Christine Massey and the Bailey brothers expose a pandemic fraud, revealing that 225 global institutions failed to produce virus particles despite Freedom of Information requests. They argue PCR tests validate nothing, masks are ineffective, and protocols like New Zealand's traffic lights defy logic. The speakers claim pharmaceutical marketing created "safe and effective" myths, manipulated medical education, and used behavioral war games to enforce lockdowns without evidence. Ultimately, they assert that accepting the lab leak narrative absolves officials of systemic corruption, urging listeners to reject these societal rituals as government control mechanisms. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, WAV2VEC2_ASR_BASE_960H, sat-12l-sm, script v26.04.01, and large-v3-turbo
Time
Text
Telling Truth Is Revolutionary00:02:30
Of deceit.
Telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
It's The David 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 wanted to get Christine Massey on.
I'll give you her website here.
She said she's got a tiny URL, but you can go to fluoridefreepeel, P E E L dot C A for Canada.
Questioning The PCR Paradigm00:15:15
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 this.
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.
So I fact checked what he was saying, verified it for myself, and then I thought, well, I just want to be really Certain of what I'm, you know, now that I'm going to start sharing his material and saying these things publicly too, I'm going to send freedom of information requests to Canadian institutions like Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada to fact check and just, you know, make 100% sure, give them the chance to say, oh, no, you're wrong.
Actually, Christine, here's the valid, you know, scientific evidence.
And then I also thought, well, if they don't actually have it, then their responses will become.
Useful evidence so that people can see that they're just being, they're not telling the truth.
Oh, it did become very useful evidence.
That's right.
Yeah.
I had no idea we'd still be, you know, here doing this almost five years later.
But anyway, that was how it got started.
So I started, it was May 14th, was my first request, was sent to Health Canada.
And that's kind of like the FDA in Canada.
That's the institution that rubber stamps, you know, approves products and clinical trials.
Relating to the alleged virus.
So, 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 the phrology.
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 much more convenient for some people to blame illnesses on.
Things in nature, you know, little invisible microbes or whatnot, rather than industrial factors or stress and other things that, you know, 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 something, then you can go out and attack it.
And that's the whole model of modern medicine we gotta find some pathogen and kill it.
Right.
Exactly.
And then, yeah, it's a big money maker and it distracts from why do we really get sick?
You know, so some of my colleagues have done a lot of deep dives in books like Virus Mania or What Really Makes You Ill.
They've looked at different historical events where people were being told that there was a viral outbreak and then they showed, well, actually, that people were being exposed to various toxins, there's some drug behind it, this sort of thing.
Or it was just a completely useless test.
There was an incident already where It was declared that there had been an outbreak, and then they realized, oh no, oops, it's just a PCR test.
You know, they weren't actually detecting what they thought they were detecting.
So, and that's a key thing because Kerry Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for developing that, he said, criticizing Fauci over using his PCR test to make a connection with HIV and AIDS.
And he says, he's so stupid.
He thinks that you can look into an electron microscope and see a virus.
And yet, we've seen, Christine, we've seen all these pictures, haven't we?
We've got the little ball with the spikes on it and all the rest of the stuff, right?
Where'd all that stuff come from?
Well, I mean, people need to realize a lot of it's just literally cartoons and CGI.
And then when they do show an actual electron microscope, we call it the point and declare method because they'll just, first of all, it's almost never ever in the bodily fluid or tissue that they actually are looking at something.
So usually they're looking at the contents of a cell culture, and I can explain that a little bit in a minute.
So, it's not even in the bodily fluid or tissue, and it's not in a purified state.
And they just put an arrow on one of their images and they declare that that's a virus.
That's why we call it the point and declare method because there's literally no logic or sign.
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.
So, 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, maybe you have a group of animals, two groups of animals.
You hold all their living conditions, all the various factors constant in both.
And then, in the experimental group, you expose them to the one thing that you think might be a causal agent.
That's how the scientific method works, and it's logical because you want to be able to rule out other factors that could cause the illness, whatever it is that you're investigating.
So that's why you need to find the particle in its location where you think they might be, which is in people in this case.
Find the particle you think might be a virus, separate it from everything else.
Then you can sequence and characterize it in a valid manner, which is important because you need to identify exactly what it is that you're talking about and doing experiments with.
And you need to do the experiments to see does this thing actually do the things that we're told viruses do.
So that's all I was asking for.
Is 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, et cetera, and do the controlled 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 a PCR thing, and they find just a minuscule amount of it.
This is why Kerry Muller said, you can't use it.
For diagnosing disease, because it 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 they'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 it's actually accurate and worth using, you have to validate it.
You have to compare the results you get to the test to the actual fact of the matter in a large group of people, and then you can see how well it works.
So, in other words, you need to compare it to a gold standard.
And in this case, the gold standard would be a particle that has already been shown to be a virus, right?
So, they never, 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.
This is why, when I learned from Dr. Kaufman, we have to go back to the very beginning and carefully read the method section.
This is where people get confused too, because they can go online and find all sorts of studies and say, oh, yeah, we isolated the virus, but you have to carefully read the method section.
And that's where it all falls apart.
You see what they actually did.
They didn't identify any specific particle.
They didn't sequence anything.
They didn't characterize a particle.
There's no controlled 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 as 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 were different labs doing their own thing.
It was like a wild west.
They're all testing for different targets, but what it's, quote, testing for is 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.
ECR is only giving you, it's 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.
And we've known this, 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 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 respiratory issues.
They got pink eyes.
They work on a farm and they're just a very dirty environment and they rub their hands and they get pink eye.
I used to get it all the time when I was a kid.
They didn't tell me I was going to die of bird flu when I got it as a kid.
But 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.
Debunking Alleged Viruses00:09:11
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 for 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 now.
Institute for Allergies 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 requests, we actually had a couple of remarks.
Remarkable admissions from the CDC and Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto.
So these are really particularly important responses that we got.
One was to my colleague Michael in New Zealand.
He was the first one to start sending the request to the CDC.
So in his, I think it was November 1st or 2nd of 2020, people can find it on my website.
He asked the CDC, and what they said in their response was, That's what he was asking for is never done in virology.
So during this time period, too, and 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 is 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 that.
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.
This is like all the alleged viruses that we're told about our entire lives HIV, HPV, influenza virus, measles virus.
Dr. Stefan Lonka 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. Lonka 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 decades for virology, where they would use his methods, which were unscientific and illogical.
It didn't show any particular particle, he didn't identify specific.
Particle at all, let alone show that it's a virus.
And this is what they started doing in virology up to the present day the cell cultures.
Wow.
So this is, yeah, so it was already established, but the mainstream media doesn't let people know these things.
And then we also have, if people go to my website and they look at the links for the FOIs, they'll also find a page where it deals with other alleged viruses, and that's where they'll see.
We have dozens and dozens of responses from various different institutions.
If there's time, I don't know if you have time, but I could highlight a few really important ones.
So, one thing, for example, we have numerous responses on the alleged avian influenza virus.
And I mention that because that's one of the ones that are being hyped up right now.
So, we have the FDA on record on that, we have the CDC, numerous different institutions from Japan and Canada.
So, if anyone's being harassed there, take a look at that.
But also, some of the more important ones are, for example, with the Public Health Agency of Canada.
One time I asked them, Do you have any record of any alleged virus being found and purified from people?
Any alleged virus from people?
And they admitted they didn't have it.
Wow.
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 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.
So, it's very clear to me.
And there's an affidavit on my website.
I could give people a really quick little tiny URL because it'll take you to a page where it shows 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, they're telling you, oh, you have to test your animals or something.
It's a notice that you can give to them where you're demanding, you're saying, okay, you want me to do this?
Well, you know, I'll do it or I'll consider doing it once you give me valid, rigorous evidence that the virus exists and all these other things that you're claiming.
So you can find the link to that there.
And then you'll also, as you scroll down, there's educational materials for 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.
Like I, 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 web pages that I have for relating to, because we asked.
We've also asked from different angles, did freedom of information.
So the tiny URL is tinyurl.com and then forward slash avian dash hoax.
So if people go there, they'll find all sorts of links to, they can find everything from there.
Good.
Yeah, I'll put that in the show notes as well.
Tinyurl.com slash avian hoax.
Yeah, with a dash.
Avian dash hoax.
Oh, avian dash 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.
Deep Dive Into Rosenau00:09:16
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 this 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, 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, a 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, what are they going to make me shave my beard to wear a mask?
I mean, it's just going to go through.
I had just been snorkeling for the first time since I was in. College, and since I had a mustache now, none of the masks would work.
So I'm like, I know what that's going to do.
It's not going to keep any viral particles in if there is something like that.
And it just continued on with the insanity.
They redefined immunity and what immunity was.
You know, first I'd 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 that this 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 it's 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 and purified?
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 is 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 process.
Controlled experiment.
You don't actually have the control side to see, well, maybe they were going to get sick for some other reason anyway.
You know, maybe it's something that they were being fed or something in the environment.
So he did a deep dive on that.
And then we have other people who've, 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 Wilmer.
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 work in that area as well.
And then there's the Rosenau study from 19.
Everybody should read it.
It's a very quick and easy read, and it shows how with this so called Spanish flu, These researchers tried everything imaginable to try to get the sick people to pass the illness on to healthy people, and they couldn't do it.
They absolutely failed.
What's the name of that study again?
The Rosenau?
Rosenau, R R O S E A U.
And it's from about, if people type it into my website, the search function, they can find it there.
I put a link to it on there.
Good.
Yeah, that's a really important study.
When I interviewed Sam Bailey and her husband, Mark, I think it is, and 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 colds from each other.
And they said they did everything they could.
They did gross stuff like taking mucus from one person who is 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 that had volunteers.
They shut it down after 45 years, couldn't find anything there.
Maybe that's why we haven't found a cure for the cold because they tried to.
Identify some kind of a particle that doesn't exist and, uh, you know, 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've had, 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 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 narrative.
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.
Like their growth cycle as you're passing through a certain stage, let's say if you're a certain toxic load, you know, your body might go through a process to try to eject poisons because 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 other 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, like 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.
Fall into this, okay.
Exposing The Lab Leak Theory00:14:27
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 24 59, says, David, could you ask your guests 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 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 DROST, and I think you can find a link to the study.
And they're 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, with 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 the United States, the money was being passed out to people through CMS, the Medicare Medicaid agency, right?
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'd give them a bonus and then they would pay them 20% bonus on what their normal fee would be after you identify them as a COVID patient.
Now you get a 20% bonus on everything that you do to them, right?
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, to distinguish between a chimp and a human?
No, probably, maybe not, because we've got a significant amount of overlap.
We've got like 90% or something of the DNA.
I don't know what the exact number is, but it's really high of the DNA is 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 saw it growing up, you know, that that was all established.
And, you know, it's funny, they call it the human genome.
On the one hand, they say we all have a unique genome, but then they also refer to the human genome.
Like, it doesn't even make sense.
How much variation is there between humans, let alone between different species?
Yeah.
But it turns out they never even completed the very first human genome.
Like, that project is just more smoke and mirrors.
I don't know if it's intentional.
That was Francis Collins.
That was Francis Collins.
He went straight from the Human Genome Project to the head of NIH.
You know, and now he's Fauci's boss.
That all just comes together, doesn't it?
I got another comment.
So, all these things, like, there's no anything you hear in connection with virology or, like, I wouldn't take any of it at face value.
It should 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.
He'd, 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 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 other people in the freedom movement, made all sorts of wild actions.
That were CIA operatives who were 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, that 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, oh, 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 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 operated.
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, they could just bow to it and do it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
They just treated people like slaves.
And so we were asking them to take these politicians into custody and charge them.
In Canada, there's in the criminal code, Section 229C, that says that if you do anything for an unlawful purpose, And interfering with people's rights and freedoms and property without due process is unlawful.
And if you do that and people end up dying as a result, whether you intended for them to die or not, that's considered a culpable homicide.
In other words, murder under the Criminal Code of Canada.
I don't know if it's like that in other countries too.
We were asking them to arrest.
I gave my affidavit, my name, my personal information.
And I don't know if it's a coincidence, but within a day or two, I started getting.
Which is a payment processor behind Substack.
They started interfering and making all these impossible to meet demands with me.
So I eventually had to part ways with them.
They literally were stealing donations that people had given me.
So, you know, because I went to the police station, is it just a coincidence?
I don't know.
But it was interesting timing, I thought.
It's amazing.
I 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 got upset.
So, 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.
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 we, 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 did 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?
Yeah, 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 up 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.
Were 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, why would you, if someone's coming at you making demands, why would you do anything to make it easy on them?
Why would you just accept the virus narrative without evidence?
Like I would push back, and if it turns out they don't have the evidence, that they try to make it sound like we're sometimes people say we're trying to let the bad guys off the hook.
Because they've adopted this idea that, oh, it was a lab leak virus.
And 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, and we know it, 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 stuff.
And you see the Fauci pardon and everything, they're all saying, oh, it's because of the lab leak thing.
That's his crime and all the rest of it.
It's not.
Absolutely.
If it was a lab leak, then only the specific people involved in that situation would be the bad guys.
But in reality, it's every politician, every medical officer.
It's like everybody who participated, all the companies, and not just with COVID, but all these other hoaxes as well.
Like we're showing there was, they shouldn't have even been talking about a virus or offering tests or anything.
Why Lab Leaks Let Bad Guys Off Hook00:04:24
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 so sure the 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 they think, you know, oh, well, 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?
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 procedure 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, 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 if you just, It takes a little time for people who don't have, like me, I didn't have a background in any of this.
So I had to learn some of the terminology in that to be able to read the studies.
But once you do, it means that whenever they come at us with one of these narratives, you don't have to wait months or years for someone to do an analysis of all cause mortality or analyze things from all sorts of different directions.
You just go straight to the foundational evidence, you read it, and you go, that doesn't make sense.
You didn't do what you're claiming.
And that's the end of it right there.
It's a much simpler and faster, and I think much more empowering approach because if enough men and women out there learn to just read this study and know what to look for, they're not going to be able to pull off.
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 part of the conspiracy stuff, it helped for me to know that what they had planned and been practicing for.
Every year since two months before 9 11, and what they pushed out the orders for the different states with.
But they're in the first one of these games, Dark Winter, two months before 9 11, and they went right down by the playbook.
And so I kind of knew that.
And then I started looking at this, and it's like, that really doesn't look real.
And now none of the stuff that they're saying makes any sense.
So I never bought into any of this stuff because of those things.
I got a couple of comments here for you, Christine.
Don't obey.
It's contagious if the insecure person next to me says it is.
You know, when 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?
Shadow Boxer says, after detoxifying my body, I not only stop psoriasis, but I never get sick.
Solely Goy 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.
You know, they try, 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's going to influence the outcome of this stuff.
So, that's a really good point.
Placebos And Negative Thoughts00:04:02
Yeah, you can get some people to have the symptoms just by telling them enough times and exactly what they did, drilling it into our heads 24 7 that there's a virus.
Some people end up getting the symptoms just because they're so susceptible to the messaging.
Yeah, that's true.
So, you've got a tiny URL about the bird flu stuff tinyurl.com slash avian dash 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 have done.
Thank you for the mail leads.
Yeah.
Oh, thank you for having me, David.
It's been a pleasure.
I really, really appreciate it.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's very, you know, 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, you know, we're just setting ourselves up to be taken advantage of.
And boy, have they taken advantage of us.
It is absolutely amazing when you look at this last year, last four years, you know, all the different things, the hoops that they've made us walk through with all the rest of the stuff.
Thank you so much for joining us.
And all of you, thank you for joining us today.
That's the end of our program.
We hope you have a great day.
And we're going to try to keep it real again tomorrow.
But this may sound crazy, but it's the reality.
It's a scientific.
Process.
The burden of proof is on the people who make the extraordinary claims.
And if they don't have anything to back that up, that's the key issue.
Thank you so much for joining us, Christine Massey, and thank you so much for what you have done.
Been a real service.
Thank you.
Yes.
Thank you.
David Knight
Show.
If you like the Eagles, the cars, and Huey Lewis in the news, you'll love the Classic Hits channel at APS Radio.
Download our app or listen now at APSRadio.com.
Well, joining us now are Doctors Mark and Sam Bailey.
The Cost Of Speaking Truth00:02:45
Sam, short for Samantha.
And you can find their website at drsambailey.com.
They put in her name because although they're both doctors, she was on TV in New Zealand and she started asking some uncomfortable questions of the establishment.
And so I had them on about a year ago, and we were talking about their book at the time, The Final Pandemic.
And they were pointing out, they were questioning all of virology, which is what they've done.
That's got them in a lot of trouble in New Zealand.
And so I want to get caught up as to what's happening in New Zealand.
And I'd like to get their comments on what's happening in America as the pharmaceutical industry.
Is getting pretty desperate to defend vaccines.
And so we're starting to get these narratives about measles epidemics.
And I know that they're skeptical of that, as I am as well.
So thank you for joining us, Drs. Mark and Sam Bailey.
Thank you.
Good to have you back.
Thank you, David.
Pleasure to be here.
And yeah, I think you're quite right.
Sam, in particular, has been in some more hot water here in New Zealand.
And last year, she unexpectedly had her bank accounts frozen.
Really?
Yes.
And then we had the authorities trying to seize some of our family assets because apparently Sam owes them money for COVID crimes.
She's even been charged here in New Zealand with COVID 19.
Apparently, that's a charge that they can bring against you.
And anyway.
Well, they use it to lock everybody down.
So I guess they could use it to lock you up.
So they actually have a charge called COVID 19.
What does that involve?
It's for them in the medical world.
With when I um when they had their fake kind of kangaroo court tribunal about me, that's what they charged me with was COVID 19.
Wow, and so yeah, but they said they are I owe a lot of money because of yeah my thought crimes and um yeah and they debanked me and that took I had to go into court to fight it and that was quite full on.
Wow, um, yeah, it was just it was really disruptive for several months, David.
But it was Sam had a good result, she took them into the high court and it was ruled as unlawful.
They're still going after these crazy COVID fines, but they've been told, no, you're not allowed to do what they did, making this attempt to seize bank accounts, et cetera.
So, yeah, but it's just like you say, this is what happens when doctors like us who were once in the establishment, and Sam was a real golden girl, like you say, she was on network television and a real favourite.
And then come early 2020, she questioned the COVID narrative and said, look, I don't think there's a pandemic at all.
Government Debanking And Censorship00:05:32
And that led to this.
So, yeah.
And like you say, we put out the final pandemic.
That was actually now, was that 2024?
Yeah.
We put that out.
Yeah.
It's a couple of years since we put that out.
And you've got a new book.
You've got a new book that you just put out.
Tell us a little bit about that.
Well, I guess it's an older new book.
It's the book version of my essay, A Farewell to Virology.
Now, I wrote this.
In 2022, because I felt there wasn't a standalone piece, a treatise refuting the entire virus model, all of virology.
So, I wrote this essay.
It's about 29,000 words and it's pretty dry.
And Sam said, There's no way I could ever make that into a video production.
And she didn't.
Although filmmaker Steve Faulkner did make it into a three part documentary eventually.
But we had such positive feedback, and we'd reached the point where the PDF had been downloaded about a quarter of a million times.
And we were surprised because it's a very dry technical paper, you know, refuting the virus model.
And we decided last year, why don't we put it out as a book?
And I included a couple of bonus essays that I've written since that time.
And that's sold really, really well.
It's really thrilling, David, to see this that we think, you know, not so long ago, people, you know, weren't questioning this stuff on a widespread scale.
Nowadays, this is coming up all the time.
And people are not only questioning vaccines and pandemics, but Also, the entire virus model.
So, it's been really positive for us to see that there's a big appetite out there for this work.
And we're seeing people now in conversation say, Yeah, well, I don't believe in vaccines.
And then you'll hear someone say to them, Well, I don't think that viruses are, you know, there's sufficient evidence for them either.
So, yeah, we see this is the whole thing.
The silver lining with the COVID fraud is that it has inadvertently woken people up and they've gone deeper and deeper into looking into these things.
That's right.
We talked about that last time.
And, you know, it's kind of interesting.
It's what we say about government all the time.
You know, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.
And we could say the same thing about virology, right?
You say, this might be pretty dry reading, but after what happened five years ago, I think people need to say, you know, this is something I need to know about.
I need to interest myself in this because this was used to lock down the world.
And if it's going to be used to lock down the world, we need to know a little bit about it.
You know, when you're talking about getting.
Yes, go ahead.
Oh, sorry.
No, I was just going to say exactly.
It's so important.
And I think when people, when people, you can't, we can't cold call people and say, look into this.
It has to come from the individual.
But I think it's really started with there's been a complete lack of trust in the medical system since after what's happened.
People have now are distrusting vaccines.
And the next question that falls to people are well, do these things even exist?
What are they doing to us?
And that in itself, That question, when you answer it, is so empowering because it changes your entire way of seeing health and how to be well.
And it's a really positive step.
And we see it, there's a great awakening going on.
Yes, yes.
Well, you know, that is, and I've said this for the longest time, whether we're talking about the Green New Deal or whatever, you know, it's like, show me your data.
I was with a group that had to sue to try to get Michael Mann's data as part of the ClimateGate thing that happened with East Anglia.
And he fought so hard to keep his data secret.
Well, that's kind of suspicious.
I don't think somebody would do that if it was all up and above board.
And so that really kind of feeds your skepticism.
And if it's true, you don't need to hide it.
And so I think that's the key thing about a lot of this stuff.
People saw this throughout the virus stuff, and we saw the heavy hand of censorship.
And as you're talking about before, debanking people and that type of thing.
I got debanked in May of 2021, five months after we started this show.
And at that point in time, PayPal was where I got pretty much all the contributions that we got through PayPal.
So that was a really big deal when we got cut off in the one place.
So now we've made sure that we've got a lot of different places where people can support the show.
But I just saw that they've admitted that most of these debank orders are the debanking is being driven by government, not by the corporations, just like we saw with the censorship.
For the longest time, we said this censorship is coming from the government.
We can tell because of the pattern in it.
And then they admitted it.
We got the documents, and you could see that it was actually coming from the government.
Same thing true of the debanking as well, as we would all suspect.
So, yeah, let's talk a little bit about measles, though, because we've had here in the United States, Before we had Trump going to war with the world and changing the subjects every other day, they were starting to push back against some of the minor changes that are being made at HHS by RFK Jr.
I'm glad to see some of these changes.
Flawed Measles Diagnosis Methods00:14:43
They've reduced the vaccine count that they recommend, that they're really virtually mandating for children by the pressures that were put on to pediatricians.
They would offer both carrots and sticks to make sure that they would get the kids vaccinated.
And so there were penalties associated with the reimbursements they would get from the insurance companies and things like that.
So they have pulled back some of these.
And we go back and look at the vaccine schedule.
I was really surprised to see how many times they would repeat these vaccines.
Some of them were given four and five times during childhood.
And so they pulled back the frequency and the number of vaccines.
That are recommended, and they've also pulled it back to say there's not going to be any penalty if you don't follow the recommendations.
So that's positive stuff, but that's really got the vaccine industry fired up.
So they were coming back with measles.
And so I went to the CDC and I thought it was kind of interesting to see how many cases they had and how many so called outbreaks that they'd had because they put a lot on this South Carolina and there was another one in Georgia, but South Carolina they were really focused on just a couple of months ago.
And they were giving us narratives saying that, you know, had 100 kids or whatever.
And I said, yeah, but you notice that they're not saying.
Anybody is hospitalized and nobody has died.
Even though we had in Texas, I think it was in 2024, they had two cases that they claimed had been fatal.
When Children's Self Defense went and investigated, they found that that was not the cause of death of these.
So that's been disputed and I think very effectively disputed.
But they never even claimed that anybody died or was hospitalized out of these cases in South Carolina and Georgia.
And I thought it was kind of interesting, Mark and Sam, that.
When they define an outbreak, that is more than three cases that are connected.
And so they said that 69% of the cases in 2024 were outbreaks.
And but then that meant that 31% of the cases were not.
And so it's like that's kind of strange.
If they're telling us that this is the most contagious virus out there, how is it that you're getting all these situations where you have one person or two people that have it and nobody else has it?
And so that raises a question, I think, in my mind at least.
What would you tell the audience?
I know we talked about this last time you were on, we talked about measles, but kind of give us a refresher course about your position about measles and what you think is going on here.
Because a lot of people have had an experience with it where most of us in the US had measles at my age.
And so the question is why did a lot of us have measles back then?
Why is it so many fewer right now?
And why did it appear like it was something that was being passed on to people?
You want to speak to that?
Yeah, sure.
And David, this comes down to the narrative that the media present.
And it's a complicated thing because, like you say, people will contact us and say, Hey, there's an outbreak in this city in the United States, and they're all unvaccinated kids, and some of them are really sick.
And you have to really peek things back to the whole historical aspects of measles and the basic science.
So, like you, we would say, First of all, investigate what they mean by an outbreak.
And we find that these days there might be two cases, and they're splashing that in the headlines saying outbreak.
Now, this is something historically that would have never made national news, let alone caused a murmur in the local community.
Nobody calls that an outbreak, but they've changed the language, they've changed the definitions.
Then we have the issue with what is a case?
Now, historically, they didn't have any tests, any laboratory tests, so it was all done clinically.
So a kid would present with a rash and a fever, and it was up to the doctor to decide what that was.
Now, Sam and I used to be in the system.
And we were trained up in that system.
And they'll tell you all of these things like, oh no, a doctor knows measles because there's coplic spots in the mouth, a special sign that you'll see, all this kind of stuff.
And then you look into the research and you find out that these case definitions are so woolly.
You know, most of them don't have these special features.
The rashes all look very similar.
How do you distinguish between hand, foot, and mouth, you know, measles, chicken pox, monkey pox?
Smallpox, they're all just degrees.
They're all just similar presentations coughs, fevers, runny noses, and rashes.
A lot of it comes down to what the doctor decides.
Then we have this problem of whether the child has been vaccinated or not.
So, a lot of the time, the child's been vaccinated, you're not allowed to make the diagnosis.
You know, you have to look at something else because that doesn't look good.
And at other times, there's a special message that goes out to the medical community, and there may be incentives to report the cases.
You know, you need to suddenly start reporting.
So we have to think that these are often artificial situations that we're seeing.
Nothing is actually changing in the community, but it's the way it's being presented, the way it's being tested, the way things are being looked for.
So, yeah, we know historically, like you say, that many of us last century were given the diagnosis of measles.
By definition, it was a very mild condition.
And a lot of kids used to, Celebrate getting it because it meant that they got the week off school because of this crazy notion that people thought it was a contagious entity.
So, for a child, it was a pretty exciting time.
You got the measles, it was a guaranteed week or two off school while you had the rash, etc.
So, but these days, as you know, we're being presented with the story that the measles is deadly.
It's so, oh my goodness, imagine if your child got that.
And we're not actually seeing cases or claimed cases where children are dying.
Outside of these very small number of events and incidents, where on deeper inspection, on actual looking at the medical records, we find out that these kids were sick for other reasons.
And someone happened to label them or said that they had a co infection, in quotes, with measles at the time.
And then the media pick up on it and say, you know, child with measles dies.
But, you know, it's clear to us when you look at the medical records that the child was sick.
For other reasons.
That's what happened in Texas with Dr. Brian Hooker and others.
I agree.
Yeah.
And so there is, as you point out, sometimes there's an incentive to not report it as measles.
Sometimes there's an incentive to report it as measles.
And it's very similar to what we saw with COVID.
The federal government was giving a bonus to doctors if they would do a clinical diagnosis, point at somebody and say, he's got COVID.
And so you get, I think it was $13,000, if I remember correctly.
And then towards August of 2020, you had the American Hospital Association say, wait a minute.
You're telling us now that you need some kind of a PCR diagnosis that's here.
You told us at the beginning those didn't work and you didn't have enough of them.
And you told us just to do a clinical diagnosis and now you're not paying up.
So that kind of blew the cover because there's no honor among thieves, I guess.
And so people would start to see things like that happening.
And we realize now that that's not just limited to COVID.
This is the type of thing they've been running for quite some time, isn't it?
Yeah, definitely.
And I think, What is also interesting is, you know, what Mark was saying with the classification a serious pathogen, you only need one case for it to be defined as an outbreak.
So that's what happened.
We saw in COVID in New Zealand where there was one case and the whole nation went into lockdown.
Just to be clear, when Sam says pathogen, that's in quotes.
We don't want people to think that.
That's on their terms.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We, pathogenic as a word, you know, means disease causing.
Pathogen.
They took this term last century and made it up and said, Oh, that's microbes, you know, bacteria and invisible or imaginary viruses.
But as Sam says, in their system, they will say that you can have one case.
And if it's a serious one, they say, That's an outbreak.
We now have an outbreak, folks.
And yeah, in countries like New Zealand, they'll shut down the entire country.
That's what happens.
Yeah.
Oh, it's crazy.
And I think that's one of the key things that many of us don't realize they haven't really done.
Real science, I'm sure you addressed that in your farewell to virology.
They didn't do real science to isolate a particular thing, like a virus or something, and then correlate that to the illness to say, well, we got this thing that we find in the people who are sick and we don't find it in the people who are well.
And if we take that and transfer it to the people who are well, they get sick.
That's what everybody thinks is happening, but that's not what's happening, right?
Yeah, David, there is a hidden history.
Behind measles, and when Sam and I trained as doctors, they didn't tell us about this and they presented very selective information.
They said that there were some monkey experiments that were done early last century that proved that measles was highly contagious.
Now, that was very disingenuous because when we actually dug into the history, and I've got a note here researchers like Daniel Reuters, our Australian colleague, have done magnificent work digging up all of these old studies.
There were a whole lot of studies in the 1800s, and people would be shocked if they knew what they actually did because you'd never get this stuff approved these days past the ethics committees.
So they were taking children, even young ones like babies, and trying to give them measles.
They were doing everything they could.
So a doctor would, researcher would locate a case of a kid that was unwell with what was said to be measles.
They'd quickly take snot and tears and even blood.
From these kids, and then they'd go and try and infect other kids.
Now, often they'd just squirt it straight up their nose, or you know, expose their eyes, or just put it on their skin.
Sometimes they would actually make wounds to their bodies and introduce this material, this disease material.
They would also inject it straight into other children.
So they'd take blood from one child said to have measles, inject it into another.
All failures didn't work.
All they could induce were these local kind of reactions.
And they said, because they were so obsessed with showing that there was some sort of contagious element, they said, oh, maybe our techniques are insufficient.
You know, there were even.
Techniques where they then brought monkeys in and they exposed them to sick humans, and the monkeys didn't get sick.
So, eventually, they resorted to taking blood from people said to have measles and injected it into these monkeys, these rhesus monkeys, and other small monkeys.
Some, not all, some of the monkeys developed a little bit of a rash around the injection site and a fever.
And then they said, Well, that proves it.
There was a study.
1911, Anderson and Goldberger, and this is the one they'll cite of saying, Well, that's when they showed it was contagious.
Now, the rest of us looking at this are saying, This is outrageous because the WHO and the CDC say that measles is an airborne disease, it's transmitted via aerosol, and that just being in the same room with someone is enough to cause you to come down with a case of the measles.
Clearly, the research never showed that.
They had to do these preposterous experiments where they injected animals with human blood.
And we know, David, that that will cause a reaction because, and even the human experiments they did, sometimes you'll get a reaction because the blood is not cross matched appropriately.
So you don't need a virus to cause these increases in temperature.
And none of them recreated the same illness, the classic illness.
So completely.
This is all hidden.
Well, they did the same type of thing.
I learned this from you.
They did the same type of thing like from 1940 something and 1980 something, the UK cold house, where they were doing everything they could to transmit colds to people and failed in the same way that you're talking about what they did in the 1800s.
Sam has a great video on the common cold unit that people can watch and really amazing.
Yeah, this is where they invented coronaviruses, David.
This is where it comes from.
Yeah, is that, you know, in humans because.
They said, Yeah, we don't really know what's going on here, but we think it must be viruses.
40 years they operate this facility in England, and out of it comes nothing but virology mythology, where they said that they found about a couple of hundred viruses that seem to cause common colds.
And again, we looked at those experiments and we were shocked because the vast majority of them completely failed.
And importantly, Daniel Reuters has gone further with his book, Can You Catch a Cold?, where he documents hundreds and hundreds of these human transmission attempts with flus and colds, and they fail.
You know, the mode is that most of the experiments completely fail.
And this is like extreme.
This is people coughing in other people's faces, living in the same room for several days at a time, and just this complete inability to make the other person sick.
And transference of body fluids like, you know, mucus and things like that as well, right?
Failed Human Transmission Studies00:15:35
But it seems like, you know, they come up with the name coronavirus.
Maybe it was based on circular logic, virology.
Maybe that was it, huh?
I don't know.
But yeah, well, the story there is yeah, it's just incredible because, yeah, the coronavirus stuff just pops up all the time.
But essentially, it was an exercise where a virologist gave a tissue sample to an electron microscopist, June Almeida, in the 1960s, and basically said to her, There's a virus in there.
Can you find it?
And she just pointed to something and said, I think that's it.
And then forevermore, if people see this, they say, That's the coronavirus or a coronavirus.
Yeah.
Point and declare, we call it.
It kind of reminds me of the etymology of the term computer bug.
You know, they had a woman who had a malfunctioning machine.
They opened it up, there was a bug in there.
She goes, Yeah, that was it.
It was a bug.
And so after that, we all talk about having bugs inside the software.
But yeah, kind of that same sort of thing.
You know, we got an inkling of this as everybody was talking about rushing this vaccine into deployment.
And I guess that's a good word since it was kind of a military operation.
And so they were talking about.
We got to speed this up.
He had a lot of true believers out there and said, I'll volunteer.
You know, let me have this vaccine and then you can expose me to it.
We can short circuit this because the way they would do the testing, that was kind of a harbinger of all this stuff.
The fact is that they don't expose people to the disease that you're supposed to, that this is supposed to prevent, right?
So when somebody is getting a therapeutic, they take somebody who's already sick with the condition and they give them this therapeutic and they have a control.
So they have people who get a placebo and people get the new.
Treatment and they look to see, first of all, the first phase is does it kill people?
So they have just a very small group of people and to check to see if there's really obvious immediate damage that's done.
And then if it clears that hurdle, then they start with the phase two and phase three tests where they start to give people that already have this condition to see if it makes a little bit of a change with them.
And they look at the efficacy of it based on the difference between the control group and the people who got the drug.
But they say with a vaccine, we can't do that.
It'd be unethical to.
If this stuff doesn't work, it'd be unethical to give this disease to somebody, except that's what they were doing in the cold house.
That's what they were doing in these other virology experiments you're talking about in the 1800s.
And so, in a sense, if they were to do that, they call that a challenge test.
If they were to do that, it would show people that there was nothing there in the first place, I think.
That's maybe another reason they don't do that, because there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of ethics in terms of preventing them from doing a lot of other things.
So, it may be that they're just trying to hide a cover for virology.
I don't know.
What do you think?
Yeah, definitely.
Yeah, David, it's really interesting you mentioned that because Sam and I both used to work in clinical trials.
Yes.
And these were in big pharma sponsored human trials.
We were in the dark side, David.
True.
We were trained up in that craft.
Yeah.
Now, one thing that really struck us when we were involved in that work, and you'll see that in some of our presentations, like recently, Sam did one on vitamin K injections in the newborn.
And that is this numbers needed to treat thing.
Where they're saying, oh, we can't do the trial because the numbers needed.
Well, they don't say that.
They'll say because the size of the trial would need to be so big.
And you're like thinking to yourself, why would you need a trial that size for something that's supposedly really effective?
You know, because they're saying we need like 200,000 people in the trial to show that it's effective.
You know that at that point, it's absolute ridiculousness.
Because the numbers needed to treat, even on their own terms.
Can you maybe explain what that means?
Yeah, so that's the numbers you would need to give a therapy to to prevent one event, not to save a life.
And it's whichever event you choose.
So the event might be sneezing.
So you might say, well, we've got this new therapeutic, and the numbers needed to treat are 900, and it will prevent one sneeze.
So clearly, telling a person, hey, I've got this treatment that prevents sneezing, a person might say, oh, great, I'll take that treatment.
If you told them, 900 people need to take this medication, and one will get the benefit, which is not sneezing.
899 will not get the benefit, and they'll be exposed to all of the potential adverse effects of that medication.
And they won't tell you those because they might not have looked at them all.
So, this is the preposterousness.
And, like you say, they'll just say, Oh, we can't do the trials because of this reason and that reason.
And that should be a red flag to people right away.
As to the fact that this is not an effective treatment, and all the only way it can work is through manipulation of the narrative.
And it's a big thing, and it's what pharmaceutical companies really rely on these days.
And with vaccines, you know, which we're talking about here a lot, the narrative is completely fraudulent, where they're mixing all sorts of things of mortality rates and incidents.
And who's vaccinated and who's not.
All of these things, they manipulate the statistics.
It's outright fraud.
I mean, Sam and I have exposed this stuff in some of our presentations, looking at the CDC's own data and what they classify as vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
And they will do things like they'll classify someone as unvaccinated if the person knows that they've been vaccinated but couldn't remember the date of the vaccination.
In the CDC's world, that goes into the unvaccinated category.
Now, that's preposterous.
The person clearly has been vaccinated, and it's just manipulating the statistics to produce a certain narrative.
In the case of measles, too, when I remember back, I used to work as a GP for a while, general practitioner.
I remember seeing the only patients I ever saw with a true measles type rash, you know, the really classic looking one, they were all drug reactions.
There were people that had had antibiotics, and then a week later, They developed this classic measles rash, you know, and that was the only ones I ever saw.
And I just, and it's funny how, again, this is all crafted.
If I'd said that there wasn't, I hadn't asked about the drug history, I would have called it measles and classified it as, and you know, you realize how much this problem keeps popping up, doesn't it?
Absolutely.
And some of them are vaccine reactions as well.
But of course, if you've had the vaccine, you're not supposed to have the disease.
And I know that critics will say yes, but they have tests to differentiate that stuff.
You know, antibody assays and stuff.
But we've looked into all of these assays.
They're dubious in themselves on their own terms.
So all of it is, yeah, to protect this narrative.
But what I think is really positive, David, is that clearly people, you know, got wised up to the COVID 19 narrative and went off that one.
So now we see them relaunching other narratives.
Because measles is not even familiar to people anymore, because one thing Sam and I point out is that.
By the 1980s, when we were kids, most people, infectious diseases, in quotes, weren't even a thing.
And so many people were turning away from vaccines and could not see the need for them.
Kids had generally got really, really healthy.
Childhood mortality had fallen away to almost nothing.
And then, of course, they had to relaunch things in the 1990s with these fear campaigns that suddenly these diseases like chickenpox and measles, which were joke illnesses to the physicians of old who were often dealing with much more serious problems, suddenly the narrative changed.
And we were told that these are incredibly serious diseases and all children need to be vaccinated.
And that's.
Why we saw the massive increase in the childhood vaccination schedule from the 1990s through to the present day.
That's insane, as you've noted.
What are the numbers of vaccines that they've set up in New Zealand for kids?
You know, from like birth to let's say, I guess it was 16 or something like that.
They've got like 72 here, was what it was just recently.
What do you have in New Zealand?
Yeah, that's a really good question.
I'm not actually sure of the 100.
Yeah, ours is not far off.
We don't have quite the same number, but it's up there.
And it's the big change has been, as I say, the increase since the 1990s.
You know, back then in the 80s and 70s and 80s, there were only a handful that kids would be given and not many shots.
But like the United States, the number of shots went up and up and up.
And then it started including things like hepatitis, you know, which even on their own terms, kids are not supposed to get.
And, you know, up to this point today, Where, like you say, a child might get almost 80 shots by the time they're a teenager in a country like the United States.
Now, I think there have been some positive moves to try and reduce the number of recommended vaccines on the schedule, but we have to keep in mind they're all fraudulent.
Yes, none of them are required.
So, I agree.
We need more.
And some people are saying, well, you know, RFK Jr. is doing his work, he's in there.
Hard for us to know how that's going to pan out because.
Obviously, people can still get all of these vaccines, and when they take their children to the doctor, most doctors are still in that mode of thinking where they think all vaccines are required and that you give as many as you can, etc.
So, whether that pans out with any positive influence, I'm not sure.
We can see on the ground what is positive is that more people are turning away from vaccines at the moment than going in the other direction.
So, countries like New Zealand, it's definitely dropped off, and a lot of parents now saying no.
To the whole vaccination schedule.
Good, good.
And is there a lot of pressure on parents?
What is the situation with parental consent there in New Zealand?
It's not.
So we don't have the same situation like California has where children are required to have all the childhood vaccinations in order to go to school and things that there isn't, sort of mandatory things like that in place.
But in saying that if you go to a university like a college and you go into particularly a health related career, You're expected to have all of the vaccines plus, you know.
So, um, Mark has a funny story where he nearly didn't become a doctor because he was very on the cusp of not taking.
Yeah, I got identified as a medical student, red flagged.
Yeah, I hadn't had all the jabs and I was so close not to having them.
And uh, unfortunately, I was gaslit by some of the physicians in the hospital where I was working.
And when I raised a few concerns, they said, Oh, no, this is it's all discredited anti vaxxer stuff.
They said, don't even bother looking at that stuff because, yeah, there's been a lot of analysis, et cetera.
And yeah, so I came close to not having many of the vaccines when I was a medical student.
But unfortunately, yeah, that pressure of they said I couldn't progress basically into clinical medicine.
And unfortunately, I had a few of the vaccines back then, but luckily, no adverse events.
It's kind of a loyalty test, isn't it?
You know, are you loyal to pharma?
If not, we can't put you in the medical field if you're going to question what pharma is doing.
It's kind of interesting how they focus on medical students like that.
And doctors and nurses.
Yeah.
Exactly.
It's opticians, it's every physio across the board, you know.
And you're right, it totally is.
It's this test.
And you realize I didn't kind of appreciate it until what happened after 2020, where when you start questioning germ, questioning vaccines is standing on a landmine, but questioning germ theory is like, you cannot be in the club if you think like this.
It's real, you'll be ostracized.
Yeah.
And they don't want any discussion about it.
That was what was terrible our training in the medical system about vaccines was essentially based around how many vaccines kids should have, like, you know, memorizing the schedule and how to deal with so called anti vaxxers.
And they were presented as, you know, these deluded people who were making money out of, I don't know how you make money being an anti vaxxer.
Yeah, we know how you make money selling vaccines, but to tell people not to buy it, there's no money in that, really.
Yeah, well, while Sam's bank accounts were being frozen, we were looking up Pfizer going, my goodness, they made 100 billion out of that one product.
And we couldn't quite work out how the money is in being against the vaccines.
But we were told, it was what we were told, David, we were told that these anti vaccine people are sophisticated operators who, you know, make a lot of money.
And it was, we didn't even look back then at science.
They didn't say to us, well, here's the figures or here's the original papers.
They didn't want you looking at that.
So essentially, and we found out since then that the medical schools, the academia, the scientific journals are largely controlled by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment.
It's in their interest to train the doctors up.
And Peter Gotche, his book, Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime, really exposes this.
It's redundant, right?
Yeah.
The narratives are set by the industry.
So there'll be these catchphrases.
Safe and effective is one that came out of the thalidomide era, and they'll have all of these things that doctors go around saying.
The doctors think that this comes from honest, hard working doctors, and the origins of these catchphrases go back to the pharmaceutical industry and their marketing gurus.
Unfortunately, it permeates the whole medical world to the point where it's just taken for granted and believed.
Do you know, really quickly, I can't remember if I told you this last time, David, but I I remember so vividly.
I graduated in 2005 from medical school.
And so, around 2003, I think it was, we had our pediatric rotation.
And they spent a morning with us teaching us how to deal with anti vaxxers.
Pharmaceutical Industry Narratives00:06:56
That was the whole thing.
And they said, I remember it because I was, I mean, I was staunchly pro vaccine at this point.
And that they would say, they'll come at you and they'll have lots of paperwork.
And don't worry about looking at any of it.
What you need to focus on is that they've refuted all this, that this has all been, it's nonsense what they're telling you.
They're in a cult and this is what they believe, and you have to kind of talk them out of it.
And it was this really patronizing kind of talk down.
I'm like, oh, yes, doctors, we know best.
And now I think, oh my gosh, they're just training you up to what that this is a really evil kind of.
And I don't know if that's still going, but that's definitely what I had.
Yeah.
Well, I remember in the summer of 2020 when they were talking about rolling out this vaccine.
And they had already war gamed how they were going to psychologically manipulate people.
Yale had done a study and they had about a dozen different categories of things that they could use.
And they'd actually done double blind testing, unlike the vaccines.
So they actually tested the psychological stuff in the way that you would think that they would test a drug or something.
But they had a control group that didn't get the narrative and then somebody else that they would use that argument on to see if it was effective.
And it was all the kind of stuff like, you know, you.
You need to do this for your neighbor.
This is like the moonshot.
You need to trust science.
And all the narratives that we were sold, those were all tested with focus groups and with control groups.
And that part of it was very scientific.
That was the only part that really had any science with it, was the behavioral science.
And it's kind of interesting because they create this kind of science fiction world with viruses and all the rest of the stuff.
And it is an interesting and very complete universe, you know.
But of course, J.R.R. Tolkien did that with Lord of the Rings.
He had a very Intricate universe that he created, but it was all fake.
So just because it's intricate doesn't mean that it's true.
And, and a good science fiction is when you don't have logical gaps in the universe that you've created, right?
And that was what I was seeing in 2020.
When I'm watching this closely, it's like, wait a minute.
Um, you know, what they're telling you doesn't make any sense at all.
For example, all the stuff that your mask doesn't protect you, other people's mask protects you, all that kind of stuff, which has been the long term narrative for the vaccine.
And that was a tip as to where they were going with the vaccine.
But, um, you know, that, that type of stuff, they had all these different Things that were just illogical that they were telling people that made absolutely no sense, even if you believed the virology.
What they were telling people didn't make any sense.
It didn't hang together.
No, and that astounded us too, David.
In New Zealand, we had these really peculiar things like the government introduced this level system and this traffic light system.
And they said, hey, look, when there are heaps of cases out there, we're going to shut down the whole country.
It goes into red light, et cetera.
Cases we can open things up again.
You know, this is during the COVID era.
And then they just did the complete opposite in front of everyone.
So we have no cases.
We literally had no cases, even on their terms.
And they shut New Zealand down and said, you can't leave your house.
And then later on in 2022, when they allowed the rat test, the rapid antigen test to flood out there, of course, people just started testing at home and the number of cases went through the roof.
And then they just said, oh, it's time to open up.
You know, it was completely illogical.
It made no sense on their own traffic light level system.
And Sam and I, of course, had refuted the entire notion that there was a SARS CoV 2 virus or that COVID 19 represented some sort of new illness.
It was all circular reasoning.
But aside from that, we thought the people who bought into the narrative, surely at this point, they're going, this makes no sense, you know.
But for the people who really buy into the narrative, I think they just take the bits that suit them and discard the bits that don't suit them.
That's right.
And I mean, we could see that in.
I don't know how it was in New Zealand, but here, you know, if you went to a restaurant, for example, you had to wear a mask in order to be seated at a table.
But once you got seated at the table, you could take the mask off.
And then if you need to get up to go to the bathroom, you could walk through the restaurant without a mask on.
It was all okay.
And it's like, wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense.
And I had a couple of, I knew I wasn't going to get anywhere if it was a chain, but I went to places that were locally owned and I said, I want to speak to the owner.
And I talked to them and they said, yeah, we know it doesn't make any sense, but you got to do it.
And it's like, no, you're selling the rope that's going to hang you.
This is crazy.
And it was that kind of crazy stuff.
And yet, the reality is that people were going along with it, whether they believed it or not.
I don't know if other people believed it or they disbelieved it, but I know they complied with it.
And, you know, it's just to me, that was the worst kind of insanity.
Now, we haven't had any kind of review or anything.
They didn't even pretend to have a review here in the United States.
There has been a pretend review, a pretend inquiry in the UK.
And you've got one going in New Zealand as well, right?
You've got a couple of them.
And these are typically going to be.
A whitewash is that situation that's going on in New Zealand, I guess?
Yeah, they make it out like something's actually happening, nothing's happening.
It's just to placate the masses that there was some, oh, let's find a, oh, this could have been done.
You know, maybe we should have locked down harder earlier.
Maybe that should have been what happened.
Yeah, it's an absolute gaslight, David, and it's really disappointing to see people buying into this stuff.
And obviously, the government run these so called inquiries.
They appoint people they say are independent, but of course, they're these people that already go along with.
The establishment narrative, etc.
So, here in New Zealand, to give you an idea of what a joke it was, the people that propagated the scam so, the big names like the Director General of Health and Jacinda Ardern, the Minister of Health, and yeah, the Prime Minister at that time, Ardern all of them were excused at the last minute.
They didn't have to answer any questions.
And because, you know, the public had a lot of questions for them, but suddenly at the last minute they announced, no, they don't have to say anything.
Thing that's you know, they were running the scam, but that's nothing to do.
Yeah, it was really bizarre, and then you had it's really sad to see because you had these groups uh going to the inquiry and presenting serious information, which was quickly dismissed because the government would then just counter it with their quote expert who would say, Oh no, that's that's not correct.
I can't get into the details why that's not correct, but um, because I'm an expert, I just know this stuff, so yeah, complete waste of time.
Going Upstream In Virology00:09:51
But I mean, countries like um.
New Zealand and the UK.
They love this sort of thing, you know, their royal inquiries or their national inquiries and stuff.
Yeah, we do that occasionally.
We'll have congressional committees that look into something like Benghazi and they just go back and forth.
Nothing ever comes of it.
We had the Warren Commission when JFK was assassinated, and what we got out of that was this magic bullet theory.
So maybe that's why the public is not pressing for this, or it might just be apathy.
Which is kind of what I'm thinking it is.
I'm thinking it's not so much, you know, we've tried this before and they never tell us the truth.
It's not that kind of cynicism.
I think it's really apathy from the American public.
And that's the thing that really concerns me.
We didn't even try to get any answers here in America.
But in some ways, I sympathize because everyone is saturated with constant fear and drama and war and whatever.
I mean, it's just overwhelming.
And I mean, the things I take that are really positive, like we talked about earlier, was just that people are.
People, many, many people are regretting that they ever took the vaccine.
They're not willing to be tricked again.
There's this huge distrust within the medical system.
People are fearful of it and don't want to kind of be involved with it.
And it's questioning all sorts of other things like virology.
And I think that is the great thing about it we have to take the positives and everything comes from the people.
It can't come from, I mean, the government is just so, as you know, it's just so controlled.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
And that's why we really focus, David, as you know, with our publications is to.
Get people to the point where they can see, oh, this contagion is not what I've been told.
Because look at this influenza, the Spanish flu experiments, they didn't work.
Look at the measles, they never ever showed it was contagious, despite these things.
Common colds didn't work in their 40 year history of trying these experiments.
So, and once you get people to see that stuff, they can't unsee it.
So, they don't need to then go back through and repeat the process because one of the worst things you'll see is people getting into arguments.
About face masks, for instance.
And if they can see that there's no contagion in the first place, the face mask has nothing to do with that whole world.
Now, face masks, they do have uses.
So, for people that work in industry where there's particulate matter in the factories or environment, it's really important.
But face masks are not, they should not be a discussion within.
Yeah, and that was one of the things we were talking about at the time.
You know, they're saying, okay, virus particles are this size.
And if you look at the size of the filter, it's like it's not going to work for that.
They even put it on the side of the box, you know, it's not going to protect you against any virus.
And yet it was mandated for this kind of stuff.
That's what I was saying about when I was talking about when I said, if you create a science fiction world, you've got to have some consistent rules within it.
Yeah.
So don't tell me that you got this tiny particle and tell me that I've got to.
It's like saying that you're going to keep mosquitoes out by using a chain link fence.
It isn't going to work.
Yeah.
Totally.
And that's what we think we call them distraction narratives because they're downstream.
From the key issues.
And we always say to people, go upstream.
Like, is contagion a thing?
And it's the same with vaccination.
Now, we know that there are some researchers who focus on the epidemiology of vaccines, and that's fine because they often show they can refute vaccines that way.
But we also encourage people to go upstream and say the epidemiology doesn't even matter because the foundational science fails.
And not just on one, but on everything, on all of virology.
On all of the bacterial so called infections.
None of them show that there are microbes that cause disease.
Now, you do get some microbes that increase in numbers during certain diseases like pneumonia, et cetera, but there's no experiment that ever showed that they cause the disease.
It may be a consequence, in other words, right?
A consequence of the disease and effect of the disease and not the cause.
Totally.
And once people get this, that they can see, oh my goodness, the germ theory is wrong.
It should never have been called a theory.
It was a hypothesis.
And the hypothesis was refuted over and over again.
The experiments kept on failing.
And they just had to keep making up these new narratives to keep people in this mode.
And once people see it, as I say, they don't even worry about these downstream arguments.
And straight away, they say, well, that's fine because it doesn't bother me.
And, you know, it's giving people that knowledge not to be afraid because, you know, it's one thing for people to realize that vaccines aren't useful, but it's way more beneficial for themselves and their family to know, hey, you're not going to catch diseases.
Diseases build up from within.
You're not, other people are not going to make you sick in the sense that they're going to give you some sort of infectious microbe.
And once that way of thinking disappears, we find that people are just, They're free basically, they've left that cage.
The other thing, just touching on what you were saying before about masks and things, what really woke me up in a way in 2020 was when you see that the fraud is right in front of you.
So, the fraud, what I saw strongly when really started to question things was the tests, and that the tests themselves, these are when the PCR tests were being used, would say these are not diagnostic.
I thought, how can this?
Be and that's before you even go upstream, like Mark says, and you go, Oh my gosh, there's no such thing as a SARS CoV 2 doesn't even exist.
This is when you can see it with open eyes and go, Oh my gosh, it's right in my face here on the mask packets.
It says that these won't work, and yet people are walking around with them.
You think, How can this be?
And that following that road will eventually lead you to freedom by going, I don't need to be part, I don't need to partake in these rituals anymore.
It truly was a bad science fiction movie, wasn't it?
And I remember there was a head of state in maybe it was Africa or something where he tested some fruit and he got a positive test on it.
But I had an EMS listener who has worked in the field for decades and he was very skeptical about all this stuff.
And he had somebody open up on these packages and run it straight through without touching anything else and got a positive.
So you look at all this stuff.
And again, the guy who developed it said you can't use this for diagnostic purposes.
Kerry Mullis said that.
And so, knowing all that stuff, I got to say, it was still, you have it been back of your mind.
It's like, well, you know, you hear all this stuff.
And, you know, I was absolutely convinced because of the war game, the germ games that they've been doing.
The first one, two months before 9 11, Dark Winter.
I knew what that was.
I'd been tipped off by somebody who said, they're talking about Dark Winter 2.
And you know what that was about?
And he's like, yeah, I do.
And so, be careful, watch out for this.
And then it came out.
It was exactly what they had practiced, you know, for 20 years.
The first one, just two months before 9 11.
And so, I knew it was a hoax, but you still have in the back of your mind, you know, what if, you know, there's this little thing.
But if you understand what you're telling people, then it is the final pandemic and you don't have to worry about it anymore.
The truth sets you free, doesn't it?
Yeah, exactly.
And I think it's getting people into that mindset, like Sam says, of just not participating in the rituals.
You just completely get out of it.
And people say, well, you need to take a test.
And you say, well, no, I don't.
There's no need for me to do that because it's not a diagnostic test.
Or people will say, Well, you need to wear a mask.
And you say, Well, why?
I'm not on a building site.
I'm not breathing in dust.
So that's not a thing.
It's getting them well and truly out of that.
And yeah, as you say, these exercises they were doing date right back in those decades leading up.
And obviously, in the 2010s, these tabletop exercises started becoming more common and right up until COVID time.
And in the final pandemic in our book, we also exposed that they were.
In the late 2010s, so around 2017, 2018, suddenly the whole anti vaxxer thing becomes big in their white papers and they start talking about how to this problem with anti vaxxers and how they're going to combat it and all this kind of stuff.
Because what was interesting was that these organizations who are linked up to globalist organizations, pharmaceutical industry, the medical establishment, none of them were really talking about this until that two years.
Before COVID, and clearly they had anticipated that there was going to be a rise in anti vaccine sentiment.
But one thing that was interesting was that they didn't anticipate the rise in people who could see straight through germ theory and virology.
And they didn't see it, it was people like Sam that they didn't see coming because, you know, she's a network TV doctor, you know, presenting generally mainstream stuff.
Pushing Truth Through Substack00:02:21
And then suddenly, way off script.
The COVID narrative is so preposterous that people like us said, Well, hang on a minute.
We need to say something here.
And of course, the whole house of cards came down with these alleged pandemics.
Well, I really do appreciate and admire your integrity.
Sam, you're the only person I know that's lost two careers over this.
Not only on TV, but in terms of medicine as well, the way they've come after you and punitively come after you as well.
And so I really do appreciate your integrity, sticking to the truth.
It is so important what you're doing.
Tell people again is the website the best place for people to find you?
And can they get your books there at the website?
Is that the best place?
Yeah, thank you, David.
Yeah, please.
It's because, you know, we do the censorship dance too, like you do.
It's always just, especially Substack's been tricky.
So, no, the best place to find us is always the website, drsambailey.com.
And you can, there's a tab there which has got all of our books.
And you can download Mark's latest one for free or buy it if you.
Wish to, that's all good.
It's, um, we just wish to spread that information and, um, hopefully reduce people's fear in the process.
So, yeah.
And people, there's a search bar on the website, so people can just because we've covered hundreds and hundreds of topics, because people will say, Hey, what about rabies, etc.?
So, we've got a search bar there, and people can just type in these terms, and, uh, hopefully, we've covered it already.
Yeah.
And so, a lot of information.
Yes.
Yes.
Yeah.
I'm also, I'm sorry, I'm also on YouTube.
But I'm hanging on by a thread there.
And yeah, just so you know, but there's Substack and also I'm on Telegram and Instagram in a little way.
But yeah, so just if you.
And people can find you at Dr. Sam Bailey.
That's D R S A M Bailey, B A I L E Y dot com, right?
And that's a place where they can find, go directly there.
And then you don't have any people in between trying to hide you.
And that's what the search engines have become.
They become not a tool to find things, but a tool to hide things, especially people like Dr. Bailey.
And so I really do appreciate what you're doing.
Search Engines As Hiding Tools00:04:38
I know that it's cost you a great deal.
You didn't become billionaires like the people at Pfizer and Moderna, instead, just the opposite.
And you've continued to push the truth out there to help people.
I really do appreciate that.
Can't tell you how much I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Thank you, David.
Thank you for what you're doing.
Appreciate it.
Have a good day.
Well, I want to give you a little bit of an appendix here to this interview because after we.
Stop the interview.
They were still on the line, and we talked a little bit about what they've been going through.
They had a fascinating story that you've got to hear.
So, here's what they had to say.
You tried to come to the United States.
And what happened when you tried to make the trip?
So, in June of last year, I was trying to buy some stationery from the shop.
And what happened was, none of my cards would work.
And I was like, this is really weird because I just paid off my credit card.
And so I went to the bank.
And then the bank teller wrote on a piece of paper and said, Have you recently been made bankrupt?
And she slid it to me.
And I was like, what?
No?
Like, I would know something like this, wouldn't I?
And she's like, yeah, yeah, definitely.
And then she went away and she's on lots of different phone calls.
And then she comes back to me and shows me the website, which is for in New Zealand, it's the insolvency website.
And my name is on there.
And three days earlier, a high court had declared me bankrupt because of this money from the medical council that they say I owe the $170,000, $160,000.
Yeah, so just to be clear, it wasn't because Sam was insolvent or bankrupt.
It was just because she'd never paid the medical authorities their COVID fines, which, you know, were $160,000 or something.
And they did all this stuff in secret.
So it's like a bank robbery, except the banker is the one passing you the note saying we took all your money.
It was insane, honestly, David, like when it happened, because it caused such a shock.
And then from there, because we were supposed to be going to the States, Um, for this trip, and you're not allowed to technically travel overseas without permission, um, you know, because they think you're going to abscond with money or something.
And so, I thought, Oh, no, I'm not going to be able to go to the states, and this is something I was just so looking forward to.
And anyway, we fought it in the courts, went to the high court two weeks before we were due to go to the states because they hadn't done their due process, they'd never told me, they'd never served me with any information whatsoever that this had been going on behind the scenes.
Wow, so um.
But the judge reserved the decision.
So I didn't know whether I'd be able to travel.
And anyway, I just, I believe in God.
And I went, we flew up, and Mark and I split up our gear.
So, because Mark was speaking at this conference, and so I was supposed to, Mark had the laptop, and I had the car keys and some New Zealand money in case they said no.
And then we went through the smart things gates.
And then it did the green tick.
And I basically just broke down crying because I finally knew that I could go.
And we hadn't been, the last time we'd been to the States was in 2016.
And for us, this was such a huge thing because it was meeting all these people that we've been working with since COVID.
And I've always wanted to meet.
And now I knew I could give them people hugs and actually talk.
And it was just such an amazing, we had such a wonderful time.
And then when we came back, I got the news that the bankruptcy had been annulled.
So it was just an amazing time.
Yeah.
So the judge ruled that it was unlawful, the actions that they'd taken trying to seize bank accounts, et cetera.
They're still actively going after saying that Sam has to pay these COVID fines.
Even though the judges ruled it unlawful, they're still coming after you?
Well, he ruled the process that they took as unlawful, not the underlying claim that Sam needs to pay these COVID fines.
But it is preposterous.
Many doctors in New Zealand are starting to challenge this stuff now.
They're just saying, look, this is outrageous.
Why are we getting six figure fines for questioning something?
There's no patient has ever come forward to say they were harmed.
They can't find anyone in the entire nation who got harmed by anything that Sam said or that any of the other doctors said who were practicing at the time.
Judges Rule Fines Unlawful00:03:09
But this is the world we're living in where they are trying to scare.
We think it's a good sign that this is how desperate it's become that you have to give doctors six figure fines if they don't agree with the narrative.
And I think they'll be able to do it.
It shows desperation, doesn't it?
It shows desperation.
Yeah.
That's all they've got now is these financial penalties.
They know that they can't stop people from speaking out and.
Yeah, so that's, I think, we have to see the positive side of things.
And it was quite satisfying when the judge ruled in Sam's favor and told them it was unlawful what they were doing.
And it makes you much more resilient, like you said, David.
Like, I think in terms of realizing, okay, this is all they've got.
Like, they tried to get me to sign a gag order way back in September 2020, and I wouldn't, you know, and I'll never, I'm so pleased every step I've taken.
It's been an empowering thing, and I feel.
Great that this is all they've got, like they're still worried about me, little old me.
I'm not, you know, an aggressive person, but it's like this is the threat.
That's right.
Well, one person who is determined to tell the truth that's the key thing that they can't handle.
And of course, it's not science either.
If you can't handle skepticism, you know, science only advances when somebody questions a narrative, and they should never be in fear of trying to explain themselves and what they're doing.
Then it obviously isn't science, it's not based on data.
And the scientific method.
That's what I've said all along about so many of these different frauds.
We see this type of thing happening over and over again, but it really underscores, I think, the fact that you kind of see this as a ministry.
You see this as a way of helping people.
And that is really your heart and your motivation.
And I really appreciate that.
Thank you so much for doing that.
Really do appreciate that.
Thank you, both of you, doctors Mark and Sam Bailey.
God bless.
Thank you.
Thank you, David.
Thank you, David.
Thank you.
Well, we'll fit that in somehow.
That was too important to let go.
Yeah, absolutely.
So, yeah, I got the same thing when they came after me.
In a sense, no explanation as to what was going on.
It was just PayPal.
They also owned Venmo and they shut me down on both of those platforms at the same time.
I spent two hours on the phone with the guy and the guy kept going on because, well, I can't see any reason given here at all.
Just a message, shut this account down is right now, you know, and no explanation given.
I've never been given an explanation.
I don't have the money to sue them in court and get an explanation.
So, I know what it is anyway.
I'm not going to spend the time and the money to try to get confirmation of it.
So, yeah, but you have gone through more than anybody I know.
And so I really do appreciate that.
Thank you so much.
It's always an honor to talk to you.
Yeah, no, thank you, David.
Yeah, thank you.
And so pleased to see you doing well.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Yeah, in spite of a lot of different things.
But again, it's been prayer.
Protecting Common Man Dignity00:01:07
The common man.
They created common core to dumb down our children.
They created common past to track and control us.
Their commons project to make sure the commoners own nothing.
And the communist future.
They see the common man as simple, unsophisticated, ordinary.
But each of us has worth and dignity created in the image of God.
That is what we have in common.
That is what they want to take away.
Their most powerful weapons are isolation, deception, intimidation.
They desire to know everything about us while they hide everything from us.
It's time to turn that around and expose what they want to hide.
Please share the information and links you'll find at TheDavidNightShow.com.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for sharing.
If you can't support us financially, please keep us in your prayers.