Jonathan Couey (
) was fired from Pittsburgh University Medical School for calling out the euphemism of “vaccine” instead of the established term “transfection” for the Covid shot in early 2020. In an interview he explains how this shock made him question biology as it was taught at academic level.It was Vera Sharav who introduced me to Jonathan Couey, and we continued to work together after we “rocked the boat” unintentionally by questioning Naomi Wolf about a half-hearted commitment (Jonathan) and retweeting said question (Uwe) and both were let go by CHD (Jonathan) and Vera (Uwe). I have come to know Jonathan Couey as a very humble yet dedicated scientist who was genuinely shocked about the level of fraud and deceit being perpetrated by large parts of the scientific community.
Both of us shared a dedication to “look behind the curtain”. I know that I have to continue to investigate all discrepancies about the Covid narrative, as well as about the history we have been told. From what I understand, Jonathan feels the same, maybe even stronger, with regard to biology.
The questions which Jonathan Couey keeps asking seem to be very much to the point. Which is why I am continuing to highlight his work. I am not concerned about minor issues of style or choice of words.
As the story of the “Freedom Fighter” Prince Bernhard illustrates it is important to be aware of sabotage and treason as a distinct possibility. Anyone with a clean conscience will understand that questions need to be asked. If questions which are based on reasonable evidence or even hypothesis get brushed aside, or if the person who asks a questions gets attacked, I know that something else is going on. And I will not yield!
Below is the transcript of an interview which Jonathan Couey gave for my German blog. Due to a technical issue, some of the audio is in a sub-optimal quality, which ofis why I am happy to make it available in writing.
— So, Dr. Couey, we have gotten introduced via work which you and I have been doing on a project for Vera Sharav, Holocaust Survivor. This project is not ongoing anymore, but I am grateful for you to be available to give me, give my audience for the radio show „Gesunde Stunde“, which means „healthy hour“, an interview about the concerns you have pertaining to the crisis. Because a crisis it is, whatever may be behind it but it is a crisis which we've been experiencing for the past five years now, almost. And that's why I'm so grateful for you to be on.
But would you please tell my audience a bit of your background as to how it came to be that you were in biology. You were working eventually in the laboratories of people who earned the Nobel Prize, which is something where not many people get to work. And you were also, later you were en route to becoming a professor yourself, I mean you were a professor but not tenured yet, I understand, but please explain what was your way into biology and what did you do?
The way into Biology for Dr. Couey
— Thank you very much. I'll try to be quick. Again, thank you very much for having me on this little interview. I am a lifelong biologist. I think that's the best way to start. I had a grandmother that that. taught me to watch birds and uh mow the lawn and and catch snakes um and keep rabbits. I guess i'm just one of those kids that loved animals. My whole life I never really got into the dinosaurs, because they weren’t… you couldn't play with them and you can't raise them and you can't catch them. So I really just was into nature and wanted to be a marine biologist for a while.
And eventually I found that adults really react well when you tell them you want to be a doctor. And ever since I answered the question with, what do you want to be when you grow up? And I said, „doctor!“ I kind of somehow fell into this group. I think it was already when I was 14 years old. Because I wanted to be a veterinarian, actually, after reading „All Creatures Great and Small“. And my parents and everybody told me that „Veterinarians don't really make a very good living. You should be a doctor!“
And suddenly it just kind of fell into that way. And I went all the way to university as a young adult, as a pre-med person, saying that I'm going to get into med school. And I applied to med school actually five years in a row after college. getting waitlisted every time.
And during that period, I was teaching high school, and I actually loved it. But I just despised the other teachers that I was working with, because they had all given up on the kids.
And this was in Chicago public schools, I'd gone to university in Chicago. And so I stayed there after university. And then as luck would have it, I was making more money as a bartender. So then I bartended for a couple of years until I lost my job for another long story, that really just had to do with not respecting the idea that this guy had given me the keys to his business and I just took a night off. And he fired me.
So then I had to get another job and I ended up getting a job at the university of Chicago as a microscope and cell culture technician with a guy who actually taught me the highest level of methodology that he was using there, which at the time was a recently awarded Nobel prize, for single cell recordings of ion channels in membranes, and patch clamp recordings. So this was given to Erwin Neher and Bert Sakman in, I think 1990, might've been 1991.
And so that technique became the way that we studied all of these channels. And then people were cloning channels. And I started working for a guy at the University of Chicago who was doing in vitro measurements of potassium channels using some of these models.
And so I learned all these techniques of cell culture and gene expression in cell culture and biophysics of ion channels and all the recordings and how to do it. And the weird part was, is that the microscope part and the lab part and all of the the voodoo and cooking and and stuff that you that you do with your hands I was exceptional at and it became kind of a joke: „Why don't you just let Jay see if he can do it“ and I was fixing people's postdocs projects by just fixing what they were doing wrong, or figuring out how their their noise went away, or what they plugged in wrong. It was really bizarre. I started to become this little shaman. And not to toot my own horn, but that got me kind of the attention of a lot of people.
I actually started to get recruited to do a graduate project at the University of Chicago. But there was this guy from the Netherlands who was there. And we became friends in the off time between labs. And the way that the labs were organized, you could mingle with a lot of other workers from a lot of other labs because the wet areas were all intertwined. And so I became friends with this Dutch guy who went back to Holland and became a professor, and he invited me to do my PhD there. And at the time, it was just after 9-11, and I was riding the train from the north side of Chicago to the south side of Chicago in the wintertime, right after 9-11, and I was putting on the chair of every train, of every chair that was open in the train — I had printed them out the day before at at the university — it said, “OIL. WAR?” and great big giant letters on, on A4. And I was putting them around. Some people would crumble them up and throw them at me. And I was sure that, that 9/11, something was wrong with it. I was sure that buildings didn't fall that way.
And I was convinced that shit was happening. And when this guy said you could come to the Netherlands, um, I said, „you know, the only problem is I just got a dog“. And he's like „well we have dogs in Holland.“ And so I went and did an interview and then a month later I moved to Holland and that was in 2002 and then I just did the tenure chasing thing. I did my PhD in Amsterdam. We did a postdoc in Oslo and then we did another postdoc in Trondheim. And in Trondheim is where I met Edward and Maybrit Moser, who got the Nobel Prize about a year and a half after I left the lab. And I had about, I think it was four, maybe five papers, four pretty good papers with them when I went back to the Netherlands. And we thought we were pretty much a shoe-in. (…)
We thought we were pretty much a shoe-in to get tenure in the Netherlands. I had a dutch wife, we wanted to raise our kids in holland, I had learned to speak dutch. I almost screwed that up by learning to speak Norwegian. There's this little pocket in my brain and most people's brain for foreign language and it started to replace Dutch and then I gave up on Norwegian.
And so I was really ready to write grants in Dutch. I was ready to try and win it in the Dutch way and... And that didn't work out.
Four years of work in Rotterdam at the Erasmus MC. Very ridiculously coincidental with all of this controversy with the bird flu, because actually we moved to the Netherlands in 2012, which is a year later, or the year that Fauci was doing all that stuff. And all I really remember from it is that my PI at the time made jokes that “above us, they're making bioweapons”. And that they're giving a seminar. We should go listen to it.
And we went to a seminar together — and heck if I know, I think, it was just a seminar about what they did and talking about how, what it's not, and that we don't have to worry that it's going to get away or something like that.
But I just remember that I was, this was a joke in the elevator at some point in my early time in this lab. And then I never really thought about it again. It wasn't something that I was aware of because, again, I'm just thinking: “all of these people in these buildings are working in earnest and they're just producing knowledge and there's no reason to question any of it. It's just got to build on it because you work on your thing, they work on their thing and you work in earnest and they work in earnest, right? There's no reason to suspect a carpenter is building bad stuff. You're just a carpenter. Just keep building your stuff, right?
And so this is how I went. And I really thought that I would make it. And I applied for the biggest grants, these EU grants that you're supposed to try and get. And when I finally got an interview, I think it was the second time I submitted for one of these bigger Dutch grants that are kind of a similar thing. They said that all of the techniques and all of the experiments that I proposed were all doable. And these grants are for experiments with higher risk and with a possibility of failure.
So I was actually told by the evaluator that the reason why I was not going to get funded for what I thought was a great culmination of my ideas and proposals and combination of my skills and insight was not fundable because it didn't contain the level of risk that this grant required.
And so that really, that was really it. I had to leave.
My boss was just kind of shoulder shrugging. „Yeah, sorry, man, there's nothing we can do. You don't have funding.“ And all the funding that I had ever pulled in just bought equipment. So they were fine with keeping all the equipment that I got them, even if they couldn't run it. And it's just, I left very upset, but I came back to the United States really fired up because we got off the plane, and it was Pittsburgh.
I hadn't ever been here. Coming from Wisconsin I actually disliked Pittsburgh because of their Football team. Pittsburgh is a beautiful place with multiple rivers that come together and lots of bridges and hills that are covered in trees. It's a really working class town and and my boss at the University of Pittsburgh took me to a baseball game that overlooks the skyline. And I love baseball, and I was sold. I'm like, „we're coming here. It could be so much worse than coming back to a town like this.“ And I told my wife, “it'll be four years.” And my dog that we brought back now has 10 tags around her neck. We just got her 10th tag.
So I'm a little over time on this.
And so we were at the University of Pittsburgh for … 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, almost five years, four years before the pandemic started. I helped my boss get an R01, which is the first level of NIH grant that any wannabe tenure track professors should get. He used all of my data to get that grant. And then he tossed me out.
He was wearing three masks. He was pretty scared. It was interesting too. Because what also factored into that - just to tell you how crazy it is - at the beginning of the pandemic, he started wearing three masks really early. And it was strange to me because he's a… the guy that I worked for has a special background. He is, was at the time, an active Navy [officer], whatever is underneath captain on a submarine. And so he did ROTC and then went to Harvard and did his postdoc at Janelia Farms. And so he was like a Navy officer, nuclear sub-trained guy, like hardcore. That's the highest level of of technology in the in the government as far as i know, is nuclear subs. And he was a guy who got promoted during my time there to captain although he wasn't active anymore. And actually was at some point right before or right during the start of the pandemic was threatened to be shipped to Africa to work on some kind of anti-pirate thing, and so there was talk about how I might take over the lab for a year.
And so this guy had a Chinese wife who had a postdoc. He met her at, at Janelia and then they came to Pittsburgh, and she had a postdoc that was crap at the University of Pittsburgh and then just dropped out of science and started working for McKinsey.
And this was also at the start of the pandemic, or a year before the pandemic. And so I'm working for a Navy sub captain, who has a wife who works at McKinsey, and at the start of the pandemic, before anybody else was really serious about masks, he was wearing three. And so for me, that was also kind of computing in my machinery, like, „okay, this guy has security clearance that sometimes he locks his door for, and he's wearing three masks. What is going on here?“ And so I started talking to him about it. Like, “Dude, what's going on? Because this is stupid. Like, something is incongruent. If you know something, you should tell me or you should tell everybody. If you don't know something, then you should not be doing what you're doing. Like, what's going on here, man?”
He wouldn't come into office, he would stand outside of offices talking to people. He was so bizarre.
And the only thing that I can say and defend is that is that this guy was already like that before the pandemic. He was really weird. The way that he exercised, the way that he ate, the way that he kept clean, what he did, like he was just a weird guy.
So it wouldn't surprise me if he was also like this when somebody said there's a virus around. I don't think he's especially sophisticated from the perspective of being a biologist his whole life, and having an intuition about how things work that he's constantly checked for decades.
He's a guy who who went into biology for practical reasons, learned it because he can. He's a very smart guy, he can memorize stuff, so he was he was working on being an anatomy professor as a fallback and learning all the anatomy in in his spare time because he was working at a med school and anatomy professors have jobs. And so he's a very practical dude.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I fought tooth and nail to keep working for him.
I fought tooth and nail to try and get his perspective to change a little bit and for him to realize that what I was doing on my bike was real and that it was important and that thinking about this stuff, we needed to be careful. Because this biology is sketch like „I don't know but you guys are you guys are arguing with me using the New York Times. Do you do you hear yourselves?“ And at some point that started to become an issue where people wouldn't even look at me in the hallway anymore and for a few weeks…
Q: Sorry, can I cut in there? Because I would like the audience to understand that you riding a bike is something which is relevant in this context because you started a podcast on your bike, JC on a Bike. And I'm assuming that riding bike is something which you took up in Holland, because, as we Germans know, Holland is famous for their conditions for excellent bike riding and even very high level sports in this area.
But so during this start of what is now called „the pandemic,“ you had, if I'm right, you had concerns about what was going on, as you started to explain. But you also had concerns about what was being discussed in terms of countermeasures. Could you elaborate on this, particularly to the level of „transfection“. It is something which you were then beginning to warn people about in terms of these discussed countermeasures. Please explain these
Concerns about “Transfection”.
— Yes absolutely …
So the issue is actually twofold
The story that I just told about my primary or principal investigator, my boss at the university of Pittsburgh is kind of the context in which this discussion occurred. And so the incredulous nature that some of the faculty members reacted with when I would say, „well, have you ever considered the possibility that it's a lab leak?“ At the time, I thought I was being very clever. I thought at the time that also seemed to...
The word that comes to my mind, although there might not be a good German word for it, it seems „to jive with” my whole interpretation of the situation was the behavior of my boss. His putting three masks on and acting like a crazy person, while having access to [classified] information, I presumed that the rest of my faculty didn't have information, didn't have access to, made me realize or think that this other stuff I was hearing on the internet wasn't nuts.
And there is a long, if you dig, there's a long sort of track record of this issue coming up every three or four years in places like bioethics journals, or in this… there's a journal of the nuclear something, something, I can't remember what it's called anymore, but but it's where Klotz writes articles. [Her] last name is K-L-O-T-Z.
There's a few places where periodically, especially the most prominent example would be when Fouchier and the Japanese guy at the University of Wisconsin simultaneously claimed to have enriched avian flu to be aerosolized, this discussion of what these laboratories are doing and how many people they're putting in danger has come back and forth many, many times.
But I wasn't aware of it as an academic biologist focused on the brain and working on whatever I was working on at the time. This is not on my radar at all. But because of the the sort of generic skill set that I had developed as an academic, it was pretty easy for me to say, „okay, I got some key words here. I'm going to figure out what's going on.“ And I also, and I think this is a skill that all academic scientists and biologists and wannabe tenure track professors have, or should develop, is the ability not to use Google, but to use bibliographies. Because bibliographies are the admitted sort of „ideological foundation“ of the source that you're reading.
And so more important than what comes up when you search from Google is if you have a source and that source has cited other sources, this is almost the... The most foolproof way to get to the truth, even if the truth is not represented in those sources, there will be a pattern of misrepresentation that will show up. That will show up in no other way. If you default to Google or whatever algorithm and give me whatever it gives you that. That is the worst way to do these searches. And in fact, as an academic biologist, I was never searching that way. I don't, that's not how it works. Like for me, it would be going to PubMed, figuring out and trying to get a feeling for what the general consensus is, and then building out from a couple reviews, for example, to try and find what reviews cite multiple things, multiple times, and then build from there.
And so, I think quite successfully, at the beginning of the pandemic, read my way into virology and thought, “wow, there aren't that many papers about this stuff. I mean, it's not very hard.”
It'd be different if you wanted to read into the hippocampus. Then you got to read all the human literature. You got to read all the monkey literature. You got to read all of the rodent literature. Then you got to read the stuff that's done in cell culture. (…) And so I could go on for hours about how many different compartments of academic investigation you would need to refresh, or even come familiar with if you want to read into a new part of the brain.
But virology, and especially coronavirus virology, is like a handful of papers.
I mean, it might be two weeks of reading if you read slow, but it's not an insert. You want to read into, like I said, memory in the hippocampus and what is the foundation of the work that was that Nobel Prize, for example, that my former mentors got. That's a lot of reading. That's 30 years of reading.
But most of the... of the virology before 1950 you don't even need to really read it because the the the techniques they were using are so outdated now and and and and so misinterpreted often that it's not worth it. So then there's really this paucity of of literature that you're required to read and if you read it you're not left with some feeling of a „high fidelity understanding“ and a field that is well defined you're left with a bunch of hand waving. And “because there's suds in the dishwasher, then the foam in the ocean can be explained the same way.” It's like, what? What are you talking about here?
And they make so many generalizations. And the one generalization that really started to stick in my craw was this idea that all of these people in my academic circle that were willing to accept all these stories on the the web about the pandemic and what it was, or what it wasn’t, and who's responsible, and what R-naught number it has, and how infectious it is, and whether one mask or two masks is better.
None of these people seem to be aware that the news programs and the people in front of the podiums were all talking about an “investigational vaccine” that was actually just a transfection.
And the weird part about it for me was, working in the rodent level of neuroscience, that's rats and mice, the genetic manipulation of that animal model is just ubiquitous. We do anything we want. We knock out genes, we knock in genes, we interfere with proteins, we transfect proteins in and express proteins where we want them to see what they do or to see what extra protein will do or what an aberrant protein version would do. All of that stuff has been going on for decades.
And at the heart of all of those manipulations is the use of DNA and RNA to manipulate the expression of proteins. And pretty much irrespective of how you do it, if you go all the way back in history, the very first thing that we learned how to do is put DNA or RNA somewhere to get a protein to show up. And so you can imagine if a baker, for example, wanted to figure out how baking a cake works, he might add extra sugar until the cake doesn't work anymore. And now you kind of understand something about it. Then you might take some sugar out until you understand what that sugar is doing. Then you might add yeast or subtract yeast or add flour and subtract flour.
And so we've been playing around with mice and rats by adding protein and subtracting protein by transfecting these animals, which is to put DNA and RNA places. And the way we do it doesn't matter. That's the part that really... bothered me.
That if you use gold particles to do it, it's transfection.
If you use DNA or RNA, it's transfection.
If you use lipid nanoparticles, which for when I was working at the bench, this was called lipofectamine. It's just lipids or fats that you would shake up with your DNA and then use that to transfect your animal. You could inject it in the brain, you could inject or transfect a cell culture, and that would cause the expression of a protein or interfere with the expression of a protein.
So without wanting to beat a dead horse, it was very, very frustrating. And then it moved to very disturbing that after trying to point this out for many weeks, none other than Bill Gates went on the American „PBS NewsHour“, which is pretty much the center of the center of the center of the of the state kind of news. The BBC News, I guess, might be the equivalent, in America it is PBS NewsHour.
They actually put Bill Gates on there with a lighted table, and he explained transfection as a vaccine. He just explained that some vaccines are like this. This vaccine is like that.
And at that point, something snapped. And I made a video on a hike, and I made a couple bike ride videos, a couple of which got immediately struck [from YouTube], where I was just like, “there's something weird here”. Because the day that I got kicked out, I actually went... lab to lab. And I tried to find people that I thought trusted me because we'd worked together over the last four years, or I'd helped one of their PhD students and grad students or postdocs. And I just said, „you understand that they are calling ‚transfection‘ an investigational vaccine and that they're encouraging old people to think about taking this. You understand that, right? This is the same stuff that That we do to our mice.“
And I also said it to people that I worked with. There were a couple guys that I had done monkey experiments with, and I also went to one of them and was like, „you know, it's the same thing. It doesn't matter if they say it's a special new lipid nanoparticle. You know that, right? That's not... That's still the same chemical thing. It's still the same concept.“
And the point for me was that no one seemed to understand. And this frustrated me — and I think this story is relevant! Because for all of our experiments that we do on the bench, we always have to sacrifice the animal.
Sacrifice means: end the animal's life. So that you can do other parts of the study. One of the things that you do in neuroscience, of course, is that you would take the brain and preserve it and then make slices of the brain so that you could anatomically map where it was that you were doing the experiment. That's like a... The gold standard of neuroscience. Now, you can't do anything unless you prove that where you express the gene or where you put your recording was and you know where it was for the whole time. And that's why you can make a lot of the assumptions, or let's say: come to the conclusions that you do.
So one of the absolute requirements is when you do these transfection experiments, that you do anatomy afterward and show where the transfection occurred. And that's usually done using a fluorescent tag that is genetically connected to the protein that you are transfecting. And so you use that as a way of mapping this.
Now, the trick is to understand that when transfection is used in that context, and I'm just speaking from my own personal experience and expertise in neurobiology, when you transfect the brain of a rat, or the brain of a monkey you have a limited time window in which that an anatomical signal will be preserved. Because we don't really know because no one's ever investigated, but it's always been my assumption that the brain eventually destroys those neurons because they are expressing foreign proteins and so the the resident immune cells of the brain eventually trigger apoptosis in those cells and those neurons eventually disappear. It can also be because they are continuously, as a result of transfection, overproducing the protein that you're studying, or the manipulation that you've done, and eventually that reaches toxic levels because it never stops.
So that combination of limitations makes it a useful but limited tool on the academic bench. And the ramifications of those long-term effects are irrelevant to any investigation.
And so I found myself exasperatedly trying to explain to people that unlike the mice and the monkeys that we transfect our grandparents we want them to live for a while yet.
What happens when the the cells that are transfected in their body are destroyed?
And if those cells are somewhere where we don't want to destroy things, what happens?
Are we kidding ourselves here letting Bill Gates call this an „investigational vaccine“ when we as academic biologists already know this is just a transfection under the guise of a countermeasure?
And these people just... It was like I was talking in a different language.
I could have been speaking Aramaic for all I know. They actually just said, „I think you should just leave.“ And that was the day after I got this email saying, „you need to send in your badge and keys and not come in anymore“. It's crazy.
Q: It is very, very remarkable, to say the least. And now we are in a situation where everyone, even in the mainstream, is talking about what happened, what was done wrong during the so-called pandemic. We come to this later. But everyone is talking about the damage which those injections have caused in a great many of people, many, many deaths, but also severe injury and even long-lasting injury has occurred.
I heard you talk in another of your talks where you said that it had been known that the potential for damage was there with this kind of technology.
So you are not talking about one particular protein which was encoded for, but you were talking about the general platform of technology, i.e. this kind of transfection. What was known about it and why is it that no one looks at these facts, if they are facts, but I have no reason to believe otherwise, since you're explaining exactly what might happen, which is also congruent with what other scientists such as Professor Sucharit Bhakdi have been saying (at Minute 34:00 of linked video from July 2020) and also has been criticized and even had his reputation destroyed about.
And this is something which at this moment I would expect people would be looking at, but no one seems to do.
Adverse effects to be expect from Transfection
— Absolutely. So I think one of the things to bring your readers in on the trick is that what I've described as transfection via lipid nanoparticle has been a methodology which has been investigated for a long time. And the way that they investigated it originally was... „Where do they tend to go?“ And then they sold it as a destination biased carrier. So in other words, what they did was they said, this is really cool. When we put it into animals, it looks like a lot of the lipid nanoparticles end up in the liver. So we're going to argue that lipid nanoparticles are useful for transfecting the liver.
And they did a very similar thing with… Another conclusion, excuse me, would be the way to say it… Another conclusion that was drawn from those early studies was that the lipid nanoparticles tend to go to platelets.
Now, these two rationales for using lipid nanoparticles were used as, “well, since they go there, then we can use lipid nanoparticles to study the liver and liver metabolism. And we can use lipid nanoparticles to study platelets, to transfect platelets, and to augment platelet-focused therapies.”
And so then if you have a platelet disease or you have a platelet sort of malfunction, or a genetic whatever, then you can, in theory, you could use these technologies to investigate that. And so you can find um many many papers. I don't know how actually how many but it would probably it would surprise me very much if it wasn't in the hundreds of papers talking about lipid nanoparticles going to the liver and lipid nanoparticles going to platelets and how we could use that to augment platelet function, to supplement this and that or the other, or to, in one case, in the case of Jesse Gelsinger, use a Adenovirus to express a protein that he was missing in his liver.
And, again, the rationale was, that if we put adenovirus transfection particles and use adenovirus particles as a transfection vehicle, that when we do it, the preponderance of these things end up in the liver. And so it looks like that adenovirus is a great candidate for transfecting the liver and replacing an enzyme maybe that somebody's missing.
And so in the case of Jesse Gelsinger, he had a very rare childhood disorder where one of his liver doesn't even produce one of the essential enzymes for, I think it's for cutting starch or something like that. It allows you to cut starch.
And so the idea was to replace or to put that enzyme in his liver using an adenovirus.
But what ended up happening, of course, is what I've argued also should happen, and is happening in the brain of our mice, is that the immune system doesn't recognize that new protein as being normal. And instead, it attacks the liver cells that are transfected because they are expressing a protein that it hasn't recognized as self.
It's essentially attacking what it thinks is an invading cell or a foreign material. And in so doing, he went into acute liver failure and died.
The very interesting thing about this story, and it's not an anecdote in my humble opinion, is that the ‚pseudo whistleblower‘ that... was publicized three times in the New York Times or other articles in the AP about this narrative is Robert Malone.
And he claims, Robert Malone claims, to be the guy who was the guy who spoke out and told the truth about what happened with Jesse Gelsinger. But in reality, just like with what I would argue that he's done for the pandemic, he's kind of been the dude that that defines the limited spectrum that never gets anybody to see the, the actual consequences in reality of, of that story.
And, and so this was many, many years ago. You can look up Jesse Gelsinger on Wikipedia. Off the top of my head I'm not sure if it's… it could even be 20 years ago now. And, and it's really a, a tragedy because that is also something that I, as a biologist in 2020, wasn't able to get to.
I didn't get to Jesse Gelsinger early enough to say, „oh my gosh, they're using adenovirus right now in Johnson & Johnson“. And instead, actually, the IT guy at the University of Pittsburgh, who's my one friend on that faculty that I'm still friends with, I recommended that he take the Johnson & Johnson. And so it's...
It's been a long, long, long road. But for sure, for sure, for sure: What we should have been doing was telling college kids in 2021, like I was trying to, that even if — even if, this was what I was saying in 2021: even if this transfection is helping our old people, it would be a terrible idea the younger you are!
Simply because I had already come to understand that if there's anything to be believed in the literature of immunology, and let me just back up by saying that one of the other things that I spent 2020 doing and 2021 making sure I had accomplished was reading and understanding as much immunology as I could. So I'm not saying I'm an expert in everything, but I am saying that as a I probably earned a master's degree in immunology over the first two years of the pandemic, trying to read into virology and read into molecular biology far enough to know what was claimed.
I'm not saying it's right, but I needed to understand what they were claiming and the observations upon which they were making these claims so that I could at least evaluate them.
And that's what part of the exercise that was required in order to pull my head out.
Q: Right. So can I also at this point stress that we have not been inviting you to be making absolute claims about anything. I did not understand that you were doing such. In fact, you did not. Nor is it our aim to be telling that these claims do exist. What I think is of relevance, of high importance in this context, is that at this point, I mean, you said college should have been warned and people should have been warned back in 2022 or 2021, which is one thing. But today where we are so-called doing the investigation in what was missed, which errors were made, still nobody is looking into these very plausible ways of explaining a great many of adverse effects attributed to those injections. Instead, everyone seems just to be concerned about the various proteins which were encoded for so saying „we made a mistake about the spike protein“ or about this…
— That's a that's actually — that's a really good point and I want to just follow up on it quick because it's gonna vanish in my head and that's a point I've been trying to make too which I couldn't have realized at the beginning of the pandemic but after many years of talking to many people there's one thing that that I think is often missing from the discussion and that is that :
What was the state of the art of... pharmaceuticals before the pandemic. And if you understand what the state of the art of pharmaceuticals was before the pandemic, you'll understand how much hand waving and also ridiculous exaggeration about what we needed to do, or get ready for, or what we're doing now, has been made.
So at the beginning of the pandemic, or let's say before the pandemic in 2019, the state of the art of pharmaceuticals was that we could make proteins. And making proteins is the foundation of biologics. You make a protein, you make it pure, and then you inject it.
Maybe the most familiar example would be monoclonal antibodies. And monoclonal antibodies are things that were used to cure cancer, to attack cancer. We use antibodies for millions and millions of things. And one of the ways that antibodies are made, one of the ways that — almost exclusively sometimes — these other kinds of biologics, these proteins are made is the same.
And the way it's made is that they use molecular biological techniques developed in the Human Genome Project to make synthetic strands of DNA, actually synthetic circles of DNA.
And bacterial cultures can be used to make large quantities of those circles of DNA. And then those circles of DNA encode for the proteins that they want to make, and using other cultures or using commercial enzymes or any number of proven and already working manufacturing techniques, take that DNA, convert it to RNA, and then to protein.
Now, the trick here is to understand, Mr. Alschner, that at this stage, the protein has to be purified. And very specifically, the protein must be purified from all of the bacterial components, the bacterial proteins, the bacterial DNA, and the DNA that they use to make the protein, and the RNA that they use to make the protein. All of that stuff has to be removed, and the protein must be pure!
And this process is called „anion exchange chromatography“, and it is the most expensive process in the making of a biologic. And if this process fails, then the entire batch of biologic has to be thrown out. You can't run it again.
And so if you get to the end and you test for DNA or for bacterial endotoxins or for RNA contamination, nucleic acid contamination, and it's there, [then] the whole batch has to be destroyed. And this is the primary reason why many of these biologics are so expensive in the first place.
Now, understand that in order to make the RNA that they say that they injected, they do not need to go all the way to the protein — which means they also do not have at their disposal the cleanup step that they use to make the pure protein, which is anion exchange chromatography, because it actually removes, as much as possible, and if they're lucky, all the DNA and RNA present. You can't use that process to purify … RNA from DNA. You can't use that process to purify RNA from bacterial endotoxins, and this is not a secret!
It's not a methodological secret that nobody knew before the pandemic. There is no way using standard pharmaceutical, state-of-the-art manufacturing techniques to make a pure RNA!
It can't happen in the way that they did it.
And all of these people from the beginning of the pandemic knew it. That's why they have somebody from the Human Genome Project talking about PCR at the beginning of the pandemic.
That's why that guy is now talking about the DNA contamination and not the methodological shortfall that was already present from the very beginning when they announced they were going to make them.
Q: It should have been also obvious to him at the time?
— It's obvious to anybody that considers themselves a career molecular biologist, which I do not. I just figured this out. It's not something that I... I probably should have known it, but I didn't understand it until now.
And once you understand that that process, that was available, that standard operating procedure, then also you realize that the production of RNA is not something that they all had to retool for. They actually just had to stop short of a previous endpoint, which is also remarkable when they knew that stopping short of that previous endpoint would remove their ability to purify it. And they all knew it!
And that's why it's very important to see that a lot of the people that we think are „on our side“ actually have the pedigree inside of a pharmaceutical company to have no excuse not to know that!
And that's what becomes very terrifying to me is that I didn't work at a pharmaceutical company for 20 years before the pandemic. That's my excuse for not knowing. But somebody who has worked at a pharmaceutical company, never mind has worked at a pharmaceutical company branch that has made proteins. Now you have a problem here because they knew! They had to have known!
Q: Which brings me to a complete different area. Well, not completely different, but a separate area of reassessing what actually did happen and what may happen again with regards to possible pandemics.
If I understand you correctly, then you are raising serious doubts to the possibility that something like an RNA virus could cause a global pandemic in the first place. Which of course has severe consequences, if it were true, because then we would not need many of those very, very severe infringements on basic civil and human rights, which were only possible because they were justified in „saving the world from a from a dangerous pandemic“.
Now if this is not possible biologically then we would not have to forego those democratic rights, those existential democratic rights for democratic societies, at least in the West or even worldwide. Now, please explain your arguments as to why you should raise those doubts to say “RNA can not pandemic”.
Reasons why „RNA cannot pandemic.“
— So I think the short through the corner version of this is that the vast majority of RNA virology is not done as portrayed. And I think one of the extraordinary aspects of the pandemic narrative that we've experienced was, I think even people in Germany will be aware that there was a group of skeptics that were specifically skeptical about virology in general, and specifically about there being „no viruses“ at all, as in all of this biology was made up and that they're „just lying about disease“. And a very, very complete explanation, which essentially meant that you're just going to discount everything that's ever been seen under a microscope because “they aren't very precise about it.”
And that's what I want to be very clear:
For a long time, I spent a significant amount of energy trying to understand why it was that there had to be a fight there. And in fact, I approached many different people about this idea that „why are we fighting with these no virus people“ and „why are they fighting with us?“ Because essentially we kind of agree about what happened in the last couple of years. It's just, they want us to somehow argue and defend all of molecular biology's history and DNA. And I mean, it went all in, they went all in on everything.
And for me, that's what started to break it. And I just want to break it right here. I don't remember your question. I want to start over.
Q: Right. So, yeah, let me again repeat, but also specify in terms that this, what you've just said, enables governments and „experts“, so to speak, to say, „look, there are those „virus deniers“ and we don't, we must not even engage with them in any discussion because this is clearly silly because things do exist as one can show, and therefore don't listen to any of those people!“
Whereas the thing is quite of a different nature if whether something exists and what those properties are of that which is existent has in terms of it being able to cause a pandemic as even people who are known to be „opposition to the government measure countermeasures against this coronavirus pandemic“ are not in opposition to the general need of countermeasures, „an unmet need“, which Dr. Robert Malone keeps insisting would be existing.
If I understand you right, then you are saying those risks are not existent or at least gravely oversized, because there is a limit to what RNA molecules can do in terms of going pandemic.
— Yes. And so let me just expand on that, too, because it kind of cued in why I brought up the no virus position in the first place.
I think it's very important to see that and admit that part of my confusion in 2022 and 2023 was founded in the fact that I realized in 2022 that a lot of these people — the one that I would say that I respect the most is named Mark Bailey from New Zealand — they were able quite to quite succinctly explain what virology was doing with certain words and those words are „culture“ and „isolate“ and „purify“ and those were the same words that were used to create and and curate the narrative of AIDS and they were the same um Sort of words that were used to curate the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in the 90s or the 80s.
And then again, they're starting to use them now. We're starting to use them then. And it bothered me.
But what I thought was most important was: I thought naively that the no virus people had just missed something. And what I picked up in the virology literature, thanks absolutely in no small part to being employed to help write this book. — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at some point during the writing of this book asked me to teach him what infectious clones meant in the virology literature. And I was already on this problem, but then he asked me to give him a brief about it or see if I could teach it to him. And so then I spent a couple more weeks or I don't know if it was only eight days or whatever, just reading as many papers as possible that talked about and used infectious clones in their methodologies and what it was.
And then it suddenly at some point snapped in my head what had happened here.
When I read a couple methodological sections that... And I don't think it's worthwhile to tell you what they are now. I can if we get there. Where the details of the methodologies made me realize that they actually didn't know what they were doing.
And so what I realized... is that like a lot of the neurobiologists that I've worked with, like a lot of the systems neurobiologists to the molecular neurobiologists, they're so stuck in the little tiny bit that they know, and the rest of it is assumptions. that they aren't in a position to really evaluate observations made by other biologists because they don't have any context to put it in.
And so in this scenario, I just thought, „wow, these people just might not get it. The virologists don't get it. And maybe the no virus people don't quite get it.“ But what they really do in all of these papers is they transfect animals or they transfect cell cultures.
The same word that I used earlier to describe the use of synthetic DNA and RNA to express a protein. Virology as it stands, and coronavirus virology as it stands in the gain-of-function mythology, or the gain-of-function narrative, is that they have trouble growing the viruses that they find in nature. They're not very good at growing them. Sometimes they grow for a little while in cell culture and [then they die]. But what that means is that they can they can put a sample on a cell culture and the cell culture will die and then they can use standard recombinant genetics, and and standard molecular techniques like PCR, to show you that certain small sequences of DNA are present. And therefore, those DNA are indications that they're doing virology.
Now, again, this is a hard analogy to express. But what they do is that they find these sequences in nature in very small pieces and assemble them as though they represent something new. The best way that I would say it maybe would be to go through all of the garbage from a particular city and assemble a page of sentences from all of the texts and sides of boxes and bags and all things that you can find. Assemble a text and say, „look, I think there was a new book here“.
And that claim is made.
And then what they do is they take that book that they assembled from the garbage by taking a bunch of words and putting them all together again.
And then they take that book to a “publisher” and they come back with a pile of those “books” and they say, okay, now we're going to sit down and see what these books say. And now the way that they read them, of course, is that they might give these books to a ferret and see if the ferret has an immune reaction to them, see if the ferret is excited by these books.
So the point would be that RNA virology in particular — and this is why I say RNA cannot pandemic — RNA virology is based on an assumption that viruses have figured out how to use RNA with the exact same fidelity that we heretofore, before the pandemic, only attributed to DNA!
And so these two things add up to a very, very bright signal.
The first thing I mentioned and say it in short is that RNA virology is not done in the way that the TV news cartoon says — which is that they find viruses in bats and then they grow them in their cell cultures and then they study them.
The way that virology is done is that a DNA sequence is detected in an animal, or claimed to be detected. And then that DNA sequence is made using the standard techniques that I've described already as the state of the art of pharmaceutical manufacturing and academic molecular biology, which is just, you make a synthetic DNA, you grow a lot of it in a bacterial culture. And then you use that DNA to do whatever you want.
In molecular virology in RNA virology the way that it is done is that „a novel signal“ like a novel sentence could be found in this case a spike protein and then that signal alone in virology is already enough to claim that you've found a whole new book.
And in fact, you are allowed to take chapters from previous books you found and then take this new chapter and put it in there and then say you have a whole new book. And I'm not even kidding.
What I'm suggesting to you is that if there's a background of books in the background and you find one chapter and claim that that one chapter is new, but you didn't find the rest of the chapters because it was a really faint signal, you would be allowed to take that chapter from this RNA and substitute all the other chapters to make it a complete book.
And then take that book and transfect a cell culture and claim that you are studying the new book.
And that is how RNA virology is done!
There are no books that you can put into a cell culture and they'll make lots of copies of those books and those books will all be the same and you can go sell them.
The only way that you can make lots of copies of a book is to go to a publisher. And the only way you can make lots of copies of an RNA sequence is to manufacture it. You cannot do that in a cell culture. You have to start with DNA, and you have to use a bacterial plasmid!
And so what I'm suggesting is that all of this talk of an RNA, a gain-of-function RNA molecule that could go from a mud puddle in Wuhan and circulate the globe for six years is absolutely a biological impossibility, if not a, it's an absurdity!
Q: And this is again something where we want to make clear this is your hypothesis or at least your warning as to the real dangers which exist if we are assuming that what they are saying does exist even though you are saying it's not possible we need to reassess, versus the dangers which exist in terms of the infringements of civil liberties of human rights for the whole of humanity from now on until the end of time. Because they say “these dangers exist therefore you have to accept us coming along and say that now is the time to do this and this and this and inject yourself with this and this, or do this and this countermeasure”.
This is the discussion which needs to take place, which is not taking place anywhere except for very few spaces such as yours.
People who ought to be concerned about this are not engaging in a discussion about this, which is not a fringe discussion, but is a very relevant discussion to anyone who claims to be protecting the interests of the United States of America, or the Federal Republic of Germany, or Humanity.
This is something which needs to be discussed and is not being discussed, which should give us a reason to be concerned.
— Yes. And I would stress that to round that off, I want to be clear, at least from my own personal opinion: the danger, although, yes, I agree, the danger is don't let them inject you. And we can talk about intramuscular injection being dumb in general, if you would like. I think that's an interesting idea.
Q: My last question. Yes, sure. But go ahead and finish this note.
— Oh, shoot. Just cue me off what you just said.
What every Biologist in Academia and Education must understand
— Oh, yeah. So, yeah. The point that I think that everybody or a lot of people have missed that I missed, and that I'm stressing now more than anything is: that the coercion that was necessary for us to be where we are includes something in a molecular biological methodology that no one has questioned, and that is the PCR test!
The PCR test is the same kind of methodological tomfoolery that RNA virology engages in.
The idea that PCR can be used to find a signal is absolutely true.
But to every academic biologist that's listening to this podcast or listening to this interview, you must understand that the way that you use PCR on your bench to get your „Nature“ paper, that includes reactions in triplicate, that includes multiple amplicons, that includes nested primers, and that includes sequencing the amplicon that you have amplified to be sure that the sequence you wanted to find is the one that you found and produced the fluorescence,… None of those things were done! And instead oftentimes tests with only a single primer, a single amplicon, with no nested primers, and no sequencing done, were used to drive the narrative of the pandemic!
And we have no one in the “dissident space” that is questioning PCR as a diagnostic and therefore products are still being produced. Products are still being used, that are being used incorrectly to diagnose a background signal a RNA explanation.
These products are being… they're spending money on them and the most important thing to understand for me, that I’ve become aware of, that I think is so important to this is: that these diagnostic tests in America I don't know if it's this way in germany or not provide a new and unending stream of medical remnants.
If if anyone is not aware: the American medical system makes a very very big profit from selling the medical remnants that are produced throughout the system. It doesn't matter if it is placentas from birth, if it is foreskin from young baby males, if it is aborted fetuses, all things that are produced on a regular basis are monetized. And they are monetized to the highest bidder. And it is without a doubt that the testing remnants that were produced at universities in America, and hospitals in America were sold to the highest bidder. And this data is part of the operation.
And this data and this collection and this slow... sort of surrendering of our sovereignty to this idea that these diagnostics work is the opening that we... Obviously, we're not going to transfect ourselves again, but the way that they will coerce us is with the diagnostics.
They will claim that they have this high-fidelity signal that they can define with their proprietary technologies, and we have to accept it. And none of the people that seem... that are supposedly fighting for us are... are going to this foundation because, and I'll stop, in America, the PCR test was used in combination with the pulse oximeter to give people in the hospital supplementary oxygen.
And in giving people supplementary oxygen, we violated a rule of medicine that we've known since the 1980s, which is: unhumidified pure oxygen gives you acute respiratory distress syndrome in a couple hours.
And in fact, ICU doctors have been taught this in their textbooks for a couple of decades. And yet at the beginning of the pandemic, because of this narrative that we were running out of ventilators or we needed to make more in Elon Musk's factory, that we used supplementary oxygen. And there are many doctors, especially young doctors at the beginning of the pandemic. In America, we sent all the old doctors home because they were in danger of getting infected. And so we had young doctors being told protocols that included,“ well, shrug your shoulders and give them supplementary oxygen.“
And those people got sick in a very predictable way. And that was also called COVID, but it was actually just murder.
And so what occurred in America in 2020 and 2021, in Scotland and in other places, in care homes and in all kinds of different manifestations, was murder! And it was misconstrued as the manifestation of a “novel virus”.
And no one that I can see in the ‘dissident space’ that is supposedly coming to our rescue on white horses... is remotely concerned about the coercion and fear and uncertainty and doubt that was created in 2020 and 2021 that allowed people to make the mistake of transfecting themselves. And that is really at the heart of this.
— So can I just, please allow me to give some pushback at this point.
— Sure.
Q: You are calling it murder, which is a legitimate expression of your professional subsumation of what has been happening. The point is, and everyone should agree, this should be investigated and it can be investigated. So therefore, this is something which also should have been taken up long ago. It hasn't, which is one more reason to be concerned about the way things are going in this field. Just to get this clear for our audience,
Please allow me to ask my last question because I'm a bit under time constraint for the broadcast:
The issue you've just described with the failure to use the PCR test, or with the use of the PCR test in the way it has been done without the necessary precautions to make sure that what was claimed to be measured was indeed measured and nothing else.
These brought us to a position where we now have a „new novel or innovative platform“ to immunize people against any pathogen. And the thing is very, very much,.. it should concern us very much.
However, Even if we don't switch as the move is now to switch to those genetic products for immunization, even if we would stick to the old way of doing immunization for every child which is going to be at least in school, or a kindergarten, but sometimes it is even compulsory to have newborns injected with the intent to augment their immune system. You are saying that from a biological point of view, this concept of intramuscular injection with the intent of augmenting anybody's immune system doesn't make sense.
Please explain this because it is of high relevance for many people who have grown skeptical about those promises of „the blessings which vaccines have given us. And now, since we are able to produce better vaccines, why shouldn't we?“
Why intramuscular injection to immunize is “dumb”?
— Very good. This is a consequence, again, of trying to... do the best I could to learn immunology as it stands and what we've been told of immunology. And one of the things that struck me as absolutely certain is that there isn't an immunologist in the world that doesn't understand the immune system as having an orientation.
And by that, I mean that it is oriented from the inside out.
If you think of your body as having „an inside“ and „an outside“, actually your gut and your intestines, your stomach, your intestines is actually „outside of your body“ and things that are outside of your body pass through that „tube“. They never really enter your body.
And actually what happens in your gut is a very selective process of those materials with an orchestra of bacteria that process that material and allow only certain things into your body that you want in. And it's designed to keep everything else out.
And we should also be well aware that on our skin, we also have a microflora of bacteria that we kind of have a symbiotic relationship with and most of them are pretty friendly and it's good to have friendly bacteria there, because otherwise other bacteria might come to to occupy that. And we have understood many skin disorders and gut disorders as being an imbalance between the immune system and the and the flora that's present there, the bacteria are present.
But again, getting back to the original idea, the immune system is oriented from the inside out. And so at some point it became interesting to me that in reading all of the history of vaccination, I bought a lot of very old books to make sure that I was really reading original sources… And vaccination as a concept was accepted as being „a skin thing“ from the very beginning because smallpox was a skin disease. And so they were scratching things into the skin with the idea of augmenting a person's immune system, exposing them to something in a milder fashion that would protect them from the exposure to the real thing. And intuitively, I don't think that's a crazy idea at all. And in fact, augmenting the immune system at the barrier is a very intuitive thing that matches all of modern day immunology as well.
It makes perfect sense because the immune system is oriented layer by layer, from the barrier, whether you look at the gut and then work your way in. Or whether you work at the skin or work your way in, or whether you even look at the mucosal lining of the respiratory system, you're going to see this „layered defense system“. And that layered defense, I don't think can be usefully augmented. [It] doesn't make any sense to augment it by putting things behind it. And in fact, as far back as you could put it: in the muscle, the most protected area, basically, of your body.
I mean, yes, your muscles don't have a rib cage around them, but your muscles are as deep inside of you as they can be. They're under all of the skin. They're inside of you. And so things aren't supposed to get there. If you think about yourself as an upright hunter-gatherer, in the wrong situation, a sprained ankle could result in your death. And so we're talking, puncture wounds are not things that you survive without an incredible amount of sort of luck and modern medicine. If you get an infection in your gut from a sword wound in Japan in the 1500s, you're done. This isn't going to go anywhere unless you get very, very lucky.
And so I guess my point is, is that we have been, our parents were led to believe, that intramuscular injection of a combination of substances was a pretty good way of administering medicine. And I, after five years, have come to understand that as being absolutely the opposite, actually. And maybe one of the best ways to get people to think about vaccination in general, and one of the ways that no one has previously suggested we think about it. Which strikes me as very odd because it is very, very easy for me to make the argument that the beautiful, intricate understanding that we now have albeit limited of our immune system suggests that it is an extremely well organized, finely tuned machine with a very obvious orientation. And intramuscular injection in no way shape or form takes that into account.
And so it's not very surprising to me that there has been this undercurrent of people that has been saying that this isn't working. What strikes me as most odd is that in all the years of objecting to it, no one of prominence has ever gotten to the point where I have which is that what if we just questioned the whole methodology in general. Intramuscular injection of medicine is that really in 2025 the best way of doing things? Even a good way, even a remotely good way of doing things? And I think the answer in a few years will be: no!
Q: Right. Okay. Thank you very much for this explanation. And let me also add now as a publisher of “Never Again is Now Global on Substack”, where I am happy to also publish our conversation here. This is of particular concern to me, given from the standpoint, which no one else but Vera Sharav has taught me to look at. In this whole process, you and a couple of colleagues, one of whom being
, has been teaching, and showing, and researching that we have individuals and institutions involved in this whole development, who have been…, now let's start for this project, for this discussion, just start 1962 with „the Future of Man conference“ of the Ciba Foundation in London. So this was 17 years after the end of World War II, where we have senior scientists, high ranking and lauded heads, who were discussing things about the „desirability“ of having certain traits within the population as opposed to others and how to even „cause fertility and infertility“ to enhance this development. This had been happening in 1962 with people who continued to be very influential in this area until the break of the new millennium. Who were advising governments, who were towers of influence within the scientific community.This is a reason for concern to me as a historian, as a German! And it is something which we need to discuss, which we need to assess and which we must contemplate its consequences of. And this is why I am so grateful for your work, and for the work of your colleagues, such as Mark Kulacz in particular, who have been doing groundbreaking work. Which may must not or may not mean that everything which we and you dig up will stand until the until until eternity. But it is something which is necessary to be unearthed to be rediscovered or discovered and to be discussed from a perspective of the…, well, even of the future of humanity, because this is what I see is a tendency with people to acquiesce, to keep quiet if people „up above“ who consider themselves smarter, better, or whatever, assume a position to be deciding what needs to be done for the rest of „the great unwashed“. They are not using this term, „the great unwashed“, but their mindset is exactly this. And this is something which I will not remain silent about. I will... I will sound the alarm. I will keep promoting very, very important work such as yours, and therefore I'm very grateful for this discussion. Thank you very much!
— You are very welcome. I'm happy to call you my friend. Thank you very much.
— All the best.
Share this post