VDH and Steven Quay

When empires debase their currency, citizens who hold gold survive the transition.

That's not opinion, it's documented fact.

Trump's economic warning isn't speculation, it's pattern recognition.

The same signals that preceded every major currency crisis are flashing now.

Unsustainable debt, foreign nations dumping our bonds, and central banks hoarding gold.

But Trump's also revealing the solution.

The IRS strategy he's used for decades is available to every American.

It's how the wealthy preserve their fortunes when paper currencies fail.

American Alternative Assets has documented this strategy in their free 2025 wealth protection guide.

It shows exactly how to position yourself before the turbulence Trump's warning about arrives.

Call 888-615-8047 for your free guide.

That's 888-615-8047 or visit victorlovesgold.com.

The patterns are clear.

Make sure you're on the right side of them.

Hi, everybody.

This is Victor Hansen, and it's the Victor Hansen podcast.

Sandy's not with us today, but we have a return of one of our most popular guests, Dr.

Stephen Quay.

I think you remember him.

It was in March 30th of this year.

And Stephen came in and weighed in on a whole array of subjects surrounding COVID from the scientific to the social policy.

He has an MD PhD.

He's the head of a

biotherapeutic corporation, Tassa Therapeutics.

He's been a faculty member at Stanford.

Occasionally, he comes through Palo Alto when we're lucky enough to see him.

And he and I have had some great conversations.

And I think I'm just going to plow right into it, Stephen.

Last time you were here,

it was kind of still controversial about the origins of the COVID virus.

And there was still that taboo that anybody suggested, as you had said, one of the first, that it was highly unlikely that that virus originated outside of the Wuhan lab.

Is there anything you can update us on about, is that defunct now, the Fauci theory?

You know, Victor, I mean, some theories never die no matter how much much evidence you have, but

we have learned new things since then.

Way back in January of 2020, the State Department, the outgoing Trump State Department, put out a fact sheet around the virus and indicated that three scientists from the Wuhan Institute had been sick in the fall with a pneumonia that looked very much like SARS-CoV-2.

Since then, we've actually had those scientists have been named,

and they are, in fact, some of the most

prominent scientists at the Woundsphiology that have been studying coronaviruses for over a decade doing synthetic biology on them moving around the spike protein moving around genes that involved pathogenicity or the ability to kill human cells so that was that was a pretty remarkable finding

the other was kind of a

he said she said a version of what was found in the market.

Yeah, I remember that.

I remember that.

And that was something that that I wanted to talk to you about.

There was that story also about the raccoon dog or whatever it was.

What was that all about?

So

what happened was the

Well,

there's a database in Germany called GSAT, G-I-S-A-I-D, which has, at the present time counting, 15 million sequences of SARS-CoV-2 from human beings or animals or environmental specimens.

And there had been an upload of

some

genomic sequences from environmental samples taken in the market in the January to March timeframe.

And

so everyone jumped on these and began analyzing them in pretty much real time.

And what happened was some people got out ahead of their, got out over their skis, I guess is the way to put it, and came out with the fact that there were viruses associated with raccoon dogs in the market.

Careful, deeper analysis by some very, by me and by

very, you know, academic scientists proved that to be a hoax, to be not true.

So although people continue to say that it probably came from the market or it might have come from the market, there's still absolutely no evidence that it came from anywhere but a laboratory.

What was, Stephen, when we had, and you'll have to refresh my memory, but we had one of Fauci's chief lieutenants, I think in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, came out with a very bizarre story.

Maybe, did you see that three weeks ago?

It said he was up all at night and he felt that he had participated in an effort to suppress dissenting views about the origins of COVID.

And I didn't know what that was all about.

It was almost a confessional.

That's exactly my first take on it as well.

I think there will be, as time goes on, more and more people will

have a consciousness attack or something and will describe in more detail what was going on contemporaneously at the time.

There have been additional findings around some of the work that I did at the State Department, some of the criticism of my own work within the State Department, but then the backstory has been that it was actually highly, highly accepted within the most serious scientist part of the State Department that were looking at it.

I don't want to pile on, but when I look at Fauci's statements and he said something about religion that was kind of off topic, that he didn't really need it or something, which is fine.

But he's the and you look at these communications that have been released under the freedom.

He's kind of a tragic figure because he was there for 40 years and he had this enormous multi-billion dollar purse strings.

But additional information since the last time you and I have talked have not been favorable for his cause,

as I would put it, it seems to me.

And I know that his

not that it matters, but his popularity has gone way down.

And it seems that there's a lot of people who have said that if this was at the laboratory, which it was, and it was a gain of function, which he denied,

subsidy of sorts,

then the almost unspeakable, unimaginable

exegesis of all this is that Anthony Fauci, and I don't want you to comment because I'm not going to put you in the spot, but that he had some culpability either in the subsidies of some sort, whether money or expertise or instrumentation, or in the suppression of a narrative that would have been very useful.

Is that a fair characterization of where

that controversy is surrounding him today?

Yes, I think it is.

I mean, I believe there is some new testimony.

I believe he's going to testify in Congress in January, which will refocus the attention on this whole process, which, as you say, we don't need to pick on one person or one process.

But there seemed to be a concerted effort among many people within the government to create a narrative that was not based on the absolute science in front of them, but was more designed to

maybe cover up some activities that people regretted in hindsight.

You feel that because you were one of the first people,

I guess at that time it was a minority view and people who were

expressing skepticism about the dominant narrative of a pangolin or a bat.

And you took a lot of heat.

Do you feel that in the time since we've talked, that people have now come around to you?

Have you had any apologies, professional apologies, or people write you and say, you know, I wanted to speak out

in your position because it was scientifically based, but I just could.

Anything like that at all?

Yeah, yeah, that actually has happened.

I work with some folks

in some of the senators' offices in D.C.

and I did get a nice, had a nice discussion about a month and a half ago where they said, you know, we've we've been interviewing a lot of scientists in virology, you know, you know, people in their mid of their career, 30, 40 years old.

And all of them said, you know, Steve Quay's writings actually kept us, you know, were very satisfying for us because we couldn't speak out for our own career's sakes, but it was nice to see that we had someone out there who was

putting out just straight science.

And then what are the conclusions from that straight science?

And that was gratifying, I have to say, because it was a little bit lonely during the process.

Yeah, it was.

I remember in March when we spoke.

You know, last night in the wonderful Bistro Vita in Minneapolis Park that Ali, our friend, runs, and you and I had dinner there.

I had dinner last night with Scott Atlas, and we were discussing the evidence for the social policies, masking, lockdowns, quarantine.

And he was in a parallel universe with yours in the sense that he was arguing very early that the lockdowns and the economic damage, and we talked about this earlier, the missed cancer screenings, the spousal abuse,

suicide, all of the social economic ramification of putting an entire population lockdown might be more deleterious than the actual virus.

And as you remember, the Stanford Faculty Senate voted to censor him.

And the medical school

wrote a petition

with a majority of the medical school members to try to actually take his license.

That failed, although they were on record of censoring him as well.

But right now, as we speak,

there's a petition at Stanford University to recall all of those censures.

And I think talking to him last night, we went over things in detail.

I told him I was going to talk to you today.

And I think his view and I was just wanting to see if you weigh in, even though you were more on the scientific than the public policy side.

I think his view has been substantiated as well.

Well, that's right, Victor.

And

one of the things that, again, comes out as

we

start to do retrospective analyses is there was abundant peer-reviewed evidence of what the impact of lockdowns were on pandemic spread or epidemic spread, and also the consequences of them in terms of economic impact and the downstream health effects of those.

And these were out there.

They've been out there for a long time.

There are actually public policies from as far back as the 50s in the United States, basically looking at the 1918 pandemic of influenza and saying lockdowns did not work.

And then policies were made there.

And even

in October of 2019, the WHO, so let's just remember that's two months before this whole process started, came out with very clear statements that lockdowns, that travel, that travel disruptions really did not have a place in

epidemic management.

And yet,

six months later, five months later, based on computer programs, not based on science, just computer modeling like they do with climate change and other things,

said we should lock down.

And the downstream consequences have now been measured.

And looking back, there's almost

one study that is quite well done shows a 20

deaths from the lockdown for every one death that was saved with respect to COVID infection,

21 ratio.

I really hold

the Oxford epidemiologist Neil Ferguson, not to be confused with my colleague at Hoover, Neil Ferguson, the preeminent historian.

He spells his name different, but it's pronounced the same.

You remember that study?

He forecast these.

just this fantastic amount of people who would be killed by COVID.

And then he urged

a complete shutdown in Western democracies.

And then I think he was kind of embarrassed.

He broke his own curfew.

But

that was very influential, that original Oxford study by Neil Ferguson.

I think it was.

And it did a lot of damage.

Victor, you're exactly right.

That one study, that one man, was responsible for what happened in the U.K.

And then

because of Farrar at the Wellcome Institute and his relationship with Anthony Fauci, transferred over to the U.S.

So there was

no other study that really impacted our lockdown policies other than that one.

So it's quite a catalytic event.

It has a similar effect.

If you can imagine,

I still wonder around the fact that we now have, what, 2 billion people who've had COVID, and yet it started with one person on one of the subway lines in Wuhan line changes.

Wow.

One person led to

this huge pandemic.

And Neil Ferguson, to his credit, is probably the one person that led to the effects of the lockdowns, which is, we think, is $22 to $22 trillion in economic loss.

$22 trillion.

That's larger than the GDP of the United States per annum.

That's correct.

That's a worldwide loss, but nonetheless, yeah, it was about 5% to 10% in the U.S.

and spread around the world.

That's what you get, what you get to.

And then 20 lives lost in the lockdowns for everyone that was saved by the lockdowns.

You know, it was very strange.

I know you were a faculty member at Stanford, but

when this broke down, when all this controversy emerged, Stanford University had been pretty famous for having Michael Levette, the Nobel Prize-winning biologist.

We had John Yannides, who was that brilliant immunologist, epidemiologist who had proved that Theranos kind of scam about that blood testing that sent Elizabeth Combs to jail.

And then we had as well, Jay Bacharia, who's now at the Hoover Institution.

And we had Scott, who had been, you know, he had been chairman of neural radiology, but he'd branched into public policy for years.

So we had these four brilliant people at Stanford.

And you think that this was the occasion they were all writing about things that dovetailed with what you're saying.

And yet the university kind of orphaned them.

It was a weird, I thought they would be so proud of them to say, wow, we are preeminent in the world with these four brilliant people, but we did just the opposite.

And I think everybody's, they're so embarrassed now.

They can't come out and just admit of what they did to these people.

They tried to really damage their careers.

That was awful.

And

they were associated in the case of Jay and others with the Great Barrington Declaration.

And

you and I have talked about that before.

Yeah, that was

a proposal for handling the pandemic by sort of putting your major resources with the most vulnerable population, which is the elderly, maybe without risk factors, or the middle-aged, maybe the 45 to 65, who have some risk factor of

more significant effect from the coronavirus.

So you put your resources on those folks in terms of isolation and helping them.

And then you allow this virus, which has less than a 0.2% lethality for anyone under 40 without risk factors, you let it just sort of happen.

And

that was...

really highly criticized almost to the point of personal attacks on these people.

Yeah, it was.

You know, one thing that we talked about nine months ago, and I think I asked you, and you gave me a kind of a prescient answer that nobody had, I just sort of hypothetically said, has there anything good come of gain of function?

I wasn't even talking about a cost-benefit.

And you were pretty adamant that the risk so outweighed the possible benefits that you couldn't,

and please correct me, that you couldn't think of a substantial scientific breakthrough that was worth the risk.

Is that still what your feeling is?

And

did I summarize what you felt at the time?

Yes, yes, you absolutely did.

And so, again, I tried to look at it very deliberately.

So, I went back to the late 80s and early 90s and looked at all of the gain of function experiments, publications on viruses, where there was an attempt to try to predict what nature would do by adding virulence factors or other things to viruses, and then learning from that.

And I saw no actual outcomes from any of that research that

benefited humans.

I mean, what happened was we got the sequence of the virus and within a week we were making vaccines to it, which is kind of what we can do nowadays with our technology.

But

you don't need to do 1,000 or 2,000 years of evolution in the laboratory to create something that probably can't even occur in nature.

If you run the probabilities on some of the gain of function things that they did, there is just no probability of having a bat and a virus or two viruses recombined in a way that is done in one afternoon in the laboratory.

And so it was all hubris.

And what,

you know, again, I don't want to be too cynical, but what you see in the private videos of some of these scientists when they're talking to potential investors or

government groups or that sort of thing is a pattern of sort of creating the worst-case scenario, scaring people, and then trying to say how they would come in and save the day.

And but for their work,

you know we would be in even worse shape than we are and it's it's very manipulative because when you take someone who doesn't have a scientific background you you know most you have to assume that they're not going to be able to criticize a scientist and so the scientist has a little more responsibility to be balanced in their presentations and there was nothing to the there was no balance whatsoever in that and they were uh and as we saw for eco health alliance for example i mean they generated i believe over 60 million dollars from dod and from from NIH and from private investors, basically scaring people.

Can you speculate?

What do you think is the status today of the Wuhan Biology Lab?

Is it still functioning?

Are there labs like it in China or in Europe or here?

I know maybe supposedly not here, but is gain of function discredited or is it just going on as nothing has happened?

Victor, it's quite amazing.

There are probably only 50 or 60 out of the 24,000 scientists that are funded by NIH.

So 50 or 60 doing gene of function research.

And they're going full speed and they're just continuing and

they have no shame about their work.

It is really remarkable.

Is there any increased awareness

to heighten security protocols or to keep a safe zone or to redo either in China or elsewhere that this was such a colossal failure?

Is there any, did they learn anything from it?

I think they learned.

You don't know, of course, what the Chinese learned because they don't tell you about it.

But there's always been

four levels of laboratory security where you can do different kinds of research.

So they're called biological safety lab or BSL one to four.

BLC three and four are where you want to be with the most dangerous viruses.

So Ebola is always BLCI IV.

SARS-CoV-2 is now BLC 4 or maybe 3.

But we know in retrospect that the Windows Servology was operating all of their work at BLSA 2, which

is the safety level of basically the equivalent of a U.S.

dental office.

So could you imagine?

It's in the back room of a dental office and then saying, oops, and having it infect somebody and then having them go out and take a subway and go from there.

So I believe they must have,

for self-preservation, if nothing else, I believe that they would

have learned from this.

Um, there, you know, they had a first vaccine in about March, which many people, me included, if you, you know, I've invented seven drugs, so I know what a Gantt chart and the number of months it takes to get a drug developed.

And so when

China was doing human testing in March on a SARS-CoV-2 virus, it was pretty obvious with like 95% probability that they must have started well before,

probably in the probably in the third quarter or second quarter of 2019.

But nonetheless,

the patent holder holder of that first patent that China had in March

died by going off the roof of the Wu and Insta Virology in May.

And he was a fairly prominent scientist.

His death was sort of, you know, it was recognized, but not celebrated in any way.

So there are signs that that they're coming around.

I'm sorry,

President Xi in February

introduced legislation in China where animals, animals that are tested with gain of function viruses cannot be resold in the markets for food.

And why you would need a law like that is kind of beside me.

I can't imagine it, but nonetheless, and there's huge fines and jail time for people that violate that.

So that's, again, an example of evidence that it

began in the laboratory.

Yeah, we're going to get, we'll come right back.

We're going to hear a word from our sponsors.

And I have a kind of an explosive question to ask you, Stephen, but we'll be right back.

Like you, when I bought my last pair of shoes, I looked for stylish comfort and beautiful engineering.

And that might make you think Italian, but if you're buying sheets, it should make you think bull and branch.

The colors, the fabric, the design.

Bowl and branch sheets are made with long-lasting quality, offering extraordinary softness to start and getting softer and softer for years to come.

Bowl and branch sheets are made with the finest 100% organic cotton in a soft, breathable, durable weave.

Their products have a quality you can feel immediately and become even softer with every wash.

Plus, Bowl and Branch comes with a 30-night worry-free guarantee.

I've been sleeping like a baby in my bowl and branch sheets, which keep me cool on those hot summer nights, and they're the perfect place for sunrise and morning coffee.

So join me.

Feel the difference an extraordinary night's sleep can make with Bowl and Branch.

Get 15% off plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at bowlandbranch.com slash Victor.

That's Bolin Branch.

B-O-L-L-A-N-D-B-R-A-N-C-H dot com slash Victor.

to save 15% off and unlock free shipping.

Exclusions may apply and we'd like to thank Bolin Branch for sponsoring the Victor Davis Hansen Show.

So you just got back from summer vacation.

Maybe you might have even had to book two rooms because of your snoring.

Some vacation, huh?

Snoring can be an underlying cause of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and even memory loss.

Here is my advice.

If you want every night to be a true vacation, you need to get yourself Zipa.

That's happy Z spelled backwards.

Zipa is a doctor-designed mouthpiece that not only moves your jaw forward, but is also the only device with a patented tongue seat belt to keep your airways open and the snoring away.

The snoring can stop as soon as the first night.

Zipa was proven in a 600-patient clinical trial and sold over half a million units.

From now until the end of October, show your your family you actually care by purchasing a limited edition Pink Zipa.

Not only will you save $10,

but Zipa is on a mission to raise $50,000 for breast cancer research and they will donate another $10,000 to the Susan G.

Komen Breast Cancer Foundation.

Go to zyppah.com and use the code PINK or text VICTOR to 511-511.

Put your snoring on a permanent vacation and help a worthy cause with the snoring device we trust by visiting zyppah.com and use the code PINK or text Victor to 511-511.

Remember, ZIPA is happy Z spelled backwards.

Text fees may apply and we'd like to thank Zipa for sponsoring the Victor Davis Hansen show.

And we're back again and what I was fascinated with your timeline because it's pretty well documented as you pointed out now that there was a much earlier acknowledgement of the SARS-2 virus

at the time when they were were producing or working on the vaccination, which I guess for a layman like myself, the obvious question is,

and I guess our listeners are asking this, so they'll probably say, well, Dr.

Kway,

are you suggesting to us that they were experimenting before the outbreak by several months with gain of function research while simultaneously creating a vaccine at the same time?

And there might have been a charitable explanation.

Well, that makes

you know sense that if you're doing this dangerous research, you might have a commiserate program to to protect yourself.

But they didn't, they would have had a monopoly on that vaccine, and then this thing escaped.

And you see what I'm going, where I'm going?

It's very scary to think that that could have happened, that they were almost simultaneously working with a virus that would eventually kill 50 million or more or more, infect 2 billion.

Maybe it was.

you know, it was an accident, sure, of course.

But at the same time, they were taking precautions to protect their own people, but nobody else in the world knew any of this was going on.

Yeah.

I mean, that is the evidence, Victor.

And so if we take it apart in a very deliberate fashion, I think it's a little more, it's a little clearer

what is probably going on there.

So let's back up and just

a small tutorial on gain of function research in viruses.

So there's five things you can do to a virus that qualify as gain of function.

Three of them are in the world of academic research.

I don't think they contribute to public health, but nonetheless, they're accepted among the world's scientists as things you can do.

And then two of the activities

have no civilian value and are primarily considered to be to be of non-civilian use.

And

I won't use the word bioweapon or something.

Okay, well, you said it.

I said it, not you.

So I want everybody to go on record that I said it and that he did not, he neither denied or affirmed, or

he was

neutral on the question.

That's even too strong a word, but I said it.

Okay.

So

what are the five types?

So the three things that are acceptable is changing the host.

So if you have a bat virus going to human or a cow virus going to human, that's one kind of academically interesting virus, interesting process.

One is to change the infectivity.

So how many individual particles do you need?

Can you make it more infective?

So it takes a smaller and smaller dose to cause a clinical infection.

And three is once an infection is established, does the immune system beat it off pretty well and you just have a bad cold or does it kill you?

So tropism, as it's called, changing host or infectivity or pathogenicity are kind of accepted things.

Now, the two that are not are making a virus asymptomatic.

So

we know that most new, well, not most, all new viruses that run into the humans

give off a signal of an infection very early because the human immune system is like layers of

warfare.

What do I call it?

Tools or tools of warfare.

So the medieval, you know, they had the catapults and things like that.

And we have that.

It's called the innate immune system.

And it's really clumsy.

And

it sort of puts off a bomb

in the trenches.

So we get pretty sick if the innate immune system gets too excited.

But nonetheless, it's there to trip new viruses that we've never seen before.

And then the sort of the stealth bombers, the antibodies and the T cell, killer T cells, are the more advanced tools that we now have that are, you know, being used in modern warfare.

But those take a certain amount of time to come about.

And so triggering the innate immune system quickly kind of puts a hold on it, puts, you know, sets up a stalemate, and then you can bring in your real, your heavy-duty armor, so to speak.

So

making something asymptomatic is very difficult for a brand new virus.

It can be done.

And in fact, there was research going on in the Woodhouse Institute of Virology at looking at the interplay between SARS viruses and the innate immune system and seeing if they could prevent the interferon release, which is a signal of

the innate immune system.

And finally, the

last one, go ahead, last

one.

It's fascinating.

Well, the fifth one that's also not accepted and for non-civilian use, not accepted for

civilian use, excuse me, is that is that the virus is created in a way that it's very hard to make antibodies to it or response to it.

So HIV was the first virus that taught us, wow, here's a virus that can cause this raging infection, and yet the immune system cannot keep up.

with it.

What is the mechanism of that?

And that was worked out in the 80s and 90s.

And so there are elements of SARS-CoV-2 that have that same property where it's very hard to make an antibody response to it.

What does that translate into?

Repeat infections over and over again or vaccines that don't work and those sorts of things.

So

SARS-CoV-2 has both properties of being 40% asymptomatic at the initial transmission, which has never been seen for a medicatory virus.

And that's very dangerous, right?

It is very dangerous because then people can walk around and spread it without knowing.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, 30,000 years ago, before we had medicine, we were in little tribes of 250,000, 300 people.

And if someone got sick, they would have a red face, they would sweat, and you'd, you know, you'd build them a tent, you know, 100 feet away from the rest of the tribe.

And if they survived, you bring them back.

And if they didn't, you know, you'd have you'd honor their life, so to speak.

And so this innate immune, so the symptomatic responses of infection, which are fever, sweating, rosy cheeks, became selected for.

Because viruses that didn't do that, you know, it would kill the person and they would no longer be in the reproductive pool.

So now, so having an asymptomatic virus out of the box is, again, unheard of and it is a unique feature of SARS-CoV-2, never seen before.

If you were, and I want to make it clear to everybody that Dr.

Kui has been adamant about his skepticism and caution about gain of function research, but if I were to play devil's advocate and I have $50 billion at my disposal and you're a gain of function scientist, and I ask you,

why are you doing gain of function?

What is your rationale?

What do you hope to do for mankind?

What is the purpose of all this?

What would you say?

What would you say they would say?

Yes, no, absolutely.

And that is exactly the way we all need to think in terms of looking at any arguments, you know, both sides and a fair assessment of both sides.

One of the interesting aspects of SARS-CoV-2 is this mRNA vaccine and how quickly it was done.

So the answer in the pre-SARS-CoV-2 space would be, look, it takes us two or three or four years to come up with a vaccine.

What we'd like to do is develop antivirals, which can treat an infection, keep the person sort of alive long enough for the immune system to kick in and do its job.

So what that means is that you take viruses that are

at the interface between nature and man, you know, in the jungles or caves

or the like, and

you put it in the laboratory and you give it a Darwinian test to say, I want you to kill human cells faster or I want you to kill human cells more easily.

And then you look at

what happened in that particular virus and then you try to create antivirals to stop that process.

So

in theory, and we won't get into my term bioweapon because that's irrelevant in this context.

But in theory, these people are trying to help mankind by engaging in a very risky type of research.

Yes,

the foundational assumption that crumbles

like a sandcastle is that you can predict where nature will take a virus to make it more pathogenic, make it more lethal.

So

there's an investigator in North Carolina who is probably the number one synthetic biologist of coronaviruses.

He did an experiment about 2015, so eight years ago, seven years ago, in which

he took

a coronavirus that that only infected bats and he said well let's teach it to infect human cells he did it without a foreknowledge so what he did was was what uh basically mendel did you know the monk back in the uh in the peapads um and he just he added it to human cells and he took the ones that grew the first and he kept adding it back and forth and by about 15 passages it it was uh orders of magnitude better at killing human cells now Here's the most important part of this experiment.

There were four mutations in that new virus that were not present in the original virus.

So out of 30,000 letters, there were only four letter changes.

So that's pretty small to go from not infecting human cells to killing them deadly.

Two of them were in the spike protein.

So this scientist could say those two contributed to the virus sticking better to cells and getting into the cells.

But the other two are back in a part of the genome.

And I, as the greatest synthetic biologist, coronavirus biologist in the world, has no idea what those two mutations are doing.

Wow.

Can I ask you a question?

Because I think it's, well, you mentioned spike protein.

I was talking to a friend who's a doctor, and

I got on my second case of COVID.

I got long COVID for about a year and a half, and I had a lot of damage to my hearing and

sight and stuff.

I'm much better now.

I'm almost over it.

But my point is this: I talked to a doctor, and he said,

did you get the boosters?

And I got the the two Modernas and I said, no.

And he said, oh,

and I guess he was being facetious, Stephen.

He said, you passed on the genetic engineering.

And I said, no, at vaccination.

He said, no, they're genetic engineering.

They're not traditional.

What did he mean by that?

If that was just facetious, or what does that mean about these new mRNA vaccination?

Yeah.

So

let's again go down to foundations to really bring people along on this story here.

So for 100 years, vaccines were a protein, a small protein from a particular virus, and then what are called adjuvants, which are, again,

a list of about 10 or 15 things that are universally used that absolutely hit the innate immune system.

So they're designed to turn on the innate immune system full-bore.

And then whatever is accompanying them is what the innate immune system will attack.

So basically, they're just the switch, and then the innate immune system says, oh, I see this protein for this particular thing.

The good news of those kinds of vaccines is that the protein is finite.

It's not reproducing.

And

you know the kinetics or

if you have a Y and an X axis, you know how much is going into the bloodstream and the Y axis and the peak on the X axis.

So 24 hours in, 24 hours out, and then you're done.

And the innate immune system takes over from there.

The mRNA vaccines are completely different.

They are a blueprint.

for the protein factory in your body.

So they are sort of, you're redoing the cell.

In other words, he was right when he said he's kind of re-engineering it.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Wow.

Wow.

Okay.

Yep.

I mean,

and the most challenging thing about them is that the kinetics or the time that the antigen is presented to the immune system is out of control.

You can't control it.

It's almost different in every single person.

If it matches the original viruses that we're all familiar with, where it goes in and it goes out in a week and then it's not found anymore, you're going to get a more traditional immune response to it but we now know that many patients will have their bodies will be making the spike protein six months after the vaccination and this this gives off a whole new set of a whole different response from the immune system

which includes which includes the immune system basically saying gosh this can't be a virus because i'm seeing it continuously so this must be me and it shuts down the immune response to it in a process uh that can be measured in the bloodstream production of an igg called igg4

so uh some wonderful German scientists showed that by three or four vaccinations, most of the immunity was being generated in IgG4, which was tolerance.

It's the antibodies that produce tolerance.

It's the one you get.

What is the implications of that?

Does it mean that

was this researcher suggesting that the more spike protein-induced vaccinations, the less immunity you would have?

Absolutely, yes.

And it's now been demonstrated in large populations that highly vaccinated people have more recurrent infections than you know that it's so funny because I have four or five close friends that, and I'm at a university that that really pushes these two, three, four boosters.

But each time they get a booster,

they go somewhere because they want to get a booster to protect themselves overseas or something, and they get COVID.

And I always thought, maybe, well, maybe like a flu shot, your white blood count goes down a little bit.

But

you're suggesting that this German researcher found that

it was taxing the immune system to such a degree that it was losing immunity rather than gaining it against the COVID virus?

So I just want to change subtly what you said there.

It's not that it taxes the immune system, it's that it converts it from attacking things to tolerance.

So, you know, when you go to an allergist and you have allergies, you know, to some, some poly, what do they do?

They inject you over and over again with small amounts of

that protein until you eventually become tolerant to it.

That's exactly what happens with multiple vaccinations.

If you were to use a generic description, would it be called an up-regulating or a down-regulating of the immune system or both?

It would be a tolerance-inducing effect of the immune system.

It generates tolerance.

How long, when you get, say, a booster with an mRNA, how long can you

Do they have any idea how long the cells will keep producing these spikes?

When do they shut off producing them?

Is it dependent on the individual's immune system?

Or do they have a spectrum where they say, we can guarantee you, if you get this booster, within four months, you will not be producing any spiked protein?

And can they say that?

No, no, no, no, no, no, they can't, Victor.

So let's go back to the blueprint analogy here.

So your protein factory has, I mean, your cells make 20,000 blueprints.

You make 20,000 proteins in order to have a cell function as it is.

The blueprints are programmed to be shredded, so to speak, after certain copies.

So some blueprints are good for 100 proteins, some blueprints are good for a million proteins.

And the spike and the

vaccines

are made with synthetic chemicals, synthetic bases, the letters of the blueprint that are non-natural and they're specifically designed not to be broken down.

So the blueprints for the mRNA are specifically designed to last as long as possible.

The challenge challenge is that no one has worked out the details of

controlling that, and it's not controllable.

So there's two issues about the vaccines, where they are produced in the body and how long they are produced.

And all we've talked about now is how long they're produced.

But where they're produced is also probably a source of

some of the more serious side effects.

What do I mean by that?

When you get a vaccination, and I tell this to all my friends, and maybe your readers now will appreciate it.

When you you get a vaccination for any vaccine, you want it to be intramuscular or subcutaneous.

You don't want to be intravenous.

How do you know?

Well, when the person puts the needle into your arm, they should draw back on the syringe a little bit.

If blood comes up into the, if blood appears

in the vaccine, they need to throw it away and do it again because they've gotten themselves into a vein.

What happens when you inject

the SARS vaccines into the vein is it now goes throughout the body and you're playing Russian roulette with where it goes.

A physician in Florida had the vaccine and he began to have platelets that were covered with spike protein.

Wow.

Because it went into the bone marrow, it went into what's called the megakaryocytes, which are these big cells that make platelets.

And so his body was seeing something about, you know, a little bit bigger than a virus, a platelet, and covered with spike protein.

So the body started attacking his platelets.

He could not stop from bleeding to death and he died after two weeks.

I mean, every physician in the country was trying to help this guy and we couldn't.

He finally died of a brain hemorrhage.

And that's because he lost the rushing lid of where the vaccine went.

Does the virus in its natural state, as it infects you,

do we know, does it have the propensity or the ability as our artificial mRNA to keep producing?

Or does it die finally when your immune system kills it?

So

it is not like HIV, which is truly a chronic infection and the immune system can never stop it.

So SARS-CoV-2 goes into any cell with ACE2 receptor and secondarily, less efficiently, any cell with heparin.

So it's literally any cell in the body.

But

in its normal way of reproducing, it comes out from this inside of the cell after like a million copies are made.

The cell explodes, it dies, and those million things go into the bloodstream.

And if you have antibodies, if you have T cells ready to attack it, it probably loses that fight.

Now, one of the interesting things that the furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2 does is it creates what I call

a tunnel-like military operation.

And

we're seeing the consequence of a tunnel-like military operation in the Middle East.

But what I mean by that is

the furin cleavage site actually facilitates, and we knew this 10 years ago, well before SARS-CoV-2, facilitates a lateral invasion of the virus.

So now you can imagine one cell has a million viruses and instead of breaking out the top and having the immune system see it, it goes out laterally into the cells next to it, makes another a million cells, and then and repeats that over and over again.

And this

both allows the SARS-CoV-2 to swamp the immune system with many more viruses than it can keep up with.

And it also produces something that I've seen in people.

I actually haven't seen this written up and I keep wanting to, it's on my to-do list of articles to write about.

Just like, you know, malaria, which has a cyclical temperature spikes where it goes underground and then it appears, you know, in a cycle.

SARS-CoV-2 has that same pattern of people get sick and then they feel better for three or four days and they keep getting over it.

And then they have a much more serious, and that's, I believe, it's tunneling into the cells next to it and then finally breaking out with a much larger dose of foot soldiers.

Wow.

I asked, this is kind of an off topic, but I was in a pharmacy the other day in Palo Alto, and they were trying to push

the latest booster, but they had a sign that said Novovax.

And then I just asked, I said, what is this?

And she said, oh, this isn't an MRA.

It's something very different.

Is that true?

The Novovax?

Yes.

Yes.

The other approach that is available is what's called an adenovirus approach.

So So this is a virus that's been attenuated, so it doesn't really harm you.

And you can package genetic material.

You can package blueprints to take over the protein factory

in this kind of a virus.

It's a more traditional vaccine?

It's a little bit more traditional, although there are not very many virus-based vaccines.

They're in research, especially for cancer.

But the traditional, actually, Taiwan has a traditional vaccine, which is just the protein itself with the innate system stimulators.

And that was the booster that was used.

So the Novo vax is more like a flu vax, but, and it's not like MRA, but it has innovations itself that is sort of, I guess, euphemistically a frontier path-breaking, but also maybe

not as well-documented as the old-fashioned flu vaccine, huh?

That's right.

Yeah.

Do they have any, maybe our listener, do we have any boosters on the market that was the Johnson and Johnson a more old-fashioned, is there any old-fashioned that have an attenuated SARS virus that are still being used, or is it just Novovax or mRNA?

I think it's, I think it's, it's just the adenovirus-based ones or the mRNA-based ones.

Wow.

You know, I don't know.

I don't want to give medical advice to you.

No, I know it.

I'm not putting, you know,

we're getting in our last last 15 minutes.

I want to give you a chance.

I know that I don't want to put you in the spot, but

it seems to me that the social implications of, I mean, we've done this with a salt and Sabin vaccines.

And in that case, I had an aunt that had polio and she was crippled, lived in the house I'm speaking for 70 years.

She got it in 1917 in a summer swimming pool out here in the Central Valley.

But given that

I don't think, I I think you could argue the COVID virus was not as virulent as polio or smallpox.

And I know that we were in a panic, but

when you look back at this, do you see this as an aberration where in a fit of national concern or Operation Warpspeed, we did something where we didn't really think through the constitutional questions or the First Amendment?

And I know that you and I have talked about it before, and there is case history and jurisprudence about it, but it just seems to me that when we look back, somebody's going to say, oh my God, you guys used an experimental type of vaccine.

You didn't listen to voices in the wilderness that were warning you.

You kind of forced the entire population.

You got rid of 8,500 servicemen who innately or intuitively or with

natural suspicions didn't trust it.

And I have a good friend.

She's one of my favorite people, Rebecca Mercer.

And

I can remember her calling me and she said, Victor, please don't get the mRNA.

I've been reading about it.

And I feel so bad because I said, you know, everybody at Stanford's got to get it.

And don't,

I just don't believe they would do that.

And now I look back and she was so prescient about that.

And

I feel that.

There were people around us, lay people, common people, soldiers, people like yourself, that were all, they weren't hysterical at all.

They were just saying,

on the we're on the verge of making a very very

big step into the unknown almost like sending somebody to the moon when you hadn't tested the rocketry or something and i i think as we look back at it is there anything we can learn about it when the next pandemic because it seems like another one's going to come

yeah i mean i guess if if i had if i could modify your analogy it's it's like sending a billion people from the planet to the moon because that's how many had this that's a better much better one

you know and and and victor on february 14th i mean first of all can we trust the chinese on their science i don't know but but so we'll just take some facts and go from there february 14th of 2020 they published a report of 80 000 people in china what it showed was that all of the deaths were in people who were 80 or above or 60 and above with a comorbidity serious combidity like cancer you know severe heart disease and that sort of thing nobody under 20 was dying from it and that study should have formed the foundation of what we did later.

So, you know, you can't fault people for doing something if they don't have data, but a month later,

we were locking down people.

And the only thing that happened in the interim was a computer model out of

London that said, you know, if this virus is 10% lethal, it's going to kill millions of people, which of course it wasn't.

Why did they pick 10% though?

SARS-1 was about a, you know, a 10% to 12% lethal virus.

MERS is a 30% lethal virus.

So there might have been in the absence of data some reason to put to drop that into your computer modeling, but not after February 14th.

I had that paper on February 14th.

I mean, I posted it on Facebook.

I said, well, here's some good news.

This virus is going to be less than 1% lethal and it's going to only affect old people or middle-aged people who have comorbidities and not the young.

And, you know,

there are now studies of millions of people where they come up with the same figure.

It's, you know, it's 0.8% lethal plus or minus 0.2%.

But that first study was within the 95% confidence intervals of that, of every study that's come out since.

You know,

it's really, I got it, it drives me crazy.

I got an email not too long ago from a

lifetime Army sergeant, and he had had COVID two times, and he had resisted getting the first round of the MRA in our the Moderna or Pfizer, one of the two.

And then in that interim, he had said to them, I have COVID.

I had twice.

Please don't make, I do not want to get this spiked protein.

And they drummed him out along with 8,400 others.

And now he writes back and says, all of a sudden, I lost everything.

I lost my promotion trajectory.

I lost my reputation.

And now they would, now they just say, they wrote him a letter and said, come back.

We're sorry.

We didn't mean it.

It was all

and we're desperately short, 40,000 soldiers, and we need you.

And it's, how do you

learn that?

If nobody takes responsibility, we're never going to learn.

I think that's probably true.

I mean, I mean, it is, it is, it is ludicrous.

We have these tapes of Fauci on TV from the, you know, because he's been around a long time, 80s, 90s, 2000s, talking about the fact that if you get an infection, you don't need a vaccine for that virus or that influenza in a given year.

When, you know, influenza goes up and down and its virulence from time to time.

And so

And that's just an absolute fact of medicine.

It's like gravity is to physics.

Having an infection and not needing a vaccine is to virology.

And so that's just, that's malpractice.

I guess that would be where I would put it.

It is malpractice to make someone be vaccinated for a disease they've already had.

I don't know.

I had the flu about two weeks ago.

This, I don't know what, respiratory, whatever it is.

And I was really ill for a week and I got over it.

But when I went to the pharmacy, I was to get a medication after for my eyes, nothing to do with the flu.

The woman said, well, you need to get your vaccination, flu vaccination.

We have a, I think she said a combined, that was scary, a combined COVID and flu.

And I said.

That would be almost as scary as a combined COVID and senior super, super duper flu shot.

And she said, oh, we have that.

And I said, well, I just had the flu and I've had COVID three times.

And she said, well, well, that's a good reason that you need a vaccination because you wouldn't have had, I said, well, don't you think I'm not going to, I have a pretty good immunity now.

But they were, she was pushing the vaccination on the fact that, well, since you got sick, you wouldn't want to get sick again as if this whole history and science of prior natural immunity never existed.

That was so strange.

The attack on natural immunity was by some in the scientific community.

I know.

It's remarkable.

It It was.

We're getting down to the end, but

we talked about all of these agencies, the CDC

and

the FDA and the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases and the WHO.

Did any of them, I mean,

They seem to have, and the WHO has all this transnational

power.

And it seemed to be for a while, or I think it still is,

mouthing Chinese narratives that were not accurate.

But does any of these,

I guess what I'm saying, and I'm now titling a book I wrote, The Dying Citizen, about the unelected, I have a chapter on the unelected where I discuss this, but it seems that we're giving an enormous amount of power to people who are not only not elected, but they're not subject to audit.

And they have enormous amounts of capital at their disposal and power over all of this.

Is that one of the lessons that we have to learn from this whole thing?

Well, we do.

And

again,

some of these forces are continuing to march forward.

So, for example, before SARS-CoV-2, the WHO had voluntary

notice requirements for infections and things along those lines,

which are useful.

So although it was Taiwan that notified the WHO before China did about SARS-CoV-2 from their own surveillance work, Those sorts of volunteer notifications can be extremely useful in a global approach to epidemics and pandemics.

But out of this process, there is now a pandemic treaty that is working its way through the governments.

I think there is some serious resistance from European governments.

It may not come about,

but let's imagine that it did.

This gives the WHO actual authority of law, authority of international law to, for example, require lockdowns or require closures of airports and ports and that sort of thing.

In a transnational sense?

That is correct, Victor.

Wow.

So the sovereignty of the United States would be given up in a...

What all of these organizations do is they first declare an emergency and that lets them take...

go down an entire separate path of risk benefits and rights and privileges and freedom benefits process.

And so

the path, the spot in the path where I think

as citizens, as concerned citizens, is

we need to put more

thought into the declaration of an emergency, because

once that is in place, the powers to be are very

dracronian, and we've seen that.

And then when we marry it.

to technology of the age.

I was during the lockdown, I had left a computer in my office and you couldn't go on campus.

So

I parked, I have an apartment on the Stanford campus, and I walked

all the way to my office and I saw somebody and he said, you can't go on campus.

I said, really?

And he said, do not go there, even though I had keys and I had access.

So I turned around, did not go into my office, and then got on my car and drove 200 miles home.

I didn't get my computer.

But what I'm trying to get at is I got an email that the university knew that I was there from

my

cell phone, and they had correlated it with the fact that I hadn't registered and

I hadn't registered that I was on campus and then I needed to take a COVID test.

And how do they do that?

I don't know how they can do that.

But they were able to track people coming into the vicinity and then correlating them automatically, whether they had taken

a required test in 24 or 48 hours.

And then when another example is then, when we opened up, I would get emails all the time saying,

in your vicinity, and I don't know how they knew where I was,

person X has got COVID.

It was all, I'm not trying to say it was nefarious, it was all for our own benefit, but they were telling us who in the vicinity they had tracked.

that had COVID or reported and where they had been.

And that's, I've never seen in my lifetime that degree of knowledge or control of an agency over the individual freedom and movement.

And it's all, as you said, it was all designed in theory to help people, but it was so easily abused.

Well, that's right.

I mean, so just remember that when you call an Uber and they come right up to where you're standing, that is only possible because your cell phone is giving the Uber website your exact location.

And once emergency authorization, healthcare authorization was made in the state of California and every other state, contact tracing and these sorts of things became,

you had no ability to opt out of it.

I mean,

even people who have said that if you turn your phone off, it still somehow is.

Yeah,

well, I was kidding around and I said to somebody who's pretty technologically savvy, I said, next time I come to campus, I'm going to turn my phone off and cover it with foil.

And he said, I don't think, Victor, that's going to work.

And I could explain it to you, but I won't.

So some of our listeners are obviously adept at high-tech.

But I guess just to conclude,

what do you think, a final question, Stephen?

What are the chances

that we're going to get another pandemic of an engineered virus in the next 20 years?

You think there's a possibility, probability?

Well, if you give me a 20-year timeframe, I'll say absolute.

Absolutely.

And you think

it has the ability to be as

causes much morbidity or even more than COVID?

Yes, I do.

I have particular information on that very topic.

So

again,

let's have our baseline frame.

SARS-CoV-2 was a less than 1% lethal virus.

The Black Plague was roughly 15 to 18% lethal.

It set European populations back about 200 years in the Middle Ages.

So I and collaborators in New Zealand and Australia were able to do forensic analyses inside the Wuhan Institute Virology based on sequences that they uploaded into, you know, databases.

Needed to know that they had done this.

And we saw them working on three viruses, a MERS virus, which is 30% lethal,

a new form of influenza that was 59% lethal, and the Nipah virus, which is between 80 and 90% lethal.

And they're doing what you would have done with SARS-CoV-2 in about 2017 with these,

moving genes around,

seeing what can happen when you put genes under different kinds of controls.

So

the challenge is always

these viruses,

they have a will to get out and it doesn't take much to get infected.

Nipah virus has a 21-day incubation, asymptomatic incubation inherently, and then it goes straight to your brain and causes severe encephalitis.

When I I described it to my 16-year-old daughter, she says, well, dad, that sounds like a zombie.

I said, well,

you might be right.

You might be right.

So I think that

unless there's a will from the people to those governing us to say enough is enough and we need to put safeguards in place.

And

I have a whole spectrum of legislation that I keep recommending to folks when I run into somebody in Congress.

We're going to have this happen again.

Wow.

Final thought.

Can you, our listeners, I know we had such a huge response from your first interview here at the Victor Hansen podcast.

Just what are you working on?

I think people are very interested, either in the corporate sphere or

public.

What should they be looking at you're doing right now?

Who are you talking to?

What are you investigating?

Just to finish off today, it seems fascinating.

I think everybody's really curious how they could follow you or how can they follow you or

what are you writing or maybe you can give some information about your book so they can get it.

So yeah, so I'm in the final stages of finishing a book on the origin of COVID.

The first two-thirds of the book is basically just the dry data done in a way

as if you're in a courtroom and presenting the data there.

And then the last third is what can we do to prevent this from happening again?

And I have a whole series of very important recommendations.

And

I'm going to try to

model the success of the private sector with respect to climate change, where there really is a populist movement to have

the powers to be change things.

So that's what I want to do.

And then move on from COVID.

I'm very excited about what we're doing in the breast cancer space with the endoxifen drug that I invented.

And for example, we have a trial that will just be completing next June.

And that's the,

is that under the aegis of a TOSA therapeutics that you run

yes it is yes it is so next june we'll have a readout from a study which would be um a six-month trial with a drug uh with uh

you know very very very modest side effects at this point in time in which we can lower the density of the breast and perhaps prevent um a significant number of breast cancers, maybe as many as half breast cancers, by a six-month treatment with a drug.

Is there any way that you have a website or people can follow you at all?

Yes, yes.

The website is www.drquay.com.

So that's d-r-q-u-ay-y.com.

So I would, I put, I put missives up there on various topics.

And

well, that's wonderful.

I just want to thank you for taking all this time because your first interview in late March of this year was, I had so many people respond to it.

And I've talked to so many politicians that know of your work.

And I just hope that

you're utilized in a national policy

fashion by the government, because I don't think we have people that are knowledgeable both scientifically and then with common sense like you are.

And anyway, I want to thank you for coming.

It was fascinating.

I think everybody's going to share that reaction to this last hour.

Well, thank you, Victor.

It's been a pleasure, and I always enjoy speaking with you.

Well, thank you.

And that's

we're going to sign off today, and we'll see you soon.