Kevin McKernan

This is just fraud, a different form of fraud. But we expect if we approach them with the SV-40 thing, they'll probably use the same excuse. Like, it's a precedent that they've said.

Yeah, they have a lot of fact-checkers talking about it, which is a sign that they're worried about it. They don't assign – all the fact-checkers you see, if you dig into them, there's some connection of money either back to the Gates Foundation or to a pharmaceutical company one way or another.

Yeah, they have a lot of fact-checkers talking about it, which is a sign that they're worried about it. They don't assign – all the fact-checkers you see, if you dig into them, there's some connection of money either back to the Gates Foundation or to a pharmaceutical company one way or another.

Yeah, they have a lot of fact-checkers talking about it, which is a sign that they're worried about it. They don't assign – all the fact-checkers you see, if you dig into them, there's some connection of money either back to the Gates Foundation or to a pharmaceutical company one way or another.

They are pumping out – I mean, even the government came out saying they had a billion dollars to spend on reducing vaccine hesitancy for basically marketing their narrative, if you will. Right. when you can tell which topics worry them by how many fact checkers are sick on it. And we're probably right up there at the top.

They are pumping out – I mean, even the government came out saying they had a billion dollars to spend on reducing vaccine hesitancy for basically marketing their narrative, if you will. Right. when you can tell which topics worry them by how many fact checkers are sick on it. And we're probably right up there at the top.

They are pumping out – I mean, even the government came out saying they had a billion dollars to spend on reducing vaccine hesitancy for basically marketing their narrative, if you will. Right. when you can tell which topics worry them by how many fact checkers are sick on it. And we're probably right up there at the top.

If you look up the SV40 stuff, they have gotten every one of the fact checkers to write something about it.

If you look up the SV40 stuff, they have gotten every one of the fact checkers to write something about it.

If you look up the SV40 stuff, they have gotten every one of the fact checkers to write something about it.

Yeah, so that's a good point. So that brings you back to, you know, let's channel Jack here, right? Decentralizing. So peer review, we talked about peer review. Peer review right now is centralized. It's centralized at journals who get most of the revenue from pharmaceutical companies. So they're not really peer review. It's actually a gatekeeping system of what gets through. Yes. Right.

Yeah, so that's a good point. So that brings you back to, you know, let's channel Jack here, right? Decentralizing. So peer review, we talked about peer review. Peer review right now is centralized. It's centralized at journals who get most of the revenue from pharmaceutical companies. So they're not really peer review. It's actually a gatekeeping system of what gets through. Yes. Right.

Yeah, so that's a good point. So that brings you back to, you know, let's channel Jack here, right? Decentralizing. So peer review, we talked about peer review. Peer review right now is centralized. It's centralized at journals who get most of the revenue from pharmaceutical companies. So they're not really peer review. It's actually a gatekeeping system of what gets through. Yes. Right.

So the way to do peer review in the future is peer to peer. We have these peer to peer cryptocurrency systems, which are effectively timestamping systems of when something was was recorded or invented. So they're ideal for doing peer review. We've done some of this in the past when we sequence cannabis genomes. We've done some projects where we actually were funded by cryptocurrency.

So the way to do peer review in the future is peer to peer. We have these peer to peer cryptocurrency systems, which are effectively timestamping systems of when something was was recorded or invented. So they're ideal for doing peer review. We've done some of this in the past when we sequence cannabis genomes. We've done some projects where we actually were funded by cryptocurrency.

So the way to do peer review in the future is peer to peer. We have these peer to peer cryptocurrency systems, which are effectively timestamping systems of when something was was recorded or invented. So they're ideal for doing peer review. We've done some of this in the past when we sequence cannabis genomes. We've done some projects where we actually were funded by cryptocurrency.

We did the genome, we put all the data onto the blockchain, and we did the peer review on the blockchain. You just recruit peers with crypto and say, hey, 500 bucks to review this upfront, 500 if you finish it, but everything has to be public, your name, your CV, everything has to go public. It happens in seven days. It's the fastest peer review we've ever had happen.

We did the genome, we put all the data onto the blockchain, and we did the peer review on the blockchain. You just recruit peers with crypto and say, hey, 500 bucks to review this upfront, 500 if you finish it, but everything has to be public, your name, your CV, everything has to go public. It happens in seven days. It's the fastest peer review we've ever had happen.

We did the genome, we put all the data onto the blockchain, and we did the peer review on the blockchain. You just recruit peers with crypto and say, hey, 500 bucks to review this upfront, 500 if you finish it, but everything has to be public, your name, your CV, everything has to go public. It happens in seven days. It's the fastest peer review we've ever had happen.

now of course the the traditional academics are like oh you've got money involved and they don't realize that well so do you like when you're right of course when you put in the paper for journal you're paying nature three to five grand to review it none of the money that you pay to nature goes to the reviewers right and it's really prone to bias very prone to bias so and wasn't robert maxwell the one who put this peer review process in place in the first place like in the very beginning yeah so you've read a little bit about this yeah