All Episodes
Previous Next
March 17, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
54:00
Conversations with Dr. Cowan & Friends| Ep 45: Dr. Mark Bailey
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
I took a little hiatus from my conversations with Dr. Cowan and friends for no other particular reason than just laziness, I think.
But I was provoked.
By the way, Mark, so my guest today is Dr. Mark Bailey.
And Mark, I always tell my guests, When I do this little introduction, if you hear anything that is incorrect or anything, just please correct me because I'm happy to be corrected.
But so I was tooling along thinking, you know, I haven't done any interviews for a while.
And then the article that you wrote on a paper, I think it's by a guy named Alden, that really examined Whether genetic engineering or genetic modification of RNA injections is real or not.
And that's something that, you know, a lot of us have been going back and forth about because, you know, amongst the things that we found out aren't real is the central dogma of genetics.
So it's hard to know what They can do and what they can't do.
And so that's that stimulated me to say, I got to contact Mark and get him on here and try to explain this stuff.
For those of you who don't know, Mark is the is one half of the Mark and Sam Bailey Show.
And I know Sam has gotten a lot of deserved, you know, publicity or But what people may not know is Mark has written some amazing articles.
I mean, I've read every one.
And, you know, it's the clarity and the precision and, you know, the rigor is, is just, I'm just really appreciative of what you've been doing.
And I don't know that you get quite enough credit.
Your wife is quite the personality, so that's probably a good thing.
But anyways, Mark is a medical doctor, although apparently doesn't work anymore, which a lot of us who have sense have decided that that's the only way to go.
And so, anyways, welcome, Mark, and thanks for being here.
And if you could just do a brief, you know, who you are, and then let's get right into this paper, and what's real with this whole, you know, when you, the question is really if you inject somebody with RNA, does that modify your DNA, and are you then forever genetically modified?
Because I have my doubts, but I must admit, I don't really know, because I'll say more along the way.
But anyways, that was a long-winded, rambling introduction, just to say welcome.
Thank you, Tom.
It's a pleasure to be here.
Just a quick intro, as you've already said.
I'm Dr. Sam Bailey's husband, and I've been keeping In the background for the last couple of years, and probably more in the last six months, I've come out in public a bit more often.
But yeah, like all of us, I was trained in allopathic medicine and graduated in 1999.
Worked in traditional kind of medical practice, although for years never really kind of found a comfortable niche.
I guess right from the start, I was never satisfied with the medical model.
Started looking at alternative explanations for a whole lot of stuff that just didn't seem to make sense.
Had time out in there as a professional athlete, which I did for about five years, which probably helped keep me sane.
Just being able to run and cycle all day and maybe just to do medicine on the back burner slightly more.
But eventually I reached the point in 2016 where I just couldn't find out how to make medical practice work in the traditional system that we were stuck within.
So 2016, I quit my medical practice and had no intention of having anything to do with medicine ever again.
But that all changed in late 2019, start of 2020, when Sam just started a YouTube channel.
And we just couldn't believe what was going on with the whole COVID situation.
Started reading the paper.
Had you looked into virology before that or not so much?
We hadn't actually, Tom, and like most people, we had had traditional microbiology and virology training.
So we accepted the virology models.
We hadn't looked at it properly.
And it was really end of 2019, start of 2020 that we started questioning the whole thing.
And I think in some ways, the gift of this whole COVID scam was that it woke so many of us up.
And for Sam and I, it was We just started reading these papers that were coming out of China and Wuhan and just trying to put the pieces together and just saying to ourselves, this actually makes no sense.
And the deeper we got into it, the more we realized that not only was virology a sham, but the whole of Germ theory itself was an absolute sham.
And I guess I've had some warnings along the way, like, personally, I gave up on vaccinations about a decade ago.
And part of that was being a professional athlete and just not really wanting these foreign substances going in my body.
Yeah, I'm in the best possible shape.
And also just an observation that I could see amongst my own patients, the ones getting all the vaccines certainly weren't healthier.
And it was often the ones who would be really resistant and tell you, don't worry about it, you don't need them, who actually seem to be perfectly healthy and have very, very little concern.
So yeah, there was a whole lot of warning signs there, I guess, but it was really the You know, the Corona situation for Sam and I was the Great Awakening and started that journey.
And since the start of 2020, we've both turned our attention to full-time research into these fields.
And obviously for Sam, the manifestation has been her social media platforms.
And that's the way we've been communicating to the world.
Yep.
All right.
So, let me start you out.
I think there was a quote in your paper, which, by the way, we will put a link and everybody really should read it.
So, the quote was, mRNA... I try to keep things as un-jargon as possible.
So, mRNA is the piece of genetic material that's Supposedly, and I use that word, you know, because I would even love to hear whether there actually is mRNA in these so-called vaccines.
So anyways, mRNA is unstable.
It doesn't enter the nucleus.
It's broken down after protein transcription has occurred.
It is unable to alter DNA.
I'll tell you the first thing that struck me about that.
I think that was written by a Pfizer person.
The first thing that struck me about that quote was the process of mRNA being made into protein is actually not called transcription.
It's called translation.
And so the person who wrote the quote got the basic terminology incorrect.
It should be after the protein is translated, I think.
But anyways, they got that wrong.
So let's start there.
Flesh that out.
Is that correct?
And what do we know about that?
We're just going back to the article I wrote, which was titled, you know, are the Pfizer injected now GMOs or genetically modified?
No, really, it was, to be honest, Tom, it was a very brief commentary, and I didn't dive into things too deeply there.
And part of it was just poking a little fun back at the pharmaceutical companies, the fact checkers, And all of these health authorities in various countries who basically told us that the way these injections will work will be that they will go into the body.
There'll be a protein produced, the spike protein, your body will generate antibodies in response to this and then hey presto, you'll be immune to this fake virus.
But the thing was, we all knew, I mean, this is not even new information that that model is completely bogus, because
I think you'll be well aware of the whole thing with reverse transcriptase, was that in the 1980s, you know, with the whole AIDS scandal, the retrovirologists were telling us that reverse transcriptase was specific to these retroviruses, such as HIV.
But if you looked at the earlier papers, they'd already refuted themselves and shown that there was reverse transcriptase just in normal mammalian cells.
They didn't have to have, you know, fake virus infections.
So the presence of reverse transcriptase... Maybe just for our listeners, if you could go through, tell us what the central dogma is and where does reverse transcriptase fit into that model?
The whole central dogma of molecular biology is, I mean, the whole thing's preposterous.
It was basically just a comment by Francis Crick in 1958, that we had a permanent genetic code in the form of DNA, which was then transcribed into RNA.
And that RNA was then used by the cell to be translated into proteins.
Right.
And that do their various functions in the body.
But as far as I could say, there was no they didn't do any research to establish this.
It was just an assertion.
Yeah.
And the dogma was it never goes like protein doesn't make DNA and protein doesn't make RNA and RNA doesn't make DNA.
Right.
So one way.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And I mean.
That doesn't make a lot of sense for a number of reasons, but we can even look historically at the problems that developed soon after that.
Because by the 1960s, you know, Barbara McClintock was doing some really important work showing that the genetic codes could be changed by exposing cells to various shocks.
Now, she was looking at things like You know, whether they were nutritional shocks or exposure to x-rays, all these kind of toxic things.
But they could certainly cause the genetic code to change.
And she, I don't know if she invented the term or someone else did, but they had that term jumping genes.
They knew that the DNA could actually move around within the chromosomes, that it wasn't fixed like they said it was.
So that was the first problem, and her work was ignored for a long time, although in the 1980s received a bit more attention, which was good.
And the other problem which we mentioned was the whole reverse transcriptase issue, which had been found to be part of normal mammalian cells, it was always present, but got swept under the carpet with the whole retrovirus nonsense that came about in the 1970s and 80s.
So, I mean, it was apparent as soon as the dogma was invented that it wasn't going to apply, because there were mechanisms that worked in the other direction.
And exactly what they were, it was difficult to say, but certainly there was... I think the name reverse transcriptase is terrible, because it implies that it's backwards, that something's going wrong.
And, and I think that's skewed a lot of our thought and interfered with our understanding of how the whole genetic code works.
So, yes, but, you know, I think it's been accepted for decades that there is these mechanisms to go from RNA back to DNA.
That's at least one mechanism.
And as far as going from proteins to RNA, I've never seen that sequence or step being identified.
But we know from Barbara McClintock's work that there are these, whatever you want to call them, stresses in the environment or signals in the environment are capable of causing changes in the DNA.
And how that works, I don't know.
I mean, I think I've heard you talking about it before that The chromosomal structure may respond to signals, whether they're sonic or another form of EMF that we don't really appreciate.
Yeah.
Or whether they respond to subtle chemicals like pheromones and things that we don't fully understand.
But yeah, I think just going back to clarify for our audience, this whole central dogma of the DNA going in one direction down to the protein.
It is absolutely ridiculous.
So this, the recent study, the Swedish one by Alden and Thiem, was the first published one we've seen that's shown specifically that the Pfizer sequence, so the mRNA sequence that's in the Pfizer injections, seems to go backwards and get transcribed into DNA.
But it's certainly not the first time that's been done in a lab.
I mean, there's multiple experiments which have shown that before.
So it's kind of odd that... Shown what?
Shown that injecting mRNA sequences gets somehow reverse transcripted into DNA.
Correct.
Yeah, that's been done before, which is what was strange.
And in my article, we pointed out that we've got a group of doctors that's been against the whole COVID, you know, the mandates, the legislation.
The terrible products that they've rolled out that they're calling vaccines.
So our group pointed out to the authorities here, we showed them papers saying that, well, you're telling us that, you know, the mRNA can't possibly go back into DNA, but we've already got studies which demonstrate in vitro, you know, in the test tube, that you can do that.
And it's, and the other strange thing was, was that Moderna itself, which is Been around since about 2009, I think, when they first started up.
This is what they do.
This is their whole thing, you know, is converting RNA back into DNA.
That's been a massive part of their research.
So it was sort of odd.
Yeah.
So part of my article was just poking fun back at the fact checkers and regulators for saying that there's no way that RNA goes back into DNA.
So, but the Swedish study was interesting, and I actually thought it was quite well designed, the Swedish study, because unlike what we're used to with these virology experiments that we see, they actually did a control.
Yeah.
And they checked to see whether they weren't just picking up artifact, you know, something as a result of their own experiment was just producing the results.
We should point out the limitations of the study that they did.
One was that it was in a test tube, so we're not making comments about what happens in a complex organism like a human.
The cells were abnormal in that they were liver cancer cells.
I don't think that interferes with this particular mechanism that we're looking at with the reverse transcription, but that's just something else to keep in mind.
And yeah, but I think it was pretty convincing that they started with mRNA sequences, and then they detected the corresponding DNA inside the liver cells, and it was pretty much a perfect match.
Well, I think they did a 444 nucleotide amplicon out of the supposed spike protein sequence, which is about 4000 or 4200 or something.
But there's no way that they would have picked up that by chance.
And certainly when they did their control experiment, they didn't pick up this DNA sequence in their control experiment.
So I think it showed pretty nicely in a test tube that the Pfizer mRNA can definitely convert back into human DNA.
All right, let me see if I got this right, just to explain it.
So, basically, they, Moderna, Pfizer, inexplicably is claiming that there's no way that RNA can become DNA in our cells, even though we've known about reverse transcriptase and the fact that DNA can be easily made by all normal cells With this enzyme since the 70s, as far as I know.
So that's weird that they would say that.
But anyways, so they did.
And so these guys in a cell culture using, I think they're called WHO cells or something like that, they showed convincingly that this in fact can happen.
Not only can, but did happen.
that they exposed the cell culture to RNA sequences and it made DNA.
And so there you go.
Now, I guess what you're saying is we don't know whether that would happen in any organism that's, you know, real.
Nor, and this has always been what's been interesting to me.
Do we even know that these RNA sequences create or get translated into proteins in any living organism?
Yeah, I mean, that's a great question.
So first of all, the whole spike proteins are strange for a start.
Like, I don't think there's a good explanation as to what these things, the origins of them or what they actually do.
Everything we've looked at, I mean, you can make them in cell culture experiments with mammalian cells.
But what exactly their function is, is never been clear to me.
Now, of course, they're telling us that it's part of the coronavirus envelope.
And, you know, we know that that's complete nonsense because there's no such thing as any coronavirus for a start.
They're just making mistakes about their observations and test tubes.
But so yeah, with regards to production of the spike protein, I mean, I think it's convincing that it can be done in a test tube again.
So they... What convinced you that it can be done in a test tube?
They introduced a sequence into E. coli bacteria, which are widely used for gene sequences to be inserted to produce certain products.
So you can definitely produce, I mean, but the term spike protein.
Do they use RNA or DNA to do that?
With that, you can insert a E. coli, you insert DNA, I believe, to do that.
I'm not actually sure how they create their colonies to do this.
Essentially, you need it to incorporate into the genome of E. coli, which I think is like a, from memory, that's like a circular kind of genome that it has.
And you need to cut it somewhere and introduce the new sequence.
So E. coli, yeah, they can produce spike proteins, and they do that commercially.
And we know that they can do this.
Somehow they must convert the RNA sequence Reverse transcribe that into DNA and then put that in a culture medium with E. coli, somehow splice it in.
I don't know how they do that, but and then you know, then it will, it's like making insulin essentially.
Totally.
And I mean, as you know, that's how insulin has been made commercially for years, is that you insert the insulin gene into the E. coli, and then the E. coli just keeps producing the insulin indefinitely.
But I think with the whole, the injections that we're seeing into humans, it's a completely Different story, because as you know, a human body has got hundreds of billions of cells.
It's not, we're not talking about one cell.
So say the case we were just talking about with E. coli, we're talking about unicellular organisms, you know, just a single cell, and you're inserting genetic material into them, and then getting them to produce a protein.
So the human situation is far more complicated.
So when the, say this mRNA does do something inside your body, once it's injected, it certainly can't go to every cell in the body.
It's not going around individually, knocking on each cell's door, going inside and, you know, giving these new instructions to every single cell.
We know it can't possibly do that.
We know it must just, if it's working, it must just go to some cells in the body.
And we know from the lipid nanoparticle bio-distribution studies that came out of Japan, that Pfizer did, in rodents at least, that the lipid nanoparticles, they do go everywhere.
They go throughout the body.
But certainly, my point is, is that they're not going to get taken up by every single cell.
They're only going to get taken up by some cells.
So the question then becomes, the cells that do take up the lipid nanoparticles and the mRNA with the Pfizer sequence, does the sequence become incorporated into just those cells?
Or does it go somewhere like, the worry would be if it went somewhere like the bone marrow?
And got into a stem cell, for instance.
And with with that possibility, you may get it affecting Much more of the body than say a specific cell like a liver cell or a muscle cell etc.
So yeah I think they're quite different things and the other worry there would be that if the sequence got taken up by one of the germ lines so if it got into in a female if it got into the eggs or in a male if it got into the sperm and you know but to be honest I mean they should be able to check this stuff really easily I mean Essentially, I don't think it would be a hard experiment to do.
Maybe just take 100 sperm samples, you know, semen samples from people that have been injected, and take 100 from people that haven't been injected, and then just compare the two.
Look for that specific Pfizer sequence.
Yeah.
It's actually a really good application of PCR.
I know a lot of people are skeptical of the PCR now because of the way it's been used for virology.
But if we're talking about looking for DNA sequences in a sample, it's actually really, really good technology.
So I think we could quite easily do that.
And the other thing to do would be to check females' eggs, of course, which is a little bit harder to do, but you can still harvest eggs from women.
And that's what I'd be doing anyway, and just seeing, has the sequence been incorporated?
But then we have to say... As far as you know, that's never been done.
No, but I'd be suspicious that Pfizer and Co haven't already done this, because, you know, Sam and I, we both used to work in clinical trials as supervising doctors, and the amount of specimens that you collect from the patients.
It's just incredible.
I mean, you're literally, there are times when you're just taking, you know, blood and other samples off them five times a day.
So there's certainly, you know, I imagine they collected a lot of information.
I can't say whether they analyze semen and stuff like that, but... But they never published it, as far as you know.
Do you know of any study in an animal or Or more specifically in a human, where they actually measured the quantity of this so-called spike protein that was produced?
Yeah, no, that's a problem because it's not a test that you can order, you know, you don't You don't have someone that's been injected with one of these products and then you can't take the lab form and say, what's the spike protein level in their blood?
And I think there'd be problems with it anyway, because we don't actually know what the spike protein would do if it is being produced inside the body, like whether it, like it may not even leave the cell, for instance, it may just stay inside the cell.
And there have been certain researchers that are saying, That it seems to go inside the nucleus with the various biochemical analysis that they've done, which would be a concern because usually you don't want foreign proteins going into the nucleus of a cell.
So I think it's difficult to know in vivo in a human.
What exactly is going on, because it may just be, you know, building up in one particular area, and not being released into the bloodstream or into any other fluids so.
It would be pretty hard to quantify.
You know, I guess it's like something like aluminium, you know, once that's in the body, you can't do a blood test to tell you how much aluminium is in your body.
Because usually, unfortunately, it goes somewhere bad, like into your brain.
And the only way to find it would be to go in there and take a biopsy.
And I think we have the same issue with the spike protein as yeah, because yeah, I have.
I know I've heard you and Andy chat about this.
The skepticism about does it actually even produce the spike protein in a human subject once it's been injected?
And I think that is far more difficult to know than, say, the in vitro experiments, which definitely seem to produce the spike protein using a vehicle like E. coli.
Right.
But the shocking thing is, and I've said this a lot, like if I was gonna inject people with a mRNA to make them make a spike protein, I would have spent a lot of time and effort to see I would have spent a lot of time and effort to see whether it actually makes you make a spike protein and
And that's the bizarre part to me, is none of us seem to be able to find a paper where they actually can tell us, you know, you get two nanograms of sputum protein, like, why didn't they measure it?
Like, how did they even know that it works or doesn't work?
Or, like, wouldn't somebody want to know that?
And apparently they'd have either they if they know they don't, They don't let us in on it.
Yeah, well I think there's just so many problems, as you know, and in some ways I can't even believe we're having this conversation because in 2020 people started contacting Sam saying, oh you better start looking into these vaccines that they're making.
And our position was, Well, this whole thing's a scam.
And by Christmas 2020, everyone's going to know it's a scam, that there's no pathogen.
Or even if people believed that there was a new virus, they could see that it was just a common cold or some sort of flu or something, if they bought into that whole theory.
We were very reluctant to even look at this stuff because we thought what's the point?
Like why on earth would you inject these ridiculous substances into your body when not only do they have no precedent in history, we don't know what kind of effects they're going to do, but there's just no point to it.
Because why on earth, what possible benefit could come from it?
So it's kind of been funny We've had to learn a lot more about it in recent times and especially in countries like where we are in New Zealand where unfortunately they tell us that 90% of the population has been injected with the Pfizer product at least twice and quite a few people three times.
Yeah, but no, I agree with you.
And I think it's funny because I had the same reaction.
Like, I'm not going to look into that.
Why?
Why would you do if there's no virus, then what's the point?
Like, just forget it.
And that'd be the end of it.
But it wasn't.
So no, no.
And we keep getting pulled into this stuff.
Like, you know, I thought we'd be finished on the, you know, showing that viruses are not pathogenic, but it seems that it's never ending.
You just have to keep going and going because of the onslaught that's coming from the other side.
But yeah, no, coming back to your question, yeah, I think it's so difficult to know.
And, you know, they end up doing these ridiculous measures like Antibodies and things like that, which we know introduced their whole other series of problems, because all they're detecting is various proteins and then attributing meaning to them, which, you know, we know is often completely false.
So, yeah, I would say, you know, what these things do in the body, it's it's just so hard to know.
But I mean, as you know, there are a few emails going around with the wider question of does this kind of technology mean that gene editing is possible?
And I think that's, that's much more of a complicated question.
We know gene editing is possible.
I mean there's no doubt about that because you know what they, if they have like a mouse, and they get an egg from the mouse and inject it with various genetic sequences.
They can then develop into a mouse with all sorts of weird things.
You might have seen the glow-in-the-dark mice.
Yeah, right.
Just the fact that E. coli can make insulin means there's some kind of GMO.
Definitely, but from what I've seen, when they do it to a complex organism like a mammal, you have to do it at the start, you know?
You have to take an egg or a sperm and you have to get a micropipette and inject it with a new sequence and that certainly creates a genetically modified organism.
Now, I don't think nature wants us to do this because I don't think nature wants glow-in-the-dark mice, or mice that have no hair, or, you know, the humanized mice that they're doing now.
You know, it's just, it's an abomination.
But it does show that genetic engineering is possible because, yeah, sometimes I see that people will make comments saying, you know, but it's not possible to do genetic engineering.
And I think they're confusing What we're talking about with developing organisms and unicellular organisms where we can definitely do genetic modification versus a fully developed multicellular organism like a human being and whether it's possible to edit a human being.
Now I think with doing gene edits on fully developed humans, it's not going to work.
Yeah.
Not that it's not going to do something, but it's going to have these unintended side effects and cause all sorts of other problems.
So you'll be well aware of CRISPR technology.
And, you know, I think there's a big push at the moment and we hear These heads of pharmaceutical companies like Bayer and Pfizer, they're talking about the next phase being gene editing technology.
And, you know, apparently the mRNA technology was successful.
I didn't see any evidence of that, but the heads of these companies are telling us that it works.
So, and obviously in 2020, I think the two women that were doing the CRISPR stuff got awarded the Nobel Prize and often As you know, whether it's HIV or one of these other things, often there's a Nobel Prize in there to give the whole thing legitimacy.
So the whole idea with CRISPR gene editing is that you take something like a human being and say that they have a genetic problem and that's causing a disease.
And the technology is designed to use an enzyme to cut out a section of their DNA and then insert what apparently is the correct sequence or a more correct sequence.
And I don't think this is going to work at all, to be honest.
There's been some human trials, but you really can't get a lot of information because essentially As we were talking about earlier, you can't genetically edit every single, you know, all trillion cells in a human body all at once.
You can only do certain cells.
So it would be a matter of saying, well, which cells are you going to do the editing in?
And how often are you going to have to do that?
And what happens after a couple of years?
And what happens with all the unintended side effects of fiddling around with molecules that we really, we really don't have much understanding of?
Right.
And it's not so simple that, like, a gene gets translated into a protein, you know, like, just because you put it in, right?
It's way more complicated than that.
Totally.
And that's why in the article I wrote recently, I was pretty reserved about saying that even if the spike protein sequence was taken up into the human genome, what does that actually mean?
Does the spike protein just keep getting churned out indefinitely?
Does it only get produced under certain conditions?
Does the genetic sequence just sit there and do nothing because it's got nothing to cause it to do anything?
I think all of these questions are unknown, but I know one thing's for sure is that the genetic code is, you know, it's got so much information there.
And I think humans are trying to decipher it and they have no hope of doing this.
I imagine in a thousand years, humans will still be sitting there going, we don't really know how this works.
And I think the danger is that people that think they know how it works are just about to do some, you know, great harm to the population.
It sort of reminds me, there's a few things we keep around our house to remind us of how medicine just goes wrong.
And one of them is a poster from the 1940s of doctors promoting cigarettes and talking about their favorite cigarettes and how, you know, it's very soothing on the throat, very good for the mouth, very good for your general health, excellent for settling the nerve, all this kind of stuff.
And this was mainstream medicine in the 1940s.
The other thing that I have is I inherited some books through family and it's really funny reading about how to treat medical conditions in the 1930s and 1920s.
So yeah, you'll never guess, well you may already know this, but the most powerful treatment they ever found for acne?
Take a guess.
Mercury.
What was that?
Mercury.
Up there with mercury, yeah.
Radiation.
They were amazed that you could bombard skin.
These kids had this terrible acne, and they bombarded them with high-dose radiation.
And within a couple of months, the skin was all back to normal.
And then, unfortunately, about 10 years later, the skin It was really sick and obviously they developed all sorts of cancers and stuff, but it was amazing to read this new technology, you know?
The new technology and they were amazed by it.
And I think with the whole gene editing thing, we're going down a similar road where they'll think, well, we fix one thing and it will just cause so many problems somewhere else.
Yeah.
All right, Mark, I hear that you've looked into what else might be in these so-called injections.
Do you have anything you wanted to let us know about that?
Yeah, well, it's been interesting because I think we've got two things going on in the English-speaking world of dissidents.
There's a lot of focus on the mRNA and the Technology surrounding that with the spike proteins and the potential damage that they're going to do.
And in the Spanish speaking world, there's been a lot of focus on the undeclared constituents in the vaccines.
So this is your graphene, potential nanotechnology, and other undeclared particles.
It's very interesting because, you know, I have seen the reports coming in from groups like La Quinta Columna, the Spanish guys, you know, and showing potential nanotech and MAC addresses and the recipients and all this kind of stuff.
And it's always good if you can have someone a bit closer to home do an analysis to confirm that this is going on.
So, Yeah, in the last few weeks we've got someone on the ground here, one of our friends is looking at the Pfizer vials under the microscope, and I've seen some preliminary stuff and we'll get a report out soon maybe make a video.
And yeah, there's definitely some strange things going on.
There's what appear to be self-assembling type complexes.
And interestingly, when at colder temperatures, nothing happens.
But once you heat it up to about 35, 40 degrees, the self-assembly starts.
And there's various things that form.
A lot of them look like nano spindles, just very thin strands, which can often stretch like right across the field of the slide from one end to the other.
And the other thing we're seeing is, well, the microbiologist is calling them swimmers.
They're little balls with little tails, and they seemingly swim through the media.
But what propels them, it's hard to know.
I don't think they've got their own energy source.
I think they're reacting to something else around them, whether it's the polarity or...
Supposedly like biological entities or are these like, you know, graphene or something like that?
They look synthetic, I think, and because you can't see them initially under the slide, And it takes a while for them to form that I don't think it's a biological entity.
To me, it looks like it must be synthetic.
Yeah, but yeah, the lipid nanoparticles themselves do all sorts of strange things.
I mean, it's a real, I understand that the way they made them was to form kind of a gel like structure.
I think it's all things that you don't want in your body.
I mean, as we know, the whole history, the whole history of vaccines is that when, you know, the whole design is based around causing inflammation inside your body.
And those of us who realize that that's a bad thing are not interested in any of these products whatsoever.
And I think this latest round of what they're calling vaccines have the same problems.
There's all these things in them that cause inflammation, like the lipid nanoparticles by themselves.
You can look up studies in mice where they simply inject the lipid nanoparticles and then Have a look at the tissue under the microscope and say, oh, this seems to cause a lot of inflammation.
You know, that's probably might not be a good thing.
And not just the site of the injection either.
Other places as well.
Yeah, exactly.
Because the body is not equipped to deal with these kind of synthetic molecules and not something we've ever encountered in nature.
And the graphene obviously is a massive problem as well, because when... Have you confirmed yourself or these people who are looking at these vials that there is graphene in there?
So we don't have the equipment to do the mass spectrometry and all that kind of stuff.
So we're reliant on overseas labs that have done that stuff.
And what we've identified is the same particles that they've done the full chemical analysis on.
And we're definitely seeing those same particles, yeah.
What I was wondering was, We've also got our microbiologist looking at just an ordinary vaccine, like an MMR.
Yeah.
Just to say, do we see weird things in an MMR?
So we got a vial to him and he's He took about five minutes, I think, to say, yeah, there's nothing happening here.
So obviously, it's completely different compared to what we've seen in previous vaccine trials.
There was no self-assembling things.
There was none of these graphene sheets.
There was No little swimming like robots in there or anything?
Nothing exciting, no.
So he basically said, I said could he send a picture which he'll do, but he said like he could tell straight away nothing was going to happen.
He'll do the same experiments on it but It didn't look like much was happening, and he's also mixing samples with blood and that kind of stuff to see what it looks like more in a biological setting, which will be interesting.
But yeah, I think, you know, there's nothing in this shot That you'd want going inside your body and we should probably just just for the audience benefit to just talk a little bit about that about the strange practice of injecting things into people because it's it's really not something that nature had in mind when everything was designed so
For example, you know, there's some times when it's an emergency, like if someone's blood sugar had gone down so low that they were unconscious, we're pretty happy injecting some glucose or dextrose straight into that vein to get them to recover again.
If someone's in a state of shock, you know, we can inject some adrenaline to help get them going again.
But these are very, very, very limited applications for why injecting something into a human body would be useful.
Perhaps local anesthetic is another good one for permitting procedures to be done without too much pain.
But in general, most things you do not want to inject into a human body because it's not the way that you should be exposed.
People have different ideas.
Some people call it an immune system.
I know that's problematic.
I think we're tending towards calling it a detox system.
I think you call it like a rubbish collecting system or something.
But whatever you want to call it, it's not a good idea to traumatize the system that's been carefully constructed by, you know, poking something in it and doing it that way.
So, you know, it's really fascinating because if you look up a whole lot of the experiments surrounding germ theory, even, you know, if you expose an organism like a human or an animal to bacteria, you know, nothing happens.
Like if we inhale them, if we swallow them, if we put them on our skin, if they go into eyes, all that sort of stuff's fine.
But if you damage tissue, like in an animal experiment or something, and, you know, really do some damage and then add some microbes, you know, they then conclude that, oh my goodness, you know, look what these microbes are doing.
Right.
In fact, they had nothing to do with causing the problem for that animal.
And I think there was there was a one a story like that that I got really involved in because I was somebody wrote a paper saying that I was wrong about That there was no evidence that TB, the mycobacteria, caused tuberculosis.
And they said, absolutely, Koch did that.
So you go to his original paper, and first of all, he grew it in, I think it was beef broth or something like that.
And then he injected it into the eyes of the animals.
I remember when I read that, I jokingly said, you know how many people in my 37 years of medical practice said, Tom, I was doing fine and somebody came along and just injected this goop of TB and beef right in my eye, and man, I've got a cough ever since.
I mean, that just doesn't happen.
And it's, you know, yeah.
No, I mean, we found the same.
And what's amazing is that you see all these doctors and scientists referring to works like Koch as though he proved this stuff.
And I don't think any of them actually read the papers, because we did the same.
We went and got the papers that he wrote in the 1800s and had them all translated.
And I mean, it's just comical.
Yeah.
Like you've found some of them involved if you had Guinea pigs, you know, if one had TB because you'd mistreated it for months, you know, in its cage and then introduce, then you introduce another Guinea pig into the cage and hey, presto three or four months later that then you introduce another Guinea pig into the cage and hey, presto three or So, and the conclusion is the first guinea pig made the second guinea pig It's sick, you know, and there's this contagion passing around.
And I think the confusion obviously is, is that you open up both guinea pigs and found the, you know, you find TB inside them.
You do find the bacilli in there, but that's because you've got these stressed out Malnourished guinea pigs, you know, who basically are so toxic that their lungs are breaking down.
And when their lungs start breaking down, the TB comes in and starts decomposing the tissue.
So for you and I, I mean, we know this because, you know, I've been around people who have TB and, you know, you can be right next to them and that they're incredibly sick.
Like when I worked in hospital medicine, the New Zealand the only cases of TB we tended to have would be like IV drug users who were so so toxic and so sick that they'd get a diagnosis of TB but of course the rest of us we could be around them and we weren't getting TB and we must have been inhaling it right and uh but it's it's like every single
I think the claim about germ theory is when you actually look at these studies, you don't find the evidence.
And even more striking, and I didn't even think this was possible before I looked into it, but you see all these studies where they took dogs and they took quite high doses of bacteria and just injected it straight into their veins.
And nothing happens, like they don't get sick.
And sometimes they do the same, they'd inject it into the brain of a mouse.
Bacteria straight into its brain.
And it was absolutely fine, it didn't do anything.
Yeah, it reminds me too, I went to this thing and these people, I won't say their names, but they were explaining how love cures everything.
Which that sounds fine, but their proof was they had so much love that they even went to this leper hospital in New Orleans, I think it was, and they hugged all the lepers and none of them got sick.
The irony is, there was actually a paper written about that very hospital, saying that in 75 years, I don't know if that's the right number, but something, none of the staff has ever gotten leprosy.
So, maybe they had loving staff, or maybe they were spiteful people.
It didn't seem to matter, they just still didn't get leprosy.
Well, I mean, as you know, 2000 years ago, Jesus wasn't worried about being next to people with leprosy.
I think he was trying to teach people that contagion is not a thing.
I know, it's absolutely amazing.
And yeah, what's really shocked by Sam and I has been Everything we were taught about germ theory is just based on absolute garbage, basically.
When you go back through it, it's just one big house of cards.
And you know, as you know, virology is exactly the same.
If you actually go back to the, we're doing some really interesting research we'll have out soon on tobacco mosaic virus.
All right.
Because you know, that's the big one.
That's the first one.
We need to get right down to it.
It's always, bottom line, tobacco mosaic virus.
We just got the translation of Ivanosky's original paper and I mean Sam and I were looking at it yesterday and just about falling over laughing some of it like it really is amusing so yeah yeah no it's definitely a lot of the stuff is just a house of cards but I think it's you know people sometimes say why is this important the whole germ versus terrain theory and I think once people understand it they can see that
Everything built up on it, whether it's vaccinations, antibiotics, it all falls apart once you understand this.
And certainly for allopathic doctors like us that were trained in that system, it really was a paradigm shift to understand that
A lot of what we were told are therapeutics and not at all they're actually they're making people worse and yeah I guess it changes everything we that's it's the only it's the only show in town here yeah yeah yeah and I think the uh the latest round with the uh mRNA injections is just uh It is really just topping the whole thing off.
It's just absolutely terrible.
And the sooner people realize the fraud behind everything, the quicker we can move to a better paradigm of understanding health.
A better world.
All right, Mark.
Thank you for joining me.
It's been a pleasure.
And we will stay in touch.
And I can't wait to hear about tobacco mosaic virus nonsense.
Sounds good, Tom.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Best to Sam.
Thank you.
All right.
▲
Export Selection