All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 22, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:00:30
The Viral Delusion - ‘Good Morning CHD’ with Mary Holland, David Rasnick + Mike Wallach
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good night.
morning, CHD.
Good morning, CHD.
Today is Thursday, September 22nd, and a lot's going on.
Before I bring in our wonderful guests, I want to give our viewers some good news.
First, I want viewers to know that in Louisiana, the state has repealed the COVID vaccine mandates for schools.
Here's a photo of Bobby Kennedy and Robert Malone together with Jeff Landry, the Attorney General.
Bobby spoke to the legislature several months ago in Louisiana and it's fantastic news that that's now been repealed.
Second, I want people to know that Canada is no longer restricting entrance to the country based on vaccine status.
This is fantastic news.
I hear it's reported in the Detroit News, so the narrative is crumbling.
I'm delighted to have on today as our guest, filmmaker Michael Wallach and scientist Dave Raznick.
We're here to talk about Mike's new recent film series, The Viral Delusion, and Dave Raznick appears in that film in several different places.
This is a controversial topic, the issue whether, in fact, the COVID virus exists and has been proven.
There's questions about that, like the HIV virus and others, whether it's been thoroughly proven that they are actually causative of perceived diseases.
It's an important question many people are asking today, and CHD wants to open this topic to viewers.
CHD itself takes no position on this issue.
But before bringing on our guests, I want us to watch the trailer to get us started.
Riley, would you please?
For two years the world has wondered whether the virus that changed our lives emerged from nature or if it leaked from a lab.
But a third perspective has been growing among doctors and scientists.
And that's when I just started saying, okay, let's figure out what's going on.
I'm going to start at the very beginning.
and sold to the public as virally caused, without any such proof in scientific papers.
Their perspective may just change everything we thought we knew.
This is their shockingly compelling story. - And that's when I just started saying, okay, let's figure out what's going on.
I'm gonna start at the very beginning.
I'm gonna look at the papers that discovered the virus and take it wherever it leaves me.
And I never expected to find that those papers didn't actually show any virus.
Absolutely, I can tell you after a year of looking, there has not been one case in the published literature where a virologist or scientist took somebody who was sick, did the normal isolation procedures, and said, here is this virus.
There is no virus there.
The CDC admitted last December they don't have any SARS-CoV-2 to compare with a PCR test to see if that's what it's actually detecting.
The whole thing has been a scam from the beginning.
The whole thing has been a scam from the beginning.
Welcome, Mike and Dave.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
Thanks for having us, Mary.
It's really exciting to be on the show.
It's a pleasure to be with you.
Thank you.
So, Mike, why don't you tell us first what made you make this series, what made you make this film, which is a series, I believe, of seven hours.
Is that right?
Yeah.
I mean, we originally intended to make a two hour documentary and there was just so much material.
It was so compelling that we ended up making a seven and a half hour documentary series.
I could have kept going, but at some point I said, OK, I just got to get this out there.
I think that really the whole journey started 15 years ago when my wife got sick and our experience really changed my perspective on how to think about the medical system.
When she was 30, she suddenly had her knees were blowing up in this really weird way.
And it would be one knee for a couple weeks and then another knee.
And then, you know, her joints were really bothering her.
And pretty soon she was having a lot of difficulty walking.
Wow.
And so she went to the best rheumatologists that she could find in New York City.
So, you know, NYU and Columbia, and I think she went to three.
And they all said the same thing, which is that, you know, she has early onset arthritis and there's nothing you can do.
And she, you know, her best bet is to get a good cane.
And the only thing they could do is they could help a little bit by giving her regular steroid treatments.
And I can still remember walking down Sixth Avenue in Brooklyn and these tears coming down my wife's eyes and a cane in her hand.
You know, right at that point, we happened to hear on the radio, on an alternative radio station, a doctor talking.
And he had been the chief pathologist at a hospital in New York City, but he had been so upset at the way the medical system operated that he had quit and he'd opened up his own private practice.
And he sounded so intelligent.
I thought, let's just go see this guy and see if he has anything to say.
And my wife walked in there and he said, okay, are you a professional athlete?
And she said, no, and that's kind of a joke.
And he said, okay, well, what does your bathroom look like?
And she thought, that's such a weird question.
But she said, it's so weird that you asked that.
I hate my bathroom.
I have this instinctual dislike of my bathroom.
He said, yeah, is the paint peeling along the walls?
And she said, yeah.
He said, OK, probably you have a mold allergy.
And we'll run some tests.
But what you should do is get out of that apartment as quickly as you can.
And this thing will go away.
And so we left that apartment as soon as we possibly could.
I think like two weeks, within two weeks.
And it completely went away.
And never in the last 16 years has it ever bothered her again.
And she couldn't walk for a year at the time.
And so, you know, it really opened my eyes to the idea that The medical system, as it's structured, completely ignores the effects of the environment, the surrounding environment, on our health.
And it wants to say, oh no, this is just a genetic thing, or this is just a viral thing, and there's nothing you can do.
And I found this out Overwhelmingly to be the case.
Once I started looking into this that you know, if we look outwards at what are we eating?
What is our you know, what are we breathing?
What are the water that we drink?
What toxins are around us?
We could find the cause the actual causes of disease there and so that was really the beginnings of Oh, my, my, my mind and my heart opening up to the idea that we as consumers of healthcare, we need to think more deeply about this because this is our lives, right?
And so when.
When my wife was pregnant, we decided to take a little bit of a closer look at the vaccination issue because it had never, ever occurred to me to not vaccinate.
That was just something you did, you know, for your own health and for society.
So the very, very first book that my wife got was your book, Mary, and it was Mind-blowing, you know, it was unbelievable.
I mean, it was very clear.
from your book that vaccines were far more dangerous than we were told or was believed publicly.
And so then that launched us into a whole research phase where we said, OK, we have to take this really seriously.
And and so the other thing, the other major thing that we discovered in that research, which, again, was just ran completely counter to everything that I had ever known.
was that not only were vaccines dangerous, but they were not responsible for the decline in diseases that we all thought they were.
Right.
There were factors, right, Mike, like sanitation, like refrigeration, fresh food, antibiotics.
There were a lot of different factors that may have contributed to the remarkable declines in infectious diseases at the end of the 19th century.
Yeah, exactly.
And the beginning of the 20th century.
And this is, you know, this has even been published research in medical journals.
You know, there's numerous books about it.
I mean, you know, I think the first one I read was Dissolving Illusions by Susanne Humphreys.
There were so many, and hopefully we'll talk about it later, but Jim West's book, Polio, Virology vs. Toxicology, it was just overwhelmingly clear that the story we had been told was not true.
So that was my background coming into the pandemic, when the pandemic hit.
And so I really wanted to search out alternative perspectives.
Right.
What, you know, what were different doctors saying?
What was happening out there?
And, you know, the first, there were so many interesting perspectives that I was hearing.
And so, you know, I remember listening to Tom Cowan talk early on and saying, listen, if all of a sudden you saw a disease break out in a group of dolphins in a bay in Alaska, would your first thought be, you know, oh, a new microorganism has emerged out of the nothingness to attack the dolphins?
Or maybe somebody dumping some shit in the water.
Right.
You know, and his point was that the medical system is focused only on looking at, is there some new microorganism emerging?
And completely oblivious to all these other impacts.
The environment.
And that struck a chord with me.
And then I came across the work of David Crow.
And David, I'm sure you know David Crow.
He was a medical journalist and he had been covering, he had really gotten a start during the AIDS crisis.
Which we'll come back to later in the show, right?
Because AIDS is certainly an important paradigm for what's going on with COVID.
Yeah, go ahead.
Sorry, Mike.
No, no, no.
It's really important to mention.
And so David was following this very, very, very closely right from the beginning.
And he was pointing out not only that there were problems with the entire viral paradigm in terms of thinking about why people get sick, and that there had been for decades.
But that he was zeroing in on exactly what was coming out of Wuhan and making predictions that turned out to be very true.
Mike, let me jump in here.
I want to bring Dave into the conversation.
Dave, before we watch the next clip, which is about isolation of the virus, an important part of the film, why don't you tell our viewers, what is a virus?
From a scientific point of view, what is a virus?
Why should we be even talking about this?
Yeah, okay.
Well, I was taught in school that viruses are very small, much smaller than bacteria.
They're non-living infectious agents that cause disease.
Viruses are inert until they enter cells and then they fall apart.
The cell's enzymes replicate the viral DNA or RNA and convert it into viral proteins.
The viral protein and the viral RNA or DNA combine to form viral particles.
The infected cell dies, releasing up to a thousand or so viral particles that infect other cells.
Symptoms would appear after about 30% of the infected cells die.
For example, sore throat.
I'm not a virologist.
I just assumed all of that was true and I accepted it for decades because I had no reason not to.
What is your background, Dave?
Just tell us, you're a Ph.D., what area are you a specialist in?
Right, I have undergraduate degrees in biology and chemistry, and I have a Ph.D.
in chemistry, and I worked in the pharmaceutical biotech field for about 20 years, and I left the biotech pharmaceutical area in 1996, and I joined up with Professor Peter Duesberg, at University of California, Berkeley, and I've been working on cancer research ever since, as well as the AIDS stuff.
Anyway, I should tell you that my personal experience with these so-called viral diseases, it was a stepwise process of over four decades, starting with polio, just like Mike was talking about, and it has led me to conclude that there are no viral diseases That's not the same thing as saying viruses don't exist.
Natural extracellular particles, for example, these exosomes, they do exist and they perform a variety of useful functions.
My in-depth study of viruses began in the mid-1980s when a retrovirus called HIV was said to cause AIDS, which turned out to be a pack of lies.
And then everything followed from that.
Okay, so let's move to the next clip, which is the isolation of the virus.
And once we watch that, I want to come back to both of you to talk about what the clip really means.
Thanks.
We all remember when the pandemic began, on the pronouncements that a new deadly and highly transmissible virus had been found.
The claims were based on a single paper out of a laboratory in Wuhan.
But while much of the world set into panic, A number of doctors and scientists were examining this paper, and the subsequent ones, in detail.
Here's what they found.
The first thing I did, I actually went to look for the first Chinese study from the CDC, CCDC, the Chinese Center for Disease Control, published under the name Zhu and Others, which was the first supposed isolation of the SARS-CoV-2.
And of course immediately found incredible discrepancies and a methodology that didn't isolate anything.
They found some people with atypical pneumonia, which is not uncommon.
Every year we see lots of atypical pneumonia.
I mean, that's what we often call, you know, the flu or a virus, because we don't really know what's causing it.
But, you know, every winter you see this.
And then all of a sudden they're assuming it's like some deadly virus plague.
So-called isolation or discovery of this virus is done in a single individual, a single human being.
All right.
There were 44 cases of pneumonia in December, I guess it was, of 2019.
And the World Health Organization office there in China cataloged these 44 people of pneumonia that they had no explanation for.
And this is in a country that has about a million pneumonias every year.
Lots of things can cause pneumonia.
Chemicals can.
Malnutrition can.
Drugs can.
Being old can.
Being in a hospital can.
Chronic diseases.
I mean, there's all kinds of things that can cause pneumonia.
And with this one guy, okay, so now they have this one guy in a country of over a billion people.
So essentially what I found was that they were taking the liquid from patients and they were maybe centrifuging them or filtering them, but I made a calculation that in the 15 micrograms that they were using to do the test, they were still like
about 30 billion particles, of which 85 to 95% of human origin, of human genetic origin, and they would take this very heterogeneous material and put it into a culture, and then they would say that that was the isolated virus, which of course didn't make and then they would say that that was the isolated virus, which They're taking samples from the patient to try to find a virus, but they don't look in that fluid from the patient for the virus.
Michael, well, why not?
That's the source of it.
Instead, I see they mix it in this foreign cell culture, monkey cells.
Why would they do that?
It doesn't make any sense at all.
They basically took, combined the words virus and isolation together, And created a new definition for that term.
And this is why it's so confusing.
So only the scientists or doctors who actually take the time to read the paper and read the methods are going to understand that there's no isolation going on.
Has SARS-CoV-2 been isolated?
In short, no.
Not by the rigorous definition.
Oh, well, yeah, they said it right here.
They said isolated.
Has SARS-CoV-2 been isolated?
In short, no, not by the rigorous definition.
Unfortunately, in the modern era, isolation does not mean that purported virus particles have been fully separated and purified.
Many people send me links to papers claiming to have isolated SARS-CoV-2, most of which I have already read.
In fact, our Virusmania team have contacted many of these authors to clarify what they actually did.
As I've shown previously on direct questioning, none of the authors of these so-called isolation papers claimed that they had a purified sample.
Even Michael Law from the Robert Koch Institute wrote in an email that we received on September 4, 2020, I'm not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV-2.
In the virology papers that form the foundation of the pandemic, indeed, the term isolation is used in an entirely different way from its ordinary usage.
What the papers mean by the term isolation is that the nasal or throat swab has been isolated from the patient, not that the virus itself has been isolated from the nasal swab.
Without isolating the hypothetical virus, these doctors and scientists argued that no independent variable can be properly studied or characterized.
Wow, that sounds like an incredibly misleading definition of isolation.
Did I get that right?
That it means isolated from the patient, not isolated as the virus in a purified form?
Did I get that right, Mike and Dave?
Yeah, there's basically only two ways that the term isolation is used in all of these papers.
One is that the nasal swab has been isolated from the patient, not that you've found the virus in the nasal swab.
The only other definition that's seen is literally
Completely changing the meaning of the term isolation, in which isolation is essentially to mix that nasal swab together with many and many other ingredients, and then to look for, and then to put all those ingredients on monkey kidney cells usually, and to look for effects in the monkey kidney cells that you think a virus might have caused.
But there's, Not in any paper is there actually the discovery of the virus and the separating it out of that particle from other things.
So it's a complete misuse of the term.
Dave, what do you think on that?
Well, I thought it was ludicrous, but I'll tell you what a scientist, what we as scientists think about isolation.
Isolation simply means separating something from everything else present.
That's fairly straightforward and easy for chemicals.
As a chemist, I knew all the processes and everything you have to do has to be just pristine, pure, separated from everything.
And it can be considerably more difficult for biological materials, for obvious reasons.
Since bacteria are alive and readily grow, they are relatively easy to isolate by means of cell culture.
Since viral particles are not alive, they are difficult to impossible to culture, which makes them considerably more difficult to isolate.
This has led to using fragments of genetic material as stand-ins for actual viral particles.
That's not a bad approach if you have authentic virus for comparison to validate these so-called surrogate markers.
Authentic HIV has not been isolated from human samples, and the same is true of SARS-CoV-2, which means all of the surrogate markers, the PCR test, etc., are meaningless.
Wow!
Okay, so what then were these 44 cases of atypical pneumonia?
How do we understand what that was about?
Well, frankly, I don't have a clue, because all of the isolation, I looked at the very first three papers on isolation in China, Seattle, Washington, and I think it was South Korea.
And in every case, they looked at a single individual.
And they didn't look at any controls.
For example, they looked at a single individual who had some symptoms, but they didn't look at a corresponding individual who had no symptoms, a healthy control.
They never used healthy controls to show that there was a difference between the person who was sick and the one who was healthy.
So, in every case, they used a single individual, and that's total nonsense.
You don't even have to be a scientist to understand that.
Usually you have hundreds or thousands or whatever it is of samples so that you can look and see whether similar among them and then compare them to controls to see what's really going on.
And I stopped looking after the third paper because they're all doing the same thing using this metatranscriptomics.
Very complicated, very expensive methods of just Scrambling up cells, and looking at all tissues, and cutting all the nucleic acids into minuscule pieces.
There's millions or billions of these things, and then they have computers that stitch them all together.
Not physically, but they look at the sequences of these things, and stitch them all together.
And lo and behold, they come up with a single virus.
You know, if they settle on a coronavirus, Out of all of the stuff that's in there, and out of this reportedly trillions of viruses that live in each one of us, not to mention the bacteria and all that sort of stuff, and they came up with a coronavirus!
I swear, honest to God, they knew what they were going to find before they even started doing it.
It's a scam.
It's a criminal op, in my personal opinion.
Mike, do you want to add anything on isolation?
And then I want to go to this issue of sequencing that you touched on, Dave, that's very important here.
But anything else on isolation, Mike?
No, I mean, just first of all, you know, why were 44 people in China sick?
I mean, as David says, there's a million reasons why 44 people, you know, might have pneumonia.
And certainly, you know, it's talked about, there's 44 people it's talked about in You know, one of the early reports, but there were obviously many more than 44 people with pneumonia, even in Wuhan at the time.
So we're talking about a very, you know, particular way of phrasing things.
But, you know, one thing that Stefano Scolio, the Italian biochemist, pointed out to me was that Wuhan had instituted a new vaccine law earlier in 2019.
So, and we actually saw images of people collapsing in Wuhan that, you know, later, you know, at first was sort of sold to us as, is this COVID?
Well, it was later recognized that You know, even under the CDC's, you know, definition of covid symptoms.
Collapsing on the ground suddenly was not 1 of them.
Right?
But what we saw was later on, once people were injected with the.
The new pharmaceuticals, we saw the same collapsing.
So, it was clear that the new vaccine law in 2019 was having a very serious effect on people.
And, and, and Scalia pointed this out, because in Italy, in Northern Italy, they had passed a very similar law.
So we saw two, really two things arise in 2019 in the two hotspots, which was new vaccines being rolled out and then serious air pollution.
Flu vaccines, right Mike?
These were flu vaccines that were being rolled out, especially in the elderly population.
These were flu vaccines in the elderly population.
And we also saw unbelievably high rates of air pollution.
In these two places.
So when you combine, as Scolio points out, when you combine new vaccines and very elevated air pollution, and you have elderly that are on many medications, these things can very easily turn into pneumonia.
So, you know, to jump to the conclusion, without proof, That what was really going on was suddenly a new virus emerged.
That's an extraordinary claim.
As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, right?
Exactly.
We didn't even meet the level of regular proof.
Right.
So let's move on to the next clip I'd like to show about sequencing, this idea that the virus had to be sequenced.
And let's then we'll talk about whether it was adequately sequenced.
Riley, go ahead.
And then they also say that they characterized the viral sequence.
But they didn't characterize the viral sequence.
They made a computer model of a theoretical genome sequence, of a theoretical virus.
So then they did this massive, what I call a dragnet, for all of the RNA.
They were bound and determined to find a virus as a cause for this guy.
So they did this dragnet for all of this RNA, millions of little strands of RNA in this person, using technology that's called metatranscriptomics.
And one of these gene things, this technology-driven stuff, where they can look at all the RNA, all the DNA, sequence it, amplify it, trillions of foliage, all this technology.
It's technology-driven, not science-driven.
So I got this person's lung sample of his lung.
They do all this stuff, have all this fancy equipment.
They zero down to get all these signals.
Then they have a computer that stitches all these little segments, these little fragments of RNA together.
out of millions and millions and billions of these things.
And they came up with a sequence, and then they decided that they had discovered this virus, even though they never touched the virus at all, and they said that was the cause of this guy's pneumonia.
So they take this, as I said, this unpurified mass, so they end up with this vat of literally billions of pieces of genetic material in this stew, right?
So that's the cell culture.
So they have all this broken down genetic material.
Now, you would then think, because this is called an unbiased genome calculation, sequencing, that they look in that brew and say, which is the, you know, what genome do we see?
But they actually don't see anything like that.
What they do is they don't see a whole genome.
So they chop it up into little bits.
So some of them are 2,000 base pairs, some are 10,000, some are six, some of them are whatever.
And so they chop it up into little bits of say 10 or 20 or I'm not sure the exact number of possibilities, but little pieces of nucleotides.
So then you say, now computer, arrange that into a full genome.
They did not do sequencing.
They did assembly.
Sequencing is a totally different thing.
You don't snip it up.
You start with what you assume is an intact genome, an intact strand of RNA or DNA.
You don't snip it up.
You don't do this metatranscriptomic stuff from jillions of things.
You take what you've got there and you do what's originally called Sanger sequencing, which you start with the whole thing and you just snip off the nucleotides one at a time.
And then you list it.
That's sequencing.
Alright?
That's how they do the sequencing for the mouse genome, for the human genome.
That's sequencing.
Where you get the authentic, not random, not scrambled, but you get the authentic sequence as it is.
Intact.
Remember with the SARS, they have all these little bits and pieces of RNA and they stitch them together to try to get a complete sequence.
That's what they do.
And you don't know where it's coming from, they just know what it ought to look like.
Again, wow, right?
So, Dave, would you first explain to us what is a genome?
Let's make sure we have the vocabulary right.
Right, right.
The simplest definition of a genome is that a genome is the complete set of genetic information in the form of DNA in an organism.
A tiny fraction of the genome contains the coding information for the production of protein.
So, we have about 3 billion nucleotides in the human genome, but only a tiny fraction of those 3 billion nucleotides are actually the genes that people mostly think about, the ones that code for protein.
We have about, oh, just a little under 20,000 genes in our genome.
And it turns out that we and mice share about almost identically the same number of genes.
And guess what?
99% of mouse genes and human genes are identical.
So, unless you knew that you got the sequence from a mouse beforehand or from a human beforehand, you couldn't tell the difference where that came from.
Think of it!
A mouse or a human, you just try to seek it.
Let's say you come from another planet.
Somebody hands you a DNA from a mouse and DNA from a human, and you sequence them.
You go, my God, they're the same thing!
You know?
And you'd have to know where it came from first to say that, ah, that's human genome and that's a mouse genome.
If you can't distinguish a mouse from a human by looking at their genes, they're 99% of the same, how in the world are you going to do that for a virus when you've got millions of different little fragments that you have to put together?
You know, I mean, on the face of it, on the face of it, it's absolute nonsense.
And I tell you, these people that do the metatranscriptomics and that sort of thing, they're technologists.
I don't think they're lying or doing anything like that.
They've got this fancy equipment, costs huge amounts of money, all this stuff there.
They're trained on how to use it.
They're not really virologists or anything like that.
You just give me a sample, I'll put it in this machine and generate the sequences that you want or whatever.
But they're not scientists, they're technologists.
To a scientist, this is garbage.
It's just total garbage.
And I guess I'll leave it at that.
I mean, I'm getting pretty pretty ramped up over there.
Do you think this is essentially preying on the ignorance of the public?
Are there some people that sort of have a vested interest in preying in this way on what is, generally speaking, a kind of ignorance about virology and what is sequencing and what is the genome?
I mean, I think that I think there's there's certainly an aspect of that, because if we look at the very top, you know, we look at Fauci and the very top heads of these pharmaceutical companies and research.
What they're doing is they're cherry pick cherry picking data in order to tell a particular story to the public and data that runs against what what that story is that won't get any play in the media.
So, you know, they they tried to, you know, they took this goop of where they claimed the virus was in it, you know, and they tried to, you know, quote unquote, get the virus to, quote unquote, grow in human lung cells.
And they were not able to do it.
Right.
And so that's that research is put aside, right?
Because the whole story is, oh, it's growing in your lungs that that's put aside, whereas they're able to.
You know, if they're able to see a little bit of cell death in monkey kidney cells, which could have many reasons, then they blame the virus and they blast that story out.
You see how dangerous this thing is.
So I think there's obviously levels of manipulation, but that being said, I think What's more fundamentally at work is an entire scientific paradigm that has been sent off running in the wrong direction through billions of dollars in grant money over decades and decades.
And I know, David, you could probably speak to that.
There's also parallels here with AIDS, because Luc Montagnier could not culture HIV.
He didn't call it that in those days.
HIV supposedly infects human T-cells, and then they kill the T-cells, and that's why you have AIDS.
That was the story we were told.
But they could not culture HIV in the T-cells.
Montagnier sent him a sample to Robert Gallo.
He could not culture it into T-cells.
Ultimately, what he did was he treated that sample, treated some cancer cells with that sample, and then had to use chemicals to really stress those cells until they started producing something, and they produced these little particles that are probably exosomes.
That eventually he called it HTLV-3.
He had done this previously for HTLV-1, HTLV-2, human T-cell leukemia viruses.
That's what he was doing.
He was basically creating things.
They're laboratory artifacts.
He was creating these things in the lab.
They never turned out to cause leukemia or anything else.
And then his HTLV-3 took And now we call it HIV, you know, and then that led to AIDS.
But it's a laboratory artifact that only exists in the laboratory.
So Dave, we'll come back to AIDS momentarily, but I think in this clip that we just saw, you said that there were 400,000 unique sequences that are all considered SARS-CoV-2.
Can that possibly be right?
No longer.
It turns out there's over 13 million now.
They keep adding them.
There's a G-I-S-A-I-D or something like that.
It's a German organization.
And I think I might have sent you a little image of that thing.
But as of yesterday, September 21st, there were 13,203,714 genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2.
September 21st, there were 13,203,714 genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2.
And the number just keeps going up.
And those are all distinctly different genome sequences?
Yes.
That's one of the problems with RNA.
I don't know if you've heard of this thing.
They started it with HIV.
They call it the consensus sequence.
HIV is also an RNA virus.
Every time you do a sequencing of these RNA viruses, you get a different sequence.
And so what you do is you take all the sequences and you line them up and you see how many A's are in position one, A's, T's, C's, and G's.
And you just keep doing that all the way down.
And the one that is the most becomes in position one.
There's a T because most everybody came up with a T in that position.
And you just run it all the way down.
And that consensus sequence is what everybody uses to compare their other sequences with.
And guess what?
The consensus sequence has never been shown in any one of the viruses, because it's a combination of what they got from all the other sequences.
And that was with HIV, with the 812,000 different HIV sequences.
And now we've got 13 million SARS-CoV-2 sequences.
In fact, no two retroviruses have identically the same genome.
But Dave, isn't it true that there has been some Sanger sequencing of SARS-CoV-2?
I thought I had heard that some scientists have done Sanger sequencing.
There may be.
I don't know for a fact.
They would have to have an authentic, purified sample of the virus to begin with.
And to the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever claimed that they have that authentic purified sample of SARS-CoV-2.
You could do Sanger on any length of nucleic acid, all right?
So, you could do it on a short piece, a long piece, but if you're trying to imply that the Sanger sequence that I talked about in that video, That they did it for the whole intact genome.
The only way you could do that is if you had the whole intact virus to begin with.
And nobody has ever published that or reported it anywhere in the world that I know of.
The CDC doesn't even have it.
When they published the original paper, they said it was in silico.
Isn't that right?
It was computer generated.
Computer generated.
That's it.
Unless a computer code can cause disease, I think we're all okay.
Yeah, I mean, Christine Massey, the activist, has been sending FOIA requests to every major scientific institution in the world, and she has confirmed responses From over 150 of them, every single institution that she's written to, that they do not have isolated, purified SARS-CoV-2.
What they have is a soup of basically nasal swab put on monkey kidney cells or another kind of cell, and then they call that the isolated virus.
But again, it's the swab that's been isolated, not the virus itself.
So you can't You can't sequence the thing unless you have the thing because otherwise you're just putting pieces together.
You know, it's maybe an easy way for people to understand this is, you know, if we have a huge bag of Legos in our house and You know, if some kid came over to our house and said, hey, to my son, hey, you copied my super cool spaceship design in your Legos.
You built my spaceship.
And in order to prove that, instead of looking in the bag for the spaceship, he closed up the bag, Stomped on it, you know, 50 times until all the pieces were broken up.
And then had a computer assemble every possible combination of which ways the Legos could go together.
And then one of them was, you know, 88% similar to his spaceship.
And he said, aha, I proved it.
You copied my spaceship.
No, absolutely not.
Would you say it's an apt analogy, Dave?
You're on mute there, Dave.
Say it again.
Oh, I said, yes, Mike, I got it.
I mean, it was a pretty good analogy, and it spoke to what I know.
Great.
Well, let's move on.
Let's watch a clip from the series, The Viral Delusion, about AIDS.
And Dave, I think you've been in this fight at the forefront for decades, so I'll be eager to hear what you have to tell us about this clip.
It's the scientific fight that goes back more than a hundred years, beginning with the debate between two chemists, Louis Pasteur and Antoine Deschamps.
But its modern incarnation began as a disagreement in 1985 between on-the-ground AIDS researchers and none other than a young medical bureaucrat named Anthony Fauci.
It was declared.
Well, HIV, the AIDS thing, April 23rd, 1984, before any scientist or anybody else in the world knew there was AIDS, with a capital A-I-D-S, contagious infectious disease, you know, nobody in the world.
No scientific paper was published or anything about it.
It was just declared on that day, and it became government policy, and it's still government policy to this day.
That set the stage.
Not only that, it set the stage with having a disease with a virus that has never been obtained from a human being.
This HIV thing, the only place that I know of that it exists is in the laboratory.
Nobody has ever published obtaining or isolating or even seeing HIV in a human being.
The young Fauci had thrust into the mainstream the ideas of cancer researcher Robert Gallo, that a particle he had claimed to have discovered, the HIV virus, was the cause of AIDS, that this virus could be sexually transmitted, and thus AIDS was at the very edge of becoming a new global plague.
While much of the world rushed to congratulate the NIH, a small group of doctors and scientists pointed out that the declaration had no serious scientific backing.
And that the so-called HIV virus had, in reality, never even been proven to exist.
I was here living in San Francisco.
I had my own little biotech company.
So I wanted to work on this, like everybody else in the Bay Area wanted to work on AIDS.
We wanted to put our skills to work to try to cure it.
Be heroes.
Be carried on people's shoulders, you know, like all young scientists.
We talked about AIDS from the very beginning when it popped up in the 80s, even before it had a name.
And then here it was in 84, you know, aha, it's a virus and everything.
Oh, good.
I'm a chemist.
I'm going to make inhibitors to kill this retrovirus.
And so the other people working here and there, and then by 87, I've been starting to question this stuff, 85.
But between 85 and 87, I started talking about the problems with this whole notion that AIDS is contagious, caused by a transmissible infectious agent.
All those anomalies, you know?
One of the first things that made me suspicious back, I think it was 84, 85, 85 for sure, about this HIV business was, how does this virus know that you're gay, and I'm supposed to cause Kaposi's sarcoma in you, and not in these IV drug-using women?
Yeah, I give them TB or something like that, you know?
You know?
I mean, that was one of my first, my first suspicions, you know?
And also, how does that, how does that little virus know not to cross the street?
You know, like in the Castro area.
You stay over here where the gay guys are, you know, where they have all these AIDS and diseases, but it doesn't go over here in this other part of town.
It's a virus that knows your zip code, whether you're gay or straight, white or black, or whether you're rich or poor.
That's one of the first things.
Those discrepancies.
By 1987, I realized this whole shoot and match with contagious sexually transmitted HIV was not tenable.
In fact, it was crap.
The debate quickly blew up when the leading virologist in the U.S., Peter Duisburg, accepted the government's claim that what was pictured under the microscope was a so-called virus, but published a paper explaining in 19 clear points why this particle could not be the cause of AIDS.
It was a silent war, waged behind the scenes.
As the debate shot through the scientific community, the critics were soon joined by Carey Mullis, the Nobel Prize winning inventor of the PCR process.
Mullis insisted his technique was being misused to claim it could find viruses and diagnose disease, when it could do neither.
PR is separate from that.
It's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something.
That's what it is.
It doesn't tell you that you're sick and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.
Mullis became Fauci's most prominent critic and soon was joined by numerous other leading scientists.
But it was a debate that was kept almost entirely out of the media.
So clearly there are parallels.
Is that right, Dave, between what happened with AIDS and what's happening with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID?
I mean, it's uncanny.
The only things that really distinguish one from the other one is AIDS was basically restricted to gay men and IV drug users, and it was a localized thing.
It wasn't global.
And then you have the COVID thing, which is a different virus, okay, but now it's global.
And then you had Anthony Fauci behind both of these things.
And it's basically the size, but all of the lying was very similar.
Lies from the very beginning.
Bogus tests for bogus viruses in both cases.
Those are very similar there.
Oh, that's a good slide.
Yeah.
And in 84, they defined drug diseases were redefined as viral, as AIDS.
And then you had a lab, 1993 lab test turned non-diseases into AIDS.
And then with 2020, we have Anthony Fauci again involved, and we have RNA fragments are defined as COVID-19, but there's no SARS-CoV-2 anywhere as we've been talking about it.
And there was a PCR test for turns the flu into COVID-19 because the CDC's, the symptoms of COVID-19 and the flu are virtually identical.
I think they specified, oh, you might not be able to smell properly or taste, I forget which one it was, if you have COVID-19, you know, things like that.
Then there's AZT.
It was a very toxic, deadly drug that Anthony Fauci brought on the scene in the late 80s.
And now he's got Remdesivir.
He brought Remdesivir, another very toxic and deadly drug to treat SARS-CoV-2 with.
There were no clinical trials done with the ARVs.
There's no studies, no finished clinical trials with SARS-CoV-2.
There's no studies that show that any vaccines work or any of the drugs work in either case.
And the drugs are causing horrendous problems.
There are far, far more many people They were injured and killed by the anti-HIV drugs that ever died from so-called AIDS.
And the same thing is true with COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2.
And you had the advertising.
Look at the advertising.
It hides the adverse reactions in both the AIDS drugs and also the The COVID, the SARS-CoV-2 drugs, and the testing, the testing were inadequate.
You could have disease-free cases of AIDS, disease-free cases of COVID-19.
They're based on a PCR, the PCR test, that's it.
The similarities there, data manipulation.
The total clampdown of any debate or any arguments.
The game plan is identical to what it was in the 80s and 90s.
In fact, the whole infrastructure that is behind what's going on in the world right now was put into place in the 80s and 90s with the AIDS stuff.
It was just a practice for what's going on now.
So Mike, what about that?
Do you see the parallels between the AIDS narrative and the COVID narrative?
Without a doubt.
I mean, it goes even beyond that.
I mean, I see parallels that are hundreds of years in the making.
I mean, even when Edward Jenner first began experimenting with his first smallpox vaccines, what he did is he would grab orphans off the street of London And he would pull the pus from their bodies and inject it into other orphans in London.
Many, many of those orphans dying.
And we saw the same thing with Fauci and AIDS, where he was supervising studies on orphans in the Bronx, claiming that these orphans, who were perfectly healthy,
We're HIV positive and thus needed to be given experimental treatments and those orphans, you know, were killed.
Those orphans died.
Um, you know, more than 20 in one orphanage in the Bronx.
Um, so we're the same things.
And then now, of course, it's, it's, it's grown to just this extraordinary scale where everybody is claimed to be, uh, you know, SARS-CoV-2 positive and, you know, worldwide, uh, injections are called for.
Um, so we've seen, um, the, the same thing going on, uh, and it's, uh, raises the hair on the back of your neck.
So if Dr. Scolio, Mike, is correct that this whole COVID narrative and the whole situation is a scam, as he says, what do you consider to be the implications of that?
I mean, they're obviously tremendous.
I think there are three, I think about it in three ways.
I think first of all, in terms of our own personal health, When we're told that we have a virus or we're sick because we have SARS-CoV-2, it shuts the conversation down in terms of how to think about our own health and how to take care of yourself.
I can think of so many instances in my own life when Once I began to think about what's in my environment that's making me sick, I immediately was able to find the problem or eventually able to find the problem and get better and then not have to deal with that problem again.
So I think there's really serious implications for our own personal health.
Second, I think there's huge political implications.
Because again, you know, once they stick the label, oh, it's SARS-CoV-2 or oh, it's monkeypox or something like that, it shuts down all the conversation about why we're getting sick in society.
And this is a really significant political question.
So we're not looking at air pollution.
We're not looking at the fact that we're now burning natural gas that comes from fracked fields, where there's all sorts of chemicals that go into that fracking, and we're breathing those in, right?
We're not looking at glyphosate, and the impacts of that on food.
We're not looking at malnutrition.
We're not looking at the pollution in our water, in our fish.
our entire environment in EMFs and the medicines we take, it shuts all those conversations down and says, no, you need to fear this boogeyman instead.
And it leads to, so I think there's a real opportunity for a political awakening when we understand the implications of this.
And then I think third, scientifically, you know, it shuts down the opportunities for scientists to really help people.
You know, I mean, you know, scientists like Dave are so, you know, they're gems.
They're so valuable to our society, who are doing real research trying to really understand why we get sick.
Well, thank you, Michael.
Yeah, those are the three implications.
So this has been an incredibly fascinating conversation.
I want to make sure our viewers know where they can go to learn more about both of your works.
So for you, David, correct me if I'm wrong, it's davidrasnick.org or .com?
.com.
Right there, DavidRasnick.com.
And I think you told us that there are decades worth of your work, including a PDF of Dr. Peter Duisburg's book.
Maybe Robin can show us that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.' 's book has some parallels to Peter Duisburg's book about the AIDS virus that was published back, I believe, in the 80s or 90s.
Dave, is that right?
Yeah, it was 1996, Inventing the AIDS Virus.
So there are parallels there that we can see.
You can also go to The Viral Delusion to see this series, the seven and a half hour series that Michael Wallach has put together with Dave Rasnick and many other scientists that we saw.
So, any final words?
We have one minute.
Well, yeah, I'll say something.
It's my personal opinion, and I think it's right on the money.
All this stuff is intentional.
Breaking all the rules, poisoning people with these injections, shutting down the economies and everything.
These are weapons being used against us, and we have to recognize it, and we have to resist and fight back peacefully, but we've got to fight back.
Thank you, Dave.
Mike, final word?
Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, all the horrible things that have happened at the same time, new, you know, we're having new conversations.
And I think that's really exciting.
And we're making new connections.
You know, places like CHD are able to
Get the word out from doctors and scientists in a way that you know wasn't possible before and the opportunity for people to listen to alternative voices if they search them out is really tremendous and I could say that my life has changed in such positive ways because all the incredible doctors and scientists that I've had the chance to meet and listen to and I think there's a so I think there's really
A lot of opportunity for everyone as well.
Thank you both so much.
It's really been a pleasure and thank you for those who tuned in.
▲
Export Selection