TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @JanJekielek
reSee.it AI Summary
I report that Bhattacharya says NIH employees were urged to pledge loyalty to DEI, and woke ideology infiltrated science over 20 years. DEI became a political agenda, not a health benefit. Outside NIH, funding favored DEI research with little scientific basis, and leftover money was spent on diversity supplements, wasting taxpayer dollars. He adds, “We’ve gotten rid of all that.”
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
“Every single NIH employee had to write… a loyalty oath to DEI principles.” Dr. Jay Bhattacharya reveals that the woke ideology infected science over the past 20 years. “None of it actually translated over to better health for anybody.” It’s worse than we think. “Over the last 15-20 years, the NIH incorporated into its agenda things I can only characterize as political agendas rather than scientific agendas.” “Probably the most prominent example of this is DEI.” “If you’re a researcher outside the NIH, the ticket to getting extra, relatively easy funds was to promise to do DEI research.” “Much of that research had no real scientific basis at all” and did not translate into better health outcomes for minorities or anyone else. And here’s what worse: “At the end of the year, the NIH would often have some money left over.” “The NIH program officers would go to the people who were doing these projects… and say, ‘look, we have some money left over, if you propose a diversity supplement,’—meaning essentially some DEI add-on that wasn’t actually good science—‘then you can get access to extra money for your research.’” “It was basically wasting taxpayer money that had no chance of improving the health of anybody.” “We’ve gotten rid of all that.” @NIHDirector_Jay @DrJBhattacharya
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the politicization of science and changes at the NIH. Over the last fifteen to twenty years, the NIH incorporated what Speaker 1 characterizes as political agendas rather than scientific agendas into its portfolio, with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) being the most prominent example. A chunk of NIH funding went to projects focused on achieving social objectives rather than the health mission. Every NIH employee allegedly had to write a loyalty oath to DEI principles and was evaluated on devotion to the cause. Researchers inside and outside the NIH could access funds, with outside researchers more easily securing money if they promised to conduct DEI research, according to Speaker 1. Much of that research allegedly lacked a real scientific basis and was not science.
Speaker 1 provides an example of projects they worked to deprioritize: a project asking whether structural racism is the root reason why African Americans have worse hypertension outcomes. The problem, they say, is that there is no way to test the hypothesis because, if structural racism is the cause, there is no workable control group to test the idea as true. They assert that such research did not translate into better health for anybody, including minority populations. They describe these projects as political agendas that do not belong in a science agency. The stated mission is to improve the health of everybody, including minority populations, but only if projects are clearly scientific, well defined, and have a real chance of improving health.
Speaker 0 asks for clarification, summarizing that there were ideological or political projects receiving NIH funding. Speaker 1 confirms and adds another practice: when a good science project ended the year with leftover funds, program officers would approach researchers with leftover money and offer a “diversity supplement”—an add-on tied to DEI that was not actual science—to obtain extra funding. This, they claim, was a waste of taxpayer money with no real health benefit. They say they have since gotten rid of all of that.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's talk about this politicization of science because this is something, you know, we've talked about numerous times in the past, and you're saying that's actually changed. I'm not sure everyone understands or necessarily even believes that. What's changed?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So over, let's say, the last fifteen, twenty years, the NIH sort of incorporated into its agenda things that I can only characterize as political agendas rather than scientific agendas. Probably the most prominent example of this is DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. So a chunk of the NIH portfolio went to projects that were focused on achieving some social objective rather than the health mission which we actually have. Every single NIH employee had to write some I can only call it a loyalty oath to DEI principles.
And they were sometimes evaluated on the basis of their sort of sufficient devotion to the cause. There were if you were the NIH funds both research inside the NIH and then outside the NIH. If you're a researcher outside the NIH, the ticket to getting sort of extra relatively easy funds was to promise to do DEI research. And, you know, in looking at it, Jan, much of that research had no real scientific basis at all. I don't even characterize it as science, right?
So I'll give you an example of the kind of things that we've worked very hard to deprioritize within the NIH. Consider a project that says we're going to look at, we're going to ask the question, structural racism is the root reason why African Americans have worse hypertension results or something, right? That's hypothesis. The problem with that hypothesis is that there's no way to test it. If structural racism is the cause, then what control group can you have to test the idea that it's true?
And even worse than that is that none of that actually translated over to better health for anybody, much less for African Americans. Those are political agendas that don't belong in a science agency. And so what I've done is I've ordered the NIH, its funding apparatus, to focus we absolutely have a mission to improve the health of everybody, including minority populations. But when you have a project that is being proposed, first, has to be very clear. It actually has to be science.
Everything has to be well defined. And then second, it actually has to have some chance of actually improving the health of some population or some people. I've seen all kinds of nonsense, you know, talking about how we're not taking into account differences between, you know, people of different races or men and women. That's all nonsense. If it's scientifically important, we absolutely want to consider it.
But the project has to be real science and potentially actionable in terms of improving health for people.
Speaker 0: Basically, you're saying that there were, you know, kind of ideological or political projects that were getting NIH funding. I mean, that sort of summarizes the.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So for instance, if had an existing NIH project, maybe it's good some good science in some area. At the end of the year, the NIH would often have some money left over. And so what would happen is the NIH program officers would go to the people who were doing these projects, sometimes often good science, and say, well, look, we have some money left over. If you propose a diversity supplement, meaning essentially some DEI add on that wasn't actually good science, then you can get access to extra money for your research.
It was basically a wasting of taxpayer money that had no chance of improving the health of anybody. And so we've gotten rid of all of that.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m told Peter Schweizer claims mass migration in recent years wasn’t accidental but intentional and directed. He says foreign governments changed laws to flood the U.S. with immigrants, turning a trickle into a flood after Biden won. He argues Mexico’s president pushed legislation to encourage migration, and Nicaragua invited anyone to travel there, issue visas, and escort them to the border. He says millions from Africa, Latin America, and Asia flew to Nicaragua and then north.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
Investigative journalist Peter Schweizer just told me that mass migration in the past several years was no accident. It was “intentional and directed.” How? Foreign governments changed their laws to intentionally “flood” the US with immigrants from “anywhere on the planet,” he says. Schweizer says it went “from a trickle to a flood almost overnight.” “After Joe Biden won… the president of Mexico called together Mexican legislators and they enacted legislation that they knew was going to radically encourage mass migration to the United States.” “They knew that that was the effect because that’s what they wanted to happen.” “You had governments in Nicaragua… who decided ‘hey, we will allow anybody from anywhere on the planet, if they fly to Nicaragua, we will give them a visa and we will take them to the border so they can head north and go into the United States.’” “You literally had millions of people coming from Africa, from Latin America, from Asia, who flew to Nicaragua on these chartered planes and then would head north.” @peterschweizer, author of the NYTimes bestseller “The Invisible Coup”
Video Transcript AI Summary
In the transcript, Speaker 0 asserts that the surge from Mexico during the Biden administration occurred due to two explicit actions. First, after Joe Biden won in November 2024, AMLO, the president of Mexico, convened Mexican legislators and enacted legislation that they knew would radically encourage mass migration to the United States, specifically acknowledging that this would be the effect they sought. Second, governments in Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega allegedly responded by allowing anyone from anywhere in the world to obtain a visa if they fly to Nicaragua, and then they would be taken to the border to head north toward the United States. According to the speaker, millions of people from Africa, Latin America, and Asia flew to Nicaragua on chartered planes and then proceeded toward the U.S. border. The speaker characterizes these developments as intentional and directed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So the case, in the case of the surge from Mexico in the Biden administration, you had two explicit things that happened, because we went from a trickle to a flood almost overnight. The first thing is, as I recount in the book, after Joe Biden won in November 2024, AMLO, the president of Mexico, called together Mexican legislators and they enacted legislation that they knew was going to radically encourage mass migration to The United States. So they knew that that was the effect because that's what they wanted to happen. You had governments in Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, and you think, well, what could they do in Nicaragua? They decided, hey, we will allow anybody from anywhere on the planet, if they fly to Nicaragua, we will give them a visa and we will take them to the border so they can head north and go into The United States.
You literally had millions of people coming from Africa, from Latin America, from Asia, who flew to Nicaragua on these chartered planes and then would head north. So this was all intentional and directed.
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m noting that Covid vaccine-injured patients were gaslit, and that the NIH is now working to help them. These conditions are poorly understood, and the medical system has told patients it’s psychological rather than physical. I’m also highlighting ongoing and increased investments in this area starting this year.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya says Covid vaccine-injured patients were gaslit. Now, he says, the NIH is working to help them. “You have patients with conditions that are poorly understood, and the medical system will gaslight them.” “They tell you it's a psychological issue rather than a physical issue.” “It's going to make you think that you're crazy.” “We have investments in this [Covid vaccine injuries], and we’re going to have more investments in it starting this year.” @NIHDirector_Jay @DrJBhattacharya
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: Because there was such a mass vaccination campaign with a product that, you know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people were injured in this process, what work is the NIH doing in terms of research to somehow help these people? Because just from my own experience, my wife and I made a film about this, right? These people were, even though in some cases they were supported a bit by, but mostly just completely gaslit and just, no, your issue doesn't exist. Right? So how are you approaching this?
Speaker 1: Well, you're absolutely right. There were absolutely like, lot patients of who were vaccine injured were gaslit, pretending as if they didn't get injured or that somehow their symptoms are all
Speaker 1: in their head or something. Actually, this is part of a broader phenomenon, where, you have patients with conditions that are poorly understood, where the medical system will gaslight them leave. They can they're telling you it's a a psychological issue rather than a physical issue. It should make you think that you're crazy because you you you have symptoms that you just, you know you have, but you can't convince anyone else to do anything about it. Injury is one of them, long COVID, MECFS, Lyme chronic Lyme disease, a whole host of these conditions where it just fits a very similar pattern.
Speaker 1: The key underlying thing is that there isn't excellent science to guide decision making for clinicians or anybody else, for patients. And I've made sure that people know at the NIH that I'm very interested in investing in answers for patients for all of those. Vaccine injury, long COVID, MECFS, chronic Lyme. We need to get better answers. The the gaslighting happens because the, if you're let's say you're a doctor and you see a patient and you have no idea what's causing their condition.
Speaker 1: Right? Because the scientific literature doesn't have an answer. You're gonna be unless you're an amazing doctor who's really good at, you know, sort of being honest and compassionate, you're going to be wanting to, like, move on to the next patient. And, it's really, really unfortunate. The answer is to get good answers, right?
Speaker 1: So invest in, research on treatments, on underlying physiology, physiological causes, you know, basic biological knowledge, so that those patients actually can can the doctors and the caregivers for those patients can will treat them correctly.
Speaker 0: So but is is NIH doing this for people that are that have been COVID vaccine injures against a huge number of people relatively.
Speaker 1: We have investments in that, and we're going have more investments in that at the start, you know, this year. For all of those conditions, I think patients deserve an answer, and I'm definitely, interested in finding I would love to know myself.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Because there was such a mass vaccination campaign with a product that, you know, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people were injured in this process, what work is the NIH doing in terms of research to somehow help these people? Because just from my own experience, my wife and I made a film about this, right? These people were, even though in some cases they were supported a bit by, but mostly just completely gaslit and just, no, your issue doesn't exist. Right? So how are you approaching this?
Well, you're absolutely right. There were absolutely like, lot patients of who were vaccine injured were gaslit, pretending as if they didn't get injured or that somehow their symptoms are all
Speaker 1: in their head or something. Actually, this is part of a broader phenomenon, where, you have patients with conditions that are poorly understood, where the medical system will gaslight them leave. They can they're telling you it's a a psychological issue rather than a physical issue. It should make you think that you're crazy because you you you have symptoms that you just, you know, you know you have, but you can't convince anyone else to do anything about it. Injury is one of them, long COVID, MECFS, Lyme chronic Lyme disease, a whole host of these conditions where it just fits a very similar pattern.
The key underlying thing is that there isn't excellent science to guide decision making for clinicians or anybody else, for patients. And I've made sure that people know at the NIH that I'm very interested in investing in answers for patients for all of those. Vaccine injury, long COVID, MECFS, chronic Lyme. We need to get better answers. The the gaslighting happens because the, if you're let's say you're a doctor and you see a patient and you have no idea what's causing their condition.
Right? Because the scientific literature doesn't have an answer. You're gonna be unless you're an amazing doctor who's really good at, you know, sort of being honest and compassionate, you're going to be wanting to, like, move on to the next patient. And, it's really, really unfortunate. The answer is to get good answers, right?
So invest in, research on treatments, on underlying physiology, physiological causes, you know, basic biological knowledge, so that those patients actually can can the doctors and the caregivers for those patients can will treat them correctly.
Speaker 0: So but is is NIH doing this for people that are that have been COVID vaccine injures against a huge number of people relatively.
Speaker 1: We have investments in that, and we're going have more investments in that at the start, you know, this year. For all of those conditions, I think patients deserve an answer, and I'm definitely, interested in finding I would love to know myself.
reSee.it AI Summary
I acknowledge that not all gain-of-function research is harmful; some saved lives by enabling insulin production. The dangerous kind—likely tied to COVID-19—should never be allowed: entering bat caves in southern China, bringing a novel virus to a city with poor biosafety, and making it more transmissible. He calls the utopian, “butterfly collecting” agenda a foolish playbook that doesn’t deserve support, and notes it’s seen as cover for dual-use bioweapons research.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
This is what a lot of people don’t realize about gain-of-function research, says NIH Director @DrJBhattacharya. Not all gain-of-function research is necessarily bad. Some forms of it have saved lives—like when scientists genetically altered bacteria to produce insulin for diabetics. But the dangerous kind—the kind that likely led to the COVID‑19 pandemic—should never have been allowed. “Going into the bat caves of southern China, bringing a virus out that never had previously infected any human…bringing it into a lab in a huge city in China with poor biosafety protocols, and then manipulating it to make it more transmissible among humans — well, that's dangerous gain of function that should not ever be supported, should not ever be done,” Bhattacharya says. He says this agenda “arose out of a utopian vision by certain scientists that we could prevent all pandemics if we were allowed to do this kind of research” by “butterfly collecting all the pathogens of the world” and trying to pre‑emptively design countermeasures. “It’s a foolish playbook, a utopian playbook,” he argues, and “an agenda that doesn’t deserve support.” Many now believe this was used as a cover for dual-use bioweapons research.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on gain-of-function (GoF) research, its regulation, and the motivations behind it. The first speaker notes the administration’s goal to end GoF research and asks where that stands. The second speaker says progress has been made, and the White House is working on a formal policy. He then defines the issue in stages: what GoF research is, why someone would do it, and how to regulate it to prevent dangerous projects that could catastrophically harm human populations.
He clarifies that GoF research is not inherently bad, but dangerous GoF research is. He gives an insulin example: creating bacteria to produce insulin is a legitimate GoF that benefits diabetics. In contrast, taking a virus from bat caves, bringing it to a lab in a densely populated city with weak biosafety, and manipulating it to be more transmissible among humans is a dangerous GoF that should not be supported. The administration’s policy aims to prevent such dangerous work entirely, and the President signed an executive order in April or May endorsing this policy.
Next, he discusses implementation: how to create incentives to ensure this research does not recur. He explains that the utopian idea behind such research was to prevent all pandemics by collecting viruses from wild places, testing their potential to infect humans by increasing their pathogenicity, and then preparing countermeasures in advance (vaccines, antivirals) and stockpiling them, even though those countermeasures would not have been tested against humans yet. If a virus did leap to humans, the foreseen countermeasures might prove ineffective because evolution is unpredictable. This “triage” approach—identifying pathogens most likely to leap and preemptively preparing against them—was the rationale for dangerous GoF work, a rationale he characterizes as flawed.
He notes that many scientists considered this an effort to do bioweapons research under the guise of safety and defense. The work is dual-use. The U.S. is a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention and does not conduct offensive bio-weapons research, but other countries might. The discussion highlights that the GoF research discussed during the pandemic can backfire and may not align with true biodefense, since countermeasures might not match whatever pathogen actually emerges. The speaker concludes that this agenda—pursuing GoF to prevent pandemics—has drawn substantial support from parts of the Western world and other countries for about two and a half decades, but he implies it is not deserving of continuation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You know, there's a kind of a commitment. You know, this this administration, your administration came in to power with an agenda to end gain of function research. So for starters, where are we at with that?
Speaker 1: We made a lot of progress, and the White House is still working on a formal policy. Actually, can I back up just to set the stage for this? So there's a few things. So one is, what is gain of function research? Why would anyone want to do it?
That is important to understand. Second, how should you regulate it so that dangerous projects that have the risk of catastrophic harm to human populations never happen? Let's do that in stages. First, gain of function research by itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Dangerous gain of function research is necessarily bad.
It sounds like I'm making a too fine a point of distinction, but let me just give you an example. Human insulin, is used to treat diabetes, produced by taking a bacteria and then giving it a gene that allows it to produce insulin. And you cook the bacteria up and it produces insulin. That's a gain of function that bacteria didn't use to be able to produce insulin, but the genetic manipulation makes it able to produce insulin.
Speaker 0: And now you can create large amounts of insulin Inexpensively. For
Speaker 1: That's completely legitimate. We don't want to get rid of that because diabetics depend on having the availability of insulin. On the other hand, going into the back caves of Southern China, bringing a virus that never had previously infected any human or maybe one or two at most, bringing it into a lab in a huge city in China with poor biosafety protocols and then manipulating it to make it more transmissible among humans, well, that's a gain of function. That's a dangerous gain of function that should not ever be supported, should not ever be done. So there's a distinction between gain of function and dangerous gain of function.
That's really important to know. We want to make it so that there's never any support or interest in doing that kind of dangerous work ever again. That's the policy of administration. The President signed an executive order in April or May where he said that I wholeheartedly support that policy. I think that is a very, very wise policy.
Now, the question is how do you implement it? And how do you create the incentives so that this sort of research doesn't happen again? So let go backwards again because I'm sure people who are listening are asking, why on earth would anyone support such a research program in the first place? Bringing the viruses out of the bat caves and so on. It arose out of a utopian vision by certain scientists that we could prevent all pandemics if we are allowed to do this kind of research.
The idea was, now going back probably two decades, certainly a decade and a half ago, if we can go out into the wild places, capture every single virus or pathogen that's out there, bring it into the lab, and then test it to see if they have some chance of infecting humans. If they're close in evolutionary space so they have a chance of making a leap into humans, then we should prepare in advance for all of them that are close. But how do you tell if they're close? Well, you do that by making the viruses or the pathogens more pathogenic, seeing if they infect human cells by making them more pathogenic. How many how much manipulation do you have to do before they make a before it infects human cells?
If it's only a little, then we should prepare for that. If it takes a lot or it's not possible, then you can just ignore it. Right? It's essentially a triaging kind of operation to first butterfly collecting all the pathogens of the world. Trillions and trillions, not possible to do all of them.
But you can certainly pay people to make a good start. And then after you've identified which ones are most likely to make the leap, you prepare countermeasures in advance, vaccines, antivirals, so on. Stockpile them, even though that virus has never made a leap into humans at that point stage of the project. Right? So the vaccines you prepare will never have been tested against humans.
The countermeasures you prepare will never have been tested in humans for the efficacy against the pathogen. Sounds like a great business model. It is a great business model or was. But if it ever does happen to make a leap in humans, the irony is that evolution is very difficult to predict. I know you have the evolution biology experience.
You can tell me this firsthand. What that means is that when it makes the leap, the countermeasures that you've paired against an earlier version of the virus may have nothing they have no efficacy whatsoever against the virus that makes the leap, the actual leap. It's a foolish playbook, utopian playbook. But that was the justification for doing this dangerous gain of function.
Speaker 0: Well, and a number of scientists I've spoken with have basically believed that this explanation that you just offered is more just like a cover for actually doing bioweapons research.
Speaker 1: Much of this work is dual use, is the term of art. The U. Is a signatory to the bio weapons convention. The U. S.
Does not do offensive bio weapons research. But other countries, who knows? This research, as we found during the pandemic, can backfire very, very easily where even just doing research on these pathogens can end up hurting your own country. And the idea that you need this for biodefense, well, if the biodefense effort ends up hurting your own country also, that also makes little sense. It's pretend biodefense because you're producing countermeasures for a thing that may not actually when it makes the leap, may not have anything to do with what you prepared for.
And so either way, it's an agenda that doesn't deserve support. And yet for the last two and a half decades, large parts of the Western world, the Chinese government, others wholeheartedly jumped onto this idea that we could prevent all pandemics using this utopian vision.
reSee.it AI Summary
Nearly all meat in America comes from large-scale factory farms reliant on antibiotics and chemicals, with fewer than 2% of farms rejecting these inputs. Joel Salatin from Polyface Farms proposes a Food Emancipation Proclamation to eliminate regulatory barriers for small, chemical-free farms. He believes this would lower local food prices by 30-40%, making healthy food accessible to ordinary families. This change could support young farmers and give consumers the freedom to move away from the industrial food system.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
🚨 Nearly all of the meat in America (99% of chickens, 98% of pigs, and 70% of cows) comes out of large-scale factory farms that are heavily dependent on antibiotics, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. Fewer than 2% of farms reject chemical inputs and are actually rebuilding soil and ecosystems—rather than depleting them. In response, @Polyface_Farms' regenerative farmer Joel Salatin argues that what America desperately needs is a Food Emancipation Proclamation. His proposal is simple: remove the regulatory barriers that prevent small, chemical-free farms from innovating and selling directly to their neighbors. Healthy, chemical-free local food prices would drop 30–40%, he says. Ordinary families—not just the wealthy—would be able to afford real, healthy food. Thousands of young farmers would finally be able to make a living on small acreage. And millions of consumers would have the freedom to walk away from the industrial system.
Video Transcript AI Summary
We need a food emancipation proclamation. I'm not an abolitionist; we wanna outlaw Monsanto and glyphosate. But 'regulatory solution' is 'the worst option possible.' The speakers push for a 'viable underground railroad' to escape the regulatory system and take ownership of our food choices; if this existed, 'the price of local food would drop by 30 or 40%,' 'Food deserts would go away' as empty lots become food spaces and small farmers could make a full-time living. They argue large-scale farming can coexist, with disruption possibly beneficial, and that 'Food buyers would leave the industrial system in mass if alternatives were cheaper, more available, and more abundant.' Let these people do their thing. In a liberty-centered system, 'Who wins and who loses?' The average person and participating farmers win; 'the entrenched oligarchy' loses. 'If they were suddenly pressured by a 100,000 little competitors, we would see changes very fast.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We need a food emancipation proclamation. And and and so I'm I'm not an abolitionist. I disagree with some of my friends in this that we wanna outlaw Monsanto. We wanna outlaw glyphosate, outlaw ractopamine in pork. You know, I don't like that stuff either.
But when you look for solutions in a society, you know, culture has got a problem. Asking for a regulatory solution Mhmm. Is is the worst option possible.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You want a market solution. That's what you're
Speaker 0: asking Yeah. Yeah. You you want a liberty. You want can we solve this with freedom? So I'm not interested in being an abolitionist necessarily.
What I do want is a viable underground railroad. So that those of us who want to escape the shackles of the of the regulatory system and and take ownership of our of our food choices can do so. And if we did, the the price of local food would drop by 30 or 40%. So suddenly now, really good food is available to non wealthy people. Food deserts would go away because empty lots could be turned into, you know, food things and people could make food in their kitchens and and offer it there in the community.
Then there would be an on ramp for thousands and thousands of young farmers with small acreages to be able to make a full time living on their farm.
Speaker 1: There isn't really a danger to this large scale farming system through this, is there? It doesn't feel it feels to me like some something that can work side by side and it Very little
Speaker 0: bit of a version.
Speaker 1: And it'll help and it'll help them because it will, you know, kind of challenge them to become better in ways that maybe they're not being challenged right now.
Speaker 0: But they don't want to be challenged to be better.
Speaker 1: Like my point is you don't you're you don't need to create the regulations to stop No. The big farms from doing what they're doing. You don't need to do anything. Let them do let them do their thing. Just let these people do their thing.
Speaker 0: Food buyers would leave the industrial system in mass if alternatives were cheaper, more available, and more abundant.
Speaker 1: Well now, but now you're telling me why they should be scared.
Speaker 0: And they should be. They they which is why they don't want this to happen. Right. If they admit a lot of people are gonna a lot of people are gonna buy from these guys And then you have to admit there is a yearning in the marketplace for this that you're stopping.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Right.
Speaker 0: And so, you know, they tend to want to eliminate.
Speaker 1: I think they want it simple. They've got a system. They've got it going. They don't want trouble. You know, there's got a good steady stream of cash.
Yeah. You know, I but, you know, this is disruptive as
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Uber obviously was. Absolutely. All sorts of
Speaker 0: Oh, look look at look at the chauffeur industry and how they how they were,
Speaker 1: you know. Well, in the medallions in New York City and on all of this. Right? So so it's disruptive, but but at the same time, think it would be very positive, right, for everybody. Oh.
Right?
Speaker 0: Well, it would be positive if you really had a liberty centric system. Who wins and who loses? Alright. Who wins? Well, the average person wins.
Farmers who wanna participate win. Who loses? Well, maybe people aren't as sick anymore, so hospitals lose. People are gonna choose chicken that's not Tyson's, so Tyson loses. It's the the entrenched oligarchy frankly that loses in a free market system.
The ones that win are the ones that offer opportunity and choice.
Speaker 1: I would argue that these large scale operations that are, you know, sort of deep deep in the system and and, you know, providing the food to America as we speak. I mean, it would help them to get better, and I think that's positive.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Oh, I do too. Mean, yeah. Philosophically. Absolutely.
If they were suddenly pressured by a 100,000 little little competitors, we would see changes very fast.
Speaker 1: And this is really the best part of capitalism, isn't it?
Speaker 0: Yes.
reSee.it AI Summary
At Joel Salatin’s farm, animals thrive without antibiotics, vaccines, or pesticides, resulting in chickens that carry significantly less bacteria than those from factory farms. However, small farmers like Salatin struggle to compete due to overwhelming regulations and red tape, which require costly permits and licenses. For instance, he needed a $50K septic system just to sell a few dozen pot pies. This system favors factory farming, ultimately making America less healthy.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
🚨At Joel Salatin’s farm, animals thrive without antibiotics, chlorine baths, vaccines, or pesticides. Lab tests show his chickens carry only a fraction of the bacteria found in factory birds. So why isn’t this food everywhere? Because red tape makes it nearly impossible for small farmers to compete. It’s endless licenses, paperwork, permits, and regulations, Salatin says. He found he needed a $50K septic system even if he just wanted to sell a few dozen homemade pot pies. The result? Factory farming wins, and America is less healthy, he says.
Video Transcript AI Summary
"In this episode, I sit down with farmer Joel Salatin. He and his family owned Polyphase Farms, and he's the author of 17 books including Everything I Want to Do is Illegal, War Stories from the Local Food Front."
"You notice there's no flies, there's no smell. These are unvaccinated, unmedicated, no pharmaceuticals, none of that."
"You can't have a porta potty, so now you're at $50,000 to put in a certified septic system in order to have a kitchen that passes compliance."
"Salatin believes that what America desperately needs is a food emancipation proclamation."
"Which basically says, you and I can engage in a food transaction without the government's permission."
"In my lifetime, I have watched this erosion of farmer access to retail dollars."
"The question is, is it all gonna go to Vanguard, BlackRock, Bill Gates, the Chinese?"
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You notice there's no flies, there's no smell. These are unvaccinated, unmedicated, no pharmaceuticals, none of that.
Speaker 1: In this episode, I sit down with farmer Joel Salatin. He and his family owned Polyphase Farms, and he's the author of 17 books including Everything I Want to Do is Illegal, War Stories from the Local Food Front.
Speaker 0: You can't have a porta potty, so now you're at $50,000 to put in a certified septic system in order to have a kitchen that passes compliance.
Speaker 1: Salatin believes that what America desperately needs is a food emancipation proclamation.
Speaker 0: Which basically says, you and I can engage in a food transaction without the government's permission. In my lifetime, I have watched this erosion of farmer access to retail dollars. Meanwhile, we're seeing farmers go out of business hand over fist. The average farmer is now 60 years old. So in the next fifteen years, half of all America's agriculture equity is gonna change hands.
The question is, is it all gonna go to Vanguard, BlackRock, Bill Gates, the Chinese?
Speaker 1: This is American thought leaders, and I'm Yanya Kelleck.
reSee.it AI Summary
I shared data showing that messenger RNA from COVID-19 vaccines kills bifidobacteria, which has led some to label me an 'anti-vaxxer.' My findings indicate that both the vaccines and the virus reduce these crucial gut bacteria, with the combination of both being especially harmful. In cases of long COVID or vaccine injury, I observed a complete absence of bifidobacteria.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
“Because I showed data that the messenger RNA killed the bifidobacteria, now I'm an ‘anti-vaxxer,’“ says @SabinehazanMD. Dr. Hazan found that the spike protein in the COVID-19 vaccines kills a key gut bacteria known as bifidobacteria. Furthermore, these effects were seen not just in the short-term but also in the long-term. Both the vaccines and the virus itself cause a reduction of bifidobacteria, and the combination of both in close succession can be particularly detrimental. “If you look at long covid or the vaccine injured…zero bifidobacteria across the line,” says Dr. Hazan.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker introduces herself as 'the girl that brought vaccines to market' and cites data that 'the messenger RNA killed the bifidobacteria,' claiming this controversy has halted research and science. She asserts, 'What we discovered with the vaccine is that it did kill the bifida bacteria within a month, persisted in killing the bifida bacteria.' She notes daily reports of 'long COVID or vax' and outlines her interview approach: asking patients if they had COVID, were vaccinated, and whether they contracted COVID after vaccination, concluding 'did the vaccine kill their bifida bacteria.' She describes the immune concept as thinking of the body as 'a group of communities, group of gangs or communities in your gut,' warning that a 'foreigner' prompts autoimmunity. She argues vaccination may 'kill your bifidobacteria,' leading to timing effects on long COVID or vaccine injury, with 'zero bifidobacteria across the line.'
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here I am, the girl that brought vaccines to market. And because I showed data that the messenger RNA killed the bifidobacteria, now I'm an anti vaxxer. So the controversy has stopped the the movement of research and science. Mhmm. And, again, we need to stop with the controversy and say, let's ask question.
That's what science is all about. Science is about asking questions and pushing narrative and saying it's not the way it should be. And if if I may just jump in, I mean, you discovered that the spike protein reduces bifida bacteria, really. Correct. So what we discovered with the vaccine is that it did kill the bifida bacteria within a month, persisted in killing the bifida bacteria.
People come to me every day with long COVID or vax and I take their history. And I go back and I say, so did you have COVID? Did you were you vaccinated? And they'll say, yes, I was vaccinated. And I'll say, were you vaccinated?
Did you get COVID after the vaccine? They'll say, yes, doctor. And I know I'll ask, did you get COVID before the vaccine? They'll say no. I was fine before the vaccine.
And then you kind of like have to start asking did the vaccine kill their bifida bacteria. In other words they were fine. They had bifida bacteria in them and then they started fighting the virus survived and therefore created their own little immunity, right, in a way because immunity is the ability to get a piece of the microbe so that it recognizes the next microbe in the future. Right? So you have to kind of in layman's term, you have to think of your body as a group of communities, group of gangs or communities in your gut, and there's one microbe that approaches, and there's some of them that res resemble the microbe.
And it's like, hey. You're part of the gang. You're part of the family. You're part of the community. Come in.
You're nondangerous. But if you see a microbe you're that's a foreigner, the microbiome is on guard and saying, wait, foreigner. We don't want it. Reject. Autoimmune process occurs.
Right? So that's how I look at it anyways. I could be wrong. I could be right, but this is how I see the microbiome. So when you look at these patients and you say vaccine you got the vaccine.
You probably killed your bifida bacteria. Now your bifida bacteria is low. You got COVID. So now it's like a double whammy. You're killing more bifida bacteria.
And so these people, what happens with the long COVID or these vaccine injured, it depends on the timing because there are long COVID that never got vaccinated. They got spike injury. I think we need to rename all that to spike protein injury. You have to start thinking of at what point did they kill their bifidobacteria. Because if you look at the long COVID or the vaccine injured, the one and we're coming out with data on that, zero bifidobacteria across the line.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"We followed them for 90 days…Their bifidobacteria dropped to like zero—from like a million to like zero." Are COVID-19 vaccines killing the bifidobacteria in your gut? Bifidobacteria are key to a healthy microbiome, says @SabinehazanMD @Progenabiome 🔴PREMIERE 7:30pm ET👇 https://t.co/WRJfSu91Lu
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 describes starting a microbiome study during vaccine rollout, enrolling doctors who were vaccinated and collecting stool before and after vaccination. The first four patients showed 'the bifidobacteria, this important microbe, is this dropping in patients pre and post vaccination.' As more patients were followed, there was 'killing of the bifidobacteria.' The study was submitted as a poster to the American College of Gastro, where it won the best research award. Colleagues asked how this could happen if vaccines are supposed to improve immunity, and he proposed 'it's creating a bacteriophage or bifidophage.' In four patients for ninety days, bifidobacteria dropped to zero and persisted for six to nine months. They observed no bifidobacteria in newborns from vaccinated, breastfeeding mothers, suggesting 'spike protein going to the breast milk into the baby's gut' might kill the baby's bifidobacteria. They published posters noting loss of bifidobacteria in Crohn's and Lyme patients.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I said, well, you know what? Since the agenda is the vaccine, let's look at what the vaccine's doing in the microbiome. And that's at the same time as they started rolling these vaccines, I started enrolling doctors that basically were getting vaccinated. And I'm like, can I get your stools before and after you get vaccinated? And sure enough, people would come to me and they're like, hey.
I heard you're, like, you're testing the microbiome. I don't I wanna have my baseline because just in case I change, I wanna know what microbes I had before. So I'm like, yeah, happy to do it. So, you know, this study, that was again something I undertook myself and paid for myself. We, by the way, we applied for grants and all that waste of time, waste of money.
So I basically just dumped my money into this trial. So the first four patients I started noticing a month later, the bifidobacteria, this important microbe, is this is dropping in patients pre and post vaccination. So then I started, like, asking myself, wait a minute. What's going on here? I mean, is it creating a bifida, phage?
You know? Because this is precision medicine. This is forensics of the gut. Right? You've got your microbiome this way before, and you've got it after, and it's the same patient, and only a certain group of microbes are getting killed.
You gotta pay attention. So then, you know, ten, twenty, thirty, thirty four patients later, we're seeing this, you know, killing of the bifidobacteria. And so I wasn't gonna pop first of all, there's no way I was gonna publish this because nobody would have taken that. So I decided to submit it to the American College of Gastro as a presentation, as a poster. It got accepted at the American College of Gastro as a poster, and then it won the best research award as a poster.
So all my colleagues called me and said, hey. I saw your data. That's incredible. How do you think this is happening? What do you the vaccine's supposed to be, you know, improving your immunity.
And we all know bifidobacteria is a huge part of immunity. How do you think it's happening? So then I said, I think it's creating a bacteriophage or bifidophage. Phage. And what we noticed is in four patients that we followed, which were amazing shape, you know, we followed them for, ninety days, and then next thing you know, their bifida bacteria dropped to, like, zero, from, like, a million to, like, zero.
So it kept persisting. So there was a persistence in the damage, and not only ninety days, but six months, nine months later. So that was the thing that started making me panic. And then as we were looking at the microbiome of newborns, to mothers who were breastfeeding, we started noticing that there's no bifidobacteria in those newborns. So we asked ourselves, well I mean, because newborns are supposed to have a ton of bifidobacteria.
Right? 90% of the microbiome of babies is bifidobacteria. So we said, well, how come these babies born to moms that are breastfeeding that were vaccinated have zero bifidobacteria? Is the spike protein going to the breast milk into the baby's gut and killing whatever the baby's trying to build? And so because I was doing work on autism, and I noticed, you know, one of the commonality and common findings of autistic children is that loss of bifidobacteria, I said to myself, maybe that's how it happens.
Right? Maybe you're killing off your bifidobacteria, and then two years down the road, you just your kid stops talking. So this whole, you know, it was serendipitous, really. I mean, this whole discovery because, you know, understanding what the microbiome looks like in Alzheimer's, in old people, in overweight patients, in Parkinson's, and, you know, and kids, healthy kids, you know, kind of brought it all together for me. So I had a different vision than everybody else.
I was looking at how to treat the virus knowing something nobody knew. And that was really you know, it was kind of epic. But at the same time, I knew that, hey. You know, they can't prove me wrong. And if they are gonna prove me wrong, well, let's see why.
But definitely, this needs to be looked at because the microbiome has such an importance in neurological problems, in cancer, so in Crohn's, in Lyme. So, you know, we just published, two posters that were presented at the same college at, where basically loss of bifidobacteria was noted in Crohn's patients and in Lyme patients. So bifidobacteria has a big role in disease, in my opinion, and so we have to pay attention to what's killing it.
Speaker 1: So, I mean, your hypothesis right now is that that it's the spike, whether the spike is coming from the virus or whether it's coming from the vaccine, that this is actually causing this. It's it's killing the bifida bacteria, which is creating a problem.
Speaker 0: Correct.
Speaker 1: And this and this is what you're hoping, you know, some serious research is done around.
Speaker 0: Yes. Yeah. So and I and we are doing something to try to prove that. So it's coming along. You know, obviously, this is research, and it's slow developing.
Research is now fast. You know, it's one thing proves another, proves another, and opens the door to another. You know, I'll I'll give you an an example of of research during this pandemic. You know? One of the things that I did myself was kill my bifidobacteria because I wanted to see, well, what increases the bifidobacteria.
Right? So I was the guinea pig. I was the guinea pig the whole pandemic. And, you know, first to see, you know, if I'm exposed to it, etcetera. And it it basically what I realized, one of the things I was drinking, a ton of kefir, and my bifida was not increasing.
I'm taking my I'm not really good at taking my vitamins, right, because I'm stressed and I'm busy and I I'm not a pill taker. But, essentially, I kinda, like, let it die, and, I I started testing my kefir. And I I looked because we passed it through the machine, and we noticed that the the kefir didn't have bifidobacteria in there, even though it says bifidobacteria. So I went to Whole Foods and Ralph. This is research because here I am, like, I've just killed my bifida.
I'm trying to boost it. Why isn't it increasing? So, of course, it opens a new research. And I went to Ralph's and and the Whole Foods, picked up all the products that said bifida bacteria in the back, and we took 23 products. One of them was a $27 tonic water that had bifidobacteria in there.
So I said, well, this gotta be bifido because $27. I mean, come on. Anyway, so we we shook them. We took the sample. Only three of them
Speaker 1: had had bifido
Speaker 0: had bifido bacteria. Unbelievable. So what and and so you become an aware customer. Right? So this is what research is all about.
Research is about, know, let me why isn't this happening? Why isn't it let me figure out why this is not happening. And, of course, my kefir didn't have bifidobacteria. How am I gonna increase my bifido if it doesn't have bifido? Right?
So then I started doing my own stuff, like, you know, the fermented foods and all the stuff that I know how to do, and, basically, I'm happy to say I'm back to my normal bifida bacteria. But, you know, this is this is what research is about. It's finding one thing and then opening up a new science, a new research to kind of discover. And so that was fascinating.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe it's essential to bring in diverse perspectives to restructure government, especially as it has become complacent. Historically, funding was predictable, but recent administrations have drastically changed expenditures, particularly in health care. We need to treat governmental entities similarly to corporations, allowing for necessary resets to align with presidential agendas and improve health outcomes. With such a large workforce and significant spending, it's hard to justify our current system when the health outcomes are poor. I'm curious to see how Democrats will defend this.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"Having the ability to have different vantage points come in and structure government is so crucial at a time when government has just been living on its laurels. Before Obama, it didn't matter which administration you ran. Every year, the agency would get the same amount of money +3%. We're excited about it. We can continue on. When Obama got here, we had, obviously, the Affordable Care Act, which represented a significant increase in expenditures to the health economy. And then, we had President Trump come in, create some efficiencies around that, and then, you had President Biden come in and then just blow it out of the water again. And so, right now, you have a reset that would be normal in any corporate business. We all don't like to talk about that because we hold the public employee differently than your corporate employee, because that's how we've been trained here in the United States - that public service is a great calling. And it is a great calling, but it doesn't mean that our governmental entities shouldn't be treated in similar ways every now and then to reset them to make sure that they align with both the President's agenda and to better health outcomes. How can you argue that this arcane system where we have 80,000+ employees and 150,000 contractors and are spending trillions of dollars yet receiving some of the worst health outcomes is what's best for the American public? I can't make that argument. I'm really interested to see how the Democrats are going to try and make that argument over the next coming months." - @Dpmansdo
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker emphasizes the importance of sustained engagement from the MAHA and MAGA movements, stating that the fight has only begun. They highlight the need to hold the government accountable, regardless of who is in office, and commend the Independent Medical Alliance's (IMA) advocacy work.
The IMA's strategy revolves around four pillars: chronic disease prevention, restoring trust in medicine, provider empowerment, and changing the culture of health. The organization intends to proactively propose beneficial healthcare policies and defend the administration when it challenges corporate interests. While generally aligned with Secretary Kennedy and President Trump, the IMA retains the ability to voice disagreements and advocate for better outcomes.
The speaker urges patience and understanding, acknowledging the challenges in implementing unprecedented policy changes. They express confidence in Secretary Kennedy's efforts to lay the groundwork for transformational change and applaud the administration's willingness to disrupt the existing system, even amidst uncertainty. The speaker is optimistic about improving the health outcomes for American citizens.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The strategy really revolves around a movement, MAHA and MAGA, not taking a break now that we've won. We are in a place where historically the American electorate will get really up in arms, win a political battle like we did winning when president Trump got into office, and then they go away for the next eighteen months. They gear back up for the midterms. They gear back up for the next presidential cycle. We have not won.
We have not won this fight. We've begun the fight, and we have industry forces, which I would say unlimited money, that are going to try to do everything to protect their bottom line, but also limit good policy ideas of a secretary Kennedy and a president Trump. And when you have that, you need your rural health mom to your Santa Barbara mom who are politically aligned around MAHA issues and put them in the right direction to hold government accountable no matter who's in office. And we saw that with what IMA did during the Kennedy confirmation. That was a close call.
We really had to use organizations like the Independent Medical Alliance to do advocacy in states like Louisiana and Senator Cassidy to make sure they realize that this is what the population and the American citizen wants. They want a change to the status quo around health, and they want to have better health outcomes for themselves, for their kids, and for their families. What's next for the IMA? So the IMA is positioned now to talk about a number of different topics. We have a four pillar strategy that ranges from chronic disease prevention, restoring trust in medicine, provider empowerment and focusing on changing the culture of health.
And each one of those is going to have a tactical plan to feed good policy into the administration using the incredible clinical and scientific experts that they have aggregated over the last few years, and so we're going to play offense on providing good health care policy and then we're going to provide defense to the administration when they do the right thing and take on the corporate interests that are going to spend incredible amounts of money to make sure that they're not successful.
Speaker 1: But and what if they do the wrong
Speaker 0: organization, there is always an opportunity to hold everyone accountable, and there will be things that there are differences opinion on no matter who's in charge. And so to me, there is the soft power, right, when we with foreign policy, but soft power when it comes to the movement cares about these topics. You would be best to continue to move this in that direction to the hard power which is, hey, we don't agree with what you're trying to accomplish here. How do we get to a better outcome? Because we have this movement of folks that deeply cares about these topics, they want to say because they're part of the reason that you're in this position to begin with.
And so to me, an IMA, while we may generally agree with a lot of what secretary Kennedy and president Trump are doing, also has the ability to have that conversation if there's some disagreements there in the future.
Speaker 1: Well, no, the reason I mention this, of course, is I think you mentioned this, you know, a lot of different ideas, right, a lot of different ideas, a lot of opinions about, and, you know, the policy is very far reaching even within this first sixty days. Right? And there's lots of people here. I mean, I've talked to her saying, hey. Why why are they doing this?
Why are they not doing that? Why is this happening?
Speaker 0: There is no one better than secretary Kennedy to push this agenda forward, and we need to show a little bit of grace when things don't happen as soon as we possibly want them. I say that because having been on the inside, you are up against so many forces to try and accomplish what is going to be precedent setting and never been done before type policy actions. And so I understand that you have an American public that is very action reaction oriented. We won, so why have we not won entirely? But at the end of the day, secretary Kennedy is laying and his team are laying the groundwork for true transform transformational change within The United States and globally.
Speaker 1: Any final thoughts as we finish today?
Speaker 0: I very much applaud president Trump and secretary Kennedy for doing the right thing and disrupting an organization and an apparatus that has continually led to bad bad health outcomes. No matter what the outcome is, I am excited to see what we learned during this process that will improve the lives of everyday American citizens. I personally think it's gonna be a resounding success. But even in the terms of the unknown, it is better to have leadership that's willing to take these bold actions than it is to continually lead Americans down a poor health outcome path.
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the most dangerous entity is dishonest media, as it can divide nations and incite conflict. Conversely, honest media can unite people and raise awareness against tyranny. Also, @KariLake has been chosen by Trump to lead Voice of America.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"The most dangerous entity is a media that is not honest, because they can divide a country, they can divide nations, they can stoke war, stoke anger and hatred. Or they can be a powerful force to bring countries together, to bring people together, to wake people up to tyranny." @KariLake is Trump's pick to lead Voice of America.
Video Transcript AI Summary
After the first 100 days of Trump's second administration, more will be accomplished than in any previous administration. Trump is focused on righting the ship, improving the economy, securing the border, and ensuring safety. He has learned from past experiences and assembled a qualified team ready to serve the country.
The media plays a crucial role in either dividing or uniting the nation, and it's essential to cover stories that accurately reflect America. There is a significant influx of illegal immigrants, and the current administration's actions have created security concerns, including potential threats to Trump. Given the circumstances, moving the inauguration indoors was a prudent decision.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What do you think is gonna be written, after the first 100 days about what Trump does?
Speaker 1: I think what'll be written is more was accomplished in a 100 days of the second Trump administration than in any other administration in the history of America. I think we we might even be able to say more was accomplished in the first 10 days. Because I believe president Trump, after sitting out for 4 years watching the disaster that has been, sadly, an administration that we're now finding out that Joe Biden didn't even understand some of the things he was signing. After watching that, he's he knows exactly what needs to be done. He's working solely for the American people.
He's not worried about getting reelected. It's about what do we do to right the ship, to make sure that we're on the right track, to get our economy back, to get our border secured, to get our streets safe, and to bring about peace and prosperity and end this era of war and poverty. This time around, he knows who to trust. He knows who stabbed him in the back. He knows who supported him.
And I think he's assembled a really qualified team. We looked at the confirmation hearings. I know you've been covering them. You're seeing qualified people who can hold their own, who are ready to get to work. None of them need this.
None of them are coming to DC because they wanna be lifelong members of the swamp or, you know, the bureaucracy. They're coming here almost as if it's a service mission to help save our country.
Speaker 0: How can you save this country with your job, your nomination?
Speaker 1: I think everybody out there would agree that, you know, I I said this many times on the campaign trail. The the most dangerous entity is a media that is not honest because they can divide a country. They can divide nations. They can stoke war, stoke anger and hatred, or they can be a powerful force to bring countries together, to bring people together, to wake people up to tyranny. You know, there's a lot of tyranny around the globe.
I think we're gonna get things turned around in America. How do we help make sure the people of China are freed up from the CCP and some of the atrocities we've seen there? How do we make sure across the globe, some of these regimes that have been so punishing to their people that we can wake them up, that that's not the only option. And the people have the strength. So we're gonna do some great things at Vio.
I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 0: Someone might say, you know, this sounds a little bit like you're gonna be sort of manicuring the information in a very pro America way. How would you respond to that?
Speaker 1: I've worked in a lot of newsrooms. I've worked 30 years. You know, every newsroom makes decisions on what stories they cover, what they don't. So anybody who tells you that there's one way where, oh, this is fair and that's not. Every newsroom, as you said, manicures decides what stories to put in and what stories to leave out.
And the question is, what is the new your news outlet, the other one doing? What are they leaving out? What are they putting in? And we need to make sure when we're picking the stories that we're covering, that we're choosing stories that tell the story of America accurately. Not just one way, not just covering stories that a certain, you know, one side of the aisle wants covered.
We need to do a better job at being fair.
Speaker 0: There's been, of course, a huge influx of illegal immigrants into the country. There's some theories that the reason this inauguration was moved indoors was because of a security threat. Of course, officially, it's weather. I'm just curious what you think about the sort of the security threat in the having, you know, run for governor in Arizona where this is very real. How how do you gauge that?
We don't know who's
Speaker 1: in our country. Because of this last administration, we have no idea who's here. We are we know there are terrorists here, and there's a huge threat. I mean, somebody said, is there a potential threat to president Trump? And I said, yeah.
Every day. Every minute of every day, there's a threat. Because he's a game changer. He's an existential threat to a lot of the corruption in DC and across the globe. So, of course, they don't want him.
And with bitterly cold temperatures expected, it's probably better it's moved inside. I don't know if there's more to it or not, but, we went better safe than sorry.
reSee.it AI Summary
People often ask if we'll face another lockdown, but there's a new pandemic strategy called the 100-day mission, endorsed by the G7 and G20. It aims for a 100-day lockdown during a pandemic, with a vaccine ready for mass immunization by then. This approach requires reevaluating how we understand safety studies and RCTs. Implicitly, it also suggests reliance on digital infrastructure for vaccine uptake. I refer to this as a "lockdown doctrine" that has emerged from our pandemic experiences.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
“People will say to me, ‘Surely we're not going to lock down again.’ But there is a new pandemic strategy that's come out of COVID. It's called the 100-day mission. And this is signed by the G7 and G20, and so supported by the scientific community in North America and Europe. And the idea is, next time we have a pandemic, we lock down for 100 days and we have a vaccine that's ready for mass immunization at 100 days. That's an incredible period of time to do safety studies. They're going to have to reevaluate the way that RCTs and safety signals are understood to do that. And then, something that's not stated explicitly is how do you get people to take that? Well, you're going to probably rely on the digital infrastructure that we saw with digital IDs and certificates. And so, I think that we have this - I call it a lockdown doctrine - that's been developed out of the pandemic, and it is our default position.” @KevinBardosh @collateralglbl 🔴WATCH on @AmThoughtLeader!
Video Transcript AI Summary
We focus on country-level assessments and retrospective cost-benefit analyses of public health policies from COVID. Despite extensive research, there's a gap between academic findings and public awareness. My background in medical anthropology and experience with neglected tropical diseases led me to explore the effectiveness of health programs and the disconnect between decision-makers and local realities. Our organization aims to reform public health thinking post-COVID. We have upcoming studies on the social impacts of immunization requirements and a reanalysis of the FDA's risk-benefit assessment for the Moderna vaccine, which suggests a net negative outcome. There's a need for diverse viewpoints in academic discussions, especially regarding pandemic responses and the emerging "lockdown doctrine." We must critically evaluate whether these models are appropriate for future health crises.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We have different country working groups. So, I mean, you have to assess this at a country level. One of our major goals are to do cost benefit analysis of the policies retrospectively. Right? In Canada, the US, the UK, India, African countries, elsewhere.
And what we see is in the mainstream public health establishment, WHO, and also the academic institutes, there isn't quite an interest in in this approach that we're taking, but we actually feel like it's the most significant lesson from COVID. So, our our organization is quite critical.
Speaker 1: How do you get the information that you're using, the the the data that you're using to do this in all these places?
Speaker 0: The kind of odd thing is there's a lot of published research on this. Right? There's a lot of gaps too. And there's methodological problems, and and, I mean, you get into the weeds, it's complicated. I remember in Canada, this was maybe in late 2021, I did a review for for an organization, and I was quite overwhelmed.
There were about maybe 1 or 200 studies in Canada on on harms from all the different social science disciplines. And yet if you looked at the Canadian media, they seldomly reported on this, on this academic research. So there's certainly a gap in the research that's been done and then the public awareness of it. And I think that's changing over time. But, you know, during 2020, 2021, 2022, it was difficult to get this position into the mainstream news.
Speaker 1: It reminds me a bit of what, Harvard professor Peter Blair said in the panels the other day, that this the really key element is to be able to communicate the information effectively. And this has been this has just been such a huge challenge. You said you're a medical anthropologist. Tell me a little bit about how you got into this all.
Speaker 0: I, studied the history and philosophy of science. I was an undergrad at UBC, became very interested in the history of medicine, and and actually spent some time in India during my undergraduate degree. And there I sort of looked at the healthcare system in India, sort of health health problems that were facing people, and thought, well, might as well do something useful like become a doctor. Didn't quite work out. And, I became very interested in the way that society interacts with medicine.
Right? As a in terms of delivery of services, but then also the prevention of disease. And then I ended up, also becoming very fascinated by foreign aid programs on tropical diseases, so neglected tropical diseases. So hookworm, sleeping sickness, onchocerciasis, rabies, this kind of stuff. And, ended up doing a PhD in Edinburgh, between the social and political science department and the medical school, and, spent a lot of time in East Africa designing and and evaluating programs for, they're called NTDs, neglected tropical diseases.
Mhmm. So often in very poor rural areas, dealing with, like, sissy flies, they spread sleeping sickness Mhmm. And different vector control programs, or rabies vaccination, sanitation, for for hookworm, and these kind of programs. And so that's embroiled in the politics of international aid. Right?
Local politics as well. Out of that, I became obsessed with this notion of effectiveness. Right? How do you ensure that your program is effective? You have these plans, let's say, from the boardroom in Geneva.
Like, we're gonna eliminate NPDs, neglected tropical diseases. Right? We have these benchmarks. We wanna reduce sleeping sickness in West Africa or Central Africa by 50% by such and such year. And then you have all these different tactics that you're using.
But, you know, you're dealing with humans and power and interests and and the complexity of Corruption. Corruption. Exactly. That's a big issue. Right?
Motivation. Right? And so it's not always clear how this works. So I was interested in the translation of these global plans down through, the social network, down into the village. And so my work always looked at that, but then also wanted to be useful to the program manager.
So it's an information issue. Like, the people at the top might not realize, like, well, actually, you have this global plan, but this is the local reality. And also the variation in the in the reality.
Speaker 1: It's very interesting, because something I that has been sort of obsessing me lately is this sort of a growing disconnect, it would seem, between, you know, sort of decision makers and the accountability for the actions. Right. Or the, especially the second order event effects that might not be obvious. Yeah. Right?
Of, of certain decisions and policies and so forth. Yeah. I imagine it's something you've, you've looked at a lot.
Speaker 0: Yes, absolutely. Yeah. We're interested in using the COVID years and the lessons to reform the way that public health, thinks about itself and the way that it acts in the world. So we have a big job ahead of us. What research now do
Speaker 1: you have in the pipeline?
Speaker 0: A lot of different studies, actually. We so, I mean, collateral global is growing. We have a global network of researchers, about 50 to a 100 people so far. And so we have all different types of studies that are coming out of that. Personally, I have 2, 2 studies that are gonna be coming out in the couple of weeks actually on immunization requirements.
So we've talked a lot about lockdowns and what are called NPIs, non pharmaceutical interventions. But I've done I've written quite extensively about the immunization requirements across North America, but also the digital certificates in Europe. And so we actually have a study. It's the first one to estimate how many Americans lost their jobs because of these immunization requirements. There's no research showing how many people lost their jobs and the social impact, right, of these of these policies.
It was very difficult for us to get this quite nominal amount of money to do this study. And I think people are gonna be quite shocked when the results come out. It's in the millions of people. And so getting back to the distrust issue, I mean, those individuals are gonna have a, a lifetime of upsettedness towards public health. Because losing your job has all sorts of ramifications.
It's sort of an ironic twist of COVID because if you go to any public health department, the social determinants of health are a core part of how you understand health. And yet with COVID, we sort of threw that out the window to some degree. So so one is on on that. The second, paper is actually it relates to regulatory issues. So we have a crisis of scientific integrity in our regulatory bodies.
And so we reanalyze the FDA's original, risk benefit assessment for Moderna, specifically around, you know, young men, 18 to 25. And their assumptions in the models are so unrealistic. And so the that that risk benefit assessment was used to authorize the Moderna vaccine in the US. And so we reanalyze it with different, you know, parameters. And we actually find that the risk benefit flips.
It's a it's a net negative.
Speaker 1: And, Using using the their own data.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Using their own model, but just putting in more realistic assumptions into it. And so there needs to be a lot of reanalysis and reflection in the scientific community. And I think the conference here at Stanford is a step in the right direction. But I've been to quite a number of pandemic conferences over the last couple months, where, sort of the viewpoints that I'm expressing here are very marginalised.
And and so there still is this very strong industry, a pandemic industry, that thinks that they did a great job, and that people that are criticizing them are sort of spreading misinformation. And I think that that really needs to change.
Speaker 1: As we finish up, what do you make of, the new Stanford president's comments, at the beginning, opening up the conference?
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think I think they're great. So that's, yeah, professor Levin. I mean, there's nothing revolutionary about this. We're a university.
Right? We wanna welcome diverse viewpoints and have debates about them. I think in in in the vaccine there was it was quite challenging to get some of our colleagues on the other side to come, you know, and have that debate. So, I think across university campuses in the US, there's this sort of, larger conversation about academic freedom, freedom of speech, etcetera. And, I think COVID is is part of that conversation.
Getting back to this, group think in the scientific elite. So people will say to me, oh, surely we're not gonna lock down again. But, there's there is a new pandemic strategy that's come out of of COVID. It's called the 100 day mission. And this is signed by the G7, G20.
And so supported by the scientific community in North America and Europe. And the idea is next time we have a pandemic, we lock down for a 100 days, and we have a vaccine that's ready for mass immunization at a 100 days. Right? That's an incredible, period of time to do safety studies. They're gonna have to reevaluate the way that that RCTs and and safety signals are are understood to do that.
And then something that's not stated explicitly as well, then you're gonna how do you get people to take that? Well, you're gonna probably rely on the digital infrastructure that we saw with digital IDs and certificates. And and so I think that we have this, I call it a lockdown doctrine that's been developed out of the pandemic. And it is, our default position. And so, my work is to challenge my colleagues in the scientific community, but also the policy community to just think like, does that, model really fit with what happened during COVID?
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
This above👆 is a clip. Watch the full interview “Will the World Lock Down Again in the Next Pandemic? Dr. Kevin Bardosh” here👇 https://ept.ms/S1031KevinBardosh
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
ept.ms
reSee.it AI Summary
I empathize with first-time homebuyers facing challenges in the market. However, I believe that stopgap measures become permanent solutions that don't address the root issue. Housing subsidies only increase demand without solving the supply problem, which remains unchanged.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
“I have all kinds of sympathy for the homebuyer trying to buy their first home. I mean, it is very, very difficult. But stopgap measures are never stopgap…They last forever," says James Burling of @PacificLegal
Video Transcript AI Summary
James Sperling, vice president of legal affairs at the Pacific Legal Foundation and author of "Nowhere to Live: The Hidden Story of America's Housing Crisis," discusses the root causes of America's housing shortage. He claims that previously, landowners could build, farm, and cut trees on their property as long as neighbors weren't harmed, but now permits are required. Sperling asserts that these impediments discourage home building. He also believes many housing proposals, like subsidies, zoning rules, and rent controls, are counterproductive. Sperling argues that national rent control, which has been proposed by some, would expand a localized problem nationwide and has been a disaster wherever implemented.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It used to be if you could build on your property, you could farm on your property, you could cut trees on your property as long as you didn't hurt your neighbors. You can't do anything without getting permits from somebody. And with that kind of impediment, a lot of people who'd otherwise build homes said, well, I've got to do something else with my money.
Speaker 1: James Sperling is vice president of legal affairs at the Pacific Legal Foundation and author of nowhere to live, the hidden Story of America's Housing Crisis. What are the root causes of the apparent shortage of housing in America today? And why does Burling believe many housing related proposals from subsidies to certain zoning rules to rent controls are actually counterproductive.
Speaker 0: Well, the idea of having national rent control as has been proposed by some people is going to make a problem that is confined to the city into a national problem. And it's been a disaster wherever it's been tried.
Speaker 1: This is American thought leaders, and I'm Yanya Kelleck.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
Housing subsidies result in more money chasing the same number of homes as there was before. "It's not solving the problem of supply...Supply & demand is an inexorable law, & you can't overturn it...People have tried." @PacificLegal 🔴 PREMIERE 9PM ET: https://ept.ms/S1001JamesBurling
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
ept.ms
reSee.it AI Summary
KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov warned about ideological subversion in the West, aiming to change Americans' perception of reality. This brainwashing process occurs in four stages, starting with demoralization, which takes 15 to 20 years to achieve. Marxist-Leninist ideology is being taught to multiple generations of American students. Watch the full interview for more details.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov's 1984 warning to the West: "Ideological subversion…or psychological warfare, what it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent, that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country. It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow, and it's divided in four basic stages. The first one being demoralization. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, expose [them] to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students."
Video Transcript AI Summary
Yuri Bezmenov, a former KGB defector, warned America about Soviet subversion in the 1980s. He highlighted the slow process of ideological subversion, demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization. Bezmenov urged Americans to educate themselves on the dangers of socialism and communism to protect their freedom. The speaker emphasizes the importance of individual awakening and reclaiming creativity to counter divisive messages. It is time for people to realize their role in the awakening and take action to bring truth and light in dark times.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We've talked offline a lot about Yuri Bisminoff. Yes. And Yuri Bisminoff, back in the eighties, I think it was 1984. Ironically. Ironically or unironically.
I I don't know actually these days. Right? He he talked about subversion. He talked about active measures. He talks in a language, and you've put together this, you know, amazing short to kind of that encapsulates, you know, all of his ideas that he was trying to desperately share in 1984 or earlier.
Right? That when we see them today, we're thinking, my god. This has all happened. I mean, was it was the oppression? Like, what or or did this actually happen?
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's the scary part really and why I I keep drawing from historic warnings, like the work that I featured in The Great Awakening with G. Edward Griffin and his historic war warning in the sixties. He was telling everyone that communism was not dead, it was coming and and and that we need to be aware. And then in 1984, that same man, G. Edward Griffin, interviewed Yuri Besmanov.
And here we have a KGB defector, a man who escaped once he realized truly what kind of psycho logical subversion that the, Soviet forces were forcing upon other nations around the world. And he made the trek to America, risked his life in a really, really, high fashion in the sense that if they knew what he where he was coming or what he was doing, he would have been taken out immediately. I I mean, the bravery and the courage that it took for this man to come here, to go on camera, and to warn America what was coming and and that there was something invisible. And that's that's the real terrifying part of this, is that that we know how to navigate military war, but when it's a psychological war, when it's invisible, when it's happening happening in such a way that that even really wise intelligent people can't perceive, that's the stuff that gets to even the protected. And so he came here to let us know what was taking place, and he was shocked in the eighties because he didn't realize he'd only see visions of America already already had reached in the United States, and it was shocking to him.
So already already had reached in the United States, and it was shocking to him. So he took it upon himself to do interview after interview to warn us, America, let me tell you from my perspective as a former KGB propagandist, this is what's happening to to the minds of your people, and you need to be very careful because, as he said in the film, time bomb is ticking, and the danger is coming closer and closer.
Speaker 2: The the time bomb is ticking. With every second, the disaster is coming closer and closer.
Speaker 1: And no one listened to him. And I think one of the deadliest things that any nation has ever said is that it can never happen here. And we've been saying that for too long, and now, unfortunately, it's happening here.
Speaker 3: Our conversation is with mister Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmianoff. He escaped to the west in 1970 after becoming totally disgusted with the Soviet system, and he did this at great risk to his life. He certainly is one of the world's outstanding experts on the subject of Soviet propaganda and disinformation and active measures. When, the Soviets used the phrase ideological subversion, what do they mean by that?
Speaker 2: Ideological subversion or active measures, in the language of of the KGB or psychological warfare. What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country. It's a great brainwashing, process, which goes very slow, and it's divided in in 4 basic stages. The first one being demoralization. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation.
Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years, which requires to, educate 1 generation of students in the country of of of your enemy exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxism Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of of of at least 3 generations of American students. The next stage is destabilization. What matters is essentials, economy, foreign relations, defense systems.
And you can see it quite clearly that in some areas, in such sensitive areas as as, defense and economy, The influence of Marxist Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I I could never believe it 14 years ago when I landed, in this part of the world that the process will go that fast. The next stage, of course, is crisis. It it it may take only up to 6 weeks to to bring a country to the verge of crisis. You can see it in in Central America now.
And after crisis, with a violent change of of power, structure, and economy, you have so called the period of normalization. It may last indefinitely.
Speaker 3: What do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people?
Speaker 2: Well, the the, the immediate thing that comes to my mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in, in, in the spirit of real patriotism, number 1. Number 2, to to explain them the real danger of socialist, communist, whatever, welfare state, big brother government, if people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, Nothing ever can help United States. You may kiss goodbye to your freedom. I as I said, I am now in your boat. If if we sing together, we'll sing beautifully together.
There is no other place on this planet to defect to.
Speaker 0: He was just seeing something that was actually happening. And I think to myself, you know, how is it that so many of us just simply didn't grasp this at all? I mean, like, not even a bit for the longest time.
Speaker 1: It's time for all people to realize that we play a part in this awakening, that we all do. There's been this well, by design, we've been wired to wait for the superhero to sweep in to save us. And it's never happened, and it never will happen. There's a real true calling if you understand what, the work of Joseph Campbell and the hero's journey. What the hero always discovered on the journey ultimately, so much so that it's become cliche through a lot of the iconic movies that have used the hero journey structure, and that is the forces within, we are the one, we are the ones we have been waiting for, whatever the line is.
The hero goes out to find the reluctant hero goes out to find the hero, only to discover that the journey was building him or her up to the point that they could dissolve everything that wasn't the hero, so they could stand and truly awaken to the fact that they are the one they've been waiting for. And so, you know, I think that is a very important message for the masses to understand right now, that that it is like the cells in the body of an organism, all of us bring life, and all of us matter. And when the cells are fighting and when the cells are stagnant, the body the organism is not healthy. And so it's time for us to revive that call for life, that call to procreate, that that call to, take back our creative talents, our creative genius, our music and everything has been hijacked with with these demeaning and demoralizing and divisive messages, and that's our creativity. And we need to reclaim that and bring our truth and the light to shine into these dark moments.
And for me, that is that is what we've been building towards for generations. And when I look at it from that perspective, I feel very fortunate to be alive in this moment and to get to play some little role in this awakening.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
This above👆 is a clip. Watch the full interview “KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov’s Warning to the West” with @MikkiWillis here👇 https://ept.ms/S0608MikkiWillis1
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
ept.ms
reSee.it AI Summary
Dr. Kathleen Ruddy was amazed to discover the potential of ivermectin in treating cancer. After witnessing remarkable cases of recovery, she conducted a study to further investigate this surprising finding. Watch the full interview for more details.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"We got the scan. No tumors. Gone. Gone." When cancer surgeon Dr. Kathleen Ruddy first learned that ivermectin had potential in treating cancer, she was stunned. But after observing a series of astonishing cases of cancer recovery, she decided she had to do a proper study.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Two patients with advanced cancer saw improvements after taking Ivermectin. The first patient, with stage 4 prostate cancer, experienced a decrease in PSA levels and improvement in symptoms. The second patient, diagnosed with esophageal tumors, saw the tumors disappear after taking Ivermectin. Both patients showed positive outcomes from using Ivermectin for their cancer treatment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I'll have to say that I was as astonished as anyone might be that Ivermectin has potential as an anticancer agent. I'm a cancer surgeon. We don't do parasites. Okay? We don't do ivermectin.
And I was not really even familiar with those people who use Ivermectin. And so when, in the early days of COVID, when it became clear that ivermectin was effective in preventing and treating patients with a SARS CoV 2 infection, I began to be aware, having looked in the literature, that there was 20 years of research showing that ivermectin had great potential in the treatment of cancer. I was introduced to a patient with stage 4 prostate cancer. Had received 2 vaccines, perfectly healthy marathoner, no history of cancer in the family. 2 months after his, second Pfizer shot, he works for the government.
He's gonna lose his job and his pension if he wasn't vaccinated. He was diagnosed all at once with stage 4 prostate cancer. He tells a very compelling story, melodramatic story, about that 24 hour period of time in his life. And he went through the traditional radiation, chemotherapy, radiation, chemotherapy, pharmacologic, castration, all of it, over a period of 9 months. And then his doctor said, you know, there's really nothing else we can do.
And, his name was Paul Mann, and he was like, can't you give me more radiation? No. Can't you give me more chemo? No. Aren't there any other drugs?
No. Are there any clinical trials? There's nothing. Hospice. Send for the priest.
So a friend of his knew me, and she said, Would you give Paul a call? He just needs some moral support, something. So I said, Sure. So I began calling him. We spoke about once a week for 3 weeks.
And finally, the poor guy was suffering. He had cancer and eleven bones in his body. His right leg was completely swollen, obstructed with tumor. He's miserable. And I said, Paul, I don't know if this is going to help you.
But I know it's not going to hurt you. I just can't imagine, based on my judgment and understanding of the scientific literature and all of the work that doctors Corey and Merrick had done and others around the world, that Ivermectin would hurt you. It might help. I can't say. So he said, You know, I'll give it a try.
And he drove to Tennessee, where you could get it without a prescription. P. S, I discovered last night, having dinner with Paul and his wife, Terry, he drove from where he lives in Missouri to Tennessee and paid cash for his ivermectin. That's it. He didn't submit it to an insurance company.
He didn't tell anybody back in Missouri. He's oncologist. No. His ivermectin prescriptions are listed in his chart. How does that information get from the pharmacy in Tennessee to his chart in Missouri?
We don't know. Somebody does. I'd like to know myself. Anyway, he starts taking ivermectin. And he doesn't have any problems with it.
And I talk to him every week. And how are you feeling? Well, no change. Next week. Maybe a little bit better.
I don't know. How's your leg? It's not quite as swollen. How's the pain? Pain everywhere.
Maybe a little bit better. Slowly, slowly, slowly. Not getting worse. Not necessarily getting better, not getting worse. Fast forward.
2 month follow-up appointment at the clinic. They didn't expect to see him. Okay. He's like, Paul! He's feeling a little bit better.
They do PSA, which was off the charts to begin with. And if I'm not mistaken, at the time they randomized him to hospice, I think it was in the 100. Maybe 700, 800. What does that mean exactly for the layperson? Over 4 would be abnormal.
Mhmm. Okay. So what are we talking about here? Prostate cells normally secrete a protein. Protein.
Prostate specific antigen is one of the things that they do. Cancer cells that originate in the spitting out PSA. Mhmm. Okay? It's not that they're contributing to the body economy in any way.
It's just they just want to multiply and divide, and that's the end of the story. And so your PSA levels start to rise, which is a marker, a screening marker. Oh, your PSA was 4 and now it's 8. Let's do a prostate ultrasound, whatever. So PSA can be a screen for the emergence of a tumor, but it can also be used, particularly at high levels, as evidence for cancer, response to cancer, recurrence of cancer.
His was all I mean, it's supposed to be, you know, 4. You know. Yeah. It's 100. Okay.
He goes back for his 2 month appointment. It's 1.3. They said, You're in remission. Well, not, you know, complete remission. He still had the bone nuts.
But you're in, like, a biochemical remission. Well, that was good news. Slowly, slowly, slowly he begins to improve. Less pain. Swelling is okay.
A lot of other vaccine injuries. However, he's getting better. He's getting better giving him nutritional support and other supplements. He's having TIAs, little mini strokes. But he didn't tell me about that, because we were talking about the cancer.
But over a period of time, I asked him questions. I said, Oh, you're having TIAs? His wife said, Yeah, having TIAs. I said, What do the cancer doctors tell you? Because that's who he was seeing.
They say it's not related to my cancer. So I get a call from his wife one evening. He's in the emergency room. He's had this TIA, whatever it is, catastrophic. And I said, Paul, what are they doing for you?
And he said, Well, they did a CAT scan of my head. And they said they don't see anything specific. It's a TIA, and it's not related to my cancer. They send them home. I said, did they do anything?
No. I said, well, okay. Call me crazy. I'm a cancer surgeon, but I think you need to see a cardiologist. I think there are things they can do.
Okay? And of course, I look it up really quickly. And of course, there are things. So get them to the cardiologist. Get them on blood thinners.
No more problems with TIAs. Okay? That's an indictment of the health care system. So he's getting better. But 9 months later, he's out dancing for 4 hours, 3 nights a week.
He gets a head to toe, rescanning. And 3 of the bone mets are gone. There are no growth of the mets that are there. No new lesions. There's only one hot spot.
And that's where he received radiation therapy and the radiation, the radiologist really could not distinguish whether that was a tumor hot spot or radiation change. He is doing very well. The vaccine injury is a problem. But the cancer is no longer a problem except for the fact that it's still there, and we wanna get rid of it completely. And he and he said he called me from a hockey game.
And he said, if I didn't know I have cancer, I would not know I have cancer. That was patient number 1. I was like, That's interesting. A second patient crossed my path. A guy in his seventies who had been losing weight for a year and a half, £40, not vaccinated, 40 pound weight loss, smoker, drinker.
All he does is fish. And, he could no longer swallow, and he could hardly talk. And so I got on the phone with him and, I said, Eddie, you know, tell me a little bit about your history and so forth. He knew someone with prostate cancer who had taken Ivermectin. He cured himself from prostate cancer with that.
So Eddie began taking Ivermectin. I have no idea what the dosing was. He was just taking it. And I gave him some advice about diet and, you know, try and get the weight back on and so on and so forth. But within a couple of weeks, he sounded stronger.
Sounded stronger. He could swallow. He had gained £6. His voice was better. Followed him for the next couple of weeks, maybe another month or so, and I said, Eddie, we need to get a scan.
He doesn't have insurance. He doesn't like doctors, whatever. He had been diagnosed in that interval with 2 esophageal tumors, unresectable. Surgeons wouldn't go near it. The, doctor said, well, we'll give you chemo and radiation.
And Eddie said, no. You're not. So he takes his ivermectin. Maybe about 6 weeks later, I said, Eddie, you need to get a scan. Had to argue with Eddie to get a scan.
We got the scan. No tumors. Gone. Gone.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
This above👆 is a clip. Watch the full interview “The Surprising Potential of Ivermectin Against Cancer: Dr. Kathleen Ruddy” here👇 https://ept.ms/S0514KathleenRuddy
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
ept.ms
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
.@DocRuddy says she’s observed multiple cases like this. Why would an anti-parasitic drug like ivermectin work on cancer? Are these isolated cases? Or indicative of something bigger? She’s on a mission to find out. 🔴PREMIERE 5/14, 9PM ET: https://ept.ms/S0514KathleenRuddy
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
ept.ms
reSee.it AI Summary
In an interview, Dr. Ryan Cole highlighted a concerning switch in the production process of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. The shots administered during trials differed from those given to the public, as a new and untested method was used. This unexpected change raises questions about the safety and efficacy of the widely distributed doses. For more details, watch the full interview titled "Dr. Ryan Cole: How DNA Contamination May Explain Post-Vaccination Rise in Cancers, Autoimmune Diseases, and Clots."
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"There was a big old switcheroo. We did the trials on this very controlled synthetic process. At the last minute, we snuck under the radar and said, but we're going to make all the rest of them using something we've barely tested. And then that's what got rolled out into billions of people's arms." The shots given in the Pfizer trials were not made the same way as the shots later rolled out to the general public, says @drcole12 👇
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the different processes used to create COVID-19 vaccines, specifically the mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer. The first process, called Process 1, involved a synthetic PCR method and was tested on 40,000 people. However, a second process, tested on only 252 people, was used to produce vaccines for billions of people. This second process involved using a complementary DNA sequence to make the mRNA. It is revealed that this process was not properly tested and resulted in bacterial plasmid DNA contamination in the vaccines. The presence of this contamination raises concerns about potential long-term effects, such as autoimmune diseases and cancers. The video criticizes the fact that contaminated products are still being distributed despite the risks involved.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So when, when these products are made, so there were the J and J, that's an adenovirus factor, but then there's Moderna and Pfizer. These are mRNA, synthetic engineered modified RNA. And for the trials, at least for Pfizer, there's a very synthetic PCR type process in making what makes up the, the mRNA sequence for these shots. That's what was given to 40,000 people was this very deliberate, synthetic engineered attempt at precision type processes.
Speaker 1: And this is dubbed Process
Speaker 0: 1. That's the Process 1. In terms of getting a lot of this made for billions of people. A second process was used. Which was only tested on about 252 people instead of 40,000 people.
And that was taking this complementary DNA sequence that is like the reverse pattern of the spike to make your cell make the well, to make mRNA a message. And then your body would make that protein in your cells. So there was a big old switcheroo. We did the trials on this very controlled synthetic process. In that last minute we snuck under the radar and said, but we're going to make all the rest of them using something we've barely tested.
Them. And then that's what got rolled out into billions of people's arms. So it was kind of a bait and switch. And so those large data sets one would want to see in terms of harms, you're not going to find that in 2 50 patients.
Speaker 1: Well, and just just so I can jump in, right, where the reason you you mentioned, right, we The 2nd process was used because you need to make a lot of this stuff. Right. Right? And so you actually use E. Coli, use a bacterium, bacterium to grow these plasmids of DNA, which can then be turned into the RNA, but they just didn't clean them up.
Speaker 0: They didn't clean them up properly. They're supposed to put an enzyme that goes in and break breaks down any residual DNA. And what Kevin McKernan and I think it's 12 other laboratories at this point have shown even up to the current vials of the fall booster, the XBB 1.5, which is technically extinct. So we're giving an expired shot for something that's extinct, which will always happen with coronaviruses. But even up to the current vials, there's still this bacterial plasmid DNA contamination within these vials.
The FDA allows up to, in, in gene products, 10 nanograms of DNA per dose. But that's based on old technology. That's not even looking at something that's protected by fat. When you wrap these little things in fat, we don't know what the body's going to do. So their allowable dose in certain FDA approved products of DNA has been not only exceeded, but exceeded in a way that biologically we don't know the persistence of that DNA.
That DNA can get into your cell. It can get get into and co locate next to your nucleus. There are suggestions that the smaller the fragments, Doctor. Buchholz out of South Carolina talked about this in his recent testimony. The smaller a fragment of DNA is, the more likely it has the opportunity to intercalate into your own DNA as well.
Do we still have some testing, some probes that we need to develop to approved this. Yes, we do have to do that still. That's we're we're not there yet. Several of us are in some small communication groups trying to figure out the long term implications of this. But it does explain a lot of the really strange happenings in the human body that we're seeing in terms of, you know, clots, autoimmune disease, cancers, etc.
Because we're changing signals within cells. Human cells are meant to make human proteins. Human cells were not meant to make foreign proteins. When we program people cells to make things they're not supposed to make. They can go haywire.
They can mutate. They can become a a target of our own immune attack our own immune system attacking ourselves. So there's so many tangents on which, you know, we could go on that. But that's my big concern is the fact that billions of people across the earth have received a product that was overtly contaminated with something that should not have been in the product. And if I went and bought submitted at the grocery store and it was had heavy metal or pesticide toxins.
They would pull those from the shelves immediately saying, you hear this in the news all the time. Oh, if you have this bag of lettuce with this lot number, we're recalling it because it has this contamination in it. And 30 people around the country got sick. Instead, we have vials going into billions of peoples of arms around the world with known contamination admitted to by the Canadian regulatory agents.
Speaker 1: And I'll just plug that that was our reporting that got done.
Speaker 0: Yes, well done. Well done.
Speaker 1: Okay, please continue.
Speaker 0: But, but, but the fact that they have a contaminated product that still exists within the consumer marketplace, 2 children die from a crib breaking and that crib is off the market. Some tire blows up and 20 people over X periods of time are in crashes because of that tire. It's off the market. Yet we have contaminated intentionally adulterated and hidden with gene sequences sequences that weren't even disclosed to regulatory agencies. And these products are still on the market.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
This above👆 is a clip. Watch the full interview “Dr. Ryan Cole: How DNA Contamination May Explain Post-Vaccination Rise in Cancers, Autoimmune Diseases, and Clots” here👇 https://ept.ms/S1125RyanCole
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
ept.ms
reSee.it AI Summary
In a timely discussion, Kash Patel highlights the potential connection between recent financial aid to Iran and the coordinated strike by Hamas, a key ally of Iran, on Israel. Stay tuned for the full episode where we delve into this topic and his new book, "Government Gangsters."
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"I don't think it's a coincidence that a month ago, 6 billion goes to Iran & now their #1 ally against the United States of America writ large, Hamas, is doing a coordinated strike on America's #1 ally, Israel," Kash Patel tells me. Kash came by to discuss "Government Gangsters" (his new book), but of course we also had to talk about the situation in Israel. So think of this timely clip as a preview. Full episode coming soon!
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the recent attack on Israel by Hamas and emphasizes that it was a well-planned and coordinated effort that required significant funding. They highlight that Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization and is cut off from financial support from the US and other countries. The speaker criticizes the Biden administration for releasing $6 billion to Iran, which they believe indirectly supported Hamas. They express concern about Iran's nuclear program and the lack of transparency due to the expulsion of UN inspectors. The speaker also mentions the potential implications for Israel's allies and the broader Middle East region.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I mean, speaking from, like, a military standpoint, planning preparation, what we call operational preparation of the environment, an attack like this isn't a one off. It's not a splinter group saying, ah, we're gonna fire a couple of rockets from this low and, you know, do some damage and, you know, we'll get some headlines. Like you said, Air Land and Sea through various vector originating in a Moss and a Moss funded groups into what I believe is a coordinated strike plan into Israeli, you know, Palestinian territories. And that doesn't happen in a week. That is a lot of planning, but more importantly, that takes a ton of money.
And Hamas, you know, we I think what's worth going into, they are a foreign terrorist organization. Under the United States law. What does that mean? They are fully sanctioned. That means they can't bank with the US industry and companies they can't bank with US partners.
They can't do business with US allies, and they have their access to money is sharply cut off throughout the rest of the world. Kind of like we do with Iran, right, because Iran's the largest state sponsored terror, the Iranian goods force, the IRDC, all FTOs, foreign terrorist organizations, and a lot of other countries have sought the same recognition of Hamas. So you gotta ask yourself, where do they get this money? That's that's you're not talking like a $1,000,000. You're talking 100 of 1,000,000 of dollars to mobilize kind of effort.
Speaker 1: And you were very critical if I recall, you know, a couple of weeks back of this decision to basically, I guess, release about $6,000,000,000 worth of money towards Iran.
Speaker 0: I mean, it was it was probably personal in the fact that that was involved in hostage, affairs, which I'd let up for President Trump. And, you know, I always leave with this. Bringing home Americans is a great thing. And every time you bring one home, it is good. The who is detained or held unlawfully or hostage overseas especially by America's enemies or terrorist organization.
And then you have to step back, and I learned this doing the work on the bigger picture. There's more hostages out there, and there's gonna be future hostages out there. And the question you have to ask is, did you America's ability to get those folks back for a headline. Did you harm future hostage taking matters by going to our number one enemy on planet Earth. I know there's, you know, in terms of, like, economics and others, talk Russia and China, but when you just talk sheer terrorism, it's Iran.
And they like Hamas are cut off from the world funding line. They are literally funded by flying in cash, pallets of cash to continue to operate their economy. And keep their currency afloat. And what happened here that I thoroughly disagreed with the Biden administration is they gave Iran $6,000,000,000 and we got some hostages back. And they then lied they the Biden administration lied to the world.
They said, we are going to dictate how that money is spent, and we've told them it's going to be on humanitarian affairs. Well, don't listen to me. Don't listen to the cash would tell on that, you know, countering that headline, the president of Iran, who works for the Ayatollah, the next day after the money said, we, Iran, will spend this money. However, we please. And they're right.
There's no mechanism for the States. So the this 6,000,000,000 specifically came from Korean banking institutions. It was frozen for a long, long, long time under all these sanctions stuff. They released that money to the Middle East And then the Middle East, they're not gonna be the referee. They're not gonna say, okay, here's $10,000,000 for the food bank program.
Here's 50,000,000 for a homeless, and what are we gonna go police the use of that money in Iran where we're not allowed, where we have no access to the intelligence in structure, banking infrastructure, or anything, the swift system. And so, of course, they were gonna spend it as they saw it. And I don't think it's a coincidence that a month ago, 6,000,000,000 goes to Iran, and now their number one ally against the United States of America Hamas is doing a coordinated strike to America's number 1 ally, Israel. This just yeah. I I talk about it in the book.
There's just no coincidences in government. And at this level, there definitely is not. What I think Israel is doing is saying we're at war, And they're probably gonna look west next and say, Europe, are you with us? Our allies? America, are you with us?
And if so, how are you with us? And this is gonna be where, in my opinion, it gets really it gets really, don't even know what the right word is for the Biden administration. This is probably gonna be their most difficult national security issue they've dealt with today. Because what are they gonna say. Besides publicly, we, of course, support or or Israel.
And the Israelis have a large hangover from how the previous Trump administration treated them as a very public, very global partnership with Israel, and also let's not forget the MITI's issa courts, right? You know, those have been completely lit on fire by this one strike, this one act of war alone. You know, the the Iranians and Hamas are already talking to the Saudis and saying, what are you gonna do? Right. Right.
And our goal was to continue that full on Saudi, Israeli, MITI's peace negotiation, which was still developing. In my opinion, I think that's over now, at least for as long as this war goes on. So it it the amount of we're gonna be talking about this for a long time. The amount of moving pieces that are now on the board and have yet to even get on to the board, this is gonna be months and months and months in my opinion. I don't see a quick resolution, unless one decides decides to just unilaterally surrender.
Speaker 1: And last question, you know, of course, you mean, these are, again, everything developing as we speak. I I've heard that, you know, Iran might be very close to actually having a bomb I don't know if you've been following that at all.
Speaker 0: Well, that's a great point because once the 6,000,000,000 was transferred to Iran The police officers for the nuclear arsenal in Iran are the UN sanctioned cops, for lack of a better word, that are allowed into Tehran and around the country to their various nuclear sites because Iran is publicly saying we're only making fissile material, nuclear weapons grade material to power our country. I've always thought that was a total pretext sham, but let's put that aside. The Americans weren't allowed in there. So we relied on the UN inspectors to go in and check. What's the percentage?
What's the weapons grade? How far along are you? Are your reactors on Are they cooling? All these indicators of how much stuff is being made where? And if you if you're doing it for energy, you need, like, this much.
If you're doing it for bombs, you need like this much. Right? Is excuse me. Iran kicked all the inspectors out of the 3 the day after the $6,000,000,000 and the hostage, exchange occurred. So I don't think we were getting the full story we had the UN inspectors in country, now we have nobody.
So it's gonna be almost impossible for us to figure out how far along they've come. In my opinion, and I've been away from the intelligence of this for a while, since I've been out of government, but I've always thought that was their plan. And I've always believe they are inching closer to that material necessary for weapons. And that is very scary. That's the issue that doesn't get talked about a lot.
Maybe it will be now, but this administration, in my opinion, while also permitting the funding of this this war, proxy war by Hamas into Israel, also just gave a huge cash injection for their nuclear program. And we've we know they're they lied to the world. The this is Iran. They do it all the time. So even if they stand up and say, no, it's only for energy.
We have no way of knowing proving to the world, otherwise, because we don't have anyone in there anymore.
Speaker 1: Right. Well, and and no reason to believe it, of course.
Speaker 0: No. Right. Their track record is I mean, it's just totally false, on this and many other issues.
Speaker 1: A final thought on this and let let's let's dive into the book.
Speaker 0: I mean, this is these are dark dark times. It is. Yeah. The final thought is we talked about who Israel is gonna look for in terms of public allies. Well, who's a mosque gonna get?
What are the Middle East countries gonna do? What are the signatories to the, Abraham Accord's gonna do? What's Turkey gonna do? What's the I mean, we know what Iran's gonna do, but Iran's gonna go around and try to, in my opinion, galvanize a group of countries to back Iran to back Hamas because of their joint, quote, unquote hatred for Israel or actions taken by the Israeli government. Know, which, you know, what is Jordan gonna do?
What are all these Egypt? Right? Massive implications for Egypt. We have don't have time to get in any any of that. All things involved.
But remember, the Muslim Brotherhood, the presidency in Egypt, the fall there, Hamas is a Muslim Brotherhood organization. What are we doing with all that? So I mean, international implications are almost never ending.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dr. Joe Varon, an ICU doctor, dedicated 715 consecutive days to treating critically ill COVID patients. His approach involved cortisonelike agents, vitamin C, and repurposed drugs like ivermectin. Despite receiving death threats, his mortality rate remained lower than the national average. Censorship hindered the dissemination of his interview, where he discusses the impact of his work. The full clip is now available.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
Dr. @JoeVaron worked 715 days straight in his ICU treating critically-ill COVID patients with a protocol of cortisone-like agents, vitamin C & repurposed drugs like ivermectin. He was sent death threats even though his mortality rate was much lower than the national average. @Covid19Critical
Video Transcript AI Summary
I worked in a community hospital that cared for marginalized communities during COVID. I convinced the Chairman of the Board to turn the entire hospital into an ICU to handle the expected surge. Meanwhile, I co-founded the FLCCC with Dr. Paul Maric and Dr. Pierre Kory to develop guidelines and protocols. We had great success using the MAF plus protocol, cortisone-like agents, vitamin C, and repurposed drugs like Ivermectin. My hospital's mortality rate was only 4.4%, much lower than average.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, I was fortunate enough to work in a small community hospital that care for communities of color, for indigenous people, for the underprivileged. And when COVID hit, I spoke with the Chairman of the Board and I said, you know what, we really need to help all these people, but in order to do that, I need you to help me turn the entire hospital into a giant ICU. Every hospital has to be ICU ready because we're going to get hit and we're going to get hit hard. At the same time, I was founding the FLCCC, the critical care COVID alliance with Doctor. Paul Maric, Doctor.
Pierre Kory and we were working on a variety of different guidelines and protocols to be able to help these people. So we started doing that and our success was unreal. I mean, we started using the MAF plus protocol, using cortisone like agents, vitamin C, repurposed drugs like Ivermectin and my mortality data show that my patients in my hospital had a mortality of about 4.4% when the rest of
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
@joevaron This above👆 is a clip. You can find the whole interview “‘A Lot of People Died’ Because of Censorship: Dr. Joseph Varon, Doctor Who Worked 715 Days Straight in the ICU | ATL:NOW” here👇 https://ept.ms/S0915JosephVaron
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
ept.ms
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
@joevaron For some buggy reason, the clip above was cut short. Here’s the full clip, thanks to everyone who pointed this out!👇
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
Dr. @JoeVaron worked 715 days straight in his ICU treating critically-ill COVID patients with a protocol of cortisone-like agents, vitamin C & repurposed drugs like ivermectin. He was sent death threats even though his mortality rate was much lower than the national average. @Covid19Critical
Video Transcript AI Summary
I worked in a small community hospital that cared for marginalized communities during COVID. I convinced the Chairman of the Board to turn the entire hospital into an ICU to handle the expected surge. I also founded the FLCCC with other doctors and developed the MathPlus protocol, which included cortisone agents, vitamin C, thiamine, heparin, and repurposed drugs like Ivermectin. Our success rate was remarkable, with a mortality rate of 4.4% compared to the national average of 25-40%. However, the media never focused on our achievements and I faced censorship on social media platforms. Many people died unnecessarily due to this censorship. The MathPlus protocol, along with good nursing and physician care, helped save lives, especially among indigent individuals who were critically ill when they arrived at the hospital.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, I was fortunate enough to work in a small community hospital that care for communities of color, for indigenous people, for the underprivileged. And when COVID hit, I spoke with the Chairman of the Board and I said, you know what, we really need to help all these people, but in order to do that, I need you to help me turn the entire hospital into a giant ICU. Every hospital has to be ICU ready because we're going to get hit and we're going to get hit hard. At the same time, I was founding the FLCCC, the critical care COVID alliance with Doctor. Paul Maric, Doctor.
Pierre Kory and we were working on a variety of different guidelines and protocols to be able to help these people. So we started doing that and our success was unreal. I mean, we started using the MAF plus protocol, using cortisone like agents, vitamin C, repurposed drugs like Ivermectin and my mortality data show that my patients in my hospital had a mortality of about 4.4% when the rest of the country was in the 25% to 40%. So that attracted a lot of patients from all over the world to that little hospital in Northern is Houston. So we will have patients being flown in, in air ambulances.
I mean, we had a lot of international attention. I mean, every single news agency came to look at our hospital. But interestingly enough, they would talk about what was going on with COVID, but they would never talk about what we were doing. They never talked about the math plus protocol. They never talked about our success rate or more importantly, the use of repurposed drugs like Ivermectin.
Unfortunately, people like me were censored over and over again. Every time I could put anything that had remotely reward Ivermectin on any post that I did, I could go into what I call Facebook jail and I became the king of the Facebook jail because they kept on inviting me. The same was true with Twitter, the same was true with YouTube, so unfortunately, I truly believe that a lot of people died unnecessarily because of that censorship that we have. And I understand that when in social media, there is a lot of stuff and a lot of misinformation, I understand that, there is no question about it. But when you're talking about reliable sources that were being shut down in people that had, like us, the lowest mortality rate in the country, I mean, that was crazy.
[SPEAKER MARCO TRONCHETTI PROVERA:]
Speaker 1: What's in the MathPlus protocol? Maybe remind us.
Speaker 0: [SPEAKER MARCO TRONCHETTI PROVERA:] Yes, the MathPlus protocol includes M, Acinet methylprednisolone, which is a cortisone agent. We found very early in the pandemic that COVID was a very cortisone sensitive illness and it worked fine. A, means ascorbic acid, vitamin C, what your grandma used to tell you when you were a kid, just have vitamin C. Tea, thiamine, another important vitamin that has to do with a lot of your metabolic command of your body. H, heparin, which is a blood thinner because again, early in the pandemic, we found out that a lot of patients were having these microclots or big clots, so that was fine.
Now the plus sign were a variety of other agents that we would give. We started using Ivermectin. And again, I were making out of a single paper that had showed that it actually decreased the amount of virus that you had in your body. And then obviously, more papers came out and it was incredible the improvement that these patients have. But it was not just the math plus protocol, it was also good nursing care, good physician care.
In my institution, I was the only doctor working in the COVID unit. I had a lot of assistance helping me, but no other doctor wanted to come into the unit to the point that I worked 7 15 continuous days without a single day off. Run that by me again, how many days? 715 days, just imagine that, I mean, not even when I was an intern, I worked 7 15 continuous days, but I couldn't get sick, I couldn't take a day off because nobody wanted to care for these people because these were, like I said, indigent people, people that had no papers.
Speaker 1: And I'll just mention indigent because I think that's a term a lot of people don't know. These are people that could be on the street, people who are in really rough time in their life. Correct.
Speaker 0: I mean, these are people that have no resources. And remember, by the time they came to me, they were very sick because what was happening at the time is there were 3 reasons why people didn't want to come to the hospital. 1 was they thought that if they came to a hospital, they were going to die in the hospital. 2nd 1, they thought that if they came to a hospital because many of them were illegal aliens, they were going to be deported. And the third one is many came to the hospital, they didn't want to come in because they were concerned of the financial burden that, that has on them.
So by the time they came to me, they were literally critically ill. These were people that were the sickest of the sick that you can imagine.
Speaker 1: And you managed to save a lot of lives.
Speaker 0: I did my very best to save a lot of lives with what I had and had.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"I truly believe that a lot of people died unnecessarily because of that censorship." Dr. @joevaron worked for 715 days straight in the ICU during the pandemic. He was vilified & sent death threats for his use of repurposed drugs. PREMIERE 9PM ET: https://ept.ms/S0915JosephVaron
Video Transcript AI Summary
In my hospital, my patients had a mortality rate of 4.4% while the rest of the country ranged from 25 to 40%. Unfortunately, I faced censorship whenever I mentioned the potential benefits of ivermectin on social media. This censorship, which I refer to as "Facebook jail," prevented me from sharing important information. I strongly believe that many lives were lost unnecessarily due to this censorship. Don't forget to subscribe to our alerts newsletter to stay updated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My patients in my hospital had a mortality of about 4.4% when the rest of the country was in the 25 to 40%. Unfortunately, people like me were censored over and over again. Every time I got put anything that had remotely reward ivermectin on any post that I did, I would go into what I call Facebook jail. I truly believe that a lot of people died unnecessarily because of that censorship that we have. Don't forget to subscribe to our alerts newsletter, and you'll never miss an episode.
[PREMIERING 9PM ET] ‘A Lot of People Died’ Because of Censorship: Joseph Varon, Doctor Who Worked 715 Days Straight in ICU | ATL:NOW
Dr. Joseph Varon worked for 715 days straight in the intensive care unit at the United Memorial Medical Center treating many critically ill COVID-19 patients.
theepochtimes.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Cancer cells can multiply uncontrollably when the immune system is compromised. COVID vaccines have reportedly caused immune system damage in some individuals. Dr. Harvey Risch, a Yale professor, suggests this may lead to aggressive cancers. For the full interview, visit ATLNOW.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"Cancer is something that the body normally fights off…[but] if you damage the immune system in a way that limits the ability to recognize or to disable newly growing deranged cancer cells, then that opens the door to them multiplying to the point where it's beyond the immune system to cope. And that's the mechanism I think that's the most likely here. We know that the COVID vaccines have done various degrees of damage to the immune system in a fraction of people who've taken them." - Yale professor emeritus Dr. Harvey Risch
Video Transcript AI Summary
In major metropolitan areas in the US, getting an appointment at an oncology clinic can take months. The long-term effects of new products like vaccines causing cancer are not immediately observable. Cancer takes time to develop, ranging from 2-3 years for blood cancers to 20-30 years for other types. However, clinicians have observed strange occurrences, such as colon cancer in young individuals without family history. The speaker believes that if the immune system is damaged, it may not be able to recognize or disable cancer cells, leading to their multiplication. COVID vaccines have been found to damage the immune system in some individuals, potentially increasing the risk of cancer in the long term. There have been reports of aggressive cancers appearing relatively soon after vaccination, leading to the term "turbocancers." The connection between cancer occurrence and vaccination is difficult to establish due to weak data. The pandemic lockdowns may have affected cancer diagnoses, but not the aggressive nature of the cancers observed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Try to get a clinic appointment in an oncology clinic in a major metropolitan area in the United States, you find that the appointments are backed up, that it could be months rather than weeks to to get an appointment. I've heard this from a a few places. The idea that A new product like the vaccines could cause cancer is not something that's gonna be observable overnight. That cancer, as a disease, takes A long time to manifest itself from when it starts, from the 1st cells that go haywire until they grow to be large enough to be diagnosed or to be symptomatic Can take anywhere from 2 or 3 years for the blood cancers like leukemias and lymphomas to 5 years for lung cancer to 20 years for bladder cancer or 30, 35 years for colon cancer and so on. So these are long term events.
And if you suddenly introduce a new product like the since the first thing you might expect to see would be the blood cancers that I mentioned, but not the other kinds of cancers. And so what clinicians have been seeing, however, is very strange things. For example, 25 year olds with colon cancer who who don't have family histories of the disease. That's basically impossible along the known paradigm for how colon cancer works. And another long latency cancer is that they're seeing in very young people.
This is just not the normal occurrence, of how cancer works, and so there has to be some initiating stimulus to why this happens. In my opinion, cancer is something that the body normally fights off because the cells that get created when they go haywire, the immune system mostly recognizes and manages to gobble them up or disable them so that they don't progress. But if you damage the immune system in a way that limits the ability to recognize or to disable newly growing deranged Cancer cells, then that opens the door to them multiplying to the point where it's beyond the immune system to cope. And that's the mechanism, I think, that's the most likely here, that we know that the vaccines, the COVID vaccines, have done various degrees of damage to the immune system in a fraction of people who have taken them. And that damage could be anywhere from getting COVID more often, getting other infectious diseases, and perhaps it may also be cancer in the longer term.
So we're seeing these long latency cancers. We're also seeing cancers like breast cancer. So breast cancer typically is a disease When a woman has a detected lesion, a spot in in the breast, and that's removed or biopsied, and then it it's treated and it goes into remission and sits around quiescent in the body for 20 or 25 years before it may not recur. And then what we're seeing is, however, Vaccinated women who are suddenly, in relatively short periods of time, re manifesting their quiescent breast cancers, That's in the realm of possible, just like the blood cancers could be in the time frame of 2 or 3 years after the vaccines. So those are the initial signals that we've been seeing.
And because these cancers have been occurring in people who are too young to get them, basically, compared to the normal way it works, They've been designated as turbocancers. Some of these cancers are so aggressive that between the time that they're first seen And when they present they come back for treatment after a few weeks, they've grown dramatically compared to what oncologists would have expected Further away, cancer normally progresses. And so that's part of the motivation for calling them turbocancers. We don't know how big this problem is. It's not certainly not universal.
But is it a real problem? Potentially, yes. And so one needs to be just cognizant of it and paying attention to of it. And as the American Cancer Society has said for so long, be attuned to your body that any changes that don't make sense to you in your body, follow them up. That's the best recommendation.
Speaker 1: So there isn't population level surveillance on this? Because you would imagine that There probably is very good population level surveillance on this.
Speaker 0: The problem is connecting the cancer occurrence to the vaccinated state, that the population surveillance for cancer is good because cancer is a reportable disease. It's 1933 in Connecticut anyway. But knowing which people have been vaccinated and when they were vaccinated compared to the cancers is Very weak data if if it exists at all. So there might be reports in the VAERS database about cancers. But again, if this is happening 2 years after vaccination, how are you going to lay the claim that this was caused by something 2 years in the past?
It's difficult to make those connections.
Speaker 1: Fascinating. Well, the other issue is, you know, you mentioned breast cancer, you know, coming back That was treated in some way at some point. But there was also this whole phenomenon early in the pandemic that a lot of this kind of surveillance type work or just assessing Mammograms, like, it was simply not done, right, because the hospitals were locked down, right? And so how much would that play into this, The turbo cancer question.
Speaker 0: I think that it's unlikely to affect the turbo cancer question. It's more likely to affect A bump in cancer diagnoses after the lockdowns were lifted and people were more psychologically prepared to go back into public spaces and clinics, and make their appointments and attend their appointments. So there would have been a bump away in that period but not Long stretching into now, you know, years later, I think that and the behaviors of the cancers, as I've said, they're more aggressive, is something that would be unexpected and not related to that.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
This above👆 is a clip. You can find the whole interview “Dr. Harvey Risch: Rise in Aggressive ‘Turbo Cancers,’ Especially Among Younger People | ATL:NOW” here👇 https://ept.ms/S0911HarveyRisch
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
ept.ms
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"Yesterday, the 3-judge panel…upheld that injunction against the gov't. They ruled that the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC & the FBI, were clearly in violation of 1st Amendment rights when they pressured social media companies." @AaronKheriatyMD on 5th Circ decision.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The 5th Circuit Court ruled that the government cannot pressure social media companies to censor content protected by the First Amendment. The court upheld the injunction against the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, and FBI, stating that they violated First Amendment rights. This ruling serves as a warning to all government agencies that engaging in such behavior may lead to discovery and potential criminal liabilities. It will have a chilling effect on the government's censorship regime. The case is considered unprecedented in terms of the scale and influence of the censorship. The Supreme Court may be involved if the government appeals. The goal is to set a precedent against government overreach and censorship.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Doctor Carriotti, why don't you tell us what happened? What has the 5th Circuit Court determined? And tell me what it means
Speaker 1: to you. So in this major ruling from the 5th Circuit Court, which was reviewing the injunction that the District Court had placed against the government. Basically, the court was telling the government You have to stop pressuring social media companies through coercion or even through what the law calls significant encouragement, which also violates The Constitution. You have to stop coercing or even significantly encouraging social media companies to censor content that is protected by the First Amendment. And the government appealed that decision to the 5th Circuit appellate court.
Yesterday the 3 judge panel in the 5th Circuit Upheld that injunction against the government. They ruled that the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, And the FBI were clearly in violation of First Amendment rights when they pressured Social media companies that even before the case goes to trial even at this very early stage of discovery, plaintiffs have already presented enough evidence that Those 4 agencies and likely more that were named as defendants were engaging in unconstitutional behavior, violating the highest law of the Plan. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution that they needed to stop. And what that means now is that it's a very severe warning shot across the bow For any government agencies or officials even the ones not specifically named in the injunction that if you continue to engage in this behavior Those communications, those interactions with social media companies are subject to basically discovery. In our case, they can be subpoenaed By the court adding to the evidence that this is happening and for the specific agencies that were enjoined, Those 4 that I just mentioned, if they engage in that behavior, it's not just civil liabilities that they're encouraging, but potential criminal Liabilities for violating the injunction by the court.
So this is going to have a very strong chilling effect On the federal government's censorship regime and the various agencies that have been engaged in censoring the speech of Americans online. I'll mention just one other aspect of the ruling that I think is important. And that's that, The district court judge had said if what plaintiffs allege is true and by issuing the injunction he indicated It looks like it's probably true. This will be the most egregious violation of free speech in United States history. Because we're talking about hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans being censored on social media Tens of millions of times.
And nothing of this scope has happened in in the past. This is the 1st major Case of the digital age when we had this kind of apparatus and infrastructure in place, for government officials to to try to exercise Authoritarian control over what Americans said and how they communicated with one another online. And it turns out the district court Agreed that this is really an unprecedented case. They said we're we're searching for examples in Supreme Court history And can't really find analogous examples of a coordinated campaign that was this sort of Large, vast, influential in the previous free speech precedent setting cases. So they they sort of indicated That we're faced with something new dealing with this censorship leviathan.
So they upheld the the earlier ruling which is obviously very good for free speech. And they also, in some of the language of the decision, indicated that this is this is a landmark precedent Setting case that's going to be very important. Remains to be seen if the government's going to appeal that Circuit court decision to the Supreme Court. We'll see probably in the next few days if they're going to do that. If they do I think that will Bring more attention to the case which is good.
I'm quite confident that the Supreme Court will upheld uphold the 2 lower court Decisions that the amount of evidence we presented to the court is just too compelling. So I'm not worried about, an appeal. If they don't appeal, then we'll go straight to the trial phase, where we will get additional information on discovery, be able to shed additional light On what's been going on behind the scenes. And I trust that eventually this case will end up at the Supreme Court, in terms of the final ruling, if not the injunction. And eventually, we'll have a landmark setting case at the Supreme Court, which will, hopefully set a precedent that that will push back on government overreach and government attempts to operate a kind of Orwellian Ministry of Truth.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"I am the first senior White House adviser—ever—to be charged with this crime." Watch @RealPNavarro's statement on camera & read "Ex-Trump Aide Navarro Says Government Doesn’t Want to Offer Plea Deal in Contempt Case" by @MattVadum & @jacksonrichman here
Ex-Trump Aide Navarro Says Government Doesn’t Want to Offer Plea Deal in Contempt Case
Former Trump aide Peter Navarro said the U.S. Department of Justice doesn’t want to offer him a plea bargain, as his trial on congressional contempt charges got underway.
theepochtimes.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Major corporations prioritize profits over funding research. Instead, they promote Disease X, a scare tactic to secure taxpayer money. A former WHO medical officer warns of the risks. Pandemic preparedness plans must be scrutinized. The world's safety is at stake. #PublicHealth #PandemicRisk
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"They're not going to fund research into something that risks a major hit on their profits. So they’d rather push something like Disease X where you can scare the population into thinking that just around the corner is another massive plague and that if tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers money aren’t put into this industry…then the whole world will be at risk." @brownstoneinst’s @bell00david, a former WHO medical officer and scientist, on new Disease X pandemic preparedness plans.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Disease X, a hypothetical new virus or pathogen, is unlikely to cause a major disaster due to advancements in medicine, antibiotics, and hygiene. However, funding for research into other diseases is hindered by the pharmaceutical industry's fear of potential financial losses. Instead, the industry promotes the idea of Disease X to scare the population into investing in their rapidly growing sector. The risk of a pandemic caused by human manipulation of pathogens is low but accidents can happen. Public health needs to be reevaluated to address the industry's self-interest. The future may involve a cycle of finding variants, implementing lockdowns, and mandating vaccines for profit. This could lead to a loss of individual freedom unless society chooses to prioritize democracy and personal autonomy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Disease X is about worrying about a new virus or a new pathogen bacteria that is suddenly going to emanate from somewhere on Earth and be a bubonic plague type disaster for humanity. Such a thing hasn't happened at all or in the west since good sanitation and anywhere on earth, so a couple 100 years, anywhere on earth since the advent of antibiotics. So almost certainly it's not going to happen. We also have much better medicine now. So historically, it's a rather silly concept because we have antibiotics have better medicine, we have good hygiene, which was one of the main issues for previous plagues.
So the problem is that you're not going to make money out of these other problems. And I think there's a fear if they look into mortality and they look into autism, etcetera, that they will find pharmaceutical contributors. And that could cost tens of 1,000,000,000 or 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars to the industry. The industry is where most of this funding comes from for medical research. So they're not going to fund research into something that risks a major hit on their profits.
So that they would rather look at, push something like disease X where you can scare the population into thinking that just around the corner is another massive plague and that if tens of 1,000,000,000 of dollars of taxpayers' money aren't put into this industry that is rapidly growing, then the whole world will be at risk. And so we downplay these other major disease burdens and growing disease burdens. And we put all the emphasis on, you know, it's something like a meteorite hitting the earth once every 60 a 1000000 years. It's incredibly unlikely event unless you surmise that, human manipulation of pathogens is going to cause a leak or an outbreak.
Speaker 1: Well, and so, you know, we're increasingly, sure that it was indeed a leak of something that was manipulated that caused the pandemic in the 1st place.
Speaker 0: Yeah, and we know that a lot of that research is still going on. So it's not unexpected that accidents happen and that will happen again. But then you have to be honest the public. If you are taking this money to prepare for another research mistake, then the obvious mitigation would be don't fund that sort of research. It wouldn't be spend even more money to mitigate the downside of, the other money that you're spending.
But if you're in virus research, if you're in public health on an international scale, this is where the money is. So we have a huge industry that needs to be fed. And so there's a huge self interest now in pushing these unlikely scenarios, these unlikely public health scenarios. And is fixing that is not gonna come from the public health side because that's the industry that's making the money. Fixing it will only come I think when the public see that in many ways, this is a scam, that this isn't in their interest and that we've got to sort of dial back and look at what the actual role of public health should be.
Speaker 1: Where do you see this all going as we wrap up?
Speaker 0: I think the push is to I think there's a high likelihood it will get worse, I think. So we have a 100 day vaccine coming from CEPI, which is a coalition for epidemic preparedness innovations, it's a private public partnership based in Europe. It was started by the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust and some government at the World Economic Forum. So it's one of a number of satellites around the World Health Organization in this area. And the aim and it will happen is they will have a way of making a vaccine in 100 days for a new variant.
We have this huge industry being set up to surveil for variants. And the model that they are pushing for public health is that they will find variants, they will lock people down, they will mandate or allow them to have a vaccine to get their freedom back. And then the vaccine will make have asked profit and then the cycle will go around, they'll find another variant. And this is a future that is sort of mapped out. And it'll be very hard to get out of once we have things like Central Bank Digital Currency, a programmable currency where if you don't get the vaccine, they could stop you buying groceries.
And we've seen this sort of thing already in Canada. It's not it's talked about by the Bank of International Settlements. These aren't conspiracy theories. These are what the people who are making money out of this and involved in the finance world are saying they intend to happen. So we can go down that road, which is a sort of, you know, almost an international fascist state where we will have a technocracy at the top based on health and on mandates and on restricting freedom unless you comply.
Or people can sort of step back now and say this isn't what we fought for in World Wars, it's not what, this country, the United States or other Western countries or other democracies around the world was supposed to be built on. If bodily autonomy, if individual sovereignty are important, then we had to stop complying with this direction and go back to a system, a democracy where the individual is sovereign and all these other agencies. They can give advice, but they can't tell someone how to live their lives and they can't take away freedom. So they're really the 2 parts that we have in front of this and you know, we have to get away from this left right thing that's going on. I think really it's we've we have a choice of sticking with freedom in an open constitute for democracies or we have a choice of going towards fascism and it's a choice we need to make fairly soon properly.
@JanJekielek - Jan Jekielek
"I think in a year from now, there will be more of a scientific consensus that spike protein was a bad idea. Maybe we should switch this to a different protein, or maybe we shouldn't use this platform to hit RSV or flu." - @kevin_mckernan WATCH on @AmThoughtLeader!
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the presence of SV40 (simian virus 40) in COVID genetic vaccines and its potential link to cancer. The speaker clarifies that while the vaccines do not contain the entire virus, they do contain the promoter and enhancer from SV40, which could increase the risk of DNA integration and potential oncogenesis. The speaker also mentions the role of lipid nanoparticles in vaccine delivery and the need for further research on their toxicity. Additionally, concerns are raised about the biodistribution of the vaccines and their potential impact on the germline. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding these risks and considering alternative approaches to respiratory virus vaccination.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, you have actually been doing some really remarkable work looking at what's actually in these COVID genetic vaccines and, most recently, there's been a lot of chatter around SV 40, this, this simian virus or simian virus promoter. So why don't we jump in? Actually, I'm gonna start with, with an AP fact check. This was so important that it warranted an AP fact check. AP's assessment is that it's false that is there is, simian virus, SP 40 in the vaccines.
Public health officials and the lead researcher of a study cited in many of the social media posts say there's no monkey virus DNA and the inoculations approved by the government regulators. Some COVID nineteen vaccines utilize DNA molecules derived from simian virus 40 but that's not the same as the virus itself and the molecules aren't cancer causing. That's it. What's your reaction?
Speaker 1: We did put a preprint on this which never said that the entire virus was present in the vaccines. We said that the promoter and the enhancer and, the origin was in there along with the PolyA signal. So it seems as if the AP has erected a Straumann argument where they are trying to debunk something that was never said. And, and so that's my first comment. My second comment, where they are trying to make claims that this is not cancer causing.
Well, there are guidelines that are written by Keith Petten at the FDA that govern how much DNA can be in a vaccine. And those are all based on DNA integration risks. So the FDA has the answer For them, they may only need to go look at Keith Petten's work. There are limits on how much DNA can be in a vaccine precisely because of the concern over DNA integration. Now I will add that, what the AP should probably look into here is the timeframe in which Keith Pettin evaluated how much DNA could be in these vaccines Didn't consider that the DNA could be an lipid nanoparticle, which would make it a lot more effective at getting into the cell.
It also didn't consider if the DNA had particular sequences that might it might help it get to the nucleus of the cell. So there's 2 there's 2 additional things going on that mean the DNA that's in these vaccines seen is more likely to get to the nucleus and integrate into the genome than, than the information they had at hand when they came to those regulations. They were assuming the DNA in the shots previously were host cell DNA. Like maybe you grew the vaccine in some type of monkey kidney cell or something. And as a result of this, there's background monkey DNA or background human DNA, whatever the host cell line is that they use.
We have something very different going on here. We have a well known promoter that's used in gene therapy that's inside the vaccines that's getting injected through an LNP that makes it very effective at transfecting cells, and then it has a signal in there that drives that DNA into the nucleus. I don't think Keith Pennant had anticipated that when he came up with these 10 nanogram limits of DNA. So I'd say the verdict is still out as to whether or not they can be cancer causing. But it's The risk is certainly elevated from what the FDA's guidelines have been constructed off of.
Speaker 0: Well, and so I wanna bring it down a little bit and kind of simplify slightly what you said, what I wanna talk about is just how, something like this could become cancer causing and it's precisely the fact that it can actually get into the cells in the 1st place. Right? So, explain that process. Like why what would make this cancer causing if indeed it were found to be. Because, for example, right, we are seeing this higher incidence of the so called turbo cancers and rare cancers appearing in people post the rollout of these genetic vaccines.
There's a signal there that people are wondering about?
Speaker 1: So, Bob Weinberg does a lot of work in this space. He's kind of written the book on viral integration into the genome causing cancer. Many tumors, will, will actually, if you survey their sequence, you'll find there's s v forty DNA sequence in there from SV 40 viruses and also from other viruses. So viruses are known to oftentimes integrate to your genome and disrupt your genome, which can lead to this genome instability that can then create a cell line that kind of grows out of control. So the concern here is if this DNA integrates the genome.
One portion of the SV 40 sequence that's in there is an SV 40 promoter. It's a very strong promoter, which means it drives transcription wherever it lands in the genome. If this happens to drop itself in front of a proto oncogene, and drives a lot of expression off of a gene that's known to, if you hyper express it, turn the cell cancerous, then we have a concern that that DNA is in fact doing that. So there's 2 concerns. There's, there's promoters in this vaccine from SV 40 and there's a 72 base pair enhancer, which is, David Dean has shown is a very potent tool for moving DNA into the nucleus.
So, and they're right next to each other. So if this DNA moves into the nucleus and it drags a promoter with it and then integrates in front of a gene. It can disrupt gene regulation and potentially lead to, oncogenesis. Now, with that said, I don't think this is the only thing that might be causing this turbocancer effect that people are seeing right now. The cancers are certainly going up right now and that's a concern.
People have tried to pin this on maybe it was reduction in screening. However, the cancers that are being that we're seeing at greater frequency right now Are not cancers that are traditionally screened for very heavily. So I don't think that's actually the answer. But we do have a risk of potential DNA integration. We also have a risk that we've seen in the Pfizer trial that there's an induction of lymphocytopenia and neutropenia.
Those are white blood cells. So patients after vaccination have lower white blood cells, which you need to clear out cells that are misbehaving, like cancer cells. And the third thing, there's been some work in a few papers showing, that the spike protein itself may get the nucleus and disrupt regulation of p53 and BRCA1. BRCA1 people are probably familiar with because of breast cancer genes, but p53 is also another guardian of the genome, if you will. These are genes that clean up genomes that have been broken or have integration events.
So they are the things that go and clean up these broken cell lines. So If you have all 3 of those happening, you know, potentially increased integration risks, white blood cell reduction and like protein inhibiting the genes that are meant to clean up this type of problem, the combination of those things certainly could make sense, for and be tied to the rise in cancer that we're currently seeing.
Speaker 0: Let's just briefly talk about the lipid nanoparticles because I understand they are also, aside from being, you know, incredibly good at getting through barriers that the body has set up to avoid things getting through, they're also quite toxic as I understand. So could there be a role with from the lipid nanoparticles?
Speaker 1: It's possible as well. So, Mark Girdo does some very interesting work on looking at what transfection of the epithelium can do. And if you over if you overburden that process, you can create a lot of these leaky membranes which can explain a lot of the adverse effects. Now, what's missing from both of the trials is no one really ran a vehicle control, which is what happens if you just transfect people with LNP's, these lipid nanoparticles, those without any mRNA at all. What happens to people in that case?
We don't know the answer to that. And so I think it's a very important point you're hitting on here because I think in a year from now there'll be more of a scientific consensus that spike protein was a bad idea. Maybe we should switch this to a different protein or maybe we shouldn't use this platform to hit RSV or flu. Well, if we don't know the toxicity of the MLPs alone, that might be just as dangerous of approach. So we really do need to understand, if this transfection idea is a good idea, to to to fend off a respiratory virus.
I think many people I have argued that this is a horrible idea to thaw it off a respiratory virus because you're building immunity in the wrong compartment of the body. You really need immunity in the nasal mucosa ends. You're not going to get very effective nasal mucosal immunity through injection, and you take on all of these injection risks where you're sending LNPs through the entire body And it's not very targeted. So we know from the biodistribution study, some of these LMPs are getting to the ovaries. So that's a huge concern.
If 1% of these LMPs get to the ovaries, There's 40,000,000,000 in each shot. We're getting down to like 400,000,000 that go to the ovaries. Now you're starting to really concern yourself if there's only 300,000 oocytes in each female, 400,000,000 LMPs down there, these numbers start to worry you that, that what are we doing to the germline, in the future generation?
Speaker 0: Well, yeah, and I absolutely want to talk about that because it's obviously, this is something that is very unknown at this time, except that it's been. I mean, we've been told that that's impossible. I mean, basically we've been told that that's impossible. Otherwise, we wouldn't have ruled such a thing out. Is that how you read it?
Speaker 1: Well, there's been a lot of things they told us were impossible that turned out not to be true. So, I would want to see more biodistribution studies. The biodistribution studies that they ran didn't really run it with the mRNA that's being injected. They ran it with a mock mRNA known as a luciferase mRNA. That doesn't necessarily give you the best signal to detect this over long periods of time.
They also ran those biodistribution studies over very short Time windows. And of course now we're seeing mRNA in people's plasma 28 days later. We're seeing it in breast milk. We're seeing a spike protein in monocytes 4 months later. So the biodistribution studies really didn't track this long enough to know where it goes and for how long.
And they also didn't look at how much of it was excreted. So when you do a biodistribution study, you put in X dose and you need to account for all of it. Like was half of it excreted through the urine and feces and the rest moving through the tissues? They didn't do that. They just looked at what they could find in a short period of time.