Kevin McKernan
speaker
709 appearances
2 recordings
2 series
first heard Nov 2024
last heard 5 Dec
Kevin McKernan’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 1 in all, peaking in Dec 2025 with 1.
Appearances
And then and then you Robert Kennedy. Yeah, I'm sure there's probably a picture of them with Kennedy and Trump, right?
Oh, yeah. All right. So there you have it.
But you have to understand that they're doing this to control the most influential people. Right. Right. So they're going to get to everybody they can. This is why nothing's come out about Diddy, because they don't want... the Diddy names revealed because now they have those people captive under the threat that they'll reveal them. All right. And that's why nothing came out on the Epstein people.
Yeah. As long as we have the threat that you were with this dirt bag, you're going to do as we say. And the moment they reveal them all, suddenly their power over them goes away. So I don't think we're going to see anything. I mean, who knows? Maybe the Trump administration will do something different.
But I think the whole point of them having these types of honeypot traps are to never reveal them, only to reveal the fact of one or two of them who are organizing and are complete dirtbags. And if we have association view with that person, yeah, you're gonna go vote Kamala, right? Or whatever the ask is of the day.
But yeah, so the peer review system goes back to that type of thinking and we have to completely dismantle that because this is what it leads to. It leads to centralized control over the narrative. And so you were asking about peer review for this. What we did knowing that whole system's a train wreck is we put all our stuff live on Substack as quickly as we could.
We etched some things into Bitcoin as well on this. We put them on IPFS and then we put the extra time to make protocols. that you could question this with something really cheap like PCR. If someone had to go and sequence vaccines, that could cost more money and take more time.
But if you take the extra effort to make it easy for someone to check your work, like build a PCR assay that someone can do in an afternoon for a couple hundred bucks, then others pick it up. And we got that with, um, Philip Buchholz. He, he reproduced it. God is, you know, he got all types of hell for doing it. Um, and then, um, yeah, who is he again? He's a professor.
He's a cancer biologist down in, um, University of South Carolina, and has an incredible background, came out of Bert Vogelstein's lab at JHU. JHU and Bert's lab are, you know, they're the top cancer docs in the world, right? Everyone who comes out of there, they have just very inventive minds.
Actually, our sequencer that we built, the solid sequencer, we licensed stuff out of Bert's lab because they invented emulsion PCR, and it was a very handy technique. Okay. But Philip came out of there, and he saw this. I was posting this on Twitter, and he was like, well, I don't know. This guy looks like he knows genomics.
He's got a history, but this is all kind of – I'm going to fact check this guy. And he ordered the primers that I put up on our website, ran it, and was like, holy shit, this works. So then he went about and designed his own primers to make sure he wasn't like – I wasn't feeding him some trick. And those worked.
And then he went and sequenced it with Oxford nanopore and he got the whole plasmid and was like, yeah, this is a problem. We have a lot of this DNA there and it's in an LNP and that's very different. The regulations they have for 10 nanograms are irrelevant. We have to. We've got to start scanning tumors now and see if this has played a role.
He's a bit more conservative on it, and I don't blame him based on the role that he's in. He doesn't want to raise alarm bells. He doesn't want to spread panic. He's also in an academic setting where deans kind of come down on you if you do that.
But it's good to have someone like him with a different perspective that's more cautious about this because that can be sobering for when you're alone in a field like this. There's another group in Germany that reproduced it as well, and they actually got it through peer review, Bridget Koenig's group, which I was shocked by that they managed to push it through.
But they've reproduced the work, and there's a group in Canada that I'm working with that reproduced it and put out a preprint. They have the largest study. They did about 30 vials, and they found that in all of them, the PCR data in that study shows that it's probably below the 10-anagram limit for most of it.
But if you use a different tool to measure it, fluorometry, which is probably the right way to do it, you end up being 100-fold over. So what this has revealed is that the pharmaceutical industry is playing games with how they measure this stuff, and the regulators can't keep up. If you measure their own patents, they don't measure it with PCR, yet the regulators say, hey, give us the numbers.
What did you use? PCR. Okay, they look like they passed. The regulators don't read the patents. They'll be like, their own patents tell you not to accept that number. If you read it with a different instrument, you get 100 times more, and you have a problem because it's LNP-based. So, so from a peer review standpoint, we don't care about peer review in the field.
We care about replication and we want replication done from adversaries, people who like believe in this and people who don't like, uh, it's, it's, it's reassuring to me that, that Philip's doing, Philip took the vaccines, right? He's not, we're not eye to eye on this vaccine stuff. He has very different opinions on that and that's fine.
And it's, and when it, when it works in his hands, it's like Bitcoin. If your enemies make it work, it's good money. Right. Right. You want money that that's a consensus gravity. The Russians believe in gravity as much as we do. They can both make it work. So that's how science works is if you're if your enemies can run it, not that Phil's my enemy. He's a good guy.
But the point is you want people all around the world being able to reproduce this. And they can't be from the same sort of ideological cloth in order for you to really consider it.
Showing 621–640 of 709 · page 32 of 36
← Previous
Next →