to my friend, like my stoner friends and they're like, if weed becomes legal recreationally, It's not going to change anything in my life. They're just like, like, you think I'm just going to all of a sudden decide to go to the kids playground to smoke? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I smoke it on my couch. Like, I don't want to go anywhere else. Yeah, it's, that that was a bad way, I think, for them to pitch it.

It wasn't really necessarily honest that, um, right, that, oh, all the kids are going to start using it. Now, when we look in states that legalize, actually, it's the boomers that start using the stuff. They start using gummies and CBD and stuff for, you know, pain of back pain and everything else. there are actually several studies that they're showing that adolescent use goes down. It's no longer, it's no longer this, like, you know, taboo thing. Right, right, right, right. And so it's, I don't think that's a very strong case. Cannabotidate hypermesis is important.

He brought that up. I'm glad Joe brought that up because that's the one area that gets overlooked in cannabis is that no one talks about that one disease, and that one disease is actually well studied and well linked to THC. They tend to bring in schizophrenia, which is poorly linked. And, oh, I think they even said, like a, you know, fry's brain cells and no one in the cannabinoid space that like that's just well understood that no it's neurogenic it's actually the opposite of that it's it's actually gross you know you can you can if

you have a stroke or if you are into mMA you'll you'll notice a lot of the m a player's use CBD and it's because uh you need a lipid soluble antioxidant in the brain when you get brain injury so there's neural inflammation the best thing for that is CBD really it gets right through the blood brain barrier and it's a very potent antioxidant and and just dampens down the inflammation. I think ketones is really good for that too. Yeah, ketogenic diets I see. I think there's probably some overlap in the pathways there.

And likewise, you know, the things that Jack was bringing up as well is a very interesting area of research as to where the actual cannabinoid chemistry overlaps with mitochondria. Like those, there's like in the brain, 15% of the cannabinoid receptors are actually on mitochondria and in neuronal cells. So it's very much dialed into the energetics inside the brain and the metabolives in the brain is the whole endocannabinoid system. So it's an important area of the medical field that's frankly just been suppressed for longer than, you know, everyone got a good glimpse of what happens in medical suppression during COVID. Imagine that for 40 years.

That's what's been going on with cannabinoids is the pharmaceutical industry has been doing everything they can to suppress. this because it's not a compound that they can exclusively own. Right. And so if they even do bother to try and patent it to some degree and get it out like GW Farmer did, they're then faced with the fact that there are hundreds of dispensaries around, thousands of dispensaries around the country that are going to sell it five times cheaper than their FDA-approved product. Right.

So they did this for epilepsy, which is epidilix. This is a CBD extract, got it all the way through the FDA. It works great for DeVeis syndrome and seizures. It's, you know, many of the people in the field would be like, yeah, it's too pure because who came up with this drug? Epidialyx is from GW Pharma. So they've since been bought by a Japanese company. I'm forgetting its name.

But it took a long time to get that through. And, of course, the expense of running all the clinical trials and building that business out means when their final product comes out, it's usually five times the price of a CBD oil you can get a dispensary. So they end up being faced with getting a drug through an expensive process, only to turn around and find out there's already a generic out there that's going to mimic it. And the only thing they can do is beg the FDA to go and threaten these dispensaries by saying you can't have any medical language or, or treatment guidelines on your products, right? That's why you won't see

things written on cannabis products saying this is good for headaches or what have you. You're not supposed to list any kind of medical quality, if you will, on the label of these products. Right. Okay. So for people that are here, listening that don't know who you are. Oh yeah, we just jumped right in. Yeah, we jumped right into the cannabis stuff. That was fun. Can you give a brief background your history in like medicine and science and all this stuff? Okay. So where do we start? My background is a BS in biology from Emory University and I learned how to do radioactive sequencing when I was there, which I thought was a trick I'd never use again in my life. And it turned out shortly after I did a maybe a nine or 10 month stint at a

company doing pharmaceutical marketing, I decided I want to get back to the bench. And luckily got into the Human Genome Project up in Cambridge at MIT. So my resume ended up on Trevor Hawkins' desk from two different people at once. For some bizarre reason, he hired me. And the guys who hired me a year later who were running that group were also MIT grads. And there's this thing in MIT that if you're still at MIT a year, if you graduate, you're kind of still in your mom's basement. And so they decided they had to leave. And they left the reins to me. And I started running the research and development program there as that scaled up and raced against Craig Mentor. And so we built a really vast DNA sequencing pipeline at the Whitehead. And through the course of

that, we discovered various new ways of isolating DNA, patented those. And as the human genome project came to close, a bunch of pharmaceutical companies start asking, like, how do we license this stuff? We need to port and port this stuff into our facility. So we spun out a company in called... And what was the purpose of the human genome? Or what was it for people who don't know? Well, all right. So, yeah, I'll back up on that.

So we wanted to... The whole poor... It was really... This is an important history, actually, that you cover them. Glad you asked. So the goal back then, in the dream, and how it was sold to the American public... Mitt Mobile is all about saving money to bring you better service.

That's why they have a podcaster sitting in a shack telling you about this instead of Ryan Reynolds. Just observe the glorious money savings. Now, Mitt Mobile said, I could get wireless for just 15 bucks a month with purchasing their three-month plan? I said there's got to be a catch. And they said, no, Danny, we're not like the government. Turns out it was that easy. The most time-consuming part was the time I spent on the phone breaking up with my old service provider. To get started, go to mittmobile.com slash Danny. There, you'll see that right now, all three-month plans are only 15 bucks a month,

including the unlimited plans. All plans come with high-speed data, an unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. You can use your own phone with any MintMobile plan and bring your phone number along with your existing contacts. Find out how easy it is to switch to MintMobile and get three months of premium wireless service for $15 a month. Remember, the government may still spy on you, but with MintMobile, you'll pay less.

To get this new customer offer and your free month premium wireless plan for $15 bucks a month, go to mintmobile.com slash Danny. That's mintmobile.com. D-A-N-N-Y. Cut your wireless bill to $15 a month at mintmobile.com slash Danny. 45 bucks upfront payment required equivalent to $15 a month. New customers on first three-month plan only.

Speed is slower above 40 gigabytes on the unlimited plan. Additional taxes fees and restrictions may apply. See mintmobile.com for details. It's linked below. Now back to the show. It was really ironically through Francis Collins, who we'll probably get to later. And the pitch there was we want to go to personalized medicine. We want to sequence everyone's genome, figure out their differences, and, and,

drug them accordingly. Instead of this, let's build one drug, tested on 10,000 people, and send it across the entire globe and hope it works. The idea was, no, we're going to get more precision about this. We're going to actually, when you have cancer, sequence your genome, and then sequence the genome of your tumor, which will be different in most cases, and see if we can find drugable differences that will kill the tumor and not kill the patient. And some of those started to occur in that time frame. There was one drug called ERISA that was specific to, it failed as a drug until they discovered, I think it was Dan Haber up at MGAH that did this and Matthew Myerson, Dana Farber, they discovered that if you took that drug and actually looked

at people's EGFR receptors, there was like a 15 base pair in search, a deletion inside that gene that if you had it, the drug worked and if you didn't, it did not work. So the drug failed on population-wide, but if you isolated the people and sequenced them first, you had remarkable success rates with the drug. So it rescued a drug just by knowing the genetics of the population to put it on. That's amazing. So that was really the whole goal of the human genome project was to do that a thousand times over and do that in every disease, is can we target these drugs so that we're not sloppily, you know, blanketing the population with drugs that we test on small populations and they blow up on us when we hit, you know, different, different haplogroups or different populations out there. And is it true that the variation in the human genome, there's like there's not a lot of variation?

If you want to compare to cannabis plants, we're completely inbred and should be walking backwards with stone's up our nose. Yes. Yeah, so, you know, maybe there's a million variants, maybe between any given individual. So it's like a variant for every thousand or something? Yeah, yeah, it's a fair number. You know, now that we have better sequencers, some would argue maybe it's more like one in every 500 if you include some of these insertions and deletions and longer structural variations that we couldn't see very well back then with the technology we had that initially did the human genome project. But 20 years on, as we are now, we now have completely different technology to survey genomes that are remarkable compared to what we had before. and we can see much more variation now

than we could then. Oh, really? Yeah, we're not at the level of cannabis plants, all right? Cannabis plants are their own beast. Now, is that, just quick side note on the genome stuff, is that normal for most mammals? The polymorphism rate is, that's a good question. Because I was good,

because I was listening to something where you were talking about, like, essentially if you took our genome, It, if you extrapolate into the past, it basically means we came from like 10,000 humans. Yeah, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. And there was like a bottleneck in the population and the human population? Yes. As Neanderthal came out and the Dennis Ovins played a role in some of this.

So they're still piecing some of that structure together with paleogenomics. So there's a whole field where you can go back and sequence, you know, things that are old. Like I was involved in one sequencing Uzi, the mummy, which they found frozen in ice. that was probably 5,000 years old up in the Alps. Oh, really? Just to understand, you know, what would the genetics like back then? I think they, interestingly enough, found Lyme disease in that guy. Really?

That's something that shocked everyone because everyone to believe that was a new world. And this guy was from 3,000 BC? Something like that, yeah. It's about 5,000 years ago. Yeah, that sounds about right. There's another, Pablo, that's Pablo's last name. There's a really good paleo genomic system. I'm forgetting, but he actually, I think he may even got a Nobel Prize, so I should know this, but it'll come up.

But he has done a lot of work in developing the methods that make it possible to sequence DNA that's that old. Because when DNA gets that old, it tends to break down in a particular manner, in a predictable manner. And you have to be aware of that in order to sequence it. And he's been very good at getting, like, Woolly Mammoth to sequence and a variety of old things. So you can begin to put that back together. Svantea Pablo. There he is. Yes.

I forgot his first name. So yeah, he's a real pioneer in being able to do this type of work. But that helps bring the picture back. But you're right. We are a diaspora that came through a bottleneck, which is one reason why many people on the genome project were, I think there's a strong message in here that this idea of race differences is actually irrelevant when you look at the genomes. Right. Do we have any idea when that bottleneck occurred? I think there is probably 100,000 years ago

was when the diaspora was most extreme although you can find obviously hominids back a million years they go as far back as Osslopithecus we haven't gotten sequenced from material that's that old I think some of the records in sequencing are probably 50 or 100,000 years I haven't kept directly up to speed with it Svante probably has the record on the oldest thing ever sequenced but that's yeah I haven't

I haven't kept up with the human population genomics story there because in some ways it's very boring. It's as you said, there's not a lot to it. We all came from a fairly recent ancestor. Right. And it's, you know, you can't find some interesting things about the genetics that changed with lactose tolerance based on when we think we went through, you know, when we began to get involved in agriculture and a more, you know, farm-based lifestyle. So there are some, you know, genetics that follow that. Well, there's also people that study climate change through the end of the ice age around like 11,800 years ago when there was this younger dryest impact hypothesis where they impact these these comets came and hit like the North American ice sheet.

Right, right. Wiped out all the megafauna here. But, I mean, that wouldn't that wouldn't be enough destruction and that wouldn't be enough to bottleneck the population down to 10,000. No, I mean, the thing that's really unique about humans is that we're very doubt to when we can move. Right. And as a result, I think, you'll find that our genomes aren't nearly as complex as plants. Plants are sessile, so they're stuck. When the environment changes, they can't run away from it.

They have to carry a lot more genomic tricks in their bag to compensate for it. Right. So, in fact, there's a very good, an interesting piece of work I'd forward you to from David Sinclair, who works on a lot of this longevity stuff. Yeah. He was digging around in the Xenio Hermesis field, which I think is fascinating. It's kind of an intersection of cannabis. and in human genetics. And that plants, as we became agriculturally, you know, centered as a society, and this

has probably happened long before that occurred, but plants have this capacity of making secondary metabolites that signal to the organisms that eat them and spread their seed around. They give them information about the environment. So a lot of the secondary metabolites that you'll find in plants when they're stressed will signal to the organism that consumes them to prepare with caloric restriction. So you'll see many of the compounds that hit the rapamycin pathway and the mTOR pathway are polyphenols and flavonoids and things plants create when they're stressed out. Whoa. So this is one of these, this is something we pay attention to in the cannabis field, because if you want to get very diverse

chemotypes of plants, you can't grow them in perfectly happy environments. Like you actually want to stress them to some extent that you get anthocyanes to come up. When you stress them, you tend to get different herpene profiles. You tend to get cannabinoids are coming off that same pathway. And how would you stress them? Well, in some ways, you never let them see pollen. That makes them stressful. Okay.

So they end up growing really large flowers waiting for pollen. So the way to get the highest THC loads are to never let them see pollen, at least for the females. And you can also do it with light cycles. You can do it with temperature and pH and other types of treatments in the soil that will alter its actual secondary metabolite profile so you get a different chemotype for the plant that might be important in the way people are making oils for cancer like cancer is oftentimes a scenario where you need to grab onto the mTOR pathway or the rapamycin pathway and just change the metabolism of the organism and you need to feed them with these plant these extracts that are from plants that are stressed

whoa yeah it's a wild world uh is wild you know that's weird i was just reading this book the other day about um a poly a guy who's um a polygrapher and this CIA and he decided he wrote a book called the secret life of plants oh interesting he read this he he he decided one day when he was bored in the office he was looking at the plant he's like i'm gonna try to polygraph this plant and then he like hooked it up to the polygraph on the leaves and then he was going to light it on fire and then he as soon as he lit the match the thing went off the charts oh really yeah wild um anyways count on the cea to torture things right yeah right uh anyway we were talking about the

the human genome project. And you were, you were explaining, where were we with that? So we got in this big race with Craig Venter to, you know, sequence of human genome as quickly as possible. Right, right, right. I was in the government side. And then when that came to a close,

I ended up dropping out of a PhD program and starting a company. We started this company called Agingort, which took a lot of the technologies we built in the genome project and commercialized them and started selling them to every biotech company that wanted to catch up, if you will, to what they were doing down at MIT to sequence this quickly. That company, a few years later, Francis Collins funded it for an obscene amount of money to be one of the five genome centers in the country. I think we're probably the only private one that was in there.

It was Eric Lander at the Whitehead had one of the grants. Baylor had one of the grants with Richard Gibbs, who's a hilarious guy. You should have him on one day. And then there was St. Louis, Walshue, St. Louis, had a genome center. ours and then inventor they also funded. So we ended up becoming a sequencing shop, specializing in that. And in the course of doing that, we decided to just change sequencing, like, just change sequencing, like reinvent the whole thing and build a new sequencer. Also received a grant for that.

So the Adjicorr company got acquired in 2005 by Beckman-Coulter for the genetics pipeline and all the magnetic bead tools we built to purify DNA. There are these little magnetic particles you can use to capture DNA and rip-moda solutions. And it's really handy for studying viruses and everything else. And that was kind of the cornerstone of the IP that we had at Adjancourt. But when that happened, we had also played around with taking those beads and putting them down on glass slides under microscopes and sequencing DNA individually off of every single bead. So that we, instead of doing 96 things at a time, we're doing 100 million things at a time. It was a massively, just totally different way of doing it. We couldn't get the read lengths that we're used to getting, which used to be able to read like 600 bases or so with these older tools.

but this thing, you can get like maybe 30 to 50 bases, but you can get 100 million of them at once in the same time frame. So it was a total game changer in the sequencing field. Ultimately, we were getting genomes. They used to cost about $300 million to do the first human genome. And this thing was pumping them out on like $3,000. Whoa. And so once we had proof of principle of that working,

we had a spin out of company, and this 19-person company got in a bidding war with Illumina and ABI, where the two largest genetic companies in the world started having a bidding war over this company. And they eventually acquired that company. And I went with that acquisition, and we started building those. These things were called solid sequencer. We started putting them to the market. And the first people that were picking those up were pointing at cancer.

What kind of sequencers? Solid. Solid sequencer. Standard for sequencing by oligal ligation detection. We did sequencing a different way. I mean, most people use polymerases that grow DNA strands with enzymes in one direction. There's another, if you remember your biology, you have two DNA strands. And when they split, polymerases copy one strand.

The other strand is replicated with something known as lagging strand synthesis. It's a different way of replicating DNA that your cells use. So one gets done with polymerases, the other side gets done with ligases. All the IP in the world was covered on the polymerase front. That's what everyone had been using since Fred Sanger. And so we realized that that's just a minefield of a patent estate. Right. And like, we're going to go on the other strand and do it backwards.

And so we started doing these ligation things. And it worked. It worked really well. It's still to date, I think, has the record as probably the most accurate sequence are ever built. But it's just limited in the length of reads they can do. It can probably only do like 50 to 100 base pair reads. And now these other sequencers that are out there can do thousands to a million base pair reads. And they take a hit on some of the accuracy of the sequence, but they can get lengths.

that we could never get on the system that we had back then. But nevertheless, it was a powerful tool. It got distributed to lots of cancer centers that were sequencing tumors to try and differentiate tumors from the patient's genome. And this whole personalized medicine thing was really looking like it was about to shine. Yeah.

So I was there for about five years. When was that? How many different types of cancers? Oh, they initially were going after, there was a group, Mike Staten's group, I think, in Sanger Center, used this to look at lung cancer. Gleoblastoma got sequenced with it down in UCLA. And there was a group down at Baylor looking at breast cancer.

I mean, it got used across the spectrum of different cancers, colon cancer. I was on a paper with a group at Johns Hopkins. They're on top of the game with all the stuff down there at Bert Vogelstein's lab. And they were doing something very interesting with it in that. This holiday season unwrapped the gift of comfort. with the Game Changer pants from Public Rec. The office pants that make Monday feel like Sunday. Imagine clocking in while feeling as cozy as if you were still sitting in bed sipping on hot cocoa.

These pants are fan favorites for a reason. Whether you're closing deals in the boardroom, navigating holiday travel, or mingling at company parties, or teeing off on the back nine, the Game Changer pants will keep you looking sharp and feeling great. Public Rec is the ultimate men's clothing brand for blending comfort and style seamlessly. And trust me, you will not be disappointed. Stay comfortable this holiday season without sacrificing style because with Public Rec's Game Changer Pants, you can really have it all. And for a limited time, our listeners get 20% off their entire order with the code Danny Jones at PublicREC.com. That's 20% off with code D-A-N-N-Y, J-O-N-E-S at Public Rec.com.

To be totally honest with you, I had low expectations when Public Rec first sent me those Game Changer pants because I'm really picky about my pants. but I was blown away at how comfortable they actually are. They are so smooth and buttery and lightweight and flexible. You feel almost guilty because you look so good, but you're so damn comfortable. They're the most comfortable dress pants, and they're the last pair you'll ever need for the office or events. Whatever body type you have, they come in custom sizing for the perfect fit, so no tailoring is necessary.

Public rec doesn't just rock pants. They have a huge selection of high quality everyday basics. You can revamp your entire wardrobe with the perfect polos, shorts, and hoodies. They sent me the go-to hoodie, which is amazing. I've been wearing it every day because it's super lightweight and flexible, and it just feels great. Stop suffering in regular pants and give the gift of comfort this holiday season with Public Rec. For a limited time only, our listeners get 20% off when you use the code Danny Jones at checkout. That's 20% off with the code D-A-N-N-Y-J-O-N-N-E-S at Public Rec.com.

After you purchase, they're going to ask you how you heard about them, and please tell them Danny Jones sent you. Make your pants great again with Public Rec. It's linked below. Now back to the show. Cancer, when you have it, oftentimes is sloughing dead cells out into your bloodstream. And if you sequence your bloodstream, you can kind of track which cells are dying from the cancer and look at their mutations and try to get a profile of whether the tumor's getting better or getting worse by just non-invasively sequencing bloodstreams. So Rebecca Larry put out this paper where they did that. And we're scanning people over time through the course of treatment by sequencing their bloodstream over time and developing markers that were very personalized to their tumor that would tell them that your particular tumor is going up or down based based on what we're doing.

And the same tool got rolled into amino for, sorry, that little hot. No, you're good. No, you're good. Emniocintesis. So the other thing circulating in mother's bloodstreams, around 6% of the DNA in a maternal bloodstream is actually the babies. So if you don't want to do amnio, something that I'm sure you're familiar with, given you a recent father, amnosticis has like a 1 in 400 like fatality rate. I'm not familiar with what you're saying.

So if you want to look for chromosomal abnormalities in a child, they, the amniocentesis, they probably don't even do it anymore. I mean, amniocinosis, they used to literally have to put a needle into the mother's womb to look and get cells and look for chromosomes and see if there's any trisomies, right? Like trisomy 21 is predictive of Down syndrome. Well, mothers who are over 40, they often ask for an amniol because there's a higher risk of this. Way higher risk, right? And some people have it perhaps a little bit more in their family and they want to do amnias. Well, one in 400 is crazy, but it's all we had back then. But since then, they've been able to leverage this fact that the sequencers are so cheap that you can sequence the entire mother's genome right out of her bloodstream,

and 3% of that DNA is going to be the child. And you can figure out whether this trisomyte 21 or any other chromosomal abnormalities just from doing what it's called non-invasive prenatal testing in IPT. Yeah. A bunch of companies sprouted out and are very successful doing that now.

And it's all based on being able to sequence these fragments of DNA that are circulating. This is also how they figure out the sex of the baby early. Oh yeah. You can easily,

I mean, there's probably, I'm sure you can probably do that with ultrasound as well at a certain stage. But if you had to get, if you had to get in there before ultrasound could see it,

you would see it in the DNA. And I mean, the fascinating thing about that whole field is that not only does DNA circulate from the child, but so do erythrocytes and other particular cells that stay in the mother. Like mothers have some number of cells in their brain from the childs that they've born before that stick around that you can detect decades later.

Really? So it's a, yeah, it's a fascinating field of like, you know, what does that mean? Yeah. And what does that bring to the mother and, you know, the bonding that could be going on there and what's the communication and meaning or what's the purpose of it, I suppose, biologically. Right. How did you get involved in talking about and kind of like, you essentially kind of like blew the whistle on something that was going on with the COVID vaccines. Okay. Yeah. So yeah. Yeah, I watched that video where you were talking to a panel and you, you discovered something with the

DNA, plasma actually being aware. And you somehow got your hands on two expired vials of the Pfizer. Indeed. Yeah. So this is, to fill in a little small gap there in my history is after what was exciting about sequencing all of these tumors is that I was hopeful that we see personalized medicine. But of course, the FDA has a pretty, you saw what they did to 23 and Me, right? 23 Me at one point had great genetic tools that people could learn about their genomes online. And the FDA came in and said no more of that. Really? I wasn't aware of this.

Yeah, a long time ago, they were accusing them of practicing medicine. And so now they could only report, 23M can only report on like a couple medical conditions, when before their chips used to be able to tell you all types of information from Alzheimer's to breast cancer risk to, and the FDA significantly narrowed how much medical content that they could have in the interpretation of that data. So I got a little frustrated with that, and I was kind of in the rat race of startup building these sequencers and decided I was going to get out and just start doing something completely different sequencing cannabis genomes. Okay. And I got put onto that path because these cancer centers were doing a great job of differentiating tumors from their patient, but they were still picking from gross drugs like cisplatin and all these toxic drugs. Like they're trying to thread the needle of killing the tumor and the patient better with genetics, but they'd still pull out poison to target. And that's when I've learned for many cancer patients and some friends of mine that were going through these struggles as well, that these cannabinoids are published to be anti-neoplastic.

What the hell? What does that mean? They shrink tumors. Now, so you might be familiar with them helping with people's nausea and their appetite and sleep, which are all really important aspects of dealing with cancer, but very few people know the fact that there's, there's reams of literature in them being anti-neoplastic and shrinking various tumors. Wow. No matter how you ingest it, no matter how I consume it? No, it's very important and how you ingest it. Like, most of these people are taking oils because they last longer in the body

when you take them orally. Okay. But there are times-droplets on your tongue. Yeah. Yeah. There are cases where you do have to vaporize it or smoke it because you can't keep food down. So putting in oil, an oral. And we're a drug in comes right back up. So there's a place for both. But that kind of put me into this a bit more of a, I'd say, anti-authoritarian scientist, is that I was a little tired. Decentralized. Yes.

This is when I started learning about Bitcoin. This is when I started learning about how the medical system is too centralized. They're not allowing us to use these new technologies to segregate the population into ways that are more intelligently treated. Everything kind of gets centralized to the FDA. and even the concept of sequencing these tumors and drugging them independently was very controversial with the FDA. They wanted this to go through 510K. So how would you go about doing this today if you wanted to do it? There's a company, there are companies now that have kind of gone through the process with the FDA now that it's been decades.

But that's the problem is it took decades. So like, you know, foundation medicine, I think has, they probably have a 510K by now or using at least more FDA approved test, if you will. But they can sequence your tumors and give you a profile. I've used this with my father, actually. We profiled him at Foundation Medicine and at Johns Hopkins to track the progress of his tumor. But I went down a rabbit hole there again. But just how did this get to the vaccine is that that put me into the cannabis space. And I've been since sequencing cannabis genomes to try and putting their genomes public so that we can get all these genomes out of the patent thinkets that exists on the Human Genome Project.

The Human Genome Project ended up with like over 4,000 patents. on it for various genes. So like 20% of the genes in the human genome ended up being patented. And that made it so the people like Foundation Medicine had a really hard time sequencing kids' genomes to deploy these

tools because there was a patent ticket trying to go through sequence these things. And what was the case with when you, so am I correct in saying you tried to publish these cannabis genomes on the internet and then something

happened with that? Someone tried to block you from doing that? Well, what's what we did knowing the experience we had on the human genome project, and I'd spent a part of my career running a clinical diagnostic lab sequencing, epilepsy kids and mitochondrial disease patients and autism kids as well. And we ran to the same problems. There's patents everywhere and there's a big mess and you couldn't really grow your company too large without, you know, myriad, these other companies coming and hitting you with their patents. Yeah. And so when we approach the cannabis genome. We said, screw this. We're going to put the whole genome public before

anyone has a chance to patent it. Okay. And at that time, I didn't understand Bitcoin. And that means, so if you're the one that publishes, it makes it public before anyone else, you essentially like own the common patent to it. No one else can actually go and patent it. Yes. It puts it in the public domain. Got it. So now, oftentimes, the USPTO doesn't find cannabis content because a lot of cannabis content is forced to have, like, are you 21 or older to come into our website. So they only can crawl those sites for prior art. So there isn't a very good preliminary search engine for this. So what we did when we spoke to attorneys, they said the best thing you can do, now we know there's a better way to do this. But at the time, it was

submitted to the USPTO as a patent application and then abandoned it. That way, it's in their database. They can't miss it. If they miss it, then you're, if you ever have to go back and do a ex parte re-exam and show them, look, it was in your database and you missed it. It's a really simple, you know, open and shut case. Today, you don't need to do that. Today, you can, you can basically publish the sequence online, put a fingerprinted in the Bitcoin blockchain, and you've got proof of when it existed. The Bitcoin blockchain is a perfect time stamping system. Because it's difficult to take your stuff to a notary, if you will. The notary system in the United States is all federally run. So you walk into a bank saying, hey, can you notarize my cannabis

science? There'll be a guy here, you know. This is federally legal. So how do you do that? How do you put it on the Bitcoin blockchain? It's a very simple thing. It sounds sophisticated. The whole sequence does not fit in a blockchain. Don't do that. Okay. No one wants that blockchain bloat. All you have to do is take a hash of the file. So ShiaL 256 is a hashing algorithm that basically takes a fingerprint of a large document and spits out a particular length fingerprint of information.

And it is, it's collision proof. And that if you were to change one letter in that document, your hash will completely change. You will not get overlapping hashes. They're long enough that they're unique numbers in space, if you will. They're unique in the universe. So you can take that number and put that into the opereturn in Bitcoin. Bitcoin has this little function where an operator can fit a hash. It's almost like a note section in a transaction.

And you can stuff that with a hash of the sequence information that you have from a plant. So we were using that function. We've been doing that for since 2011 where we've been sequencing people's plants and then hashing and stashing them on blockchain so that people have a record of when these things were made. Okay. And that's helped out in that field because in the cannabis field, it's easy to clone stuff and people take people's genetics and there's a big argument over who owns them and a lot of people don't want to interface with the Patent Office. So we've been involved in cases where clones were stolen from one grow to another and they came to us. We sequenced them and showed them that this is identical to something this guy grew over here and we know it and you stole it and the courts have ruled in favor of that.

Oh, really? Wow. Yes. Yeah. So it does work. They do acknowledge that fingerprints work. And so I got involved in the COVID sort of dissonance side of things because when I saw how they were using PCR and COVID, I realized it was a fraud. Like we run PCR on cannabis plants all day long. This is our bread and butter. We make tests that look for pathogens on cannabis. PCR is essentially like the no swab test that people were doing. Yeah.

And PCR is actually a really good test. They destroyed the reputation of PCR in COVID. You know, it's completely. This was invented by Carrie Mullis. Yes. Yeah. Great book. You should read this book.

I've been wanting to. I've watched some interviews with him. He seems like a really cool dude. He is. He was a surfer. Sadly died right before the pandemic, but. And he hated Fauci. Yes. I think anyone who's who gets their nose into the space will come to the same conclusion as him. So it's unfortunately, if you're in the public, he's elevated as some almost Jesus level of saint. But if you see what he actually does behind the scenes, he is the exact opposite of that. So the pandemic comes along. They're abusing these pieces. tools. And I make note of this. I write a paper about it. And of course, it gets attacked. It goes to the typical censorship and ridicule that you expect. And shortly after that, I think that caught the attention of Peter McCullough. He asked me to help write him a paper about the differences between the vaccines and the virus, which I went through all the molecular biology and how those two things differ. After that happened, people start randomly sending me vials of vaccines to our address or company. What prompted you to first write the paper? Well, I could tell that since the PCR was a fraud, that when I saw what they were going to do with the vaccine, I'm like, this is not been tested. I know how that sausage was made. The vaccine. Yeah. My history of building DNA sequencers meant I had a deep respect for when you start changing nucleotide chemistry on RNA molecules, you have no idea what you're doing. And that's what they did in the vaccine, is they changed every single uracil out with pseudo-uridine. That completely changes the function.

of that RNA. And these guys just said, oh, we're just going to change all of them and then inject it and see what happens. And, you know, you change that one methyl group in the course of trying to build DNA sequencers and your own sequencer will fall apart. I mean, the enzymes are that sensitive to a single methyl group being placed on some of these pieces of DNA. You put 800 of them on the RNA that you're doing. You have, you are in completely unknown territory with how that RNA is going to fold, how it's going to be processed in the cell, the RNA interference pathways that's going to kick off. So when I saw what they're doing, I'm like, this is complete reckless insanity that they're doing. And no one's, no one's raising their hand

about it, which is frustrating because you're in a field and you look around and none of your peers are talking about this. And you're like, is everyone in on this? Like, what's going on? And being in Massachusetts, pretty much everyone is in on it. Pfizer's there. Moderna's there. Oh, really? I mean, it's, the PCR companies are all there. So it's a, it's a breadbasket of people benefiting from the pandemic. So basically of comparing how sloppy the PCR test would be to measure this, you assumed that they were going to be way off with the vaccine. Is that a good way to sum it up? Yeah, I can see that there was a game going on here to pump up the pandemic's risk so that there would be a need and a public desire for a vaccine.

If you actually paid attention to how the PCR was behaving and how they were over calling this disease, you would have barely noticed this pandemic. Like the COVID pandemic that came through was predominantly human-induced death. It was not that people weren't dying from the virus. They're dying from what people's reaction to the virus. Like they're putting them on Ramesivir, putting them on ventilators, taking away antibiotics, not letting them use iburemectin. There was all types of iatrogenic death, if you will, from how they handled the pandemic. But very few people actually died of the actual virus.

The people that died actually had lots of comorbidities, right? And the virus is basically like the final straw that broke the camel's back. And it just happens to be there. And hospitals were also all incentivized to tag everyone they could with COVID and give it to them on the way out the door so they could get better billing. Right. So if they were they were PCR and corpses. I mean, because if you could find COVID, you had no liability for the patient and you got a

completely different reimbursement structure. What? Yes. They were actually doing the tests on corpses. Yes. their corpses and there's John Bodwin you should talk to. He has gone, he foied all the death records of Massachusetts and all the people who are labeling these deaths of people that were clearly killed from the vaccine. They label as COVID. So the whole COVID thing has a layer of scam

to. Now, that doesn't mean that the virus doesn't exist in that it doesn't get you sick. I got it. I got horribly sick. I had a really long recovery from it. But it didn't create that excess mortality wave. That was created by people's reaction to it. So I knew that when the vaccine came out. I'm like, okay, this vaccine, they've got the whole population prime to be scared out of their mind that they're all going to take this reckless drug that they've, they've barely studied, and that's going to create another wave. And I think there's probably more people dead from that than the rest of the virus. If you, at least if you go through John's work, there's easily 550,000 people that are dead in the United States from the vaccine. I don't think the virus comes

anywhere close to that. They'll tell you a couple million people, but 90% of them are comorbid, and then you start itemizing all the other types of iatrogenic death in there, it's probably a tenth of that. It's probably five foot less than the vaccine death. Okay. So anyway, these people, after I wrote this paper with Peter McCullough, people started sending vaccine vials to my company address, which I, it's like, who sent you? Who got a hold of these and sent them to you?

I don't know. They came anonymous. Who do you, like, who could it have been? Probably my Twitter followers. How would they get their hands on vaccine? They just work at a pharmacy or something? I'm sure if they got their hands on them, they don't want to, Tell me how.

Right. I'm just trying to figure out how they would have done that. Oh, yeah. Pharmacists have them. They're around. They throw them out. So the ones that we got weren't,

were never opened. So they came, they have these tamper resistant seals on them. And so you can tell whether they've been opened or not. And we got some that were expired and some that weren't expired. But when I kept getting them, I just kept throwing them in the freezer being, I don't know,

I don't want to do with these things. But the, and then this. This cannabis experiment I mentioned earlier was like, okay, we have a problem. I need a pharmaceutical grade vaccine. Maybe I need pharmaceutical grade MRNA. And I'm like, these things are sitting in the freezer. Just spike one of those in. It's got a polyate tail.

That should tell us what's going on with the RNA seek that we're doing. And it did, but out came the vector that they used to manufacture these things. And that shouldn't be in there. The vector that they used to manufacture. What do you mean by that? So when they make these MRAs, they have to have a DNA template. to make it from. So all RNA is actually synthesized usually from some other piece of DNA. Okay. So they get it, they build a piece of DNA that is, think of it as like a mold, if you're into injection molding.

Okay. You need something to kind of print the RNA. The DNA, they have to make it, they have to make it in the form of DNA first. So they take that spike protein sequence and they first code it into DNA and then they use an enzyme known as T7 polymerase to copy the DNA and turn into RNA. And when they're doing that process, and In the case of these MRNA vaccines, they rip out one of the bases and put in this pseudo-uridine so that there's only a pseudo-uridine and there's no uracil. That's how they get these MRNAs made. Now, that means they have to have a piece of DNA that codes for the spike sequence they want to make the turn into RNA, but they need something to propagate that DNA. DNA is not going to like, you know, organize itself. So what they do is they put a couple other genes on that DNA that make it so a coli

will replicate it. So a what? That a coli, a bacteria. So basically you can brew it. And this is, I mean, we did this in the human genome project, 20 million different clones. It's a very common biotech think. What you do is you put an antibiotic resistance gene attached to the spike sequence. And that antibiotic resistance gene and a couple other pieces of sequence guarantee that it will grow inside of a coli.

So when you put that DNA into a coli, you can then brew up huge vats of a coli. And now it's copying your plasmid. As long as there is a piece, there's antibiotics in there that match the gene. In this case, they were using, what do they have? I think they use canomycin in this case. Kenomycin is an antibiotic. So they have a spike sequence attached to a canomicin resistance gene, attached to what's known as a bacterial origin of replication that a coli will grab onto and replicate this DNA.

Once that's in a bacterial cell, you just have to grow that stuff at 37 degrees overnight and you get millions of old amplification of the cells. They double every 20 or 30 minutes. And so every time the cell doubles, you get about 200 copies of that piece of DNA with it. So fermenting this overnight and suddenly you get yourself millions and millions of copies of this DNA that you now need to get out of a coli. So you lice it open with some soap and purify that DNA, hopefully away from all the other junk. And now you've got your plasmid purified ready to turn into RNA. That's kind of the manufacturing process that they use for making these Pfizer vaccines.

Now, what is a plasmid? The plasmid is that circular piece of DNA that kind of carries the spike DNA that you want to have replicated in a coli. So it contains the plasma is circular. So it contains an antibiotic resistance gene and an origin of replication that ensures the in coli cell will replicate it. So if you glue your spike sequence onto that piece of DNA into a circle, put that in a coli and give it an antibiotic. The only acoly that will survive are the in coli cells that have the plasma that code for

the resistance. Okay. Oh, there you go. Nice. Plasma maps. So you can see a bacterial DNA in air. The bacterial DNA and a coli is like 6 million letters long. These plasmids are like 5,000 to 10,000 letters long.

Okay. But they're circular. That helps them replicate and through a process known as rolling circle amplification, but also keeps them from degrading as quickly because there's no ends of DNA. When they're tied in an amoeia strip like that, the enzymes don't know how to really destroy them. So plasmus tend to stick around for a very long period of time. But on the backbone of that plasmid, you will have an antibiotic resistance gene. I think you had another one over that was like a plasmid map.

If you just scroll one image over like the... Yeah, there you go. bang if you click on that you'll see they have these little pieces on them so the inserted gene would be the spike that they put in there the inserted gene is the spike meaning and what is the spike the spike the spike is the sequence that they want to that they want to that they want to make RNA for the vaccine that gets into a million cell will will create a spike protein that your immune system theoretically will learn how to fight off COVID got it okay there's a huge leap between between a and z there okay that will go into okay that was that was I'm trying my best to keep

up with you here yeah so that inserted gene ends up being they put in the spike sequence there. There's an origin of replication down there that teaches the a coli cell to, hey, copy this circle over and over again if you ever see me. It basically recruits a plimerase to do that. That antibiotic resistance gene, let's say that's canomyasin in the case of Pfizer's vaccine. That means if the coli is growing in canamycin, the only cells that can survive are the ones that have soaked up the plasm. So it's a selectable marker, which means the only a coli that brew or ones that contain your DNA. Otherwise, when the cells divide, your plasma just gets lost. So that's electrical marker is really critical to make sure the

plasma sticks around when you've grown a coli. So once you have your gene in a system like this, all you need you do get to no coli is you heat a coli to like 37 degrees and it gets porous and it soaks up the plasmids. And then it has the superpower of being resistant to canamycin. And so now only the cells that's soaked up the DNA can survive in the growth, they start replicating and now they're replicating your hijacked spike sequence with this. Okay. So the challenge here is, is that that you now don't just have your spike sequence as part of the contaminant in your vaccine. You have all that other crap, the antibiotic resistance gene and all the origins of replication

that you introduced as a replicative machinery to manufacture your... But they know this, right? They know that this stuff's going to be in there. They know it. And do they have a process to get rid of it? They try. They fail. But that's the point where they kind of...

Is this in all vaccines? No, these... Only MRI. These mRNA ones are very unique, right? We've never done vaccines like this before. Okay. How many mRNA vaccines do we have? We have Moderna and we got Pfizer.

I mean, other than the COVID. They're just rolling out RSV and I think flu ones now. Okay. There's really scary ones going on in Japan right now. They're trialing out a self-amplifying MRNA vaccine, which is horrifying. That is something that's likely going to spread out of control. So there's not many. So COVID was the first one we had.

Yes. First one we had. Okay. Yes. So it was a complete unknown. And they, so, okay. But they, so obviously they knew that this. stuff was going to be in there because that was that was purposeful you needed that to actually

create it for to replicate yes and they essentially they didn't have a good enough protocol to get rid of it moderna had a better protocol in fact that what's really key about this whole story is if you read modern as patents they they speak to this problem that one it's very difficult to figure out how much of this is left behind with PCR alone so they stephan bansel is a patent that says don't use q pcr to measure what's left behind but they also have some other patents in there on techniques to get rid of it. And the reason it is so important to get rid of is they write in that patent showing that it's oncogenic. If you leave this DNA around, it will insert your genome and can create cancer.

So you have to get rid of it. And that's written straight into their own patent estate. So is this the same story that Jack Cruz was telling us about SV40? It is the same story because the origin of replication that they have in Pfizer is an SV40 origin of replication. and they also have, you'll see that little promoter thing up there in pink. They have another promoter over by your antibiotic resistance gene and your selectable marker. They have multiple promoters on the Pfizer one. There's one over by that green arrow.

That is an SV40 promoter. And those elements are from contaminated the polio vaccines. Now, the polio vaccines were contaminated with a full virus. It was like 5,500 letter viruses. But if you study that virus, the most carcuitous, carcinogenic aspects of it are the things that are in Pfizer. They are basically the SV40 enhancer and promoter in the origin of replication. So the parts of the most carcinogenic are in there and they hid them from the regulators. When they were asked to, when they submitted this to the

FDA, the FDA demands that you give them a map like this that tells them what everything does. Like show us where every selectable marker is, where every promoter is, where every open reading frame is, you have to disclose it all. And the one area that Pfizer refused to disclose. was the SV40 components. Okay. So essentially when Jack was in here, he was telling the story about how this guy named Altnoshner was the one who created the polio vaccine.

He famously went in front of a board of people or an auditorium full of people and injected his grandchildren with it. And then one of them died and one of them like lost a limb or something crazy. And they found out that this SV40 came from, they were growing the vaccine on monkey, on monkey kidneys or something like that. Simian virus. Simian virus number 40.

And there was like a lot of simian viruses, right? At least 40 of them. At least 40 of them. And then number 40, for some reason, that one created these quote unquote turbo cancers and humans. Yes. Now, that was the story about the Linac. They were using the Linac to actually do mutagenesis on the viruses to mutate them to see if they could get ones that were more potent as a bioweapon. Jesus Christ.

And so, and they were planning to kill Castro or something with it, right? Right, right, right. It was a crazy story. I didn't know about that when I stumbled into this. I sadly learned about that after the fact. And the question whether I'd actually would have ran away and hidden the mountains if I had known that prior to disclosing this. But it is important to know. We don't have the whole virus here.

We have components in the virus here that I think are actually still very problematic and dangerous, but we don't have as firm of a grip on is this causing the turbo cancers that people are claiming to come out of this vaccine? I think that's a more complicated story that there's a Swiss Army knife of problems in the vaccines that can drive cancer. and the SV40 may just be one component of it. Winter is coming, and that means so is cold and flu season. Viruses thrive in cold, dry air, and our immune system's response becomes weaker in colder temperatures. I used to get sick often during these months, but I've avoided the flu for years now, and when I do get sick, I recover much faster.

You've heard me talk about Verso before. That's because I've been taking it for years, and their product has greatly enhanced my immune system, especially clean being. It's made from research-backed ingredients that boost your body's defense system to fight off viruses when you get introduced to them, preventing you from getting sick in the first place. A strong immune response isn't just about fighting off illnesses, but also managing your body's reaction afterwards. Inflammation helps protect against these viruses, but too much can cause pain, tissue damage, and slow recovery. Clean being manages inflammation, keeping your body's

balanced so it fights sickness effectively without extra problems. This reduces pain and swelling, protects tissues, and prevents overreactions. After taking clean being for some time, I get sick way less often, but when I do get sick, I recover faster. I have way less joint pain, way less inflammation overall, and I feel better and have less brain fog. Click the link in the description or head on over to v.r.s.0.com slash Danny for 15% off your first order. That's VER.S.O. forward slash DA and N-Y for 15% off your first order. It's linked below. Now back to the show. This is Euphoria Calvin Klein.

Elixir Collection featuring three perfume intense scents, inspired by a unique Orchid Accord, paired with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe, bold elixir, sensual, woody, addictive, magnetic elixir, sweet and romantic like a lingering touch.

Solar elixir, a radiant expression of joy, ultra-concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power. Find your euphoria. Discover the Euphoria Elixir Collection by Calvin Klein. One hair that breaks the camel's back, if you will, There's issues with the L&Ps.

There's issues with that base I mentioned, that pseudo-uriting base, that completely scrambles your immune system. And then there's issues with repeat injecting this on people that your immune system starts to become tolerant of pathogens when you do that. There's this thing known as an IGG4-Class switch that happens with these vaccines. So there's a fourth thing is the actual spike protein itself has been shown to inhibit P53, which is a tumor suppressor gene that we have that cleans up your genome.

So the protein that this plasmids encoding shuts down your tumor surveillance. On top of that, the SV40, we know binds to P53. So that can't be good. You're shutting down the expression of P53 while you're also like, you know, bombarding it with this SV40 DNA that probably makes it less functional. So it's a multiple hit problem. We've got multiple things that are wrong with these vaccines that are probably driving cancer. But what's annoying about the SV40 stuff, it's completely preventable and they hit it.

And it didn't need to be there. So that's just a sign that the regulatory structure we have here is completely captured. They are not, I mean, this didn't take, a cannabis company shouldn't be finding this, right? Like this is something the FDA should have sequenced the vaccines. It doesn't cost much to do this anymore. When we started human genome, you know, way back when they came up, they came up with guidelines for vaccines to have no more than 10 picograms of DNA in vaccines that you inject in your arm. Those are traditional vaccines.

10 picograms of DNA? Yes. Okay. Very small amount. But your body, when you inject DNA naked like that, it's like a 10-minute half-life. It chews the stuff up really quickly. Okay. But we're now in a new world where we have lipid nanoparticles protecting that material,

so it doesn't get chewed up. And those, so arguably the number should be like addograms. And the other thing that's happened in that time frame is they have dilated the amount of nanograms of pharmaceutical industry can have in vaccines a thousandfold. So now it's up to 10 nanograms because since the, The pharmaceutical companies back in 1986 got a liability waiver, right? So now that they're not liable, every year they lobby for looser and looser regulations, and they always get them.

And so they've gotten to they've gotten to the point where they can put in 10 nanograms of DNA. On top of that, now it's on lipid nanoparticles, so it doesn't just get eaten up. It goes right to your cells. And they're playing around with putting DNA in there that's replicatable once it gets inside of your cells. So you could sneak one molecule through and it's a problem, right? So they really have opened up the tolerance levels here to extremely irresponsible levels. And they're not sequencing everything when the cost of sequencing has come down 100,000 fold in that same time frame. Like they should know every single molecule that's there.

There's no reason they can't know that with the tools that we've built. So as someone who's built sequencers, I get really pissed. I look at this and I'm like, this is just utterly irresponsible. You could have sequenced every single vial that went out the door for pennies. You didn't do it. And what is the thing? Do you, the reason that they, you say they hit, purposely hid the SV40 in these vaccine vials from the FDA. Yes, FDA has actually admitted to that now.

And two of two of their health candidates admitted it. TGA's admitted it. The EMAs admitted it. And what do you think the reason for hiding that? Do you think it's nefarious or do you think it's just sort of? It's intentional deception. Yeah. If they, if they had that in there, it would not have gotten to market and they would have maybe lost $100 billion.

And this was just, do you think this was about money? just to save money. Yeah. If they showed them SV40, they would have been delayed probably at least six months. They would have missed the market because that would have triggered alarm bells at the FDA that, oh, my God, there's SV40 components in here. What are you doing? Oh, you got this from your gene therapy department?

That's what they did. In order to speed this up, Pfizer has a hilarious paper of them kind of chest pounding how wonderfully fast they released these vaccines, how they kind of built the plane while it was flying thing, right? one of these self-back-slapping type of papers. But if you go through that paper, you'll see that, hey, we were really quick at this because we have a gene therapy department. We're able to call them up and get these plasmids. That's where SV40 comes from. They use SV40 because it's a nuclear targeting sequence.

It drives DNA right to the nucleus so that it can integrate. So this is a tool that's used for gene therapy. And Pfizer's on record bragging about, yeah, we just lifted that and threw it into these COVID vaccines. And we're going to eject it into billions of people and see what happens. you know. If the regulator saw SV40, I think they would have stopped and said, wait a minute, that's a nuclear targeting sequence. That's actually can replicate mammalian cells. You can't have something that replicates a million cells in your background because that means 10 nanograms can become 100 nanograms or microgram after it gets into a human cell. You have the machinery in there to teach human cells to keep replicating this. So once this came out, of course they all claimed we were conspiracy theorists until the FDA went through their files and looked at the sequence Pfizer gave them and said, oh, wait a minute, it's in there. They just didn't point it out like they were supposed to. So their guidelines demand you submit the sequence, but this published anywhere?

Our stuff has been. Yeah, we've published it as a preprint. There's others that have since published the contamination story and gotten it through peer review. We're still forcing ours through peer review. It's going to be a fun journey. But others have gotten it through. And it's also been replicated. You know, the thing about...

I mean, the fact that we... what you were just saying, how the FDA found that there was SV40 in there. Is that available online? That is. I have the links to them on my substack. Your group can look at all this communication. And a shout out to Scoops Magoo and Noah Chartier. They have been journalists who have actively been harassing the regulatory agencies with FOIAs and ATPs to get this information out. But in some cases, the FDA just came out with public statements on this saying, yes, we were not made aware of the SV40 in there, but we do know it's in there. We look through Pfizer's Can you find this, Steve?

Sorry. Go ahead. If you go to nepedalactone, there'll be a substack there that has all the atyps from go. And that will give you some of the language that's around there. Nepalectone subsstack. Sorry, that's a compound in catnip. You can see, I'm kind of like a cat person. Yeah, that's a great shirt.

Yeah, these, so if you go into that newsletter and if I think if you search for, hit no thanks. Hit no thanks. Yeah, so that's just a standard. If you, is there a search bar, there's a search bar in the upper. If you search up there for Scoops, Magoo, you'll just hit Scoops and it will probably show up as one of them down below. One of the, I'll keep going down. Let me see.

Glasses aren't. Oh, what's the title of it? I think it says. SV40 origins of replication in mammalian cells. Yeah, that's a more recent one. That talks about what the says. S340 that this thing actually when it gets into a million cells, it will make more copies of itself, which is what we think we now have that's later. But that's a little bit more technical. I think if you want the A-tips, you should find it in, oh no, try, try searching for scoops. Will that search the whole page or is that? I don't know. I was just trying to see if like there was any like public statement from the FDA about this. Yes, there's lots of them. There's been lots of back and forth. And the interesting thing about the communication with them is,

It's clear that they went, when they realized they were deceived, they turned to Pfizer and asked them what's going on. And Pfizer fed them a bunch of information that they didn't either know how to check themselves or verified all. They just parroted what Pfizer told them. Because Pfizer came back to them. There we go to his substack. That's even better. Go directly to the source. So he's got a great listing of all of the atyps.

A tips are like FOIAs in Canada. So this is it, Health Canada, SV40 and ATIP. part two, September, to October. Yeah, that's a good one to, that's a good one to read. That'll show you the story through Health Canada, but Health Canada and Pfizer and the FDA are getting kind of the same story from Pfizer. And so you get, you get the same perspective coming from both of those regulatory agencies. But the, is this on, is this on the FDA's website or anything or any of like the WHO

website or any of these regulatory? There probably is something on the FDA site that, because they went back and forth with Joe Latipo. When Joe Latipo got this information, he pulled a halt on these things. And there was some back and forth communication with the FDA and Joe when Joe asked them, hey, have you done any genital toxicity studies to address this concern? Steve, just trying to find it on one of the websites. Sorry, go ahead.

Yeah. And the communication they gave to Joe was not very reassuring to Joe because they started saying there's no SV40 protein in there. And like, we never said there was protein. We said there's a piece of DNA, pieces of DNA in there that are worrisome that they can integrate. And you haven't done any genot toxicity studies. Typically, when you have something like this, you've got to measure, what's the, what's the insertional mutagenesis rate? And these vaccines got a hall pass because they redeemed MRNA.

They're like, look, it's not DNA. So we don't need to do that, right? Well, what they didn't tell you is that, yes, it's MRNA, but there's also DNA there. In which case, if they were honest about how much DNA was there, they would have been forced to go through a genotusicity study, and they would have to look for insertional mutagenesis rates. That didn't occur on the MRNA vaccines. So that is, that's part of the crux of the issue at hand.

And so now we're in the stage where we're scanning through tumors, to look for integration events and looking for evidence of this in cancer biopsies. And we can find them now. Yeah, weren't you just in Germany doing this? I'm working with a group in Germany. I was just presenting in Phoenix at a CHD conference down there. But this is what's been most concerning is in this most recent work. We were basically scanning tumors that had spike signal.

So there's an immunohistochemistry you can run. That's like an antibody. It looks for the spike protein on tissue. So the folks out there were scanning all the biopsies to see which ones had a high spike. They found one that had a really high spike, sent it to us for sequencing, and we can find components of Pfizer's vaccines inside this thing a year after vaccination. And what's even more inside the cancer tumor. It's in the tumor. So it's expressing spike.

The plasmids are still there. They're at about 100 copies per cell. They shouldn't be there a year later. They shouldn't be there at all. But the fact that they're a year later is remarkable. And the fact that they're at 100 copies per cell is even more astounding. That tells us that these things aren't going in and getting degraded. They're going in and they're replicating.

And if you find them in tumors, that's a big problem because we've had this whole, as Jacks told you, this whole polio story with SV40. Yeah, there's a lot of signs out there that claims they can't see the signal in the epidemiological literature. But I think that's all bullshit. What you have to look at is the animal models. What are they saying you can't see the signal in the epionage? Yeah. So when you try to look for signals like this, almost in COVID, if you remember watching the whole COVID debate, they would do these studies being like, well, when we look at excess mortality in Finland versus Denmark versus Kansas, you can make up any story you want as to what COVID's doing.

And it's because there's a lot of confounders, different age groups, different people, different demographics. So what they do when they wanted to dismiss SV40 is actually being carcinogenic. The animal models show it's carcinogenic. You put SV40 virus into animals, you get tumors. So then they backed up and said, okay, let's see if we can see this in people and enlarge. And let's look at cancer rates across people that were vaccinated with the poliovirus and see if we can see trends. And lo and behold, if you pick the right populations, you can find nothing. All right.

It's the same story in COVID. Like if you want to hide a biological signal, you go to epidemiologists who play these games with bullshit statistics. But if you're a toxicologist, you look at the animal models. The animal models show SV40 creating tumors. That's all I need to know that I don't want this thing around. But I think what's happened over the years has been a big cover up on SV40. just like they're trying to cover up COVID and this whole vaccine campaign killing people is that they are, they're funding large institutions that are tightly tied to NIH and tightly tied to all the people who made this mess to create a mirage that they can't see the signal of SV40 from the polio vaccines because they create these huge confounding studies that no one can get their head around. Steve, I'm looking for like a not a substack article. I'm looking for like a like a report that you can find on one of the.

these like government agency websites or something like that yeah that he might be a faster route because i think he links to them in here yeah so he he's gone and foyer a lot of these these these people so these are documents that should have links to the source material okay it might be hard to get oh yeah the previous one had a link in it yeah we'll see what this one has um but that's a picture of the vaccine right there the plasmid that we sequence okay um so there that red region is the spike that's supposed to encode it uh the that's what when they get this plasmid out of a coli they will run an in vitro transcription reaction on that to make their RNA. It's a fancy word for just putting a polymerase in that turns DNA into RNA.

But what's on the left side of this of this plasmid is all the shit that shouldn't be there. Those are all the components that make this thing replicate in a coli. And the corner that Pfizer cut is they left components in here that let it replicate to a million cells. Those shouldn't be in any vaccine. So they have the SV40 origin of replication in there. They have the SV40 enhancer and the promoter. So, Moderna doesn't have that stuff. They do have a plasmine, but it doesn't have any mammalian replication machinery in it.

So that's kind of case in point that it was superfluous and unneeded. They didn't need to do this. Pfizer could have picked a different vector that didn't have this risk because their competitor pulled it off. Right. And their competitor has lower amounts of DNA contamination coming through. Now, I can't say that I've seen data that suggests one vaccine is worse than the other when you look at VERS. So people are still trying to sort that out. But there is certainly a concentration of adverse events on these vaccines on certain lot numbers.

The E lot numbers are notoriously bad. We've not yet sequenced those to know if they're any different. And why is that? They were some of the earlier lots. And so maybe they just didn't have their shit together on those lots. I don't have a good answer as to why. It could be there's also some speculation that might have been a different plasm in those. but we don't know that.

If you look at some of Pfizer's, that other publication I was mentioning where they were kind of bragging about how they grabbed gene therapy plasmen, they were making multiple plasmen in parallel to figure out which one would eventually end up in their product. And it's possible that some of their products are contaminated with the other ones.

I have a hunch that that might be the case just based on the sequence that we got from this colon cancer was not identical to the sequence we've seen in their vials. There's some differences there and that are probably very materials to why this one is at such high, copy number in those cancer patients. But that's yet that's yet to be published information.

We're still trying to get that sequence in other tissues to confirm it. So what you were saying from your study on the cancer cells, sequencing the cancer cells, you were finding these things, these plasmids in the cancer cells, how much later? This was like a year. A year later. Yeah, this person was four X vaccinated and a year later. And then what does that mean? What does that mean for them? The fact that it's still in these cells, were these cells there prior or were these cells created? And then what does this mean for people that aren't vaccinated that are in proximity to these people? All right.

That's a couple points there. So this patient's deceased, unfortunately. They have a year after vaccination, they got their first biopsy. A week after that, they got another biopsy. And then in four weeks, they were dead. And they got a post-mortem biopsy as well. We sequenced the post-mortem in the first one. And we're looking at the differences between those two.

There is a plasmina that codes for spike. The sequence of that spike is a little different. It's a lot different than the spike that Pfizer has in the vaccines we've sequenced previously. So this has raised a question as to what is really the source of this plasmid? Because the differences there have raised alarm balance. Like it's not exactly what we saw. Now, we've only sequenced like two other lots before. So we don't have good, we don't have good surveillance of all the different lots of Pfizer.

They could have different plasmids in each one. They could all be the same. We don't know. We need to do more to sort that out. But there is another hypothesis that could be a play here that leads to a much more frightening scenario, I think, in my mind, which is in the middle of pandemic, there's a paper that was published that really went unnoticed. It was a group in Seattle that showed that their. lab people were testing positive for COVID, but didn't have COVID. And they only tested positive. If you remember the COVID test, they actually had three assays usually testing for the virus. They would look at the spike. They'd look at nucleo caps and they'd look at the envelope region. So if all three lit up, they were pretty confident the virus was there. Occasionally, one of them would drop out. Like the S target would drop out once in a while. They had that happened in Europe. It was called S target failure. And they would say, all right, we don't really know if you've got COVID because only two out of the three assays are working. So what was happening in Seattle, this lab is only the nucleocapsid test was going off. And that was really weird and was,

it was in all their lab staff. And it turned out that same lab was working on a vaccine that was had nucleocapsid cloned into something very similar to Pfizer's plasma there. So that somehow infected all the lab people. And then it got out of the lab and infected their housemates. And so they, the paper hypothesized that, okay, this must be because this is a shuttle vector that can grow in a coli and can grow in a million cells. That means it's transmissible. Our vaccine in the lab infected our staff and got out into the wild. This was another lab leak that didn't hit the radar anywhere. And they kind of wrote it off as, no worries, it's nucleocapsid, it's not spike.

You know, if it were spike, you know, maybe we could have gotten those people some spikopathy because the spike protein itself is really pro-inflammatory. Neclocapsid, perhaps not as much. They kind of wrote the paper as, hey, watch out. Your PCR test might be giving you false positives if you're working on these vaccines on the side. But for someone like me who reads that paper, I'm like, no, you just had a huge bio leak in Seattle. And it should have been followed up by the CDC. They should have run all over Seattle and looked for this and all their housemates and everyone else.

All right. So there are hundreds of labs around the world doing those same types of experiments where they're taking spike proteins that have been sequenced and there's some differences. And they want to characterize those differences, those variance of concern, right? You may have heard of this. Like there's Omicron, Delta, Alpha. Right, right, right. All of these differences, there is a lab. somewhere out there cloning that difference,

putting it into one of these vectors and putting them into a million cells to see, okay, is it worse or is it better? And that's how they could gauge whether Omicron was like less pathogenic than, then let's say alpha or delta. So think of hundreds of labs around the world, cloning different forms of the spike protein

into vectors like this that have the capacity to shuttle between mammals and ecoli. That means they're like little zoonotic bombs, if you will. that if they get into the lab and they get out, they could spread at their own unknown rate. We don't know what the R-Nod is of that type of transmission.

It's not been fouled. It's not been tracked very closely. But there is one case of it in the peer-review literature already that it happened in Seattle. So that tells me if there's hundreds of other labs working on this, there could be leaks out there that we don't know about. So when I find something like this in a tumor biopsy that is an identical to Pfizer,

my head goes in that direction. It's that, okay, this plasmid that we founded in is called PCDNA3. It is the most commonly used vector for people to study spike protein mutations. So some lab could have leaked this and got into this patient somehow. You can't pin it 100% of Pfizer because it's not the fingerprint Pfizer gave to the FDA, unless Pfizer's playing with multiple plasms, which their paper shows they are. They just haven't disclosed what they are. So we're stuck with two hypotheses here.

It could be something that is contamination in Pfizer's lab that got into the sky's four shots. He gets it. He ends up with tuber cancer a year later. Or it could be this person knew somebody at a lab. It was in close proximity and got it from them. And that this ended up replicating in his body and ends up with

in his colon cancer in some way. So we don't know, but I think the important message I want to get across to people is that the current gain of function debate isn't talking about this. The gain of function debate is people like Barak making these full viruses. But all the research labs that just want to take a tiny piece of the virus out and say, I want to study what this new, with this Omicron thing is doing in the laboratory, they've got to be very careful if they put that into a shuttle vector that can infect humans and a coli. That can't get out because, yes, the Seattle paper showed it can travel to housemates of the people working in the lab. So they have to make sure that when they do those studies, that they have a kill switch in those plasmus to some extent that doesn't allow it to jump between different organisms. Like only, only put.

into a million, something that can replicate an amelion cells or only a coli, but not both. Or they've got to just track them a lot more carefully. So, you know, if Rand Paul's listening or anyone who's working on sort of the biosafety now thing, they have to look into that Seattle paper. And they have to take a look at the data that we found in this colon cancer thing to see, is it anywhere else? Like start using PCR to screen tumor biopsies. These tumor biopsies, people throw them out after two years. Unless they, unless they, they parif and fix them, they can storm longer, but most biopsies are gone in two years. That's crazy.

So they've got to go and start looking to see, is this an N of one or are there other turbo cancers out there that are spike positive and have plasmids in them that are transmissible because if spike is in fact causing tuber cancers, they have a transmissible form of spike going through all the research laboratories right now. So that essentially you're saying this S-V-40 turbo cancer would become contagious? Well, it would move. Whether it would manifest in cancer in every patient is something I can't predict. But they at least should be able to track it with PCR.

You can go and track the like, okay, is it leaking anywhere? Is it jumping person to person? And are we finding it in more than just end of one biopsies here? We found it in both biopsy, but it was same person, two different time points. But actually, we had three time points. They all had it. But the sequencing was only done on the first and last. but we do have to see if there's a trend here,

if they keep finding this plasmid in other biopsies from people of turbocancer, okay, that's search to build a thesis here. And then they have to go and review which labs are making these. Did this come from Pfizer, or did this come from one of these labs that are studying VOCs? And what does that mean for how we think about gain of function research in the future? Gain of function is such a funny name.

It's like... It's gain of death. It's gain of death. The function is human death, right? Yeah, exactly. This is, as Elon said, this is not, that whole biodefense industry is never mix biodefense with health. This is where it goes. They got themselves in a corner trying to fabricate risk to scare the population into funding this biodefense thing.

And lo and behold, the first product out of the biodefense department is this plague. Now, as I said earlier, I don't think coroner. of this particular coronavirus was very deadly. I didn't like getting it. And it yeah, it knocked a lot of people out of the workforce. It had an impact. It's not necessarily a clean story that it caused all of the excess mortality that we attribute to COVID. I think the vaccine caused more of it. So oftentimes, our response to the fear is more deadly than what they've built. That doesn't mean they can't make something worse later. But a general principle in virology is that very lethal viruses don't transmit very far.

They don't do what? They don't transmit very far. It's this Mueller's Ratchet phenomenon that if the virus is very lethal, it kills the host before it moves. So viruses evolve to keep people in circulation.

Right. So that you're minimally affected. That way you can spread it to five or ten people. Right. So respiratory virus just kind of end up in that way. That's how Omicron probably came about. And so it's unlikely you're going to similar like Ebola. so deadly that it's going to go very far. It's going to kill people so quickly. Cancer is a different

story, though. When you get viruses that cause cancer, those can take a year. And if there is any sign of there being transmissibility with it, well, then you have a whole year where you could probably be transmitting this before cancer takes you out. Right. So there's, when you get involved with viruses of cancer, you got to pay a little bit more close attention to them, which is why I think when they start injecting vaccines and things like this that aren't properly characterized and they could have viruses, like an entire SV40 virus that they have. And the Polio vaccine, they're getting to really just desperate, crazy territory of making drugs. Like, you just don't take those kind of risks, particularly for something as harmless as C-19.

Why do you think that the U.S. had more deaths than any other country per capita? Because they had the most to gain. The pharmaceutical industry pumped it all. If you look at all those deaths, they're in Massachusetts, in New York, in New Jersey. It's the Farmabelle. Everyone in those territories, it's like, I don't have you ever seen that sort of libertarian video about iPencil. how an economy works, right? What's it called?

Eye pencil. Eye pencil. So everything that's required to make a pencil. If you look at just that analysis alone, the number of people that you need to make the paint, to make the wood, to make the graphite, to make the rubber, to make the metal, it's this huge network of human interaction that makes the most remote things you never think about, including the coffee and the donuts that are feeding the people at the mill that make the wood. It's a huge network. You go into Massachusetts, and the whole network of Massachusetts is, is tied into Moderna and Pfizer.

They're both headquartered there. The testing companies, like Thermo, is from Massachusetts. It is basically the COVID-center economy of the world. Wow. So they have the most deaths because everyone around them was in this mine virus of COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID. We have to cure COVID. And they were tied to the economy of COVID. That's why their outcomes are the worst.

Their fear got the best of them. And they went overboard with treating only this one thing while forgetting all about all of their health care. So they were motivated to exaggerate the death the most in those counties. And they did. So John Bowdoin has the numbers. He has hardcore data from the death records from Massachusetts. He's a great, he highly recommend having mom because he can walk you through the fraud that's going on on the death records in Massachusetts.

And you can see that they were putting down seeing deaths as COVID deaths. And he can, he can, he can, he can, nail it because the death records are not protected by HIPAA. And so since they're not detected by HIPAA, you can take all the information of the death record where the medical examiner doesn't mention the shot. And then you can go and find the same person in VERS, which doesn't have a name on it because VERS is anonymized. But he de-anonomizes VERS through death records. Oh, wow. And so you can find the exact people in VERS that these medical examiners were probably paid off to put down as COVID. Remind me about what was going on with VERS. There was some sort of like

trickery going on with that, right? So VERS is a surveillance system that's meant to be looked at. And when COVID came around, it decided to stop looking at it. And prior to that, it was a great surveillance system that they trusted. But they, for some reason, the physicians said that I think it was just too horrifying to look at. The signal went through the roof on VARES. It's basically like people that got injured by these things, right? Yes.

Yeah. And it is a, it is a felony to put any fraudulent material in there. No doctor puts fraud in there. Okay. They're not going to lose their license and risk of felony. Right. Now, occasionally, a hacker or two who wants to mock people pointing affairs will try and will submit some bullshit in there to say, hey, look, there's a bullshit one in right here. You know, one out of the millions that are in there is bullshit because someone wanted to prove a point.

But, and it's not clear people have gone after the person who did that. But when you talk to physicians, they don't mess around putting shit in the verres because they know it can come with, this is such a hot topic. Like, you get the license very quickly. Right. And so everything that you find in VERS that's got, I think 80% is from either a nurse or someone who has a license to lose, basically. Those ones you can all, you can all believe are real. But it's underreported by probably 30-fold. It's under-reported by 30-fold.

And why do you think so? Because not everyone reports into the system because of the time it takes. It can take like 30 minutes to an hour for each report. And there are also hospitals that were firing people for doing it. Oh, really? Yes. So there have been nurses who were let go who are trying to. be adamant that we have to put these things into VERS and they would say your

nuisance get out of here. There's many cases of that that are documented. So there's there's the time factor out of the day that takes to put it in and there's the recourse that people get for using it. And what were the statistics on VERS during the pandemic? So VERS, I think the last thing I saw was 30,000 deaths were attributed in there. And I mean, I've actually, I've lost track of that number because it's so ridiculous in that in the past when you got 50 deaths, you pulled the shot. And so, yeah, once we got into like the 5,000 or 10,000, I stopped counting and keeping up with it. I'm like, they're just so far over their skis now. They're never going to admit to it.

Right. But in that end, with that underreporting factor, yeah, what do we have there? Jessica Rose is the person you want to talk to about VERS. There, what's that for me? I'm not sure if this is it, but this is what popped up when I did a story. State surgeon, go up, go up. The state surgeon general is notifying health care sector and public of substantial increase in vaccine adverse events

reporting system bears from Florida after COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Okay, so it's the incidents. From 2007 through like 2017, it's between 1,000 to 2000. 2020, it's 2,400. And then in 2021,

it's 41,473. And then in 2022, it's back down to 9,000. That's insane. It's totally insane. Jessica does a really good work where she compares this to flu numbers as well so you can get a sense of, okay,

what happened with flu in similar time frames. Yeah, that's interesting. We should look at that. Yeah, what's her name? Jessica Rose, she's got a good substack on this. She's been probably the number one sleuth on VERS. And there's also, I think Open VERS is another group who's tried to make the VERS website

a little bit more user-friendly to people who don't like poking around bears. But it is an astronomical number that no one wants to talk about. And I mean, there are people who are talking about it, but she has some peer-review papers on this as well. She had one of the first papers on myrocroditis, actually, with Peter McCullough. Oh, really? And it went through the typical, it gets published,

and then they demand it get withdrawn. See that withdrawn thing? Withdrawn isn't retracted, by the way. It's a different meaning. Interesting. This paper has been tortured for years, and it's finally getting its way out in a journal without much change from the original work. And imagine if the world knew in 2021 about myrocharditis. And this wasn't suppressed, right?

This signal now is, I mean, I was just with Peter two days ago on Saturday, and he gave a presentation on myrocharditis in the fact that something, they think. they may have a better handle on this now, but they're finding ways to do a better job clearing the spike protein with a variety of things like bromoline and curcumin and I think the other one was natokinase. But generally, myrocroditis

prognosis is like 50% fatality in five years, right? So they may have done this to, you know, hundreds of thousands of people. It's like, it's insane. And what you'll find the cover-up that occurs is they'll say, well, the virus does that too. And the

way they'll they'll fabricate those stories is they'll find a, they'll do a publications showing that here's a population of people that got the virus and didn't get the virus and they won't talk about the vaccine status in the paper. And they'll say, look, the people with the virus got more. Of course, if they got the virus and they got vaccinated, it's going to be worse. They got spiked twice. Right. And what is the connection, what is the correlation with people who did get myocarditis? Was there any sort of pattern there? If you love diving into culture and comedy, like on Danny Jones podcast, playoff hockey is right up your alley. NHL on T&T has the best coverage, making every game feel intense and unpredictable. Playoff hockey is a different level, overtime,

big hits, and no one coast. The studio crew, with Paul Bissonette cracking jokes and Wayne Gretzky breaking things down, makes it even more fun to watch. Every shift matters, and the personalities keep things lively. Watch the Stanley Cup playoffs on T&T, TV, T.S., True TV and HBO Max. Well, with the vaccine, it's now on the label. Like, for the people who claim this isn't happening, like, even the regulators have finally had to cough this one up. Like, it's on the label.

It's on the COVID vaccine label. Yeah, this can cause myocarditis. They've admitted to that on, at the FDA site as well, right? Is that a research gate? But the, but the myrocariditis story, I think why John's an interesting discussion on this, is that he has a death records and he will tell you the myrochiditis is. the tip of the iceberg. There's way worse shit going on the vaccine in myocarditis. Well, 50%

death rate is pretty substantial. Yes. And Peter's been back and off of that now being like they think they may have gotten a way to clear the spike protein now that they can extend that. But before them having those treatment options, he was worried that that was the prognosis of someone with myocarditis prior to them finding a way of eliminating some of the spike

protein. But they are hopeful that that number is going to go down with the treatments that they've come across. I think you'll probably find a notice from the FDA about myrocharditis. I don't know if they'll actually fit it on those tiny labels. Go to the FDA's website. Yeah. Yeah, but so, so. There we go.

Update on myocarditis. FDA, okay, click on that. This came out in June 22. Wow. Yeah, it took them a while. Two years ago. What is the summary of this? Go down?

This is the Verbach committee. I'd be, at PDF. Okay. Okay. What is the Is there like a summary or like a This is It's just like a brochure

Keep going Keep scrolling you'll find This is I've spoken At one of these Verbeck meetings I think this is probably Okay go up Go up to that last one Zoom in on the one with the chart on it

The red bars on it Verified US reports of Two Vairs Of Myokidars after MRI COVID-19 vaccination Among people ages 18 years and older Following primary series of And first booster

By time to symptom onset and dose number okay so it's saying one two three that is the time to symptom onset yeah and the second um column is verified reports so the most verified reports is three three days and there's 250 reports this is confusing I don't know what this means yeah what you can see there is a dose response I mean that that's what you'll see in, so in Jessica's paper, and what Jessica and Peter did is they put this through what's known as a Bradford Hill criteria. So if you want to try and derive causation from, you know, from correlative information, because that's where everyone goes to to defend against this is, ah, it's just correlation. But it's a lot of correlation. So what Bradford Hill makes you go and do is you got to show that there's a temporal connection, that it's within close temporal proximity of the actual dose that this happens. You have to show a biological trend in that, um, the more dose creates more problem, which they have here, right? Okay, okay.

So there's, there's, there's about 10 of these criteria in Bradford Hill that go through that help you determine whether something can be deemed causative or correlative. And they've satisfied Bradford Hill criteria on this one, on myocarditis. That's what her paper goes through. Right. Okay, there's a time connection. There's a biological mechanism. There's a dose response to this. And, and, and that, that got suppressed for, for three years.

Go to the next slide, Steve. 1321 reports what verified using CDC case definition well that's a that's a word salad right there yeah there when the CDC gets involved a case definition they end up bearing most of it but there are papers now out that look at autopsies that

McCullough's been involved in and it's something like that's the cold hard truth and not enough autopsies were done but when they when he was looking through autopsies it was something like 70 to 75 percent of the cases they could pin to the vaccine where when it goes to the CDC's hands, it's like 7% or something. They start playing all these games being like, well, it could have been something else. But kids don't get my rachyditis. You know, this is one that's really overt that they kind of had to cough up.

I think where the cancer stuff gets messy is it tends to be, you know, sometimes older people. Although that is not holding true with, I was just with Dr. Maccas. And he was showing that like the peak of cancers were actually like in the 40s and 50s. So people are getting cancer like 10 years earlier. They're starting to screen earlier because of what's happened. Like they're trying to move the mammograms up 10 years. They're trying to move the colonoscopies up 10 years because that's, in some ways, that will actually hide the signal because you'll get more negatives when you do that. If you open up the scanning window, suddenly change it to 30 instead of 40 for breast cancer, suddenly you'll get a lot more people coming through that don't have it.

And so the prevalence rate will go down if they just move the window around on you. But you are picking some people up at those ages, which you shouldn't be. That's what I think is the most shocking thing. And John's data shows us as well that the age demographic shift happened after the vaccine came into play. You could see when COVID was in place, the average age of death in Massachusetts was 82. All right. And the average age of death in Massachusetts is 80. So the vaccine was just, the virus was just killing people on the edge of life.

Okay. And Massachusetts data is really clear. Then when the vaccine actually comes into play, the people that are dying are suddenly 10 or 15 years younger. That's not a virus doesn't do that. A virus doesn't suddenly mutate and decide to kill younger people. Right. That's something else that you've added in as a toxin that's bringing it. Not only does the age demographic shift in this data, the types of mechanisms of disease shifts from, you know, in these older age patients that are getting hit with viruses.

They're mostly going down with like some temporary pneumonia. what's happening with the people that post-vaccine is you're getting clots, you're getting strokes, you're getting kidney failure, you're getting, you're getting lymphomas. So it's at the age, the age demographic shifted and the type of disease shifted right off the vaccine program, which is a pretty strong signal that this is in fact not a virus changing on us in that regard. And Jack said that aluminum ties into this story somehow. Is that true? Well, there is some, so a person we work with on this was Sin Lee. Sin Lee is probably, best known in this field for finding DNA contamination in the HPV vaccines. And the, I don't know that there's aluminum. I mentioned, I heard Jack say something about that. I have not measured for any aluminum in these vaccines, so I can't comment on that and whether

it's in there. But the other, the older vaccines do tend to have aluminum. And the problem with aluminum is it does bind DNA and pull it out of the solution. So sometimes the tools you use to measure DNA miss it. So it's a great way of camouflaging residual DNA in a vaccine is throw some aluminum in there and all the aluminum soaks up the DNA so that the PCR tools don't see it. So Sin figured that out and was able to sequence parts of the HPV vaccines, genetic constructs that they used to make it.

And he's been complaining about that for probably over five or six years now. And again, you know, the FDA just said it's, you know, moving along, nothing to see here. But I don't know if that's playing any role in this event other than, you know, then there is some literature out there regarding the efficiency of transfection. Lipid nanopartals are really good at getting DNA into cells. In vaccines that don't have them, sometimes people use calcium phosphate or other metals that will help get moved DNA into the cell. So there's some research that needs to be done is whether or not this aluminum DNA adjuvant

actually has any level of transfection capacity. I suspect it's a lot lower than LMPs, but it may, in fact, facilitate some level of to entry into other cells. And regarding these turbo cancers, these turbo cancers that take essentially less than a year from someone to get diagnosed with it to be killed with it for them to actually

die. How prevalent has this been? And are there any people that are actually doing hard research on these cancers that, like, because I know that lady, Jack was saying that lady Susan who was the CEO of YouTube. This happened to her. Yes. Yes. So she,

I mean, we don't have any sequence evidence to prove what happened there, but she was at a, I think she was 54 where this happened. Yeah. And, you know, what's that Elon Musk quote about if there's a god out there? He's, he's one who's dipped in irony. But because there's, you know, she was a scenario where she was actually censoring everybody. That's information. So to get to answer your question about her, it's hard to know because of her, right? So YouTube was sent, anyone talking about turbocancers in this area was getting thrown off of YouTube. Don't speak too soon.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, sorry. Maybe not as much anymore, but. Yeah, hopefully not as much anymore, especially after last week. Yeah, yeah, right. This is true. Very true. You're in good hands now. I think Trump just came out with a really bold statement about freedom of speech.

I saw that. That is very reassuring. But yes, she had died of a rapid onset cancer. We suspect she was heavily vaccinated because she was. was very pro-vaccine. Sadly, I think one of her children may have committed suicide as well during the pandemic. And, you know, there's speculation there as well that, you know, that there's a lot of, a lot more suicide in the pandemic as of what they did to kids, you know, that was it, the drug use also more drug overdoses. Yep. Yeah, I think that may have played a role in that, and that,

in that death as well. People staying inside, not getting sunlight, like, all the things Jack talks about, right? Like, this is, you know, there's another book out there that I like to point to, that I think Jack would like as well. I got to send it to him. I think it was called the indoctrinated mind, okay? The indoctrinated mind. Yeah, this is a gentleman who was noticing. You'll see this. Even Peter McCullough had something up very recently on a post today about how there's an increased rate of anxiety and depression in long COVID patients and in the vaccinated, mostly in the vaccinated.

But so there is some serotonin biology going on. In fact, if you remember early on the pandemic, one of the drugs that's miraculously worked was fluvoxamine. Phloxamine is an antidepressant. It's a serotonin drug. And maybe it has to do with your gut biome. We don't know. But it was very effective at slowing down the transmission of SARS. So what this person had pointed out was that coronavirus, people who have long COVID

or have been heavily vaccinated, that it tends to do a certain damage in a certain part of the brain that can drive anxiety. And when you do that, you become more compliant. and you become more willing to take another vaccine. And he runs through how low-dose lithium can reverse this and how in order to help our comrades who may have fallen for this crazy vaccine scan that's going on, that we have to actually consider the fact that some of them may be going through this type of neurobiology.

Wow. Yeah. Frightening to think, if they knew about that in advance, that would be some pretty impressive work on their behalf. Yeah, the stuff that Jack was saying about how these screens on all these devices basically hijack our brains and they like keep they keep us in a sympathetic state in our lizard brains yep and basically just hypothalamus yeah yeah it makes us it makes sense how it would make us more compliant because we don't want to think anymore it's just like this

mindless act this mindless act of of engaging stuff and getting this like do like through these dopamine slot machines of these phones and stuff like that and and you know it's it's not just with the screens but it's like the are the most extreme example of it, but if you think about it, it's everywhere. Like, even with, like, traffic. You don't think about that. People are just on their phones in traffic waiting for the light to turn green,

press the gas. Now you have cars that do all of it for you. Right. Like, it's... So in Jack Spirit, you know, if you want to, like, decentralize your way out of this, we've got to start thinking about these compounds

that aren't necessarily under the capture of the FDA that actually reverse some of this, which are like the anthogen, psilocybin, right? This is a drug that is known to, like, increase neural connectivity. and it may play role, just like lithium, this person was demonstrating, I suspect this would be a better option, is that it may kick people out of these depressive states and get them thinking more independently and not being as committed to the state for their medicine. Certainly the people I know that have explored those areas begin to look outside the state for solutions for medicine. I think the challenge we have when we centralize things, and it'll be very interesting to see what happens with Trump and Bobby and everything they're doing down there because

you know, it's kind of like, you know, going into the Death Star and making Darth Vader nice. Can you do it or do you just have to like nuke the whole thing, right? Or rebuild from the whole new model. I don't know if they're going to be able to go in there and clean shop enough to fix the problem. Like in some ways what you have to do is not change the king but actually get rid of the institution so that it gets decentralized and done differently. But I'm all for them trying, right? Let's see if they can if they can clean it up and make it so it's less bureaucratic. But the reason I got into the cannabis field and into the solosophy space is that these people have figured out how to decentralize medicine.

They're working with compounds that you can grow in your backyard that anyone can grow on their own. And they're figuring out ways to safety test them and understand their use in various applications so that we don't have to be dependent on some FDA-based pharma, fascist oligarchy system that hands-down demands that everyone take an injectable unknown vaccine. population-wide. I mean, it was, what they did was, I can't, from a genetic standpoint, I can't believe how irresponsible this was, to roll out something that recklessly to everybody. Like, that's a Darwin award waiting to happen. Yeah. You know, like to think, hey, we should all take a vaccine at the same time. Like, you would never do that with antibiotics, right? That's, like, this is the reason they took antibiotics out of COVID. It's like, oh, we don't want to get antibiotic resistance. Let's give them all an antiviral at the same time. Like, viruses evolve faster

than microbes than bacteria. So you're thinking they have it backwards. The same logic doesn't apply. You don't go into a pandemic and vaccinate everybody on a virus because that's like giving everyone antibiotics at the same time only with something that mutates faster. So they did that globally with a platform that if you just went back maybe to 2019 when they made CRISPR babies, they threw that guy in jail. Right.

Right. So what changed between 2018 and 2020? where messing around with CRISPR babies was, you know, the art of Satan and we're going to jail you for it to suddenly we're going to gamble on the entire population with something very similar. It's not identical to making CRISPR babies, but we need to understand. It's essentially gene therapy, though. It's gene therapy at the semantic level, not the germline. And so that's arguably a little bit different. However, the verdict's not out on that.

So germline is, you know, egg and sperm. All the cells in the body get the CRISPR baby change. And that changes that person's generation. Like their offspring will also have it, right? That's a germline change, okay? A somatic change are your cells that have differentiated, and they're not necessarily going to end up in offspring, but they couldn't end up in tumors.

They can end up in your stem cells, which make a lot of your other cells. And we don't yet know if they end up in your gametes and in your sperm or your eggs. We're very worried they do because the biodistribution studies on the L&P show a high concentration in the ovaries. All right.

So it's possible that some of this crap that's gone on has made it into somebody's genome modification into an egg, and we just haven't seen it yet. So that's going to be generations for us to look at and come. But even if it is a remote of a possibility with the vaccine, they did it to billions of people that there's probably more CRISPR babies out there from this than there are from the CRISPR babies. Right, right.

You know, that's the change in mindset. And all it took was a Fauci flu, like fear porn. They did it with social media and with fear porn and probably some of the techniques that Jack's talking about, which is getting everybody in a depressive state with indoor, no vitamin D, lots of blue light. On top of that,

maybe these spike proteins are playing some role in the biochemistry and the brain as well. And boom, they start lining up for doing this every six months and creating cults based on who does it and who doesn't do it. There's in and out groups that are formed in society and whether you're a vaxer or an anti-vaxer.

What was Jack saying about EMF? and DNA. So I haven't gone down the EMF rabbit hole as much yet. I'm going to because he's kind of pointing, he's pointing that direction. Or plasma, DNA plasmids and EMF signals is what, yeah, something like that. So there has been discussion

about electromagnetic frequencies and I do know some people I trust in the field that are actually doing a lot to shield their homes and keep those, to keep those things, that exposure down. I don't yet have the connection down as to what it's doing with DNA. DNA is known to,

be have some some capacity to to to resonate in and in that it can you can put certain electromagnetic frequencies you can transmit it through DNA but um i've not seen any health connections yet but it's it's not because i haven't it's because i haven't looked deeply right it could be there it's just not a rabbit hole have gone down yet um but uh the that is something that has come up on the vaccine that i have not seen evidence for which is that there are these nanobots in there that are 5g receptive like we when we've looked through these we don't see any yet evidence of nanobots. And there have been papers that have come out that try to look for them. You would be able to find them?

You'd be able to see them under light microscopes, yes. And the papers that try to find them in the light microscopes look like they are looking at what are crystals from like cholesterol. When you put things under light microscopes, the light heats the sample to a point where you get these weird evaporative effects off the slide. And then certain crystals start to form because the water is getting sucked out of there. And so you get them with a lot of cholesterol crystals. Yeah, we just had a guy on recently who was like hacked by some people who claimed they were Chinese dissidents and they were trying to save the world from the 5G basically like how 5G was going to hijack these nanobots that were in the vaccines and be able to like control people's autonomy.

You know, right? The thing is with all the conspiracies there's a doctor. What's the doctor's name? Find the doctor in Harvard. There's a doctor from Harvard who went to jail for actually working with China. Oh, that was, I know you're talking about that. that was Charles Lieber. Lieber, that's it.

That's it, yep. Charles Lieber. I thought he got bad. I thought he had some biologics that were going across borders and he had some Chinese. Yeah, this is perfect. Read this. Two people that were working in this laboratory that were questionably part of the Chinese Liberation Army or something. Yeah, Department of Justice said the chair of Harvard University, chemistry and chemical biology department and two Chinese nationals have been charged with connection to aiding the People's Republic of China.

Charles Lieber 60, chair to the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard. Harvard University was arrested this morning in charge with criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulous statement. What? He will appear this afternoon before blah, blah, blah, blah. Then it says the Chinese National. This is the guy, I'm not even going to try to say that. Zosong, Zing, 30, a Chinese National arrested on December 10th, 2019 at Boston Logan, Air. airport was charged in a criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China.

Yeah. Okay. According to the court documents, since 2008, Dr. Lieber, who has served as the principal investigator at the Lieber Research Group at Harvard University, which specialized in the area of nanoscience, has received more than $15 million in grant funding from the National Institute of Health and the DOD. So what's really spooky about this is, okay. why haven't they gotten to Barrick or Fauci? Right? Like this is really early on in the pandemic. And so they laid latch on to this guy who's moving some biologics.

I think it was going through Canada into China. And something else is going on here just because the fact that they've acted on him and not on Barrick is... Who is Barrett again? Ralph Barak's a guy who arguably taught with how to create the coronavirus. Ta who? The Wuhan Institute of Rology. Oh. So there was there grants that Fauci basically.

boomeranged off of Echo Health into the Whiff because they put a gain of function ban on funding here in the States. Obama did that, right? Obama did that. And so what Fauci's creative way around that was, well, we'll fund a nonprofit called Echo Health Alliance run by Peter Dasik, who will launder the money for us into the Wuhan Institute of Verology. Therefore, it's not directly from Fauci to Wuhan.

It's going through some intermediary. And through that process, they taught the Wuhan Institute of Virology how to do this seamless, a noceum technique, which is a technique of assembling viral genome, so you don't leave any, like, evidence behind. It's a ligation technique that uses a Golden Gate assembly. It's a clever way of putting stuff together so that you can't tell that someone built it necessarily from a laboratory. However, they did leave behind some fingerprints that make us, that got them caught, basically. And you should, if you want to hear about that story, you should get Charles Rixie on here. Charles Rixie has helped, you know, RFK write his book about this.

And Charles Rixie's a Marine, and he's been like a dog on a bone with this problem. And he was the one who leaked the diffuse proposal. Are you familiar with the diffuse proposal? No, what is that? So there was a grant that was proposed to the DOD to go build a weaponized coronavirus under the banner of we need to build a vaccine against this, because if we can do it, the Chinese can do it kind of thing. And the DoD turned down the grant because I thought it was too fucking crazy. You'll have something to leak from this.

But as anyone who's written grants, I've been involved in writing grants for our company. We've got like $30 million in grants for NIH. You don't apply with a grant not having done 80% of it. It's just you're looking for the last 20%. Right. Because you just can't. The grant process is so grueling and so competitive that in order for you to succeed, you have to have all this preliminary data that shows like we can get X done.

We've demonstrated. this piece, we've demonstrated this piece. Now we just need to do this last piece. And in that diffuse proposal, they had used particular restriction enzymes. These are enzymes that cut at particular sequences in DNA. Okay. Those are important because they help guide the way that you cut and paste DNA together. So imagine if you're cutting and pasting a word document, but your highlighter to highlight

what sentence you want to cut can only start and end with certain, like, letters. those are what restrictions endems are. So imagine you could only cut in pace where there's a the. So you would have to then build a paragraph knowing that the paragraphs that have sentences that start with the, we're going to cut with this enzyme. And the ones that have sentences that start with maybe we have another enzyme with things that start with there, which is a couple more letters onto the, right? And we're going to use those enzymes to cut here. And by doing that, we can assemble this genome. Well, they had certain restriction enzymes in that diffuse proposal that are present in coronavars that's currently circulating.

And that was kind of the smoking gun that showed that, okay, this was in fact assembled. It was a product of the diffuse proposal. Someone eventually carried out that grant application to its final conclusion. And that's what's actually circulating. Holy shit. Rixie has the whole story on this. You want to talk to him and Alex Washburn. Alex Washburn did some really interesting work mapping out the frequencies of these cut sites in all other coronaviruses.

And only in SARS-CoV-2 do they exist in an, in a, in a manner where they are almost perfectly spaced into, they build a thing back together in six pieces. So the Humpty Dumpty comes back together in sort of an engineering way through only in SARS-CoV-2. If you look at where those restriction sites exist and all the other coronaviruses we know about,

they're kind of randomly scattered. They don't look like someone designed them in. You look in SARS-CoV-2, they're very perfectly spaced such that an engineer put it together. And there's a particular set of them near the fear and cleavage site that looks like it's designed to take that fear and cleavage site in and out and mutate it and swap it around so that you can optimize

this to actually hit ACE2 receptors. And what's remarkable about the zominoesis thesis is that this thing came out pre-optimized. Like when we first found SARS coronavirus, the binding affinity to ACE2 was already optimized. That's not normal. Like if this were a zoonotic event, the leap would mean it was unoptimized and would take maybe five or 10 years to become more optimized in the population. That's another signature that someone had had to have a piece inside the design of this virus that they could swap in and out to put a library in there to commentatorily screen for fear and cleavage sites in receptor binding domains that would effectively allow them to rich for optimization out of the gate. And so Charles and Alex have a good story around this, but how they use serial passes. and the engineering design that they have in this implicate this as being, in fact, a weapon that was built. And it's not something that hopped over from panglins and bats and all that stuff.

Jesus Christ. Yeah. Harvey Rich, I think, has another interesting, like, window on this. It's worth a view on the Ron Johnson thing that I was at. Harvey gave his pitch on, like, all right, where the hell did this all come from? And how do we avoid doing this again? Right. And he had the most compelling synopsis, I think, because everyone's been like, can they be this evil?

What the hell happened? And I think his story makes the most sense, which is that the biodefense industry, if you will, has always kind of justified itself on that. We need to be doing gain and function research to protect against a particular weapon. And so we're going to preemptively do all this. Fast forward to 2020, they've never come up with something they've saved us from. and then the first thing that leaks is potentially from their own making, right? Right. So that puts the biodefense industry on their heels in that we have to be in control of the solution to this.

Otherwise, we're non-existent when this is done. So let's get Fauci involved because they had him on payroll. And, of course, Fauci, I think you've probably seen some of those emails and conversations that have come out where it's like, you'll have orders. You have things to do. He's so arrogantly talking about, you won't. You'll get a vaccine or you'll lose your. Yes. The kids will get kicked out of school. His emails internally that leaked out of the NIH were like, you'll have things to do tomorrow. You must read this paper. This is a paper about,

you know, potential leak, right? Early on, this is like February and the pandemic where it first hit on him that this could have come from money from his pocket. Like it could have come from the Whiff, Wuhan Institute of Vrology. And so suddenly Tony's now implicated in maybe have funding the virus that leaked and suddenly he's in panic most sending emails to everyone that night like read all the stuff you'll have you'll have assignments tomorrow like we got to get on this and Francis Collins is in there talking about how we have to have a swift take down of all these conspiracy theories that say it comes it could be engineered and so they're in high gear right now trying to cover this up but you know his take is that that the biodefense program then went to high gear trying to get the

vaccine is the only solution to fix this that way they would have a justification for yes, something leaked, sorry, you don't really know who made it, but we happen to save the day with a biodefence program having this vaccine ready. See, this significant function stuff really needs to happen. Otherwise, we would have been millions of people would have died without this vaccine. Which is a narrative. You hear people try to propagate in the news, right? That without this vaccine, it's saved 20 million people. They conjure up all of these weird epidemiological studies that try to make that case in their own modeling studies that are easily dismantled. But I think that, that is a lesson for us going forward that this gain of function work is more dangerous than it can never help. And it is something they need to put a real tight lid on because this, you know, I'm involved on a separate side of this, which is, okay, you found a contaminant in these vaccines. That could implicate fraud. Fraud might unwind the PEP Act. Therefore, lawyers can now go after the FDA. And the first trial that tried to do that was with Brooke Jackson. And Brooke Jackson had evidence of the trials being fabricated.

Like she was in that, she was at Ventavia being asked to like, you know, shift around the PCR numbers or shift around the data on, on blind this site and then blind that site. That way they could, they could play games with the clinical trial data. Right. And she blew the whistle on that. They brought that to court. The judge ruled that this was not, yes, Pfizer lied, but they were, they were told to lie by the DOD. This is not a typical manufacturing arrangement. this is actually a biological countermeasure.

The DOD is running this. You have the wrong defendant. So they have to like restere their case maybe toward the DOD. I mean, they don't know. This is how do you sue the DOD? The judge said that they were told to lie about the SV40 because of the- No, not SV40. This is just fraud, a different form of fraud.

But we expect if we approach them with the SV-40 thing, they'll probably use the same excuse. Like it's a precedent that they've said. I can't believe this SV-40 story isn't everywhere. Yeah, it's, they have a lot of fact checkers talking about it, which is a sign that it's, they're worried about it. Like, they don't, they don't, they don't assign, all the fact checkers you see, if you, if you dig into them, there's some, there's some connection of money, either back to the Gates Foundation or to a pharmaceutical company one way or another. Like they're, they are pumping out, I mean, even the government came out saying they had a billion dollars to spend on, on reducing vaccine hesitancy for basically, you know, marketing, um, their, their narrative, if you will. So, When you can tell which topics worry them by how many fact checkers are sick on it. And we're probably right up there at the top. If you look up the SV40 stuff, they have gotten every one of the fact checkers to write something about it.

Has anybody else done these SV40 studies that you've done on these vaccines? Yeah, so that's a good point. So that brings you back to, you know, let's channel Jack here, right, decentralizing. So peer review, we talked about peer review. Peer view right now is centralized. It's centralized at journals who get most of their revenue from pharmaceutical companies. So they're not really peer review. It's actually a gatekeeping system of what gets through.

Yes, right. So the way to do peer review in the future is peer to peer. We have these peer-to-peer cryptocurrency systems, which are effectively time stamping systems of when something was recorded or invented. So they're ideal for doing peer review. We've done some of this in the past. When we sequenced cannabis genomes, we've done some projects where we actually were funded by a cryptocurrency. We did the genome. We put all the data onto the blockchain, and we did the peer review on a blockchain.

You just recruit peers with crypto and say, hey, five. to review this up front 500 if you finish it but everything has to be public your name your cvee everything has to go public great fucking idea happens in seven days that's incredible it's the fastest peer review we've ever had happened now of course the the traditional academics are like oh you've got money involved and they don't realize that well so do you like when you right of course put it in a paper for journal you're paying nature of three to five grand to review it none of the money that you pay to nature goes to the reviewers right and it's really prone to bias very prone to bias so and wasn't robert maxwell the who put this peer review process in the first place, like in the very beginning.

Yeah, so you read a little bit about this. Yeah. Yeah. So the good old Mossad agent is the one who, who did this. And, of course, he loved what he was, what you can see, there's some similarities with him and his daughter, right? For those who don't know, Maxwell is the same Maxwell as Gislein, Maxwell. No.

It's a father of Gislein. And what they viewed the sciences as back then still do very much today is a way of influencing and policy that you get all the scientists, scientists to the white lap coats together, you're getting the priests of stateism together to all sing the narrative you want to, and then you can fund the ones that are saying the right thing, and then you can bend the narrative into your political direction. Therefore, this is why we have these ridiculous stories about climate change and CO2 and how we need to do all this intervention on changing the earth's temperature.

It's all a game to increase fiat. If you want to step on the gas of printing money, you need to control the white lab coats to preach to the world with the word of God is, and they will tell you to do X, Y, or Z. So Maxwell loved having that. And so he built up Maxwell Press. It's only getting every customer's order right. It's only a point-of-sale system

connected by Spectrum-fiber-powered business internet helping you track hundreds of secure transactions. And it's all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based customer support and local technicians. It's only everything. Get business internet advantage free, forever, when you get four mobile lines from Spectrum. Visit Spectrum.com

slash free for life to find out how. Restrictions apply. Service is not available in all areas. And that was a way of kind of whining and dining the elite. You'll notice that Epstein did the same thing. Like the people he was whining and dining and trying to get into his surveillance network, he was going all over Boston, trying to get pictures of people who were the biggest thought leaders in biotech.

And a lot of people I know got like caught with the paper, with like a picture of the guy in the same room. But I don't think they're entirely. innocent. The part of his plan is to, the part of the plan, it was, the plan was always to reveal him as a dirty, as a dirty bastard. That way they could control anyone they got a picture. Reveal who? Epstein. Oh. Right. Like the, the way that whole, that whole blackmail operation works is he has to be not known as a dirt bag for a while. You get him, you know, flashing money around to all these people who were trying to fund their research projects to get into high influence researchers. Like, he got,

Somehow he got close to George Church. He got close to Eric Lander a little bit. He got close to a couple other people at MIT. Robert Kennedy. Yeah, I'm sure there's probably a picture of them with Kennedy and Trump. I don't know if there's photos, but in the Little Black Book, if you go to the actual Little Black Book website where you can look at all the screenshots of the book or the PDF scans of it. I think RFK's name was in there. He had like 10 or 12 phone numbers for him.

Oh, yeah. All right. So there you have it. I'm a big fan of RFK, not to like discons. discount that, but that's, that's fucking crazy. But you have to understand that they're, they're doing this to control the most influential people. Right. Right. So,

they're going to get to everybody they can. This is why nothing's come out about Ditty, because they don't want the Ditty names revealed because now they have those people captive under the threat that they'll reveal them. Right. Right. And that's why nothing came out on the Epstein people. Is that... Mountendors Kamala. Yeah, as long as, as we have

the threat that you were with this dirt bag, you're going to do as we say. in the moment they reveal them all, suddenly their power over them goes away. So I don't think we're going to see anything from me. I mean, who knows? Maybe the Trump administration will do something different. But I think the whole point of them having these types of honeypot traps are to never reveal them,

or only to reveal the fact of one or two of them who are organizing and are complete dirt bags. And if we have association of view with that person, yeah, you're going to go vote with Kamala, right? Or whatever, whatever the ask is of the day. So, yeah. But yeah, so the peer view system goes back. to that type of thinking and we have to we have to completely dismantle that because this is this is what it leads to it leads to centralized control over the narrative and so you were asking about peer review for this what we did knowing that whole system's a train wreck is we put all our stuff

on live on substack as quickly as we could um we etched some things into into bitcoin as well on this uh we put them on IPFS and then we put the we put the extra time to make protocols that you could you could question this with something really cheap like PCR. Like if someone had to go in sequence vaccines, that's going to be, you know, that could cost more money and take more time. But if you can,

if you take the extra effort to make it easy for someone to check your work, like build a PCR essay that someone can do in an afternoon for a couple hundred bucks, then others pick it up. And we got that with Philip Buckholtz. He reproduced it. He got all types of hell for doing it. And then, yeah,

who was he again? He's a professor. He's a cancer biologist down in, University of South Carolina and has a incredible background came out of Bert Vogelstein's lab at J.H.U. And

Burtz Lab are they're the top cancer jocks in the world, right? Everyone who comes out of there, they have just very inventive minds. We licensed, actually our sequencer that we built, the solid sequencer, we licensed stuff out of Bert's lab because they invented emulsion PCR.

It was a very handy technique. But Philip came out of there and he saw this, you know, I was posting this on Twitter and he was like, well, I don't know. This guy looks like he knows how he knows, you know, genomics. He's got a history, but this is all kind of, I'm going to fact check this guy. And he ordered the primers that I put up on our website, ran it and was like, holy shit, this works. So then he went about and designed his own primers to make sure he wasn't like, you know,

I wasn't feeding him some trick. And those worked. And then he went and sequenced it with Oxford Nanopore. And he got the whole plasmid and it was like, yeah, this is a problem. We have a lot of this DNA there. And it's in an L&P. And that's very different. The regulations they have for 10 antigrams are irrelevant.

We've got to start scanning tumors now and see if this has played a role. He's a bit more conservative on it, and I don't blame him based on the role that he's in. He doesn't want to raise alarm bells. He doesn't want to spread panic. And he's also in an academic setting where, you know, Dean's kind of come down on you if you do that. But it's good to have someone like him with a different perspective that's more cautious about this because that can, you know, that can be sobering for when you're. alone in a field like this. There's another group in Germany that reproduced it as well.

And they actually got it through peer review, Bridget Koenig's group, which I was shocked by that they managed to push it through. But they've reproduced the work. And there's a group in Canada that I'm working with that reproduced it and put out a preprint. They have the largest study. They did about 30 vials. And they found it in all of them, other the PCR data.

And that study shows that it's probably below the 10-anagram limit for most of it. But if you use a different tool to measure it, fluorometry, which is probably the right way to do it, you end up being 100-fold over. So what this is revealed is that the pharmaceutical industry is playing games with how they measure this stuff, and the regulators can't keep up. Like if you measure their own patents, say don't measure it with PCR, yet the regulators say, hey, give us the numbers. What do you use?

PCR? Okay, they look like they pass. The regulators don't read the patents. They're own patents tell you not to accept that number. If you read it with a different instrument, you get 100 times more, and you have a problem. because it's LMP based. So from a peer review standpoint, we don't care about peer review in the field. We care about replication.

And we want replication done from adversaries. People who, like, believe in this and people who don't. Like, it's reassuring to me that Philip took the vaccines, right? He's not, we're not eye to eye in this vaccine stuff. He has very different opinions on that. And that's fine. And it's, and when it works in his hands, it's like Bitcoin. If your enemies make it work, it's good money.

Right. You want money that, that's a consensus. gravity the russians believe in gravity as much as we do they can both make it work uh so that's how science works is if your if your enemies can run it not that phil's my enemy he's a good guy but the point is you want people all around the world being able to reproduce this and they can't be from the same sort of ideological cloth uh in order for you to really totally consider it so that's what you're talking about is these zero knowledge proofs well zero knowledge proofs are a different form in cryptography and i'm not the best person to ask about those but um

I did have some Zcash at one point in my life because I like what was going on there. But it's, there are some weaknesses I understand in that cryptocurrency only in that you, if you do have a zero knowledge proof system, you can't be 100% certain that there wasn't a founder bias. You know, the people who booed the coin up, did they put any coins aside and will they ever liquidate them on you? But I understand it's a very powerful system for cryptocurrency and that it's anonymous and it's better than the anonymity you have in Bitcoin. Yeah, so, but no, that's, I think it's along the lines of the analogies to crypto is that in crypto, you can have decentralized people all weigh in on a consensus from all over the world. And science very much should be run that way. It shouldn't be top down where this is fringe thinking, according to Anthony Fauci and he is the science and this isn't. I mean, we've seen this problem with like the Gutenberg printing press, right?

When that came out, the church wanted to grab hold of it to control which Bibles were printed. Right. It was a power grab on how do we preach to the masses. The same thing's happening with peer review today. The Gutenberg printing press now is science and nature, El Severe and all these institutions. Right. And if you look at those institutions, they have better profit margins than Google. El Severe, if you look at them, they have remarkable profit margins.

It's because everyone in academia is paying them to print in their journal. and none of that money goes out the door to any of the reviewers who do the work. So they have a remarkable business that needs to be completely dismantled and obliterated with a peer-to-peer system that can do this on chain, if you will. We have the tools to do it. We just have to, as scientists, we have to have the courage to want to step out of that cloth. Of, you know, everyone in academia is kind of weighed, like, did you get your paper into nature or was it into some, you know, some predatory journal or some sort? And so it's really risky for someone to say, hey, I'm just going to go over here and print this on chain and do a crypto funded incentivized peer review. And my paper will probably never get cited and rot type of thing.

Right. But I think the pandemic probably opened, at least I saw it open up many of my peers' eyes to how broken peer review was. And that this is now on the table. People are talking about it. Are you familiar or have you been paying attention to the Casey and Callie Means? A little bit. A little bit. It's to me that was, they're well spoken. I like their story. It's interesting. Of course, we got to look at health in this regard, but I look at things, the things that

you eat are less damaging to you than things that you inject. Yes. You've got to be much more careful with things you inject than the things you eat. And for you to get chronic disease over things you eat, you need to be eating a shitload more of it than anything you inject. And so I was, I share some of the concerns that Jack has raised in others is that these people marched into the scene at the 11th hour, don't know where they came from, Right. They kind of came out of nowhere and they were super popular.

Super popular. It's a pharma whistleblower who's only talking about food and not so much about vaccines. Exactly. And very well spoken and they have valid points. And I don't want to doubt or skin them on any of that. But they're missing the boat if they aren't talking about vaccines because vaccines are being forced into people. No one's forcing to eat frosted flakes. And the vaccines are far more toxic than chronic exposure to. Frosted Flakes or these other things they're concerned about. Do you think this is a situation where maybe they just don't want to go out of their lane? They want to stay in their lane with food and they don't want to be labeled with all these anti-vaxxers.

Absolutely. I mean, that's one theory. I think Jack has another one that maybe there's some ties. He's got another one all right. Yeah, I'm sure. And I think of Jack dug into my history, you could put the same spider web on me. That's why I get a little more cautious on those things, only that, you know, I came out of being funded by Francis.

Why am I given a whole pass, right? you can do a spider web diagram on anyone who's who's been in the research field that will tie you to agencies like that. So I sometimes approach that with a little bit more caution, but I 100% agree with him that that's a smoke grenade. Like that doesn't matter right now. I mean, I'd love to solve that. And if you'd get rid of fluoride, cool. But like, I'm talking with Peter just this weekend. He was like, you know, we've got to be really careful that if you march into this new, you know, government agency, if you will,

with Bobby and Trump, if you go in and you be autocratic over things like fluoride, you're no better than them, right? If you just go in and clean house, like, we're just going to rip fluoride out. Like things like fluoride are, yeah, they've been around forever,

and I don't doubt that there's toxicity there and there's probably issues with IQ, but you don't need to go in and be an autocrat to get rid of it. Like, that's the scenario where you can be like, like, hold some panels and let's show them how to do this correctly with a little bit of peer review and perhaps, you know,

some group, buy-in. I think the things where they're forcible mandating and injections onto kids, you can get autocratic on that. But I don't think you want to set the tone that, okay, the next dictator that comes into power is just going to like clean house and everything Trump did. That this just comes every four years we just, we just nuke everything and start over. There should be, there should be, I think, some sanity and some priority to the things we're doing. And I didn't, I didn't see the stuff that the means we're bringing forward necessarily as like hair on fire urgency. I'm like, yeah, that's important stuff.

But if you're talking about that and you refuse to speak about injecting kids with 80 vaccines that have aluminum and GMOs and all types of other crap of them, you're not calibrated. What is there? There's one of the vaccines that the kids get like the second they're born. They get a couple vaccines. Vitamin K, probably. Vitamin K is one of them. But there's another one that's supposed to mitigate against like sexually transmitted diseases.

Oh, yeah, that's hepatitis. The hepatitis B, right? Yeah, yeah, that one's crazy too. That's crazy. Why are they injecting infant babies that are literally like five minutes old with hepatitis B vaccines? Their excuse is because there's two excuses I've heard uttered, which is they don't always have a good understanding of the mother or the father status. Like they may have, maybe they had a false negative on testing them. And so maybe the kid has it and may get it.

The other thing they bring out is like sexual abuse. You're like, okay. God. You know, so they're desperate. They're desperate to get these things into kids. Are there any good vaccines that you would recommend that kids get? I have not gone through the whole list. In my mind, I've written them all off because when I've seen their behavior on the COVID vaccines, I don't trust them for anything else they've done.

And I have read a little bit into like MMR and, and of course the DTAP. DTAP is another one that I've seen a lot of people have problems with. So I got immersed into a background that kind of turned me. very skeptical of vaccines back in 2011. When we started sequencing all those kids with epilepsy and mito and autism, third of those parents told us it happened within 24 hours of the vaccine. And we're just like, whoa. And even then, the physicians handling it, it was kind of like, okay, we're not going to talk about that, you know.

But some of them would speak out about it. Some wouldn't. But it was still, it's still one of these. I could see when the papers were getting written about this, they would nerf the papers. They'd be like, all right, we did this study with Dravet syndrome and all the kids who got vaccinated got Dravet six months earlier. And then the conclusions would be that does seem to be an earlier onset of Drivay syndrome, which, by the way, if it's earlier, that might be the difference from your kid ever speaking and not speaking. But we should still get vaccinated. Vaccines are important for public health.

Like they would always bring out this greater good argument that, that, okay, there might be some risk here, but the benefits outweigh the risks and we're never going to show you that math. Right. And I think that's a very dangerous form of public health when they begin socializing these types of equations and thinking about common good artifacts because you can never really measure like good for who. Like what's the common good? Like what is that? That's very Hitleresque. Like is it good for you? It's a good for me.

So the vaccines always behave that way. They're heard medicine. They're not an argument on individual sovereignty. They're not sort of a libertarian medicine, if you will. They're like, you need to sacrifice your health because we're trying to save grandma. Yeah. And that is, that's a socialist tradeoff that I think is always abused in the benefit of the people closest to the money machine. My kid's pediatrician kicked us out of her practice for not wanting to participate in all the vaccines.

Yep. Yeah. And if you ever speak to her again, just ask her, hey, can you tell me what kind of reimbursement you get for having 70% of your kids vaccinated? because there's kickbacks. That's crazy. And Stark law is supposed to be against that. But for some reason, they're playing those games. I think we saw that with Blue Cross Who Shield and Anthem.

Some of the numbers went around where they were giving reimbursements for doctors for getting people vaccinated with COVID. There was like $100 shot here and there, which is upsetting that that stuff is not more publicly known. Is there anything else that we haven't covered that you think is important that we talk about? Well, if you want to learn about decentralizing medicine, come to our conference in Puerto Rico called Ken med. So that is in, I think it's June 17th this year. Puerto Rico's great. It's not a floating island of garbage. Maybe we'll get dumped down there. Apparently there's a huge garbage problem there. Well, who knows? The head hurricanes go through there. But it is a, San Juan's awesome. So San Juan has great cats, by the way. And they're running. They're trying to kill the wild cats down there.

I'm a fan of Brincone and Aguadilla area. Oh, where is that? Is that? Opposite side of the island. I haven't been there. I have to go visit. Oh, it's great. Fantastic. This is being held on the northeast side of the island, I think, at a hotel complex down there. I think that's where the bioluminescent pools are that we've been in before kayaking. But anyway, the type of people that attracts are physicians who have figured out how to get around the FDA with cannabinoids. I mean, FDA is not really getting around is the wrong word, but they're physicians that have learned this game. Like many of the COVID physicians right now are realizing with Ivermectin hydroxychloroquine, like, what a nightmare this is?

And how do they get access to these drugs now that there's a war against these generics? Well, the physicians that have been doing this in the cannabis space figured this out 40 years ago, right? They have figured out how to get a state-by-state initiative to get medical cannabis to patients. We should be thinking about the same things for other generic drugs that they're trying to take from the population or tie up in pharmaceutical red tape, if you will. And physicians that are good at that are also. very open to psilocybin and into red light therapy and into, you know, cold dipping and all of these alternatives to keep you out of the hospital.

The cheap stuff. The cheap stuff that no pharmaceutical wants to fund and that you can do by yourself that you don't basically the patient physician relationship is what we need to garner. And no one else should be in that, but you in the physician. And these physicians are trying to develop medicines that keep that relationship closer rather than having a third party in the middle of it all. So it's a great group of people because you'll get physicians, you'll get nurses, you'll get growers,

you'll get analytical chemists who know how to do the safety testing, and we tend to get a lot of regulators and politicians that come down as well just to see, like, how do we do this safely in different jurisdictions and not make the same mistakes as the people who cut the first stones on this, if you will. And is there anyone that's doing any kind of research on figuring out how to treat and mitigate these turbo cancers? Yes. Dr. William Macchus

was just presenting on this and they're using fend ben and ivormectin. Really? Yes. For cancer. Yes. Yeah, I know. And the exact mechanism, I'll leave it for him to describe. I haven't quite figured out how that's behaving.

And then there's probably some relevance. If they are in fact spike protein driven and you have evidence of spike being there, I saw McCullough present on, they're building some tests to test for spike protein. We're working with some people as well that we have DNA tests to look for the DNA floating around. We don't look for the protein, but those are tests that people can potentially run. So they're building the diagnostic tools to search for.

All right, is this turbo cancer related to the vaccine? If it is, and there's spike protein there, well, then there's a detox protocol that people are using for that for long COVID and for long vacs that might play role in cancer. And then the fenbent and the avarmectin stories are beginning to build. What I'd like to do is get that crowd together with the people who know the anti-eolone. plastic activity of cannabinoids, maybe get Dr. Cruz down there, who knows about light, you know, start bringing in these people that have, that are down different rabbit holes and bring them together to see if we can put it all together and, and prove upon it all. And Jack talks a lot about nicotine, too, how nicotine somehow is similar to,

not Ivermectin, but. Hydroxychloroquine. So it's structurally, I don't see, I don't see the structural connection there, but maybe there is a mechanistic connection there. and what it does. I mean, if you look at the molecules, they're very different. But maybe it's a precursor in the synthesis of HGQ that I don't know about. But I have seen the data on nicotine, the people who were using nicotine were not getting COVID.

Like it does something to the regulation of the ACE receptors that probably inhibits the virus from getting into the cell. Yeah. I know a guy who's like 300 pounds overweight and he smokes two packs of Newport a day and he got COVID and he was fine. Yeah, I know. So the one contrast I've heard, and I'm surprised by that story because they say you want things like that. Like if you're going to do it, do it orally because the smoking has all types of endotoxin and other crap in there that can inflame your lungs. And it's, you know, common sense. That's probably a better delivery mechanism.

But I've also heard, I think it was Alexei who was on your cast talking about swallowing that stuff can probably throw off your gut marker bond. Right, right. Cause ulcers and stuff. Yeah. Don't swallow it. And if you do too much of it, it can really screw up your gum, so you should rotate it.

Yeah, I've got to, I've got to listen. She's one of those podcasts I've got to listen to a second time. Oh, yeah, she's great. It's a lot, it's a lot, though.

It's a lot to digest. It is. And as someone who's spent time in mitochondrial genetic, she's on, she's on the mark. Like, a lot of stuff she was saying, I was like, yep,

that I've, if you get into the cannabinoid space, you have to understand the mitochondria. It's just, it's core to the whole pathway on the endocanaboid system. So if you can't make to Puerto Rico, all of the videos we have are online. So I should try to get Alexis down there too.

So we do put them up online at canmetevents.com. There's about six or seven years of maybe probably 30 or 40 presentations on cannabinoids and psilocybin and how to use these things clinically, how to pro them, how to QC them, that are online for anyone to download. And if you're into the genetics of the plant, which we didn't really touch on much here, we host another site called Canoppedia.net that has over 2,000 genomes up there that you can download. It's open for anyone to download. There's another

120 psilocybin, I think, psilocybinis genomes that are up on our website as well under psilocidia.com. We're doing the same thing that we did with cannabis genetics on solosophy where we sequence the genomes and put them on chain and document all the variants that exist in the pathway that make the compound, so we can hopefully better predict

the... It's not one compound. And just like in cannabis, Solosopy, everyone has their focus on solosin and psilocybin. There's origination. There's Norbeio-Scystine. There's Bayo-Sysstine. There's a whole portfolio of tryptomines and monomeneoxidase inhibitors in that thing that are going to play an entourage effect. What about dimethylptamine? Dymethyptamine is, you know, it's very similar to psilocybin. And psilocybin obviously has a phosphate group that that doesn't have. But it has, it's a dual methyl methyptamine. And however, For DMT degrades very, very quickly in your body.

So people who smoke DMT, it's a five or ten minute experience because your body knows how to clear it. Your body knows how to make it. The psilocin ends up lasting longer. So psilocybin is a pro-drug. It comes phosphorylated. Your gut defosses it, and then you end up with solosin in the bloodstream, and that's actually the 5HT to a agonist that binds the serotonin receptors. But it has a much longer duration in the body. So your experience is longer and probably has a slightly different activity.

on the receptors as well as dm t um but uh yeah i those are things it being veterans day we should have done a whole story on that you know because it is a uh that is something that is a crime to hold back to those patients totally um we tried to vote it in massachusetts it didn't fly we got close but uh it's going to need another go i think for us to get it over the mark over the 50% mark there in massachusetts but uh it is showing a tremendous amount of promise people are also using that in cancer i've seen at can med uh which which news to me until i saw it triple negative breast cancer. Women used that to...

With what again? Silicide. Oh, okay. In conjunction with cannabinoid oils, but she did three, like, structured trips, if you will, that were, you know, deep, like, heroic dose events. Right. And, and use cannabinoids all the way through. But there's something about it that, like, resets your immune system that we just don't

understand. Really? Yeah, I would look up, I think Andrew Wiles, the one. Or maybe it was Paul Stamitz. But one of them used to be allergic to bees and did a trip, and their allergies went away. Whoa. So, and I think it was Paul Stamitz who used to have a stutter and went away with psilocybin. And so it does some, it's a lot of neuroplasticity and neurogenesis, I think, that occurs with those compounds that can help restructure the brain.

And that's where I think veterans are shown so much promise with it. Thank you again for coming, man. Yeah, thank you for having. I'll link to your Twitter, your substack. What else? Yeah, Twitter substract. medicinal genomics is the website that holds all of that genetic information if you're into that stuff. And then CanMed Events is where you find the conference we run.

If you're interested in attending that, it's a high-end conference down in Puerto Rico. It should be a good time. Okay. What the hell is that? All right. That's our cue. All right. Good.

Awesome. Kevin, thanks so much, man. I really appreciate it. All right. Good night, everybody.