TFTC: A Bitcoin Podcast - #489: Bitcoin Fixes Scientific Peer Review with Kevin McKernan

Episode Date: March 13, 2024

Marty sits down with Kevin McKernan to discuss covid jabs and how Bitcoin can be leveraged to incentivize and improve peer review. Kevin on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan Kevin's Substack: https://anandamide.substack.com/ Kevin's Talks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0Kg5gDtmSg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0Kg5gDtmSg The Indoctrinated Brain: https://www.amazon.com/Indoctrinated-Brain-Successfully-Global-Freedom/dp/1510778365 0:00 - Intro 5:05 - Capitol Hill presentation 15:08 - P2P review and publication 19:43 - Hiding SV40 DNA 28:00 - Gene therapy 34:04 - Industry saving face 42:47 - Gradually, Then Suddenly 43:26 - Bitcoin and the timechain 57:24 - Incentivizing high quality peer review 1:07:56 - Bitcoin parallels biology 1:13:43 - Medical community catching on 1:18:50 - Reactions to Capitol Hill message 1:24:20 - Wrapping up Shoutout to our sponsors: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠River⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Unchained⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Zaprite⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bitcoin Talent Co⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠Gradually, Then Suddenly⁠⁠⁠ TFTC Merch is Available: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Shop Now⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Join the TFTC Movement: Main ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YT Channel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Clips ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YT Channel⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Marty Bent: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

so freaks it's your boy marty here to introduce this rip of tftc it was brought to you by our good friends at river the best place to buy bitcoin river makes it very easy to buy bitcoin to sell bitcoin if you want to do that you shouldn't sell it they actually have a new a new thing at checkout if you're trying to sell bitcoin michael saylor comes out and says are you sure you want to sell bitcoin right now probably shouldn't you should dca into bitcoin river makes it very easy you can set it and forget it by daily weekly monthly if you dca using river you're not going to pay any fees on those buys it's the easiest way to gift bitcoin with river link you set an amount of bitcoin you want to give somebody you create a link

you send that to somebody you text it to them you email them you dm it to them they click the link and then they can sweep the bitcoin to their river account or a wallet of their choice it's a beautiful thing river builds all their infrastructure in-house they don't depend on third parties it's the best place to buy bitcoin it's where we buy bitcoin go to river.com slash tftc sign up today you'll get five dollars worth of bitcoin this rip was also brought to you by good friends down the hall unchained unchained is here to help you eliminate single points of failure in your custody model price of bitcoins going up if you talked about owning bitcoin publicly uh you could be subjected to sim swap attacks had a friend had this happen to him

recently where he got sim swapped attack they went to go drain his exchanges got past 2fa all that luckily they didn't get his bitcoin because he has his bitcoin in unchained multisig volt which keeps your keys offline and they're always in cold storage so you don't have to worry about somebody sim swapping you and stealing your bitcoin unchained also has an ira product uh if you have a retirement account you want to get exposure to bitcoin get direct exposure you don't have to buy the etfs you can actually hold the bitcoin take it in kind as as one should be able to do unchained makes that very easy go hit up unchained's concierge team go to unchained.com slash consultation learn about all their products

the vault the ira they have a trading desk they have a lending desk they're doing it the right way unchained.com slash consultation tell them that tftc sent you this rip was also brought to buy our good friends at zap right if you're an individual out there wants to accept bitcoin as payment zap right is the best way to do that go to zap right dot com slash tftc set up an account and zap right makes it very easy to connect your own wallets to wallet agnostic you simply enter an xpub connect your l d node connect your strike account whatever it may be and zap right handles the invoicing side of things you can send invoices payment links they have a woocommerce integration so if you're a trucker a rancher a farmer a doctor a lawyer wants to accept bitcoin

as payment go to zap right connect your wallets and start doing so today the best part about zap right is they also accept fiat payments so you don't have to have individual invoicing for people that pay in bitcoin and people that pay in fiat you do it all in one spot you can connect stripe your ach and you send one invoice and they can pay in fiat or bitcoin it's beautifully designed they have uh they have dashboards analytics everything you need to hand over to your bookkeeper or your accountant so again go to zapwrite.com slash tftc use the promo code tftc at sign out and you're going to get 40 off their annual subscription fee which is typically 240 so with the code tftc you drop that down to 200 zapwrite.com slash tftc last but not least this

where it was brought to you by our good friends at Bitcoin Talent Co. Bull market's here. You may be looking to hire as your runway is extending because you have a bunch of Bitcoin on your corporate treasury. Go to Bitcoin Talent Co. It's a recruiting firm built by Bitcoiners for Bitcoiners. They understand Bitcoin multisig. They understand mining.

They understand the Lightning Network, and they're highly competent recruiters. Andy, the co-founder, started Uber, grew their team from 100 to 10,000. He knows what he's doing. He knows how to go find the best talent in tech. design banking finance whatever you need they're going to understand your needs and they're going to go get you the best talent to help us build out the bitcoin standard bitcointalent.co tell

them to tftc send you and enjoy this rip okay you've had a dynamic where money's become freer than free. If you talk about a Fed just gone nuts, all the central banks going nuts. So it's all acting like safe haven. I believe that in a world where central bankers are tripping over themselves to devalue their currency, Bitcoin wins. In the world of fiat currencies, Bitcoin is the victor. I mean, that's part of the bull case for Bitcoin. If you're not paying attention, You probably should be. What usually happens is we start talking and we basically record half the podcast

before we hit record. We have hit record. Kevin McKernan, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me, by the way. Eager to talk about the story of this crowd because for those who haven't followed it, everyone thinks like my genomics background is what made me able to see this mess,

but it actually was more my Bitcoin background, i think that saw it my genomics background was actually a liability uh on this front but so uh anyways it's it's good to get in front of like-minded people on this front because uh it's uh they see clearly on this area no it's i mean i was shocked that you responded to my dm as quickly as possible uh or as quickly as you did because i think what you were doing on capitol hill so for the freaks who are listening who are unaware of the context for this conversation kevin was on capitol hill um i think ron johnson invited a group of scientists to do a retrospective on covid 19 and the vaccine rollouts and you participated in that highlighting that

there is evidence that there has been dna contamination with the covid vaccines And then you also took some time to describe why you think Bitcoin is an important mechanism to begin fighting back against the centralizing pressures within big pharma and big government. Yes. Yeah. And that was in. So there was two meetings there. There was the ICS meeting, which was the day before. And Ron was Ron participated in that.

And then the day after we were in the Senate building in the Kennedy room, going through all the COVID nonsense that's been happening. And it has the centralizing pressures in science. I just, I mean, I think it's evidence a lot of people that mainstream media is clearly bought by Pfizer and Moderna, just from all the ads that you see on there. but it's not as evident in the scientific literature that all these peer-reviewed papers that are coming out are effectively sponsored. There's indirect influence on the editors of the journals that receive a vast portion of the revenue streams from the advertisement either on their websites or in their journals. So the peer review system is just totally broken. And you can see this in the types of papers that get through. I mean, we saw a hilarious case this week of um trumpeted all over the news about some person in germany who got vaccinated 217 times in like a year and uh you know we dig through that data we can't find any evidence of vaccine

rna or dna in that person's samples that they put public so it's and goes right to sales right through the lancet no one at the lancet even questions this and you're like there's all of these papers showing this this rna and dna contaminating breast milk placentas heart tissue plasma like for for a month and these people intentionally didn't look for this uh and uh it that you know so those things sail through on the flip side you get papers that demonstrate all the deaths that are occurring and they if they get through they get a mob comes in and descends on them and forces the retraction later by protesting the journals so um there is a large um the pharma has a very powerful marketing budget where they play pierre cory's got a really good book on this

on all the tactics that they do to discredit people, to take down papers, and to publish fake studies. In fact, it was a Bitcoiner at the beginning of this name, James, what was James' last name? He's an MD. Apologize for getting his name. It'll come to me later. But the Surgisphere study,

where they fabricated this hydroxychloroquine failure, claimed that they downloaded data from like 600 hospitals in a matter of weeks, and they they sprung up this four-person company uh one person was actually a stripper that should have been a red flag um and then they they published that they you can't get data out of a hospital in a couple weeks during a pandemic it takes you years to get consent for that so they somehow got 600 hospitals worth of data published that hydroxychloroquine was killing people and that shut down the clinical trials where people died in those clinical trials when they shut this

down um james tadaro figured out going through their data that this is all uh and uh his google drive where he shared his data got taken down after he published that yeah we actually had james on right after that because uh yeah yeah so that's another case where i think you know people involved in bitcoin see these fiat forces at play and are more scrupulous about these things and uh you know he's an md and had some bitcoin background and saw clearly that wait a minute this there's no way you can get this data from this many hospitals as quickly what's going on here but no one at the lancet questioned that um so it sails through kills people and set the narrative that there was you know no treatment but this vaccine um so every one of these generic drugs

that um competes with any of the pharmaceutical profits uh gets assassinated and um i you know i was sensitive to this because i was in the cannabis space and i've been watching this since like 2011 uh that they they just have a they even have entire government institutions that are built around discrediting natural remedies like the national institute for drug abuse called nida you can tell by like the title of the institution's name drug abuse not drug benefit that they're just looking to basically destroy the reputation of cannabinoids psilocybin all of these safe drugs that you could grow in your backyard um because they're they're harder for the pharmaceutical companies to patent and get through the whole fda process so they want to

horse pace those things like ivermectin and they've been doing that for a very very long time and i think a lot of people didn't a lot of the physicians didn't catch on to it because they hadn't seen it happen to a drug that they they used right cannabis got pushed out in 1937 with the marijuana tax act and at the time it was the second most prescribed drug but they they made the bill called the marijuana tax act and none of the physicians knew what the hell that was they knew knew it as cannabis uh but they re they re-termed it marijuana because that was associated with like immigration from from mexico and that the migrants were were smoking this stuff and so it was like a xenophobic play um one physician showed up at that hearing to try to protest it and it still got put

into place but since then it's been out of use for so long that everyone kind of viewed marijuana and cannabis as this um uh yeah sure it's a hippie excuse for for medicine but um you know it has hundreds of compounds that have all types of therapeutic benefit and the toxicology is just remarkable compared to a lot of the drugs they're pushing today so um so i saw this early on what they were doing with hydroxychloroquine james work and everything else which made me a lot more skeptical of all right the funding sources around this are all centrally controlled and that means everyone inside those agencies are going to sing the tune of fauci if they want their funding to continue and uh that shapes the entire narrative because uh it's all coming out of

the fiat system yeah and so did that push you to focus your research on the vaccine and to really try to dig into what it actually is and what it's doing to people that was a little bit accidental i was so early on i got invited in to review a paper on um the pcr the first pcr test that hit the market for COVID were flawed. They fixed them later, but the early ones that set the real boom of the pandemic were missing internal controls, which is a major flaw in PCR. Internal control is just something that amplifies the DNA from the host, and you can use that to compare how much virus is there. It's really hard to gauge how much virus you get from a nasal swab because the swabbing can vary 10,000 fold based on how far they jam it up your nose, how much mucus you

have. So if you're just measuring the virus without a reference to how many human cells you pulled out of that event, you really don't know what the hell you're measuring. And that's what started the pandemic is they pushed out these PCR protocols that violated the Mikey guidelines that demand you have to have internal controls for clinical work like this. They ended up on the WHO website before they made it through peer review. And they went through peer review in like 27 hours. And the people who put the paper through peer review were editors on the journal. And they had money in testing companies. This is the whole Corman-Drawston PCR protocol.

So when I saw that, I'm like, oh, this is a sham, this whole thing. And I wrote a paper with a bunch of other scientists about how the PCR test was being abused to quarantine people. And it was actually going to backfire on herd immunity. And then the main reason for that backfiring event is that, and the CDC now admits to this, but you're PCR positive for like 90 days, but you're only infectious for like nine days. So if you run around and PCR everybody and quarantine them based on that number, you're going to put the vast majority of people who have recovered from this in quarantine. That destroys herd immunity, right? You need the people who recovered in the crowd, in the herd, so that the virus bounces off

people who can't receive it anymore. But the moment you start using a PCR, a sloppy PCR protocol, there are ways to do this correctly. They just didn't do it. You end up tagging all the people who recovered and are immune and telling them to stay home. And if they're positive, you then get their family members and their household to come in and get tested. So they had this positive feedback loop where they would effectively get, they were incentivized to have high positivity rates because every time they found a positive, they pull in three more people from the household to get tested. So there was no

motivation for anyone to get this right. They really wanted high positivity to jack the PCR our revenue numbers that they had. So that was early in probably in 2021 or 2020, I think, when we put that out. And of course, it got attacked by the usual clowns out there. And that got my name, I think, on the radar for some people. I published a paper with Peter McCullough also on this frame shifting issue that's recently come to light. We've actually We tried to publish this in October 2021, that the modifications they made in this mRNA were not proven to give faithful translation into proteins. They put a modified base in there that was known to make the ribosome that reads the RNA make mistakes. And we tried to publish this.

Two reviewers signed off on it. The 11th hour, an editor came in and killed it. So it's kind of been left in preprint purgatory ever since then. And just this last year, a group called Mulroney et al. came through and verified that being like, oh, yeah, frame shifts and makes all these like 8% of the proteins are wrong. So because of that paper, people online started sending me vaccines like unsolicited. I mean, they tried to solicit me on Twitter publicly and I'd be like, no, I don't want any of that product because I don't I don't know that I can actually do anything with it. It's not like a company is not a vaccine company, but people sent them anyway. They looked up our name online, our address, shipped them in, and I threw them in the freezer

being like, I don't know what the hell to do with this. And then about this time last year, we were trying to sort out, there's a pathogen running around the cannabis field known as hop latent viroid that's just wrecking the grows, like 40% yield loss. And it's this little small RNA molecule that's a little tricky to sequence. And we were sequencing the RNA of all these plants during the infection cycle to figure out why is it killing the plant's yield. and that process like one day just broke and stopped working um so the right thing to do is

to spike in a known rna to sort out the problem and i'm like well shit i don't want to order one i've got these vials in the freezer they should be pharmaceutical grade rna throw it in and see if it can sort out what's wrong in our process of getting rna out of these cells um and when we got that sequence back we were like holy shit the plasmid's still in there the expression vector that they use to make this stuff is in every goddamn vial um that's a major issue and uh we're a small company and we didn't know what the hell to do with that we're like if we hide it uh and it turns out to be you know the major issue medically then then we'll be liable for for knowing it and hiding it and if we go forward we're going to get sued uh so um that made us

just double down and um try to transparently document everything we did online so every experiment we ran, we tried to throw up onto my substack and just measure it 10 different ways to be sure we weren't like fooling ourselves. And now that's been replicated by many labs around the world. Philip Buchholz did this in South Carolina. Dr. Sindley did it in Connecticut. Bridget Koenig did it out in Germany. A group in Canada reproduced it. And so it's not going down this traditional peer review path because peer review is one of these things, which I hope we'll into in this because i think bitcoin's going to solve this uh peer review is is really meant to give you a proxy for reproduction but it fails to do that half the time uh the reproduction crisis

in biology is some some somewhere between 60 to 70 of the time you can't reproduce the paper um so peer review has a horrible track record um and we don't really care about you know a journal's emblem on the paper we care about whether anyone else can reproduce it so we took the approach and put everything public as quickly as you can and and build additional tools that make it easier for other people to decentralize this and test it themselves like we didn't want people to have to go and sequence the vaccine the way we did because that would that would take them thousands of dollars we built some pcr assays so they could leverage the pcr capacity that was out there in the field testing for covid they could turn that against the vaccine and and in days or hours have

answers as to whether the vaccines were in fact contaminated with what we what we claimed that strategy panned out i mean we we haven't we haven't put the paper through peer review because we're at the we're the stage now like who cares it's we've gotten you know doesn't half dozen labs of the world have reproduced this uh and now the fda health canada and the ema have all admitted that it's in there now that you know they disagree on like clinically what it means but they've confessed that yeah the dna is in there and they didn't really tell us about it um so they've kind they've kind of accepted the fact that there's a deception that's going on and um that has uh it's worse for pfizer they have a lot more of this dna contamination than others and they're the ones who

who did more of a deception during their clinical trial they did not use the protocol that they used to manufacture this for the people they gave it to the public at large and i think that scares the daylights out of most people in in in our field because in when you're making these complex biologics, the process is the product. You change the process, you can't assume the product's the same because there's too many unmeasurable components in these things that can sneak through in a biological manufacturing process. So they started their RCT, and interrupt me anywhere you want on this. I don't mean to drone on on this, but the important point for them to know, the audience to know, is that they started the randomized clinical trial by taking a piece

a DNA that's circular, known as a plasmid, that has their spike sequence embedded in it. And they usually will amplify, what they did in the clinical trials, they amplified just the spike region, which didn't get the whole plasmid. They amplify that to make a ton of DNA that they could then make RNA from. You always use DNA to make RNA. It's just a kind of trick we have in the biology space is that it's easy to put a polymerase in there that will turn DNA into RNA. so when you do that amplification you you amplify your target spike region above all of the dna background that they use to store this dna and to harbor it in in e coli cells so it's cleaner product after the clinical trial is complete they then switch to skipping that amplification step

which meant all the plasma dna was left in the background and that plasma dna has an antibiotic resistance gene it has viral elements known as sv40 promoters that drive dna like right into the nucleus. These are really important sequences because they're used in gene therapy. They take DNA and drive it into the nucleus for integration. That's the piece of the DNA that Pfizer hid from the regulators. They gave the regulators the sequence of their plasmid and then a little pictogram known as an annotation that had all the elements of their plasmid in there with the exception of the SV40 region they hid from the regulators. I think they did that because SV40 contaminated the polio vaccines and has been accused of causing 20 to 100 million cancers.

That's still in debate. The literature argues about that epidemiologically. They don't see the connection, but if you put SV40 into cells, it creates cancer. They just have a lot of papers that are funded by pharma, I think, to say that they can't see it in the wild. So it's a very controversial piece of DNA that they had in there that they hid. So yeah, it was a bit of a roundabout way of how we got there it was an accidental find and then we were suddenly pregnant with this information and had to figure out how to get it public in an immutable way and um that kind of brought me back to thinking about you know bitcoin and peer review and and um you know how we can better leverage this technology to make publication like this peer-to-peer so it's not peer-to-journal

to peer which is what's going on right now you have a third party involved in the process that can be heavily influenced by pharma and uh generally tends to back the current consensus um so there's sort of an anti-scientific establishment that anything that departs too much from what's been published before uh receives friction and uh and that's something that does not does not resonate with me or i think anyone in in the bitcoin space no i have many questions but i think to start focusing on pfizer you mentioned when you change the process from when you're doing your clinical trials to when you release the product if it's different it's a different end result you mentioned sv40 hiding that like how did they

like why did they change the process and why did they hide SV40 or what can we surmise to be their intention behind that? Did they think if it's known that we have SV40 in this, that it will not get approved to go mass market? Yeah, it would probably get denied or at least they would. I mean, who knows during the pandemic with the pandemic, they took all of the guardrails off. So maybe they could have snuck it through there, but traditionally that you're the FDA and the WHO have guidelines that you have to disclose every ORF and every open reading frame, short for ORF, and every promoter to the regulators, which Pfizer clearly didn't do. So they're in violation of FDA's own guidelines on this. And why did they hide that?

So, you know, it's not an accident. That's what we know, is it was intentionally removed because the software tools you use to annotate sequence like this, the first thing it annotates is SV40 because it's a strong mammalian promoter. So if you throw the sequence into SnapGene, which is a commercial tool that annotates this, it's automatic, it paints everything. It's not a tool that's going to go in and paint one region and not the other.

You know, 20 years ago when people were hand annotating sequence, maybe, but this is nowadays, everyone is using commercial software that would annotate SV40 by default. So somebody at Pfizer had to go in and remove an annotation of a software tool, put in there by hand

and then give it to the regulators. So it's definitely an intentional deception from people who know the space and work in the field. There's no way that thing was unannotated by a software tool. It was annotated and then removed manually. And they probably didn't want the headache of having to remove it. Because I think the FDA, if they saw that, they'd say, that's a mammalian promoter. You have to get rid of that. That serves no purpose inside this vaccine. And it's going to turn on gene expression when it gets inside a mammalian cell. So Moderna doesn't have this. Moderna is a case example of you can do this without it, right?

They have a different bacterial promoter which only is active in bacterial cells and that's the right thing to do. So they have a competitor in the marketplace that doesn't have this. So they clearly were late to the game and didn't wanna have to go and do surgery on their R&D product to turn it into a commercial one.

I think what happened is they cloned the spike thing into an R&D plasmid, not thinking that, hey, if we turn this into a vaccine, we have to remove some of these pieces that are active in mammalian cells. They just marched ahead into clinical trials, amplified their way out of the problem for the clinical trials,

and then realized they couldn't afford to do that when they had to scale it up to billions of doses. And so skip the amplification step. And now that they're growing it in E. coli, all types of other contaminants come through when you skip that amplification step. You have all the components. You now have to grow this in fats of E. coli.

You need E. coli to amplify it. So when you crack open those E. coli cells, not only do you have the plasma DNA there and some of the E. coli's genomic DNA, you have all this endotoxin from the coat of the bacteria, which is actually very, very toxic. Endotoxin, if you inject it into people, creates septic shock and creates anaphylaxis.

Like these people that you see on TV dropping within 15 minutes of the shot, that's probably endotoxin that they're getting injected with. It's from the E. coli manufacturing process. And we can't find the endotoxin levels in any of the docs that have come public on these shots. They've redacted all of them. So the quality metrics for this process are not visible to the public. And when you ask for them, they get redacted. So there's something nefarious going on there. Why do they so brazenly do this? I think it's because they gave them liability waivers above and beyond what they were given by Reagan, by the NCVIA.

They gave them additional liability protection in the PrEP Act, which extended the liability so that even the administrators of these shots couldn't be sued. In the past, the liability waivers for the vaccines were somewhat constrained to the manufacturer. And the PrEP Act meant that the nurses and physicians that started handing these things out got liability shields as well. So I think that throws all the incentives off. As anyone in the Bitcoin space would know, you give someone a hall pass, there's no skin in the game. going to cut every corner they can to get to market and rake in as much money as they can they've pulled in probably over 100 billion on this and if they get sued and have to pay 20 billion later it you know it's it's not going to come out of the fda's pocket it's not you know

come out of the farmer's pocket but they still will be incentivized to repeat this again which is completely insane and crazy to think but especially dealing with something as important as people's health injecting yeah foreign substances into their body and so like does i mean there was the big meme that the government and the fda and fauci pushed back on that people are saying that this is essentially gene therapy it's like would i think for the first two years of the pandemic before we knew this was in there you know that was a nuanced debate uh some can argue according to legislation in certain jurisdictions that just putting the mRNA into a cell to produce a foreign protein is a gene therapy. However, it shouldn't be heritable. It shouldn't pass on to the next

cell. It shouldn't be persistent. Now, independent of us finding this DNA, there has been a persistence problem. We've seen spike protein in people for 187 days. What the hell is that? This is after vaccination. We've seen RNA inside of cells for 30 days in the heart tissue from the Krauss and paper we've seen it in 28 days from the cross geota paper in plasma we've seen it from the hannah papers and breast milk for five days and a very recent one from gonzalez is showing up in in placenta 10 days so some woman got vaccinated 10 days before birth a second one in that paper was two days before birth and i think those vaccinations were probably forced vaccinations for them to be able to use the birthing center um is my best guess because i can't imagine any

mother wanting to do that before giving birth. But anyway, the vaccine protein and the nucleic acids, whether it's RNA or DNA, we don't quite know yet, but we know that something amplifiable that's either RNA or DNA is showing up five days to a month later. And the protein itself is persisting, it could be years right now. So I would say independent of the DNA there, it's probably more classified as a gene therapy because of the persistence problem. Now, once the DNA comes into picture, it undeniably is classified as a gene therapy because they use this SV40, particularly Pfizer. They used an SV40 component in there that is studied by David Dean as being a gene therapy tool. It's one of the best sequences to get DNA into the nucleus. So they can't hide from that.

And that might be one of the reasons why they hid it from the regulators is that that thing instantly puts it into the gene therapy bucket without any denial. So are our genomes modified? We don't know that yet. What I was reporting on down at Ron Johnson's conference there is that very recently we began treating these certain cancer cell lines with these vaccines to probe this question of how long does it stick around in cell lines. Some people are going to work on this in people. I think Philip Buchholz is doing that on anonymized samples he can study. But to do this with actual vaccine injured patients, there's a lot of red tape to jump through. And pharma has a big grip on that process. So you'd have to get like a CLIA

laboratory in place. You'd have to get an IRB to approve it. So that's probably going to take much longer. Other people are focusing on that, that have better, they're more skilled at that than we are. But we've just been taking cell lines and treating the cell lines with the vaccine to see how long does the DNA and RNA stick around in those cells, and does any of it integrate with human DNA? And the first time we tried this, we found an integration event on chromosome 12. Now, this has to get reproduced like our PCR work's been reproduced dozens of times to make sure it's not an artifact in our lab, but we shouldn't be seeing any of that. This DNA wasn't supposed to be in there. The second thing that we observed in that study was that the regulations

that the FDA has never considered these lipid nanoparticles. So they have a limit saying you can't have more than 10 nanograms of DNA in a vaccine. They don't care what type of DNA it is, which is utterly stupid. And they built those guidelines based on the fact that if you inject naked DNA into someone's bloodstream, it has a half-life of about 10 minutes. You have enzymes in there that just destroy it very, very quickly. But the moment you wrap it in LNP, you've arrested that process, you've protected the DNA, and it's going to go straight to your cells. And it will go there undigested and intact. So the LNPs completely blow open this concept of a 10 nanogram limit. And everyone should know that the limit used to be a thousandfold lower before they were

given the liability protection in 1985. The NCVA came in place back then, Reagan, who gave some vaccine liability protection. And since then, pharmas have pumped up the amount they can contaminate by a thousandfold. There's a couple of things wrong with that process. One, the FDA has got a DNA blind limit where they don't care what DNA it is. What we have here is gene therapy DNA that can replicate once it gets into a cell. You can drive a truck through that regulation if you put in something that's highly amplifiable. You put DNA into a cell and then bang, it grows. That's a foolish limit. They're not bothering to look at what type of DNA is in that regulation. And the cost of DNA sequencing has come down 100,000-fold over the same timeframe.

So we have the capacity to sequence DNA in every goddamn file, and they're not doing this for reasons I can't understand. And then these lipid nanoparticles completely change the game. These things, any contaminant that's in there poses a risk for getting into the cell and integrating into the genome. And this isn't some harebrained theory of mine or a bunch of anti-vaxxers. You can read Moderna's own patents that speak to this. They have patents on technologies to get rid of this DNA because they know it's an insertional mutagenesis risk. If it gets into an LNP, it'll get delivered to a cell and make it into the DNA. So it's not even like some esoteric pharmaceutical patent.

It's Moderna's own patent that says this residual DNA is a risk. We have to invent new methods to get rid of it. And so, yeah, it's a major problem that they have. And it may be contributing to this observation of rapidly progressing cancers that are out there. Yeah, the turbo cancers that people are talking about. Are the incentives thrown so far out of whack that these companies really don't care about? I mean, these particular vaccines were rushed to market and then forced on people. like yeah is the the lust for money that much greater than i i think it's actually a synergy

of interests because yes the pharmaceutical companies are going to always try to maximize shareholder profit um but there was also a motivation i think in the in the biodefense arena to have a a victory lap here um you know they a lot of the politics behind the leak and Fauci hiding the leak, I think, play into this. The Biodefense Department has been promising that they would be making countermeasures potential threats for years. They've been funded billions of dollars for this. They've never come up with one. For a while, their market was threatened by the gain-of-function moratorium that Obama put in place. For a period of time, you weren't allowed to do gain-of-function research, so they had to shuffle everything

under the guise of dual use. Like we are not doing gain of function. We need to be building countermeasures for the people in the other nasty countries that are. So we're going to run this budget from the DOD into Fauci's hands and have it be in the NIH. And then Fauci realized he couldn't fund it

here in the States anymore. So we funneled the money to Echo Health Alliance who then sent it to Wuhan and outsourced this around the regulations here. So I think what's going on is And when the biodefense market or I'd say industry recognized that, oh, my God, this is a lab leak, not only have we failed to ever make a countermeasure, but we created the first pandemic that we were funded to worry about, that they went into high gear making sure the only answer to this was something they created. Otherwise, their industry would be wiped out. And so I think that part of the government got involved with the DOD and began pushing

a vaccine-only solution, kill everything else. The vaccine has to be the answer to this. Otherwise, our industry has no justification for existing any further. And so you had a whole collection of people at the NIH that were pushing this, Fauci and Collins and everyone else. The other thing that the public's not totally aware of is that some of the patent estates came out of NIH. So NIH got $400 million in royalty from Moderna for the vaccine. I don't know how much they have for Pfizer. I'm sure they're getting an equal amount from them as well

because some of the IP is shared. But that puts everyone at the NIH, that's a lot of money for NIH. Their budget is $42 billion a year. And so when you start throwing around $400 million slush funds suddenly they have no motivation to come up with an early treatment guideline for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine they never did during the pandemic they they kind of bought it off um so there's a there's a lot of conflicted interest in in the government um and which comes back to you know people closest to the money printer are trying to control where the money goes it's a cantelian effect they're trying to drive the cantelian effect in their preferred direction um and to keep that money flowing they have to have certain narratives at play which is

that the biodefense department and the bioweapons industry has to have a justification that they can make countermeasures fast enough. In this case, they were caught back in their heels with it leaking from their own funding sources and had to quickly play catch up to build a solution for it, lest they be viewed as an irrelevant industry. In fact, a dangerous industry that should be shut down. This is the first time I'm rocking this. The vaccine rollout, the mandates were just a massive cover your ass hail mary from the bio defense industry they have everything rigged so that no one is liable in fact if you look at brooke jackson's lawsuit so brooke jackson's has an interesting case in that she was at ventavia who was running the clinical trials for pfizer

and she saw all types of fraud going on of them de-blinding the studies and moving around the pcr numbers. I became a whistleblower on this, sued the government. And in that case, Pfizer's argument against her case was that it doesn't matter if we committed fraud because the DOD told us to do it. And the judge agreed and said, you have the wrong defendant. You have to recraft this case against the DOD. Now that's really frightening because they vaccinated all of their troops with this stuff and the the military data is big fucking mess if you look at the dmet database on this they have tons of injury going on so um there's treason on the table i mean the stakes just are are insane people don't like when you throw around the t word

but no no so that that that's a uh um yeah they're the people are beside themselves on what's going on uh on this front and the scale of um of the cover-up so it's uh i i don't i'm not hopeful that it's it's going to come down to people suing pfizer or the fda the fda i mean two of the people on the fda's like vaccine board resigned and protested these being applied to children because there's no benefit to children there's only risk and then um two of them went off to get hired by moderna so um everyone's lost complete faith that they have um that they have any credibility on this uh joe latipo did stand up to them he saw our data asked the fda to you know what's going on here have you done any measurements yourself on the dna contamination

and they came back saying no they're trusting all of pfizer's numbers on this and that they don't think the dna uh contamination matters to plasma manufacturing which is a com that's that's an overt lie you can't make these plasmids without these promoters so you can't um you can't manufacture plasmids without this stuff so um so he realized that they were lying through their teeth and just banned him in florida anyway because uh he he can't he can't decipher what's coming out of that agency anymore it's insane what is the the ratio breakdown people within your field who are on your side and understanding what has happened here that's That's a really good question.

I don't know. I mean, as I mentioned earlier, I think having a genomics background is actually an attack factor for people, in that you have pride in your field, right? So I think a lot of my colleagues wanted genomics to save us from the pandemic, because it was a technology that they understood, they know how mRNA works, they could explain to all their friends that this is fine, this is why we did the Human Genome Project, and the sequence have gotten so much faster. This is just a natural progression that we can now start altering our genomes with custom mRNAs. There's a big, I think, rally behind wanting this technology to work

because it could unlock a revolution in biology if it weren't so goddamn lethal. They've got to figure out the delivery mechanism that doesn't spam this all over your whole genome. I think a lot of people in my field were rooting for it. Naturally, all the stocks in our field got buoyed. You know, you saw all of the vendors that even producing the picks and shovels for this field did wonderfully well during the pandemic. I mean, I'm in Massachusetts and we probably have, we've got Moderna here, we've got Pfizer here, we've got Thermo here who made most of the PCR money. I mean, this state is basically boiling with vaccine money and pandemic money. So I'm kind of in an echo, I think a weird environment to assess that because I think everyone in the state financially benefited to some degree from this. There's a very long sort of eye pencil effect in Massachusetts where there's, you know, the coffee shops providing donuts and stuff to Pfizer and, you know, the web goes really

deep throughout the state. And so it's hard to get a feel for that. And I think if you were in the field, you were more likely to cheer this on than if you were outside the field. So I think unless you had something like James Todaro or a Bitcoin background, like poking at your brain, being like the incentives here are all wrong. This is going to lead to a fiat train wreck. I don't know exactly how it's going to play out, but I know it's going to be a train wreck.

And unless you had that, like, you know, chirping in the back of your head, you probably wouldn't have seen it. Quick break here, freaks. This rip is brought to you by Gradually Then Suddenly, a framework for understanding Bitcoin as money by Parker Lewis. I wrote the foreword to the book. I'm honored to have done so because it's the best zero-to-one primer if you're looking for a logical explanation of why Bitcoin obsoletes all other money.

Buy one for yourself and maybe a few for your friends. Go to thesafehouse.com slash gradually. That's thesafehouse.com, safe spelled S-A-I-F, thesafehouse.com slash gradually. Use the promo code TFTC for $5 off at checkout. Buy it now, freaks. The price of Bitcoin is going up. You need to understand it. This is the best zero-to-one primer.

back to the show i mean you mentioned bitcoin a couple of times and the fact that you sort of hearken back to bitcoin noticing that the incentives were all skewed so how long have you been following bitcoin and understanding it and how does it apply to what you're doing now oh so i got turned on to bitcoin when i got into the cannabis space in 2011 um and surprisingly not a lot of people in the cannabis space were using it it was i kept trying to tell people like you have a banking problem this is your solution and and like oh fees are too high it's a scam you know all the typical you know bromides that get thrown around on on bitcoin noobs even some pot coins tried to come up and fill that void and failed i think so um i was somewhat dismayed

the fact that the cannabis industry who had a banking crisis couldn't use this you know it's like you you were the you were the prime candidate to use this as a currency but um and then i that's not really what convinced me it was more i was reading about this more in the daily paul back then because the daily paul was still running in 2011 uh and there's a lot of people on that uh on that channel that we're talking about as a gold replacement so um that always kept my eye my interest in it and then i began to view it as a tool for for publishing papers that were in the cannabis field where we were seeing the censorship of this literature long before the pandemic. You would see papers that would come out showing the harms of cannabis. You try to put one out

that shows the benefits, they'd get ripped apart. So I was aware and turned on to the whole publication bias that was going on and was looking at it as a way to publish genomes and other scientific literature on this. So I did do a project, when was it? 2018. um uh this was back when um a dash was still i think maybe dash is still around but it was a they had a they had a dow system at dash that like would award money 10 to the miners and you could apply to use that for things so i applied for a dash grant and they uh to sequence the cannabis genome to completion and they funded it it took a couple rounds they first didn't get it and then i i finally got it i think on the third try and uh that was to fund the single molecule

sequencing of the cannabis genome. So we'd have a reference that was gold standard for the industry and that could help float all boats. One of our motivations at where I work is we're trying to decentralize medicine by sequencing genomes of medicinal organisms and putting them public so anyone can use them. And in the past, DNA sequencing always had to be very centralized. That has changed now. We now have, I might have one in here. We now have sequencers that are like a usb stick in size that they're about a thousand bucks that you can do dna sequencing within your basement so the capacity to like read dna and do and do like productive breeding is is now it's fairly decentralized um and so our our goal was let's sequence these genomes put them public so

the whole world can benefit from them and maybe we will thwart off some of the the patent bullshit that happens in other fields because a lot of other fields as the genomes are getting sequenced people are filing thousands of patents on the new genes they're finding which creates a big shit storm and trying to do scientific research in those fields that happened on the human genome like 20 of the genes got patented in the end um and you know there's been some court cases that have that have kind of reduced the the strength of those patents over time but they're still there and um it's it's still you know mucks up the um the innovation process so um so we were putting the we're trying to get these genomes public and dash helped fund us to do one um i actually wrote

a preprint on it as well which i'll point your your readers to but it's up on osf um i think it's labeled um cryptocurrencies and zero mode wave guides but it touched on this point that we have a hard time publishing controversial work in the cannabis field it gets laughed at or you know they're just flat out rejected and uh we use that system to not only fund the work but every experiment we did we hashed it onto their blockchain and put the data public that day And when the genome was done, and I think we had that done, funded in like June or July. I think we had it out on August 18th or something. It was just a course of a summertime.

We sequenced the genome and put it public, which is faster than like a peer review cycle. Peer review cycles can take like six months. And so it was a really successful program in that the crowdfunded it. It got sequenced. All the evidence of it got hashed onto the chain. And then we did the peer review through a crypto-incentivized peer review. We basically put out a bounty of $1,000 per reviewer, three reviewers, and we'd give them half the money up front and half the money upon completion of the review. And everything had to be public.

They had to agree to that up front. They had to agree to being transparent with any conflicts and that they were taking the money. And so three reviewers weighed in on it, and we put all that stuff online, and we had ourselves a genome. And under the time, then you would ever get anything peer-reviewed. So it was a very productive way to do science. I wish more people would jump onto it. And I think what's missing is all of the framework for posting that data and hashing it and managing the cryptocurrency transactions was, it was a big pain in the ass back then. I mean, I had to have shapeshift wallets and I had to move things from Dash into Bitcoin, into Coinbase and get the money into our bank so we could spend the money correctly.

But the tools today might be much more appropriate for it. Um, we, we didn't, uh, it was really native back then, but I think we have everything we need to build a peer view system. That's really peer to peer, uh, on blockchain that would, that would solve, um, a lot of this stuff. Um, I, the, the, the journals are, are, are part of, part of this problem. You can see them publishing these surges to your nonsenses, the proximal origin thing that covered up the leak for ages went through that went through these people. So I think it's really imperative i do have a um a texas bitcoin conference talk that in 2018 that kind of went through that project if people look it up but um if we could move more of the scientific

endeavor on chain um it would solve so many of these problems uh we wouldn't be having the press run around parroting these nonsense um you know fiat narratives uh to try and you know corral the world into taking you know risky experimental injections we would have much more of a grounded truth set through a decentralized peer review system yeah we were chatting via dms leading up to this it seems like you've iterated on this process incorporating open timestamps um because that's i guess that's going to be the big question for bitcoiners listening to this show is yeah this all sells sounds well and good but we don't want to bloat the chain with a bunch of data and we wouldn't yeah the whole scientific data obviously

doesn't fit but just just leveraging op returns or open timestamps like approach is uh i don't i can't imagine that being too much of a bloat and um i'm kind of of the same opinion that if if you can do it it's allowed right i mean satoshi put the op return in there and it's not anyone's opinion or place to to judge how people make use of that it's uh you know values in the the beholder here so um if if we can fit something in there um it's just a hash right i mean we're not we're not shoving we're not bsv here we're not not shoving gifts into the blockchain no yeah that makes like the open timestamps use case makes a lot of sense to me and we've seen it in recent years in terms of open timestamps providing value for individuals by hashing data

at a particular point in time and then cross-referencing that data with data did not that did not equal what was hash at that time in the guatemalan presidential election from a few months ago yeah we so we do this now on we've probably put over 1800 genomes are hashed on chain right now um when we sequence genomes for clients we hash them and stash them um now they're they're spread across a couple chains because when fees got really large we ended up bouncing between Dash and Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin. So it may not have been the most prudent way to do it. We probably should have taken up a...

I think the open timestamps thing is a good approach because it creates like a tree. So you can put a lot of hashes into one transaction and amortize the transaction costs across a lot more data. We weren't leveraging that back then. I think we're using something called stamp.io, which used a single hash or one transaction for every single file, which was, you know, not the smartest way to do it. But, but yeah,

I think that's, it kind of resonates with what Jack Mauler was saying the other day, that this is a time chain and, you know, AI is going to need a time chain. Everything's going to need a time chain. And, you know, to turn that feature off, I think would be a big mistake on Bitcoin's utility because we're going to need something that, that can timestamp things without having to go to a federal bank and a notary. I mean, that's, that's what motivated us to do it. We're trying to prove people's cannabis genetics, who bred what first, and you can't go to a federal bank

and get your plant notarized or thrown in jail. But you can take the sequence file and hash it, and now it's a permanent record of who created what when. Yeah, it seems like open timestamps is perfect for this use case. That's the other question. You can hash the result of the data at a particular time, then it's like, where do you hold the whole sequence?

That's something like BitTorrent. Yeah, we were doing it on IPFS, but people have recommended BitTorrent as well. I just wasn't as familiar as how to command line that. I was firing it up on IPFS. But yeah, the only challenge with IPFS is you have to kind of keep seeding it over time if people aren't downloading it. So there is a permanence issue there that you have to maintain. And then there's a separate link that you have to maintain somewhere in a manner that

is decentralized, which we haven't done the best job at. So you can put the hash in Bitcoin, but then no one knows what that hash means unless you have another website that says that hash is of this file. And now that other web server is an attack vector. That's what we have. At Evidential Genomics, we have something called Canopedia and Silicidia, where we've been sequencing cannabis and psilocybe genomes and hashing them. And the transaction IDs sit on that website that point to the hashes in respective blockchains. But if someone goes and attacks those servers, then the links are broken between where we store that data and the chain event.

So I'd love it if there's a way to store a direct link inside the OP RETURN, if there's a way to do that. Or you were mentioning something, maybe Nostra can pull this off for us, because Nostra might be a more decentralized place to put that bridge. Yes. And I'm not sure if the solution is there yet, but on Rabbit Hole Recap last week, Matt And I had Tony from the Mutiny team on the show to break down what he was seeing in Madeira. They had a month-long hacker house get-together in Madeira focused on Nostr and Bitcoin.

And one of the projects that was most promising that came out of that that Tony was telling us about was this IPFS competitor built on Nostr that would do it better than IPFS because you don't have the issues that come with having to run a blockchain to facilitate all of this stuff. And that's what makes sense to me when it comes to all of this because I've heard many of these types of products throughout the years, being in Bitcoin for 11 years now, it seems like trying to force everything into a blockchain

just for some reason or another doesn't work, whether it's the amount of data. Definitely not. It's not a database, right? I mean, yeah, sure, it's a ledger, but you don't want to put big data files on this thing. You just want to put a link to it, to the big data files that gives you sort of a – you just want the timestamping functionality that can't be altered, the immutability side of this. And make that fingerprint as small as possible so you're not blowing up the chain.

Yeah, that's what makes it – Yeah, put all the data somewhere else. And that's what gets me really excited about whether it's BitTorrent or things like Nostr. as i think over the last two years specifically people are really deep into this stuff have really come to the conclusion that the solution to these problems is web 3.0 as it's been marketed by the ethereums of the world and we'll put everything on chain and you can access it permissions permissionlessly and we need a token for everything it's really combining open source protocols whether it's bit torrent

or Nostor with open source money, Bitcoin, to create correct incentives to keep the data and then to be able to interact with it and access it via a distributed monetary good. And that's where, when it comes to BitTorrent, it has a seeding problem as well, but now you can implement a Lightning Network paywall into the data to monetize that, to incentivize more people

to seed those files. And then similarly on Nostor, when you're running relays, the relay is valuable enough. You can put a lightning network paywall to get access to some of the data as well, I would imagine. It's an important point because the genomic data is really large and not a lot of people download it. Only a few specialists go after it. And I mean, the last, the run that we did on this last vaccine study, what did we get? We generated about a terabyte of data in one run. So, you know, that's the idea of putting that on a web three chain is just crazy. I don't think those people

understand the size of the data files that people are generating and how quickly they're amassing data on that front. To have everyone replicate the data everywhere in a chain seems to be backwards. The frequency that you want access to that data doesn't match the frequency at which those transactions want to run. So as the timescales are off, right? Someone may download that data once a year. It's very valuable data. It's a very large data file, but it doesn't need to have a time. It doesn't mean the time domain of two minutes or 10 minutes. It's mismatched, I think, from a storage standpoint. And storage costs do have different costs based on frequency of use. There's cold storage types of drives out there on Amazon that are much cheaper than

drives that are getting hammered every day with the CPU. So I don't think it's economically wise to have all data live to everybody all the time that seems inefficient yeah and then even with this peer review process that you're describing where you give half the money up front and half at the end like now with bitcoin um you could you could see somebody creating something like a discrete log contract on uh lightning where you lock the money up in htlc or whatever maybe and you have your company or a consortium of companies act as an oracle to say, all right, yep, you completed this peer review.

I'm going to attest that you did that and then the money will be distributed to you automatically with the address that you sent us before. It's an important incentive to have in there. A lot of the academics frown on this because it sounds like you're bribing the reviewers. But the reality is if you don't have a price signal in peer review, it becomes the socialist commonwealth where, you know, it's tragedy

of the commons. Like who, who is, how are you going to get the best minds in the world to spend their time reviewing your paper? Right. They're, they're, they're, they're those people have valuable time. What happens right now in peer review is every, every PI just throws it to down to some grad student who does it on a weekend. You know, it's, it's, it's a chore. You're not going to recruit the best minds and you're not going to have any time urgency on someone else's time when you're asking for it for free. So what tends to happen is the people that show up for those reviews are your competitors that want to throw sand in the gears because they have a motivated interest to shut it down. But if you can put a price signal in there, you can change

the dynamic of peer review such that small papers, you know, so one problem that happens with this, the system we have is that no one wants to submit to peer review unless they have at least like a year's worth of data because the process takes a year. So you're not going to do a small experiment and try and get it through peer review. So that means the frequency at which science gets released slows down. Now, if you had a process where you could publish every month

everything your lab was doing and it wasn't full of all this friction, you would be more transparent with your publication and what you're doing. So by putting a price signal in there, you can create a fast lane. Like, all right, this is a really urgent paper that has medical necessity to get the review.

I'm gonna put a $10,000 bounty on this one because it has to get people's attention now. And I know plenty of companies that would pay that. I mean, I was at one of the sequencers that we built, Applied Biosystems bought, and it's called the Solid Sequencer. They're using this to replace their Sanger sequencer, and it was their flagship product. So they were dropping 20 grand every issue in science to put an ad up. So they'd easily drop 20 grand on a peer review to get it accelerated and to get the right minds tearing apart the paper with a deadline. Right now, there's no deadline, in pure view. This gets shopped out to people on their spare time, and they can get back to you months later, six months later, but there's no urgency. There's no way to open up an ambulance lane, if you will, on that highway.

And so the moment you put pricing signals in there, you can expedite important papers. You can put papers that are interesting to the world, but not so urgent on a slow boat to China. And it changes the dynamics in the rate at which science gets disseminated, Which is really the foundation of our migration out of poverty. If we don't get this right, we can't idea bridge. We can't advance society because we're choking it with bureaucratic bullshit at these journals. Yeah. Which is, again, it's just insane to think that human progress, not only human progress, but human health and safety is significantly prohibited by these fiat incentives that exist and the middlemen that insert themselves in the scientific process in 2024. for? It's a big, it's like a 20, $30 billion market. So it's not, it's not small for those

people that are trying to do this in Nostra. There's a market out there to come in. And I think if they get this right, the market's going to get much bigger because people will publish more frequently once you get rid of all these barriers. It'll be micro publications, if you will, which I think is the way, is the better way to do science is the way that we actually do it with our friends and colleagues is we're constantly sharing what we're finding on a weekly basis with people we trust, and then we pull it all up into a big paper when we feel it's big enough to warrant going through the pain of peer review. But if we did that more globally and we weren't hiding as much in the process, it would be

a boon for ingenuity. Yeah. Could you pull on that thread a little bit? What type of renaissance would we see in the realm of experimentation and breakthroughs? might see this, there might be a couple other industries that help emulate this. I mean, one reason why people are secretive in the biotech space is there's this whole IP thing that goes on, right? I don't know if you're familiar with Steven Kinsella's work on this, but IP is another fiat game that effectively is just reappropriating people's rights

through the government. But there's nothing scarce about an idea, right? If you have an idea, I think it was a famous Jefferson quote on this, that, you know, light from my candle lights yours at no cost to mine, right? Ideas are not necessarily scarce. If you don't want to share them, that's fine. But ideas are infinitely shareable without any loss to the original person who created them. So this idea of creating IP around ideas or property that isn't scarce kind of violates

the concept of property. Property rights are in place to deal with scarce resources where there might be conflict. And when you can share an idea with somebody without any loss of value, I mean, some would argue, oh, I might lose some of my business to you by sharing this idea. I think they're narrow-minded when they say that, but that's a business problem, not necessarily a actual physical problem. But the fact that ideas can exist in multiple people's minds at the same time without deleting it from somewhere else, shows that it is not a scarce property right. But the government is coming in and allowing some people to say, hey, I thought of this first without really good proof that you thought of it first, other than you filed some

paperwork with the government. And therefore, I want you to give me a property right, a negative servitude, if you will, on someone else's property, because I filed paperwork with you. So the biotech space has its own problem. And a lot of pharma has that too. There are industries that don't operate with IP and they innovate much quicker. Now, they may not be making the grand leaps and bounds and the money flows may not be going there because people love investing in things that have IP because it gives them a moat of protection for their money. But the fashion industry, we're not all naked. The fashion industry doesn't have IP. The restaurant industry doesn't have IP. We're not starving. Industries can operate without IP. And I think that's one

that's one example i think in the sciences um some of the more open science projects that you look at i think move much more quickly i mean the one that we did with a genome sequencing project that the one we did would take years and we did it in in the summer time and got it public for everyone to use uh and that'll that enabled many other people to public we have people who've published off of that work before we ever got it through peer review like peer review papers came out uh you know leveraging the data that we put public just having to cite our our cryptocurrency preprint. So we have evidence that people are tapping that data, publishing other work off that data before we even collect it up and throw it through a proper peer review process. I don't

think we're ever going to do it because it's already getting cited. There's no point to go and pay a journal $5,000 to peer review this thing. I mean, that's the other mess in all this is the process of peer review. You give $5,000 to the journal. They take your copyright for your work. They don't give any of that money to the reviewers who add all the value and they just they collect it um so there's uh there's no incentive for the reviews to actually be done correctly because you're not funneling any of the of the of the value to the people who do the work um and i imagine the only value that the reviewers get is the fact that they're able to put a review on the resume after you've had a certain amount of reviews it's like i don't need to do

this anymore that that's starting to happen but even even that wasn't occurring for the longest time it was just like this is like your obligation for being a scientist like brushing your teeth you get no credit for but you must do it kind of thing it was a total total servitude thing that the journals propagated that this is part of being in the scientific cloth if you will is that you must review people's work to be a member of society here and there was no credit given now they're starting to put the names of the reviewers on these things because too many people have yelled like who the hell reviewed this thing um and so they're starting to um put names on there but that's changing the dynamics is now people like i don't really want to review this

if i have to put my name on it because that means i actually have to be very careful about it uh so the some of the some of the journals like f1000 is doing that they're like you it's an open transparent review you have to put your name on the review and they can't find reviewers because people are like well that's a little work to put my reputation on someone else's work by scanning it for a weekend and if i get it wrong i have a lot on the line so i'm just going to say no and they review papers from other journals that don't have these uh they they hide behind this oh we we don't want to have transparency in review because there might be a woman who's getting reviewed who feels like the patriarchy is holding her down and they bring up all these woke excuses

as to why they won't make it transparent um it's uh it's a bit disappointing actually but i'm hoping that model gets blown apart and it moves towards something that's transparent with price signals yeah and this is just one layer of how these unique interactions whether it's hashing data via open timestamps into the blockchain combining something like bitcoin noster bitcoin open timestamps to get the data out there get it peer-reviewed but then you just talk about the broader monetary repercussions of bitcoin adoption increasing and it really defunds a lot of these middlemen a lot of this froth that exists in yeah i think it's important from if you're a bitcoiner you care about decentralization but we can't be fully

decentralized in some citadel without thinking about decentralized health right uh the moment your health runs dry, your Bitcoins are useless. So you've got to think about how do we decentralize medicine because that's the foothold to staying on this planet and maintaining your stash, if you will. So, I mean, there's a lot of parallels in biology with Bitcoin. I think that's one reason it resonates with some people in our space is that you look at Jack's talk, right? There's this circadian rhythm going on in Bitcoin. Every 10 minutes, he invented time. the cells do this too. The cells have mitochondria that control your melatonin and your circadian rhythm. And that timing is really critical to get all your cells to synchronize. If you don't

have cell synchrony, you have cancer and metabolic disease. It's a mess. And on top of that, the way biology propagates information is it demands that you spend cellular energy writing the code, right? So there's proof of work built into the fidelity of DNA replication. And DNA replication is like, this is something that has transcended information through time for millions of years. So there's a lesson here that the currency in cells is a molecule ATP. That's your energy source, right? And that ATP is adenosine triphosphate.

That is adenosine that is written into your DNA and into your RNA. Like you literally have to put the goddamn currency unit in the information that you're writing to replicate information in biology. So there are all of these parallels with how blockchains actually propagate information. If you don't have proof of work, the cells will create noise. They'll just create random information that isn't worth propagating. The moment the cells have to start consuming cellular energy to propagate good information, it's separating noise from information that's worth propagating.

So I think if you don't have proof of work on these chains, you're going to be BSV spouting out all types of random gifts. but it's not information that actually is worth pushing through time and putting onto a time chain. So I think that, I don't know, in many ways, I view it as one of the earliest forms of AI on Bitcoin, just because it has found, like the definition of intelligence to me isn't like if you can do chess, it's like, can you monetarily create value?

Because that's the only way we can universally measure different values. like some people might value chess some people might value checkers some people might value intelligence and music right they're all very different forms but the moment all of those things eventually translate into generating value and bitcoin has found a way to generate value over time and it has done so in a way that it has complemented one of our human weaknesses which is trust we don't trust each other this thing brings us trust so it's filled in a void where no one's looking and now with the work you guys are doing it's tapping right into the energy grid all right so that's a fairly self-propagating piece of intelligence that i think is moving

around the world that no one really looks at as ai because it's not doing any anthropomorphic gymnastics it's just filling in something we suck at um so i i know there's a lot of parallels between understanding biology understanding these blockchain systems and i hope a lot more bitcoiners turn around and look at health because the health system you're gonna have a huge stack But if we all have to drive that stack through the NIH to get health care, we're screwed. We've got to start decentralizing this. Ralph Merkle had a good Bitcoin quote years ago, essentially echoing what you just mentioned. Like Bitcoin mirrors what we see in the world of biology pretty crazily, where it's self-replicating.

it ensures that it survives it has this monetization aspect that incentivizes people to interact with it um it is this interesting i'll have to read it i think i've uh i've missed that one but um it is from merkle trees right yes yeah okay um it is insane and like the and again just the pure monetary incentives of a world in which sound money exists like you get And a lot of the money printing, a lot of the debt issuance that gets funneled to a lot of these agencies that are then able to go do all this crazy research and release these viruses on the world without many repercussions because of the incentives being whacked. Like, hopefully it fixes that as well and really forces more efficient and appropriate capital allocation, especially in the realm of health care, which is supremely important for the survival of our species and the health of our species moving forward. Yeah, we've gone to a place where fiat medicine is so out of whack that it's willing to take a gamble on injecting 7 billion people with a genetic experiment. That might be the most evolutionarily short-sighted thing it's ever done.

You know, do you have faith there will be retribution justice with all this? Cause it's, you mentioned treason earlier. Yeah. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm horrible at gauging the, that dimension. I think. Do you see a shift in like on your side of things within the community of researchers? Yeah. There's more and more physicians that are paying attention to the silencing of

all their peers. Like when they see that they, and they see that their licenses are getting threatened by this system um i mean you speak to a lot of physicians and they're like the people who are doing the the threatening are like administrators who don't know shit about medicine right they come in with these woke mandates and say if you spread any vaccine hesitancy we're going to pull your license so there's an uproar going on in the medical community about how they need to decentralize themselves they got sucked into the vortex they got sucked into all of the um all of the agglomeration of the different medical, there used to be a lot more smaller, independent doctors, and they all got sucked up

into hospitals who are now, hospitals like UPenn is a classic example, right? They have money from the Corico patent, they have a billion dollars that came in from the mRNA vaccines into UPenn, and they pushed out notices to all the physicians that if they spread vaccine hesitancy, they'll be fired, right? Major conflict of interest on Penn's behalf, but they're so woke and blind to this that they will get sued one day for this uh i just i they have a huge stash of royalty that is going to help them fight it but the the the lawfare takes a long time and you know the process is the pain right that's the punishment is they they they have these and process it doesn't adjudicate these things very quickly and so you can quickly burn through all of your resources trying to fight

them legally for five years and you may or may not get anywhere so and i'm not really optimistic in the next five years that that system is going to work very well we see it turning against elon musk we see it turning against trump in ways that look like a total banana republic um i mean you saw elon's salary right like nine billion of it went to the lawyers who who decided he had too much he had too much um you know income so i don't know that that's just i think that system's in a hungry hungry hippo collapse in fact i think the pandemic was one of these things to obscure all of that, is they saw that the house was on fire right before the pandemic and said, all right, we need a mechanism to grab as much goddamn money from this thing before it implodes.

And the pandemic's perfect for that. And then when that ran out, they said, we'll do Ukraine, we'll do Israel, we're going to keep doing it until the cards collapse. So I don't know that the system's going to be there in five years to function to try to rectify this. What it may do is incentivize a lot of people to stop relying on it and start getting more self-sovereign with bitcoin and and uh and thinking about their health on their own terms yeah i completely agree i'm optimistic i think again like bitcoin is a sly roundabout way to separate money from the state and central banks it seems like just from the nature of people brushing up with it and recognizing how bitcoin is creating that separation they're beginning to find ways to separate other aspects

of their life, whether it's biomedical research, genome research, and separate it from the state and its control over that whole process, which is really encouraging to see. Yeah. I mean, we're doing a small part, just we're a small company, but our take here is make the breeding of these medicinal organisms as open source and as affordable as possible. We make tests and PCR tools that help people breed psilocybin and cannabis, and we're looking at kratom and a variety of other medicinal organisms that are increasingly becoming more popular with people who don't want to go in and solve everything with a Zempac and needles. you know but um there's we hold a conference too for anyone's interested in um when it's in may i think it's may 9th to 12th in marco island that's called canmed where a lot of like-minded physicians

go and discuss how to get around all of these um navigate all this this nonsense that's going on in the fiat world and they've been doing it for decades like the cannabis physicians uh figured this out how to navigate the state with the aids crisis and they've been slowly legalizing state by state so that we have access to these medicines that aren't going through the traditional stranglehold of the state. There's still some state by state regulation going on, but I think that's the best defense we have right now is to de-federalize it into states' rights and leverage that as much as we can.

That's probably going to play a role in Bitcoin too with you guys down in Texas. Yeah. In Florida, it seems like these are becoming safe havens. El Salvador is another, seems to be another safe haven for this type of activity. So those are areas that I would forecast are going to become safe havens for freer medicine as well. They're not today on the cannabis front. I got to work on that with your folks down there in Texas and Florida, but at least El Salvador is starting to think about it. States will lead the way.

I've been saying this for years now. Yeah. And I guess one last question I have is after your message at, I believe, the ICS meeting on Capitol Hill, did anybody come up to you? Yes, a couple people after that, particularly the Bitcoin one. A gentleman from Romania, a physician over there that helped lead the charge to shut down the vaccine mandates, walked up to me and said, I need to know more about this. What is this Bitcoin thing? And he was fairly new to it and very open to it. And so I walked him through a little 10 minute pitch of, you know, follow Michael Saylor,

follow, follow Pierre Richard, follow, you know, uh, all, all these other, um, names on, on, on Twitter and, and keep your eye on this thing. Cause by April 20th, this thing's going to go crazy, uh, with what's, what's happening with the happening. And, um, and then another physician, um, who was there, he, the other physician had her, I got to point this, I got to find his name and post a few guys. I got to catch up with him. Cause it was really fascinating talk.

He was demonstrating how some of the biology of the SARS infection and the spike protein particulars, the vaccines in particular do this, is that it actually affects your cortisol levels and depression and actually can lead to compliance. And so he went through all of the neurobiology of the infection, showing that it gets involved in these certain dopamine pathways. and he's been using low dose lithium to help people get out of this. But there's a lot of like long COVID

that's actually like depression. It's called long vax in this case because he was speaking about vaccine recipients. But it's spike protein induced. And so they're suffering from persistence of spike protein and they get into a depressive state and this depressive state ends up turning off their hippocampus,

which means that they can't consider new ideas very readily. And so they become more compliant. So it's a very fascinating take on like, okay, this could be a real negative feedback loop we have going here with the people who have taken these things are going to continue to be more and more compliant and they will have pushed themselves and they failed the compliance test as Dr. Jack would say. I don't know if you followed Jack Cruz, but he's got some interesting takes on light cycles that I think are really valid.

But that work was mind blowing to see because it explained a lot of what I've seen with people who there's some people who've slowly woken up over this and and they're reconsidering what happened there's a there's a cabal of people out there that are just throwing like anti-vax venom over anyone who gets in their way because they can't tolerate the idea that maybe they were wrong about this and they're going to line up for another 10 shots uh and those folks are a part of the population that worries me the most you know those are the people that you know hitler didn't kill 6 million people. He got a bunch of those people to do it for him. And that's the part of the population I think we've got to worry about the most, the ones that have not snapped out of

this and might be on a pharmaceutical course to never get out of it. And they will do whatever the state tells them to do. So his talk was, I got to find his name and post it for you guys, because he has a book out and that was a really fascinating look. But yeah, so there were some intriguing minds that were there. They were not familiar with it. And I would say in sort of the COVID medical freedom movement, if you want to call it that, there was a split population there of people who think it's now the WEF is talking positively about it. BlackRock is evil. It's really dividing them being like, we got to go to gold and silver. This Bitcoin thing's a scam. They're going to rug pull us. And then there's another group who experienced what happened with

truckers like they took their bank accounts and bitcoin was the one thing that that i think in that case there was some centralization of people putting all the funds to one person and that person got nailed with the bitcoin in the future if there's a truckers rally they all have to get their own wallets and and find a way to fund a little bit more not through a choke point like that but but i think they got them that some of those people got the message that yeah our our bank accounts aren't ours under the state-based system we we have to find another path for freedom so i i hope more of them um we can turn more of them because uh they are aligned in our interest they've seen the beast and um they just don't really know what to do about it yet yeah

yeah it's crazy to think that the vaccine spike spike proteins creating these cortisol disruptors that are making people more compliant fluoride stare on on steroids yeah yeah so he was going with low-dose lithium i i didn't i wanted to talk to him about psilocybin i didn't get a chance to bend his ear about that because i'm wondering if low-dose psilocybin would do something similar as low-dose lithium in this case based on the biology there but there were there were papers on the covid space that used fluvoxamine because that's the pharmaceutical approved ssri that's most like psilocybin um that uh was arresting sars and and showing promise and preventing it uh even even went through some trials uh showed some really

remarkable results i think steve kirsch funded some of that work um but of course it got suppressed against the vaccines uh in in practicality but um that might be working on a very similar pathway as psilocybin that is uh found in mushrooms that is known to involve neurogenesis and has a host of interesting biology on serotonin receptors yeah it's fascinating stuff thank you for doing the the work that you do um it's very important getting this message out there because it seems many you guys for stabilizing the damn grid i mean cannot be uh emphasized enough that we can't play with our toys if you guys don't get the energy grid stabilized and it seems like the whole the bitcoin play you had to do that is that to me is the is the um is kind of the underhanded

way of guaranteeing it never dies well that's i mean that's what i was just about to say it's like in all these domains whether it's monetary financial energy related information accessibility related like bitcoin touches all this and it seems like slowly but surely people are beginning to recognize the power of bitcoin which many of us recognized years ago from a monetary austrian economics purview it's like no it touches everything and if we mess with these things whether it's the money the energy the health care bring this to food a bunch of ranchers are waking up to this too like you can really up the future of humanity and i feel extremely fortunate that bitcoin exists to begin fixing a lot of the the broken incentives that exist across all these

sectors um because we will not flourish the way in which we have up to this point if these perverse incentives aren't fixed rather quickly yep it's fix the money that's what we got to do and everything else falls from there yes well kevin is there anything else you think we should tell the freaks before we wrap up here and we're running i know if you if you freaks want to follow me i'm i'm suppressed on twitter so you gotta you know uh you probably have to follow me every other week actually everyone tells me they keep getting unfollowed by by x i don't know what elon's doing there but um kevin underscore mccurney on twitter um i have a sub stack as well where i write about all the work that we're doing on these vaccines and and

sometimes some cannabis work um that's at uh that's nepetalactone i picked the worst goddamn and uh substack name because no one can spell it but it's it's the compound that's involved in catnip so if you remember that just google that you'll find nepetalactone that is uh that's my subset candle and uh a lot of this vaccine stuff you can find up there yeah we'll link to all this in the show notes so um you don't have to go into catnip rabbit hole freaks but uh kevin thank you again all right cheers this is a pleasure thanks morty peace love freaks