Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 18, 2025 - The David Knight Show

02:57:14

The David Knight Show -3/18/2025

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Well, the science is settled.
	We've heard that so many times, right?
	That's kind of the refuge of a scoundrel.
	As I've said so many times, science is never settled.
	The only way that science advances is if people question some of the long-held assumptions.
	And so that's what we're going to do today.
	You know, when somebody tells you something, like a good math teacher, they should show you the work.
	They should especially show you the data.
	If they don't do that, you ought to get ever more skeptical about this.
	And after four years of this nonsense, the masks and the lockdowns and the six-foot distancing and then the vaccines that weren't tested.
	If you're not skeptical about this stuff right now, this show is not for you.
	But I think most of you who watch this show are.
	And so I wanted to cover the book.
	We have a couple of doctors from New Zealand.
	The book is The Final Pandemic, An Antidote.
	To medical tyranny.
	And it really is the antidote to medical tyranny.
	We want, however, to make sure that we have answered the questions and the objections, and that's why I wanted to get them on.
	That's a very thorough book.
	My guests are Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Samantha Bailey.
	They are married.
	Both of them are physicians in New Zealand.
	So thank you for joining us.
	Thank you.
	And of course, let me give the website as well.
	It's drsambailey.com.
	And so that's where you can find more information.
	You can find the book everywhere.
	But thank you for joining us, and it is fascinating.
	I haven't been able to read the entire book, but I've read a great deal of it.
	You've done another book that was 400 pages long, had 1,400 references.
	This one's about 180 pages long, and it's got, so I got it right down here, 444 references.
	So you document the stuff.
	Very well.
	People can do their own research.
	It's a great beginning point for somebody if they want to question the foundation of what has happened to us for the last four years.
	But let's begin by letting you give us a little bit of your background as physicians.
	What caused you to question something that most people say is nonquestionable orthodoxy?
	Thank you, David, for that really great introduction to introduce this topic.
	And as you mentioned, Sam and I were both conventionally trained doctors.
	I graduated in 1999, one of the last doctors to graduate from the last century, and was in the medical system for two decades.
	Now, during that time, there were definitely speed bumps for me.
	I questioned what we were doing a lot of the time.
	Many of the things we did with regard to pharmaceuticals, vaccines and surgery were not things that I would do to myself or to my family.
	So there was always that uneasy relationship.
	Now, despite having an established career in medicine, I decided to leave in 2016.
	I hated the structure of the medical system.
	Was having increasing amounts of conflict with other practitioners within the system because of disagreements about what we were doing.
	And decided to completely get out of it.
	Now, the best thing to come out of my medical career was meeting my wife Sam next to me here.
	So we met in 2007 when we were both hospital doctors and we worked in all kinds of specialties, including clinical trials.
	So we were research physicians supervising first-time human dosing of new pharmaceuticals and spent quite a few years.
	Getting to grips with how the biotech industry worked and how the pharmaceutical industry worked and how they funded studies and how they got new products to market.
	So that was a fascinating insight for both of us.
	Now, in 2016, I was so done with medicine that I said to Sam, I think you've got to get out because I really believe it's going to get worse.
	And Sam said, yeah, it's pretty bad, but...
	She had some work that she was enjoying, and I'll hand over to Sam.
	Before we get to 2020 and what happened, I'll hand over to Sam.
	Okay.
	Yeah, so basically I was still working in clinical trials, and I had great patience, and I loved the work, and I wasn't ready to kind of leave.
	And anyway, and then I formed my own business, which was like an online doctor business, and this was kind of the first of its kind in New Zealand before all this became normal.
	And by chance, I got kind of invited to become a TV presenter on a health show, like on a mainstream network in New Zealand.
	So I did that, and I really loved it.
	And one of my friends suggested that I should start my own YouTube channel.
	So I did that at the kind of end of 2019, going into 2020.
	And then this was the real start of my awakening, when you actually hit the kind of wall of what you're allowed to do.
	And so people were asking about Coronavirus and what it meant and I didn't know and I'd hunker down with Mark and we'd kind of research and answer a lot of these questions and we came across this book, Virus Mania,
	which was a huge shift in everything that I once thought to believe and it was actually Mark who sat me down because he read the book first.
	Yeah, it was one of those situations, David, where I'd been out of medicine for four years when this whole COVID thing started, and I wanted to stay out.
	And as Sam said, she started this YouTube channel, and by January 2020, people are saying, what's this rumor coming out of Wuhan?
	Can you talk about it?
	Can you talk about these things?
	And I started researching.
	And the first thing I looked at was the World Health Organization documents.
	I said to Sam, there's nothing here.
	These are just so-called expert opinions.
	They refer to some protocols.
	They refer to historical events.
	I can't find the foundational science behind what they're talking about here.
	Then around February, we start seeing publications claiming that they've found this novel virus and it's causing a new disease.
	Now Sam and I as clinicians looked at these papers and said, what new disease?
	This is pneumonia.
	This is all of the same things we've seen before.
	There's nothing special about these patients.
	And then people would say, well, look at the CT scans.
	And we'd say, yep, those lungs, that's generic kind of findings for people with pneumonia.
	This place, Wuhan, is obviously highly polluted.
	There's plenty of reasons why people are going to get sick there.
	And we don't see anything novel going on here.
	So that led, as Sam says, to the discovery of Virusmania.
	Sam subsequently became a co-author of that book, but at that time it was new to us.
	And we started looking into virology and we just couldn't believe it because there were two things that were apparent.
	One was that when we were at medical school and working as doctors, the wool had been pulled over our eyes.
	We had not been shown all of the failed experiments that had taken place over a century.
	And also we didn't realise that people had been trying to get this information out for years.
	So we had the Perth Group in Australia, we had Dr Stefan Lanker, David Crowe.
	Other people, Kerry Mullis, who, you know, had various views, but one of them was that there were major problems with aspects of virology.
	So we discovered this and our audience just kept saying, go deeper, go deeper.
	And so before long, in 2020, we found that we were at the tip of the spear with...
	Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan and Mike Stone, Christine Massey and all of these other great individuals that decided in 2020 that they'll dedicate their time to researching these issues.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, it is amazing.
	I came at it from a different angle, which my audience is familiar with.
	They came at it from Dark Winter and the Germ Games and things like that.
	And, you know, when they started doing this and there wasn't...
	Really anybody dying and they declare a pandemic.
	Like, wait a minute, this is not even an epidemic.
	So it truly has been an amazing thing to see how they were able to pull this off and how long it lasted.
	But I want to get to the root of the cause, and that really is the pandemic.
	And when we're talking about a pandemic, we're really talking about, it's not so much even really the existence of a virus or a germ.
	But it's about being able to prove that this is being transmitted, that you've isolated this, that it's able to transmit it as a contagion, that it can make people sick, that it can replicate, that type of thing.
	Talk a little bit about what the problems are with that.
	Yeah, well I guess contagion studies itself are one of the best first windows to get into because it opens people's minds because you don't know, or most people don't know, that there have been major studies that have been done in the past exposing the problem with contagion.
	And the best example I always, because this is what really woke me up, was the Rosenau experiments that were done in the States where they had a group This is during the Spanish flu time, so the Spanish 1918.
	Yeah, the gold standard of all the pandemics.
	That's one that everybody wants to talk about.
	Yeah, and we've actually made quite a few videos on these subjects because I think it's really important to unravel because there's lots of things going on.
	But what people understood, so with these Rosenau experiments, was that they had a group of about 50 patients that were prisoners who, Yeah, that's right.
	around extremely sick Spanish flu patients, and these are usually young men, and at the height of their illness, and then they had to basically cough in their faces, take mucus secretions
	from their nose and eyes, and rub it in the mouth.
	Prisoners' eyes, these healthy volunteers.
	They took samples, blood samples.
	They did everything you can imagine to try and make these prisoners, these healthy prisoners, sick.
	And none of them got sick.
	And they've repeated, these experiments were repeated.
	And again, they could never transmit the so-called illness.
	And we have to remember here, David, these were allegedly the most infectious diseases that humanity has ever seen.
	Yes.
	And yet when it gets put into the experiments, no transmission.
	And then from there, we looked into everything.
	So there are two different things to consider.
	One is the microbes that we can see, so bacteria, fungal cells, etc.
	And the other is these imagined ones, which are the viruses.
	And they have tried transmission studies with all of these things.
	And it is just astounding how the evidence relies on things.
	Take polio, for instance.
	That was a case of taking diseased tissue from a dead child and mashing it up, some spinal cord tissue, and injecting it into monkeys' brains.
	And if it killed them or gave them paralysis, they would conclude, well, that's evidence of transmission.
	Completely nonsensical.
	No control experiment.
	And we all know that injecting foreign material directly into an animal's brain is likely to cause a massive reaction and possible death.
	Through to things like the measles and chickenpox.
	Now we're all told that you're in the same room as someone.
	You're going to pick it up or someone's going to pick it up.
	It can travel through the air, over distance, etc.
	This has never been shown in a scientific study.
	Instead, What they refer to, and everyone relies on this, the CDC, Wikipedia, the textbooks, wherever you look, the medical schools, what they rely on is studies like with the measles and chickenpox, they will take fluid from a diseased human,
	so, you know, they have the skin rash and the fluid build up, take some of that fluid, inject it into an animal, and then if that animal gets a rash, declare that that shows contagion.
	Complete nonsense, because these are not natural roots.
	And these are not controlled studies.
	And also, with regard to the germ theory, there's no independent variable.
	So they haven't shown that they found a germ that by itself could cause all of these problems.
	And people will be astounded.
	I mean, this is everything.
	This is things like gonorrhea, the so-called sexually transmitted infections.
	We've made presentations about this.
	Sam's done videos about how these things have not been shown to transmit.
	Via natural roots in settings that you would see in nature.
	So it really is an incredible state of affairs.
	And the problem is, is that everyone comes at you with the anecdotal stories and says, well, explain this.
	And we've spent a lot of time saying, well, that's not a scientific study.
	It's an anecdotal story because we go to the scientific studies, which show something quite different.
	Yeah, in the foreword of your book, you talk about four different things.
	Circular light, well, kind of explain that, the logical fallacies of this before we talk about some of the anecdotal stuff.
	Because I do want to come back to the measles thing.
	That's really the obstacle.
	Things like that, I guess, are the obstacle that we in the general population have in terms of...
	You know, leaving this paradigm.
	But talk first about what you have in the foreword, about the four key errors that are there when they're trying to present this as a pandemic.
	Well, I think, so are you talking about the foreword?
	The circular logic.
	Yeah, the circular logic, you know, isolating something instead of having an isolate, having some kind of a computer.
	Sequence that they kind of guessed at, the PCR test, you know, things like that.
	In his excellent foreword, Professor Tim Noakes basically summarizes what us and other researchers have been exposing over many years now.
	And this is the fact that the techniques of virology are not adequate enough to show what they are claiming.
	So what they are claiming is that their The definition of virus, for one, has changed so many times, and they continue to change it.
	Oh yeah, they changed it just before the so-called pandemic, they changed it.
	Significantly.
	They changed the definition of pandemic.
	Yeah, the definition of virus, the definition of pandemic, the definition of vaccine, they all changed right before.
	That's nothing suspicious at all, right?
	No, and the word virus is so...
	It's ethereal that even the virologists don't seem to know what it means half the time.
	And I suspect if you asked many doctors or scientists what it actually means, they wouldn't know because we actually spent ages researching this stuff and you find documents all over the place which talk about all these different things.
	But essentially what people imagine is that there is a particle, an infectious particle, tiny little thing that you can only see within an electron microscope.
	And that somehow the virologists have been isolating this, and when we say isolating, most people will think physically isolating, not changing the definition of isolation, and then using these particles to do an experiment,
	using it as an independent variable.
	So, for instance, we could say, if you suspect that a bacterial cell like E. coli, which is found commonly, causes disease, You isolate E. coli, and they do this all the time, and then you run your experiments and see,
	is it pathogenic?
	Can it cause disease by itself?
	Can it attack healthy tissue?
	So that's all fine.
	The virologists can't do that because they can't find the independent variable.
	So when they take disease tissue and extract it directly, they can't identify the viruses in there.
	It doesn't look...
	Any different than tissue that's said not to have viruses in general.
	So instead they resort to the cell culture technique, which Professor Noakes talks about in his introduction.
	Now the problem with this technique is that it's indirect.
	They didn't identify the virus in the first place.
	So they start conflating things and instead of finding an independent variable, they look at the results of the experiment.
	Which is the breakdown of tissue in their cell culture.
	And then say, well, that must have been due to the virus.
	But this is a complete circular reasoning logical fallacy.
	But I've seen the virus.
	It's a little spiky ball.
	It's on all the articles.
	Every time they talk about it, we've got a little spiky ball there.
	What's that?
	Sam did a whole video on electron microscopy because...
	That is an issue in itself about the nature of what you can image, whether it represents living tissue.
	But here's the biggest problem with it.
	Those images appear after the fact, not before.
	So those little particles that they're imaging are the result.
	So they're the dependent variable in the experiment.
	They're not an independent variable that was identified at the start.
	Now this is not permitted in science.
	You can't create...
	An independent variable after the fact.
	You have to start with it because that's the thing you're supposed to manipulate.
	But because they can't do that with viruses, they get into the circular reasoning.
	Cell breakdown equals virus.
	You know, virus equals cell breakdown.
	And we keep pointing out to them, where is the independent variable?
	How can we prove that this is what happened?
	So yeah, a lot of the introduction is Professor Noakes outlining, summarising what many of us have pointed out over the years is that these techniques that they are using, and that's from everything through to the cell culture, through to the genomics and PCR,
	etc., are invalid because they don't follow the scientific method, they are not controlled experiments, and they should never...
	Ever have been permitted to go this far, because what we're dealing with here is a hypothesis that has been refuted.
	It is not a theory, because a theory implies that it has been tested and found to withstand all attacks, you know, all falsification, which is simply not the case.
	Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
	Go ahead.
	Did you want to finish?
	Yes, certainly let us know if there are other aspects, genomics, PCR, etc., that you want to discuss, because there are just so many areas to this, but people need to understand it's all been built up on the foundational thought that, A, germ theory and contagion was never shown to be valid,
	and with regard to virology, the single biggest issue has been they never found these particles in nature.
	They were artifacts from experiments.
	Imagine things in people's minds.
	They were not solid scientific evidence.
	Yeah, and I want to talk about those other aspects, but I just wanted to interject here with the first one of these logical fallacies in the foreword that was written, I forgot, Dr. Tim Noakes, okay?
	But there was an interesting article, and they made parallels between virology and physics.
	And they said the people who were doing, the physicists will tell you that they don't know.
	And they're trying to get, so give them more money because they've got to do more studying.
	The virologists will tell you they know everything.
	Give them more money.
	And when I look at it, it seems like when you say that they're inferring the existence of something that they haven't actually been able to isolate or measure or directly observe.
	That it's very much like what the physicists do with dark matter, I think, where they look at it, they see some kind of an effect, and then they create an abstraction, a theory, or hypothesis to try to explain what they're observing, but they can't directly observe that thing.
	They can't observe dark matter, they can't observe directly the virus, and they see the after-effects of it, and then they come up with this hypothesis that it exists.
	Is that right?
	Would you say that's the correct way of looking at it, or am I wrong?
	Yeah, definitely.
	I mean, I've had people reach out to me who are theoretical physicists saying that they realise the problems with virology because it parallels exactly their own experience with theoretical physics.
	And the trouble is there's all these other things that make it real for people.
	Like you've got PCR tests which make it real for people, you know, the lateral flow or rat tests.
	People have one of those and they go, oh, I'm sick, so this makes it real.
	They see pictures of it, which are just computer drawings of what a virus is supposed to be.
	And they think that that makes it real.
	And this is the problem.
	Was it the Perth group once said that they have the virus?
	Yeah, meaning that once they introduce this word into the public's imagination, it takes a lot to reverse it because everyone has witnessed people getting sick in clusters.
	Seeing what they believe is chickenpox and influenza, etc., which are all conditions that the body goes through, no doubt.
	But the problem is an explanation was given to them and most people have accepted it.
	And we have to be honest, David, that when we were at medical school and practicing physicians, we believed this too.
	And now we can see that it is so incorrect and that there are other explanations for these things.
	That's why one of Sam's ideas was to systematically deal with every virus that I've ever invented.
	But we realised that this is a big topic, you know.
	This would be like going through the Lord of the Rings and writing dossiers for every single character, writing about their background.
	And this is what we have to do.
	But we've sort of covered the main ones, you know, Epstein-Barr and measles and influenza, common colds, obviously COVID.
	All this kind of stuff, HIV, and making videos about every single one to show people that there are other explanations and that the entire foundation...
	And people can find that at drsambailey, B-A-I-L-E-Y.
	Yeah, you didn't do the Silmarillion, you just kind of stayed on Sauron.
	Kind of focus on that.
	And I think the genius...
	Of the PCR test, abused by Fauci from AIDS on, is that it gives us illusion of objective measurement, which is not there at all.
	The way they magnify this stuff is absolutely absurd.
	But I think that's the real genius, as you point out.
	The pictures that they create of, you know, the...
	A little spiky ball and everything.
	And so they create these pictures, computer animated pictures.
	They got PCR, which is about as connected, maybe not even as connected to reality as the computer-generated stuff.
	But then talk a little bit about the computer-generated genetic sequences that they use.
	Because since they can't observe this, they create a genetic sequence and they send that around, right?
	You know, what we focus a lot on here.
	Is the origin and significance of these sequences.
	And I wrote a paper, A Farewell to Virology, a couple of years ago.
	It's about 29,000 words.
	It carefully lays out the problems of the virological techniques, including a lot of it being dedicated to genomics.
	And we've shown that take something like these coronaviruses, for instance.
	And they say, well, we've been sequencing these, typing them for years.
	We can go back to our databases.
	We can trace their evolution through their so-called phylogenetic trees, all this kind of stuff.
	Well, we don't get distracted with that because, you know, a lot of people will get stuck in the weeds and they'll go, well, look at this sequence and look at that sequence and look how that's mutated.
	Sam and I just go, all very interesting, but show us the source documents here.
	What I did in Farewell to Virology with alleged coronaviruses was trace back to the original papers where they claimed that they were coming up with the genomes of these entities.
	Now, I carefully document this.
	This is around 1982 to 1984.
	Those papers are complete pseudoscience.
	There's no controls in them.
	They simply have diseased tissue.
	They're doing experiments with chick embryos and such tissue.
	And then they are sequencing the genetic sequences.
	But at no stage did they find any viruses.
	They just assumed.
	They said, oh, we've got tissue breakdown.
	We've got these lesions that are forming.
	We suspect that there's a virus in there.
	We're going to take sequences.
	These were mixed tissues, okay?
	These have got all sorts of things in them with the chick embryos and other fluids, etc.
	And they said, well, these sequences, they don't seem to come from where we expected, so we'll call them, quote, viral sequences, and they were deposited into a database.
	Then other people all around the world started doing sequences and said, hey, we've found very similar sequences, therefore we have also found the virus.
	And the thing is, David, you can do this anywhere.
	And this is the whole problem now with what we call metagenomics, which is simply taking environmental samples.
	So this could be the snot up someone's nose.
	It could be the sewer.
	They seem to love taking samples out of the sewer.
	They do.
	It could be an orange.
	Cow's milk.
	It could be cow's milk.
	Wherever you want to go and you look for these genetic sequences.
	Now the power of PCR to amplify sequences is incredible.
	So it can find the tiniest amounts.
	Now, so there are two issues here.
	One is, well, where did they come from?
	Because they never, ever showed that there was a virus that contained these sequences.
	And even if they did show such a particle, where was the evidence that that is the cause of the problem in the organism?
	Because we know, and every scientist who's involved in genomics should accept this because it is fact.
	That different sequences can appear when organisms are sick.
	So when you get sick and have a cold or a flu, your body, your cells will start expressing different sequences and they will start coming out in your snot and fluids, etc.
	It doesn't mean you got attacked from the outside by some microscopic entity.
	It just means that your body is going through a process where it will produce these sequences.
	And again, we've been very careful with the stuff.
	We traced back things.
	So, for instance, the spike protein sequences, which cause a lot of excitement in recent years.
	Well, these are nothing new.
	These are just sequences that were described as far back as the 80s or at least 1990.
	From our investigations.
	And you find them in tissue breakdown experiments.
	You find them in mammals and birds.
	You will find them in humans, etc.
	But it doesn't mean that you've found the virus, etc.
	Because the same techniques have failed over and over again.
	They can't isolate these particles.
	They can't use them as an independent variable, etc.
	But yeah, you'll see, like I've been...
	Engaged in debates with genomics experts and stuff, and it's really difficult because I think they honestly believe this stuff, and you can't get them to just go back, back, back to the foundational studies.
	Where's the virus, we always say, because it's simply not there.
	Yeah, and when you talk about the spike protein, the spike protein that seems to be generated by the mRNA vaccines, what do you make of that?
	You know, and the fact that it seems to be replicating.
	Is that our first virus?
	Yeah, I mean, there's a whole lot of problems here.
	One, it's not sure if it does generate once it's been injected because a lot of the experiments are done in vitro in test tubes.
	So when you do that, you've got single cells and you can transfect them.
	You can put genetic material in there.
	And get them to start producing proteins.
	So that's technology that's been around for a long time.
	I mean, what would we say is that it's an inflammatory type product, whatever it does inside the body.
	But I guess for us, David, we always focus upstream and say you don't ever inject these products because their effects are unpredictable.
	Even, quote, regular products that they inject in the childhood schedule.
	The effects are highly unpredictable, even though much, much more is known about what they contain.
	But you'll get anything from no reaction to children that are permanently disabled by the injection.
	So I think like all things, we don't focus too much on that, except to tell people who think that the spike protein is something new and novel, etc., is that it's not.
	It's simply a class of protein that's been described for many decades now.
	Yeah, if it does get produced in your body, not a good idea, but we would emphasize that that's the same principle for every single injectable product in this category.
	There is no possible health benefit to the recipient.
	It bypasses the natural route of how we deal with...
	I guess foreign material into our bodies so like every time an injection you're just bypassing so many natural roots and this is the problem the biggest problem with vaccines is that if you get loaded with aluminium we can deal with it if we ingest it because it just passes through our system but if it's injected it doesn't it's sequestered in the bone and the brain and that's the problem with it.
	The same analogy for people is that the reason you can swallow snake venom but you cannot inject it because that can be potentially fatal, whereas most people wouldn't notice if they'd swallowed a bit.
	Wow.
	Yeah, I didn't know that about snake venom, but I'm not going to try.
	I'll take your word for it.
	You know, just out of curiosity, just out of curiosity, I think last I saw we were over 90 injections that they put into kids in America.
	I know we've got more than any other country.
	What's the ballpark figure there in New Zealand for childhood vaccines?
	Yeah, it's high.
	I don't think we're quite as high as America, but the worst part in New Zealand is that we have a very high uptake, percentage-wise anyway, so that's the...
	But it has gone down in saying that people have woken up to so many different vaccines since COVID.
	They've started questioning everything.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, I think we're still in the dozens and dozens here.
	And the one difference is the United States starts right from day dot, whereas in New Zealand they tend to wait a few weeks.
	Not that either approach is the correct one.
	I mean, as we point out in the final pandemic, this is one of the biggest scams in history, and if you want to expose it, people can simply ask their family doctor, well, what is in these injections?
	So my child's coming in, you're the expert, apparently.
	Tell me, please, what is contained within these injections that we're putting in?
	And also, perhaps asking, What is the history of this disease you're supposedly presenting?
	Because, I mean, it's so apparent that most of these things...
	And there are problems with diagnosis of entities called smallpox and measles, and they're all just conditions that the body goes through.
	But even on their own terms, the work of the team of dissolving illusions...
	The charts that have been produced by Greg Beattie and Jordan Henderson are so damning for the whole vaccine story.
	Some of these diseases were down in mortality by over 99% before the introduction of the vaccine.
	So what a preposterous situation.
	I think that was a flipping cough, wasn't it?
	That was down by 99%, I think, in the book here.
	Yeah, lots of them were.
	And, yeah, we include some charts from Bistrianic and Humphreys from Dissolving Illusions there, which is just superb.
	And the crazy thing is here, David, is that last century it was so apparent that these so-called infectious diseases had all but disappeared.
	They were not significant at all.
	And yet here we are in 2024.
	The narrative is that they're worse than ever.
	And we're being attacked by even more germs now.
	And you need to have 10 times the number of vaccines that your grandparents have.
	Yeah, when I was going through and looking at the childhood schedule here in the United States, I was surprised, first of all, to see how many there were.
	And then when I saw the schedule...
	The fact that they're giving the same vaccine over and over and over again.
	I thought that was something that was new with the COVID stuff.
	I'd never seen that, that they're doing something on like a quarterly basis or a six-month basis for young kids.
	It's no wonder that we have this epidemic, so many epidemics of illness, autism, and other things like that when they load it up.
	And it's simply for profit.
	Now, in the United States, We've had, I think it was Children's Health Defense, talked to a physician, a pediatrician, who was explaining the economics of it and the fact that the insurance companies would actually require a high uptake percentage from the patients,
	or they would basically destroy the practice financially.
	Now, in New Zealand, government is paying you if you're a physician.
	Is that correct?
	And they're setting all the different...
	Policies for how many vaccines, is that correct?
	Exactly.
	Well, they have in New Zealand what they call a socialist system where it's capitation.
	So the doctors get a three-monthly slab of money if they do what the government says.
	And one of the requirements is a certain uptake of vaccines.
	And what's really interesting with it too is that how they classify whether someone's been vaccinated or not.
	So, for example, with COVID, People keep getting reminders to say, come in, come in, come in, because it's to do with their funding and the target they're supposed to reach.
	And so the way to get off that system from the medical practices perspective is to say, we're going to class you as what?
	What was it?
	Ineligible.
	This is why in New Zealand you'll see these ridiculous statistics and they'll say, All this area of New Zealand had 98% uptake.
	It's because many of the people who were not injected said they didn't want it and then they'd put ineligible.
	No, that's a refusal.
	That's how it should have gone down.
	And I mean, this is nothing new.
	We've exposed this before with the CDC statistics, with things like tetanus.
	They will say things like, you're unvaccinated if you couldn't remember when your last vaccine was done.
	So this is a long-term trick that's been done.
	It's often used to try to make out that vaccines are effective and safe and all this kind of stuff when statistics simply do not back that up.
	And the big teller is, and we didn't know this either until we started researching in 2020, just look up randomised control trials involving vaccines and there are virtually none.
	And the ones that they do have are so preposterous, like the follow-up is for a week or a month.
	That's it.
	They don't follow them after that.
	Or they do crossovers where the people that didn't get it then get it so that you can't see any of the long-term effects that might have happened.
	Because otherwise it's unethical.
	And also there are a couple of randomised control trials that Sam and the team mentioned in Virusmania where they had worse outcomes for the ones that were getting very bad in terms of death rates.
	But of course they do publish, but then they quickly sweep them under the carpet and pretend that it didn't happen.
	And you may have got to that chapter of the book where we point out what happened when the United States doctor, Paul Thomas, collected his own statistics on childhood vaccines.
	And he said, guys, major problem here, that all the kids getting vaccines are having far more.
	Of these so-called autoimmune disorders and allergies, disruptions in their behaviour, etc.
	And he said, this is one of the biggest data sets ever being collected.
	What was the response in the United States?
	They revoked his medical licence and said they would prosecute him.
	So, I mean, this is the outrageous situation.
	And people have to understand that, that if you're going to see a licensed MD...
	Most of them are restricted by legislation.
	By money.
	A, they are incentivized, and B, they will be punished severely if they go against the vaccine narrative.
	Well, and so I really appreciate both of you putting your career behind you in a sense so that you can tell the truth and follow the science wherever it goes.
	Let's get back to the contagion stuff.
	We definitely all agree on the vaccine thing.
	I thought it was very interesting when you talked about the UK's Common Cold Unit.
	I'd never heard of that.
	Something that they operated for about 50 years, 1946 to 1990, so about 45 years, 44 years.
	Tell people about that, what they did at their Common Cold Unit.
	Well, it was a bit of a holiday park, really.
	It was a getaway for...
	Involving coronaviruses, apparently.
	The housewives and things that wanted a bit of a holiday, they could book into the common cold unit where they were discovering lots of different...
	trying to find out the cause of the common cold.
	It was really funny, David, because they did all these attempts at transmission.
	And I should point out an excellent book, too.
	Yeah, by the Australian author Daniel Reuters, just published recently, Can You Catch a Cold?
	Because he looks at this stuff in great detail and he looks at 200 plus transmission studies which really go...
	Anyway, the common cold unit, they were convinced that because common colds caused the British population to have so many days off work, that wouldn't it be great just to get to the bottom of it and work out what caused them and how to stop them,
	etc.
	And it became apparent pretty early on that they were not really getting anywhere with aid.
	Trying to work out what exactly caused them or B, how to prevent them.
	So instead what they resorted to was discovering, quote, viruses.
	And this is where everything you've heard about adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, it all stems, or a lot of it stems from this common cold unit that was operating just after World War II.
	And what they were doing was basically just people would come in with symptoms of a cold.
	And the virologist would take a sample of snot from their nose and he would put it in a vial and he would say, I have just isolated a new virus.
	And we were looking at it going, well, he said, look, I put it in this vial and I put a label on the side and I'm going to call this one an adenovirus or a coronavirus.
	And they simply did experiments by adding things like ether, et cetera, and saw if it broke down.
	And on these sort of indirect measures, they said that they were discovering these contagious entities.
	But, I mean, it was farcical because for four decades, they basically came up with nothing.
	Now, keep in mind, they were trying to invent vaccines.
	And when they closed the unit down, they basically said, look, it's not possible.
	We've tried it.
	These entities, and there's just nothing doing, basically.
	And it was the same with the pharmaceuticals.
	They came up with no drugs, etc.
	So we didn't know about this.
	I mean, at medical school, they don't teach you these things.
	And what they show you is the fake highlights reel, which just shows you all these papers purporting to show, quote, viruses.
	But when you look at the methodology, all of the problems we've just discussed, no isolation in the physical particle.
	No independent variable in any of their experiments.
	And many times they found that people, and this is really important, would get the symptoms if they expected to get the symptoms.
	So they were sneezed on by someone and they were told, this person has a cold and you may now get the cold.
	And the next day the person would say, yes, my throat is a bit scratchy or whatever.
	And then they would say, "Oh, well, actually, the original person didn't have a cold, so we're not sure what's going on there."
	Or they would put inert substances, like just saline, just salt water, and drop that up someone's nose.
	And, you know, they did attempt to do some, well, you can't really call them controls because they still didn't have an independent variable, but they tried to.
	They would put completely inert substances up people's noses and then say, we've just infected you with the virus.
	Sure enough, within hours, the person's coming down with what looks like a cold.
	And then they tell them, oh no, sorry, actually, that was just normal saline.
	And then within hours, everything disappears and they go back to normal.
	So amazing the psychological effects to see.
	But in general, these so-called highly contagious entities were not shown to be anything of the sort.
	And most of the time they really struggle to get sick people to make well people unwell.
	And perhaps too, I think we should point out some classic examples here of particularly men who have worked in stations around the Arctic Circle in these highly remote areas where they are not in contact with anyone for weeks,
	months at a time.
	They also get these cold and flu symptoms.
	Yeah, well it's very cold there.
	That's what you're always saying.
	It was like the temperature.
	That's why people called it a cold.
	George Washington goes out riding by himself in the cold, and he gets very sick, and they bring the doctors in, and they basically remove most of his blood and gave him massive amounts of mercury, and he died.
	I said, you know, when we look at all this stuff, he's talking about the psychosomatic stuff there.
	The science in this is really mostly behavioral science that we saw throughout all this, but we've been told all these years That, you know, they can't find a common cold cure because it keeps mutating.
	And we heard that same stuff throughout all the COVID stuff.
	We've heard it throughout all the years when they tried to sell the flu shot.
	The same type of thing.
	And the way that they marketed the COVID pandemic and the way they marketed the vaccine at the beginning was very similar in the United States to the way they always marketed the annual flu shot.
	Scaring everybody about it and saying, you know, well...
	We've got a massive number of cases here, and you're going to have to get this because it's going to minimize how bad this case is going to be for you.
	Same stuff, recycled, that they've been doing for years and years.
	Yeah, and I think another important point to bring up is the psychological priming that goes on with things like movies and press release science.
	The public is conditioned to expect this is what's going to happen with a pandemic.
	And there were so many movies like that that were...
	So that when we actually see it, we're kind of expecting it and go, oh, yes, this is in my memory.
	There's something there that feels really familiar.
	And so conditioned response to that.
	Yeah, and I think too, not only within the Hollywood and TV sector have they been preparing the public, particularly since the 1990s, that's when a whole lot of...
	And we were coming off the back of the...
	You know, the fake HIV epidemic.
	You know, AIDS is something that's a real syndrome, but the cause of it is not what they've been telling people.
	And so we had these movies, of course, like Philadelphia, and, you know, they really did scare the public.
	And then on top of that, we had Outbreak and Contagion and all these other movies, which were massive, massive blockbusters, and they became almost more popular in 2020 when people started watching them again.
	Thinking that that represented some kind of reality.
	And as you say, I mean, they will just make up a story like it's mutating.
	So that just simply means that you can take some samples and detect some new genetic sequences and then claim, hey, presto, it's a variant or it's mutated.
	But all of these things come back to these unfalsifiable hypotheses.
	It's not scientific.
	Even the whole concept, and I know that's really...
	Pushes people, and it's taken some unraveling for us as well, given our training in immunology, etc., is that we don't believe in this concept of immunity that they have presented in medical science, because it's unfalsifiable.
	They just say to you, well, why didn't I get it?
	So people will look at the human transmission experiments, like the Rosenau one Sam talked about from the Spanish flu era, and people will say, well, obviously they were immune, that's why they didn't get it.
	How can you prove that?
	That's the excuse they're using.
	We'd say to people, why didn't we get this entity called COVID?
	Because we didn't do any of the face masks or social distancing.
	We were out and about in the community.
	We didn't take any of the products and the vaccines, and yet we didn't get sick.
	Well, people say, you must be immune.
	And this is just, how could you possibly, how is that a scientific notion?
	You can't falsify it.
	We've done deep dives into the antibodies, for instance, which they try and claim indicate immunity, and that simply is inconsistent because they are not specific.
	They do not relate to some sort of clinical condition necessarily.
	And, yeah, so there's so much unraveling to do, and certainly for us there appears to be years of work ahead.
	But, you know, given, and we point this out in the book, Look what we're up against here.
	These are billion-dollar industries.
	There's hundreds of billions of dollars that people are making, and COVID-19 was one of the biggest wealth transfers of all time.
	It's one of the all-time record holders.
	The population just got absolutely fleeced.
	Most people don't understand how it happened or exactly why it happened, but you could see from 2020 what they were doing and why the population was going to end up poor and a small number of corporations and vested interests
	were going to end up with.
	Yes.
	It is so ingrained in our language and our concepts.
	We talk about something, you know, going viral, you know, a video or meme going viral, or we talk about a computer virus.
	And there's just so many different ways that they have put that in there.
	And, of course, massive marketing, the drumbeat that we have seen in the last four years of obvious patent lies.
	I mean, but just repeat it over and over again.
	It's very effective.
	But let's talk, and we mentioned it just briefly.
	So one last thing I'd like to cover before you go.
	And we mentioned it, and as you're talking about, the fact that we don't have...
	In isolation, we don't have, you know, the proper scientific studies.
	It's kind of anecdotal.
	But just a simple case, I know you've got an entire video about rabies that you have on your website where you talk about that.
	And again, the website is dr. So you've got a video about rabies, but let's talk about something that's really common.
	You know, these childhood diseases that kind of began all of these vaccine movements.
	When I was younger...
	We didn't have measles, vaccines and everything, so we would get together and then all of a sudden, you know, red spots start appearing.
	What is your idea about what is going on with that?
	That's, I think, the real, the experiential hurdle that's difficult for people to get over.
	Yeah, so I guess with children, they've got a very large skin surface area.
	And our skin is the largest organ, so it's one of the easiest ways for the body to eliminate toxic build-up, I guess, from inside the body.
	And so rashes are essentially an expression of that.
	And you often see children have rashes at the end of a healing crisis because it's trying to eliminate.
	We've actually made...
	We've made videos on measles and chicken pox parties specifically to address this because it's such a common thing.
	But in terms of its...
	We tend to, as we grow up, we have other ways that are more efficient at removing, you know, build-up, but essentially that's the...
	Yeah, and I guess, David, it comes back to what we talked about earlier is that Sam and I always go to the foundational documents and say, well, where is a controlled study that shows the spread?
	Because we know about these anecdotal stories, and it's easy to counter with other anecdotal stories.
	For instance, when I was about 10 or 11...
	I was diagnosed with chickenpox.
	I was in a household of six.
	No one else got sick.
	None of my classmates got sick.
	Apparently it's highly contagious and yet nobody around me seemed to have it or get it.
	But that's what the family doctor told us is what I had.
	And the other thing is we do not deny that people get sick in clusters.
	If you go to a birthday party and afterwards half of the kids break out in a rash, Probably the best thing to do is to look at what they were exposed to at the party because if they were eating things that have colourings,
	whether they're soft drinks or lollies, etc., that's enough for a child to break out in a rash if they ingest these synthetic chemicals that are now put into foods.
	There are all sorts of factors that Daniel Reuters has outlined in his book, Can You Catch a Cold?
	About clusters of illness that were put down at the time to germs that later were found to be environmental toxins, psychological influences and nutritional deficiencies.
	And this is what we find.
	One thing that has really encouraged us, particularly in the last year or so, more and more people around the world are now contacting us saying, look, we recently had this sickness in our family.
	Once upon a time, I would have put it down to a germ or a virus, etc.
	This time, I put that aside and thought, what did we do?
	What exactly did we do in the last week?
	And people are starting to identify things, you know, whether it's something they ate or whether it's a place they went to visit and possibly got exposed to some sort of chemical, etc.
	So that's what we need to encourage, not this.
	Silly, it's a germ, someone else made me sick.
	We're no further ahead.
	Nobody knows anything at that point.
	We're stuck in the same silly model.
	So, yeah, I would encourage people to, if you're thinking measles, chickenpox, what about these parties, etc., please watch Sam's videos where she...
	It does a dive into these topics and exposes the actual science and the actual claims behind these things.
	Because another thing just really quickly I wanted to bring up is that there was something I didn't realise with virology and just infectious diseases in general is that All the assumptions are based on just a couple of papers, so these scientific papers that were made, and everything else,
	they just constantly cite back to those original studies.
	Because people sometimes say, well, we've got new studies now that show that, so it's the same with COVID and SARS-CoV-2.
	There's literally thousands and thousands of studies, but the only ones that are important are the original foundational ones, and that's what we always go to and unpick.
	for people and show how farcical it is because then everything else follows on from it and people can see that all these are just assertions these are assumptions and say well like those guys did it so you know we're gonna Carry on from those assumptions.
	Yeah, it is a group think.
	It's an echo chamber.
	And as you point out, and you show many examples of it in your book, the fundamental papers are something that they didn't do science at all.
	And when you talk about the anecdotal thing, it made me think of 2009.
	I was diagnosed with swine flu.
	I had really bad pneumonia.
	And they diagnosed me with swine flu, but nobody else in the family got it.
	My wife didn't get it.
	Nobody got it.
	So, yeah, it is interesting.
	And I think it's very important for us to look at it.
	And your focus is now on what we can do to make ourselves healthier instead of, as you said before, instead of a focus on disease, you're focused more on health.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah, and just my biggest focus from the beginning is to reduce people's fear.
	Because I think fear is the massive driver of illness and behavior.
	They do crazy things because they think they're going to get sick.
	And once you understand that this is a myth, germs don't cause disease, it's so empowering and enlightening and it makes you see the world in a different way.
	That's my focus, is just to reduce people's fear and go, you don't need us.
	I mean, we're reformed doctors.
	We're like, you know, we're not.
	I don't want to be associated with that group anymore.
	But I'm like, become your own doctor.
	You know, we want to teach people how to be well so they don't need us anymore.
	Yeah, and it is.
	I mean, for us, David, it was amazing that our health as a family has improved so much since 2020.
	We always thought we were healthy and we thought, well, we're trained doctors and we know this and that.
	And we didn't actually.
	We missed a huge amount of it.
	And since that time...
	We've reformed the way we eat, the way we interact as a family, the water that we drink.
	And nowadays...
	And spiritually.
	Spiritually as well, we're much more connected and much more understanding of this beautiful world that God's given us, that it has been created in perfection and it's up to us to make sure that continues rather than ruin it.
	And one of the big things for us is, and I think all parents should take this message home, is that There's no such thing as these childhood diseases.
	There's just parental neglect.
	And I know that sounds harsh and it took us a bit of time to get used to this.
	But when your children do get sick, you have to reflect, well, what did I do?
	You know, I've missed something here.
	And we have found with our own children that they have just got, they've thrived more and more as mum and dad have moved out of the old allopathic germ theory paradigm and into the paradigm of saying, what can we actually do to Make things better,
	and it has worked.
	That's a great note to end on.
	Yeah, fear is contagious, isn't it?
	That is one thing we can attest to, the psychological fear that is there.
	As you're talking about connecting spiritually, I've been told that is the one phrase that is in the Bible more than anything else, fear not.
	So we will end it on that.
	It is the mind killer.
	It destroys us, and that's the thing that we need to push back.
	Again, people, the website is drsambailey.com.
	D-R-S-A-M-B-A-I-L-E-Y.com The book is The Final Pandemic, and this is the way that we end medical tyranny.
	It's The Antidote to Medical Tyranny by Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Samantha Bailey.
	Thank you so much for joining us.
	It was great talking to you.
	Thank you, David.
	We're big fans.
	It's been a pleasure.
	Thank you, David.
	Keep doing what you're doing.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	And again, their website as well as their books are a wealth of information.
	They lay it out there for you, but they have references to all these other things and videos about the measles parties and things like that.
	So a great source of information.
	And we really do need to get to the bottom of this.
	I am tired of being jerked around by these people that are lying to me and ripping me off and stealing everything that we've got.
	I think it's enough.
	We need to figure out their game and expose it.
	Thank you so much, and thank you all for joining us.
	Have a good day.
	Let me tell you.
	The David Knight Show you can listen to with your ears.
	You can even watch it by using your eyes.
	In fact, if you can hear me, that means you're listening to The David Knight Show right now.
	Yeah, good job.
	And you want to know something else?
	You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show at thedavidknightshow.com That's a website.
	End
	Making sense.
	Common again.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	The David Knight Show.
	Good evening.
	Tonight's tale is a story of paranoia and a most unexpected perpetrator, the common cow.
	Or, more specifically, what comes out the other end.
	Yes, the air is thick with intrigue, as it seems that in our modern age of propaganda, even a humble bovine's backside can be branded a national security threat.
	The menace is invisible, silent, yet deadly.
	Carefully contrive to panic the masses into accepting the government stepping in, jackboots and all, with their solutions.
	Because who better to stop a gaseous threat than a bunch of political windbags?
	But one must wonder, is this truly about saving the planet, or are we simply being led to pasture?
	Is it merely a MacGuffin?
	The David Knight show serves as a breath of fresh air for those who still believe that truth can stand up to scrutiny.
	And he's found that the government narrative smells suspiciously like a load of bull.
	So if you want to help others catch wind of the BS being shoveled out of Washington, please consider supporting the show.
	And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	Knight Show.
	Now is Christine Massey, and it is great to finally have her on.
	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'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, I 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, 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 did 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.
	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 and 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 you maybe have a group of animals, two groups of animals.
	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 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 Kerry Mullis 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 methods 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 methods 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 experiments.
	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, 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 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.
	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.
	So 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 heads, 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.
	And, yeah, so fast forwarding to today, I ended up having a lot of people help 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 started 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 none of them vote.
	And then you have somebody tell you that that's never done.
	It correlates pretty well there, I guess.
	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 rates.
	For virology, where they would use his methods, which were unscientific and illogical, 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.
	Yeah, so it was already established, but the mainstream media doesn't let people.
	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, you know, 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 US, 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 their 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, too.
	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.
	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 be.
	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 where?
	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 be.
	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 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 the 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 Rosenau?
	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.
	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 that 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?
	Well, 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, you know, 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 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.
	You 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 when we talk 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, you know, we've got a significant amount of overlap.
	You know, 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.
	It doesn't even 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.
	That project, it's just more smoke and mirrors.
	I don't know if it's intentional.
	That was Francis Collins.
	He went straight from the Human Genome Project to the head of NIH.
	You know, who'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.
	As soon as you turn 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.
	You know, 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 some 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.
	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.
	You know, 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.
	Yeah.
	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, you know, 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.
	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 mean, 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 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 the way we look at it, 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?
	I would push back, and if it turns out they don't have the evidence, 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 even if you think it's a lab leak virus,
	I'm sorry if you can't find it in 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.
	It's not.
	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.
	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 and 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 everything, you know, oh, the earth is going to melt and everything.
	He says, well, prove it.
	Prove it.
	It's that simple.
	And then, so what if it's true?
	Well, then what if what you're saying is fundamentally true?
	Does it still follow that these consequences are going to happen?
	You know, and that kind of goes back to the bird flu stuff, right?
	When they say, well, we got bird flu.
	We did a test, and we found one bird.
	Maybe it's sick, maybe it's not.
	And we got to kill all the birds.
	It's like, what are you talking about?
	You 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 got a million chickens, and you 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.
	That's the amazing process, isn't it?
	Exactly.
	Yeah.
	And the nice thing, too, when you learn these facts, and 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 were 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.
	Don't obey.
	It's contagious if the insecure person next to me says it is.
	You know, 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.
	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.
	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 what you did.
	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, 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...
	Thank you so much for joining us, Christine Massey, and thank you so much for what you have done.
	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 McGuffin hoodies or a new black t-shirt with the McGuffin 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.
	If you want to save on shipping, just put it in the next package of bombs and missiles coming from the USA.
	Police singing
	A penny saved is a penny earned.
	Though, that's gotten tougher since they've stopped making them.
	Maybe it's time to start saving a different type of coin.
	Such as the new David Knight Show supporter commemorative coin.
	Saving these coins earns support for independent media.
	Featuring striking bas-relief with bold raised details and premium painted accents.
	It's not just a trinket, but a statement, a declaration.
	A way to show you refuse to be controlled by the establishment.
	It's a limited run of just 100 coins.
	So, much like the penny, when they're gone, they're gone.
	They silence independent voices.
	They censor the truth.
	But you can stand with real journalism and own a piece of the resistance.
	These coins saved is The David Knight Show sustained.
	Available now at thedavidknightshow.com.
	You're listening to The David Knight Show.
	David Knight Show.
	Let's go to Catherine Austin Fitz.
	She has a very interesting history.
	She was Assistant Secretary for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
	She has had a lot of experience as an investment advisor at the Hamilton Securities Group and many others.
	And she now has Solari, which is a great source of information.
	About culture as well as finances.
	Primarily finances.
	But I love the stuff that you have on culture as well at Solari.
	She has Heroes of the Week.
	She has Music of the Week and Art of the Week and all these other kinds of things because it really is about us reclaiming the culture and taking back our lives.
	And money is an important part of that, but it's not the only part of that.
	And so I really do like Solari.
	They cover in-depth different issues with publications on a regular basis.
	It's if you're a member of Solari.
	But it's always great to have you, Catherine.
	Thank you for coming on.
	Thank you, David.
	I wanted to talk to you and reached out to you.
	And I know you've got a very busy schedule.
	And it was when all this Doge stuff happened.
	And I know that you are skeptical of it.
	And I know that when you were at HUD, you saw a lot of stuff that was happening there.
	And you also blew the whistle on a lot of pension fund fraud and trillions of dollars that were missing in the federal government.
	This is nothing that is new.
	But what do you think is going on with Doge?
	What's your opinion of it?
	So, I think DOGE is, the public goal is to cut current expenditures and rebalance basically the federal model.
	And DOGE is certainly cutting some current expenditures.
	I think one of the goals of DOGE, and I think it's multiple goals, is to cancel The old tools of empire and build the new tools of empire.
	And I would say Doge is an operation.
	Technically, they finally found somebody to admit to being the head of it.
	That was funny, too, wasn't it?
	That he says, well, you know, he's not an employee, he's not this or that.
	I mean, they tried to disclaim that he was...
	So who is the head of it if it's not Elon Musk?
	Well, actually, Musk...
	You know, and I would say all 30 of the Elon Musk characters.
	Because I don't think Elon Musk is a person.
	I think it's an operation.
	And if you look at how many Elon Musks there are doing how many things.
	It's like multiplicity.
	Remember that movie?
	I just watched a video, which was clearly one of the newer actors who didn't quite have the shtick down yet.
	And he was wearing sunglasses.
	I guess the mask was slipping or something.
	I don't know what the problem was.
	But anyway, I think one of the goals of Doge is to lower current expenditures.
	But also what they're trying to do is cancel the old tools.
	In the old model, in the unipolar model, you'd go into a country and you'd throw a lot of money around and put everybody on the payroll.
	So in the United States, you put them all on the payroll of defense contractors and government contractors abroad.
	You put them on all these NGO boards.
	If you're changing the model of how, you know, if you're going from a unipolar to a multipolar world, as Rubio has announced, you don't need all those tools.
	And so, you know, instead you've got SpaceX satellites flying overhead and all sorts of surveillance, and you've got drones and other things.
	So you have a different model of how you're going to implement your power, and that means you need to switch the money from the old to new.
	The other thing that I...
	I think is going on is that there is an effort to build the control grid.
	And part of building the control grid, one of the chief components of building the control grid is to put the fiscal side of the house under the control of the bankers.
	And you do that by getting rid of the civil service.
	So part of what you're seeing is the gutting of civil service so you can move in corporate contractors.
	So remember Elon Musk, who's sort of the...
	The titular face of Doge.
	He's not running Doge, but he's the face of Doge, and he's sort of the PR on Doge.
	You know, his companies have received, we now estimate, $38 billion of contracts or grants from the U.S. federal government.
	Over what period of time?
	Was this prior to this or since this?
	Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, prior.
	I remember when it was only like $4 or $5 billion about 10 years ago, and L.A. Times did a story about how he was the king of crony capitalism.
	So we've talked about that, but now it's up to nearly 10 times that amount.
	Right, and I don't object to somebody.
	So, for example, I don't object to somebody doing rockets through a SpaceX in a private company.
	You know, there's a way for government to use private services, which is, as far as I'm concerned, could be perfectly legitimate.
	The problem is, one of the things you're watching with Doge is you had many different agencies, 11 +, who were doing investigations or regulatory actions of different Musk.
	And so all of those, you know, first the White House ethics officer was fired.
	And if you, Musk is technically a government special employee.
	And if you look at the laws that are being broken in terms, you know, governments, it is against the law for government special employee to be involved in decisions that affect them personally, their personal profit.
	You know, pocketbook.
	And if you look at all the decisions that it appears that Musk is being involved in, it's inconceivable to me that you're not violating those laws.
	And that's a criminal violation, by the way.
	But then you have 11 plus agencies doing, I think, almost 18 to 20 investigations.
	Of Musk's companies in a variety of forms or regulatory actions.
	And in most of those agencies, the inspector generals have been fired.
	One of the big ones, the SEC, they've done an executive order saying, you know, we're in control and you report to us.
	You know, that's the president.
	But that's the kind of...
	Action that will put the fear of God into anybody in any of those agencies from doing anything that would touch muscular companies.
	But then the last thing, and probably the most outrageous, if you look at the data transfers that appear to be happening, those are data transfers that if they're going into AI could make that AI phenomenally more valuable.
	At the very same time that...
	Musk is out, according to public reports, in the private market raising capital for XAI, which is a separate company, that's the AI, and then SpaceX.
	And we also see the FAA now deciding they were expected to give a contract to another firm, but they're now switching it to SpaceX.
	So if you look at the patterns of the data transfers, if you look at the patterns of the capital raising, If you look at the patterns of targeting agencies that have regulatory enforcement, I think 20 of the people who oversee the portion of the FDI that looks at medical equipment that would go in the head,
	so that would be overseeing Neuralink, they've been fired.
	So whether it's regulatory actions, investigations, things related to raising capital in the private markets, or government contracts, etc., etc., you've got...
	I mean, if there was a real serious person who was trying to enforce the law...
	You know, this would require a special prosecutor to look at all the potential violations.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, you know, I've reported on the fact that he was under investigation, Starlink was under investigation for what was going on in Ukraine.
	And so we see this type of thing happening over and over again, as you pointed out, 11 different agencies, and the first one to go was the Ethics Committee.
	This is somebody who has always...
	He's become the wealthiest man in history by doing what the governments want.
	And even when you look at Tesla, you know, he was there at the very forefront of pushing the electric cars and pushing self-driving cars, which is the first project that DARPA had that they opened up to competition.
	And when you look at the crashes that they've had with the self-driving cars, they've had crashes at a rate that far exceed what was happening with the exploding Pintos back in the 90s.
	1970s.
	And so I imagine there's some investigations there that got shut down.
	No, the transition team said that they were going to get the rule canceled that you had to publicize the number of crashes and whose car it was.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Cover it up.
	Here's the thing.
	I don't think you're looking at corruption.
	I think you are looking at literally, because I don't think Musk...
	Don't think of Musk as a person.
	Think of it as an operation.
	There's a Musk theater and a Musk operation, and I think what you're watching is the wholesale privatization of whole sections of the U.S. government at the same time that you're bringing in the control grid, and you're also trying to shift the...
	Line operation into corporate control so the bankers can control it out of the hands of Congress.
	I agree.
	You know, when you talked about the fact that being able to take all that massive amount of information that he has access to and turn it over to his AI.
	That has always been the issue.
	Big compute, right?
	And I think it was part of the motivation of why he wanted to get Twitter, you know, and turn it into X, because that gives him access to big data.
	It's one of the complaints that they had about TikTok.
	Besides the influence, they said, look, it's getting all this information on Americans.
	They said that during the first Trump administration about 5G.
	They said, well, we don't want Huawei getting all this information about us because it's too easy to spy on people with 5G.
	Well, the U.S. government wants to be the one to spy.
	Yeah, but let's look at how the money works at the big picture level.
	So, in the last 10 years, what we've seen is China take the lead in science and technology away from the United States.
	Yes, yes.
	And this is a very...
	You know, one person I heard the other day said, you know, we went to the big defense contractors and the big tech companies and said, okay, we'll give you a monopoly if you maintain our hegemony.
	And so they got a monopoly and everybody got to be billionaires, but they didn't maintain the hegemony.
	So this is a very dangerous situation because we've gone from leading.
	There's an Australian think tank that's started by the Australian government that tracks the top 64 technologies.
	You know, in 2008, we were leading in 60 of 64. Now we're leading in 7, and China's leading in 57. Wow.
	I mean, that's a huge shift.
	That's number one.
	Part of our strategy, the neocon strategy in Ukraine, was we were going to implode Russia again, and we were going to use Russia's resources to maintain our hegemony vis-a-vis China.
	What happened was the strategy of hybrid warfare failed.
	And now we see Russia much stronger.
	And as a result, having to depend on China, making China much stronger, making Iran stronger, making Turkey stronger, making North Korea stronger.
	And so now that you can't plunder Russia, who can the American syndicate, who can the deep state plunder?
	Well, they can plunder Europe and America.
	Who was it?
	Was it someone?
	Was it you?
	Someone was talking about, in a video I was watching, about when a bear goes out, if they can't find food, when they come home, a black bear, they eat their cubs.
	You only have to run faster than the slowest person if the bear is chasing you as a group, right?
	Well, but here's the thing.
	Americans don't understand what is underway.
	That's right.
	It's interesting, before coming in, the administration, various people in the administration used the term shock and awe a lot.
	We're going to have so many executive orders lined up, so many actions lined up, it's going to be shock and awe.
	And that's what they're doing.
	They're doing shock and awe.
	Yeah, I think that's incredibly dangerous to be ruled by executive order.
	We criticized that when it was Biden, but now the same people who criticized Biden for ruling by executive order now have no problem with Trump doing it to a far greater extent.
	They just want a czar, they want a king, and I think it's a very dangerous thing.
	But getting back to what's coming next.
	If you look at the polls, I don't think they want this.
	I don't think there's as much support as you think.
	I hope not.
	I get a lot of pushback from people when I criticize Trump as acting as a king with executive orders.
	No, no, no.
	You can't imagine the pushback I've gotten for the last two years on this.
	I bet.
	I bet.
	Well, you know, when you talk about what is coming, I've said that I agree with you absolutely that he's trying to dismantle this state for the next one that is coming.
	Let's talk a little bit about that.
	I said I think he's trying to minimize government, meaning the bureaucracy, so he can maximize governance through AI.
	And I said, you know, I would much rather have an army of IRS agents than AI auditing everybody.
	I do not see one indication that they are planning on Lessening government.
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	Okay.
	So the question is, does government serve the general population or does it serve the billionaires?
	Yeah, that's right.
	So I think they're changing who the government serves and how it serves.
	And I think they're changing the tools.
	But I think they need government more than ever.
	I mean, if you're Elon Musk and your companies have gotten $38 billion, how are you going to get your next $38 billion?
	You're not going to get that from the general population.
	You're going to get it from government.
	You know, they're switching money from the other syndicates to their syndicate.
	Yeah.
	But I don't see any...
	Any indication, they look to lessen government's power.
	Well, what I mean by that in terms of minimizing government, I mean minimizing the employees and starting to roll out this whole thing where AI is replacing jobs, especially white-collar jobs.
	Rolling that out in the bureaucracy, that's kind of some low-hanging fruit.
	And then having AI be the surveillance grid that is controlling us, that would really kind of maximize their governance, right?
	There are 6 million people working for the federal government, 3 million in corporate contractors.
	and ngos and three million civil service they're simply looking to move as many functions as possible to the corporate contractors okay and that means this the central bankers can control and operate
	so let me explain how the u.s government works today okay so so approximately a little bit less than a third well
	a trillion dollars
	Or a trillion-plus dollars every year has to be borrowed to keep the government going, right?
	Right.
	The primary dealers, of which Howard Lutnick's firm is one of the biggest ones, sell debt into pension funds, retirement funds, wealth-solving funds all around the world, and then that money goes in the New York Fed as depository for the U.S. government in the Treasury and other agency accounts.
	And then the money gets spent.
	If that money were to stop today, the whole operation would stop.
	Because the bank account wouldn't execute the transactions and the primary dealer network and the Fed wouldn't borrow the money, right?
	Okay.
	So anything that's going on in the government is going on because that's what the New York Fed and its owners want.
	Right?
	Because they could stop it like that.
	Right?
	Okay, so they control.
	Now, you have a bureaucracy of 2.9 million, you know, I always round off to 3 million people, and the problem with that bureaucracy is they will insist, by and large, on getting written instructions.
	So they won't act unless they get written instructions, and those written instructions have to be in accordance with the laws and the budgets promulgated by Congress.
	Okay.
	Now, when I was Assistant Secretary of Housing, the only exception to that was the corporate contractors who would completely ignore what Congress said and would do according to some other mysterious set of instructions that they somehow magically got, right?
	Which is, you know, we've come to call that the deep state.
	But they basically implemented the deep state's wishes and...
	The problem with bureaucracy is they wanted written instructions, and you can't give written instructions for, you know, the deep state, what the deep state wants, because it's not in accordance with the appropriations in the law.
	I'm closely oversimplifying, but essentially, these guys don't want to cancel government, they just want to control government.
	Right, right.
	And they want plenty of government, because they can't get, I mean, if you look at any of Musk's operations, it can't get along without subsidies.
	I agree.
	But don't you think that part of his thing is massive?
	We're talking about the big compute and his access to data there.
	He wants to sell a lot of artificial intelligence.
	And I've got to say, I'm really concerned about the efficiency of government, especially when it's doing things I don't like it doing, things that it doesn't have any authority to do.
	And I think it can make it a lot more dangerous.
	And I've thought this from the very beginning when it focused on efficiency.
	That he was pushing towards a kind of technocracy approach with artificial intelligence and things like that.
	How do you see that?
	No, efficiency is just the word they use to sell it.
	I mean, it's just a way of describing a coup, okay?
	You can't say, David, I want to take all the data and steal it.
	I just want to ignore the laws and take all the data and privatize it so I can rule you.
	You can't say that, right?
	That's not a marketing spin.
	So you see, I'm making it more efficient because I'm firing the Democrats.
	You know, I'm firing all these people who wasted your money on DEI and all this other stuff.
	And from what I can tell, they're firing a lot of great stuff that ought to be stopped and is a waste of money.
	If it really does go through, yeah.
	And of course, the jury is still out with a lot of the stuff that they've announced as to whether or not...
	It'll actually be followed through, or the fights that they're going to have in the courts over things like that.
	I agree.
	I'm for cutting government down as much as possible.
	With you, I don't think that they're really about making government smaller.
	I think they're about just changing the structure for their own benefit.
	Exactly.
	Exactly.
	So here's the thing to know, though.
	If you really want to fire all these people...
	You can do it as long as you follow procedures.
	You know, for grants and contracts, there's always a way to end them or to just not renew them or whatever, but it's neurosurgery, okay?
	You have to go in with a scalpel, and you have to pay attention bottom-up to what the terms and conditions of the legal contracts are.
	But there is a way to cut a lot, a lot of stuff, and to cut it relatively quickly.
	It just requires neurosurgery instead of chainsaws.
	Yeah.
	You do chainsaws because you want to scare and shock and awe.
	That's right.
	Yeah.
	And that's what we got right now.
	Right.
	Neural like chainsaw surgery.
	Then you're going to get a complete mess in the courts because, you know, and here's the thing.
	Let's say I want to cancel a million-dollar contract.
	You know, according to the terms and conditions, I can cancel that contract if I follow the procedures, the protocols.
	So let's say I need to give 30 or 90 days notification or whatever the terms and conditions is.
	If I instead just cancel it, shock and awe, they go to court, they win.
	And instead of paying them a million dollars, now I've got to pay them a million dollars.
	I've got to pay the attorneys over at the Department of Justice to keep them going.
	I'm going to have to pay their lawyer fees.
	Maybe there's fines.
	And the next thing you know, I'm at $2 million.
	So you didn't save any money.
	You just made a mess.
	And I've been suspicious from the very beginning that there would be a follow-through on it because of what Trump did with DARPA, for example.
	Not DARPA, DACA.
	When he comes in, he says he's going to do that, regardless of what...
	Anybody thinks about the policy.
	He had the authority to counterman an executive order from the Obama administration.
	And so he says, well, I'm going to cancel this.
	And they said, well, you can't do that.
	You've got to ask the courts.
	He takes it to the Supreme Court.
	And they say, no, you can't cancel them.
	It's like, what is this about?
	And so I've looked at this and thought, you know, well, they can always come in, like you're pointing out, with a chainsaw and do a chainsaw massacre and then say that the courts shut us down and I've got to abide by it.
	Because he already did that in the first term.
	He already said, I can't.
	Cancel an executive order from Obama.
	So we don't really know what's going to happen with this stuff.
	Right now, it is a lot of shock and awe.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Well, let's talk a little bit about the Bitcoin reserve thing, the summit that is coming up on Friday.
	I'd like to get your take on all of this Bitcoin reserve and just on Bitcoin and crypto in general.
	I think everybody was truly amazed to see that rather than it being a Bitcoin reserve, he throws it out with three cryptocurrencies that most people were not aware of.
	Well, because if you're trying to build the control grid, you want a payment system, crypto.
	Yeah.
	So XRP is in the lead, but then you have also two Swiss ones.
	And the first three he throws out are designed to promote the payment system.
	So if you look at the article we published about two weeks ago about Trump administration building the control grid, so I said one of the chief components of the control grid is replace the civil service with corporate contractors so that the central banks can control.
	fiscal policy.
	But one of them is we want a digital ID and we want an all-digital monetary system, which means you need a real payment system.
	So Bitcoin
	is basically a Ponzi scheme.
	It's a pump and dumps tool.
	That won't do.
	And so what you need to do is pick out some of the crypto that you want to
	be significant payment systems.
	XRP already is for the banks on a wholesale basis.
	Now it's interesting, after there were complaints,
	We get another tweet saying, okay, we're going to add Ethereum and Bitcoin.
	Now, we've published a big piece that's up at Solari called Bitcoin Bailout.
	And I can't think of a more corrupt action by state or federal government in this day and age than buying Bitcoin.
	I just, it is literally, I mean, I would rather see a strategic national reserve in Jell-O and...
	Silly putty.
	No, no.
	At least you can do something with those, right?
	Well, there is a reason for petroleum strategic reserves.
	That is a real asset that we need and we use.
	There is a reason to have gold.
	We all know what it is.
	There is a reason to have various food stockpiles, okay?
	There is no reason to stockpile a speculative asset that's essentially a Ponzi scheme, which is what Bitcoin is.
	And the notion that you are cutting radical cuts because you need to get current expenditures down, because you need to pay down your debt and you can't take on more debt, but you're going to go out and put money in speculative assets.
	And if you look at the polls, most Americans do not favor putting their money in speculative assets like Bitcoin.
	They don't.
	They just don't.
	And the notion that you're going to tax people, And use their money to invest in a speculation?
	You know, David, if you've done anything with government money, it's the most outrageous thing I've ever seen.
	Now, when you look at Bitcoin, a very small percentage of the holders own a great deal of Bitcoin.
	And their problem is it's not a liquid market.
	It's a thin market.
	And they can't get out without trashing the price.
	So there's no way they can exit at the current price.
	So they want to get out on a high.
	The only way they can do that is by bringing in a flood of new investors.
	Well, there's nobody at retail who's going to hold the price up.
	The only way you can do it is if you can get government to mandate purchases.
	And then you can hold the price up and you can run the price up and you can hold up long enough so you get out.
	Now, my concern is the way they want to get out is to swap it for land.
	Yes, I agree.
	The federal government owns a tremendous amount of land and mineral resources.
	We see Howard Lutnick in the transition talking about the U.S. balance sheet has $500 trillion of land and mineral resources.
	I agree with him.
	I don't know about that number.
	I'll point out, in the first Trump administration, Trump authorized a GIS.
	U.S. Geological Survey survey of all the mineral resources in the country.
	So, you know, there is a real effort to identify all the assets.
	And frankly, if you can run up Bitcoin with government purchases and then swap for the land, you can do a land grab that is a steal.
	Oh, I agree.
	And it's, you know, Lutnik said it and Besant said it.
	Besant said we've got a lot of resources, meaning the natural resources, and we're going to put them to work.
	You know, and you also had Doug Burgum say that, who is, you know, Secretary of the Interior.
	And he talked to us specifically about that.
	I absolutely agree.
	And I think that is, that was the next thing I wanted to ask you about.
	But before we move on from this, again, I think it's very interesting.
	Can I just point out one thing?
	A Ponzi scheme only works if you get a new flood of investors.
	The problem with being the last investor in a Ponzi scheme is you're left holding the bag, right?
	That's right.
	So if you're a government and you use your purchases to run the price way up, there's no one else to come in and take you out.
	And if you swap for your land at that high price, then you've given up a precious resource and gotten nothing because now you're headed to zero.
	I agree.
	It's a scam.
	And of course, all of the Bitcoin people and everything were saying, you know, well, this is where we want to go.
	We know that governments are going to adopt this.
	I mean, they've been kind of angling towards this Ponzi scheme from the very beginning.
	If we can get the government to come in, they can be the greater fool.
	And we can give the bag to them.
	Right.
	So you mentioned Roger Ver.
	And in 2017, I did a very serious due diligence as an investment advisor at Bitcoin.
	And that's when I...
	Came away with the conclusion, okay, it's a Ponzi scheme.
	But I didn't begin to have the knowledge that Roger did.
	And when he published Hijacking Bitcoin, that was what gave me really the ability to publish Bitcoin bailout.
	Because I had...
	You know, basically an insider's story of how Bitcoin had gotten hijacked.
	And to understand Bitcoin, you really need to understand how what was initially a very ingenious design got hijacked and changed from a payment system into a pump and dump, you know, tool.
	And we did a great interview with Steve Patterson.
	If you don't know Steve Patterson, he's Roger's author and an absolutely brilliant, very good
	to teach you about this whole space.
	And the two of them have written a magnificent book.
	I said it was the book of the year last year.
	It was just amazing.
	Hijacking Bitcoin.
	Yeah, hijacking Bitcoin.
	And, and,
	What it does is it explains to you how it got turned from something that could have been a great payment system into essentially a pump and dump tool.
	I agree.
	And what's amazing is if you look at the
	It wasn't until Roger published that book that I think a lot of people could turn around and say, "Stop already.
	This is a Ponzi scheme.
	Stop it."
	And it's funny, we have videos in our commentary on Bitcoin bailouts of Peter Thiel basically saying as much, saying, you know, I didn't put a lot of money in because it can only work if you can get more people in and there's nobody left to come in.
	I mean, my attitude is if you can afford to buy Bitcoin,
	then you can afford to cut taxes.
	If you as a private citizen want to buy Bitcoin, great.
	But cut taxes, give people their money back, and let them go speculate or invest in whatever way they want.
	I agree.
	When he's talking about a Bitcoin reserve, again, that's the angle that you're talking about, which is also dangerous.
	You know, the pump and dump and grab the land and that type of thing.
	But I thought it was interesting that...
	Then he focused on these other three.
	It was XRP, which is attached to the company Ripple, ADA, and SOL.
	And all three of them are really kind of transaction processing things.
	That's where they are.
	And so, to me, I look at this, and it sounds like you agree with us as well, that they're moving us towards a kind of a private version of central bank digital currency, maybe as an intermediary step or something like that.
	It seems to me like that's what they would be getting these three for, while they also run the pump and dump with Bitcoin.
	What do you think?
	So let's look at the different component parts of the control grid.
	And this is what we wrote about.
	I have a commentary called the Trump administration builds the control grid.
	The first thing you need is a digital ID.
	And we've talked about all the push for a digital ID.
	And part of using election fraud and immigration is an excuse to get the digital ID system in.
	Okay, so that's number one.
	The second thing you need to do is you need to move control of fiscal policy to the central banks.
	You're doing that now through Doge.
	That's ongoing.
	You need, essentially, a social credit system.
	By moving all the government data into AI and whatever they're doing, that starts to give you the basis of a private social credit system that you can use when you marry it with an all-digital monetary system.
	To get to the all-digital monetary system, you either need a CBDC or the equivalent in private crypto.
	All digital monetary system is much more dangerous than a CBDC.
	And I'll tell you why.
	In the United States, the Federal Reserve, which has been trying to get out from under for years, has never been able to get out from under the fact that they are a creature of Congress and they are subject to disclosure and reporting to Congress.
	If you can begin, if you can get this going...
	With a private crypto and a private social credit system, then you can do the control grid with no legal responsibilities whatsoever to the general population, and you're much more protected from constitutional powers that would be in place if it was being done by the central bank.
	I agree.
	So this is much more dangerous.
	I agree.
	And, you know, the people who would support Trump, some conservatives or whatever, but the MAGA people, a lot of them have never really paid attention to politics.
	But they trust Trump.
	They trust corporations.
	So it's easier to pull the wool over their eyes if you come at them from a public-private partnership.
	And they don't see that coming.
	And you can bring in the same functions.
	Everybody understands now, I think, what CBDC is.
	You've got some states that are saying, we're not going to have CBDC.
	But you can maintain these same functions, call it something else, run it through some private companies, and have the functional equivalence of that where you've destroyed what you always refer to as financial privacy in your transactions.
	So, I want to bring up the topic of neurological weaponry.
	Because if you look, you know, I'm in Europe right now.
	And one of the reasons I sometimes enjoy coming back to Europe is the mind control is a lot less invasive here.
	It's what it feels like to me.
	But, you know, we are dealing in the United States through all the digital mechanisms, through the phones, through the digital flat-screen TV, through the Internet.
	We're dealing with huge amounts of what I call entrainment technology and subliminal programming.
	And a lot of politics is driven by essentially propaganda, disinformation, and brainwashing.
	But we're talking about neurological weaponry.
	And if you look at what they're proposing to do with the Stargate function, you know, we're all talking now about the Internet of Bodies and how we've got chips in our bodies from the food, from the spray, from the injections that they're using to hook us up and interact with us.
	Including influencing what we're thinking.
	So what I'm watching is, you know, for all the reasons we've talked about in terms of the food and the injections, a real slipping in the IQs in the general population in America and a real slip in cognition and a tremendous amount of brainwashing.
	Yes, yes.
	So I just think you cannot underestimate the role of brainwashing in this thing.
	Oh, yeah.
	And the pervasive control of the media, as we see through the pharmaceutical companies.
	What do you think of RFK Jr. and his embrace of MMR that he's just done here?
	I look at it and I hear him say, as well as Tulsi Gabbard, their position there is to restore trust in the institutions.
	And I'm afraid that that is exactly right.
	I think that they're trying to get people to...
	Trust pharmaceutical companies and rebuild the trust that was lost during this COVID thing.
	What is your take on that?
	So, we had a meeting of the cabinet.
	It was the first cabinet meeting, and there was a video of Musk addressing the cabinet.
	And RFK, his whole body language suggested...
	Mm-hmm.
	looked at Trump's body language, he was signaling the same.
	It was a very uncomfortable thing to watch.
	And ever since then, somebody's been putting the squeeze to RFK.
	They put the squeeze to him on measles, tried to trap him.
	Then they put him on the squeeze on MMR, and now they put him in a squeeze with an anti-Semitism tweet.
	And it looks to me like they're just trying to squeeze him out.
	And I don't know whether it's the Doge operation.
	I don't know whether it's the pharmaceutical industry.
	I don't know.
	Somebody's trying to squeeze him out.
	And he's being put through sort of the ritual humiliations.
	And his strategy, and I'm just taking it from what he said publicly, is to get into HHS and get the data and get it out.
	And that's going to take time.
	So what he's got to do is he's got to stay in there long enough to get the data and get it out.
	And my guess is, from looking at what he's doing up to right now, he's just going to do whatever he has to do to stay in there, get the data and get it out, and try to make a real difference.
	But in the meantime, he's going to look, you know, This looks terrible.
	It looks ridiculous.
	How much of what he's put out is being written for him and he's being told this is what you're going to do?
	I don't know what the gun to his head is.
	Yeah.
	But there's a gun to his head.
	Well, sometimes we hold the gun to our heads because we think that if we, you know, we've got some mission down the road that we can accomplish and maybe I'm going to have to do a little bit of betrayal, maybe a little bit of lying or whatever in order to achieve that.
	But it just makes it easier to...
	They go off mission.
	You know, I just, I feel like, I know that's the way a lot of people view their, you know, their strategy.
	You know, you call it 4-D chess or whatever, but I just, I don't think we ever get there by compromising our principles.
	I know that politics is the art of compromise, but that's one of the reasons why politics looks the way it is.
	So here's the way I say it.
	There's an inside game and there's an outside game.
	When Trump won, I started to, I can't tell you how many phone calls I got asking me if I would go back in.
	And every time I said, not a chance.
	I will never go back in.
	Period.
	End of discussion.
	You know, I'm all in for an outside game.
	I have a boss.
	They're called the Salary Report subscribers.
	I love my boss.
	It's the best job I've ever had.
	I'm not leaving.
	So I have no intention of playing an inside game.
	You know, I'm playing an outside game and that's it.
	Now, Kennedy decided he wanted to play an inside game.
	Why, I can't tell you, but he did.
	And he really thinks he can make a difference.
	So, now that he's gotten in, I hope he stays in long enough to see what he can do in terms of getting the data out and moving the machinery.
	I don't know how much he can do.
	But if you've started in, you've got to see it through, if you can.
	Yeah, of course, he was in the outside game with Children's Health Defense, and he had exposed a lot of information, and you can expose a lot of, just like you did with Solari, you can get a lot of information from the outside, and we can also sanity check and consistency check what they're telling us to show that it is a lie.
	We knew all of the stuff that was eventually in the Twitter files.
	We knew that long before we knew that that was being done by the government.
	I mean, it was pretty obvious it was done.
	We didn't need to have the receipts.
	I've had an up-close view of what's been done to Kennedy, because I did one speaking tour in Europe with him, and I watched the attacks, and I was there to listen and hear and see, and I got a real inside view.
	And you can't imagine the brutality of the attacks he's dealt with for years and years and years.
	And if you look at the brutality of the attacks he's dealt with for the last two weeks, they're extraordinary.
	And if you look at the brutality of the tax he's having to take from many of his traditional allies, because they, of course, feel betrayed, right?
	So, you know, he's in the thick of it.
	And what's incredible to me that, I mean, I've known it intellectually, but it wasn't until I saw his confirmation hearings.
	If you look at the depth of the brainwashing, it is so frightening, especially on vaccines.
	You had, I watched 13 or 14 senators, U.S. senators, who refused to face the fact that we have an extinction-level event in childhood disease in this country.
	It is an extinction-level event, and they refused to face it.
	They refused to take responsibility for it.
	They refused to put something better on the table than what Kennedy was proposing to do.
	And they just smeared him in the most, you know, ridiculous way.
	Now, the one thing we have to talk, so if you look at what's being done to him and what he's doing right now.
	Let me ask you this with the senators.
	Do you think it was brainwashing or was it greenwashing?
	I mean, did the pharmaceutical companies convince these guys or pay them off?
	What do you think?
	Here's what I think.
	I think we are poisoning.
	And killing our own children.
	Yes, I agree.
	I agree.
	And I think there are many different reasons why people won't face that.
	But they literally cannot face that.
	I mean, I think if you're a senator, it's either at a conscious or a subconscious level.
	If it's a conscious level, you know you and your family will never be safe again if people understand what you've really been doing.
	You've been committing mass atrocity.
	That's right.
	On scale.
	Not just in the United States, but globally.
	Do you really want to face that?
	Do you want all your neighbors to know?
	Do you want all your family to know?
	And that you knew it?
	And of course, it escalated with the COVID stuff.
	The whole scam on steroids.
	And they don't want people to know what it is.
	And so you've got everybody now, left and right, pushing this idea of a lab leak because that says, well, we did the best we could, but it was a real thing instead of a fraud.
	And by the way, there's going to be another one.
	So we still have to have all this biosecurity apparatus there.
	We've got to have all the MRAs ready to roll out and everything.
	I mean, the lab leak.
	It really just helps to propagate this, but it does provide them with an alibi, I think.
	What do you think about that?
	Here's the thing.
	I think they're all scared.
	They should be.
	So, you know, after the litigation with the Department of Justice was over, so I was in litigation for 11 years with the Department of Justice.
	After it was over, I published a book to help people understand what had happened.
	And every time I tried to turn that book into a hard copy, I ran into massive amounts of trouble.
	The third time I tried it, which was four years after the litigation ended, I was basically, it was a very sophisticated operation, but it was basically communicated to me that if I went ahead and published it, they would murder, they would kill somebody in my family.
	And at which point I stopped.
	And I said, you know, I didn't, you know, my family should not be responsible for my...
	Mm-hmm.
	Mm-hmm.
	And they would kill your grandkids.
	These are people who did mass murder around the world.
	Of course they would, yeah.
	Right.
	So whether it's because, I mean, how many people on that committee and how many people in this current administration have major files in the Epstein operation?
	The only guy who doesn't look scared about the whole thing is Howard Ludnik because he had the house next door.
	Right?
	That's right.
	And he was real lucky on 9-11 as well.
	He got the advance warrant.
	I'm assuming he got downloads of the Epstein tapes over in his house.
	I don't know.
	Could be.
	So, I mean, now we're into this kabuki theater over the Epstein files.
	And there's no...
	I mean, between the administration and Congress, how many people do you think can...
	We stand real transparency around the Epstein files.
	That's right.
	It's been going on for a long time.
	I remember, you know, both, I've talked about it multiple times on the show, how both Truman and Nixon were talking about J. Edgar Hoover's massive blackmail operations, how he had files on everybody.
	A similar type of thing.
	Government has always run that way.
	Right, but digital technology has made it far more sophisticated.
	I remember when I was in Washington, the cabinet secretary I was working for was compromised in the Franklin cover-up, and when the Washington Times started running stories about the Franklin cover-up prostitute networks at the hospital,
	he just went crazy and was being blackmailed, and I was in the middle of it because he was trying to order me to do illegal things, and I wouldn't do it.
	So, you know, but I saw, I've never seen a human being more terrified of, more afraid.
	I mean, he was just terrified.
	Because here he is, you know, a big family man and a Christian, and somebody's blackmailing him, presumably over pedophilia, and he's scared to death.
	Well, just like a Dennis Hastert.
	You know, and this is a guy who was a wrestling coach.
	I presume that they knew that there was pedophilia there because he was later blackmailed by one of his students.
	But, you know, they get him into Congress and then they put him in as Speaker of the House for the longest term.
	Now, if they wanted to do anything about this pedophile stuff, it'd be the first thing that they would do if they wanted to stop it or reform it, I think, would be to get rid of the statute of limitations.
	But they won't do any of that stuff because I think that it is something that touches.
	So many of them, so broadly.
	Let me mention one thing, because Epstein was not a sex network.
	I mean, yes, there was sex going on to build control files.
	Epstein's operation supported a massive money laundering.
	And if you look at when we raped Russia in the beginning of the 90s when the Soviet Union fell, those laundry lines went...
	You had a couple of key spots.
	The Ukraine, tremendous amounts coming out through the Ukraine.
	Remember, and we were teamed up with the Russian Mafia.
	There's a wonderful book called Red Mafia by Robert Friedman about the Russian Mafia.
	And the important thing to understand about the Russian Mafia is they're 99% Jewish.
	So you have enormous rat lines through the Ukraine, into Israel, into New York, and London.
	So, London, New York, Israel, Ukraine.
	So, we're talking, when we talk about the Ukraine, you know, you can think of it as a war, I think of it as a huge financial money laundering operation.
	Oh, yeah.
	And we see that with the Biden family as well, you know.
	Right.
	That exploded in the public eye, that part of it.
	Right.
	But the Epstein operation is right in the middle of that.
	In other words, Zelensky at the White House in the Epstein files.
	You know, everybody thinks they're two different stories.
	To me, they're one story.
	That's good, yeah.
	That's right, they're one story.
	That's an interesting way to look at it, yeah.
	Right, and when Trump says to Zelensky, you don't hold the cards.
	Zelensky's thinking, no, my name is on the bank accounts, and I still got pots of money, and I got all the intel about where the money came in and where it went out.
	So he does hold cards, is what it looks like to me.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And as I said, he also is going back to Europe and asking them to unfreeze the Russian $250 billion or whatever, put it in the microwave or something so he can have access to that.
	What do you think is going to happen with Europe?
	I mean, they're doing all this blustering talk about how they're going to go it alone.
	I don't see any of that happening.
	Here's the problem.
	If you look at this not as a war, but as a huge financial fraud operation, you know, starting, you know, go all the way back to when we laundered the money out of Russia.
	Because remember, that was the goal of the Neocon strategy, to do it again.
	And it failed.
	And you know the way we do wars in the West, is you borrow money, you use it to do a war, and then with the booty that you win, you pay back the debt and take your profit, right?
	That's how you finance wars, okay, with the bond market.
	Okay, so they did it again.
	So we decided, okay, we finance a lot of loans, a lot of borrowing to finance the war, except now there's no booty because Russia didn't implode again, right?
	So now everybody's sitting, and remember, whatever money I've gotten already, I don't want to give it back.
	I've spent it, I've invested it, whatever.
	But now, the story that I told about how this is going to work, the public story is no good.
	The truth is no good.
	I can't tell everybody what the truth is because, you know, the fact that you're laundering weapons and money all around the world, you can't tell that.
	So how are you going to come up with a new story?
	Right?
	That's right.
	And how are you going to keep it from imploding in a way that could destroy you and your family?
	I mean, I just think they're trying to figure out how to come up with a story and a way forward.
	And here's the problem.
	It's back to the black bear, you know, coming home and cannibalizing his club, his cubs.
	Now, who can Europe, where can they get booty?
	Well, they're going to have to get it from their own population.
	So now you're talking, if they want a war in the Ukraine, it's because they need a way of managing their own populations.
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's right.
	You've got to do, you know, Germany's talking about doing a draft.
	And they are in such a situation as they've been taking their populations down with the green agenda.
	They've been de-industrializing and impoverishing people, bringing in other groups en masse.
	And so people are pretty upset with them.
	And I think they need a war as a distraction to save themselves.
	I agree.
	Okay, so if the Trump administration is pushing to do a control grid?
	It's a control grid to control the people of the United States.
	Or if they do it with Europe, it's to control the people of the Western world.
	It's not to control Russia.
	It's not to control China.
	That's right.
	Now, here's the thing.
	If you're the Trump administration and you want to get back in the game, you're going to immediately say, wait a minute.
	You know, there's 64 important technologies.
	We've lost the lead on 53 of them.
	We're going to get the lead back.
	A big meeting.
	Let's create a technology czar and have a meeting at the White House to figure out how we get the lead back on all 64. They're not doing that.
	They're saying, you know, let's have a meeting on speculative assets.
	Yeah, that's right.
	That's not how a great country returns to power.
	That's right.
	And when you look at the hegemony, you said, hey, keep us in the lead, and we'll pay you the money.
	This has gotten to the point where, just like any other welfare program, people get weak and dependent, and so they've fallen behind.
	When we saw this deep-seek stuff, you've now got open AI running to government.
	Part of their game was to tell everybody, look, we're so advanced, we're going to create the next self-aware, artificial, general technology.
	Well, it's very interesting because Xi Jinping held its first meeting in many years with his business leadership.
	So you can see the competition is causing...
	Yeah.
	More integration between business and government on both sides of the aisle, so to speak.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, but I think here's the question for all of us is what do we do?
	Mm-hmm.
	And what we have to do is we have to get really, really smart about in this environment how we, you know, because we have to get good at the new tools.
	Who was it?
	Somebody said the other day.
	You're not going to be replaced by AI.
	You're going to be replaced by a guy who's using AI well, right?
	So we have to understand how to use the tools, but we have to do it in a way that builds resilience, and we have to do it in a way that creates community.
	So when I'm in the States, I live in Tennessee, you've moved to Tennessee, there's a reason we're in Tennessee, right?
	That's right.
	And that's because you have a much more grounded culture.
	You have a much more Christian culture, and you have a very hard-working ethic.
	And you have lots of fabulous farmland and water.
	So this is not something that we can do by ourselves.
	It's something we need to do in community.
	One of the reasons, if you come to Salary, we have a wonderful book called What the States Can Do.
	And it's a real agenda for states or for citizen lobbyists to work with their states to protect financial freedom.
	I would just note there's a wonderful story of this citizen lobbyist in Idaho, went to a senator, was very upset by what Trump was doing with the mRNA vaccines.
	He never, you know, was a complete citizen and just started working with the senator.
	And they've got a bill to outlaw mRNA vaccination in Idaho that's come out of committee and it's going into the full House now.
	Let me ask you about that, because we had some state legislators who said, we're not going to do mRNA in the food, but now they're talking about vaccinating all the farm animals.
	Somebody asked me earlier, and maybe you know, is that outlawed in Tennessee, or is that something we still need to pursue?
	So last year, one of the people we work with tried to run a bill that...
	If you were selling interstate, only within the state borders, and you had a herd of 30 or less, you didn't have to vaccinate your animals in the event of a pandemic.
	And they couldn't get it through.
	Farm Bureau stopped it.
	Farm Bureau in Tennessee has stopped a lot of great things.
	You know, everybody, tell your Farm Bureau guys to get with the program.
	There's been a real...
	Anyway, so we need to do that in Tennessee.
	We need to stop mRNA technology.
	In our food system.
	Yes.
	And we need to do that in Tennessee.
	I agree.
	And I agree with what you're saying.
	You know, we have to work locally, and it is so much, it's not easy to get it done, but it is a lot easier than to try to get it done in Washington.
	And, you know, you're closer to the issue and your community.
	So I think the solutions really lie with us, as you pointed out, the grounded people here in Tennessee, the fact that it's a more Christian environment.
	All of this stuff, all the politics is downstream from that, isn't it?
	Right, right.
	Well, thank you so much for joining us.
	Catherine Austin Fitz, I'm sorry, you had one more thing?
	Go ahead.
	No, I just wanted to say, as what the Trump administration is doing and what Doge is doing, as the real implications roll out, I think you're going to have, particularly in a place like Tennessee, you're going to have a lot more people starting to understand,
	oh...
	This is not what we thought.
	They're not cutting waste.
	I hope they do.
	Well, that's our job.
	That's what we work for, to try to make that happen.
	And again, thank you so much for joining us, Catherine Austin Fitz.
	And you can find the excellent work that she does at Solari.com.
	Thank you so much.
	That's right, boys and girls.
	There's a post-election sale on silver and gold.
	Trump euphoria has caused a dip in silver and gold.
	It's time to buy some medals with fiat dollars before they come to their sense is go to davidknight.gold to get in touch with the wise wolf himself, Tony Arterburn.

▲