All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 21, 2025 - The David Knight Show
56:05
The Virus That NEVER Existed, the Greatest Lie Ever Sold
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
now is christine massey and it is great to finally have her honor I've talked about her for years, and we started talking about it quite a bit more when I interviewed Sam Bailey and her husband, and the book that they did, I think it was called Pandemic Free or something like that, where they talked a lot about how her research had been very important in them waking up.
to a lot of fraudulent stuff that has been put forth as science, but really isn't.
Just like the Climate MacGuffin, people don't want to show you data, might be because they're lying to you.
And so I wanted to get Christine Massey on.
I'll give you her website here.
She said she's got a tiny URL, but you can go to fluoridefree.com.
Peel, P-E-E-L dot C-A for Canada.
Christine is out of Canada, I believe.
And so I wanted to talk to her about her process of discovery and what she discovered.
So joining us now is Christine Massey.
Thank you for joining us.
Thank you so much, David.
It's an honor to be invited.
Well, thank you.
I feel honored because you've done a lot of very important research.
And we've got to get to the bottom line as to what happened with us.
So give us a little bit of an idea about your process of discovery.
When did you start asking for some proof for this pandemic?
What did you ask him and what did you get back?
But let's begin with when all this started.
Yeah, sure.
So it was in 2020, obviously, you know.
Everybody was hearing about the supposed virus, and luckily I didn't get caught up in it all because I had a background dealing with public health on water fluoridation, so I already didn't take anything they said seriously.
And then I came across the work of Dr. Andrew Kaufman, and I heard that there's issues with the methodologies used by the virologists to supposedly demonstrate that there's a virus and what they call virus isolation.
Fact-checked what he was saying, verified it for myself, and then I thought, well, I just want to be really certain of what I'm, you know, now that I'm going to start sharing his material and saying these things publicly too, I'm going to send Freedom of Information requests to Canadian institutions like Health Canada.
Public Health Agency of Canada to fact-check and just, you know, make 100% sure, give them the chance to say, oh, no, you're wrong.
Actually, Christine, here's the valid, you know, scientific evidence.
And then I also thought, well...
If they don't actually have it, then their responses will become useful evidence so that people can see that they're just being, they're not telling the truth.
Oh, it did become very useful evidence, that's right.
Yeah.
I had no idea we'd still be, you know, here doing this almost five years later.
But anyway, that was how it got started.
So I started, it was May 14th was my first request, was sent to Health Canada.
And that's kind of like the FDA in Canada.
That's the institution that rubber stamps, you know, approves products and clinical trials relating to the alleged virus.
And then I did Public Health Agency of Canada was probably the second one.
So I started getting their responses, and sure enough, they weren't able to cite any evidence.
So I guess I should just explain to people, in case there's anyone listening who's not already familiar.
With what I was asking for and the basics of astrology.
So what I was asking for was actually just a very simple request.
So it was any records where anyone actually found particles in sick people that supposedly have COVID, where they actually found the particles in people that they think are the virus, and then...
Separate them out from everything else in the clinical sample.
That was all I was asking for.
And the reason was, if you think there might be a virus, you know, step one, you have to find the thing that you think might be a virus.
And really, in science, you would begin with an observation of something, and then you would study that something.
But they didn't even have the something.
They just theorized that, well, we think there's a something because, you know, it's...
It's much more convenient for some people to blame illnesses on things in nature, little invisible microbes or whatnot, rather than industrial factors or stress and other things that are actually manageable and that they actually affect the government and industry effects.
Because then you can attack that thing, you know?
If it's some thing, then you can go out and attack it.
And that's the whole model of modern medicine is we've got to find some pathogen and kill it, right?
Exactly.
And then, yeah, it's a big moneymaker and it distracts from why do we really get sick, you know?
So some of my colleagues have done a lot of deep dives in books like Virus Mania or What Really Makes You Ill.
They've looked at different historical events where people were being told that there was a viral outbreak, and then they showed, well, actually, that people were being exposed to various toxins, there's some drug behind it, this sort of thing.
Or it was just a completely useless test.
There was an incident already where it was declared that there had been an outbreak, and then they realized, oh, no, oops, it's just a PCR test.
You know, they weren't actually detecting what they thought they were detecting.
And that's a key thing, because Kerry Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for developing that, he said, criticizing Fauci over using his PCR test to make a connection with HIV and AIDS, and he says, he's so stupid, he thinks that you can look into an electron microscope and see a virus.
And yet, we've seen, Christine, we've seen all these pictures, haven't we?
We've got the little ball with the spikes on it and all the rest of the stuff, right?
Where'd all that stuff come from?
Definitely.
Well, I mean, people need to realize a lot of it's just literally cartoons and CGI. And then when they do show an actual electron microscope, we call it the point and declare method.
Because they'll just, first of all, it's almost never ever in the bodily fluid or tissue that they actually are looking at something.
So usually they're looking at the contents of a cell culture.
And I can explain that a little bit in a minute.
So, it's not even in the bodily fluid or tissue, and it's not in a purified state, and they just put an arrow on one of their images, and they declare that that's a virus.
That's why we call it the point-and-declare method, because there's literally no logic or science.
It's like me going to a shopping mall, I point at someone, and I declare they're a serial killer.
I have no other, you know what I mean?
It hasn't been established.
Yeah, so that's all that's going on with the images.
And this relates back to what I was saying.
If you want to establish that there's a virus, you need to actually look in the bodily fluid or tissue from the body part where you think they're infected with a virus or that they might be.
Find particles that you think might be the virus, and you have to separate them from everything else, because if you just have some lung fluid or boogers or whatever, and you just declare that there's a virus in there somewhere, that's not scientific either.
That's not logical.
You have to actually identify the particle that you think might be the virus, and you need to do valid, rigorous, controlled experiments.
This is the scientific method.
It's all about controlled experiments.
You observe something in nature.
You want to investigate causation, the causal relationship between two variables.
So you do a controlled experiment where you hold all the variables constant in both groups.
So maybe you have a group of animals, two groups of animals.
You hold all their living conditions, all the various factors constant in both.
And then in the experimental group, you expose them to the one thing that you think might be a causal agent.
That's how the scientific method works, and it's logical because you want to be able to rule out other factors that could cause the illness, whatever it is that you're investigating.
So that's why you need to find the particle in its location where you think they might be, which is in people in this case.
Find the particle you think might be a virus, separate it from everything else.
Then you can sequence and characterize it in a valid manner, which is important because you need to identify exactly what it is that you're talking about and doing experiments with.
And you need to do the experiments to see, does this thing actually do the things that we're told viruses do?
So that's all I was asking for.
Does anybody do that first step of even finding particles in...
In the locations where we're told they are, in people's lungs, what have you.
Or they should be able to just spit in a cup or something and find it in there, based on their narrative, and purify it.
That's all I was asking for.
Because if they didn't do that, they couldn't have followed through with proper actual sequencing, characterization, investigate the particle, see how big it is, find out its density.
The proteins that it has, etc.
And do the control experiments.
So that's what I was asking for.
So just to recap, if their paradigm is correct, and they're saying this is caused by some virus, some particle, whatever, they should be able to find a lot of that in somebody who's really sick.
And you wouldn't find it, or wouldn't find much of it in somebody that wasn't sick.
And yet, because they have folded this all together with the PCR test, And magnified it by 40 cycles, which is 1.1 trillion times.
Now they're identifying people where, let's assume, if you jump in the middle of their paradigm and you say, okay, they have a virus that they've isolated, which they haven't, but let's just assume that they have this virus and they're testing for it with the PCR thing.
And they find just a minuscule amount of it.
This is why Carrie Mullins said you can't use it for diagnosing disease because you can find anything in anybody.
And it doesn't have to be in a sufficient present quantity to have what they call a viral load that would make somebody sick.
So you're going to find it all over the place.
And it doesn't mean that it's anything that's dangerous or anything that's making somebody sick if they are in fact sick.
But of course they're flagging people who aren't even sick.
Because you're using this PCR test.
Talk to us a little bit about, you know, we go back and we look at this and they're testing, supposedly testing for something.
If they don't have anything that's isolated, what in the world are they testing for?
Yeah, that's exactly the issue.
So, in order to validate a test to show that, you know, it's actually accurate and worth using, you have to Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
The gold standard would be a particle that has already been shown to be a virus, right?
So they don't have a gold standard.
They never actually established that this thing exists.
They have all kinds of studies and stories about it, you know.
Dr. Kaufman, we have to go back to the very beginning and carefully read the method section.
This is where people get confused too because they can go online and find all sorts of studies and say, oh yeah, we isolated the virus, but you have to carefully read the method section and that's where it all falls apart.
You see what they actually did.
They didn't identify any specific particle.
They didn't sequence anything.
They didn't characterize a particle.
There's no controlled experiment.
They don't show disease causation.
They don't establish contagion of anything.
So, yeah, that's what we were focusing on.
So, back to the PCR, it's, I usually describe it, it's an impossible to validate test.
You can't validate any of the tests, whether it's antigen or antibody or what have you, when nobody has even established that the thing that you're supposedly testing for even exists.
And so...
Another really important point, like, people need to understand with all these tests, they're all indirect tests.
So none of them are actually even identifying this supposed particle or getting direct evidence that the particle is there.
What they're doing with PCR, for example, it's a process, as I'm sure you know, it wasn't even intended as a test in the beginning, as Carrie made clear.
But all it's, when it's a process, Applied as a so-called test.
All it's doing is giving, in the best case scenario, when it's done in the most rigorous, careful manner, which is not what happened in COVID. There was no standardization.
There was different labs doing their own thing.
It was like a Wild West.
They're all testing for different targets.
But what it's, quote, testing for, it's just a tiny little, different tiny little sequences.
Of the alleged genome.
So the genome is said to be roughly 30,000 units long.
But they'll be testing for something, a little sequence that's like maybe 18 or so units long.
It's only this tiny, tiny little fragment of the alleged genome that's actually never been shown to exist.
And then the genome is supposed to be surrounded by a protein shell.
And then some viruses are said to have an envelope as well.
And that's the case with SARS-CoV-2.
That's where the spike proteins supposedly stick out.
So you're talking about this long genome with two different layers around it.
That's not what they're testing for.
PCR is only looking for this teeny little segment of the alleged genome.
That's it.
It can't even establish that the particle is there that they claim exists.
The CDC has admitted this formally since 2020. They have a document.
John Rappaport brought it to my attention back in 2020. And they admit right in it, it's not evidence that you actually have a replication-competent infectious virus.
And it can't rule out other causes for why people might be sick.
And the other important thing is, as you probably already know, I'm sure, that most people who tested positive, they didn't even have any symptoms.
They weren't even sick.
Oh, we're seeing that big time.
Yeah, we're seeing that big time now with the bird flu stuff.
It's like, well, they got any fever?
No, no fever.
They got any respiratory issues?
No, no.
They got pink eye.
They work on a farm, and it's a very dirty environment, and they rub their hands, and they get pink eye.
I used to get it all the time.
When I was a kid, they didn't tell me I was going to die of bird flu when I got it as a kid.
But, you know, it's ludicrous.
It's absolutely ludicrous.
Yeah, so fast-forwarding to today, I ended up having a lot of people helped because I was putting my results on social media and letting people know, and I eventually started a newsletter.
So other people from other countries, other places started helping, and they would use the same wording or sometimes their own wording, and they were asking institutions where they live, like, hey, can you show us this, right?
Like, you're the one making the claim.
You have the burden of proof.
Just show us.
And so they would send me the results that they're going, look, Christina, you know, same thing here.
Nobody has it.
So today, and all of this has been available on my website all the time.
I'm always putting the FOIs, making them public.
And so as of today, just on the topic of SARS-CoV-2 isolation, or I usually say purification, just that initial step of finding and purifying, we have...
225 different institutions in 40 different countries on record.
They were all formally challenged.
And this includes the CDC, the FDA. I'll look at my Excel sheet here.
In the United States, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, Food and Drug Administration, the Fauci's old institution, the...
NIAID, yeah.
Yeah, thank you.
National, I'm blanking out.
Institute for Allergies and Infectious Diseases.
And Infectious Diseases.
National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases.
So nobody has it.
And then we've got, you know, Italy, India, like I said, 40 different countries.
So, yeah, it's very...
Well, they pulled one over on us, didn't they?
Yeah, they absolutely did.
And while we were doing these...
We actually had a couple of remarkable admissions from the CDC and Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.
So these are really particularly important responses that we got.
One was to my colleague Michael in New Zealand.
He was the first one to start sending the request to the CDC. So in his, I think it was November 1st or 2nd of 2020, people can find it on my website.
Asked the CDC, and what they said in their response was that what he was asking for is never done in virology.
So during this time period, too, people like Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan and, of course, Stefan Lonka, they were, as they were, well, I think Stefan Lonka already knew that virology in general was ridiculous, and Tom and Andy were figuring this out as they were going through the year as well.
And so these admissions from Mount Sinai told me the same thing twice.
And some people might say, well, you're talking to an administrative person.
They don't know.
Well, actually, what these people told me, that it was the subject matter experts that told them this.
So it wasn't just some administrative person who doesn't really have knowledge.
It was the so-called experts that are saying...
This is never done in virology.
What you're asking for is outside of what is ever done in virology.
Well, I would say that's pretty evident if you've contacted 225 institutions in 40 countries, and then you have somebody tell you that that's never done.
It correlates pretty well there, I guess so.
Yeah, but what I want people to understand, too, is this is not just a SARS-CoV-2 issue.
It's not just a COVID thing.
All the alleged viruses that we're told about our entire lives.
HIV, HPV, like on an influenza virus, measles virus.
Dr. Stefan Lok already won a lawsuit several years back in Germany where he challenged someone, show me evidence of the alleged measles virus.
And someone presented six papers.
It went to court.
The mainstream media never tells people that it went up to the higher courts on appeal.
And Dr. Lanka prevailed that none of the studies that were cited actually showed scientific evidence of the measles virus.
And this included the 1954 John Enders study, which was the foundational study supposedly for measles virus.
And it's really important because that became the kind of the gold standard approach moving forward through the death grades for virology, where they would use his methods, which were unscientific and illogical.
It didn't show any particular particle.
He didn't identify a specific particle at all, let alone show that it's a virus.
And this is what they started doing in virology up to the present day, the cell cultures.
Wow.
So it was already established, but the mainstream media doesn't let people know these things.
And then we also have, if people go to my website and they look at the links for the FOIs, they'll also find a page where it deals with other alleged viruses and that's where they'll see.
We have dozens and dozens of responses from various different institutions.
If there's time, I don't know if you have time, but I could highlight a few really important ones.
So one thing, for example, we have numerous responses on the alleged avian influenza virus, and I mention that because that's one of the ones that are being hyped up right now.
So we have the FDA on record on that.
We have the CDC, numerous different institutions from Japan and Canada.
So if anyone's being harassed there, take a look at that.
But also, some of the more important ones are, for example, with the Public Health Agency of Canada.
One time I asked them, do you have any record of any alleged virus being found and purified from people?
Any alleged virus from people?
And they admitted they didn't have it.
I asked the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
I worded this one differently.
I just said, do you have scientific evidence, actual rigorous scientific evidence, showing the existence of any virus that you claim has ever infected livestock in Canada?
And they admitted flat out that they didn't have anything.
We also have responses from numerous institutions where they were asked, can you show us any virus that is supposedly covered by a A so-called vaccination schedule.
So we did this in the U.S. It's been done in New Zealand, different places.
Any of those alleged viruses that people get so-called vaccinated for, any of those being found and purified from people, they don't have any record.
I mean, it's just...
Well, you know, we've seen that...
And there's an affidavit.
I can give people a really quick little tiny URL because it'll take you to a page where it's a newsletter.
It'll show you the avian influenza responses we have.
It'll also show a notice of conditional acceptance for...
Farmers, it's like you'd have to adapt it for different countries and you might want to make changes to it, but it's basically to inspire people if you're a farmer or you're being harassed in some way by the government to, they're telling you, oh, you have to test your animals or something.
It's a notice that you can give to them where you're demanding.
You're saying, okay, you want me to do this?
Well, you know, I'll do it or I'll consider doing it once you give me valid rigorous evidence that the virus exists and all these other things that you're claiming.
So you can find the link to that there.
And then you'll also, as you scroll down, there's educational materials from my colleagues, but there's also a link to my affidavit.
So I have a notarized affidavit that I put out as an educational tool and to show people, like, we're dead serious about this.
You know, I'll say it to anybody.
A detailed affidavit about these responses.
And then it'll also give all the links to the different webpages that I have for relating to...
Because we've also asked from different angles, did Freedom of Information.
So the tinyurl is tinyurl.com and then forward slash avian-hoax.
So if people go there, they'll find all sorts of links.
They can find everything from there.
Good.
Yeah, I'll put that in the show notes as well.
TinyURL.com slash avianhoax.
Yeah, with a dash.
Avian-hoax.
Oh, avian-hoax.
Okay, good.
All right.
Yeah, we'll take a look at that.
Now, you know, when we look at the stuff that they were telling us through all this.
Yeah, it didn't make any sense whatsoever.
You know, when we look at the masks, for example, and I was talking about it from within their paradigm of viruses and what they say they were in terms of size and all the rest of the stuff.
I said, okay, so we're going to wear these masks.
And of course, they weren't specific about a mask.
It could be an N95 mask, but you were okay if you wore a bandana that you found on a costume somewhere, you know?
So anything would apparently work.
But even with an N95 mask or something, it would...
If the viruses were the size that they were, they would simply be like trying to keep mosquitoes out with a hurricane fence, as many people point out, chain-link fence or something.
And so then they said, oh, it's the saliva that's going out there.
As you point out, they don't find these virus particles in bodily fluids or tissues or anything like that, but let's just assume that that was true.
Well, if that were true, then there was already an experiment back in...
You know, just looking at the physics of it, back in 2003 in Australia, they said, well, after 20 minutes, your mask gets so much spittle in it that you're actually going to push out smaller particles and they will be airborne longer and travel farther.
So none of this stuff made any sense.
From that standpoint, and especially because your face is not sealed, so with me with a beard, you know, I said, well, are they going to make me shave my beard to wear a mask?
I mean, it's just going to go through.
I had just been snorkeling for the first time since I was in college, and since I had a mustache now, none of the masks would work.
So I'm like, I know what that's going to do.
It's not going to keep any viral particles in if there is something like that.
And it just continued on with the insanity.
They redefined immunity and what immunity was.
You know, first they say, well, you got natural immunity to this thing because you had it.
Well, now natural immunity doesn't work.
Now you only get immunity if you have a vaccine or something like that.
None of this made any sense.
And now if you realize that they're just making all this stuff up, now it makes sense.
Exactly.
That's the only way it makes sense.
It just doesn't make sense.
You know, and another thing I should mention too is other people have done a lot of work on the issue of Contagions.
You know, we're told that these illnesses are contagious, and nowadays the assumption is that they claim it's because we're passing these particles to each other, these particles that weren't even shown to exist.
And we have included, in my Freedom of Information earlier this year, I started changing the wording, so I started asking about that as well.
I would ask, do you have any scientific evidence showing the virus exists?
If not, do you even have records showing that it was found impurified?
Do you have any record where they found the alleged genome intact?
And they don't even have that because they just make them up.
They're literally just computer models.
But I also asked about contagion, and nobody's able to show me that the illness or the symptoms that the virus supposedly caused are actually contagious.
And then we have people like Daniel Reuters.
He's a gentleman.
He was a naturopath and he started learning about this.
So he did a very deep dive into the contagion issue.
And he wrote a book called Can You Catch a Cold?
And he reviewed over 200 studies on this topic.
And he found that there was zero, zero scientific evidence that colds are actually contagious.
And there have been various studies.
There's been attempts to demonstrate contagion.
And they always fail.
Or in the studies where someone does get sick, it's never a rigorous controlled experiment.
You don't actually have the control side to see, well, maybe they were going to get sick for some other reason anyway.
You know, maybe it's something that they were being fed or something in the environment.
So he did a deep dive on that.
And then we have other people who, like someone collected up something like 90 different studies where the authors were concluding that, look, you know, it really doesn't look like polio is contagious.
There have been experiments where people ingested bacterial cultures of supposedly pathogenic bacteria, and they didn't get sick.
There was a doctor, I think his name was Robert Wilner, he injected himself with blood from a supposedly HI-infected man on television years ago to make the point, like, he's not afraid, he's not going to get sick, and he didn't get sick.
So there's been all kinds of The work in that area as well.
And then there's the Rosenau study from 19...
Everybody should read it.
It's a very quick and easy read.
And it shows how with this so-called Spanish flu, these researchers tried everything imaginable to try to get the sick people to pass the illness on to healthy people.
And they couldn't do it.
They absolutely failed.
What's the name of that study again?
The Rosen what?
Rosenau, R-O-S-E-A-U, and it's from about, if people type it into my website, the search function, they can find it there.
I put a link to it on there.
Good.
Yeah, so that's really important.
When I interviewed Sam Bailey and her husband, Mark, I think it is, and in their book, they talked about the cold house in the UK. For 45 years, they set up a house and they tried to analyze how people were catching coals from each other.
And they said they did everything they could.
They did gross stuff like taking mucus from one person who was sick and putting it in the mouth of another person or putting it in their nose or all of a sudden.
They couldn't do it.
You know, cough on this person who had volunteers.
They shut it down after 45 years, couldn't find anything there.
Maybe that's why we haven't found a...
A cure for the cold because they're trying to identify some kind of a particle that doesn't exist so they can kill it.
And that's not what's happening to it.
But let's talk about the measles because that was one of the other ones.
And when we look at a situation, we grew up at a time when we didn't have a measles vaccine.
We would have measles parties and some kid down the block would get measles and everybody would go down and hang out with them.
That's what...
My wife's parents did.
They had three kids.
They had a couple of kids and then twins in the middle.
So they had four kids that were like three years apart.
So they said, we're not going to deal with this sequentially.
Let's just send them all down and let them all get measles at the same time.
And they did.
So what do you think is going on with that?
I don't know, but what I know is whenever we ask, like, why isn't there a valid, rigorous, controlled experiment that actually demonstrates as this happens?
Because I think what happens is people, we're told all our lives that certain things are contagious, right?
And then so we tend to focus on the situations that seem to confirm that.
And we forget all the examples that don't actually fit it.
So there's been all kinds of children that went to measles parties, or they were in school with a child that had the so-called measles, and they didn't get it, right?
And then there's, like, children who weren't around anyone who had it, and now they have this skin condition, right?
So, and then, so, I mean, what does cause it?
Different people have different hypotheses that it could be children tend to get these things because it's part of their growth cycle as you're passing through a certain stage.
Let's say if you're a certain toxic load, your body might go through a process to try to eject poisons.
One of the main ways we get toxins out of our body is actually through our skin.
That's one of the roots.
So when your organs aren't able to keep up with what you've been eating or drinking, one of the ways your body will react is to start pushing things out through the skin.
And then some people believe, too, that there could be an emotional component to it.
When children are young and they start going to school and they go through like a separation from their parents and it could be partly that sort of thing.
So I don't have an answer, but the way I look at it is someone first show me that the measles actually is contagious.
Show me actual valid scientific study that establishes that and then we can try to figure out why it may be happening.
But it can be too, like the kids could just be, maybe they were all exposed to something.
Whether it was at their friend's house, or they go to school together, and these kids were going to get sick anyway.
I think the key thing is, going back to what you were saying, they're not doing this in a scientific method.
They're not isolating something and saying, okay, we've got a control group here, and we've got another group, and this group, we found this particular thing in them.
And so if we accept some paradigm that they've made up...
Then that means that we're not going to be looking for other causes or perhaps real causes.
We just fall into this, okay, well, it's a virus, and we can't see viruses, and so, you know, it's just this thing.
But we're going to address it.
I had a question from a listener here, John 2459. It says, David, could you ask your guess?
If the tiny part they're testing for could also be found in other viruses or locations or other things like that.
I mean, you're talking about a very long gene sequence that they're looking for, and they say, well, if we just find a part of this, that could be found in all kinds of things, right?
Yeah, so that's a good point.
So with the PCR protocol that was...
Promoted and encouraged by the World Health Organization.
It was based on a protocol and a study by Christian Drosten, who I'm sure you've heard of, and some colleagues of his.
So in their published study where they were reporting on how they developed their PCR protocol, they admitted things like, for example, they started working on developing a test for this alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus based on social media rumors.
And they never did have, you know, a sample of this alleged virus.
They started out based on rumors and then they eventually, from China, the computer code that supposedly represents the full-length genome was released and they started working based on that.
But what they also did was they did some of their testing to see how well the tests performed.
They used some Frozen samples from the supposed SARS outbreak back in around 2003. And what they said in this study was that their test for the supposedly new virus, the new coronavirus, they would get positive results from the old supposed SARS virus and any avian virus.
So they were admitting right in it.
They call it cross-reactivity.
So anybody can, you can find that study, I believe, on my website.
If you type in Drosten, I think you can find a link to the study.
And they were admitting it right there, that even, like you said, within their model, within their terms, they're admitting it's not specific to this supposed.
New virus.
And, of course, you've got the absurd things, pronouncements being made, even if you believed in viruses and the paradigm and all the rest of the stuff.
You've got Robert Redfield out there saying bird flu.
Well, we know that it's inevitable that it's going to migrate to humans, and when it does, we're going to have a case fatality rate of 52%.
You know this guy's lying.
There's no way that he could make this kind of projection.
What is he, Nostradamus or something?
But he tries to make it sound scientific by not saying 50%, but 52%.
The whole thing is really a scam.
You know, there was a document, Christine, that I found in August of 2020, and it was the American Hospital Association, AHA. And it was an aha moment for me, because they had a back and forth with, here in the United States, the money was being passed out to people through CMS, the Medicare Medicaid agency, right?
And so CMS said, we're going to have to see PCR proof that these people have COVID before we pay you, because they were giving them a bonus of $13,000 if they found a COVID case.
And imagine...
If you've got that kind of incentive, you're going to be finding them all over the place, right?
But they would give them a bonus, and then they would pay them 20% bonus on what their normal fee would be.
After you identify them as a COVID patient, now you get a 20% bonus on everything that you do to them, right?
Give them a Kleenex.
It's 20% more.
And so the American Hospital Association said, CMS just told us that they're not going to pay that 20% bonus unless we've got, quote-unquote, proof in terms of PCR tests.
And they said, you told us when this started.
That you didn't have enough tests and they didn't work anyway.
And I said, wow.
They're just being bribed to make stuff up.
Just point at somebody and say that you've got it.
You talk about point and identify or whatever.
That's exactly what it was.
That's what they were doing in the hospitals.
It wasn't even to the viruses.
They've never established the significance of these sequences.
Some people think they could be just, I mean, all they had to do was, if they know, there's a lot of evidence that this whole thing was planned in advance, and all they had to do was pick some sequences that they know they're going to find in some people, and then when you test them, you say, oh, that's, yeah, you confirmed that you have the virus.
That's all they had to do.
So they could just be sequences that, they don't even have to be associated with being sick, because like we said, Most people are not even sick who tested positives.
That's right.
And we're talking about it just being a fragment of something, right?
How could you find a match?
Would you be able, if you had just a small fragment of DNA, be able to distinguish between a chimp and a human?
No, probably.
Maybe not.
Because we've got a significant amount of overlap.
We've got like 90% or something of the DNA. I don't know what the exact number is, but it's really high of the DNA as shared between humans and chimps.
But that's a completely different thing.
So if you just took a small portion of the genome, you wouldn't be able to tell what kind of animal it was.
Yeah, exactly.
And then if you look further, like, for example, Dr. Tom Cowan has recently done a presentation on the supposed human genome, and you find that's not actually what we've been led to believe either.
Yeah, I thought growing up, you know, that that was all established.
And, you know, it's funny, they call it the human genome.
On the one hand, they say we all have a unique genome.
But then they also refer to the human genome.
Like, it doesn't really make sense.
How much variation is there between humans, let alone between different species?
But it turns out they never even completed the very first human genome.
Like, that project, it's just more smoke and mirrors.
I don't know if it's intentional.
That was Francis Collins.
That was Francis Collins.
He went straight from the Human Genome Project to the head of NIH. You know, and now he's Fauci's boss.
It all just comes together, doesn't it?
I've got another comment.
Yeah, so all these things, like, there's no, anything you hear in connection with virology or, like, I wouldn't take any of it at face value.
It turns out you start asking questions or looking into it.
Where's the actual evidence?
So even their comparisons of the human genome with other genomes, I don't know that there's actually even any meaning to any of it.
Well, just in general, you know, I've been in this, before all this stuff happened, I was working with people who were questioning the claims about climate change and stuff, right?
And so Michael Mann, who was involved with ClimateGate in the UK, and they're passing emails back and forth saying, our models don't work, we're actually getting a decline here when we should be getting an increase in temperature with certain things.
And so I was with a group and we said, well, we'd like to see your data.
And he'd already published it.
He had been working at a university level, and so the public was paying for his job, and he had published it, and they'd used it for public policy, and yet he wouldn't show us his information.
There's so much that is out there that masquerades as science, and now they're increasingly telling us you can't question this, right?
This settled.
And I always say there's no such thing as settled science.
Every time science advances or our understanding of anything advances, it's because somebody questioned their paradigm, and it turned out that the paradigm that they accepted conventional wisdom was wrong.
And somebody challenges that, and we move ahead with our understanding somehow.
But you can't abandon the scientific method.
These people have abandoned that.
They've abandoned any criticism.
You can't have any free speech.
How has this affected you?
What kind of attacks have you gotten from people?
I'm sure that they've been all over you with this kind of stuff.
Well, I don't bother going on social media and arguing with people anymore, but I mean, we used to get called every name in the book.
Even by, excuse me, other people in the freedom movement made all sorts of wild accusations that we're CIA operatives, we're here to disrupt the freedom movement, I mean, on and on and on.
I had an interesting situation recently where I went with some colleagues to a police department and we were there to report We were asking them, which we've done in the past.
My colleague has done it many times, but this time I went with him and we've done a video also about this.
But we were asking them to lay charges and take into custody the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the so-called Parliament, and investigate them because COVID-19 is a complete hoax.
We have all these...
You know, confessions.
That's what I call them.
Official legal confessions is what they are.
They're showing they don't have any scientific evidence.
The whole thing was a hoax.
They also didn't give anybody due process.
And I think this is really important for people everywhere to keep in mind that...
Like a basic right, I don't like to use the word human right, but as people, we have the right to due process before someone starts barking orders at us and telling us, you have to do this, you have to do that.
There should be an opportunity to examine the evidence on both sides and cross-examine and, you know, a whole process before someone's ordering you to do anything.
So one of the problems there is that they did things without due process and they...
We made all these demands and people died as a result.
I've been calling it from the very beginning.
I said it's medical martial law.
And that's the way they operate it.
You do what I say, and we're not going to entertain any questions about this.
I don't have to show you anything.
It's just going to be a pronouncement.
And that is so antithetical to science.
That's the way it used to be before Francis Bacon created the scientific method.
It just came from authorities who worked at well-respected institutions or whatever.
Whatever their pronouncements were, you just bow to it and do it.
They treated people like slaves.
And so we were asking them to take these politicians into custody and charge them.
In Canada, there's in the Criminal Code, Section 229C, that says that if you do anything for an unlawful purpose, and interfering with people's rights and freedoms and property without due process is unlawful.
And if you do that, and people end up dying as a result, whether you intended for them to die or not, that's considered a culpable homicide.
In other words, murder under the Criminal Code of Canada.
I don't know if it's like that in other countries, too.
We were asking them to arrest.
I gave my affidavit, my name, my personal information.
And I don't know if it's a coincidence, but within a day or two, I started getting Stripe, which is a payment processor behind Substack.
They started interfering and making all these...
Impossible to meet demands with me.
So I eventually had to part ways with them.
They literally were stealing donations that people had given me.
So, you know, because I went to the police station, is it just a coincidence?
I don't know.
But it was interesting timing, I thought.
It's amazing.
I kicked off of PayPal and the other one that they've got that's there.
But anyway, you know, and I can't...
On a call, I said, why don't I get kicked off?
And I spent two hours on the phone with him, and he says, well, I can't find anything except this message that says, remove this account immediately.
And it's like, yeah, I understand.
So, yeah, you get all this kind of stuff all the time, and it is everywhere.
And it's just simply tyranny.
And I'm glad that you did that.
And if we would all stand up and question...
What we're being told.
It isn't a conspiracy theory.
It's critical thinking.
It's that other CT thing that's out there, you know?
And so we need to critically think, and we need to say, okay, fine.
You're the scientist.
You should have the evidence and the data, and you should be able to explain this to me.
And if you're unwilling to do that, then I think that this is a fraud.
It's just that simple.
Why do people accuse you of being in the CIA? Was it because you were challenging what they accepted as a paradigm, and they said, oh, you're just trying to discredit us because you don't accept the paradigm?
Was that it?
It was people like Dr. Vernon Coleman and different fairly well-known people in the so-called health freedom space.
And their thinking was that...
We're coming out with these wild claims saying that viruses were never shown to exist, and of course we're wrong, and there's mountains of evidence.
And, you know, the only explanation is that we're these controlled people who are here to disrupt and cause division within the freedom space and lead us off into a dead-end approach.
but we look at it why would you if someone's coming at you making demands why would you do anything to make it easy on them why would you just accept the virus narrative without evidence like i would push back and if it turns out they don't have the evidence that they try to make it sound like we're sometimes people say we're trying to let the bad guys off the hook because they've adopted this idea that oh it was a lab leak virus
and uh even if you think it's a lab leak virus i'm or if you can't find it and any people...
You still don't have evidence that there was a virus actually circulating in people.
That's right.
I think that the lab leak, and I've said this over and over again, the lab leak is letting the bad guys off the hook.
Because, you know, they ran this scam on us, and you're saying, well, you know, it really was real, and it's going to happen again, but we're not going to do anything to stop any of the stuff that we said caused it.
You know, that's the thing that drives me nuts.
And I see that all over.
Even the people who push back against all this medical martial law, they want to jump in on this lab leak.
If it was a lab leak, then only the specific people involved in that situation would be the bad guys.
But in reality, it's every politician, every medical officer.
It's like everybody who participated, all the companies, and not just...
with COVID but all these other hoaxes as well like we're showing there was they shouldn't have even been talking about a virus or offering tests or anything at all because they just didn't have anything so it shows The level of corruption and the incompetence.
I'm sure some of these people actually believed it themselves, but we're sure that the whole foundation is wrong.
I agree.
I would imagine that Vernon Coleman probably believes it because he was drilled into it in medical school and everything, and it is such an ingrained thing.
I mean, even though we didn't go to medical school, it's still like, what?
You mean there's no viruses out there?
I've heard that all my life.
I've seen all this stuff, and it's like, that sounds like a crazy idea.
It always does when you challenge conventional wisdom.
But the response needs to be, you prove it.
You know, it's one of the things that Thomas Sowell always said.
He said, when these people come to you, and he was talking about the climate stuff.
He said, when they come to you with these radical solutions and they think, you know, oh, the earth is going to melt and everything.
He says, well, prove it.
Prove it.
It's just that simple.
And then, so what if it's true?
Then what if what you're saying is fundamentally true?
Does it still follow that these consequences are going to happen?
And that kind of goes back to the bird flu stuff, right?
When they say, well, we've got bird flu.
We did a test, and we found one bird.
Maybe it's sick, maybe it's not.
And we've got to kill all the birds.
It's like, what are you talking about?
You've got to kill all the birds.
When do you ever have something that they claim has a case fatality rate of 100%?
But if you've got a million chickens, and you've got one that tested positive for a PCR, And you're going to kill all million of the chickens?
I mean, how do you even calculate what the case fatality rate is?
I mean, it's like an infinite number.
That's absurd.
Their measures are absurd.
And so when you look at their measures, when you look at the masks, when you look at the six-foot social distancing, and you look at, you know, natural immunity doesn't work anymore and all the rest of it, it doesn't even work within their paradigm.
And so you know that there's something, you know that they're lying to you up one side and down the other.
And the further down you go, you get to the point where it's like, I don't think there's even any viruses here.
I can't see any proof of that.
Exactly.
That's the amazing process, isn't it?
Exactly.
Yeah.
And the nice thing, too, when you learn these facts, and if you just, it takes a little time for people who don't have, like me, I didn't have a background in any of this, so I had to learn some of the terminology in that to be able to read the studies.
But once you do, it means that whenever they come at us with one of these narratives, you don't have to wait.
Months or years for someone to do an analysis of all-cause mortality or analyze things from all sorts of different directions.
You just go straight to the foundational evidence.
You read it and you go, that doesn't make sense.
You didn't do what you're claiming.
And that's the end of it right there.
It's a much simpler and faster and I think much more empowering approach because if enough men and women out there learn to just read this study and know what to look for, They're not going to be able to pull off, you know, it's going to be much harder for them to pull off another.
Well, we need to be critical thinkers.
We need to be critical thinkers of what they're saying.
And, you know, and a part of the conspiracy stuff, it helped for me to know that what they had planned and been practicing for every year since two months before 9-11 and what they pushed out the orders for the different states with.
But they're in the first one of these games, Dark Winter, two months before 9-11, and they went right down by the playbook.
And so I kind of knew that.
And then I started looking at this and it's like, that really doesn't look real.
And now none of the stuff that they're saying makes any sense.
So I never bought into any of this stuff because of those things.
I got a couple of comments here for you, Christine.
Christine.
Don't obey.
It's contagious if the insecure person next to me says it is.
We look at all this contagion stuff and all of the masks and everything else.
We've all been there these last four years, haven't we?
Shadowboxer says, after detoxifying my body, I not only stop psoriasis, but I never get sick.
Solonigoy says, if a placebo can make you well, I think hyper-negative thoughts can make you sick.
Hypochondriacs tend to get sick easily.
That's a really good point.
That's why they do the double-blind study, because they know that if even the people who are administering the treatment, if they know what is real and what's a placebo, that that's going to influence the outcome of this stuff.
So that's a really good point.
Yeah, you can get some people to have the symptoms just by telling them enough times and exactly what they did drilling it into our heads 24-7 that there's a virus.
Some people end up getting the symptoms just because they're so susceptible to the messaging.
Yeah, that's true.
So you've got a tiny URL about the bird flu stuff, tinyurl.com slash avian-hoax.
And if they go to that, they can get information about this bird flu nonsense that you've been able to collect.
And I guess it's the same type of thing, asking people if they got any isolated bird flu virus.
And, of course, they wouldn't.
But does that also, if you go to that URL, does that jump you into your website so people can find the other links that are there?
Good.
Okay.
Yeah, that's why I gave that one.
They can find all sorts of stuff from there.
Okay, that's great.
Well, thank you so much for watching.
Thank you for having me, David.
It's been a pleasure.
I really, really appreciate it.
Thank you.
We need to always question the authorities.
And we need to always ask them to prove it.
And that goes for everything.
And if we don't do that, we're just setting ourselves up to be taken advantage of.
And boy, have they taken advantage of us.
It is absolutely amazing.
When you look at this last year, last four years, you know, all the different things, the hoops that they've made us walk through with all the rest of the stuff.
Thank you so much for joining us.
And all of you, thank you for joining us today.
That's the end of our program.
We hope you have a great day.
And we're going to try to keep it real again tomorrow.
But this may sound crazy, but it's the reality.
It's a scientific process.
The burden of proof is on the people who make the extraordinary claims.
And if they don't have anything to back that up, that's the key issue.
Thank you so much for joining us, Christine Massey.
And thank you so much for what you have done.
It's been a real service.
Thank you.
Yes.
Thank you.
Hello, it's me, Volodymyr Zelensky.
I'm so tired of wearing these same t-shirts everywhere for years.
You'd think with all the billions I've skimmed off America, I could dress better.
And I could, if only David Knight would send me one of his beautiful grey MacGuffin hoodies or a new black t-shirt with the MacGuffin logo in blue.
But he told me to get lost.
Maybe one of you American suckers can buy me some at thedavidknightshow.com.
You should be able to buy me several hundred.
Those amazing sand-colored microphone hoodies are so beautiful.
I'd wear something other than green military cosplay to my various galas and social events.
▲
Export Selection