The American Vagabond

`Jump right in and discuss some of these concepts. PCR`

The result goes to a physician who puts this together along with their assessment of you and consider all of the above in order to produce a diagnosis. This is the same for any test, as there is no test that can be used to diagnose illness.

Mullis did an outstanding job of developing a test which allows you to look for genetic material by having what's called a forward primer and reverse primer that says start herer, stop here, and if you see this equence, we've got what w're looking for. That' sall it does, checking if there is a genetic sequence. The test is supposed to be run at 20 cycles, the patent was very clear, it gives you about 1,000,000 copies which ought to be enough if it's there, nad everything above that is not using the test correctly and finding garbage/noise in the background. The people using the test are using it improperly. You wouldn't want a cardiac cath being used by somebody who doesn't know what they're doing because the outcome would be completely meaningless. The intresting thing is that it's being used under an emergency use authorization, and none of the EUA should even exist at this point in time, given the substantial data that I've published, and that people have talked about, though I would talk about the difference between quantitatively evaluating.....? Lots of things to delete the category of EUA, according to the rules.

`Cycle threshold is the big point for me. First of all, what is your perception of what the cycle threshold average is being used in the country.`

Not sure what is being used, I don't get feedback from anybody, I'm a scientist first and I won't give opinions, but the reality is it's set at 20 cycles, you can see the published data, none of it was set at 20 cycles, which is a different question from whether people have covid, because the diagnosis of the disease, which is different from having the virus, is a positive virus and a set of symptoms, and unfortunately the set of symptoms can be the result of a virus, a bacteria, a fungus, cancer, it could eb a variety of things, it just gives you a variety of symptoms that can be checked off, and medicine isn't practiced by checkboxes. I would tell you what PCR testing has demonstrated to me -> it is one of the four things we have confirmed in the last 22 months. Respiratory viruses are spread by person to person by respiratory pathway.

`One thing that I've known is that this has drifted in all conversations -> respiratory viruses spread by symptoms -> now we have an asymptomatic spread narrative, etc. With PCR test it comes down to YES/NO but what's intersting there is that it's impossible to use that to use higher cycle thresholds to increase the view to only end up with a YES or NO, which leads me to this point. Variants. If it's only a yes or not, how can they use this test to argue that there is a particular variant?`

The test can't be used to determine variants - genetic code is made up of 4 different nucleotide bases. There's one difference between DNA and RNA. If we want to know what something is, we look at the genetic sequence of the code, and this virus has about 30,000 nucleotide bases, and if you want to know what the variants are, you need to take samples and run all of these bases. There's not one single type of SARS-CoV2 virus out there, any more than there's one type of person. We've always known that anything you have that's alive has more than one type of itself, if you will. To not have recognized this up front and not have worked with this is pretty sloppy. The vaccines that were selected out used the original spike protein coding sequence, SARS-CoV2 WUHAN-HU-1. That's the original spike protein version, not the original, but one that was there in China. So they took that one and said what' the spike protein, what's towards the beginning, what's towards the end (the ofrwad and reverse protein). Anything that's in between, there can be a variety of things, and it'll just pop up as being that sequence. The more fundamental and scientific approach is something completely different. The PCR test just says that there is some type oif spike protein, but if you want to realy know what's there you have to do a lot of extra work, and that's not being done with the samples collected from swabbed noses.

`How is it that we're being told that DELTA variant is here and there. Estimations?`

The people that I depend on, Luc Montagnier, John Perez, etc. They do the work on this, I do data collection and organize this stuff, but they do the hardcore viral sspecialized work. They've done the work of putting the nucleotide bases out there. It's not a question fo whether the DElta variant has primarly taken over, because the vaccine process that they've done and what they've done by selecting ou the HU-1 spike protein, has put pressure selection, so number 2 thing we've learned in the last 20 motnhs is that evolutionary theory of pressure selection is valid and works, and humans have managed to spend a tremendous amount of tim proving that now, these drug vaccine biologics are a sloppy approach to doing this a very rushed out and not well thought out from a scientific point of view. If you build an immune respone to a psecific spike protein, this is very similar to the concept of anti-biotic resistant bacteria. If you take E.Coli as a nice example, there's a lto of types of e-coli. Some have no resistance to antibiotics, some have genetic codes cause plasmids that are resistant to penecillin, a variety of antibiotics, if you have all of that in your gut flora and you dump antibiotics in the body, you'll kill off the ones that don't have any resistance, but the one that do will survive and they'll be the only ones that are able to replicate and you put rpessure selection. The additional interesting point on that is that the way to deal with antibiotic resistance is to withdraw the antibiotics and there'll be enough of the non-resistant type to recover itself, and some countries have had to recovered that way from really bad bacterial resistance.

The reason for mentioning that is that when you use these drug vaccine biologics to target HU-1, for the immune respone that does exist (T2 helper cells, interferon suppression by the dru gvaccines) if you take some benefit out of this approach, what they're doing is that they're putting pressure selection to the variants that are sufficiently different so that the antibody production has no effect. We saw this last year with the Alpha variant in the UK. We've gone through Alpha, beta, lambda, delta, etc The problem with this is that we've put pressure selection on this variant and the irony here is that adding a booster shot of doign the same thing is insanity is doing th same thing over again and expecting a different result.

` What is actually causing this, and is it actually there? The scientific research that I've seen RE the flu vaccine that imperfect vaccination, specifically that one primary study which keeps the host alive, leads to this kind of thing, or that the vaccines before have lead t othe creation of these. There's also thoughts about whether we are repackaging the vaccine adverse events as something else. So what are your thoughts about either of those?`

So the first thing that comes to mind when we talk about influenza vaccines is the moderna nanolipid particle influenza vaccine from 3 years ago. I find it very disingenuous when people say "golly now we know that the lipid nanoparticles that are being injected spread around the body, and don't stay at the vaccine site, adn I don't know why this is news to them, lipid nanoparticle is just cholesterol and fats wrapped around the genetic code. In 2017 moderna did its lipid nanoparticle influenza study and they found that it spread throughout the body, the brain the bone marrow the liver the spleen the heart you name it. It was published a few years ago, so for anyone to come in 2020 and say they're surprised, they're not reading their own research, I guess. Lipid nanoparticle technology is a great way to get things into the cell, merges with the cell wall, bypasses the receptor requirement, has been shown to be a dismal failure for everything it's been used for, particularly chemotherapy, this may be boring to your listeners because I'm going to go through it anyway. So when you inject, when something comes into your body naturally, a virus, the first part of your immune system is called your innate system and it is dependent on being able to see what's coming into the body that's abnormal. Now cholesterol and fats, a nanolipid particle, is not really abnormal, we've got a lot of that in our body, so the innate respone to that is blunted, it doesn't exist, it just bypasses it because our innate system, our T cells look at that and there's nothing about that that's abnormal or threatening. And so for the Janssen and AZ, adenovirus double stranded DNA approach, the entry mechanism is the adenovirus, so when your T cells do see that for the innate system the respone is OH WOW adenovirus. So the immune system is being told, on first blush, that it's an adenovirus that we're going after. So any of the approaches are either bypassing or interfering with our innate immune response. And
My note: "so here's the distinction when people say that we've done this before, and that it's safer than other vaccines. Well we haven't done it before, because the nanolipid particles haven't been used in a vaccine. First of all, what's known about T cell immunity is always subject to the fact that the T cell assays are far more complicated, require more training, more expensive reagents and more expensive equipment, hence research on immunity has always favoured analyzing Ab response. Generally, whole inactivated virus vaccines are generally more robustly immunogenic, due to stimulation of innate immune signlaing pathways with residual viral RNA and this is crucial for any hope of cross-reactive immunity. Moving away from vaccines which use this approach also means having hampered immunological response, requiring high Ag doses (antigen), multiple immunizations, and the inclusion of adjuvants simply to achieve Abs levels that are protective, an often without the innate response which gives you cross reactive immunity and the ability to inform the B cell on how to optimize production. Adenoviral vector vaccines can stimulate innate immune signaling pathways upon viral entry, and have a capacity for persistent transgene expression in vivo. Some clinical trials using adenoviral vaccine regimens have failed, such as in 2013 when adenoviral vaccines which were supposed to cause a profound T-cell response failed to reduce the rate of HIV infection or attenuate disease contracted by subjects during teh trial. It stands to reason that having Ab and T cell response is not, in and of itself, evidence that the vaccine is going to reduce death and disease."

And these get into the cells using a backwards approach, using our cells and ribosomes to get us to make spike protein and in this instance causing an immunologic response, except that in a person to person transmission of this virus it would be 100s, 1000s, maybe 10000 if you got somebody sneezing on you, that's where your friends would say "stay home". These vaccines, the lipid nanoparticle ones, pfizer and moderna, have 13.1 billion genetic codes, and the AZ/Jannsen have right around 50 billion. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that we're having adverse events, because if you ahve a healthy individual and they get exposed to that kind of massive antigen load, the proteins, the antigens, which say this is abnormal, and your immune system is normal, you're going to have an awesome response, and viruses are part of the inflammatory process which makes up heart disease, diabetes, heart attacks, strokes and cancer. When you stimulate that inflammation and blood clotting, because that's what it is it's an inflammothrombotic response, it's not cytokine release syndrome or cytokine storm, you're getting blood clotting.

Cytokkines are nothing but proteins that go from cell to cell to exchange information, and the reason we have Cytokine storm as a term, years ago big pharma developed a new type of immune therapy to go after cancer, where they do is take your T cells out of your body, alter them, and in the alteration try train them to go after the cancer cells, and then they inject them back into you. They don't look liek what T cells normall y look like, they've been man altered, and when they go back into your body to look after cancer, they also tip off this massive reaction and the release of all these chemicals which we've termed cytokine storm. We have a name for thsi and humans tend to feel "everythigng is okay". If we go after it and dont' have a namy, everyone freaks out, but give it a name and everyone is happy, and that's what the PR did for immune therapy. The difference is that that's big pharma taking out your T cells and altering them. Inflammothrombotic response that I've talked about that since 94, is your immune system responding like it should to a massive attack within its body.

Now, the reason people died with COVID so frequently is because if you already have inflammation and blood clotting from these inflammothrombotic diseases, heart disease, diabetes, overweight etc already going on, and then you throw something else on top of that with ti virus and you don't treat that inflammation and blood clotting, you end up with dead patients.

If you have a problem adn you don't trust it, you get bad outcomes. So far we've been spectacular stellar with what we've proven. We've proven that patients who don't get adequately treated run a high risk of dying. Now what we're seeing is that a massive amoutn of thi sinformation on people with blood clotting who don't have co-morbidities, and because they're healthy and billions of this stuff being coded, a healthy person does what they should. A lot of inflammation and blood clotting to try adn deal with this foreign thing in the body. C'est la vie.

`We're at a point where your body is telling you that there's a problem, and we're listening to the authorities and ignoring it. Specifically, comparing against the H1N1 strain and .... Access from WHo shows 2 million infections worldwide.