Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 7, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

02:19:07

The Viral Delusion Ep. 1, The Tragic Pseudoscience of SARS-CoV-2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In February, I took a trip to California and on the West Coast airports in California, I saw people wearing masks and I said, this has to be serious.
	I've never seen this before.
	And that's when I just started saying, okay, let's figure out what's going on.
	I'm going to start at the very beginning.
	I'm going to look at the papers that discovered the virus and, you know, take it wherever it leads me.
	And I never expected to find that those papers didn't actually show any virus.
	I was really surprised that the experimental techniques that they were using, it couldn't possibly show a new organism.
	It was totally the wrong experiment to do.
	At first I was just confused.
	I'm like, I must be missing something because why would it be so far off?
	It was just shocking and I had to really talk to other people and look at their work and look at the historical context before I could fully appreciate what was going on.
	With any virus, to show that it exists, you need to separate it entirely from any biological material.
	In the studies, in the most important studies, claiming that they have proven SARS-CoV-2 They haven't purified the particles without purification and finally isolation.
	You cannot say that you have found a virus.
	When somebody says, a virologist says, we have isolated a virus, I thought, as does everybody, that they took, you know, 100 people or 500 people who are sick in the same way, right?
	They have a runny nose or a cough or pneumonia.
	And then you do steps, like you take their secretions, you then macerate it, and then you filter it, and then you centrifuge it, and then you have a band that has just those viruses.
	Right?
	That's what everybody thinks they did.
	And then you tell people the steps, so some other lab could repeat the steps.
	That's how you do it in science.
	And then everybody says, yes, this thing that we have is pure SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus.
	That's what every human being understands by the word isolation.
	And that's what every doctor and human being thinks happened in this case.
	right except it didn't happen once you're
	not going to be able to do it This is the story of a group of doctors and scientists who are challenging the very heart of the scientific foundation that formed the pandemic.
	They are iconoclasts, scientific dissidents, pointing out crucial flaws in the very experiments that claim to have discovered SARS-CoV-2, and they are profoundly at odds with medical authorities.
	Yet, they are part of a long tradition of doctors, journalists, and scientists who have spoken out against the validity of the experiments used to show that one particular disease or another was caused by a newfound virus, but who have time and time again been written out of medical history.
	It's a scientific fight that goes back more than a hundred years, beginning with the debate between two chemists, Louis Pasteur and Antoine Deschamps.
	But its modern incarnation began as a disagreement in 1985 between on-the-ground AIDS researchers and none other than a young medical bureaucrat named Anthony Fauci.
	It was declared, well, HIV, the AIDS thing, April 23rd, 1984, before any scientist or anybody else in the world knew there was it.
	AIDS, with a capital A-I-D-S, Contagious Infectious Disease, you know, nobody in the world, no scientific paper was published or anything about it.
	It was just declared on that day and it became government policy and it's still government policy to this day.
	That set the stage.
	Not only that, it set the stage with having a disease with a virus that has never been obtained from a human being.
	This HIV thing, the only place that I know of that exists is in the laboratory.
	Nobody has ever published obtaining or isolating or even seeing HIV in a human being.
	The young Fauci had thrust into the mainstream the ideas of cancer researcher Robert Gallup, that a particle he had claimed to have discovered, the HIV virus, was the cause of AIDS, that this virus could be sexually transmitted, and thus AIDS was at the very edge of becoming a new global plague.
	While much of the world rushed to congratulate the NIH, a small group of doctors and scientists pointed out that the declaration had no serious scientific backing.
	And that the so-called HIV virus had, in reality, never even been proven to exist.
	I was here living in San Francisco.
	I had my own little biotech company.
	So I wanted to work on this like everybody else in the Bay Area wanted to work on AIDS.
	We wanted to put our skills to work to try to cure it.
	Be heroes.
	Be carried on people's shoulders, you know, like all young scientists.
	We talked about AIDS from the very beginning when it popped up in the 80s, even before it had a name.
	And then here it was in 84, you know, aha, it's a virus and everything.
	Oh, good.
	I'm a chemist.
	I'm going to make inhibitors to kill this retrovirus.
	And so the other people working here and there.
	And then by 87, I've been starting to question this stuff. 85.
	Uh, and, but between 85 and 87, I, I started talking about the problems with this whole notion that AIDS is contagious and caused by a transmissible infectious agent.
	All those anomalies, you know.
	One of the first things that made me suspicious back, I think it was 84, 85, 85 for sure, about this HIV business was, how does this virus know that you're gay and I'm supposed to cause Kaposi's sarcoma in you?
	And not in these IV drug-using ones.
	Yeah, I give them TB or something like that, you know?
	You know?
	I mean, that was one of my first suspicions, you know?
	And also, how does that little virus know not to cross the street?
	You know?
	Like in the Castro area.
	They stay over here where the gay guys are, you know, where they have all these AIDS diseases, but it doesn't go over here in this other part of town.
	It's a virus that knows your zip code, whether you're gay or straight, white or black, or whether you're rich or poor.
	That's one of the first things.
	Those discrepancies.
	By 1987, I realized this whole shoot match with contagious sexually transmitted HIV was not tenable.
	In fact, it was crap.
	The debate quickly blew up when the leading virologist in the U.S., Peter Joosberg, accepted the government's claim that what was pictured under the microscope was a so-called virus, but published a paper explaining in 19 clear points why this particle could not be the cause of AIDS.
	It is dormant to begin with.
	It's dormant when you die from it.
	It's dormant when you suffer from it.
	There's no report in the literature describing the virus ever to be active in a patient.
	It was a silent war, waged behind the scenes.
	As the debate shot through the scientific community, the critics were soon joined by Carey Mullis, the Nobel Prize winning inventor of the PCR process.
	And at some point, we needed to re-up our grant from the NIH to work on that, and I had to write it.
	And so, the first line of that was, HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
	And I wrote that, and then I said, well, I need a paper, some kind of scientific paper, to reference that statement.
	Because when you make a scientific statement like that, that's like a fact.
	You need to say, here's how come I know that, right?
	You put a little one If it's the first statement you've made, and then you put down at the bottom of the paper, you have a 1, and you say, here's a paper by somebody that describes why that statement's true, right?
	And so I said, well, what's that?
	I don't even let me think about it.
	What is that paper?
	Who do I go to for that?
	And I looked around.
	I asked a couple of urologists at that company, and they said, no, you don't have to reference.
	I said, I have to reference that, because I don't know.
	I don't know where that came from.
	How do I know that?
	And it turned out that nobody knew it.
	There wasn't a scientific reference, like a paper that somebody had submitted with like experimental data in it, and like logical discussion, and said, here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
	There was nothing out there like that.
	Nothing.
	Mullis insisted his technique was being misused to claim it could find viruses and diagnose disease, when it could do neither.
	They are separate from that.
	It's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something.
	That's what it is.
	It doesn't tell you that you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.
	Moess became Fauci's most prominent critic, and soon was joined by numerous other bleeding scientists.
	But it was a debate that was kept almost entirely out of the media.
	To say that Anthony Fauci controls the media is a real understatement.
	Here's a story Peter Duisburg used to tell.
	Peter was going to be on one of the talk shows.
	I don't know if it was CNN or if it was... I think it was actually one of the networks.
	And they were just going to do straightforward journalism.
	Oh, Dr. Duisburg, you are an esteemed retrovirologist.
	Why don't you think HIV is the cause of AIDS?
	Everybody disagrees with you, you know, but what do you have to say?
	So they flew him to New York.
	He was in his hotel room and about to go downstairs to get picked up by the car and the phone rings.
	Oh, sorry, Dr. Duesberg, we have to cancel the interview.
	And he says he literally turned on the TV at the appointed time and Tony Fauci was sitting there talking about the latest numbers and the latest scare.
	So they must have had such a surveillance capacity even then, and or spies and moles and all this kind of stuff, so they knew, they absolutely knew when somebody was going to interview Peter Duesgray.
	The argument came to its most devastating culmination over Fauci's prescription that those who had tested positive for the HIV virus, using Kerry Mullis' PCR test, should take a repurposed chemotherapy drug known as AZT to save their lives.
	While Fauci's detractors argued that the drug was a known and extraordinarily deadly poison which was killing the very people who thought they were saving themselves.
	It was an argument over a new disease, but not a new argument.
	30 years earlier, a number of prominent doctors had spoken out forcefully that Polio 2 had been wildly misdiagnosed, and that the devastation of childhood paralysis was much more likely due to the introduction of new insecticides than to the sudden and capricious rise of a new virus.
	They too were silenced by a growing medical bureaucracy headquartered at NIH under the influence of the now-dominant post-World War II pharmaceutical companies.
	Even earlier, a silent war had been waged in the medical community over smallpox, Which had come to a head when the very doctor who had been selected to write the Encyclopædia Britannica entry for smallpox vaccination set about to look at the research and found, to his shock, that vaccinations had clearly not been the reason smallpox had declined.
	Though considered the most prominent British doctor of his day, his entry was deleted, his career attacked, And his research, written out of orthodox medical history.
	The thrust of these doctors' and scientists' arguments is that a number of profoundly unscientific experiments had emerged, which were being used to place the blame for disease on the concept of tiny, unseeable entities named viruses, which could not in reality be found in sick patients.
	And the real causes of disease, such as smallpox, polio, and AIDS, were industrial contaminants, toxins that emerged from poor living conditions, malnutrition, and new pharmaceutical products that were destroying the body in untold new ways.
	Yet despite their efforts, a rapidly growing edifice of bureaucracy was forming, built on the foundation of virus theory.
	and the idea of viruses as the cause of disease permeating the culture so profoundly that slowly most doctors came to believe in it.
	The debate has re-emerged today as a growing group of doctors and scientists are speaking out against the experiments that form the justification for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
	Their argument is that while thousands of experiments have been done regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus, they are built on an unscientific foundation That is, in reality, pseudoscience.
	Today, medical authorities have placed virology center stage in claiming it has the answers to human sickness, and that the rapidly mutating deadly SARS-CoV-2 virus must be controlled through urgently necessary population-wide medical experiments and the rewriting of the world's long-standing social contracts.
	But the argument of their detractors is that this story has become transparently false.
	That the experiments to justify these extraordinary actions, when looked at closely, are unscientific and contradictory, have not prevented, but caused death, disease, and mayhem on an enormous scale, and must be brought to an immediate end before more devastation ensues.
	The argument from the mainstream view is well known, but the arguments of its detractors have once again been almost entirely silenced.
	This is their story.
	We all remember when the pandemic began, on the pronouncements that a new deadly and highly transmissible virus had been found.
	The claims were based on a single paper out of a laboratory in Ruhr, But while much of the world set into panic, a number of doctors and scientists were examining this paper, and the subsequent ones, in detail.
	Here's what they found.
	The first thing I did, I actually went to look for the first Chinese study from the CDC, CCDC, the Chinese Center for Disease Control, published under the name Zhu and others.
	We chose the first supposed isolation of the SARS-CoV-2, and of course immediately found incredible discrepancies and a methodology that, you know, didn't isolate anything.
	They found some people with atypical pneumonia, which is not uncommon.
	Every year we see lots of atypical pneumonia.
	That's what we often call, you know, the flu or a virus, because we don't really know what's causing it, but, you know, every winter you see this.
	So I was like, well, they see a few cases of atypical pneumonia, that's not unusual.
	They had some commonality that they were all at this outdoor food market, which didn't have the best sanitary conditions.
	So I'm like, if people got sick from there, I would think some kind of food poisoning.
	But they never even came up with that idea.
	They said, oh, it must be something like SARS.
	And it was just, why would they come to that conclusion?
	And then, this was also the weird thing, because if you really do have a new disease, right?
	You would want to take a good sample of cases to study.
	Like, you know, like a thousand people.
	Or at least a hundred.
	They have less than ten.
	Why would they only study such a tiny number of people?
	I think they only actually took samples for these tissue culture experiments from three patients and then all of a sudden they're assuming it's like some deadly virus plague.
	So-called isolation or discovery of this virus is done in a single individual, a single human being, right?
	There were 44 cases of pneumonia in December, I guess it was, of 2019.
	And the World Health Organization office there in China cataloged these 44 people of pneumonia that they had no explanation for.
	And this is in a country that has about a million pneumonias every year.
	What is so important about 44 cases?
	They said, don't know what's causing it.
	Lots of things can cause pneumonia.
	Chemicals can.
	Malnutrition can.
	Drugs can.
	Being old can.
	Being in a hospital can.
	Chronic diseases.
	There's all kinds of things that can cause pneumonia.
	And with this one guy, now they have this one guy in a country of over a billion people.
	So essentially what I found was that they were taking the liquid from patients and
	They were maybe centrifuging them or filtering them, but I made a calculation that in the 15 micrograms that they were using to do the test, there were still like about 30 billion particles, virus-like particles, of which 85 to 95% of human origin, human genetic origin.
	And they would take this very heterogeneous material and put it into a culture.
	And then they would say that that was the isolated virus, which of course didn't make any sense.
	They're taking samples from the patient to try to find a virus, but they don't look in that fluid from the patient for the virus.
	I'm like, well, why not?
	That's the source of it.
	Instead, I see they mix it in this foreign cell culture, monkey cells.
	I'm like, why would they, you know, do that?
	It doesn't make any sense at all.
	They basically took, combined the words virus and isolation together, They don't actually isolate viruses.
	for that term.
	And this is why it's so confusing.
	So only the scientists or doctors who actually take the time to read the paper and read the methods are going to understand that there's no isolation going on.
	Everyone else who just reads the title of the paper, they'll just, oh, well, yeah, they said it right here.
	They said isolated.
	They don't actually isolate viruses.
	They just say that they isolate viruses.
	You know, if you think of something like a bacterial species and it is possible to isolate bacteria, as in just get the bacterial cells, separate them out from everything else, and then analyse them, work out what their composition is, and then analyse them, work out what their composition is, their genetics, their structure, work out what the bacteria, how they behave, what they can do, etc.
	And I think most people think that with viruses they're doing the same thing.
	Except that with viruses, when they use the word isolation, it doesn't mean that they've physically separated and purified the particles.
	It means something totally different.
	So that's the first deception.
	So the question is, why don't they do it?
	Why don't they show us this virus from a sick person?
	Not only in a hundred people, but in one person.
	I mean, so I don't know the answer to that, but what they say is, well, there's not enough of these virus particles in a sick person to find them.
	Which is odd, because if there's not enough viruses in a sick person to find them, what's the theory that they're going to make us all sick and kill us all?
	So that's obviously ridiculous.
	In the virology papers that form the foundation of the pandemic, indeed, the term isolation is used in an entirely different way from its ordinary usage.
	What the papers mean by the term isolation is that the nasal or throat swab has been isolated from the patient, not that the virus itself has been isolated from the nasal swab.
	Without isolating the hypothetical virus, these doctors and scientists argued that no independent variable can be properly studied or characterized.
	It is the first step in what is considered the bedrock of both the scientific method and the founding principles of microbiology, known as Cox Postulates.
	Through FOIA requests, an activist named Christine Massey has received confirmation from more than 150 government institutions, including the CDC and NIH, that they have no record of a virus named SARS-CoV-2 ever having been isolated directly from a patient.
	Instead, these institutions point to scientific papers which use three methods for claiming they have discovered the existence of the virus.
	People have sent me, in this past year, let me just take a guess, 50 papers called The Isolation of SARS-CoV-2.
	known as the cytopathic effect.
	People have sent me in this past year, let me just take a guess, 50 papers called the Isolation of SARS-CoV-2.
	Now it may be 48, but, you know, it's a lot.
	And the, you know, both the normal virology community and the sort of alternative community sends me paper after paper saying, and here's how they isolated.
	Here's a paper showing the isolation of this virus.
	Every single one did it the exact same way.
	They take snot and they inoculate it onto tissue culture, usually monkey kidney cells, which are called virocells.
	And put it in this recipe of the toxic cell culture with, you know, toxic antibiotics.
	to the type of cells in the culture.
	So when they use kidney cells, they use antibiotics like streptomycin, gentamicin, and amphotericin B, which are all specifically toxic to the kidneys.
	They starve the culture, and then they add other biological materials like bovine calf serum, like fetal bovine serum, rather, like from calves in the womb, their blood.
	And they can show these, what they call, cytopathic effects, which is damage to the cells from this every single time, And then when cells are damaged, they make particles like exosomes and apoptotic bodies and other types of particles that don't even have names.
	And they can just point to whatever particle they want and say, there's the virus.
	So it's very convenient.
	It just doesn't come close to proving what they say it does.
	The way that they prove, in verse of commas, SARS-CoV-2 exists is through stressing cells in cell cultures.
	Viral cell cultures.
	They stress them with antibiotics, all sorts of mechanisms, and then they see things bud, or they see cilia on the cells stop beating.
	And so they interpret those as virally caused, yeah?
	Or as viruses budding, or as the cilia on the cells, the human cells, they stop beating, so the cell must have died.
	It could be due to all sorts of things.
	Very, very uncontrolled experiments.
	One-shot experiments.
	The cytopathic effects are just non-specific effects that occur in a test tube when you put various cell cultures and then they usually start with the cell culture line which is highly abnormal.
	So you don't start with a healthy cell line because they find that they don't seem to do very much in the test tube.
	So typically they take something weird like a Vero which is a monkey kidney cell and it's an abnormal one so it's got chromosomal abnormalities and then you use that kind of cell for your experiment because these cell lines are highly reactive meaning that they have a high propensity to die and break up in a test tube and produce various exosomes and Things that the virologists are looking for.
	So in this regard, they say that all of those effects are due to the presence of a disease-causing virus.
	But the problem with that is that you can get the same effects by putting other things in the test tube with the cell culture.
	So you don't need to put a virus in there.
	It's just the process itself which stresses the cells and causes them to break down.
	So that's what John and I call the double deception.
	Firstly, saying that they've isolated a virus when they haven't.
	And secondly, attributing effects that we can see anyway without the presence of a virus, but saying that it's specifically to a virus.
	And this is the basis of modern virology, basically.
	It's simply fraudulent.
	It simply doesn't establish, A, that there's a virus, and B, that it's able to cause disease.
	So, here's an article that was in Viruses May 2020.
	They're talking about now they have a better name for just debris coming from the breakdown of our tissues.
	They call it extracellular vesicles and exosomes.
	But that means when we get poisoned or sick, then we break down into these particles.
	And the question of this article was, can we tell the difference between this breakdown versus something coming from outside?
	Right?
	So he says, quote, however to date a reliable method that can guarantee a separation cellular vesicles and exosomes from viruses, quote, does not exist.
	We can't tell the difference.
	And essentially what that means is all of these genetic pieces that we're calling viruses are just the breaking down of our own tissue.
	If they really were going to do some kind of tissue culture experiment for something that caused pneumonia, why wouldn't they put it into lung cells, human lung cell culture?
	That's what it supposedly infects.
	One group did it.
	did it on various human cell lines, and none of them grew.
	And so the conclusion should have been, this SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't affect human tissue.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	Let's move on.
	You just proved it.
	That's not what they did.
	That's what they did, and that's what they found.
	But they came to the conclusion, they don't say, they just say it worked better with Vero cells.
	Now here's the interesting thing.
	It worked better with virocells, which are kidney cells, instead of human lung cells.
	Because the antibiotic that they use to sterilize it happens to be particularly poisonous to kidney tissue as opposed to lung tissue.
	So it's not surprising that the kidney tissue broke down better than the lung tissue.
	If they used an antibiotic that was specifically toxic to the lungs, they would probably have found out that it does grow on human lung cells.
	And again, when you hear this, you think, no, it can't be that stupid.
	And I don't actually know what to say to that, for most people.
	All I can tell you is, that's what they did, that's the conclusion they came to.
	Read their papers, you'll see that they have disproven themselves with their own writing, right?
	Of course you realize they are completely anti-scientific because they are not questioning the base, the historical base and what they are doing.
	It's just a belief system.
	They are doing it in faith and they came up with the conclusion.
	It's easy to check this.
	Very easy.
	You see only the work with structures from cell cultures.
	And never ever were able to visualize something in the blood and, you know, from your mouth, from urine, from sperm, from all other kinds of liquid or tissue in the body.
	Never ever.
	I absolutely can tell you after a year of looking, there has not been one case in the published literature where a virologist or scientist took somebody who was sick, did the normal isolation procedures, Instead, here is this virus.
	To prove the point, Stefan Lanka conducted the same experiment without adding any material to a monkey kidney cell culture along with the antibiotics used in the SARS-CoV-2 experiments.
	His results were the same.
	Even without adding any so-called viral material, he was able to see the cytopathic effects in the cell culture.
	I spoke with a number of virologists in making this documentary.
	None would appear on camera, except for Stefan Lang.
	But when pressed about the issue of isolation, all of them tried to move the conversation to the two other ways that the scientific papers have claimed proof of the existence of SARS-CoV-2.
	The electron photographs and the genomics.
	All sorts of pictures, you know, sit purporting to be of this virus and they were put out by the government and other sources.
	They're published in magazines, newspapers, and they're floating all around.
	And so many of these images were just completely made up.
	An artist's rendering.
	And I'm like, what the heck is this?
	Why are they trying to pass this off?
	People thought these things were real.
	And then I saw the pictures in the paper, in the Joux paper, and they show these images where, like, cells, like, from the monkey kidney culture, and then these all different kinds of little particles, and then they just put a little arrow next to a particle, they like the way it looks, and they say, oh, there it is, that's the virus.
	And I'm like, well, what the heck is that, you know?
	How could they recognize it?
	Just by sight, they have so many sources of particles in this toxic cell culture soup.
	Exosomes are particles that all cells make.
	They come off the membrane.
	The same exact way that they say virus particles do, and they are the same exact size and shape as they say virus particles are, and they are made of the same thing that they say viral particles are, which is they have a membrane with proteins on it, and they have genetic material inside.
	And the genetic material is of a variety of the same exact types that they say viruses have, which include, you know, DNA double-stranded, single-stranded, mitochondrial DNA, RNA, microRNA.
	All those things are reported to be in both exosomes and viruses.
	So I said to myself, they created a recipe in the cell culture to make exosomes because they added antibiotics.
	And if you look up studies, you'll find that antibiotics induce exosomes.
	So they're creating exosomes.
	And they're showing particles That look like exosomes.
	So how do they know they're not?
	There's no chemical test that they did.
	Um, they couldn't because they didn't identify anything first to develop a chemical test.
	Right?
	So they're just going by sight and you know, you just, the thing is you can't tell the difference of any of these things by sight.
	There's just made up.
	And I realized that I'm like, this is not scientific at all.
	They show a picture, you know, of cells and various particles, and there's just an arrow to these nondescript round particles that they just say, oh, those are the virus, even though there's nothing distinct about them at all.
	And they don't even have the spike protein knobs that are characteristic on these images in this paper.
	So they're basically just showing you particles of dying cells and saying, "Oh, these ones, they're the coronaviruses." But they have no proof, they didn't purify any particles directly from the patient, they didn't do any chemical analysis.
	Everybody thinks you see pictures of viruses from sick people.
	I thought that.
	And then somebody asked me, well, can you show me a study that shows that?
	Well, I don't really know.
	Why do you think it?
	Everybody thinks it.
	Let's take one example.
	The first paper from Australia that isolated and has a picture of a SARS-CoV-2 virus outside of China.
	So that's what people see.
	They see this particle with spiky things off the side, which are the spike proteins.
	Little dots.
	And they say, that's the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
	Most people and most doctors know, there's the virus.
	How did they get that?
	They took fluid from one person, mixed it with their amniotic fluid and bovine serum and horse serum and amphotericin B and genomicin and put it in a monkey kidney cell and it broke down and then they got these particles.
	And that's what they're picturing.
	But interestingly, when you read how they did it, and I'll read it and then explain it, they say, quote, Electron micrographs of Section Vero cells showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles, CBOX5B.
	Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, It was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.
	Now, let's dissect this a little.
	Virion means an individual virus.
	So they did the virocells, that's the kidney tissue.
	They found membrane-bound vesicles.
	They found budding out of the cell.
	They found these little pieces of particles of genetic material.
	That's like when you blow up the house, you occasionally get pieces of paper sticking to the walls.
	That doesn't show whether they're going out or going in, or they're just breaking down, so you see them stuck together.
	Containing coronavirus particles.
	There are several attempts, and they didn't look like the ones with the spike protein.
	So they didn't find anything that looked like a coronavirus.
	And then they added trypsin to the medium.
	Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme, protein-digesting enzyme, that then ate away the outside of the protein coating on the virus, and then, lo and behold, it looked like it had spikes on it.
	And so that's the coronavirus.
	And there's a lot of analogies one could make.
	The one I came up with It's like you have a box of wood, and you say, I think there's wood shaped like stars in that box.
	And you look through it, and you don't see it.
	So you call your carpenter friend, and he cuts out the edges of the wood, and then you say, see, there's the star.
	And most people would say, Wait a minute, that's nuts!
	Because obviously there wasn't anything that looked like that until you put something that digested the outside to make it look like it has spikes on it.
	And then they also say that they characterized the viral sequence.
	But they didn't characterize the viral sequence.
	They made a computer model of a theoretical genome sequence, of a theoretical virus.
	So then they did this massive, what I call a drag net, for all of the RNA.
	They were bound and determined to find a virus as a cause for this guy.
	So they did this drag net for all of this RNA, millions of little strands of RNA in this person, using technology that's called metatranscriptomics.
	And one of these gene things, this technology driven stuff, where they can look at all the RNA, all the DNA, sequence it, amplify it trillions of fold, all this technology.
	It's technology driven, not science driven.
	So I got this person's lung sample of his lung.
	They do all this stuff.
	They have all this fancy equipment.
	They zero down to get all these signals.
	Then they have a computer that stitches all these little segments, these little fragments of RNA together.
	out of millions and millions and billions of these things.
	And they came up with a sequence, and then they decided that they had discovered this virus, even though they never touched a virus at all, and they said that was the cause of this guy's pneumonia.
	So they take this, as I said, this unpurified mess, so they end up with this vat of literally billions of pieces of genetic material in this stew.
	Right?
	So that's the cell culture.
	So they have all this broken down genetic material.
	Now, you would then think, because this is called an unbiased genome calculation, sequencing, that they look in that brew and say, which is the, you know, what genome do we see?
	But they actually don't see anything like that.
	What they do is they don't see a whole genome.
	So they chop it up into little bits.
	So some of them are 2,000 base pairs, some are 10,000, some are six, some of them are whatever.
	And so they chop it up into little bits of say 10 or 20 or I'm not sure the exact number of possibilities, but little pieces of nucleotides.
	They did not do sequencing.
	So then you say, now computer, arrange that into a full genome.
	They did not do sequencing.
	They did assembling.
	Assembling.
	Sequencing is a totally different thing.
	You don't snip it up.
	You start with what you assume is an intact genome.
	An intact strand of RNA or DNA or something.
	You don't snip it up.
	You don't do this metatranscriptomic stuff from jillions of things.
	You take what you've got there and you do what's originally called Sanger sequencing, which you start with the whole thing and you just snip off the nucleotides one at a time.
	And then you list it.
	That's sequencing.
	Alright?
	That's how they do the sequencing for that mouse genome, for the human genome.
	That's sequencing.
	Where you get the authentic, not random, not scrambled, but you get the authentic sequence as it is.
	Intact.
	Remember with the SARS, they have all these little bits and pieces of RNA and they stitch them together to try to get a complete sequence.
	That's what they do.
	And you don't know where it's coming from, they just know what it ought to look like.
	And they keep going with this next generation sequencing, where they can play around a bit, you know, because next generation sequencing is a kind of, they call it unbiased, meaning they sequence anything that is there, you know, those 30 billion particles, they sequence all of it.
	By doing that, they can still have a leeway where they can say, they can, you know, play around and and claim that there's some kind of virus.
	What they are doing with the genetic material as they never were able to isolate a piece, even not the whole piece, in case of coronavirus, 30,000 building blocks called nucleotides, Never ever!
	Even with standard techniques, it takes decades to show that you have a long nucleic acid present.
	Then you pick it up, you sequence it, and you repeat it, you repeat it, you always came up with the same thing.
	They never were able to.
	What they are doing, they use very short sequences, which they found in their dying cells, And add them up mentally, and then at the end you have a mental construct which has no base in reality.
	No base.
	This is called, as they say, this is an in silico genome.
	In silico means in the computer.
	So it's a theoretical genome that only exists, it doesn't exist anywhere in the sample.
	There is no 30,000 sequence that's a viral genome.
	There is no such sequence like that in the mixture.
	None.
	So that's the basis of saying this, quote, virus with this genome does not exist in the biology.
	It doesn't exist in the sample.
	It is created by the computer.
	That's what we call an in silico genome.
	They shared that sequence of RNA around the world.
	Other people around the world now knew what to look for.
	So now they're starting to...
	Everybody else is getting samples from people and then coming up with their own little sequence of a coronavirus.
	And I think it was as of this past December or so or something like that, there's this database in Germany that had already catalogued 400,000 different unique sequences of SARS-CoV-2.
	400,000 of these things.
	All right.
	And not one of them had actually ever gotten the virus.
	They all do the same thing using meta transcripts.
	They stitched together all this RNA.
	The reason they have so many of these things, they don't have the virus.
	So what's really happening when they're in action, when they send two billion different sequences of this virus, what's really happening?
	Can you explain to people, what does that really mean?
	Oh, it just means that precisely because there isn't like a real virus, a real organism, right?
	Because if there were a real organism, you'd be bound by it, right?
	You can't invent one.
	It's there.
	You know, E. coli, it's E. coli.
	You can't produce two million different E. colis, right?
	Because everybody would say, That's E. coli.
	That's whatever you do different, it's not E. coli, right?
	But since there is no virus, real virus, anybody can set up their own version of it.
	With no limitation.
	There's no gold standard, as you say, right?
	So everybody can take the sequence, change a couple of letters, and produce a different sequence.
	And they say, oh, this is the sequence that we did in Rome.
	Oh, this is the sequence that we did in New York, this is the sequence that we did in London, that we did in India.
	That's how variants are born.
	But the thing is, of variants, I also published an article on variants.
	It's so ridiculous that I actually developed the concept of the ridiculous science, the scientific ridiculous, because, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's unbelievable.
	And no one ever says, you know, the king is naked.
	No one says it.
	Their analysis raises a thousand questions.
	If there is no proof that anyone ever isolated a virus, nor photographed a virus, nor sequenced a virus, how did they make a test for it?
	Why did people get sick?
	What were they getting sick from?
	Was this a conspiracy or just a broken intellectual paradigm?
	The doctors and scientists argue that understanding the test is the key to unlocking the story.
	The test that was used to label the public as having COVID, without ever having been validated, to prove it could do that.
	The alleged epidemic was caused by the spreading of the test.
	You know, the German Drosten paper
	Well, they actually built the first swab test to test for the SARS-CoV-2 where they themselves, and that was published at the end of February, and they themselves said that they created this swab test without even having an actual virus available, and so it was Created on a sequence sent to them by the Chinese.
	SARS-CoV-2, the virus so-called, the so-called virus that's never been purified or properly isolated.
	It's been identified through PCR testing and it's a fraudulent medical diagnostic.
	It was never invented to be a medical diagnostic.
	PCR cannot detect infection.
	It cannot detect the presence of a virus.
	We falsified the PCR test in a huge paper in December 2020.
	But the authorities have chosen not to ignore that.
	The scientific authorities have chosen to ignore it.
	You can read how Peter Borger, a molecular biologist, deconstructed with 21 other scientists the whole of the PCR test.
	It should have been immediately withdrawn when our paper was published.
	the euro surveillance refused to withdraw the original paper.
	The End
	Because this isn't about the science.
	COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 is nothing to do with science.
	Otherwise, it would have all been debunked months ago.
	There is no virus there.
	The CDC admitted last December that they don't have any SARS-CoV-2 to compare with the PCR test to see if that's what it's actually detecting.
	So, there's not even any way to calculate an error rate.
	When people talk in the news about false positives and stuff, no one knows the false positive rate.
	You can't calculate it because there's nothing to compare it to because there's no virus.
	So what you have here is basically a roulette wheel.
	Even the WHO realizes that the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is really riddled with false positives.
	Most positives are false positives.
	And from my perspective, it can't be relied on at all.
	You don't know what a true positive is with these PCR tests.
	There's no way to know.
	So they're all false positives.
	All positive and false positives with PCR tests.
	They're totally useless.
	The test is a polymerase chain reaction test.
	So it tests for bits of genetic material that we're told are SARS-CoV-2.
	What's wrong with that is that they assumed it exists through a computer model.
	You know, a sequence that was modelled, not a live a derivative sequence derived from a live isolate.
	You have to have a reference standard, for example, and like I said, the CDC doesn't even have any authentic SARS-CoV-2 to validate the PCR test.
	Now when you've got a PCR test, everybody knows you've got amplification cycles, right?
	The more times you run the test, the more cycles you do, the more likelihood, the more probability there is of a positive outcome, positive test result.
	In the test they are using, they are extremely Unbelievable!
	Far away from any biochemical reason, they are using 45 cycles.
	I mean, that's another argument.
	It's completely out of reason.
	With 30 cycles already, the PCR always starts to be dirty, to produce all kinds of genetic material, means to give a positive result.
	Because the enzymes used They got old with every cycle, heated up, cooled down, so they are not specific.
	They just produce, even without a given DNA, they just produce genetic material, giving a positive result.
	So, therefore, you can test everything and everybody positive, even the most pure water or vodka.
	They're basically just saying, hey, healthy people, take this test.
	So we can label you as a case because we're using that to drive all the policies.
	We can label you
	as a case. We can label you as a case. We can label you as a case. We can label you as a
	case. We can label you as a case. We can label you as a case. We can label you as a case.
	It's a bit like fishing, you know.
	And that's what it is.
	All this testing and screening, all this, you know, PhDs, all the rest of it, you know, it's a dragnet for generating markets for drug companies.
	So what we see happening is When they do their genomic sequencing, sometimes you detect slightly different sequences from previous, and someone could just declare that, wow, that looks like a new variant.
	And the most recent one was Omicron at the moment, and that's
	I mean clearly this was just a way to create more cases because what they said was that previously you would have a PCR that would look at two or three specific selected nucleotide sequences and with Omicron they said that the S gene or the spike protein sequence was mutated so that the existing PCRs were not detecting that particular sequence anymore.
	So essentially, what was previously a negative test is now a positive test.
	I mean, this is how crazy it's getting.
	So previously you'd have two or three of the selected sequences would be called positive, whereas now you don't need one of those sequences to be positive.
	And they say, well, that's because it's Omicron.
	So it's totally obscene.
	I've never seen anything like it, where a previous positive test becomes negative, but then you call it positive because you say that it's because there's a new variant.
	And that's why we saw an explosion, as predicted, in the number of apparent cases.
	So at no time did they take a group of people who were said to have this Omicron variant.
	They didn't study those people to see if they were actually unwell or what happened to them over a course of time.
	They did none of that.
	There's no clinical work going on.
	It was simply a declaration that we've detected a slightly different genetic sequence and hey presto, When other places around the world started checking for this genetic sequence, they start finding it too.
	But again, you don't need the presence of a virus to do that.
	These genetic sequences can be found anywhere once you start looking for them.
	I'm very interested in recent developments in medicine.
	So, for instance, I've been following the debate about fats.
	Recently, I've been following the debate about COVID-19, trying to figure out what is scientifically valid, what is not, how do the social powers that shape science interact to produce fats.
	What I've been observing was that We run the danger of going into another scientific mythology without great caution.
	That's my opinion.
	Because if you look at what happened was, you have Initially, you have some strange infectiology, some people dying, some this, some that, but without that PCR test that was developed, you would never have been able to say there is a new coronavirus.
	Like, let's imagine A time 20 years ago, or 40 years ago, where you didn't have the test, right?
	All you had to go by was patients who go to hospital, patients who are severely ill, and patients who die.
	If you use those indicators, at least in Germany, you would have never seen any exceptional wave of any infection, because there was none.
	Hospitals were not more full or empty than they were during the time of winter infections.
	You had not more people dying.
	You would not have known anything.
	So part of that corona crisis is actually a testing spree and a production of public anxiety due to testings.
	So what we are doing is we are producing probably highly irrelevant information by calling people sick who simply have some DNA scrap around.
	And this testing spree that went on has never been questioned.
	There were scientists who questioned that, but they have been silenced in the media, at least in Germany, very quickly.
	So they don't get media coverage, they don't get outlets, they mostly keep silent because they are bored away, or they are just frustrated because nobody listens to them.
	Probably publicly most people know me as the other half of Dr. Sam Bailey.
	By April it was clear that most people wanted to, April 2020, most people wanted to know what was going on with this alleged new disease sweeping across the world.
	So Sam started making some videos about COVID, the virology, the PCR, the excess mortality, and the issues that people wanted to know about, and her online stuff just really took off.
	Has SARS-CoV-2 been isolated?
	In short, no.
	Not by the rigorous definition.
	Unfortunately, in the modern era, isolation does not mean the purported virus particles have been fully separated and purified.
	Many people send me links to papers claiming to have isolated SARS-CoV-2.
	Most of which I have already read.
	In fact, our Virus Mania team have contacted many of these authors to clarify what they actually did.
	As I've shown previously on direct questioning, none of the authors of these so-called isolation papers claimed that they had a purified sample.
	Even Michael Law from the Robert Koch Institute wrote in an email that we received on September 4, 2020, I'm not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV-2.
	And then, sort of by mid-2020, we realised that once you start to question the narrative and start to get a bit of attention, various authorities and other organisations start to come down pretty heavily and start to allege that you're spreading misinformation or that you're completely wrong.
	With what you're talking about and that was Sam's experience by mid to late 2020 was that the censorship started and what we felt was that the closer we got to the truth the more the censorship ramped up and In some ways that drove us to keep pushing and pushing and to find out exactly what was going on with this whole COVID-19 story.
	It all happened really quickly with a video that Sam released related to why case numbers were suddenly going up here in New Zealand and just explaining that The PCR was not a diagnostic tool for infections.
	And that if you just start running these tests out into the population, you will find cases.
	And we've seen that around the world.
	The more you test, the more cases start appearing.
	With Coronamania in full swing in 2020, PCR, or the polymerase chain reaction, became a household name.
	As many of you know, the inventor of the PCR was the late Cary Mullis.
	But what was his background?
	And why did he come into conflict with much of the medical and scientific establishment?
	The video obviously got a lot of attention and spread around both New Zealand and the world pretty quickly.
	And within a week there was these fact-checking articles, which we know, you know, are completely fraudulent.
	They're often funded by the social media platforms themselves or pharmaceutical companies.
	There were smear articles in the media, coordinated smear articles.
	There was Sam's first contact with the medical authorities here, basically alleging that she was causing problems for public health and was spreading misinformation.
	And there was also problems at her workplace where she was basically blocked from returning to one of her work sites indefinitely.
	But to this day, Certainly with the media, they're unable to specify what it is because they don't want to get into the details because they know it will just simply embarrass them.
	So for them it's easier just to label various people as spreading misinformation without actually talking about the details of the material.
	And also with the medical authorities themselves, Sam's lawyer has requested that they specify exactly what their misinformation is so that we can respond to it, but they've been unable to ever do that as well.
	To be frank, the most censorship I have faced has come from within New Zealand.
	Up until last year, I was a TV presenter on one of the major networks, but that came to an abrupt end when I stated I wouldn't get a COVID-19 vaccine in one of my YouTube videos.
	And no, I'm still definitely not getting the vaccine.
	As you know, despite the promoted diversity and inclusivity themes in the current epoch, it is completely the opposite in reality.
	If you question something about COVID-19 or the vaccines, then they don't even want you included in the conversation at all.
	But I can tell you from my heart, this sort of cancel culture doesn't phase me.
	In fact, it shows me the path and keeps me connected to my work.
	It's really interesting because every The doctor and scientist we've reached out to has not agreed to come on one of Sam's videos or have a chat over the phone.
	We've had a couple who have engaged in a few emails going back and forth and but when it comes down to doing something publicly they are not interested and I think it is a major problem because Many of us, and I know people like Andy Kaufman's the same, would be happy to do like an open forum of discussing the different interpretations of the science.
	But I think that the establishment virologists in general are not interested because at the moment they're getting it all their own way in terms of the media coverage, the politicians and Health organizations legitimizing everything that they do.
	With nearly all criticism silenced by medical institutions and ignored by the mainstream media, the so-called test was rolled out around the world, diagnosing millions of citizens as alleged carriers of the alleged virus.
	The stakes of this diagnosis were tremendous.
	If sick patients were suffering from a deadly virus, that could theoretically have justified putting them on experimental doses of supposedly antiviral drugs, with potentially deadly consequences of their own, which work by destroying the body's DNA.
	However, if the patients were actually sick for any other reason at all, those same drugs would needlessly be attacking their bodies when they were already sick, In many cases, killing them.
	In fact, the very first patient to ever have died with a COVID diagnosis appears to have died due to the misdiagnosis itself.
	In the original three patients from Wuhan who were studied, and upon whom the scientific foundation of the entire pandemic was built, all three had a cough and a fever.
	But two of them got better on their own.
	The single patient in Wuhan who died also had had a cough, but his doctor had feared this disease was a new form of SARS, and thus had placed him on a ventilator.
	It was later shown that ventilators are so invasive, 90% of patients placed on them do not survive.
	Indeed, the scientists and doctors point out that without a valid test, sick patients were mislabeled as having COVID and accordingly were mistreated with a host of experimental protocols set top-down from medical authorities that resulted in death and disease on a massive and extraordinarily dangerous scale.
	What I found out when the whole thing started, I looked at the therapy And I found that they gave therapy to these patients, which were all immunosuppressive.
	They started with high doses of prednisolone, with high doses of interferon and lopinavir, some AIDS drugs.
	And all of these drugs, they tried to treat COVID-19.
	They're severe immunosuppressive.
	And the WHO made huge studies like the Recovery, the Discovery and the Solidarity Study in which they investigated also these high doses of hydroxychloroquine.
	Hydroxychloroquine is in a low dose as we use it in rheumatologic diseases.
	It's a useful agent.
	And it's cheap, and it's not so toxic.
	But in the doses they prescribed in the WHO studies, like in the recovery study, which was done in England, in London, they gave huge doses like 10 gram up to 9 gram in 10 days.
	And then you are in the range of a very toxic A problem with this hydroxychloroquine because this hydroxychloroquine has the problem that it does heart fibrillation, which means that you're dead.
	What they started doing is people who are wide awake, walking and talking, fully conscious and can breathe but are having some distress, they were putting those people on ventilators.
	Here's my question.
	Where are they?
	Where are the ventilators?
	And in order to do that, they had to first sedate them.
	In other words, give them anesthesia, like for surgery, and then paralyze them.
	Once you are tested COVID-19 positive, you are infectious, you get separated.
	You get intubated because the personal fears that they get infected.
	That's why COVID-19 patients get the intubation.
	And the intubation is always a very serious procedure for the patient because, especially in older patients, it's a problem for them.
	It's much better to give them just a mask, but the intensive care personal fears that they get infected by these procedures, that's why they prefer to do an intubation, which is bad for the patients.
	They had a published case series where they had almost 90% deaf people on ventilator.
	They were basically killing them with the ventilator.
	Critical care doctors say many patients placed on these machines don't survive.
	The outcome for a patient who has to be ventilated if they have COVID-19 is horrific.
	Chinese researchers studying critically ill patients on ventilators in Wuhan found in a group of 32 only one person survived.
	In other states like Florida where they weren't using ventilators They didn't have any excess deaths at all.
	There was an excess mortality in Europe, in Italy it started, and then in France, in England, and in Belgium, which is very interesting because Belgium has a border to Germany, but the excess mortality stopped at this border.
	That means There must be something else than the virus.
	The virus would go across the border, but the treatment stopped on the border.
	Because in Germany, we didn't do this WHO studies.
	I don't know why, but we didn't do it here.
	We added this high dosage of hydroxychloroquine, which we used in Belgium.
	And there they had also this peak of excess mortality only in one week, in April.
	And that's a very clear symptom of a iatrogenic problem and not of a viral problem.
	But this excess mortality has caused a lot of fear everywhere because they showed the intensive care unit with patients lying on their belly and getting intubated.
	And then they showed pictures of a lot of coffins.
	Särge?
	Sind Coffins.
	And these are all things who make a lot of fear among the people.
	And these pictures are in the head of most of the people still.
	And that's why the whole thing works.
	Fear drives the whole thing.
	Theoristically, we have this messaging that was really sinister, that went through all TV, radio, papers, magazines, billboards, everywhere.
	And also, not just the mainstream media, but also alternative media and social media.
	So everywhere on social media, it penetrated everywhere.
	The government in the UK has got this unit called the Behavioural Insight Team, which is full of psy-op people doing this advertising, you know, working out ways to frighten the population.
	And they've even released the minutes of their meetings, which show that we've got to make the population even more frightened so that they'll take the test, even more frightened so that they'll take the vaccines.
	Fear is the key to the whole of this, and fear takes hold And it drives your behavior.
	And when your behavior is fear-driven, it's not rational, it's not logical.
	And this is why they fast-tracked tests and drugs onto the market.
	Because the fear has guided public policy.
	And all the normal What in science we call, medical science, we call precautionary principles.
	These are very important guiding principles that stop drugs and interventions getting on the market too quickly.
	And all those principles have been put on hold.
	All these tests and drugs have been fast-tracked.
	And these vaccines have been fast-tracked.
	Normally, if you had a health crisis with a new illness, you would have a definition of the case which would be like, What are the symptoms that are unique and distinct that set this apart?
	And then what you do is you would send everyone who died of that disease for autopsy in their body.
	And when the autopsies are done, that's the chance to really find some way to diagnose this particular illness and separate it from others.
	The clinical symptoms of COVID-19 is indistinguishable from normal flu.
	Clinically, you cannot distinguish clinically the flu from COVID-19.
	It has the same symptoms.
	It gets fever, you have cough, you have this chills, Gliederschmerzen, I'll call it, I don't know, in the muscles.
	And so you can't distinguish it clinically, Even with this radiology, you can only distinguish it by the test.
	That means if you test for COVID-19, you diagnose COVID-19.
	If you test for influenza, you diagnose influenza.
	You see that the influenza is almost gone.
	Instead, now we have COVID-19.
	That means nobody diagnosed influenza.
	anymore.
	You don't check for influenza with PCR, but you only check for COVID-19.
	Public health law dictates that if you have a health emergency, everybody should be autopsied.
	Now, that didn't happen at all during this pandemic.
	They reversed the policy suddenly for no apparent reason.
	So we don't have this.
	So there are no series.
	We would have tens of thousands of autopsies and it would be very easy from that you'd find some characteristic that every person with this disease has this characteristic and you at least after they die you can tell who has it.
	Right?
	And that's a good start.
	And that just was never done.
	You had some small case series that were published, but they're so small, you can't really make any generalizations.
	And what they found in those autopsies was nothing new.
	They found typical findings of bacterial pneumonia, right?
	Which included blood clots and alveolar damage.
	So there is nothing distinctive to identify this I had a talk with my intensive care leader here in Kiel and asked him, is it possible that you have some influenza patients suffering from pneumonia on your ward?
	And he said, well, maybe.
	And I asked him, are you still checking for influenza or are you only checking for COVID-19?
	And then he said, no, we're checking for COVID-19.
	How do you know?
	That's not influenza.
	So there is no differential diagnostic anymore.
	So you are only checked for COVID-19.
	So everything is COVID-19 and it's very possible that on the intensive stations there are many patients who are indeed suffering from influenza.
	And I asked him, would you treat an influenza with dexamethasone?
	And he said, no, of course not, because you get severe bacterial super infections afterwards and severe diseases.
	So I'm afraid that we still have this misleading test who disguises everybody as a COVID-19 patient and gets this treatment.
	Dexamethasone.
	Yes.
	That could be the long COVID.
	What you say, long COVID.
	If you treat influenza with dexamethasone, That's counterproductive as well.
	they get severe disease if they survive it.
	Is there a new sickness that emerged that Are people getting sick in a new way?
	Is it just a relabelling of the flu?
	In general I think so.
	I think generally that You know, people have gotten sick of pathologies that have always been there.
	I mean, you know, bilateral interstitial pneumonia has always been there, you know, pulmonary Thromboembolic pulmonary.
	I don't know the word in English, but you know when your veins get blocked by clots, you know blood clots.
	It's always been there.
	It's been studied since the last 200 years.
	So there's nothing new.
	It's usual pathologies that have been given a different name thanks to the connection to the SARS-CoV-2.
	In general, we're talking about, you know, pneumonias, flus, respiratory diseases that were always there and that they just got a different name.
	Generic symptoms of COVID-19 are not a separate disease entity.
	They are not.
	COVID-19 is a made-up disease.
	It's a confected disease.
	It hinges on the PCR test.
	In COVID-19, that's not a new disease, what we are talking about.
	It's pneumonia.
	That's not a new disease.
	And that was my first question, how it become...
	Covid-19 is repackaged COPD, repackaged renal disease, repackaged anything.
	It's the frame that's put around pre-existing disease.
	From Clunonia, there's no reason to look for a new virus.
	That's why I believe that they had this test already there.
	COVID-19 is repackaged COPD, repackaged renal disease, repackaged anything.
	It's the frame that's put around pre-existing disease.
	But one has another element, which I report.
	I'm actually about to publish a book in Italian.
	Maybe I'll translate it into English, where all these things will be reported.
	China actually started the application of the vaccine, mandatory vaccine law, December 1st, 2019.
	They imposed vaccinations, six vaccinations onto the population, and where did they start applying it?
	Because Wuhan is the capital of virology and vaccinology in China.
	So, while at the beginning, you know, you remember those pictures where people were falling on the streets?
	If you get six vaccinations all at once, you know, maybe after 20 minutes that you leave the vaccination hub, you know, you could actually fall down, you know, And this is something that nobody ever mentions, but that is, I think, something that has a lot to do with these deaths, you know, in Wuhan.
	Plus air pollution, because both Wuhan and Bergamo and Brescia, in Italy, are among the most polluted areas in the world.
	Bergamo and Brescia, which were the center of COVID explosion in Lombardy, in Italy.
	Lombardy has the highest level of pollution in general.
	But also, Bergamo and Brescia had the Italian record of flu vaccination.
	They did 185,000 vaccinations in the two provinces in the two, three months before COVID, plus 80,000 anti-meningococcus vaccinations.
	The two things together I can explain a lot.
	Not to mention one other thing that nobody mentioned.
	There's 72,000 articles.
	If you go on PubMed and dig it, drug-induced pneumonias, you get 72,000 articles.
	And in this article you find that all the main drugs, anti-inflammatory drugs, like ibuprofen, aspirin, and so forth, all these anti-inflammatory drugs.
	Nosterol and NSAID, right?
	Nosterol, steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs.
	Statins, Omeprazole, which most people take for, you know, stomach acidity, cardiovascular drugs, and even monoclonal antibodies that are now proposed as a cure for COVID, they cause pneumonias like COVID.
	Now, since most of the people who are affected by COVID were 80 to 84, And I bet most of them were taking, they had been taking 2, 3, 5, 10 drugs for the last 10 years.
	What can you expect?
	I mean, they're all ready to, you know, then you do two vaccinations in an area very polluted.
	Is it strange that you get a pneumonia?
	No, it's not strange.
	The real problem is that whereas before the pneumonia, you would stay at home, you would rest for a couple of weeks, take something.
	Now you were brought into hospital, And as soon as you had respiratory difficulty, you were intubated and essentially killed.
	How could this happen that they could have a test that's no good with therapies that are against what doctors know?
	How does that happen?
	Well, again, Follow the money trail.
	It didn't happen overnight.
	The thing that we're experiencing right now was decades in the making.
	Decades in the making.
	And we're paying the price for it now.
	They tried it with a bird flu.
	They tried it with the swine flu, but they made not enough pressure, so the population didn't get it.
	They didn't take the tummy flu, they didn't take the vaccination for swine flu, because there was not enough fear, not enough pressure.
	In the bird flu, they tried to communicate that the bird flu could be transmitted to humans, We are, however, very concerned about avian flu in Asia.
	There are more pigs, people, and poultry in that environment than we've ever seen before.
	That is the formula for emergence of new flu strains.
	claims from virologists that they made all these horror scenarios with 30,000 or 300,000 dead people in Germany alone and things like that, which never happened, of course.
	In the swine flu, they took it a little bit stronger already because they claimed that it could be transmissible between humans.
	Ladies and gentlemen, in late April, WHO announced the emergence of a novel influenza A virus.
	Thank you.
	This particular H1N1 strain has not circulated previously in humans.
	The virus is entirely new.
	The virus is contagious, spreading easily from one person to another, and from one country to another.
	But even that didn't work, so it was not enough fear.
	At the end, 93% of the population refused to take this shot, this vaccine.
	And it was funny to see in the night, it was still talk shows and apocalypse now and everything, people dying into the thousands, you know.
	And all of a sudden, in the next morning, nobody ever, never was speaking about swine flu.
	The virus just disappeared, mutated itself into the nothing.
	And everybody survived happily without vaccination.
	And nobody took the swine flu vaccination, at least not enough.
	Most of them they had to throw away.
	But what happened?
	Then they analyzed what went wrong.
	Why the population was refusing this life-saving vaccine, you know?
	And we're not thinking about, hey, they did survive without.
	Because only 7% of the population got a shot, and the rest not.
	So, this they analyzed with their international colleagues, epidemiologists, and they wrote a whole magazine on it in the Bundesgesundheitsblatt, which appears every month, the federal magazine on health, issue 12 of 2010, it's titled, Lessons learned.
	Lessons learned.
	And he said, the next pandemic, it never ever should happen that the specialists are arguing against themselves in public.
	This has to be excluded.
	Only one voice.
	Then, life-threatening wrong information on The virus on the vaccine has to be suppressed and we have definitely to control the internet because it was only on the misinformation of the population they refused the vaccine.
	But now they had the idea, and I think that is really planned, because if you look at the scientific data, you are wondering how it could happen that our famous virologist at the Charité could publish a paper.
	It was given one day, and the next day it was published already, where he claimed The problem of the asymptomatic infection.
	That's what the trick was this time.
	That you explain to people or that you claim that the asthmatic infection is possible.
	That means everybody can be infectious.
	And the thinking is really now influenced by information that's coming in.
	And the information is that more and more accumulation of data indicate that people who are without symptoms at all can transmit the virus.
	You and me, every healthy person can be infectious.
	And this study is based on a scientific misconduct.
	Importantly, they can do it merely by speaking.
	So there's been a recent study that came out that said Even the force from your voice of speaking, there is a degree of aerosolization.
	Namely, the virus can come out not very far, a few feet and down.
	And you might inadvertently be in a situation where you're close enough where that kind of transmission can take place.
	Asymptomatic transmission has never been proven.
	In fact, it's been disproven.
	Really?
	How so?
	There was a big paper A study from China that disproved it.
	So we've been told there's these asymptomatic carriers and that children can be these super spreaders and all this.
	Is that accurate at all?
	It is complete nonsense.
	It's never been shown.
	It's a claim.
	It's a claim that has been spread as a fact.
	And this I consider criminal.
	The idea of asymptomatic carrier spreading the disease COVID-19, which is the pneumonia, not a cough, but the pneumonia COVID-19, is untrue.
	And it is backed by zero data.
	There is not a single case in the world documented.
	So, in fact, the whole, the whole business is a fake.
	That they've made us believe that asymptomatic carry is real.
	That one's a real, that one's a, gotta, gotta clap because that's showstopper right there.
	I mean, wow, they did that.
	They did that.
	They convinced People that, healthy people will make you sick.
	Wow!
	I'm just boggled with that one.
	That is never ever, there's no science on that.
	There's nothing.
	Symptomless contagion.
	And that's brand new as of last year.
	This whole notion.
	They've added a brand new little technical phrase there that nobody ever used before.
	And whenever those brand new little things like that pop up, especially in an area that people have had decades or centuries of background, all of a sudden overnight there's this new expression.
	This supposedly contains information, but it only goes to the public.
	It's not meant to scientists.
	There's a lot of that going on.
	There's a lot of conversation that's meant for the public but not for scientists?
	Most of it.
	Almost all of it.
	On television.
	Almost every last word of it is not meant for scientists.
	Science is puke.
	There's no science in it.
	Don't think about what you just said.
	Are we checking for flu anymore?
	How does that happen worldwide?
	Yeah, that's a good question.
	How is it possible that everybody makes the same stupid things?
	I think we are connected worldwide via computer.
	And we have the CDC, the Centers of Disease Control, they have all over the world.
	We are connected worldwide, so you can act worldwide with the same test and you get the same results.
	the offices branches so we are connected worldwide and so you can act worldwide with the same test and you get the same results
	if you you have the WHO which influences the whole world they have their CDC centers all over the world and so from there you can regulate the whole thing with the WHO and in
	In the Pacific Ocean, in the last island on the Pacific Ocean, even in Samoa, for instance, you have the CDC, which regulates the same thing.
	You get the same problems there if you are in the middle of nowhere.
	Well, it's the digitalization which has connected us already, completely.
	That's why you can regulate from the top of the WHO, can you regulate the whole thing.
	At the same time, what is Striking or what is really not so reassuring is that we are basing our decision more on fear and anxiety and not on a really rational discourse on what is going on.
	Like this.
	I'll tell you how medical doctors look at scientific articles.
	They sign up for a service like Medscape, for example, and What Medscape does is they curate articles that they think are important to doctors and they put the title and like a one-line blurb in an email of all these articles, right?
	And doctors are super busy.
	They have to keep churning out patients to even pay for their overhead and make a living.
	So they sit down like wolf down a sandwich over a 15-minute break and they pull up this email with these little headlines and they just read the headline and they say, That's it.
	So the headline says, Isolation of a Novel Coronavirus, right?
	There you go.
	It's a bit isolated.
	That's all you need, right?
	But remember what I said earlier, about more than half of published research findings are false, and also what I said, that you have to read the methods section.
	When you read the methods section, and eventually if you actually find out A little bit of history about virology.
	What you learn is that virus isolation is not isolation at all.
	The average doctor I talk to knows very, very little about virology.
	They accept the claims at face value.
	They know very little about the history of microbiology and infectious diseases.
	And again, except most of the claims that face value.
	And most of them know almost nothing about the PCR technique, as well as how genomics works.
	In particular, the metagenomics, which is being used more and more widely now.
	So, and yeah, I'd say At least 99% of doctors do not understand the flaws in the basic science.
	So I don't blame them on that regard, that they're dealing with information which they think is true.
	But I do think they should take more responsibility for investigating the claims that have been made by the virologists and the public health officials and the pharmaceutical companies.
	I'm telling you, these doctors will go along with anything.
	If the Centers for Disease Control sent out a memo saying we have new information showing that the best way to keep people healthy is to have them bend over and stick a two-by-four sideways up their rear end, you would have a quarter of a million doctors say two-by-four therapy is where it's at.
	And the other thing is they're cowards.
	They watch what happens to people like me.
	I have to live like a frickin' prisoner.
	Because of the way that the stance that I've taken on this and everything else.
	They watch healthcare professionals like me and Peter McCullough and Scott Atlas who speak out and have to have death threats and extra security cameras all over the place.
	My house and my property are lit up like a Christmas tree 24 hours a day.
	And they say, I'm not letting that happen to me.
	I'm not going to lose my job over this, you know.
	So they go along together.
	A doctor in this country has been struck off the medical register, or was going to be, Dr. Adil, for saying it's a hoax.
	The authorities don't like that word.
	Because I think it, they don't like the word hoax or scam because it's a sort of It's not nuance.
	It's hissing it.
	It's actually saying what it is in one word.
	A hoax.
	A hoax.
	You know, you've been scammed.
	More than 100 years.
	The scam is that they claim that there's a virus, an evil virus that can only be fought effectively by The government in this country is captured by the pharmaceutical industry.
	They're like this.
	The pharmaceutical industry, did you know the pharmaceutical industry provides 40% of the FDA's funding?
	All right?
	And it's going to just keep going up.
	And the people like at the NIH and these other people, I mean, there's a revolving door.
	We've already talked about it, how they go here, and then they go in the pharmaceutical industry.
	And the money's behind it.
	It's where the money is.
	And then the pharmaceutical industry has all these lobbyists.
	The biggest lobbyists and the most wealthy lobbyists in the world are these pharmaceutical companies in Washington, D.C.
	CDC has a foundation.
	I got a hold of their tax return for 2019.
	They took in $319 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, every drug company on the planet, the Imperial College of London.
	They're on the payroll of the drug companies and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
	I have a slide that has like 35 patents the CDC owns on vaccines.
	But I tell people, you can go start looking these up.
	Alright?
	And if I were to include all the patents the CDC owns, I would have probably 25 slides of 25-30 patents each that the CDC owns.
	They're in the vaccine business.
	Okay?
	They're in the vaccine business.
	So that's why the CDC isn't a trustworthy agency.
	The NIH also has a foundation.
	Takes in enormous amounts of money from drug companies.
	Fauci's agency gets a lot of it.
	Fauci's agency is just an incubator for drug companies.
	And years ago, they started this thing called the EIS, the Epidemiological Intelligence Services, like medical CIA is what they call them.
	They've trained 3,600 people.
	People wonder how come there is a talking head doctor on every news station in the country.
	It's because these people will get on television and say anything the CDC tells them to say.
	They're pawns.
	Well-paid pawns, I might add.
	And that's how they do it.
	Probably it's also important, and not many people know, is that there is, there has been games, huge, huge games, at the center of biosecurity, I think it's called, at the University of Maryland, since 20 years or so, where leaders and media people from all over the world were invited.
	Now what happened was, obviously, During one of the last games, it was actually a coronavirus that was simulated, that had escaped a lab or something like that and was being promulgated in the Western world and what should be done.
	And then there was a huge exercise of what needs to be done.
	To build a little bit on what Avril said, I think as in previous conversations where we've talked about centralization around management of information or public health needs, there needs to be a centralized response around the communications approach that then is cascaded to informed advocates, represented in the NGO communities, the medical professionals, etc.
	You mean centralized internationally?
	Centralized on an international basis.
	Because I think there needs to be a central repository of data, facts, and key messages.
	And you had people from all Western governments, not necessarily the chancellors, but, you know, second-hand people who came from ministries, from the administration, who had to take part and do this and that and this.
	Helping to discern the truth from the misinformation on the technology platforms is going to be an important part of this response.
	So there is work that's being done to actually create algorithms to sift through information on these kind of social media platforms.
	And I know that the Gates Foundation and others are funding organizations to work on things like this.
	And this is, in my view, the reason why we have such a quick Run into a certain direction without thinking.
	Because people were actually convinced now it's happening.
	We've planned this and we've practiced for that for 10 years and now it's there.
	and now we know what to do. - These vaccines that aren't really vaccines, they're genetic drugs that have been under development for about two decades.
	For a real, reasonable therapy to try to repair genetic diseases like hemophilia, for example.
	Things like that.
	That if they work, that would absolutely really benefit people.
	They don't.
	They've always failed.
	But they're using the same exact technology that failed primarily because they were toxic is one reason why they failed.
	People get cancer, they would die.
	And we're using the same technology now to insert Genetic material that's never been done before and it's causing all kinds of problems all over the world right now.
	It's killing people, naming people.
	Nobody knows the extent of what these things are going to do.
	And if they pass regulations where they have to vaccinate people on an annual basis, on a regular basis.
	Keep putting this genetic material into people with lots of other materials that we don't know anything about that have been alluded to, for example, like nanoparticles, which can be very, very dangerous.
	They can be carcinogenic.
	For a fact, they're on about the same scale as asbestos, which causes cancer.
	Due to a FOIA request from a brilliant Dr. Byron Breidel of a Japanese study, He was able to find out that the lipid nanoparticles are highly biodistributed, where they're not supposed to be.
	They're supposed to stay at the injection site.
	So this paper clearly showed an accumulation in very scary places.
	The highest accumulation was found in the ovaries of women.
	They're found in the brain.
	Not supposed to be there.
	The second highest place were the adrenal glands.
	We don't have any idea what the accumulation of these lipid nanoparticles is doing.
	We have no idea.
	Because the studies weren't done.
	We didn't know this was going to happen.
	We injected half of the human population and now we know that it's happened.
	And the thing that scares me is normally I wouldn't be so nearly as frightened by these things had I not known that they were so small and that they could get inside cells.
	Because that is really, really frightening.
	Because once it gets in cells, you can't get it out.
	That's one of the problems with aluminum.
	The body hasn't figured out how to rid itself of aluminum.
	Once it gets in places for quite a while, it's gotten made home in you.
	You can't get it out.
	Is this why we're seeing spontaneous abortions?
	Dysmenorrhea?
	Amenorrhea?
	This isn't anecdotal.
	These are hundreds of thousands of women.
	There's a movie made called Testimonies with a woman reporting on this.
	There's a number.
	It's not one woman.
	I don't know a woman who doesn't have a story about this.
	This is a problem.
	Like, the women's fertility thing is a problem.
	And this is just one angle.
	The foundation of any claim of safety for pregnant women is one paper.
	that had a huge math error in it, which was pointed out by a reader, and it was so bad that they were forced to acknowledge it and do something about it.
	So they did, but they didn't change the conclusion of the paper, and they hid, they buried the correction somewhere deep in the appendix where you'd never find it.
	So this study, which every single person who says that these are safe for pregnant women is basing their opinion on, their wrong opinion, had tested, it was like 837 maybe women, different phases of pregnancy, first, second, third trimester, whatever.
	It was a small percentage of women underwent a spontaneous abortion in the context of the products in their study.
	But the error, and it is supremely bad, and they either knew about this or they didn't think about it, was that 700 of the 837 women were in their first and second trimesters.
	When you consider only women in their first and second trimesters, The ratio completely changes, and the percentage of women who underwent spontaneous abortions therefore becomes 82%.
	If you're in your first or second trimester, it was staggering.
	So it's almost so staggering, it's almost unbelievable, which I was in disbelief.
	So I got the paper, I went to table four, I checked the math myself, And I confirmed exactly what this person had said.
	And then I went and I found, you know, the thing where they said, oh yes, we did this, and if you're vulnerable.
	It's all real.
	And... I didn't even need to know this, because I've been looking at the VAERS data for months now, almost a year.
	And the spontaneous abortion rate is off the hilt yet.
	To summarize, it's really horrifying that we even have to think about this when we're talking about the females of the population being affected in this way.
	These things need to stop being rolled out immediately.
	I tell you, the more I learn about this, the scarier it gets.
	It's all risk and no benefit.
	I mean, when they say effective, it depends what they mean.
	We know that they're effective in doing something, but they're not effective in preventing illness, even though that's what the manufacturers claim.
	I mean, even if you look back to Pfizer's original clinical study, there were more deaths in the group that had the product than in the group that didn't.
	And although people would claim it was still small numbers, it was still about a 40% difference between the two groups.
	So that's concerning for a start, because most people are thinking that they're taking this product to save lives, but there's certainly no evidence that that's what it can do.
	We don't have any sense, no definition of a real safety or efficacy clinical trial in our midst.
	They've wasted the placebo group, so we can't know.
	You know, we can't do a real comparison.
	You see what I'm saying?
	In the study that they submitted for emergency use authorization, that they injected the placebo group with the Pfizer product?
	Yes!
	No, after!
	I'm saying after.
	Like, I think it was two months, don't quote me on that, but it was shortly thereafter.
	They were like, oh, okay.
	It wasn't long enough to make an assessment.
	They destroyed, like, any concept of a real, like, un-injected, injected study.
	They destroyed it when they injected those people shortly thereafter.
	And I think concerningly, we've had a study come out of Germany saying that there was a huge correlation between the injection and all-cause mortality.
	I think the correlation was about 0.31, which is really, really strong.
	And they looked at all the different regions of Germany and looked at the proportion of people that had been injected with these products and then looked at total death rates and the correlation between injections and death rates was staggering.
	Now that's not proof of causation but it certainly raises huge red flags.
	The most important thing people should know about what's going on in VAERS right now is that if you compare what's happening in 2021 Which is, and only in the context of the COVID-19 products, with the last 30 years of data.
	Theirs was brought into existence in 1990, so it's been on the go for about 30 years.
	You see this, like, there's no comparison between what we've seen in the past in the context of all the other vaccines combined with What we're seeing now, absolute number wise.
	So there's something like 1400% increase in reporting of adverse events and we're not finished this year.
	And I'm actually a little bit scared about the fact that I think that we're just starting to see the beginning of a very bad fall and winter.
	Not because of the weather necessarily, but because I think I think the immunological shitstorm that I'm calling it that's going to follow the multiple injections is going to be pretty disastrous.
	COVID vaccines aren't vaccines.
	By their own admission, Moderna, Tau, and I can't remember his last name, admitted to Peter Doshi in an interview which was published in the British Medical Journal, our vaccine does not prevent infection, transmission, hospitalization, or death.
	Okay, so why would you get this abomination?
	Now to put this in perspective, in 1976 during another fake pandemic when there were five cases, and I have to tell you this because sometimes it's just the theater of the absurd, after five cases of the flu were reported at Fort Dix, the CDC set up a war room staffed by doctors 24-7 waiting for the sixth case because you need multiple people on the phone to hear About the sixth case, which never came.
	But they introduced this abomination of a flu vaccine.
	It killed 56 people.
	They took it off the market.
	At the final analysis, it killed 674 people.
	It's considered one of the worst medical catastrophes of the 20th century.
	Now keep those numbers in mind.
	The CDC admits that we've killed 20,000.
	We have whistleblowers inside the government that are providing us with screenshots and downloads and flash drives of data showing that the number is somewhere around a quarter of a million and they just approved it for five-year-olds.
	Not even, we're not stopping it.
	We want to give it to five-year-olds.
	Now I have asked people to give me some explanation of this because forget about what the whistleblowers gave us.
	Let's say you don't believe the screenshots and the pictures and I mean it's pretty irrefutable stuff.
	Put that aside for a minute.
	The CDC acknowledges killing 20,000 people.
	They want to give it to five-year-olds when there's a statistically 0% chance of hospitalization of death.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	It's well known that VAERS is underreported, and of course, underreporting is going to vary depending on the adverse event, depending on a lot of factors.
	But it's a thing.
	It's a real thing.
	It's been studied.
	But in the context of these products, and in the context of certain adverse events, me and a few colleagues have found ways to estimate what this might be.
	So, I used as a base data set the phase 3 clinical trial of Pfizer that they presented to the FDA.
	I'll just leave that little cough there.
	And I used their calculation of the number of people in the, let's call it the drug group, the drug arm versus the placebo group that succumbed to a severe adverse event, which was 0.7% of the of the volunteers of the 18,000 or so.
	So what I did was I took that 0.7% and I multiplied it by the number of people who'd been injected at the time with the Pfizer product to give me an expected number of people who would have succumbed to a severe adverse event based on their data.
	I came up with a number.
	And then to calculate the underreporting factor, or the IRF, Or the multiplication factor.
	I divided that by the number of adverse events, severe adverse events that were reported to VAERS.
	And I came up with the number 31.
	So again, this is, it's just a conservative guesstimate based on the Phase 3 clinical trial as a base data set.
	Steve Kirsch did the same thing, but he used an allergy, an anaphylaxis study.
	He used anaphylaxis as a proxy for death.
	And he came up with the number 41.
	And another guy who recently published a paper put that at about 100.
	But nonetheless, there are many different ways to come up with an approximate number of actual people who have died as a result of the, or in association with these products.
	And all of these numbers, and all of our estimates, all bring that number very close to approximately 200,000.
	You know, back then, I think it was early October.
	So... It's likely that there are a lot more people who've died ...in association with these products than we see in VAERS.
	The so-called VAERS, Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, you know, for vaccines.
	A CDC-funded study in Harvard, by the way, I think it was 2011, to find out what's going on and how to improve it, found out that it's about 0.3% of all adverse events, vaccine adverse events, are reported.
	You know, to bears.
	So just using that as a rough guide, that was back in the quieter days, not the COVID days, that you can just, you know, multiply whatever numbers that are reported in bears right now by 100 and you'd probably be closer to what's really going on out there right now.
	I have a, I've written a myocarditis, a paper on myocarditis with Peter McCullough and He's like the expert cardiologist and I'm the data analyst.
	We found a 19 times above background reporting rate in VAERS for children aged 12 to 15.
	And this is insane.
	So myocarditis in kids is a big problem.
	That was the point of the paper.
	We need to look into this.
	It seems like a no-brainer.
	If we're seeing high rates of myocarditis reporting above background in children after these injections, why are we injecting them at all if COVID isn't a threat?
	So we challenged that in the paper, which a lot of people didn't like.
	And it became clear in the saga that this paper has been on.
	As of two days ago, it was After being fully accepted, on its way to publishing, online pre-proof, PubMed citation, fees paid, contract signed, everything done.
	Done deal.
	Done deal.
	Months later, they sent us a... No, I'm sorry, they didn't send us a notification.
	We were both independently informed, Peter by a German journalist and me by some colleagues, that the paper had Disappeared and it's sad because it's it's just science.
	It's not meant to be politics.
	It's not meant to be litigation It's not meant to be What is the technical word?
	There's a word for this in law.
	I looked it up Everyone has to become their own lawyer now It's called tortious interference with a contract So it seems as though somebody A third party who is not in, you know, a member of the contract.
	There's two parties involved, them and us.
	And it seems that someone else came from out here and is interfering with it.
	But the most fascinating thing about this injection, which the authorities tell us, we do not know if this injection will protect you from getting a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
	And we don't know if this injection will give you antibody immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
	And we don't know if it will stop the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from one person to the next.
	Then what is this?
	Because those are the criteria that are needed to make an injection vaccine.
	And they tell you.
	We don't know.
	We didn't even test to see if it would do those things.
	But what you hear the they-sayers say is, I got my shot to protect everyone else.
	From what?
	And anybody who reads the patents will know that these messenger RNA injections are meant To alter our genetic codes.
	It says it!
	In the past, these are transgene therapies.
	These are gene therapies.
	There's a whole textbook on genetic immunizations.
	Where they develop a technology to give you an immunization that alters your genetic codes.
	The J&J patent says transgene intervention.
	It's a transgene therapy.
	Meaning, they're going to take genetic material and insert it into your genes.
	This injection has nothing to do with stopping a SARS-CoV-2 virus infection.
	And the authorities tell us that.
	But the public walks around thinking we're going to be saved by an injection that's never been tested for safety, that has chemicals in it that are known toxins that have never been used in vaccinations before, that has technology, the messenger RNA, that's never been used in vaccine before.
	So there's no proof that it works to protect us the way a vaccine is supposed to protect us.
	Animal studies using this mRNA technology has shown disastrous effects.
	Animals have died, completely, when utilizing this mRNA technology.
	And the they-sayers are smitten with an injection that's killing us, and permanently damaging us, with no safety profile at all, and plenty of evidence That it's not meant to save us from any kind of infection.
	In fact, it's meant to alter our genetic codes.
	Ultimately, the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy.
	I always like to say, if we had surveyed two years ago in the public, would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body, we would have probably had a 95% refusal rate.
	And look at this, what I got.
	You know, I'm a 65 year old.
	Guide for older adults.
	COVID-19 vaccination.
	Guide for older adults.
	That's the British government document that every over 60 person gets in this country.
	Page 11 says this.
	Can I give COVID-19 to anyone after have the vaccine?
	That's what it says.
	That's the question.
	You know, the FAQ.
	Can I give it to anybody after have the vaccine?
	We do not yet know whether it will stop you from catching and passing on the virus.
	That's what they say about their own vaccine.
	We don't know if it will stop you getting it or transmitting it.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	because this is the first RNA vaccine ever.
	And they have only tested this in young, healthy, sporty, youngsters.
	No old, no diseased, no children.
	I mean, this is, it's madness, but if you believe that there's a devil, and if you, you know, have to exaggerate every year in order to make 5% more business, and this was Ivan Illich already running, you know, in front of this in the year 76 with his book, The Nemesis of Medicine.
	And he said, if medicine is not taken away out of the business field, they have to produce more every year, and the only way they can do it is to exaggerate.
	And this is what we have.
	It's a result, an economy power to exaggerate, and that's working in the field of medicine and virology.
	So, this is mathematics acting.
	To be forced to produce more, to exaggerate.
	I think it's so hard for people to understand that there's a mindset, a medical mindset that is with these blinders on, so that people are making these mistakes over and over and over and over again.
	Can you explain to us What that mindset is, where it came from... I think the way of thinking how diseases evolve, I think, changed during the 19th century or at the beginning of the 20th century.
	And I think...
	I said it before, I think it changed in a way that the chemical industry was gaining power and they just needed, if they wanted to sell their products, they needed this one-dimensional
	model that you have one disease and you can only you have only one cause and you can only fight it with products from pharmaceutical companies and then people they they
	they really try to to yeah gain from from it and and and they they they established this um this girl girl theory that um girls or that microbes are the primary or maybe the primary cause of disease
	You know, partly they were, you know, the same people who were promoting this.
	We're talking Rockefeller and, you know, they were changing the medical curriculum so that it was all based on the germ theory and its offshoots.
	They didn't want the attention on their new dyes and chemicals and oil-based products and even electrification and basically changing the way human beings live.
	They didn't want the attention to be on toxic influences.
	I think it's a parallel to the military-industrial complex.
	You need an enemy.
	You need an enemy to have an excuse for the big expenses you need for the military.
	And it's the same in medicine.
	If you want to feed the medical industrial complex, you need one epidemic per year.
	And if you want to feed the military industrial complex, you need one war per year.
	So these are very similar problems.
	You need an enemy.
	You need an enemy to be fought.
	And if you don't have an enemy, if you can live together, Then the military or the pharmaceutical industrial complex gets no money.
	So again, follow the money trail.
	This is what is behind this exaggeration.
	The force, the need, if you want to survive, to produce more, to get more.
	And in this field of biology, every year, no fear is induced.
	If you will scare the world to death, Don't make it just a poison, you can stay away from poisons.
	Make it an infectious disease, transmissible.
	You know, something like that, that you can give to other people.
	Not something that's located over here and you can walk away from it.
	You know?
	So, infectious diseases, money's made of infectious diseases.
	Viruses are a misconception for something that comes from us.
	And that disease is caused by Basically starving and poisoned.
	The whole virus model has distracted us terribly for, you know, a century now.
	And it's steered us away from trying to understand why people do get unwell.
	And, you know, there's a lot of clues that we can look into.
	And in the past, we've made huge mistakes with assuming that some diseases were infectious.
	You know, things like scurvy even, once upon a time.
	They thought it was getting passed around sailors on ships and it wasn't until they worked out that it was a vitamin deficiency that could be readily treated.
	But up until that time it was thought that there was some sort of contagion passing on.
	Again, this is not a new problem for humans, that we've blamed illness on the wrong cause.
	And I think it's the same with what we're seeing around the world today, is that people are getting sick for different reasons, but we're trying to blame it all on a single fictional, you know, virus.
	So, yeah, I mean there's lots of reasons people get sick and I think nutrition is a vital factor.
	Many of our foods, including what look like, you know, healthy vegetables and fruit, are actually folic contaminants and their nutritional value has been reduced to almost zero in some cases.
	Our water supplies are often far more contaminated than people realize.
	I think the amount of pollution, particulate pollution in the atmosphere, the electromagnetic pollution now for humans is just absolutely incredible.
	So most people are exposed to continuous, you know, electromagnetic radiation, but they don't even realize it anymore.
	And also questioning The massive medicalization of what should be healthy populations, you know?
	And I think in a lot of situations, as we're seeing today with COVID-19, the medical system is not making people healthy.
	It's making them sick.
	It's not that people are sick or healthy.
	It's the story that you're being told about these people.
	We were told a story.
	For whatever reason.
	And the story, the real story is much more simple and much more beautiful and much more hopeful than we thought.
	Because if we're just made of, you know, water and energy, and a few minerals and stuff, and what we get sick by is misconceptions, starvation, and poison, then we have the ability, if we choose, to clean that up and have a much better life.
	Much better.
	But in order to get there, we need to see this picture as real.
	And to realize that there's nothing to be afraid of.
	Once you see that, the way you see life changes.
	And if we don't see it like that, we're going down a path which could be very hard to get out of.
	Very soon.
	The shift in thinking is so significant that many will simply find it too hard to change the way they perceive illness or the politics of disease.
	Yet, if the voices of these critics are ignored, we risk continuing to steamroll into a future where constantly evolving experiments with treatments that attack the body to kill the supposed virus cause extraordinary suffering throughout the world, and in which none are even allowed to abstain from the constant dose of toxic protocols without risking their jobs, schools for their children, or punishment by the state.
	Do the voices of critics matter?
	What kind of society do we live in if they don't?
	Should these critics, and those who agree with them, be forced themselves by society to participate in what they see as dangerous and deadly superstition?
	Pseudo-science run amok, pushed by pharmaceutical companies that reap the enormous benefits brought on by this full-scale attack on nature itself.
	Yet, if illness is not caused by viruses, as these doctors and scientists lay out, What then were the true causes of the great diseases of the past?
	Polio.
	AIDS.
	Smallpox.
	The Spanish Flu.
	Why and how were these diseases eradicated?

▲