Interview with Wolfgang Wodarg and Viviane Fischer--Stiftung Corona-Ausschuss (Full Text Transcript)

I mixed together their video with my own and added subtitles and a transcript. I hope this will help get this ideas out far and wide.

(Viviane)

Hello? I'm. I'm glad you're with us. We had a little bit of a mix up with regards to timing, but that's no problem.

We are very excited to talk to you and it would be great if maybe you could introduce yourself. yeah. Then we can take it from there.

00:01:52:03 - 00:02:35:46

(Jay Couey)

Thanks very much for having me. My name is Jonathan Couey and I am a recovering academic neurobiologist. I had about it, I don't know, a 15 or 20 year career as an academic biologist before the pandemic started. And after speaking out against measures and mandates, I was told to go home from my position at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine as a research assistant professor, and I continued to speak out against the I don't know what I would characterize it as other than nonsense, the biological nonsense that was being characterized as a pandemic.

00:02:35:51 - 00:03:11:48

I didn't figure it out right away. I don't want anybody to to think that I came to where I am now. After a few days of thinking about it for a very long time in 2020, I was still convinced that there was a lab leak that was being covered up and that this was what was happening. And as my understanding of virology and the biology underlying the the idea of a pandemic started to started to clarify a little bit or I started to clarify it a little bit, I've come to realize that that's probably not what happened.

00:03:11:52 - 00:03:37:03

And so I've spent my last three years basically trying to learn enough immunology and virology and and the biology that I didn't know previous to the pandemic so that I could understand what really happened. And and so I found myself, how can I say it, crossing paths with a lot of people. A lot of people have come to my house in Pittsburgh to visit and talk to me about this stuff.

00:03:37:07 - 00:03:58:42

And most of the people that have come to visit me have turned out to be meddlers in the sense that they didn't really have my or my family's best interest in mind. And so over the last three years, I've come to understand that most of the people who have stepped up to speak out have in some way or another been well, been compromised.

00:03:58:42 - 00:04:29:57

And I don't think it's to say that there are bad people. I think it's to say that that something very serious occurred across the globe, across these Western countries that involves a government operation. And that government operation gives a priority to a narrative. And so people who are people who are in control of this theater have perpetuated this narrative that a pandemic occurred and that it's actually not a very bad one, and it could be much worse in the future.

00:04:30:01 - 00:04:52:37

And I think this is a mythology that they've been trying to install for a number of years so that our children or this or even worse, that we will teach this mythology to our children and that they can be governed by it forever. And I think that's the crossroads that all of humanity is at right now. And it sounds a bit maybe overdramatic or melodramatic or overdramatic, but it's really not.

00:04:52:37 - 00:05:31:59

It's a it's it's really where we are right now. We need to reevaluate our basic understanding of who we are as a species and where we fit in our in the natural world. And I think we need to start to really introspectively think about what the idea of a pandemic really is, what the biology that they claim really is, and then investigate whether or not this biology has any foundation in reality, because I think we will find that a lot of what is misconstrued as public health is actually a large a large mythology that's been thrown at us.

00:05:32:04 - 00:06:01:57

It sounds very scary and it sounds very daunting to try and penetrate this, but I think in reality, a lot of people have felt this inside for a long time. A lot of academic biologists have the toolset to understand this, this deception, and just have chosen not to apply their their their critical thinking to this particular problem. And I think that's one of the magics of of of where I am.

00:06:01:57 - 00:06:36:55

I used to be an academic biologist, so I understand exactly how focused one has to be in order to succeed in that environment. And that's that extreme focus. And specialization is created a bunch of really smart thinkers that are so hyper focused on one biological problem that they have essentially undermined themselves and as responsible adults, and they can't apply their unique skill set to the right to reality, they just apply it to this one academic pursuit and they take everything else for granted.

00:06:36:55 - 00:07:10:10

And I think that mistake is being made by so many hundreds of thousands of biologists that have this inherent love of biology. This hasn't inherent respect for the sacredness of life. They have this inherent understanding of the irreducible complexity that they are, that they are knocking against all the time. And and yet some reason or another, because of the way the academic environment is set up, people like me who have this, this intense love of everything alive can be put in a laboratory.

00:07:10:10 - 00:07:51:16

And that that fascination and that love for everything sacred can be sort of compartmentalized to answer one question. And in that in that extreme focus, monastery style focus, you lose touch with with the rest of the world. And this has resulted in, I think, the biology of public health being contorted into what it is today. And there are no biologists that are in love with biology that are curating this public health mythology.

00:07:51:16 - 00:08:20:00

None, none of these people are there for that reason. They're all there for power, for for greed, for for intellectual property, for money. None of these these individuals that have led us through the last four years are our children who grew up as biologists and teachers, who grew up as biologists and lovers of the natural world. These are not these are not who we are being led by right now.

00:08:20:00 - 00:08:43:12

We are being led by individuals who, by wittingly or unwittingly, have given up the understanding of what it means to be a human and what it means to understand where that line of sacredness starts. You know, when a baby comes out of the womb, it's pretty much perfect. That idea has been wholly discarded by by our academic biologists.

00:08:43:12 - 00:09:07:57

And that's really a tragedy that from which this all comes and so has a really long introduction that I would say I'm a lifelong biologist who wandered his way through life trying to figure out what to do with this extreme fascination and love for the living world. And I found myself in academic biology for a long time asking questions about the brain and being very happy with that job.

00:09:07:57 - 00:09:28:36

I actually thought it was the most amazing job because I got to use high powered electron art, not electron, but high powered microscopes, high powered confocal microscopy. It's a lot of photography. It's a lot of of high precision measurements. It's a lot of very interesting things that include surgery and all this other stuff that you get to do.

00:09:28:40 - 00:10:00:55

And so it's a really wonderful pursuit because you really are monastery style focused on a question. But now the question becomes, is that the right question? Are you pursuing an avenue which is expanding our understanding of of who we are as a species? And I believed personally what I was doing in neuroscience was doing that, but I also was keenly aware that there were many, many, many avenues of investigation that were not doing that, and not just in neuroscience, but across the board in the biological sciences in general.

00:10:00:55 - 00:10:34:31

And that's really the unique perspective I think I bring to this, is that I've had my my feet on the floor of a laboratory where, you know, grant money is important. For a very long time. I've watched how this what this does to intelligent people and how how rewarding it feels for them to succeed in this environment, but also how how isolating it is and how how how it it takes away their the power that they would have as a leader in their in their community.

00:10:34:31 - 00:11:07:17

For example, most of these people I'm just babbling here, most of these people who are professors at universities should probably also be community leaders where maybe they're a mayor or they're a board member or they they influence decision in their community. But because this academic job is so all encompassing and and so borders on an obsession, they have no extra energy for their children or for their wife or their marriage, never mind for contributing to the governance of their community.

00:11:07:17 - 00:11:40:01

So one of the amazing things that this academic, you know, the ivory tower has done to to the way that our we govern our communities is that some of the well who probably would be some of the more respectable leaders, some of the more articulate leaders have been taken out of that arena and put into this, you know, this rat race ladder climbing exercise, which feels very good to them because they get to ask these what they feel are interesting questions.

00:11:40:01 - 00:12:13:26

But the way that the funding has been used to sculpt that pursuit for the last 40 years has resulted in a lot of wasted money, a lot of wasted pursuit, and a lot of of bad assumptions upon which public health is now based. And so we have many, many years of work to try to reverse this. And and and the pandemic, I hope, has given us some open windows with which to show people what's really going on and what's really happening.

00:12:13:26 - 00:12:40:09

And so I'm hoping that we can maintain this momentum enough so that we can start to get to a lot of these academic biologists who, as I said earlier, have the toolset to crack this puzzle but haven't yet put any of their critical thinking faculties toward reality. Again, they're still super focused on their their academic pursuits because that's what they've told is the way that they're supposed to contribute to the world.

00:12:40:13 - 00:12:45:38

So I don't know how that that's the worst introduction I've ever given. But but they're.

00:12:45:43 - 00:13:08:12

(Viviane)

That's all right. I think you're it's right on the point, basically. So would you think that because I mean there's since there's a lot of grant money involved so people do you say it's maybe also limiting their you know the approach they take toward the the field that they maybe do research in because there's money only for this kind of research and so on.

00:13:08:16 - 00:13:13:38

(Viviane)

So that also makes a limit. You know, the fields where you.

00:13:13:43 - 00:13:14:37

(Jay Couey)

It's maybe.

00:13:14:40 - 00:13:30:41

(Viviane)

An incentive, an incentive for maybe even coming out with like, say, fraudulence or like manipulated statistics and so on because you think, it has to be there's more more grants coming up. If I say, there's long-covid and I hope we have to do this better.

00:13:30:41 - 00:13:32:02

(Jay Couey)

So I think it's.

00:13:32:02 - 00:13:33:36

(Viviane)

Also a distortion.

00:13:33:36 - 00:14:01:04

(Jay Couey)

It's definitely spot on. I think that that that I can give you several examples where this is actually the primary mechanism by which these these idea spaces are are sculpted. And so one example might be the genetic causes of autism. If you fund $1 billion to investigate genetic correlations with autism and you you, you use these grants to do a couple of different things.

00:14:01:04 - 00:14:37:00

Number one, you use these grants to tell people like me what the right question to ask is. Now, if I'm an academic biologist, I need to find money. And so I've got to look for grant calls. And every grant call has a specific little limited window of investigation that your question should fall under. And in this respect of genetic causes of autism, has caused an entire field of neuroscience to almost completely transform into the assumption that autism is caused exclusively by genes.

00:14:37:04 - 00:15:14:12

And so there has been so much investigation into correlation in animal models of autism, which are another thing that get that get essentially they get codified or canonized by these grant calls because after five years of funding research into the genetic causes of autism, you've also funded five years of research into animal models of autism, and by it by no fault of their own, have made these legitimate models legitimate models, because all these papers from the previous years have come out.

00:15:14:16 - 00:15:59:33

And so now there's a whole field that has precedents. And these models have precedents so that you can say, well, this guy did this study and this guy and this lady did this study. And so I'm following on the footsteps of their work. And so this pattern of building up the the scientific literature has resulted in whole fields which are essentially probably working on the wrong assumption set, but have perpetua waited because there is this literature foundation that they can use to justify what they're doing and what they're doing still fits within these grant research calls and these broad, not broad but very limited spectrums of investigation that are established by the grant calls.

00:15:59:33 - 00:16:28:19

And so it is of utmost importance to understand that the vast majority of academic neuroscientists, academic biologists, anybody that's investigating a medical thing is investigating a question that has been they have been pigeonholed into asking because of who they studied with, what they did in their Ph.D., why they did their postdoc. These things already start to limit the the sliver of biology that people can investigate.

00:16:28:19 - 00:16:54:09

And then once they start trying to solicit their own money, they almost are forced to work on things that they worked on in the past in order to justify their expertise. And then, lo and behold, you've got a whole world full of academic biologists that specialize in a sliver of knowledge and a sliver of investigation, and by definition are very careful about not stepping outside of that so that nobody can criticize them.

00:16:54:14 - 00:16:55:30

And so this is.

00:16:55:35 - 00:16:56:49

(Viviane)

A lot of angst involved.

00:16:57:00 - 00:17:30:07

(Jay Couey)

Absolutely there is. And in fact, that's a lot of how these fields work is that you become an expert in your subfield of this subfield, and then everybody cites you and they need to cite that thing, but they don't investigate it because they know that you're doing it. And so as long as this little, you know, monastery system of of biology continues, then with certain funding streams and with certain priorities, they can perpetuate the idea that public health is X, Y, and Z.

00:17:30:12 - 00:18:08:22

That pandemic potential can be measured with X, Y, and Z. And after ten years they have a half literature foundation which can be pointed to as pandemic potential. And I think that's one of the tricks that has been pulled on us since about, I would say, 2002, where they have slowly but surely led academic biologist led bureaucrats and led the common populace into believing that RNA, if it has the right combination of bases, can perpetuate itself around the world with high fidelity for many years.

00:18:08:22 - 00:18:47:02

And that's just biologically not true. RNA cannot make a protein and then copy itself and then jump from people to people without changing its sequence for hundreds of infections over millions of of it. The story that they've told us is not possible using RNA. It's just not you can't leak RNA in a puddle and then have it get into one person's lungs and then some mechanism by which that RNA copies itself with high enough fidelity to be found in several places around the world with few changes.

00:18:47:02 - 00:19:23:58

And then a few months later, many more places around the world with very few changes. This level of fidelity, there is no support for this in the biological literature. There is support for four signals in this size scale. There is support for for genetic signals of DNA and RNA in the background. But what they've done is essentially turned up the volume on on a ham radio that's picking up noise from the atmosphere and then turned it up loud enough so that they could use an algorithm to say, in that noise there's some order.

00:19:24:03 - 00:19:55:52

And we have we have been allowed they have been allowed to get away with it because of the way that academic biology is in this monastery style, hyper specialized, and then they've controlled that specialization. How many people work on coronaviruses? How many people work on RNA viruses? Not very many. And the ones that work on the ones that matter for purposes of pandemic and purposes of establishing pandemic potential.

00:19:55:57 - 00:20:00:45

The list is extremely short. And the same people.

00:20:00:50 - 00:20:01:33

(Viviane)

Many people.

00:20:01:40 - 00:20:06:56

(Jay Couey)

So I mean, it's it's less than 20. It's less than four.

00:20:07:01 - 00:20:09:27

(Viviane)

Like worldwide. You think it's like.

00:20:09:32 - 00:20:09:55

(Jay Couey)

Many.

00:20:09:55 - 00:20:12:20

(Viviane)

Scientists who control this narrative.

00:20:12:25 - 00:20:40:46

(Jay Couey)

I mean, it's certainly it's certainly less than 20 scientists that control the clones. And so that's the that's the part of this that I think everybody essentially is missing. And and the part that I feel as though I want to be challenged on, I want some molecular biologist to come and say that I'm wrong, but essentially what I feel like has ruined my life is not coming out against the lab leak or saying it's a lab leak.

00:20:40:46 - 00:21:19:46

It's not coming out and saying that natural immunity to previous RNAs is is more than adequate to protect us from this new one if there is a new one. And that didn't ruin my life either. What ruined my life was when I started to say out loud that RNA can't pandemic, that RNA can't copy itself even once. It can't copy itself perfectly DNA because it's double stranded has this built in ability to it shows its errors because the double helix doesn't complete At least that's how the cartoon is told to us.

00:21:19:51 - 00:21:46:40

And there are other accessory enzymes that can come along and repair those errors. And so copying DNA into more DNA is thought to be, from a biology perspective, a very high fidelity process. But copying RNA is actually something that isn't done very often. And so when it is done in the context of the virology cartoon, it is done in two different contexts.

00:21:46:40 - 00:22:17:06

One is the negative strand RNA virus where they have to have an enzyme along with them because a negative strand RNA like in a measles virus, can't be immediately converted into a protein by hijacking our machinery because it's a negative strand. RNA, it doesn't work. So they need to have built into the virion a a protein that can copy that RNA into a positive strand, RNA, which can run through our ribosome.

00:22:17:11 - 00:22:45:39

So it's an interesting cartoon already when you contrast the cartoon of a flu virus or a measles virus, which needs to have a built in protein enzyme already present in every virion that's going to be infectious versus a corona virus, that actually doesn't because it's a positive strand, single stranded RNA and it actually supposedly contains an RNA code for the RNA dependent RNA polymerase.

00:22:45:39 - 00:23:11:57

And so it doesn't have one in the virus, but instead it it it makes one. And then that enzyme is supposed to copy and make new viruses. So in these two in these two sort of illustrations, what you don't hear in what you don't see is that every single time the RNA dependent RNA polymerase makes a copy of that RNA, by definition there are errors.

00:23:12:01 - 00:23:48:59

It has to be that's that's the that is the foundational understanding of how this works. There's can't be proofreading. There is a accessory protein called Exon XO, and that supposedly can increase the fidelity of corona virus genome replication. But it's not proofreading. It can't be proofreading because there's no there's a very it's not even really well understood, but there's ever a double stranded RNA moment during the copying of the RNA in these things because we don't understand very well how this works.

00:23:48:59 - 00:24:25:30

But the point would be that what they have described to us is a phenomenon where an RNA with a 30,000 base pair genome could be found in Iran, in Wuhan, in Washington State and in Italy, and that a few months later it could be found in New York and in Florida and in Oklahoma. And that, relatively speaking, that RNA signal would be almost identical across 30,000 bases across all these different measurements.

00:24:25:30 - 00:24:58:03

And that has no precedents in the history of biology. There's no not one paper that has ever demonstrated that this is even remotely possible. And we have to understand what they've implied. They've implied millions of infections by the same RNA virus that originated from a point. And that's that's just it's the unfathomable. It's just so beyond absurd. And then the spectacular commitment to this is what happened.

00:24:58:08 - 00:25:34:12

It just reveals the that the the thing for what it is. And so here's where we go full circle that I apologize. I almost lost track of my thoughts. If RNA can't do this, then then what's really going on? Well, for the last 30 years, RNA viruses have been very difficult, if not impossible, to grow in culture. I'm not an expert on flu virus, but it does seem to be that flu viruses IT and flu virologists say that they can grow flu virus in cultures and in eggs and then they get a lot more flu virus.

00:25:34:12 - 00:26:01:19

So I can't argue and I won't argue. I'm not sophisticated enough to argue with that. But what I will argue with is that what they grow there is a very heterogeneous, very mixed bag of RNA exosomes or RNA particles. It's not a high fidelity version of the flu. And that's because of the way that these these genes are copied and the way they sort themselves out.

00:26:01:19 - 00:26:41:13

But it may be something that's useful for exposing your immune system. But my point is, is that when they study these viruses and it includes the flu, that a very standard procedure for these RNA signals is to convert them to DNA so that you can always go back to that sequence. And why is that important? Well, because it's not natural if you sample whatever these RNA signals are from a bat or from a pangolin, you are basically using a very tiny PCR amplicon to be a flag for the existence of what you assume to be a 30,000 base pair genome.

00:26:41:18 - 00:27:01:57

Once you get that very small amplicon flag, you say, you, there it is. And so then you use a fishing method to turn up the noise and then you look for a signal that fits a preconceived notion of what a corona virus is. When you find it, you can't do anything about it. You can't grow that in a dish.

00:27:01:57 - 00:27:22:00

You can't put it in a cell culture and grow enough of it to send all around the world, because that's really not how they work. And instead and they're trying to blame it on Ralph Barrett. But I think that's a little bit of a fudge in the sense of this. Molecular biology has been around for a very long time, and applying it to these particular sequences is not that big a deal.

00:27:22:04 - 00:27:52:37

We have known how to take different DNA pieces and stitch them together using and nucleases. We've known this for a very long time. Molecular biologists have been putting together, you know, different sequences of DNA for decades now. And so using this to make a 30,000 base pair genome of a coronavirus and then grow a lot of that DNA is a very normal baking procedure in in pharmaceutical companies.

00:27:52:37 - 00:28:22:30

When they make antibodies, they have to do a very similar thing. Making biologic oftentimes involves making a DNA construct and then the protein comes from it. But the intermediate, there is an irony. And so the way that they made this shot for everybody, the transfection shot is just simply a bacterial culture that makes the DNA. And the DNA is is they lace the culture, they take the DNA out, and then they put a an RNA polymerase on it.

00:28:22:30 - 00:28:43:33

They make the RNA that purify the RNA as best they can. And then they and they injected that into people after they combined it with a lipid nanoparticle. The point is, is that the only way the only way they've been able to study coronavirus is if they start from a DNA construct that they make RNA clones from. And so all of these papers that have ever studied SA is one.

00:28:43:33 - 00:29:15:45

For example, you can look this up, a lot of these papers start with SA's Urbani SA's Urbani is a sequence of SA's one taken from a guy named Urbani in 2000, three or 22, and they constructed a DNA clone of it and then they generated RNA from that DNA clone. And now if you think very carefully about what happens when the natural virus is put into a cell culture and natural virus is sampled in nature, you have an RNA that's being copied by an RNA polymerase.

00:29:15:50 - 00:29:45:34

When they make clones, they have a DNA that's being translated into RNA by an RNA polymerase, not an RNA dependent RNA polymerase, but an RNA polymerase that's designed to work or has evolved to work from DNA to RNA. And so that copying process is a little bit higher fidelity and more importantly, the template is higher fidelity. The enzyme doesn't jump off of DNA when it's making the RNA because that would make that would be a big problem for us in making proteins.

00:29:45:39 - 00:30:15:52

But the RNA dependent RNA polymerase is already well known to have a propensity to make many, many, many short genomic sequences of RNA as it copies the genome. It almost never makes it from beginning to end of the original RNA, and that can be seen in experiments from the seventies all the way up until now. No matter how they measurement, the full genome almost never gets copied and hundreds of thousands of copies of the subject Gnomic RNAs are present after this happens.

00:30:15:57 - 00:30:50:35

So again, the point is, is that whenever they've tried to sample these RNA signals from the wild, they peter out, they disappear, they collapse. There might be a signal in the animal, there might have been a signal in the sick person, but they're never able to reconstruct and sustain this signal in any laboratory preparation because of the nature of RNA copying its lack of fidelity and the sort of erroneous nature of RNA dependent RNA polymerase is the way that they work.

00:30:50:40 - 00:31:28:30

And so they bypass this whole problem by taking whatever signal they purport to find in nature and making an RNA construct and always starting from there. Because then when they inject that infectious RNA into the animal, they are injecting a concentration and purity of full genome RNAs that could never, ever, ever, ever, ever be found in nature, could never occur in nature, could never exist in nature, because again, RNA dependent RNA polymerase can't copy RNA like that.

00:31:28:35 - 00:31:53:31

But if you take a DNA copy of it and then use a commercial version of RNA polymerase, you can make a very, very large, relatively pure amount of self-replicating RNA that you can put in an animal, you can send around the world, you can put on cell culture and the cell culture will make lots of lots more RNA.

00:31:53:36 - 00:32:36:07

And so all of the the basic biologic biology of virology can be of coronavirus. Virology can be recreated using these clones. But these clones, I'm arguing, are nowhere near related to whatever RNA signal they purport to be finding in nature. It's just can't be possible. It's not. And this is, on the other hand, I hope that eventually I can shut up, is that this is the easy right in front of our hand, right in front of our face explanation for how this sequence could have been found in so many places at the same time, because this is how corona virus biology is done.

00:32:36:21 - 00:32:54:46

If you wanted five labs in the world to work on your new corona virus the way that Ralph Baric would do it is he would make a CD and a clone of it. He would produce enough infectious RNA to send around to all these labs, and they'd all get a perfect sample. And that's indeed what they've done with SARS-CoV-2 and some of these variants.

00:32:54:46 - 00:33:16:19

That's what they've done with Omicron. That's what they do with a pangolin virus that they're now saying was 100% lethal in the to her human ace2 mice that they put it in. They are confounding all of these different assumptions together. And the result is a mythology that we're supposed to teach our kids, which is that RNA can pandemic.

00:33:16:19 - 00:33:39:16

And this was a this was an easy one. And the next one could be much worse. I don't even remember what the question was anymore. Holy cow, Wolfgang. Wolfgang, can I just say that you probably saved my life and the life of my family because you spoke out in 2020. You were the first guy I saw. Your work in 2009 is heroic.

00:33:39:25 - 00:34:08:45

I also heard a presentation by Mark Advanced, the guy from Belgium a few years later where he trashed you and said that, he was a terrible guy for speaking out in 2009. And I just can't. I can't thank you enough for the rest of the Earth for for having done what you did and I hope I'm doing a little bit of justice to your to your work because I'm really only inspired by you and Mike Eden and a couple other heroes.

00:34:08:45 - 00:34:09:19

Seriously, You.

00:34:09:19 - 00:34:36:02

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

Know, I'm so much fascinated because you know the details and, you know, the many people who know many details and you have you have you have an overview of all those specialists you have met and you know what they think. And it's it's great for me. I'm just a practitioner. I'm just someone having being responsible for human lives as a public health guy who wanted to do the best he can.

00:34:36:07 - 00:35:03:36

And I'm a critical man. And this is what this this is only you know, this when we when we enter this region of molecules, when we start to explain what we experience, it would be what life is concentrated on molecules. I get lost, I get really lost. And I go back and I say, what can we observe? What's happening?

00:35:03:41 - 00:35:33:18

How long? What is the virus? Did they exist 100 years ago already? Did they exist a million years ago already? What? What? What function does viruses have in life? And life is a very, very perfect thing. I'm a fan of Metronome, you know, I think is in there. So I know about this this communication processes in life. Theoretically, I'm not interested in the details of molecules I cannot manage.

00:35:33:18 - 00:35:57:22

It's too much, but I think it's there is life is so much more clever than than than human being. And only human beings can be. So we we. You said something very, very important for me. This was a gift already. You said the irreducible complexity of life. This is what you said. And I think this is a great word.

00:35:57:26 - 00:36:28:45

And if you think this irreducible irreducibility of complexity, we would just have to step back and have to. Why do we what do we need for having a good life? What do we need? Do we need all of those those can we ever manage what is with artificial intelligence? It's not that it's artificial. It's done by men. This is artificial.

00:36:28:49 - 00:36:51:54

And those are part of biology, like we are human human beings. It's some very small part of biology. What you did when I look out of the window, there is there is the sea, there is the trees, there is so many living varieties I will never catch, I will never understand. And we are just we just go to work.

00:36:51:54 - 00:37:20:22

We just learn something we useless, something we have our attention. And you. This makes this makes me be very take back my mind. I don't know you. How do you say I'm I'm conscious that I don't. I don't know so much but I know there is there is something very well-functioning. And when we think we can make it better, we do many mistakes for sure.

00:37:20:27 - 00:37:43:46

(Jay Couey)

yes. And I think that's that's a perfect segue into what I was going to say is that, you know, I've been trying to come up with a few messages that that that non biologists can understand. And and one of the ones that I think is resonating with a lot of people right now is intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting the immune system is dumb.

00:37:43:51 - 00:38:12:36

And the reason why I love that phrase so much is because it gets back to the idea of what they are implying when they say that they can give, you know, 30 injections to my kid before age six months. And they are implying that this incredibly complex, irreducibly complex system that is the immune system is sufficiently understood that they can put a combination of things in and the muscle of your child to augment that system.

00:38:12:36 - 00:38:42:55

And that is the level of variety of audacity there. And arrogance is really extraordinary, but that's really where we are right now. And then the worst part is, is that it's now even a combination of substances, but it's an actual genetic signal. And in a toxic envelope that we have have even had the audacity to say is relatively equivalent to the previous combinations of terrible substances that we've been injecting, when in reality it's nowhere near equivalent.

00:38:42:55 - 00:39:16:00

And in fact, it probably makes these previous concoctions look relatively benign because they are just, you know, some heavy metals or some toxins your body has challenged and and your immune system is confused by. But this where you start to make your your biology behave differently and really potentially confuse your immune system that the I don't think the immune system is ever confused by an intramuscular injection of aluminum plus some proteins that all that crap is not supposed to be here.

00:39:16:04 - 00:39:31:46

But once you've transfected random cells in your body to express a protein, it becomes a very much more, in my humble opinion, diabolical signal that is much more challenging for the immune system to sort out without making a mistake.

00:39:31:46 - 00:40:18:22

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

And this is I was so interested when I was working with a group of biologists or you wouldn't. They were human genetics, genetic geneticists, and they were advising people with inborn defects, genetic defects. So they know children that cannot produce certain proteins they need for their life. And they tried to genetically modified those children too, that they can that they can build the protein, they need it, and they find out that after two years or after sometime they did it before they started producing the protein they needed, it was okay, but some time after some months or some years, this process was stopped again.

00:40:18:27 - 00:40:52:53

It just didn't work anymore. So there must be something within the human being they tried to treat, which repaired. There must be some plan of this human being, how it how it was born. It said, No, this doesn't fit to me. This is a strange thing, and you raise it again. So my hope is when they do this genetic operation that with millions of people that after two or three years the bodies will have, if they survive it, the bodies may repair it, repair it.

00:40:52:53 - 00:41:01:58

In many, many cases, I don't know it, but I think this this is a chance we can if it's some hope. Also, we can wait for.

00:41:02:03 - 00:41:27:09

(Jay Couey)

Yeah, I, I am I'm cautiously optimistic myself. I'm also cautiously optimistic that the people that did this who were aware, at least vaguely aware of the potential advantage they could gain if they put some placebo doses out there so that so that the so that the populace would be fooled into believing that the safety was was higher than it was.

00:41:27:09 - 00:41:50:51

And so I think there are a number of possible ways that that this this technology and I do think that's one of the things we have to acknowledge is that there was a concerted effort to bamboozle much of the free world into believing that Transfection has been proven to be useful and that now we just have to figure out what protein and and how exactly to do it.

00:41:50:51 - 00:42:19:45

Maybe we need a better lipid nanoparticle or maybe we need to inhale some of these things. But the basic methodology is on TV already checked out and it's already a miracle. And this I think is so much of the goal here is to get people to accept this and then, you know, maybe maybe the the old adage that all of these people have been saying for 20 years that mice lie and monkeys deceive, and the only thing that tells you the truth are humans.

00:42:19:49 - 00:42:50:07

Maybe this is part of a move toward getting people to accept that the only way we're going to make personalized medicine is to use, you as a as a guinea pig. And so there's so, so many frightening aspects of this that, again, assume that we've conquered the the irreducible complexity of biology, that we've figured it all out, that we're just a few years away from having the data set to put it into the air, and then the AI will spit out the the the answer.

00:42:50:07 - 00:43:10:39

And this is all an illusion. It's all an illusion that they've told rich people and they've told bureaucrats that that the the cheaper that we can make DNA and the cheaper it is to sequence, it is just the same as the easier it's going to be that we're going to understand it and that that's just not that they're not equivalent.

00:43:10:39 - 00:43:47:07

Things that we can make DNA cheaper doesn't mean we understand what we're making or how it is, how it contributes to the pattern integrity of life. And so that still is this thing that we're telling our we're telling our college kids and we're telling our high school kids that we have this mastery, that we don't have, and that we have this understanding that we don't have, and we're robbing them of this this reverence for for for life where we're robbing them of their of this reverence for the living world, and instead replacing it with this arrogance and with this and with this, it's terrible.

00:43:47:07 - 00:43:51:59

I really see it as a fundamental attack on who we are as humanity.

00:43:52:04 - 00:44:11:10

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

I think there may be there are those people who finance all of this and who say, yes, I need what you do. I take it and I use it in 7 billion people, 7 billion people, those people. Why do they do that? Yeah, part of they are part of biology, too.

00:44:11:15 - 00:44:52:46

(Jay Couey)

Yeah. It's it's hard to say. I mean, I think, number one, we have to admit that there are got to be a number of unwitting participants because I was an unwitting participant in 2020. I still, when you and Mike Eaton were saying that, you know, whatever these are the variants are probably baloney. And there were lots of, you know, signals like this when we were working before, I still was fighting for this idea that no, but sorry, laboratory virus could have heretofore unseen possibilities and laboratory virus could be much more infectious because it's got a fear and cleavage site.

00:44:52:51 - 00:45:16:27

And so I was totally fooled. I totally bought in to the idea that they were covering something up and that because it was a laboratory, a virus, that it could potentially have biology that wasn't natural. And that idea sucked me in and sucked a lot of people in. And I think that was intentional because that scared people into taking something that they otherwise would have never taken.

00:45:16:31 - 00:45:24:03

And here we are three years later, and I'm I'm really late to the party like you and Mike had seen through it already in 2020.

00:45:24:03 - 00:45:48:30

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

And I you know, it's not so difficult to see it when you when you have. I was very impressed by a memo where I could see it 24 hours short, where all the airplanes were yellow points driving around the world with 10 million passengers a day. Yes. With all their viruses on their body, in their body everywhere. Traveling around 10 million a day.

00:45:48:30 - 00:45:49:34

(Jay Couey)

Yes.

00:45:49:39 - 00:46:19:42

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

And spreading everything of every variation of life spreading that can live with human beings, spreading each day. And I was I was thinking of that and I was thinking Wuhan. There was such a high lethal thing Where in in Guangdong. In Guangdong. And when I was seeing where has it disappeared? Why does it disappear so quickly? And with all those passengers traveling around the world and the virus is so contagious.

00:46:19:42 - 00:46:47:13

And how how can this be? And we forgot, sirs. SARS didn't exist between 2005 and 2020. It a pit. Why this cannot be so such easy thoughts. You know, it's so easy. You don't have to know about molecular things. You just have to you just have to think, well, if there are viruses and they go around the world, they change every year a little bit.

00:46:47:16 - 00:47:20:40

We have the flu in Australia. When I had the when I was with the swine flu, my first call was to Australia, to a colleague in Australia. How is it with you? Do you have more cases than usual? You should know. So I knew what was going on. Yeah, it's it's really easy because when you know how those all those entities, those biological entities where they live, how they live normally, you have recognized them and you can observe them and then you see the effects and you can it's you don't need molecules to understand.

00:47:20:45 - 00:47:42:07

And when you're from your experience as a as a doctor, how often in in your when you were practicing, how often did you actually make a molecular or some kind of confirmation, whether with it with a diagnostic that you had a particular virus or were you always just treating, you.

00:47:42:12 - 00:47:43:24

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

Know, there was only flu?

00:47:43:28 - 00:47:44:42

(Jay Couey)

Yeah, okay.

00:47:44:47 - 00:48:11:10

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

And but there was one I started doing some nonsense when I started making the AIDS test, HIV test, because we were frightened. I was also frightened. I thought there was something very serious. The one. Right. And they they gave me the HIV test in my ward and they said, You can use it. And I used it. And they found some positive cases, but they were all healthy.

00:48:11:15 - 00:48:36:45

And I never saw someone with immune deficiency before in my region. My whole in the whole region where we're where I used to practice, never met my handbook. So no, I didn't. It suddenly there should be something very new. So but I was trapped then with this big propaganda HIV. And I'm very sorry I did many wrong things because of that.

00:48:36:50 - 00:48:49:03

And I understood like many, many years later, many years later, I understood that they made this test and they produced those cases, as they always do cases.

00:48:49:03 - 00:49:04:46

(Jay Couey)

Isn't it fascinating? Isn't that test an antibody test? So actually, for AIDS, it's an antibody test, which is extraordinary because now they sold as antibodies as immunity. It's extraordinary and different. Yes.

00:49:04:51 - 00:49:13:03

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

And it's it's very you know, what we have to do? We have to change the education of doctors.

00:49:13:08 - 00:49:43:21

(Jay Couey)

Yeah. I mean, we do we need to teach them immunology. We need to teach them how the immune system works, that they come to this conclusion on their own. If you if you really I mean I have I have given a number of what I consider to be very broad stroke immune lectures that people have said. That is just the best lecture I've ever heard because I've explained the immune system in a way that, that, that, that explains this organization.

00:49:43:21 - 00:50:18:51

And I think that one of the things that I stress a lot is that the immune system is organized from the inside out, and it's designed to to maintain a barrier between the inside of your body and the outside world. And so the immune system is used to meeting challenge is on that barrier. And so in history, if any of these previous immunizations have worked, they have worked because they've immunized at a barrier or oral vaccines or at a barrier, you know, variolation with smallpox, was that a barrier?

00:50:18:55 - 00:50:43:31

So you were interacting with the immune system and from the direction in which it expects to be interacted with and with in IT and intramuscular injection, you are taking a hay signal and putting it where the immune system least likely to find it. And so it's extraordinary how absurd it is that we've moved through this immunization of evolution and gotten worse and worse.

00:50:43:36 - 00:50:56:21

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

Yet this is this is what I, I said this, too. But you know, this when when it started with the swine flu load. So they started thinking of giving the flu shot, not a flu shot, but giving the spray.

00:50:56:25 - 00:50:58:01

(Jay Couey)

yeah.

00:50:58:06 - 00:51:23:08

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

Because they they were recognizing that this could be a way they could sell the same the same nonsense before. But what they didn't what they what they didn't deal with is there are there's so much competition between between those informations. We get our immune system it's always best to has to find out what is important what is not important.

00:51:23:13 - 00:51:32:53

So there it has to be because there's a limited capacity of immune reaction. It's you have to see our immune system has to select.

00:51:32:58 - 00:52:02:06

(Jay Couey)

There's a there's a really interesting phenomenon that occurred, I think you would find really fascinating as well, that in the early 2000s or late nineties, there were two basic schools of thought of immunology that were funded by the NIH in America. The one was pathogen associated molecular patterns and the other one was damage associated molecular patterns. And now the difference between these two big theories is really cool.

00:52:02:06 - 00:52:36:38

One, the pathogen associated molecular patterns is a theory where the immune system tries to make a unique set of memories for every that it comes in contact with the other one. Damage associated molecular patterns was the idea that the immune system tries to generalize across challenges to find the molecular motifs that are most dangerous. Usually hydrophobic ones are charged motifs and so they they this theory then suggested that in one case the immune system is just, you know, making a profile of the new things that it finds.

00:52:36:43 - 00:53:02:53

And in the other case, it's trying to generalize across molecular signals and then essentially building a minimum amount of memory. And I think there's so much of our understanding of the immune system that really suggests that minimizing the reaction to anything is ideal. And overreaction is the the heart of everything going wrong. And so interestingly enough, we were talking about this an hour ago.

00:53:02:58 - 00:53:23:42

The funding for damage associated molecular pattern investigation is gone. It disappeared in 2005. There is no funding of that's that idea anymore. It is exclusively pathogen associated molecular patterns or specific memory, which of course means that you need specific vaccines for every specific challenge. And that's the extraordinary.

00:53:23:42 - 00:53:33:40

(Wolfgang Wodarg)

Way you can have a patent on viruses. You can have it, and you can't have a patent on the choice of your immune system.

00:53:33:45 - 00:53:51:55

(Jay Couey)

Yeah, it's extraordinary, man, because we've really I think this has exposed a very big scam that we've all been under the the enchantment of for a very long time. And so we can all just be very humble and say we didn't get it for a long time and just put ourselves out our discussion.

00:53:51:55 - 00:54:17:21

(Wolfgang)

That reminds me of something when we were discussing about transplantation law in Germany. There were always those people who said the brain, this is our identity. You, this is what we are, the brain. They said, if the brain is dead, you can take everything because then the guy is dead and I always know there's something more complicated, more identity, much more identity.

00:54:17:25 - 00:54:57:07

What I am is is much more my immune system than my brain. So this is this discussion. It's it has so many consequences, consequences in regulation and in human in what we think what is what is the the dignity of man. So all this, all these values our society is based on is based on pictures. And this picture with a brain is in our thoughts is the thing we we live, which makes us the most.

00:54:57:12 - 00:55:23:46

And there is this other thing, this which it makes us much more humble because the immune system is something that you find everywhere in nature. Yeah, So it's a it's a very good it's a very good lesson. We can, we can learn now how our values are shaped and how they shape our culture and our thinking. Now, living together in and respecting and respecting nature, which is around us.

00:55:23:51 - 00:55:30:10

So I think there is it's a big chance now for for developing new ideas.

00:55:30:12 - 00:55:31:49

(Jay)

I totally agree.

00:55:31:49 - 00:55:53:29

(Viviane)

If the immune system functions well, you know, maybe the brain is also part of an immune system like that, you know, that enables you to understand, you know, infiltration via deception because like, if you if your your thoughts function, you know, then you understand, well, this is this is not really what I should believe is bad for me, for my whole body.

00:55:53:29 - 00:55:59:17

Like, I mean, important just what people came to see, like during the crisis. I have.

00:55:59:22 - 00:56:10:19

(Wolfgang)

Irreducible complexity. Your view of life is reduced by the very low possibilities The human brain has to understand all this.

00:56:10:24 - 00:56:11:38

(Jay)

Yeah, Yeah, That's a.

00:56:11:38 - 00:56:12:30

(Viviane)

Really happy question.

00:56:12:30 - 00:56:14:40

(Jay)

It's a really great way to put it.

00:56:14:45 - 00:56:58:30

(Viviane)

Can I ask you, like, I mean, I don't know if you're aware of the work of doctors Sabina Stieber. She's been, you know, in the community several times and she's been investigating like everything that's, that's basically also put into the vaccines and what they, what they know what they knew about like the the toxic results or like the toxic effects that it might have, you know, like, for instance, in Germany, we've found out that our basically the the authority that oversees the, you know, the the market release and so on of the vaccines that the head of that authority, you know, has actually published on a variety of issues that we now to be really

00:56:58:30 - 00:57:22:01

damaging for for for people you know from what we can see. And so she has she has said, you know, it's like it's kind of interesting because there's so many aspects put into these vaccines, like from or like the so-called vaccines, like from from all kinds of angles, like the nano, like lipids and, you know, whatever these these DNA aspects and so on.

00:57:22:03 - 00:57:44:02

You know, it's amazing. And it seems that it's only I mean, you really have to put together such a cocktail of toxic aspects, you know, that it's amazing. This cannot be coincidence and this must have been worked on I by, you know, maybe just a few people, very specialized people who could oversee what was what's going to come from that.

00:57:44:02 - 00:57:59:26

Maybe they do not have the full picture, but I mean, they could see from a variety of studies that are already out there that there's it's like a a a a cocktail of of horror, basically. I mean, would you would you share that opinion?

00:57:59:31 - 00:58:33:49

(Jay)

I would. I would share a little bit an expanded opinion in the sense that I think that this this operation was so diabolical that they have they have planned already from the very beginning. Tell us a biological narrative about a gain of function virus that actually includes specifically a gain of function protein with lots of little intricate things that have been inserted in it by really master chefs of of virology.

00:58:33:54 - 00:59:13:24

And that protein. What we serendipitously decided to transect into everyone's body. And so this story was not just by accident. This story allows the confounding of the biological effects of the spike protein with the biological effects of transfection. And I think more than anything, we need to understand that biologically this is a disingenuous connection that was put there on purpose so that they would have a whole series of of things that we could argue about a very limited but lively spectrum of debate where I'm sure it's the lipid nanoparticles.

00:59:13:24 - 00:59:37:36

And if we just fix those, it would be better. I'm sure it's the spike protein. The spike protein was in gain of function. And so the spike protein is causing all of this and that that was intentional, that confounding was intentional. And so this now discussion of were there were there graphene particles or is the lipid nanoparticle the problem or is the DNA contamination the problem?

00:59:37:40 - 01:00:19:42

I assure you that if the lipid nanoparticles were perfect and the spike protein was perfect and everything was made to the finest of standards, Transfection would still be wholly inappropriate for healthy humans. That's where we are. And so we're being they're shuffling all these things on the table to try and make us choose which was the what responsible when in reality, as you said, they've known from the very beginning that they couldn't get the results that they said they were going to get Peter Cullis, the man who invented and and whose research has developed these lipid nanoparticles, was accepting award, an award all across Canada called the Gardner Award.

01:00:19:42 - 01:00:43:07

It's like a pre Nobel Prize award. And he was touring Canada, giving lectures about the lipid nanoparticles and about how exciting it was that there was soon going to be a Nobel Prize and maybe they would get it. And he admitted that he killed the career of five post-docs, that he tried to get them to figure out how to target the lipid nanoparticles to a particular place in the body.

01:00:43:12 - 01:01:04:17

And five post-docs never figured it out. And the fifth one insisted that she do something else. Otherwise she was going to quit. And he made a joke about that on stage in 2022, knowing that a billion people had been injected with a lipid nanoparticle that they were told would stay in the muscle and go and disappear in a few weeks.

01:01:04:19 - 01:01:31:00

That's extraordinary because they burnt, they burnt Biram bridles career and he revealed that information in from a FOI request from Japan. They burned his career only a year and a half later to have the inventor of the frickin technology go on stage and say it out loud. And they didn't burn his career. They didn't throw him out of the university for admitting it, but he admitted it on stage.

01:01:31:04 - 01:01:56:49

That's where we are. It's extraordinary. It is really extraordinary. It's all there for this. The the learning and the knowing. And it's now just a question of getting people to raise their chin off of their desk and put their phone down and understand that that, yeah, we have really been deceived in a major way. And I really think it's important to understand that their goal is for us to teach this to our children.

01:01:56:54 - 01:01:58:10

They don't care.

01:01:58:15 - 01:02:01:15

(Wolfgang)

We have to understand that this goes already for 50 years.

01:02:01:15 - 01:02:15:12

(Jay)

Yes, absolutely it does. And only we can save our children, because if we don't, our children will grow up. Having experienced this experience, too, this pandemic. And they're they're done forever like it. It's really.

01:02:15:12 - 01:02:38:12

(Wolfgang)

A disaster. They call the whole thing pandemic preparedness. And they prepared what they call a pandemic. So it's it's it's no, it's sadistic. It's the double meaning of pandemic preparedness is very interesting.

01:02:38:16 - 01:02:59:47

(Viviane)

Yeah. Can I ask you, like in the beginning, you said that you'd been after you spoke out and then had these problems with the university and so on, You said you were visited by people who who would you consider now to be like meddlers? I mean, what kind of experience did you make? They they tried to to convince you to maybe give up your train of thought or.

01:02:59:49 - 01:03:00:27

Yes.

01:03:00:32 - 01:03:44:09

(Jay)

Exactly. Well, so it mainly happened. Yeah, this mainly happened in 2021 when so I was a member of this loose organization called Drastic, which was, you know, given credit for like solving the lab leak puzzle on Twitter in 2020. And that group of people is still largely an anonymous group of meddlers who refused, literally refused. So I'm I'm member from the very beginning, I was the guy who I actually put my name and reviewed several of these papers, which got published about the fear and cleavage site and thought I was doing a heroic act by by reviewing these papers and getting the lab leak hypothesis out there in the public.

01:03:44:09 - 01:04:12:33

And so I was bitten HOOD taken hook, line and sinker by these people. But drastic at some point were refused, absolutely refused to discuss the idea that this transfection to a spike protein could be a disaster. That could be actually the real reason why this whole mythology was spun up to begin with. When I started saying that drastic split into two groups in both of those groups threw me out.

01:04:12:37 - 01:04:38:34

And so after that happened, interesting enough, and this is where it gets really sketchy and I hope you'll know a little bit of these details so that you'll see why it's so important about two or three months later was when the first hints of the diffuse proposal leak started to appear. And at some moment a member of Drastic was given a copy of the diffuse proposal.

01:04:38:34 - 01:05:16:36

Now, the diffuse proposal is supposedly a grant proposal that was written in 2017 and submitted by EcoHealth Alliance that the notorious gain of function funders in the United States, they submitted this grant to DARPA in 2019, apparently, and in this grant, curiously enough, is described as an experiment that in the cartoon would be exactly how this pandemic would have started, complete with bat coronaviruses that were molecularly altered to insert a fear and cleavage site at the S1 S2 junction.

01:05:16:40 - 01:05:37:35

And when this text was first shown to me, the very first thing that went off in my head was, Well, that's a convenient way of making it. Making it real. Isn't that a very convenient way of making it real? Leak a grant proposal that never got funded? Well, I will tell you that when I ignored that grant proposal, eventually that was intolerable.

01:05:37:35 - 01:06:00:25

And somebody came to my house and and physically convinced me to join drastic again and to pursue the origin of the virus because they are hiding this lab leak. And so for a few more months, I was kind of in this in this hamster wheel trying to figure out if this diffuse proposal was real. But in reality, I have.

01:06:00:25 - 01:06:30:52

Now I'm firmly on the side of this being part of this this worst case scenario narrative that they are trying to spin up. And in fact, the DEFUSE proposal is still being given wood for its fire. There's still people that are doing for years on the diffuse proposal and still doing analysis of the experiments that were proposed in the diffuse proposal, all under the pretense that this text is further evidence that gain of function was happening, that they did it, and that they were arrogant about it and that it will come again.

01:06:30:52 - 01:06:50:39

And so this this has always been about that. And so every person that has contacted me has been trying to keep me focused on the origin and keep me off of transfection. And so after a while that pattern just just broke me and I just stopped paying attention. But it happened first for more than a year and a half.

01:06:50:43 - 01:06:56:55

(Wolfgang)

Can you say something about the escape theory?

01:06:57:00 - 01:07:03:18

(Jay)

I just don't think it's it's I don't think that lab leaks and see and people getting sick are not real.

01:07:03:23 - 01:07:08:18

(Wolfgang)

So, I mean, I mean, the escape theory, when you when the virus escapes, when you haven't, if you.

01:07:08:33 - 01:07:34:35

(Jay)

yeah, yeah, yeah. So this is one of those things that I think is also part of the the illusion. So remember that one of the things that they convinced us of is that this virus wasn't here before 2019, and then it was here in the end of 2018. So what that means is from the perspective of the of the phylogenetic tree is that the phylogenetic tree started at a point and then it grew over the last five years.

01:07:34:40 - 01:07:36:27

(Wolfgang)

From one point all over the one.

01:07:36:27 - 01:07:37:22

(Jay)

Point all over the world.

01:07:37:22 - 01:07:43:41

(Wolfgang)

Well, no, no other points where viruses grew, right? No other points are one. Yeah. They can only grow from one.

01:07:43:46 - 01:08:05:21

(Jay)

Right. And so the interesting thing about that is, is that it assumes that, as you've said before, that there's no other signal in the background that could be mixed with this one, that there is no other signal that we could have been monitoring in 2019 or 2018 that we weren't monitoring because we weren't we weren't doing any PCR surveillance, we weren't doing any sequence surveillance of any coronavirus.

01:08:05:25 - 01:08:38:22

So as far as we know, there were 50 SA viruses in circulation before the pandemic, and then they came up with a test and said, now this is evidence of spread. And so the the important thing to for I think for us to now send is a message is that one of the ways they trapped us in this was convincing us that about what this signal meant was so important and so arguing about whether whether it means that there is novel spread or whether it means it's a background signal that that discussion never occurred.

01:08:38:22 - 01:09:04:10

The discussion that occurred was, are we using the right primers? Are we over cycling these tests? And so so the questions that we were primed to ask actually made us accept the fact that the tests work had actually made us accept the fact that there was something to test for it actually made us accept the fact that there was an emergency when in reality what we should have been asking in the original is what would have happened if we use these tests six months ago?

01:09:04:10 - 01:09:12:18

Would we find the same signal? And if that's the case, then what are we all worried about? But we never asked that question on purpose. They did it on purpose. They were very.

01:09:12:18 - 01:09:22:37

(Wolfgang)

Clever, you know, that they make monitoring of our of the risks we live in while we're just examining the wastewater.

01:09:22:42 - 01:09:35:42

(Jay)

And that's honestly would be the easiest thing to spike ever. You could spike the wastewater with DNA of any signal you wanted and then claim, look, there's Marburg in the sewer. I mean, it would be so easy to do. It was a joke.

01:09:35:42 - 01:09:45:36

(Wolfgang)

But this is why they do it. And they invest a lot of money. And all the cities in Germany, they all started. They all make this they all follow this nonsense. They give a lot of money for this.

01:09:45:37 - 01:09:47:21

(Jay)

Yeah. Wow. I don't even know.

01:09:47:21 - 01:09:57:24

(Wolfgang)

What to say. We have to be aware of new risks, they say. And we have to have. We have to monitor our sewer, so. So we can find out what's happening.

01:09:57:28 - 01:10:04:33

Speaker 2

I mean, this is really a very, very slippery slope to just declaring whatever they want to declare. Whenever they want to declare. Yes.

01:10:04:46 - 01:10:12:07

(Wolfgang)

And Robert Koch Institute is one of the first to choose who says it. And you have to do it. We want to be safe.

01:10:12:12 - 01:10:16:32

(Jay)

my. it's terrible. Yes.

01:10:16:37 - 01:10:42:36

Speaker 1

What I think is what's very interesting is that, you know, when you see there were so, so, so certain, you know, stories or like or like trains of thought, like presented with regards to the virus and so on. It must have been someone thinking about how can we distract this people, you know, like, how can we control also the scientific conversation, the discussion, you know what I mean?

01:10:42:45 - 01:10:54:36

Speaker 1

As you said, like maybe with the okay, maybe there was a coincidence with the graphene idea. I don't know. You know, maybe it was just someone looking for the wrong ingredients or something or had like a no.

01:10:54:36 - 01:11:14:15

(Jay)

But I think it's actually more likely. I think it's actually more likely to be true because if there was graphene in one particular lot that somebody could find and show videos of, and it wasn't in any other lot so that they could debunk this all around the world, it's a perfect argument that gets nobody anywhere. And the longer you argue about it, the better.

01:11:14:20 - 01:11:30:41

(Wolfgang)

Yes. In the next time you do something into the JEP where you can find something in India G5 with some with your iPhone, you can you can track the magnetic the story with the magnetic.

01:11:30:53 - 01:11:32:08

(Jay)

Absolutely.

01:11:32:13 - 01:11:43:49

(Wolfgang)

Yeah. All those stories where we were discussing, which we were discussing, they could have thought in advance they could have installed all these stories to distract us from what they do.

01:11:43:49 - 01:12:07:00

(Jay)

Absolutely. I think that also the the effects and the dangers that I think are real of 5G have been purposely confounded with the virus on purpose to try and to try again, get people to argue about stuff that they can never figure out instead of arguing about the very simple fact that they're lying to us about a spreading risk, at the risk additive pathogen.

01:12:07:04 - 01:12:07:45

(Jay)

Yeah.

01:12:07:49 - 01:12:14:33

(Wolfgang)

And everything knows everything which has a syllable smart in front. It's dangerous.

01:12:14:38 - 01:12:36:25

(Jay)

Well, they're going to get us with convenience, right? It's so convenient. You'll never have to. You'll never have to enter a password again. It'll just be a chip under your skin. That's the. That's the convenience of it. I am. I am absolutely thrilled that we have so much connection here and that we see it this way, because I really I.

01:12:36:30 - 01:12:59:36

What is it like to be a guy who saw this in 2009? You've been trapped in this little hell for for 15 or 20 years where most of us are just recently waking up. I only really figured it out in 2022 as well as I have. I gave my kids their vaccinations before they went to their new school in 2022 and then watched the movie Vaxxed and realized that, wow, you.

01:12:59:36 - 01:13:04:26

(Wolfgang)

Know, no problem. I'm a little bit older than you, so I started a little bit before you.

01:13:04:33 - 01:13:26:18

(Jay)

Yeah, I see. I mean, but it must been I mean, I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is that when you spoke out in 2009, there wasn't this global awareness of anything. It was very easy for them to kind of hide you in the noise. And although I think locally it was important what you did, I don't think the story really ever penetrated the media in America at all.

01:13:26:18 - 01:13:47:31

Whereas now this global thing has sort of, I think, made it possible in a way for, you know, people like me. I don't think I would have been able to do sustained speaking out in 2009 because there wouldn't have been enough momentum. There wouldn't have been enough feedback. I would have felt like I was shouting into the breeze.

01:13:47:36 - 01:13:56:04

Whereas now, I mean, look, I get to talk to you or I don't think in 2009 this would have even been possible. So that's also a thing to be hopeful about.

01:13:56:04 - 01:14:13:37

(Wolfgang)

So this is an advantage, you know. Yeah, but I talked to so many people, I would have never been had the chance to talk to is. So I'm so happy to experience all this for myself if I'm egoistic. I learned so much in those last years. I never learned so much before.

01:14:13:42 - 01:14:36:21

(Jay)

Yeah, I think it is really wonderful. I mean, that's definitely one of the the more twisted things about this is, is that it has been a superior experience. Indeed, I haven't loved biology as much as I've loved it in the last three years because I feel like I'm actually I'm actually doing it again. So that's really cool. I'm happy about that.

01:14:36:21 - 01:15:05:06

But but it's getting rough. I was working for Children's Health Defense for about so I helped Bobby Kennedy with with his with his book about the lab leak. And I tried to get a little bit of this biology and there there's some biology about how RNA can pandemic in that book. And then after the book, I got hired by Children's Health Defense, but I was only working there for six months before they laid me off again, presumably because of the things that I'm still saying.

01:15:05:11 - 01:15:27:28

It wasn't really clear exactly why, but it's been pretty disappointing because I thought I had kind of a dream job and I'd figured it out and I'd got a better foundation under me and I was going to push forward. And then out of nowhere, the first week of January, they said they're going to part ways with me. So I'm I'm cautiously optimistic that that means I'm over the target and that I'm teaching what I need to teach.

01:15:27:28 - 01:15:51:01

But my family and and our future is a little bit less on less solid ground than we were a month ago. So that's that's unfortunate. But this is this is high hope, optimism to the 10th power meeting you. I mean, I don't I know that you're a guy who doesn't see yourself that way, but from from my little life and my little corner of the world, you really are giant among giants.

01:15:51:01 - 01:15:55:25

And I can't thank you enough for for talking to me.

01:15:55:30 - 01:15:58:14

(Viviane)

I guess that's that's too much of over, you know?

01:15:58:19 - 01:16:02:33

(Wolfgang)

Is it just nothing coming? Because I.

01:16:02:38 - 01:16:07:32

(Jay)

I speak Dutch, so I can understand that German.

01:16:07:37 - 01:16:32:08

(Viviane)

Okay. Well, I mean, thanks so much for all the work and also your courage to really, you know, speak out and not be distracted, like from all these, you know, these these whatever they present. There's a narrative or like, aspect to it that I have. One does question the disease X that is now kind of hovering in the in the near side.

01:16:32:13 - 01:16:36:34

And that's also I mean, in your point of view, I guess that's another well.

01:16:36:45 - 01:16:56:46

(Jay)

Again, remember that I'm not suggesting to you that they can't make a lot of it, and so they can make a lot of of an irony and they could transfect hundreds, thousands of people in any given place using any number of of known methodologies of air, slicing the RNA or spraying it on people or droplets of it. I don't know how they would do it.

01:16:56:51 - 01:17:17:09

They eating it and you eat it, you could eat it maybe, I don't know. But the point would be is that they can make this RNA, they can make this DNA in high quantities, then put it in places. Will it make people sick? Maybe. Will it make PCR tests positive? Absolutely. Will it make sequencing high fidelity? Absolutely. Will they be able to find it in lots of places?

01:17:17:09 - 01:17:42:19

Absolutely. And so what I think we need to understand is that although an RNA molecule can't become disease X on its own with standard molecular biological techniques used in pharmaceutical companies all around the world, they could make enough of DNA and RNA to create the illusion of that. And that's the dangerous part. And they can make a protein that's highly immunogenic.

01:17:42:19 - 01:18:01:31

And they could they could put that protein into something and they could use a toxin to and then lie about it. Like there's lots of ways that they could make disease show up that doesn't have anything to do with an RNA molecule perpetuating itself for years. That's that's the biology we need to teach our kids because that's what disease X is.

01:18:01:31 - 01:18:05:51

It's just an extension of this mythology.

01:18:05:56 - 01:18:21:29

(Viviane)

No, that's right. So we get to watch our. Yeah. Thanks so much for for being with us today and it's it's been very inspirational I think on a lot of levels. And I guess we just have to continue speaking out. I agree.

01:18:21:34 - 01:18:25:30

(Jay)

I agree. If you could share the you could share the link when you have it? I would I would spread it.

01:18:25:30 - 01:18:26:06

(Viviane)

Yeah, we will do.

01:18:26:07 - 01:18:26:34

Speaker 2

Thank you very.

01:18:26:34 - 01:18:31:21

(Viviane)

Much. We will to thanks a lot And keep up the good work.

01:18:31:21 - 01:18:33:37

(Jay)

Okay? I will. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

01:18:33:37 - 01:18:35:03

(Wolfgang)

Very, very much, too.

01:18:35:07 - 01:18:35:33

(Jay)

Bye bye.

01:18:35:34 - 01:18:37:09

(Wolfgang)

Thank you. Bye bye.

01:18:37:13 - 01:18:40:57

(Viviane)

Bye. Yeah.

01:18:41:02 - 01:19:00:28

(Jay)

I don't even know what to say about that. I'm. I'm going to I'm going to hang up before I start crying. Thank you very much for joining me. Thanks for being here live for that. I'm probably going to stream later. I got to decompress. I need some lunch and I need a coffee. That was just crazy. I just I didn't I had a bunch of stuff written down, but I never really said any of it.

01:19:00:28 - 01:19:11:31

And I just kind of shot from the hip. So we'll see what it is on the replay. And thank you much for joining me. Have a good afternoon and I'll see you later. Thanks.