Transkript der Sitzung 130: Sie wussten, was sie tun

Verweis

Hier finden Sie Transkripte der Sitzung 130: Sie wussten, was sie tun.

Allgemeines

Wenn diese Seite ein Ergebnis Ihrer Begriffssuche ist wissen Sie, dass der gesuchte Begriff mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit in der zugehörigen Sitzung verwendet wurde, deren Sitzungsübersicht oben unter „Verweis“ verlinkt ist.

Wenn Sie nun eine genauere Angabe benötigen, wann genau der Begriff in der zugehörigen Sitzung verwendet wurde, nutzen Sie bitte die Browser-Funktion Auf dieser Seite suchen, die Sie folgendermaßen aufrufen können:

• Windows-Rechner: Drücken Sie gleichzeitig die Tasten [Strg] und [F] und geben Sie den Begriff ein, den Sie in den Transkripten suchen möchten.
• Mac-Rechner: Drücken Sie gleichzeitig die Tasten [CMD] und [F] und geben Sie den Begriff ein, den Sie in den Transkripten suchen möchten.
• Mobilgeräte: Wie Sie die Suchfunktion auf einem Mobilgerät aufrufen, ist stark abhängig von dem Browser, den Sie verwenden. Bitte informieren Sie sich im Internet, wie Sie die „Auf dieser Seite suchen“ Funktion mit Ihrem Smartphone-Browser aufrufen können.

So finden Sie den Begriff in seinem Kontext und können über einen nahegelegenen Zeitstempel ermitteln, wann der Begriff ungefähr in der Sitzungsaufzeichnung zu finden ist.

Transkript

Im Optimalfall finden Sie nachfolgend ein „Überarbeitetes Transkript“. Das bedeutet, dass das Transkript durch einen Menschen geprüft, korrigiert und vervollständigt wurde. Dies ist ein äußerst zeitintensiver Prozess und wir können leider zum aktuellen Zeitpunkt nicht zu vielen Sitzungen sorgsam überarbeitete Transkripte zur Verfügung stellen. Selbst, wenn Sie ein überarbeitetes Transkript vorfinden, übernehmen wir keine Gewähr für dessen Korrektheit. Bitte prüfen Sie die jeweilige Aussage in einem weiteren Schritt in der Videoaufzeichnung der Sitzung, die über die Sitzungsseite verlinkt wurde. Sie finden die Sitzungsseite oben unter „Verweis“ verlinkt und dort wiederum die Links zu den Video-Aufzeichnungen der Sitzungen.

Mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit finden Sie nachfolgend zumindest ein „Automatisches Transkript“. Automatische Transkripte wurden von einer speziellen Software, die Audiospuren auswerten und zu Text umwandeln kann, automatisch generiert. Solche Transkripte sind relativ leicht zu erstellen, bedürfen aber meist noch intensiver Überarbeitung, weil sie viele Fehler enthalten.

Solche Programme wandeln das gesprochene Wort meist auch nicht korrekt in Text um, wenn während der Sitzung zwischen zwei Sprachen gewechselt wird (was in beinahe jeder Sitzung vom Corona-Ausschuss mehrmals geschieht) und können das gesprochene Wort nicht immer den richtigen Personen zuordnen. Auch im unvollkommenen Rohzustand dienen automatische Transkripte aber bereits als Quelltext einer Archiv-Suche zur Ermittlung von Ausschuss-Inhalten über bestimmte Stichworte, wie wir sie mit diesem Ausschuss-Archiv ermöglichen - zumindest für alle Begriffe, die das Programm korrekt identifiziert hat. Außerdem bieten wir sie hiermit als Grundlage einer manuellen Überarbeitung an:

Wenn Sie dabei helfen wollen, das Transkript zu dieser Sitzung zu überarbeiten oder bereits über ein sorgfältig geprüftes Transkript zur Sitzung verfügen, kontaktieren Sie uns bitte per Mail mit dem Betreff: Unterstützung Transkription.

Überarbeitetes Transkript

Es liegt zurzeit nicht von jedem Gastbeitrag der Sitzung ein überarbeitetes Transkript vor.

Dr. Jessica Rose (Englisch)

Viviane Fischer: [01:42:13] And now we have our next guest with us, Dr. Jessica Rose.

Jessica Rose PhD: Hi Viviane.

Viviane Fischer: Hello. Hi, nice to see you.

Jessica Rose PhD: Nice to see you, too. Hear me well? Yes.

Viviane Fischer: Yes, we can hear you very well. At the… yeah. So you have quite an impressive CV. Maybe would you like to introduce yourself a little bit to the audience so people know what your background is.

Jessica Rose PhD:

Jessica Rose PhD

Sure. Sorry, I’m fighting the longest cold ever, so I’m going to be clearing my throat a bit. I am a Canadian researcher. I started my academic career in applied mathematics, where I learned all about epidemiological modeling of viruses. And I wanted to apply what I learned in my applied mathematics degree to viruses. So I went and did an immunology degree, where I learned all about HIV immuno-pathogenesis. And I went on to do a PhD in computational biology, which was also meant to be all about HIV, but it turned out to be more or about cytomegalovirus, which is another kind of pathogenic virus in humans.

And then in the pursuit of learning more about pathogens that aren’t viruses, I did some molecular biology research in rickettsia, which is a bacterial pathogen that lives in ticks. I specialized in hard-shell ticks. And I also did a postdoc in biochemistry, where I was looking more at proteins, basically, delivery molecules for cells, and so and so.

And the reason why I’m… I suppose prevalent now in the… fight against to the covid narrative is because I’ve been trying to bring to light some truths that are coming out of adverse event data collection systems, pertaining to reports being filed in the context of the covid-19 injectable products.

[01:44:39] There’s a lot to talk about there, continues to be interesting. And it’s amazing how I’ve been doing this for about two and a half years now, I suppose, and there are still so many people who don’t even know that there’s a huge discrepancy in absolute count and etc., etc., the range of adverse events being reported to VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] in the context of these products, when you compare them to the last 30 years of data. So that’s me in a nutshell.

Viviane Fischer: OK, that’s quite a large nutshell. Yeah, it would be great– and so you have several topics today. Maybe you just want to go ahead with what you’ve prepared… for today.

Jessica Rose PhD: [01:45:33] Sure, I can do that. The– I know one of the things on the list was a, a paper that was all the rage, I think it was about two weeks ago. It’s been a while since I re-read it, but basically it revealed that there were some researchers in a lab at Boston University who were designing and experimenting with new versions of the corona viruses that we’re all pretty familiar with now. So what they had done was that they had taken the backbone of the original Wuhan strain and embedded it with the spike proteins of the Omicron, the most recent Omicron variant. And in doing so, they turned the pretty much innocuous Omicron varion into something that was almost as equally pathogenetic as the original Wuhan strain.

So instead of killing a hundred percent of the mice that were humanized– which means that they have the ACE2 receptor that binds the spike protein from humans– it killed 80 percent, so it’s pretty lethal. They published this. They published the recipe which is disturbing, yes. But perhaps the most interesting thing about it is the amazing conversations that are being raised now about whether or not this is truly gain-of-function research– I think it qualifies– and why they’re doing it in the first place. How potentially dangerous is this? And, I mean, you can go really far with your questioning and ask: is this another red herring in the context of what’s coming next? Because we don’t know what’s coming next, do we. We… hear talk about a a new “pandemic” being released and when you consider the fact that there are labs around the world who are doing these kinds of experiments and this research, you kind of have to wonder what might happen next.

Viviane Fischer: [01:48:01] Well, it seems to be, I mean, if you’re considering like the possibility of lab leaks, it seems to be kind of irresponsible to some extent to… engage with this kind of research to begin with.

Jessica Rose PhD: [01:48:13] Absolutely. I think it’s beyond the irresponsible. I think it’s– I mean, whether or not you believe in God, the, you know, the playing with [sic] God idea is relevant. I mean, it’s… definitely messing with nature. Because, I mean, nature does what it does because it inherently kind of goes with this flow as we all know. I’ve never ever ever been someone who’s thought that any… messing with genetics was a good idea, because you know, nature, she already figured all this out. So any attempt to “improve” anything that nature has already perfected in my opinion is asking for trouble. And… human beings– I don’t know, we… tend to be so arrogant … in the science realm. A lot of people think that there’s a lot of nefariousness going on, and I don’t doubt that there is. But I think a lot of what we’re seeing is just ignorance and arrogance.

[01:49:27] Truly. I… think that a lot of people, they either don’t know what they’re doing– and I… mean that literally– but they’re not aware of what their work is going to be used for, if we’re talking about like designing bio weapons etc. And a lot of other people assume that nothing will go wrong, because perhaps they think that we’re impervious to… being decimated, not… to get too, like dark, but [laugh] yeah.

Viviane Fischer: [01:49:56] With regards to this possible pathogen, I mean, we heard from Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, you know, he has often mentioned that it’s, like really hard to design a… very deadly virus that would have an effect on a large amount of people, because, like usually if it’s really a super- deadly virus, you see the other person drop dead, like at least die within a short amount of time. And then, you know, you keep away from them. I mean, if… they are bleeding everywhere or whatever.

So… how likely, or what in this case– this but I… mean, what I wanted to say is: it all depends also of the incubation time. I mean, if we have something that’s really lethal, and it’s it, you know, it’s going to kill you, like after six months and you are highly infective, do you know, you spread the disease to someone else. Like with the, you know, the virus, then there might be a lot of people who, without everyone noticing, might catch the… disease. but, so what is so it depends on that aspect like in this… deadly pathogen SARS-CoV-2 variant, whatever, is that, how long is… that incubation time? Do we know anything about that?

Jessica Rose PhD: [01:51:15] Ah, well, I mean that’s up for debate still. I mean I… think it– again, my answers are usually the same: it depends on so many different factors. But I have no doubt in my mind that the persons who are suffering the severe adverse events and… of course death, they don’t necessarily have to have these things happen acutely. We’re seeing a lot of delayed, even by months, inductions of severe pathologies, and… some of them lead to death. So they’re does seem to be some kind of… I’m not sure– well, you know what? I’m not sure I wouldn’t call it an incubation period, because I don’t know what we’re dealing with yet. Some part of me sometimes sees a parallel between the chronic phase of HIV and what we’re seeing now. Now I… don’t want to say that’s what’s happening; I don’t want to equate this to HIV, but the pattern looks the same to me sometimes. And this is something I started to look at, but I kind of got distracted. So one day I’m going to go back to this, and I’ll have a better answer.

But just for those of you who don’t know… there was a long period of time when we first started studying HIV, I mean we’ve been looking at HIV for decades now, and we still don’t know a lot about it. So we’re still on the very preliminary phases of examining what we’re dealing with here. We don’t know what we’re dealing with here. We have a lot of excellent ideas, and… there’s like ten people in the world having amazing discussions about this. But as you know very well, the… outward discussion is being suppressed. So it’s very difficult to come to a consensus these days. But we’re trying. But in the…

[01:53:16] OK, so HIV has basically three phases that we know of: the acute phase, the chronic phase and AIDS. So the acute phase is when you get the flu-like symptoms, when you get your antibodies on the go, your T cells explode, you… develop immunity. [The] problem with HIV is that it has this latency, which means that it can– and it integrates into the genome of our cells. So it hides in… cells that aren’t yet activated, so basically you have a perpetual potential for reinfection, reactivation and reinfection. So– and the other bad part about HIV is, are the specific cells that it infects. So you have decimation of your CD4-positive T-cells, which are your… leaders of the army. So it’s bad for for… a few counts.

But… the point I’m making is that during this chronic phase which is– I don’t know, something like 10 years, you have this enormous amount of activity going on with… T cells. And we didn’t know this until, in fact a mathematical modeler, he was my PI for my post-doc– or my PhD came along and showed that the rate of the reproduction of the virus was really, really high. So we didn’t know that all of this activity was going on, because it looked like symptomatically, nothing was going on.

So it took the combination of many fields and efforts to discover that even though it looked like everybody was fine following the acute phase, they actually weren’t. They were kind of silently being destroyed inside. So I don’t want to scare anyone, but sometimes I’m reminded of that with this. And the reason it… concerns me is this prion idea. Because if we’re not actually dealing with, like a virus-like virus… I… don’t even know if I’m allowed to say that.

But if we’re dealing more with like a, an infective protein or a protein or… a particle that… has properties of prions, whereby the… subsequent proteins that are manufactured fold, misfold. And… perhaps teach other proteins to misfold as well– that would be absolutely disastrous… in a lot of people. And unfortunately we are seeing reports of prion diseases and Creutzfeldt-Jakob which are far above background rates in VAERS. So I’m keeping a really study eye on that.

So as far as definitively answering the question, you can’t yet, because we don’t know enough. There’s no point in not trying to get it: everybody’s probably had it already. And our immune systems do seem to be responding very functionally well against it. It’s just, it just seems like in some people– just like in the case of HIV, not to draw the parallel again– some people do worse than others. So we have to figure this out: we have to figure out the immunological race between what we’re dealing with, with this SARS thing and our immune systems.

So… but… yeah. Wolfgang is absolutely right about the– you know, if they… wanted to do something really– I… don’t know who they are, but there’s a lot of people thinking that… along the lines of a bio-weapon. And if you actually want to destroy a large part of the population, you can’t release something really deadly, because it’ll just burn out quickly. So you have to release something that would kind of slowly and silently destroy…. Yeah, maybe it’s getting too dark.

Viviane Fischer: [01:57:18] It is dark, very dark. But, I mean, here we… also have to be, I mean do you know, it’s sort of an… issue that indeed the so-called vaccines. We have the same spike element in there. So it’s also going to be very hard to distinguish between the people who might– I mean, OK, it’s this new version, then maybe we can track it, like do you know, which, if this version caused the, this people dropping dead like by the. in… the range of like 80 percent. But on the other hand, I mean, with this in, do you know, this… vaccine spike, we see similar effects in the body. And it also has this insertion, as I understood, of this HIV aspect in it, because it’s this wuhan sequence. So it’s going to be very hard to distinguish between like a, do you know, like something that’s natural or like after some treatment occurring virus problem that the people have or like without effects of the vaccination. What what would you say?

Jessica Rose PhD: Are you asking about like finding evidence of spike in, from autopsies, is that what you mean?

Viviane Fischer: [01:58:40] Well yeah, but like, I mean, we see that we have the same spike as in the… virus, we have that do you know, represented in the vaccine. So we don’t know like in what–

Jessica Rose PhD: Right.

Viviane Fischer: –what kind of effects were going to look at. And I was wondering, because I’ve been, we’ve been discussing that behind the scenes like with do you know, a group of… scientists. I was wondering: this insertion in the… spike sequence, RNA sequence, that, is that, thte HIV aspect, do we know what that does? What’s what does, that does, if it was like the real HIV aspect?

Jessica Rose PhD: [01:59:25] Ah, well, I’m going to say no. I know two people who might have a better idea than I. All I can say is it’s very suspicious where these four haptides reside on the spike trimer. They’re… very exposed. And… I think I mentioned this last time. In terms of binding, which is what… this receptors for, the– its only function, really… well, not only, it’s primary function is to bind the ACE2 receptor, to… allow for fusion and entry of the viral contents into cells. So binding sites are very important. They need to be … on the outside; they need to be exposed.

Viviane Fischer: Um-hm.

Jessica Rose PhD: So it’s… very curious that all four of these peptides that were introduced, that don’t exist in the original SARS are highly exposed, when you look at the conformation, when you look at the structure of the spike trimer. So as for the functionality and what exactly they’re doing, I’m not sure. But there is a paper that draws a parallel between an HIV flappy bit, and it’s actually called a flap, that has to do with binding affinity.

So… the spike protein also has one of these, and… I’m, I don’t want to draw parallels again, but there… are some ideas coming out that relate the two. I’ve written a Substack about this, about the fact that even though– and… I’m doing it again, so I might as well just go for it.

HIV and SARS are extremely different, but they’re also similar in many, many ways. They both gain entry into cells by the same means. HIV has GP120, GP41. They go, undergoes a conformational change and gains entry by fusion. Spike protein, it… the spike does exactly the same thing using the S1 and the S2. They both have these flappy bits that… control binding affinity.

[02:01:49] Anyway, the short answer is no, we don’t know exactly. But it begs the question: why are they there in the first place? Which is why, you know, it, it’s an obvious question. Because none of them, not one of them, is there in the original SARS. Why are they there? The fact that they were put there and we know there were put there because we see the cutting sites, these restriction sites. This is another paper that recently came out that kind of provides a fingerprint for us, molecular biologists, to see like, hey this is synthetic, and this was made in the lab.

OK, they put them there. But why? So my… I don’t think these are stupid people; I think these are really smart people. So they must have had either knowledge or an idea of what was going to happen. And this goes back to what I was saying before: I think… a proportion of people know very well what the potential dangers are, or what the actual dangers are, because they tested it. And they just didn’t publish that data, which is something we’re seeing a lot. And… a lot of people just have– they’re just lab monkeys and they have no idea, you know, what… their… molecular biology is going to be used for eventually. So… yeah, the short answer is: I don’t know. We don’t know yet. They’re not supposed to be there. That’s all we can say.

Viviane Fischer: So it’s kind of mysterious thing.

Jessica Rose PhD: Yeah.

Viviane Fischer: [02:03:30] OK. You have another, here, topic. So you said what is it… we need to do, to prove that the covid-19 [mRNA] injections cause harm and the dual, and how we can prove the dual… mechanism of action? So what is it that we can actually, what, what’s necessary in a sort of train of… evidence?

Jessica Rose PhD: The proof is really hard to acquire, first of all. We… have tons of evidence though. You can approach the… [novelty] of the technologies from the lipid nanoparticle point of view, or the the modified mRNA point of view. The lipid nanoparticles themselves, if you just focus in on those, and there are a lot of people in the… community now who believe that– they’re like, they’re not spike people at all. They believe that the lipid nanoparticles are doing all of the damage.

And… I’m… in both camps. I think the… damage has been done from both points of view. But if you take just the lipid nanoparticles, they’re… comprised– the Modern the Pfizer recipes comprise four different lipids and two of which are known to have allergic profiles and toxic profiles. So the… PEG, the polyethylene glycol molecules, which allow the lipid nanoparticles to hide everywhere and evade immune responses etc., those induce anaphylactic shock in a lot of people. So it– this… is a known thing. We have published papers out the yin yang to support this. So all you have to do is… show that. That’s one thing. But that’s kind of new. The second thing are the cationic lipids themselves in each of the Pfizer and the Moderna products that are different are highly toxic. And this is not a secret, either. This is well known.

[02:05:40] The toxicity profile for the Moderna lipid nanoparticle SM-102 is worse than gasoline, when you look at it from a health point of view, at the SDS sheet, the Safety Data Sheet. That’s number two. Number three is that … these things not only bio-distribute like because… of the their design, they’re are designed to do so. The… PEG ensures that, in my opinion. They… bio-accumulate, and this is not new information either. This is well documented in the Pfizer FOIAed study, this Japanese study, thanks to Byram Bridle. And there’s a paper that was released that I’ve been presenting lately, that’s ten years old, that shows exactly the same thing that these FOIA-requested documents show, in the exact same animals, the Wistar rats, exact same products and the exact same organs, which are the ovaries. So we… knew this, ten years ago, that these things have a bad bio-distribution and -accumulation profile. So anybody saying these… are not going to traffic to the ovaries was lying. There was– they weren’t wrong; they were just lying. This is, this was known, and it’s published.

[02:07:01] So these… are all things that provide evidence. But again, what we have are… these studies this is evidence; and we have the leaves rustling in the wind, which is the… adverse event data that collecting. I mean it’s… it’s a pile of… bodies that is so large now, I mean, you can’t look away from it. I knew this was going to happen, and it’s getting bigger all the time. So just… a few– you don’t need to be like, a rocket scientist to kind of ask a basic question: if these things were not meant to traffic to the ovaries, and they do, and they dump their modified mRNA payload– and let’s just say, for example, you get your full-length spike template– just… for argument’s sake– and you, it’s translated into this spike protein, in copious amounts, like trillions or however many, in the ovary, What impact is that going to have? It can’t possibly be good, because it’s not supposed to be happening.

So you would expect, if… you are a thinking person, that something might go awry, in terms of the reproductive cycle. Because the ovaries control the menstrual cycle, basically. You know, you have your endocrine system working with your reproductive systems. So you might anticipate that there would be a disruption. And what are we seeing out the yin yang in adverse event reports in women? Menstrual cycle disruptions. So again, it’s not proof, but it’s very, very compelling evidence. And that’s all we’re ever going to have, in my opinion. We… do need to start putting, we are putting all this together– the doctors, the lawyers. We need good judges, though. This is the next difficult step. So all we have is very, very, very compelling evidence, from that point of view. And… I could go on about the spike as well … the potential dangers of the spike. But I think one of… the most important–

Viviane Fischer: –question. with regards to the nanolipid particles: are there versions of that known that are non-toxic?

[02:09:31] [012 seconds silence] She’s gone. Maybe she’ll come back in a second.

Jessica Rose PhD: Oh, am I gone?

Viviane Fischer: OK, yeah. No you’re… back again. Yeah, I don’t know if you heard it–

Jessica Rose PhD: OK.

Viviane Fischer: Yeah,

Jessica Rose PhD: [02:09:44] Not that I’m aware of, because of the nature of the cationic lipids themselves. They’re… designed to rupture membranes, so they’re… pretty devastating to cell membranes. That’s how they function. So not really. I mean, maybe, you know, people would argue that… they’re… not in… the long run, they’re not going to cause excessive amounts of damage. But here’s the thing: even if that’s true after one injection, even if you cleared the lipid nanoparticles … if there is modified spike being… translated, that’s an ongoing disruptive process. And here’s the worst part: if you keep getting injected, you’re getting repetitive doses of not only the lipid nanoparticles but the mRNA. So the damage is going to be not only repetitive, but it’s going to be cumulative, in many cases.

[02:10:47] So yeah, these are the things I would think about on that… question.

Viviane Fischer: There’s no other method of introducing these [mRNA] into cells for instance with a non-toxic, non-problematic vehicle?

Jessica Rose PhD: Not that they have discovered yet, No. This would probably be their… best recipe so far. So yeah, this is an mRNA transfection, brand new. We… haven’t done this before. I was having this discussion last night, actually. This is transfection. It’s… not, it’s not vaccination per se.

Viviane Fischer: [02:11:32] OK, so maybe now if you want to say something to the spike problems, spike protein?

Jessica Rose PhD: Well… yeah, well you know, again … mRNA is a natural thing. We… can’t, nothing can exist without it. It’s… you know, it’s part of the recipe of life. You know, we have DNA, messenger RNA and proteins. So don’t get confused about [mRNA] and thinking it’s a bad thing. It’s not. It’s the bastardization of the concept and the messenger RNA that’s dangerous here. So it’s been modified in specific ways to be very, very stable. And published papers again have shown, provided evidence, strong evidence, that these, not only the mRNAs or actually I should say, not only the spike protein– pardon me– but the messenger RNA itself lingers in the germinal centers of the lymph nodes for up to 60 days. And that’s just when they stopped measuring. There are other publications that have shown this, the existence or the presence of the spikee protein months after. So the, we’re… looking at something that’s very, two things that are very stable. And we were told– they were very… clear and very parental with us about the fact that “this is just going to like, go into your body, it’s going to do its thing, and it’s going to go away and you’ll be fine.” That’s complete lies. These things were designed. They were modified with intention to be very stable and to be very immune-evading. So that’s why the… uridines were substituted out for the pseudo-uridines.

[02:13:26] Anyway the… these are big problems. And again, there, there’s deviousness here. Because as I just said, we were definitively told from the point of view of the lipid nanoparticles, that these things we’re not going to bio-distribute. They would stay at the injection site, do their job. We were also told that the mRNA was not stable and that it would degrade very quickly and that, you know, you wouldn’t have a problem.

And it doesn’t seem like, from the peer-reviewed literature that coming out now– and it’s just started– that either of these things are correct. Which means that as the… data is FOIAed, Freedom Of Information [Act] requested and… accessible to the public and to the researchers, we’re… probably going to find more and more that … at least the pharmaceutical companies were sitting on knowledge, and that they were just lying to push their product, effectively.

[02:14:26] And, you know, it’s… on the CDC, it’s on the FDA, it’s on all three-letter organizations to… do their jobs and to protect the public from bad products. That’s their job; that’s their only job. So, I… think that everybody is well aware of the dangers going on. I think they always were. I think that it was just going to get in the way of the agenda of getting this stuff into every single arm. I mean it’s incredible to me after two and a half years that they’re still pushing it. It’s… insane, it’s like– even the people really, really like for this, are starting to scratch their heads and say, “Why do I need to get a sixth dose?” You know what I mean? It’s like, “Why does my baby have to get one? They’re not affected.” You know what I mean? It’s like they’re still pushing this onto every single person, and there’s no logic. They’ve really, really, they’ve worn out their welcome on herd immunity. They’ve worn out their welcome on this being an emergency. I mean, everything is just like [winding-down sound]. So it blows my mind that they’re are still pushing it.

Viviane Fischer: [02:15:41] Yeah, it’s amazing that they’re not also starting to look at the… side effects much more in detail or that. I was wondering: are you in… scientific conversation with researchers who have… so far believed in the, do you know, validity of the… studies or like, have… believed the corona narrative, and are now looking at the… emerging findings and, do you know, why are you talking to them, and what kind of reaction do they show? Are they now starting to get a little bit upset or worried about what’s going on?

Jessica Rose PhD: [02:16:17] Me personally? No. But I’m observing it happening. I mean, Aseem Malhotra, and John Campbell’s coming around, and there’s a whole bunch of people who are … you know they’re just, they’re slow, but they’re just so good scientists, and they still have … that thing, that inquisitive nature that makes you a good scientist, I guess is the right word. And it doesn’t matter how strongly, you know, the narrative is being pushed: the truth is the truth.

And so there… are people, and there are some stronger voices coming out. But as for my own personal connections … can’t say I can think of anyone. Most of my… colleagues are, you know, they, they’re just, they’ve always kind of seen that there was a problem. But again, I don’t… have a very large community, so like three people.

Viviane Fischer: But which are the… bigger names that you can now see, you know, publicly uttering doubts?

[02:17:32] Aseem Malhotra. I mean, I don’t think I’m saying his name right. But the, this british MD, I mean, he’s, he was very much on TV promoting the injections, and now he’s… very much, you know, switched a hundred and eighty. And now he, he’s very clear about the fact that these things are causing injuries and we absolutely have to stop lying about that and find out what’s going on.

So … Yeah, and, you know, and Joe Rogan is also, he’s been pretty good about just staying neutral, about asking good questions. The guy’s really smart, and he’s had some good guests on. And he’s not afraid to have the right people on, to have engaging and sometimes controversial conversation. So … I mean yeah, there are people like that. Majeed Nawas, I mean he’s… always been on our side, on… this front, I believe. Or… maybe– don’t quote me on that. He’s… a fantastic voice for… truth right now. I interviewed with him the other, well, actually it was a few weeks ago. It was… absolutely wonderful. … Yeah, I don’t know, there’s Neil Oliver, but he’s always been speaking the truth. I don’t know. There are a lot of bright voices.

Viviane Fischer: [02:19:04] I have a … where are you… now based?

Jessica Rose PhD: At an undisclosed location.

Viviane Fischer: OK, undisclosed location. In your undisclosed location, do you have, do you now also observe like we do in Germany, that there’s now a lot of talk about forgiveness? You know, that the politicians are coming out now saying, “Oh well I mean we shouldn’t be like so tough on the people who like to their best efforts try to prevent the corona crisis and all that. And we should now really like, start talking again to one another, and in the end maybe forgive what’s been going on?” Do you see that as well as a topic coming out?

Jessica Rose PhD: No, but I think it’s important. I… think compassion and… empathy are going to rule the day, ultimately. But I think people also shouldn’t be naive, and I don’t think people who clearly [have] been… divisive should get a… free ticket out of jail, absolutely not. I mean, it’s… very, I mean, I don’t like Twitter. I got banned from Twitter. But one of the good things about it that I’ve been seeing is that you can screenshot what people have been saying throughout the entire thing. And a lot of people are just saying one thing, and then doing another. And so you can catch them in their tracks. And… those people– I’m not saying I’m… against forgiveness; I’m a hundred percent pro-forgiveness. And if you’re authentic about being repentful and… really, really, really admit that you made huge mistakes and… that perhaps you even cause deaths, I’m not saying those people shouldn’t be forgiven and we shouldn’t work together with them. Because we are going to need each other.

But again, I… don’t think a lot of people should get a free pass. There’s absolutely no way anybody at the regulatory bodies do not know what’s going on here. So I don’t think any of them should get a free pass. I know that a lot of people are afraid; a lot of people don’t want to lose their jobs, which is deplorable that people are in that position. But … hey, why… is it always a handful of people that have to… suffer for the… many? I guess that’s human nature. … And on that note, I have to run to my next meeting. What perfect timing.

Viviane Fischer: [02:21:45] Yeah, let’s see … is there any– I don’t know if we have any questions from the audience, Corwin?

Jessica Rose PhD: I have a couple of minutes.

Viviane Fischer: Yeah, I think we’re almost done. Just want to check.

Jessica Rose PhD: [to pet] He’s so happy. He’s so happy.

Viviane Fischer: I’m not quite sure if we have– just for your, like in the– I think we have not explored so much the… do you know, the topic under number one: these little-known epigenetic factors of the covid-19 vaccine. If you could just, like summarize a few, give us a few bullet points on what the new finding are, how the science is moving ahead.

Jessica Rose PhD: I, I’m not up to date, so I wouldn’t be able to comment. But I… implore everybody on the subject of the potential epigenetic factors in the injections to read the paper on the double-stranded DNA breaks. I can find that title quickly and read it to you. It was retracted, but all the papers that have been retracted are the ones you should read. I’m not kidding.

Viviane Fischer: That would be good. We should also chat. Maybe it’s going to inspire also like some of the other scientists that we’re working with.

Jessica Rose PhD: Just a second … OK, so I wrote a substack called:

“Do the COVID-19 injections contain epigenetic factors including inducing cancer, auto-immunity, neurological disorders diabetes and more?” [1]

I think the answer to that question is yes. I think it does have to do with the spike. I… am on the spike side of things to a degree. And the paper that everybody needs to read is called:

“SARS-CoV-2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro”. [2]

It’s an essential, it’s essential reading. And… if you’re not really an academic and you want a… great video summary of this paper, go to Dr. Been, Dr. Mobeen [MD]. He has videos, and he explains papers with cartoons really well, and he does this paper really well, so I recommend that.

[3]

Viviane Fischer: Fantastic. Maybe could you send the link to Corwin. I think we should share it. I mean, that’s very interesting, because sometimes these things are so specialized it’s really hard to get your head around if you’re not a scientist yourself, but–

Jessica Rose PhD: It’s by Dr. Been. He’s… a gem. He– I have been dying to get, to… be on his… show. Because sometimes he has guests on, and… he… just, he does a really lovely, he has a lovely way of explaining very difficult science with cartoons. So like, even kids can follow along. I will find it right now, and I will send it to you.

Wow, he has so many. Antibody, he does antibody-dependent enhancement. Yeah, he does everything. Let’s see, we need some more key words here. One second. I know … V(D)J recombination.

Viviane Fischer: OK. I think that we don’t want you, to keep you longer, because you have your next appointment, as you said. Maybe just send it to Corwin, and we’re going to link it on the… Telegram channel, so people can find it, because I think it’s going to be, it’s very insightful, I think. And these, I’m also very curious–

Jessica Rose PhD: Here, I found it, ad I sent it.

Viviane Fischer: Super, Fantastic. Yeah, thanks so much for giving us this update of what’s been going on. And yeah, let’s stay in touch and … who knows what’s going to develop in the future. This is an ongoing, it’s a developing story, we must say, yeah.

Jessica Rose PhD: Yeah I… think that… the truth will out. I… have no doubt. It’s just too bad that so much crap has to happen and so much damage has to be done on the way. But punching through censorship has always been hard, but we’ll prevail.

Viviane Fischer: Yeah.

Jessica Rose PhD: I’m sure.

Viviane Fischer: I’m sure, too. OK, thanks so much for… all these–

Jessica Rose PhD: Thank you, guys.

Viviane Fischer: Yeah, we spoke to Dr. Jessica Rose, biologist, researcher and data analyst, from an undisclosed location, who gave us some more insights into what’s been going on in the… body after vaccination, and also with regards to, yeah, a possible more lethal pathogen that was, that’s artificial

---

Vielen Dank für die Überarbeitung des Transkripts an das Team von corona-ausschuss-info + Ed.

Automatisches Transkript

Es liegt zurzeit kein automatisches Transkript zur Sitzung vor. Wir bitten um Geduld, dieses Archiv befindet sich noch im Aufbau und wir werden bald ein automatisches Transkript einstellen.