TFTC: A Bitcoin Podcast - #696: How Peer Review Became a Weapon with Jessica Rose & Kevin McKernan

Episode Date: December 20, 2025

Marty sits down with Jessica Rose and Kevin McKernan to discuss the coordinated attacks on their vaccine contamination research, the corrupt peer review system designed to suppress inconvenient science, and how Bitcoin and Nostr can create a censorship-resistant alternative for publishing. Elisabeth Bik thread: https://x.com/SciGuardians/status/1990482634410004751 Kevin on Twitter: https://x.com/Kevin_McKernan Jessica on Twitter: https://x.com/JesslovesMJK STACK SATS hat: https://tftcmerch.io/ Our newsletter: https://www.tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/ TFTC Elite (Ad-free & Discord): https://www.tftc.io/#/portal/signup/ Discord: https://discord.gg/VJ2dABShBz Opportunity Cost Extension: https://www.opportunitycost.app/ Shoutout to our sponsors: Bitkey https://bit.ly/4pOv2L4 Unchained https://unchained.com/tftc/ Obscura https://obscura.net/ SLNT https://slnt.com/tftc CrowdHealth https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/tftc Salt of the Earth: https://drinksote.com/tftc Join the TFTC Movement: Main YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/c/TFTC21/videos Clips YT Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUQcW3jxfQfEUS8kqR5pJtQ Website https://tftc.io/ Newsletter tftc.io/bitcoin-brief/ Twitter https://twitter.com/tftc21 Instagram https://www.instagram.com/tftc.io/ Nostr https://primal.net/tftc Follow Marty Bent: Twitter https://twitter.com/martybent Nostr https://primal.net/martybent Newsletter https://tftc.io/martys-bent/ Podcast https://www.tftc.io/tag/podcasts/

you've had a dynamic where money's become freer than free if you talk about a fed just gone nuts all 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 And that's part of the bull case for Bitcoin. If you're not paying attention, you probably should be. Jessica, Kevin, welcome back to the show. Both of you at the same time.

This is a first. I'm very excited for this conversation. Yeah, it's about time. Yeah, thanks for having us back. Well, I wanted to do it earlier this summer, but you two were busy when the paper that you co-authored was presented as evidence in a hearing on the Hill, which I was very excited to see.

Jessica, you and I recorded about the quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter enhancer sequences in the Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna vaccines. I guess just for my selfish, the selfish inner beast in me, What is the last four months for you to been since that hearing is that was pretty profound. It's been four months. My God. Um, well, a lot of the same actually. Um, it's weird that, well,

I can speak for myself, uh, and say that it's, it's very weird. Um, spending so many hours of the day, uh, responding to trolls and emails about having your work investigated and, you know, requests to do interviews with, you know, various and sundry people like Retraction Watch, for example, you know, just just for doing something you kind of always have. And of course, the reason for all that is the subject matter. But it shouldn't matter. I mean, it's, you know, we're literally just doing what we've always done, which is scientific research and writing and publication. And, you know, it's because what we've uncovered and are trying to disclose to the public is so, I suppose, radioactive that there's been a, well, I don't know if it's planned, but there's been, you know, an attack launched against us. So, yeah, it's been interesting. Yeah. Yeah, I've had similar nightmares over here. I don't call them nightmares, just hassles. I think they try to cement you in all of this noise so you can't put out the next few papers, which we've been doing as well. We've managed to be, I'm sure you, Jess and I have another one that's out with Charles Rixey, and I've put two out since all this started, but I'm pretty convinced all of this is just meant to be sand in the gears to slow us down.

In the middle of this, I had a police department doing an investigation on people who published similar work out in Slovakia. So that's getting heated. They're asking all types of questions on, you know, who published this paper versus that paper. I've had contact with police in Pennsylvania because there's people down there making, like, violent threats against me. They're asking questions. so there's just all this madness going on or it just continues to escalate particularly after that hearing i think after that hearing it just set people on fire and uh the whole retraction mob is is now gunning for the paper they put it under investigation at the journal

um the manner in which they did it was was actually somewhat hilarious um some of the people who filed the complaints with the journal one of them's an investor quote-unquote uh his name is known, Kevin Patrick, um, he drummed up some complaints using chat GPT that turned out to be hallucinations, but he submitted them anyway and, and got called out on it. And, uh, he said, Oh yeah, sorry. That was a hallucination that, you know, the chat GPT did it. Um, that, that part was really funny because, uh, pub peer, we call them pub smear. Um, they, they kind of go after papers they think are written by AI and they're, they're using AI to do it. So it's this like circular loop of uh of um confusion over there um another one that um that occurred is retraction

watch is kind of teamed up with this organization called pup here they have similar funding their funding's from the arnold foundation is one of their funders the arnold foundation got their they're they're like a an enron tycoon that decided to get involved in scientific integrity um but elizabeth bick is is one of the moderators at pub pier and she won some awards it's almost sound like jeffrey epstein winning the lottery right she wins an award and then gives it to attraction watch and now they echo everything pub pub here does um and so they came after us one day emailing us saying hey we we have this we got your the reviews from your paper um do you care to comment on what this reviewer has to say and and you know all so date this is for david

jess in our in our paper um and that got submitted into the congressional record uh which we were like we're excited for because like we wish those reviews were public we've been asking the journal to put them public but um you know if if you have them let's see them and they they send over this document anonymized and all you had to do is like go to the pdf corner and look at the metadata and it revealed who their source was, which was a person who's at a university that's funded by DFG, who funded the vaccines. So the person who wrote this screed against us, it was kind of funny because the review, I think the reason we got through review is that that reviewer went apeshit on us with all types of ad hominem attacks, being like, these guys are anti-vaxxers,

misinformation. In peer review, you don't do that. You just talk about the data. You don't attack the people and so he shot himself in the foot because you know he had some some relevant complaints that we that we did address but if he just put the complaints down it would have been a better review but he went all anti-vaxxer hatred on us uh and so the editor just wrote him off and um uh and approved the manuscript um but his complaint that he filed with when he snuck this review out to retraction watch he tried to do it secretly and we caught him um he tried to tell attraction watch that he refused that he that he rejected the paper and the editors came out and like no you didn't you just said make changes we have that on record um so there's been this

very weird um pharma funded uh attack that's getting wandered through all these other um i don't know if they're companies or 501c3s or these non-profit entities that uh are that hang their hat on being at science integrity integrity outfits and um they're they're all um activated and and running after basically everything we post and everything we publish so um it's kind of fun um but it's it's made us realize that we really have to build a new system here like we've got to start putting this on noster and on bitcoin and just get out of this whole pharma funded mess because it is uh it just creates all this all this noise yeah as as kevin pointed out like we our paper this you know this very very very rigorously peer-reviewed paper which was

desk rejected i think five times is that right kevin five or six um yeah i can't i can't remember the exact number it was a lot and um david would know he's the one who dealt with most of the Yes. Well, anyway, it was desk rejected, which means like outright rejection. We're not going to review it by like at least five journals. And then it was accepted for, you know, with revision. And we did the revision and we went over this process like many times. Plus, we had this guy that Kevin just mentioned who was pretty, you know, he was determined to, you know, kind of ruin our chances of getting it through peer review, but it didn't work. We got it through. Nonetheless, nonetheless, seven, no, sorry, it was 11 days after it got published online. The editor sent us an email saying that it was under investigation. And that was because of this Patrick or Kevin Patrick guy and PubSphere network.

We know that for a fact. And so it's still under investigation, even though it's on the congressional record. And even though the old metric, you know, metrics show that it's very, very popular, let's put it that way, in the eye of the public. And, you know, people want to know what the hell is going on. I mean, that's the whole point. We published a study. This is what we found. You can read it if you want. You don't have to if you don't want to. Like, you know, they're incriminating themselves, if you ask me, with all of this, these attacks and with the investigations and with the, you know, lack of answers to our questions about like, you know, how come, you know, this evidence that we've provided you that this is actually a, you know, a targeted attack on us to to retract our paper that was, you know, that had forethought. um shouldn't enter into the uh discovery of the investigation if you want to call it that um but but anyway uh the yeah it's ongoing it's still under investigation and we don't really have an idea of how long this process is going to be we have it on good authority that other papers that have been brought under investigation by these same types of people have been under

investigation for years um that's right bryce nichols brought that up that some of the lab leak papers are in the same kind of purgatory and um the same journalists done that to them um but i think the the interesting thing on this topic is that i've been contacted by by two other authors who have also published work that replicated our work one is bridget coning and one is uri commonware and this same character ralph marsha like went after them with the extreme vitriol just went basically berserk on their papers. And there's a really interesting MDPI back and forth. When you went berserk on their paper,

Bridget went back to the journal saying, well, look, let's have a dialogue. We'll put forward our arguments. You put forward yours. Let's put it all on record. And the moment she put hers forward, those guys ran away from the debate and then went and published a preprint

and kind of broke protocol. And the same thing's happening here. In our approach, with our paper, they weren't supposed to leak. They've only leaked one side of the reviews. They leaked their reviews and kept ours private. So now we're kind of exposed where you can see all of his complaints, but you can't see our response. Which is against COPI guidelines, by the way. Yeah, so they're breaking all types of rules, which shows that this is desperation on their behalf,

that they're breaking all their own ethical guidelines to try to suppress this. And they have their own papers on this. So the one who came after us should have rescinded himself from the review because he had a paper that we were actually critiquing at ours. And generally that's like, okay, you have a conflict. You should step away and have someone else review this because you're actually mentioned in the paper. But he didn't do that. He hid that and went on the attack. So there's just a network of people out there that are bending the scientific record, and they're heavily funded.

and there's an influence network out there that has kind of you know weird we don't we don't have all the understanding of who funds them and how but but that's that's kind of the open question is who are these groups that go on the attack for these papers because there's certainly evidence shown that this this pub peer mob uh they've there's a group out there called science guardians who's gone through and submitted like 17 uh you know papers that had issues that they that were related to the people in that network and they censored all of them so they will not receive any any like critiques of their own papers uh and if you look at the things they do critique they're very targeted at things that are on narrative so they support masks they supported

the lockdown papers they supported the surges fear fraud they supported the proximal origins paper all these things that we know that people are screaming to have retracted um they're they're defending but then when papers come out suggesting they're you know ivermectin might work or there's contamination of the vaccines, or like Walfik Eldieri had some work showing the spike protein might increase or downregulate the expression of p53, which is a tumor suppressor gene. It's a big bombshell paper. They went after him trying to cancel all his papers. So this is kind of what I would call steer review. There's a system in place for people to systematically suppress certain science and elevate other science. And it's dressed up in

this bow of being you know pure academics that are after you know science integrity but um it's kind of a civil attack uh that's in the peer-review system right now yeah all right that was a fire hose we're gonna take a step back because i did some research this morning so first of all if you're listening the paper that i referenced earlier that jessica and kevin co-wrote with a third author, basically showed some evidence that there was contaminants in the Pfizer-Moderna vaccines, particularly SV40 genes, which are cancer accelerants and DNA fragments. In other things, it was presented on Capitol Hill as evidence, as something to explore and look into. The powers that be didn't like that. And you're describing this loose network. I'm going to pull

up this screenshot of a video i watched this morning i fell down a thread rabbit hole um after going on your profiles and seeing some of the tweets that you guys tag me in so i think this does a pretty good job of sort of articulating this cabal if you will or visualizing this cabal and i'd like you two to jump into sort of this network here but first like pub pier how important isn't how much of a gatekeeper are they how integral are they to facilitating and distributing uh scientific research that gets seen as legitimate in the eyes of many others yeah it's a front like it's like uh what what was that thing that store called it was called piano furniture never mind um it was a story i heard from someone that was really funny from ages ago

but it's it's a storefront um with the appearance of being science integrity they're the people who are working in the pub here the pub smear network they're very integrally linked to retraction watch they got 200 grand euros from elizabeth bick from this einstein award you know to to do what they do which i'm still not sure what the function of retraction watch is if they're actually watching retractions and reporting on it or if they're actually helping papers get retracted because it seems to be like a little bit of a do loop there yeah they're definitely helping because they will ours isn't retracted yet and they're already commenting on it trying to help facilitate the retraction process and even their own title on the papers that they wrote about us was fraudulent

It was – the title of the paper they wrote about us was that one of the peer reviewers who rejected our paper leaks the review. And in the document that they write, they quote the editor of the journal saying he never rejected it. He actually approved it with edits. And the title of their article is misleading. They should retract their own work, but they'll never do that. Absolutely. And by the way, for everyone who's interested, you can go, and I encourage you to do so, go onto the Retraction Watch website and look up their piece on our work.

And this Rolf Marshalak, one of our reviewers, which I can say his name now because they made it public, they have a link to his review of our work, which is not supposed to be in the public forum. It's not. He broke COPY guidelines and many ethical and moral guidelines, if you ask me. And you can read his language. It's downright defamatory language about us as authors, which you're not allowed to do that as a peer reviewer. You have to I recently did a peer review of an article and you have to tick off boxes saying you're not doing this. You're not this. You're not that blah, blah, blah. You won't do this. And this is a part of a contract. If you engage as a reviewer, you have to abide by certain guidelines.

It's like a contract when you click those boxes and you sign off on it. So he breached those by disclosing the review of our paper and by writing the review in the manner that he did. So you can click on, yeah, no, this is the first one on my myocarditis paper, which is a whole other episode. This is actually an incredibly important topic, though, Jess, because you called out myocarditis, like, what, two years ago, three years ago? october 2021 they're finally admitting that okay jess was right uh exactly what paper was right was that the the children the young males this this was so early in the data it wasn't even through the the freaking 2021 year the signal for boys age 12 through 15 for myocarditis and VAERS was blaring, and that's all the paper said. It was a descriptive analysis

of VAERS data, and it got withdrawn, is what they call it, without any reason why, other than that it was their prerogative to do so. No explanation since then. Actually, the journal did something even more nefarious than that, because when they said that it was withdrawn, they put in this really squiggly language about it was withdrawn withdrawn by the authors or the editors or some combination above and which is a lie it was it was withdrawn by the editors not by you guys they led the public to believe that you guys withdrew it uh which was really really squirrely language and reading this here too because this is so this is different than the paper that you were describing earlier jessica you should go to what i wrote to retraction watch marty because

it's beautiful. And I stand by it today. It's four years later and I wouldn't change my language for the world. It's up a little bit. It's, I don't know, whatever it was that I said to Retraction Watch in quotes that they, yeah, we're very motivated to get the information in our paper to the public, pediatricians, parents, and policymakers alike. This is why we decided to publish in the first place. It's extremely frustrating for us to face such censorship when professionals are in need of scientific data and discourse on the subject of myocarditis in children in these very strange times. So I appreciate that they quoted me there because that is exactly what we're facing now. And all of the papers that are at the end of the

the gun so to say of the retraction watch pub pier mob um all we're trying to do is is publish what we found i mean they went after sabine hazen's hypothesis paper and got it retracted i mean have what the hell like how the hell does that even happen it's it's an hypothesis it's like and that was about gut bacteria right in the uh yeah and and and for those of you who don't know who elizabeth bick is look up you biome fraud well and this is another thing here just looking at this particular reaction watch piece i mean it seems like they're admitting that there is instances of myocarditis caused by the vaccine and it looks like dr mccullough was basically abandoned by texas a&m college of medicine texas christian university university

north texas health science center school of medicine uh they both removed dr mccullough from their faculty so there was professional repercussions many titles and positions so did pure corey i mean there's a long list of people who who are like just kind of you know normal doctors and researchers and uh more than normal i mean jesus looks like mccullough is like one of the highest cited cited like renal cardiologists in the world you know and they've been no gone uh paul merrick as well he's he's like highly published and they you know so it's there's just there's a lot of bodies uh on this uh on this pile suffrakes healthcare open enrollment has started it will roll through the end of january opt out of

traditional health insurance which doesn't care about you it's impersonal it's expensive they deny an increasing amount of claims premiums are going up you don't have to live this way you can opt out i opted out four years ago and joined crowd health i've been a crowd health member a very happy crowd health member for four years i've had two children a couple of health events in that time period and crowd health has been there you pay a monthly fee you contribute to to the crowd. We were paying $1,800 on Cobra as a family of three. Now we're paying around $900 a month as a family of five. And that's with CrowdHealth and direct primary care. You can opt out of health insurance. Go to joincrowdhealth.com slash TFTC. You're going to get $99 a month for

the first three months if you use the code TFTC. Joincrowdhealth.com slash TFTC. So freaks, this rip of TFTC was brought to you by our good friends at BitKey. BitKey makes Bitcoin easy to use and hard to lose. It is a hardware wallet that natively embeds into a two or three multi-sig. You have one key on the hardware wallet, one key on your mobile device and Block stores a key in the cloud for you. This is an incredible hardware device for your friends and family, or maybe yourself who have Bitcoin on exchanges and have for a long time, but haven't taken a step to self-custody because they're worried about the complications of setting up a private public key pair, securing that seed phrase, setting up a pin, setting up

a passphrase. Again, BitKey makes it easy to use, hard to lose. It's the easiest zero to one step. your first step to self custody. If you have friends and family on the exchanges who haven't moved it off, tell them to pick up a big key, go to big key dot world, use the key TFTC 20 at checkout for 20% off your order. That's big key dot world code TFTC 20. Well, getting back to pub here, like how, how much of a stranglehold do they have over this process? Other alternative peer review systems that go through the people respect, or is this sort of the, the one that people really depend on i think this is the first one that really came about and so they've caught in the the mindshare of academia and the journals that okay this is now a thing

it's out there we we need to pay attention to what they're finding um but there there hasn't really been a competitor until people have enough people have been burned by this that there's now an outrage over how they operate because when they do this they they're not required to um to work by the same rules as what the authors of the paper have to. So they'll make some accusations. They won't be very transparent on their methods of these accusations. And then the journals freak out and often retract the paper before the authors even get a chance to get on their feet and be like, well, what are you talking about? I got to dig up the data. That's from five years ago. I got to find the images. And there have been people reporting that it's often the

work they do is fraudulent themselves like pub smear will make an accusation that these two images are the same and then someone later will run them through an image analysis software tool and say like i put this through matlab and they're wrong they lied these are not pixel to pixel identical images oh wait the paper already got pulled before someone came to like defend it correctly and i have two things to say about that that happened to us specifically on on this particular paper one of the reasons why i think this investigation uh by the publisher was launched against this paper was because of this kevin patrick comment on the pub's peer website that was completely fabricated it's i'm not it's not conjecture it's there's it's black and white he

made it to it after the fact after he got bagged regardless he made it up and it instigated Like, it was kind of like all that was required, if you know what I mean, to start the investigation. And the platform that provided that instigation was PubPure. And not only that, but like the image twin, which is the software that was co-developed by Bic, who was this PubPure, you know, Moderator. moderator yeah um she co-created or co-developed this image twin that she uses as uh this tool to scan images in in peer-reviewed literature to see if they're um if they're fraudulent in some way and i'm not saying that that doesn't serve a purpose but her motivation and where she is now Like, I don't know what is going on with her, but she has lost the plot. And I would say that she never had a benevolent motivation for doing what she's doing because she's very bitey in her approach.

Sort of targeted in a particular narrative, and I think that's the biggest tell. It's very well thought out, too. The papers they go after, they go after for a reason, and there's a consistent pattern on the type of papers that they go after. Yeah. They're a very pharma-supportive attack dog, if you will. So we can, to Marty's point, we can build a better system. We don't need this. And in many ways, you know, this whole concept of peer review being behind closed doors, I kind of object to.

You know, it's unfortunate we went to, you know, we ended up at a journal that had that policy, which I wasn't totally aware of after we submitted it and people started asking for the reviews, like, can we do it? And they're like, no, no, no, these all stay private and the reviewers stay anonymous. And then lo and behold, the reviewers themselves start leaking only one side of the story. So we're kind of stuck flat footed here. We can't really defend ourselves by saying, no, this is what our response was. The journal won't let us release it. All this should just be on like Nostra or something, right? let let these things play out on i wouldn't even say twitter because twitter is censored like you

can go to twitter and ask grok these things and grok will be like i'm not allowed to talk about this or that and it's it's just uh there's still all types of nonsense going on on x uh noster seems to have the right architecture for this um and to what extent we can um etch things into bitcoin as well small bits of time stamps to you know just just bomb proof the noster protocol I think I think that's the way. And there's so so, you know, we've been doing this very recently on some of our more recent papers. We've just been etching them into the opera turn to, you know, get all the Bitcoin knots people up on our on our threads as well. And and it's it's it's starting to catch on. I just heard word from Steve Massey that he's going to try and do this himself. So so Steve Massey, for those who don't know, another really important researcher, he's out there hitting on the edge of where did where did this virus come from?

what's going on with gain of function. And very recently, he submitted a paper to Archive, which is like a, it's a site run by Cold Spring Harbor. But the problem we've had with Cold Spring Harbor run preprint servers is that they're starting to filter these things at the preprint level. And as a test of this, our most recent paper, Jess Charles and I sent it to BioArchive, also run by Cold Spring Harbor, and they censored it. They sat on it for a week, And after we nudged them, they're like, sorry, this is not right for our for our preprint server. And the day we got notice of them kicking us out of there, our paper got got got got accepted in another journal. So it's kind of funny. We got this like this paper is too toxic.

And then the other journal being like it's been approved with minor edits, like literally like within the same hour those things came through. But Steve's in this position where he has found that he's got evidence that the WIV is playing around with gain of function on a MERS virus that has got like a 22 percent mortality. It's absolutely frightening. And he's picked up the smoking gun on this, puts it into archive. Archive has been sitting on it for 14 days. And so he's like, screw it. I'm going to put up a Bitcoin address and try to do what Kevin and Jess and Charles did. I just need some funding to get a node kicked off, and if people can help me build the node, I'll start etching this stuff into Bitcoin and Nostr. So I hope this just catches on, because I think that community is far more censorship intolerant, if you will, to help us build the tools. Yeah, you tagged me in this MERS thread.

So what is his paper claiming to have discovered? He's found evidence in some of the sequencing read archives. The thing about a lot of these papers where people are doing sequencing in this field, like the coronavirus field, is they often submit the reads to public databases like the NCBI SRA. And Steve's been a sleuth combing through those and taking all the reads that don't assemble or map to where they think they're going to map and finding that there's other shit in there. And in this case, he found evidence that someone was playing around at the WIV with an infectious clone that contained highly pathogenic, human transmissible, 22% mortality. MERS is like a SARS virus, but I think it's the one that hit cameras. It's like way worse. It's a hemorrhagic fever.

It's got a much higher mortality rate. Yeah. Yeah, so, and for those of you who don't know, the WIV is the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Oh, yeah, sorry. This place where, you know, allegedly the SARS-2 virus was made. I have no idea. I mean, I have no doubt that that's exactly what happened, that it was made there. Steve is very computationally savvy.

He will not have a problem setting up a node and getting this thing etched. I've given him, like, my sub stack and how I did it, and I, you know, I'm no genius on it either. You can use Claude now to teach you how to submit Bitcoin transactions and have it fill it out on your start nine node and send it in, and you don't even need to go through. I was using Slipstream at Mara for a while, but now I skipped that because even Slipstream started to extensor. Like, yeah, the first time I did this, I put too much, like, I got impatient, so I put a lot of V bytes per sat. like i just wanted to get this damn transaction through so i jacked up the fees and they're like i got this notice from them being like uh any large opera turns it was like 300 bytes um that is paying excessively we have to manually review and i was like oh to hell with that i'm i'm just

gonna fire this off on my own node and and skip uh slipstream and eventually i someone picked it up and threw it into a block um but he'll he'll be able to figure this out i think we're there's a bitcoin address in here i've already donated to them so if other people want to donate please do it'll help them get that node going and this this is like important information that needs to get immortalized because um this kind of crap they're doing is is is really reckless uh if they start playing around with viruses like respiratory viruses that have this type of mortality rate uh it's it's uh it it needs to it needs to get exposed yeah and so he basically had so he got access to i guess data about the the sort of gain of function around covid and found that

some offshoots of those experiments were this particular some of the data they published themselves he was able to comb through it and find evidence in in those reads that basically they had some contamination in their laboratory and he could see it in their other experiments so they weren't intending to publish this uh steve kind of smoked it out that okay i'm going to go through all the data that's ever been published all the sequencing gets ever been published from these characters and see if i can find any trace reads of uh of clones that are gain of that are evident gain of function clones um and uh his paper goes through um some of the logic on that all right all right there we go well done and it's not it's not a hemorrhagic story i was

thinking of dengue it's it's a rest well it's an alleged respiratory but i think this is the one that hit the camels that that's a promontory thing but it's right like they also were saying that SARS-2 is respiratory, but it's not. It's thrombotic. So MERS is probably, it's described as being respiratory, and it probably has those elements clinically, but it's probably more thrombotic as well. You should have him on just to talk through it, if your audience wants to learn more about it. He has been in this fight since the beginning, and he's had really good papers on uh i think he was involved in drastic which is a group that kind of yeah he was right that's how i know his name yeah he they're the ones who really sorted out that this came from

this came from with from two ones and it wasn't a pangolin made it with a bat bullshit it was it was a it was clearly a gain-of-function virus uh the sars one at least they're the ones who sorted that out and and helped and charles rixey who we just recently published with was one of those people as well who leaked the fuse proposal uh this is the proposal that showed ralph barrack and echo health alliance submitted like hey let's go make a respiratory virus more infectious right out of the coronavirus and they submitted that grant application to dod and the dod turned them down because it was too dangerous but then when you did it anyway suddenly a virus that looks just like that shows up in uh shows up in december 2019 magic yes well it says mers

unearthing that Steve Massey has found? Is that sitting in the lab somewhere or is he worried that that could break out? So that did break, a version of that broke out I think Kristen Drosten was also involved in the early detection of that in the camels in the Middle East. That came out and the reason they know its mortality rate is it did kill a lot of people. I mean not a large number

in total but its mortality rate was like 20% or more are the people that did get infected by this. And so the people at Wuhan Institute of Virology are now playing with that type of virus and putting some of the components that make it really infective into the virus to make it more infective in humans. The problem the original mares had is it didn't spread very far because it wasn't very infective, but it was very lethal. He's got evidence of them trying to tweak that thing to make it more infective, uh which is uh which is kind of frightening it's a trade-off between lethality and infectiousness so if you can uh if you can tweak that uh relationship well enough then you can get

something really bad uh that can cause a whole lot of problems like if it's if it's very infectious and not lethal that's great because then everybody gets it and everybody gets natural immunity and we move on but if it's really deadly and it's also infectious then that's really bad but normally like didn't you know people shouldn't freak out too much when you have something really deadly like ebola for example doesn't spread very far because it kills people before it gets anywhere you get these really small clusters that are easily containable either naturally or because you know the government comes in and burns everything um and you just don't have the chance of it spreading around the world yeah so i think we're that that's something

known as muller's ratchet and it's an important like evolutionary principle that if something is is too um it is too lethal it kills the host before it can spread it will be self-limiting but i i think where people are starting to challenge this in the world of gain of function research is that well what if you have a virus that spreads but can create cancer yeah right it doesn't kill you right away but maybe it's amyloidogenic and it gives you clots and and so fine you can spread it but then you have a long tail of disease that comes afterwards what does that sound like yes yes that kind of sounds like what we got with stars is that that the virus is in fact amyloidogenic and the spike protein they use to inject in everybody is as well

and now we're dealing with this thrombotic issues and potentially cancer and there could be a long wave of mortality that is slow and and you're going to see headlines the next 10 years that that doctors are baffled yeah because the thing about it is it's so insidious because honestly and i'm saying this as a data analyst an immunologist whatever you want to call me there's no freaking way we're ever going to be able to trace this back because it's so convoluted now you know what i mean it's like all all these uh that some people are calling them turbo cancer but every everybody's seeing it there's an increase in the rates of rare cancers aggressive cancers cancer re-emergence i mean cancer hansy hanser it's like everywhere all

over the world more so in the united states i would say uh and maybe australia and canada but like how the hell would we ever even with the dna evidence and the sv40 evidence even with that how the hell would we ever trace it back to the shots unless we had like 30 years of data and we had some kind of you know what i'm saying they made sure that they mixed and matched the shots and now they can play when when they started doing that kevin that's the first thought that went into my my mind i'm like what that marty i don't know if you know this but there was a day when they decided that it would be okay if you got a moderna shot to get a pfizer shot and as soon as And AstraZeneca, if you got one of those, which was supposed to be one, one Janssen, one AstraZeneca, they were recommending you get these fricking, you know, modified mRNA things.

And I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Not only from a clinical point of view, is that going to be a potential disaster? It's going to be a disaster data wise, because we're never going to be able to deconvolute this. Never. That was basically like a whirlpool operation for the shots. you know they just put them through a mixer so now no one can figure out who the hell got what it was a blender man it wasn't a mixer that was the samurai wallet approach on the on the vaccines let's do a cover here but i shouldn't say that samurai i hope those guys get off and it's good

to see that that trump said something about it like it's such a disaster what's happening with those guys um they completely filed the law to a t and um let's hope more people like sign that petition i signed it i heard samurai got off no not yet they're facing jail on the 19th they have to they have to uh report to i mean it's you know it's it's not a horrible jail but still it's it's jail and it's five years away from their family and um they filed everything all the rules that finson gave them to the t and they're just getting persecuted by uh you know southern district new york it's just it's nuts what's going on there sup freaks have you noticed that governments have become more despotic they want to surveil more they want to take more of your data they want to

follow you around the internet as much as possible so they can control your speech control what you do it's imperative in times like this to make sure that you're running a vpn as you're surfing the web as we used to say back in the 90s and it's more imperative that you use the right vpn a vpn that cannot log because of the way that it's designed and that's why we have partnered with obscura that is our official vpn here at tftc built by a bitcoiner carl dung for bitcoiners focused on privacy you can pay in bitcoin over the lightning so not only are you private while you're perusing the web with obscura but when you actually set up an account you can acquire that account privately by paying in bitcoin over the lightning network do not be complacent when it

comes to protecting your privacy on the internet go to obscura.net set up an obscura account use the code TFTC for 25% off. When I say account, you just get a token. It's a string of token. It's not connected to your identity at all. Token sign up, pay with Bitcoin, completely private, turn on Obscura, surf the web privately. Obscura.net, use the code TFTC for 25% off. Sup freaks, this rep was brought to you by good friends at Silent. Silent creates everyday, fair day gear that protects your hardware. We're in Bitcoin. We have a lot of hardware that we need to secure. Your wallet emits signals that can leave you vulnerable. You want to pick up silence gear, put your hardware in that. I have a tap signer right here. I got the silent card

holder, replaced my wallet. I was using Ridge wallet because it secured against RFID signal jacking. Silent, the card holder does the same thing. It's much sleeker, fits in my pocket much easier. I also have the Faraday phone sleeve, which you can put a hardware wallet in. We're actually using it for our keys at the house too. There's been a lot of robberies. They have essential Faraday slings, Faraday backpacks. It's a Bitcoin company. They're running on a Bitcoin standard they have a bitcoin treasury they accept bitcoin via strike so go to slnt.com slash tftc to get 15 off anything or simply just use the code tftc when shopping at slnt.com patented technology special operations approved it has free shipping as well so go check it out i mean it's

nuts what's going on everywhere i mean what you two just described let's go we live in a lawless era it's whether it's going on with samurai i think if you just give you dig into the details of that case it's objective and pretty clear that it was objective lawfare they like kevin said they followed the law they never touched any money they never handled any money right he did everything right yeah and and like so with the wiv with the wuhan institute of virology and they're like the fact that they're experimenting on this gain of function and sars and mers who's my who's behind and we've figured out who's behind well obviously i remember the nih was giving them grants there was theories that

i don't think that they're they're like the uh i don't i don't know if this is the right word the patsy you know like the um the scapegoat maybe that's a better word um i i think maybe i shouldn't say this because i i don't want to die i i just um let me just put it this way i don't think anything is is as it appears um i think what we're allowed to see at the you know and the public facing um view is is just um what we're allowed to see uh and it's very very clear that this this ass munchery is still going on this gain of function crap tinkering with with viruses that are actually being hunted down in in obscure places and on earth that nobody's ever been and trying to make them more trying you know more um infective in humans you know that's that's

that's the gain of function part and and then running the risk for whatever reason they're doing this because they always say well we have to do it before this other person does it because we're gonna need a cure in case it happens over there um that's bullshit by the way um but whatever for whatever reason they're doing it there's always a risk of we'll call it a leak there's always a risk of a plasmid escaping we know that this happened already heaven just can describe that um it's madness to be doing what they're doing there there's enough danger in the world you know from from human beings you know acting the way that they do toward other human beings without scrolling around with viruses in obscure places in china it's no secret now that

Like, there was some Ralph Baric involvement, so there's some UNC money. There's probably some Rocky Mountain Lab involvement. There's probably some Fort Detrick involvement that we don't know about. I mean, the U.S. is not innocent on this. And even Steve's most recent paper points to some NIH or NIAD grants that Fauci's probably involved in in funding this Wuhan grant for this MERS stuff. So it's, yeah, some of the trails hunt back to NIH, And I think that's what's made this such a mess, is that the NIH got like a billion dollars in royalty for the vaccines, and yet the bread trail go back to them for funding some of this work, which has made it really politically messy.

And I think there is an interest in some of the news headlines pointing at Wuhan to be like, you know, ooh, nasty, fearful, fearful China, China, China bad, right? But, you know, Rand Paul's been all over this. Those breadcrumbs trace right back to the U.S. government, who's collecting royalty checks for what they claim is the cure to this thing. And that cure happens to actually be a complete train wreck and another disaster on its own. Yep. So it's very too centralized, let's just call it that. I think the wet market and the bat lady got thrown under the bus. That's all I'm going to say.

And I think the – oh, gosh, I lost my thought. It was important about what you were just saying, Kevin. Maybe you can spark my thought, Marty. You were saying something about the bat lady and maybe centralized issues we have. I was going to bring it up because I saw you had it back and forth because I tweeted this. i think it was a study out of stanford maybe that um basically proves like hey the the vaccines are are leading to increased myocarditis myocarditis and elizabeth bick responded to you um yeah did it have to do with that because that because i wanted to bring up that because it

seems like there is a concerted effort where it seems clear based off the research that you you two have done and many others have done independently that there is something here, whether it's myocarditis, terrible cancers, whatever, like the vaccines are having effect. And more recently to Kevin, what you alluded to earlier, it seems like they're all trying to blame the virus itself. Like, Oh, it's not the vaccine. The virus is more impactful in all these areas. Yeah. Yeah. It was all this, you know, COVID is worse shit on the myocarditis

subject matter. Hey buddy. This is really telling me that it's dinner time. It's so blatant. For the audio listeners, we have some feline friends joining the show. But that was like full camera view blockage.

He knew how to do it. So yeah, what was I saying? Well, he was He was talking about, you know, the myocarditis story always gets conflated with, oh, the virus does more of it, which isn't true, but that's what they always throw at you. I think a signal that is really hard for them to address and is why we don't hear as much about it is that the acute renal failure is like 150 times worse or more frequent than myocarditis, and it's much more clearly associated with the vaccine than the virus. And death. That gets no news at all.

John Bodwin is probably one of the most silenced guys on Twitter, and he's been yelling about this for three years, that it's acute renal failure. Everyone's talking about myocarditis, but there's 150-fold more death on renal failure than there is with this myocarditis, you know, limited hangout everyone's talking about. And I think it doesn't get any airtime because they can't blame that one on the virus. You just look at his data. It started after the virus. We didn't see a lot of there were there were there was some covid related like remdesivir junk that happened but he can see a clear separation in the data between when the vaccines came in and when the when the remdesivir was in use but that also implicates remdesivir too it's both it's a combo of the two of them

making it worse you know but uh it's you know that's an area that just doesn't get any attention so it they do do this game of uh the virus would make it worse and they throw out these studies that are often funded by pharma to say that, oh, look, all these people that got COVID had this rate of myocarditis, and they won't tell you the VAX status of the people in the paper. That's exactly, exactly right, right there. All of the people who are defending, well, first of all, I think you're absolutely right. And I think it's insidious that they actually are abusing, and I'm really putting the ab in front of using myocarditis as a safety signal to use in order to have something to talk about in terms of adverse events, because the signal is

undeniable and it's in children. So that's number one, it's gross that they're doing this. But number two, it's true. Exactly what Kevin said, any and all studies, I've been digging into this lately, that are claiming in any way, shape or form that COVID is worse for myocarditis than the injections, isn't clear on how many people who they call COVID cases that weren't injected actually were injected. Because you're not going to find a pool, a cohort within that study group that isn't mostly injected. So you cannot attribute solely the effect of myocarditis on SARS because they got injected. And the other thing is you can't, we don't know to this day, this blows my mind, what the effects of getting SARS, getting injected, getting SARS, getting

injected, or getting injected, getting SARS, getting injected, or getting SARS, not getting, you know what I mean? All these combinations. The word order of operations isn't really spelled out and this is the argument to board with is that okay the the virus is even if the virus is worse why would you take a shot that doesn't protect transmission that also makes it worse that was going to be my point it doesn't make sense because you're just compounding risk there like they call it hybrid immunity and they're claiming that it's superior but let me say from the bottom of my heart with all the whatever degrees I have, you will never have better or longer or more robust immunity than establishing it naturally. Mucosal route of exposure to SARS,

whatever it is, coronavirus, any coronavirus, colds, whatever, you will have lifelong immunity If you just get that shit, get sick and get over it, you know, it's it's just it's nonsense what they're talking about here. It's it's a promotional thing. It's an ad to to get people to take these shots, regardless of the fact that they've already established lifelong immunity from exposure. It's dumb. when i and again we i mean going through this again you're compounding risk and it seems clear to you that the study is the way that they're constructed wouldn't actually be able to prove anything of meaning because you're not doing the order of operations or

sort of siphoning off control groups and stuff like that but again myocarditis being the sort limited hangout as you said kevin and acute renal failure is really where the signal is so what is what is that for the layman out there well the kidneys are getting shut down the kidneys are highly vascularized because they filter the blood and um the going theory and this isn't my hypothesis but you know john bodwin has some some hypotheses on this and what can be doing it and so does kevin mccarran a different kevin uh is that the clots these micro clots that are forming are basically clogging up the kidneys. Because that is your filtration system. So if you get all these small clots that form everywhere, your kidneys go out first. And if that doesn't hit you, you get a

pulmonary embolism. Or you get a stroke. Those are all very high signals in the database. Those are what are really taking people out. And I think longer term, we'll see cancer as well. But cancer is a very small signal in John's data. It may only be like 5% to 7% of the excess mortality is related to cancer. That may take a longer time to play out. But the actual acute injury that's occurring is really when people stroke out or get a pulmonary embolism and the kidneys fail. And of course, it doesn't help that some of the most recommended treatments for COVID, people who get the vaccine, we now know, get COVID more frequently, okay? So there's going to be more remdesivir in the picture. And remdesivir is very toxic to the kidneys.

so it's like a it's a double hit on you getting clotted up by the vaccine and then they try to treat your infection with remdesivir which is uh can lead to kidney failure um and so i think the combination of that i think he even has some suggestion that like vancomycin might be playing a role too but there's other there's other things that are being used um that can be really hard on the kidneys that are that are thrown into some of these covid treatment protocols and a combination of them is at play post, like, you know, 2021. But yeah, he's another great person to have on because he's done fantastic work single-handedly. He's gone and FOIA'd all the death records in multiple states. And the death records don't hide this because there's more consequence to

making death records fraudulent. You know, the people who do this can go to jail. They haven't yet, and some of them need to. If you see his data, it's clear that he can find the people in the death record. Since there isn't HIPAA protection after death, they get name, birth, address, everything. And then you can find information like that in VAERS, which is semi-anonymized. And you can say, OK, same birth date, same address, same set of symptoms. This is the same person in Massachusetts with this death record. And the death record says they died of covid but vera says they got a shot 24 hours before why does it say death from covid so he's found all this fraud where people are putting down covid as the cause of death when

there's a various ticket where they got they got injection 24 hours before uh so this is like blown up the whole we already know that this was incentivized by uh like financially right so So, like, I don't remember the statistic, but it was something like tens of thousands of U.S. dollars per COVID diagnostic, you know, assessment. This is true. I think there was $9,000 for a positive. I think there was a similar amount of money if you got them on remdesivir. I think there was, like, another $30,000 kicker if you got them on a ventilator. So there was all types of, like, centralized incentivization to just drag up the pandemic.

You know about that, Marty? Yeah, these were federal subsidies too, right? Yeah, the Biden administration did this. It was conspiracy theory, the ventilator thing, because I remember being on it when the ventilators were killing people and saying, well, they're incentivized to put them on a ventilator. And midazolam. That's a whole other...

That's a whole other nightmare that happened. The more that was in the UK, I think, right? They were euthanizing people up there with it. Yeah. Well, I mean, Jessica, like the conversation we had earlier this year, Like, I am still passionate about not letting this go. Like, there needs to be accountability, justice brought. It seems like there was a lot of positive momentum at the end of the summer, particularly at the hearing where your paper was presented as evidence.

And then obviously we had the childhood vaccine hearings a couple months ago, maybe last month. Good momentum there. How are you guys feeling about the momentum right now? Is it a limited hangout? is it just give them enough uh just give them enough uh of a feeling that something's happening and we can go back and just continue to do nothing or well it was very very recently that uh i'm just saying what people are saying now i'm not putting words in people's mouths i never do that so marty mccary who's this fda guy he's really high up there i think he's the fda commissioner

and quote me in that role um came out and said that um there was a black box warning issued against the covet 19 shots that was recommended by uh here i don't want to get this wrong i want to i want to read it recommended it right and he p it was asap but it also came from within here just let me read this off because i don't want to misquote him or myself boy do i post a lot uh just a second the safety and epidemiology center within the fda so this came from people within the fda i imagine this was hoag who recommended a black box warning on the covid shots. And Marty is on record now saying that because of Vinay Prasad, that's not going to happen. Now, I don't know if it was only because of this Prasad guy or if there's something else

going on, if there's some kind of 5D chess, but I did some digging and I was appalled. Well, no, I was surprised. I think that's a better word to find out that there's only one product on the market that actually is a vaccine that's considered to be a vaccine that has a black box warning. And that's what you're looking at right now. This ACAM 2000, which is this smallpox mpox thingy that I wrote up a little while ago. There's two, there's JYNNEOS and there's ACAM 2000 and ACAM is really, really bad. Like you don't want to get injected with this shit. It's associated with a really high percentage of serious adverse events, um, genios as well. Um, so it's that, that is, you know, a black box is warranted in that case, but it is my opinion that a black box

is absolutely warranted in the case of these COVID shots, because, you know, I looked up what a black box warning actually means and it says the fda's most serious safety alert is what it is it's placed in a prominent boxed section on a drug or vaccine labeling to highlight significant risks of serious injury or death um and it's a way to get prescribers and patients doctors whatever to, to provide informed consent, first of all, and to do like a risk benefit assessment before somebody puts themselves at risk. They're absolutely warranted. So the reason I'm saying this, not only because it just happened recently, but, um, it, it, it makes me wonder like what the hell is going on behind the scenes because, uh, yes, we've made progress. We got the happy shit

out of, you know, babies. That's great. That's, you know, it's good momentum. We're looking at lime. Good. Awesome. We're looking at mercury and aluminum and all this stuff. But considering the fact that this technology and the platform has had no slowing down of momentum at all that i can see it's very concerning that somebody from the inside isn't making a move i'm not talking about like talking i'm talking about action like make a move put a moratorium on this bloody shit like do something real that stops it from going into humans babies for sure and animals as well because apparently these things are starting to be uh injected uh by vets and Vets are probably unaware that, A, they might be injecting the mRNA shit,

and, B, they might be injecting self-amplifying mRNA shit. Yeah, I'd echo some of the same things. There are some wins here, right? Like the Hep B thing is happening. We've got Trump on record saying the whole vaccine schedule needs to be evaluated, re-evaluated. They finally admit that autism is, in fact, environmental and treatable and preventable. You know, they've talked about Tylenol. You know, it's almost like, you know, the elephant in the room won't be spoken about,

but all the other mice running around it, they're going to take out. And they are getting some of those, you know, smaller issues at bay. It's just, it's really, you can tell how political it is because they're doing these other sideshows when this really glaring thing, the COVID vaccines, are untouchable for some reason. uh and and that is uh i think that's just a sign of of the capture that's going on because it's you know you'll see them like recall hairspray that didn't kill anybody like so the fda still has the capacity to like take products off the market they just won't have to get the one that's killed 19 000 people in bears because the political consequences are too large because the investors

have to come up with a cure for cancer it's either that or or that they're afraid if they reverse on this the liability is so large uh that it could take down the whole system and it probably would well so i've talked to a doubt about this because that's that's his thesis too is why nothing's being actually done because they're worried about the financial repercussions of all the claims like to the federal government if you um were forced by your employer to get it so you see your fortune 500 employer and it would literally lead to financial collapse because of all the uh all the payouts that would be necessary to and it would have more than 80 of the country get this so anybody that got it would have the

ability to levy a claim and i told him hey it has to get out there like the truth matters at the end of the day and there may need to be like a hey we did this we're not going to let you sue us for it but you guys need to know that this is going on um there has to be some sort of retribution because i'm still seeing commercials i'm still seeing yeah people go get like a flu shot and like to please do not do that yeah they're i mean they're still obviously they're still investing in this platform but the good news is that the word is getting out through you know avenues like your cast and others because the adoption is down i think it's i think it's down to like less than 20 percent now um but the frightening thing is it's still it's still

getting pushed into kids uh so you know you injure a kid it's going to be it's going to be a health care crisis for them for the rest of their lives right it's it's not like you're taking a grandma you're taking out a 20 year old so the quality adjusted life years that you've damaged are like you know another 60 years potentially and also we haven't answered the questions about uh germline integration like we don't really have a solid answer about whether or not integration is occurring you know with or without the sv40 um that's that's a crazy thing that i just said that we don't have a firm answer on that because we're doing some answers that the ovaries are getting hit and the fertility is down and the sperm motility is down like there's there's going to

going to be a population crisis uh it's going to be the opposite of the population bomb that Malthusian book from what's his name Paul Ehrlich is is gonna you know it's going to go the other direction here and in various countries like Japan they're going to have a massive inverted demographic as they uh this vaccine takes hold and damages their reproductive capacity and correct me if I'm wrong but they seem to be one of the countries that is actually admitting this is going on if i recall uh it's there's there's a faction out there people who know and are trying to get the word out but there's also some other capture going on like if you look pay close attention to happen in japan one of the prime ministers got murdered they believe over

this uh shinzo abe it was uh early in the in the pandemic he was trying to put put the brakes on the mrna platform and next thing you know he's murdered uh so there's uh i don't think it's completely clean over there either but they are a particular important canary in the coal mine because they were mrna exclusive they're pfizer moderna exclusively uh and they were very obedient and a large populate part of the population took it i think i think 13 of the population took seven shots and 80 over 80 took took the first two so it's one of the most uh vaccinated mrna vaccinated countries in the world yeah and that was we went over the paper you're right that showed the change in cancer distributions which got retracted like right after that cast uh same same network of

people went after that and the the argument that the journal gave for retraction was that you made the crime of of saying it was causal and they never made that claim they said it was association and they never said it was causal. Yeah, it's amazing how the fabricated why can just initiate the retraction process and sometimes is successful. It's crazy. If people actually knew what was going on behind the scenes...

By the way, I want to mention, Kevin's got a really interesting hypothesis. He should probably tell you, not me, but about a business model that this kind of um fits into because at the end of the day what we if our paper ends up getting retracted retracted and i doubt it will because we're making a lot of noise and it is on the congressional record but if it did they get thousands of our dollars they get our copyright they get our work and we get tarnished our reputation's tarnished and we lose all the

money and etc so like it's it's if you if you had a bit of a good imagination you could imagine that maybe someone devised this as a business model right yeah it said that the point is that the desk rejections are are private like no one knows about those and uh and there's no money on the table you only pay the journal once they accept it so if you're pharma you'd much rather say stop this desk rejection junk, let a few of these things come out and hammer them after they come out with our secondary network of smears. That way we take down their reputation, we take their money, and we end up taking their copyright. It's better to... I wonder if they're paying the Pub Smear Network with our money to publish. Yeah, that would be odd, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't that be an interesting thing to track and trace? Yeah. They always follow the money. Well, Science Guardians did point out that there are people in the research integrity offices of many of the journals that are responsible for this kind of investigation front that are also known to be frequent commenters in Pub Smear. So there is a bit of a cozy relationship between the editorial boards of these journals and the organization that takes the papers down. So there's a bit of a racketeering investigation that probably needs to go on there. And maybe they don't realize it, or maybe they didn't at the time, but now they have an opportunity, wink, wink, to realize that they might be being, you know, they might be involving themselves in something that is not really legal or ethical, definitely not ethical, and they should, like, bow out. we did put that on the record with bioarchive when i emailed them back saying why has our paper been delayed for over a week uh and pointed out these are all the people we know that fund cold spring harbor and it looks as if you're suppressing uh information that's critical of your sponsors

and this can get engaged in racketeering um and it was the next day they said no thanks get out of well it's so let's bring this back to like pub smear and uh elizabeth sick uh specifically because she's um i like that new name that new moniker yeah she's a science integrity yeah she's called and she's lauded dude she is lauded she is given awards she's invited to scientific integrity conferences she just got back from one in oz she got they gave her an honorary doctorate at some exactly this chick is lauded for being a so-called sleuth and you know what she's given the credit for um that original i don't remember the the surname god my memory is getting bad um there was this original takedown of this paper

where these western blots were like the lane one and lane six were duplicated but it and she's she's always touted in these stupid journalistic reviews as being the one to have discovered that and you know she's she's the sleuth she's the one with the eagle eye who finds all the corruption and fraud and all this bullshit and it wasn't even her who discovered that and whether or not that you know stands is I don't know I've looked

into it and it kind of looks like Alzheimer's work out of Stanford yeah exactly it looks like it's true but that was this dude with the pseudonym Thomas with an S I think I can't remember his last name

hold on one sec i'll i will find it out well while you're finding that too because that's one thing i'm trying to wrap my head around is you got you two are obviously fully immersed in this and you know the names the yeah unwillingly the participants but it seems like watching that mini doc today on pub smear and that sort of network the retraction um watch it seems like it's a relatively small circle for gatekeeping this whole process less than 100 people and yeah i think i think that's true but the the number of accounts that are in pubs mirror is larger than that because they all have multiple accounts and they do this as a symbol attack to make it look like there's hundreds of people complaining about a paper when it's like five

people who are who are uh who are all you know basically dogpiling on the same topic with different pseudonyms how many people are in your position that's what i'm trying to like what is the ratio of like the gatekeepers to um scientists that are trying to actually seek the truth and want a sort of well-oiled machine of a process and a meritocratic legitimate process not a political process i'll have to go back and look through my notes on this because they do seem to have like a um sort of a kill list like a bragging rights as to how many papers they've taken down uh and they they they generally uh are bragging about that on their on their site i just haven't don't have the numbers current as to how many they've attacked but we do need like someone

to maybe take an ai tool at this and be like okay show us the network of people that they've attacked in the network of people they've ignored you know because i think i think it will show a really ugly pattern of bias um the many many degree um i'm credit the science guardian they kind of did a test like this where they put these 17 other papers through their process and showed that their process was censoring everything about papers that they liked that were clearly flawed. We've gone through some of Elizabeth's papers, and there's all types of errors in her paper she won't even address today. I've called her out on it many times that some of the sequencing papers she's published have like index hopping issues on the Illumina sequencer that are overt and mean

that everything she was measuring was basically like, and this microbial prevalence work that she did was a complete mirage based on barcodes getting mixed up on the sequencer. She won't address that on her own work. So it's a different set of rules they apply to the people. So it's really not about science integrity. It's about targeting that concept against politically and popular papers. And she won't allow people to operate on Pubpeer in the same way as her operatives work for example if somebody presented if kevin wanted to publish that comment on pub peer i can't they already censored me i've tried to put things up there before like i put my critiques about the corman drosten paper up there and they erased them yeah they do it just like

that so this is what science guardians actually documented quite well like they're very they're let me tell you something too like i was in real time there he is again oh hey look there's mine hey look ollie it's an ammy boy oh boy it is um in real time i was watching vick herself uh on the pub smear website go after papers and it always starts with one comment right so she's she i haven't linked her like directly to my myocarditis paper this person whose name i have in the in the messages i have this was the first comment um this hoya person who's also responsible for that alzheimer's thing i don't know why they commented they just literally said that this person's paper has uh been withdrawn nothing

against the the work because there was no complaint against the work or the science integrity um but she went after she's going after the updated paper, uh, that Peter and I wrote together on the myocarditis study. Um, in, in real time, I saw her start going after this paper on that network, because it'll show you the title of the paper. It's her menace, blah, blah, blah. The new title of my myocarditis paper. And, uh, two hours ago, this person made this comment and then you can click on it and go see what they wrote. And And with her, we call her Bickering Bick sometimes. It's just this nitpicking bullshit.

It has nothing to do with scientific merit. It's like, this reference number doesn't align with this reference here. It's just stupid bullshit that doesn't change the conclusion of the paper. And then ahead of mine, there were like three other papers. And then I was like, well, that's interesting. So she's going after the new version of my myocarditis paper. And I scrolled down, and lo and behold, I saw two co-authors on the list of paper. There's this huge long list of papers that this chick is going after.

It's almost unbelievable. Like, she must not sleep. Nicholas Mead, sorry, Nathaniel Mead, sorry. He's a very, very diligent worker who I've co-written many papers with. He published something on his own. she's going after that and uh nicholas holscher who's the third author on the updated version of the myocarditis paper with me and peter he has penned many papers with peter since then and other people he's going after them you don't know the reference yeah it's very targeted and it's like

you can literally right now you can go on pub pier and watch as this this woman this one freaking woman is going after certain authors certain subject matters that don't align with certain narratives yeah another famous recipient of this is um a daddy every old who's like a hundred thousand citation like godfather of microbiology really well respected researcher but he made the mistake of showing that hydroxychloroquine worked and they went after him uh like a fury and it doesn't stop at just taking down their papers they go and complain to their institutions to tried to get him fired. They tried to get their own universities. They did this to Wafik Eldieri, who's now on the ACIP committee, where they tried to get him under investigation at Brown.

And, you know, they weren't, they're not entirely, they're not always successful in getting the end result of papers retracted, but they do put all the researchers through the grinder of having to and do all this work, digging up the past and defending themselves. And that's the goal. the goal is just sand in the gears of the people that are dissidents it's completely insane and it's funny because you guys are describing again it is very clear to me and i'm sure the audience that you know the minute granular details of the nuance of the landscape of this peer review and the sort of loose connections with people with particular incentives but i think the the broader public is completely unaware of this and how really nefarious it is but

inefficient it is to actually get good data research and but even the answers quickly exactly even before all this shit happened in the last five years like i i don't know maybe this was all going on and i just wasn't tapped in or maybe things have actually changed or both It's got a long history, actually. This was a CAA. Right. Peer review alone and the whole establishment, like I'm an academic. I've really only ever done degrees at academic institutions. And it's rough in a lot of ways to publish. You need to follow certain guidelines. It has to be the sexy subject matter.

You know, it has to be cancer or Lyme disease or you your your P.I. has to be doing certain amount of research and have this amount of funding. I mean, it's there's a lot of stuff that people don't know that goes on. And when you finally do get a paper published, even if you're not being attacked, it's years and headaches and tears and, you know, revisions and doing more experiments and money. I mean, Kevin, how much is it that Nature asks to publish? Oh, I've seen numbers as high as five to ten grand in some of those journals now to get things published. So, I mean, yeah, this is the crazy thing. It's very masochistic and sadistic in that many of the academics put themselves through all this pain and they pay for it. And they're supposed to do the review. But, you know, it's not fair. It's not fair. It's not a balanced system.

And it's very, very clear. All you have to go do is go look at the history of allopathic medicine to understand that, you know, that this system was set up so that it could be controlled. It's very clear to me now. If you want to go down that rabbit hole, there's a great Guardian article that talks about the money involved in peer review and how much is coming in from the pharmaceutical and biotech industry to fund the journals for advertisement dollars. So just as everyone's now probably pretty aware that brought to you by Pfizer was all over the news during the pandemic, at the mainstream media front, they own those people, too, because they're advertising so many drugs on TV that the advertisers will never speak negatively about a pharmaceutical product. That is going on at tenfold higher intensity in the peer-reviewed journals because that is where the truth gets set, the narrative gets set. So if you go, this article basically goes back to Ghislaine Maxwell's father, Robert Maxwell, who set up Pergamon Press. And he did this so that he could get cozy with all of the scientists out there and can be the gatekeeper for their for their publications and wine and dine them.

And it was kind of like Epstein 1.0. And of course, you know, they repeated that and upped it some degree to get these people all down to an island doing dirty things. But the peer review process is actually kind of new. This is not how science used to work. This is something that got put in place with Robert Maxwell as a tool to gatekeep the narrative and keep people who have, you know, really, that are really advancing science close to the fingertips and under their control. And when that doesn't work, you have the post peer review network.

Take out other people who say true like us. Well, how do we break it out of this containment of control? Obviously, Kevin, you're working to do that. What is the model? I think the model has to be fully transparent, peer-to-peer. There needs to be a price signal in there. So, yeah, they will say, oh, you can't have money in peer review because it looks like bribery, but you're actually already paying them $3,000, $5,000 to get your stuff reviewed,

and none of that money goes to the reviewers. None. So get the journal out, disintermediate them. The journal is now Nostra or some decentralized server that can hold – Nostra doesn't really hold PDFs, but you can make a ping file. or an image file of your paper and put it on there. That's what I do. And then if you're not convinced Nostra is going to be around,

what I always try and do is make a mirror of that in the operatron of Bitcoin that has like the title, the authors, the date, the hash, the file, and a link to either your substack or Nostra. That way it's immortalized in something that we know is rock solid, longest and strongest chain. And then if you feel it needs to get reviewed outside of the group on Nostra who are free to comment on it, you can always use economic incentives to pay people to to review it and give them a bounty

uh you know some work can be reviewed from the desk like bioinformatics work can all be reviewed on your computer some stuff needs wet lab verification and that actually costs money and time and is in meat space and that stuff you may have to put a bounty out for someone to go and replicate the work but not all work needs to do that like we didn't have this before and science worked um but there are people who who want to accelerate the acceptance of their of their work and they'd be willing to pay someone to reproduce it quickly instead of waiting for the world to reproduce it. And there should be a free market for that, where you can put a bounty out for however urgently you want it done. If you put a cheap bounty out, just like you put a cheap fee

on your Bitcoin transaction, it might take a year. If you put a really large fee on there, someone's going to go mine that problem faster. And that would encourage a market of people to go and say, hey, here's some work that needs to get reproduced. I kind of want to do that work because it's kind of aligned with my work and I'll get two for one out of it and someone will pay me for the work and I might learn something and they'll hop on that train and take the bounty.

And as long as everything's transparent in public, it'll be a much more efficient and faster system than what we have now. Because I think what we have now, there are no price signals, right? Everyone pays the journal the same amount for whether it's like a hundred author paper that's a hundred pages

or whether it's a one author paper that's two pages, still three grand. We know in the Bitcoin space that if you don't have price signals, it basically turns into a communistic hellhole pretty quickly. It becomes a tragedy of the commons. So we have all the tools to do it. We just need the gumption and the will to do it. And I think what you're going to see is people like us and Steve who are getting attacked are just going to start doing it this way because it makes more sense. The journals don't bring us any value anymore.

They bring us maybe some prestige, but that prestige is getting torn apart by the day when you see Nature putting out the Lancet article for Surgisphere or Proxima Origins. They're very woke now. They'll come out and write hit pieces against RFK, like this change in vaccine policy is going to end the world kind of thing. So they're no longer a neutral arbiter of science. They're a zeitgeist, like, you know, echo chamber, and that, in the end, is going to end up in a disaster because it's not going to chase the truth. It's going to chase an agenda, and things with price signals are going to win. So I think we're in the unique part of time where we have decentralized ledgers that can get this done, and I would encourage anyone who wants to see that happen to start funding it. If you've got a couple of shekels, a couple of sats you want to throw at Steve's paper, do it.

Shekels. I think I've got a Bitcoin address somewhere from the last Bitcoin conference I was at. I've got to dig that up. If people want to fund our work to continue on the vaccine stuff, we can do that. But I think that's the model. It doesn't take a whole lot of effort. People are used to paying $3,000 to get these things published, and I'm sure it's going to be cheaper doing this on Nostra and Bitcoin. No, 100%, man, like $500.

It's a lot of money. and it you know i i do it you can node spun up for what's it what's a node i mean a start nine is what 700 bucks or something for start nine and you can probably get a raspberry pi node for i don't know three or four yeah maybe you should do a little demo video kevin like for the noobs like to to understand how easy it is to yeah you're right i have a stack on that i should probably do a video um setting up the nodes is there's a lot of videos out there that'll do that better than i will but um yeah i gotta i gotta i mean i'll i'll uh i'll work with steve on this one and maybe we'll put something together on um that can help you know the next person um that gets

attacked and if you need a perspective like of of the the noob you know to help then that's me because i i'm i just uh i'm just i'm the learner right now like i'm uh i'm really in the crossfire But it's like, I know how important this is right now. And I also know how, like, I hate to say this, because it's like, it's like losing heroes. But the whole, you know, fab journal thing is a lie. I mean, I still, you know, I still if you see me talk about nature papers and science papers, I'm always talking about them with a certain admiration. But the thing is, it's like, no, it's all part of the same shit. And it's all part of money and control. It's not about scientific progress. They actually have higher retraction rates, interestingly enough. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, it's a racket. Like, we, like, and the thing is, the people want to have more control. they they i don't think most people realize how little control if if any at all they actually have over any thing the whole pandemic the manufacturing of consent for the pandemic was all done with peer review yeah peer review papers that bullshitted people about masks about lockdowns about vaccines about covid's origins i mean this is this is how they manufacture consent is is through the peer review system and it starts there and then it spreads out to all the media

And once you have that headline, there are psychological studies on this. You can't reverse it. Even if you write the exact opposite headline the very next day, it's already there in people's brains. It does something as a propaganda tool. Hi, buddy! He's getting hungry. He's going to stomp on the keyboard next.

Well, goody! Maybe he'll spell out me-how! I was on mute. I was saying, I think it's Berlusconi's law. I could be wrong. It takes 10x the amount of effort to refute bullshit than it does to put it out in the world. So to your point about the headline,

as soon as it's out there. But this is a two-way street, too. There's enough people listening to this, I know, that are technically competent and understand the dynamics of the interactions of the high-level technical project that you're thinking of that can certainly help out. And then on the peer review side,

like i just sent steve 150 000 sats to spin up a node like i'm very curious to see if his paper could get peer reviewed and um if the data that he surfaces in there can be confirmed by somebody else like i would contribute to that bounty i don't think it has to be on the researchers to to fund the bounties themselves i think there's enough 100 who want to see this it comes from the interest of the people and it's for the interest of the people that's the best way to do it you know that that's kind of a popular vote instead of you know give send go to put it put bounties on papers you want to see interrogated to to help resolve a you know a public dispute on something i think it's uh i think it's it's it's money money well spent and we already see

this with sort of a wealthy people that have somebody in their immediate family that has an ailment and they'll spend tens of thousands millions of dollars to figure out a cure for that or you just create a process and a mechanism to open source that and crowdsource that seems to be a way to bend in like the prediction market folks into this as well i mean for anyone who's listening on that who's really talented at coding give you an idea of the size of the market i think the the publishing market's like 20 to 40 billion dollars a year and that market would probably double if you would allow micro publications like the reason there's only so many millions of publications per year is because no one wants to go through that process that long arduous

process because it can take six months to a year and cost $5,000 at each unit. So they end up bundling data for large packages and publishing them in big units. But once you have a free market in this, you can think of micro publications where maybe a month's worth of work is publishable since the friction is lower. And so you'd see a lot more people's scientific posters would go through this process. You'd see smaller bite-sized bits of information published. That's actually better for iteration. You want science to go to faster metronome where smaller bits of information are reviewed faster as opposed to people batching it into large sizes because there's a friction point in the review process. That means idea bridging happens slower. You know, if you can

micro-publish these things, idea bridging happens a lot faster. There's faster disclosure. There's faster, you know, sharing of information on all those fronts. So I think that market would actually had something that was faster and more streamlined so this could be we could be looking at like in sixty or eighty billion dollar market and if someone builds a nice interface it helps researchers to enter their papers into this process so they're not having to spin up their own node and understand how to turn things into hex and then send it into a transaction master making an interface that handles all of that and even post the bounties for

people to go like in prediction market and people can go and then um all the addresses are laid clean and the transparency is there to record all the all the um the comments back and forth now that interface would probably be able to clip coupons off the whole process yeah i mean we can get even more advanced so you can set up discrete log contracts to automatically distribute funds to a researcher that successfully validates or invalidates research like there's and i feel i don't know if jessica i know we talked about ai last time you're on um but i've been vibe coding it's getting much easier to vibe code i feel like it shouldn't be hard particularly for like the user interface to spin something up at the back

end bitcoin logic may be a bit harder but i know there's enough people listening to this that know how to solve that problem that it can definitely be figured out claude was perfect I used Claude to instruct me how to build Bitcoin transactions for the last paper and got it right in the first shot. ChatGBT, I had to do it a couple times. It had some hex translation issues, but Claude nailed it on first attempt. Wow. So it understands how to write a transaction, how to populate a wallet,

how to spit something out, broadcast something into the mempool. So, yeah, that's a great tool. And I think what's nice about Claude, it's actually, it doesn't hallucinate as many references. Like, one of the problems people have had using AI to help them write their papers is that sometimes ChatCPT will, like, throw up a bunch of references. You know, when you ask it, like, take all my citations and fill out the bibliography for me, it'll screw it all up. And that's, like, an easy attack vector from PubSmear. Oh, one of your citations is wrong. Claude was much more accurate at that.

It wasn't perfect, but it was, like, 90% accurate. I had to correct a couple of things it did. But it is very helpful at, like, you can basically hand in all of your data in a draft text and be like, all right, I need you to, like, correct this, put it in Vancouver format, and make it so that it's submission ready to this particular journal or whatever. It does that sort of boring secretarial work, which is, like, 90% of writing a paper. Totally. It takes off the table. So you're focused on your data and making sure your images are all factual and correct, as opposed to putting all the poetry around it.

So those tools could be very helpful in the process to just accelerate the release of data. Kevin, why do you think, because I haven't really thought about this a lot, but I've just noticed it a lot, these AI, the LLMs are so bad at the reference point, because they really are. It almost feels sometimes to me like they're doing it on purpose. I mean, that could be the case with Sam Altman's tool, yeah. But I mean, Cora was really good at it. So I think it was just, it seems really bizarre that you, like, how do you break a link? Like, it would find the right paper and then would put in the wrong author.

But that's exactly my point. Like, have you followed that logic through, like, why and how that would be? Yeah, there has to be some intentional scrambling going on to, I mean, And maybe they're dancing around copyright issues and they don't want to have, you know, because they were attacked early on for scraping the Internet. And now they're a copyright violator for putting all these times and all that stuff in. Yeah. So but I'm not seeing as much of that in the newer platform. So it's like a liability thing. Yeah. Yeah. So another I mean, one avenue to go.

I have to do more of this. I've got to spend more time. I paid for a Venice that I ate that AI system. I don't use it enough. I need to go back to that one because that one actually encrypts all of your work so that your work isn't getting harvested by some. Like right now, I worry that Anthropic could be an evil entity and everything I do on Claude is going to get recorded and benefit them in some way. Yeah. Whereas Venice and I encrypts everything and they have crypto rails going into it. So the GPUs actually have price signals on them. Yeah.

We're fans of Maple. Try Maple.ai here. Venice is trust me, bro, encryption. Is this the 1031 ad right now? Yeah. To your point, too, because that just came out with ChatGPT specifically, and I assume that Anthropic is under the same pressure. I mean, OpenAI had to come out and say, yeah, we have to hand over your chat logs to the government if we get subpoenaed for them. Yeah, there are questions in our field that won't answer.

chat gpt or no it was grot the other day that basically all the time that asked it about you know does the spike protein localize the nucleus like sorry that's a restricted topic you're like what so that's you know those things are all centralized they're going to get captured they have to decentralize the gpus like these other platforms does maple do that do they have it farmed out to you know amazon gpus or something uh yes but they use the gpus with secure enclaves So the logic of the LLM sits in the enclave and it's encrypted end to end from your device to the cloud. So I saw something from Elon where he wants to put these GPUs on satellites because they have great solar exposure. Did you see that?

Yeah, but I've heard that it's hard for solar to work, like solar energy to work in space because of the inability. I could be wrong. I'm way out of my depth. I'm not a physics major. but i've heard they get they get better efficiency because there's no atmospheric interference up there but i i again i'm talking out my my ass here it's not my field but um that that's it made me think if he's if he's willing to put gpus in space why wouldn't he put miners up there i mean asics are just as heavy but the io is probably lower right i mean all the back and forth to a gpu

with an lm every time i run it i see all this internet traffic it's trying to pull it's trying to pull in you've got to have a when you ask it these complicated questions it's got to have a huge io toll yeah i don't know whether it's going to work going up and back to a satellite but bitcoin's a pretty predictable io i mean they're the block sizes are consistent and uh the asics are probably the same weight and energy they need as the gpus well and again too if you're just mining in space right or you're just sending shares um hashing shares like that's of data and then you can send a hash share to space and be like okay you found a hash below the target and then you can propagate the block on earth i would imagine um right after that so

you could sort of base this on the shares and you could actually make some corn instead of figuring out if taylor swiss your latest boyfriend damn gpus are doing yeah it's a wild time to be alive are we are we are you guys optimistic on justice uh accountability moving in the right direction or doing in the right direction it's slow and painful and i think everyone wants it now and it's going to take 10 years like the family unfortunately but i think the political people just have to all circle out you know it's that old saying that, you know, you change science one death at a time kind of thing. I think the same thing is true in politics.

Like the parties that were involved in all this are just going to have to be distant. There's too much culpability going back to everyone, both administrations that are at play. If Gavin Newsom's the next taker, I mean, there's no way that guy's going to bring us justice, right? Hey! Let's hope not. Let's hope not. Well, let's round around them. I think we should route around them while we can.

Yeah, exactly. I think you build anew as opposed to praying for the centralized authorities to come clean. Well, anything we didn't cover that you think we should touch on before we wrap up here? I can smell the bolognese emanating from the kitchen right now. I'm starting to get hungry. Hi, buddy. We can see your bird. He's hunting the camera.

Hi, buddy. Hey, gorgeous. Hello. Hey, buddy. He doesn't even know he's on camera. Hi, buddy. Ollie. No, wait, that's Trey.

Trey. This is the ginger that Shrezker. She's a beautiful kid. They're both beautiful. You need to get your scruffy fluffed. Yeah, I haven't been good combing him lately. Hi, buddy. All right.

Well, we won't bore your listeners with cat talk. Yeah, fight the transhumanists. You've got a little one to take care of. Any final thoughts now? Anything? Yes, fight transhumanism and decentralize stuff and try to find joy and happiness in every single day. Love that.

Good exit. All right. Peace and love, freaks. Thank you for listening to this episode of TFTC. If you've made it this far, I imagine you got some value out of the episode. if so please share it far and wide with your friends and family we're looking to get the word out there also wherever you're listening whether that's youtube apple spotify make sure

you like and subscribe to the show and if you can leave a rating on the podcasting platforms that goes a long way last but not least if you want to get these episodes a day early and ad free make sure you download the fountain podcasting app and go to fountain.fm to find that five dollars a month get you every episode a day early ad free helps the show gives you incredible value so please consider subscribing via fountain as well thank you for your time and until next time Thank you.