Will Dove  00:00 Safe and effective. We've heard the mantra repeatedly in the past few years, to the point where it seems even the politicians and bureaucrats are tiring of it. I've been exposing the lies and corruption surrounding the entire COVID narrative since 2021. But recently, something came across my desk that shocked even me. A piece of evidence so damning, it completely reveals just how false the claim of an effective COVID vaccine is.   Will Dove  00:36 John Leake is the co-author of "The Courage to Face Covid-19" which he wrote with Dr. Peter McCullough in 2022. Since then, John has been a frequent contributor to Dr. McCullough's substack, Courageous Discourse. A journalist and true crime writer, John has exceptional research skills. A few days ago, I received an email on a Substack article that John had just published. An article which exposes a November 2022 scientific paper co-authored by Anthony Fauci, where in the authors admit that the Covid vaccines could not possibly stop infection or transmission of the virus. And that furthermore, the science of this has been known for decades.   Will Dove  01:33 Anthony Fauci, who had been called America's top doctor, and who was one of a number of prominent people calling for universal vaccination against Covid, admits outright in the paper, he co-authored, the creating an effective vaccine against respiratory viruses is impossible.   Will Dove  02:05 John, after reading so much of your stuff, of course, you're the co-author of The Courage to Face Covid-19 with Dr. McCullough, you've contributed many, many times to the substack Courageous Discourse. It's a real pleasure to finally have you on my show.   John Leake  02:18 Thanks, Will. Thanks for having me.   Will Dove  02:19 So I reached out to you, last week back, I think less than a week ago when one of your Courageous Discourse articles showed up in my inbox. And what was in it was I gotta tell you, when I looked at it, and I read the evidence, I went, well, I can't say on the air what I said, because it was that startling. You found a paper co-authored by Anthony Fauci in November of 2022, that makes it extremely clear that he knew the Covid vaccines would not work. How did you find this paper? Let's let's start with that. There are millions of papers out there!   John Leake  02:58 Yeah, well, I got to know, I had the honor and privilege of having dinner with a guy named Professor Robert Clancy, and he was a professor of immunology in Australia, and he was up in Dallas. Peter and I met him for dinner. He is a pioneer in what we call mucosal immunity. So I mean, I suppose it's kind of gnarly. But we have mucus in our nose, in our throat, our intestines are lined with mucus membranes, the female vagina, all of this mucosal surfaces in the body, believe it or not, they may look rather lowly, but they are our first line of defense against pathogens.   John Leake  03:47 And Professor Clancy is really a pioneer in researching this exquisite way in which the mucosa provide immunity and very sophisticated. I mean, this is something that humanity I think, medical science has in many ways overlooked. We've been so fascinated, since Louis Pasteur with immunity induced by injections, or going back to smallpox inoculations, they would actually scratch the arm, make incisions in the arm, and rub a smallpox inoculum into it. We haven't really thought over the centuries that much about mucosal immunity.   John Leake  04:33 So, Professor Clancy kind of gave me a mucosal immunity 101, I was totally fascinated by it. And so I've just been reading about mucosal immunity ever since. And somewhere in my reading, I saw this paper that was co-authored by a couple of guys at the NIH and then Anthony Fauci was the big eminence on the paper, in which they talk about nasal mucosal immunity as it bears on SARS‑CoV‑2. And I thought, well, let's take a look at this. And I did. And I was rather astonished by what I read.   Will Dove  05:12 As was I, and we're going to get to that in a few minutes, folks. But first, I want to talk about some other things that I noticed. Just scanning over this paper, and I think this is extremely relevant, because of course, there was the case very recently, of the paper that was co-authored by Dr. McCullough, and several others that was published and curious, and my audience mostly knows about this. And that was then was drawn by curious, despite the fact that they cited everything exhaustively, despite the fact that that paper had many, many times more reads and downloads than any average paper that ever showed up on curious and they went and withdrew it.   Will Dove  05:54 And then we've got this paper, co-authored by Anthony Fauci, which, to me, appears to contain a number of untruths. And I know that neither you nor I or scientist or a doctor, but you've done a lot of research, I've done a lot of research, we've talked a lot of these people who are experts. And I just wanted to talk about some of the statements that were in here. This one is right from the preamble, the introduction. And this is a direct quote, and he's talking about the viruses. And this is because these viruses generally do not elicit complete and durable protective immunity by themselves. They have not to date been effectively controlled by licensed and experimental vaccines.   Will Dove  06:35 Now, first of all, that whole statement was a non sequitur because he's connecting viruses to vaccines in a way that's not directly comparable. The thing that bugs me up in this statement is saying that exposure to the virus doesn't provide you with lasting immunity. And yet I know from a number of immunologist, biologists I've spoken to that if you were exposed to SARS‑CoV‑1 back in 2003, it is highly likely that you're immune to SARS‑CoV‑2, even though those viruses are only about 80% similar genetically.   John Leake  07:05 Well, I think that what you're saying is correct. There's an area of ambiguity in the Coronavirus family of viruses and in the rhino virus family of viruses, they do mutate a lot. And so, you know, we ask ourselves, why do I get three common colds every season? Now, I think if you were exposed to the exact same cold virus twice in a row in one season, you would have immunity to it. Now I want to issue the caveat right here, I'm not an expert on virology. But I will say this, I think there are elements of these viruses that induce these infections every winter or these illnesses or these syndromes every winter that your top virologist doesn't fully understand.   John Leake  07:05 And so, you know, I want to emphasize the enlightening conversation that I had with Professor Clancy who pointed out there are a lot of things about virology, about viruses, and there are a lot of things about mucosal immunity and systemic immunity that we don't understand. We're trying to figure all of this out.   John Leake  08:33 So that is to say in the preamble, I think that you're getting into an area of ambiguity and lack of define knowledge. But Fauci nevertheless, and you know, we can talk about this. Emerging from this ambiguity, he does make a definitive statement about how vaccinology bears on this. And to me, that was the most salient point of the papers.   Will Dove  09:07 And I think you make a very good point, John, I think you were expressed it better than I did that yes, is it a false statement? It's a very ambiguous statement. And he's using it as a foundation to support his argument in favor of vaccines. So let's move on to something else though, because this is one that is patently untrue, easily proven to be untrue. And he says, effective vaccines and vaccine prevention strategies against endemic and emerging respiratory viruses are of critical importance as these pathogens kill as many as 5 million people worldwide every year.   Will Dove  09:45 For example, over the past decade, influenza killed 12,000 to 52,000 people in the United States each year. Okay. The second part of that statement is true. In 2017, 2018, H1N1 was out a very virulent form of the flu, and yes, some 52,000 Americans, according to the statistics died from influenza. But the statement about 5 million people die annually from respiratory diseases, that is absolutely untrue. I went and looked up a bunch of stuff on this. According to the WHO, the worst we've ever had, and this is just influenza. But keep in mind, influenza is the bulk of respiratory deaths. 650,000 people globally, is the top number.   Will Dove  10:28 And even if we went with that US number 52,000. And, folks, by the way, the US actually has a higher than average per capita and death rate from influenza due to an unhealthy population from diet, lack of exercise, but that's okay, we'll use that number. If we go with that 52,000 number, and we just do a ratio to the 8.1 billion people in the world, the highest number you would hit would be 1.237 million people dying globally from respiratory diseases. He's making -- and this is the thing that's getting me, John, because as I said, to the preamble of all of this discussion, we've got this extremely exhaustive scientifically, and just so much scientific integrity in that curious paper by Dr. McCullough, and others, and it gets retracted. And he makes these clearly false statements. And nobody does anything about it.   John Leake  11:19 Well, I think that one of the things that we've seen in recent years, Pierre Kory talked about it with Tucker Carlson the other night here in the States, is this corruption of the high level academic journals, there is an abundance of evidence that these high level academic journals have been captured by large pharmaceutical interests. I mean, I think the evidence is overwhelming. So, you know, a guy like Dr. Peter McCullough, is trying to publish what I would call a heterodox view of this Covid pandemic response, and the so called Covid-19 vaccines. But he is -- his heterodoxy is coming from someone who's challenging the orthodoxy of this complex, which has captured the high level journals.   John Leake  12:15 So we're, we live in a time of, I think it's fair to call it an information war. And if you look at human history, I mean, certainly going back to the Reformation and the Counter Reformation in Europe, in the 16th and 17th centuries, when we saw a similar thing. I mean, the Vatican has its Holy Office of the Inquisition, and they have offices all over Europe. And then you have these Lutheran, or Protestant guys that are publishing their view of the Christian faith. And then you have the princes of Europe who are taking sides, you know, do I want to go with the Vatican? Or do I want to go with this new Protestant worldview? And information is being controlled, suppressed propagated, and it's an information war. You go to the Cold War, where you have, let's just call the polarity is something like liberalism, market capitalism on the one poll, and then on the other poll is something like state sponsored socialism, like in the Soviet Union, same thing in information war.   John Leake  13:35 Now, it just so happens that our iteration of an information war, the one that we're talking about now centers around public health policy. You know, it shouldn't be an ideological dispute? It should just be what are the facts, like, let guys who study this stuff. Guys like Peter McCullough, or Robert Clancy in Australia, let them talk with Anthony Fauci and whoever else and debate and discuss and compare notes. But instead, we say no, we have a Holy Office of the Inquisition, our Holy Office of the Inquisition, and it's the NIH in Washington. And we are the propagators of the orthodoxy or the presenters. And everyone has to accept this and if they don't, they will be censored and censured. So I think I think we've reverted back to a pre enlightenment time in history. I think we're reverting back to the dark ages with respect to the sharing - discovery and sharing of information of knowledge.   Will Dove  14:48 Right, and my viewers at least know about Big Pharma and how they pretty much bought off all of these scientific publications. But something some of them may not know about, which you did reference in one of your articles, is the degree to which the US Department of Defense is involved. Let's talk about that.   John Leake  15:07 Well, I think to me, that's the key point. I mean, I think that once you understand that, once you see that, then it explains everything else. It has vast explanatory power. That fact. Dr. McCulloh and I, our starting point was President Eisenhower's farewell address in 1959, in which he's leaving office. So he doesn't have anything politically to be gained at this point. It's a frank address to the American citizenry, and he says, I am concerned, but what I perceive to be the undue influence of the military industrial complex, it's this symbiosis of public money, the Treasury Department, the defense industries, defense manufacturers, weapons, the intelligence agencies and the Department of Defense. And these this complex is Eisenhower called it and let's forget, Eisenhower is hardly an anti-military guy, he was twice the Supreme Allied Commander of all of our Western forces. So it's not like he's some military basher, right?   John Leake  16:32 So I think it's a remarkably frank-ended statement. We believe that this contemporary era of biopharmaceutical endeavor is just an outgrowth of the military industrial complex that Eisenhower outlined in 1959. And I think once you understand the basic mechanics of this, it did makes perfect sense. So for at least 30 years, there has been this doctrine in Washington. And the doctrine goes back all the way to the founding fathers. You know, we have an ocean on either side of us, the Atlantic and the Pacific, we have a huge Navy, it's not very likely that a foreign army, armed men from a foreign country are going to come marching into the United States, and threaten or take over our territory, it's just not going to happen.   John Leake  17:40 But what could happen would be some kind of a bio weapon, some kind of infectious agent that is invisible, we can't see it, and it spreads, it propagates through human contagion. That is what could really be a huge threat to national security. So in the year 2005, it was shortly after this anthrax attack, or that was very controversial. It's not 100% clear. We know exactly what happened there. But there was apparently a powder, a white powdery agents that showed up at a federal office in Washington, it appeared to be anthrax spores, maybe it was even properly tested. You never know, because there's so much propaganda around all of this. But suddenly, the Bush administration tells Congress, we really need to strengthen our biosecurity. So in 2005, Congress passed the Prep Act. It's this huge piece of federal legislation setting forth procedures for what happens if the United States is infected with a lethal infectious disease. And the Prep Act is really, I think, the forbidden fruit, because the temptation in this thing for corruption is just manifest.   John Leake  19:13 And interestingly enough, Senator Edward Kennedy from Massachusetts, he was, I think, alone in the Senate and saying, "Are you guys crazy?" Like, this gives the government so much discretion to basically do whatever it wants, in the event of what is reportedly an infectious disease outbreak. I think Kennedy even recognize, it could be exaggerated. It could be fabricated. The extent of the threat to all of our people could could be grossly manipulated or exaggerated. So the Prep Act says if the Secretary of Health and Human Services invokes a public health emergency that then gives health and human services which is part of the executive branch, huge discretion to basically conduct policy as if the country is of war. And anyone who is in the business of manufacturing or providing so called countermeasures. So that's any activity or product or service, to combat that infectious disease. Their activities, their products and services, are given full immunity protection.   John Leake  20:40 So, Health and Human Services, there's a public emergency, you guys are in the business of making countermeasures, the government will pay you for them. And it's not like it's a compete bid situation, it's like, whatever you want for it, Uncle Sam will get out his checkbook. And if these things don't work, if they hurt people, you know, if tough, tired, desperate times call for desperate measures, you will be absolved of liability. So if you wanna if you want to overturn a constitutional republic, by legislative means, you'd be hard pressed to do better than the Prep Act of 2005.   Will Dove  21:25 And, of course, now we know $40 billion spent by the US DOD to manufacture and distribute vaccines. But I want to play devil's advocate for a moment, John, because I don't think I've had anybody on my show who's dealt this deeply into this. And for a moment, just entertain benefit of the doubt. Because I would think that even if you let's say, you're in the military, you're highly placed, it's it's your job to think about the protection of your country of your people. I don't think it's much of a stretch to think, well, what if we could, (A) develop a pathogen, (B) develop an effective vaccine for that pathogen, we could then vaccinate our public, we could vaccinate our soldiers, we could vaccinate our allies. And then we could release that pathogen on our enemies. Possibly what's going through some of their heads?   Will Dove  22:11 I mean, I'm not saying that that's exactly what's happened in this instance. But that's certainly a plausible thing for guys to contemplate. I mean, that is in many ways what you just described the basis of biological warfare as a conceptual doctrine. Yeah, I mean, you could literally go to your enemy and say, "We don't have to fire a shot." I mean, the soldiers can remain, playing video games at their bases. We have something that will make all of your people sick. We also have, do you remember the second Indiana Jones? The Temple of Doom? You remember that movie at all?   Will Dove  22:11 I do, yeah.   John Leake  22:58 The opening scene, Indiana is in a Shanghai nightclub. And he does this swap of the cremated ashes of some ancient Chinese emperor to a Shanghai gangster. And then he calls for a martini, swallows the martini, and then the gangster pulls out like a vial, like a clear glass vial. And an Indi says, "What's that?" And he says, it's the antidote to the poison you just drank. So the swap for the ashes was a big diamond. So give me the diamond back. So anyway, no one does that have to go into Hollywood to imagine a scenario and of blackmailing on this scale? Sure, why not?   Will Dove  23:47 Right. But of course, the problem with that is that the people, DARPA, the US DOD, whatever, they're not virologists. They're not epidemiologists, they don't understand what they're monkeying with. And it's becoming very clear that the people who are working for these Big Pharma countries who perhaps are virologists and epidemiologists, they don't understand it either. And I wanted to back up a little bit because we were we started this whole conversation about the US government military being involved behind all of this and that came from an article that you published it was actually found by Ms. Sasha Latypova, the name's not coming to me right now. But it was a leaked recording. Sasha Latypova. It was a leaked recording from AstraZeneca. And very revealing that - yeah, I don't think they really understand what they're screwing around with. Let's talk about that.   John Leake  24:42 What's cool about about that is that you have an Astras -- I always say if you want to know the truth, try and get on the inside in which guys are speaking absolutely, candidly to have a group of guys in the room who they believe are completely sympathetic to their objectives. I mean, then you'll know the truth. So whatever the pronouncements are presented to the poor general public. I mean, obviously, the underlying interests and all of the machinations that go along with that are not going to be candidly presented, but this guy, this research officer at AstraZeneca, he's talking to what he believes is a completely sympathetic audience. And he's saying, look, we've got a product here that we think is an alternative to the vaccine solution. Okay? So, he wants to produce a countermeasure. But not a vaccine countermeasure but a monoclonal antibody countermeasure.   John Leake  26:04 And what so what he's saying is, why do we need an alternative to the Covid-19 vaccine? AstraZeneca is offering an alternative to the vaccine, why do we need it? And then he makes this very frank, candid, admission. Well, let's face it, guys. The Covid-19 vaccines have some inherent risks, some inherent dangers. And he says, for those of you who may not be totally familiar with antibodies, you know there's a number of people -- you know that a number of people cannot be vaccinated. Like, if you have an immune disease, lupus or some other immune condition or multiple sclerosis, you can't be vaccinated. So there are millions of people in the world that will need the protection that cannot be coming from a vaccine. So the long acting antibody that we're offering has enormous potential.   Will Dove  27:08 And, we should make it clear, John, that's a direct quote from the leaked recording. Now, that quote was from Pascal Soriot, AstraZeneca CEO.   Will Dove  27:18 He admitted right there that there's millions of people who shouldn't be vaccinated.   John Leake  27:18 Correct.   John Leake  27:22 Correct. Well, he's saying something that anyone who studied vaccinology its history already knew that it's preposterous for the US government, Anthony Fauci, the Department of Defense or anyone else just to come out and assert everyone, or Bill Gates, he's the origin of this. Everyone, every man, woman and child on earth. It's like a uniformity of the human organism. Everyone needs to get this shot. Anyone who has studied the very fraught history of vaccines knows that is a false assertion. There are a lot of people out there who their conditions or underlying conditions, make it so that it would be unacceptably dangerous for them to receive a vaccine product, period. So what we have is the CEO of AstraZeneca, saying this in an internal meeting.   Will Dove  28:31 Right. Now, John, we've we've taken sign of a circuitous route. Folks, I know we've been tormenting you, because we told you, we were going to tell you what it was in that paper co-authored by the Anthony Fauci, that tells us he knew the vaccines wouldn't work. Thank you for your patience. I think we're at that point, John. You're the one who went and covered it. So I'm just going to let you reveal what it is in that paper that tells us he knew they wouldn't work at least as far back as November 2022.   John Leake  28:59 Well, I'd like to start by harkening back to my dinner conversation with Professor Robert Clancy. I mean, he told me over dinner, he said, there are certain kinds of upper respiratory tract viruses and SARS-CoV-2 is one of them. Influenza is one, some of these cold viruses. They enter through the nose. They start in the nasal mucosa. They replicate very, very quickly. Like within just a couple of days, there is a very, very rapid replication. That is then the origin of the infection. So you're infected. And then while you have this rapid replication in the nose, you're emitting virus particles that can infect other people. So when you propose a shot in the arm with the objective of inducing antibodies in the blood to counter this virus, you are dealing with the inherent limitation imposed by the vac. It starts in the nose and it may be several days before it makes it down into the lungs down into the gas exchange region of the lungs before this virus has any encounter with systemic blood, anti body immunity.   John Leake  30:37 So, he said we do study mucosal immunity and these viruses, we knew from the outset that there's no way this Covid-19 vaccine could prevent infection and transmission, there is no way it could be a sterilizing vaccine. Impossible, categorically impossible. So Professor Clancy told me that at dinner in June of 22, and I thought, wow, I mean, I wonder -- I mean, he is obviously a man of great cultivation and knowledge and research, universally recognized as such, but, you know, naturally one wonders, Professor Clancy, and then what we're hearing from our government and media. Then I stumbled across this paper that was published by these guys at the NIH and Anthony Fauci was one of the three authors, in which he says the exact same thing that Professor Clancy had told me over dinner three months earlier. So Fauci knew from the outset, that there's no way these could prevent infection and transmission. So Rochelle Walensky, the CDC girl, I think she came out and I want to say, October of 2021, maybe November, and she made this kind of begrudging acknowledgement, okay, okay, they don't seem to -- the vaccines don't seem to prevent infection and transmission, but she then hasten to add, they will diminish the symptoms, the severity of the illness. So the CDC made this acknowledgement and six or seven months after the vaccines rolled out. But there you have Fauci actually putting in an academic paper. Why? Why they didn't prevent infection and treasure transmission, and why they couldn't prevent infection and transmission?   Will Dove  32:49 Right, and to try to take everything you've just said, and encapsulate in very, very simple English for our viewers who perhaps just don't have any medical knowledge, what you're saying, what the paper is saying is that these mucosal respiratory infections, they take hold in the mucosal tissues in the upper respiratory tract. And I actually read farther into that paper as well with some other research. And usually it takes something like five to seven days, at the very least, before that infection is going to get down into the alveoli, in the lungs, where it can be exposed to a vaccine that's in the blood. And you're infectious before then. You people keep this in mind, you're already infectious when it's all up here in the upper respiratory tract, you have symptoms, you're going to be visibly sick, you're going to be sniffling, your nose is going be runny, every coughing, sneezing, and you're expelling that -- as you've said, the vaccines in the blood. And it's going to take up to a week before that virus gets exposed to the vaccine down in the lungs, where it can have that interchange with the blood through the alveoli. So of course, it can't, it's absolutely impossible, that any kind of vaccine that's in the blood is going to be able to prevent the transmission or infection of an upper respiratory tract, mucosal virus.   John Leake  34:09 Well, I mean, let's just read what Fauci and his colleagues say. Effective vaccines and vaccine prevention strategies against endemic and emerging respiratory viruses are of critical importance as these pathogens and you mentioned this, this dubious number 5 million people each year. Okay, so they're of critical importance. But then he comes down and he says, until the emergence of Covid-19, influenza had for many decades been the deadliest vaccine. He's calling it vaccine preventable viral respiratory disease, one for which only less than sub-optimal vaccines are available. Let me try and come to where he's speaking the language of Professor Robert Clancy. Okay, here we are. The non systemic respiratory viruses such as influenza virus, SARS-CoV-2 and RSV, tend to have significantly shorter incubation periods, and rapid courses of viral replication. They replicate predominantly in local mucosal tissue without causing viremia and do not significantly encounter the systemic immune system, or the full force of adaptive immune responses, which take at least five to seven days to mature, usually, well after the peak of viral replication and onward transmission to others.   Will Dove  35:43 Right. So they blame that term viremia that is specifically the virus getting into the blood.   John Leake  35:52 So your initial symptoms would be a sniffling running nose, sneezing, symptoms that could be confused for allergies, or a mild, common cold. I believe what Fauci is referring to with viremia is that general malaise, you know, severe illness. But anyway, there's some fine points that are being spoken in this paper. But the main point, for me when I read this was the statement, they replicate predominantly in local mucosal tissue without causing viremia. And did not significantly encounter the systemic immune system, or the full force of adaptive immune responses, which takes at least five to seven days to mature, usually, well after the peak of viral replication and onward transmission to others. To me, that's the salient point.   Will Dove  36:59 And very much so, John, because it's not just that Fauci knew. He knew the vaccines wouldn't work. But we've got all of these Big Pharma companies out there who are continuing to develop supposedly mRNA vaccines against these kinds of respiratory infections. And what Anthony Fauci himself has just said with that statement that you read, it can't be done. It's not possible.   John Leake  37:23 Well, what these guys are calling for in this paper is a next generation vaccine design that can do it. So this is a call to action.   Will Dove  37:35 But how? There's nothing in the paper that presents how this could be done.   John Leake  37:42 Well, so that's what I mean, it's like the US needs to once again get out its checkbook and start writing checks to people who are going to try to design a next generation vaccine that can get the job done. I mean, that's what they're calling for. I'm not saying it's possible, but I'm saying that's the purpose of this paper.   Will Dove  38:08 Which I think cycles back to what we discussed about 15 minutes ago about getting government agencies involved that are basically defense-based, involved in developing vaccines, virology, about which they know nothing. And so sure, they're gonna write this blank check, but on the prominence that they can, but we've got the scientists themselves saying, well, as far as we know, this can't be done. Well,   John Leake  38:35 So, let me just read another, I think important point or assertion in this paper, so the authors including Anthony Fauci write, taking all of these factors into account. It is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines. It's a remarkable statement. It's not what they were telling the world, was it? This observation raises a question of fundamental importance. If natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines especially systematically administered non replicating vaccines to do so? So, I mean, here in this paper in 22 saying what guys like Dr. Peter McCullough and Robert Clancy we're already saying in the fall of 2020, you know, you guys are basically just rolling the die, I mean, it's just a gamble. You don't really have any reason to believe that this is going to work.   Will Dove  39:57 Everything you've just read, John, it also explains why the nasal rinse treatments that are recommended by Dr. McCullough, and many other scientists associated with the World Council for Health, of the wellness company do work, because they go directly to where the infection is and kill it before it can continue to grow. Seems to me, we already have an effective treatment, we just need to get people using it.   John Leake  40:23 Well, the sort of the nasal sprays and rinses, I mean, I really do think that this is the most interesting area that we should all be exploring. I mean, so let's say, old season comes on in November or flu season for that matter. In Canada, I guess it comes on in August.   Will Dove  40:52 Sometimes it does. Yes.   John Leake  40:54 No, but you know, you say you think, okay, you hear a word that if you go to a cocktail party or a dinner party in November, somebody might have the early phase of a cold brewing or the flu or Covid-19. You know, what can you do? And I mean, prophylactically, what can you do? And I think there's good evidence, both laboratory confirmed wide sample studies, and then just anecdotal people saying, I haven't had a cold in three years, there are certain nasal sprays, that if you go to a party, before you go to bed that night, take a couple of hits on this nasal spray, and it may not be a silver bullet. I mean, it may not be a 100% preventative, but it just stands to reason, if there is a virucidal agent in the spray, it's going to at least knock down any viral load that you may have been exposed to at the party. Okay, so it's sort of like the next frontier, in the, in the 19th century, it was hand washing, it was clean water, sewage channelization, these sanitary measures, which we know had immense value for public health. I mean, the greatest public health advances have been clean water, and getting the sewage away from the city. And cholera, and dysentery, I mean, there are a million things that you have killed people that just public sanitation gets rid of.   John Leake  42:39 The next frontier seems to be this idea of nasal hygiene. If you're exposed to a virus that replicates in your nose, it stands to reason that by taking a virucidal agent into the nose will kill it all all together, or at least significantly diminish it. And I try not to do product plugs, but I actually believe in it, Xlear nasal spray. I think there's good reason to believe that Xlear nasal spray really works. And that's X-l-e-a-r. I think these guys at Xlear are really doing great work.   Will Dove  43:28 Excellent. Thank you, John. Now, we were talking prior to the interview, that we kind of have a common interest in the corruption in Big Pharma and especially especially at Moderna, and we were talking about Stéphane Bancel in Moderna. Now, you've delved into this further than I have, so why don't you talk about that?   John Leake  43:48 Well, so Moderna, I went to College in Boston. I went to Boston University, directly across the river as MIT. I had friends that went to MIT. And I hung out with them on the MIT campus. And I was kind of interested way back then. And all of this fascinating science that's going around in this complex around MIT. So, when I started researching Covid, this company Moderna, which is headquartered in Cambridge, right down the street from MIT, it drew my attention. And one of the two fascinating things, first of all, prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, Moderna had never had a licensed pharmaceutical product, not a single one. It was just experimental research and design shock that had no products. They were working on messenger RNA therapeutics and immunologics. What really caught my eye was...   Will Dove  44:58 I should jump in, one more comment, John, and it had to be pointed out to me. I didn't see it until somebody pointed it out. But it's right there in the name Moderna mode RNA.   John Leake  45:08 Right. Correct. So it's explicitly in the name in RNA research company. Okay. So, the CEO of Moderna is a guy named Stéphane Bancel. And I remember thinking, oh, and the other data point on this, their first chunk of capital to get going with this enterprise was a DARPA grant, that's a department. DARPA is Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. So it's an agency that is part of the Department of Defense explicitly for funding research. And things like biological warfare, or countermeasures to biological warfare. So, Moderna gets this research grant. Now, there are a lot of smart American scientists and people who work in biotech in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I mean, they're everywhere, the place is lousy with them. So I thought it was notable that DARPA hired a Frenchman who was himself not really a high-level scientist, he was primarily an administrator. He was the CEO of bioMérieux which is a French big a major French diagnostics company headquartered I believe, in Lyon, France. And so I think Bancel was the CEO of bioMérieux why precipitously and even though the media reporting of this was like, this is kind of weird, this Frenchman leaves this plum position at bioMérieux, he's a Frenchman, he doesn't speak English that well, he has a French wife, they leave France to move to Cambridge, so that he can assume the position of a company with no capital and no employees. I think Moderna had one employee, and even Bancel himself in a press interview said, you know, there was a 1 million chance this whatever anything would ever come out of this.   John Leake  47:29 So I just remember thinking a remarkable sudden, dramatic career change. The other thing, it was bioMérieux that built the BSL-4 lab in Wuhan, China. That was an annex of the Wuhan Institute of virology. So go back to 2002 and 2003 SARS-1 came out of China. President Jacques Chirac was friends with Alain Merieux, the head, the owner of bioMérieux. I think it's still a family concern is a billionaire and Chirac and Alain, then these two men then signed a deal with China, with the government of China to build a BSL-4 lab, not in France, but in Wuhan as a kind of annex to the old Wuhan Institute of virology. Now, the French defense establishment at the time said that is not a good idea. I mean, you guys are contemplating providing French biotechnology, to what is clearly a Chinese Communist Party institution in Wuhan, that is probably run just by the Chinese military.   John Leake  48:56 So like what is exactly is going on here and to this day, I think it remains a mystery. I've read a lot of literature from France on this. It's like why exactly do this? Now, the purported grounds were the probable place of emergence of these pathogens is probably going to be China Influenza has repeatedly come out of -- pandemic influenza has repeatedly come out of China, the SARS Coronavirus-2 apparently came out of China. So the idea is French biotechnology to China to work on these pathogens in their place of probable emergence. Okay, but from the outset, like as this lab is constructed, and as the thing is getting underway in terms of its operational staff, you had guys like Richard Ebright, who's a professor of infectious disease at Rutgers University saying that bio lab in China is going to be very, very risky. Like the French are not going to be able to train to spool these guys up fast enough, they're going to be monkeying around with dangerous things and they don't have the culture and the protocols to keep that lab safe.   John Leake  50:22 So there was critics all along, okay. But the the important point with respect to Bancel is he was the CEO of bioMérieux, in the early development of that lab, including things like the training, setting up the arrangements with staff of bioMérieux personnel that could be employed in the lab. So he was a chief administrator of this endeavor. Okay. Then suddenly he leaves and goes to Moderna, I think it was in the year 2011. Okay. So now, Stephane is at bioMerieux, and in the year 2016, he applies for a US patent on a gene sequence, okay, it is a sequence, a protein, and Moderna perceives this gene sequence to have possible commercial value. It's not entirely a natural protein sequence. So he is able to patent it. Okay. Fast forward to I believe it was the year 2021, SARS-CoV-2 has emerged, it's apparently come out of the epicenter was Wuhan, China. It spread around the world, the genome of SARS-CoV-2 has been sequenced.   John Leake  51:59 And there is a molecular biology team, and I think they are in the Netherlands. And they did, they took the genome of SARS-CoV-2, and all the different pieces of the sequence. They did a database search of possible parts of the sequence that could have been patented. The gene sequence that codes for the foreign cleavage site on the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, I know this is getting technical, but that foreign cleavage site, that codes for that part of the sequence, that's what makes this infectious to the human respiratory tract. That sequence was a perfect match. And this isn't just one or two elements of this thing. I mean, it's a complex sequence. And all of its elements, it perfectly matched this patent, that Bancel at all in Cambridge, Massachusetts, filed in 2016.   Will Dove  53:10 Right. And so just to let me very quickly summarize the importance of what you've just told us. The only reason why that SARS-CoV-2 virus could infect humans in the first place was because they put that 19 nucleotide sequence into the foreign cleavage site. And it's the exact nucleotide sequence that was patented by Moderna years before.   John Leake  53:36 So the biostatisticians, who did this Dutch report, they concluded that the odds of that perfect match being just a coincidence was one in 3 trillion. So they kind of go out of their way to say using conventional biostatistical analysis. In other words, there was nothing controversial about their analysis. So, I thought this was remarkable. I read that Dutch paper and then I just asked myself, is anyone in the US media pursuing this story? I mean, am I the only one that just noticed this? Interestingly enough, Maria Bartiromo, I can't I think she works for Fox now. She was a Wall Street commentator back in the early 2000s. She actually confronted Stephane Bancel. It's kind of a charming interview. She says, Stephane, about this match, it would seem that this is like the coincidence of this is one and 3 trillion. And he says, I mean, I really liked the interview, suddenly his English starts getting kind of wobbly, I -- we will have some scientists to look into it. Look into it.   Will Dove  55:06 Wow.   John Leake  55:07 So which is just great. And it's like, alright, well, so is there gonna be a follow up on this? I mean, even Maria Bartirom, is she going to follow up? Is she going to write an email saying about those scientists looking into it? What did they discover? I could find no evidence of any follow up. And I wrote them on this on her substack that the title is The French Connection. I know -- my presentation, it's it's a complex subject matter. I believe if you read my original post it lays it out in a pretty clear fashion.   Will Dove  55:52 Right. And if you will provide the link to that John will put that link beneath this interview. And folks will also find a link to the paper that was co-authored by Anthony Fauci, you'll find a link to John's article on Courageous Discourse that alerted me to this. So you can go look at all that stuff for yourself. John, you've given me so much of your time. Thank you so much. I'm going to ask you for five more minutes. And we're going to take a complete left turn, but I don't think my viewers are going to mind because it's very interesting stuff. What we haven't talked about you is that you're also a true crime writer. And you've written several excellent books. Could you tell us about them?   John Leake  56:25 I could, and I'm grateful that you asked me that. But I did want to add one thing to the Moderna story.   Will Dove  56:31 Please do.   John Leake  56:33 And in 2019, before the WHO's office in China announced that there was this mysterious flu-like illness going on and that the epicenter was Wuhan. Before that, it's important to get your timeline. I found a intellectual, what is it called material transfer agreement, a material transfer agreement, in which Moderna asked Professor Ralph Baric, at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, to perform challenge experiments on some kind of infectious agent that Moderna had. Excuse me, I've got that backwards. The challenge was this, Moderna had a prototype that messenger RNA platform vaccine, and Moderna asked Professor Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina to perform challenge experiments with the vaccine. In other words, we have a vaccine, you have something in your lab that could challenge the vaccine i.e. some kind of infectious agent. And that's actually public record. I've also written about that, that material transfer agreement between Moderna and Ralph Baric before SARS-CoV-2 is announced. I'm not making this up. It's clear on the timeline, the documents are dated. We know that Ralph Baric worked very closely with She Zhengli at the Wuhan Institute of Virology to perform gain of function experiments on SARS Corona, bat SARS coronaviruses.   John Leake  58:35 So, this gain of function work done on these viruses that were harvested from bats in the caves of Southern China, that was a Ralph Baric - She Zhengli collaborative endeavor done at both the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill lab and at the Wuhan Institute of Virology lab.   Will Dove  58:58 Right. So a conclusion that I would draw from those facts, and I assume most people would, is that they were developing the virus and the vaccine in parallel at the same time.   John Leake  59:09 Correct. Dual use, gain of function. So the dual use even though the defense establishment can't talk about it, it's definitely happening. You say, while we just want to monkey around with viruses, make them infectious to humans, in order to see if we can come up with a useful vaccine to counter it all of which is done in a secure bio lab. At the same time, the dual uses, well the military would also find this quite interesting. So to dual purposes, anyway. True Crime. So to me, this is the greatest True Crime Story of all time. It's an organized crime. It's government, academic, defense, biotechnology interests that are coming together. And they're monkeying around with all of this stuff making viruses, pathogenic to humans, reportedly in order to create vaccines against them, that will make us all safe. Richard Ebright, at Rutgers University, famously came out in 2017 and said, let me tell you guys something. The risk of this thing that you have deliberately made infectious. Escaping from a lab is way, way higher, like multiples of risk higher than a bat Coronavirus in Southern China naturally evolving over God knows how much time and jumping to humans like you guys are running a much bigger risk with what you're intentionally doing in a lab than is likely to evolve out of nature. But no one listened.   Will Dove  1:01:03 Alright, John, thank you so much for your time for this interview for the excellent research that you've been doing. Please keep it up. There's a handful of Substacks that I have time to follow, yours and Peter's had absolutely at the top of the list. So thank you once again, for everything that you've come on the show today to tell us.   John Leake  1:01:22 Thank you, Will. I hope your readers will check out our Substack, Courageous Discourse with Dr. Peter McCullough and John Leake, and I can be found at authorjohnleake.com.   Will Dove  1:01:35 Alright, thank you very much.