Transkript der Sitzung 137: Vom Gleichnis des Dorian Gray
Verweis
Hier finden Sie Transkripte der Sitzung 137: Vom Gleichnis des Dorian Gray.
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 für jeden Gastbeitrag der Sitzung ein überarbeitetes Transkript vor.
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler (Englisch)
Viviane Fischer: [02:58:48] And I would propose that we move on. First we had planned you and Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. But we have an external guest with [us], and if you are ready, I would prefer to talk to him now, as they have limited time.
So we have with us Dr James Lyons-Weiler. He’s a research scientist, president and CEO of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge. So last week, we had Dr. Victoria Alexander with us, and she is also working, or associated to this Institute, which is a nonprofit, not-for-profit organization that conducts research in the public interest.
Can you hear us?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: I can. Thank you for having me.
Viviane Fischer: OK, fantastic. Maybe it would be great if you could maybe give us, or the audience, a little bit of your professional background, so they have an idea, do you know, what’s your specialties are.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD:
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
I’m a biomedical research scientist, with a background in evolutionary biology, primarily. I moved into biomedical research professionally, my second year my post-doc. I was at Penn State University, and I was on an Alfred P. Sloan fellowship for two years. And this point in time, new technology was being created and used to start to analyze thousands of genes at a time from cancers and other tissues. So it was a high-dimensional data analysis paradigm. And I knew that the clinicians that would want to use the technology would not be sufficiently schooled in the area of data analysis. And my own background and research in the use of molecular sequences, protein sequences, and genome sequences and phylogenetics prepared me fairly well. My graduate training and Ihad multi-variant statistics and some machine learning, prediction modeling.
[03:00:58] So I’m an empirical scientist, and from 2000 until 2014, I was at the University of Pittsburgh. I was put in charge of a bio-informatics analysis corp. I had four staff members. We would meet with clinicians asking all kinds of questions, using all kinds of science. We analyzed genomic data, genetic data, what’s called proteomic data. So proteins present in serum or cerebral-spinal fluid.
We really focused on the question of the etiology of disease, but also to be able to predict the clinical course of disease or treatment. So there was diagnostic science, there was prognostic science, and it was great, great gig. All that told, by immersion I became aware of how clinical research is done by practice. I learned a lot about molecular biology. I learned a great deal about viruses and bacteria, how they create disease.
After 2014, I started writing books. My first book was on ebola, because that’s the year that ebola took off in West Africa. And then I, through my book writing, it was a purely academic exercise of trying, I tried to write a chapter that celebrated the success of vaccines. And I was terribly disappointed in the quality of the science and the type of science that was used. And so I decided that I would spend a good deal of my research time– I’m no longer at the University Pittsburgh– I created IPAK, because you can’t do this kind of research within mainstream academia: they will cut your funding, or they will cut the funding to your entire department, if you ask questions about vaccines.
[03:02:54] So anyway, from that period in time, I have been doing research, some on vaccines, some on the molecular biology, the etiology of disease. Xx corona virus, SARS-COV-2. looking at aluminum adjuvant toxicity in vaccine and quantifying that, whole-body toxicity. I have a good publication record. As an independent scientist, my statistics from publishing are better than when I was, you know, a cog in a wheel at a major university. And I used to say that I had the best job in the world at the Bioinformatics Analysys Core, because the scientists there, the clinical researchers would come and talk to me long format for an hour about their science. So I learned really well. Now I have the best job in the world, because I get to reduce human pain and suffering without any profit motive and keep the bad guys honest– well that’s what we’re trying to do, right?
Viviane Fischer: [03:03:51] OK, very interesting. So you brought with you like a few different, I mean a kind of, do you know very, like a variety of topics. And I don’t know if you would like to start with the black plague, which is where you had some interesting findings.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Oh, well the history has the findings, actually. So we’re told that Black Plague as a disease, you know, caused deaths. But it didn’t take much doing– I got curious one day last year, and I said, “Well I’m sure that the medical community back then, the physicians tried to treat the plague, but what if there was iatrogenic disease back then? What if there were adverse events due to treatments back then?”
And on my Substack, which is “popularrationalism”– and last month I decided to check my readership. I’m surprised and very happy to say that I have about forty thousand reads a day now on popularrationalism, kind of blows me away. Thank you, for everyone that reads and shares that. It’s all free but you can sign up for a paid subscription if you want. But the narrative that I found in the literature was that there were mercury-based treatments for plague, and that the symptoms of the people who died from plague compared to the people that didn’t die from plague were consistent with mercury poisoning, which is rather fascinating, right? So how widespread was this, right? That’s an epidemiologist question, we don’t have real data on that. But it’s an interesting possibility that a good amount of the morbidity and mortality that’s attributed to… the plague bacterium may in fact have been bad medicine. And it’s haunting really, to think that what we see now that’s happening with the deaths and morbidity and mortality from lack of proper treatment, for early treatment of covid, as I’m sure you have discussed here, and the serious adverse events to the deaths that follow covid-19 vaccines, and other vaccines and other medicines, may have had a completely different trajectory harking back all the way to… the Dark Ages.
If people had started asking questions about possible role of how we are treating patients, it’s… haunting, really, to think about what medicine could be if there was more transparency about this and earnest interest. You know, in the United States– and I’m going to speak parochially, and I understand the population I’m speaking to, so I apologize for that– but iatrogenic illness caused by medical errors alone, just medical errors, is the number three cause of death. That’s independent of when you’re not making a mistake and give the patients the right kind of allopathic medicine, per your protocols, per your societies and so on.
So you know, to my mind right now, allopathic medicine is a major killer, a major killer. It’s a major cause of chronic illness not just vaccines, but certainly very important among them. And again just the message, if you find that article and… if you share, maybe we can share the link to that article, it is absolutely haunting to think about how many hundreds and hundreds of years have gone by of people doing medicine without asking the right question: who’s going to respond well to this, who is not going to respond well to it, and are there excess illnesses and excess deaths beyond what we expect for people who accept particular treatments.
That’s one of the things that I did at the University of Pittsburgh especially the first three or four years: I worked on biomarkers– [serum] biomarkers, genetic biomarkers, gene-expression biomarkers– to predict the outcome of the critical course of patients who were taking particular approaches to treatment for cancer. And the Early Detection Research Network at the National Cancer Institute and… I, I’m going to say maybe 40 or 50 scientists are involved, really super-optimized how to do appropriate prediction science with machine learning, back 2002 to 2005, I think I would say.
So that we got very, very good at doing them. And now my focus is on creating clinically actionable prediction models to say who’s going to get serious covid, who’s going to respond well to certain treatments for covid, why do certain people get serious covid and other people don’t, who’s going to suffer an adverse event for vaccines of all kinds.
And… part of my research is focused on the adjuvants, of course, thimerisol, mercury, different various forms of aluminum. and we have a good track record, a publication track record, to… the point where we’re creating an app for your cell phone so that people who are forced to vaccinate, some are forced to vaccinate their children in the United States, can punch in the doctor’s recommendations on vaccines and it will actually calculate the whole-body toxicity, how long the child will be in toxic levels of whole-body toxicity using the pediatric dose limit that we published in 2018.
So this app is about two-thirds of the way completed. And we’re going to be going into beta testing I think next month, if everything goes well. The purpose of the app is not to convince people to take vaccines or not take vaccines. The purpose of the app is so that parents have a leg to stand on when they say you’re proposing that my child take five vaccines over the next two months, and this tells me, the science tells me, Dr. Lyons-Weiler’s three publications, and the modeling tells me that you’re proposing to put my child into whole-body aluminum toxicity for the next 180 days.
This was a rational approach to than asked next question: what can we do about that? Can we space them out, can we find non aluminum containing vaccines? Is there any vaccines that I might reasonably skip because we don’t currently have this disease circulating locally? So these are tough questions for the pediatricians in my country, and maybe tough questions for pediatricians where you are, too. But they’re not tough questions for rational, thinking people.
Viviane Fischer: [03:10:38] Can ask you, like with regards to this black plague I’d be interested to like how, since it’s a while ago, how… is it, was it possible to kind of detect these hints for, you know, for these … medical malpractice, basically?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Well I mean, here’s the thing. If the physicians at the time knew that mercury was toxic, then it would have been medical malpractice, right? So the… it wasn’t my research that did it. There’s another article that I cite that, kind of innocently, really stepped into it. This… person who wrote this article that I cite gives all the details on bad outcomes under the treatments. Now, given what we know– of course, you know, the… that the toxins in the makeup in the Victorian era, that was done out of ignorance. Now, we would never use those. But the specific treatments themselves were known to be tinctures of… toxic substances.
And, you know, the… symptoms of the patients who they’re– I’m going to ask the question: black plague didn’t kill everyone who got black plague. And so it’s a scientific, it’s an empirical, it’s a political question: what’s the difference between the two of them? And now that we will never have enough data to be able to go and say that there– even that there’s a significant association of the treatment with these tinctures and so on. But this symptomology of the patients and how the disease progressed were consistent with harm to the immune system. The… fact that the pathogen itself was made more pathogenic by mercury which– we know ethyl mercury and… methyl mercury impair the immune system in a number of ways.
You know, the first scientists that ever studied the whole cellular effect of thimerosal, which is in the United States used in 60 percent of influenza vaccines, actually took astrocytes, put astrocytes from a cell culture on a slide and treated them with direct exposure to thimerosal. In our cells, we have a… highway called the Golgi apparatus that moves proteins that are being constructed in our cell, out to the surface, where they can be secreted.
According to this Japanese research– I don’t have a citation memorized, but the Golgi apparatus dissolved. Thimerosal dissolved the Golgi apparatus. There’s no way to have a healthy cell if you don’t have a compartment, the lumen, inside the cell in which the proteins are supposed to go. We now have hundreds of papers, maybe thousands, every year focused on endoplasmic reticulum stress, or the unfolded protein response. Our cells, if the, if that lumen, or the room in which we fold our proteins– and about a third of our proteins have to be folded using energy from other proteins and enzymes that help them fold– if that room becomes filled with proteins that are not appropriately folded, then they, the cell starts to swell, and there’s two proteins on the surface of the cell that are supposed to be in contact with each other– when the cell swells, and if those two proteins are forced apart that induces something called the “unfolded protein response”.
And our cells have three potential options. One: stop transcribing genes from the genome to make more protein, so slow that down. There’s a cellular response to that. Two: stop translating proteins at the site of the ribosome, and there’s a cellular response to that as a result of this. Or three: die. And if they die, then that cell and all of its strangely folded proteins spill their contents out into the interstitial. Add thimerosal into that; now you have thimerosal– we know it causes protein, the unfolded protein response, we know it causes the E-R stress, endoplasmic reticulum stress. Add aluminum into that; we know that aluminum of the type that’s used in vaccines also causes e-r stress of itself. Now add that there are some people that just genetically have strangely folded proteins because they have mutations in their proteins and they… can’t fault properly.
And now you see that there’s a genetic risk to, sensitivity to thimerosal and… aluminum that will cause these people to have more cells die. It’s especially dangerous with aluminum, because aluminum being an adjuvant for the immune system, you have a cell, it’s diseased, it’s filled with strangely folded proteins of any number of types, it’s filled also with aluminum particles from the vaccine that get into the cell and cause this ER stress. The aluminum particles can be found in the nuclear pore of the place where RNA is supposed to come out. In cells that are treated with aluminum from vaccines, you can actually see that the endoplasmic reticulum is glommed up against the nucleus of the cell.
So you can’t fold your proteins properly, if it’s toxic enough. But the cell dies. And it spills out into the interstitium the strangely folded proteins, and also the aluminum. So you become vaccinated against your own strangely folded proteins, which the human body doesn’t see as normal, because they’re strangely folded. That’s just a good mechanism for autoimmunity, good mechanism for all the inflammation that we see in chronic illness, in people that have been hypervaccinated.
So the specific evidence, to stay on topic, the question is: some people did well under black plague; some people didn’t. And we know, for instance, that mercury also harms our immune system specifically through the inhibition of a protein called ERAP1 and ERAP2. These proteins are the proteins that are responsible for folding at the end stage, the antigen presenting molecules, the proteins that tell the T-cells what to go after, OK?
[03:17:04] So we’re looking at a serious problem with thimerosal, because we know it’s– there’s a Greek team that studied this. They looked at thimerosal, and they said: this specifically inhabits ERAP1. ERAP1 and ERAP2 are absolutely essential for properly forming our immune proteins. Thimerosal and thimerosal-containing vaccines cause maybe permanent, maybe transient, I don’t know, but they cause immune inhibition.
At the population level in the United States, I think it was a county level or a state level analysis I…looked at, the number of doses of thimerosal-containing vaccines that were administered the number one predictor of the number of– new influenza diagnosis in any year was the number of thimerosal-containing vaccines administered in that region over the last two years. So you’ve heard it before, where people take “I’ve got my flu vaccine, and then I got the worst case of flu ever.” But that’s because you just impaired your immune system. You can’t mountain proper immune response.
And I bet if ipack or other agency– or other institutions around the world looked at the question: of the people who suffered from colvid breakthrough infections, serious covid, died from colvid, long-haul covid, after vaccination, how many them also got a flu vaccine on the same day that they were vaccinated for covid? And did that flu vaccine contain thimerosal?
[03:18:43] I would predict that you’re going to see a very strong association between bad clinical outcomes [and] exposure to thimerosal, in an era of covid, in ways that are perfectly understandable from the cellular and molecular biology, etiology of disease.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [03:19:03] May I have a question … concerning the very new findings about the spike protein, the toxic spike protein? And do you know this work? Here I just present it in [my xxxxxxxxxx]. How would you– which theory could there be? You know, it… I translated it [into] German. And I may perhaps just tell the… audience here in German they found out:
Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene, die nach einer Impfung gegen das schwere respiratorische Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) mRNA eine Myokarditis entwickelten, wiesen anhaltend erhoehte zirkulierende Konzentrationen des Spike-Proteins in voller Laenge auf, die nicht von Antikoerpern gebunden wurden.
[Young people and young adults who were looking for a mRNA vaccination against severe respiratory Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) developed myocarditis, with continuously increased circulating concentrations of the spike protein in full length, which is not covered by antibodies.]
There were no antibodies. There was just the spike protein floating in the blood of those people who had a myocarditis. And they… had a lot of, had a number of cases and they… had control groups and everything. And I think it’s a very interesting, it’s a very interesting work they did. What series could you offer us which could explain what we are just hearing?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: OK, so thank you for that question. I’m glad you brought it up. And it’s very nice to speak to you in person, by the way. I watched your work, and, you know, you’re one of my heroes. So … I don’t know how that translates, but nevertheless now, now there it is.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: It’s OK, it’s OK.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: But it is absolutely known, it is a fact that the spike protein of the corona virus is a very strange spike protein. It has a very strange ability to cause two cells to lose– two cells that are side by side– to lose their integrity and to bind together. In the heart, as you know, the cardiomycedes and… the heart… cells, it is extremely important that we have a well functioning nervous system that’s functioning properly with the Purkinje fibers. It’s also important that the actual pulses of electro chemical– nervous impulses, flow in a particular repetitive [way] across the tissue field, in a manner that is consistent and regular for proper heart, for heart functioning and beating. And it’s also important that the heart cells, the muscles of the heart cells, can contract. Well, if you have a spike protein– and there’s a couple of studies, some of them may be preprints, and I don’t like citing preprints– but there’s a couple of resources that can be found, that show that the spike protein itself can cause two heart cells that are separated from each other to join by losing … yeah. They… the cell membrane…
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Is it called “fusion without”?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Um-hm. Yeah, it’s fusion. And there’s actually video of this happening in other settings where you can actually see it happening. So you end up with a multi-nucleated heart cell. It’s not going to contract properly, it’s not going to beat properly. It’s probably not going to do a lot of the basic, fundamental biology that heart cells need to do to be healthy heart cells, like get rid of the waste, aerobic respiration, the kinds of things that we would expect any cell in the human body to have to be able to do.
It be– it obviously becomes disregulated, and you’ve got two nuclei that are competing for control over what’s happening in this new-fused cell. The cell fusion then will cause the death of cells within the heart. The death of the cells within the heart will cause infiltration of the immune system macrophages first, to remove the cellular debris and the waste. The release– that action of that removal involves cytokines. So it’s absolutely important that we come to understand that the… fusion, the cell fusion by the spike protein, by causing these… syncytia, the cells that are bound together, they fuse.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Um-hm.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: And it is proof that the spike protein is a toxin. It is itself toxic. And it’s very impportant–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: …was published in March or February by the Paul Ehrlich Institute. They themselves made research on this. They spoke about the “fusion without”. They spoke about syncytia which were more than a hundred cells. All induced by spike protein floating in…, having contact with… human cells. They knew it when they put this vaccine on the market.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: It’s crazy. So the other… path of physiology that we can contemplate– I don’t have evidence of this; it would take some study of it– but those strange fibrous blood-clot-like blockages that happen may start through a process of a syncytium of circulating heart cells. See, our blood is not clear. It’s not just red blood cells and white blood cells. Our blood has a ton of exosomes; it has a ton of different circulating cells. It also has dead cells.
So what happens if the spike protein causes a syncytium? You’ve mentioned a cluster of hundreds of cells. What happens if in a.. long tube of our veins and arteries– and this may well explain why we seeing these clots in both veins and arteries– you actually see a growing thread of syncytia that start slow. And the bigger it gets, the faster it’s going to accumulate at an exponential process. And it’s going to be fibrous. It’s going to be hard and rubbery, because it’s made of dead cells that are all connected by the spike protein.
Part of the mistake, I think, was that they stabilized this spike protein mRNA too well. So it persists too long, well beyond the point in which it’s potentially useful for creating an immune reaction, if you’re going to use it for a vaccine. But also recall that the data are in. I’m convinced that some of our cells take up the mRNA into the genome, through reverse transcriptase. And if that’s the case, then our, some of our cells are producing de novo versions of the spike protein, which is a toxin. And now the ultimate immunologic fate of those cells, of course, should be that they die. But that doesn’t help the fact that we have created a factory, a spike protein factory, in any number of our tissues around the body.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: yes and we– I think they found out that those… children that were young adults and children they observed, they, I think when I remember well, I have to look it up again. When… they found out that those… children or those patients that, where they found the spike protein, that they had a different, they had less antibodies. Is it right?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Well I’m … I’m going to speculate a little now, right? So I’m… I learned this during my doctoral dissertation defense, actually when I had to ask one of my committee members: you’ve asked me the same question three different ways. I’m not going to answer, because I don’t know the answer, but if it’s okay with you, with your permission, I will guess.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: The authors, they say that there is a lot of science to be done, so you’re with them, then.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Yeah yeah yeah. All right, so this is speculative, which is different than saying that we know that the spike protein’s a toxin, ok? But this is speculative, and my speculation on this, is that the body has a different immune response to autologous cell death than infection, right? The vaccine is supposed to mimic an infection. If the vaccines are killing our cells, it’s more like a tissue injury, all right? There’s a completely different immune response to tissue injury. It’s the same immune system. And when I teach my course at ipak edu, which is all on line– I had 107 students take my biology of immunology course last year– the first lecture that I give is about tolerance. It’s the most important thing about our immune system: knowing self from non-self.
It’s important for developmental biology, it’s important so we don’t kill ourselves with our own immune systems, your auto-immunity, it’s important for cancer. And then we also, by the way, have to deal with pathogens. Most people think pathogens are the most important thing. No way. Our immune system handles pathogens with seven layers of defenses, can’t stop. It’s having, it’s like on a nuclear sub, the most important thing of a nuclear sub is not that you can feed your sailors. It’s that you don’t have a problem with your nuclear reactor, right? And the… auto-immune attack that we see involves cell death, recruitment of those immune system to the local… and it’s the same thing with brain injury, it’s the same thing with any injury. … immune response. Any time you get a tissue injury. But it’s a fundamentally different immune response than infection.
So they’re… off their mark with the spike protein, because they’re causing this other autologous attack, you know, immuno-reactive [channel] proteins within ourselves that are, we then have a problem, of course. When I published my paper on pathogenic priming in April 2020, I made cellular predictions, I made tissue predictions on which proteins were likely to be the problem for autoimmunity. But it still kind of amazes me that this particular virus has so many possible ways of inducing autoimmunity compared to other… viruses. It’s just remarkable.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [03:29:24] You mean the virus, the corona virus, or you mean the spike?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Both. So spike protein is number two, in terms of the number of autoreactogenic epitopes. There’s the, what is it, the MP3 or something. But it’s really remarkable. When I published that, I didn’t have any laboratory data, but Aristo [Vojdani] and his colleagues at Harvard University took my analysis, repeated it, extended and validated, that yeah, [T-cells] in our immune systems will become autoreactogenic if they respond to this again. And I’ve been saying this since 2015: we have to take out the unsafe epitopes, the unsafe parts of the proteins, if you’re going to have a vaccine program.
In the United States, our regulatory… requirements for producing vaccines do not require the testing of safety for excipients or ingredients. The aluminum, you don’t have to do dosage [safety testing]. Mercury, you don’t have to do dosage [safety testing]. For the proteinaceous part of the vaccine it is required. There is no dosage safety testing on these, and it’s– now we can modify the mRNA, so I’m not advocating for it, but they could take out the unsafe epitopes, right?
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [03:30:39] There are so… many mock-up vaccines, where they just change the antigen and they leave all the other stuff inside, which they some years ago had some works on. So they just use it again and again. And I think is a very a blind fly, they are flying, blind flight. That they don’t know what they fly.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Absolutely. And that is exactly why the… vaccines that were developed that also used another virus or modified virus fail: because you have to suffer the pathophysiology of what that modified virus or proteins were doing. While at the same time, your immune cells are under attack, all the tissues are under attack…it’s just a… just a wreck. This entire thing is a wreck. It’s a good thing that we have science alive and well, in spite of guys like Anthony Fauci, and of the CDC, the US CDC, who would just prefer not– and the FDA. They all recently acknowledged they’re no longer going to wait for peer-reviewed science when they make their policies. They might– they’re going to rely more on these preprint servers, which I think is a big mistake. We do need to have some checks and balances on what people are saying, especially you know, given the fraud that happened, outright fraud on the Ivermectin story, of just fake data, showing, you know, ivermectin doesn’t work.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Or producing those dying people from overdosing hydroxychloroquine, was in the beginning of the whole thing.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Yeah. Meryl Nass is a good friend of mine, Dr. Meryl Nass. and she outed them for that and brought an end to that trial. I don’t know how many lives she saved, but she deserves an award. And that’s worse than fraud, right? I don’t know why in the United States when you do something like that, you’re not charged with murder. And I’m not being dramatic. I really mean it. There’s a… in Michigan in the United States, there’s a doctor who was diagnosing patients with cancer, who never had cancer, so he could bill for the chemotherapy. And instead of giving them saline and saying, “My gosh, look how well these vitamins are helping you to tolerate…” he actually gave them the chemo, and some of them died. But he’s been given 70– this is in my book Cures Versus Profits 75 years in prison.
Well, where’s the civil law in that? Why did the sheriff’s department not arrest him and also charge him with murder?
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: You know, there is… a systematic corruption in… our country, too. Because, you know, the the hospitals are paid. There are those, and then the… health insurances get money from their, from the central fund when they have very ill people, and whether those people are very ill or not, they find out with the data. The data the doctor delivered, was the doctor give the diagnosis. The doctor earns more if he has more [diagnoses]. And the insurance gets more money when there are more [diagnoses]. And whether the diagnosis was right or not. This is controlled by by checking it or matching it with the medicines they take. So if you have some psychological problems, and you don’t take 180 days a year, a psycho-drug, you don’t have a psychic disease.
So they care for you that you take at least 180 days, you take this drug. And there are many, many other incentives like that, that the people get drugs so that the health insurance gets more money out of the fund. And that the doctor who follows this, he also get some money for this. So it’s… horrible what happens like that. There is no indication for such things, except this indication: the doctor sees how he can earn money. And the insurance too, they follow it. It’s in the system. It’s politicians who made it like this, and the pharmaceutical industry is behind it.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: [03:34:31] Yeah, absolutely. So these perverse incentives… Dr. Paul Thomas and I actually quantified the perverse incentives in the pediatric vaccination schedule. But we have… published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research [sic]. But with covid, remember that before they started really seeing lots of hospitalizations, they said: go home and get as sick as you can first. No treatment, no chicken soup, no– nothing. And they also– this happened right after the lockdown. We had three months starvation period for allopathic medicine, big medical centers, hospitals. where they had no revenue. So you starve their budgets for three months, you make them dependent on this for survival, and you say: for every admission to the ICU, for every admission to the hospital, for every diagnosis, for every hospitalization–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: For every test. For every test.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: For every test, for every person put on a ventilator, and then the sickest part, of course, is for every death. If you have a positive financial incentive for death, then you’re really doing something horrible. But another part of my research is, I… created with Dr. Sin Hang Lee and a lot of other people here in the States something called the Nucleic Acid Assay Technology Evaluation Consortium, because I could tell in May, by May of 2020, that the way that the CDC decided to construct the PCR and use the PCR tests using our RT-PCR in a non-quantitative way, without internal controls, that they would be able to use high thresholds. And we now see huge numbers of false positives. And it’s really odd that public health decided to pronounce–
Listen, I’m a good actor, right? So when I saw this happening, the first thing I did was I wrote e-mails to Peter Marks of the FDA, and I said, for the companies that you have turned to, to get emergency use authorization of your PCR tests for covid you have required proof and evidence that their kits can detect the virus when it’s present. But you haven’t put the demand to them to require that they actually show you that it won’t detect the virus if it’s not present. What they did instead was, they just used bio informatics. They took these sequences of their primers that are used in the… kit, and they blasted them, or compared them to the human genome, and said, “There’s no problem here.” That is not empirical evidence of any kind. The FDA wrote back to me and said, “Thank you, Dr. Lyons-Weiler. We’ll take your comments under advisement.”
And then we ended up with an arbitrarily high cycle threshold that was used every time. If you know any– all molecular biologists who do PCR will understand that unless you have an internal control on PCR tests, there’s variation in the initial sample material that you pipette. There’s variation from investigator to investigator, or lab tech to lab tech.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: … the labs published that they only analyzed the e-gene because they want a bigger, put super– they wanted to make more tests, because it’s easier. They only took the e-gene, so it’s, it was–
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: … Being an evolutionary biologist, and I watched as the PCR test started to fail, also, to detect, right? So you will recall that the “South African variant”, as it was called, started spreading in the UK, that there was something called the “S-gene dropout”. Well some brainiac decided to put one of the primers on the spike protein, the immunologic target of our immune system and of a vaccine. And lo and behold, that, one of those primers dropped out. They called it “S-gene dropout”.
[03:38:28] Well, for four months, we had S-gene dropout, before the UK, sorry, the South African variant as it was called at the time, with people who had that variant, you couldn’t detect it because they had two out of three PCR rule. You have two– you have three primer pairs; if two out of three, or three, or better, light up, then you have covid, or they have the presence of the virus. Well, if one of those primer pairs drops out, you’ve dropped your sensitivity to 50 percent. So 50 percent of the people were just walking away from the PCR test saying, “Hey, I don’t have… the virus.” That–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: If they walk away like that, they didn’t have it.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Yeah. Well… no, no, I mean, listen, the three out of three. But it’s the failure of the kit. So the fause… negatives were a problem. Well Andrew Rampa is a very famous virologist. He’s published in Nature and… Science and so on. And I called him out. I started a thread between him and a bunch of evolutionary virologists and biologists. And I said, “Andrew, why are you saying it’s a good thing that the S-gene dropout happened?” Because he’s publish this in Science or so. And he was also, by the way, in that… group that Anthony Fauci called to discuss “Let’s… make the lab-origin thing go away.”
So Andrew wrote back and said, “I’m not sure that you’re interpreting what I said correctly” But if you celebrate the S-gene dropout because now we have a way to diagnose the difference between this variant and that variant, and that there’s some clinical or meaningful difference there– that’s ad hoc, it’s not by design. We can just design tests to find the differences. But it’s also then very odd, because in the next year, we had S-gene dropout happen again, without changes to the variants. There’s something very strange about these PCR tests. So the… high false-positive rates– Dr. Sin Hang Lee, Milford Connecticut, United States– we funded his research and he’s published now that we have a huge false-positive rate using PCR for detection.
But public health– it’s very strange, because public health tried to convince everyone from the beginning, without any data, that there is zero false positives, including the state epidemiologist of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I was giving testimony during a case where they wanted to shut down a restaurant who wouldn’t follow the public-health demands. And the state epidemiologist submitted written testimony, which I hadn’t seen. And I submitted my written testimony. In my written testimony, I showed four studies, I sharesd four studies that showed false positives with the PCR. She wrote, “There are no false positive with PCR.” You would think that we would win the case. Instead, the judge threw away the written testimony and took… oral testimony only. And the lawyer for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided to attack my credentials on whether or not I was expert in the things I was commenting on. And if you go and read my Wikipedia page– it was a result of that attack on me, that’s the reason why I have a Wikipedia page. They don’t want me testifying.
[03:41:44] So … we have to hold these people accountable for their wrongdoing. It’s not enough simply to say that they were wrong, they made a mistake, they didn’t know what they were doing.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: There were many criminals among them, yes. We were speaking about the criminal side of all of this, all the time. And there is not only the law, the… judges and the… courts. There is also the science institutes. There– this one I just showed, this from… Junge and others. They also speak about a very serious disease. They also speak about very dangerous corona viruses. Still we have to be careful, and so on. They… go on with frightening people, and for sure they’re– in most of those, even in the critical studies where you find something which is… questioning the… narrative, you always find some … at the end also you find that yes, it’s a very serious thing, and we have to go on making research.
And this only shows me that those people, they don’t dare to say we are just… working within a big pile of hoax. But we– they don’t dare to say, because they wouldn’t find any sponsors any more. It is so sad to see this gesture in those works, those scientific works, always this gesture of “Oh yes, but this is very serious”, although they found out the opposite, that the people are damaged, with… the so-called… vaccines. So–
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: … so think about also the fact that in Fauci’s– I call it Fauci’s protocol, he’s not a medical doctor to treat these kinds of conditions. He told everybody just go home and stay home for 10 days. Get, see if you get seriously ill, if you have tested positive for covid. In an era of covid, where you have a one hundred percent specificity, that is, no false positives… OK, maybe. But in an era of covid, where 40 or 50 or more percent of the people are testing positive don’t have the virus, it–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: We did not have any tests all those hundreds of years and we knew how to deal with the flu.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: This is true. But hang, on just a minute. Because I’m pointing a finger at the malfeasance. The malfeasance is: sending people home with a false-positive covid test and telling them not to seek any other medical care until you’re so sick you have to go to the emergency room. What about respiratory syncytial virus [RSV] and influenza?
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yes.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: What about bacterial pneumonia,
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yes.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: which is pretty treatable with antibiotics? Those people got seriously ill, those people were hospitalized for covid. Those people were treated for covid, not the disease that they had. And they have the… chutzpah to accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about. That medical malfeasance happened all across the world.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yes. Yes. This will be very interesting for future scientists who want to find out what happened in the medical system, you know. When you see all the fires of patients and most of them are digitalized now. This may be, it may be easier to find out what the doctors thought of, and what they had to forget. Because the… hospital told them not to think of such things. And it… shows the way how people did their medical practice has changed completely in the last three years. There were… giant blind spots produced by the propaganda in the doctor’s eyes. And there were other blind spots which were produced by money incentives.
So you can… easily– we have so many cases, so many files from hospitals. You could– from the health insurance data, you could very easily find out this systematic, really very, very big systematic bias which… helped those propaganda people to make up their stories. It’s… so much lie.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: The fact that influenza just basically disappeared and from CDC records and an impact on the money and so on. So these people that died from pneumonia, right, that they couldn’t recover with their non-covid non-protocol for covid, those were unnecessary deaths. And then, you know, you’re talking about in the future. Well right now, there’s a solution to this. It’s still not too late. Any hospital can sequence using Sanger sequencing, right. The FDA acknowledged this, at least in the United States, that Sanger sequencing is the gold standard, not… the PCR test. This non-quantitative PCR test can’t be a gold standard for covid. It doesn’t work that way. You have to sequence it.
[03:46:40] So if you have a sufficient– and Dr. Sin Hang Lee, to his credit, he’s a great humanitarian. He was–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: He was here last time. We… spoke with him.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: … published the primers sets for his clinical tests for covid. He doesn’t want to make a million and he doesn’t want to… become a millionaire, and he doesn’t want to do all the testing. Any hospital can do this confirmation test and rule out covid. The fact that Peter Marks and the other people at the FDA have been doing nothing about this means that they need to step down. And we’re not going to stop. We’re not going to rest until they’re out.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [03:47:15] And it’s so easy. You even can make such a multi testing where you have 26… germs at the same time. You have viruses and bacteria. It’s the same, like the PCR test. You make it with a similar machine; it’s similar fast. And you have it– you have something more, if there is symptoms. It’s… no use making such things with the people without symptoms.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: I agree, as an expert in complex diagnostic pathology. We absolutely should only test people who are symptomatic, or who spent a long time with somebody who was proven by sequencing to have them, the virus. You’re right about that.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yeah, but you, should we– The next question would be: those people working in clinics … with cases and have cases, have contact with cases. Should we… make diagnosis if they feel well?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Oh, no, we shouldn’t, of course. So… even now, today, we don’t recognize that the unvaccinated people who have measles confer a booster dose of infection to the vaccinated– if the vaccine works. The Japanese researchers recognized this years ago.
So I’m sure that people “get… covid” underneath this ridiculous definition of having covid from having a PCR test positive, or even having a virus. We get viruses all the time, but not disease. You’re right about that.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yes. So…
Viviane Fischer: It’s a big mess.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Yeah. It is. And I’m happy to tell you that a journal, Science, Public Health Policy and the Law which is peer-reviewed, you know, published a traditional, long-standing protocol by Dr. David Brownstein, that is very effective for all respiratory viruses and other respiratory pathogens. He simply decided that he was going to continue doing the same medical practice he’s always done in his practice.
You know, it’s funny, because when covid really started taking off in terms of numbers and numbers of ill, you know he called me and he said “What do you think about this? xxxxxx it’s kind of scary, right?” And he told me that his staff decided that they were not going to come in to work next week. And he says, “What are you talking about? We know what we’re doing.” Then he started treating them with high-dose vitamin D, high-dose, you know, vitamin A, high-dose vitamin C, ozone injections, peroxide injections. And he had a– when he published that case series, he had what, a hundred and two, I think, patients that he treated. No deaths. This is when, in an era where they were saying, “You’re going to get, you know, 20 percent deaths in diabetics.”
So you know, we have the science on our side. We have the data on our side. Now what we have to focus on is, unfortunately, using political influence to change policy, informed by, as you know, real evidence, not contrived evidence. Guys like Fauci, who had a meeting with Edward Holmes, Christian Andersen and Andrew Rambo and Robert Carey and Drosten to try to make the story of the laboratory origin go away. We know about that because laboratory origin is really kind of cool to talk about, right? It really gets you. But what other cause did he have, to change policy without science, to dictate from his office what everyone must think?
And, you know, he’s… a failure. His… he’s one of the greatest scientific failures of all time.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [03:50:49] You know, I… refuse to make people fear, have fear from laboratory-produced germs, because when you… make a… dangerous germ there, it has to reproduce, it has to be spread. And it only can spread when the people are healthy. If they get, if it’s dangerous and people get ill and they stay at home, it doesn’t spread so well. Those…viruses are the most successful that you don’t even feel. And there’s evolutionary evidence that dangerous laboratory viruses– it’s– I’m not interested in them. They earn money with– making such games, they get money from the Defense Department to… build some new weapons, like other useless weapons.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Yeah.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: And they frighten us with those weapons.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: That’s right.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: But they cannot really– those weapons, the viruses they construct, they cannot do us harm. They can do harm to the family of the researcher. They can do harm in a small perhaps, surrounding. But they can never make a pandemic.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: What you’re talking about is the trade-off between transmissibility and virulence. And, believe it or not, within the virology and public health literature, there’s been a change in the definition of virulence. When I think about virulence, it’s the ability to, you know, infect tissue and cause disease.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yes.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: But they want to confuse, and say virulence is transmission, and you see this in the press, too, “Oh my gosh, this xxxxx–”
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: They did the same with herd immunity…. Herd immunity is only when you get vaccinated.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Right, right. As if they could change reality just by the semantic definition. They’re not– they can’t change reality this way. But this trade-off between the transmissibility and the virulence is extremely well known. The more transmittable you are– you have to be less virulent be transmissible, by definition, because the deadly viruses take out their hosts. Right, it’s patently obvious, it’s like virology 101.
So you’re right that we should be a less concerned, we should be less concerned about that. And then also because we may have 50 ercent false positives. We can all… reduce our fear factor by at least 50 percent. However afraid you are, reduced it by 50 percent across the board right now.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [03:53:20] And they… had to produce something to frighten us, so there had… to be some dead people. And they did it with hydroxychloroquin, and they did it with ventilators. And they did it with putting old people from…– into intensive care. And all… those cruel things they did. And they produced some dead people, not all over the world, but in some centers where there were cameras. And they showed them, and they frighten us. And this– in the same time, they made this nonsense PCR test, and they said, “This is it.” When the PCR test– “This is the same thing from the lab, and the same thing that people die from. And the test is representing this dangerous illness.”
They made up those three things. They used three things: they produced dead people, horrible pictures. They produced some dangerous virus in a lab where we can discuss on the… sequences and everything. And then they made this nonsense PCR test which produced so-called “cases”.
And this is the whole story.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Yeah. No, you’re right, you’re right. So the fundamentals shifts that took place include changing the diagnosis of covid to PCR-positive; “died with” as equal to “died from”. All of that. We can never forget that. All of these shifts in reality and how we understand things. It’s not as though we don’t know this, right. It’s that they– we now know, and there are people who are in very powerful positions whose lives have been destroyed, because of the pack of lies that they called covid-19.
And you know, I’m not one to say I’m not going to worry. If I lived next– If I lived in Wuhan Institute for Virology, I would move. If I lived near it, I would move, right. Because you’re near a, an epicenter. OK fine. But the–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Eleven million… people living there. Eleven million.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: But did you consider, Dr. Wodarg, that covid, SARS-CoV-2 relatives have come into the human population every year, for as long as anyone has been a human being, probably.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yes.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: And the people– what you’re saying is, OK so SARS-CoV-2 actually has an ancestor, an ancestral sequence, that’s different from G-13. It’s called HKU33. but nobody knows about this. HKU33 hasthe same exact three-prime epitope– sorry, what is it called? functional motif pattern as SARS-CoV-2. But it just looks like a normal SARS virus in… the literature.
So a truly deadly virus from China that’s in nature, comes into humans, will give someone bad respiratory illness, and they die, maybe some relatives die. And they’re going be given some nondescript diagnosis. But the… manifestation of new deaths that never would have happened include[s] of course, as we discussed, going home and getting as sick as possible for ten days. That’s never happened before in the history of medicine. And that’s because public health took over allopathic medicine. It was… a hostile takeover of allopathic medicine. It’s takeover is complete.
[03:56:48] And why do they do that? They do that because they have a product that’s a billion-dollar drug for eternity. It’s paid for by the government. It’s liability-free. And they’ve created this for-profit medical institution of big medical centers, that in a capital– a truly capitalist society requires competition over prices. Instead, they price-fixture the market, and it needs infinite growth. So you have to have more and more and more sick people if everyone’s going to get a bonus or a raise. You’re going– to be able to afford this inflated parasite that’s on our back of allopathic medicine. We do need to downsize, and it’s going to be awful. They’re undergoing an implosion right now.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: There is one switch where you can switch all this off: no patent on drugs any more. And then everything is gone. And the whole market is is crashing, is decentralizing. And yes, this will be, this will change a lot. This would change a lot. My cat has just switched off my camera, Justice.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: I think– there’s a conspiracy under way.
Viviane Fischer: [03:58:08] Can I… ask something in the meantime? You said that this definition of the [virulence] has changed. Could you tell me… like what it was before and to what it was changed?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Oh sure. So the CDC formally announced the definition of covid as evidence of the presence of a virus, right? OK. So symptomatic people have disease, by definition. Asymptomatic people don’t have disease. Disease is something wrong with your body. If I happen to go to the grocery store and I pick up an influenza virus but I’m immune, I have the virus, but I don’t have the disease. This is our fundamental understanding for ever about respiratory viruses. To say that simply because someone tested positive means that you’re subjecting all of humanity to the risk of being considered having a disease, when you’re perfectly healthy and you can handle the infection if it does even go to infection.
We have the mucosal immunity. What’s an infection, if your immune system that kills all the cells that become infected before you even feel a single symptom? You… don’t have a disease. It would be like saying everybody who tests positive for a lump on a breast cancer mammography has breast cancer. The evidence of the potential of having a disease is conflated with actually having a disease. You have to do a confirmatory test. Rochelle Walensky of the CDC, before covid, actually published that, hey, it would be really interesting some day to use RT PCR this way to diagnose respiratory illnesses. But it will require a confirmatory test that has 100 percent specificity. It’s very simple, right?–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: What are the therapeutic consequences?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: The therapeutic consequences of false positives, or of the diagnostic–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Correct… diagnosis of a virus.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: That varies a lot from patient to patient, right. So if… you’ve been isolated for a long time and you have an advanced infection, then your clinical course may be very different than someone from has an early detection. The benefit of early detection, for me anyway, is that you could take harmless interventions to reduce the severity of your illness, the exact opposite of what public health wantd you to do.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: And this depends on… viruses. So if you take some vitamin D, or if you– I think it’s the same. You… just have your immune system to work. But–
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Yeah.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: –don’t we know about ivermectin, for instance, with other viruses, with…
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Yeah. You’re getting outside of my wheelhouse. I’m not an expert in that. Maybe you’ve had Pierre Kory here on this. But I’ll say this much: that, you know, it is a shame that our clinical approach to covid, still to this day, does not include a consideration of whether the person has a prior, existing autoimmune condition; when all of the studies show that the people who progress to serious covid and are hospitalized– basically 80 percent of them have prior autoimmunity.
People that don’t have prior autoimmunity it’s only about 7 or 8 percent of those that end up in a– sorry, people that are not hospitalized or have serious covid, only 7 or 8 percent of them have prior autoimmunity.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yeah.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: So that’s, that then leads to the greater question of therapeutics, which is what do we do about autoimmunity? If we have people walking around that have Th1-Th2 skew, where they have elevated Th2, what’s causing it? And how do we reverse it? So this is a very healthy combination between the germ theory and the terrain theory. If your terrain is unhealthy, what can you do to make it better able to handle germs?
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: This… question you were just talking on has perhaps to do with, for the necessary science on on the findings on this group.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Oh possibly. There’s a… large literature establishing those… rates for sure. So when it comes to vaccine injury, then, or vaccine mortality, I’m not sure it maps that way, because spike protein itself is so toxic. I don’t know– and I don’t mean to scare anyone who’s vaccinated– but I don’t know what the long-term health is going to be. And I’m not sure it involves something that’s easily predicted by Th1-Th2 skew. Because it kind of– I think it… may depend on whether or not they can clear [from] their bodies cells that are producing spike protein or not.
You know, can they mount an appropriate immune reaction to future corona-virus infections?
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Um-hm.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Or are they going to be subjected to an antibody-dependent enhancement? It’s a… completely different game when it comes to the vaccinated. So when it comes to covid, if you’ve been infected with covid, vaccinated or not, congratulations on your… broad, diverse and deep– specialky if you were sick– probably lifelong immunity.
But if you’re vaccinated and you’ve never had covid, I have no idea what your clinical course is going to be. I can’t even begin to speculate, not just from the damage from the spike protein, but what’s it going to look like? And this is where Geert Vanden Bossche’s concerns are, may have some relevance. Not in that there’s going to be mass-casualty events of millions of people dropping dead from covid because they can’t fight off the virus.
But if you’re vaccinated, what are you going to do when your immune system itself is attacking itself through autoimmunity from the vaccine?
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: It’s right. I think it’s less the escape of… new viruses, but it’s more the, how our immune system is damaged by the… jabs. This is a reason, and we should… not think of this, of those more dangerous viruses escaping. This is the same story, for me, as with the labs. You know, I think Vanden Bossche is not right with this new danger of escaping viruses.
But there is something which is very dangerous, which is… the… consequence of… those jabs in… the very, very vast population. This is that our immune system is not reacting. It was betrayed. There was some.. stuff produce suddenly which would never come there. And it’s a really unusual thing that never can happen. And our body has never learned to deal with such things. And so we don’t know what will happen. And there are so… billions of those nanoparticles everywhere in the body, which they were lying on us too. They… are everywhere, and we see so many symptoms, people who have pain suddenly somewhere here, and suddenly there. And they have some paralyzed the right hand, or they cannot see very well.
And all that happened in the same time or some days, one symptom comes one after the other. And they don’t fit together. We don’t know any disease which is going along with such different symptoms at the same time.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: That’s right. It’s… these… confusing ouches and… these autoimmune diseases that are hard to diagnose. And– so I’ve been in contact with a good number of physicians who are speculating and looking into protocols for recovering from covid-19 vaccination problems. And the FLCCC doctors, Dr. [Sin Hang Lee]… they are converging to long fasting, as a way to purify the body. Because fasting causes your body to make a choice: what’s my healthy tissue, and what’s my sick tissue? I have to do autophagy. I have to destroy some tissue, the cells that are confused because of the presence of spike protein or syncytia.
Now. I am concerned that somebody that goes on a fast, if they have syncytia all throughout their heart and they’re somehow managing that, and it’s not that bad, that they might then have myocarditis set in as result of this. So we really have to do any of that through, under the supervision of a… qualified doctor. But, you know, the… answer to the clinical course for the vaccinated is… an open question. And I… just wish everyone well. I hope that there are protocols to reduce and… mitigate that. And I think part of that is to make sure that you have a balanced immune system.
There’s a brilliant… doctor by the last name of Doniparthi I met in Georgia. He had a display of papers. I could tell by the papers that he displayed that he knows how to take someone who has Th2 bias and move them to Th1-Th2 skew. And he’s really on top of it, because I met him six months later. He said, “Oh that last protocol I told you about, I’ve updated it because I found something better.”
So he’s treating his patients and… improving the… body, and the immune system, so they’re better able to handle these complexities, whether it’s ainfection or autoimmunity from vaccines.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Great. Could you… pass his… e-mail to.. Korvin? I think it would be very interesting to speak with him.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: [04:08:05] Yeah, he’s brilliant. He’s… absolutely brilliant. I like him a lot, too. He’s a good… doctor.
Then the… what is it? The elephant in the room is: we know what causes Th2 skew. It’s aluminum adjuvants in vaccines [that] causes Th2 skew. That’s probably the number-one cause of autoimmunity and chronic illness, until covid vaccines.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: You know, I was president of the, self, NGO, for people with rheumatism in… northern Germany. And there were twelve thousand members. And I just followed the… newsletters. And so there are more and more people now showing up saying, after this jab,
“I got, some days after, I got aggravation of… my… symptoms. And it lasted for several weeks or even a year. And then after some time and I got therapy, it was improving a little bit.”
So they… were very much suffering. It was… just getting worse. And this is because rheumatism very often is an autoimmune deficiency, and… if this, if such a, if such a task for the immune system, such a disturbance, comes in addition to what is already not going well, I think this is very dangerous for the people, yes.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: It is. Remember the vaccinated live in a world where they’re also going to get exposed to the virus. And so if you have an altered, skewed immune system that’s trying to fight off an extinct virus, and then they’re confronted with a new virus, and you have immune suppression, transcient or not, then your rheumatoid arthritis– all over the world, we’re seeing flare-ups of autoimmunity, just as I predicted in April, 2020. And if you look at your calendar, what was happening?
And by the way, I’m not… boasting. My paper was not on a pre-print server. My paper was published April, 2020, through peer review. So… I don’t like that people are making up public health policy based on these pre-print servers, because they can get it out fast. That’s just an open area for fraud. I’m a believer in peer review if it’s done well.
Viviane Fischer: [04:10:20] We have a question from the audience. And this is: do you know anything about, like shedding of this mRNA from vaccinated to unvaccinated people? Do you have any research, any studies?
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: That’s a great question. So–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yes, and please distinguish between shedding of mRNA nanoparticles and shedding of spike protein.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Um-hm. That’s exactly where I was going with it. So until the data came in, right, we were told, “Listen, the spike protein is not going to integrate into the genome. The mRNA won’t be reversed-transcribed into the genome.” But then we saw studies that came out and said, “Look, it’s happening.”
So a person that’s producing de novo spike protein from an integrated mRNA spike protein… gene, I guess we’ll call it, or sequence– can very well, probably, share the spike protein. Think about blood donors, right? You have autologous, autologously produced, autonomously produced spike protein. So I think it’s very important if you want to avoid the spike protein to bank your own blood, or to have a group of people who are not vaccinated, that are the same blood type, that will sign a card that says, “These are my blood donors”, you know. It might not be something they can do if it’s a dire emergency. But certainly for serious surgery where there’s a risk of blood loss, you can… protect yourself and your family.
In terms of shedding of the mRNA itself… as I mentioned earlier, I think they made a mistake by stabilizing the mRNA by it’s, by changing two of the amino acids to prolines. We have in our bodies endogenous, normal enzymes, that would chop up, basically any nucleic acid that is found in the blood. The study that talked about, brought up about circulating spike protein– I think it’s an interesting question.
If we have three sites, free-circulating spike proteins, mRNA; or free-circling spike protein that’s in exosomes, right? Them there’s circumstances under which you could imagine that there could be this small amount of transfer from person to person. But I don’t… imagine that anyone would exhale, you know, basically become a virus, right? A virus, because there’s not enough cellular machinery encoded in that. Or, just shedding off, like literal shedding off the skin or something.
But if you… detect the a mRNA in semen, which is a scientific question, that’s a good one to ask. I don’t have the answer to that. Breast milk, we know, yeah. You know, you’re going to… be seeing some transmission. So shedding is probably better, a better stop, a good word for this, as opposed to true viral shedding. What you want to do is stop epidemiology, and you want to look for transmission: is there an agent to transmission? So there’s a whole forensic science from looking at that, and it involves molecular testing.
But I think things are so far along now with so many people exposed to so many other people that are vaccinated, so many different ways, with different vaccines. I don’t think we’ll ever get the answer to that.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: I think if the spike protein is a protein and comes on some surface of… another person, there is this normal immune reaction on strange proteins which is functioning. I cannot imagine that a spike protein going into your mucosa somewhere here from someone else, even if it’s a toxic one, that our body does not manage. I think this is not a danger. And as you say, when you transfer blood from… a person where the spikes are included, then it might be dangerous. I think [so] too. And, but I think with the nanoparticles, maybe they are even in the mucosa. They are… even spreading so you can… vaccinate by spitting. I don’t know. But… I don’t know how much, whether the dose does something, or whether what happens then in the mucosa elsewhere … in the cells of the contact surface, what happens with those nanoparticles there. Nobody knows.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: [04:15:05] Right. We having we have this beautiful mucosal immunity. We have innate immune immunity. There are seven layers of innate immunity before we even get to adaptive immunity, right. So I suppose if somebody has a massive lasceration and someone else bleads into them or something, you know. It’s xxxxx to be so graphic, but it’s… really unlikely. It doesn’t mean I’m, I’m not defending it as an OK thing. I’m just saying I’m… asked, you know, what’s the likelihood, and what do I think about it.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yeah.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: [04:15:31] Now, as Karl Popper taught us, it only takes one case to disprove that hypothesis, that it’s, you know, is it happening or not happening?
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yeah.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: So maybe sometimes it is. I can’t quantify that, though.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: I don’t know any big epidemiological study looking for that. You know, those cases of young children in Great Britain and having this hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis. But they were not vaccinated, the children themselves. They even did not look whether the parents get the… this AstraZeneca stuff or not. They could so easily find out some correlation about this risk, because they… always found the vectors, which is similar to this. … adenoviruses.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: If you have a modified adenovirus, then yes, if it’s replicating and becomes competent, then yes, you could bring [the spike protein], yes. Yes.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: And this, they don’t look for it. There are hundreds of scientists dealing with this topic. They all get paid, and they just avoid just question, asking the parents whether they were vaccinated, whether they got the jab or not. It’s horrible.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Yeah. That seems to me to be among the list of scientific questions that I’m afraid we’re going to have to mandate. Right. We have to mandate certain studies. Some people find it–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yes, yes.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: The people have, through representative government have to mandate that the studies get done by independent entities.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: This should be, is a task of WHO. This should be… immediately they should do such things. They will never do it. They don’t protect us; they kill us.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: [04:17:12] I wouldn’t trust the result from the World Health Organization, more than I would trust the result from the CDC. So I’ve actually proposed a plan in United States to replace the CDC completely. It sounds, when I, last year when I introduced it, people used to laugh when I said this. They’re not laughing any more. It’s called Plan B. Plan B is a very interesting reconfiguration.
You mentioned decentralization. The mistake is to have public health, research and all of this in one place that can be captured by pharma.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Yes.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Right. So what’s the alternative? We create… modules that are geographically distributed. We write rules. You and your spouse and your second cousin can’t be under control of pharma. You can’t have any financial issues with pharma. Your number one job, and your only job, really, is to find out what’s killing people and making them sick. Now do your research and publish it. Don’t work together. We need 80 of these entities doing this research.
Now they write reports; they publish them; they learn from each other through the peer-reviewed scientific literature. If any of them are caught being under the influence of pharma or under regulatory control or insider trading, or making profit from their discoveries, the entire node is terminated. And then we create a new node somewhere else.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: Great. Great idea.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: We’ll vaccinate ourselves against regulatory capture.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: And then thinking about this thing: no patents on drugs.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Yeah. I agree. Yeah that’s what IPAK is. I can’t take any profit from anything that I–
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: We’ve just constructed the new system for future.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: I agree. And you can look up Plan B. It’s published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, Research [sic].
Viviane Fischer: So that I think that’s… really like future, it’s the future. So I think it would be great if you could maybe like, do you know, all these studies that you mentioned. I don’t know if we have them already or if you could like forward them to Korwin, because we would also like to share them the on the telegram channel, maybe on some other… area so people can look at that. Wow, I mean that’s… been a lot of information, and it’s… great that you– it was also really interesting to listen to that. It’s very, do you know, like you presented it in the, in a way so that also non medical specialists can follow… that easily. So very, very interesting. We should, yeah we’ll stay in touch, I think, for the… future developments and whatever if you, if there’s anything of interest, please send it to us, would be very good.
David Jungbluth, PhD; Maybe I can get one first and last question.
Viviane Fischer: Yes, of course.
David Jungbluth, PhD; Thank you very much. Maybe also on Dr. Wodarg. In a very early time, I thought this covid stuff would come from a laboratory, because we had some special things, like transmission. It was higher, I suppose. And on the other side, we had this concerted action. So to get it together it was the only explanation: it is from the… laboratory… so if I understnd it right, you both said that there’s no real danger of another artificial virus because it’s a question of surviving for a virus to… [evolve] in a less danger[ous] way.
But, at least if we follow the official narrative, what about HIV? Because we have this special constitution that it’s, yeah, under cover, yeah? so maybe they can create it in this way so it… doesn’t kill at the first time, but after some years it’s getting dangerous. So maybe this is a real danger.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [04:21:08] We have to speak about it more thoroughly with HIV. Because there’s also this effect with the drugs were killing. It’s very difficult to distinguish who was killed by virus and who was killed by the drugs. I have, I had patients, HIV-positive patients that didn’t take drugs and still survive. And they, you know, most of them get drugs. And I was in a ward where they, where… I met all those people having lymphoma and having all those cancers and having very bad diseases. They didn’t even have the typical symptoms of HIV. They would just die– they were just getting ill from the special ambulance they were just getting ill from the… consequences of the drugs they took all the time.
It’s, so to distinguish this… this is another story. When… Fauci is gone, we should start ti immediately. We know a lot already, but I think there is a lot to be done and to find out in the files of all those people who were treated and who were not treated. And to… we don’t have enough numbers. We don’t have enough evidence for this. Perhaps, I don’t know it, but perhaps there are some people who know it. But I don’t know the evidence. But I’m very suspicious. And I… now I was trapped also by this idea of a protracted infection, you know, coming later. And in the meantime you infect all the other people, which is very frightening.
[04:22:32] But I… know now that retroviruses are… permanent guests. And there are… many things that our body lives with. We don’t… even know. And we… found out there are many similarities in how our immune system arranges with all those viruses which are similar, and which we contact, on the other hand. And… whether we can, whether our immune system manages or not. It’s too complicated. And I think we should… just trust on what we see around us with the people who dies… who dies.
Who’s in the hospital, who is… what is the most important disease? 80 percent of all cancers come from smoking. And all the heart– those heart attacks from people eating too much and not moving any more. And you see so many millions of people dying. You could prevent, they could prevent that.
And what we are focusing now is some stories we were presented by some fear mongers. And I think we are distracted from what is really important.
David Jungbluth, PhD: To be honest I thought and hopeed that this would be your answer, in this way. But I wanted to hear it in your own words, yeah. So because of that I said, if we believe in the official narrative of HIV, but I think also that’s not the truth. and on.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: So… there’s another answer to that question as well. which I think is a more fundamental answer and simpler answer. HIV has a basic reproduction number, or R-nought of 1.09 if you’re, if you experience serial monogamy; and it’s between 2 to 5 if you are, you know, have… multiple sex partners. So the same exact message applies. And what just happened in that question, I’m really glad that you asked it that way, is that in our minds we replace the horror of HIV infection, that we’re told by the official narrative, with the transmissibility. It is so horrific, under the official narrative, qualifier qualifier, for HIV. And yet it doesn’t have a transmissibility of 12 or 18. And if you try to modify HIV to give it high transmissibility, so you don’t require intimate contact, you would not succeed– if it’s as deadly as they say that it is.
Now– that’s independent of treatment, that’s independent of other things. Also, you know, we locked down the entire planet specifically over covid, most except for Sweden. Congratulations, Sweden. Very, very brilliant move. But with HIV, if you know that it’s circulating in your community, you can change your behavior; you can protect yourself. So we, you know, we have to be aware of that behavior modification– and… they get this wrong with HPV vaccination. The doctors in the United States that vaccinate young adult females from HPV, they tell them, “You are now protected from HPV. Congratulations.” No they’re not.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: And they get cancer because they think they needn’t be examined any more.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: They get… they also get cancer because they think go out, they have multiple partners, they have unprotected sex. I’m not judging them; I’m just talking about these as factors. And the doctors lie to them, because they’re not protected against the types of HPV that are not targeted by the HPV vaccine, right.
So behavior modification is still an important public-health tool that we have to recognize plays into this, right? The problem is: everybody that I know simply wants to live their life. “Tell me the shortest way for me to go back to normal, and I’ll do anything you tell me to do.”
And that’s where they’ve lost their minds. And it’s important for us to develop critical thinkers, people are skeptical. And so if you want to take courses at IPAK edu, check out ipak-edu.org . Our registration for these courses closes January 31st for this semester. These are… we’re not accredited, we don’t care about degrees, we don’t care about grades. Full semester, fifteen lectures on these intensive learning experiences, live with other people in the classroom, with the great instructors. Xxx just so happy how well it’s gone. We’re… doing… a brisk business now, with lots of people registering from all around the world.
So check out those courses, because we’re teaching people science, so that they are better able to participate in discussions like this in the public square.
Viviane Fischer: OK thanks so much for your presentation here. It was really instructive. And yeah, I think we’re going to look closer into these courses or into your website and get more information.
James Lyons-Weiler, PhD: Thank you. It’s been honor.
Wolfgang Wodarg, MD: [04:27:48] …kommst du herum vom corona ausschuss….
[from simultaneous translation:] …a better way. We’ve kind of summarized it with your contribution. OK anyway, viel dank. Viel dank. [many thanks]
Vielen Dank für die Überarbeitung des Transkripts an das Team von corona-ausschuss-info + Mxx.
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.