The Last American Vagabond - Gain-Of-Function’s Newest “Brain Virus” & Genetically Engineered Proteins To Control… Everything

Episode Date: January 16, 2024

Welcome to The Daily Wrap Up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant independent news, as we see it, from the last 24 hours (1/16/24).As always, take the information discussed in the video below and research it for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Anyone telling you what the truth is, or claiming they have the answer, is likely leading you astray, for one reason or another. Stay Vigilant.Video Source Links (In Chronological Order): (28) Igor Chudov 🐭 on X: "A study is making its rounds on the Internet, proclaiming the extreme effectiveness of COVID vaccines in children and adolescents, raises more questions than it answers. Thread below - your thoughts will also be appreciated. 🧵👇 Study: https://t.co/Li8W7KXKWE" / X Real-World Effectiveness of BNT162b2 Against Infection and Severe Diseases in Children and Adolescents | Annals of Internal Medicine (31) Dr Aseem Malhotra on X: "BREAKING: SUNDAY EXPRESS Study confirms biggest cause of ‘alarming surge’ in excess deaths in U.K. is cardiovascular Prof @carlheneghan ‘these deaths CANNOT be explained by covid, ..’ ‘Leading cardiologist’ says covid mRNA vaccine could be behind excess deaths 🔥 🔥 🔥… https://t.co/NwnbbFKEb6" / X Cancer Is Striking More Young People, and Doctors Are Alarmed and Baffled - WSJ Mystery brain illness baffles Canadian doctors as cases spread in young people | The US Sun (55) Sal the Agorist on X: "MAGAs dismissal of the vaccine-genocide is their Benghazi- “What does it even matter anymore!?” moment - only on a much larger scale. Also, note Tim’s emotional reaction & how he ends discussion of the topic. Classic symptoms of cognitive dissonance… https://t.co/1VJNHxW1Pk" / X Screen Shot 2024-01-16 at 2.52.52 PM.png (2554×1368) (83) LastAmericanVagabond on X: "If they’re telling you that “mis & disinformation” are a bigger threat that their other illusory issues like climate change, it’s means we are about to see a huge censorship push. This is why it’s important to never self censor. Stand your ground. https://t.co/BHKLo3lQma" / X As WEF Prepares for 54th Annual Meeting International Activist Movements Offer Alternative Vision of 2030 (21) Ezra Levant 🍁🚛 on X: "Holy moly. This study shows that after three months the vaccine effectiveness of Pfizer & Moderna against Omicron is actually negative. Pfizer customers are 76.5% more likely and Moderna customers are 39.3% more likely to be infected than unvaxxed people. https://t.co/wPgAwG8BW3 https://t.co/3Oh3IJSVIk" / X Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study | medRxiv New Tab (75) Clandestine on X: "⚠️Bioweapons Alert⚠️ Russian MFA, via the MoD, have once again accused the US of creating “artificially managed epidemics” violating the Biological Weapons Convention and are demanding UN investigation! This comes as “Pathogen X” is being discussed at the WEF!" / X Ukraine Has Biological Research Facilities, Concerned Russian Forces May Seek To Gain Control: US - YouTube Dr. John Campbell - New brain virus Lethal Infection of Human ACE2-Transgenic Mice Caused by SARS-CoV-2-related Pangolin Coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR) | bioRxiv (23) Lymphocytic Infiltration in the Heart Muscle, Thyroid Gland and Lung Following COVID-19 Injections On the pathogenesis of turbo cancer induced by COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: a hypothesis – Doctors for COVID Ethics (67) Brook Hines 🙈 nakba noticer on X: "@JuneauNana @PierreKory @RWMaloneMD @P_McCulloughMD @miserablelib @kurtmetzger @CultureShlock @DueDissidence sharing this just to show what neuro degeneration and “white eyes” look like in living animals this is Zombie Deer Disease, caused by prions like Mad Cow. it’s NOT what Campbell is talking about—it’s just a visualization of brain disease https://t.co/2iYySZWhep" / X Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Wall Street and biotechnology companies have been very excited about this idea. And what essentially it is is trying to pack the cells in the body in order to make them into drug factories. To the daily wrap-up, a concise show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant, independent news as we see it from the last 24 hours. Tuesday, January 16th, 2024. Thank you for joining me today. I decided to do something special today, a focus on something that I think is very important that we've talked a lot about in a broad sense and some very specific focuses as well. But I was going over a lot today, including the development from the International Court of Justice, the developments in regard to Israel in general, more on the possible hostage exchanges,

and specifically about the developments going on in Syria, Iraq, with Iran, firing, you know, striking legitimately in these areas, Yemen, and so on. I decided to put that off until tomorrow, not because it's not obviously very important, but one, I'm going to do a lot more research to follow up on this, but also today, this just felt like something I wanted to focus on. Yesterday I was unable to get to the show.

I don't know if you guys saw, but we had something like five to seven inches of snow yesterday, and I was essentially trapped at home, and I didn't have any real good internet was pretty spotty. So today it seems like it's much better. I'm still, you know, for the most part, snowed in, but not in the real sense, but, you know, just not wanted to go out and drive. So I decided to do, you know, kind of a focus show and allow myself to catch up on the rest of that. But today, we're going to focus on the kind of development of the research we focused on from the nanotechnology.

This morning on A&Wake up, we had an interesting conversation about some of these topics, about the fair nanoparticle discussion and the different ways these have been utilized. And so today, I wanted to talk about that in relation to a new discussion. I just saw John Campbell discuss or the focus on the new brain virus. And very much in quotes, because quite frankly, I find this to be much more aligned with the way nanotechnology virus-sized transistors would actually react. So for those immediately on guard, and I completely understand why about the idea of viruses, is listen to this conversation today before kind of jumping over the top and thinking this is something that just focuses on virology.

It's much bigger than that. And I want to focus on what this is, what it appears to be causing in this study. And this is not even up for debate. This is gain of function research. It's what it is. They've literally humanized mice, just like they did before,

and then used this and tested it on multiple variations in order to try to make this one, be able to infect humans and be, and really they're finding, what they claim 100% mortality. And so I wanted to go over this. Not just because of what this is, because I'm very, very resistant and on guard

to reacting to what they put in front of us. But how I see this tying in with, again, the ferretin nanotechnology direction and a lot of other ways, but just the things that I already see taking place and kind of an overlap again with the neuroscience, neuro weapon discussion. And you guys can come to your own conclusions

about what we think this is and what's happening, But I find this to be an important overview of really battling whether I think this is something that has long since already happened. But at the very least something we should be aware of in the hopes that it hasn't yet and we can stop it about nanotech and whether these are, you know, smart dust applications and whether these have already been deployed. I mean, I think we know that they have been used, but whether or not it's a mass, kind of a step like we've talked about with glyphosate that there's just no coming back from. Now, that does definitely sound conspiratorial, whatever that might mean to the reflexively dismissive mind, but it's nonetheless something that's rooted in scientific research, peer-reviewed science, and real-world application. So I think that's really important to understand. So we're going to start today with actually a quick point about just the COVID-19 injection conversation,

where it's at now, and a recent study that Igor shared that I just want to very quickly, break down and discuss in regard to why this in no way in my mind is honest, let alone shows that these things were effective. Like if you haven't seen this, this is actually an attempt to go back specifically Delta even over to Omicron, whatever you think that is, the time frame is what I'm discussing, and claim that retroactively now they're going, look, turns out they were super effective. I mean, think about how crazy that is to come from a time when they were saying 99, 100%, even, directly from Albert Borla in South Africa.

He said 100% effective. None of that was true. And we've proven they knew when they said that that wasn't true. But now in the middle there, or rather in the middle, finding a time where people were finally going, okay, okay, they're not that effective. After 30 seconds, it drops away. After three months, it's negative efficacy.

Really, that was your body failing. But the point was all these different things came out. Now weirdly stepping back into the realm of, wait, wait, wait, wait, re-revaluation, they were super effective. It's almost like they're hoping to set that narrative and then, you know, we're looking elsewhere. Maybe that becomes the story, right? So we shares this.

A study is making its rounds on the internet, proclaiming the extreme effectiveness, extreme effectiveness of COVID vaccines in children and adolescents, the two groups that are the least effective and the least needed in regard to whatever they say was happening. And really, ultimately, had some of the most staggering effect. When you really get into the full picture, and I'll give you some examples afterward. Because the main point to make here is that they're basically saying, you know, these were super effective because X, Y, and Z, I'll go over the quick study now, while actively ignoring all of the completely baffling things we can't find a way to associate with the injection.

It's a point, you get the point there, that if we know that this is causing outrageously high cardiovascular problems and a lot of different avenues, turbo cancers, prionns disease, I mean, neonatal death. Every one of those things we've proven, peer-reviewed science and just observational honesty, that that's in some case there. But then they stand back and go, my God, excess death is crazy,

but we're baffled. We don't know what it is. At the very least, you can acknowledge that it could be this one obvious thing, genetic technology that's been forced on people. The point is when they look over it and they go, look, it's effective. They're ignoring all of these huge things that are going on because they just go, well, we know it's not the vaccine.

And that's how does it. dumbness is. But obviously we've proven that it is connected. So you can see it's inherently dishonest and says that raises more questions than it answers. Now, I'll let you go through his thread. I'm not going to go too deep on this, quite frankly. I don't, I'm glad he did. He's a very intelligent person, somebody who's been very trustworthy throughout all this process, showing himself to be objective, who broke this down in a really scientific way, showing you why just the way they've done it is not sound. But my, I don't think it even deserves the time because of how obviously manipulated this is.

And in the sense that, you know, whether the people, the researchers doing it or not are aware of, I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't be that you can just simply stand back and acknowledge they've proven with their own admissions and lies even how dangerous these things truly are. But go through it for yourself to see all the different examples he points out. I mean, really just shows you, just for example, he says somehow COVID vaccine makes myocarditis more likely than unvaccinated during the Delta period, but somehow it extremely preventative during Homacron, which makes zero sense. Obviously, this is a data manipulation,

but you guys can go through it for yourself. My point was just to read you exactly what it says, just briefly, January 9th, 2024, real world effectiveness of the BNT162B2, which is specifically the Pfizer, and that was of the BNT 162 B, or rather just 62 grouping, remember, and that had multiple versions, and that was one of the ways they switched these things out early on, where they they studied one thing but gave you another, which is something that's classic throughout history. They just keep doing the same old things and acting like it's a mistake. Against it says infection, severe disease, and children and adolescents. Now, it says they were assessed by randomized trials.

The long-term durability of vaccine protection of this population was limited. So at the very least, they're right out of the gate admitting that, you know, whether or not we can show that it was effective, it's very limited. the timing. So even if you want to pretend they were effective, it rapidly, it, it goes away immediately. And after three months, I think the highest we saw was something like, actually, I don't want to sign it off the top of my head. Let me see if I can grab this really quickly. Oh, we just off his tweet here. Oops, the wrong one. Pop up in the chat here. So here was the study itself. And it was, yeah, it was 70. I was going to say 75. 76% negative efficacy on the Pfizer side during Omicron. But take note that even over here on Delta, and remember, this is

relative risk reduction, not absolute, which is a fraction of the reality. Even on Delta, it said after 30 days, it was 53. Anyway, the point was, and here's the study you can read for yourself that these were not effective in any way. And actually, that might be a good video to play really quickly to see you guys. Let me see if I can grab that. Maybe it's still there. Yep, there it is. Just to reset this your memory so people know what I'm talking about when I say that. You have the right to know the potential benefit of any intervention. For example, Pfizer reported that its vaccine shows a 95% efficacy. That sounds like it protects you 95% of the time, right? But that's not actually what that number means. That 95% refers to the relative risk reduction,

but it doesn't tell you how much your overall risk is reduced by vaccination. For that, we need absolute risk reduction. In the Pfizer trial, eight out of the first of the vaccine, eight out of of 18,198 people who were given the vaccine developed COVID-19. In the unvaccinated placebo group, 162 people got it, which means that even without the vaccine, the risk of contracting COVID-19 was extremely low at 0.88 percent, which the- first obvious point is it wasn't dangerous. Even the current highest-level peer-reviewed science shows you that it was less than the flu from the very beginning, if even actually there, citing Danny Rancourt's research, that pretty much proves it it didn't need to be.

gone over that. But even then, it shows you that the comparative point was manipulated, and even then you can show Dr. Fauci or other groups earlier on discussing the discrepancy between using these two things and realizing, yeah, well, we knew we should have used the other one, but they've never stopped using relative risk reduction because it makes it look like, and I'll let it finish, it's more effective. The vaccine then reduced to 0.04%. So the net benefit, or the absolute risk reduction, that you're being offered with a Pfizer vaccine, is zero. point 84%. That 95% number, that refers to the relative difference between 0.88 and 0.04%.

So all they did was take the difference between the two and sell you at 95% effective. That's not the same thing. And they knew that. That's what they call 95% relative risk reduction. And relative risk reduction is well known to be a misleading number, which is why the FDA recommends using absolute risk reduction instead, which begs the question, how many people would have chosen to take the COVID-19 vaccines had they understood that they offered less than 1% benefit? It's obvious, guys. They knew that. And that's why it wasn't supposed to be used it anyway. So resetting that obvious manipulation, a willful deception from the very beginning knowing that. But so the point was, even with all that said, it was less than the flu, it was not as dangerous as they said it was if even there at all.

And then it waned rapidly because it destroyed your body's immune system. Now, this study went back in that, basically, you know, half-heartedly admitting that it was limited and then still tries to argue that it was effective. Now, it says on the results during the Delta period, the estimated, and remember, that was when Wollenski first got caught trying to use old data to make it seem like it was effective, but finally was forced to admit that it did not stop transmission when it never did. We knew that. And then way later, when somebody was forced to state it in the middle of a European hearing, they acted like, that was finally the time. time we knew. We knew from the very beginning, going all the way back to Forbes' original article, discussing the actual trial data that showed they never even tried to make a stop transmission. If only people listened to The Last American Bacabond and the many others that talked about that,

right in 2020, we would have been that much farther ahead. But if you wait for the Tucker's of the world to tell you what they are supposed to say later on or whoever you think is trying to lie to you, that's usually how it works. Lives could have been saved. Anyway, the Delta period, The estimated effectiveness of the BNT162B2 vaccine was 98.4%. Again, relative, so right there's a lie in and of itself, but that's not even accurate. The idea that, remember, even the relative number was shown to be dramatically less than that, especially during Delta, but they just are using these numbers. And again, this is boxing out all of the things that were dramatically lessened that number.

First of all, the question is whether you think they're discussing effectiveness, specifically against whether it stops something or whether it produces antibodies. And then that assumption is that that would then stop something. Or if you're bringing in the full risk kind of profile and saying, well, it might produce antibodies, which might have this effect, but then you might die from a heart attack or have blood clots or have thrown. So there's all three, those are three different pictures. I'm going to promise you right now.

And you can look through the data yourself, this is about whether or not it produces antibodies. And then the long-term discussion of whether or not it's effective is usually a manipulation about whether those antibodies are produced to a high enough level. Remember, Fauci himself said, when they talked about it has a clinical response. And even the FDA was on the record more than once admitting that we don't know if that response is relevant to what we're currently dealing with. But that doesn't change the fact from what the, or the, doesn't change that they then point at the high level of antibodies and say this is effective for this reason. Now, any case, the point is 90.4% against documented infection amongst adolescents with no

statistically significant waning after receipt of the first dose. Lie. I mean, flat out ridiculous lie. I just showed you the study itself, and you can see very clearly, and this is, again, the main study, you can read it, and this is on, it's on the preprint, but this is, there's multiple examples of the same data, showing you that during Delta, in any sense, it waned. 86 relative risk reduction to remember is a fraction of what they're telling you but that goes down almost by half after three months you're staring at the study right there and there's more than one so do they just lie about that is there some kind of a data loophole or manipulation i mean this is what gets so frustrating but it says an analysis of cardiac complications did not suggest a

statistically significant difference between vacs and unvaxed so there's three lies before you even get through the first paragraph of the result because we've gone over this too. Now, this is just the one that I like to use because it is the largest and I think it's the most sound, but we've gone over at least three others to find the exact same thing. And as you know well, this has come to be very clearly discussed, which is the fact that you can show an overwhelming association, and they've been forced to admit it, that with myocarditis and general respiratory or rather cardiovascular issues and COVID-19 injections. COVID-19, whatever you think that is, and this is where it's the most important to wonder if it's even actually there, they did not find an association with that and these problems.

And as it says right here, it says post-COVID-19 infection was not associated with either myocarditis or paracodotitis. Now, yes, there are studies that make the opposite claim, and we've gone over those. And there's obvious problems to how that's done. this and is continued to pointed to as the largest, most sound peer-reviewed study, a large population-based study on this information. So at the very least realize that it's disputed if you want to side with the smaller, not peer-reviewed studies that will argue that every connection you want to be is there. Either way, the point is that it's come to be very clear, that it's obvious there isn't a very clear connection.

Now, just because they want to say that there's no statistically significant difference between the prevalence of myocarditis after vaccines or injections in this case versus not having it doesn't make it true, especially since it's obviously statistically significant because they've been forced to state it publicly. They've added it to the information on the CDC. How in the world would that not be statistically significant when they're denied, deny, deny, and then finally have to admit that it's a problem? Crazy to me. But it says during the Amokron period, the effectiveness against documented infection, a gung-shel, children, was estimated to be 74%.

They're literally arguing that it was 74% effective in stopping infection, even though they've now had to argue that it didn't even stop transmission. Explain that for me. Now, you get the point, guys. This is just a reimagining of this data in a way, and this is what peahacking looks like when you take the data and you roll it out in certain ways until you can get it to look a certain way. Whether they did that or not, is it for you to decide intentionally, I would argue.

Higher levels of effectiveness were seen against moderate or severe, on and on and on. conclusion the study suggests that this specific Pfizer version the most dangerous as far as I can tell was effective for various COVID-19 related outcomes in children during Delta and Omicron. There's some evidence of waning. Again, Omicron, the one that literally shows you almost a 76, 77% negative efficacy, which means you have a 76% higher chance than never have taking anything of getting sick with whatever they tell you this is. And that's supposed to be effective? Realize that that was at 55% relative risk reduction in the first day.

That's just staggering to me that they can make the argument. Now, the point is the reason I wanted to start with this is they're trying to kind of recreate the perception of what happened before. Why? Because I don't think, I mean, I think we all can see that this is not over. I'm not even really talking about the next pandemic or the disease X, which they, they, overlap to this. I'm wondering whether or not this is something far more nefarious about experimentation on the human population and whether this is

necessary to reset the table for what seems to be coming next. But please, come to your own conclusions about why this might be happening. Now, just to quickly show you how absurd it is to go, it's super effective while completely ignoring the most, I mean, the largest red flags I think the human species has seen since we've talked about genetic engineering, maybe ever. The idea that we can see these gigantic problems that we pretend aren't connected to the obvious thing it's connected to. Get this. This is a new one.

This is from three days ago, Assamahultra. Study confirms biggest cause of alarming surge, they're confused about, or baffled, in excess death in the UK is, what do you know, cardiovascular? So here we are going, look, this thing's super effective while acting like the gigantic surge in cardiovascular issues, just because they claim it's about the same level on either side. of it is totally not connected to the injection with studies that show you that COVID-19, whatever you claim that is, is not connected to causing this problem. And then in this, you can read that these are not COVID-related. And yet they're like, we're baffled.

But this shot causes myocarditis. And we have to admit that. But we're still confused and we don't know what it is. It's definitely not that. I mean, good God, that's criminal. Is it not? Leading cardiologist says COVID-M RNA vaccine could be behind excess deaths. That's people say him and others saying that.

But the point is you read this, alarming. surge. We're baffled. We're confused. We need a thorough investigation to find out what's going on. Pretty sure we know what's going on. Or the same thing we just showed you. Cancer is striking more young people. We're baffled. Or not. Or it's obvious what's going on and you guys don't want to admit it. Or the same thing here. This one more so relates with what we're about to get into. The prion disease overlap. Mystery brain illness baffles Canadian doctors or everywhere else we've talked about this. This is from 2022. So all these huge red flags are not connected because it's effective. It's a of we ignore all of this stuff.

Now, one quick point I wanted to include that I thought was hilarious. Sal the agorist points this out. Now, I wouldn't say this necessarily as MAGA's dismissal. I hate the broad stroke in any sense of any group, but I definitely get that sense from what this seems to be here. And I just want you to think about this, especially as we go over how alarming this really seems to be is Trump's essentially tripling, quadrupling down,

even to this point on the vaccine. As long as you scream, he didn't make you do it, which even then, that's a complete sidestepping of what really happened. I'm not going to pretend that he forced it down your throat like we more so have seen Biden do. But he definitely set the table for that. He allowed it all to be that way.

And still to this day, we'll argue that it's not necessarily, not just that we didn't get forced, but that it's a positive thing, that it has changed people's lives, help them even against COVID-19. And yet here is how PimTool here talks about Donald Trump, and the vaccine. Pardon me.

It's kind of low, I forgot, but there's cussing, so prepare yourself for that. I have had this to say 7,000 times. And I'm sorry, I'm losing my fucking mind. I am so over people who are like, Trump was bad because Trump is saying,

I agree with you. We did not know. Of course, and now we are four years on with massive legal immigration, 10,000 people per day, and you're talking about a vaccine program for four years ago.

Okay. So lots of my, lots of immigration and problems. I don't care how important you think that is to to pretend like all of these current problems are important therefore let's ignore what happened four years ago as if that is not still one of the largest things we've ever seen take place on this planet that is still to this very day causing more death and more destruction human species and our per interpersonal lives than anything they're talking about even if you think

that is a huge dynamic that is going to change everything which maybe you're right i mean look i've openly and repeatedly talked about the concept of weaponized migration it is definitely a part of what's happening. Doesn't mean we should blame the individuals being used by your governments, though, which is how this ultimately takes shape, where it ends up being that you attack the very people when most of them don't even know they're being used by the governments. And on top of that, the foreign policy of your government is largely why it's even a part of what's going on. But forget all of that, but it's still an important topic. But to act like that is somehow distant and no longer relevant either shows a willful, willful disregard of the facts and the

concern of the people's lives is destroyed or you're just that bad at your job i mean my god the the sidestep of this and i think in this case of the video i think it's luke rodowski who essentially is arguing it's important so good on him and i mean here we go again the comments were made a couple of weeks ago by uh donald trump came out and said it should be your choice yes that's my point we're done oh you're done because Trump said it's your choice because what he says is always the truth, right? Even then, guys, just because he says it's your choice, but even though let's not forget the Defense Production Act, the state of emergency in general, which allowed these things to be forced, there's a thousand

examples to show you that just because he says that doesn't mean it actually happened. Shocking, I know. But on top of that, if you create through your warp speed program and still continue to support the thing that literally everybody in your base is screaming is the worst thing that's ever been done to this planet, they're murdering people in real time. And then as we get into this conversation today, it seems far, far, far more alarming with the DARPA overlap and smart dust and all of this. And acting like, well, he didn't tell you you had to. So let's move on.

I mean, it's just this willful partisan blindness that I can never get past. And I'm still blown away by why people can't see through it. Some people. Now here. Oh, and here's what, what Stal says. He says, Maga's dismissal, in this case, I would just specifically say, you know, the specific people, and there's a lot of people in the MAGA group that are really angry about Trump and aren't even voting for him for the same reason that this is happening. But these people and these kind of people in the Make America Great Again movement, dismissal of the vaccine genocide, he says, is there Benghazi. What does it even matter anymore, he says, moment.

Only a much, on a much larger scale. And he's right. He says also note Tim's emotional reaction to how we end the discussion of the topic. Classic symptom of cognitive dissonance. I agree. What's funny down here is that people are like attacking Algaris, like he's somehow chosen the side of the globalist. It's like, that's the childish binary thinking to say like, if you're either with Trump or you're with everybody, every bad thing we've ever seen. No any case, I think it's important to see that.

It's not just Biden. It's not just Trump, guys. It's your government. It's your government doing this to you. And it always has been. And the game of the two-party illusion is how they keep you not seeing it. And people like that who might otherwise tell you this, be able to acknowledge it, to be completely blind to the most obvious thing you ever seen.

And here is what Trump actually said very recently. Now, I don't think this was like yesterday, but this was a reason. Not too long ago. This was post all of this. And here's what he said, doubling down. People have died under COVID this year, by the way. way. Oh, and it's funny that she's so clearly trying to set him up to just kick this over onto Biden. Well, more people got it under Biden and they forced it more than anybody. But then immediately he

jumps in and goes, but the vaccine is good. And the way she responds, it's just, I've been in interviews myself where you're kind of setting up a question and it doesn't go the way you think it's going to go. And it's just funny. Like, I can see it in her face. My personal opinion, but watch for yourself. Yeah, more people have died under COVID this year, by the way, under Joe Biden, than under you and more people took the vaccine this year. So people are questioning how. Oh, no, the vaccine worked, but some people aren't taking the ones. Oh, the vaccine worked.

In case you missed that. That's what he said. It worked. Did not work. Maybe it did. And that's even more alarming. The ones that get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones that don't take the vaccine. But it's still their choice.

Okay. So you just lied. And now either you maybe don't know that. You guys can decide if he's either just completely blind to the facts or not, which I don't know why you'd want somebody like that in power. worse if he's lying, knows he's lying, but it didn't help anybody. People who took this injection were worse. And the people that are still struggling are the people that took multiple versions of it.

But yet to this day, he still argues that it helped people. How does that not put people, I mean, if you want to call this a genocide, if you want to call this a, I mean, whatever you want to call it. Him saying that makes him just as much a part of it as anybody else, whether or not he states he didn't force it, even though he allowed it to happen that way. Oops, that's too far. Very sick and go to the hospital. how no, the vaccine work, but some people aren't taking the ones, the ones that get very sick and go to the hospital are the ones that don't take their vaccine. Nope.

Simply the opposite. And I think it's proven at this point. The ones that got the worst illness were the ones that got multiple vaccines. But it's still their choice. And if you take the vaccine, you're protected. How are you going to say something like that? And how are you going to support him when you know that's not true? Look, the, and I'm not saying support Biden either.

Don't think binary. Let's realize they're all part of this. The results of the vaccine are very good. And if you do get it, it's a very minor form. People aren't dying when they take the vaccine. Same old lie that we're hurt. Oh, good thing I got it. It would have been worse.

How is that not straight out of the mainstream there? It is. It's exactly what it is. We know this. Anybody honest knows this. Now, I thought that was important to include to show you, especially the people that might be clinging to some partisan mindset, that this is a government around concept.

Now, we just saw this of the annual meeting of 2024 for the Weft. And this is, of course, as Derek just recently covered, the 54th meeting where they're discussing rebuilding trust again, seeing as how they haven't regained the control over the narrative. And in this article, Derek writes about the alternative aspects for the activist movements. One of them, the greater reset, you should take part in because this is about showing you that there are other paths forward. But here's what they said. I thought that was important. Coming off of Donald Trump, right, just stringing out a whole bunch of lies. Now, again, not super recent, but that's the same thing you're going to hear from anybody

that are either saying that's kind of right wing side of it or the complete other side of the, you know, left wing spectrum. But either way, all of it is the same as my point. All of it trying to pro-vaccine, push this in your mind. They're telling us that mis and disinformation are now a bigger threat than anything else. So does that mean that Trump said is going to be, Well, no, they're not censored. That's the kind of thing they want you to say.

But when we come out and point out this peer-reviewed science or the facts that show you that these things are the opposite of anything you should ever take, well, that is what they're going to censor. I think it's important to see how he aligns to that. He's on the same side as the global agenda in this circumstance. For the global business community, the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate. It is disinformation and misinformation.

followed closely by polarization within our societies. These risks are serious because they limit our ability to tackle the big global challenges we are facing. Changes in our climate and our geopolitical climate. Shifts in our demography and in our technology. spiraling regional conflicts and intensify geopolitical competition and their impacts on supply chains. The sobering reality is that we are once again competing more intensely across countries than we have in several decades.

And this makes the theme of this year's Davos meeting even more relevant, rebuilding trust. This is not a time for conflicts or polarization. What's funny is, we again talked about this today and wake up this morning. When you say rebuilding trust, let me ask you something. If you've been going through this process and done whatever you've been doing this whole time and it didn't. And last one of the, I think, two years ago, it was rebuilding trust, right? And it hasn't changed. Would you just go, let's just do the same thing and continue to censor and shout and push our narrative and what the truth?

Like, that's not what you would do if your actual goal was rebuilding trust. You would have accountability. You would have transparency. You would say, look, this is why we failed. Here's what we're doing different. Nope. They're just going through the same motion. So it clearly shows you it's not about rebuilding your trust.

It's about shutting down dissent. That's the main point here. This is a time to build trust. This is a time to drive global collaboration more than ever before. Right. What she's aiming this at is the, elitists, the other people with power that they're trying to align with to control the narrative. They don't really care what you think as long as they can control the flow of what happens

and that the perceived, the presented narrative that the corporate media and the people that blindly follow that might adhere to. They know most of us are seeing right through them, but it's about maintaining a certain level of control over the narrative and the flow of information, which they have been failing at. This requires immediate and structural responses to match the same. size of the global challenges. Right. So we need to reimagine how we technologically control the flow of information because

we keep failing. Miss and disinformation. Interestingly, they've left out the whole mal information thing, which was done when it first started. Clearly, they didn't think that worked well enough. Either way, if they're telling you that miss and disinformation are a bigger threat than their other illusory issues like climate change, it means we are about to see a huge censorship push. This is why it's important to never self-censor. Stand, your ground. And realize when I say that other illusory issues like climate change, that's not to suggest that we're not destroying the planet a thousand ways, predominantly things like the military, both U.S. and China and elsewhere, actively being the worst polluters, and it still are this very

moment while trying to pretend that your carbon tax on your car is not going to change anything when even the carbon is not even the issue. The bottom line is the climate change narrative is illusory, and they know this at this point. They know you know this. The point is they're trying to control the flow of information. Now, here is where we're going to take this conversation in regard to the COVID-19 injection conversation and that flow of information control is the next step. And why I think they're so desperate to control this before I think, you know, there's a lot of ways you could look at this, whether this is an experiment on the human population or individual nations, whether this is something bigger than that, whether this is about concepts like

consciousness and artificial intelligence or the idea. idea of meshing actual internet of body concepts. Let's not forget. We're in what they call the internet of things, which overlaps with the internet of nanof things, which is real. These are their stated things at the Davoswaffe meetings, and long before, by the way. Now, the point is we're stepping into the internet of bodies, right? And so what that overlaps with is the internet of nanos, which is essentially the virus-sized transistors like Charles Lieber. I'll show you that a second again. Or these, oh, that's from 2011 or a smart or these things that have been linked to the internet and connectivity at even at a nanoscale.

Then if and when those things are inside your body, that becomes the internet of bodies. They're not even hiding this. You may not think that's nefarious, but that's a very real and publicly stated concept. So the point is however this ends up going, the question is whether or not these are all being, all of this is leading in the direction of this next step. Now here, this is clandestine sharing, just an alert, whether you think this is real or not, it's to set up the point. Bio-weapons alert, he says, basically Russian's government and their ministry of defense have accused, again, the U.S. government of creating, quote, artificially managed epidemics. Now, that, and it says violating the Biological Weapons Convention and are demanding UN investigation, which I doubt they will.

And, of course, this comes as the whole disease or pathogen X are being discussed at the Weft, which again, is just a hyposional. fetical catch-all for things we don't know. There's no such thing right now as pathogen X or disease X. It is a category for the next thing that might be more dangerous. When they state like numbers, where it could be as much as this much. It's a meaningless statement. It could be as much as anything because it doesn't exist yet and they're guessing. Right.

So the point is, artificially managed epidemics, does that mean controlled release of viruses or bacteria? or does it mean literally artificially managed nanotechnology, smart dust, or any those kind of veins? And these are real concepts as I'll make sure you get clear by the end of the show if you haven't seen this yet. Real things in real time and have already been utilized and could, if they wanted to, be used just like that. Oh, and this is funny.

So this one, this is Russia's posting the work of the U.S. military biologists is aimed at forming artificially managed epidemics and is not. monitored under the bio weapons chemical, the bio weapons convention and the UN Secretary General's mechanism for investigating the use of biological weapons. What's funny is down here it says the false claim that the U.S. is operating secret bio labs in Ukraine is one of those been repeatedly spread by Russian propaganda. I can't believe, see, just again to show you how Twitter has been completely weaponized in a way that it's like, whether there was ever a brief moment where these things were being used

in a positive way, maybe there's still, it's so obvious how this is just full. right back into the same old docky point, despite the fact that I think even Musk himself has talked about this exact point, which just because you want to make it about how it's a research lab versus a biolab. And that's fake news when you say it like that, even though those words are interchangeable mean the same thing. And Newland herself admitted this. Ukraine have chemical or biological weapons.

Ukraine has a biological research facility. which, in fact, we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of. Yeah, exactly. Because when Russia's there, suddenly the Russian feet are in the building, and oh, it's a weapons factory now.

Because it's the same damn thing. And it's just as capable of doing that right now as it is if Russia suddenly takes over the location or the U.S., for that matter, which is what they do in Georgia and all over the place in the country-wise. So it's just ridiculous that they can state the obvious fact, which is that, of course, they have biological research facilities or bio-weapons labs because it's the same damn thing. And it just gets a, it's a narrative spin.

So we are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they. Research material. Whether that's just simply biological virus and whatever else you think might be. there or a weaponized version of it or a gain of function version. That's just because we want to make a vaccine. It's all the same thing. It's semantics. What I think got some people fired up is when she said, we're worried that the Russians

will get a hold of these facilities because that implies that there's something in those dangerous. So I don't know if you could shed some light on how there can be things in the lab that are dangerous, but they not be weapons labs. Yeah, all I would say, Senator, is that, you know, that. the danger here, it seems to me, is the capacity the Russians have developed and that they've used in the past. And their interest in trying to create false narratives here as well, to the best of my knowledge, well, you have to be careful about any of those substances you've talked about,

which you see in public health or research systems around the world for civilian purposes. Why, you have to be careful about that. That is in no way akin to the kind of threats that would be posed by, you know, weapons research and development or weapons. Right. And because if Russia is there, that's what that would be. Now, let's just be very clear about this. Stated weapons research is identical to the gain of function research in regard to safety,

they would argue. Now, there's a step in there or post that to where you could literally make it and package it into some kind of deployable concept. Now, whether that's happening is that they're arguing no. It's in moot point and people like Dr. Boyle and anybody who is honest and an expert in this field has made it very clear it's the same exact thing. And that's exactly why we've come to realize that things coming out of Fort Dietrich or other locations are, in fact, weapons. And let's not forget as well what Dr. David Martin points out about this research going up prior to COVID-19.

We should be having a public dialogue, and it should be something that rises to the level of legislation. We should not allow the National Institute's Health or the Department of Defense to allocate funding to amplify these agents so that allegedly, we can study them in the case that they fall into the hands of bad people. Because the evidence has shown us that the bad people who actually have unleashed these pathogens since 1991, and by the way, if you go to the miscellaneous Memorandum 7 and other documents, we can go back to the 1950s. The bad people who unleash these things on the population are us.

It is the U.S. who's doing it. Right. So now back to the point. The point is that Russia is saying they're doing this again. Artificially managed epidemics and it is coming, essentially. You can believe it or not. It's up to you. The reality of the possibility is undeniable.

Now here's the video I'll include. John Campbell's discussing a new study that I'll show you right after this. I just want to play he was intro to it and is calling it a new brain virus. Right. So this, for me, much more overlaps with the concept of nanotechnology and how that's being utilized. And I'll show you what I mean in that. But ultimately, that this is a new study using gain of function research to make this

extremely more dangerous, which by the way should be illegal. I don't even know how it's possible that we just fell right back into that with no brief. Like it didn't even stop, guys. It didn't even pause. But here's John Campbell discussing the beginning of this study. Little creatures that are so abused throughout Eastern Asia, particularly. They took a virus from the panglin and they cultured it in cells.

in the laboratory. And they then infected mice with it, and it killed all of the mice that had infected through brain infection. So they've generated this new virus that kills 100% of mice it's infected with, but it gets worse. Because the mice that were infected were humanized mice. Now, these are called transgenic mice. In other words, they were given some human genes. And this is exactly what the focus of an issue from before about the gain of function, and Rand Paul and Fauci, and it's exactly the same thing. And why this is still happening should blow your mind. Or why we should be questioning.

And they were given human ACE receptor genes that were expressed by the mouse. So these are essentially human ACE receptors in genes. And it was a coronavirus from the pangolin, and it killed 100% of the mice that were infected. And these are the things that they are jiggling around with in laboratories. This is absolute madness. and it needs to be banned yesterday as far as I'm concerned. The only reason I can see for doing this kind of research, the only reason I can see is as biological weapons.

I really can't see anything else. So that sounds melodramatic. And see, I love how he's come such an arc from the beginning of COVID-19. And it's just, this is just him to be, you know, in my opinion, just being honest about it, realizing that at this point, talking about these things are going to cause the willfully blind to always reflexively scream conspiracy theory. It doesn't matter that you can prove it with peer-review science,

that it's an obvious real-world function and has been worked on from DARPA and many other angles for a very long time. I'm not even just talking about bio-weapons. I'm talking about all the stuff we're going to talk about. My point is for him to say that, it's just a simple reality. You can't pretend this is just some, you know, as he describes here, the idea that we've always pointed out, that you're going to take something,

a random, whatever, a virus in nature, whatever you want to call it, to then make it more dangerous and try to get it to infect humans, right, and then argue that you're only doing that to make a vaccine for a thing that exists nowhere else in the world other than your lab. So either it gets out somehow, which happens all the time, and then, hey, we got a vaccine, if that even works properly, if they even actually made that, or to argue that what they claim is the way they use this, just in case. Somebody at a cave somewhere makes the same version exactly one and a billion possibilities,

and you just so happen to ever right why does that make sense to anybody the researchers say it's because they're worried about spillover infection but of course they created the virus in the first place in their cell lines in the laboratory um so it's not a virus that's in nature to spillover into human populations so we've got a situation where they created a virus or generated a virus it's not that they synthesized it together it just evolved in their cell cultures in the lab that killed a hundred percent of the humanized mice, brain virus, brain virus disease. Now, they don't say whether they've tested it on humans or not, but given that it was affecting human ACE2 receptors, I think the probability is it would cause viral brain death in the vast majority of human beings that it infected.

This research to me is just an existential threat to humanity. It really has to be stopped because the record of labs leaking all over the place, you were just reminded of a sieve. Let's give you the details and you can make your own mind up. I'm not going to, I've told you what I think. But this is the paper here. It's a preprint, lethal infection of human ACE2 receptors in transgenic. Now, you can watch the rest for yourself. What I'm going to do is go over the study right now.

This is January 4th, this year, 2024. lethal infection of human H2 transgenic mice caused by SARS-CoV-2 related pangolin coronavirus, which they're calling GX-P2V. And there's two versions in this. So again, the brain virus aspect of it. I think it's important to think about how this overlaps was what we saw during the COVID-19 discussion, the idea of nanotechnology and what we're going to get into in regard to the ferretin aspect and the different efforts to literally utilize genetically engineered proteins and different versions of that same technology to control the output, as well as relay biosurveillance. And that's where this dovetails with the idea and the work of Charles Lieber and

Robert Langer being the co-founder of Moderna. And Charles Lieber's research being kind of the foundational part of the lipid nanoparticle aspect, really both of them. All those work kind of overlaps with both of their different, their different inputs, but the parts that they brought to the table and the different parts of the research over the years. Now, bringing this into this current study, the question is whether or not this is some kind of random genetically engineered virus aspect or something else. But before we even get to something else, just recognize that this is gain of function research that should not be allowed.

And just like, as even John Campbell points out, the fact that I, from Fort Dietrich, for example, they're the ones that admitted one leak every three days for seven years straight. That's a statement from the CDC. And that's where we've had discussion. I mean, that's where the anthrax discussion comes from. And ultimately tried to blame, well, I forget the guy's name off the top of my head, but the research shows you that they lied about that and they blamed it on this guy, which ultimately led to his death.

Either way, things on the bottom. bottom of your shoe, things going out in trash cans. This is a BSL4 lab. They deal with the most dangerous aspects, including coronavirus, coronaviruses, and Ebola and all the rest of these things. So the question is why we've even allowed them to keep doing this. So it causes 100% mortality, potentially attributable to the late stage brain infection. Brain infection. That just seems like a strange step or just, you know, difference. Now it says two SARS cop2 related pangolin coronaviruses GD-2019 and GX-2017 were identified prior to COVID-19 outbreak. Doesn't that seem strange?

Now, why in the world would they be utilizing these things as opposed to what they claim as the big focus? COVID-19. Seems like a strange thing. And it says the respective isolates termed, assuming that's, I'm willing to bet you they didn't even actually do that, termed PCO-V-G-D-O-1 and the different names they have from were cultured in 2020. 2017. Apparently in the middle of the beginning of the biggest pandemic in a century they tell us, which isn't true, they were working on these things and before. But it says here, and that's where it

gets important and overlaps with a couple of conversations I'm sure you've seen before. All the mice that were infected with the live virus succumbed to the infection within seven to eight days, posting inoculation, rendering a mortality rate of 100%. If that's real, that's a terrifying concept. Why they will be working on that, right, knowing that they're the ones that made it into this kind of level of danger. Why would you want to create something like that? So you can utilize it against your enemies. By the seventh day following infection, the mice displayed symptoms such as, actually I forgot to look that up, philoh erection, what is that? This is goosebumps or goose pimples. That's not huge. Goose bumps, apparently, hunched posture,

and sluggish movements, and their eyes turned. white. Very weird. The organs of four randomly selected mice in each group were dissected on days three and six post infection for quantitative analysis of viral RNA and tighter.

We detected significant amounts of viral RNA in the brain. Lung. What was this again? Turbinate. It was the it says a shaped like a spinning top or inverted. Huh. Another term for

tubernal. I'm not exactly sure what that was. And it says RNA in the, all over the body was the point. Brain, lung, eyes, trachea, which by the way, doesn't that sound very familiar to what happened after the people, the multiple autopsy studies done on people post injection with the COVID-19 injection. RNA in every organ in the body. Remember that? Same with the spike protein. Seems interesting. And it says, whereas there was lower or no amount of that in things like the heart. the liver, the spleen, the kidneys, the tongue, the stomach, the intestines. Heart being interestingly different. Now it says by day six, in addition to the shrunken neurons,

I'm telling you, this does not make sense to me, coming off of some abstract, you know, kind of branched version or even previous of what they claim is the COVID-19 virus. This sounds like something that was designed to manipulate your brain. Now, again, for those that want to believe, this is just natural things, they're doing what they can't. you could argue that, but I don't get why there would be such a deviation. But I'm just kind of speaking out loud, thinking out loud, this is not even the beginning

of what gets most alarming in this, but shrunken neurons. There was focal lymph lymphocytic infiltration around the blood vessels, although no conspicuous inflammatory reaction was observed. So we're seeing the same kind of problems that we see post-COVID injection, right? But this time differently, this seems that they claim anyway, no. it was like an interesting lack of inflammatory reaction, right? So is this the next step? Is this something like my mindset, one of the things I think about, if this was a massive

experiment on the population, which I'm convinced was part of it, and that was showed one of these byproducts that maybe they didn't want, if this was an effort to, I don't have biosurveillance relay or to control, you wouldn't want to kill the host. So is this another step in that direction? Now, I'm not saying I think that even necessarily or that I think that's, I'm just floating these possibilities, trying to connect this with something that I do think is real. And again, you'll see where all this goes. Now, that in and of itself is alarming and crazy. They've made something that's 100% mortality and kills within a week and create some kind of brain neuron shrinking. I mean, that's really, really crazy. Now, interestingly enough, we just posted on the substack, which we're going to be putting more of these out as well. I also put out a recent article about one of the discussions on there, you know, the organ appeal. And the last time I talked about this, I think that was this one here. Where was that?

I think it was this one. I'll come back in a second on the 29th of last year. I stemmed, I came from the place of the appeal discussion, which is not nano part necessarily. We don't know. I don't think it is nano like robots, but it's still nanotech. It's still the same kind of overlap. And I worry about what could be used in all these different ways. I'm not going to get into that today, but that's where that comes from.

The point is, I posted that recently on the substack. The other thing was a bunch of stuff that relates to the amazing and powerful interview Taylor did with the late Arna Burkhardt. And one of the things he found, this is the discussion of the lymphocytic infiltration in the heart muscle, the thyroid gland, and lung following the COVID-19 injections. Really well broken down, Taylor does an amazing job breaking this step down. So think about the interesting overlap there. In this case, we're talking about the same thing. right here, the lymphocytic infiltration. Now, that's not something that's wildly unique to just this one thing, but it's interesting,

nonetheless, that there's a connection there, which to me seems to speak more to the fact that this is some of, in the same vein of the same research that was utilized in the other bio-weapon, oh, excuse me, the injection. Watch it, listen, read it for yourself. Now, another overlap that Taylor sent me was from Doctors for COVID Ethics. This came out yesterday on the pathogenesis of turbo cancer. induced by COVID-19 MRNA vaccines. And this is just really quickly.

It says the short memo makes the case that turbo cancers and patients who receive the MRNA vaccines can be explained by the observed uptake of those vaccines by microphanges and dendritus and dendritic cells based on a well-documented but not widely known theory of carsogenesis. Most doctors and cancer researchers consider DNA damage, the primary cause of malignancy. And it is true that the mRNA vaccines can potentially induce genetic damage. in a variety of ways. Now, it's a really great overview of some scientific and research, but I just wanted to point out the obvious and interesting overlap to the explosion of turbo cancers. It says in connection with the COVID-19 vaccines, we have been told that their main purpose was to induce antibodies,

even though this is a rather futile approach for immunizing against a respiratory pathogen. It's like they still seemingly all know this, but don't ever really make that case. As Dr. Bocke's made clear, you can't shoot injection in your arm and get mucosal immunity, which is how you stop respiratory pathogens. And that goes for the flu too, by the way. Efficient antibody formation requires the activation of antigen-presenting cells, in particular dendritic cells, macrophages, and b-lymphocytes. And indeed, one can easily find articles that highlight the ability of the mRNA lipid nanoparticles

to make their way to such antigen-presenting cells. Pathologists Arna Bercarp, then Walter Lang, found spike protein expressing dendric cells and the macrophages in some of their tissue specimens from living and dead back. vaccine victims. So it's very interesting to see that overlap as well when the whole cancer aspect, I mean, even on an interesting side note, get into the whole artificial meat side of this. Like, there's a lot of different angles this stuff is being presented. Now, he discussed this in his new brain virus video, which is right here. Brooke Heinz shared this interesting overlap, which is what brings me to this point about the,

there's a lot of weirdness that I'm trying not to get into because I do think there's a lot of hypotheticals in it. but the conversation of like the zombie virus that was floated by that one guy from the military or post from it saying that they're just the name they use but it's essentially something that is real that ultimately could end up leading to things like this that caused these some kind of reactions the kind of prions overlap in humans right now whether you believe that that is connected to this or even real the point is that there is some alarming overlap to what we're talking about here coming from this brain overlap concept to

and I'll just share this quick video for you. And this is not necessarily that I'm even vetting everything that this person's saying in this TikTok or Instagram video, but just to show you the images of what this looks like to then go over this information as it might relate to what we're seeing. And she says sharing this now to show you the neurodegeneration and even the white eyes in living animals, which is exactly what they just said they created in this lab, right? This is a zombie deer disease, which is kind of the colloquial, that's the common frame. for it. It's actually called the chronic wasting disease, and I'll show you that next. But it says caused by prions like Mad Cow. It's not what Campbell's talking about. It's just a visualization of the

brain disease. So that's clear, right? But I still find it interesting. Check this out. A deer virus. And what's really alarming is the CDC is not ruling out that it can jump from dears to humans. What is this virus? Walking around literally like a zombie with the nervous system completely being disrupted, drooling, lethargic, falling over, dragging on the ground, and eventually dying. What started with one deer and then a few deer is now in hundreds of deer and now in thousands of deer in 32 states across the country and also being found in other countries like Canada. Why is this happening all of a sudden? You can be the judge of that, but it's something to pay close attention to over the next few months.

So what's interesting is the overlap to it, right? The hunching posture, and that's actually here what she was saying as well. This is what I was reading a second ago, right? Goose bumps, Punched posture, sluggish movements, white, eyes white. Very strange, right? So here is, this is from December 28th, 2020. Scientists warn, again, the quote they use in the general zombie deer disease could spread to humans as cases surge. Now, I don't know if I believe that, if that's just what they always say. It could do this and it might be worse and it could be, you know, just all hype.

Even right now, I think they're like hyping some new measles outbreak over here. It's always something to get you worried about the next big thing, the Z-X, which you know, Maybe you agree. Maybe you think that's the thing to do. But I disagree. I think the unnecessary fear about the hypothetical is exactly how they keep people in mind. And that's even what the WHO and the HHS called out about the CDC in the last couple of decades. I've shown you both those posts so many times where they literally say pandemics of fear pushing this to sell vaccines.

And now no one talks about that anymore. But this is exactly what it looks like, just like the video you saw. Here is the actual CDC page. And this is what relates it to specific. a prion disease. And you can read this for yourself as well. It's the same exact discussion. So here is this tie back into the COVID-19 conversation and the injection.

This is one of the earliest studies that came out, a very important peer-reviewed study from, what is it, SciVision Pub.com, it talks about COVID-19, RNA-based vaccines, not the other ones, that's the RNA, and the risk of prion disease. So it's very interesting, right? And here it gets into specifically the interactions with potential to increase. It says zinc ions have been shown to cause the transformation of TDP 43. Now remember that. The TDP discussion is very interesting to its pathological prion configuration.

The folding of Tdb 43, TDP 43 and FUS into their pathological prion confirmations, is known to cause ALS, front temporal laboral degeneration, Alzheimer's disease, other neurology, degenerative diseases. The enclosed finding, as well as additional potential risk, lead the author to believe that regulatory approval of the RNA-based vaccines for SARS-Cob 2 is premature, and the vaccine may cause much more harm than benefit. Yeah, you're damn right. The point was that these things were shown to cause this binding protein TDP 43 to,

as it says here, the folding of it. And that has historically been very clearly led to, or leads to things like ALS, Alzheimer's, and so on. And now it looks like it might be discussing something else. Very similar. It's just a possibility. Now remember the TDP protein overlap, but first, let's remember the conversation of the kind of technology

that I think this relates to more than anything. And this is really the idea of the nanotechnology smart dust application, which I just don't think people give enough time today, especially since this is something that Charles Lieber, of none other than Charles Lieber, who was arrested in the beginning of the COVID illusion, along with Chinese nationals for shuttling biological material in their socks from Beth Israel Hospital.

And this is in 2011 creating virus-sized transistors. So an actual nanotech robot level, if that's even the right words, too archaic for me these days, that it's the size of a virus. Not some big clunky thing you stick in your finger and your arm, like a literal, like an actual size of a virus. It's not a joke. And the point was they discussed these as,

in this case, they used the, let's see. They couldn't figure out how to make it work until they discovered. They coated the hairpin nanowire with a fatty lipid layer. So it's already showing you the lipid nano part of this. But the main point, as I always show you, is that his main finding was that when and then, of course, two-way communication, this overlaps with the Langer and Lieber can of work.

Again, this is Charles Lieber right there is his name. But it says right here that when it is as small as a virus, when a man-made structure is small as a virus or bacteria for those that are just, you know, that opens the door

for the train theory conversation, that it can behave the way biological structures do. So as I always point out, what if that's exactly what people dealt with? What if this was the release? of something that was not natural and we're still dealing with because they couldn't control it or any number of things or the test is now realizing oh well it caused all his information so we have to go back

and try to recreate it this way like there's all these hypotheticals but they're real things now we also discussed this this morning so the the overlap with the virus sized transistor which can act like a virus apparently with the concept of the genetically engineered proteins now how these things come together is the point. Utilizing a genetically engineered virus and the either used, deployed, or naturally created ferretin proteins. They can in fact control things. This is not hypothetical and I'll prove it to you yet again right now. And specifically talking about using the virus to deploy the very thing that can end up controlling and relaying the biosurveillance back to whoever is controlling this. Now this goes back to 2016 when this article was written, but the work goes back way before that.

We've gone over this many times, but just briefly, genetically, actually, no, I think, oh, of course it's gone. Genetically engineered magneto protein remotely controls brain and behavior. Researchers in the United States have developed a new method for controlling the brain circuits associated with complex animal behaviors. Now, it starts out as being specific and not necessarily like envisioning moving your arm for you kind of a thing, but let me walk with me through this. and let me prove to you that is exact part of what we're dealing with here.

And it says using genetic engineering to create a magnetized protein that activates specific groups of nerve cells from a distance. Understanding how the brain generates behavior is one of the ultimate goals of neuroscience. It says they've developed a number of methods that enable them to remotely control specific, specified groups of neurons. The most powerful, and we've talked about the differences in these, is called optogenetics, which enables researchers to switch populations of related neurons on or off on a millisecond by millisecond time scale with pulses of laser light.

Interesting. Another recently developed method was chemogenetics. He uses engineering engineered proteins, and that's what we're talking about, that are actively activated by designer drugs and can be targeted to specific cell times. Although powerful, both of the methods have drawbacks, they point out. Opin genetics is invasive. This is where we overlap with the current state. research that you can see from Charles Lieber,

the specifically optogenics requiring insertion of optical fibers that deliver the light pulses into the brain, but the point in that is not necessarily that you need those fibers, just rather that that's the immediate way to keep the study going, but these things are done using light pulses

if you're primed the right way. And it says furthermore, the extent to which the light penetrates the dense brain tissue is limited, but chemogenic approaches overcome both of the limitations, but typically induce biochemical reactions that take several seconds to activate nerve cells.

The new technique is non-invasive and says it can also be activate neurons rapidly and reversibly. That's interesting too, so there's no way to prove that something happened, right? So you can walk it back. But it says several earlier studies have shown that nerve cell proteins, which are activated by heat and mechanical pressure, can be genetically engineered so that they become sensitive to radio waves and magnetic fields. There's back to the same interesting overlap at the beginning of this where there was a lot

of the magnet, not necessarily just actual magnets, but there was part of that too, but the magnetic overlap, the magnogenetics aspect of what we were dealing with in the COVID-19 injection conversation. But it says by attaching them to iron storing proteins called ferretin or to inorganic paramagnetic particles. These methods represent an important advance. For instance, example, and I'll read you. this next, they were already used to regulate blood glucose levels in mice.

The point was they could either turn it on or off. So they could literally kill you like a diabetic if they used this and turn it off or they could drive it to the point to where you feel that you need more even though you don't. Now, it says a new technique builds on this earlier work and is based on a protein called TRPV4, which is sensitive to both temperature and stretching forces. These stimuli open the central pore, allowing electrical current to flow through the membrane, and that travel into the spinal cord, then up the brain. Now, it says, I can skim through it really quickly because it was highlighted.

So they used genetic engineering to fuse the protein to the paramagnetic region of the ferretin, together with short DNA sequences that signal cells to transport proteins, to the nerve cell membrane, and insert them into it. Now, it says when they introduced the genetic construct into human kindi cells, they synthesized the magnetoprotein and inserted it into the membrane. The application of the magnetic field activated these engineered TRPV1 protein as evidenced by transient increases. Now, this one, there's the two that both of these are discussed. I'll go over both of them. It says the researchers inserted the magneto DNA sequence into the genome of a virus.

Here's where it overlaps. together with the gene and coding, and they tracked it using, I think, which is pretty much, I think is a lucid, of lucive rays, I think. And regulatory DNA sequences that caused the construct to be expressed only in specified types of neurons. They injected the virus into the brains of mice, targeting the enthorheal cortex, and dissected the animals' brains to identify the cells that emitted the fluorescence. Now, it says to determine whether magneto can be used to manipulate neuronal activity in live animals. animals, they injected magneto into zebrafish larvae to control them. They then placed them into a special magnetized aquarium and found that exposure to a magnetic field-induced coiling maneuvers, which they were desiring.

The experiment involved a total of nine of them. And the interesting point, this is where you might want to overlap this, and it's a logical point with the rapid installation and very shortwave 5G effort. Right? The point is they needed these on every screech corner because they're much more powerful, but much shorter than the ones we've used before, which men means they're literally everywhere. And this could be abused in this same way

to exert that same kind of energy. Now, it says in one final experiment, the researchers injected magneto into the stratium of freely behaving mice, a deep brain structure containing dopamine-producing neurons that are involved in reward and motivation. They placed the animals into the apparatus, and essentially the point was they turned it on,

and the ones that had it, it basically created a rewarding, feeling when they were closer to certain things. Now, this is how you can control in a large scale of population, especially if they've all taken an injection that might put this thing in their body. This shows that Magneto can remotely control the firing of neurons deep within the brain. Neuroscientists at Harvard of all places, here's the virus-sized transistor from Harvard in 2011 with Charles Lieber, used optogenetics to manipulate memories in the brains of mice.

right this is a different scientist working on this at harvard who uses this same technology to manipulate memories in the brains of mice and he called this this study badass previous attempts using magnets to control the neural activity magnets needed multiple components to work injecting magnetic particles injecting a virus that expresses the heat sensitive channel could induce changes in magnetism explaining the problem with having a multiple components system is that there's so much room for individual pieces to break down. This is a, and that's the

old style. This is a single, elegant virus, he says, that can be injected anywhere in the brain, which makes it technically easier and less likely for moving bells and whistles to break down. Now, we've already shown you. I mean, I might even still have it here. Dr. Pilewski, of all people, discusses this. We've been shouting him out

from the very beginning of this. How long before COVID-19, an injection with these injections, whether it's in your arm or elsewhere, still do find their way to the blood-brain barrier. I heard earlier that there's no real concern about aluminum because it's such a small amount and so it really shouldn't matter. But the kind of aluminum that we put into vaccines is a different kind of aluminum

that we see environmentally. This is called a nanoparticle. And nanoparticles bind really tightly to the bacteria antigens, the virus antigens, the food protein antigens and any other contaminants that are in the vaccines that we may not know about. And we know that the biochemical properties of nanoparticles is that they are capable of entering the brain. And so we have not evaluated the safety of the aluminum nanoparticle and its injection and where it goes when it gets into the body and whether it gets into the brain. Do vaccine ingredients belong in the brain? No. Do they get into the brain? No one has ever studied it.

But animal studies using the same chemicals that are in vaccines that we give to children directly demonstrate that the vaccine ingredients do enter the brain. We are ignoring this information. There are scientists in Europe who've actually done studies on the aluminum nanoparticle and have shown that it can persist in the brain for years and decades. And so what we're seeing is a large outbreak of neurodevelopmental disabilities in adults. It gets into what we've seen. right and I agree with him. The points he's making previous to this are just that that was that's,

this inexperimental sense has caused all these byproducts in people, right? But my point here is that if we already know, hypothetically, well, hypothetically if the thing they gave everybody happens to have something like this, that what he just discussed ensures that it would in fact make it into your brain, which in this conversation is exactly how it ends up being utilized. You know, need to inject it right into the brain when you're using technology that allows it to cross the blood-brain barrier.

Seems pretty interesting. Now, here is the other study. This is from 2017. Seek, Rockefeller University says flipping a switch inside the head. It says, ready or tinfoil hats. Mind control is not as far-fetched an idea as it may seem. In Jeffrey M. Friedman's laboratory, it happens all the time. Though the subjects are mice, not people.

Friedman and his colleagues have demonstrated a radio, operated remote control for the appetite of glucose metabolism of mice. Now they've briefly mentioned that in the 2016 article, right? This takes it way further. At a flick of the switch, they are able to make mice hungry or suppress their appetite. Now, that's a simple and easy way to look at it, but it can be used in the same way in a lot of different bodily functions or brain functions. And the point is, it can be used to kill you or it can be used to benefit you.

That's the dual-use technology of all of this. It says, although there are other ways to deliver signals to neurons, each has its limitations. In deep brain stimulation, for example, scientists thread a wire through the brain to place an electrode next to a targeted cells. And this, of course, overlaps with Elon Musk, and that work as well. But it says, but the implant can damage nearby cells and tissues in ways that interfere with normal behavior. Right. That's where optogenetics. Even the chemogenetics comes in.

But it says, in this case, optogenetics, which works similarly but uses fiber optics and a pulse of light rather than electrical. has the same issue. Now, the point is, though, you do not need the fiber optics aspect of this if you have this stuff deployed in different ways, as we discussed, the possibility. This is a third strategy using drugs. See? Well, I didn't finish the sentence. Optogenetics, which works similarly to fiber optics and pulse of light rather than electricity,

has the same issue. The third strategy, which again, is all seems to fall back into, using drugs to activate genetically modified cells bred into mice is less invasive, but drugs are slow to take effect and wear off. The point is, bred into them, bread into them. So if you're giving them something like a genetically modified virus that produces certain proteins that can then pass down into generationally passed down, well, you don't need any other things. It says the solution that Friedman's group hit upon referred to as radio, radio, genetics or magnogenetics avoids these problems.

Biologists can turn neurons on or off in a light animal at will, quickly, repeatedly, and without implants by engineering the cells to make them receptive to radio waves or magnetic fields. Now, what do we just give everybody? A genetically modified gene editing injection that's been genetically modified with God knows what else in it, seeing us how we've been lied to so many different times. Now it says the researcher's first challenge was to find something in a neuron that could serve as an antenna to detect the incoming radio signal or magnetic field. Should it be turned on?

The logical choice? Ferritin seems to keep coming back up. And guess what, guys? It's currently in a lot of new injections they're working on and already testing. Each ferretin particle carries within it thousands of grains of iron. Now, here's how you can understand why this makes sense. So ferretton is just a protein, right? But each ferret and particle carries with thousands of grains of iron that wiggle around in response to a radio signal and shift in a line when immersed in a magnetic field.

Now, as has Friedman's team realized that they could use a genetically engineered virus to create doorways into a neuron's outer membrane. If they could then somehow attach each door to a ferretin particle, they reasoned, they might be able to wiggle the ferrette enough to do. jostle the door open. The door, we chose, TRPV1. Now here is this one. And it says, this is an element of or mechanism used by the mammalian samatosensory system, which is essentially the network of neural structures in the brain and body that produce perception of touch as well as temperature and pain sensory. It says it is a non-selective caution channel that may be activated by a wide variety of exogenous and endogenous physical and chemical stimuli. The best known activators of this exact TRPV1 are temperature greater than 43 degrees Celsius,

acidic conditions, capsacin, the irritating compounds in hot chili, may be irritating the sum, and ally, and this is allele isisothionate, which was naturally occurring. The colorless oil is responsible for the pungent taste of vegetables. And it says the pung, and as well as the pungent compound in mustard and wasabi. So it's an interesting thing they're choosing to focus on. The activation of TRPV1 leads to painful burning sensation. Isn't that interesting?

Sort of like the 5G overlap. But it also says the endogenous activators include the endocanabinoid anodyne. Or an an an an anadidon. Mandamine. Can't say that properly. But anyway, the point, I just think it's interesting, the endocanabinoid ovoid. overlap to this, which people dismiss. It's almost like they're trying to utilize something they pretend isn't even there.

But it says that this is involved in the transmission and modulation of pain, as well as the integration of diverse pain stimuli. So that's the first one. The four was the one we mentioned earlier. This is the encoding protein that has been found involved in multiple physiologic functions, dysfunctions, and also disease. It functions in the regulation of systemic, osmotic pressure by the brain. Interesting. Disease overlap. Anyway, so those are relevant

kind of just background points to understand what these things are. The point is, using ferretin, using genetically engineered viruses to delay what is needed to activate this. To accomplish this, they inserted the TRPV1

and ferretin genes into a virus. And using yet another genetic trick, injected them into the glucose sensing neurons. The neurons responded. They began to fire, signaling a shortage of glucose, even though the animal's blood sugar levels were normal. Diabetics know all too well how this, how important this is.

And other parts of the body responded just as they would to a real drop in the blood sugar. Insulin levels fell. This can kill you, mind you. The liver started pumping out more glucose, which could definitely kill you, so they pushed that too far. And the animals started eating more. In effect, Friedman said, we created a perceptual illusion that the animal had low blood, glucose, even though they were normal. That's terrifying to me, especially when we get into the latter part of the show,

to where this is really going. Inspired by the results, the researchers wondered if magnetism, like radio waves, might trigger ferretin to open those cellular doors. Guess what? It did. When the team put the mice cages close to the MRI machine or waved a rare earth magnet over the animals, a literal magnet, their glucose sensing neurons were triggered. It's funny how quickly people dismiss these things in like the magnetic conversation.

And I still don't think I've ever seen any actual provable evidence other than, you know, per people's individual experiences. But still, the fact that we dismiss these things these days or dismiss anything for that matter as conspiracy theory. It's just, it's just, I mean, anybody even using the term conspiracy theory these days, to me, that's just a sign of blanket ignorance. By the way, even if it turns out to be wrong, mind you, it's a sign of reflexive dismissal. That's just dumb. It is.

It's a stupid, ignorant trait. But it says stimulating appetite is one thing. Could they also suppress it? The group tweaked the TRPV1 gene, so it would pass chloride, which acts to inhibit neurons. Now, when they inserted the modified TRPV1 into the neurons, the rush of chloride made the neurons behave

as if the blood was overloaded with glucose. Insulin production surges in the animals, and they ate less. Friedman and Stanley hope that biopause, biologists will be able to use the remote control system to tackle a range of neural processes other than appetite. God Alina, I mean, you know where this goes in a military mind. And beyond being a basic research tool, the method could potentially lead to novel therapies

for brain disorders or it could create them. Potentially, it would be, and again, don't miss the obvious brain overlap to the point that we made about the study they're working on and why that would then be used in a time when they know we're paying attention to gain a function research and suddenly a new brain disease, brain virus concept. Potentially, it would be less invasive to inject the crippled virus into the same spot of the brain

and let it permanently modify cells there, making them responsive to wireless control when that time comes. And knowing, as we just showed you, that they do already make their way into the brain because of the way that they're encapsulated, the way that they're used, the adjuvants,

well, it's just as likely that this has already been done. We talked about the idea of the priming aspect, the kill switch discussion, or just being primed for whatever comes next. Again, that's why I play that clip when I start, the idea of this is what they're excited about, right? Turning your body into the production. Like, that's a whole other step, right? Giving you something and maybe that was the pinnacle of where they got with this,

to turn your body into the factory that creates the protein needed in that moment. Wall Street and biotechnology companies have been very excited about this idea. And what essentially it is is trying to pack the cells in the body in order to make them into drug factories. That's Forbes. And you can see the Pfizer badge in the background, right? It's very real. Now, in theory, it says it might also be possible to make a patient's own cells receptive to electromagnetic waves by removing them from the body, delivering TRPV1 and ferretin and then putting the cells back.

Interesting. As they relate, they relate that to like a stem cell treatment. Well, there's all sorts of overlaps to exactly how this could have played out. Now, all I hope people can see from these last two things is that this is real. This is from like a borderline decade ago, right? Well, like eight years, seven years, depending on what time you look at. The point is it's real. It's actually happening. And if you think this stop with mice, you don't understand how the world works.

Quite frankly, if you think when you read this, it was only at mice. You don't understand how the military works. and DARPA in the overlap with all of it. But here is 2021. Preclinical studies support Army's pan-coronavirus vaccine development. What is it? A spike ferretin nanoparticle COVID-19 vaccine developed by researchers at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

Because that's normally where you make vaccines, right? Military research. Spike ferretin nanoparticle. So it's an overlap with the ferretin protein, but also the spike protein, utilizing nanotechnology and for a pan coronavirus vaccine. This is the same kind of platform discussion, and the point would be to set these things in your body and then activate it like we're talking about.

It's a platform. We're going to trigger this protein. The point, though, is that with these things included, what we just discussed is on the table. Here was one from 22. Dose, safety, tolerability, and amuggenicity, immunogenicity, of an influenza H-1-stabilized stem ferretin vaccine.

All of these things are utilizing this. Here is one from 2023. Fed start enrolling volunteers for their mRNA flu vaccine trial. And yes, this is a ferretin injection. Now, this one doesn't even, this one says it right here. Oh, it does say it on here, ferret right there. The other conversations you see this, it mentions this term, but this doesn't let it make it clear that it's ferretin, but it's the H1SSF 3928

M-R-N-A L-L-L-L-L-Lipid nanoparticle. But that is an abbreviation for H-1 is humoglutinin-stabilized stem ferretin, meaning the vaccine uses the stem part of the influenza hemogloutininin protein displayed on the surface of a ferretin nanoparticle as the immunogen. You see how this all relates to exactly what we just read from those articles, the stem

remains largely unchanged throughout influenza mutations as compared to the head, which constantly changes as the virus mutates into different strains in a process called Antenic Drift. It's not the only MRNA-based flu shot candidate in the works. In January, Pfizer

said during the World Economic Forum that his company is working on a combination MRI vaccine for both influenza and COVID. All of these things are overlap, guys. Now, here's another one from 2023, and this one is very new. The study to evaluate, this is the single dose H1SSF, the one we just read.

But these are currently being used in studies. So you can overlap that with the possibility of how these things, especially this one, utilizing the spike protein, can actually shed. I'm going to do another focus coming up soon on the shedding again, even though we've proven that as much as we've proven anything. But there was another good overview that somebody recently put out showing you all that we can prove in regard to the shedding, which is real, guys.

It is very real that this is, Dr. Warren, Luigi Warren made that point. And then when you find out that it does, in fact, has the sustained synthesis of the spike protein, means it continues to do so, which, yes, it means it can spread enough to, as the Salk Institute made clear, to cause symptoms in the person that catches them,

which means it's its own thing. How is that not a self-spreading concept, or even worse, a protein genetically engineered spreading concept. Now, here is where this gets terrifying to me. The last part of this show is the worst thing. This is the stuff of my nightmares. This is recently sent to me.

I think it was Orwell. Genetic Literacy Project. Awaiting nutritional analysis, these pink-hued meat-pasting soybeans are set for outdoor field trials. Outdoor field trials. Now, right out of the gate, you may just think, oh, this is just some meat, you know, climate change, Bug eat bugs kind of overlap.

That's not where this is going. Let's read this. This is from the tent. Fake meat doesn't taste anything like real thing. Pilot Project putting pig genes into soybeans hope to change the status quo. Palladini is the CEO of Mulek science, a molecular farming firm that uses crops to grow proteins. Now this, it says animal proteins, but that's not absolute. It's simply using crops to grow proteins.

And I've talked about this. It's far back, like way before COVID-19 with the idea of the GMO Canada aspect. Remember we talked about Prairie Inc. in Canada, which I don't even know if that place exists in the same way anymore, but back when I wrote about it, they were trying to make both GMO cannabis, but make crops that grew and had pharmaceutical properties like antidepressants. And that terrified me. And I still think that's happened. I think we're long since past that.

God only know is what you're eating and what you're taking from the grocery store. But my point is, this is discussing utilizing these crops to create specific proteins. Now, yes, it's being framed as we'll just make an animal protein so it tastes like meat. But that doesn't make sense to me. It says the idea is to turn plants into tiny field-based factories that can produce high-value proteins and other molecules. Doesn't that sound crazy or provide a meat you have to plant? Well, we'll pretend it's about the meat taste. How about it's just about creating plants that can then produce proteins?

Then even worse about that is talking about, let's just say the spike protein. That may sound crazy to you, but it's just a protein is something that can be produced. And if we know that protein can then is in and of itself, here, I'll just grab that, capable of causing disease, which was the main point of this. This is just the overview article, the link to the studies right there. It's peer-viewed where they prove that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease. Now, I'm not even getting into the part which we're going to get next, which is about the proteins that might be needed to get into your body that might be needed to outwardly control or biosurveal. But I'm just simply talking about the fact that you're creating plants that make proteins that you're genetically altering.

And then if that's capable of spreading, which this seems to be, what happens? How do you stop something like that? It says in June 2023, Mulek revealed that it had inserted genes from pigs. into soy plants. One more reason to stay away from soy in order to make soybeans that expressed porcine proteins. Palladini was still impressed with just how much pig protein his soybeans seem to produce. Next year, he hopes to find the soybeans to take them to outdoor field trials. Welcome to Monsanto land where these things blow into every field and suddenly there's no coming back from that.

Now, I want to include this again before we finish with the other main part that's going to terrify you. this has been discussed many times. And what are we talking about, if not a bioenhanagement? That they've discussed, they've theorized, they've outlined, this is just one of them from 2019, peer-reviewed, PubMed, National Library of Medicine. Compulsory moral bio-enhanagement should be covert, secret. I'm going to read this all the way through. I haven't done it in a while.

Some theorists argue that moral bio-enhanagement ought to be compulsory, right? Like should they say, hey, this is going to save everybody from disease, or it's going to stop climate change or whatever they say, and their argument is we should force that on people like they tried to do with the injection. This person says, I take this argument one step further. And this was, as you can see, medical ethics, humanities and law, Western Michigan University. And this is many times it's been discussed. He says he takes this one step further, arguing that if moral bioenancement, as they argue

ought to be compulsory, well, then its administration to you and your body ought to be covert, rather than overt. This is to say that it's morally preferable, talk about mental gymnastics, for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without you knowing about it, knowing that you're receiving it. His argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement

ought to be compulsory, seeing as how they argue it's moral and needs to be done, then its administration is a matter of public health. And for this reason, it should be governed by public health ethics. Think of even using the word ethics in this conversation. You won't understand why this is necessary, so we shouldn't even tell you about it.

It says, I argue that covert administration of a compulsory moral bio-enhancing, like packing your body and your protein, your body with proteins like ferretin and other bio-enancements to use afterward, that this program better conforms with public health ethics than does an overt one. Why? Because you'll know about it and say no,

so then they have to acknowledge they're breaking the law, So they might as well make it secret. I mean, my God. And guys, this is not a new stuff. This has been talked about many times. The meat discussion, the lone star tick example about stopping heating meat for climate change. This has been floated many times. So as well as the fact that if we're talking about the protein discussion, right,

making plants that create these specific proteins, whatever that may be, let's not forget that they've already designed a lot of different ways to aerosolize and make lipid nanoparticles or MRI loaded lipid nanoparticles that can in fact be utilized or aerosolized. And I go over this very deep in this discussion. We've met through many times. I might as well as read it since we're here. And this is about dual use tech. And I simply said, this is how it works.

It can be weaponized or it can help. And this is about the idea in this one about basically triggering cell death or solving the problem. Either way. The point was, this is why peer-reviewed science has found that the MRA platform itself is causing mildocarditis. Let's not forget that Ralph Barrett, North Carolina University Chapel Hill, literally worked with the U.S. government funding to create a myocarditis inducing coronavirus, then worked to aerosolize it in the caves of China and succeeded this exact concept. and this overlap with the work of Charles Lieber, Robert Langer, who was the co-founder of Moderna, which I think all of this embodied in the injections.

And, of course, Lieber is a virus-sized transistor we referenced, and I've openly wondered whether this is exactly what is being used. Now, this, to the ending part of the show today, overlaps with the neuro-weapon concept. And we played this, but I want to play this a little bit more, a little bit longer version of it. Now this again, it's James Gordano. It's not new.

This is from 2020, but this goes back a long way. My point is to, I want us to realize that if we're talking about this, this whole comes full circle of the brain. The new gain of function research, rather just the new example of it, and how that is showing to cause some kind of brain virus that kills in a week, or is it a virus? I wonder whether this is, in fact, the continuation of the experiment in regard to the brain aspect or rather the biosurveillance or the outward manipulation of you, your brain processes are really your movements itself as a hypothetical consideration. I mean, this is real.

My point is, how do we know whether or not it's actually been deployed or not? We talked about this exact point on this show from the 29th, the neuro weapon side to the COVID illusion. Now, I'm going to play this clip. Again, this is the full thing. It's an hour and 11 minutes. brain science from bench to battlefield. This, guys, is terrifying.

What they can be used to do is create particular yet highly selective effects in individuals so that they can be delivered at very, very low doses, yet deliver a high amplification effect. It's called a hormetic potential to be able to alter cognition, emotions, and behaviors. How do you do that? Well, you can work on key operatives. In other words, this individual who's sitting before me may be a diplomat. Oh, really quickly. I just for framing this, James Giorado, who's speaking is a professor in the Department of Neurology

and Biochemistry at Georgetown University. And he over, he works with NASA or, I mean, NATO, he works with intelligence, you know, the military. I mean, it's all the overlap with exactly what we're talking about. How do you do that? Well, you can work on key operatives. In other words, this individual who's sitting before me may be a diplomat. They are now coming to interact with me. They may have a posture that does not necessarily align with mine.

Can I alter their cognition? Can I alter their affiliation? Can I alter their emotionality? And in such a way, might I be able to alter their behavior? Yeah, I can. And just realized, right, this is not new. Discussing, yeah, they already can do this. They can already utilize these technologies to manipulate you and the way you perceive

the world around you. And this is about taking that in a whole new direction, or rather, a more invasive, deep. more manipulative direction. If in fact this individual possesses political or charismatic capability, charm, charisma, leadership potential, to then stand before their people and say, this guy's my best buddy now. They might go, well, I'm following this guy.

Or they might think he's stark raving mad and I've created social disruption within his political right. I can do that a variety of level. Now there's a couple different points. It's about the middle part of what he says here, but I wanted to include all of it. And I just want you, so this goes into a lot of different angles to this. It's one about something that is deployed, right, whether viral or bacteria that can manipulate, or rather just the threat of that, which can manipulate, that goes in the parasite stress theory that Derek has covered, that they don't need it, or Danny Randcourt's work, they just the threat alone will drive you into taking whatever they want. But then also the application of some technology side of this, the nanotech, the smart dust aspect.

From individuals who are head of a small family or a group, to the tribal, to the community, to the large-scale population. So we can utilize these things to be able to affect key operators and dynamic individuals who make charismatic, politically, or through other means of power, be able to affect groups. It's a ripple effect. It is a ripple effect. Moreover, we can induce a number of neuro-microbiological agents to then incur something called high morbidity. These are not necessarily mortal agents. We can modify the existing palette of bacteria and viruses through the use of gene editing techniques.

Very viable. This has been some of the ongoing work with my colleague. Diane De Ullis at National Defense University. That's literally what we're talking about in the overlap of genetically manipulating viruses to do X, Y, and Z. And what we can also do is recognize that there are existing microbiologicals that can be harnessed to then induce the effects. We can also engage certain chemicals that way. What we want here is a morbidity factor, not necessarily a mortality factor. I want to make people sick.

And what I do here is the virus is not necessarily the bug. The virus is what I put over the Internet. Let me show you how I can crash a system pretty easily. Now, this is just the overlap to how you can use the simple suggestion. And think about this and how that overlap with the COVID-19 illusion. I affect key individuals here, here, and here. And then I take another community in the back of the room. I affect key individuals there.

And then I take another community. I affect key individuals there. And then I do what every good attributional group does. I beat my chest and take credit for it. What I put it over the Internet is this is a virus. a virus, bacteria, an agent that I have infiltrated into your fill in the blank. I say it's a weapon of mass destruction and what I tell you what's going to do is it's going to produce paranoia, anxiety, and sleeplessness.

What I've just done as I've recruited every paranoid hypochondriac to think that they have whatever that is. I've used salient and sentinel cases and I create essentially a legion of what's known as the worried well. They now flood emergency rooms. They flood their clinicians. The CDC responds back and says, well, No, no, no, no, there is no such a thing.

And I've created a schism of trust between the population and the polis. It's both a short and a long war's effect. Right. So that's just about just narrative control. And this gets into the actual deploying of something real. Moreover, I can create particular neuro-microbiologicals that may have a much longer duration of action. For example, modified Zika virus.

Modified Zika virus. What I can then do as a consequence of that is I can affect subsequent generations to incur of public health morbidity. and mortality effect that then creates an increased economic and perhaps social burden. Long war scenario. If I wanted to do something that's a little bit more proximate, I can utilize nanoparticulate matter. That we can utilize nanoscience to create much better drugs to get them where they got to go in the brain. I can create nanoscience and nanotechnology to be able to escort certain drugs across the proliferate barrier,

which is the blood-brain barrier and blood. So apply that to what we're talking about. And I'm not saying something that you are aware as present. by something that could have been utilized. And remember, why in the world were they jamming things into the blunt brain barrier under some guise of a test that you could have swabbed your mouth for? What were they testing to see was present? What were they trying to find out what was going on in your brain?

A super spinal fluid barrier. So I get these things where they got to go. But I can also utilize nanoparticulate matter in a very indiscriminate way. The idea here is that I can get with something called high CNS aggregation material that is essentially invisible to the naked eye and even to most scanners because it is so small that it selectively goes through most levels of filtered porosity.

These are then inhaled. Meaning masks don't work. These are through the nasal mucosa or absorbed through the oral mucosa. They have high CNS affinity. They clump in the brain or in the vasculature. And they create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis, in other words, a hemorrhage predisposition

or a clot predisposition in the brain. What I've done is I've created a stroking agent. Now that is an example of a specifically deployed weapon, right, in utilizing the same technology that simply creates death, like, as we're discussing in the dual-use aspect of it. But what we're getting into is the more of the middle ground aspect. It overlaps with the Lieber-Langer research in regard to biosurveillance, even going as far as to actually control how you, the output, your movements, your thought processes, and so

this is in, it's in the middle of what we're discussing here. But the point is the technology is real and absolutely, could be applied this way based on what we just discussed and what he's overlapping for the military. And it's very, very difficult to gain attribution to do that. I can use that on a variety of levels from the individual to the group, highly disruptive. And in fact, this is one of the things that has been entertained and examined to some extent by my colleagues in NATO. NATO. And to those who are working on the worst use of neurobiological sciences to create populational disruption.

Very, very worried about the potential for these nanoparticulate agents to be CNS aggregating agents to cause neural disruption. Think about that. So this is an older video where he's talking about how NATO is very concerned about the utilization of exactly what they're working on and exactly what's being utilized in the work we're discussing. Gee, I wonder why they're afraid of it. Like, I mean, whether or not you think they're like with the same illusion of the gain of function work, they're doing it to get ahead of it to stop in case the bad guy Russians do it, which is just as likely. Or they're just making weapons. So they have the weapon when the weapons used on them. They don't care about how it affects you.

The point is it's real. and they're concerned about it to the point to where they're making it themselves, or maybe that's the illusion so they can make it in the first place. Either as hemorrhagic and vascular disruptors or as actual neural network disruptors because they interfere with the network properties of various neural nodes and systems within the brain. And that's where it comes in for me to the meshing concept, right, the idea of maybe not disrupting it, but maybe creating that. And this overlaps with, as I'm not going to get too deep into today,

with the concept of artificial intelligence, the mapping of the human brain, the consciousness, they've continued to fail at. That's one other example of how this could have been utilized. I thought about that right in the beginning of all this. That's when the whole magnogenetics aspect came into play. Wondering whether or not this was about trying to mesh human, whether it's a specific grouping of the population or the whole planet. I don't know, but it's very real.

And this goes back to the Internet of Nanof Things, the Internet of Bodies, and how that can be employed. I mean, it's the same as simplified as it sounds, the routers in your house. you can utilize the technology and the wireless aspect of this throughout the again the internet of bodies is about using nanotechnology internally and then connecting those things to the internet and then that could then be meshed in regard to the data flow i really do think there's a part of that here now here is an older post from where was the date on this right there november 2020 right in the beginning of the COVID illusion this is from at the United States Naval Academy. And it's the same discussion. This is James Gordano, Battlescape Brain,

military and intelligence, use of neurocognitive science. I just like, think about the name, battlescape brain. Battlescape brain. This is what they're talking about prior to the mass deploying of a genetic manipulation. And God knows what else.

Now, before we finish with the last two videos, I want you to think broadly here about the concept of stuff like this. Nanotoxicology. And this is from 2013. 12, excuse me. Nanotechnology is considered as one of the key technology of the 21st century. Did they tell, funny how they don't tell anybody that until it's already being utilized

and promises revolution in our world. Of objects at nanoscale take on novel properties and functions that differ markedly from those seen in the corresponding bulk counterpart primarily because of their small size and large surface area. Studies have revealed that the same properties that make nanoparticles so unique could also be responsible for their potential toxicity, which it's exactly why the lipid nanoparticle concentration has continued to cause the problem that it still does because they never solved that.

Or at the very least, they thought they did and they failed. It says nanotechnology is rapidly advancing with more than 1,000 nanoproducts already on the market. In 2012, as they're saying, we don't even know if it's safe. Exactly the point. It says considering the fact that intended as well as an unintended exposure to nanomaterials

is increasing and presently no clear regulatory guidelines on the testing evaluation of nanoparticulate materials are available. The in vitro toxicology studies become extremely relevant and important, which I don't think they care about. Very interesting. Now here, it's just a couple of interesting overlaps that I'll share with me, and this is from this three days ago. Biometrics implementations around the world undermined by lack of consent, just kind of an abstract way to show you that doesn't matter what we're getting into, whether it's the simple old school kind of clumsy idea now,

just your data, your personal online information, or internal bio-surveillance, they never follow through with what they claim. We're not going to share this, we're going to keep this private. The point is, we're at a point now where your biometrics, it says, what's the Wild West out there? And they're taking this stuff without your consent. They're taking this stuff as you walk by street cameras.

It's everywhere. And we don't even really fully understand what that will mean the further we get into the whole digital twin online discussion. It's terrifying. As well as the fact of exactly what I'm talking about is something that is being researched and long has been and I think we're at the cusp, if not already happened. This is 2019. Human brain cloud interface. The internet comprises a decentralized global system that serves humanity's collective effort to generate process and store data, most of which is handled by the rapid. expanding cloud. A stable secure, which I disagree with, real-time system may allow for interfacing

the cloud with the human brain. Now, guys, this could be a way to get you to do the thing that they tried to get you to do and it didn't work. But think about that, the idea of a person, like, willfully tapping your brain into some cloud dynamic. That's kind of crazy to me. That's the overlap with the Elon Musk discussion as well, which is one promising strategy for enabling such a system, denoted here as the human brain cloud interface, would be based on technologies referred to as neural nanorobotics. Future neural nanorobotics technologies are anticipated to facilitate accurate diagnoses and eventual cures.

That's always how this is framed, and maybe that's even true. But the point is so much bigger than that. Neural nanorobotics may also enable the brain cloud interface with controlled connectivity between neural activity and external data storage and processing via the direct monitoring of the brain's neurons and synapses. What does that give you? Mapping. And it's much more than what it just describes right there.

But the bottom line is I think, especially once this becomes the cloud, the mesh, the interface, the overlap, this is something that will give them more insight into the way the brain works and how consciousness works, I guess, is the right word, than ever before. Subsequent to navigating the human vascular,

three species of neural nanorobotics could traverse the blood-brain barrier. Enter the brain, ingress into individual human brain cells, starting to sound familiar, and auto-position themselves at the axi-on initial segments of neurons within gallial cells and in intimate proximity to synapses. They would then, then, wirelessly transmit, whatever that stands for, that many bits per second, of synaptically processed and encoded

human brain electrical information via auxiliary nanorobotic fiber optics, with the capacity to handle up to 10 to the 18th power bits per second and provide rapid data transfer to a cloud-based supercomputer for real-time brain state monitoring and data extraction. Sign me up. What in the hell, man? This stuff is terrifying. And I know anybody paying attention that so far sees how perfectly that overlaps with everything else we're talking about. Now, just to end with the same things we discussed last time we discussed this, that they're telling you they're going to do this. James Corbett's one that really focused on this one from Canada exploring biodigital convergence, where it just basically tells you, right?

In the coming years, biodigital technologies could be woven into our lives in a way that digital technologies are, now, biological and digital systems are converging and could change the way we work, live, and even evolve as a species. My God. And they're just straight up telling you this. We've also talked about the fact where this document, I'll show you next, says in 2002, they have a 20-year plan, which puts us right on track to alter evolution with nanotechnology. It's just right on the surface everywhere.

This is converging technologies for improving human performance. What is Klaus Schwab telling you that we're going to merge your biological and you're basically merging your technological side with your biological side? That's what they're telling. That's what he says the Fourth Industrial Revolution is all about. I have that. I know I do somewhere. What the fourth industrial revolution will lead to is a fusion of our physical, our digital, and our digital and. our biological identities.

The rest of the clip goes on to make it clear that he decides to say that COVID-19 is a perfect example, a perfect opportunity to do that. Why does that make sense? We discussed this back on the 17th of May 2021, the biodigital convergence, COVID magnetogenic magnetic ferretin vaccines. Talking about it in 2021, guys. So to end, I thought it was interesting to talk about just one. abstract part of this that I don't, you know, I very much believe is connected. But the reality of genetic, of geoengineering and the application of smart dust, which will end with, which you've seen many times, I don't think of something that should be dismissed.

But for those that they just act like all of this is dismissable, how about something that you, I mean, I think this is regarded by most people today as a conspiracy theory. Even though it is a provable reality, and even though truth through media just shared an old video where this is David Walker at the time, the Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, technology and engineering, openly admitting that HARP was used to control the ionosphere, to be able to control weather and a lot of other things. And yet, it's a fake news story when brought up in civilized society.

My point is to show you there's a lot around all of this that is converging to manipulate you. And we get told things are fake. Going back to the opening point about miss and disinformation, listen to what he says here. The Air Force has gotten great value out of HARP in the past. We took it over from the Navy and managed it and actually did a number of experiment campaigns up there and have finished our work that we're interested in doing up there.

We've moving on to other ways of managed... Finished their work, was the point. ...theirine the ionosphere, which the harp was really designed that we're interested in doing up there. We've moving on to other ways of managing the ionosphere, which the harp was really designed to do, was to... Very clear. Very, very clear. Managing the ionosphere. To inject energy into the ionosphere, be able to actually control it.

To inject energy into the ionosphere in order to control it. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's exactly what people talk about. Now, one application of that would be to manipulate the weather. But it gets in a... It's much, much, much more dynamic than that. But that work has been completed. The Earth... Completed. It's an old video.

Air Force has maintained. the site for other government agencies to use for several years now. Oh, great. And with DARPA completing their project, that's our last government customer that we have in the site. Great. So DARPA, the same group involved with everything we're talking about right now, utilizing and controlling the ionosphere, right?

Well, let's not forget this is not some secret thing. Here's an old post from 2018 from Harvard. Harvard, again, Harvard. It's funny how, I mean, not to say just because it's Harvard that's necessarily connected, but that's three times now this has dovetailed over. lapsed intertwined with the work of Charles Lieber, Harvard, and everything else, which is stratospheric aerosol injection, tactics that cost and costs within the first 15 years of deployment. This is geoengineering.

It's not a fake story for people to still ridiculously say that. This has been ongoing for a very long time. You can call it chem trails if you want, but I agree with Dane Wigantine. That's a term that is manipulated. Geoengineering or rather specifically stratospheric aerosol injection is very real. The question is, is that being used and is it being controlled in order to deploy something? In this case, we can talk about smart dust because I think that's the most obvious that overlaps with nanotechnology and whether or not we're talking about something that has or has been deployed or will be in the future

that would then work in connection in concert with whatever's currently been in your body via the COVID-19 injection should you have taken that route. So once again, for those that don't. think this is real. Okay, this is MakerCon from nine years ago. The inevitability of smart dust. In fact, when he's talking about it, it's already real. It's already there. So that means today it is, for sure. The point is nine years ago, he talks about this and says this was 10 years old at the time. So almost 20 years ago. Funny the timing of all this, right? The devices, the computing behind those interfaces aren't going to go away. They're going to just become invisible. We're still essentially the banging the rocks together stage for this sort of stuff.

And you haven't really seen anything yet. So this is closer to the end of the vision. This is this powder-sized chip, and that's a salt crystal. So this is a small thing. It's something called the Mew chip from Hitachi. It's the smallest commercially available RFID system in the world. And it can be pulse powered by radio waves. It doesn't require a battery.

Pulse powered by radio waves. Does it sound familiar? It's exactly with radiogenetics. It's exactly what we're just talking about. But that's not even necessary. Literally scatter this stuff like dust or embedded into a sheet of paper. And you know what the really interesting thing

about this technology is? This was commercially released 10 years ago. That makes it 19 years old today. So the inevitability of smart dust. So what is smart dust? Can you even imagine how much more advanced has gotten in 20 years? SmartDust, of course, isn't a new concept. It originated with DARPA back in the 90s.

Of course it did. And it's general purpose computing, sensors, wireless network networking, all bundled up into millimeter-scale sensor modes, drifting in the air currents, flex of computing power, settling on your skin, ingested, monitoring you inside and out. Right. And if you don't think that's possible, this is the Michigan micro-mot. It's a cubic millimeter inside. And in deference to the speaker before, yes, it runs an arm processor.

It runs on your own body's power. It does not need anything to operate. It could, though, and it could be adapted and grown. The point is this can be deployed and can even relay information. This is one of the earliest examples of the biosurveillance aspect. But it's gotten much, much more alarming than that. It's a tiny computer, and it features data processing, data storage, wireless comms. And it's probably as close to the true.

Smart dust vision from the early DARPA days would come so far. They're designed to harvest energy from the environment around them and to communicate by a mesh network. There it is. And of course, the energy is the key problem with it. It can make the computing small. The energy is hard. The bottom line here, guys, this is quite obvious to me. I'm not saying that this is provably already done.

Obviously, I hope it's clear that it could have been. It's very real. Everything already exists. and the reality of how they've deployed things in the past, especially when things like this happen, you look back and realize that it already happened for 10 years before they tell you what's happening. I just don't.

I mean, look, and then going back to the compulsory bioenhanagement aspect, they're openly telling you that should they just happen to decide it's in the best interest of society, whatever that means to them, that they'll just do it without you knowing anyway. Everything's on the table. Now, I'm really not trying to just create fear here. I think there's enough in the world in what they're using

and utilizing whether the gain, function to be to if you're afraid of already but i just want people to understand where we actually are and i'm willing to bet you that i'm barely scratching the surface on where we actually are this is just what we know about and the reality is all about internal meshing overlap the the nanotech connection the internet of the bot the internet of nanof things the internet of bodies and the biosurveillance and in fact as i made sure to go over even the outward control of what you think and do. I just don't know why we can't really engage with this conversation. I just felt like this was a necessary point, especially seeing some new gain of function aspect that suddenly is able to

cause some kind of brain virus that kills you in a week. Is that actually what's going on? Or are we watching something that outlines exactly what we're discussing here? Right. A weapon that's been utilized. Tough for you to decide. I think ultimately, with all the evidence we have, that it's very clear that there's something to be concerned about here. And the last thing, assuming we have any influence over their actions, that we should be allowing is the further research in this regard. I really just think we need to start, like, just gain a function, obviously. But then again, we all seem to as a population be very aware of gain of function is the last

thing we should be allowing. And here it's even, it's not even just stopping. It's not only not stopping. It's increasing at this point. So, you know, the question is always, how do we, in fact, stop these things? seeing as well, they don't care what we think. They did. Two-party illusion dynamics will always keep them bickering over something to continue enough just to get to the next step.

And on top of that, what's going on with Gaza or Syria or anywhere else? How do we know they're not already testing stuff like this? As we've seen numerous times in Gaza in particular, battle tested or Pfizer's lab. In any case, I plan on talking more about that angle and that conversation tomorrow or the next show, most likely tomorrow. But I just really hope this can. open people's minds to where I really think this is going. So thank you for tuning in today. I hope this open people's minds.

I hope you're not reflexively dismissing any of this as conspiracy theory because literally everything I discuss is provable. Other than my hypothesis on how it might come together, this is all factual. All the links are down below. You can prove it for yourself. If you're the kind of person that will dismiss this out of hand, calling it conspiracy theory when I'm literally providing source material and peer-reviewed science,

not from some fringe place, but from their own research, of DARPA and NATO and everything else, then you don't want to acknowledge it. At least be honest about that. So please share this with people that need to see it. Thank you for tuning in today. I love you all. As always, question everything.

Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant. Let's also be clear. The future is not just happening. The future is built by us.