← TFTC: A Bitcoin Podcast
TFTC: A Bitcoin Podcast
#696: How Peer Review Became a Weapon with Jessica Rose & Kevin McKernan
01:44:56
Loading summary
Transcript246 lines
- [00:07]
Kevin McKernan
You've had a dynamic where money's become freer than free.
- [00:11]
Jessica Rose
If you talk about a Fed just gone nuts, all the central banks going nuts.
- [00:16]
Kevin McKernan
So it's all acting like safe haven. I believe that in a world where central bankers are tripping over themselves to devalue their currency, Bitcoin wins. In the world of fiat currencies, Bitcoin is the Victoria.
- [00:29]
Jessica Rose
I mean, that's part of the bull case for Bitcoin.
- [00:32]
Kevin McKernan
If you're not paying attention, you probably should be. Probably should be.
- [00:37]
Marty Bent
Jessica, Kevin, welcome back to the show. Both of you at the same time. This is a first. I'm very excited for this conversation.
- [00:47]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, it's about time.
- [00:50]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah. Thanks for having us back.
- [00:52]
Marty Bent
Well, I wanted to do it earlier this summer, but you two were busy when the paper that you co authored was presented as evidence in a hearing on the Hill, which I was very excited to see. Jessica, you and I recorded about the quantification of residual plasmid DNA and SV40 promoter enhancer sequences in the Pfizer, Biontech and Moderna vaccines. I guess just for my selfish. The selfish inner beast in me. What has the last four months for you two been since that hearing? That was pretty profound.
- [01:35]
Jessica Rose
It's been four months. My God. Well, a lot of the same, actually. It's weird that. Well, I can speak for myself and say that it's very weird spending so many hours of the day responding to trolls and emails about having your work investigated and, you know, requests to do interviews with, you know, various and sundry people, like retraction Watch, for example, you know, just. Just for doing something you kind of always have. And of course, the reason for all that is the subject matter, but it shouldn't matter. I mean, it's. It's. You know, we're. We're literally just doing what we've always done, which is scientific research and writing and publication. And now it's because what we've uncovered and are trying to disclose to the public is so, I suppose, radioactive, that there's been a. Well, I don't know if it's planned, but there's been an attack launched against us. So, yeah, it's been interesting. Yeah.
- [03:08]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah. I've had similar nightmares over here. I don't call them nightmares, just hassles. I think they try to cement you in all of this noise so you can't put out the next few papers, which we've been doing as well. We've managed to be. I'm sure you have a few. Jess and I have Another one that's out with Charles Ricksey, and I put another one. I've put two out since all this started. But I'm pretty convinced, like, all of this is just meant to be like sand in the gears to slow us down. In the middle of this, I had a police department doing an investigation on people who published similar work out in Slovakia. So that's getting heated. They were asking all types of questions on who published this paper versus that paper. I've had contact with police in Pennsylvania because there's people down there making, like, violent threats against me. They're asking questions. So there's just all this madness going on or it just continues to escalate, particularly after that hearing. I think after that hearing, it just set people on fire. And the whole retraction mob is now gunning for the paper. They put it under investigation at the Journal. The manner in which they did it was actually somewhat hilarious. Some of the people who filed the complaints with the Journal, one of them is an investor, quote, unquote. His name is known, Kevin Patrick. He drummed up some complaints using ChatGPT. That turned out to be hallucinations, but he submitted them anyway and got called out on it. And he said, oh, yeah, sorry, that was a hallucination. The ChatGPT did it. That part was really funny because Pub Peer, we call them Pub Smear, they kind of go after papers they think are written by AI and they're using AI to do it. So it's this circular loop of confusion over there. Another one that occurred is Retraction Watch is kind of teamed up with this organization called PUP here. They have similar funding. Their funding's from the Arnold foundation is one of their funders. The Arnold foundation got their. They're like an Enron tycoon that decided to get involved in scientific integrity. But Elizabeth Beck is one of the moderators at Pub Peer, and she won some awards. It almost sounded like Jeffrey Epstein winning the lottery. Right. She wins an award and then gives it to her Traction Watch. And now they echo everything PubPeer does. And so they came after us one day, emailing us, saying, hey, we have this. We got the reviews from your paper. Do you care to comment on what this reviewer has to say? This is for David Jess in our paper, and that got submitted into the Congressional Record, which we were like, we're excited for, because we wish those reviews were public. We've been asking the Journal to put them public, but if you have them, let's see them. And they send over this document anonymized and all you had to do is go to the PDF corner and look at the metadata and. And it revealed who their source was, which was a person who's at a university that's funded by dfg, who funded the vaccines. So the person who wrote this screed against us, it was kind of funny because the review, I think the reason we got through review is that that reviewer went apeshit on us with all types of ad hominem attacks being like, these guys are anti vaxxers. Misinformation in peer review, you don't do that. You just talk about the data, you don't attack the people. And so he shot himself in the foot because he had some relevant complaints that we did address. But if he just put the complaints down, it would have been a better review. But he went all anti vaxxer hatred on us. And so the editor just wrote him.
- [06:52]
Jessica Rose
Off.
- [06:54]
Kevin McKernan
And approved the manuscript. But his complaint that he filed with, when he snuck this review out to Retraction Watch, he tried to do it secretly and we caught him. He tried to tell Retraction Watch that he refused, that he rejected the paper. And the editors came up and like, no, you didn't. You just said, make changes. We have that on record. So there's been this very weird pharma funded attack that's getting laundered through all these other, I don't know if they're companies or 501c3s or these nonprofit entities that hang their hat on being at science integrity outfits and they're all activated and running after basically everything we post and everything we publish. So it's kind of fun. But it's made us realize that we really have to build a new system here. We've got to start putting this on NOSTR and on Bitcoin and just get out of this whole pharma funded mess because it just creates all this noise.
- [07:56]
Jessica Rose
Yeah. As Kevin pointed out, our paper, this very, very, very rigorously peer reviewed paper, which was desk re, I think five times. Is that right, Kevin? Five or six?
- [08:14]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, I can't, I can't remember the exact number. It was a lot. And David would know. He's the one who dealt with most of the.
- [08:20]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, well, anyway, it was desk rejected, which means like outright rejection. We're not going to review it by like at least five journals. And then it was accepted for, you know, with revision and we did the revision and we, we went over this process like many times. Plus we had this guy that Kevin just mentioned who was pretty, you know, he was determined to, you know, kind of ruin our chances of getting it through peer review. But it didn't work. We got it through nonetheless. Nonetheless. 7. No, sorry. It was 11 days after it got published online. The editor sent us an email saying that it was under investigation, and that was because of this Patrick or Kevin Patrick guy and Pub Smear network. We know that for a fact. And so it's still under investigation, even though it's on the Congressional Record and even though the altmetric, you know, metrics show that it's very, very popular, let's put it that way, in the eye of the public. And, you know, people. People want to know what the hell is going on. I mean, that's the whole point. We published a study. This is what we found. You can read it if you want. You don't have to if you don't want to. Like, you know, they're incriminating themselves, if you ask me. With all of this, these attacks and with the investigations and with the, you know, lack of answers to our questions about, like, you know, how come, you know, this evidence that we've provided you, that this is actually a, you know, a targeted attack on us to. To retract our paper that was, you know, that had forethought, shouldn't enter into the discovery of the investigation, if you want to call it that. But. But anyway, the. Yeah, it's ongoing. It's still under investigation, and we don't really have an idea of how long this process is going to be. We have it on good authority that other papers that have been brought under investigation by these same types of people have been under investigation for years.
- [10:46]
Kevin McKernan
That's right. Bryce Nichols brought that up, that some of the lab leak papers are in the same kind of purgatory, and the same journal's done that to them. But I think the. The interesting thing on this topic is that I've been contacted by two other authors who have also published work that replicated our work. One is Bridget Koenig and one is Ulrich Kammer. And this same character, Ralph Marshalek, went after them with the extended vitriol, just went basically berserk on their papers. And there's a really interesting MDPI back and forth. When he went berserk on their paper, Bridget went back to the journal saying, well, look, let's have a dialogue. We'll put forward our, you know, our arguments. You put forward yours. Let's put it all on record. And the moment she put hers forward, those guys ran away from the debate and then went and Published the preprint and kind of broke protocol. And the same thing's happening here in our approach with our paper. They weren't supposed to leak. They only leaked one side of the reviews. They leaked their reviews and kept ours private. So now we're kind of exposed where you can see all of his complaints, but you can't see our response, which.
- [11:52]
Jessica Rose
Is against COPI guidelines, by the way.
- [11:54]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So they're breaking all types of rules, which shows that this is desperation on their behalf, that they're breaking all their own ethical guidelines to try to suppress this, and they have their own papers on this. So the one who came after us should have rescinded himself from the review because he had a paper that we were actually critiquing in ours. And generally that's like, okay, you have a conflict, you should step away and have someone else review this because you're actually mentioned in the paper. But he didn't do that, he hid that and went on the attack. So there's just a network of people out there that are bending the scientific record and they're heavily funded and there's an influence network out there that has kind of. We don't have all the understanding of who funds them and how, but that's kind of the open question is who are these groups that go on the attack for these papers? Because there's certainly evidence shown that this, this pub peer mob, they've. There's a group out there called Science Guardians who's gone through and submitted like 17, you know, papers that had issues that they. That were related to the people in that network. And they censored all of them. So they will not receive any, any, like, critiques of their own papers. And then if you look at the things they do critique, they're very targeted at things that are on narrative. So they support masks, they supported the lockdown pa, they supported the Surgis fear fraud, they supported the Proximal Origins paper. All these things that we know that people are screaming to have retracted, they're defending. But then when papers come out suggesting ivermectin might work or there's contamination in the vaccines, or like Walfolk, El Dieri had some work showing the spike protein might increase or downregulate. The expression of P53, which is a tumor suppressor gene, is a big bombshell paper. They went after him trying to cancel all his papers. So this is kind of what I would call steer review. There's a system in place for people to systematically suppress certain science and elevate other science, and it's dressed up in this bow of being pure academics that are after science integrity. Science integrity. But it's kind of a civil attack that's in the peer review system right now.
- [14:09]
Jessica Rose
Yeah.
- [14:10]
Marty Bent
All right, that was a fire hose. We're gonna take a step back because I did some research this morning. So first of all, if you're listening, the paper that I referenced earlier that Jessica and Kevin co wrote with a third author basically showed some evidence that there was contaminants in the Pfizer moderna vaccines, particularly SV40 genes, which are cancer accelerants and DNA fragments. In other things, it was presented on Capitol Hill as evidence, as something to explore and look into. The powers that be didn't like that. And you're describing this loose network. I'm going to pull up the screenshot of a video I watched this morning. I fell down a thread rabbit hole after going on your profiles and seeing some of the tweets that you guys tagged me in. So I think this does a pretty good job of sort of articulating this cabal, if you will, or visualizing this cabal. And I'd like you two to jump into sort of this network here. But first, like, pub here, how important is it? How much of a gatekeeper are they? How integral are they to facilitating and distributing scientific research that gets seen as legitimate in the eyes of many others?
- [15:30]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, it's a front. Like, it's like. What was that thing that store called? It was called Piano Furbishers or something. Never mind. It was a story I heard from someone that was really funny from ages ago. But it's a storefront with the appearance of being Science Integrity. The people who are working in the pub here, the pub Smear network, they're very integrally linked to Retraction watch. They got 200 grand euros from Elizabeth Bick from this Einstein Award, you know, to do what they do. Which I'm still not sure what the function of Retraction Watch is, if they're actually watching retractions and reporting on it or if they're actually helping papers get retracted. Because it seems to be like a little bit of a do loop there.
- [16:26]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, they're definitely helping because they will. Ours isn't retracted yet and they're already commenting on it, trying to help facilitate the retraction process. And even their own title on the paper that they wrote about us was fraudulent. The title of the paper they wrote about us was that one of the peer reviewers who rejected our paper leaks the review and in the document that they write, they quote the editor of the journal saying he never, he never rejected it. He actually approved it with edits. But the title of their article is misleading. They should retract their own work, but they'll never do it.
- [17:01]
Jessica Rose
Absolutely, absolutely. And by the way, for everyone who's interested, you can go, and I encourage you to do so, go onto the Retraction Watch website and look up their piece on our work. And this Rolf Marshallak, one of our reviewers, which I can say his name now because they made it public. They have a link to his review of our work, which is not supposed to be in the public forum. It's not. He broke COPI guidelines and many ethical and moral guidelines, if you ask me. And you can read his language. It's downright defamatory language about us as authors, which you're not allowed to do that as a peer reviewer. I recently did a peer review of an article and you have to tick off boxes, boxes saying you're, you're not doing this, you're not this, you're not that, blah, blah, blah, you won't do this. And this is a part of a contract. If you engage as a reviewer, you have to abide by certain guidelines. It's, it's like a contract when you click those boxes and you sign off on it. So he breached those by disclosing his review, the, the review of our paper, and by writing the review in the manner that he did. So you can, you can click on. Yeah, I know. This is, this is the.
- [18:28]
Kevin McKernan
They went off the first one on.
- [18:31]
Jessica Rose
My myocarditis paper, which is a whole other episode.
- [18:34]
Kevin McKernan
This is actually an incredibly important topic though, Jess, because you called out myocarditis like what, two years ago, three years ago, October 2021. Now they're finally admitting that. Okay, Jess was right. Exactly.
- [18:47]
Jessica Rose
Paper was right. Was that the, the children, the young males. This, this was so early in the VAERS data, it wasn't even through the frickin 20, 21 year. The signal for boys age 12 through 15 for myocarditis and VAERS was blaring. And that's all the paper said. It was a descriptive analysis of VAERS data and it got withdrawn is what they call it, without any reason why other than that it was their prerogative to do so. No explanation since then.
- [19:24]
Kevin McKernan
Actually, the journal did something even more nefarious than that because when they said that it was withdrawn, they put in this really squiggly language about it was withdrawn by the authors or the Editors or some combination above, which is a lie. It was withdrawn by the editors, not by you guys. So they led the public to believe that you guys withdrew it, which was really, really squirrely language.
- [19:48]
Marty Bent
And reading this here, too, because this is different than the paper that you were describing earlier, Jessica, this is A1.
- [19:54]
Jessica Rose
You should go to what I wrote to Retraction Watch, Marty, because it's beautiful and I stand by it today. It's four years later, and I wouldn't change my language for the world. It's up a little bit. I don't know, whatever it was that I said to Retraction Watch in quotes that they. Yeah, we're very motivated to the information in our paper to the public, pediatricians, parents and policymakers alike. This is why we decided to publish in the first place. It's extremely frustrating for us to face such censorship when professionals are in need of scientific data and discourse on the subject of myocarditis in children in these very strange times. So I appreciate that they quoted me there because that is exactly what we're facing now. And all of the papers that are at the, you know, the. The end of the. The gun, so to say, of the Retraction Watch Pug Pier mob. All we're trying to do is, is publish what we found. I mean, they went after Sabine Hazen's hypothesis paper and got it retracted. I mean, what the hell? Like, how the hell does that even happen? It's. It's an hypothesis that was about an idea.
- [21:14]
Marty Bent
It's like, about gut bacteria. Right in the.
- [21:17]
Jessica Rose
Yeah. And. And. And for those of you who don't know who Elizabeth Bick is, look up you Biome fraud.
- [21:27]
Marty Bent
Well, and this is another thing here. Just looking at this particular Reaction Watch piece, I mean, it seems like they're admitting that there is instances of myocarditis caused by the vaccine. And it looks like Dr. McCullough was basically abandoned by Texas A and M College of Medicine, Texas Christian University, University of North Texas Health Science Center School of Medicine. They both removed Dr. McCullough from their faculty. So there was professional repercussions.
- [22:00]
Jessica Rose
Right. He lost, like, many titles and positions. So did Pierre Corey. I mean, there's a long list of people who were like, just kind of, you know, normal doctors and researchers.
- [22:14]
Kevin McKernan
And more than normal. I mean, Jesus. Looks like you. McCullough is like, one of the highest cited, like, renal cardiologists in the world, you know, and they. Nope, gone. Paul Merrick as well. He's. He's like, highly published. And they, you know, so it's, there's just, there's a lot of bodies on this, on this pile.
- [22:34]
Marty Bent
Suffreak's healthcare open enrollment has started. It will roll through the end of January. Opt out of traditional health insurance, which doesn't care about you. It's imperv personal. It's expensive. They deny an increasing amount of claims. Premiums are going up. You don't have to live this way. You can opt out. I opted out four years ago and joined crowd health. I've been a crowd health member, a very happy crowd health member for four years. I've had two children, a couple of health events in that time period, and crowd health has been there. You pay a monthly fee. You contribute to the crowd. We were paying $1,800 on Cobra as a family of three. Now we're paying around $900 a month as a family of five. And that's with crowd health and direct primary care. You can opt out of health insurance. Go to joincrowdhealth.com TFTC you're gonna get $99 a month for the first three months if you use the code TFTC. Join crowdhealth.com TFTC suffreaks. This rip at TFTC was brought to you by our good friends at Bitkey. Bitkey makes Bitcoin easy to use and hard to lose. It is a hardware wallet that natively embeds into a two or three multisig. You have one key on the hardware wallet, one key on your mobile device, and block stores a key in the cloud for you. This is an incredible hardware device for your friends and family or maybe yourself who have bitcoin on exchanges and have for a long time but haven't taken a step to self custody because they're worried about the complications of setting up a private public key pair, securing that seed phrase, setting up a pin, setting up a passphrase. Again, BitKey makes it easy to use, hard to lose. It's the easiest zero to one step, your first step to self custody. If you have friends and family on the exchanges who haven't moved it off, tell them to pick up a BitKey. Go to BitKey World. Use the key TFTC20 at checkout for 20% off your order. That's BitKey World code TFTC20. Well, getting back to pub peer, like.
- [24:12]
Jessica Rose
How.
- [24:14]
Marty Bent
How much of a stranglehold do they have over this process? Are there alternative peer review systems to go through that people respect, or is this sort of the, the one that people really depend on?
- [24:25]
Kevin McKernan
I think this is the first one that really came about. And so they've caught in the mind share of academia and the journals that, okay, this is now a thing, it's out there. We, we need to pay attention to what they're finding. But there hasn't really been a competitor until people have. Enough people have been burned by this that there's now an outrage over how they operate because when they do this, they're not required to work by the same rules as what the authors of the paper have to. So they'll make some accusations, they won't be very transparent on their methods of these accusations. And then the journals freak out and often retract the paper before the authors even get a chance to get on their feet and be like, well what are you talking about? I got to dig up the data that's from five years ago. I got to find the, find the images. And there have been people reporting that often the work they do is fraudulent themselves. Like pub Smear will make an accusation that these two images are the same and then someone later will run them through an image analysis software tool and say like I put this through Matlab and they're wrong, they lied. These are not pixel to pixel identical images. Oh wait, the paper already got pulled before someone came to like defend it correctly.
- [25:35]
Jessica Rose
And I have two things to say about that that happened to us specifically on this particular paper. One of the reasons why I think this investigation by the publisher was launched against this paper was because of this Kevin Patrick comment on the pub's peer website. That was completely fabricated. It's, I'm not, it's not conjecture, it's, there's, it's black and white.
- [26:03]
Kevin McKernan
He made, he admitted to it after the fact, after he got bagged.
- [26:07]
Jessica Rose
Regardless, he made it up and it instigated like it was kind of like all that was required, if you know what I mean, to start the investigation. And the platform that provided that instigation was pub peer. And not only that, but like the, the image twin which is the software that was co developed by bic. Who is, who's this pub peer? You know, moderator. Moderator. Yeah, she co created or co developed this image twin that she uses as this tool to scan images in peer reviewed literature to see if they're, if they're fraudulent in some way. And I'm not saying that that doesn't serve a purpose but her motivation and where she is now, like I don't know what is going on with her, but she is, has lost the plot and I would Say that she never had a benevolent motivation for doing what she's doing because she's very, she's very bitey in her approach.
- [27:27]
Kevin McKernan
It's very targeted in a particular narrative and I think that's the biggest tell.
- [27:33]
Jessica Rose
It's very well thought out.
- [27:35]
Kevin McKernan
Papers they go after for a reason. And there's a consistent pattern on the type of papers that they go after. Yeah, they're very, very pharma supportive. Attack dog, if you will. So we can, to Marty's point, we can build a better system now. We don't need this. And in many ways this whole concept of peer review being behind closed doors, I kind of object to it. It's unfortunate we ended up with a journal that had that policy which I wasn't totally aware of after we submitted it and people started asking for the reviews, can we do it? And they're like, no, no, no. These all stay private and the reviewers stay anonymous. And then lo and behold, the reviewers themselves start leaking only one side of the story. So we're kind of stuck flat footed here. We can't really defend ourselves. This is what our response was. The journal won't let us release it all. This should just be on like Noster or something, right? Let these things play out on. I wouldn't even say Twitter because Twitter is censored. Like you can go to Twitter and ask Grok these things and Grok will be like, I'm not allowed to talk about this or that. And it's just there's still all types of nonsense going on on X. Nostr seems to have the right architecture for this and to what extent we can etch things into Bitcoin as well. Small bits of timestamps to just bomb proof the Nostr protocol. I think that's the way we've been doing this very recently on some of our more recent papers. We've just been etching them into the Opera turn to get all the bitcoin knots people up on our threads as well. And it's starting to catch on. I just heard word from Steve Massie that he's going to try and do this himself. Steve Massey, for those who don't know, another really important researcher. He's out there hitting on the edge of where did this virus come from? What's going on with gain of function. And very recently he submitted a paper to Arxiv which is like a site run by Cold Spring Harbor. But the problem we've had with Cold Spring harbor run preprint servers is that they're starting to filter These things at the preprint level. And as a test of this, our most recent paper, Jess, Charles and I sent it to Biorxiva, but also run by Cold Spring harbor and they censored it. They sat on it for a week and after we nudged them they're like, sorry, this is not right for our pre print server. And the day we got notice of them kicking us out of there, our paper got accepted into another journal. So it was kind of funny. We got this like, this paper's too toxic. And then the other journal being like it's been approved with minor edits like literally within the same hour, those things came through. But Steve's in this position where he has found that he's got evidence that the WIV is playing around with gain of function on a MERS virus that has got like a 22% mortality. It's absolutely frightening. And he's picked up the smoking gun on this, puts it into Arxiv archive, has been sitting on it for 14 days. And so he's like, screw it, I'm going to put up a bitcoin address and try to do what Kevin and Jess and Charles did. And I just need some funding to get a node kicked off and people can help me build the node. I'll start etching this stuff into Bitcoin and nostr. So I hope this just catches on because I think that community is far more censorship intolerant if you will help us build the tools.
- [31:04]
Marty Bent
Yeah, you tagged me in this MERS thread. So what is his paper claiming to have discovered?
- [31:11]
Kevin McKernan
He's found evidence in some of the sequencing read archives. The thing about a lot of these papers where people are doing sequencing in this field, like the coronavirus field, is they often submit the reads to public databases like the NCBI sra. And Steve's been a sleuth combing through those and taking all the reads that don't assemble or map to where they think they're going to map and finding that there's other shit in there. And in this case he found evidence that someone was playing around at the WIV with an infectious clone that contained highly pathogenic human transmissible 22% mortality. MERS is like a SARS virus, but I think it's the one that hit camels.
- [31:57]
Jessica Rose
It's like way worse. It's a hemorrhagic fever. It's got a much higher mortality rate. Yeah. So. And for those of you who don't know, the wave is the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
- [32:10]
Kevin McKernan
Oh, yeah, sorry.
- [32:11]
Jessica Rose
This place where, you know, allegedly the. The SARS 2 virus was made. I have no idea. I mean, I have no doubt that that's exactly what happened, that it was made there.
- [32:27]
Kevin McKernan
Steve is very computationally savvy. He will not have a problem setting up a node and getting this thing etched. I've given him my substack and how I did it, and I'm no genius on it either. You can use Claude now to teach you how to submit Bitcoin transactions and have it fill it out on your Start9 node and send it in. And you don't even need to go through. I was using slipstream at MARA for a while, but now I skipped that because even slipstream started to censor. Yeah, the first time I did this, I put too much. I got impatient. So I put a lot of V bytes per sat. Like, I just wanted to get this damn transaction through. So I jacked up the fees. And they're like. I got this notice from them being like, any large op returns. It was like 300 bytes. That is paying excessively. We have to manually review. And I was like, oh, to hell with that. I'm just going to fire this off on my own node and skip slipstream. And eventually someone picked it up and threw it into a block. But he'll be able to figure this out. I think there's a Bitcoin address in here I've already donated to him. So if other people want to donate, please do. It'll help him get that node going. And this is important information that needs to get immortalized because this kind of crap they're doing is really reckless. If they start playing around with viruses, like respiratory viruses that have this type of mortality rate, it needs to get exposed.
- [33:56]
Marty Bent
Yeah. And so he basically had. So he got access to, I guess, data about the gain of function around Covid and found that some offshoots of those experiments were this particular.
- [34:14]
Kevin McKernan
Some of the data they published themselves. He was able to comb through it and find evidence in those reads that basically they had some contamination in their laboratory, and he could see it in their other experiments. So they weren't intending to publish this. Steve kind of smoked it out that, okay, I'm going to go through all the data that's ever been published, all the sequencing data that's ever been published from these characters, and see if I can find any trace reads of clones that are evident, gain of function clones. And his paper goes through some of the logic on that. All right, all right, there we go. Well done.
- [34:52]
Jessica Rose
And it's Not. It's not a hemorrhagic. Sorry, I was thinking of dengue. It's. It's a rest. Well, it's an alleged respiratory, but I.
- [34:59]
Kevin McKernan
Think this is the one that hit the camels. That.
- [35:01]
Jessica Rose
That's a dromedary thing. But it's like they also were saying that SARS 2 was respiratory, but it's not. It's thrombotic. So MERS is probably. It's described as being respiratory and it probably has those elements clinically, but it's probably more thrombotic as well. But I wouldn't mess around.
- [35:22]
Kevin McKernan
You should have him on just to talk through it if your audience wants to learn more about it. He has been in this fight since the beginning. He's had really good papers on. I think he was involved in Drastic, which is a group that kind of.
- [35:35]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, he was right. That's how I know his name.
- [35:38]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, they're the ones who really sorted out that this came from wiz. From one institute. And it wasn't a pangolin mated with a bat. Bullshit. It was. It was clearly a gain of function virus, the SARS one. At least they're the ones who sorted that out and helped. And Charles Rixey, who we just recently published with, was one of those people as well, who leaked the Fuse proposal. This is the proposal that showed Ralph Barrick and Echo Health alliance submitted like, hey, let's go make a respiratory virus more infectious out of a coronavirus. And they submitted that grant application to DoD and the DoD turned them down.
- [36:12]
Jessica Rose
Because it was too dangerous, but they went and did it anyway.
- [36:17]
Kevin McKernan
Suddenly a virus that looks just like that shows up in. Shows up in December 2019.
- [36:22]
Jessica Rose
Magic.
- [36:23]
Kevin McKernan
Yes.
- [36:24]
Marty Bent
Well, what does MERS unearthing that Steve Massey has found, like, is that sitting in the lab somewhere or is he worried that that could break out or.
- [36:36]
Kevin McKernan
So that did break. A version of that broke out, I think. I think Kristen Droston was also involved in the early detection of that in the camels in the Middle east that came out. And the reason they know its mortality rate is it did kill a lot of people. I mean, not a large number in total, but its mortality rate was like 20% or more of the people that did get infected by this. And so the people at Wuhan Institute of Virology are now playing with that type of virus and putting some of the components that make it really infective into the virus to make it more infective in humans. The problem the original MERS had is it didn't Spread very far because it wasn't very infective, but it was very lethal. And he's got evidence of them trying to tweak that thing to make it more infective, which is kind of frightening.
- [37:23]
Jessica Rose
It's a trade off between lethality and infectiousness. So if you can tweak that relationship well enough, then you can get something really bad that can cause a whole lot of problems. Like if it's, if it's very infectious and not lethal, that's great because then everybody gets it and everybody gets natural immunity and we move on. But if it's really deadly and it's also infectious, then that's really bad. But normally people shouldn't freak out too much when you have something really deadly. Like Ebola, for example, doesn't spread very.
- [38:03]
Kevin McKernan
Far because it kills people before it gets anywhere.
- [38:04]
Jessica Rose
Exactly. You get these really small clusters that are easily containable, either naturally or because, you know, the government comes in and, and burns everything and you just don't have the chance of it spreading around the world.
- [38:20]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah. So I think that that's something known as Mueller's ratchet. And it's an important like evolutionary principle that if something is too lethal and kills the host before it can spread, it will be self limiting. But I think where people are starting to challenge this in the world of gain of function research is that, well, what if you have a virus that spreads but can create cancer?
- [38:40]
Jessica Rose
Yeah.
- [38:41]
Kevin McKernan
Right. It doesn't kill you right away, but maybe it's amyloidogenic and it gives you clots and so fine, you can spread it, but then you have a long tail of disease that comes afterwards.
- [38:51]
Jessica Rose
What does that sound like?
- [38:53]
Kevin McKernan
Yes, yes. That kind of sounds like. What we got with SARS is that the virus is in fact amyloidogenic and the spike protein they use to inject in everybody is as well. And now we're dealing with this thrombotic issues and potentially cancer and there could be a long wave of mortality that is slow and, and you're going to see headlines the next 10 years that doctors are baffled.
- [39:14]
Jessica Rose
Yeah. Because the thing about it is it's so insidious because honestly, and I'm saying this as a data analyst, an immunologist, whatever you want to call me, there's no frickin way we're ever gonna be able to trace this back. Because it's so convoluted now. You know what I mean? It's like all these, some people are calling them turbo cancer, but every, everybody's seeing it. There's an Increase in the rates of rare cancers, aggressive cancers, cancer reemergence. I mean, cancer. Cancer is like everywhere, all over the world. More so in the United States, I would say, and maybe Australia and Canada. But like, how the hell would we ever. Even with the DNA evidence and the SV40 evidence, even with that, how the hell would we ever trace it back to the shots unless we had like 30 years of data and we had some kind of, you know what I'm saying?
- [40:15]
Kevin McKernan
They made sure that they mixed and matched the shots and now they can blame.
- [40:18]
Jessica Rose
When, when they started doing that, Kevin, that's the first thought that went into my mind. I'm like, what? Marty? I don't know if you know this, but there was a day when they decided that it would be okay if you got a Moderna shot to get a Pfizer shot. And as soon as they. And AstraZeneca, if you got one of those, which was supposed to be 1, 1 Jensen 1. AstraZeneca, they were recommending you get these frickin, you know, modified MRNA things. And I'm like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Not only from a clinical point of view is that going to be a potential disaster. It's going to be a disaster data wise because we're never going to be able to deconvolute this. Never.
- [41:01]
Kevin McKernan
That was basically like a whirlpool operation for the shots. You know, they just put them through a mixer. So now no one can figure out who the hell got what.
- [41:07]
Jessica Rose
It was a blender, man. It wasn't a mixer.
- [41:10]
Kevin McKernan
That was the same right wallet approach on the, on the vaccines, the stool cover here. But I shouldn't say that Samurai. I hope those guys get off. And it's good to see that. That Trump said something about it like, that's such a disaster. What's happening with those guys. They completely filed the law to a T. And let's hope more people like sign that petition. I signed it.
- [41:29]
Jessica Rose
I heard Samurai got off.
- [41:31]
Kevin McKernan
No, not yet. They're facing jail on the 19th. They have to, they have to report to. I mean it's, you know, it's not a horrible jail, but still it's jail and it's five years away from their family and they followed everything, all the rules that FinCEN gave them to the T. And they're just getting persecuted by Southern District New York. It's just, it's nuts what's going on there.
- [41:53]
Marty Bent
Sup freaks? Have you noticed that governments have become more despotic? They want to surveil more. They Want to take more of your data. They want to follow you around the Internet as much as possible so they can control your speech, control what you do. It's imperative in times like this to make sure that you're running a VPN as you're surfing the web, as we used to say back in the 90s. And it's more imperative that you use the right VPN, a VPN that cannot log because of the way that it's designed. And that's why we have partnered with Obscura. That is our official VPN here at tftc, built by bitcoiner Carl Dung for bitcoiners focused on privacy. You can pay in bitcoin over the Lightning. So not only are you private while you're perusing the web with Obscura, but when you actually set up an account, you can acquire that account privately by paying in bitcoin over the Lightning network. Do not be complacent when it comes to protecting your privacy on the Internet. Go to obscura.net Set up an Obscura account. Use the code TFTC for 25% off. When I say account, you just get a token. It's a string of token. It's not connected to your identity at all. Token sign up, Pay with Bitcoin. Completely private. Turn on Obscura. Surf the web privately. Obscura.net use the code TFTC for 25% off. Sup, freaks? This rip is brought to you by good friends at Silent. Silent creates everyday Faraday gear that protects your hardware. We're in bitcoin. We have a lot of hardware that we need to secure your wallet, emit signals that can leave you vulnerable. You want to pick up silence gear, put your hardware in that. I have a tap signer right here. I got the silent cardholder. Replace my wallet. I was using Ridge wallet because it's secured against RFID signal jacking. Silent. The cardholder does the same thing. It's much sleeker. Fits in my pocket much easier. I also have the Faraday phone sleeve, which you can put a hardware wallet in. We're actually using it for our keys at the house too. There's been a lot of robberies. They have essential Faraday slings, Faraday backpacks. It's a bitcoin company. They're running on a bitcoin standard. They have a bitcoin treasury. They accept bitcoin via strike. So go to slnt.com tftc to get 15% off anything or simply just use the code tftc when shopping@slnt.com Patented technology, special operations approved. It has free shipping as well. So go check it out. I mean, it's nuts what's going on everywhere. I mean, what you two just described. We live in a lawless era. Whether it's what's going on with samurai, I think if you just, if you dig into the details of that case, it's objective and pretty clear that it was objective lawfare, like Kevin said, they followed the law, they never touched any money, they never handled any money.
- [44:24]
Jessica Rose
Dr. Vera too, right? He did everything right.
- [44:27]
Marty Bent
Yeah.
- [44:28]
Jessica Rose
And.
- [44:31]
Marty Bent
And like the. So with the wib, with the Wuhan Institute of Virology and they're like the fact that they're even experimenting on this gain of function and SARS and mers. Who's behind. And we've figured out who's behind Web, obviously. I remember the NIH was giving them grants. There was theories that I think that.
- [44:51]
Jessica Rose
They'Re, they're like the. I don't. I don't know if this is the right word. The patsy, you know, like the, the scapegoat. Maybe that's a better word. I think maybe I shouldn't say this because I don't want to die. I just. Let me just put it this way. I don't think anything is as it appears. I think what we're allowed to see, you know, and the public facing view is just what we're allowed to see. And it's very, very clear that this ass munchery is still going on, this gain of function crap. Tinkering with viruses that are actually being hunted down in obscure places on Earth that nobody's ever been and trying to make them more. Trying, you know, more infective in humans, you know, that's, that's, that's the gain of function part. And, and then running the risk for whatever reason they're doing this because they always say, well, we have to do it before this other person doesn't because we're going to need a cure in case it happens over there. That's bullshit, by the way. But whatever. For whatever reason they're doing it, there's always a risk of. We'll call it a leak. There's always a risk of a plasmid escaping. We know that this happened already. Kevin just can describe that. It's madness to be doing what they're doing. There's enough danger in the world from human beings, you know, acting the way that they do toward other human beings without screwing around with viruses in obscure places. In China. Yeah.
- [46:56]
Kevin McKernan
It's no secret now that like, there was some Ralph Barrick involvement. So there's some UNC money, there's probably some Rocky Mountain Lab involvement. There's probably some for Dietrich involvement that we don't know about. I mean, there's. The US is not innocent on this. And even, even Steve's most recent paper points to some, some NIH or NIAG grants that Fauci is probably involved in, in funding this Wuhan grant for. For this MERS stuff. So it's. Yeah, some of the, Some of the trails hunt back to nih, and I think that's what's made this such a mess is that the NIH got like a billion dollars in royalty for the vaccines, and yet the bread trail go back to them for funding some of this, this work, which has made it really politically messy. And I think there isn't an interest in the, in some of the news headlines pointing at Wuhan to be like, you know, ooh, nasty, fearful, fearful. China, China, China bad. Right. But, you know, Rand Paul's been all over this. Those breadcrumbs trace right back to the, to the US Government who's collecting royalty checks for what they claim is the cure to this thing. And that cure happens to actually be in a complete train wreck. Another disaster on its own.
- [48:06]
Jessica Rose
Yep.
- [48:07]
Kevin McKernan
So it's very. Too centralized. Let's just call it that.
- [48:12]
Jessica Rose
I think the wet market and the Bat lady got thrown under the bus. That's all I'm going to say. And I think the. Oh, gosh, I lost my thought. It was important about what you were just saying. Kevin, maybe you can spark my thought.
- [48:27]
Kevin McKernan
Marty, you're saying something about the Bat lady and maybe centralized issues we have.
- [48:33]
Marty Bent
Well, I was, I was going to bring up, because I saw you had a back and forth because I tweeted this. I think it was a study out of Stanford maybe that basically proves like, hey, the. The vaccines are. Are leading to increased myocarditis. Myocarditis. And Elizabeth Bick responded to you.
- [48:53]
Jessica Rose
Yeah.
- [48:55]
Marty Bent
Did it have to do with that? Because that, Because I wanted to bring up that. Because it seems like there is a concerted effort where it seems clear, based off the research that you two have done and many others have done independently, that there is something here, whether it's myocarditis, terrible cancers, whatever the vaccines are having effect. And more recently, to Kevin, what you alluded to earlier, it seems like they're all trying to blame the virus itself, like, oh, it's not the vaccine. The virus is more impactful. In all these areas.
- [49:23]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, yeah, it was all this Covid is worse shit on the myocarditis subject matter. Hey.
- [49:31]
Marty Bent
Hey buddy.
- [49:34]
Kevin McKernan
This is telling me that it's dinner time.
- [49:40]
Jessica Rose
It's so blatant. Hi buddy.
- [49:44]
Marty Bent
For the audio listeners we have, we have some feline friends joining but that.
- [49:48]
Jessica Rose
Was like full camera view blockage.
- [49:53]
Kevin McKernan
He knew how to do it. So.
- [49:57]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, what was I saying?
- [50:00]
Kevin McKernan
Well, he was talking about the myocarditis story. Always gets conflated with oh, the virus does more of it, which isn't true, but that's what they always throw at you. I think a signal that is really hard for them to address and is why we don't hear as much about it is that the acute renal failure is like 150 times worse or more frequent than myocarditis and it's much more clearly associated with the vaccine than the virus. And does that gets no news at all. John Baudouin is probably one of the most silent guys on Twitter and he's been yelling about this for three years that it's acute renal failure. Everyone's talking about myocarditis but there's 150 fold for more death on renal failure than there is with this myocarditis limited hangout everyone's talking about. And I think it doesn't get any airtime because they can't blame that one on the virus. You just look at his data.
- [50:46]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, exactly.
- [50:47]
Kevin McKernan
It started after the virus. We didn't see a lot of this. There was some Covid related like remdesivir junk that happened. But he can see a clear separation in the data between when the vaccines came in and when the remdesivir was in use.
- [51:03]
Jessica Rose
But that also implicates remdesivir too.
- [51:06]
Kevin McKernan
It's a combo of the two of them making it worse. But that's an area that just doesn't get any attention. So they do do this game of the virus would, would make it worse. And they throw out these studies that are often funded by pharma to say that, oh look, all these people that got Covid had had this rate of myocarditis and they won't tell you the vax status of the people in the paper.
- [51:29]
Jessica Rose
That's exactly, exactly right, right there. All of the people who are defending. Well, first of all, I think you're absolutely right and I think it's insidious that they actually are abusing. And I'm really putting the AB in front of using myocarditis as a safety signal to Use in order to have something to talk about in terms of adverse events, because the signal is undeniable and it's in children. So that's. Number one, it's gross that they're doing this. But number two, it's true exactly what Kevin said. Any and all studies I've been digging into this lately that are claiming in any way, shape or form that Covid is worse for myocarditis than the injections, isn't clear on how many people who they call Covid cases that weren't injected actually were injected. Because you're not going to find a pool, a cohort within that study group that isn't mostly injected. So you cannot attribute solely the effect of myocarditis on. On SARS because they got injected. And the other thing is, you can't. We don't know. To this day, this blows my mind what the effects of getting SARS getting injected. Getting SARS getting injected or getting injected. Getting SARS getting injected or getting SARS not getting. You know what I mean?
- [53:06]
Kevin McKernan
All these combinations, order of operations isn't really spelled. And this is the board with. Is that okay, the virus is. Even if the virus is worse, why would you take a shot that doesn't protect transmission? That also makes it worse.
- [53:20]
Jessica Rose
And you are.
- [53:21]
Marty Bent
That was going to be my point. It doesn't make sense because you're just compounding risk there.
- [53:27]
Jessica Rose
Like they call it hybrid immunity and they're claiming that it's superior. But let me say from the bottom of my heart, with all the. Whatever degrees I have, you will never have better or. Or longer or more robust immunity than establishing it naturally. Mucosal route of exposure to sars, whatever it is, coronavirus, any coronavirus, colds, whatever, you. You will have lifelong immunity if you just get that. Get sick and get over it. You know, it's. It's just. It's nonsense what they're talking about here. It's. It's a promotional thing. It's an ad to. To get people to take these shots, regardless of the fact that they've already established lifelong immunity from exposure. Yeah, it's dumb.
- [54:23]
Marty Bent
When I. And again, we. I mean, going through this again, you're compounding risk. And it seems clear to you that the studies, the way that they're constructed, wouldn't actually be able to prove anything of meaning because you're not doing the order of operations or siphoning off control groups and stuff like that. But again, myocarditis being the sort of limited hangout, as you said, Kevin, and acute Renal failure is really where the signal is. So what is that for the layman out there?
- [54:57]
Kevin McKernan
It is the kidneys are getting shut down. The kidneys are highly vascularized because they filter the blood. And the going theory, and this isn't my hypothesis, but John Bowdoin has some hypotheses on this and what can be doing it, and so does Kevin McCarron. A different Kevin, is that the clots, these microclots that are forming, are basically clogging up the kidneys because that is your filtration system. So if you get all these small clots that form everywhere your kidneys go out first, and if that doesn't hit you, you get a pulmonary embolism, that's another. Or you get a stroke. Those are all very high signals in the database. Those are what are really taking people out. And I think longer term we'll see cancer as well. But cancer is a very small signal. In John's data, it may only be like 5 to 7% of the excess mortality is related to cancer. That may take a longer time to play out. But the actual acute injury that's occurring is really when people stroke out or get a pulmonary embolism or the kidneys fail. And of course, it doesn't help that some of the most recommended treatments for Covid, people who get the vaccine we now know, get Covid more frequently. Okay, so there's going to be more remdesivir in the picture. And remdesivir is very toxic to the kidneys. So it's like it's a double hit on, you're getting clotted up by the vaccine. And then they try to treat your infection with Remdesivir, which can lead to kidney failure. And so I think the combination of that, I think he even has some suggestion that vancomycin might be playing a role too. There's other things that are being used that can be really hard on the kidneys that are thrown into some of these Covid treatment protocols. And a combination of them is at play post 2021. But yeah, he's another great person to have on because he's done fantastic work single handedly. He's gone and foiaed all the death records in multiple states. And the death records don't hide this because there's more consequence to making death records fraudulent. You know, the person, the people who do this can go to jail. They haven't yet. And some of them need to. If you see his data, it's clear that he can find the people in the death record. Since there isn't HIPAA protection after death, they can. They get name, birth, address, everything. And then you can find information like that in vaers, which is semi anonymized. And you can say, okay, same birth date, same address, same same set of symptoms. This is the. The same person in Massachusetts with this death record. The death record says they died of COVID but Vera says they got a shot 24 hours before. Why does it say death from COVID So he's found all this fraud where people are putting down Covid as the cause of death when there's a VAERS ticket where they got injection 24 hours before. So this is like blown up, the whole.
- [57:43]
Jessica Rose
We already know that this was incentivized by, like financially, right? So, yeah, like, I don't remember the statistic, but it was something like tens of thousands of US Dollars per Covid diagnostic. You know, assessment from this is true.
- [58:01]
Kevin McKernan
I think there's $9,000 for a positive. I think there was a similar amount of money if you got them on remdesivir. I think there was like another $30,000 kicker if you got them on ventilator. So there was all types of, like, centralized incentivization to just drag up the pandemic.
- [58:18]
Jessica Rose
You know about that, Marty? Yeah.
- [58:20]
Marty Bent
These were federal subsidies too, right?
- [58:22]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [58:23]
Kevin McKernan
Biden administration did this.
- [58:24]
Marty Bent
It was conspiracy theory, the ventilator thing. Because I remember being on it when the ventilators were killing people and saying that, well, they're incentivized to put them on a ventilator.
- [58:32]
Jessica Rose
And midazolam. That's a whole other.
- [58:35]
Kevin McKernan
That's a whole nother nightmare that happened. The more that was in the UK I think. Right. They were euthanizing people up there with it.
- [58:42]
Jessica Rose
Yep.
- [58:43]
Marty Bent
Well, I mean, Jessica, like the conversation we had earlier this year, like, I. I am still passionate about not letting this go. Like, there needs to be accountability. Justice brought. It seems like there was a lot of positive momentum at the end of the summer, particularly at the hearing where your paper was presented as evidence then, obviously we had the sort of childhood vaccine hearings a couple months ago, maybe last month. Good momentum there. What. How are you guys feeling about the momentum right now? Is it a limited hangout? Is it just give them enough. Just give them enough of a feeling that something's happening and we can go back and just continue to do nothing or.
- [59:28]
Jessica Rose
Well, it was very, very recently that. I'm just saying what people are saying now. I'm not putting words in people's mouths. I never do that. So Marty Makary, who's this FDA guy, he's really high up there. I think he's the FDA commissioner. Don't quote me on that role, came out and said that there was a black box warning issued against the COVID 19 shots that was recommended by here. I don't want to get this wrong. I want to. I want to read it.
- [60:00]
Kevin McKernan
I think ASAP recommended it. Right? And he.
- [60:03]
Jessica Rose
It was a sip, but it also came from within. Here, just let me read this off, because I don't want to misquote him or myself. Boy, do I post a lot. Just a second. The Safety and Epidemiology center within the fda. So this came from people within the fda, I imagine this was Hoag, who recommended a black box warning on the COVID shots. And Marty is on record now saying that because of Vinay Prasad, that's not gonna happen. Now, I don't know if it was only because of this Prasad guy or if there's something else going on, if there's some kind of 5D chess, but I did some digging, and I was appalled. Well, no, I was surprised. I think that's a better word. To find out that there's only one product on the market that actually is a vaccine that's considered to be a vaccine that has a black box warning. And that's what you're looking at right now. This, a Cam 2000, which is this smallpox MPox thingy that I wrote up a little while ago. There's two. There's geneos and there's a cam 2000. And acam is really, really bad. Like, you don't want to get injected with this shit. It's associated with a really high percentage of. Of serious adverse events. Genios as well. So it's that. That is, you know, a black box is warranted in that case. But it is my opinion that a black box is absolutely warranted in the case of these Covid shots. Because, you know, I looked up what a black box warning actually means, and it says the FDA's most serious safety alert is what it is. It's placed in a prominent boxed section on a drug or vaccine labeling to highlight significant risks of serious injury or death. It's a way to get prescribers and patients, doctors, whatever, to provide informed consent, first of all, and to do a risk benefit assessment before somebody puts themselves at risk. They're absolutely warranted. So the reason I'm saying this, not only because it just happened recently, but it makes me wonder, like, what the Hell is going on behind the scenes because, yes, we've made progress. We got the hep B out of, you know, babies. That's great. That's, you know, it's good momentum. We're looking at Lyme. Good, awesome. We're looking at mercury and aluminum and all this stuff. But considering the fact that this technology and the platform has had no slowing down of momentum at all that I can see, it's very concerning that somebody from the inside isn't making a move. I'm not talking about like talking, I'm talking about action, like, make a move. Put a moratorium on this bloody shit. Like, do something real that stops it from going into humans babies for sure and animals as well. Because apparently these things are starting to be injected by vets. And vets are probably unaware that A, they might be injecting the MRNA shit, and B, they might be injecting self amplifying MRNA shit.
- [63:40]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, I'd echo some of the same things that there are some wins here, right, that like the hep B thing is happening. We've got Trump on record saying the whole vaccine schedule needs to be evaluated, reevaluated. They finally admit that autism is in fact environmental and treatable, like unpreventable. You know, they talked about Tylenol. You know, it's almost like, you know, the elephant in the room won't be spoken about, but all the other mice running around it, they're going to take out. And they are, they are getting some of those smaller issues at bay. It's just, it's really, you can tell how political it is because they're doing these, these other sideshows when this really glaring thing, the COVID vaccines are untouchable for some reason. And that is, I think that's just a sign of the capture that's going on because it's, you know, you'll see them like recall hairspray that didn't kill anybody. Like, so the FDA still has the capacity to like take products off the market. They just won't have to get the one that's killed 19,000 people in bears because the political consequences are too large.
- [64:43]
Jessica Rose
Because the investors have to come up with a cure for cancer.
- [64:46]
Kevin McKernan
It's either that or that they're afraid if they reverse on this, the liability is so large that it could take down the whole system.
- [64:57]
Jessica Rose
And it probably would.
- [65:00]
Marty Bent
That's why I've talked to a doubt about this, because that's his thesis too, is why nothing's being actually done, because they're worried about the financial Repercussions of all the claims. Like sue the federal government if you were forced by your employer to get it. So you see your Fortune 500 employer and it would literally lead to financial collapse because of all the, all the payouts that would be necessary to.
- [65:29]
Jessica Rose
What.
- [65:30]
Marty Bent
80% of the country get this. So anybody that got it would have the ability to levy a claim. And I told him, hey, it has to get out there. Like the truth matters at the end of the day. And there may need to be like a, hey, we did this. We're not gonna let you sue us for it. But you guys need to know that this is going on. There has to be some sort of retribution because I'm still seeing commercials, I'm still seeing people go get like a flu shot and like to please do not do that.
- [65:59]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, I mean, they're still, obviously they're still investing in this platform. But the good news is that the word is getting out through avenues like your cast and others, because the adoption is down. I think it's down to less than 20% now. But the frightening thing is it's still getting pushed into kids. So you injure a kid, it's going to be a health care crisis for them for the rest of their life. Right. It's not like you're taking out grandma, you're taking out a 20 year old. So the quality adjusted life years that you've damaged are like another 60 years potentially.
- [66:31]
Jessica Rose
And also we haven't answered the questions about germline integration. Like, we don't really have a solid answer about whether or not integration is occurring, you know, with or without the SV40. That's, that's a crazy thing that I just said that we don't have a firm answer on that because we do.
- [66:53]
Kevin McKernan
Have some answers that the ovaries are getting hit and the fertility is down and the sperm motility is down. Like there's going to be a population crisis. It's going to be the opposite of the population bomb. Yeah. Malthusian book from what's his name, Paul Ehrlich, is going to, you know, it's going to go the other direction here. And in various countries like Japan, they're going to have a massive inverted demographic as they, this vaccine takes hold and damages their reproductive capacity.
- [67:22]
Marty Bent
And correct me if I'm wrong, but they seem to be one of the countries that is actually admitting some of this is going on. If I recall.
- [67:30]
Kevin McKernan
There'S a faction out there, people who know and are trying to get the word out. But there's also Some other capture going on. If you look, pay close attention to happen in Japan. One of the prime ministers got murdered and they believe over this Shinzo Abe. It was early in the pandemic, he was trying to put the brakes on the MRNA platform and next thing you know, he's murdered. So there's. I don't think it's completely clean over there either. But they are a particular important canary in the coal mine because they were MRNA exclusive. They were Pfizer Moderna exclusively and they were very obedient. And a large part of the population took it. I think 13% of the population took seven shots and over 80% took the first two. So it's one of the most vaccinated MRNA vaccinated countries in the world.
- [68:20]
Marty Bent
Yeah. And that was. We went over the paper that showed the change in cancer distributions which got.
- [68:29]
Kevin McKernan
Retracted like right after that. Cast same network of people went after that. And the argument that the journal gave for retraction was that you made the crime of saying it was causal. And they never made that claim. They said it was association and they never said it was causal.
- [68:48]
Jessica Rose
Have a fabricated lie can just initiate the retraction process and sometimes is successful. It's. It's crazy if people actually knew like what was going on behind the scenes. By the way, I want to mention Kevin's got a really interesting hypothesis. He should probably tell you, not me, but about a business model that this kind of fits into. Because at the end of the day, if our paper ends up getting retracted, and I doubt it will because we're making a lot of noise and it is on the Congressional Record, but if it did, they get thousands of our dollars, they get our copyright, they get our work and we get tarnished, our reputation's tarnished and we lose all the money and etc. So like it's. It's. If you. If you had a bit of a good imagination, you could imagine that maybe someone devised this as a business model. Right?
- [69:54]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah. So the point is that the desk projections are private. Like no one knows about those. And there's no money on the table. You only pay the journal once they accept it. So if you're pharma, you'd much rather say stop this desk rejection junk. Let a few of these things come out and hammer them after they come out with our secondary network of smears. That way we take down their reputation, we take their money and we end up taking their copyright. It's better to.
- [70:22]
Jessica Rose
I wonder if they're paying the pub smear network with our Money to public.
- [70:28]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, that would be odd, wouldn't it?
- [70:29]
Jessica Rose
Wouldn't that be an interesting thing to track and trace? Yeah, they always say follow the money.
- [70:35]
Kevin McKernan
Well, science guardians did point out that there are people in the research integrity offices of many of the journals that are responsible for this kind of investigation front that are also known to be, you know, frequent commenters in Pub Smear. So there is a bit of a cozy relationship between the editor, editorial boards of these journals and the organization that takes the papers down. So there's a bit of like a racketeering investigation that probably needs to go on there.
- [71:02]
Jessica Rose
And maybe they don't realize it or maybe they didn't at the time, but now they have an opportunity, wink, wink, to realize that they might be being, you know, they might be involving themselves in something that is not really legal or ethical. Definitely not ethical. And they should like bow out. We've been very.
- [71:22]
Kevin McKernan
I did put that on the record with Bioarchive when I emailed them back saying why has their paper been delayed for over a week and pointed out these are all the people we know that fund Cold Spring Harbor. And it looks as if you're suppressing information that's critical of your sponsors and this can get engaged in racketeering. And it was the next day they said, no thanks, get out of here.
- [71:48]
Marty Bent
Well, it's. So let's bring this back to Pub Smear and Elizabeth Sick specifically because she's.
- [71:57]
Kevin McKernan
I like that new name, that new moniker.
- [71:59]
Jessica Rose
Yeah.
- [72:01]
Marty Bent
She'S a science integrity.
- [72:04]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, she's called and she is lauded, dude. She is lauded. She is given awards, she's invited to scientific integrity conferences. She just got back from one in Oz.
- [72:18]
Kevin McKernan
They gave her an honorary doctorate at some university.
- [72:20]
Jessica Rose
Exactly. This, this chick is lauded for being a so called sleuth. And you know what? She's given the credit for that original. I don't remember the surname. God, my memory is getting bad. There was this original takedown of this paper where these western blots were like lane one and lane six were duplicated. And she's always touted in these stupid journalistic reviews as being the one to have discovered that. And you know, she's, she's the sleuth. She's the one with the eagle eye who finds all the corruption and fraud and all this. And it wasn't even her who discovered that. And, and whether or not that that, you know, stands is, I don't know. I, I've looked into it and it.
- [73:11]
Kevin McKernan
Kind of looks like Alzheimer's work out of out of Stanford.
- [73:14]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, exactly. Yeah, it looks like it's true but that was this. This dude with the pseudonym Thomas Some.
- [73:26]
Kevin McKernan
With because of an S I think I can't remember his last name.
- [73:31]
Jessica Rose
Hold on one sec, I will find it out.
- [73:34]
Marty Bent
Well while you're finding that too because that's one thing I'm trying to wrap my head around because you two are obviously fully immersed in this and you know the names, the.
- [73:43]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, unwillingly the participants.
- [73:45]
Marty Bent
But it seems like watching that mini doc today on pub smear and the sort of network, the retraction watch, it seems like it's a relatively small circle for gatekeeping this whole process less than 100 people.
- [74:03]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, I think that's true but the number of accounts that are in pub's mirror is larger than that because they all have multiple accounts and they do this as a Sybil attack to make it look like there's hundreds of people complaining about out a paper when it's like five people who are all basically dogpiling on the same topic with different pseudonyms.
- [74:24]
Marty Bent
How many people are in your position? That's what I'm trying to like what is the ratio of the gatekeepers to scientists that are trying to actually seek the truth and want a sort of well oiled machine of a process and a meritocratic legitimate process, not a political process.
- [74:39]
Kevin McKernan
I'll have to go back and look through my notes on this because they do seem to have like a sort of a kill list, like a bragging rights as to how many papers they've taken down and they generally are bragging about that on their site. I don't have the numbers current as to how many they've attacked but we do need someone to maybe take an AI tool at this and be like okay, show us the network of people that they've attacked and the network of people they've ignored because I think it will show a really ugly pattern of bias. Credit to Science Guardian. They kind of did a test like this where they put these 17 other papers through their process and showed that their process was censoring everything about papers that they liked that were clearly flawed. We've gone through some of their Elizabeth papers and there's all types of errors in her paper she won't even address today. I've called her out in it many times that some of the sequencing papers she's published have index hopping issues on the Illumina sequencer that are overt and mean that everything she was measuring was basically like. And this microbial prevalence work that she did was a complete mirage based on barcodes getting mixed up on the sequencer. She won't address that on her own work. So it's a different set of rules. They apply to the people. So it's really not about science integrity, it's about targeting that concept against politically unpopular papers.
- [76:04]
Jessica Rose
And she won't allow people to operate on pub peer in the same way as her operatives work. For example, if somebody presented. If Kevin wanted to publish that comment on pub peer, I can't.
- [76:21]
Kevin McKernan
They censored me. I've tried to put things up there before. Like I put my critiques about the Corman Drosten paper up there and they erased them.
- [76:27]
Jessica Rose
Yep, they do it just like that. So this is what science Guardians actually documented quite well. Like, they're very. Let me tell you something too. Like, I was in real time. There he is again. Hey, look, there's mine. Hey, look, Ollie, it's an Amy Boeing. Oh, boy, it is. In real time. I was watching Vic herself on the pub smear website go after papers and it always starts with one comment, right? So she's. She. I haven't linked her like directly to my myocarditis paper. This person whose name I have in the. In the messages I have, this was the first comment. This Hoya person who is also responsible for that Alzheimer's thing. I don't know why they commented. They just literally said that this person's paper has been withdrawn. Nothing against the work, because there was no complaint against the work or the science integrity. But she's going after the updated paper that Peter and I wrote together on the myocarditis study in. In real time. I saw her start going after this paper on that network because it'll show you the title of the paper, Determinants, blah, blah, blah, the new title of my myocarditis paper. And two hours ago, this person made this comment. And then you can click on it and go see what they wrote. And it. And with her, we call her Bickering Bic. Sometimes it's just this nitpicking bullshit. It has nothing to do with scientific merit. It's like this. This reference number doesn't align with this reference here. It's just stupid bullshit that doesn't change the conclusion of the paper. And then ahead of mine, there were like three other papers. And then I was like, well, that's interesting. So she's going after the new version of my myocarditis paper. And I scrolled down and lo and behold, I saw two co authors on the list of paper There was this huge long list of papers that this chick is going after. It's almost unbelievable. Like she must not sleep. Nicholas Mead. Sorry, Nathaniel Mead. Sorry. He's a very, very diligent worker who I've co written many papers with. He published something on his own. She's going after that. And Nicholas Hoelscher, who's the third author on the updated version of the myocarditis paper with me and Peter. He has penned many papers with Peter since then and other people. He's going after them.
- [79:33]
Kevin McKernan
For those who don't know the reference.
- [79:35]
Jessica Rose
Yeah. It's very targeted and it's like you can literally right now you can go on pub peer and watch as this woman, this one freaking woman is going after certain authors, certain subject matters that don't align with certain narratives.
- [79:54]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah. Another famous recipient of this is dedier, who's like 100,000 citation, like godfather of microbiology. Really well respected researcher. But he made the mistake of showing that hydroxychloroquine worked and they went after him like a fury. And it doesn't stop at just taking down their papers. They go and complain to their institutions to try to get him fired. They try to get their own universities. They did this to Wafik Eldieri, who's now on the ACIP committee where they tried to get him under investigation at Brown. And they're not entirely. They're not always successful in getting the end result of papers retracted, but they do put all the researchers through the. Through the grinder of having to and do all this work digging up the past and defending themselves. And that's the goal. The goal is just sand in the gears of the people that are dissidents.
- [80:46]
Marty Bent
It's completely insane. And it's funny because you guys are describing. And again, it is very clear to me and I'm sure the audience that you know the minute granular details, the nuance of the landscape of this peer review and the sort of loose connections with people with particular incentives. But I think the. The broader public is completely unaware of this and how not only nefarious it is, but in inefficient it is to actually get good data research and.
- [81:18]
Jessica Rose
But even get the answers quickly. Exactly. Even before all this happened in the last five years, like, I don't know, maybe this was all going on and I just wasn't tapped in or maybe things have actually changed or both.
- [81:34]
Kevin McKernan
It's got a long history. Actually. This was a CIA up. Yeah.
- [81:37]
Jessica Rose
Peer review alone. And the whole establishment, like I. I'm an Academic. I've, I've really only ever done degrees at academic institutions. And it's, it's, it's rough in a lot of ways. To publish, you need to follow certain guidelines. It has to be the sexy subject matter. It has to be cancer or Lyme disease or your PI has to be doing certain amount of research and have this amount of funding. There's a lot of stuff that people don't know that goes on. And when you finally do get a paper published, even if you're not being attacked, it's years and headaches and tears and revisions and doing more experiments and money. I mean, Kevin, how much is it that Nature asks to publish?
- [82:37]
Kevin McKernan
Oh, I've seen numbers as high as five to ten grand in some of those journals now to get things published. So I mean, yeah, this is the crazy thing. It's very masochistic and sadistic in that many of the academics put themselves through all this pain and they pay for it and they're supposed to do.
- [82:53]
Jessica Rose
It's not fair. It's not fair. It's not a balanced system. And it's very, very clear. All you have to go do is go look at the history of allopathic medicine to understand that, you know, this system was set up so that it could be controlled. It's very clear to me now if.
- [83:14]
Kevin McKernan
You want to go down that rabbit hole, there's a great Guardian article that talks about, about the money involved in peer review and how much is coming in from the pharmaceutical and biotech industry to fund the journals for advertisement dollars. So just as everyone's now probably pretty aware that brought to you by Pfizer was all over the news during the pandemic. At the mainstream media front, they own those people too because they're advertising so many drugs on TV that the advertisers will never speak negatively about pharmaceutical product that is going on at tenfold higher intensity in the peer reviewed journals because that is where the truth gets set, the narrative gets set. So if you go, this article basically goes back to Ghislaine Maxwell's father, Robert Maxwell, who set up Pergamon Press. And he did this so that he could get cozy with all of the scientists out there and be the gatekeeper for their publications and wine and dine them. And it was kind of like Epstein 1.0. And of course they repeated that and upped it to some degree to get these people all down to an island doing dirty things. But the peer review process is actually kind of new. This is not how science used to work. This is something that got put in place with Robert Maxwell as it's a tool to gatekeep the narrative and keep people who have been really advancing science close to the fingertips and under their control.
- [84:39]
Jessica Rose
And when that doesn't work, you have the post peer review network.
- [84:48]
Marty Bent
How do we break it out of this containment of control? Obviously, Kevin, you're working to do that. What is the model?
- [84:55]
Kevin McKernan
I think the model has to be fully transparent, peer to peer. There needs to be a price signal in there. So yeah, they will say, oh, you can't have money in peer review because it looks like bribery, but you're actually already paying them three grand, five grand to get your stuff reviewed. And none of that money goes to the reviewers, none. So get the journal out, disintermediate them. The journal is now nostr or some decentralized server that can hold nostr, doesn't really hold PDFs, but you can make a ping file or an image file of your paper and put it on there. That's what I do. And then if you're not convinced NOSTR is going to be around, what I always try and do is make a mirror of that in the op Return of Bitcoin that has the title, the authors, the date, the hash, the file and a link to either your substack or nostr. That way it's immortalized in something that we know is rock solid, longest and strongest chain. And then if you feel it needs to get reviewed, outside of the group on Nostr who are free to comment on it, you can always use economic incentives to pay people to review it. Give them a bounty. Some work can be reviewed from the desk, like bioinformatics work can all be reviewed on your computer. Some stuff needs wet lab verification and that actually costs money and time and is in meat space. And that stuff. You may have to put a bounty out for someone to go and replicate the work. But not all work needs to do that. We didn't have this before and science worked. But there are people who want to accelerate the acceptance of their work and they'd be willing to pay someone to reproduce it quickly instead of waiting for the world to reproduce it. And there should be a free market for that where you can put a bounty out for however urgently you want it done. If you put a cheap bounty out, just like you put a cheap fee on your bitcoin transaction, it might take a year. If you put a really, you know, a really large fee on there, someone's going to go mine that problem faster. And that would Encourage a market of people to go and say, hey, here's some work that needs to get reproduced. I kind of want to do that work because it's kind of aligned with my work and I'll get two for one out of it and someone will pay me for the work and I might learn something and they'll hop on that train and take the bounty. And as long as everything's transparent in public, it'll be a much more efficient and faster system than what we have now. Because I think what we have now, there are no price signals. Everyone pays the journal the same amount for whether it's like 100 author paper, that's 100 pages or whether it's a one author paper that's two pages, still three grand. We know in the bitcoin space that if you don't have price signals, it basically turns into a communistic hellhole pretty quickly. It becomes a tragedy of the commons. So we have all the tools to do it. We just need the gumption and the will to do it. And I think what you're going to see is people like us and Steve who are getting attacked are just going to start doing it this way because it makes more sense. The journals don't bring us any value anymore. They bring us maybe some prestige, but that prestige is getting torn apart by the day. When you see Nature putting out the Lancet article for surgisphere or proximal origins, or they're very woke now, they'll come out and write hit pieces against rfk. This change in vaccine policy is going to end the world kind of thing. So they're no longer a neutral arbiter of science. They're a zeitgeist echo chamber. And that in the end is going to end up in a disaster because it's not going to chase the truth, it's going to chase an agenda. And things with price signals are going to win. So I think we're in the unique part of time where we have decentralized ledgers that can get this done. And I would encourage anyone to who wants to see that happen to start funding it. Like if you want, if you've got a couple shekels, a couple sats you want to throw at Steve's paper, do it shekels. I think I've got a bitcoin address somewhere from the last bitcoin conference I was at. I got to dig that up. If people want to fund our work to continue on the vaccine stuff, you can do that. But I think that's the model it doesn't take a whole lot of effort. People are used to paying three grand to get these things published. And I'm sure it's going to be cheaper doing this on Noster and Bitcoin.
- [88:53]
Jessica Rose
No. 100%, man. Like 500 bucks. It's a lot of money. And it, you know, I. I do.
- [89:00]
Kevin McKernan
It, I get a node spun up for. What's it. What's a nodi? I mean, a start nine is, what, 700 bucks or something for start nine. And you can probably get a Raspberry PI node for, I don't know, three or 400. Yeah.
- [89:11]
Jessica Rose
Maybe you should do a little demo video, Kevin, like, for the noobs, like to. To understand how easy it is to.
- [89:19]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, you're right. I have a stack on that. I should probably do a video setting up the nodes. There's a lot of videos out there that'll do that better than I will. But, yeah, I'll work with Steve on this one, and maybe we'll put something together that can help the next person that gets attacked do the same thing.
- [89:36]
Jessica Rose
And if you need a perspective of the noob to help, then that's me, because I just. I'm just. I'm the learner right now. Like, I'm. I'm really in the crossfire. But it's like, I know how important this is right now. And I also know how, like, I hate to say this because it's like. It's like losing heroes, but the whole, you know, fab journal thing is a lie. I mean, I still, you know, I still. If you see me talk about nature papers and science papers, I'm always talking about them with a certain admiration. But the thing is, it's like, no, it's all part of the same, and it's all part of money and control. It's not about scientific progress. It's about.
- [90:26]
Kevin McKernan
They actually have higher retraction rates. Interesting enough.
- [90:30]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's. It's a racket. Like, we. We like. And the thing is, the people want to have more control. They. They. I don't think most people realize how little control if. If any at all, they actually have over anything.
- [90:51]
Kevin McKernan
The whole pandemic, the manufacturing of consent for the pandemic, was all done with peer review. Yeah, peer review papers that bullshitted people about masks, about lockdowns, about vaccines, about Covid's origins. I mean, this is. This is how they manufacture consent is. Is through the peer review system. And it starts there, and then it spreads out to all the media.
- [91:09]
Jessica Rose
And once you have that headline. There are psychological studies on this. You can't reverse it. Even if you write the exact opposite headline the very next day, it's already there in people's brains. It does something as a propaganda tool. Hi, buddy.
- [91:30]
Kevin McKernan
Getting hungry? He's gonna stomp on the keyboard next.
- [91:33]
Jessica Rose
Well, goody. Maybe he'll spell out me how I was on mute.
- [91:38]
Marty Bent
I was saying I think it's Berlusconi's law. I could be wrong. It takes 10x the amount of effort to refute bullshit than it does to put it out in the world. So to your point about the headline, as soon as it's out there. But this is a two way street too. There's enough people listening to this I know that are technically competent and understand the sort of dynamics of the interactions of the high level technical project that you're thinking of that can certainly help out. And then on the peer review side, like I just sent Steve 150,000 sats to spin up a node. Like, I'm very curious to see if his paper could get peer reviewed and if the data that he surfaces in there can be confirmed by somebody else. Like I would contribute to that bounty. I don't think it has to be on the researchers to fund the bounties themselves. I think there's enough individuals who want to see this.
- [92:32]
Jessica Rose
It comes from the interest of the people and it's for the interest of the people.
- [92:36]
Kevin McKernan
That's the best way to do it. That's kind of a popular vote. Instead of give, send, go put bounties on papers you want to see interrogated to help resolve a public dispute on something. I think it's money well spent.
- [92:53]
Marty Bent
And we already see this with sort of wealthy people that have somebody in their immediate family that has an ailment and they'll spend tens of thousands, millions of dollars to figure out a cure for that. And you just create a process and a mechanism to open source. That and crowdsource. That seems to be a way to.
- [93:10]
Kevin McKernan
Bend in like the prediction market folks into this as well. I mean, for anyone who's listening, who's really talented at coding, give you an idea of the size of the market. I think the publishing market's like 20 to 40 billion dollars a year. And that market would probably double if you would allow micro publications. The reason there's only so many millions of publications per year is because no one wants to go through that process, that long, arduous process, because it can take six months to a year and cost $5,000 at each unit. So they end up bundling data for large packages and publishing them in big units. But once you have a free market in this, you can think of micro publications where maybe a month's worth of work is publishable since the friction is lower. And so you'd see a lot more like people's scientific posters would go through this process. You'd see smaller bite sized bits of information published. That's actually better for iteration. You want science to go at a faster metronome where smaller bits of information are reviewed faster as opposed to people batching it into large sizes. Because there's a friction point in the review process. That means idea bridging happens slower. If you can micro publish these things, idea bridging happens a lot faster. There's faster disclosure, there's faster, you know, sharing of information on all this front. So I think that market would actually double if you had something that was faster and more streamlined. So this could be. We could be looking at like a 60 or 80 billion dollars market. And if someone builds a nice interface that helps researchers to enter their papers into this process so they're not having to spin up their own node and understand how to turn things into hex and then send it into a transaction, they could have an interface that handles all of that and even posts the bounties for people to go like a prediction market and people can go and then all the addresses are laid clean and the transparency is there to record all the comments back and forth. That interface would probably be able to clip coupons off the whole process.
- [95:06]
Marty Bent
I mean, we can get even more advanced. You can set up discrete log contracts that automatically distribute funds to a researcher that successfully validates or invalidates research. I don't know if. Jessica, I know we talked about AI last time you were on, but I've been vibe coding. It's getting much easier to vibe code. I feel like it should be hard, particularly for the user interface, to spin something up the back end. Bitcoin logic may be a bit harder, but I know there's enough people listening to this that know how to solve that problem that it can definitely be figured out.
- [95:44]
Kevin McKernan
Claude was perfect. I used Claude to instruct me how to how to build bitcoin transactions for the last paper and got it right in the first shot. ChatGPT. I had to do it a couple times. It had some hex translation issues, but Claude nailed it on first attempt.
- [95:58]
Jessica Rose
Wow.
- [95:59]
Kevin McKernan
So it understands how to write a transaction, how to populate a wallet, how to spit something out, broadcast something into, into the mempool. So, yeah, that's a great tool. And I think what's nice about Claude, it doesn't hallucinate as many references. One of the problems people have had using AI to help them write their papers is that sometimes ChatGPT will throw up a bunch of references when you ask it, take all my citations and fill out the bibliography for me, it'll screw it all up. And that's like an easy attack vector for pub smear. Oh, one of your citations is wrong. Claude was much more accurate at that. It wasn't perfect, but it was like 90% accurate. I had to correct a couple of things. It did. But it is very helpful at. Like, you can basically hand it all of your data in a draft text and be like, all right, I need you to correct this, put it in Vancouver format and make it so that it's submission ready to this particular journal or whatever. It does that sort of boring secretarial work, which is like 90% of writing a paper, it takes off the table. So you're focused on your data and making sure your images are all factual and correct, as opposed to putting all the poetry around it. So those tools could be very helpful in the process to just accelerate the release of data.
- [97:20]
Jessica Rose
Kevin, why do you think? Because I haven't really thought about this a lot, but I've just noticed. Just did a lot. These AI, the LLMs are so bad at the reference point, because they really are. It's. It almost feels sometimes to me like they're doing it on purpose.
- [97:37]
Kevin McKernan
I mean, that could be the case with Sam Altman's tool. Yeah. Was really good at it. So I. I think it was just. I. It seems really bizarre that you. Like, how do you break a link? Like, it would find the right paper and then would put in the wrong author.
- [97:52]
Jessica Rose
But that's exactly my point. Like, do you have you followed that logic through, like, why and how that would be.
- [97:59]
Kevin McKernan
There has to be some intentional scrambling going on to. I mean, maybe. Maybe they're dancing around copyright issues and they don't want to have. Because they were attacked early on for scraping the Internet and now they're a copyright violator for putting all your times and all that stuff in. Yeah. So. But I'm not seeing as much of that in the newer platforms.
- [98:19]
Jessica Rose
So it's like a liability thing.
- [98:21]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah. Yeah. So another. I mean, one avenue to go. I have to do more of this. I've got to spend more time. I paid for Venice AI system. I don't use it enough. I need to Go back to that one, because that one actually encrypts all of your work so that your work isn't getting harvested by some. Like right now I worry that Anthropic could be an evil entity and everything I do in Claude is going to get recorded and benefit them in some way. Whereas Venice, I encrypts everything and they have crypto rails going into it, so their gpus actually have price signals on them.
- [98:54]
Marty Bent
We're fans of Maple. Try Maple. AI here. Venice's. Trust me, bro, Encryption. We're.
- [99:01]
Kevin McKernan
This is a 1031 AD right now.
- [99:03]
Marty Bent
Yeah, to your point too, because, I mean, that just came out with ChatGPT specifically, and I assume that Anthropic is under the same pressure. I mean, OpenAI had to come out and say, yeah, we have to hand over your chat logs to the government if they ask if we get subpoenaed for them.
- [99:25]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, there are questions in our field that won't answer ChatGPT or no. It was Grok the other day that basically all the time asked it about, does the spike protein localize the nucleus? Like. Sorry, that's a restricted topic.
- [99:38]
Marty Bent
What?
- [99:41]
Kevin McKernan
Those things are all centralized. They're going to get captured. They have to decentralize the GPUs like these other platforms. Does Maple do that? Do they have it farmed out to Amazon GPUs or something?
- [99:51]
Marty Bent
Yes, but they use the GPUs with secure enclaves. So the logic of the LLM sits in the enclave and it's encrypted end to end from your device to the cloud.
- [100:03]
Kevin McKernan
So I saw something from Elon where he wants to put these GPUs on satellites because they have great solar exposure. You see that?
- [100:11]
Marty Bent
Yeah, but I've heard that it's hard for solar to work like solar energy to work in space because of the inability. I could be wrong. I'm way out of my death. I'm not a physics major, but I've heard.
- [100:23]
Kevin McKernan
I heard they get better efficiency because there's no atmospheric interference up there, but I. Again, I'm talking out my ass here. It's not my fields. But it made me think, if he's willing to put GPUs in space, why wouldn't he put miners up there? I mean, ASICs are just as heavy, but the IO is probably lower. Right? I mean, all the back and forth to a GPU with an LLM, every time I run it, I see all this Internet traffic it's trying to pull in. When you ask it these complicated questions, it's got to have a huge IO toll. I don't know how well that's going to work going up and back to a satellite. But Bitcoin is a pretty predictable I o. I mean, the block sizes are consistent, and the ASICs are probably the same weight and energy. They need them as a GPUs.
- [101:08]
Marty Bent
Well, and again, too, if you're just mining in space, right, where you're just sending shares, hashing shares, like, that's kilobytes of data. And then you can send a hash share to space and be like, okay, you found a hash below the target, and then you can propagate the block on Earth, I would imagine, right after that. So you could sort of space this in the shares and.
- [101:34]
Kevin McKernan
He could actually make some corn instead of figuring out if Taylor Swift's your latest boyfriend. GPUs are doing.
- [101:41]
Marty Bent
Yeah, it's wild. Time to be alive. Are you guys optimistic on Justice Accountability moving in the right direction, or do.
- [101:52]
Kevin McKernan
We need to move in the right direction? It's slow and painful, and I think everyone wants it now. And it's. And it's going to take 10 years, like the Sackler family, unfortunately. I think the political people just have to all circle out. It's that old saying that you change science one death at a time kind of thing. I think the same thing's true in politics. The parties that were involved in all this are just going to have to be distant. There's too much culpability going back to everyone. Both administrations that are at play. If Gavin Newsom's the next taker, I mean, there's no way that guy's going to bring us justice, right?
- [102:29]
Marty Bent
Hey, let's hope not. Well, let's route around them. I think we should route around them while we can.
- [102:38]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, exactly. I think you build anew as opposed to praying for the centralized authorities to come clean.
- [102:47]
Marty Bent
Well, anything we didn't cover that you think we should touch on before we wrap up here? I can smell the Bolognese emanating from the kitchen right now. I'm starting to get hungry.
- [102:58]
Jessica Rose
Hi, buddy.
- [102:59]
Kevin McKernan
We can see he's hunting. He's hunting the camera.
- [103:03]
Jessica Rose
Hey, buddy. Hey, gorgeous. Hello.
- [103:10]
Kevin McKernan
Doesn't even know he's on camera.
- [103:12]
Jessica Rose
Hi, buddy. Ollie. No, wait, that's Trey.
- [103:16]
Kevin McKernan
Trey, this is the. The ginger that shreds Curt.
- [103:21]
Marty Bent
She's a beautiful.
- [103:23]
Jessica Rose
They're both beautiful. You need to get your. Your scruffy fluffed.
- [103:29]
Kevin McKernan
Yeah, I haven't been good combing them lately.
- [103:32]
Jessica Rose
Hi, buddy.
- [103:32]
Kevin McKernan
All right, well, we won't bore your listeners with with cat talk.
- [103:36]
Jessica Rose
Yeah, fight the trans.
- [103:38]
Kevin McKernan
You've got a little one to take care of.
- [103:41]
Marty Bent
Any final thoughts though? Anything?
- [103:42]
Jessica Rose
Yes. Humanism and the decentralized stuff. And try to find joy and happiness in every single day.
- [103:51]
Marty Bent
Love that.
- [103:52]
Kevin McKernan
Good inch. Good exit.
- [103:53]
Marty Bent
All right. Peace of love freaks. Thank you for listening to this episode of tftc. If you've made it this far, I imagine you got some value out of the episode. If so, please share it far and wide with your friends and family. We're looking to get the word out there. Also, wherever you're listening, whether that's YouTube, Apple, Spotify, make sure you like and subscribe to the show. And if you can, leave a rating on the podcasting platforms, that goes a long way. Last but not least, if you want to get these episodes a day early and ad free, make sure you download the Fountain podcasting app. You can go to Fountain FM to find that $5 a month get you every episode a day early ad free helps. The show gives you incredible value, so please consider subscribing via Fountain as well. Thank you for your time and until next time.