Latest / UK Column Radio / Jamie Andrews on Why Virology Is Junk Science

Transcript

Jamie Andrews on Why Virology Is Junk Science · UK Column Radio

0:38
Jamie Andrews, thank you for joining me in the drenches.
0:41
Hi Joan, thank you for having me back again.
0:42
It's it's really nice to join you just for a, for an open chat
0:46
this time. I think, I think last time we,
0:50
we went through some, some of the work that I did, but this
0:54
time it's a bit more of an open discussion.
0:48
None. That's what I wanted to do
0:57
anyway. Establishment hack by the name
1:06
of Ian Copeland, PhD. Yes, I have the you know, he he
1:14
talks a big game, right. And I think a lot of these
1:19
pharmaceutical employees, should we call them, are, you know, put
1:25
out to kind of put this discourse on online.
1:29
And, you know, it's unfortunate that a lot of people follow this
1:34
follow, you know, his stream. And it's it's really kind of
1:40
like the, you know, what's par for the course on social media
1:44
these days is people are looking for the sick burn, aren't they?
1:47
They're looking just for the pejoratives.
1:50
How well you can, you know, give an appearance of authority, an
1:57
appearance like you know what you're talking about without
2:00
actually displaying any, any kind of fundamental logic or,
2:05
or, or, or or indeed proof for what you're saying right.
2:08
And that's what Ian Copeland is very good at is just, you know,
2:12
sitting and grandstanding rather than actually providing any
2:16
proof like like you did you, you said, you know, have have you
2:20
got any proof for what you're saying?
2:22
And instead of actually just simply going OK, here it is.
2:27
They, they tend to, they tend to just get further and further
2:31
down or change the subject or, you know, we, we all know the
2:34
ways that these people operate. But it's, it's one of those,
2:39
it's one of those questions, isn't it, that how long do you
2:44
go on? How long do you go on with it
2:46
for? But you know, one of the things
2:48
that the crossover was where he presented a picture of SARS COV
2:56
2 or what he claims to be SARS COV 2.
2:59
The imagery that they that they have that they rolled out during
3:03
2020 with plushy toys and stamped it on bus stops and
3:09
media propaganda and everything like that to to ram it home that
3:16
you knew what SARS COV 2 supposedly looked like.
3:19
This round thing with all these spiky protrusions out of it.
3:23
And Ian Copeland said, OK, well what is this then?
3:29
And I have just come off the back of releasing.
3:31
That's that's where it started. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
3:34
Yeah, I've just come off the back of releasing some
3:39
microscopy work. So it, it, you know, it, it rang
3:44
some alarm bells. And me, well, I know exactly
3:46
what that is because I've just been having a, a microscope
3:51
session with an accredited microbiology lab looking at
3:55
these things, but looking at these things where they couldn't
3:59
possibly be, if that makes sense.
4:03
This is, this is often a point of confusion.
4:05
So this is really why I wanted to discuss with you today and
4:09
with your viewers that the thinking behind kind of what
4:14
we're doing at the project, the Virology control studies project
4:18
and actually kind of break it down systematically, actually
4:22
what the results mean, why we're doing what we're doing and how
4:29
to kind of move forward with the information that we're putting
4:31
out. So we're taking healthy cells.
4:35
We are taking a cell line that was used to quote unquote,
4:40
isolate SARS COV 2. It's a Viro cell.
4:45
It's a it's a monkey kidney, an African green monkey for some
4:49
reason, and it's quite ironic, they couldn't actually get it to
4:53
break down the supposed virus in a human sample.
4:58
If if you know, if you follow that kind of logic, they could
5:03
not get a human sample to break down.
5:05
They could only get the more fragile monkey sample to break
5:08
down, which should kind of ring alarm bells if they can't do it
5:11
in in vitro. How, how is this working in, in,
5:15
in, in real life? And we took those cells and, and
5:20
what happens with this in, in clinical science is, is that
5:24
they guarantee that these cells are completely sterile.
5:28
So they cut them out, they make sure that they're free of
5:32
bacteria, they obviously make sure that they're free of
5:36
claimed viruses. So they PCR test them beforehand
5:39
and they give you a certificate. It's a certificate that says, we
5:43
hereby declare that this cell line is free from any
5:46
contaminants. You can use it and conduct
5:48
science on it to, to make sure that what you are carrying out
5:53
is a cause of what you're putting in it, if that makes
5:57
sense. So when you carry out the
6:00
experiment, at the end of it, you're supposed to be able to
6:03
say with a lot of confidence that what we have carried out is
6:07
not a cause of anything else like a claimed virus or a
6:11
claimed bacteria or anything like that.
6:14
So we've taken these cell lines, we've conducted the control
6:18
culture experiments which we discussed on your show before,
6:22
where we are taking the ingredients of the culturing
6:30
method that they have that they can claim that they can make a
6:33
lot of this virus. So they take the cell, they,
6:37
they take the cell line. And they, what we found out was,
6:42
is, is that there's a protocol called the M4A1, which is a
6:48
World Health Organisation accredited manual.
6:52
It's a manuscript and essentially if you do not use
6:56
this manuscript, you are not accredited by the World Health
6:59
Organisation. And therefore to actually be an
7:04
accredited virologist, you have to follow their guidelines.
7:08
And in their guidelines, it says you must essentially remove the
7:13
food. OK, so the cells survive on a on
7:18
a thing called foetal bovine serum, which is the heart from
7:22
around the the, the blood from around the heart of a baby cow.
7:27
It's all pretty witchcraft stuff.
7:29
You know, it's frog spawn, you know, eye of Newt, frog, toad,
7:35
you know, witch's brew type thing.
7:36
But they use all of these strange kind of concoctions to
7:43
supposedly carry out legitimate science.
7:46
It's foetal bovine serum. And they grow the cells using
7:51
this. So you add this blood, this
7:54
serum to the cells and they grow.
7:57
And you can, you can watch them grow under a light microscope.
8:00
You can see them fill a Petri dish and then they add a sample.
8:05
So they add either say spit or or mucus or or bronchial
8:12
alveolar lavage, which comes from your chest of a sick
8:15
patient. Or they take what they consider
8:18
to be an isolated virus and they put it in.
8:21
But what they don't tell you, the general public, but they do
8:25
tell these accredited virology labs is, is that they force you
8:31
to reduce that fatal bovine serum, that the food for the
8:35
cells effectively they're feeding them, they're all happy,
8:38
and then all of a sudden when they come to claim infected,
8:41
they remove the food. So they've started a starvation
8:45
environment. Now they call it just a
8:46
maintenance medium, but we've found out that that isn't indeed
8:51
a lie. They removed the food.
8:53
And what we've done is we've stopped at that point.
8:56
We've done everything that the virologists do, but we didn't
9:02
add a sample. So we've kept the progress of
9:05
that cell line moving forward with no chance of a virus being
9:13
in there, and then kept going. So we've used their same
9:18
ingredients, we've reduced the foetal bovine serum, not added
9:22
any chance of a virus being in there.
9:24
And lo and behold, the cell has actually broken down.
9:28
It's died in exactly the same way.
9:31
The virologists claim that the cells died whilst being infected
9:36
with SARS COV 2 or any other virus.
9:39
They breakdown with exact morphological features that show
9:45
things like vacuolation, which is just holes opening up in the
9:48
in the cell line, rounding which is where the cell rounds,
9:52
ballooning which is where it rounds and kind of floats off or
9:57
expands exponentially and or plaquing where the cells
10:02
aggregate together. Cincher as well, which is a
10:06
similar kind of function and the independent accredited
10:12
laboratory that was blinded to this.
10:14
So as part of the as part of the the project, we sourced
10:21
independent accredited laboratories that had none the
10:25
wiser. You, you can find them just as a
10:26
layman and me not having any credentials in virology was able
10:33
to approach just a random in in the United States and say, hey,
10:38
look, I would like you to conduct this science please.
10:42
They didn't know that it was the actual legitimate negative
10:46
control of the isolation process.
10:50
We just said we would like like you to conduct that.
10:53
They said, yes, that's absolutely fine.
10:55
We gave them a protocol. The protocol they said looked
10:58
absolutely fine. They did it, they carried it out
11:00
and they noted these morphological features.
11:02
Now they didn't know that this was anything to do with the
11:06
virology isolation. They just thought that we were
11:08
growing the cell lines and starving them.
11:11
But they noted the exact morphological features that were
11:16
noted for saying that right? There's there's Sarskov 2IN in
11:21
your dish now. And they noted 6 out of nine of
11:24
them. Now you only need one to say
11:26
that there's addition there. So to them we had a very kind of
11:31
infected, infected cell line. And this is where it kind of
11:35
segues back into Ian Copeland is, is that we then took those
11:40
cells and we took them to a microscopy lab.
11:44
So in, in, in, in virological, because the claimed particles
11:51
are on the nano scale, they, they say that SARS COV 2 is
11:56
about 100 nanometres in diameter.
11:59
You have to look with a transmission electron
12:01
microscope. So there's no possibility like
12:04
with a bacteria, you can just look at them with a light
12:06
microscope. You can put a slide under with
12:09
bacteria and you can see them moving about because with a
12:12
light microscope you can have a live specimen.
12:14
So you can, you can plate up a specimen.
12:17
You can, you can look at them under a microscope and you can
12:20
see them moving. It's a very visceral thing.
12:24
Once you can see something moving you, you definitely know
12:27
that it exists. It's motile under its own steam.
12:32
You can see it's it's, it's the way that it moves.
12:37
You can see the way that it interacts and behaves and you
12:39
can pick up a lot of information from that.
12:42
Whereas quite coincidentally you can't with a claimed virus.
12:48
You have to kill everything to to look at the depth and
12:54
resolution of where you would claim find a virus.
12:58
You have to kill the cell. You have to fix it in a pretty
13:02
noxious formaldehyde type substance, and then you have to
13:09
bombard it with electrons. You have to stain it with a kind
13:15
of metal oxide and then you have to bombard it with electrons and
13:20
what you get back is a pretty grayscale black and white fixed
13:24
image. So just to just to really kind
13:31
of put it in perspective, when you see, and Ian Copeland does
13:35
this a lot and a lot of people I see do this a lot is they make
13:40
the claim that a virus is an intracellular parasite that can
13:46
infect. I go inside a cell, replicate
13:51
and then burst out and you're infected.
13:54
Well, they have absolutely no way of knowing that, OK, because
14:02
the only way of seeing this is to fix and kill the cell.
14:06
You have to have a stationary cell.
14:10
You can't, you can't take a cell line cut it because how they
14:16
prepare it is they, they cut it with a very fine knife called a
14:19
microtome and it, it makes a very small slither, they plate
14:24
it up and put it in. So you have a snapshot in time.
14:28
You there, there is no movement you can't see.
14:31
There is no natural progression of a claimed virus or any
14:36
particle for that matter, a claimed exosome or or vesicle or
14:40
lysosome. You there is no way to actually
14:45
get a a, a a progression. If you, if you think about it,
14:49
you you have a sample as soon as you cut it and as soon as you
14:52
kill it, that's it. That's the progression over.
14:54
You can't just unkill it and then re put it back in the
14:58
microscope. It it's, it's dead, it's done,
15:01
it's fixed. So when when people claim that,
15:04
ah, we know the viruses enter into host cells, it's impossible
15:08
to tell it it by, by our own scientific means of, of and
15:17
limits of microscopy, it's impossible to tell that.
15:21
So anybody online that says, oh, we know that the virus is in
15:25
fact a host is talking bullshit, you know, just from a technical
15:28
point of view. So we took these and we had a
15:34
look at these healthy, you know, supposedly, I mean, we had
15:37
starved them according to the virology protocol, but we looked
15:45
at those under a microscope. And actually this time in the
15:49
first experiment, we gave them to an independent laboratory and
15:54
just said, hey, could, could you have a look at these for us and
15:56
give us back some photos. And they gave us back 6 images
16:01
and we managed to find quite a few of the, the morphological
16:04
features of viruses. But this time we went a little
16:06
bit further and we actually worked with the microbiology lab
16:11
to for, for a couple of hours in a live session a bit like we're
16:15
doing now. And we directed them where we
16:20
wanted to go over the cell line. So actually kind of have a have
16:23
a look around this cell line. And what we found was was
16:28
stunning really in the fact that not just with Ian Copeland's
16:34
round spiky ball, we found the morphological features, the the
16:39
the exact exact shape and size and inclusions and morphological
16:48
features of pretty much every single epidemic pandemic in
16:53
quotation marks causing virus, Ebola, Marburg, polio, SARS, COV
17:01
2, measles, about about 27 different morphological
17:07
features. And what you really HIVHIV.
17:12
Yeah, I mean, HIV is, is a, is a very say 1 because you see them
17:16
everywhere over HIV according to the mainstream narrative, looks
17:21
at looks like a fried egg. It's, it's, it's round and it's
17:26
got a, a dark nucleus in the middle.
17:28
And you see these, these exact things dotted all over the cell
17:31
line. And what you, what you come to
17:34
see is that when, when these breakdown and they're all in the
17:38
same areas. So on the macro scale, when in
17:43
the cell culture, the laboratory technician was noting
17:48
vacuolation that we mentioned earlier, which is just a whole
17:51
opening up in the cell. We looked at those holes in
17:55
transmission electron microscopy and that's exactly where all of
17:58
these little claimed particles are, the fried egg type things
18:03
that that they call HIV, they're all dotted around.
18:06
There's a beautiful picture that we've put out with about 10 or
18:09
15 of the same fried egg type things.
18:12
And what's happening is, is that the cell membrane is a pretty
18:15
basic thing. It's, it's just a kind of lipid
18:18
wrapper, you know, a a bit like a fat or an oil.
18:23
When you get a fat or an oil, if you, if you, if you were to
18:26
throw oil on water, it would, it would BLOB, it would immediately
18:30
go, because it's hydrophobic. It immediately forms these round
18:33
blobs where, where it will float around in the water.
18:37
Some of it will aggregate together, some of it will form
18:43
kind of semi coherent patterns. But in general it will, it will
18:47
form a kind of BLOB. You could, you could see the
18:49
same thing in a lava lamp. You know where you have that the
18:53
difference between oil and water?
18:55
Well, that's what you're getting with a, a cell membrane in
19:00
inside the cell. And when that cell membrane
19:03
breaks down, all, all of a sudden little bits BLOB off.
19:07
They, they, they BLOB off like a lava lamp or, or like oil in
19:10
water. And you just get these random
19:13
patterns. And some of these, these blobs
19:17
don't contain anything. So they're just empty.
19:19
And these are called vesicles within biology.
19:23
And everybody goes, OK, that's a vesicle.
19:26
But as soon as these blobs contain anything, so they, they
19:31
contain a little bit of nucleus that has broken off from inside
19:34
the cell or they contain some sort of patterns, a virologist
19:39
all of a sudden gets an arrow, points at it and goes, ah,
19:42
that's a virus. Well, we were finding these
19:46
exact blobs, these filled blobs all over the place in a in, in,
19:51
in our, in our experiment that cannot possibly contain a virus.
19:58
And so we we have to kind of conclude that what they are
20:04
doing, what what the virologists are doing is they're taking.
20:10
Basic morphological features of cell lines that have been
20:14
stressed and have and, and are dying and they are claiming that
20:19
these naturally occurring things, these these patterns and
20:23
these blobs are essentially going to kill you that they're
20:26
viruses. And the, and probably this is
20:30
what I wanted to discuss with you, Jeremy, because I know that
20:32
we've discussed this kind of area before.
20:37
Is that what that signifies to me is that if you can falsify
20:45
the physical thing that they're claiming is a, is a virus, that
20:51
to me means that a virus doesn't exist.
20:55
And let let me kind of flesh this out and I would like to
20:58
just, you know, ask your opinion or or, you know, see see you
21:03
know what you think of this. If I were to give an analogy
21:06
and, and people kind of so somebody actually asked me on,
21:10
on, on Twitter a couple of days ago, you know, break this down
21:13
the, the microscopy work as a layman, you know what, what,
21:16
what are you doing? And this is the analogy that I
21:19
give. What virologists are doing is
21:23
they are flying over a forest. OK, Imagine they've taken a
21:27
helicopter, they've flown over a forest and they've taken
21:31
pictures from a, a, a mile up over a forest and they are
21:36
pointing at pictures of photographs of bears and calling
21:41
them Bigfoot. OK, so they've seen a bear from
21:45
from 500 metres up in a helicopter, the bears standing
21:49
on its hind legs. You can see that it's kind of
21:52
fuzzy and you can see that the hair around its shoulders and
21:56
they're pointing and going, that's Bigfoot.
21:57
That is OK. And what we're doing is we're
22:01
going to we're taking the exact same helicopter.
22:04
We're taking the same camera, we're taking it from the same
22:07
height, but we're going to a forest where there cannot
22:11
possibly be Bigfoot. It's, you know, just for, for
22:14
argument's sake, it's an area that that they've declared
22:17
Bigfoot free. And we are taking the same
22:21
pictures and showing that what they're pointing at is bears and
22:25
not Bigfoot. And what we've done, and this
22:28
is, you know, where I'd like to kind of discuss with you, it's
22:32
the same, OK. Virologists have said that
22:36
Bigfoot exists. They've said that this this
22:39
mythical thing exists. And the parameters that they've
22:43
given are it can be found in a Petri dish.
22:48
They go, this is where it is. It has a finite area for you to
22:53
look, OK. They go in this Petri dish is
22:56
Bigfoot. OK?
22:58
If you can say within these defined parameters, Bigfoot is
23:03
definitely not in there, what it is, is a bear, then you have
23:07
removed the possibility of Bigfoot existing within the
23:10
parameters that they've set. And to me, that's why I
23:14
confidently say viruses do not exist.
23:17
Now it's a it's a point of contention that some people like
23:21
to describe it as there's no evidence for viruses existing or
23:27
people are yet to prove their existence.
23:30
But I'm a bit more bloody minded than that.
23:32
I mean, I don't know where you where you lie on the on the
23:34
question, but so going all the way back to Ian Copeland, when,
23:41
when he shows me a picture of right.
23:43
Well, this is SARS COV 2. Well, I've seen plenty of those.
23:49
I've seen plenty of those with the little spiky bits with the
23:53
round, you know, centres that are exactly the same size and
23:56
they're, they're just free floating in, in, in these cell
23:58
lines. In a in a very, very short
24:01
summary, what you actually are are telling me is that if I'm
24:08
following you correctly, Jamie, what you have seen in the
24:11
laboratory or particles that could be identified as viruses
24:16
but actually aren't. Correct.
24:18
What they do is that they say within microscopy and there are
24:23
plenty of peer reviewed papers. For instance, with SARS COV 2,
24:29
they know that ironically, kidney tubules of a monkey
24:34
kidney cell or just kidney tubules in general look
24:39
identical to SARS COV 2. They released that in a in a in
24:43
a paper called appearances can be deceiving viral like
24:50
particles of of negative renal biopsy in 2019.
24:59
So they, they, they, they found identical particles in, in a
25:04
place before SARS COV 2 was discovered and said it was in a
25:10
healthy cell line. It was in a healthy patient.
25:13
They were showing no symptoms of it.
25:15
It was before SARS COV 2 was supposedly around and they're
25:18
finding these, these, these particles.
25:21
And so they're saying, OK, well, already we can't confirm by
25:27
looking alone. By looking alone, you can't say
25:31
whether you can't confirm whether it is a virus or not.
25:35
You have to have downstream methods and those downstream
25:40
methods are things like immunological staining, PCR and
25:45
genetics. Now what I think that is, is a,
25:50
is a real key part to understanding the fraud of this
25:54
science, the fraud of virology and what you will come to see as
26:00
as genetics also. And this is a a scientific, it's
26:06
a problem within the whole of modern science really is, is
26:10
that they use things called inferences.
26:15
So an inference is a meaning attached to a test.
26:21
When you infer something, you take a test, it has no direct
26:26
evidence, but you infer that the results of the tests have some
26:33
sort of meaning. So with APCR test, what they're
26:37
doing is, is that they are putting in a fluorescent dye.
26:41
This is RTQ PCR. So the the latest iteration of
26:46
of the PCR test, they take a sample and they knowingly take a
26:51
fluorescent dye and they put the fluorescent dye into the sample.
26:56
They then shine a laser at the fluorescent dye and if the
27:00
fluorescent dye fluoresces, they they ascribe all of the meaning
27:06
that they want that meaning to be OK.
27:09
So if we just take a step back and and again use a kind of
27:15
analogy for what an inference is, you could do the same by
27:20
taking a firework, for instance. And if you took a firework and
27:25
you said, I'm putting in some gunpowder, OK, and some red dye
27:31
or some green dye, and I set that firework off and the
27:36
firework goes up and it bangs, and you say, well, that
27:41
gunpowder was attached to genetics.
27:44
That gunpowder, the the firework went off because of its
27:48
genetics, OK. It sounds absurd, right?
27:52
You would go really, but that's what an inference is, is is that
27:59
you're saying you've this cause and cause and effect has been
28:05
ascribed something that is not directly related to it.
28:10
So what they're doing within, within PCR is that they're
28:15
putting in a, a, a dye, they're putting in the gunpowder into,
28:20
into the firework. And when that dye fluoresces
28:23
that they put in, when that gunpowder in the, in the
28:27
firework goes off, they're saying, OK, well, that's because
28:31
of this, this or this. And so all of these downstream
28:35
methods that they have the PCR, the genetics, the
28:38
immunostaining, which is exactly the same immunological staining
28:42
where they claim that they can have, where they can say that
28:49
oh, a virus goes into a cell. What they do is, is that they
28:53
take a a panned out for you. You can't see it with quite the
28:57
resolution of transmission electron microscopy.
28:59
It's kind of whole cells. And they put a dye in again,
29:04
they are putting in the cause and effect.
29:06
It's not the cause and effect is seen in a direct manner.
29:10
They are taking the dye, they're putting it in and when the dye
29:14
dye stuff, they're saying, OK, well, that's well, that must
29:19
mean that XY and Z. And so when when they're
29:25
claiming that, you know, OK, we have other methods to verify
29:30
whether this is cellular debris, whether this is a visa call,
29:33
whether this is a claimed exosome as opposed to a virus.
29:37
What they're actually talking about is just an inference.
29:40
And I've spent a little bit of time with AI, as much as I like
29:44
or dislike banging my head against the brick wall with it
29:47
because, you know, we all know what it's like, but I have, you
29:52
know, got it to admit that essentially genetics,
29:57
immunological staining, antibodies, all of these things
30:02
are inferences alone. There is no concrete evidence
30:07
you you can't even see the building blocks of genetics.
30:12
It's impossible according to modern science.
30:16
Once again, you know. In a similar vein, they claim
30:20
that the DNA is 2 metres long in your cell.
30:24
In every cell of your body, DNA is 2 metres long.
30:28
They claim that if you put all of your DNA in your body
30:33
together, end on end, it will reach to Pluto and back six
30:38
times. Yet you can't see it yet.
30:46
There is no microscopy picture of the the building blocks.
30:51
There is no photo in existence of the building blocks, the ATC
30:56
and G. It just doesn't exist because
30:58
they say, ah well, it's molecular.
31:01
It can, you can, you can put them end on end and it goes to
31:05
Pluto and back. But when you actually try and
31:08
photograph it, it's elusive, it doesn't, it's camera shy.
31:12
And so we as part of the project are kind of looking at this and
31:17
really putting it on display just quite how loose all of
31:23
these scientific premises are. Wait, wait, wait, wait.
31:29
So are you saying that if you conclude that viruses don't
31:35
exist, then you can also conclude that DNA doesn't exist?
31:41
DNA in, in, in general, I mean, I would, I would say my kind of
31:47
honest answer to that right now is probably I'm where I was with
31:52
viruses a few years ago. There's no proof that DNA exists
31:56
to me. It's it's.
31:58
But then hold on, hold on, hold on.
32:01
How? How come my son looks like me
32:05
for example? They're inheritable traits.
32:07
I mean, inheritable traits are are obvious.
32:10
I'm not denying that that that there's obviously traits passed
32:14
down from person to person. Now if you put that into
32:17
perspective. I'm just saying it's not caused
32:20
by genetics. If if you put that into
32:23
perspective, offspring are coming out like, like their
32:29
parents, you know, offspring of people come out looking like
32:33
people. We have a pretty defined
32:35
parameter. It's quite, you know, ad adult
32:38
height is, you know, between a, a foot or something and seven or
32:43
8 foot. It's it's a pretty, we're not
32:45
getting people that are 20 foot, 30 foot high or an inch tall
32:51
there. There's a very small, you know,
32:53
you look, the offspring of pigs are, are mostly, you know, 4
32:57
legged, you know, they're, they're a couple of feet off the
33:00
ground, you know, of 4-5 foot long, you know, long, maybe a
33:04
bit longer, I don't know. But you know, the parameters are
33:07
pretty finite, OK, there's not huge variations already.
33:12
So in terms of inheritable traits, you know, obviously the
33:17
world of epigenetics really where you're looking at
33:21
stressors outside is really the terrain theory of of the
33:26
genetics world where you get extraneous pressures and they
33:30
say, OK, well the your environment is changing your
33:35
genetics, OK. So really that's the kind of
33:38
area that I would look at in terms of inheritable traits
33:41
because OK, you're born in a certain way, but, and it's quite
33:46
hard to predict, you know, what would change if your environment
33:49
changed. Probably one of the only, well,
33:53
best ways of of looking at that would be to study claimed
33:57
monozygotic twins. So you take twins that come from
34:01
the the same egg and follow them.
34:04
And if they were in completely different environments, you
34:08
know, maybe one in Sahara and Africa and 1:00 in, you know,
34:13
Iceland or something, you know, it would be interesting.
34:16
I don't know if there are any cohort studies following that.
34:20
But in terms of inheritability, in terms of, you know, we
34:25
obviously look like our parents, but there's no contention that
34:29
that that genetics is the reason for that.
34:32
And that, that's, that's, that's what I believe is that when you
34:38
actually look at genetics, the, the, the fundamentals are
34:42
actually quite absurd because they claim that everything goes
34:46
on in a liquid within, within the nucleus, within the, within
34:53
the PCR test, within the genetics test, everything is
34:56
conducted in liquid format. OK, But they claim that there's
35:03
a string, a physical string of nucleotides.
35:06
They, when you, when you, if you envisage what DNA is and
35:10
everybody should probably have that image ingrained into them
35:14
through indoctrination of, you know, the general media and, and
35:17
schooling and education system and everything, you'll be able
35:20
to know that it's a helical pattern and it sticks and it
35:23
sticks together like that. By the way, the two sides are,
35:26
are, are negatively charged. They they say that the two sides
35:31
are negatively to be charged. So they're constantly repelling,
35:33
yet they stick together, which is a bit strange.
35:37
So you have these two strings, a physical string and people
35:42
people will think, OK, it's a physical thing that you can
35:46
hold, you know, when, when it again, if you kind of think to
35:51
school and maybe maybe some, maybe maybe won't.
35:55
But there's a standard way that people say that they extract DNA
35:59
from strawberries. So you get dish soap and you get
36:03
salt and you mash up a strawberry and then you then you
36:09
put it in an alcohol and the alcohol separates off this jizz
36:14
stuff. You know, it looks a little bit.
36:17
It's gloop. Yeah.
36:18
And they say, right, that's the building blocks of life.
36:21
Well, and by the way, that dish soap and salt and alcohol is
36:27
used in all laboratories around around the world.
36:30
It's just very expensive dish soap.
36:33
Dish soap. It's about £200 for some dish
36:35
soap. If you're going to do that in,
36:38
in, in, in a genetics laboratory, I, I'm selling dish
36:42
soap. By the way, if any, if any,
36:44
geneticist genetics laboratories want to want to have some cut
36:48
price, cut price extraction for DNA.
36:55
Jamie, I don't understand something.
36:56
Why do they need all of this dish soap, etcetera when
37:01
apparently if you and I are just standing next to each other and
37:04
you know I cough, you get infected?
37:07
That's right. There's no dish soap required.
37:09
Why do they? Why do they need all the stuff?
37:11
Well, this is The thing is, is that they, what they, they want
37:15
and they desperately need to pull you into that arena of
37:18
inferences. They, they have to, because the
37:22
moment that you actually try and look for direct evidence of this
37:26
existing, it all falls apart. Like we have done.
37:30
We've looked for direct evidence, which is zooming into
37:34
the place where they say that these things are and going,
37:38
well, the things that you're pointing at shouldn't, shouldn't
37:40
be there. You know, the things that the
37:43
physical thing, the physical particle is there, come what
37:48
may. So, you know, this is the reason
37:51
why they say what they do is because they desperately need
37:55
you to be in the realm of inferences, in the realm of
38:00
inventive reasoning, where cause and effect is, is, is usurped.
38:05
Really. So yeah.
38:08
Why does any of this matter? I think on a part.
38:12
I mean, is this not just, is this just not?
38:14
Is this could we? Could we argue that this is just
38:16
merely academic wankery? Well, it's, it certainly is.
38:22
You know, a lot of people kind of accuse me of, of, you know,
38:25
speaking in jargon and I try to water it down as much as
38:30
possible. You know, I'm a layman.
38:32
I come from no theological background whatsoever.
38:37
I mean, my science background was 2020 odd years ago.
38:41
I had a have a degree in geology and that was about it.
38:45
It was an undergrad degree. I pissed about smoked too much
38:50
weed and drank and didn't pay attention and just got through
38:54
with a degree and left. What I did see, interestingly
38:57
enough, was we, we studied some anthropogenic, well, not
39:02
anthropogenic, but paleoclimate data.
39:04
And so I, I saw as you know, a 20 year old, the, the scam
39:08
behind climate science when I was at university.
39:13
And, and you know, again, that kind of, you know, it's just
39:17
jargon filled until you actually go and you, and you, and you
39:21
have to listen to the jargon to be able to, to, to get to the
39:25
other side. And that's kind of what I'm
39:28
trying to do with, with virology is, is you have to use the, the
39:33
terms that they use to be able, for instance, to do what we
39:37
we've done, which is approach a laboratory somewhat.
39:42
And there's a little bit of leeway, but you have to be able
39:46
to speak their language to tell them what to do.
39:48
You have to be able to write a protocol.
39:51
And so you have to use their terms somewhat to be able to
39:57
describe what you're talking about.
39:59
And I agree with you, it's complete wankery.
40:02
And I don't really like engaging with it too much because I don't
40:07
want to confuse people. I don't want to.
40:10
Try and give an air of authority, like I know more than
40:15
everybody else because I'm using this terminology.
40:19
No, I've just had to kind of learn their their wankery to be
40:24
able to do what I'm doing. So, you know, I'm glad that you
40:27
kind of call that out in the way, in the way that you do,
40:31
because, you know, I think it's important to to say overall, you
40:36
know, I'm not sat there going the cell culture work that we've
40:39
done, it means anything. We're just falsifying it.
40:43
We're just saying it's bollocks, right?
40:45
Yeah, sure. Yeah.
40:47
But OK. So, but Jamie, my question is
40:49
why does any of this matter? How does it affect us on a on a
40:53
daily? On a daily?
40:54
Level yeah, the, the, the, the reason why I'm doing it the, the
41:00
project is to make sure that 2020 never happens again.
41:04
So we're working with some pretty high profile lawyers.
41:08
We are putting together cases that are challenging the state
41:11
to make sure that us as a populace have a sting in the
41:16
tail that if they ever try and run 2020 again, that we have
41:21
adequate backing that can say, you know, it was a PCR scam
41:25
demic. The entire thing, the entire, in
41:27
fact, most of of biomedicine is and big pharma is, is predicated
41:34
on the PCR. So that's really our focus to
41:37
make sure that we fully debunk it.
41:39
And when they start to roll out, if they start to hopefully they
41:44
won't ever do it again. But if they ever start to roll
41:48
it out and they say, ah, these PCR tests are popping up.
41:51
You know, the reason why and the reason why it's so important to
41:55
do what we're doing is that to take out that PCR, they then
42:01
cannot, it's impossible for them to fabricate the pandemic and
42:05
the way that they fabricated it because they say, you know, all
42:08
they're looking for is data, metrics to say how many people
42:11
are infected over here, how many people are infected over here.
42:13
So that's kind of the wider scale.
42:15
Politics is just protecting yourself, understanding that the
42:18
PCR is wholesale fraudulent. It's not just inaccurate.
42:21
It doesn't test what it claims to test for.
42:23
We have evidence of that. We'll release it later.
42:26
I'm working in background doing that, but on, on a, on a
42:31
personal level, why does it matter?
42:33
Now you, you mentioned you cannot cough and kill your
42:37
neighbour. You know, this, this is one of
42:39
the pervasive things of germ theory is, is it wants to split
42:43
up social interaction. You know, I'm sure that all of
42:48
us pretty much on whatever side of the spectrum, whether you're
42:51
fully jabbed up or whether you're, you know, like me
42:54
saying, you know, genetics and viruses don't exist on all of
42:59
those spectrums. We were all heavily divided and
43:03
we were divided from 2020 through till now and and
43:07
arguably way before that with the germ theory for the past
43:11
couple of 100 years where they claim that your neighbour or
43:15
your own children can come back, they can cough on you and their
43:20
cough can kill you. Now, just that notion, if you,
43:25
if you want to believe that that happens, that that turns your
43:28
life into a very paranoid state. They're even claiming that the
43:35
mainstream idea is, is that somewhat you can do that even
43:40
vaccinated, funnily enough, is, is that there is no way to
43:44
protect yourself, you know, because they're having measles
43:46
outbreaks in high vaccination areas, they're having, you know,
43:50
having to have constant boosters.
43:52
So even the mainstream idea, if you're following this with with
43:57
germ theory is, is that the fundamentals are, is, is that
44:01
your neighbour can kill you with their cough.
44:03
And the real important reason why understanding the fraud of
44:12
germ theory can alleviate you from all of the fear and really
44:18
help sociologically is to understand that that's absurd.
44:24
It's absolutely absurd for the simple reason that 200 years of
44:33
published peer reviewed data shows it.
44:36
So because this is really where I started on this journey was
44:41
looking at, at those published peer reviewed papers where they
44:44
take what they consider to be viruses and put them directly up
44:48
people's noses. So going back to 1918, the
44:53
Rosenau studies, which was conducted by the US Navy, where
44:56
they they took what they considered to be Spanish flu.
44:59
They took 100 men and over the course of six separate periods
45:07
in, in three islands in off the coast of the US, they, they put
45:14
this stuff up, up, up people's noses and not a single person
45:18
got sick. And this transposes right the
45:21
way across every single virus there's HIV.
45:24
And I watched your wonderful video with the, the, the chap
45:29
who had been diagnosed with HIV and who had come off with his
45:33
HIV meds. All, all, all power to him.
45:37
You know, HIV, they're the longest, largest cohort study by
45:42
Padded, Nancy Padian ET al. And she hates the fact that it's
45:46
brought up by people like me. So I'll do it. 175 discordant
45:52
couples HIV positive, HIV negative are sexually active and
45:58
they follow these for 10 years and in 10 years not a single
46:02
person 0 converted. So the negative in the couple
46:06
got HIV positive from being regularly sexually active.
46:11
That's that's damning scientific terms that's that's it's game
46:15
over that that's it that's all you need.
46:17
HIV does not spread. It doesn't exist, but it does
46:21
not spread by sexually sexual activity.
46:24
And again, this is a real, real bad one sociologically.
46:28
You know, they told homosexual people during the 80s that they
46:33
were killing each other. You know, whereas it was, it was
46:35
Mr Fauci that was rolling out deadly toxins like AZT, you
46:40
know, that was killing people. Yeah.
46:43
And they were telling black people, yeah, in Africa that
46:47
they were killing one another. It's it's awful, yeah.
46:49
I mean, obviously in South Africa where you are, you can
46:51
see how much they, they, you know, experiment on, you know,
46:57
the, the black indigenous population.
47:00
It's it's terrible that, you know, Bill Gates and the.
47:03
Yeah, but listen to this. Listen.
47:06
Sorry, sorry, I interrupted you. But listen to this, Jamie.
47:09
If if you look at the the AIDS data, South Africa's got quite a
47:14
lot of it because we were pretty much the epicentre of the whole
47:18
thing, the whole scam. When the president of Mbeki
47:23
tried to stop the antiretroviral rollout, the RV campaign, I
47:30
think it was in the early 2000s, it caused huge uproar and he was
47:36
removed from the presidency and he was replaced by a new
47:40
president by the name of Jacob Zuma, who then had a big
47:44
pharmaceutical rollout of of RV's.
47:47
If you look at the data, you will see that there's this huge
47:49
uptick in mortality, just coincidentally when the Error V
47:54
rollouts occurred, Yes. Why, Yeah, that's it.
47:58
You just just whilst you're on the subject, you should talk to
48:02
Anthony Brink. He was affiliated with the I
48:06
have already. Oh, you have great.
48:07
Yeah, he's, he's a really good chap and obviously worked very
48:09
closely with Tarlo and Becky to get him to pull AZT, which was,
48:13
you know, an absolutely incredible feet to make sure
48:18
that that political, you know, process was taken off off the
48:21
line. You know, in South Africa.
48:23
I'm, I think I'm right in saying that, you know, to get a
48:26
mortgage, you have to have a blood test, an HIV test.
48:30
You know, that's the way that they're, that's the way that
48:32
they are ramping up these numbers.
48:34
You know, it's, it's, it's clear to see that, you know, if you
48:38
want to be part of the usury system, and I don't recommend it
48:41
really, if you can get away with it, but you know, it's, it's
48:44
inevitable, unfortunately is, is that if you want to be a part of
48:48
that system, if you want to get on the housing ladder, you have
48:51
to have an AIDS test, an HIV test effectively.
48:55
And you know, when you are beholden to a PCR test, which is
48:59
what it is, you know, they, they can do what they, whatever they
49:03
want. And let me just say this
49:05
because, you know, I, I work and I've interviewed with Kevin Brow
49:10
who's been the same, you know, for he's, he's 70 years old now,
49:15
but for the past 20 years has had an HIV diagnosis.
49:18
And he, he just didn't know. He, he was that kind of
49:21
mainstream of the mainstream thought and nearly died a couple
49:26
of times with some of the toxic medications that they've given
49:30
him, Niferaprine. He was on it for a couple of
49:32
weeks and nearly died of liver failure.
49:34
And finally he's, he's kind of figured out through 2020 really
49:41
waking him up and he stopped the ARVs and has never felt better
49:46
in his life. I actually run the HIV control
49:49
studies project, which is a kind of side project working with
49:53
hundreds. There are literally hundreds of
49:54
people that are signed up that have been diagnosed HIV positive
49:58
that are have stopped for quite, quite long periods of time.
50:03
I think there's a chap on there that has been off ARVs for 12
50:06
years now and is doing brilliant.
50:09
You know, he's doing absolutely fine.
50:12
Like like your guest. I, I forget his name now, was it
50:15
Jonas? Anyway, the, the guest was
50:18
superb and just just like him. You know, once we are the
50:22
control study. Quinton.
50:24
Quinton. That's right, Quinton, we are
50:27
the control study. You know, you and myself, we
50:29
didn't take the toxic jabs through 2020.
50:32
All, all look, we're, we're, we're fine.
50:35
We are the control study. We're a living breathing control
50:38
study that you do not need the, the jabs, whatever level you're
50:42
on of germ theory awareness. We are the control study and,
50:47
and they are the control study for HIV.
50:49
You know, they're, they're not taking these ARVs, they're
50:52
antiretroviral medications and they're fine.
50:55
You know, their data metrics may be saying otherwise, but this is
50:59
what we discovered is, is that we actually reverse engineered.
51:02
And this is how I found out a lot of the information about the
51:05
PCR test. And you know, if if you are in
51:08
South Africa, if you are in these African countries that are
51:10
forcing you to take these PCR tests to get a mortgage,
51:16
understand this, that we took these ARVs and we looked at them
51:21
chemically and what they are doing, they tell you is, is that
51:24
they're chelating magnesium, OK? They chelate magnesium to keep
51:29
your PCR tests your claimed viral load down.
51:35
OK, So we know that the PCR test which is verified by gel
51:41
electrophoresis, gel electrophoresis is and and they
51:45
will tell you this in nanopore sequencing as well.
51:48
It measures charge that that is their inference.
51:52
That is their gunpowder in the firework.
51:57
That is the, the blue dye in the, in, in the Petri dish.
52:01
They it's charged, they are measuring the amount of charge
52:06
and then ascribing it an inference to it.
52:10
So there are numerous ways that you can affect the balance of
52:16
charge, you know, with ionic things, you know, potassium, I
52:22
wouldn't recommend it. I wouldn't recommend taking, you
52:25
know, magnesium supplements or anything like that because I
52:28
don't believe in, you know, supplementation.
52:31
I think that you should get, you know, everything through,
52:34
through, through natural means. But you know, in terms of we, we
52:39
actually, I released an article about a chap in America who he
52:44
had been diagnosed HIV positive. He had a viral load taken.
52:50
He actually went through ChatGPT and got and got ChatGPT to
52:57
analyse the article that I put out saying that it was all just
53:01
charge. ChatGPT verified it said yes,
53:07
the PCR is just testing charge and gave him an entire protocol
53:13
for reducing his blood ion level.
53:18
He went back, he got tested and his, his, his PCR test viral lie
53:24
just dropped off a Cliff. He, he actually managed to alter
53:28
what they were what they were studying.
53:30
So, you know, if, if you, I, I, I think as people who were
53:35
forced to take these, these PCR tests, you know, you, you should
53:39
probably you, I would say fight it.
53:43
I mean, especially if they're coming back and saying that it's
53:46
positive like Quinton, you know, but know the fact that they're
53:51
not using adequate controls either, you know, within APCR.
53:55
I'm wondering, Jamie, if we are, when I say we, I mean people,
54:01
all right, getting caught up in analysis.
54:06
Sorry, paralysis by analysis. Quinton feels fine.
54:09
He's healthy. He's living a normal life like
54:11
you and hi. And.
54:14
And someone and someone's saying, oh, no, no, hold on,
54:16
Hold on. This piece of paper.
54:18
Yeah, with this string of data says you're not fine now.
54:21
I mean, at what? At what point?
54:23
At what point do you go? No, wait, what you're telling me
54:27
is? Wrong.
54:28
That's right. No, you're very, very true in
54:32
terms of the fact that, and this is not just viruses, the big one
54:36
is oncology. Now they're telling people
54:39
they've just forced all these jabs into people and now all of
54:44
a sudden cancer rates are rising.
54:46
You know, I think it's, I think it's twofold.
54:48
I think that people are genuinely getting sicker as a,
54:51
as a, as a populist, as as big pharma really starts to Chuck
54:54
more drugs at people. But also, I think a lot of that
54:58
is, is, is just data fraud, exactly the same way that the
55:03
the scandemics were created. Is, is that people are being
55:06
falsely diagnosed, misdiagnosed with cancer.
55:09
Because did you know that they are using the PCR test to
55:13
diagnose a lot of cancers And they are planning to ramp that
55:17
up too, with a lot of leukaemia, pancreatic cancer, osteoporosis,
55:27
cancer, I think osteo cancers as well and, and, and kidney
55:31
cancers. Is, is that I think that they
55:35
are planning on trying to move the whole of oncology into kind
55:40
of PCR and genetics diagnostics too.
55:44
And so a lot of people are getting these cancer diagnosis
55:49
where they go, oh, OK. And, you know, unfortunately, I,
55:52
you know, I dealt with a friend that his wife felt a bit tired
55:57
and subjected herself to, you know, the medical establishment
56:02
and they told her she had leukaemia.
56:04
And it's awful. You know, they're they're going
56:06
with these very low grade symptoms because they're being
56:08
frightened into thinking that they need a test to tell them
56:12
whether they're sick or not. OK.
56:14
I feel a bit, you know, I feel a bit stressed.
56:17
You know, I've got a, I've got a, you know, a stressful job.
56:20
OK? Gone are the days where the old
56:23
school GPS in the UK used to say to practically 99% of people
56:29
that came through their door is you're stressed, you need to sit
56:32
down, you need to relax and drink more water By, you know,
56:37
gone are those days where you have a kind of, you know, a
56:41
General practitioner in the community.
56:43
Now they're all just farmer reps that go, OK, you're tired,
56:47
you've got leukaemia. You know, it's, it's ridiculous.
56:51
And so you make a very salient point that I think that it's,
56:56
it's incumbent for people to to really listen to themselves.
57:00
Do you actually feel sick? Have you tried just stopping for
57:04
a little bit and not, you know, grokking your symptoms?
57:08
Because this is the other thing is, is that, you know, largely
57:12
on a day to day basis, you, you grok your own systems and you've
57:15
got cancer of the face, right? You, you, you've, you know, oh,
57:18
I feel a bit tired and thirsty, right.
57:21
You got cancer. You know, you better get
57:23
yourself to emergency quick, sharp.
57:25
So, you know, it's, it's just listening to your own body and,
57:31
you know, staying away. I mean, I, I stay away from,
57:34
from the medical establishment. I'm going there for broken
57:38
bones, you know, open lacerations, you know, physical
57:41
trauma. That's it, you know, stitch me
57:44
up, put a bone back together. Other than that, leave me alone.
57:48
Thank you very much. I would recommend, I don't know
57:51
if I don't know if you've seen this, but whoever's listening
57:54
now should watch a documentary called House of Numbers came
57:59
out, I don't know, 1213 years ago, something like that.
58:03
And it's about the HIV fraud and he travels around the world
58:10
seeing how they gather their daughter and it is so corrupt.
58:15
Yeah, it's a fantastic documentary, Yeah, really,
58:18
really enjoyed it. And you know that, that's The
58:22
thing is, you know, once you see the machinations of, of the way
58:26
that the, the Pharmaceutical industry works, the fact that
58:31
the science is predicated on, on nothing, It's, it's all smoke
58:35
and mirrors and it's, it's, it's a business to keep people sick
58:40
for profit. You know, it's, it's, it's a
58:43
shame, but there's a mass awakening.
58:45
And I think, I think as as a, as a populace, we're moving
58:50
forward. OK, that's all final world, but
58:54
why do people get sick? Yes, and it's a, it's a
58:57
fantastic 1 and I can answer it very, I've wrestled with it for
59:01
a few years because obviously, you know, I get, I get it all
59:04
the time, practically daily on social media.
59:07
And I, I finally came to the, the, the succinct conclusion is,
59:12
is that it and it, and it's really no departure away from
59:15
anything that you already know. You get sick via everything that
59:20
the, the mainstream media, the, the medical establishment tell
59:24
you how you get sick with an immune system.
59:26
It's just that viruses don't exist and the immune system
59:30
neither, you know, the medical establishment and I talked with
59:34
Doc Malik and Doctor James Hill on a debate that I did with
59:38
them, you know, is, is that and, and, and they agree, you know,
59:41
they're anti vaxes. They haven't taken that step to,
59:45
you know, no virus yet. I hope that they do that.
59:51
We all agree, Everybody agrees that you get sick by eating
59:56
shit, processed food, by stress, by what's in your environment,
1:00:00
the chemicals in your environment, what they're
1:00:02
spraying on the crops, what they're spraying in the air, or
1:00:05
they're putting in pharmaceutical drugs.
1:00:12
Everything the stress, the psychological stress that you're
1:00:15
under everything the mainstream media, the mainstream media will
1:00:20
even say or, or, or the, the the mainstream medical establishment
1:00:24
will also say that radiation, you know, high doses of that
1:00:28
maybe they don't quite, you know, admit that it is has the
1:00:34
the type of effect that it does. But everything that they say
1:00:37
that quote unquote affects the immune system is all the things
1:00:42
that does make you sick. It's as simple as that.
1:00:46
So what makes you sick? Everybody agrees on.
1:00:50
It's just that there are no viruses in the OR the immune
1:00:54
system that that you cut out the middle man.
1:00:57
You're actually removing all of the sophistry, all of the
1:01:02
bullshit science and just saying, Yep, we all agree.
1:01:06
McDonald's eating bad, drinking shit water, taking too many
1:01:11
pharmaceutical drugs, drinking too much, smoking too much, and
1:01:16
stress causes disease. It's as simple as that.
1:01:19
And as soon as you just remove those things from your
1:01:23
environment, you will find that you you don't get those seasonal
1:01:26
flus because it's just a detox. You, what goes in must come out.
1:01:30
It's as simple as that. If you're, if you're constantly
1:01:33
drinking, if you're constantly smoking, if you're constantly
1:01:35
eating shit food, it's got to come out somehow.
1:01:37
And it comes out, you know, those chemicals that are put in
1:01:40
there like, you know, in fast food that for the preservatives
1:01:44
and stuff like that, the preservatives are not natural.
1:01:46
Your body knows that they're not natural.
1:01:48
They don't need them. And if they can't, and if it
1:01:50
can't, like food poisoning, just directly get them out through
1:01:54
diarrhoea or vomiting, it has to come out in the blood.
1:01:57
And that's all the, the flu is, is a symptomology where those
1:02:01
chemicals go into the blood. They need to get them out.
1:02:04
The kidneys, the liver take them out, they process them and then
1:02:07
you expel them through a high fever, sweating, you sweat them
1:02:11
out through the largest organ in your body.
1:02:15
You project them out of your lungs if you've, if you've
1:02:17
breathed them in through mucus and so on and so forth.
1:02:21
It's a very people that biology is very, very simple, you know,
1:02:26
people think that. Sorry I'm jumping in here, but I
1:02:28
don't think that the average person would disagree with you.
1:02:31
I think where the mental block comes in US when it happens
1:02:34
collectively. Like children going to school
1:02:36
and then all getting chicken pox.
1:02:38
Yeah, yeah. I mean, when you when you look
1:02:40
at these things, you know, I mean, why why do they all get
1:02:44
them at the same time? Well, they're all jabbed at the
1:02:47
same time, aren't they? They're forcing these kids, you
1:02:50
know, it's, it's, it's unfortunate in, in a lot of
1:02:55
schools and a lot of jurisdictions, you know, that
1:02:58
they are enforcing for you to be able to go to school, you have
1:03:00
to have, you have to inject your kids with the, you know, the,
1:03:04
the childhood vaccine schedule. They're all getting jabbed at
1:03:06
the same time. And lo and behold, they're all
1:03:09
getting detoxing and getting sick at the same time.
1:03:12
Sorry, I know that the German new medicine theory argues that
1:03:19
it's probably related to separation anxiety.
1:03:22
Kids being, yeah, put into into an environment that they're not
1:03:26
particularly used to, they're away from their parents, that
1:03:28
sort of. Yeah, I mean, German new
1:03:29
medicine is interesting. I don't particularly agree with
1:03:32
how kind of extreme it is by saying that it's all
1:03:36
psychological stress because I don't believe that.
1:03:39
But I believe that stress is a is a big, big driver of disease.
1:03:43
And yeah, I mean, schools are indoctrination camps.
1:03:47
You know, unfortunately going through it with my kids is that,
1:03:50
you know, we're kind of fortunate here that we're very,
1:03:54
very rural. So the schools, you know,
1:03:56
there's only 88 kids in a class and, you know, it's, it's a bike
1:04:00
ride away. So it, that anxiety is not so
1:04:04
much. But, you know, a lot of kids,
1:04:07
you know, they're sending them off.
1:04:08
They're, you know, you're separating from parents at a
1:04:10
young age and yeah, you know, they're with strangers.
1:04:13
And the whole concept is a bit, is a bit kind of, well, you
1:04:17
know, status and government, like really isn't it?
1:04:20
You know, they're kind of just taking your kids, right.
1:04:23
And I think you're probably right.
1:04:25
It's just that, you know, that that has, you know, a lot to do
1:04:28
with, you know, disease. You know, if you're unhappy, if
1:04:32
you're stressed, if you're depressed, you're going to get
1:04:35
sick because your body is out of balance.
1:04:37
Your body likes to be happy and and fed good stuff, just like
1:04:42
those cells in the Petri dish. It likes to be fed the
1:04:46
nutritious stuff that it wants. And as soon as that it stops and
1:04:50
as soon, as soon as it starts being poisoned by the
1:04:54
antibiotics that it puts in and the formaldehyde, you know, it
1:04:58
breaks down and it dies. And yeah.
1:05:02
OK, Jamie, how can my audience follow your work?
1:05:08
I am releasing everything on Sub Stack.
1:05:10
I do everything kind of in long format articles, but we also
1:05:15
release all of the experiments open source for free for you to
1:05:19
go and look. I've just released all of the
1:05:23
transmission electron microscopy.
1:05:25
There's a couple of 100 pictures on there of all of the work that
1:05:29
we've done. I'll also be releasing the two
1:05:30
hour video next week. That's sub stack.
1:05:34
So substack.com/control studies. I think you might put it in a
1:05:39
link below. You can follow me on Twitter at
1:05:44
Jamie a a underscore again, because I've been banned so many
1:05:48
times. That's more of just a kind of
1:05:51
trolls come along and and you know, just shooting the breeze.
1:05:56
All of the main workers on stub sub stack.
1:05:58
But if you want to just say, hey, Jamie, how's it going?
1:06:00
You know I'm on. I'm on Twitter too.
1:06:03
Jamie Andrews, thank you for joining me in the trenches.