Discover more from Gigaohm Biological
Transcript is manually edited for pseudo-accuracy.
All speaker changes are denoted with time and name.
00:10:51:09
J.Jay Couey
It's a really interesting time. It's a really interesting time because I have brushed I have I have shaken hands with a lot of interesting people during this drama. And not a lot of them have a great reaction to me. I guess they've got some kind of some kind of negative polarity about me. Maybe it's the patch clamp physiology that's still stuck in my hands.
I am a patch clamp Jedi master, retired and Gigaohm is a term from that kind of biology, that kind of investigation. And that's why I've also named my website Giga on biological. And you can also find me to chat at gigohm.bio. You can find my confession at the Scooby-Doo link up there at the top. You can also find a one time support link there, a a schedule down here at the bottom that is an updated yet because error and a place to leave a voicemail.
You could send me an email and you can also subscribe. And right now we are on a campaign to try and get that number of subscribers up around a thousand, because I think that's what we need to swing this this bat repeatedly, nine innings a night, five games a week. And so far I've got quite a few people on board with this idea.
00:12:17:16
J.Jay Couey
Since I started to ask for it, I have been working for children's health defense, and before that I was a private consultant for Bobby on his book. And so I haven't been asking for support that much over the last year or so. And starting on January 4th, I decided, well, my family's decided that we're going to need some money.
And so we are not taking unemployment. We did not sign an NDA and take the $8,000 severance pay, but we put ourselves in the hands of people like Greg James and others and so far so good. But really, if this is going to be a sustainable thing, I need some people to subscribe to take the risk of giving me ten bucks a month.
And you know, you do it for lots of other people, at least some people do. And so I don't think it's a crazy thing to think that gig home biological can establish a sort of independent bright web, you know, and a thousand people on the Internet. And it's not that many. And I know I know that we can shared enough to get to get it far enough for this to be meaningful enough to enough people so that this is sustainable.
00:13:28:21
I just know it. So if we can just fix this problem, that would be really great. This this idea that a laboratory or bat cave virus zoonosis happened five years ago or four full years ago, I'm sure we can fix this. I'm sure we can crack this faith. Thank you for doing the city of the eight. I'm sure we can crack this faith.
You got to explain the biology, of course, that would underlie a background signal. We got to explain the biology that might underlie a hot PCR background. We got to explain the biology where sequencing might might be able to pull some of these signals up. We can't just say it's all it's all an illusion because that's really a cop out.
That's really not possible. We haven't been looking at nothing for the last 50 years. These know we we could be very, very wrong. Don’t get me wrong, we could be very, very wrong about what? Viruses or viruses virology is. I guarantee we are. But the idea that there is no signal at this time, at this size scale, that there are no genetic noise signals at this size scale is a pretty bold assumption at this stage.
I think it's more likely that there are signals at this size, scale that have been then confounded even as as as pathogens have been distorted as pathogens, when in fact there's probably a whole a whole bouquet of of of living signals at that timescale where, where, where tissues are communicating with other tissues and even kind specifics are communicating with other kinds of facilities.
So we're going to break this. I guarantee you we're going to break this. This is we got we got let it off at the side of the road and we got into the wrong car because there was no car to get into. It's been only very recently that I've been able to come in contact with somebody like Jessica Hackett, actually find somebody who has corroborative evidence from a completely different angle that this elephant is as big as we think it is a lot like Mark Kulak and I found ourselves kind of coming at this elephant from very different sides.
And then also in seeing the biology from very different sides, but seeing the same thing. It's been a lot of fun and also terrifying because there is a spectacular commitment to lies that we come up against every time we think we're trusting somebody. It turns out that there I don't like the word. I know Eddie doesn't like the word, but you know, they're liars.
They're people that are are absolutely committed, and they'll lie right to your face sometimes for a whole week long boat cruise off the coast of Turkey. They'll lie right to a whole boat full of peoples face. That's what I'm talking about. So we are over the target here at Diego and Biological. It is the 31st of January. It looks like I got my stream labeled right here on the slide, but not right on to which I'll fix that on the post.
00:16:57:59
Edit Try to pound out a little bit this peppermint tea here and get my voice back. Let me switch over to the main. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is going biological, a high resistance, low noise information brief brought to you by a biologist. My name is Jonathan Couey. I am that biologist coming to you live from Pittsburgh in the back of my garage.
It is again, as I said, the 31st of January 2024. You are lucky enough to see me and the one rare occasion every once in a while where I'm wearing my my favorite basketball jersey, the Larry Bird Indiana State number 33. I don't know why I'm wearing I know why I'm wearing. And I went to the gym tonight and the boys team was going to be there.
And so I've been I've been wearing my jerseys when I go to go to shootaround with them. And so this is the independent. This is the independent Bright Web. I don't know who else is a member of the Independent Bright Web, but it it ain't me. It made me alone. But yeah, there, there there are there are lots of people out there that are misleading the young.
And we need to stop that from happening. We need to start to teach the young that there is this machine out there. And what is this machine? We need to teach them this and to drop this out, we need to teach them about this machine. They need to understand that this machine is there, that it is targeting them through their phone, but also through the television, also through these algorithms.
And they need to understand that this is not a machine that just recently came into existence because A.I. is now helping us. It's not a machine that recently came into existence because we started censoring a few people like Robert Malone and Alex Berenson. It is a machine that has been in place since the twenties and been ever honed and perfected, and now it is coming to a new level of power with respect to social media and then us being left on the side of that road at the start of the pandemic with only social media and mainstream media to feed us our reality.
And so if there was ever a time when this invisible government was in charge, it's now what do I got here coming up for slides? Am I supposed to be down there already? I guess I'm supposed to be down there ready? so that's where we are, right? The principle of informed consent has been ignored for the duration of the pandemic.
The way they got away with it is because they've controlled the narrative. They've controlled who's in front of you. They've controlled the people that you see and the arguments that you listen to and the debates that you think you participate in in your head. And by doing so, the spread of bad ideas has become much more dangerous than the spread of any RNA molecules, that's for sure.
Sure. And there are some good ideas spreading around to social Antipov it seems to be. I've picked up on the idea that this could be largely a fake PCR pandemic. A fake pandemic with protocols. She's picked up on the idea that it could be poisoning. She's picked up on the idea that there are lab leaks before, so there could be a hot background.
00:20:37:55
She's picked up on the idea that number of the participants are winning and unwitting participants. It's not all people going along with it, which is really nice. She's a little bit harsh on Bobby because he's not quite there yet with the no pandemic thing, which is also pretty cool. And then, of course, she reminds everybody of James Giordano.
As far as I'm concerned, I should just step off. My work is done here, except she doesn't really cover the infectious clone idea of the swarm idea and the implication that what that means is that pandemics can't really occur. And I think that's where we are at this very moment. This back in time, this moment in history, in gigaton, biological and in this pandemic narrative.
That's where we are. We have people who believe that there is biology of a coronavirus quasi species swarm, which support the idea of pandemic spread. There are people that support the idea that if you made clones that they would spread. And there are people who have the idea that nothing spread, nothing can move, nothing is of high enough fidelity to spread and this is all a hoax.
And so in reality, we haven't moved very far because the people are always trying to force me and all of us to decide whether we're no virus people. I thought you were a no virus person, is what I heard this morning. Before I got out of bed. I checked my phone and one of the first things that I heard was that somebody thought I was a no virus person, somebody that I'd already had email contact with previous months and had this exact argument before that saying that clones are a way of getting a viral sequence to be in the same place all around the world at the same time, and cause the illusion of
mass spread. It's not the same thing as saying you're in a no virus team, and yet half the people jump to that conclusion and the other half of the people jump to the conclusion that you think it was released everywhere and they put it in the engines of airplanes and it's chem trails and that's how they spread it all around the world, is with chem trails, four years or something like that.
00:23:03:09
And so we're going to have to become really good at it or because we can't rely on these people to get the idea right. These people are too busy working hard and dying rich. And so the pandemic was created with a previous scientific program scheduled of of public positions and grant applications and and potential pre-pandemic potential viral results, also with exercises at the government levels to make sure that these people understood that the potential was being created, that a potential had been identified.
And then at the start of the pandemic, you had to have a team of people that was ready to make sure that the consequences of the lockdowns and the consequences of the protocol changes and the consequences of the do not resuscitate orders. And all of these things would be confounded with the consequences of the spread of this worst-case scenario gain of function virus.
We're not sure, but it sure seems that way, although we can't tell anybody on TV that yet. And so on top of that, of course, everybody that was read it and everybody that understood where we were from a national security perspective was already locked into a narrative. They couldn't actually tell you what they thought. They had to stick to the worst-case scenario because that's the way they were going to get compliance.
That was part of the plan. And so it's totally okay from the perspective of the US government and from the whatever sort of national security I keep saying national security priority because I don't even really know what to call it. But, but to have a team, worst case scenario of actors in places all around the Internet, making sure that when somebody asked you said, well, a billion people could be dead.
And the knock on consequences of a billion people dying with all the families and working and companies, it could be just devastating. The whole economy could collapse. Of course, I had somebody telling me that in private streams for five weeks straight at the beginning of the pandemic. And so after four continuous, continuous years of this, in our fifth year, most mouth breathing, skilled TV watchers have come to the conclusion that the virus and the spike protein transfection are basically capable of hurting you in many of the same ways.
00:25:37:49
And it's unfortunate that we rushed it. It's unfortunate that we didn't know back then that this was a laboratory data function virus. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have used the spike protein, which was a gain of function protein. That's where we are with this thing. That's where where the skilled TV watching people are. They have not gotten to the stage where they understand the biology which underpins these statements.
Not even close. And so again, it's about this pandemic potential that's accessible in laboratories in order to invert our sovereignty, you know, our freedom to permissions. These people are involved in it. It is a network of people. Pentagon driven governance that was in place before the pandemic that was just just activated at the start of the pandemic to control the narrative.
So we were here, I don't know, a half a year ago already, where we found these Indo nuclease fingerprints indicating a synthetic origin of SARS-CoV-2. I wrote an article with Robert F Kennedy Jr and a guy by the name of Charles Ritchie who actually fell asleep in the middle of the night and didn't really help write this article.
But he was invited to be an author on it and we didn't bother to take him off. And here is an article that I wrote where the DEFUSE proposal and DEFUSE proposal, which is a leaked DARPA proposal, supposedly submitted by EcoHealth Alliance in 2018 or 2019 before the pandemic, about engineering, coronaviruses with fear and cleavage sites. These this signature that for almost a year and a half, we argued about whether or not that signature indicated that it was a lab leaked virus.
Fauci absolutely denied it. Christine. Christian Anderson absolutely denied it. All kinds of people argued about it for a year and a half. Then comes out this paper about the end of Nuclease fingerprint that might indicate that it's a lab oriented or originated virus. And so we wrote a paper about it. It was like a really big deal. We had to write it right now.
00:28:03:59
We wanted to get it out and get it ahead of everybody. We got to know, see a methodology in here. And so I know what this was about. I knew that this was sort of hand in hand with DEFUSE proposal, which I had already argued for many, many months, had to be fake. And it was a very, very convenient set of words on a piece of paper.
Actually it a PDF without metadata that made it very convenient story about everything that they had said for a year and a half about what were the circumstantial evidence for it to be a lab leak. And then lo and behold, look what I found. I found a list of things that the bad guys were going to do and their whole plan is written right here.
And so when it first came out, I kept saying this, and when they rewrote this paper, I was still seeing it behind the scenes. I was still trying at this stage, at this time is when I figured out what clones really were, and I was able to really explain it for the first time. And I didn't get it in this article.
Stay tuned. It says on the bottom, I didn't get it in the book as well as I wanted to, but it's in the book and it doesn't matter because seen above, Aria has written it up and his own peer reviewed paper, you know, and there are, and there are reviews from the nineties that say why infectious clones are so valuable to RNA virology.
And so that's really what's ruined my life. Not speaking out What's what's ruined my life is speaking out about the DEFUSE proposal and calling it a fake. What's really ruined my life is calling the DEFUSE proposal a fake because clones don't do that. RNA doesn't do that. You can make clones and spread into bad caves. It's totally okay.
Some of those bats might even get viruses and they might even express and they might even inoculate the bats or whatever they want to do. My work is not going to cause a pandemic. No way, no how. You could get a truckload of it. You could put it in different places and tell people that a pandemic was underway.
But but you can't create one. You can't spill enough in one place for it to go everywhere on earth. And it's interesting because about a week ago, Robert Malone promoted Kevin McKiernan, talking about DEFUSE and the end of Nuclease sites. And Emily cops release from sorry for you request fulfillment while working for us right to know. So did our medic.
00:30:59:00
So did the unacceptable Jessica Rose. And so I find it really cool because I've been working on trying to get RNA and RNA clones to be real again. And these people are working really hard to make DEFUSE real easily. What I want is high and DEFUSE is important because DEFUSE is basically the way that they're going to try and cover up this whole mess.
DEFUSE is going to be a way for them to sort of say, checkmate. You don't want to argue about it. But this this document, that's what they're going to argue this document makes makes the origin of the virus the ultimate or not the ultimate, but the most important, the most important issue. And so once the DEFUSE proposal becomes real and the likelihood of it being a manufactured pandemic that then spread around the world and is still spreading, and we might be stuck with it forever, then it becomes something that needs to be solved from the perspective of who did this, who leaked this, who, who broke this.
And we're going to be stuck in this hamster wheel for another five years. But if we break this now, if we break this faith in a novel virus, if we break this idea that I just heard, I, I think we're going to hear it here again when we watch these things. I think I heard 2017 million people. How many million people was it?
I mean, it's going to blow your mind what we hear here. So where we are is we're trying to solve this. We're trying to stop ourselves from getting sucked into solving this mystery. We're trying to pull people out of solving this mystery. And now I'm going to show you two different interviews with the same person who I think practically might as well either be Velma or Daphne.
Instead of calling her Emily, we should call her Velma or Daphne, because she is solving this Scooby Doo mystery, and she can barely keep up the details. She's barely got a grasp on them. She can put the words in the right order. But if you had to get her on a whiteboard and have her explain it in three different sets of words, it would be pretty tough.
So let's see what we're going to do. Let's see what we got. I'm not trying to crowd to to jam a jammer up or anything like that. I'm just saying she's a young lady. She doesn't know that much about virology. She's not a biologist. And so sometimes you can hear just clinging, clinging to it, barely able to explain it.
So this one is from five days ago, and then the next one will be from four days ago. What's going on? Why is that not sounding?
00:33:46:06
(Video Host Left)
Joining us now is Emily Kopp. She's a reporter at us Right to Know. She's done some of the best work that there is on the lab leak hypothesis on that investigation. She's joining us now for our latest report. Thank you so much for joining us, Emily.
00:33:57:18 - 00:33:57:41
Emily Kopp
Great to be.
00:33:57:41 - 00:34:14:33
(Video Host Left)
Here. Absolutely. So we've covered your work here for a long time and we have one of your latest that we can put up there on the screen. Let's see it. U.S. scientists propose to make viruses with unique features of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan. All right. So it's a headline of which is, you know, we got a little bit of some jargon in there.
00:34:14:33 - 00:34:28:26
(Video Host Left)
Unique feature. SARS-CoV-2, I think that's covered Wuhan. I think of a little bit familiar. Some of our viewers probably know. Let's just break this down. For the average person, they have a little bit of familiarity with the lab. What is he? What did you find in this report?
00:34:28:26 - 00:34:29:23
J.Jay Couey
He's so out of touch.
00:34:29:31 - 00:34:54:10
Emily Kopp
So it's a little bit of an understated headline. I'll give you that. But take away is origins of COVID solved question mark. Basically, what we found is that some of the most unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, the things that made SARS-CoV-2 the SARS-CoV-2, the most pathogenic virus of the last 100 years were I mean, they're very rare in nature, but they.
00:34:54:10 - 00:34:55:39
J.Jay Couey
Wow, What is.
00:34:55:46 - 00:34:57:34
Emily Kopp
The association research giving.
00:34:57:34 - 00:34:57:52
J.Jay Couey
Me.
00:34:57:54 - 00:34:58:44
Emily Kopp
Of these?
00:34:58:46 - 00:34:59:56
J.Jay Couey
What did she just say?
00:34:59:56 - 00:35:04:36
Emily Kopp
Central.
00:35:04:40 - 00:35:14:55
Emily Kopp
The most unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, the things that made SARS-CoV-2 SARS-CoV-2, the most pathogenic virus of the last 100 years.
00:35:14:56 - 00:35:29:15
J.Jay Couey
Has she been talking to Charles Rixey? Holy cow. What was that? The most pathogenic virus in the last hundred years? Wow. What a way to open this interview. Holy ships.
00:35:29:20 - 00:35:47:33
Emily Kopp
Were. I mean, they're very rare in nature, but they were central to the esoteric research interests of the top coronavirus virologists in the world. Ralph Baric and the top coronavirus collectors in the world. Peter Daszak and the Wolf Yes.
00:35:47:38 - 00:35:59:47
J.Jay Couey
They were Corona virus collectors. Corona virus collectors were caught red handed. Who? What is she talking about?
00:36:00:00 - 00:36:28:07
Emily Kopp
Due to virology, we also found that while these scientists told the US government that they were going to be doing this high risk virology at USC under relatively strict biosafety protocol, they were actually going to secretly the outsourcing much of this research to the Wuhan Institute of Virology under an inadequate biosafety level, essentially in order to save on costs and to be able to do the work more quickly.
00:36:28:11 - 00:36:31:39
Emily Kopp
So, you know, obviously, that is very concerning. Yeah.
00:36:31:42 - 00:36:32:41
(Video Host Left)
Yeah, I would say so.
00:36:32:47 - 00:37:11:15
(Video Host Right)
All right. So let's let's talk about the Alex Washburn at all preprint that kind of that led to this reporting that you did. And so we can go back to Bob Gerry, who was a Tulane University virologist who people might recall was involved in this, that first kind of famous and now infamous conference call with Anthony Fauci, February 2nd or fourth or whenever between the first and the fourth, where the virologists all at the beginning are leaning towards a lab leak and by the end of it are now pronouncing and organizing public statements and articles saying that there couldn't have been a lab leak.
00:37:11:15 - 00:37:30:58
(Video Host Right)
And everybody is crazy who thinks it is. So Bob Gerry at the time observed the make up of COVID 19 and identified some unusual features of it, which takes us to the Washburn paper. So what what did Bob Gerry find and how important was that to your reporting?
00:37:31:03 - 00:37:40:03
Emily Kopp
Sure. So I'll start out with what is, I think, indisputable at this point from our reporting, and then I'll get into the more indisputable.
00:37:40:03 - 00:37:40:33
J.Jay Couey
Here we go.
00:37:40:33 - 00:38:12:40
Emily Kopp
The stuff that's indisputable is that the scientists working with the Wuhan Institute of Virology were interested in making engineered viruses in the lab and testing whether They could infect human receptors, and their so-called gold standard would be to identify viruses that could cause disease. They were also knowledgeable about two things that could essentially supercharge a corona virus into that gold standard of something that could cause disease in human humanized mice.
00:38:12:45 - 00:38:39:05
Emily Kopp
And those two features were a Furin cleavage site at the S1 S2 junction of the spike protein and a receptor binding domain that was very good at latching onto a receptor called ACE2. And when SARS-CoV-2 first came out, those virologists who initially said privately, no, this looks engineered and then came out with a paper that said, if you think that this is engineered here.
00:38:39:05 - 00:39:04:39
J.Jay Couey
Now, one of the things that I find very frustrating here and I'm I'm going to does this and I don't think this is on probably didn't turn that on yet. One of the things I find frustrating here is this discussion about what Wuhan engineers wanted, what what Wuhan, what Wuhan virologists wanted. She says that they wanted to end.
They wanted to test engineered viruses. Now, all that means is that they were making everybody else was making anyone that works on RNA viruses has to make clones and they were doing it. Other people did it all. IRA RNA virologists are eventually making clones, so they were making clones of the viruses that they were finding in the wild when they could find them.
That doesn't make them necessarily any spookier than any of the other virologists that are doing this kind of stuff. They're making clones. Ralph Baric works on clones. Maybe he doesn't find them, maybe he just imagines them, maybe computer generates them. Whatever the she's these people were making clones and then they were using humanized mice is like it's always the same humanized mice are not that big a deal they are a cheap way of making a mouse model of disease that is more likely to show disease.
And so part of the mouse model trick is again, making this this sort of simplification fashion of a disease model that can get you grants over and over and create this illusion and this is the big deal create the illusion of pandemic potential. So if we think then about what she lists, she lists if you're in cleavage site and she lists ace2 affinity, the Ace2 affinity argument is so frustrating to me because it is so disingenuous for all of these people who are not virologists.
And in fact, Kevin McKernan also makes this argument in his substack comments where he calls my ideas Kim trail retarded. He says that the Ace2 affinity was was enhanced in to increase its infectivity or its transmissibility or whatever. And it's so weird because before the pandemic there is no discussion about a how shall I say it, There's no discussion about some kind of gradient that has an exponentially increasing affinity which can result in an exponentially increasing infectivity transmissibility or virulence.
It's either it works on the receptor or it doesn't work on the receptor. Virologists before the pandemic are absolutely, positively not concerned at all about the relative affinity, and they're not concerned about the fact that, well, the affinity could increase and then that will make the virus more dangerous. It's an yes or no question. Either it neutralizes or it doesn't either.
It it, it it is culture bull and it's passage or it's not. And so I find it, in retrospect, extremely dubious. Looking back on how we were so encouraged to discuss the affinity of the ACE2 receptor or the affinity for the ACE2 receptor, and we were supposed to compare it across like, well, we compared all these different ace2 receptors and this one is like so perfect for human.
No one ever discussed this possibility before the pandemic. People talked about it changing from able to infect one animal, to able to infect another. But the idea that there was this, okay, now it can infect ace2 and that now it's got more affinity and it's more dangerous and now it's got more affinity and it's even more dangerous. This concept doesn't exist before 2020, and she's not a virologist, so for some reason or another, she's she's regurgitating this idea, even though it has no basis in biology.
And interestingly enough, at the same time, a little bit farther behind the scenes in the dissident world, there are four bloggers, four sub staggers excuse me, who are all talking about it.
The idea that we need to make DEFUSE real again and one of them even mentioned Ace2 affinity as a way of increasing infectivity. It's so strange. It's so strange, crazy.
00:43:26:07 - 00:43:50:51
Emily Kopp
They were privately very concerned about these two features. If you're in cleavage site at the S1 us to and the fact that it was sort of immediately very good at infecting human cells. And so the documents that we obtained show they laid out their plan to create a model where they could create engineered viruses with these features that we later see in SARS-CoV-2, but that are exceedingly rare in nature.
00:43:51:01 - 00:44:12:57
Emily Kopp
Yeah. So that that all is indisputable at this point. Think there have been people, you know, people like Robert Garry who have really nitpicked and said, well, it's not a Furin cleavage site at the S1 as to what's a fear and cleavage site at the swine or S2. But, you know, the new documents we obtained make it very explicit that they were interested in precise.
00:44:12:59 - 00:46:12:52
J.Jay Couey
So one of the things you just said there were these were features that are exceedingly rare in nature. So before the pandemic, we didn't have millions of corona virus sequences. It was very hard to get a full sequence. And in fact, one of the methodological advances that that that Ralph Baric brought to the field was putting together a minimum corona virus genome that could be used as a basis for substitution from.
And if you found a and protein and an S protein in a in a sample, you could create whole functional corona virus from those two proteins by just substituting the other 24 that are required for assembly and and virulence or assembly and infectivity replication competence could be engineered. In other words, so, so exceedingly rare features. It doesn't really you know, it doesn't really make sense because we don't have we don't have some kind of, you know, weather balloons all over the world that are constantly reporting viral sequences to us all the time.
And they really would like you to believe that that's the case, that they just have all these sequences and they're always there all the time. And I think that's part of Kevin McKiernan shtick as well. He wants you to believe that, you know, it's like the Hollywood movies and, you know, they have they can sample a million viruses from the subway every hour or something.
I mean, it's it's all this and this, this and this. They imply such a degree of fidelity, of understanding that they don't have. And they've clearly they've clearly convinced her that they have this fidelity of understanding. These guys are clearly not sophisticated enough to understand that they don't have this fidelity of understanding. And more importantly, they aren't they don't have the background.
I mean, that guy just needs a job. It looks like to me.
00:46:12:52 - 00:46:36:48
Emily Kopp
Viruses like SARS-CoV-2, the Alex Washburn paper that you mentioned around restriction sites, I think that's a little bit more controversial and requires a little bit more scientific inquiry. But what they found in 2022 is that a pattern of restriction sites and restriction sites are essentially little bits of code that occur in the genome that can be used in the lab to engineer new viruses.
00:46:36:48 - 00:46:52:30
Emily Kopp
But they also can occur naturally. But what they found they did as a statistics around how likely is it that we would see this precise pattern and they found it to be very unlikely. And so the new documents that we have.
00:46:52:35
J.Jay Couey
So you can see. Right, she's just barely able to process how this works. And because she's just barely able to process it and because she's been made to feel like she's responsible for putting the pieces together, she's convinced herself that a gain of function virus did circulate the globe for the last four years, that they did cover it up and it did she did figure it out.
And that the only logical conclusion to come to is that we hit we did make it. We were intending to made it. They made it and then this happened. And she's very convinced. She's barely she can barely feel the jungle gym in the dark, but she knows where all the handholds are and she can move from one end of the room to the other in the dark on the jungle gym, because she has figured it all out.
But she's under the impression that there is a never ending abyss underneath her, when in reality it's a padded floor that's about six inches from her feet. And so as she struggles over that jungle gym in the dark to get from one side of the room to the other, to demonstrate that she understands it, she thinks that she's really just, you know, wow, this is an amazing feat.
You understand something that is so high level. And if you make just one mistake, you're going to fall and it's just going to be a plummet to humiliation. And so she is so carefully trying to explain this right now, making sure that she doesn't make any mistakes. They don't want to overextend. But my gosh, the things we know for certain are that they wanted to engineer viruses that could cause disease.
00:48:35:11
The thing we know for sure is that they were going to use humanized mice to evaluate whether they could cause disease, which she thinks means all kinds of terrible things. But it doesn't it means that they're going to use clones in mice that express human receptors. Probably not in a naturally equivalent way to the way that mice would use these receptors of their own.
And therefore, whatever disease model they've created with those mice is wholly inappropriate to understand what goes on with any of these kinds of things in humans if they are not even real. And so they've worked on fear and cleavage and ace2 affinity in order to create a gain of function. Virus. And they added these exceedingly rare features using end to nuclease, restriction, restriction and nucleases and one or two particular because they're very special.
She didn't explain that very well. But the gist of it is, is that some end to nucleases cut at very specific places with very specific ends because the ends are where the cut site occurs and then other enzymes cut at a certain cut site, but then away from the recognition site. And so if I was to explain that to you as best I can in a cartoon, what I would do is something like this.
You have two strands of DNA here and you will have a sequence of some sort like this. Yes. And so an end, a nuclease could cut an end which looked which cut here like that. So then this was where the the recognition sequence was. And then this is the cut that it makes. And so if it makes this cut like this, then you're left with sticky ends that look like this.
00:50:43:31
And more importantly, they're sticky ends that have certain bases here because the certain bases are here. So if the recognition site was a C, g, T, for example, I'm just this up then where it cuts is a, c g t, and so that leaves it like an A here, right? And it will leave like CGT here and then it will leave whatever is over here and whatever's over here.
So this cuts base that's for this enzyme is the recognition site is the cut. And so unless you want to put this exact sequence and cut this exact sequence into your DNA, this one's kind of specific mean you can use them. And there are lots of enzymes that cut this way, but they're they're more specific scissors that cut a specific shape as a result of the fact that the recognition site is also the cut site.
Now, what Baric has specialized in and what I've figured out over the last few days of trying to, you know, get my get my breeches underneath me here with regard to arguing about this stuff and knowing what I'm talking about. I got to turn the page here. It's just off is that there are some enzymes that will that will will recognize a sequence here, but then they'll actually cut here.
Oops. I just bumped the camera. And so if they cut here, what that means is, is it you can engineer the cut recognition site next to the site that you want to protect, you see. And so now they're using enzymes that cut like this where the sticky ends that are produced are variable because the recognition site is not where it cuts.
00:52:33:00
And so this is a sentence like, you know, if this is the sentence that says a quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog and it recognizes a quick brown fox but cuts at the lazy dog, and then you can make another sentence where it says a quick brown fox 828a rare steak. And so now you've got a cut here that's at eight a rare steak instead because it started with the the the quick the quick fox or whatever.
Okay. I'm sorry. I'm confusing myself now trying to use a sentence off the top of my head. So you have two kinds of have end nuclease. You have an end of nuclease that cuts at the recognition site and therefore the the sticky ends very specific and they're not variable. But baric discovered a way excuse me of that was the Pennsylvania Department of Health phone number.
Don't think I splash something interesting there. Baric discovered a way of using end to nuclear sites whose recognition site is separate from the cut site, which means that allows you to make more flexible ends and more importantly, you can make more specific ends. Those ends here that are specific for each cut, because, again, your guys, you're going to engineer this cuts site into the places where you want to cut to happen.
But the where the cut happens is unique because it comes after the recognition site. What that means is, is that if you wanted to like get five pieces of DNA together, then all you have to do is put this this flexible recognition site right here. And each one of these pieces will cut a unique end that always stick together in only this way, because this end will only fit with this end because the word that comes after the cut site here is going to be different than here and if you were using a specific enzyme like this one, then the cuts site would be the same.
The cut site would be the same at every one of these junctions. And then the the whole genome wouldn't assemble correctly. But if you use one of these and a nucleases that the recognition site is separate from the cut site, then the ends are flexible and the ends are specific. And so then you can litigate all with one enzyme.
And so that was what was really neat about what she is found or what they found with their supposedly with their Scooby-Doo, with their Scooby Doo foils, is that they got more information which seemed to indicate that not only did this, did this, what did I have? Did I have this up? Not only did this, this paper found regularly spaced, right, Regularly spaced, regularly spaced, and the nuclear sites, but also regularly spaced.
And the nuclear sites that were of this nonspecific recognition site separate from the cut site type enzyme. Really how baric set this stuff up. And so it seems very logical that this must be evidence of it being a clone virus. It I'm not arguing with that at all. What I'm arguing with is that if this is a clone virus, does that mean that this RNA can spread around the world at high Fidelity and high speed, has the most pathogenic virus in 100 years?
No, I do not. I think the whole concept of the most pathogen like RNA in 100 years is absurd. And they've got her believing it and they've got her explaining it to them and they've got her explaining it to thousands and thousands, maybe millions of viewers. That's the problem. Oops, That was not the right one. This is the right one.
No, that's not the right one. Come on, G. Learn your set up. Wait. It should be this one. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. Then I had to get out of this. There we go. I Maybe I'm taking too long, but I want you to understand. What?
00:56:52:10 - 00:57:04:44
Emily Kopp
To create synthetic viruses with these restriction enzymes in six pieces, which is what the Washburn paper found. And they also include a budget line for one of these specific restrictions.
00:57:04:44 - 00:57:15:19
(Video Host Right)
Right. Let's stop there and start talking about that. So the paper says, okay, there's these six different, you know, whatever they are. And they basically predicted, okay, if you were going.
00:57:15:19 - 00:57:17:37
J.Jay Couey
Six different one, you would do three.
00:57:17:38 - 00:57:19:10
(Video Host Right)
Would be this one, your killer.
00:57:19:21 - 00:57:21:16
J.Jay Couey
This one's got five, but there would be.
00:57:21:21 - 00:57:32:16
(Video Host Right)
Thousands of enzymes commercially that are available to do this research. And what you found is that they, in fact, did purchase that enzyme and did use this, you know, for which.
00:57:32:31
J.Jay Couey
See. So now he's saying that of the thousands of enzymes, probably hundreds of the hundreds of restriction and nucleases available, they identified one and this one is also one that they ordered. Now, what I need you to understand is that there are about six or eight of these enzymes that would qualify very well for this no S.M technique.
And if you go back into Baric's literature, you'll find that previous papers use different enzymes for doing that, for accomplishing the same thing. And so I don't think the enzyme is that important. I don't think that it matters. I just what I think and I need to be very clear about it is, is that this was the plan all along.
The plan all along was to fool us into thinking that we could solve this mystery by getting the DEFUSE proposal and understanding that the DEFUSE proposal represented pandemic potential. It represented a guy like like like Peter Daszak getting so cocky as to think that he could spray viruses into bat caves with fear and cleavage sites in. And she's believing it.
I was believing it four years ago. I'm not believing it now. I'm trying to break this mythology. These guys are trying to to expound on it. This is the spell casting in real time right now. This is how they did it. This is how they're doing it.
00:59:01:04
(Video Host Right)
Suggest that they're doing the exact thing that was predicted. So not only do you have a regression analysis that shows the chance of this being formed naturally is infinitesimally small, but then they then they add a prediction on top of it that you would need this particular enzyme and the chance that they actually then purchase that and it all being a coincidence, takes it from infinitesimally small to me to impossible to be anything other than a smoking gun.
So why is it still considered somewhat controversial, even among, you know, some people who have always who have recently been saying, yeah, I believe I lean toward a lab leak, but I want to see more scientific inquiry on this.
00:59:46:13 - 01:00:01:48
Emily Kopp
Yeah, it's sort of hard for us laypeople to evaluate because it does require knowledge of statistics and of bioengineering. So the number of people who can really evaluate these claims I think is pretty small. But some scientists who are.
01:00:01:53
J.Jay Couey
That's what they want you to believe. They want you to believe that it's so stupid, complicated that you might as well just leave it to the experts and we are never doing that again. Please understand that it gig on biological. We are never doing that again. There is nothing. It's too complicated. Nothing is too difficult to be explained to us.
If it's that complicated, then you better be able to explain that or you don't understand it. And that's one of the ways that you can really see that some of these people are burning themselves because they come out and they throw stupid, complicated for an hour. And after an hour you don't know any more than you did before the hour started.
And I don't think that happens very often here. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that happens very often here.
01:00:49:07 - 01:00:51:32
Emily Kopp
More skeptical. Like Alina Chan, they basically point.
01:00:51:32 - 01:00:53:18
J.Jay Couey
To, my gosh, who.
01:00:53:22 - 01:01:04:03
Emily Kopp
Is to whom can really evaluate these claims, I think is pretty small. But some scientists who are a bit more skeptical, like Alina Chan, they basically point to other viruses in nature.
01:01:04:03
J.Jay Couey
That are Aleena chan is a person without a CV who had no reason to be talking about sequences. In May of 2020 and yet had a preprint that showed that the that the virus was not changing at all. And I think it's kind of a mistake because it hasn't actually been ever formally published, just like the end of Nuclease Paper hasn't been formally peer reviewed, published yet.
So it's a little strange where we are right now. It's it's a little strange where we are. But Elina Chan sold a book, is selling a book. And Alina Chan, do I have that book? I don't think I have that book, Eddie. I don't. Eddie, I don't think you sent me Lena chan's book yet. Did you? Did I get that book already?
I don't think I did. I thought I had it, but maybe I know. Anyway, the point is, she's selling a book, and it's a book about a lab leak. It's probably terrible compared to Bobby's book, but it is a book that she was written, right, And written and sold very early on. And then she got a permanent appointment at the Broad Institute or the broad Institute.
And I believe Eric Lander is the head of that institute. And I think Eric Lander also worked in the White house at the start of the Biden administration. I'm in charge of science or something like that. And I think Eric Lander was also Kevin McKiernan's first, you know, like he was kind of Kevin was kind of his protege. It's it's interesting, small little circle of people trying to protect the idea that coronaviruses are very high fidelity circulating pathogens in the background all the time, but not really just now.
01:03:02:22 - 01:03:41:53
Emily Kopp
Very similar to SARS-CoV-2 having similar restriction sites. Then you get kind of another layer of complexity, which is that there is a debate about how many silent mutations you would see around these sites in nature versus in the lab. And so I think that's something that scientists need to duke out. I think another I guess just a cautionary word I've heard is that Ralph Baric, this current of our virologist who was working very closely with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he was known for doing this sort of work without any of these sort of markings, without leaving the restriction sites in.
01:03:41:58 - 01:03:47:06
Emily Kopp
He patented no technology, no being the name of a insect.
01:03:47:07 - 01:04:15:02
J.Jay Couey
I'm not sure that it's patented. I hate it when people say that and they don't know, and I don't think it's patented. He nicknamed his invention? No. See him? You see that there? That's what I wrote in my article. He nicknamed his invention. No. See him? I don't think it's patented. And these are the kinds of things that really that implies a lot.
And what it implies, which is really annoying, is that no other molecular biologist could have come up with this idea that no other molecular biologist understood that using these kinds of of enzymes could hide your, your linkage sites. That's just that's just ridiculous. And that's why I didn't like writing this article and trying to blame it on on Ralph Baric because using restriction and nucleases to assemble a coronavirus genome should be considered like baking a cake.
Once you show everybody how to make angel food cake and you give the recipe to everyone. If an angel food cake shows up in China, it doesn't mean that that Baker was there. And this is not a very complicated kind of recipe for a molecular biology lab to link different DNA molecules together by unique sticky ends. That's what they do.
So this doesn't implicate him any more than a cake. Implicates a particular baker in Pittsburgh. Now, you might be able to trace it to somebody if they have a particular recipe, yadda, yadda, yadda. That's fine. I get it. But the technique leak. And what's written in the DEFUSE proposal, inserting fear and cleavage sites in this kind of thing.
Where's the technique there? Why? I don't get it. So the technique is in the viral sequence that was reported to us from China. But in the DEFUSE proposal, they use the technique or they don't. They were going to make clones or they weren't because that's where this starts to get really hairy, because they want you to pay attention to the DEFUSE proposal, but they don't really want you to pay attention to it, because if you really pay attention to it, then you see that RNA virology is done using infectious clones, synthetic RNA virology is RNA virology.
01:06:28:24
There is no other. You don't go out in the wild and get viruses and then keep them growing in your lab and have all different stocks in little bottles and and and keep the lights on, keep feeding them. That's not how this works. These are molecular constructs that can be passage for a time if they start out pure, because that's the trick.
That's the trick that nobody wants you to know. That's the trick that even the no virus people don't want to accept. It's possible that if you made self-replicating RNA that some cells might package it up. If you gave them the right, some genomic RNA in the right, in the right proportions. And that's what I'm figuring out over these last few days.
They already know these proportions. They already know how it works. And when they can't get a viral construct to form, they just add a few things and then it works just fine. We are going to win this argument. There is no doubt in my mind we are going to win this argument and maybe we are going to be the ones that carry this football over the over the goal line where a pandemic is impossible and where the only way this molecular signal could be real is if they used clones to do it.
But it did as a mean that they did. I don't need to argue that they did, but if people like Kevin McKernan want to say that these signals are real, that these PCR tests find something, that these sequences are almost all real things. The only way that's possible is with clones, and not every one of them is clones.
01:08:16:17
Of course they're not clones. Of course not. Every one of them is clones. But this started with clones. It started with seeding a perfect viral sample in a few places with perfect fidelity with those other viral samples. If it spread a little ways, all better. This insistence that this is a real thing, this insistence that this is a real thing over and over, no one no one seems clever enough to consider the possibility that maybe they would lie with a document that that would only take one or two people not pulling in the tug of war.
For all these people to be fooled, one or two people not pulling in the tug of war results in all of these people being fooled. In fact, it's as simple as the guy leaking the document, being fooled by the I.T. person who put it there. It's that simple. But I don't think it's that simple because some of these people have to be clever enough to know, because I've told them already, I've talked to Jessica about this not being real.
I've talked to them about the circumstances in which it was released. I talked to them about the idea why is it that the Major Murphy, who released this to Veritas also released it to Charles Ricks, but Veritas didn't know that Ricky had it and that it is in all of his patriotic boots. Charles Ricks, he decided that what he would do with this newly leaked document is, give it to a bunch of foreigners that he doesn't even know their names on the Internet, on Twitter, on a social media platform, not on Protonmail or on signal, or some other form of highly secured communication on Twitter.
And that's supposed to be a patriot. Somebody who's trying to save our grandchildren took the DEFUSE proposal from the leaker at the at the Pentagon and handed it over to a bunch of anonymous people on Twitter so that they could write a report in a PDF form without metadata. that's great. And now we're supposed to believe from all these people that the DEFUSE proposal is real because now we see that they used enzymes, they ordered enzymes, but not one of these master biologists is going to explain to you what's so special, those enzymes.
How many of those enzymes are there? Is it really that hard to do or is it something that any molecular biologist could do? Every one of these knows anybody can do it. Every one of these people knows it's just baking cakes. They can read the same 1994 reviews that you and I can they can read all the methodology papers as they start to find better enzymes, enzymes that are more convenient, enzymes that have a cut site that's farther away from their recognition sites so they get even better sticky ends.
So what? It's all the same principle, and it's not even as complicated as a cake. And it's so frustrating that these people, they must know they can't possibly not know that these are not, you know, this is not J.S. Bach of coronavirus biology. He's not J.S. Bach of molecular biology. Molecular biology has been linking DNA and making unique DNA sequences for 30 years.
It's only gotten cheaper and easier. That's it about that. Kevin McKernan is right, but RNA clones are how they do all this. RNA clones is how it's always been done. RNA clones allows you to have infectious material where there is none. RNA clones allow you to produce infectious stocks that are near homogeneous, and you can't do that in any way.
What I want is high morbidity and infectious clones would allow you to set up this perfect scenario and hide it behind a novel virus would hide it behind a Scooby Doo. Listen to the Scooby Doo. Go.
01:13:11:23 - 01:13:20:12
Emily Kopp
So it's almost unusual to find a pattern like this if we expect it to be their idea that the Wuhan lab was working.
01:13:20:16 - 01:13:42:29
(Video Host Left)
Yeah. I mean, what's really concerns me is I've never believed, obviously, in natural origin. But let me ask you then, Chris, often does this. How would you Steelman your reporting what what natural origin hypothesis at this point even bears scrutiny for a seasoned health care reporter like yourself. What would the you know, the critics, critics say in response to this?
01:13:42:34 - 01:13:45:04
(Video Host Left)
I know I feel the same way. That's how I'm asking you.
01:13:45:08 - 01:14:04:18
Emily Kopp
Yeah, well, I think the possible coincidence of the pandemic first being detected at the wet market that I think that story still hasn't been told. How is it that that was the first place where we started detecting cases?
01:14:04:23
J.Jay Couey
Wow. So, holy cow. I mean, you see it, right? This is how deep in the doo she is. This is Daphne. This is Velma. She is barely clinging to the back of a moving truck in the middle of the night, and she's climbing in, and she just can't believe she barely escaped her life. But she figured it out.
The enzymes are the same enzymes that these guys found in the paper. And in the paper, those enzyme sites were spaced evenly to create six pieces. And it's the same way that Ralph Baric used to build his coronaviruses. And then we found this DEFUSE proposal where they proposed to put some of these very same extreme, exceedingly rare in nature aspects into the viruses.
And these are things that are indisputable. Now, after all of my research and now she can't, one of the things that stills makes her scratch your head is how is it that we've found cases around that market? That's weird. So maybe the the lab leak person went to the market. We still have got to solve that mystery. That's still that's still one mask we haven't pulled off yet.
01:15:31:03 - 01:15:48:04
Emily Kopp
I think the idea that early cases clustered around the wet market is based on a really bad analysis. I think the idea that spillover occurred at that market is based on an analysis that was recently, recently suffered a major reaction.
01:15:48:05 - 01:15:49:01
(Video Host Left)
Exactly. Yeah, right.
01:15:49:01 - 01:16:06:12
Emily Kopp
So so it's hard but I do you know, I'll give it to my opponents, I guess, and say that I think it is hard to explain, just given the information that we have, the limited information, why it was the wet market that, you know, where we first became.
01:16:06:19 - 01:16:17:13
(Video Host Left)
Can't we just say, well, yeah, that's where the Chinese first reported the cases. I mean, they're the ones who are responsible for, you know, had weak they control the information that we get, not like not vice versa. It's not necessarily organic.
01:16:17:18 - 01:16:41:49
Emily Kopp
Yeah. Continuing to like occupy the mine space overall just for a natural origin. I would say some of the first people who detected the pandemic were doctors in Wuhan right. You know, I would also say I've done reporting showing that the doctors in Wuhan were censored very heavily and faced a lot of retaliation for early reporting. So whether that early is actually reflective of the earliest cases, I'm not confident in.
01:16:41:49 - 01:16:42:33
Emily Kopp
Yeah.
01:16:42:37 - 01:16:43:06
J.Jay Couey
Great point.
01:16:43:13 - 01:17:14:22
(Video Host Right)
And so, I mean, given the documents you've obtained and the work that you've done right now, news outlets are busy submitting their their different articles for Pulitzers. You know, I think I don't even know us Right to know is eligible for Pulitzer. I think you deserve one for the work things are doing on this. But I'm. I'm curious what it's been like to see so little mainstream media follow up on on this reporting because we're talking about a pandemic that killed at least 25 million people.
01:17:14:33 - 01:17:16:12
J.Jay Couey
Holy crap.
01:17:16:17 - 01:17:24:43
(Video Host Right)
What pandemic on this reporting? Because we're talking about a pandemic that killed at least 25 million people.
01:17:25:35 - 01:17:28:59
(Video Host Right)
Yeah. Upended our geopolitics up under.
01:17:29:07 - 01:17:43:55
J.Jay Couey
25 million people. I heard 7 million once. 25 million people. Wow. Wow. That is impressive. Wow.
01:17:44:00 - 01:18:13:59
(Video Host Right)
Our politics, our economy, the number of people who are suffering from, you know, having lived through COVID have it, you know, on and on. It's just the damage is incalculable and the evidence points to a small group of people breaking rules because, you know, the Obama administration had put in place restrictions around this type of research that they, you know, went around in order in order to do this small group of people.
01:18:14:04 - 01:18:40:42
(Video Host Right)
We're talking fewer than a dozen, perhaps doing something not on purpose, you know, but recklessly knowing that it was a possibility. Anthony Fauci in 2014 said that, you know, the potential risks outweigh the outweigh the benefits of this type of research. I think that's absurd given the costs that we've endured. So what's been like, from your perspective, to see so little follow up at this point?
01:18:40:55 - 01:18:47:43
(Video Host Right)
The New York Times If you only read The New York Times, you believe that it's an open and shut case. And it came out came out of that and you're racist.
01:18:47:43 - 01:18:50:53
(Video Host Left)
And it was a bat. It was a raccoon dog. And I Yeah.
01:18:50:58 - 01:18:57:52
(Video Host Right)
Yeah. So what what what's it been like to to know the opposite and to watch this unfold?
01:18:57:57 - 01:19:20:24
Emily Kopp
I mean maddening I it's, it makes me feel like I'm losing it a little bit. But I mean, I think some of the things that are at play are the same things that are making this show so popular. I think the mainstream media is becoming culturally irrelevant and it's and to me, he.
01:19:20:25 - 01:19:26:42
J.Jay Couey
Is really not good on camera. Why is she staring at the freaking table all the time with her swollen fingers? (Sorry Emily, this was an off the cuff random comment that wasn’t needed or nice. You have fine hands. I honestly don’ t know where this came from at all.)
01:19:26:47 - 01:19:41:00
Emily Kopp
I think my theory kind of coming out of the health reporting space and knowing kind of the culture and some of the editors who are running the health and science desks at these media outlets, I think they're friends.
01:19:41:11 - 01:19:42:49
J.Jay Couey
I didn't know that about it. I mean.
01:19:42:51 - 01:19:58:40
Emily Kopp
It's just personal relationships and they really admire. And I think they have a hard time grasping the idea that someone who had good intentions and who might not be a bad person might have made a catastrophic error in judgment.
01:19:58:40 - 01:20:08:18
(Video Host Left)
Yeah, I mean, to me, the smoke, if you will remember Donald McNeil, who works at the Times you got fired, it was open to controversy and he came out later and he's like, look, I didn't believe it because I was friends with these guys. He literally said that.
01:20:08:18 - 01:20:09:41
(Video Host Right)
And they said to him, Yeah, we have.
01:20:09:47 - 01:20:31:17
J.Jay Couey
Yes. Good. Those really BS little screens, though. I never thought about that. You could have a little screen there with words on it. Why not? I mean, how many? It could be like this wide. It could have like four. I think those are screens right there. I didn't even think about it. Wow. that's scary. no way.
01:20:31:17 - 01:20:34:57
J.Jay Couey
That's scary if she's looking at that. my gosh.
01:20:35:02 - 01:20:36:38
(Video Host Right)
Of them, like, directly.
01:20:36:43 - 01:20:45:18
(Video Host Left)
He came out and he's like, I've known Anthony Fauci and Peter Daszak for 30 years. I believe them. And he's like, and they misled me and he's open about it, but he can only be open about it. The ears.
01:20:45:23 - 01:20:46:39
(Video Host Right)
Of them, like to run with.
01:20:46:39 - 01:20:53:34
(Video Host Left)
These guys lines. You got fired. It was a bunch controversy. And he came out later and he's like, look, I didn't believe it because I was friends with these guys. He literally said that. And they.
01:20:53:43 - 01:20:57:09
(Video Host Right)
Said to him, Yeah, we have the yeah of them like directly.
01:20:57:14 - 01:21:11:54
(Video Host Left)
He came out and he's like, I've known Anthony Fauci and Peter Daszak for 30 years. I believe them. It is like and they misled me and he's open about it, but he can only be open about it because he's no longer within the system. So I guess finally, you know, we can bring this you effectively solve the case for us.
01:21:11:54 - 01:21:13:39
(Video Host Left)
But what else is there like.
01:21:13:39 - 01:21:18:23
J.Jay Couey
Your solve the case? The case is solved. The masks have been removed.
01:21:18:23 - 01:21:25:28
(Video Host Left)
Other things. Are you going to potentially inquiring? Can our audience help you? What Can people point you in the right direction?
01:21:25:33 - 01:21:52:25
Emily Kopp
Well, your audience can definitely follow us. Obviously, I think we're punching above our weight, but we're not The New York Times. So so that every little bit helps follower of you subscribe to our newsletter. I think next steps this you know latest documents I think lays out how SARS-CoV-2 probably got its unique features. But we still don't have the starting genomic sequence.
01:21:52:30 - 01:22:07:15
Emily Kopp
And even the guys, you know, the virologist to very strongly favor a natural origin have said a smoking gun would be identifying that virus in that lab in 2019. Got it. So I think if we can confirm that they were doing this experimentation.
01:22:07:21 - 01:22:33:36
J.Jay Couey
I mean, this is just basic virology. She doesn't understand there's not going to be a virus in a lab unless it was created as a clone. Otherwise it'll be a cluster of of of of noninfectious particles that are mixed with infectious particles that they're passing from cell to cell. The only pure, pure thing is the is the infectious RNA.
So it's it's unfortunate. You know, maybe I should try to get her on with.
01:22:33:43 - 01:22:46:42
Emily Kopp
The shutter binding domains that strong or that bind strongly to ace2 with something like SARS-CoV-2. That would be I mean game over like truly game over indisputably. Got it.
01:22:46:42 - 01:22:53:49
(Video Host Right)
So I think also one thing the audience could not do is jump in and be like, I always knew this from day one.
01:22:53:54 - 01:22:55:38
J.Jay Couey
Such a useless Yeah.
01:22:55:46 - 01:22:57:36
(Video Host Right)
Point to make stop it.
01:22:57:48 - 01:23:00:21
(Video Host Left)
Because even if we definitely did even if you Yeah yeah.
01:23:00:25 - 01:23:10:51
(Video Host Right)
It's dismissive of all of the great work that so many journalists have done to confirm your hunch and your hunch. I'm sorry. YouTube audience Your hunch is not worth much.
01:23:10:51 - 01:23:19:16
(Video Host Left)
That's right. Now he's all right. He's his right. And it's this is why we need you to do the work that you continue to do so people can follow you on Twitter. What's the most helpful way people can help you?
01:23:19:21 - 01:23:22:57
Emily Kopp
I think subscribing to our newsletter us right now while.
01:23:22:57 - 01:23:28:55
(Video Host Left)
The link down that in the description everybody go also support Emily's work, follow her on Twitter etc. and we will see you guys later.
01:23:29:04 - 01:23:35:51
Emily Kopp
Hey guys, if you like that video, go to breaking point dot com. Become a premium subscriber and help us build the best independent media organization on the.
01:23:36:01
J.Jay Couey
There’s another one that we could watch, but I'll watch it some other time. I've also got another video, a couple other videos cued up. I mean, there's a lot of things to watch and not enough time to watch it all. And I'm spending a lot of my time during the day trying to put together this response to the clone idea once and for all so that people actually understand what the clones are about.
The contention I'm trying to make and what I'm not trying to make, and so that people can't really pigeonhole all us into one particular box like NO VIRUS or something like that. Ladies and gentlemen, please stop all transfections in humans because they are trying to eliminate the control group are any means necessary. This has been Gigaohm Biological, where intramuscular injection of any combination of substances with the intent of augmenting their system is dumb.
Transmission in healthy humans is criminally negligent because most of our academic biologists and all of our doctors should have done known better. And if they didn't know better, they should have read a little bit more before they recommended it. Viruses aren't pattern integrities, that's the way to start trying to understand. They're not. And so there's certain things that you shouldn't use, certain terms that you shouldn't apply to them.
And we've been talking about them like they're just species and they're not an RNA molecules code or the Olympic lipoprotein code cannot do what they are attributing this, this one to have done so somewhere something is very fishy and they want us to be like Emily and think that we should just accept our Pulitzer Prize for having solved the mystery of the Scooby Doo virus.
And we definitely are not going to accept that prize and we are not going to teach that to our kids. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for joining. And thank you very much for sharing my work. I think I finally figured out how to get the video to show up immediately. So as soon as I sign off, you should be able to watch the replay or check the beginning if you missed it.
Thank you so much. Please keep sharing my work. Please, please, please. That's the best way for me to find more subscribers is for you guys to keep sharing my work. I really appreciate it very much and I will be on again tomorrow because this is my job. I don't know. I'm going to try and do it earlier. Actually.
And then the night show would be like a bonus. But right now the days are still I'm not trying to. Yeah, I really want to finish this thing about the clones. I think it's really important. So that's what I'm going to be doing. It's gigaohmbiological dot com and the subscriptions are down below. Thank you very much and I will see you again tomorrow.
JJ!!! I am sooo grateful you are finally here..... I found out about you last year and have been posting your twitch videos EVERYWHERE....... I don't have heroes anymore these days but you are the exception!!! ❤
First JJ post I ever speedread. Very Sage Hana flavoured. Me likey. Malone and RFK seem compromised to me. Bottom line, we are all fucked but I prefer to know how and why, even if I cannot stop it. The overlords may kill me but will never dupe me in the process. Fuck em