Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 6, 2022 - Jim Fetzer

02:25:04

Moneypox Mania Summit - Debunking the Monkey-business of Virology

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Common people actually understood what they were saying.
	Nobody would believe it.
	So they have a way, especially now in virology, but in general in biology, medicine and science, of confusing people so that when they hear something that they would never possibly believe, they seem to think it's okay.
	So, what do I mean by that?
	We've heard over and over again from experts in infectious disease and epidemiology that if you get the SARS-CoV-2 virus, you can become either immune or not immune.
	They tell us that if you have a positive PCR test, that means you either have the virus or you don't have the virus.
	They say that you get infected by the virus, and they've told us for decades that if you're infected by a virus, you become immune for life, like measles and chickenpox and mumps.
	And then they say, if you get infected with SARS-CoV-2, you'll either get immune for life or you won't.
	And the reason I say this is a way of confusing people is if your wife asks you to go to the store and pick up some lemons and your response is, sure, I can either go to the store or not go to the store, your wife would think you're crazy.
	If you go to a store to buy some nails and you ask the store owner, so do you have any nails to sell?
	And the store owner says, yeah, I either have nails here or I don't have nails here, which of course are the only two options there are.
	People would think that guy is crazy.
	That's not how human beings talk.
	And yet we hear you're either immune or you're not immune.
	And nobody seems to bat an eye.
	The other way that they do this is they say things which, again, if you understood what they were actually saying, nobody would believe it.
	So, for instance, there was a famous study out of England where they attempted to show that they could make a volunteer sick by exposing them to what they say is the virus.
	Now, if you read the study, what you find is they never exposed any volunteer to any virus.
	They took a cell culture and squirted it up their nose.
	A cell culture has like literally hundreds of different things in there, including possibly a virus, which they never actually found.
	And so they squirted it up their nose and some of them got sick and some of them didn't.
	But the point is, they said they exposed them to a virus.
	That's like going to a restaurant, and then you go home, you go to an Indian restaurant, and your friend asks you, what did you eat at the restaurant?
	And you said, I ate turmeric.
	And the person says, what do you mean, you had a bowl of turmeric?
	Well, no.
	The turmeric was in chicken and it's got some onions and salsa and a bunch of other things.
	So why didn't you say you ate chicken with curry and had turmeric in it?
	Nobody says that it was, I just ate turmeric.
	But yet, over and over again, we hear from virologists, we expose them to the virus, or this was specific, when there's no way it was specific.
	And so essentially what they're doing is confusing you with words.
	Now, I'm going to stop there because the rest of the panelists will go into explaining the science behind how we know that nobody has demonstrated that there is a SARS-CoV-2, or there is a monkeypox, or that these things they call viruses Which are elusive and wily and smarter than all of us, even though they're just a little bit of protein and nucleic acid.
	And somehow smarter than a 50 trillion dollar budget of hundreds and thousands of the best minds in the world.
	But this little bit of protein has outsmarted us so we don't know whether you're immune or not.
	And finally, For over two years now, the members of this panel have heard, oh, why are you going on about there's no virus?
	That's irrelevant.
	I don't understand.
	We don't understand the science.
	You'll be arguing germ theory and the gulag.
	This doesn't matter.
	This is divisive.
	We have to get along in the freedom community.
	And we have said over and over again, if we don't get this right now, we're going to be back doing this over and over and over again.
	And so here we are two years later, with the next iteration of the nonsense called virology.
	And it's the monkey business called monkeypox.
	And I can tell you, If we don't get this right now, we're going to be doing this over and over and over.
	The science is not hard to understand.
	We will explain it to you in the next hour.
	And thanks for listening.
	And thanks, Alex, for having me part of your show.
	And now let's hear from people explaining the monkey business of monkey pots.
	Thank you for that, Tom.
	I so appreciate everything that you've done to raise awareness to this, and I'm really looking forward to hearing from the next panelist as well.
	Alright, so for our next panelist, we will be bringing on Dr. Sam Bailey.
	She's going to be accompanied by her husband, Mark.
	to discuss virus mania and the pandemic playbook.
	Dr. Sam Bailey is a New Zealand medical doctor who has trained and practiced within the medical system for two decades.
	She has New Zealand's largest YouTube health channel with over 300,000 subscribers.
	Thank you for joining us Sam and Mark.
	Thank you.
	Thanks so much, Alec.
	Now, when I became part of the Virus Mania team in 2020, Torsten Engelbrecht and Dr Klaus Kernlein quickly brought me up to speed with how the medical industry was inventing epidemics out of thin air.
	And blaming them on viruses that have never been shown to exist.
	In the past, we've seen SARS-1 and various iterations of influenza like bird flu and swine flu.
	But with those alleged epidemics, the public was never that scared and the media wasn't the coordinated overt propaganda machine that we have today.
	Unfortunately, those failed fake pandemics allowed the medico-pharmaceutical industry and their globalist allies to sharpen their game over the past decade, and the result was the production known as COVID-19.
	And by June 2020, Mark and I thought that there was no way that the fake pandemic could be sustained for much longer because it was becoming so farcical.
	No one was dropping in the street like had been shown in Wuhan, and all that was evident was the usual colds and flus.
	And the PCR kits had no established diagnostic capabilities, and as we all know, no one could produce a physical sample of the alleged pathogen.
	Probably like many on the panel here today, we thought if we make some public statements exposing the anti-science going on, there'll be little chance of anyone accepting the vaccines that were in the pipeline.
	The result, of course, was intense censorship by big tech, smear pieces by the mainstream media, and for some of us legal battles with the medical authorities, it became apparent that the narrative was going to be pushed out with all the major players in lockstep.
	And it's hard to believe, even for me, that I was once a TV doctor on a mainstream network, because when I was fired in 2020 for not supporting the COVID narrative, it was My awakening of how corrupted the medical system was and then my true path appeared.
	And when Monkeypox was mentioned in the news for the first time a few weeks back, I didn't even need to look at it because I knew it was a scam.
	As we have outlined in Virus Mania, there is a playbook that has been developed and Monkeypox has all the hallmarks of another Hollywood virus blockbuster.
	However, being scientifically minded, we needed to analyze the publications concerning Monkeypox to see exactly what they were playing at.
	Now, when I say we, I mean the royal we, which is mostly Mark, as he's our chief researcher.
	And his job description is to read through hundreds of virology papers in the unlikely event that I die or that one of them actually demonstrates a particle that meets the description of a virus.
	And once that is all done, I can condense all that painstaking work into a short video where I get to have all the fun.
	And as expected with monkeypox, there were no viruses to be found in this alleged viral illness.
	And like COVID-19, another trick is to create vague diagnostic criteria.
	COVID was initially sold as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, hence the SARS moniker.
	that was attached to the fictional coronavirus.
	The clinical syndrome SARS has a case fatality rate of 10% so immediately it drives up the fear and gets the public's attention.
	However, the symptoms of COVID were progressively diluted until they became indistinguishable from the common cold and then of course millions of quote cases were asymptomatic.
	It was all based on the circular reasoning of the PCR and being used to confirm the diagnosis.
	If they attempt to pass off a monkeypox or any other new pandemic, it will need to be done in the same way.
	First, as we have seen, they've been circulating some images of very sick individuals in third world countries who are alleged to have monkeypox.
	Then they throw in some footage of coffins and shortages of toilet paper for good measure.
	And like SARS, they scare them with reports about historical fatality rates of up to 10%.
	Of course, these fatality rates won't manifest in reality, so then they loosen up the definition and say that monkeypox may involve only a few vesicles, some cold-like symptoms, or just a rash.
	Claim that the PCR is able to diagnose things very accurately, and with mass testing, it is now picking up asymptomatic individuals.
	Instead of explaining why most people don't appear unwell, Then they declare that these people are suspected super spreaders who need to be quarantined along with the rest of the population.
	And then vaccines enter stage left and you have a perfect stage fictional pandemic.
	One of my interests is how diseases are diagnosed.
	And many of the public are under the illusion that doctors take a look at someone, run a few tests and then accurately diagnose them with a particular disease.
	While this may be possible with broken bones or gunshot wounds, when it comes to skin reactions, doctors are usually up the creek without a pedal.
	The diagnosis of conditions such as monkeypox, if it can even be said to be a specific condition, is essentially subjective.
	And they're based on non-specific skin lesions.
	We have investigated the Monkeypox PCR kits, which are not clinically validated, so they cannot help decide who has what.
	And medicine's obsession with disease diagnosis is misguided in itself, but the tragedy during the COVID scam, and potentially the future, is that it's become completely unhinged from the concept of health.
	PCR results in the antigen kits are used to dictate decisions at a world level with the same management being prescribed for everyone.
	What on earth has got to do with helping people to achieve their best possible health?
	It's motivated me to keep producing content for the public with a different health paradigm that focuses on ways to keep well without fear or the bankrupt germ theory.
	Many are waking up to the fact that clinging to the viral theory is pointless.
	It's not an ideology that can lead to better health outcomes.
	Our grandmas had better advice when they advised us to a brief fast followed by hearty chicken broth soup.
	Compare that to public health officials who close organic food outlets while keeping McDonald's and liquor stores open and then prescribe social isolation and staying indoors.
	Those who benefit from the virus illusion are the medico-pharmaceutical complex and the globalist cult that need these narratives to bring about their population control measures.
	You don't need face masks, vaccines and restrictions on your personal freedoms to be healthy.
	Our family has ignored all of these anti-human measures and we hope it can serve as a path that others can embrace.
	Thank you, Alec, for inviting me to participate in this panel today with all these inspirational men and women.
	I've got to take off in a little minute to look after my little son, but Mark will stay on and I look forward to seeing you all again soon.
	Thank you so much, Sam.
	And thank you for all the work that you do in your wonderful YouTube channel.
	It's raised so much awareness to this issue and I know will continue to help so many people.
	And Mark, excited to hear from you here soon.
	All right, so for our next panelist, we'll be bringing on Mike Stone from viralyg.com.
	Mike Stone has an educational background in health and exercise science and is currently a health and wellness coach.
	He has been researching and writing about the, quote, virus lie for the last few years, which can be found, again, at viralyg.com.
	He'll be discussing the eradication of smallpox, in air quotes, and how it relates to monkeypox and other pox illnesses.
	Welcome, Mike.
	Well, thank you, Alex.
	Thank you, everyone, for having me in this panel.
	I deeply respect all of you.
	So it's an honor to be here.
	So I get to talk today about the eradication of smallpox, or the so-called eradication of smallpox.
	And so I'm going to just go through kind of a timeline of the events that transpired Starting in 1948 with the foundation of the World Health Organization.
	Because at that time when the World Health Organization was founded, smallpox was actually not endemic in the industrialized world.
	In the U.S.
	and in other major countries, the cases were not there.
	I believe the last case of smallpox in the U.S.
	was actually in 1949.
	Um, so the reason that they didn't really start an eradication goal right away is because they did not have the technology, the vaccination technology and infrastructure in order to attempt, uh, an eradication process.
	But, um, the reason they believed that it was possible was that, uh, smallpox was actually One of the viruses that was said to only infect humans.
	So there was no animal host, no reservoir.
	It couldn't jump species.
	So they figured if they could vaccinate enough people and create that immunity, that they could eradicate the disease for good.
	So jumping forward a little bit into 1958, this was a pretty big year for smallpox and monkeypox, which I'll get into in a moment.
	So in 1958, the World Health Organization decided To declare that they were going to eradicate smallpox globally.
	So that was the year they were going to get the vaccines out there, a mass vaccination campaign.
	I believe it was Russia that was kind of backing the plan.
	Also that year, in 1958, we saw the first case of monkeypox virus, which was actually found in I believe it was three lab monkeys that were being used for polio research, vaccine research at the time.
	And I won't go into too much detail as far as like the isolation methods and stuff like that, because I know Dr. Kaufman and others will be breaking that down.
	But spoiler alert, they did not purify or isolate any virus in that paper.
	But they did see the same symptoms in these monkeys As a smallpox, so they were concerned that there could have been a potential smallpox reservoir animal host.
	Luckily enough for them, it became monkeypox instead, so they didn't have to worry about at that time.
	It was only affecting animals or monkeys.
	Interesting enough though, in Brazil there was an outbreak of smallpox at one point.
	I don't know the exact year, but it was before they discovered monkeypox.
	And there was a colony of monkeys that were said to come down with smallpox like disease.
	But they didn't isolate any sort of agent from these monkeys at the time.
	So it apparently was not smallpox.
	They didn't decide that.
	So anyways, flash forwarding again to 1915.
	In the eight years that the World Health Organization had attempted to eradicate smallpox, it wasn't very successful.
	They didn't have the means or the backing Certain countries weren't being strict with their vaccination programs.
	So the World Health Organization in 1966 decided to have an intensified vaccination campaign as there was still, I believe, 33 endemic countries that were seeing cases of smallpox.
	And there was even cases that were popping up in countries that were said not to be endemic or the disease had been eliminated from But in any case, that was the year that they decided, or they predicted pretty accurately, within 10 years, they would have smallpox eradicated.
	Somehow they always can predict these things.
	And so this time it was different though.
	They had the backing of the US, Russia, and some bigger nations, and they had increased funding.
	There was like $2.4 million in funding that they had added within that time period.
	There was the invention of a new needle, bifurcated or something, I can't remember how to pronounce, but they had a new needle that made mass vaccination easier.
	They had increased surveillance, so they were going to search for cases.
	So basically this time, they were serious.
	It was an intensified campaign.
	They were going to eradicate smallpox in 10 years.
	Um, in 1970, while this was going on, while the eradication was going on, um, they had some cases of smallpox that ended up, uh, popping up in countries that, uh, were said to be free of smallpox.
	They had already had their mass vaccination campaign.
	And so any sort of cases that were going to occur would have been a reoccurrence in showing that the eradication efforts were not as successful as they were letting on.
	And so these cases were actually in Zaire and in Liberia, and they were confirmed as smallpox at the time.
	And, um, Zaire, they had two cases, uh, at smallpox and, uh, they ended up, uh, re-examining these cases.
	And the first one, they ended up changing the diagnosis from smallpox to chickenpox.
	So.
	Luckily enough, they didn't have to worry about that one.
	The other one was a nine-month-old baby boy in Zaire who just so happened to be the first ever human monkeypox case.
	So, Bullet Dodged was not smallpox, it became monkeypox.
	Even though all the testing and everything had showed that it was smallpox, they did some further serological testing and determined that it was Indeed, monkeypox.
	The other two cases in Liberia, they were looking at in Atlanta, the World Health Organization.
	After they heard of this case of monkeypox in Zaire, they re-examined their smallpox cases because they're like, well, this can't be.
	We've been eliminated in Liberia, so it must be monkeypox.
	And sure enough, they decided through their serological testing that these were also, in fact, monkeypox.
	So they got lucky again.
	But granted, you know, just these researchers saying that these were monkeypox cases instead of smallpox cases wasn't enough.
	It wasn't good enough evidence.
	For that, you need an informal group of experts to come together and jointly agree that the smallpox cases were in fact monkeypox.
	Fortunately, a year later in 1971, a group came together, literally called the Informal Group for Monkeypox and Related Viruses, and they convened and determined that yes, those smallpox cases were in fact monkeypox.
	And so they had a collective sigh of relief.
	The smallpox virus was not reoccurring anymore.
	It was still being, the ratification program was being successful.
	We can jump now to 1977 as this campaign was going on.
	1977 is the year that they said the last smallpox case occurred.
	And it was actually in Somalia.
	The guy was originally diagnosed with malaria.
	He went to the hospital.
	They said, no, it's not malaria.
	It's chickenpox.
	He got worse.
	A week later, it became smallpox.
	He apparently recovered, so it wasn't a big deal.
	But that was the last natural case of smallpox, which when that was over, the World Health Organization, I believe three years later in 1980, was confident enough to say that smallpox was successfully eradicated.
	But did they really eradicate smallpox?
	Yes, they did if your definition is that they changed or retired the name smallpox, because that's essentially what they did.
	They retired smallpox, but if you're talking about did they eradicate the symptoms of smallpox, No, then they definitely did not meet that definition because monkeypox and smallpox and even chickenpox are clinically indistinguishable.
	They have the exact same symptoms of disease.
	Before smallpox was eradicated, chickenpox was said to be the most common misdiagnosis between the two of them.
	Once smallpox was eradicated, It became monkeypox and chickenpox.
	They couldn't tell the two.
	They're basically too similar.
	And so the main difference that they will say between monkeypox and smallpox is that in cases of monkeypox, they have swollen lymph nodes.
	That's the defining characteristic of monkeypox.
	So, when you look through the literature, and you go back, was that not a symptom of smallpox, as they say?
	Well, you can look back in 1904, I believe, a guy named Councilman came out with a study and said that it just wasn't, swollen lymph nodes was just not a symptom they looked for.
	Pre 20th century, they did not look for that as a symptom of smallpox.
	So it just went undiagnosed.
	In 1952, another researcher named Braz came out and said that there were cases of smallpox with swollen lymph nodes.
	So, it's not a specific symptom just related to monkeypox.
	And even then, it does not occur in all cases of monkeypox.
	It did occur in smallpox, but again, it just was not something that they regularly diagnosed.
	So, we can see when we go throughout history that these symptoms of disease, these same symptoms of disease, still exist.
	And interestingly enough, the smallpox vaccine, which is known as the most dangerous vaccine ever created by man, just keep that in mind, it actually It's known the side effects are the exact same symptoms of disease that are associated with smallpox.
	And one of the main normal symptoms is swollen lymph nodes.
	So it shouldn't be too shocking why we might see swollen lymph nodes in monkeypox cases.
	In that regard.
	So basically, to sum up, even now with the monkeypox cases, they are determining, especially since they're calling them atypical cases, the ones that we're seeing now, that in order to diagnose it, you have to rule out other diseases of eruptions of the skin.
	And that includes, you know, chickenpox, because they regularly confuse those.
	They have measles, herpes, shingles, Um, any of the diseases that are, uh, eruptions of the skin need to be ruled out first.
	They, they don't do that.
	I mean, in, in the guidelines of a suspected case, all you have to do is have the symptoms of, uh, what they call monkey pox.
	Uh, they don't even have to do any lab tests for the other ones.
	Just it's based on the interpretation of the observer, so to speak.
	Um, but it is.
	And, and the thing is.
	These are all symptoms.
	There's no way they're ever going to eradicate these symptoms because they are all part of a detoxification process that the body goes through.
	It's just varying stages.
	And so in that sense, no, smallpox will never be eradicated.
	It was never a virus to begin with.
	It's just a normal health or process that unfortunately people go through a severe stage at some points in time.
	But those symptoms of disease still exist.
	They've just been rebranded, relabeled, repackaged, resold as monkeypox or chickenpox or whatever other skin eruption disease they want to call it at the time.
	And unfortunately, that's what we see over and over again, even with syphilis and AIDS or, you know, COVID-19 and allergies, the common cold, the flu, pneumonia, you know, all wrapped into one.
	So they have this habit of continually taking the same symptoms of disease and selling them as a new virus or a new disease or an outbreak of an old one.
	And ironically, perpetuating those symptoms by introducing poisons and toxins and labeling them as cures that people take.
	Absolutely.
	Thank you so much, Michael.
	You're welcome.
	Thank you for having me.
	All right, and our next panelist will be Dr. Andy Kaufman.
	Andy Kaufman is a public speaker, researcher, natural healing practitioner, business and homeschooling consultant, inventor, and COVID-19 whistleblower.
	Dr. Andy has his bachelor's in science from MIT in molecular biology and completed his psychiatric training at Duke University Medical Center after graduating from the Medical University of South Carolina.
	Andy will be joining us to discuss the original Quote, isolation studies of monkeypox as no viral particle were shown as usual.
	Thank you for joining us, Andy.
	Well, thank you so much, Alec and Sayer, for putting this together and Christine, who took a lead role in organizing.
	It's really great to be part of this panel.
	And, you know, I wish we would have all known each other and been ready to do this at the beginning of the, you know, COVID outbreak.
	But here we are taking Advantage of being ahead of the curve.
	So today I am going to talk about the original isolation paper.
	So Alec, if you want to bring up those slides, I appreciate it and Mike, thank you for ruining the surprise ending for me.
	But seriously, so I just want to try to go through this quickly because there's a lot of material to cover in this paper and I do have a more lengthy video that people can find on Be Sovereign as well as on my platforms.
	But here is a statement from the CDC.
	I wanted to, you know, start with the official narrative and they said that it was first discovered in 1958 And it was at a essentially a research facility, and it turns out that they researched polio vaccines and the polio virus at this Institute.
	And here is the paper itself with the reference on top in case anyone wants to find it for themselves.
	And it was only four years after the original Enders paper, which first described this process of so-called viral isolation.
	So this is kind of a historical discovery here, and it does answer some bigger questions from the field of virology.
	So I was kind of blessed to come across this.
	But as it describes here in the introduction, There were two outbreaks of non-fatal pox-like disease, and these were in cynomolgus monkeys, I believe a variety of macaque monkey.
	And this was at the Institute, like I said, where they did polio vaccine research.
	And interestingly, these outbreaks occurred 50 or 60 days after the monkeys came across the ocean from Africa and arrived to their laboratory.
	OK, so in other words, it seems like they didn't get sick in Africa.
	It seems like they got sick after they arrived because of the big delay before they manifested the illness.
	OK, so now this describes the state of the animals and how they did when they first arrived.
	And it's quite interesting because There were 150 animals in the first shipment and they decided to just give them antibiotics prophylactically, penicillin and streptomycin.
	Streptomycin is something we don't really use hardly anymore except in advanced tuberculosis because it's so toxic.
	They said only a few animals died during the following Two weeks.
	Like, why wouldn't they all be healthy?
	Why would only a few die?
	It's like as if it's a good outcome that only a few died instead of more than a few.
	And there was an increase in mortality due to pneumococci.
	Well, that's quite interesting because those antibiotics are supposed to prevent a bacterial infection.
	So, you know, this is misinterpreting different areas of germ theory, but we do know that those antibiotics are toxic.
	And Then it tells a little bit more about how they were kept, but I'm going to skip the details.
	Now, outbreak number one involved six monkeys, and outbreak number two, and that was out of 150, and outbreak number two involved eight monkeys out of 223.
	And these monkeys, by the way, a number of them died also shortly after arrival, but they didn't develop the so-called monkeypox until later on, as I mentioned.
	Now, this is quite interesting because we've already heard a little bit about the claimed clinical presentation of monkeypox with, you know, a generalized illness like a febrile illness and then a period of delay before the skin rash.
	And we also heard about lymphadenopathy or swollen lymph nodes being a cardinal sign of this illness.
	But here we learn from the original Discovery of this illness that no clinical signs of the disease were noted during the outbreaks prior to the onset of the eruptive stage, which means the rash.
	And later on, it'll tell you that after the rash, also, there were no further signs of disease.
	So in other words, they didn't have any signs of disease except for this rash, and it describes it here.
	That it was a generalized petechial rash and that's like basically little tiny blood clots under the skin called petechiae.
	They look like red dots.
	That by the way can be associated with problems with your platelets, the parts of your blood that are involved in stopping bleeding.
	And they rapidly developed into a maculopapular eruption.
	That means macules or something means you can see them.
	They have color and papules are rays that you could feel.
	So that means basically a rash.
	Judging from the scratched appearance, blah, blah, blah, it seemed that the eruption was associated with some itching.
	So an itchy rash sounds like chicken pox, right, Mike?
	The lesions were seen over the entire trunk and tail, the face and the limbs of the animals being particularly abundant.
	And developed on the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet.
	Now in medicine, this is like really important because very few rashes supposedly develop on the palms and soles.
	So this is a way that they divide up the possible causes of a rash.
	And then interestingly, they said that some of them were umbilicated.
	Now that's something that you see in other conditions.
	In fact, there's one condition that they say is associated with the HIV infection, the initial stage, which has umbilicated lesions.
	So there is a lot of overlap in these clinical presentations.
	So here we have once again the general health of the animals that appeared quite affected at this stage, as well as earlier and later in the disease.
	So in other words, aside from this rash, they had no illness at all, and even after death on autopsy, None of their organs had any signs of disease.
	And there were some that they didn't kill an autopsy and they left alive for up to four months.
	And those animals didn't get any sick, but they did develop scars.
	In other words, just like chicken pox scars.
	Now here we get into the methods of the experiment.
	I'm going to talk about just the two aspects, the so-called virus isolation and the electron microscopy, which they did differently in this case.
	So they added, of course, more antibiotics to the samples when they took pus out of the skin lesions, used penicillin and streptomycin.
	Inoculated that not only in the tissue cultures with using the monkey kidney cells, of course, and some human cells including the Henrietta Lacks cells that you can find a documentary on, but they also put them into chicken embryos.
	Which is an older technique, sometimes still used with influenza research.
	But interestingly, even though there were 14 monkeys who had clinical rashes, they only isolated it from three monkeys.
	Now, why would they do that?
	They figured just kind of, if they're going to do it, they can just have more tissue culture, you know, flasks without too much additional effort, but they didn't do it.
	Now here, so they did, of course, find the characteristic cytopathic changes in the cell culture and as well as in the chicken embryos.
	And they say that that means there's a virus.
	Of course, there could be no other possible cause of a toxic cell culture.
	But here, they actually did a control.
	Now, they didn't do this as part of the experimental design, but for some reason, they just happened to do a virus isolation protocol on some healthy monkeys that had no rash.
	And guess what?
	They found the same virus.
	In fact, they say that they isolated it.
	Okay, so here it says, in some of the tubes, cytopathic changes developed.
	And later, and monkeypox virus was isolated from these cultures, and it was from animals who were healthy during both outbreaks.
	So this is your control now.
	So now we have the original ender's control in 1954 from measles.
	We have now a control reported in the original monkeypox isolation, which shows monkeypox in healthy monkeys as well as sick monkeys.
	That tells you right there, it violates Koch's postulates, tells you that whatever you found, even if you really did find a virus, it still is not the cause of the skin lesions.
	Okay.
	Now, of course, they did other experiments that they think proves that it is, but we'll get to that in a minute.
	So here, the electron microscopy.
	Now, in this case, instead of taking a sample from the poison cell culture, they actually took the pus directly from the monkey's skin lesions.
	And they also took it from the embryos that were inoculated.
	So they have two different samples here.
	Now, they did the usual, you know, put this sample through quite a lot of processing as they do with electron microscopy, and I encourage you to look into Harold Hillman's work.
	Tom Cowan has talked about that extensively.
	So they use things like osmium tetroxide, for example.
	But they also digested it with trypsin, which is an enzyme that digests proteins.
	And we've seen some controversy around that with the SARS-CoV-2 isolation, particularly the Australia paper.
	Uh, where they couldn't get the right appearance until they digested it.
	So in other words, they made it look like what they wanted to.
	Now, here's the interesting thing that they did is they did shadow casting with platinum.
	So this is a different technique than we're used to seeing and I'm going to explain it a little bit because it's going to help interpret the results of what they saw.
	So shadow casting is essentially when they spray a thin layer of a heavy metal on a grid that they place over the sample.
	And what happens is, is that you get a different levels of brightness based on these heavy metals under the electron microscope and areas that are like depressed are going to be brighter and areas that stick out are going to be darker because they have less stain.
	Okay, so keep that in mind.
	And now we're going to... Sorry, just one more thing about the electron microscopy, because they did say they did some purification, but it says here that they're not particularly free of accompanying impurities, showing that they aren't pure.
	But here it says that There are quite a few particles clearly enough to allow the well-known rectangular appearance characterizing the virus of the pox group to be distinguished.
	So remember that rectangular or brick-like appearance it is referred to.
	And we can see here, we see these bright areas of the platinum stain that have a rectangular type of shape, right?
	Now, we go to a more recent article where they're studying microscopy and they're studying layers of metals and they say that actually these metals, like platinum specifically, oxidize quite easily.
	And when they oxidize, they form these nano-bubbles, which, interestingly, are the same size as those rectangular-shaped particles we've just seen.
	Now there's also plenty of oxidizing material present due to the sample preparation and also the diseased nature of the cells and particles that they're sampling would have reactive oxygen species.
	And in this paper it says that metals such as platinum are very easily oxidized in this process.
	So I just place these two side by side and you can see
	Now, I know that you have a higher resolution with the modern image, and it's a different type of imaging that gives you a three-dimensional appearance, but if you look at the smaller bubbles and look at the shapes and note that they're pretty much the same size, you can see that it's very well possible that what we see could just be an artifact of oxidized platinum and not have anything to do with what's in the culture.
	Now, I did another comparison of the image because this is the more modern image that we've seen in every newspaper and blog article.
	that has reported on monkeypox from the mainstream.
	And I found, I did a reverse image search to find this on the CDC website.
	And there is a description that it comes from supposedly a human who is infected, but there's no reference to a paper or a description of how this sample was prepared.
	But this is the most popular image that's sent around for monkeypox virus.
	And I thought it was fascinating because you can see that there is no rectangular or brick-shaped appearance of these particles at all.
	And so I put those side by side with the original images as well, and you can see that they don't really resemble each other in any scrutinizable way.
	So I think we can really call into question what the heck we're seeing in these images originally published in 1959.
	So this is the last thing I'm going to mention here, and this is from the author's discussion conclusion section.
	And I'll read.
	The present study reports two outbreaks of a non-fatal pox-like disease in cynomolgus monkeys housed in this institute.
	So, key thing from there, non-fatal and pox-like.
	So, not pox, but also not fatal.
	The clinical manifestations observed in the monkeys were so typical that it seemed fairly certain that the disease was caused by a pox virus.
	Now, so typical, the only symptom were skin Now, that occurs in many diseases, including diseases that have been invented since this time, like pemphigus, for example, or bullous pemphigoid, or toxic epidermal necrolysis, and many others.
	Also, it's really not distinguishable from shingles, other than perhaps the distribution of where it is.
	But it's just interesting that they say that there's so much information about the clinical presentation that it gives them some sense of certainty.
	But they do note that it's an assumption because they say this assumption was substantiated by the isolation from the pustules of an agent which grew readily on the chorioallantois of chick embryos producing characteristic focal lesions.
	But it also grew readily from healthy monkeys in tissue culture, which they don't mention.
	And morphologically, the agent was found to have the size and brick shape appearance typical for members of the pox virus group.
	And that must have changed since 1959 because the images they present in the modern era no longer resemble that.
	So I can only conclude here, especially due to the positive control samples from healthy bunkies, that they did not isolate any such particle.
	They did not create any causal link between a particle and a disease.
	They simply probably poisoned a bunch of monkeys with antibiotics, with toxic food, with isolation and loneliness, taking them out of their natural environment, putting them in cages, and that's most likely what resulted in their toxic expression of a rash.
	Thank you so much for that, Andy.
	And I want to just bring up here, for more examples on the nonsense of EM imaging, please visit Mike Stone's website by rawlig.com.
	There are many, many, many errors and fallacies associated with EM imaging that I highly recommend people look into.
	And thank you again, Andy, for joining us.
	Next, I'll be bringing on Christine Massey to discuss the freedom of information request.
	Christine Massey is a former biostatistician in Canada who has been collating hundreds of freedom of information responses over the last two years to show that health and science institutions worldwide are unable to provide or prove the existence of SARS-CoV-2 or any other alleged virus.
	Thank you so much for joining us, Christine.
	Oh, I think you're on mute.
	There we go.
	You're good now.
	Oh, Christine, you're on.
	You're muted.
	I don't know if it's.
	Sorry.
	There we go.
	You're good.
	Thank you, Alec.
	So I'm really happy to be here with you and many of my heroes.
	So since the spring of 2020, many people around the world have learned about this virus isolation issue, largely thanks to people on this panel.
	And they decided to look into it further and verify whether health and science institutions in their country actually have records of the alleged COVID-19 virus, which is called SARS-CoV-2, being found in any sick people and isolated or purified so that the follow-up steps of characterizing and sequencing that specific thing
	And doing fully controlled experiments with that specific thing could be performed because they wanted to know if there was actually evidence of something meeting the definition of a virus.
	So these people, including myself, started filing freedom of information communications to ministries of health and universities and other publicly funded institutions, including ones that had publicly claimed to have isolated the virus, the alleged virus.
	So we required of them to provide any study or report in their possession, custody, or control authored by anyone, anywhere, not just studies that they had themselves authored, that actually described this purification step having been done.
	So here we are two years later, more than two years later, and we have literally hundreds of Freedom of Information responses and court documents All publicly available on my website from 188 different institutions in well over 30 countries.
	Not one of these institutions has managed to provide or cite even one record of the alleged virus having been found in and purified from even one human by anyone, anywhere on the planet.
	So this verifies, along with the evidence in all the so-called virus isolation studies, That there is not a shred of science behind COVID-19, only misconception and meaningless tests, meaningless diagnoses and meaningless statistics.
	It's impossible to validate a test without a gold standard and essentially what the studies and what all these freedom of information responses are showing is that nobody has a sample of this alleged virus.
	And then, because we also learned, thanks to people on our panel, that this complete and utter lack of science is not specific just to COVID-19, some of us started filing Freedom of Information requests on other alleged viruses to find out the same thing, if there were any records of them being purified from sick hosts.
	So we now have a large and growing collection of responses For example, we have the CDC on record being unable to provide any record of any of the alleged viruses on their so-called immunization schedules having been purified from any human.
	And the same is with the New Zealand, the top health and science institutions in New Zealand.
	They have no records.
	The Public Health Agency of Canada is on record admitting that they have no record of any alleged virus being purified from any human by anyone ever.
	We have responses on HIV, HPV, influenza, smallpox, on and on and on.
	It doesn't matter what virus we ask or which institution we ask, we always get the same result, no records.
	And we also have several top institutions on record admitting that what we're asking for is just never done in virology.
	So now this brings us up to the monkey pox and even though it's pretty clear what the answer is going to be, we do have people filing requests.
	So I have filed one with the CDC and they have told me that we'll need until at least August 10th to give a response.
	I've asked the Public Health Agency of Canada and other people have been helping in New Zealand and the UK and the U.S.
	And so far, we have one response back, and that is from the local public health unit where I live, which is in Peterborough, Ontario.
	So this is from Peterborough Public Health, and surprise, surprise, they have no records.
	And in that request, I also asked if they don't have any records because none exist.
	That they provide any study that in the opinion of the medical officer of health, his name is Thomas Bigot, that any study that in his opinion proves the existence of the monkeypox virus, which he has been tweeting about.
	And once again, that he couldn't even give me any study that in his opinion proves the existence of the virus.
	So all of these documents are freely available to everyone on my website.
	My website is fluoridefreepeel.com.
	Oh, thank you.
	And okay, that's great.
	And then I'm going to give some tiny URLs too, just to help people find them.
	People can probably find them, at least if they're on a laptop, they'll see COVID-19 FOI responses, but in case it doesn't, I think on some phones, you might not see the main menu.
	So I'll give a tiny URL, So tinyurl.com forward slash no record found.
	That will take people to the SARS-CoV-2, which are the COVID-19 documents.
	And then for all these other imaginary viruses, if you go to tinyurl.com forward slash no virus isolated, you will find all the others.
	And if anyone would like to help and file an FOI, which is Freedom of Information, there's a template on my website to help them, make it easier for them.
	And they can find it at tinyurl.com forward slash template FOI.
	So in summary, I encourage people to look into this issue for themselves so that they can see that virology is simply not a science.
	And thank you so much, Alec!
	Thank you so much, Christine.
	The work that you're doing to expose this is incredible, and we appreciate you so much.
	And definitely go check out Christine's website and all of her work.
	Thank you again, Christine.
	Thank you, everybody.
	Our next panelist is Mark Bailey.
	He will be discussing PCR and its misuse for diagnostics and testing.
	Dr. Mark Bailey worked as a doctor for two decades, including as a clinical trials physician before leaving the medical system in 2016.
	Mark and Sam Bailey now produce health content for the public through videos and articles.
	Mark is a former professional athlete and seven-time New Zealand duathlon champion.
	Thank you for joining me, Mark.
	Well, thank you, Alec, for putting together this amazing panel today and having the opportunity to speak.
	So yeah, really the PCR is at the heart of fake pandemics because it provides the case numbers.
	These conjured up numbers are taken not only by the public but also the vast majority of doctors as some sort of objective proofs of things that haven't even been shown to exist.
	The PCR kits can now be deployed by the billions and provide the means to create all sorts of fictions that have no connection to health or the natural world.
	The PCR, or polymerase chain reaction, is just that.
	It's a manufacturing technique that relies on a molecular reaction in a test tube to make more copies of a targeted genetic sequence.
	However, adding the word test to the PCR opens the door to all sorts of misinterpretation.
	As the inventor of the PCR, Carey Mullis, clearly pointed out, it's not that there is misuse of the process, which is simply a predictable chemical reaction, it's the results that can and have been totally misinterpreted.
	Targeted PCR requires the sequence to be known in advance, and that's how the primers are designed.
	For example, if you had a particular bacteria, you can isolate the cells and sequence its genome.
	In that case, you know exactly where the genetic material came from.
	If there are highly specific sequences in that confirmed genome, then a PCR protocol could be designed to target them.
	However, Even in this circumstance, it's problematic to turn this process into a clinical diagnostic tool.
	For example, in 2006, the PCR resulted in a false whooping cough pandemic in New Hampshire.
	In that case, they were comparing it to the presence of the bacterium Bordetella pertussis.
	Now, in my view, that's not a pathogen, but that's another issue.
	However, the issue that it showed was that the PCR was a catastrophic failure, as it wasn't even accurate for something which had been shown to physically exist.
	But now we'll move to how the PCR is used in alleged virus detection, which is even worse, and this follows on nicely from what Christine has just been telling us.
	Because they can't produce the gold standard, that is, physical isolation of their supposed virus, the virologists simply assert that their cell cultures and patient specimens contain a virus, and then they attribute various genetic sequences of unproven provenance to the imagined virus.
	In this way they claim the test is now detecting a quote virus and they've completed a circular reasoning loop.
	But even on their own terms it would be a false claim because the PCR cannot be said to detect their supposed virus.
	A positive result simply means that the selected genetic sequences were present.
	And here's where we need to remind the virologists that the theory of a virus demands a replication-competent infectious particle in its entirety.
	The PCR couldn't confirm such a particle, even if it did exist, as it simply amplifies target genetic sequences.
	The next problem with the PCR as a diagnostic tool is the claims regarding sensitivity and specificity.
	For example, anyone making a claim that a PCR is 99% specific usually has no idea what they are talking about because there are different types of specificity to consider.
	In most cases, they are simply quoting the analytical specificity, and that's how specific the PCR detects the target sequences rather than off-target sequences, which are in the same sample.
	However, with regards to clinical use, it's crucial to establish the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.
	So in the case of diagnostic specificity, we only want the test to be positive for cases when a particular condition exists and not at other times.
	But when we check for whether this was ever established for any alleged infection, such as COVID-19 or now monkeypox, it's apparent that clinical validation studies were never done.
	Instead, the PCR protocol is invented and it is simply asserted that this can be used to diagnose the disease.
	Take a look at the Corman Drosten PCR paper published in Neurosurveillance in January 2020 and then promoted by the WHO as the way to diagnose COVID-19.
	The word specificity appears only once in the Cormann-Drostan paper, and it had nothing to do with a clinical condition, let alone a viral infection.
	And there was no, quote, detection of 2019-nCoV, as the patient claimed.
	All that was established was the analytical specificity of the assay to detect target sequences.
	In this case, target sequences that were obtained from a computer simulation.
	It was simply a molecular reaction experiment with synthetic nucleic acid technology, which does not even require the existence of a virus.
	And further, there was no establishment of how the PCR result related to a clinical condition.
	So the COVID-19 PCR kits were never shown to diagnose anything in a human subject.
	This is a totally nonsensical approach, and it has nothing to do with informing us about the health status of an individual.
	The issue of PCR cycles is usually a distraction.
	It is true that positive results beyond 35 cycles are generally meaningless, as the cycle threshold of 35 is about the point at which one target molecule was present in the original sample.
	However, there's no point discussing cycle thresholds when the PCR has no established diagnostic capacity at any threshold.
	While such discussions may seem to result in concessions that there are false positives, it also accepts that there must be true positives and then a non-existent virus sneaks back into the frame.
	They haven't shown us a virus, so don't give them one.
	The detection of small amounts of genetic material up someone's nose has not been shown to inform us anything useful about the subject's health.
	And I think it's set to get even worse with multiplex PCR kits in the pipeline.
	These are claimed to be able to check for all kinds of alleged viruses simultaneously.
	And it's going to be a sure way to create even more cases out of thin air.
	The PCR that's currently being used needs to be rejected, even if Monkeypox doesn't end up being Bill Gates' so-called Pandemic 2.
	It is vital that everyone wakes up to the playbook, because they are going to keep running the PCR scam for as long as they can, but there is no need to go along with any of it.
	So I'll leave it there.
	That's just kind of touching on the PCR issue.
	If you want to find out more, check out Sam's website, plus some of the other panelists have done videos and articles on the PCR as well.
	And there's plenty of information there.
	So thanks, Alec.
	And hopefully Sam will be back soon to participate in the Q&A.
	Thank you so much, Mark, for joining us.
	I know you have a lot going on with a new baby, so probably got to run to them right now.
	All right, for our next panelist, we will be bringing on Kevin Corbett, and he's going to be discussing cooking up cases through upscaled testing and phony epidemiological clustering.
	Kevin Corbett is a health scientist who completed his doctoral work exposing the fraud of diagnostic testing both during the HIV AIDS era as well as during COVID-19.
	Prior to this, he was a nurse and charge nurse on the first AIDS ward in England founded by Diana Princess of Wales.
	Kevin also was one of the co-authors of the Corman and Drosten review report, which I just pulled up and I'll pull up again.
	I highly recommend checking out this review report.
	Thank you so much for joining us, Kevin.
	Kevin, you're on mute.
	Can you unmute your mic?
	Sorry.
	Thank you very much for inviting me and for organizing.
	And it's a great honor to be here tonight talking to you in front of such wonderful people, really.
	And I'm a bit in awe, to be quite honest.
	But I'll try my best.
	And what I'm going to talk about is this whole issue about what's happening now with this so-called monkeypox.
	Unisolated, unpurified, no diagnostic specificity to any of the tests they're going to use.
	And I'm going to talk about the epidemiology a little bit in the UK.
	And in the UK, the epidemiology is being orchestrated and being constructed by something called the UK Health Security Agency.
	This was the old public health agency that's been crossed off and reconfigured to a viral agency, basically.
	And the whole issue about monkeypox is being dealt with in the UK HSA at Porton Down, which is the, you know, the The laboratory that was involved in the Novichok sensation.
	So that sort of says a lot, really, to the public, I think.
	It gives this fear factor to the whole monkeypox scam.
	And basically what they're doing is something called case finding.
	So you have in the UK all these laboratories and hospitals and clinics
	Associated with clinics and in the hospitals and they're run through the UK HSA network and the word's gone out they want to find cases so they're contacting the hospitals the hospitals are contacting Porton Down and there's this great big effort really to orchestrate the cases to find the cases and this has happened a lot in the NHS over the last Sort of 30 years, really.
	It's happened everywhere.
	And what I'm talking about isn't just in the UK.
	You could apply this to anywhere in the world, really, certainly in the United States, case finding.
	And Skrabanek was the epidemiologist that came out about this in the 90s, showing how false this case finding approach is for epidemiology and the development of risk stratification and risk grouping.
	And what they're trying to do is to develop a demographic risk group approach to monkeypox.
	So they're trying to do what they did with COVID.
	They're trying to do what they did with HIV.
	SARS-1, all the rest of it.
	Certainly with HIV, they're trying to do the same with monkeypox to create risk groups for monkeypox.
	So this is interesting.
	So they've developed these case definitions of possible, probable, and confirmed.
	And of course, the confirmed cases are with the PCR, which we know is even more of a scam.
	But these case definitions are really important because These are the dragnet.
	These are the dragnet by which the service, the health service, will dredge up cases through the system.
	So, possible and probable.
	Let's just have a quick look at those.
	So, the possible ones.
	This is all based on suspicion, really.
	And very vague prodromal symptoms.
	There could be anything, you know, any sort of evidence of toxicity.
	And this is all put together.
	This is all scientized.
	And then you've got the probable cases, where you've got some evidence of something happening, and you can make a link to previous cases which are all probable or possible.
	And then you've got this very interesting demographic Sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual behavior.
	Hello, this is AIDS 2022, isn't it?
	This is 1980s all over again.
	So they're looking at, you know, they're not looking at whether people have got red hair or brown eyes or whether they're left-handed or right-handed.
	or whether they walk this way or they walk that way, then they're focusing on the fact that several of these so-called cases, about half of them, are non-heterosexual.
	So this is a demographic factor, very much like HIV, all this prodromal stuff.
	And you can see how they concocted this notion of acute HIV infection.
	A lot of them, very similar to monkeypox lymphadenopathy, headache, all the rest of it.
	These are all a repertoire, all these prodromal symptoms and signs.
	don't exist.
	They're projections and they are a repertoire like chess pieces on a board that get moved around as the game changes.
	So the AIDS game used these in a different way and the monkey pox game is using them in the same way.
	But what you have is this enormous infrastructure of The UK Health Security Agency.
	Look at this.
	In two and a half weeks, they had ten updates on their website for monkeypox, ratcheting up the hysteria, ratcheting up the fear.
	And you can see by their statements here that they are commanding and controlling all the four countries of the UK, all the public health networks within those countries to ensure alignment so that the case finding is similar.
	And then they're alerting people, they're associating the so-called symptoms with sexual behavior, sexuality, This is always a good one.
	The media loves this.
	The media sells newspapers on the back of sex and what people do in bed or what they don't do or whatever.
	And this is wonderful.
	But also, they are In really reaffirming this viral narrative here by this business of what they're saying here, please don't go to the clinics if you are worried.
	Make an appointment first in case you spread the virus at the clinic.
	So there's all these mixed messages.
	They're mixing up all these fear messages, this contagion fear here.
	And, you know, very vague symptomatology.
	But this is very interesting, this creation of clusters with sexuality and sexual orientation.
	This is exactly what we had in the 1980s, in the early 1980s with HIV and AIDS, using groups that are very Highly medicated, perhaps.
	Highly tested in sexual health clinics.
	And this is another thing with case finding, is people who attend public health services, they're going to be tested.
	Anybody regularly engaging with these services are going to be coerced to test and this is why the sexual health clinics in the UK have produced these patients for Porton Down that have Positive results on these PCRs because they're regularly tested.
	So people present with some vague symptomatology, a rash, maybe some vesicles or whatever.
	Oh, hey, it's monkey pox.
	They do a PCR.
	Of course, it will be positive in a lot of times.
	And there you've got your case.
	You've got your confirmed cases.
	That's how it happens.
	So you've got these sexual clusters happening.
	You've also got the movement now from public health to create testing in other areas.
	And here we see evidence of the UK government testing in detained populations.
	So prisons and custody suites in the police.
	These will be all areas, wonderful areas, where you've got a captive patient, you've got a captive individual that's going to be inquired into, going to be interrogated, and has to agree to have a test in the end, or to have their symptoms catalogued as a case.
	So you can manufacture more cases through that sort of environment.
	When you look at what they're putting out in the media, there's no uniformity to it.
	I'm just contrasting two slides here.
	One from the Daily Mail on the right.
	And a very, very pernicious newspaper.
	And one here from the UK Public Health, HSA, UK Health Security Agency.
	Yes, also a pernicious agency.
	But here's the monkeypox here.
	No uniformity in what they look like.
	Maybe these look a bit similar, but there's nothing here.
	And this, again, you know, is mixed in with Exactly what we saw with HIV and AIDS in the 80s.
	We saw dying gay men with Kaposi Sarcoma, Papules here, Endothelial Sarcoma here.
	And we saw African patients with similar blotches and blemishes.
	These all now look very similar to what we're seeing with the monkeypox.
	Rare cancers, rare things, exotic conditions.
	Africa.
	Deepest Africa.
	Mixed with sex.
	It's wonderful to sell papers.
	Wonderful for the media.
	But when you start looking at it, there's no uniformity to it.
	There's no science to it.
	Now, all this is, you know, as has been said tonight, we're back doing this all again, and I've done it so many times now since the 1980s, but hey-ho, you know, I'm not complaining, I'm just stating it.
	But this has all been written up, and a very good critique.
	of the Epidemiology of HIV-AIDS was written by Michelle Cochran in 2001, published by Routledge, not a conspiracy publisher, but an academic publisher, and here she took apart all the way these categories, these clusters were created around sexuality and sexual orientation, and one of the chapters, the mechanics of AIDS surveillance.
	You could apply that chapter to exactly what I'm talking about tonight, And what's happening as we speak in the US, the UK and in Europe, the mechanics of monkeypox surveillance.
	It's all being brought together.
	These clusters are being created.
	These risk groups are being concretized as we speak.
	And hey, presto, it all looks watertight.
	But basically, just to summarise, they're upscaling the case finding across the four UK countries, and undoubtedly the PCR testing is being ratcheted up.
	And I know personally, through my contacts in the NHS, that they are case finding, they are doing more and more tests, and port and down is the confirmatory body, the confirmatory lab.
	The case definitions are very interpretive.
	You could drive a bus through them.
	And you can use them to create cases.
	You can use them to create the epidemiology.
	So we've already got sexual and perhaps custodial clusters.
	We will have new clusters, perhaps, depending on that epidemiological dragnet and what happens over the next year or so.
	Mixed with the contagion fear that we've had with Covid, we've had it with all the so-called epidemic, quick start epidemics that have failed in the last 20 years.
	But it's really harping back to AIDS for me, this.
	It's really bringing it all back, what we went through in the 1980s.
	Let's hope that people are not going to buy this.
	And talking to people in the last few weeks who've been injected and being jabbed, I'm really annoyed about it now, because they feel they've been conned with the Covid jabs.
	They're seeing through this already.
	They're even laughing at it.
	You know, they're laughing at the whole ludicrous way that this is being created in front of us.
	And we're in a public health disaster at the moment.
	We're living through an era where we've got massive Deaths and adverse events from these dangerous gene injections called vaccinations and public health is doing nothing about that.
	And we've also got the everyday food poisoning because the toxic food industry.
	Where are public health authorities with this?
	This is what we need them to tend to not create these fear-driven pseudo epidemics without any real scientific substance to it.
	So I'll leave it there.
	Thank you very much for listening.
	Thank you so much, Kevin.
	And just like you said, yes, many people are waking up to this fraud, but too many people are still only waking up to the superficial aspects of the fraud, which is why it's so important to break down the fundamental lie of virology.
	Thank you again for joining me.
	Our next panelist will be Syed Qureshi.
	Dr. Qureshi is an internationally recognized scientist.
	For the past 40 years, including 30 years with Health Canada, Thank you very much.
	in the isolation characterization and testing of food and pharmaceutical substances.
	Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic episode, he has been educating and guiding people about the unfortunate use of false, in fact, fraudulent science and virus isolation, testing and vaccine development.
	Thank you for joining me, Saeed.
	Thank you very much.
	It's around 6 p.m., 6 p.m. in Canada time.
	So good evening from my side.
	I am thankful to the organizer of this summit for inviting me to participate in the meeting.
	I'm delighted to share some of my thoughts on this made-up disease called monkeypox.
	So just to be on time, I will try to read From my notes so that otherwise I tend to wander around so to save the time and to be on time So what is it a made-up disease?
	according to CDC It is a rare disease that is caused by infection with the monkeypox virus However, there is no commercial essay or test available to detect the monkeypox virus
	The diagnostic testing for monkeypox virus is available at CDC laboratories, which is based on, you probably guessed it, polymerase chain reaction or PCR testing.
	It is the preferred laboratory test as per CDC and WHO with its accuracy and sensitivity.
	So basically, As we talk here, and it's pretty generally known, the weaknesses of PCR, they are still considering it is a valid test, which is really not correct, at least scientifically.
	Make sure people understand the fact the PCR test is not a test for the virus.
	SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus.
	It's very critical to know PCR test does not test virus.
	It is not an opinion but a scientific fact.
	It is a test for detecting some random chemical compound called RNA.
	Not at all the virus and I am emphasizing and I'm repeating this fact.
	I have described this aspect in detail on my website in many articles.
	Therefore, there is no other way to say that monkeypox is made up virus-based disease because it is based on fraudulent PCR tests.
	So if the illness is made up or imaginary, the treatment commonly called vaccine has to be imaginary and fictional as well.
	As per CDC and as well as WHO, at this time, there's no specific treatment available for monkeypox infection, but monkeypox outbreak can be controlled.
	As an option, the smallpox vaccine can be used to control a monkeypox outbreak.
	That's their opinion.
	CDC guidance was developed using The best available information about the benefit and risk of smallpox vaccination to prevent and manage monkeypox.
	As no monkeypox vaccine has been developed or available, I will explain the vaccine development process with the development of some other vaccine.
	I chose to briefly describe the development of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine as an example to demonstrate how scientifically stupid and bizarre vaccines and their developments are.
	I will provide you with an example from the documentation submitted by Pfizer to the FDA for the approval of their mRNA vaccine.
	In this case, the clinical trial, so-called clinical trial, were conducted using healthy human volunteers, half injected with vaccine and half without vaccine.
	If you haven't noticed, please pay attention that vaccines are usually tested in healthy subjects.
	Interestingly, No volunteers were available with the virus in this widespread pandemic.
	It indirectly shows that there is no pandemic and or widespread occurrence of the virus because no one was available to conduct the clinical trial with the virus.
	Therefore, vaccines were not developed against the COVID-19 virus that is SARS-CoV-2.
	So how the efficacy of the vaccine is measured?
	If they haven't tested against the virus or the people having the virus are infected.
	Scientifically and logically, it is impossible to develop a treatment without a patient population.
	Therefore, there should not be any clinical trial conducted for the vaccine.
	However, authorities and experts insisted on developing a vaccine for a non-existent disease or subject with the virus.
	They invented a trick to circumvent this problem, quote-unquote, by administering the vaccine and placebo to a large number of healthy volunteers divided into two groups.
	To observe how many would develop the flu-like symptoms and positive PCR test result.
	It is important to note that observing illness will be purely an assumption because as stated above, symptom and PCR tests are not reliable or valid indicator of COVID-19.
	Based on this understanding, eight and 162 volunteers in the treatment group and placebo were found positive for PCR test.
	The conclusion is drawn or was drawn that vaccine worked.
	As fewer infections were observed in the treatment group.
	The vaccine, according to them, or according to the clinical trial report, the vaccine provided protection and it protected from COVID-19 and the pandemic.
	This is how the vaccines are generally developed, keeping this thought in mind.
	On top of that, the way the study outcome, that is vaccine efficacy, has been calculated is bizarre.
	Again, the efficacy was calculated as follows.
	The number of infected people was counted in both groups.
	When you say infected, it means PCR positive.
	Treated and placebo with about 20,000 volunteers in each group.
	found to be 8 versus 162 in the two groups.
	An assumption is made, this is very carefully, I hope I will explain it correctly, clearly.
	An assumption is made that the treatment group has only eight infected, that is PCR positive
	in subjects not 162 as in the placebo so the vaccine treatment stopped 152 sorry 154 which is 162 minus 8 PCR test positive people for getting infected it led to the vaccine efficacy of 95 percent.
	How about that?
	The public has great trust in the scientists and experts, including the FDA.
	However, in my mind, it's all lost.
	Most would consider or understand that 95% efficacy means that about 19,000 of 20,000 clinical trial participants in the treatment or infected group got Protected.
	This is a general perception and this is what probably they like to people to believe.
	This would be incorrect.
	Arguably, this is a deliberate exercise of twisting data interpretation to show the intended or desired outcome.
	It's very sad.
	So in short, vaccine in general developed based on imaginary target That is without virus, with deceptive testing and data interpretations, and without any clinical relevance or usefulness.
	And with this, I thank you very much for your attention.
	Very well done, Saeed.
	And it's so important to expose the trick that they used with relative risk reduction versus absolute risk reduction.
	It's really, really important to show how they did that in the clinical trials with the vaccine.
	Thank you so much.
	Thank you very much.
	Our next panelist will be Eric Coppolino, and he'll be discussing COVID as a digital phenomenon.
	Eric is the host of Planet Waves FM and executive director of Chiron Return, a nonprofit publisher that trains journalists through direct experience.
	He is an award-winning investiture journalist from the print era who has covered Monsanto, GE, Westinghouse, and other multinationals, as well as many state and federal regulatory agencies.
	Thank you for joining me, Eric.
	Alec, thank you.
	Thanks everyone here for the rapid master's degree and all of this stuff.
	I've stolen lots of stuff from your podcasts and videos and again, thank you and Alec and all you guys.
	All right, so I'm the daykeeper of the COVID chronology and the friendly neighborhood astrologer.
	So I keep track of things as they happen from day to day.
	And I started investigating all of this with a focus on the test, so-called test, because something instinctually after covering a lot of fraud said, go for the test.
	Everything comes back to the test.
	The case count, the mandates, everything is a function of this test.
	So I started investigating the test and then keeping track of the chronology going forward and backward.
	watching this hour-to-hour with my research team, just wondering how is this even happening?
	This is completely, absolutely insane, and over and over again we're just hearing where things mean nothing.
	And I think Tom Cowan nailed it with his binary issue that I'm going to get to in a second, like it's that and that at the same time.
	So I didn't really understand how this was proliferating so powerfully and unstoppably until one day I was down in the city getting my guitar fixed and my guitar tech, Matt Brewster, said, hey, did you know that The Woodstock Festival in 1969 was held during the middle of the Hong Kong flu outbreak.
	And I said, no.
	I went home and I started looking into it.
	It turned out that by the time they had that festival in 1969, they were already claiming 100,000 dead Americans from the Hong Kong flu.
	But 450,000 hippies get together in a field, basically a cow pasture, which means a cow shit field, and have like a huge party in the rain.
	Pouring down rain most of the weekend, having all kinds of sex, sharing joints and drugs and bottles of coke, and nobody cared.
	And then, and no one got sick.
	And in 2020, we're looking at pictures of people sitting in private parking spaces in parks, you know, 10, 15 feet away from other people.
	And you put these two photos side by side and realize they're both going on in the middle of an outbreak.
	Uh, so-called outbreak was, uh, was hilarious.
	And so, um, I, I was so amazed by, by this business of the so-called Hong Kong flu, uh, which, you know, documented in the New York Times 100,000 dead by the summer of 69, they claimed.
	Uh, so I knew Michael Lang, the founder of the festival.
	I, I wrote to him.
	He always answers me.
	He passed away earlier this year, but he always answered me and he, Said, no, it wasn't a concern.
	I asked him, I said, did anyone know, care?
	Didn't worry about it.
	So then I know Elliot Landy, who is the official photographer.
	Photographers are very situationally aware people, in case you've ever met one at an event.
	And he said, nope, neither me nor my wife cared.
	We didn't know about anything.
	So then I wrote to Bob Spitz, the author of the book Barefoot in Babylon.
	And said that it wasn't in the book.
	And I said, did you know about this today?
	And he said, what was Hong Kong flu?
	So.
	I was completely astonished.
	And I figured out, though, from my studies with the McLuhan family, that in 1969, those were analog people.
	And in 2020, pretty much everyone is a digital person.
	You could say, well, what's the difference between an analog and a digital person?
	So we are living in this wholly digital world, or almost entirely digital world right now.
	Uh, which is one of its byproducts is the digital age of disease, uh, where we're living in this essentially in an environment of zeros and ones, uh, patent as the onion once wrote, patented by Microsoft.
	And we're living under full digital conditions, uh, under the digital ocean, like SpongeBob SquarePants.
	Now we're hearing a lot of talk of germ versus terrain theory.
	So this is a figure ground analysis.
	So you work with the McLoone material for five minutes and you get into a figure ground analysis.
	The meaning of the message means study the environment.
	I could explain it, it would take another 20 minutes, but it means study the Medium means the ground, the background, the environment, that which is not usually looked at.
	Usually we're studying the figure, the little distracting dancing COVID thing on the screen in front of us and not looking at what is going on in the terrain, in the ground.
	Now, you couldn't have a more, even though they were all high as a tree, you couldn't have a more grounded bunch of people than these kids on the farmer's field in Woodstock who were literally mixing their bodies with the dirt on the ground.
	And so they were not, you know, they were not the product of digital technology.
	There are other things that brought them together.
	Now, one of the problems with digital is that it teaches us to think algorithmically.
	We just think in this, Celia Farber calls it algorithmic morality, but really you think like a robot when you're interacting with robots all day long.
	So this is the thing that softened up consciousness and made it possible to permeate the population because everyone was transformed by the complete over-immersion in Digital technology, which is the technology of the era, is the transforming factor of that era.
	And we are in this completely CGI world, which matched when I finally understood what this PCR was about that they were using in silico, CGI, someone used a great term for it, I don't remember what it was, but essentially a completely contrived digital virus which doesn't exist in nature and then claiming to test for it.
	And then they call this sickness when a person is perfectly healthy.
	So what you've got with the digital realm is such a total disorientation of the body that it blurs the line between sick and well until there's no distinction.
	Now, up until 2020, the term viral was mostly used for content on the Internet.
	First recorded use was in 1999, and viral meant it was really popular.
	So this concept of a virus goes viral.
	And what's also going viral is the PCR codes being distributed Over the worldwide network in a matter of hours, rapidly creating the illusion of an outbreak, you have, with monkeypox, you have Maria von Kirchhoff saying, we find it wherever we look, which means we find it wherever we run this damn PCR thing, because it is known to create 100% false positives, even if you have
	A real primers and probes.
	And so what you get in 2020 is an event that no one would have noticed because it wasn't happening.
	And then it manifests completely over the digital network using a digital test and the news and paranoia is being spread into everyone's pockets by digital devices into the transformed minds of digital people who live groundless lives, who can no longer reason because their thinking has been taken over By robots.
	Digital also provides the means for Moderna to claim that their mRNA, does anyone, if anyone has the screenshot, I, I don't know where mine is.
	They brag that their mRNA platform is an app or an operating system.
	Uh, and I, so please send me this.
	I really want this from the chronology, an app or an operating system.
	And this is supposed to be a fantastic thing.
	People really think their computers, uh, that their devices are better than they are.
	And then you should go and get your upgrade.
	And I, you know, I want to get the like Jimi Hendrix upgrade and the James Joyce upgrades, so I don't have to read it all.
	So what you end up with is none of this would have happened.
	They could not have done this because we know they kept trying, and they make the thing finally go global through a digital network but also into what's left of the minds of people transformed by overexposure and they make the thing finally go global through a digital network but also Now to, you know, to the, the, the, the, the,
	The crown cherry on the cake jewel is that this monkeypox thing has become an anti-sex campaign.
	They try to do this with COVID with the have sex through a glory hole.
	The British Columbia Health Department is advising people to have sex through a hole in the wall.
	New York City picks up on it.
	And then the next day they have to walk it back a little and say, don't use whatever that type of board is because it creates particles or something like this that you might breathe in.
	All right, so that's basically what I think happened.
	It explains to me why this happened now and why it happened the way that it did now.
	I want to end with a quote by Eric McLuhan, the son of Marshall McLuhan and the father of my friend Andrew.
	I work with them for about five years before this happened to figure out the digital environment.
	Andrew and I set out to figure out the digital environment back in 2015 or 16 or something like that.
	And here's what Eric McLuhan wrote.
	The body everywhere is assaulted by all of our new media.
	A state which has resulted in deep disorientation of intellect and destabilization of culture throughout the world.
	In the age of disembodied communication, the meaning and significance and experience of the body is utterly transformed and distorted.
	And that's pretty much what we're going through.
	Thanks, everyone.
	Thank you so much, Eric.
	That was fantastic and pretty hilarious.
	I had myself muted because I was crying laughing the whole time.
	So thank you.
	That was awesome.
	All right.
	All right.
	Next, we'll bring on Amanda Vollmer for closing comments and a summary of what we just discussed, what each of the panelists discussed.
	Before we get to Amanda's bio, I want to say that after Amanda's closing comments here, we will be moving on to a brief Q&A.
	So if you have questions, please ask them in the chat on the right.
	Amanda Don Vollmer is a professional eclectic holistic health practitioner helping people to prevent disease and heal naturally.
	She designs and produces handcrafted and all-natural body care remedies that are available in her online stores.
	She is the published author of Healing with DMSO and she has also been educating on the scientific areas of the germ theory and teaching self-empowerment method of terrain care.
	Thank you so much for joining me, Amanda.
	You're awesome.
	I am so excited to hear what you have to say to close.
	Okay.
	Something important to leave the listeners with, and that is that red blood cells go through what are called pleomorphic changes.
	What it means is we can take photographs of cellular changes inside the body, so not removing from tissues, staining them, damaging them, and then doing experiments on the waste products that they're calling viruses, but in the living body there's a whole different world going on that we're not really paying attention to.
	And when the cells are changed in their pH, then the blebbing of this membrane, which we actually have photographs of that they call viruses, it's this process is pleomorphic expression.
	So a pH less than 7.2 will trigger these pleomorphic changes, which means a bacterium can change into a fungal form or a hyphal form.
	and so forth and revert back.
	It can make little particles of nucleic acids to go and repair cell tissues.
	And it's an entire somatid microzyma process that Gaston-Nason's documented very well, and so did Bichamp, that we ignore, or that virology ignores.
	So I want to bring that up.
	When we have this problem, the interstitial fluids have the waste spilling out into them and into the blood plasma via this hydrostatic pressure.
	And that is from a buildup of dietary and metabolic acid wastes, which can come from all sorts of things.
	And that has not been properly eliminated by our lymphatic system and the four main channels of elimination, urination, defecation, perspiration, and respiration.
	And mainly the kidneys are filtration.
	And then when that happens and the body's overwhelmed, it needs to express through the skin tissue.
	And that's where you get a spinning process of threads, basically a fibrin thread tangling up, creating congestion and fiber becomes bulbous and swelling occurs that can be glandular enlargement that can be lymphatic enlargement.
	And then it will push out the waste using mucus and pus to get rid of the waste through the skin.
	So that's all they are and that's why they look all the chicken pox and monkey pox and smallpox and all of them will have a similar characteristic because they're not really specific.
	If you go to a dermatologist you'll see all the confusion.
	I remember in my school learning what could look like this and it could look like that or it could be that and nobody really knew and that's because They aren't very specific.
	It's just specific to the toxin that's pushing out.
	Also, I wanted to quickly mention nutritional deficiencies, how important this is.
	And I want to take it right back to the beginning of the scandal in the 1700s, the real origin of germ theory.
	It was a famine riddled time with constant chronic epidemics, real epidemics of potassium and iron deficiencies.
	Now you have this expelling of waste materials from actual problems in the body from toxins themselves, but also this can occur when you are in a nutritionally deficient state and your skin is not working optimally.
	So you get this variolation leading to these pustules.
	And we also had a volcano eruption in 1783, which caused a lot of vitamin D deficiency on the masses.
	So Jenner, our good old Edward Jenner, He had this story of the milkmaids that didn't get smallpox as often because they were exposed to cowpox and that he thought the pus must be protective.
	So he took the milkmaid pus and increased it over nine days using his own son as a test subject and then he made his son ill but he thought he found something.
	But he really didn't, because there was no control group.
	He did not suffice coach's postulates, and other people around cows were not protected.
	But mainly the milkmaids were not getting cowpox or smallpox, because they were drinking the milk right out of the udder.
	And if the parents feed their children, if the mother feeds the child breastfeeds, Then the potassium and the iron are sufficient and you don't even get things like chickenpox in the children.
	So what we're seeing is ignorance, nutritional deficiencies, poisoning, pleomorphic changes in the body, and we can solve all of these diseases by proper supplementation of say tissue salts, potassium, certain types of sulfur, And of course iron in the body.
	So that is the origin of the fraud comes from an illusion in improper science and it's been going toward into this day.
	While we ignore pleomorphic changes that bacteria and other, you know, germs, if you will, can change shape based on their terrain.
	Now I'm going to read the summary of this wonderful summit.
	And hopefully you've gathered some more meat to chew on or the fat, I guess, to chew on and think about how you've been bamboozled, you know, for your whole life and start to tease away the lies and take back your power and really just stop going and attending these magicians because they are the ones that are perpetuating the illusions.
	Virology is a tool of confusion.
	It's illogical and fancy language is used to hide this fact.
	It is simply word magic.
	Rockefeller Carnegie founded medicine invents epidemics out of thin air.
	COVID and monkeypox follow the pandemic playbook Hollywood blockbuster fiction show using fear and circular reasoning.
	The name smallpox was retired and relabeled like they always do.
	Nothing really changed.
	It's all a marketing campaign.
	No virus was isolated.
	No viruses have been isolated.
	A brick-shaped artifact of oxidized platinum called the virus in 1959.
	Those don't match the images they show us today of monkey pox images under the microscope.
	And monkeys used in the experiments were stressed.
	Pox on the skin can be for many reasons and the studies do not follow Koch's postulates.
	No characterizing or sequencing of any such fires has occurred.
	No study or reports show any purification step.
	188 institutions in over 30 countries have not cited any paper via freedom of information responses.
	They all state no records found.
	PCR provides conjured up numbers to create pandemic fictions.
	Results are misinterpreted.
	Clinical diagnostic specificity was never established.
	No relationship of the PCR to the diagnosis was made.
	Cycle thresholds are actually meaningless since there is no virus.
	UK Health Security Agency does case findings in an effort to orchestrate cases skewing real epidemiology.
	Prodromal demographic at-risk slash vulnerable group planning.
	This is a dragnet inventing possible cases like the 1980s all over again with the illusion of HIV AIDS.
	Lying with fraudulent statistics, using prison clusters, mixing a skin expression with sexual orientation.
	These are the types that attend health clinics regularly and keep the testing clusters going.
	Monkeypox is completely fictional.
	There's no available treatment for an outbreak.
	They say smallpox vaccination can be used to manage monkeypox.
	Vaccines were not developed against a COVID virus or anyone with a so-called infection.
	PCR tests were used instead.
	Relative versus absolute risk reduction stat tricks at play.
	The logical absurdity of historical pandemics.
	Hong Kong flu epidemic at the time of the Woodstock Festival.
	No one even cared or knew about this so-called disease.
	Analog pandemics versus digital world pandemics.
	We are living in a digital age of disease.
	Algorithmic reality.
	Figure ground analysis.
	Study the medium, the environment, rather than the zeros and the ones.
	Blurring the lines between the sick and the well.
	Viral was used for an internet content set starting in 1999.
	They couldn't have faked this without the digital environment.
	Gender's illusions of smallpox and cowpox.
	Nutritional deficiencies leading to skin expressions.
	Deficiencies in potassium and iron as well as vitamin D being a main issue for skin eruptions and expressions.
	Thank you very much.
	So well done, Amanda.
	Thank you so much for those closing comments.
	We will now be moving into the Q&A portion of our summit.
	I'll be bringing back on all of these speakers.
	If you have a question that is directed at one of the speakers specifically, please just type in their name at the beginning of your question, and I will be pulling up some of the questions on screen.
	Okay, for our first question, We have... Why is it that so many of those who are on the right side, quote, the right side of the COVID fraud seem so incurious and or antagonistic towards debating the very thing, germ theory, that underpins the fraud?
	Who would like to answer that one?
	You can raise your hand if you want to go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	If you're not speaking, please mute real quick as well.
	I think there's, it's one thing we don't want to do is question motivation, or at least that's not something that I like to do.
	Because I don't know unless somebody tells me their motive, I can't say that I know it.
	What I do know, and I think something for all of us to think about, is if somebody says something to you that's new, different, maybe interesting, or something that, yeah, piques your interest, the thing that I would like to believe about myself is that I start questioning them
	So that the end of my time with them, I perfectly understand how they arrived at that conclusion.
	I didn't say that I agree with their conclusion.
	I just know if somebody says, you know, the moon is made out of cheese, I want to know what is their evidence that shows me that the moon is made of cheese?
	Did they go and take a sample?
	Did they do an x-ray crystallography?
	And if they did an x-ray crystallography, how did they validate that that's an acceptable way of knowing that?
	And I do that regularly with people, and I'll take an hour or so.
	And then what I do is I repeat back what I heard so that that person knows that I know all the steps that That make you arrive at saying the moon is made of cheese.
	And I asked the person to correct me if I got it wrong.
	So if I think they did a electron microscopy and that really they did an x-ray crystallography, I want them to say, no, Tom, I didn't do it that way.
	Here's how I did it.
	Here's how I validated that that works.
	Now, at the end of that, I can take that to people who may disagree that the moon is not made out of cheese.
	And since I now know the entire argument, I can look in the research and find out, you know, more about it if I want.
	And then I can go to people who disagree and I can make my own decision.
	Now, most of the people who are on our side, and I'm not going to name names here, but I know them and have known them sometimes for decades.
	And I can tell you that in the last two years, not one person besides the people in this group have called me on the phone or emailed me and said, let me understand how you arrived at the conclusion that there's no SARS-CoV-2.
	Not one.
	Instead, what you get is Complete misunderstanding.
	They couldn't recreate the argument.
	They don't know what we said.
	They don't know what I said.
	They don't know how I arrived at the conclusion.
	They say things like, well, how do you explain rabies?
	How do you explain that all the scientists in the world think differently?
	So I usually say, so the way we decide whether there's a virus is we take a vote of the scientists, of the virologists.
	So if 98% say it's yes, then it is, and 97% say it is, then it isn't, right?
	I mean, not one person, they'll say they just haven't taken the time.
	Now, I don't know why they haven't taken the time.
	And all I know is that is a surefire way to learn nothing about life.
	And so I encourage everybody, and I didn't say you have to agree with me.
	Or anybody else, or anything, or that the moon is made of cheese.
	But if there's somebody you respect, you should take the effort to know why, how, and why exactly they came up to that conclusion.
	And if you don't do that, I think you should have nothing to say about the matter.
	Thank you for that, Tom.
	Does any other panelists have anything else to add?
	Go ahead, Eric.
	The lack of curiosity was astounding to me and completely appalling.
	Like, you would think you'd just want to know something, but I'm figuring out that the thing that distinguishes me from most of the human race is that I'm actually curious.
	It's a good tool for a journalist.
	You want to know everything or something.
	Okay, that's it.
	I think you had your hand raised.
	Well, Eric, I'd like to add to that, though.
	You seem to be an anomaly amongst journalists nowadays.
	Well, yeah, a lot of them are just owned by someone or something.
	Absolutely.
	All right, Saeed, you also had something to add?
	You're on mute, Saeed.
	I agree with Tom that I don't know the reason.
	The only thing that comes to my mind is just a build-up of many decades of falling down.
	The literature or falling of the experts because I also face a lot of criticism.
	What I'm saying is obviously not right because.
	As Tom said, 97% of the people saying otherwise.
	Nobody's thinking about and this is how Apparently we develop this virology or Evidence-based science and that really disturbs me that when they use the word evidence along with the science It's it's really in our science.
	They just want to Provide this percentage.
	I know that's it basically Any other panelists have anything to add before we move on to the next question?
	Christine, go ahead.
	You are also on mute.
	So, panelists, be sure to unmute yourself when you... Sorry about that.
	Okay.
	So I have asked some... I haven't asked them why they won't...
	Say it.
	But I have sometimes asked people, you know, where's your evidence?
	You're talking about a virus and what evidence do you have?
	And what some of them have told me, one told me recently that the problem he sees is that you can't prove a negative.
	And, you know, I just pointed out, well, no one's asking you to prove a negative.
	All we have to do is show that the existing so-called evidence for the alleged viruses is insufficient, that it's not scientific.
	But, and then another, what somebody else said to me just the other day, they were saying, well, they can do gain a function on other types of organisms and call it a virus.
	So basically, you know, you're splitting hairs, it doesn't matter.
	And what I would say, what I said to that person was, well, nobody has ever shown the sign, you know, properly shown the existence of any alleged virus, whether it was allegedly Um, natural or man-made.
	So there isn't anything fitting the definition of what we're told and that matters.
	So, um, but those are the kind of reasons I've been given just to answer the question.
	Thank you for that, Christine.
	I'd like to add to that, too.
	I've had several people acknowledge that the so-called proof of the existence of viruses is lacking, or at best is pseudoscientific in many cases.
	But many of these people have then fallen back to, well, I believe that they exist.
	And the issue with that is, I don't have an issue, and I don't think anyone here has an issue with you believing that viruses exist.
	But if you're going to flip the entire world upside down and you acknowledge that the evidence is lacking at best and pseudoscientific and fraudulent at worst, why would we not want to all collectively highlight that reality regardless of whether you believe that viruses exist or not?
	And that is something that I just find unbelievably shocking is that people acknowledge that they believe it, but will Okay, we're going to move on to the next question.
	Christine, you brought up gain of function, so this is actually the next question we have.
	we're going to move on to the next question.
	Christine, you brought up gain of function.
	So this is actually the next question we have.
	What about gain of function?
	Is there anything valid about these so-called bio labs or are they simply dealing with highly toxic chemicals rather than germs?
	Who would like to go first on this one?
	Mark and Sam.
	It really just comes back to what we're all pointing out.
	There's no point talking about gain of function if you can't show the pathogen in the first place.
	And I think people get confused because Sam and I, we get sent things like patents and people seem to think that that's evidence of gain of function etc.
	But the patents are not biologically plausible necessarily.
	That the patent office doesn't look at it and do a scientific analysis and say whether that's possible or check whether anyone's got any evidence.
	And the other issues surround things like the billions of dollars that seem to disappear.
	But I mean, that happens in all industries.
	The Enron, Bernie Madoff, they also made lots of money disappear.
	And I think that's where people get confused as well.
	They see trails of what they think are evidence, whether it's these patents or financial transfers, Or reports from DARPA allegedly leaked or otherwise.
	But what we do when Sam and I investigate these claims we just do the same thing as we do with all the other scientific papers.
	We simply go back and look for evidence of a particle that fulfills the definition of a virus.
	And we simply never find it.
	We find descriptions in the so-called gain of function.
	They'll talk about SARS-CoV-V backbones and adding bits and pieces to them and making them pathogenic and stuff.
	But I mean, once again, the whole thing falls flat because they don't actually ever demonstrate that it fits the definition in a virology textbook of what a virus is supposed to be.
	So yeah, I think in terms of what goes on in those labs, I think it's pretty hard to say.
	Well, I think Mike Stone said it best.
	It's gain of fiction.
	We want to know what goes on in those labs!
	Yeah, they're telling stories and we don't know what they are.
	I mean, it may certainly be.
	And I'm not saying that people, you know, if you listen to guys like Mike Donio, he thought he was working with HIV when he was in a lab, and it turned out that he realized that he wasn't when he looked into it.
	I think a lot of people involved in the industry don't realise the pseudoscience going on, but I think at higher levels it's definitely a completely fraudulent entity.
	And I think if we look back in history, I mean, there's no doubt that during The early parts of last century, around World War I, they tried to invent fire weapons.
	In World War II and in the Cold War, they tried the same.
	They simply do not work at all.
	The only success we ever saw was in some rare instances where, you know, you do something like weaponized anthrax, but that's ridiculously concentrated spores.
	They often mix them with other compounds.
	And it's not really a bioweapon in the sense that it doesn't transmit.
	So you can only kill whichever animals or humans inhale this ridiculously high dose of anthrax.
	So again, that was given up.
	It's not a suitable bioweapon.
	And I think the reason countries don't call each other out is it's similar to things like the space program.
	No country is going to point out that the other country is doing fraudulent activity because then it exposes their own scams.
	And I think that's what happened during the Cold War with the alleged bioweapons that they had in the labs was that the Russians couldn't develop them and neither could America.
	But both sides were not going to call out the fraud because it would expose their own fraud.
	Yeah, but as I say, it really comes back to the same problem.
	Just look at the papers.
	Do you see evidence of a viral particle?
	It all comes back to no.
	There's no evidence of a viral particle.
	Thank you for that, Mark and Sam.
	Anyone else have anything to add to that?
	Mike Stone, go ahead.
	Um, yeah, I was just gonna play off of what Mark was talking about with the, you know, the, it's, to me, it's more of like a fear, part of the fear campaign, the fear, the fear propaganda.
	They have these alternate explanations.
	Ready for anyone that might be questioning the narrative to draw them back into the narrative.
	So I've seen a lot of people that were questioning whether viruses exist and they're like, oh no, you know, the story about it evolving in the Wuhan market, jumping species, that's ridiculous.
	But this bioweapon narrative, that makes a lot of sense.
	Yeah, they can go and create those in a lab.
	And so it keeps them involved in this whole myth, this whole lie.
	And you saw with the vaccine shedding, they had that whole propaganda going out for a while.
	The snake venom, you know, they have all these different alternative explanations to get people wrapped back into this whole myth of contagion, infection, and viral virus lie.
	So I think that's pretty much what the gain of I just want to say that it's an illusion, this gain of function, to keep the status or the myth, as you Mike said, going on.
	I saw you raise your hand.
	Make sure you're unmuted.
	I just want to say that it's an illusion, this gain of function, to keep the status or the myth, as you Mike said, going on.
	But the reality is that they should not even be talking about it because if you deep down look into gain of function, this has nothing to do with the medical science.
	It's It is basically related to chemical science.
	Which means you have RNA, which is a chemical compound.
	You have a spike protein.
	You have a, that is a chemical compound.
	You have a structure, the ball with spikes or things like that.
	It's all chemistry.
	Isolation belongs to the chemistry part.
	Okay.
	Characterization belongs to the chemistry science.
	Okay.
	And also the testing.
	Belongs to the chemistry part, but somehow everything is got mixed up.
	So if if we want to say or if we want to explore the gain of function, it is a very smart attempt to divert the attention basically because I have difficulty in accepting the fact
	A group or a subject which cannot develop a relatively straightforward, simple test for a virus, how can we accept that they can manipulate the gene or the gene therapy?
	There's no way they can do that, in my mind, from my perspective of chemistry.
	But because it's presented in such a way So that gain the respect or keep the people confusing and whatever their objective is, keep on going.
	So gene therapy or gain-of-function or similar things are so far ahead from a PCR test.
	If they cannot develop a PCR test accurately to detect the virus, Everything else, to me, is just fancy stuff and fake stuff.
	Thank you for that, Saeed.
	Eric, go ahead.
	Can I add something briefly?
	A gem from the chronology.
	On January 20th, to begin, The lab release theory is essential to the street creds of the whole scenario.
	It's more than just the fallback plan.
	It is central to the plan itself.
	So here's an example.
	On January 23rd, 2020, Wuhan locks down, they say, and the Corman-Drawston paper is published.
	On the same day.
	Then there's a controlled release of snake virus and other bullshit and the tabloids.
	And then on January 24th, The Lancet, the next day, The Lancet publishes a paper saying the lab, the market theory is garbage.
	It doesn't hold up.
	Contact tracing doesn't work.
	So their whole point source theory is gone the very same days that they're rolling out the whole thing in the first place.
	And then they downgrade the market to a super spreader event, right?
	First, they're like, oh, it's a bat and a pangolin.
	And then they're like, oh, sorry, there's nothing there.
	Oops, sorry.
	So they absolutely need this.
	And it's the perfect Patsy.
	Totally agree.
	Kevin, go ahead.
	If I'm wrong, do correct me, but I seem to remember that the gain of function Theory rumor emerged very early on and I think that it's social function, you know, looking at how these theories function I mean, all of us on this group, this collection as we are today, we all adhere to the scientific method.
	We all believe in the true experiment.
	We all believe it has a validity.
	There's no way that we can be presented as unscientific or anti-science.
	And when the game function emerged, the whole... I could see its social function was not just deviation, but it was also embedding a whole set of narratives around this so-called SARS-CoV-2.
	And at the time the Cormann-Drosten paper had come out, I was Dealing with Professor Zambon on email, not getting anything.
	You know, she was co-author of that trust and test really, along with the British government.
	You know, this is a realistic narrative, a realistic critique that we have.
	It's a realism.
	We're looking at the material reality.
	We're looking at not the digital, not the fictive.
	It's about what is there or not there, what is active or not active.
	You know, it's either there or it's not.
	You know, it can't be sort of there, it can't be nearly there, or it can't be a surrogate.
	It has to be as that body of knowledge called virology, if that's what it is, that so-called discipline, has created since its foundation, which is these things are, they do X, they do Y, and they can be measured, and that's the theory, but the reality is not there.
	So many people I know who work in laboratories, they know a lot of this really.
	They do.
	I mean, I was talking to a microbiologist last week working in I can't say, obviously, but they know that there's no gold standard.
	There's no viral gold standard for SARS-CoV-2, you know?
	You know, when they've got the PCR for gonorrhea, they've got the real thing.
	They can compare the performance of the PCR for gonorrhea with the real thing.
	They can circle culture it, they think.
	But is that a fiction as well?
	Going back to this, I think that these theories, and maybe ours too, serve these social functions to deviate, to divert, to embed other narratives.
	And I think that the The viral narrative has embedded partly because of things like Gainer Function.
	And I was really surprised how Gainer Function was picked up by mainstream media.
	It was picked up by the anti-lockdown movement.
	It was running wild with An author like Neville Hodgkinson, who had uncovered in the 1980s a lot of the AIDS fraud, and had interviewed the Perth Group, had even published a book on HIV and AIDS and a chapter in his book on the Perth Group, and seemed to understand these issues materially.
	But when it came to SARS-CoV-2, when it came to gain-of-function, Somehow, that all seemed to evaporate.
	And he could not even agree with me that there's anything in this.
	You know, you're wrong.
	There's more evidence for SARS-CoV-2.
	I mean, he's written this in public.
	He hasn't... I'm not outing him or anything.
	But I do think that this whole realistic...
	This realism in science, which I think we are espousing, is the litmus test, really.
	It's a litmus test for so many things.
	And, you know, I've been so surprised in the last two years about who has gone on which side and who hasn't.
	And some people that I've worked with, you know, they've gone on the The other side to this.
	But I think debate is important and to keep links and not to be divisive over it.
	And so, I mean, I email Neville Hodgkinson now and then and we have a chat and we talk about some of these issues or other issues to do with SARS.
	And it's not divisive.
	So I think that we've got to proceed on that basis, really.
	Thank you for that, Kevin.
	Can I do a quick day check?
	Yep.
	The Laboralese story seems to break of all places in the Daily Mail on February 16th.
	And they quote a paper that was sponsored by the Chinese government.
	And the focus of the Laboralese at that point was the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, the Wuhan CDC.
	And they claimed it could have been spawned by a pathogen from this lab 300 yards from the fish market.
	So they're building up the fish market narrative, using them together, which has allegedly 605 sick bats in it.
	Feb 16, 2020.
	Is that precious?
	Anyway.
	It's also perfectly contrived and cleverly crafted.
	Okay, so we'll do one more question.
	I mean, we're nearly two and a half hours in and maybe we can organize another brief Q&A with a couple of speakers here in the next week or so.
	This one, what can we do to help all learn these truths or be open slash willing to consider quote unlearning or learning different ways of thinking without triggering the traumatic response slash cognitive dissonance?
	Amanda, go ahead.
	Well, I talk a lot about how this is like a religious cult.
	And if you understand how cults operate, then if you want to deprogram someone, you want them to exit the cult.
	You definitely don't preach to them or try to teach them or tell them they're wrong.
	You have to invite and start to get their higher functions of thinking wetted.
	So really, you just depending on whom you're speaking with, then you think about what would be a question that they could ponder.
	So if you gave them like a specific question, ask them to think about it for the week and then come back and then you would have a discussion about that question would be reasonable and rational.
	And I think you need to model rationality, logical thinking, discuss what logical fallacies are.
	You know, there's a lot to unravel and I think a lot of people are hesitant to look at this topic because it makes them have to question so much more than just Is this the way the body works?
	They have to now question governments and industries and history and all the lies start to unravel before them and it can put them into a sort of a shock and Spiritual shock as well.
	We have to be careful not to do that for anybody.
	So that is really your approach and it's going to be as individual as that person is.
	And really, but just offer to help them and ask questions and get them thinking for themselves, thinking on their own.
	And some people won't, you know, ever get it.
	They're deeply indoctrinated and they'll never figure it out.
	And you can't, you'll know when you meet those people.
	But I wouldn't focus on trying to change everybody.
	They've got the fluoride stare.
	So maybe you need to clean up the fluoride first before they can have the higher learning to even have the discussion of that level.
	Right.
	But I wouldn't focus on trying to change everybody.
	I think you model it.
	You live it.
	You understand it.
	You learn it.
	And then if people are interested in, wow, you look good or your life is well, or you don't vaccinate and you're healthy, what are you doing?
	And then you can feel that by invitation rather than trying to control your external reality that way.
	Thanks.
	Brilliantly said, Amanda.
	Thank you for that.
	Anyone else have anything to add?
	Alec, I just wanted to, you know, kind of reiterate and drive home one of the points Amanda made, which is about, you know, stop trying to convince people or teach them something.
	And even the people, especially the people who are close to you emotionally or in a family bond, because that's where it's going to do the most damage to your relationship.
	And the only thing you can do is, you know, be an example.
	Set an example for people and live your life, you know, in the best way that you can, in every respect.
	And then, when people are ready, because everyone is a unique individual and everyone has to be open to seeing the truth of things, and it is quite jarring and it can be traumatic, and that's why people often fend it off or remain in denial, sometimes even willingly so.
	So you have to respect that.
	It doesn't mean you have to have a relationship with those people.
	You can establish appropriate boundaries to protect yourself because it can be difficult to spend a lot of time around someone who is unable to see what seems so obvious to us.
	But you just, you keep living your life and you show the success of your path and that will attract people and it will inspire people.
	And over time, you'll see that occasionally, not very often, but once in a while, someone will approach you and ask out of genuine curiosity, how you came to these conclusions and how can they learn more?
	And it won't be someone, you know, as Tom pointed out in the introduction, it will be someone who will probably surprise you, but that will be a person who is just ready.
	And then they happen to cross paths with you and they had that moment of inspiration.
	And don't wait for that to happen.
	But also don't wait to set that example and be, you know, that person out there in the community living a truthful life like It's important that we embody it in every aspect in our professional life, in our personal lives, that we don't hide anything.
	And this is what will bring more people to the truth and the light.
	Beautifully said, Andy.
	Thank you so much for that.
	Does anyone else have anything to add?
	Saeed?
	Sorry, excuse me, Kevin, if I misunderstood you.
	I believe you said that the PCR test worked at least in some other places, but I tend to disagree with that one.
	Main thing with the whole pandemic issue or the virus issue is the faulty PCR test.
	By definition, PCR is not even a test.
	It's a manufacturing or culture growing step.
	Okay, so it's not even PCR.
	Sorry, did you think I said that?
	Sorry, I can't remember what you said just now.
	Maybe I misunderstood you, so if it is not, then please ignore it.
	I don't think I could even say that it's even a test.
	I mean, you know, I came out about it two years ago, 25 years ago, that it's certainly not a medical diagnosis.
	That's why I said I misunderstood you.
	It has a scientific value, undoubtedly.
	It has a scientific value as a tool, but it certainly doesn't have a diagnostic value.
	It doesn't have a specificity.
	It can't be used to isolate something, to say something's there.
	You know, I mean, there's been so much written about the PCR and so many social scientists have written about it, like Paul Rabinow.
	And it is a discredited tool now.
	It must be a discredited tool.
	Except that it's gone in everywhere, like a bottle of spilt milk.
	It's gone everywhere.
	It's performative.
	It's cheap to run.
	The outcomes are quickly derived and that's the problem.
	It's performativity gone ahead of its value.
	So no, I wouldn't support it.
	That's what I said that I might have misheard you.
	So it's very good, so it's clear now.
	I mean, I'll tell you, Saeed, I was asked to be a co-author of the Cormann-Droskin Review Report, and I've put this out in the public domain before.
	And I had to do... I'm not a molecular biologist, you know.
	I've got a PhD in social sciences.
	That doesn't necessarily make me a social scientist, even.
	So I was honoured that they wanted me to look at that paper and to see if I could support it and do some work with it and be part of that process.
	And the one big issue that made me want to be part of that team was the fact that the major problem those authors had with that Cormann, the Drosten paper, the Drosten test, the PCR, was that the Drosten test, the PCR, was that it was in silico modeled.
	That was the thing that brought me into that paper, because that was the major flaw that they said, that we said in the Cormann Drosten review report, it's right there at the beginning of the paper.
	The major problem is no virus, isolated, purified, nothing from patients, you know.
	Kevin, real quick, we only have a couple of minutes left, so if you would like to check out more on that, go to the KormanDresdenReview.com forward slash report.
	I highly recommend checking that out.
	That was our final question.
	We have two minutes before we're going to get cut off by BeSovereign.com.
	So what I'm saying is that about dealing with this view was that somehow obviously my view might be biased because I'm a trained chemist you know so I think from a different so if we can convey this message to the medical area that this PCR test identification Just open up and look towards the chemistry aspect of it.
	Probably it will address the issues we are talking about today.
	That's what I was going to say.
	Thank you for that.
	Appreciate that, Saeed.
	All right, that is it for the summit.
	I appreciate all of you attendees, anyone who tuned in to watch this, all the panelists that have joined us, and thank you again to BeSovereign.com and Sayurji for developing this fantastic platform.
	The replay will be available in a couple days here on this channel on besovereign.com on the WayForward channel.
	Thank you so much, panelists.
	You guys were incredible.

▲