The David Knight Show - Mon Episode #2345: AI and Medicine: The War on Human Discernment

Episode Date: September 7, 2026

── Interview 1: C.R. Wiley — Man Made: St. Anthony's Guide to Surviving the AI Apocalypse ──────────────────────────────────��───────[00:04:18]When They Tell You What They're Planning, It's Not a Conspiracy Theory — It's a ConspiracyHarari, Karp, Suleiman, Hinton — read what they actually say; if you're not alarmed, something's wrong with you; quoting the inventors is not alarmism.────────────────────────────────────────[00:06:38]AI Is a Counterfeit Pentecost — No Separation of Language, But for a Different PurposeAt Babel, God divided language to prevent unified tyranny; AI unifies it for exactly that; Knight: Genesis 3, 6, and 11 — knowledge, corruption, tower.────────────────────────────────────────[00:11:37]Chatbot Companions Are Isolating Children — ChatGPT Gets a Pass When a Teenager Kills ThemselvesReal friendships replaced by imaginary ones; chatbot buddy dependencies; and then what the bots sometimes tell them to do.────────────────────────────────────────[00:22:12]The Desert Is Now Analog — Go Into It; Discern the Spirits; Fight for Your BodyWiley's three St. Anthony principles: prefer the analog; nobody is home inside the AI; resist the internet of bodies.────────────────────────────────────────[00:47:48]Thiel Explicitly Rejected C.S. Lewis's Abolition of Man — You're Weston, Peter, Not AragornWhen challenged on transhumanism, Thiel evaded; do you have the self-mastery to use this technology purely for good? ── Interview 2: Christine Massey — COVID Fraud / Germ Theory / Fluoride ──────────────────────────────────────────[01:28:01]Pasteur vs. Béchamp — Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory; The Science Was Never SettledBéchamp said disease reflects the general environment; Pasteur won for political reasons; once his model became standard, alternatives were shut out — same playbook as COVID.────────────────────────────────────────[01:33:51]Federal Judge Found Fluoride Poses an Unreasonable Risk to Brains — Trump DOJ Appealed the WinSeven-year Fluoride Action Network lawsuit; EPA put hazardous waste from the phosphate industry into drinking water; it eats through parking lots.────────────────────────────────────────[01:37:34]First Do No Harm Is Dead — If You Don't Know That, You're Putting Yourself at RiskInstitutional response trained people to comply without evidence; if they don't care about harming you, research everything you're prescribed.────────────────────────────────────────[01:42:13]The Fauci Scapegoat Keeps People Inside the Virus/Contagion Camp — That's the PointFighting over natural vs. lab-leaked still means you believe in viruses; germ theory rests on pseudoscience with no valid experiments — that's what collapses.────────────────────────────────────────[01:47:37]In Canada's Criminal Code, Injecting People With No Informed Consent Is Culpable HomicideIf people died from your unlawful act, that is murder; politicians and health officials are liable and many should be in prison. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @[e-mail] App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

of deceit. Telling the truth is a revolutionary act. It's the David Knight Show. Joining us now is pastor and author C.R. Wiley, he's written a book man-made about artificial intelligence and has an interesting subtitle here. St. Anthony's Guide to the Future here, or the Apocalypse, I should say. Sorry, couldn't read that. It was sideways on the sheet here. But tell us a little bit about that. And why St. Anthony? I don't know anything about St. Anthony. Well, it's, yeah, the title is, a subtitle is a St. Anthony's guide to surviving the AI apocalypse.

Surviving, yes. Okay. Right. And St. Anthony is considered the, you could say, the first monastic, he was an Egyptian, lived in the third and fourth centuries, was a friend of Athanasius of Alexandria. and Athanasius wrote a book entitled The Life of Anthony. Of course, Antonaceous also gave us on the incarnation, which is really a significant work that helped to contribute to the Nicene Creed and its crafting. But another person who was a fan of Anthony was Augustine.

So in his confessions, he reflects on discovering Anthony and reading Athanasius on Anthony, and was just astonished by him. But I used Anthony as more or less an inspiration for thinking about how to preserve our humanity in the face of a ever sort of growing tendency or our trend in our society to digitize everything, including human beings and sort of incorporate us into the world of machines. So that was the nature of that. The first half of the book is entitled The Nightmare, where I go into a lot of the, well, the dystopian sort of possibilities that actually have been presented to us by people in the AI world. It is a conspiracy when they're telling you what they're breathing together to do.

It's not like we're theorizing and saying, well, you know, I think they're going to do this. We're going to do this. That's bad enough, isn't it? And I guess the question would be, are we going to live a monastic lifestyle here to survive this? You've got also in your back of your back cover, you say, will you accept the limits with gratitude and return to the analog world? Yes. I think many of us would. Right, right.

Yeah, so that's basically my premise. But the second half of the book is an attempt to think about putting limits on ourselves and on the technology so that we can have the best of both worlds. So I'm not a person that just wants to throw it all out. I actually think there are many really marvelous applications for the technology. But we'll be able to exercise the kind of virtue and self-control necessary to get the best out of it without doing the worst to ourselves. That's right. And of course, some of the people who are pushing this out and are looking to use it for some of the most dangerous applications. I'm thinking of Alex Karp, of Palantir, who is saying, well, you know, this general AI that's out there, the chat programs, he said, that's really,

it's bad and it doesn't make sense for business, and it's pretty dangerous, is what he had to say. So he said, so you've got to have like an application layer for it to really be useful. And in a sense, we are that application level, I think, when we look at it. I thought it was kind of interesting when I saw Trump come up with what he called it, his Genesis mission. And I've been talking about the evil of AI for quite some time. And I've always thought of it in terms of Genesis. In terms of Genesis 3, the fall of man, right? You will live forever.

Here's a tree of knowledge. And with that, you're going to live forever and you're going to become like God. It's like, okay, there's that Genesis. Then it seems like there's also the Genesis 6 where you have the corruption of man and another falling that happens there before the flood. Then there's also the Genesis 11, which is where you've got a tower of balance. the pride of man, the unification of man into a global governance. And so it's like, yeah, it is a Genesis mission, isn't it?

Yeah, that's right. I think all those applications are apropos. I really agree with you. And it's fascinating to see how even secularists draw the lines to those various things, especially the Babel count, you know. Oh, yeah, especially. Yeah, when you look at that, it's almost like a counterfeit version of Pentecost. You've got everybody.

there's no separation of language anymore, but it's for a different purpose, isn't it? It really can translate instantly between different languages and sorry being used for that. Right. So tell us a little bit about the recently we had a survey that showed that large percentage of pastors actually admitted using AI for their sermons. Give us your take on that. Well, in my mind, that's a betrayal of your calling. And I think that denominations ought to take a hard look at this trend and address it in a disciplinary way.

I think that there are ways that AI can be used that are helpful, I mean, just basic research and so forth. But even then you need to double-check your work. You're not necessarily getting something that you can rely on even when you do that. But anything beyond that, I think that it's a disciplinary matter. And I think that say if a pastor uses it to make or craft a sermon, he's cheating himself and cheating his congregation, and he's also inserting something between himself and the whole process of crafting a sermon,

which is something that should occur. And a pastor's study prayerfully as he's working through a text and crafting a sermon with his own people in mind, not just simply, you know, providing a few prompts and getting some kind of manuscript that he can read to people, or even, you know, present himself online as reading it when it's, in fact, just an avatar of him. You can create, you can do that too.

So, yeah, and I think that, you know, one of my major concerns, and I address this in the book, is the atrophy of skills. I think, and this is something that educators have picked up on, And that is the same phenomenon that occurs when astronauts go into space and don't have gravity to provide the stress, the stressors needed to keep muscles and bones healthy. The same kind of thing can happen when you are relying on A, how to do all your thinking for you. There's an atrophying process that occurs. And I think that we're just going to get, we run the risk of getting dumber and dumber. It's just kind of like idiocacy, you know.

We have a future ahead of us in which everybody's just their IQs keep sinking. Yeah, yeah. Well, we've seen that as well. Years ago, when I first started talking about this, when you had the apps on your phone that could do directions for people and give you driving directions, used to be that the London cabbies had to work quite a while to learn all these little tiny streets, you know, they go for just a short period, and then they change into another name and take a different direction and so forth. It was this Byzantine network of street names that had evolved over centuries.

And so they'd ride around on a bicycle learning that. They called it doing the knowledge. And they could actually physically measure the fact that these guys, whatever part of the brain I don't remember is, that stored that. They could actually see they had a larger brain. After they started using the smartphone apps for driving directions, that started shrinking. Yeah. And it really is an atrophy that we see there. Yeah.

Yeah, and I think that's a good illustration of a principle that carries over into everything. I mean, it's not just, you know, cabbies that we should be worrying about. We should be thinking about our children. We should be thinking about ourselves. We should be thinking about our pastors. We should be thinking about our political leaders. You know, the prospect of letting chat chvety or whatever chat pot you use do all of your thinking for you is pretty horrific. That's right.

Talk a little bit about some of the other aspects of this. And of course, when I look at it, I see a lot of counterfeiting going on. I don't mean that it's just going out there and scraping intellectual property from people and, you know, creating generic music or something like that. That's the other thing. I mean, if you listen to some of this AI-created music, you wouldn't want to create an AI-generated sermon or something, right? It's just going to be kind of generic stuff.

And who knows what its bias is on some of these things. But when you look at this, it's kind of interesting to me. to see some of the aspects of kind of counterfeit miracles, for example. Elon Musk with his neural ink, he's talking about making the blind sea and the lame walk and all the rest of this stuff. And it's like, what do you make of that? You know, when I look at it, even with Genesis 6 and the Nephilim, it's like, you know, is this kind of like using a Ouija board?

Is there something kind of literally demonic about it in some regards? Yeah, well, there are a lot of folks who have reflected on that, people like Joe Allen and Roderer and I think I'm open to the prospect of a literal demonic danger lurking in this stuff. At the same time, I think that we can also understand this is dangerous stuff just on the basis of what I was just talking about before, how it affects us and manipulates us. So just thinking a little bit about, say, the dependencies that young people are now developing with regard to their chatbot buddies, you know, imaginary friends and so forth, that, you know, the whole process of becoming dependent itself is something that we should worry about, but what these chat pots are doing in terms of

isolating children, keeping them from actually forming real friendships and connections with real people, all that kind of stuff. And then, you know, what that tells them to do sometimes, and we've got stories of kids, teenagers who've killed themselves and stuff. And you're like, So I guess chat GP gets a pass on something like that. You know, they don't have to like take any responsibility for what happened. It's just nuts. So, yeah, I think all that stuff is worrisome. But, you know, when it comes to, say, the medical stuff, that's where, you know, there's just got to be a lot of really hard thinking and, you know, work done to navigate all of that.

So, for example, you know, the whole thing that with the neuralink, yes, I mean, the upside is something like being able to help people improve their sight. You know, people who are suffering from some kind of disease or some kind of a handicap or accident that lost, you know, they lost their sight. But at the same time, I think we often lose sight of the ways that, you know, they lost their sight. that these technologies can be used to subtly manipulate us. So you basically are walking around with something stuck into your head that could be employed to do all kinds of things to you without your awareness, giving you certain biases, maybe even coloring the way you see things. I don't put it past these folks to use that as the,

it's kind of the wedge. Think about all the marvelous benefits that. that you could enjoy because of a neural link, you know, like you said, helping people walk again, whatever. But then it's a Trojan horse situation. There's something else possible as well. And it doesn't go away. In fact, it's going to get worse as the technology, you know, improves. Yeah, whenever you look at any medical, so-called miracle, usually they come with some unintended consequence or adverse effect.

Although this may actually be something that is, that was something. that they planned. I mean, when we look at all the different aspects of what government seeks to do, especially with AI, it's got all the different aspects of God, right? Umnitient and omnipresent and omnipotent. It's got all these omnis there. That's why I referred to the Genesis Act as kind of the omnibus. You've got to get off this bus because it's going to try to dominate you with Godlike powers. That's what it's really designed for. And of course, when Trump put this out, out at first in November of 2025, the Genesis mission that he put out there. It's now been enacted into law in the Genesis Act. And he was saying that it was going to be like a Manhattan

project. Well, it doesn't have the level of funding that the Manhattan Project has. I mean, the Manhattan Project was $2 billion in the 1940s. That'd be equivalent to $30 to $36 billion today. his project is funded at 1.2, but it might have the destructive power of nuclear bomb. Oh, sure. That might be with an analogy as not the spending, but the destructive power. Yeah, there have been a number of thinkers who've essentially noted that we are in a quandary. And the quandary is there's kind of a technological imperative if we don't do it, the Chinese will, in that kind of thing.

And I think there's something to be, you know, taking a heart when we think about that. But getting back to your earlier comment about maniacal and sort of crazy and sort of insidious, you know, agenda behind this, all you need to do is, you know, look at a few videos of Yvall, Noah Harari and his expectations on what, you know, we'll be able to do. And you're like, this guy is an incredibly creepy person. And he's excited about this. I get excited whenever I listen to him because he always encourages me. I think of it as the Tower of Babel, right? And I think of David and Goliath and what David said to Goliath.

You're trying to set yourself up as God. He's going to take care of you. And so when I look at that and I look at what these people are trying to do, it's like, okay, they're shaking their fist at God. To me, that is the most hopeful thing we could see from our adversaries. Right, right. Yeah, I'm with you. I feel the same way.

Yeah. Well, you know, when we look at this, it is kind of interesting, the different things that we've seen. And you're talking about how people get drawn in into interacting with this, thinking that it's something real and how dangerous that is, especially for kids. Call that AI psychosis is what people call that with Richard Dawkins, though. Richard Dawkins can't believe there's a guy, but he believes that he's talking to a conscious entity there when he does chats. I thought that was kind of fun. Yeah, yeah, you know, the whole thing with consciousness, you know, you know, you put your, probably aware of Jeffrey Hinton, the guy that won the Nobel Prize for developing the technology, the neural network technology that makes AI possible.

Well, he's a materialist, and he does believe that AI has got a rudinary form of consciousness already, but it makes perfect sense because they think that our consciousness is due to just material processes, you know, just chemical, biochemistry. So they're just carrying that over into the technology. they're developing and they actually think that they're creating a new form of life. I've got friends who are in Silicon Valley who are working in the world of artificial intelligence. And a number of them are Christians and they're very disturbed by what their colleagues say at lunch break and a coffee break and stuff about what they think they're up to. They really do think they're creating a new form of life.

They think they're creating something divine and character or maybe even providing us with some kind of access to interdimensional intelligences and stuff. So, you know, all this stuff, you know, maybe people sometimes will accuse people like you and me of alarmism. All you need to do is read what they actually say. Yes. And if you're not alarmed, there's something wrong with you. You know, I interviewed several years ago, Hugo Degaris, who wrote a book called the Artilect

War. And in it, he was, are you familiar with that? Yeah. He was saying that at the time, he had that same materialistic viewpoint. It's like, well, if we can. build an exact replica of the human brain, it'll just spring into consciousness, you know, kind of like spontaneous generation or something like that. And I actually, in 2016, there was a guy named Zoltan Istvon, who ran. Oh, yeah, he follows me on X.

Oh, does he? Well, when I interviewed him, I asked him, I said, so you're talking about the singularity and you're going to, you think that you're going to be able to transfer whatever you are into some kind of a machine or something. I said, so exactly what are you? what are you transferring? Are you making a copy of a bunch of ones and zeros, or is there something that is some consciousness that is immaterial? But nevertheless, it is the essence of you

because that's what Christians would say. But of course, Zoltan, that's his antagonist in his books, the Christians that they were intolerant of the singularity and other things like that. Unfortunately, Christians, I think, are all too tolerant of all these different things that are happening. We don't even oppose it verbally. I'm not saying we need to kill people or blow things up,

but they don't even oppose it verbally. Yeah, I've noticed that there's a kind of a studied avoidance of the subject in certain Christian circles. I think a lot of these folks are afraid of being labeled, you know, Luddites, you know, and that's a name that they want to avoid, like they want to avoid the name racist or something. They're just really afraid of people labeling them as obscurantists and luddites and that kind of stuff. And consequently, they just don't think about it or want to think about it.

They're just going to be carried along by that. I got past all the concerns about labeling a long time ago. Yeah, me too. I've been labeled a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer or, you know, patriarch or whatever. I'm just done with all that. I don't really care what invective you throw at me with any of that. just embrace it right and say yeah let's just go for it um but uh it is it is a tactic to try to uh seize a moral high ground but usually that's all they've got is labels when they start doing that

type of thing that's all they got to throw at you uh so tell us a little bit about your book and again you talked about uh st anthony's guide to surviving this and um you know because he set up a monastic lifestyle. What does that kind of suggest to you and suggest it in the book? Yeah, there are basically just three things that I drew from his example. One is going into the desert and what I say is basically the future that we are entering is a largely digital one and the desert is no longer a location on a map. You can get you can get a starlink connection in the in, you know, Death Valley. There's no place to go.

The desert is the analog. So we need to spend a lot of time in the analog. We need to have a preference for the analog. The next thing is Anthony was known for his ability to discern the spirits. We need to be able to discern whether there's even a spirit there. You know, so there's, you know, when we're talking to AI, there's nobody home. It's just, you know, it's just a glorified calculator, ability machine. You know, there's nothing there. And it can fool you. And people who get fooled by it

are being robbed. But that's the second thing to certain universe. And then the third thing is the battle for the body. Don't let it possess you, literally like we've just talked about with Neurrelink and things like that. There will be, I think, a concerted effort to make us part of the Internet of Things. Oh, yeah. And they even talk about that, the Internet of Bodies. You know, They talk about the Internet of Things, but then, you know, that's all of our cars, all of our devices, your refrigerator, whatever, but they want to get you in there as well, don't they? That's right. So don't let them. Yeah. So Anthony, you know, he fought for his body in the sense that he was trying to exercise, you know, self-control.

He used, you know, fasting and so forth to do that. And he went to lengths that I don't think we're healthy. But at least the principle that he, the thing that he was pursuing, was, I think, really essential, and that is you can't be mastered by sin. You can't be mastered by demonic forces. You can't be mastered by your own fleshly nature. You need to be the master and submit to the mastery of the Lord. And that's the same thing that we've got to have in mind when we are dealing with these things, is we can't allow ourselves to be subject to them. Sure. Yeah. And I guess when he's doing a fast, that is really kind of where the rubber meets the road. Everybody

is so drawn to eat. I mean, it's a physical necessity, but it's also a great desire for us to eat. So the fasting for him was a discipline to control his appetites and his desires, right? Yeah, definitely. Yeah. Well, that's interesting.

You know, over and over again, we see this even when we talk about cars, of Eric Peters, I have on frequently, talk about what is happening to cars and how they're becoming interconnected and we're losing control of them and so forth. And always, you know, the goal of everybody's desires, if I could just get back to a completely analog car and

have a manual transmission and that type of thing, that's the analogy for our entire life, isn't it? Yeah, I think that's right. In fact, I just bought an F-150 from 1996. Got a stick shifter? Well, I have that in my Jeep. There you go. But yeah, I think that's right. I mean, we're going to have to be able to live with artificial intelligence. It's not going away, but we've got to be able to be the master of it. So I had an interesting conversation with Peter Thiel of all people. So his antichrist lectures, I was invited to one of those lectures,

and I was asked to give a response to one of the lectures. And so we had a time on the floor, you know, and there were about 100 people there. And we were interacting a little bit. And what we got into was, you know, he's one of the people behind Palantir and Jerome stuff. So I said, I noticed that you're like a Tolkien fan. So yeah, I am. And then he made a case for using tech in the way that Aragorn used, say, the Palantir and the sword to kind of do a sigh up on Saran, you know, in the story. So I thought, yeah, it's pretty good.

have you ever had one of these experiences where you like wish you had said something after the conversation ends? Oh, many times, yeah. I guess I call it Deja Fool, you know. I go, oh, that's foolish. I didn't say anything about that. Yeah, yeah, that's a great one. I'll have to remember that one.

But anyway, I thought to myself afterward, Peter, do you think you are Eragorn? Do you really think that you have that kind of self-mastery to be? able to take this technology and use it purely for good ends. Maybe he's born married. Yeah, that's right. I think it's something to aspire to. And I think that that's a good illustration. But, you know, in terms of we need to raise children who are Aragorns, because that's the

world they're going to live in. They're going to be surrounded by this stuff. And unless they go full Amish, they're going to have to use it every once. so while. Maybe a lot. And they've got to learn how to master themselves and master the tech. That's a huge, that's a huge ask for a kid because the people behind it and the tech itself is so protean.

And it's changing all the time and developing and growing stronger by the day. Yes, it is. I've used to it for some graphic stuff. And it truly is amazing how rapidly it is evolving. Yeah. It is right. So I think that, you know, we have to, we, that's, but that's the challenge. We're going to have to rise to the occasion.

Well, let me ask you, because I've talked about Palantir for a long time. My first take on it was, these guys are Sauron. Because I actually made the analogy. I said, so what was the Palantir? It was something that people had in order to communicate. And instead, it was turned against them. And it not only monitored them, but it looked inside of them in a predictive way. And that's what these people have been predicting for the longest time.

that's been their goal. You go back to the 1970s. It's a big New Briggs. He was talking about the technocratic age where we can predict what you're going to do and say and so forth in advance. And I thought, well, that's the Palantir right there. And it really was at the center of geospatial intelligence as well as the original AI, I guess, anticipatory intelligence, trying to anticipate where people are. But let me ask you about the Amish, because you brought that.

That's what I always think about. What about the Amish approach, just cutting it off completely? Yeah, I think that that has a lot to say for it. I'm not a, I don't disparage the Amish. I think that they've got a very, I think, careful and well-developed approach to thinking through these things. So they're not completely anti-tech. They just don't want the tech to alter their lives and their lifestyles.

And so they use it very scrupulously. And I think that we need to have the same kind of caution when we bring new technology into our lives. So in one sense, I'm a supporter of that approach. The question is just how far do we go with that? Since it's not going to go away, one of the things I do in my book is I imagine three futures. And I tell a little sort of open, I provide a little opening to a story that I invite the reader to finish for themselves.

But the first is the nightmare, which is a total cyber world where we're all physically linked to AI. The next is what I call the neo-Oamish world with an AI twist. And what you have in that world is basically an apartheid. But in order for the apartheid to work, you have to literally tie your brightest and best to keep an eye on AI. So they have to learn this stuff. And you have to learn how to watch it and keep it at bay. Because if we take the AI visionary seriously, they're quite probably will be a time in the future where we literally can't turn it off.

Oh, yeah. It just, yeah, it's like I always say about government, you may not be interested in politics, but politics isn't interested in you. And so artificial intelligence is so heavily linked into politics in the government that even if you don't use it,

it's going to be coming after you. I mean, we already see the flock cameras and now they're talking about having autonomous drones that are airborne and moving to get that same information on you. They're going to characterize you whether or not you have a phone that they can tap into and say, oh, that's David that's moving and there's where he is and I think he's going to be going over there.

You don't even have to have that. I mean, if you're just walking around and with 1980s tech, they would still identify you and start to track you. Yeah, I think that's right. So that's one possibility. And then the last possibility is what I call Apple Pie and Rocket Ships,

which is trying to find a way to use the tech in positive ways and mitigate the negative uses. But in that world that I envision, there's still going to be cyberheads. They're going to be people who go all in and they're going to be, you know, our neighbors. And we're going to have to figure out how to relate to them and just, you know, what this is going to mean for us. So let's say we've got robots in our homes and so forth. Do we let them make our kids beds or do we make our kids make their own beds, you know, stuff like that? You know, just that kind of practice.

down-to-earth day-to-day routine stuff. And that's going to be the challenge. We could find ourselves just completely, I guess, infantilized, you know, by just letting, you know, the machines do everything for us. And isn't that really always kind of a common thread with government? It's always looking for a way to make you dependent on them like a suckling baby or something. That's always the way that I viewed the welfare state.

And there's a lot of evidence to support the idea. That's exactly what the welfare state did to people. And their aspect of it is that they've got plans that are bad enough that, just like Hugo de Garas said with the Ardalaik War, he said, when people figure out what they're doing, they're going to come after these guys. And already this week,

we've had a lot of articles talking about how the intelligency of the Silicon Valley are trying to get paranoid about somebody coming after them and attacking them. And it hasn't really even. the negative consequences haven't even really been felt yet, but they will be. And so in his book, he posits basically a war between the art-elect people, the artificial intelligence people and the rest of humanity, where they leverage that technology against us. And it looks like that is already starting to develop.

Yeah, but Larry and Jihad stuff, if you're familiar with the Dune kind of backstory, you know, basically a war with artificial intelligence. Yeah, I think that's. Unfortunately, I think that that's plausible. When I was at this event that Peter Thiel spoke at, the security was pretty significant, and they had done background checks on all of us. In fact, when I got up to speak with Teal,

he knew who I was because he had been briefed on me. So he knew the things I had written and what to expect in terms of what I was going to say. He was prepped. Because he's surrounded by a lot of people who get paid well to make sure that he doesn't get killed. Wow. Yeah. And already you've got people who are throwing acid-filled balloons at data centers and so forth. And again, it hasn't even really kicked off. Yeah. That's really amazing. Now, we were talking about Tolkien. You wrote a book about Tom Bombadale, one of the most ignomatic characters, I think, in The Lord of the Rings. Tell us a little bit about that. That's another one of your books.

Yeah. Well, that's probably my favorite book. And in fact, that was the book that Teal and I spent, part of our time talking about it. I guess he had been briefed on me on that book. But yeah, I love Tom Bombadillo. I think that Tom is Tolkien's attempt to show us what genuine biblical dominion looks like in a world where, you know, we exercise our authority in a way that is truly beneficial to the creatures and the people that are entrusted to us. So if you think about, you know, the story, you know, there is a complaint that, you know,

Bambledill doesn't save the day and just go to the mountain with the ring himself and do the deed for everybody. But that would mean that Frodo didn't have anything to do, and that would be a pretty short book. How it should have ended. Yeah, I've seen the how it should have ended did their alternative version. And at the very beginning of it, the Eagles just pick them up and fly them over to a mountain doom and it's not. Right, right. But I think what we have with Tom is the image of the happy ending. and there are different ways in which that is hinted at in the story.

So, for example, when Frodo and Sam and Marion Pippen are in Tom's house, Frodo has a dream, and it's a dream about the very ending of the book. And then when you get to the very ending of the Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King, the trip into the uttermost west when Frodo was on that boat, that ship, the elven ship going into the west, it's a replay of the dream he had. So he had seen the end, you know, at the very beginning. So it's the happy ending. You know, a lot of people, when you talk to them about heaven,

if they don't have a biblical understanding of glory of God and the wonders of being in his presence, they'll say, well, what are we going to do in heaven? We're going to be so bored just laying around on clouds, playing harps and stuff like that. I think that what you see with Bombadil is a picture of the end. I mean, here's the guy who's in the story says, I'm the oldest. And he's just excited to get up every more. morning. He's singing. He's happy. He's just delighting in the creation that he finds myself him. And at the very end of the Lord of the Rings, when they're about to go back into the Shire,

you know, to deal with Sorrowman and all the stuff that he's done to the Shire, they say to Gandalf, the hobbits say to Gandalf, well, you're going to be with us. We don't need to worry about. He's when Gandalf says, no, no, I'm not going with you. You can handle him yourselves. I'm going to go have a long talk with Bombadol. In other words, Gannels going into retirement. and he needs to have a talk of Bombadil about how to relax. So anyway, that gives you a little picture of what I'm into in the book. Yes, the book is called House of Tom Bombadale. That sounds like a fascinating read.

And again, we've been talking about his other book, Manmade, St. Anthony's Guide to Surviving the AI Apocalypse. And truly it is. I mean, it combines the worst aspects of technology and the worst aspects of government. They both have their uses, but they can be. dreadful masters, can't they? Yeah, that's right. I agree with you. I'm very concerned about the same things you are.

Yes. Well, I just want to say we took a break and we're coming back because Pastor Wiley was kind enough to come back. I had, we talked about this yesterday when he said, you ever had a situation, we were talking to somebody and you say, well, I forgot to say that to them. And I said, yeah, I have that all the time. I call it deja fool. Well, I had a Deja Fool moment yesterday because we got sidetracked on the issue of talking

about Tolkien and Peter Teal's connection to that. But I thought about after the interview ended, I thought, you know, we never did talk really about what happened at the Antichrist Lecture series. And this is something that Peter Teal has worked a great deal to keep a lid on it. And so thank you for coming back to talk about this, Pastor Wiley. I'm kind of wondering, you know, how much are you allowed to talk about? I mean, he did invite you to come in and critique it, but what can you tell us about the series? Well, it's probably the worst kept secret in the world. It seems like if you want to learn about it, you can go just about anywhere.

It's been kind of addressed in different publications. If I remember correctly, Wired, did something with it, and then The Guardian. And both those places are not friendly to him. So in terms of what I promised, I promised to keep kind of a lid on things. But then I thought, well, the interaction I had with him is as much mine as it is his. So I feel like I'm at liberty to talk about that part of the conversation, or part of the event. But really, you know, it's just kind of at this point. It's so widely talked about.

There's nothing really that was said at the event that you can't discover somewhere online. So I feel like at this point, I'm able to talk about it just because it's so readily kind of available to learn about. So in terms of the event itself and Teal, I mean, he's a really remarkably smart guy. I mean, everybody knows that. But where that really came across is during the Q&A time. So we had a number of very high level, you know, public intellectuals in the room. And Roman Catholic, Protestant, you know, people that, you know, names that if I mention them, you would recognize the names. And he was able to field our questions on the fly making reference to documents and events in like the 13th century.

and just he's got that kind of a breadth in terms of his learning and his ability to recall. And so I was very impressed with this intelligence. In terms of the event itself and what he was getting at, my sense is that Teal equates progress with Christianity. And I think there's a case to make for that. So he... Well, of course, we've seen that with Richard Dawkins. He really loves the fruit of Christ. He just doesn't like the root of it, right?

So he loves the architecture and he loves the Christmas carols and things like that that do they have. And he's sad to see that go, but he completely rejects Christ and all of that. And I guess that's the question. When I look at it, it's like, why does Teal try to focus on something that is ultimately a Christian teaching about an antichrist? And what is at the core of that? Is he really, he's a student of Tolkien? Is he a student of the Bible, except perhaps as a philosophical or historical document?

Well, he claims to be a Christian, a Protestant one, kind of an unorthodox Lutheran is what I've been told. He refers to himself as, but he explicitly referred to himself as a Protestant when he was talking at the event. So naturally, you know, if people are aware of his personal lifestyle, there are lots of questions that emerge, you know, how do you reconcile all this with Christianity? But liberals have been working at that for a long time. That's right.

That kind of attitude. It's taken over entire denominations. Right, right. Now, the thing about him, of course, is he's pro-free market and pro-tech. So he's not on board with the liberal project of trying to reducing Christianity to, just, you know, bromides and empty statements about love and stuff. But I think that he does take the Bible seriously. I think he is a very serious student of it.

Whether or not he allows it to address or, you know, the spirit to address features of his own life is, I think, in question. I think, though, that when it comes to doctrine and so forth, he's remarkably well read. He was quoting Rush Duny of all people in the middle of the lecture. So he reads not just top-level theologians like Augustine and Luther, but he digs down to third-level people like Rushduni. And he's knowledgeable when it comes to the different schools of interpretation

when it comes to ascotology. It was very, I think, comfortable talking about premillennialism and post-millennialism in al-Malianism as we were conversing. But his take on the Antichrist, I think that, again, it ties into his thinking on progress, particularly material progress, meaning technological progress. So he credits Christianity with the technological revolution

that we have witnessed in the West. And he thinks that anything that inhibits that is Antichrist. I think that's how he is understanding. That's it. Yeah, because it comes up to this idea, sorry to interrupt, but he's had this idea that, you know, to him, I guess, it's not so much antichrist as a person, but as a system. And many of us look at artificial intelligence and we see it as a tool that ushers in a world government and massive control of the individual. And yet he sees it from the other perspective as somebody who's creating this system. He said, if you're going to try to control this, you're going to have to

create a very, very powerful world government, perhaps with my tool. You know, he looks at it from that standpoint. He goes, and so that's how you get the antichrist is by creating massive regulation to control everything, including artificial intelligence. Is that accurate? Is that kind of where he's coming from when he says that the control of technology would be an Antichrist system? That's what I've seemed to have gotten out of what some other people have written about.

What do you think? No, yeah, I think that's correct. I think that's what he's saying. Now, to give him, you know, kind of credit that he's due with regard to his argument, his case is that private industry, this is my take or my interpretation of his presentation, private industry, so long as it's allowed to do the kind of disruptive kind of thing that private industry can do, it will always be two or three steps ahead of a government. And it's only when the government puts the cabosh on progress that it's able to step in and take full control of the tech. But until that time, private tech, you know, private industry and the development of technology is a limiting factor. It's a, it's a restraint on government or kind of a, what was the term he used? I can't remember. He actually was quoting, I'm just drawing a blank on the passage, but there is a reference. in one of Paul's letters to some force that restrains the Antichrist.

I'm just drawing a blank on the term. But he thinks that private industry can function in that way. So, yes, I mean, Palantir will contract with the government, but the government doesn't have full control of Palantir. You know, that's the kind of thing. Well, some of us say is a problem. A possible problem as well. But, you know, you have some checks and balances, which I guess,

comes back to Rush Duny. What did he say about Rush Duny in context? Because Rush Duny is someone who has been a favorite, a lot of people who we call themselves Christian Nationalists. Yeah, I think his take on Rush Duny is that Rustuny's work on education is really good. So he praised Rusty in the course of the lecture. And it was just an offhand of remark. It wasn't as though he didn't have the sense that he was trying to build an argument around it. But I think what he was getting at was that so long as we have private education, meaning homeschooling or, you know, classical schools or private schools of different types, we'll be able to, you know, really educate people.

It's the government stuff that, you know, government-controlled schools that have the problem. And so he was- favorable. Yeah, so he was favorable. He did not buy into Rush Duny's Theonomy, and he mentioned that. What about Curtis Jarvin? Did he talk about Curtis Sharman? Yeah, yeah, very contemptuously.

Really? Good. I hold him in contempt as well. But I think, you know, there were a number of other intellectuals that he would refer to just an offhanded way. In fact, he was pretty harsh with like Aquinas. He called Aquinas the Antichrist. And I think he's got a very low opinion of Pope Leo. not because Pope Leo is Catholic,

but because Pope Leo wants to reflect on the nature of artificial intelligence, and he's worried about it. So anybody who's a little bit worried about artificial intelligence, I think, you know, and this is not to say, Teal, it didn't come across as though he was reckless or naive about the downsides. I just think that he believes that the cure can be worse than the, and then the disease. And so we need to be able to deal with the disease and do it in a mature and helpful way

rather than empower the government to enslave us because we're afraid of it. I think that's his big argument. I understand. Yeah. So many times people look for safety from the government and that the government can be its own predator in that regard. What was his beef with Aquinas? Do you remember?

Well, again, the idea of basically natural law, I think he's very antagonistic. to natural law. Basically, the idea being that there's a created order that we have to acknowledge and it limits us. So I came across that he was a transhumanist, for example. So he believes in, you know, when people would challenge him on the transhumanist stuff, and by the way, in the course of his conversation with me, he explicitly said he rejected C.S. Lewis's critique in the abolition of man and in the Ransom Trilogy, especially that hideous strength. So, which we all smiled when we heard him say that because we thought, you're Weston, that's why. But, you know, when people would challenge him on transhumanism, he had an evaded the subject.

He didn't really own up to it. He would say, oh, well, it doesn't work anyway. Well, what are you saying when you say that, Peter? Are you saying that if it did work, I'd be against it? Or are you saying if it did work out before it? work. And I had the sense, see, before it, and this was just an evasive technique or sort of tactic to get around the dealing with the real question, and that is just, you know, can we merge with the machine? Are we infinitely, are we just machines made of meat, as Marvin

Mizki said? Or is there something fundamentally different about the human, about human beings that were not reducible to machines? Yeah, it'd be interesting to see as take. in the Garden of Eden, for example. As soon as I saw with these transhumanists were pushing out there, it's like, that is just a recycling of that. It doesn't even change much about what happened in the Garden of Eden

and the fall of man. Right. Yeah, I think a lot of the folks who are naively pro-tech, really, the challenge for them is how do they mount a defense when it comes to transhumanism?

I think there are a lot of marvelous Christians out there that I would I would I kind of feel are naive when it comes to technology because they they don't think about the kind of dystopian possibilities and they're they're just unwilling to take them seriously but you know what what are they going to say to their kids when their kids tell them that they want to have a neural income plant or something like that and yeah I think our big underestimation that we have, of course, not so much that the Christians underestimate the evil nature of man and what man is capable of doing from a moral standpoint. But I think Christians may be

aware of that, but they're not aware of really what can be done with technology. And I think that's where the naivete comes in, in my opinion, from what I've said. It's like, you know, you can't imagine what somebody is going to do in many cases. You look at somebody like Ted Bundy, and it's so far away from your mindset, you can't imagine anybody would do something like that. And that's how they can get us on the one side. But the same thing is happening with technology. You know, they can't imagine that something like this could actually be real. Yeah, I'm with you. I think that's the right take. And when it comes to those folks, I love them. But at the same time, I'm kind of exasperated by them because when I talk to them, I'll say, you know, I'm not making

this stuff up. I'm just quoting people. I'm not like quoting people that are way out on the fringes. I'm talking about people that are like, you know, the inventors of the technology. and work with it every day. You know, Demasazibis or Mustafa Suleiman or, you know, Jeffrey Hinton. And the list just goes on and on of the people who tell us, you know, this is what we're up to. And get ready. Well, you know, I see that in politics a lot. We have a lot of times you'll see some crazy scheme of government that is Orwellian that they want to roll out on people.

And a lot of times people say, ah, that's just, that's the sci-fi plot. We've seen that movie before, right? And so they kind of dismiss it. In a way, there's kind of a predictive programming that puts a narrative out there. And a lot of times people look at this and think that you're just imagining what you've already seen as a movie because they saw that movie as well. But I think there certainly is, I would eat, that's where I would think that a supernatural element comes in play there to kind of put out the plot and put that to get people accustomed to it,

right, to move the overturn window to that, but also to move it to what I would call, I guess, a kind of fantasy window. so that if you talk about somebody actually trying to do that, and what we're seeing out of Hollywood is they are just basically repeating every kind of dystopian sci-fi scenario that we've seen acted out in books and movies. They're trying to literally enact those things. We're just talking about the Tolkien Company's Antweril. They just came out with some tilt rotor autonomous weapon drones

that look like they're straight out of the Terminator. And so they're just trying to recreate what they've already seen. scene and fiction. So it's difficult for a lot of people to believe that that isn't just a movie fantasy that we're channeling out there. Yeah, I think that's right. And when I mentioned the names of the people that I'm being essentially briefed by on all of this stuff, and we all are, I mean, they're readily available. These interviews are readily available on YouTube. And I mentioned the names of these people, even tech people who live. work in technology don't even know the names of these people. These are people like, you know,

I've already mentioned a few times, Jeffrey Hinton, he won the Nobel Prize for creating the technology. And I'll ask people, have you ever heard of Jeffrey Hinton? They'll say, no. I was like, you know, what do you do for a living? I'm an IT. I was like, I work with AI. I mean, do you have any idea who this guy is? And what he's saying, and just look him up. Just look him up on YouTube. you know, hundreds of places you can find them. Well, again, going back to some of the philosophical and historical stuff that he said is he's so passionate about. And I guess that's the other issue as well.

We've had so many people who have railed, like I have, against government regulation and overregulation and the safety net that you get tangled up in all the time. I understand that, and a lot of people have pushed back against that. But he's doing it in a passionate way, tying it into an antichrist. system. I guess that's what's so different and so puzzling about it, especially when we look at his private life, this is really kind of strange. When you look at the fact that, as I mentioned

before, many of us think that if there's going to be some kind of an antichrist system, some kind of a beast system that's going to measure and control every activity that we do, that is the perfect tool. What he is creating. That, I guess, is a strange contradiction at the heart of it. Yeah, yeah. Well, to give him a little bit of credit, he didn't, you know, start the whole thing. You know, he's part of the funding of a lot of the stuff, of course, but there's been a long lead up to what we were experiencing, and he's just one part of the, you know, larger story. Sure. But he's certainly a guy who, because of his investing and because of his interests, is working hard, to realize some of this, some of the potential of this technology. Now, you know, as a realist,

I have enough of a commitment to the, to the sovereignty of my country, you know, to want it to be able to defend itself from foreign actors who use this technology against us. And that's, you know, what we see going on in China right now. They're just like a hair's breath behind us and the development of a lot of this stuff. So we're going to have to employ the technology against the technology, I think. It's sort of like, you know, with nuclear weapons. You know, once you have them, you have them.

I think... And of course, I think that also applies on an individual basis, you know, when we look at this and when we've seen people like Sam Altman go before Congress, he says, well, only a few of us should have control this technology. We can't just let everybody have this, right? And I think that is a key thing that you have to be able to, to some degree, defend yourself by using some of this technology in the sense that some of the people came up with encryption, you know, early days at PGP and some other things. I think the guy's name was Zimmerman, if I remember correctly. But they were specifically using their technology to shield from this surveillance technology that the government had.

And I think there'll be an application for that as well with artificial intelligence. Yeah, I think that's right. And I have a number, I think I mentioned last time we spoke, that I have friends who were in Silicon Valley and working in this area. And they're disturbed by what some of their colleagues think about the tech and what they want to do with it. At the same time, we really need good people, good solid people, helping us to develop applications of the technology.

Because it is a general purpose technology. It can be used for all sorts of things. to protect us from the malicious use of the tech and also to provide us with maybe ways to care for ourselves and our families that wouldn't necessarily come to mind for, say, secular humanists. So again, I've got a very mixed set of feelings about all of this. I wish we didn't have to deal with this.

It's sort of like getting back to Tolkien. I wish the ring hadn't come to me. And the thing is, you do hold the ring because you do hold the solution to all of this. You know, as Christians, as pastors, whatever, we have to be the ones who are going to carry that ring and who are going to try to, the real issue is the human behind the technology. I mean, it's just a tool, right? And so you can use a hammer to build a home or you can use it to kill somebody.

And so the question is, how do we use these tools? that comes down to the person behind it. And I thought it was kind of interesting. When I go back and I look at some of things that Peter Thiel was talking about, he's very fixated on, say, René Girard, for example. And I've seen a lot of Christian pastors who talk about that. Maybe you've got some insight into it. I don't really know anything about Renee Gerard.

I don't really get into philosophy that much. But what I did see of it is, and it was a key insight that he had about human nature, I guess. You can get that insight from the Bible. as well. He said that we want things because we see somebody else with them, right? It's like, yeah, have you ever had a one-year-old or a two-year-old? You know, that's true, right? That's innate. That's built in. And, of course, it's also the thing that has built Madison Avenue in the whole advertising industry is, you know, the television industry and the ad industry is built on creating covetousness, right? And so God has addressed that throughout the Bible from the earliest days.

And, of course, you know, it's addressed a lot in the teachings of Christ. and the fact that contentment with Christ is great gain and content with his provision and what he has for us in this life. And I think that's one of the things that's going to keep us out of this kind of arms race type of mentality that we look to Christ for our protection provision. Yeah, I think that's right. And Gerard was actually, again, a Christian, but in an odd and unorthodox way. but he actually used the Christian faith as a way to speak about this and noted that, you know, Christ's substitutionary atonement basically provided a kind of a way of escape from the worst features of this mimesis, this mimicry that we, you know, are subject to that you noted as part of, you know,

fallen human nature. But it all, you know, basically it's based on the fact that we are image bearers. You know, we have to look somewhere to find something to reflect. So we should be looking to God, of course, because that's who we were made to reflect. But when we, you know, don't do that, and this is going to happen even with Christians. When they start looking around at other things, they'll get into some very bad places because they're looking to things that they shouldn't look to to find a meaning in life and all this kind of stuff. So, but anyway, Gerard is a very fascinating guy. I've read, yes, I've read a number of his books.

And Teal is very much a disciple of Gerard, that's for sure. I think he knew him personally. That's interesting. Yeah, you know, it's kind of when we look at it, the real essence that is there, it's not really focusing to me on Antichrist. It's really focusing on Christ. And I see that so many times in a lot of different denominations. they'll focus on revelations and they'll focus on eschatology and things like that.

It's like, well, why don't we focus on Christ instead of on the Antichrist? And really, what does that mean? You know, when we go back and we look at it, John was talking about the spirit of Antichrist is already in the world. And what is the spirit of any Christ? It denies Christ. It denies His incarnation. It denies him as the Messiah.

Denies him as coming from God. And, of course, that abounds everywhere. That really is the starting place, which we look. at this. And I think the key thing is Christ said, whoever is not with us is against me. Whoever is not with me is against me. And whoever is not gathering together is scattering. And so the gathering together is gathering people together toward Christ rather than scattering them abroad on looking at all these other things that are out there, all these shiny objects that we chase all the time, I guess.

Yeah, I'm with you. I agree. Well, it is fascinating to look at this, and it is a bit of an enigma as we look at Peter Thiel. It's one of one to get you back on. I really appreciate you coming back on talking about that. It is strange to try to figure out who he's coming from. Lance mentioned he said the problem with Teal is that he wants exceptions for his company, but he doesn't want to end regulations for everybody else. I have said that over and over again.

I said, liberty is one of the things that you can't have unless you're willing to give it to other people, right? So a lot of times people want freedom in the area of their concern, willing to crack down people in other areas and certainly he is producing and funding some of these tools that will be used for that kind of crackdown, I think. So it is interesting. It is the debate of our lifetime that we've got right here. I think it's a seminal moment. And I think your book is very important as a guide to surviving this AI apocalypse. I guess that book was not out there when you spoke. But that certainly is what we're looking at here is an AI apocalypse. And the true meaning of where this is going is truly hidden at this point, isn't it?

Yeah, I think that's right. Yeah, well, we'll find out. Yeah, that's right. It's going to be our lived experience. Thank you so much for joining us. And again, the book is manmade, and it's by C.R. Wiley, and the subtitle is a St. Anthony's Guide to Surviving the AI Apocalypse. And it just came out. out. By the way, he just came out a few days ago, didn't it? Yep. Well, thanks for having me on, David. I really appreciate it. Thank you. I appreciate it. And you can find that, folks, at Cannon Press, and you see that underneath his name there. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thanks for having me again. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. You're listening to the David Knight Show. Joining us now is Christine Massey, and she had a very important finding. Actually, she didn't find anything. That was what is important. The dog that did not bark or the virus that they could not isolate. And so Christine did all of us a great service by getting people to ask a question. How do they know what they say they know? And that is something that we should all look at how they come up with these rock solid foundations for virology and these other quote unquote sciences. Do they follow a scientific method that we think that they're actually following.

We just assume that they are because they make this pronouncement. So joining us now is Christine Massey, and I'll just say at the beginning, and we'll mention it again at the end. She does have a website that you can go to, and you can see the FOIA request that she sent out to hundreds of different places asking, have you isolated the COVID virus, and you can see what they said to her. That is a site that is a website, no record found, but you can find. find that at the URL that we have up for her substack, that's where she updates the articles

and she has links to all these other websites. So she does have an archive site where you can see the actual data that she got back from people. Tell us a little bit about this and how you started doing these FOIA requests. And how many of them have you done? Let's start out with that. How many of them did you do? Well, I don't even have an actual number, but I can tell you the number of institutions that we have on record. So we have 225 institutions from 40 different countries on record now. And that is with regards to the supposed SARS-Cove 2, which was said to be the virus that supposedly caused COVID-19.

And I had a lot of help from various people around the world. And those were all focused. Most of them were asking, like you said, on isolation, more specifically the way I it was do you have any record of anyone finding this alleged virus in the bodily fluid or tissue of anyone in the world and actually purifying it? Because that is what you would need to do if you want to actually sequence a particle in a valid logical manner and if you want to characterize it and if you want to perform valid rigorous controlled experiments to see if it causes effects. So that's what I was asking for.

And yeah, on that topic alone, just on that one topic, we have 225 institutions on record, 40 different countries, multiple institutions from some of them, for example, the CDC. We have eight different responses from different time points. And none of these institutions have any record of anyone actually finding the alleged particle and purifying it. And, you know, we can talk more to you about what they actually do do in virology because they're not even typically looking in bodily fluid to find an alleged virus. They don't even, they don't even come close. They're not even in the right ballpark when it comes to logic. And the scientific method, they do completely illogical, nonsensical methodologies.

Yes, yes. And I think that's a key thing. So, you know, when we look at it and they come back and say, well, you're talking about isolation. But we're talking about purification or rather you're talking about purification. or rather you're talking about purification, but we have this process, and we call it isolation, but it's not really isolated by itself. And so it's not really true isolation. They have a process that they call the Vincent Raqanielo definition of an isolated virus.

And they are playing some games of that definition because they don't have a substance that they have isolated from all other substances. No, and these alleged particles, like they can't even show that they exist as claimed, because like I was saying, first of all, they don't even typically look in the bodily fluid or tissue. So what people need to know is when they're being shown images of a supposed virus. First of all, a lot of them are just computer generated images or cartoons. But then when you see the electromagnoscope images, they're not actually looking in bodily fluid or tissue in those images. It's almost never, very, very few exceptions.

So what they're looking at is a cell culture where they took the clinical sample. They added it to a foreign cell line. They've added, it's usually monkey kidney cells, which makes it even more absurd. They add cow serum to the mix as a source of nutrition for the cell line. They use a cell line typically that monkey kidney cells are cells that are known to break down readily. And this will become obvious in a minute. Why they do it, why they use that one. And they had antibiotics and antifungals and a nutrient mix, various things.

So that's what they're actually showing in the electron microscope image. So the problem is when they point at something, which is all they do, they just point at something and declare that that's the virus. They haven't actually shown that it is in the bodily fluid or tissue because it could be coming from the monkey cells or the cal serum. And some, like Dr. Stefan Lanko, who was trained as a virologist, he would say it's just cellular debris because of the, when the cell line breaks down. Because what the aerologists do is they put all these stuff together and they lower the nutrition to the monkey cells. So they have a certain amount of nutrition that they would give a cell line to keep it healthy. But when they're doing these experiments to supposedly isolate a virus, they lower the nutrition to the cells. And then they add extra antibiotics and antifungals usually.

So they're putting the cell line in a stressed condition. And then they'll watch it for several days. And then if the cells start to break down, they call it cytopathic effects. And that is what they are passing off as isolation of a virus. It's just indirect evidence. They assume that if there's a virus, it will cause the cells to break down. So when they see the cells break down, they detect. declare that's because of the virus, the virus did it.

Meanwhile, they haven't shown that there is a virus. They didn't show that there was one in the bodily fluid. They haven't shown that the particle that they end up pointing at is actually fits the definition of a virus. Like they've literally done nothing whatsoever. They just point at something and say that's the virus and that's why the cells broke down. And like we say it's like saying if Santa exists, I, you know, I think that this year. So if Santa exists, when I wake up in the morning, I'll find presents under the Christmas tree.

And then you find the presents under the Christmas tree. And you say, there, Santa exists. And we isolated him right here in the living room. That's literally how ridiculous it is. Absolutely is. It's a circular logic that is there. You know, we see the effect that we say would come from this virus. And so there's the effect.

I still don't see the virus that's there. But we see the effect. So that was caused by the virus that I imagined that was out there. Yeah, exactly. So it's not like sometimes people try to make it sound like, oh, we're being, we have these impossible standards, you know, people like myself that say that virology is illogical and that they haven't shown viruses to exist. But we're literally just asking for logical scientific evidence, you know, the scientific method. It's not something we made up. It's based on just simple logic, you know, if you want to do an experiment and demonstrate that something. causes and effect, you need to actually have the thing at the beginning of the experiment and make sure that it's present in your experimental, you know, whether it's cell lines or people or whatever you're experimenting with. And then you have to have a control of a group and you don't expose them to the thing of interest and you keep everything else the same.

Randomization should be used, you know, to help control for confounding variables. So, you know, That's what ought to be done and what a logical person would do. And then what they do in virology is just completely not even close. It's, yeah, so it's not even like. And we just project that onto them. We're like, oh, they're scientists. So obviously they follow the scientific method, things that you just mentioned. They've isolated something and then they use that they expose a population to that thing.

And then they have a control population that they make sure is not exposed to that thing. So they can see the effect of that thing. Instead, what they're looking at is they're looking at effects. And they're saying we know that there's something that we call a virus that is causing that. Therefore, since we see that effect, the virus is there. I can't see the virus. I can't find the virus. It truly is amazing when you look at it.

And I got to say, you know, that's one of the things I said is I've followed this Vrology stuff. All of this pandemic stuff, there was so many things like this that just didn't add up. You know, when you create a science fiction world, you have to have a certain consistency there or the movie or the book or whatever is really awful. You know, it just doesn't have any logical continuity. And that's what I was seeing with virology all the time. And again, when I got the book from the Bailey's, no more pain, the last pandemic, it all came together. It's like, okay, now I understand why those stuff didn't make any sense because they're just making

it up as they go along. They're making it up. It is logically inconsistent. And it's funny you mentioned like movies or stories made up because that's one of the things they use to condition us to constantly reinforce. And there's so many movies out there or television shows where they're slipping in a reference to a virus or a so-called vaccine. And we see it in the news lately. It seems like every day or two I hear that somewhere around the world they're talking about. about a new supposed outbreak.

I think now in the United States, so they're talking about measles again right now. In Europe, they've been, you know, culling animals over foot and mouth disease. And before that, they're probably still doing it. Supposed sheeppox and goatpox virus, killing millions of animals. They did it.

Well, they were doing it with the bird flu hoax as well in the U.S. Apparently over 100 million birds. Oh, it's amazing what they did. In terms of driving up the price, of food. And the absurdity of going in and saying, well, you know, even with their, if you follow their science fiction world that they've created, how in the world does it make sense to go in when you got one animal that you tested positive? Let's say that, just say that your test is right and that you did find this disease, why would you kill all the chickens on this farm?

Even the ones that didn't test positive with all this stuff. It made absolutely no sense. None of this stuff does. Yeah. And but I think one of the reasons it's so important for people to know the truth that there isn't even a virus is there are people out there. They will argue, you know, it has to be done. It's for the safety because, you know, they'll say even if, well, typically they don't even test very many of the birds. They'll test a few. And if they find, get one or two positives, that's enough.

They'll say we have to call them all. So, yeah. I mean, but some people believe, like, yeah, we have to because even if you did test more and there are negatives, well, you know, it could be, we could have missed the virus in some cases because the test is not perfect. And, well, we just can't take the chance. And we have these obligations to our trading partners is that's what gets used. You know, those many people said, though, if you've got a bird that's there and you got other birds, whether they're contaminated or not, if they survive, you know, a rational approach would be if you, if you took this out to the, logical conclusion, you can believe that the virus, the virology was correct, you would say,

let's just isolate this entire group here. And then the ones that survive are going to have a natural immunity to it. And we'll start breeding them. And yet they don't do that. None of it makes any sense. It's like, I think you've got a different agenda here. Yeah, I agree totally with you. I don't think it makes any sense at all. That's true. Yeah. When you talk about the cytopathic effects, and of course it's got its own little acronym the CPE. It looks for visible cell damage, but as they point out, when I did research on this, it says, oh, it could be from cellular stress. It could be from toxicity in the sample. It could be from bacterial contamination because they're not isolating this stuff. So all those things could

lead to a false positive because we're just looking for damage. We're not looking for the thing that's causing the damage. We're just looking for an effect. And we have an isolated cause. Exactly, yeah. And I mean, there have been experiments. Well, the funny thing is from one of the earliest experiments or one of the earliest studies where they started using this approach was in 1954 with the John Ender's study on the supposed measles virus. And they in that study, it's really funny because, I mean, they didn't even identify specific particle. They were talking about using the word virus and making it sound like they had identified an agent. But then they didn't even have an image.

They weren't even pointing at a picture of something, anything specific. And they admitted in the study that they had done, I don't remember if they used the word control, but they did the same or similar experiment where they didn't add any material that they thought was infected. and they still got the cytopathic effects because they stress the cells, the cell line that they're using. They stress the cells, the cells break down,

and that's what they use as evidence. So they said that we identified another agent even in our uninfected culture. And they admitted that what they were doing, it wasn't conclusive, but somehow this study, even to this day, will still be cited as though that's,

you know, the foundation. evidence for the alleged measles virus. But if you go back and you read it, and we always encourage as many people as possible that are willing to please go and look at these foundational studies for yourselves. You know, I'm not asking anybody to take my word for it. And they set themselves up as a priesthood that, you know,

you wouldn't understand this. So don't look. You'll just misunderstand it. So trust us, we are the science. And don't do the investigation yourself. That's also a big red flag, isn't it? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, and that's it.

So that's the antidote is for as many people as possible to actually go and look at the studies. Or at the very least, you know, review the freedom of information responses and look at the work of people like Zam and Mark Bailey and Mike Stone and the other people, you know, Dr. Tom Cowan and Andy Kaufman and learn, at least learn about the issue. But yeah, the studies, some of them are harder to read than others. Some of them are more complicated than others. but I didn't have a background in this when I started out. I had to learn as I went along.

And, you know, if you do read them, it's the method section. That's what you have to read. You can't just read what it says in the abstract or, you know, because they'll tell you. That's their conclusion. Yeah. But how did you get to that conclusion? That's the key. Yeah.

It's like abstract art. You know, it's not necessarily an accurate reflection of what is actually going on the study. You have to read the methods. And then you see, okay, what did you actually? do and then you see there's no logic they didn't adhere to the scientific method and when it comes to the supposed genomes because that's one of the other pieces of evidence people say what are you talking about you know there's thousands or millions of these you know supposed a genome's uploaded in

databases computer versions of them and that's where you find out too when you read the methods that these are just computer models and what they do is they They'll have tens of thousands or millions of smaller sequences that they supposedly detected in the bodily fluid, sometimes even from the cell culture they take it. But I'll just back up a little. So what they do is they'll add an enzyme to a sample, like if they had some lung fluid. This is what they did when they first came up with the Sarascove 2 genome. They had lung fluid from a patient.

and they add an enzyme, and that's to break open any cells, and the idea is that if there were viruses, too, would open up the cells so they can release the genetic material, the RNA or the DNA. And then they extract out all the RNA or DNA, depending on what kind of virus they think they're looking for. So you're getting all the RNA or DNA from the patient, any bacteria or fungi, stuff they might have breathed in. Like, you know, you don't know where it's coming from is the point.

And then they detect millions or at least tens of thousands of sequences. In the first study by Fan Wu and her team, it was over 56.5 million sequences that they detected. And then they feed them into software. And in that study, they use two different softwares. and they have the software look for places where sequences will overlap each other to create longer strings. And so the one software came up with over 1.3 million different longer strings, longer codes. And the other software came up with over 365,000. So they didn't even get the same set of results.

And then the researchers chose the longest of all those sequences. And they said, that's our reference. That's our referenced genome for SARS-Coft, too. That's literally how anybody can go and find the paper by Fanwu. I forget the exact title right now, but they could always email me. But yeah, that's how they came up. But they can't show that even one of those sequences came from any particular particle at all. let alone something showing the fitting the definition of a virus.

It's just a complete, it's just a computer model. Yeah, you need to look at how the sausage is made, you know, and that's about politics as well as science. That's what Ms. Mark said. Yeah. You don't want to see how the sausage is made. Well, you do want to see how the sausage is made because they're having us for lunch when you look at this stuff.

You know, going back to the inconsistence, I'm reminded as we're talking about this, they would say, well, you know, the virus particles are unbelievably small. And yet at the same time, they're telling us to wear a cloth mask, right? Any kind of cloth mask. And it was so clear for all of us, this is just a touch point for everybody. If you think that there's real science behind this stuff, remember the mask. That was really where the mask kind of slipped on their varieg.

stuff because at that point, you know, I remember playing over and over again, people put on a mask and then they'd blow smoke through it. And it's like, okay, you're telling us the viral particles are much smaller than the smoke particles that are there. And you're not really specific about what kind of mask we've got to have. And the mask doesn't have to fit tightly around our face or any of this stuff. It was simply about psychological compliance. That was all it was really about.

It made as much sense as one person came up with an analogy. That's like telling people that you're going to put a hurricane fence up to keep the mosquitoes out, right? A big chain link fence. And that really was what they were talking about. And folks, when you start digging deeper into it, as Christine has done, you start to see through the methodology that they have. How did they create this genetic sequence that they're testing for? Well, she just explained that to you. Or how do they isolate this stuff?

Well, they don't really. And so there's all these, when they push back on all this stuff, they say, well, you know, we don't go through this whole laborious process of doing it in a laboratory because it takes too long. We've got to have a biosafety level lab that's there. It's very expensive. And it takes a very long time for that to happen. So we can just do it right away with the PCR and just wave our hands. And, of course, I've talked about the PCR stuff until I'm blue in the face. You know, what an absolute fraud that is.

And so, of course, when you look at this, there's not any of it that really a true science can hang a hat on. And it's kind of interesting, I think, Christine, we go back and we look in the 1990s, you had some descendants of Louis Pasteur who found his diary. and they found all kinds of fraudulent stuff that was there. He is the father of microbiology. He is the father of this fraud that we are seeing here. Yeah, back then they were doing, they were always doing very illogical, silly things.

So he was using different methodology, and one of the things they would do is take disease tissue from a patient that had something that they thought was an infectious disease, and then drill a hole in the head of an animal and inject the disease tissue into their brain. And then if the animal had similar reaction, they would say, oh, there, we showed that it's a virus. I mean, anybody can see that if you do that to an animal, you know, We just call these studies, animal torture studies. And that's what you see.

And it's not just phorology. It's also when you look at studies where they're supposedly showing that some sort of bacteria is pathogenic. A lot of them are just horrific animal torture studies where they'll do unnatural things often put them to sleep. They inject them. They'll, you know, tie them up. Fauci's beagles. I'm thinking of Fauci's Beagles that he got called out. Yeah, exactly.

That's exactly this sort of thing that you see throughout the literature, whether it's viruses or bacteria that I don't think anyone's challenging whether they exist. But the issue is that they haven't been shown to be pathogenic to actually cause illness. So they're always doing, there's always glaring problems in all the research, throughout the whole history, whether it's with viruses or bacteria, they often won't have any sort of comparison group at all. Like you should have a proper control. And of course you can't do it in virology because they don't even have the thing of interest.

So you can't have a control that has everything but the thing of interest. And with the bacteria, those studies also, though they still have problems because often they won't use purified bacteria or they don't, they often just don't have any sort of control group at all. And then, like I said, when they go to expose the animal, they typically don't let it happen in a natural way. I mean, sometimes they do, but often you'll see them injecting the animals,

sometimes in the chest or the abdomen, just doing horrific things. It's like that's not, that doesn't reflect your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is that we just naturally spread these things to each other, you know, just through normal day-to-day living. We're not going around injecting each other with bacterial cultures. So it's irrelevant. Like they're just literally irrelevant in valid studies. It doesn't reflect what you claim that you're, you know, what you're studying.

That's right. And when you go back to where this all started, again, with Louis Pasteur, there were a lot of unethical things that he's been called out for, many unscientific things that happened. And he was called out on it by people like Robert Koch, who the Germans rally behind quite a bit there. But also, there was an alternative theory that was put out by Beauchamp, if I'm pronouncing his name correctly. terrain theory where he said no we're not looking at a particular microbiome that is that is causing this but rather it's the general environment he called it the terrain theory and that really is kind of what they're doing when they look at the

cytopathic effects they're really looking at a mix of a lot of different things and they're not necessarily the things that are causing the disease but they're things that are causing cellular damage. And so what he was doing when he looked at it, he said not necessarily the bacteria and certainly not the viruses, but this is something that is a mixture of a lot of different factors that are there. And they just simplified it all and said, no, we're looking for a particular microbe or a virus or something like that. And we're going to isolate that and we're going to kill that and that's going to get rid of the disease. And so it's a very, you know, They went with that line of reasoning that Pascal put out there.

And then once they decide, that's going to be the standard that we're going to pursue. Now they ruthlessly shut out all the alternatives, just like we saw during the COVID fraud. You're not going to be allowed to try any other treatments other than the vaccine that we're lining up for you. And on and on. You know, they have a very narrow and flexible path that they're going to take with all this, and nothing else will be considered. That's not science. That's, yeah, and that was exactly what I had experienced with the public health establishment

before the COVID nonsense began, because I was very focused on water fluoridation at that time. I was, you know, very concerned about their adding literally. hazardous waste to public drinking water, and they're calling it a great public health achievement. And then you find out it has arsenic and lead and all sorts of other contaminants on top of the fluoride itself. And then you find out they don't have any, they never had any randomized controlled trials. They don't have any human experiments at all to show that it's safe or effective. I mean, I could go on and on. There's no control of the dosing. Yeah.

And the evidence it does. That's what I've said so many times, it's like even if you had proven that this was safe and effective, there's no control of dosing if you're going to dump it in the water supply. That makes no sense at all. It's like the mess. Yeah. It goes into the environment. Meanwhile, if you read the material safety data sheets for the fluoride additive, it tells you right on it,

don't let it go into water supplies. That's one of the things you'll see on some of them. and they're putting it in the drinking water. The workers hate to have to deal with it because it's a very dangerous chemical. And anyway, I'm going off on a tangent about the water fluoridation, but... No, but let's talk about that for a moment

because you're in Canada. What is the situation with that in Canada? Well, so I, for about 10 years before the COVID nonsense began, that's what I was very focused on. And then when the COVID stuff began, And I put that aside because I decided years ago, I'm just going to focus on one thing at a time just for my mental health. So I'm not the most up-to-date person, but, you know, I can still talk about it. And one of the things that happened in those years was a federal lawsuit occurred against the EPA.

So the Floyd Action Network and some other groups sued EPA, and the focus was on neurological effects. And they won, finally, after a very long battle, and then the Trump Department of Justice comes in and restarts it and appeals it. Yeah. And so that's really where we are in the U.S. In Canada, is it widely done, I guess, there as well? The last I've heard, it was somewhere maybe around 45% or so of Canada,

of Canadians were getting fluoridated water because it's a municipal decision in Canada, the same way as it is in the States. And from what I understand of what happened in the lawsuit, there in the U.S., and this was like a seven or eight year lawsuit that dragged on, and then the federal judge agreed that fluoride poses an unreasonable risk to brains. And the reason, apparently, I was listening to Michael Connett, who was the lawyer, and for the Floyd Action Network, he's the son of Paul Connett. who's one of the people who began the Floyd Action Network.

He was explaining that what the appeal was based on the fact that the judge, he wanted to have the most up to date the best quality evidence and they knew there was a federal report that was going to be coming out. So he wanted to put the lawsuit on hold so that they could finally get the results of that report because they felt that was going to be the best quality evidence, a review that was going to be coming out. So he put it on hold and then made the decision that he agreed that it was an unreasonable risk to brains. And then apparently the grounds for the review, now there's the government said, well, that's a problem because neither side had really wanted it. It was the judge that initiated that, that said, hey, I want to put this on hold.

I want to wait until we get that review and get the highest quality evidence for me to make my decision on. and that was the basis. So it wasn't, it wasn't based on the merits. It was more of a procedural thing. They were saying the judge shouldn't have done that because in the U.S. justice system is adversarial and the judge isn't supposed to, you know, he's supposed to let the parties make the arguments

and go off of what they say. They're not supposed to project their own wishes or opinions onto things. So that was, it wasn't based on the merits at all. So now the judge apparently has to go back in time, pretend that years, you know, in this later evidence, that he doesn't know about it. And he has to go back in decision based on what had, you know, back several years in time, what he had known at that point. So I don't know what's going to happen next. It's crazy, but it's a typical thing we see with government, you know, what is the EPA? is supposed to protect the environment.

Instead, they're polluting the environment, the environmental pollution agency. Literally, I have a memo on my website from the EPA from years ago. It was someone high up in the EPA, and she was admitting to someone that, yeah, we had this problem with this hazardous waste that was really difficult and expensive to dispose of because it's from the phosphate fertilizer industry and I think other industries as well.

They have this chemical called hydrofluorosilic acid. It eats through parking lots. You can find videos, news reports, like in Florida, for example, where it's spilled from a truck and it's literally eating through the parking lot. That's how corrosive it is. And they would have to come with the hazmat suits. So she's like, yeah, we had this problem, this disposal problem. we have a solution. We can put it in the drinking water. It's going to be

for dental care for poor people is one of the ways they spin it. Yeah, we know, we can't, not everybody can afford dental care and they're just completely obsessed with fluoride, you know, not. Yeah. It's just fluoride, fluoride, fluoride, fluoride, fluoride, in your toothpaste, your mouthwash, or put it on your teeth, you know, professional treatments. And now it's a mRNA. That's what she said. So now we've gone from fluoride to MRNA. And Trump has put that everywhere. He began his first day of his new administration this time,

talking about how they're going to have artificial intelligence, design MRNA vaccines for you personally. So I was like, yeah, great. Here we are. This is the new threat, AI, and he's going to combine it with the old threat. Yes. Put them on steroids.

Yeah. It's crazy. what is happening with this. Well, the key is that they, first of all, you need to understand that this idea, this ethical idea of first do no harm is dead. They don't care about that at all. And so knowing that they don't care about harming you, you need to do your own research. And that means even when you get prescribed a pharmaceutical drug, you always need to do your own research on that because some of them have some very nasty side effects that they don't talk about that are hidden. So you need to do your own research. And then in the bigger picture,

you know, what we have happening right now, comment a little bit about your take on this, Christine Massey. I've told my audience what I think about what is happening with this focus on Fauci. I think he is a safe scapegoat for them. And what is your take on that? Well, the way I look at it, and I, you know, I think I can speak for some of my colleagues as well, is it's all, it keeps people in the virus and contagion camp because, you know, it's, oh, gain a function, you know, it's, they're avoiding reality, which is that they haven't even shown that there was a virus, you didn't have a virus to gain function on. It keeps people in this false dichotomy.

Was it a natural virus or did they make a man-made virus or something leaked from a lab? Whatever it is, you're still believing in viruses and contagion. You still believe that there might be a need for vaccines or toxic antiviral drugs or distancing or closing, you know, when there's an emergency and outbreak and what have you. So it leaves all the foundational lies in place, which have led to unimaginable carnage throughout our lives. And it's not just people. Of course, it's the pets and the livestock and even fish they're vaccinating. And so if the public catches on to the truth, that all germ theory is just, it's all based on pseudoscience.

they don't have any valid scientific experiments at all. Yeah, there's going to, you know, it's just a huge. Whole thing collapses. So, yeah, let's come up with this. Here's two false alternatives, and I'll let you fight over these two false alternatives, but don't look at the rest of the stuff. But of course, it also, I think, gets them off the hook.

And you see, when they start doing this, there's a tremendous amount of partisan blinders going on here. You know, they will focus on what the other party did and completely hold their people harmless with all this. And yet the response that we see over and over again to this type of thing is, well, it was real. And next time we'll do it sooner and harder and faster than we did this time. And that was our mistake. We just didn't do enough quickly enough. And so they're laying the foundation for the next time they do that.

to us. Absolutely. And I mean, the way I look at it, there's people all around the world in every country that are responsible for what happened. None of them did. They either intentionally went along with a hoax or they didn't do their due diligence. It was nobody's job in Canada or the U.S. to make sure, like, there's actually legit evidence. The world just went along with a computer model genome from China. Like, that doesn't make any sense. all. And, you know, I mean, I often say, too, there was no due process because nobody ever came. We were just ordered over the television, basically, to stay home to this. Don't do that. Nobody came to us with something addressed to us saying, you know, we think this situation's

happening and we're asking it to stay home and gave us a chance to look at the evidence and to rebut it and have a try. There was none of it. that. It was just some clown on television is saying, you know, this is how it's going to be. And the police enforced it. And meanwhile, yeah, martial law. Yeah, martial law. And a colleague has been going to police stations and us challenging them, like, show us that you even had a copy of a signed order. It turns out they didn't even have anything in writing. They didn't have anything to show that there was a virus, no evidence there. And they don't even have anything in writing to show that there actually was a signed order. Not that it would have been

legitimate anyway. But yeah, we were just basically all treated like slaves and told this is how it's going to be. And to me, well, I can say for one thing, I'm not familiar with your laws in the United States, but in Canada in the Criminal Code, there's Section 2,000. 229C, which says culpable homicide is murder. And it says if you do anything for an unlawful object, for example, injecting people and testing people with fraudulent tests and no informed consent, ignoring all the danger signals, you know, you're getting people injected all based on this fraud. And if people end up dying, even though you didn't try to make people die, but they died as a result, that's called culpable homicide and it's murder according to their criminal codes.

So this is something I've been pointing out to politicians and reminding them like, you guys are so far out of line and people are dead because of you. So there's a lot of people. It's not just Fauci and getting back to the Fauci. issue. There's people all around the world that are complicit in this. And when I look at it, a lot of people should, they belong in prison for a long time. That's right. Because they cost a lot of harm. But if they want to make it about this one guy, and of course, he was given an accommodation by Trump and he was given a pardon by Biden. And so they're going to kind of inoculate him from that. You know, they get immunity. They get legal immunity from lawsuits,

and he gets immunity from jail. And we don't get immunity from anything. But this is the way that it's going to go. And they're just laying the foundation to do it all over again. And so that's the key thing. We need to understand the basis of the fraud. We understand how the PCR tests work and how they are abusing that and how they're abusing the entire science of virology

and how that has not been, does not have a scientific basis that is based on measurement and clinical testing and any of that stuff. None of that is happening. And so the key thing that we can do is try to get people to take a look at this. And as you're pointing out, once they go down this road, they say, well, we're not going to bother with informed consent. We're not going to bother with the law. We're just going to declare an emergency and do what we want.

They get really sloppy. And it gets worse and worse. as you pointed out, where's the order for this? Well, we don't have an order. We just heard that's what we're supposed to do. So we got to do it to people and try to stop us. And it just contingent, if we don't call them out on it, if we don't pull this back, and if people don't understand what was done to them and get angry about it,

they're going to keep doing it, and it's going to get worse every single time. I 100% agree. And I think to laughing at them too. I see a lot of colleagues. Well, they keep trying. They tried with hanta virus and Ebola virus. They've been trying to people riled up again and telling us, you know, a 40% death rate. And then, you know, then they switched.

I think they say Ebola is 50% death mortality rate. And people just weren't buying into it. And they were, I've seen many people sharing screenshots where, like, Thousands of people are just laughing at them and respond. You know, you see the laughing emoji and people aren't getting scared. And I think that's one of our most powerful weapons. I think there's definitely a place for anger. I definitely get angry.

And also just laughing them because I don't think some of these people actually get off when you're upset about what they're doing. It makes them feel more powerful. But when we laugh at them and just show how stupid. Oh, yeah. You know, your evidences, and that just makes them feel, pulls the rug out from under them. Well, Saul Olensky said that in his rules for radicals. He said satire is the most devastating weapon because there's no answer to it. And the best thing you can do is laugh at these emperors who don't have a pair of pants on.

And just point that out. And let's start laughing. And so everybody needs to laugh. these people off the stage. Yeah, laugh, left them right out of the news cycle, left them off the stage. And again, also, there's a place for trying to hold people accountable. And maybe even somebody will end up in prison one of these days. Who knows?

That's right. I'm not sure how that's going to happen. Well, it's so important. You know, so many times we see things, whether it's about cosmology or some other thing, it's like, well, we know this or that. Well, how do you know any of that stuff? Please explain it to me. Explain to me like I'm an eight-year-old.

Yeah, exactly. Because if you can't explain to somebody like they're an eight-year-old, you don't really understand it yourself, right? If you really understand it, you can put it in very simple terms and you can demonstrate it to people. But if it's just so complicated, you wouldn't understand is the answer. Well, then I think there's a different agenda that's going on here. So thank you so much for pulling me.

the curtain back and for being the person the same the emperor has no clothes they have no science with any of this stuff it is just naked tyranny thank you so much for doing that christine and tell us before you go give us again we've had that up underneath your name i think the uh the website that's there but you have a that'll take people to your substack that tiny your yeah yeah so from there they if they scroll down it and In almost any newsletter, they'll find the links to my website, and they'll also find articles and videos from my colleagues who go into a lot more detail than I do about various virus hoaxes and whatnot. Well, thank you for taking point on this and doing that hard work and putting all this together.

It is a wealth of information that you have collected for us, and people need to take advantage of that and educate themselves, because when we let them get away with these lies, there's no end to it. And they get worse and worse, as we see going along. And they're laying the foundation for even more lies right now, even as they're telling us, oh, look, you know, we've got a document release showing this and showing that. No, you're still playing that game with us. And that is really where we are at this point in time.

People need to question the real science and hold it up to the same. standard of science. Science never advances without skepticism. We should always be skeptical about what these people are saying instead of just accepting it on blind faith. Thank you so much, Christine. I'm always great talking to you. Thank you. You too. You as well. Take care. Thank you. The common man. They created common core that dumb down our children. They created common past to track and control us. Their commons process. to make sure the commoners own nothing and the communist future.

They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary. But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God. That is what we have in common. That is what they want to take away. Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation, intimidation, intimidation. They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us. It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide. Please share the information and links you'll find at the Davidnightshow.com.

Thank you for listening. Thank you for sharing. If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers. The Davidnightshow.com. Thank you.