English transcript

And we're talking about largely the work of

Kevin McKernan, who took vials that were given

to him, stuff that was actually injected in

people. There was leftover stuff in the vials

and he tested a bunch of these things and found

DNA contamination across the board. So what

you're left with is a promoter, which is a genetic

trigger that we know is common in lab techniques

and it originally comes from Simian Virus 40

and we know that it's carcinogenic. So that

promoter is left over in vials from shots that

were actually injected into people. And that

means that all of the things that we were told

about the potential for these mRNA shots to

integrate into your genome, that was impossible,

they told us, right?

Well, first of all, it's not impossible. There's

lots of interesting stuff that goes on in cells

that involves, you know, reverse transcription

and things like that. But even what we were

told that there's no DNA, so integration is

not an issue, was a lie. Because there is DNA

left over in these vials. And it's not just

some old DNA, it's DNA with the SV40 promoter

which is a genetic engineering tool that has

carcinogenic potential. So it seems to me this

is clear fraud. You can't inject a different

product into the public on the basis of safety

testing that was done with something produced

by a different process. Could you explain how

they got this SV40 from these monkeys?

Like, what and how it got into these vaccines

and other vaccines in the past as well, right?

Well, I wish I... I will tell you what I think

I remember from the story. I should probably

have brushed up on it if we were going to talk

about this. But I believe that the story is

that in the production of early polio vaccines

monkey kidneys were used. And SV40 was a virus

that I think was unknown that showed up. That

because you're using cells and viruses infect

cells that SV40 showed up in that process. So

anyway, I wish I was more certain of what the

story is. So the monkey kidneys, the virus from

the monkey kidneys got into whatever this vaccine

was, and then that infected people with SV40.

And is there a correlating or a corresponding

rise in cancer among the time where they were

doing that?

Um, I don't know the answer to that question.

I don't know how well studied it's been. So

why do we think that it causes cancer?

Oh, because we know it does. We can see that

it transforms cells and they become cancerous.

Oh, so in a lab, in a lab scenario. But what

about with humans?

Do we know that it does it with humans?

Um, we know that it transforms human cells.

I believe that is a fair statement. And at the

very least, your position is that it's absolutely

not what they tested. Well, yeah, it doesn't

matter. The SV40 thing is alarming. The simple

fact that they tested a different product than

they injected into people that's where the fraud

is. Was it because it was a rush to make, to

mass produce?

I mean, you can say that. What do you think,

why would the decisions be made to do it a different

way?

Well, I mean, I think the obvious reason is

because in the one case you get a much purer

product, which is much more likely to get through

the safety testing. And in the other case, you

get the rapid expansion of production. But that's

fraud. Right?

Yeah. You tested a different product. And the

one you tested didn't work. Well, yeah. Even

the first one sucked. Yeah, it didn't... It's

amazing how many people defend it. They will

defend it just like they defend the fucking

flying spaghetti monster, whatever it is. They'll

defend it. They'll defend it. It becomes a part

of their religion. Yes. They'll still tell you

it saved millions of lives. Like, how do you

know that?

Like, how do you know if it didn't work?

Like, if it really didn't work like, how do

you, if you still got COVID and you got it real

bad like, how do you know it did anything good?

How do we really know that it did anything good

to anybody?

We don't. It didn't. Right. But that narrative

is really hard for people to swallow. So they

keep saying it saved millions of lives. Like,

I wish that was true. Saved millions of lives

in a computer model. But isn't that computer

model dependent upon it not causing infection

and not causing transmission?

Oh, the computer model is pure garbage. For

one thing, the fact that it's a computer model

in the first place means that you cannot test

the hypothesis that it saved or didn't save

lives. Right. You could potentially run a computer

model and you could generate a hypothesis that

you would then need to go test with real world

data. You don't get to tell us that it saved

millions of lives based on the fact that your

computer spit out that number. I'm sorry, that's

not how that works. Here's one reason why they

have to keep belittling Ivermectin. Imagine

if we get to a position where AI can do definitive

breakdowns of the...