JJ Couey | More Truth than YouTube Allows

Sevan Matossian (00:04):

Bam. We’re live. Where the fuck is my guest? There goes the first strike on the show. Good morning, Augustus. This is going to be the show that makes me sign up for Rumble. Maybe. No, not if you watch it here, we will stream it here. I suspect this one will not last on YouTube, that I will get a call from Susa that says, yo, pull this from YouTube. Interestingly enough, it was our guest last time. It was Jay last time after the show who’s like, Hey dude, let me do you a favor. I go, what? He goes, pull my show off of YouTube, which I appreciated his sharing of knowledge from his own personal experience. Shannon, what’s up? I can’t remember what You did something. What do you do?


You’re some sort of, are you a professional athlete? What do you do? Someone told me something about you. What do you do, Marco? Hello. Good morning. Did someone say they worked out with Susa today already? Someone said, I thought I saw something in here. I worked out at SU’s 5:00 AM class. That doesn’t even seem real to me that people are Did the 5:00 AM class this morning. Susa would be proud. Oh, oh, over. Not at his gym. Wow. So what do you do? You get up at four 30. By the time you’re done drinking your coffee, it’s 4 45. You get in your car, you get to the gym with one minute to spare.


Nuts. Doses. Doses. Hey, good morning. Oh, coleslaw. 18 times. Coleslaw wrestling champion. Could you DM me a video of that? Is that appropriate? Coleslaw wrestling. Oh shit. Now, damn. We can reschedule. Shit. Let me call Jay. I think we have a an issue. Lemme call Jay Kuey. See what happened. I think that happens now and again. Not often though. I think we’re pretty good at, okay, I was just in the room. Oh, you were? Oh. Oh no. Okay, so he’ll be here. Okay. I was just in the room. Oh, maybe I sent him the wrong link. Shit, maybe I sent Jay the wrong link. Hey, I

JJ Couey (02:47):

Was just here.

Sevan Matossian (02:48):

Did I send you the wrong link?

JJ Couey (02:50):

No, not at all. I was in here like five minutes ago and no one was here. And then I looked on a website that said it was only six o’clock at your house. So then I thought, oh, maybe it’s an hour later. I don’t know. I dunno if the daylight savings time was screwing us up. I apologize.

Sevan Matossian (03:01):

No, it’s good. It’s exciting. Keeps everyone on their toes.

JJ Couey (03:05):

I was totally ready to go, so it’s not like you’re kicking me out of bed or something.

Sevan Matossian (03:09):

Okay, good. You the man. Good to have you. It’s been a minute.

JJ Couey (03:13):

Yeah, it has. Good to see you, man.

Sevan Matossian (03:15):

For those of you who don’t know, Jay’s last show when he was on here, ended up moving to Rumble. I think it’s our most popular show ever. On Rumble. All of our shows stream, they’re supposed to stream simultaneously to Rumble, Twitch, Facebook, Twitter. But after we got off the last show with Jay’s experience, he was like, Hey buddy, you might want to pull this one off of YouTube, which I really appreciated, by the way.

JJ Couey (03:39):

It’s all good,

Sevan Matossian (03:41):

Which is crazy. We didn’t even say anything crazy.

JJ Couey (03:45):

No, well, we did. I mean, the way you walk around certain things, it matters. And the way that I address transfection and that kind of thing, you can’t get around that. That’ll always get bumped.

Sevan Matossian (03:58):

And what is transfection?

JJ Couey (04:01):

That’s the particular kind of methodology that they used for these mRNA shots. It’s just the term that people were using in universities academic science for 20 years. When you use RNA to express protein in a mouse or in cell culture, it’s just a common term. That is one of the reasons why I got fired at the University of Pittsburgh because I started reminding everybody that the investigational vaccines that they’re selling on the PBS NewsHour right now are just transfect. They’re exactly like what we use in our mice. We’re not going to give this to our grandkids. Are our grandparents are we? And they all didn’t understand that. They all just kind had this assumption that, well, it’s kind of like that, but I’m sure they have a different carrier or they have fixed it or it’s better they’ve tested it. I don’t think they could make the connection that actually, no, it’s just exactly the same stuff that you use and they’re just lying to you about whether it’s new or not because they have to lie to the people. I found it really appalling. It was really the start of the whole mess was this word transfection. When I started using it over and over again with faculty members in the hallway, eventually I got asked not to come in anymore, and that was the start of this whole story.

Sevan Matossian (05:18):

Recently, a few people were upset at some words I was saying, I was telling people, Jay, I knew this lady one time, you couldn’t say the word snake around her because she would have a panic attack.

JJ Couey (05:29):

I believe that.

Sevan Matossian (05:30):

So there’s words that I was just imagining considering yourself, a human being and then let’s say a word does upset you not knowing that, hey, that that’s your problem. That’s the only thing that kind of separates us from animals that we’re able to be like, Hey, I’m offended. Oh wait, shit. Did I say I am offended? Oh, so you mean that’s under my control? I can’t imagine not having the, I mean, I feel like that’s the only thing that separates me from a fucking dog is that one little ability to be self-aware and catch that and be like, okay, I could take responsibility for that.

JJ Couey (06:06):

That’s a pretty big concept though, man. I mean, I feel like what you’re tapping into is essentially what happened at the beginning of the pandemic. There were a tremendous number of people that we thought were adults that had never really taken responsibility for anything in their life, and so when they were offered the opportunity to just go limp, they all went limp. And it was really quite extraordinary to see it that these people who I was working with that I thought had very strong opinions about lots of stuff and that were all independent thinkers, just they locked right into what the TV and what the New York Times was saying, and they were all faculty members at a big med school and they were as vulnerable as the teacher in the elementary school. It was extraordinary, if not more vulnerable in a sense because they have, and this is where, I don’t know where you wanted to go with this, but for me, I wanted to share the fact that after three times of listening to our friend Greg Glassman had finally sunk in, what really the big picture of the damage that’s been done in academia is that everyone has been mystified by this ritual of using P values to falsify null hypotheses.


And they have misconstrued this in their own mind is creating knowledge instead of creating noise or instead of filling in spreadsheets, they actually believe they’re creating knowledge and they’ve believed that they have specialized enough in their creation of knowledge that they’re not encroaching on anyone else’s knowledge. And so it’s harmless. I’m just going to explore my little idea and keep testing these null hypotheses and really not creating any model that’s being verified, not testing any model that’s being verified, but they’re kind of spinning their wheels and they have, because they have themselves accepted this as a way of producing knowledge. When someone else presents knowledge produced this way, they refuse to question it. And so this trap that everyone in academia is in was just not, it wasn’t really, maybe I wasn’t in the position to see it. The first couple meetings we had. Maybe it was that I was too overwhelmed by all the people that I was meeting and what was going on there, but this time, the last broken science meeting, I really felt at home the moment I walked in the door and as a result, I felt like everything finally sunk in to where, I’ll be really honest, I feel like Greg has given me a gift.


I feel like basically it’s a question of how much work do I want to do because he’s given me a lifetime of stuff to talk about.

Sevan Matossian (08:57):

That makes me feel good to hear you say that because heard the talk, you’ve been to maybe three of those. I’ve been on the end of phone calls for over a hundred hours and I’ve heard practice lectures and I still don’t fully understand it. I have to make a metaphor about it, and you are one of the smartest people that I know and that Greg knows. But yeah, in a nutshell, academia has picked up a flawed method of looking at things. They basically have a lens that has some sort of aberration in it, and they’re denying that it has it in it, and they’re reporting information that they’re collecting that’s not using the tools that give us real information. That’s sort of how I see it, and it’s everywhere. It’s how we think about everything. It’s how we think about now, it’s affected biology, physics, math, all of civilization, how we treat each other through looking through a flawed lens. That’s how I process it.

JJ Couey (09:57):

Yeah, I mean there’s lots of different ways to do it, and that’s the thing. I mean, maybe I have to just backtrack a little bit and humiliate myself. I was completely in that system. I really thought I was trying to figure out how to do that better. I was trying to become a master of that. I was trying to be the best at that. So to get kicked out of that system and actually beg to come back into it while complaining about a lab leak that I later, two years later think now is probably just a trick they played on us so that we’d argue about that. It’s been a long, long road to pull myself out of that because every part of my understanding of reality was formed by this assumption that they had created knowledge and there was no gray area at the edge when in reality they’ve made the gray area absolutely as gray and as wide as possible so that we don’t even know where the edge of our understanding is anymore.


It’s been a long road, and I really think that Greg and the fact that his father basically never allowed him to fall into this thinking, and then he’s had his own, I’m sure you’ve shared it with your viewers a long time ago, all these different things that have happened to Greg that have forced him to look this monster in the eye and as an entrepreneur and everything you get, I think that’s one of the things that I’ve learned since being out of university is that when you’re running your own business and trying to make a living by just hustle, it’s an extraordinary, there’s, you don’t need to go to bed. There’s no time to sleep. It’s always a job. Tomorrow is on again. And so I can’t imagine that CrossFit was built in any other way. And so then to run into the things that he ran into with CrossFit over the years, he’s been pulling himself out of that system and fighting it for much longer than us.


And so it’s going to take us a while to get to the level of understanding that he has, especially given that he had the dad that he had, which very few of us had a dad that would make us measure a thousand nails to learn the distribution, but that’s the kind of kid childhood he had. So he is a very unique person, and I’m just really, I still ultimately have Rodney Mullen to thank for being your friend, for being Greg’s friend and for Greg to give me, have the patience with me to invite me to three of those things. And still, I don’t think he’s gotten out of me what he expects to get out of me, and he soon will. It’s a monumental task to go from being a biologist to try and think about how to teach biology biological statistics without trying to make a fool of yourself.


But it’s a broad picture. And so I’m trying to build a series of lectures that uses what I know about neurobiology to reflect on good neurobiological investigations and pretty bad ones. And examples of how in every good investigation of the brain of a mouse or whatever model system they’re using, there are a number of examples of figures where a real model is tested, a prediction is made and the prediction is verified, and then afterward there’s four or five figures where no hypotheses are falsified, and P values are used to do that. And so it’s a very strange dichotomy of I’m going to do real science, but I understand that in order to get into nature, I have to do five figures with P values. And when you see a real bad paper, the first two figures where a model is tested and verified are just not there.


And instead they have these figures where they test against Aole hypothesis with P values, and they also have publications, but you can sort through the literature and actually find biology being done correctly, but with a layer of this ritual always on top of it. And that’s what that guy, Gert really made clear to me, actually rode one of those crazy no driver cabs with him. And we talked about the Waymo, the Waymo, and that’s what he explained to me in the cab that what you can see good science, it’s just that they’re always forced to jump through this ritualistic hoop of producing a few figures that have P values and that test against a null. And he finds it really striking that it’s just a ritual. You’re just forced to do it and people make up ways to do it. And I’ve actually, since this last meeting and trying to build this lectures, I’ve found a lot of examples of actually previous work that I’ve been involved in where the neuroscience group has decided to come up with a new way of testing a null hypothesis with p-values that’s completely unnecessary.


And I’m trying to discuss it with Matt Briggs offline because I want to be able to explain why their probability here, the probability test that they use is just kind of silly and it’s not done for any other reason than because the editors and the publishers and the rest of the field expects there to be a P-value somewhere. And I think it’s pretty funny because this lab that I worked in that won the Nobel Prize in 2014 has this kind of standard test that they do that I think from a statistics perspective is meaningless given the biology they’re trying to test, but they do it and it gets published in the highest journals because that’s what these journals expect. And I don’t think that my former boss believes that the test that they’re doing now proves that their observations are right. They think that their observations are right because they make predictions and the observations come true, but the journal requires them to do some kind of statistical analysis of what is obviously a result.


In other words, let’s say you wanted to do a study where you said if you do arm curls three times a day, five times a week for a month, at the end of the month you’ll be stronger and at the end of the month, your kid or me, I’m able to arm curl twice as much. Now you don’t need to do statistics to know that that actually worked, but a nature paper would require you to do statistics on the mean value of what you can arm curl at day 30 with the mean value of what you could arm curl on day one. And then that would show that the observation was, okay, you surrender your common sense to probability. What that has done for people who are doing poor science is that you don’t need common sense to use probability to prove something. Then I’m starting to get all kinds of ideas on how to express it.


But I do think that finally the wheels are turning in my head because it is a big idea. It’s a big philosophical idea that in some senses, if you just read or listen to what Greg says, it’s almost too simple to be true. But it’s actually exactly why it is true, because it is a united front that’s been there for generations now. And we’re still, as I said before, I was being trained by multiple people to do this ritual, and it was over many years that I was being trained to do this ritual. One of the people that trained me won the Nobel Prize in 2014. So I’ve been trained by the best. And it’s not that all of these people don’t think they’re doing science. Some of them are doing great science, but there’s this layer of this ritual on top that because the good scientists do it, it allows the bad scientists to use it.


And that’s the best part about it. If good scientists would just say, I don’t need to do P values because I’m testing a model, I made a prediction. The prediction came true, that’s a hundred percent verification. Next experiment would take that tool out of the hands of the people who aren’t doing model verification, but that’s like a pie in the sky kind of theory of how you would get rid of it. I think in reality, you have to get rid of it by teaching the upcoming generation the flaw in it so that those that do go forward into academic science can change it. I also think we have to keep our kids out.

Sevan Matossian (18:44):

Sorry, really quick. Do you have, oh, I was getting a weird echo for a second. Oh, okay. It’s gone.

JJ Couey (18:51):

My blower in the background.

Sevan Matossian (18:53):

Jay is, this is going back a bit. There’s a couple of things I want to see if you can, I want to talk about transfection, go back there, but a second. But first, Matt Burns, it’s not a leak purposely released. There is a presentation that Jay does that’s absolutely wonderful, where the options he lays out there is, there’s three options. There’s a lab leak, there’s not lab leak, and it doesn’t exist at all. And then you say, if it doesn’t exist at all, then how did they see it? And it’s because the manipulation, Jay is proposing the idea that the manipulation happened at the level of the tools that were used to observe it. So anytime they wanted to observe something different, they just tweaked the observing tool a little bit.

JJ Couey (19:42):

Yeah. The other thing to remember,

Sevan Matossian (19:44):

And that’s the PCR test, right? Yeah. And basically

JJ Couey (19:47):

Do with the sequencing too. The sequencing is just PCR,

Sevan Matossian (19:50):

But the premise of the PCR test is that that tool is so powerful that, and correct me if I’m wrong, Jay, is that that thing can find anything it wants. So it could find HIV in any human being. It can basically look at things that are so small, we can find anything anywhere in any one is that sort of the premise. So you just dial it to what you want to find in them.

JJ Couey (20:12):

But we should be very specific and say that PCR, if done correctly, can be extremely accurate. So you can’t find aids in you if you use an extremely accurate PCR test designed to be extremely accurate. It won’t find it in you. You

Sevan Matossian (20:30):

Mean by that? You mean if you point it at the right thing?

JJ Couey (20:33):


Sevan Matossian (20:34):

But you can point it at anything you want to find, right? It’s like, yes.

JJ Couey (20:38):

But if

Sevan Matossian (20:39):

Telescope, I say it’s like a telescope, and if I pointed at the sky and I go, look, Jay, there’s no moon. You’re like, no, no, move the telescope over here. And then all of a sudden I’m like, oh, shit is like that, isn’t it? It

JJ Couey (20:51):

Is. It is. But think about it more like if the primers are short sentences or words and you’re trying to find a book. And so if you choose a sentence once upon a time, that’s not going to be very specific for a lot of books. There’s going to be a lot of books in the library that will be positive for that. The longer sentence you choose, the more specific it’ll be for the book, and the more careful you are about what you choose and don’t choose, say chapter one or don’t choose table of contents, but choose something that’s very specific for the book. You can make it very specific, right? So the question becomes number one, what was the background before 2020? Because we’re being told that if we took these tests back in time that we wouldn’t find anything. But that’s a very large assumption given the fact that we found our first coronavirus in 2006.


We sequenced the first one in 2006. We tracked one in 2008 for like 27 people. We tracked the one in 2002 for about 51 sequences, a hundred sequences, and really only killed 700 people. We didn’t get sequences from every one of those people. And so now we suddenly have this scenario where we’re being told that over the last four years, we’ve sequenced a single virus 15 million times. That is orders of magnitude in terms of unprecedented biological data. The alternative hypothesis would be that that’s a background signal that in 2020 we weren’t testing for, and in 2019 we didn’t give a shit about. And in 2018, they were still characterizing so that they understood it well enough so that when they decided to tell you it was spread, they could orchestrate the theater well enough so that you’d believe it. And in that case, what they do, just to give you the hypothetical, they would take this background coronavirus signal, and they would sequence it over years and over years.


They would have a characterization of what signals they find, how varied they are, and what signals are conserved and what ones are varied. And the ones that are conserved are oftentimes enzymes that copy the virus or enzymes that are associated with the first parts of infection. And so those are the ones that your immune system, at least as far as traditional immunology will say, are the ones that your immune system focuses on. So the trick would be to say, okay, now there’s a new virus, but we already have the phylogeny. We’ve already figured out how these things are related to each other because we’ve been watching ’em for the last three years. So then when we take all these swabs and we distribute ’em in America, where do they go? Well, they get collected by dtra. Actually, DTRA was distributing and collecting the sequencing swabs from January, 2020 onward.


We don’t know when they quit. So when you hear all these molecular biologists say that we have 15 million sequences of this virus and everybody’s contributing sequences to the database, that’s kind of a lie because only DTRA contributed to the sequencing database for an unknown amount of time in 2020 and 2021, and are still basically curating it. So if they wanted to, and I’m sure they wanted to, they could, or I shouldn’t say it like that, if they wanted to, they could have taken a background signal accurately characterized it before the pandemic, and then by collecting all the sequencing swabs and then publishing whatever they wanted to, they could say, here’s the original sequence and now here’s the variants, and the variant is this one. And the variant is that one. When in reality those variants were all available to be tested for, sequenced, found and tracked, the delta variant might’ve always been there.


The omicron variant almost certainly was always there. And so you have this scenario where the people who control the PCR primers control the positivity. The people that control the sequencing primers control the actual sequence that you find. So if they want you to find Delta, they just tweak the primers so that that’s the primers that get, that’s the sequences that get pulled up out of a background that contains all of those things. So you’re looking more, if you think more about how easily the lie could be done, they walked you into a library and said, there are no books in here right now. And then they said, all of a sudden now there are books all over the place, and here they are. And they pulled them off the shelves one at a time telling you that they’re appearing in that order when in reality they were always in the library.

Sevan Matossian (25:23):

So it’s not that it’s mutating, they’re pointing at different stuff. Look here now look here of things that already existed,

JJ Couey (25:31):

For example. I don’t think that the alternative is, is that you give them their story, which is that an RNA molecule coated in a lipoprotein coat in Wuhan has now succeeded in copying itself enough times to be virtually found everywhere. And that has, from a biology perspective, I just got to say, it’s absolutely absurd. There’s no precedence in history to think that an RNA molecule, not a mosquito, not a species, not a fungus, but an RNA molecule, no matter how many, that’s not the way chemistry works. That’s not biology. That’s a story. And the worst part about it is, and this is still for Matt Burns’s question, I guess, is that RNA virology is done that way. Almost all of RNA virology is done by making a DNA copy of the RNA that they find in the wild. Why is that? Because when you go get fungus in the wild and you figure out what it likes to grow on, you can grow fungus in your garage and forever, if you want to breed rabbits, you can go get a couple rabbits and you can keep rabbits in your garage and they’ll be there forever if you take care of them.


If you want to grow virus in your garage, I don’t know, they’ve been trying a long time, but you can’t get virus in the wild and then take it in your laboratory and then just make it like you make bread. It’ll eventually peter out. It disappears, it dies out. They don’t really know how to explain it. They just say that, well, they’re hard to culture. Well, the reality is, is that they find RNA signals in the wild. And when they take those RNA, these preparations and they put ’em on cell cultures, the cell cultures die when they use PCR, they can find RNAs in there. So it’s not a question of whether these RNAs exist. It’s a question of how they exist in nature. They don’t exist in nature where they perpetuate themselves indefinitely for five years through millions and millions of conspecifics or the same species.


That’s not how any virus ever works. That’s not how they’ve ever tracked any of these things before. And so it strikes me as odd that all of these people don’t want to tell you that in order to study a coronavirus in a bat, they’ve always, you can look for all of these bat papers that everybody’s got their hair on fire about. They take a sequence that they find in the wild, they fill in the blanks that they obviously always have when they fill in the blanks. They have a full sequence. They make a DNA copy of that, then they put that DNA in bacteria and grow that bacteria for a long time. And the bacteria make lots of copies of that DNA. Then they ly the bacteria and they have this whole quantity of DNA. Then they can mix that DNA with an enzyme called RNA polymerase that’s commercially pure, like any other pharmaceutical would be made any other biologic, like a monoclonal antibody is made just like this.


You take that big quantity of DNA, you add the RNA polymerase to it, and out the other side comes RNA. And that RNA can be put on a cell culture. And the cell culture will do all the same things that it did when you took the RNA out of a bat, except you got a lot more RNA. And you can take that RNA and you can put it in a mouse and it’ll get sick or put it in a monkey and it’ll get sick. And we can make lots of it. And the best part is I can make some of that. I can send it to another lab around the world and they get the same results. And if I want to start again, I can go back to the DNA and make some more RNA or I can grow more DNA in my bacteria and then make more RNA.


And we can keep coming back to the same sequence that I found four years ago, and I would never be able to do that. If I had took that RNA and tried to culture it in dishes and make it grow more and more, it would go away. And so that’s the point. You can’t get RNA into your lungs and have it grow and grow and then you spit it all over your family and all over your school. That’s not how it works. However, if they wanted to convince the world and all the molecular biologists that have their in the sand, that they found the same sequence in Wuhan and in Iran and in Washington and in Italy, and even more importantly, they wanted all the molecular biologists that did the test to find that result. All they’d have to do is make the sequence we’ve been able to make.

The above transcript is generated using AI technology and therefore may contain errors.

Check out our other posts.