I watched the wonderful videos and was delighted that Dr. Alexander tantalized us with an allusion to "infectious clones" in one of his articles.
Indeed, the rarefied messages of "infectious clones, gain-of-function research, and biowarfare" must critically be disseminated in a comprehensible manner that we can all understand the concepts.. Isn't that what Mark, from Housatonic Live, so compellingly enunciated? Otherwise, what is the point?
What is fascinating is that many people are reaching the same conclusions as JJ, but via different thought processes. The no-virus camp of course, but also people like James Delingpole who see the fear narrative as the lever that will keep us flattened unless we reject it outright. Great post, Mathew
A poem on Yeadon’s telegram channel yesterday entitled ‘Judgement Day’ used the handle ‘Project Fear’ . Thank you your comment as I only listened to Delingpole’s interview with Mike Yeadon before Easter 2021. I will go back to listen to him. Anyone who is educating the public with the message “ do not fear’ should be listened to because all w plantations from official channels have been fraudulent. This is what makes these conversations critical. The difficulty is that it is much more difficult to disassemble the lies because of the layers of complexity scientifically. The Big Logic website has collected videos which do a pretty good job of exposing the fraud.
I have been watching JJ for some time from UK, I think he has the same goal as you ,The Truth, without any bulls##t,😁
It is good to see you promoting his work as I know he will genuinely evaluate the biology, as you genuinely evaluate the numbers,in every field that can help humanity.
Thank You Mathew for promoting his work. ❤️ I know the politics of the MFM will not interfere with your conclusions.
This was a fantastic exchange! I have followed JC since he was on a bike asking questions, which any real scientist does. He thinks the (round) world of you, Mathew, and so do we. This is where sanity and real science live. Thank you!
I 100% AGREE. When people attack JJ and say he doesn't know what he's talking about, I get MAD.
NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S WHY WE ARE INVESTIGATING.
This is *EXACTLY* what they did with 9/11 researchers. If you weren't latching onto absurd theories (like mini nukes) pushed by multi-million dollar non-profits, you were kicked out of the cool kids club. If you zoomed out and did some critical thinking about the forensic evidence, you were labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist kook.
I also think JJ is on fire because he refuses to go along with narratives that are--in one way or another--fed to us via mainstream media or "experts" on social media. In major psyops, there will always be a popular counternarrative that is meant to throw you off. You need truth movements for your truth movements, folks.
JJ sees that. Combine that with his skillset and knowledge. He's very valuable for uncovering the real truth.
A bit of a cold shower here. As an occasional reader and purely out of respect to what you and JC are doing - some things should be stated.
I work with 1000s of patient-derived CoV sequences so I know a bit about them.
I only could watch to 1.38 time, it became too difficult to accept.
It's rather sad to see the energy of people like JC directed at what is a simple misunderstanding of CoV biology. See Kim et al, 2020, Cell; I think it's also a nanopore-based paper, which produced and explained much of such observations at the very start of the pandemic. JC shows the Viehweger et al. paper of 2019, with weak speculations about defective RNAs, which seem to drive JC's train of thought.
Let me state this simply. The huge number of N gene subgenomic mRNAs is well known. They are there to make the N protein, nothing else, they are not some defective genomes. Yes, they will contribute to the PCR positives (even after the virus is gone), but they are not going into virus particles, defective or not. Thus all follow-up conclusions are not correct.
And the full virus genome sequence is really not as abundant as the N gene sgmRNAs, but a tiny fraction. Yet it is enough to generate LOTS of virus particles.
So, unfortunately, the video is a nothingburger. All of this is known and does not contradict the basic tenets of CoV virology and doesn't prove any simultaneous release or suchlike.
Emotionally, I'm with you guys, I do not support any lockdowns or related measures. I'd like to understand what really happened. However, the biology is presented incorrectly here, so the conclusions are simply not supported.
Do you believe that the genome of an RNA virus is sufficiently stable so that patients in rural Tennessee can die of a Sars Cov-2 infection which is largely similar to the Wuhan WIV , some 6 months later?
The reason I ask is because I'm pretty sure Jay strongly asserts in earlier videos that RNA replication is sufficiently instable that it is impossible for an RNA virus to cause a pandemic, and for the sake of this argument, I'll define pandemic to mean thousands of symptomatic cases across large stretches of the globe.
Jay ridicules those tracking down the engineering of the original strain as part of a hoodwinked "Scooby Doo" band of self-appointed saviors.
I look at Nexstrain, but I can't tell visually how stable the genome appears to be, and Jay points out that the cellular replication machinery for RNA viruses produces mainly replication incompetent results, and I don't know how likely that is because it's the same machinery that produces body proteins from body mRNA.
The virus is surely capable of producing plenty of stable genomes and infectious particles. Nextstrain correctly shows most of them having relatively few changes.
If that wasn't the case, undercover agents must have been running around infecting everybody personally with their unstable concoctions...
Thanks. Sounds like something I wrote, especially the part about the peripatetic schpritzing spooks.
I hang out a lot at McCairn Dojo, and their tone on this issue is much less diplomatic.
I don't want to diss on Jay because I've learned a lot from him. I just feel that a blanket statement that RNA viruses have too many replication incompetent products is unsatisfying, and would prefer more precision as in "the rate of replication competent is Y, but X is necessary for a pandemic".
Thank you for this explanation. I had been informed that the PCR testing used spike protein probes.
The N-protein tests used in B.C. at LifeLabs were described as antibody assays.
This is likely part of the underlying problem, nobody's data sets are comparable.
I had about six rejections in 2021 from JAMA online- "Your comment does not meet our community standards"- when I asked that the authors reveal their underlying diagnostic results for "laboratory-confirmed Covid", specifically PCRct numbers.
What I am saying is: the picture seems quite compatible with the natural CoV circulation, it does not invite other scenarios.
Most likely, the other 2 scenarios would bring their own features/biases. What would these be? - this is a good area to apply some intellectual effort. I can test any reasonable hypothesis I hear, as long as data allows...
Maybe you haven’t been keeping up with his work. People who have challenged the existence of the virus such as yourself have pushed him away from a traditional virus theory. Instead of “exposing people” who are just trying to figure things out, give them your stance and try to understand theirs. If you did that, I bet more people would celebrate your work.
The "Blame China" programme is a smokescreen to hide the actual development of the GOF research under NAIAD support and to deflect questions about the DOD biowarfare labs.
I have been following JJ now for a few months and agree completely. I think he’s bang on. All you guys out there constantly looking for the truth are doing a fantastic service for all mankind. Thanks you 🙏
Agreed! Unchecked groupthink made this mess and it will take bold, curious inquiry to get to the truth. JJ Couey is engaging science right now. We could use a great deal more of this level of investigative work from other scientists who, for whatever reasons have remained silent or are motivated by interests other than truth.
I've been skeptical of Dr. Alexander, but after watching him engage with Jay, I'm now convinced I was wrong. It seems to me Dr. Alexander is genuinely interested in reconciling the story and getting people talking.
I'm curious about your skepticism of Paul. What is the root?
I haven't always agreed with his takes, but in email threads I've been on, he seemed like an honorable man. Pissed off, trying to understand, but honorable. I hope I don't pick up countersignals going forward.
I've never dealt with him directly. At times, he's come across as uncomfortably aggressive, and some of my colleagues have avoided him as a result. That's it.
He has seemed overly aggressive a time or two. I see that as an urgency, and an appropriate anger. It's hard to control all that, and every one of us makes mistakes regulating all of that emotionally. Ultimately, I think it comes from a place of goodness, and that most people get better at handling the emergency over time. I know I've made mistakes, and handle some of them better since.
He feels an urgency, and doesn't use his circle to decide which pieces of news need him most uniquely. On a Substack level, that's his flaw. But I'd rather see somebody motivated and overpost than unmotivated and shallow.
Somehow I too found JC on a bike. I followed until YT did their cancellation.
He is an excellent teacher, along with Mark K. and of course Mathew. I wholeheartedly recommend all three and if you can, send support to them. They are working hard to wake up the people.
COVID was one-two bioweapon release hiding behind a false logical framework. I am glad to see JJ explaining the mechanics behind the psy-op. We have yet to grasp the monstrous Evil behind the intent.
Denis Rancourt has already addressed that the spread of the disease in the US did not match typical viral epidemic. That matches JJ’s theory quite well.
Thank you, Mathew. Jonathan Cooey has a fine mind. His hypothesis fits the facts better than any other explanation, and he has a gift for explaining it clearly; a natural-born teacher. This is the second time I've watched him explain the hypothesis on video here, and now I understand it well. May it be shouted to the heavens!
Great comments here everyone! Thanks. Love it. Especially thank you Dr Crawford. Listened to you and Mike A. the other day on controlled ops. You were couth : ) Nice!
Terrific post!
I watched the wonderful videos and was delighted that Dr. Alexander tantalized us with an allusion to "infectious clones" in one of his articles.
Indeed, the rarefied messages of "infectious clones, gain-of-function research, and biowarfare" must critically be disseminated in a comprehensible manner that we can all understand the concepts.. Isn't that what Mark, from Housatonic Live, so compellingly enunciated? Otherwise, what is the point?
Thank you!
What is fascinating is that many people are reaching the same conclusions as JJ, but via different thought processes. The no-virus camp of course, but also people like James Delingpole who see the fear narrative as the lever that will keep us flattened unless we reject it outright. Great post, Mathew
I disagree. Not many have looked into cDNA clones. Who exactly would that be?
A poem on Yeadon’s telegram channel yesterday entitled ‘Judgement Day’ used the handle ‘Project Fear’ . Thank you your comment as I only listened to Delingpole’s interview with Mike Yeadon before Easter 2021. I will go back to listen to him. Anyone who is educating the public with the message “ do not fear’ should be listened to because all w plantations from official channels have been fraudulent. This is what makes these conversations critical. The difficulty is that it is much more difficult to disassemble the lies because of the layers of complexity scientifically. The Big Logic website has collected videos which do a pretty good job of exposing the fraud.
What is the link to the Big Logic website? Okay, I did a search on Presearch.com and found https://www.thebiglogic.com/ which I presume is the site you meant. It looks pretty good. I'll see if I get time to reference it on my Substack at https://covidandvaxfaqs.substack.com/.
Yes, I did get time to make a new post.
I have been watching JJ for some time from UK, I think he has the same goal as you ,The Truth, without any bulls##t,😁
It is good to see you promoting his work as I know he will genuinely evaluate the biology, as you genuinely evaluate the numbers,in every field that can help humanity.
Thank You Mathew for promoting his work. ❤️ I know the politics of the MFM will not interfere with your conclusions.
This was a fantastic exchange! I have followed JC since he was on a bike asking questions, which any real scientist does. He thinks the (round) world of you, Mathew, and so do we. This is where sanity and real science live. Thank you!
I 100% AGREE. When people attack JJ and say he doesn't know what he's talking about, I get MAD.
NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S WHY WE ARE INVESTIGATING.
This is *EXACTLY* what they did with 9/11 researchers. If you weren't latching onto absurd theories (like mini nukes) pushed by multi-million dollar non-profits, you were kicked out of the cool kids club. If you zoomed out and did some critical thinking about the forensic evidence, you were labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist kook.
I also think JJ is on fire because he refuses to go along with narratives that are--in one way or another--fed to us via mainstream media or "experts" on social media. In major psyops, there will always be a popular counternarrative that is meant to throw you off. You need truth movements for your truth movements, folks.
JJ sees that. Combine that with his skillset and knowledge. He's very valuable for uncovering the real truth.
And he has put in the work to reformulate the explanations of science that is hidden from him. This is forensic science of a unique kind.
A bit of a cold shower here. As an occasional reader and purely out of respect to what you and JC are doing - some things should be stated.
I work with 1000s of patient-derived CoV sequences so I know a bit about them.
I only could watch to 1.38 time, it became too difficult to accept.
It's rather sad to see the energy of people like JC directed at what is a simple misunderstanding of CoV biology. See Kim et al, 2020, Cell; I think it's also a nanopore-based paper, which produced and explained much of such observations at the very start of the pandemic. JC shows the Viehweger et al. paper of 2019, with weak speculations about defective RNAs, which seem to drive JC's train of thought.
Let me state this simply. The huge number of N gene subgenomic mRNAs is well known. They are there to make the N protein, nothing else, they are not some defective genomes. Yes, they will contribute to the PCR positives (even after the virus is gone), but they are not going into virus particles, defective or not. Thus all follow-up conclusions are not correct.
And the full virus genome sequence is really not as abundant as the N gene sgmRNAs, but a tiny fraction. Yet it is enough to generate LOTS of virus particles.
So, unfortunately, the video is a nothingburger. All of this is known and does not contradict the basic tenets of CoV virology and doesn't prove any simultaneous release or suchlike.
Emotionally, I'm with you guys, I do not support any lockdowns or related measures. I'd like to understand what really happened. However, the biology is presented incorrectly here, so the conclusions are simply not supported.
Do you believe that the genome of an RNA virus is sufficiently stable so that patients in rural Tennessee can die of a Sars Cov-2 infection which is largely similar to the Wuhan WIV , some 6 months later?
The reason I ask is because I'm pretty sure Jay strongly asserts in earlier videos that RNA replication is sufficiently instable that it is impossible for an RNA virus to cause a pandemic, and for the sake of this argument, I'll define pandemic to mean thousands of symptomatic cases across large stretches of the globe.
Jay ridicules those tracking down the engineering of the original strain as part of a hoodwinked "Scooby Doo" band of self-appointed saviors.
I look at Nexstrain, but I can't tell visually how stable the genome appears to be, and Jay points out that the cellular replication machinery for RNA viruses produces mainly replication incompetent results, and I don't know how likely that is because it's the same machinery that produces body proteins from body mRNA.
Your response would be appreciated.
The virus is surely capable of producing plenty of stable genomes and infectious particles. Nextstrain correctly shows most of them having relatively few changes.
If that wasn't the case, undercover agents must have been running around infecting everybody personally with their unstable concoctions...
Thanks. Sounds like something I wrote, especially the part about the peripatetic schpritzing spooks.
I hang out a lot at McCairn Dojo, and their tone on this issue is much less diplomatic.
I don't want to diss on Jay because I've learned a lot from him. I just feel that a blanket statement that RNA viruses have too many replication incompetent products is unsatisfying, and would prefer more precision as in "the rate of replication competent is Y, but X is necessary for a pandemic".
Thank you for this explanation. I had been informed that the PCR testing used spike protein probes.
The N-protein tests used in B.C. at LifeLabs were described as antibody assays.
This is likely part of the underlying problem, nobody's data sets are comparable.
I had about six rejections in 2021 from JAMA online- "Your comment does not meet our community standards"- when I asked that the authors reveal their underlying diagnostic results for "laboratory-confirmed Covid", specifically PCRct numbers.
PCR typically uses primers on 3 genes, including S and N, with some variations. Antibody assays target proteins.
What is discussed here goes far beyond PCR or those assays, using more detailed data from sequencing.
There can be a circulating CoV and also a clone release, or a synthetic virus-like particle release.
What I am saying is: the picture seems quite compatible with the natural CoV circulation, it does not invite other scenarios.
Most likely, the other 2 scenarios would bring their own features/biases. What would these be? - this is a good area to apply some intellectual effort. I can test any reasonable hypothesis I hear, as long as data allows...
Maybe you haven’t been keeping up with his work. People who have challenged the existence of the virus such as yourself have pushed him away from a traditional virus theory. Instead of “exposing people” who are just trying to figure things out, give them your stance and try to understand theirs. If you did that, I bet more people would celebrate your work.
'Clones'
LMFAO
‘Viral pandemic’
LMFAO most believe that is actually possible! LMFAO!
Clones can be made. We’ll just call them ‘bioweapon’ for you.
The bioweapon is the jab, in case people are having trouble figuring it out.
You wrong.
Me right.
You’re off topic.
The "Blame China" programme is a smokescreen to hide the actual development of the GOF research under NAIAD support and to deflect questions about the DOD biowarfare labs.
Psyop sleight of hand.
"What is most clear is that (1) what authorities told everyone during the pandemic was often total nonsense"
What should also be clear is that the mandates were illegal and that there was/is a long-time conspiracy to benefit the few and harm the many.
I have been following JJ now for a few months and agree completely. I think he’s bang on. All you guys out there constantly looking for the truth are doing a fantastic service for all mankind. Thanks you 🙏
Agreed! Unchecked groupthink made this mess and it will take bold, curious inquiry to get to the truth. JJ Couey is engaging science right now. We could use a great deal more of this level of investigative work from other scientists who, for whatever reasons have remained silent or are motivated by interests other than truth.
I've been skeptical of Dr. Alexander, but after watching him engage with Jay, I'm now convinced I was wrong. It seems to me Dr. Alexander is genuinely interested in reconciling the story and getting people talking.
I'm curious about your skepticism of Paul. What is the root?
I haven't always agreed with his takes, but in email threads I've been on, he seemed like an honorable man. Pissed off, trying to understand, but honorable. I hope I don't pick up countersignals going forward.
I've never dealt with him directly. At times, he's come across as uncomfortably aggressive, and some of my colleagues have avoided him as a result. That's it.
He has seemed overly aggressive a time or two. I see that as an urgency, and an appropriate anger. It's hard to control all that, and every one of us makes mistakes regulating all of that emotionally. Ultimately, I think it comes from a place of goodness, and that most people get better at handling the emergency over time. I know I've made mistakes, and handle some of them better since.
He’s a bit of a substack bombarder too!
He feels an urgency, and doesn't use his circle to decide which pieces of news need him most uniquely. On a Substack level, that's his flaw. But I'd rather see somebody motivated and overpost than unmotivated and shallow.
Somehow I too found JC on a bike. I followed until YT did their cancellation.
He is an excellent teacher, along with Mark K. and of course Mathew. I wholeheartedly recommend all three and if you can, send support to them. They are working hard to wake up the people.
COVID was one-two bioweapon release hiding behind a false logical framework. I am glad to see JJ explaining the mechanics behind the psy-op. We have yet to grasp the monstrous Evil behind the intent.
Denis Rancourt has already addressed that the spread of the disease in the US did not match typical viral epidemic. That matches JJ’s theory quite well.
That dude is shining a bright light. Keep it coming, JJ!
Yes...yes he is.
Thank you, Mathew. Jonathan Cooey has a fine mind. His hypothesis fits the facts better than any other explanation, and he has a gift for explaining it clearly; a natural-born teacher. This is the second time I've watched him explain the hypothesis on video here, and now I understand it well. May it be shouted to the heavens!
I neglected to add that he uses a fountain pen! My favorite writing instrument.
He has beautiful handwriting too!
Great comments here everyone! Thanks. Love it. Especially thank you Dr Crawford. Listened to you and Mike A. the other day on controlled ops. You were couth : ) Nice!
He isn’t “Dr”