All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 19, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:01:45
Sam Bailey: The Follies of Peter McCullough
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Dr Peter McCulloch is one of the most well-known doctors to have spoken out against the COVID-19 vaccines.
When he became increasingly vocal in early 2021, many of us who had been calling fraud on COVID-19 since 2020 were happy that a cardiologist was on board and advising everyone to avoid the toxic shots.
However, worlds were always going to collide, and over time, more people started to press Dr. McCulloch on virology's claims and what he thought about the no-virus arguments.
It is a very important issue, as when we examine the McCulloch Protocol, a number of problems are apparent for us.
The first is that because he thinks a virus exists, he claims COVID-19 is a specific disease.
However, the WHO and other medical institutions state that confirmed cases are simply positive molecular detection assays that have no established clinical diagnostic validity.
As a follow-on from virus belief, he also thinks there is contagion at play when there is no experimental evidence to support this for any disease in history.
Hence we see these dubious quarantine and disinfectant recommendations.
And then we get into the pharmaceutical assault, which includes monoclonal antibodies, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and Paxlivid, along with the antibiotics azithromycin and doxycycline.
Throw in some corticosteroids, colchicine, and blood thinners, and continue this drug buffet for up to 30 days.
Big Pharma may have missed out on some vaccine sales, but their revenue streams continue apace with this allopathic gold rush.
In March 2022, Drs.
Peter McCulloch, Ryan Cole, and Robert Malone were questioned by Dr. Joe Yee, the street MD, over the claim that viruses exist, and SARS-CoV-2 had really been isolated.
The trio simply repeated virological dogma.
So the following month, Joe invited Drs.
Andy Kaufman, Tom Cowan, and my husband Mark to respond and explain the anti-scientific nature of the virologist's methodologies.
Then, in November 2022, Dr. McCulloch tried to claim he had proof of SARS-CoV-2 with a sub-stack post titled, Electron Cryotomography of SARS-CoV-2 Variants.
The problem for him was that the paper was another of Virology's unscientific experiments, and the methodology did not support the headline.
I felt I had to say something about his nonsense, and posted a response to his article a few days later.
In June this year, Dr. McCulloch dialed up the fear factor, and suggested that the unvaxxed were at risk from the vaxxed, due to potential spike protein shedding, despite no scientific study ever demonstrating this phenomenon.
We exposed the bogus claims of contagious and disease-causing proteins in Virus Mania, and I made another response to his shedding stories after many requests from my audience.
Then a few weeks ago, Dr. McCulloch was interviewed on the Man in America platform, where he was asked about the no-virus arguments.
What followed was a spectacular stream of logical fallacies and even some outright lies as he attempted to mislead the audience about both virology's pseudoscience and the actual history of virus model refutations.
In the video that is about to follow, my husband Mark is joined by Dr. Kevin Corbett to discuss Dr. McCulloch's disingenuous claims and why the scientific evidence is not in his favor.
Dr. Kevin Corbett is a health scientist and retired clinical nurse specialist.
He has been an HIV dissident for over three decades, with publications refuting virological methodologies and tests.
In early 2020, Kevin was one of the first health professionals in the world to call out COVID-19 as a fraudulent and baseless medical pandemic.
Dr Mark Bailey is a microbiology, medical industry and health researcher who worked in medical practice, including clinical trials, for two decades.
In 2016, he left clinical practice due to dissatisfaction with the allopathic medical system.
Mark is the author of A Farewell to Virology and co-author of The COVID-19 Fraud and War on Humanity.
Thank you everybody for joining us today.
I'm here with Dr. Kevin Corbett, streaming in from England, and we're here to talk about problems of virology and claims of virus isolation.
And we had to think about how we were going to do this.
And we recently saw an interview where Dr. Peter McCullough was asked about the no virus position, which Kevin and I take with regard to COVID-19 and also the wider issues within virology.
And he provided us with a starting board basically to to address some of the major issues that we've been up against and perhaps see some of the most common fallacies in play at the moment, so What I'll do is I'll play our first clip and then Kevin and I will make some comments about what Peter McCulloch has said.
Yeah, I can tell you I'm one of the most peer-reviewed published doctors in the world in my field and one of the most peer-reviewed published in COVID in history.
So there are no peer-reviewed papers that are evidence-based that state that the virus doesn't exist.
So it's almost kind of a layperson's You know, I don't know.
I guess it's a saw or it's some type of useful axiom.
Do you know where I think it came from, the whole idea the virus doesn't exist?
It came from some type of contractor or laborer in Alberta.
And he made a city council presentation that people shouldn't have to wear masks and do all these things because the virus doesn't exist.
And the City Council didn't have any scientific backup and they said, well, I guess you're right, we can't find anything.
And so they somehow got out of wearing masks, whoever this guy was, and people cheered him.
He was great.
All right.
Well, I'll just start by saying Dr. McCulloch's made some interesting claims there, bordering on the preposterous, because my colleague here, Dr. Kevin Corbett, has been involved with this for Around three decades now.
So to claim that this only started in 2021 goes against all facts that we know.
It also is interesting because it goes against the fact that Stephan Lanker and the Perth Group have been active contesting virology as well since the 1990s.
And then in early 2020, a whole lot of us became aware of the issue.
My wife, Dr. Sam Bailey, of course, along with Andy Kaufman, Tom Cowen, Christine Massey, Mike Stone and others, all started investigating this issue and producing material.
So, why on earth Pierre McCulloch here has claimed that this started in an Alberta court in 2021 is highly disingenuous and contrary to the facts.
I also think he's employed some illogical fallacies here right from the start.
He's asserting that he's one of the most published people in this field and Kevin can make some comments about that because Kevin has More of a long association with the scientific journals and the way that they're run.
Yeah, I think it's these appeals to authority which are not useful because we're here to discuss the scientific evidence and it shouldn't matter where that's coming from.
It should be judged on the quality of the material that's being presented.
So yeah, I think very concerning statements he's made there, but I'll hand over to Kevin to make some comments.
I think Dr. McCulloch is wrong.
The issue isn't a lay issue.
It isn't something that's been dreamed up by non-professionals, non-healthcare professionals or non-medics.
The Perth group of scientists from the late 1980s published in peer-reviewed journals arguments and evidence refuting the viral hypothesis of AIDS.
And the existence of HIV as a obligate intracellular parasite as a virus.
So it's very difficult to take what Dr. McCulloch said as serious because it's totally refuted by the evidence and the evidence is there in peer-reviewed journals.
Perth Group published a big paper in 1993 in Nature Biotechnology on the fallibility of the Western blot Test as a diagnostic for HIV, also refuting the existence of HIV.
And in successive papers since the late 1980s, the Perth Group of Scientists have put forward irrefutable evidence, evidence that hasn't been overturned, showing the non-existence of HIV.
And those arguments have been taken up since by those arguments about the Caveats in virology have been taken up by other scientists, notably in the last three years.
So the caveats in virology have been uncoupled and have been exposed in the last 40 years, really, by scientists.
Not lay people.
Lay people have come into it and have taken this up as activists and have done a very good job of disseminating the information.
But at the base of this is our scientific arguments put forward in peer-reviewed publications by scientists.
And I think this is where Dr. McCulloch is wrong to mislabel and misdirect people.
And basically Produce a false view of this whole area.
And I wonder why this is being done.
Maybe it's because he doesn't know the literature.
He hasn't studied it.
He hasn't researched it.
It's not his specialty.
It's outside of his understanding and his knowledge.
Therefore, he shouldn't actually proclaim on it.
And shouldn't actually talk about it.
In all truth, SARS-CoV-2, the virus, clearly exists.
It was engineered by Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
He had the blueprints for making a chimeric virus using a bat coronavirus than a human coronavirus and making the chimeric.
This was published in Nature Medicine.
and precedes the National Academy of Sciences in 2015.
It was funded and really operationalized by Dr. Anthony Fauci and the National Allergy and Immunology Branch.
EcoHealth Alliance brought the plans over to the Chinese and coordinated all this, led by Peter Desick, and the papers were published.
Well, I think, Kevin, I'm fairly well positioned to comment on this because these are the very papers that I brought up in my reputation of virology, A Farewell to Virology, which I published last year, Now what Dr. McCulloch is talking about here is the same problems that we see in all of these claimed publications.
So the Barak paper in question, when we analyzed the methodologies they used in that paper, claiming that they had this new bat SARS-type coronavirus, There was nothing in that paper which demonstrated that they had an infectious particle or a disease-causing particle.
That was just the headline.
And again, as you've suggested, Kevin, this is possibly due to Dr. McCulloch's lack of understanding of virology where You can't read the headlines and the titles of these papers and then walk away assuming that's true, because we get deep into the methodology of these papers and find out that they certainly don't show what they claim.
So one of the things produced, I believe, was an electron microscopy image claiming to have purified variants.
But the image was preposterous.
I commented on that in my essay, saying that there was no controls done, there was no contextual images provided, there was no information as to how it was established that these particles they imaged were virions whatsoever.
So he's taking one false assertion and then spilling it into the next, which is when Peter Daszak, associated with the EcoHealth Alliance, is then said to be able to modify these, quote, viruses.
But we see we've got the same problem here.
We're starting with an entity which has never been shown to be a virus.
They simply had a cell culture suit and they had a whole mixture of tissues, which they asserted contained a virus, and then handed over to someone else who says, well, we found some new genetic sequences in here.
Therefore, we've created a new, quote, virus when they've done nothing in the sort.
And I think where McCulloch gets confused as well is he's talking about things like blueprints.
He may here be talking about the patents that were filed.
And if we look at the patent history of, quote, coronaviruses, there are thousands of them.
And the problem with this is that the patent office staff, they don't know what's biologically plausible.
They're not the arbiters of science.
They simply take something which is considered to be novel In this case a genetic sequence and allowed the person who's applied for it to patent it.
So a lot of the stuff that's come out of University of North Carolina Chapel Hill with Ralph Barrett's group, we've looked into all of this and claims and patents and headlines and then news stories promoting this stuff and then Peter McCulloch claiming that these represent viruses is totally incorrect and
If people want to get into the deeper details, they can obviously watch some of our other presentations getting into these specific areas or reading my paper, A Farewell to Virology, where we dissect the claims around Ralph Barak and Peter Desic creating so-called, you know, gain-of-function or pathogenic viruses.
They made statements and other virologists also made statements about genetic sequences not being viral, you know, being misunderstood as viruses.
And so within the mainstream itself, you've got a critique there of the modern day now, 20 years later, where you have this posting, these uploading of genetic sequences, these patenting of these sequences and the misunderstanding and the interpretation of those being viral in origin.
So you don't really have to go out of the main street to look at the critique of what's happened today with the runaway technologies.
And I would like to just point out that this whole issue about the electron microscopy that you've mentioned, the image, the EM image, has exactly the same issue in the 1990s has exactly the same issue in the 1990s with HIV, which wasn't imaged until so-called until the mid-1990s.
And the images themselves were questioned by the Perth Group, who demonstrated that there was no proof that these were from viral from viral particles.
The phenomena that was being photographed under electron microscopes was not viral in origin, it was assumed to be, and they were produced without the proper controls.
And so you're actually photographing a biological culture You're photographing phenomena that are assumed to be viral, not proven to be viral, through the correct, controlled experimental techniques.
And this is what Stefan Lanker showed as well in his work, that you can produce these biological phenomena and photograph them, they look like the real thing, but they're not.
They're artefacts of the whole technique.
This is what I, a co-author in 1999, peer-reviewed scientific journal in the UK that's no longer published, and we showed that the government's push towards testing pregnant women for HIV was wrong and we showed that the government's push towards testing pregnant women for HIV was wrong because there's no isolate, there's no viral isolate to underpin the antibody tests or the PCR tests that were coming in
And the head virologist for the UK had to make a rebuttal to our article.
And you could see from our article and his response that we were right in what we were saying.
And they were wrong.
And they were exposed.
We exposed the HIV antibody tests as flawed, baseless.
There's no viral epistemology to base them on.
And it was just the Emperor's new clothes.
They were left looking foolish.
And we had all these virologists writing in protesting that we were discrediting the science and all we were doing was publishing the data that was there in the data sheets by the test manufacturers and in the literature.
This sort of contest has been going for a long time and I think to label us as lay people that have been around for a couple of years and are baseless in our arguments is totally flawed and false.
I wouldn't use the word lie but I think it's misrepresenting what many scientists like myself have been standing for and been pushing for.
Last 30 years and I think really take exception to this sort of statement from Peter McCulloch because on other levels he's done some very good work rebutting so-called vaccines but I think on the basic science he's wrong and he shouldn't be making these statements and mislabeling people and misdirecting the public
because the work is bona fide, it comes from a scientific base, and it's there within the peer review literature.
If only he'd take the time to read it and fully understand it.
So the virus exists.
It cultures in standard viral cultures.
It's been isolated.
It's clearly been isolated because the Chinese isolate it and they make a vaccine out of it called the Sinovac coronavirus.
You can see the virus under electron microscopy.
Those papers have been published.
These are all cited on my Substack Courageous Discourse if anybody wants to look at them.
Well, I mean, here, Kevin, we get straight into the heart of the matter, where he starts talking about standard virological techniques, which is the crux of the problem, which is what we've been exposing for years now.
When Peter says things like isolation, does he understand what he means?
Because he's not talking about physical isolation here.
We know that they're not doing that, and we know that they tried.
It wasn't through lack of trying over the last century.
They spent, particularly around the 70s, they were really trying hard to purify particles which could be shown to be viral in nature.
But without any success.
So when he talks about isolation, we have to remind everybody that this is the virologist's definition of isolation, which in fact doesn't really have a definition.
Some of the textbooks of virology don't even give a specific meaning for the word.
So they pretty much use it however they want.
It could mean just taking a sample from someone.
It could mean detecting a genetic sequence and in the case he's talking about here as well with what he says is standard culturing.
I mean, he's just talking about cell breakdown experiments where a biological sample is added to traditionally something like monkey kidney cells, which have a propensity to break down because they have chromosomal abnormalities.
And claiming that that's an isolation technique, watching this breakdown.
So, and as always, if you've got a problem upstream, if they're claiming that their sample has a, quote, virus, then there's no problem for them to develop things like vaccines.
You know, they're using fictional inputs, which are genetic sequences and proteins, the provenance of which has never been shown.
And using those as the basis of vaccines.
So again, these are all logical fallacies that he's committing here.
You don't need to have the existence of a virus to have things such as vaccines and, quote, antivirals that they don't even factor into the equation when you start with this pseudoscience.
So, yeah, real, real problems here.
And when he says things like, you know, that the Chinese have isolated it.
Well, again, we've tried to direct Peter to work like I've done in A Farewell to Virology, which breaks down Fanwood's paper, which was published in February 2020.
They had one 41 year old man with pneumonia and they took a lung sample and they took that fluid and just looked for every single RNA sequence they could find in that fluid and then created an in silico model which was compared to other
And so like our models, which are already on the genetic database, and on that basis declared that there was a novel coronavirus when there's nowhere in that paper that shows anything that replicates that shows anything that is infectious.
And there's certainly no evidence that these genetic sequences that they published came from inside any particle that they claim to have identified.
So this is the kind of pseudoscience we're talking about when they are making declarations of isolation.
They have done nothing of the sort and We can only encourage Peter to read the work that all of us have done, whether it's short presentations like this one, or lengthy publications like the Perth Group's HIV, a virus like no other, about 66,000 words, twice the length of my farewell to virology, which is long enough as well.
But we go through these methodologies and show why they are unscientific and why They don't show the existence of replication-competent intracellular parasites.
The head of the UK HSA testing strategy for COVID in 2020 was Professor Maria Zambon, Professor of Virology at the Imperial College London.
And she was the UK's lead for COVID testing for Boris Johnson's government.
And in an email interaction with her, she confirmed to me personally that there was no viral isolate.
For SARS-CoV-2, the PCR test that was developed in 2020 was developed without the material evidence of any virus.
And so it's entirely hypothetical.
It's based on sequencing, uploaded sequences, and the whole thing was confected with Without a biological basis to it.
So I think that this, this is an important factual evidence.
Those emails were uploaded by Christy Massey on her website, demonstrating the lack of any material basis for the viral claim.
So the claim that so-called COVID was based on a so-called virus is very easily undone.
The whole claim is exposed.
For a scam really, it's a total scam.
There's been much more evidence produced and uploaded by Christine Massey on her website in Canada demonstrating the same thing, that public health agencies internationally don't have any viral isolates.
Or any viral isolates of any virus.
And this is the issue that needs to be brought forward.
I think when people like Dr. McCulloch are claiming that certain interventions help viral diseases and stirring people in one direction or the other, when at the base of it there is no virus or viruses, there is none there and therefore The interventions that the industry put forward and the public health agencies promote are baseless and toxic, obviously.
And this is the work that goes right back to the Perth Group's work in many papers.
And a virus like no other is their summary paper.
But it's based on nearly 30 years of work, and it just focuses on HIV.
But the arguments are translatable to other viruses, so-called.
And the methodologies that they've demonstrated have been used over the last 40 years are totally flawed.
And I think that this is the issue that, unfortunately, the Truth and Freedom Movement and its heroes, like Dr. McCulloch, have backed away from.
And they backed away from it because they don't understand it.
And they're frightened of it.
And they're frightened of the arguments because of their investment in the industry.
They're entwined within the biotech industries, whether they like it or not.
And therefore, there's so much at stake here.
Yeah, and I'd just like to add just one more comment there too, and I think Peter seems to miss this, is that when he talks about posting things like his so-called electron microscopy evidence on his Substack post, many of us have actually provided refutations to that, including my wife, Dr Sam Bailey.
provided a refutation pretty quickly to his claims and unfortunately Peter seems to just ignore these refutations that come his way and in interviews like the one he's in here continue to claim that this is all uncontested stuff which is not correct.
So for those who deny the virus, I guess they could deny that the sky is blue, or they could deny that oceans aren't there.
I mean, people could make some type of ridiculous argument, I guess.
But no, the virus truly exists.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel and it's disappointing to see Peter resort to this kind of thing.
None of us are making claims about the oceans or the skies here.
What we're doing is looking at virology papers, pointing out that they've got no controls, pointing out that they have not followed the scientific method, pointing out that the results of the experiments are just artifacts, pointing out that people have shown that you just can repeat these experiments and the methodologies themselves produce the same results.
So that's what we're saying.
So I'm not sure why Peter's just gone completely off course here, and we probably shouldn't need to talk about that too much.
Well, I think what he's doing there, he's labelling people.
He's labelling the arguments as crazy.
And I'm sorry to hear that.
Sad to hear that from him.
And I think I hope he will recant and take that back.
Because when you look at our work over the last 30, 40 years, there's nothing denialist about it at all.
We're not denying.
We're actually refuting.
We're actually refuting an argument.
We're falsifying hypotheses.
Which is what scientists do.
And scientists should not be engaging in those sorts of attacks, really, to try and personalise it.
And to say something like that is really pretty horrid, really.
It's unscientific and inappropriate.
We can agree to disagree, but we shouldn't be labelling people and stigmatising.
You see, this is what happens.
This is what happened in the 80s and 90s with people that were refuting the viral cause of AIDS.
They were labelled as AIDS denialists.
And the whole, you know, peer review process closed for us and we weren't allowed to publish.
I've got drawers of papers I've tried to publish.
Probably nearly 30 that were rejected around HIV.
And this is what happens.
You can't publish in the peer-reviewed journals because of attitudes like this.
So I really take exception to this.
And I do think it's worth unpacking it and talking about it, that we shouldn't be using this, this way of stigmatizing dissent.
This happened in the investigative journalist field as well.
Journalists like Celia Farber were labelled as AIDS denialists.
They refused work.
They were labelled stigmatised.
They were blackened.
Their reputations were sullied.
And they were badly treated.
Very badly treated by the mainstream.
And I'm sorry to hear this.
from a so-called hero of the Truth and Freedom Movement like Peter McCullough.
And this is the problem I have with the Truth and Freedom Movement.
They seem to have certain scientific heroes that are elevated and other voices are excluded.
The thing about the virus deniers, and a lot of them are in the UK.
I've been on a couple of their conference calls and they really get into this.
Well, you can't prove it to me and I'll show them all the papers.
They'll say, well, that's not good enough.
Then I'll show them some more and we just keep going and going.
Yeah, well, that's interesting, Kevin, because as far as I was aware, we're located all around the world, but he just seems to think that this is based in the UK.
And yeah, he again, he's using this term virus denial, which is not particularly helpful.
And I think, I'm not sure what claims he's making there about these papers that he's been producing, which apparently provide the evidence, because As you know, there's a huge group of us now that refute these papers on a weekly basis.
Peter's never sent anything to me.
I know that some occasional people, Kristine and perhaps yourself, have had a little bit of contact with them.
But it could hardly be said that he provided conclusive evidence of any of his claims here.
So I think again, there's a lot of disingenuous behavior going on.
But I think it's interesting that he said that most of them seem to be located in the UK because the number of scientists in the UK that would refute virology or dispute virology are very small and he's obviously Wrong on this.
There's no concentration of scientists that are critical of virology in any one country.
There's a broad grouping of people internationally that are, you could say, are questioning virology fundamentally, questioning the epistemology of it.
To say that we're all located in the UK, again, it's labelling and stigmatising and misdirecting people Away from the arguments, the key arguments, to incidental surface issues that are not important.
And then finally I said, okay, if the virus doesn't exist, what made people sick?
What caused people to die of blood clots and respiratory failure?
They go, oh, that was just the flu.
I said, no, the flu doesn't cause blood clots.
I'm a doctor.
I take care of flu.
No, it doesn't cause blood clots.
What caused all this?
Okay, we're here.
Dr. McCulloch is obviously straight back into more fallacies about what makes people ill, and he misses the whole point of what a lot of our group do, which is to critique the virological science and point out, as I've said, that it's not scientific, it's not using appropriate controls, and it cannot back up its conclusions.
Through its methodologies which are either you know inappropriate or as I say unscientific so again, it's um, yeah creating a straw man here and Conflating the issue because when it comes to what makes people sick I mean that's a myriad of causes and you don't it's a very simplistic way to say well what made people sick in England in 2020 or What happened in New York in 2020?
All this kind of stuff that does not provide evidence of the existence of viruses.
So, yeah, once again, very disappointing to see that he gets into this.
I think, too, he misses something very important here, and a lot of people have done this, about what he actually thinks COVID-19 is.
Like, he appears to think that it's a specific disease entity.
And we'd have to challenge him here and say, well, which, what is he referring to?
Which definition of COVID-19?
Because as far as we know, the ones that we've analysed, most importantly, the WHO's definition It comes back to a confirmed case being the result of a molecular detection test, which is either PCR, which is used a lot initially, and later on that became the lateral flow or the rapid antigen test.
Now, these are just in vitro reactions on test strips.
They don't tell you information about a clinical status of a patient.
When Peter starts talking about things like blood clots etc, that's got nothing to do with the official definition of COVID-19, whether it be the CDC, Or the New Zealand Ministry of Health, or the WHO themselves, which they don't mention that as being part of it.
So, Peter may have seen something in his clinical practice, and that's fine, but then to invoke that it must be a virus is ridiculous.
We've seen this sort of thing over and over again, and perhaps, you know, most famously was the whole HIV AIDS scandal.
Where they essentially took a whole cluster of known diseases, they were already known, and then repackaged them into a syndrome and said that that's because of a new virus that's appeared.
And practitioners at the time, ones like Klaus Kahnlein who called this stuff out as soon as it happened, pointed out, he said, hey hang on a minute, these diseases yesterday we were calling lymphoma, And today, because of this new test that you've brought out, you're telling us it's now called AIDS and there's a new virus, when in fact the patient I'm looking at is exactly the same as they were last week before we had the test.
So, I mean, that's what we witnessed in 2020.
And we're not saying why.
We're not obliged when we're analyzing virology to explain why people get ill.
I mean, we do that in a lot of our other presentations when we talk about specific problems and conditions that can happen to people.
But I think he misses the point here.
Why Why take this argument when the virological papers themselves should be able to provide the evidence?
And I think maybe he's a little bit nervous here that they don't actually have the evidence.
And now we can just move to new clinical syndrome as evidence of a virus.
But as I say, it makes no sense because He would have to be telling us what are the clinical criteria of COVID-19, because we know it's complete nonsense.
Most people had very little to no symptoms.
Some people were apparently dying.
It was all based on these molecular detection assays, which have never been clinically validated.
They don't correspond to a clinical condition.
We know that because you can take all of the asymptomatic cases, you can take the inanimate objects that were tested, which were found to test positive on these assays.
I mean, what is the claim?
That oranges have COVID-19?
That motor oil has COVID-19?
I mean, again, and Kevin's battled this, I know, for decades, is using these tests inappropriately to claim that they relate to a clinical condition or inform you somehow about an illness that a person has when they don't necessarily.
Well, the definition of COVID, as you say, is very specific.
It relies on these so-called diagnostic testing assays.
The clinical syndrome is something else, and it's wide open.
It's such a wide definition, clinical syndrome.
Like AIDS, there are 29 indicated diseases for AIDS, which eventually were labelled as HIV disease, which is ridiculous.
Because all of those, most of those conditions existed pre-1984.
There's all this gerrymandering going on in epidemiology and then the syndrome is created through the epidemiology.
And this is exactly what happened with Covid, except with Covid you had the test ahead and it was the test that created the syndrome and everything else was added into that.
So people were labelled as Covid who had a sore throat, cough, Or some incidental symptom.
Or even tested negative.
People have these symptoms.
Just this obvious gerrymandering of the syndrome based on nothing really.
Confection of it.
Creation of it.
From nothing.
What makes people ill?
What makes people have blood clots?
Well, I've looked at many cases in the last three years of people labelled COVID with blood clots.
I've looked at their medical notes.
And the pulmonary emboli.
Causation factors are very well known and you can see them in the medical notes.
But they're labelled as COVID because there's a PCR test that's positive or there's a lateral flow test positive somewhere.
And what causes blood clots is multifactorial.
What is it created around?
It's created around fear and hysteria, basically.
Whipping up fear and hysteria around common symptoms
uh or uncommon symptoms and creating the basis for an industry-led global intervention which comes from all sorts of other sources as well economic and political but basically the creation of markets for so-called antivirals and so-called vaccines like the Pfizer and the AstraZeneca etc and now we're people are are realizing this that
They're realizing it at different levels.
Contesting the safety of vaccines is all very well and good, and I'm 100% behind that.
But the underpinning science is from virology, and that's what should be focused on.
That's the core target.
for critique and sadly so many medical scientists are not able to do that or unwilling to do it or are unable to do it because they don't understand the critiques, they don't understand the methodologies of virology and because the accepted virology is settled science and until that changes the paradigm will run and will destroy itself.
But it will run and run until it destroys itself.
They said, well, you can't trust the PCR.
I said, okay, well, the antibodies that we measure and rely on that bind us to the spike protein, the nucleocapsid, what are those?
And they quickly run out of the answer.
So they can't explain.
If the virus doesn't exist, they can't explain the clinical syndrome.
They can't explain the in vitro diagnostics.
They can't explain any of it.
Well, I mean, he's trying on a form of shotgun argumentation here, where he's just throwing out a whole lot of things.
And obviously, each one needs to be refuted individually.
But, I mean, claiming that antibodies provide the evidence for existence of viruses is complete nonsense.
The height of that nonsense was potentially the HIV-AIDS scandal, where essentially that was the whole basis of how they tried to claim that there was a new virus in circulation was through the distribution of an antibody test.
The problem with antibody tests is that essentially, again, doctors are taught that antibodies are formed in the body in response to infections or some sort of invasion.
and then provide some sort of immunity now this is again this is what i was taught at medical school and it wasn't until later when i did my own independent investigations that i realized that the whole antibody thing was just hypothetical and theoretical models which had not been shown to be correct necessarily
so yeah if he wants to claim that an antibody is specific to sars-cov-2 we'd need to see the appropriate scientific and paper which was done with appropriate controls and was shown to have you know complete specificity to something But the problem is when you can't show that something exists in the first place, it's pointless to try and bring in antibody arguments to
So I don't, and we've covered this extensively in other areas, other presentations, and I also suggest to people to have a look at Mike Stone's Virology website, where he does a deep dive into antibodies, the history of them, and how they were fraudulently put forward as being these very specific molecules, which in fact They're not.
Even immunologists for decades have described antibodies as promiscuous molecules because they cross-react with all sorts of things.
And if people can't see the preposterous nature of the fact that, say, HIV antibodies are known to appear in around 70 clinical syndromes, We can see that they're not specific at all and many of us question the entire antibody model and would say that it has nothing to do with quote immunity and everything to do with tissue damage and repair.
And it should also be acknowledged that antibody assays are always set at particular concentrations.
So we know this with HIV as well.
Initially they were doing A whole lot of ELISA and Western blot tests and so many of the population were positive that they had to change the dilutions basically in order to get it to a level which seemed to be more realistic for what they were trying to claim.
So these sort of arguments again are not backed up by the science and I think maybe Peter's trying to dazzle people here saying that there is antibody evidence for this stuff.
Yeah, I'm not sure also what he's referring to in terms of saying that he has all these arguments that can't be refuted because many of the other people like Peter actually refuse to engage in this area and we've had very little communication with them and it's usually because they're not interested in communicating with us or reading our publications.
The paper to read on HIV antibodies It's called Is a Positive Western Block Proof of HIV Infection.
And this was published in 1993 in Nature Biotechnology, a peer-reviewed, high-impact factor journal.
Which Peter McCulloch publishes in, I'm sure.
But high impact factor, meaning that its impact within the specialist field it caters for, is high.
So people reading it are leaders in the field.
And this paper was published by the Perth Group, led by Eleni Papadopoulos-Eliopoulos.
And it demonstrated that Western blot testing is fallacious.
It's fraudulent.
for proof of HIV infection.
The reason being that there is no proven HIV isolate.
And this was demonstrated in this paper in 1993 in Nature Biotechnology, which the field of HIV ignored.
So there we have peer review science being completely ignored by
The so-called scientists and Peter McCulloch and others in the Truth and Freedom Movement who think that antibodies are specific and demonstrate viral infection and the existence of viruses should read that paper because it would change their attitude if they're open to the arguments and they can see the logic in that paper which we all can see and many other scientists can see.
But the industry won't accept it.
And the industry is what dictates this, not the science.
The science is being led by the industries.
This literature has been well documented for decades and yet is being ignored by the current generation, including people like Peter here.
And it's a real shame because we see another story that's been circulating.
That SARS-CoV-2 has been engineered in a lab and that people are looking at the sequences and saying that it's got glycoprotein 120 inserts and that's very suspicious because that comes from the HIV postulated obviously virus, one that we would say doesn't exist.
And this is the problem because they are claiming that GP120 belongs to HIV.
I mean, if you actually look at the scientific literature, people like the birth group and others have shown that it's not.
It's a cellular protein.
It's not special to HIV.
But here we are in the year 2023, And we've got people writing substats and doing presentations and claiming that, you know, this GP120 indicates that it must be a lab-engineered virus and all this kind of nonsense.
And we just point out to them, look, go back to the literature on this stuff.
These proteins are not shown to be viral in origin.
And obviously in the COVID era, this has gone into overdrive because we get people talking about, well, Peter mentioned nuclear capsid proteins there, which he seems to think come from a virus.
But if you actually look at the literature, we can see that they can detect these proteins in various cell culture experiments and breakdown products.
That's fine.
We're not denying the existence of spike proteins and Nucleocapsid proteins, yeah, they can be detected in biological samples.
The problem is the provenance, and that's where it all falls apart.
They've never shown anywhere with a scientific experiment that these things are viral in nature.
So now we just get the circular reasoning going round with, oh, we've detected proteins, or we've detected genetic sequences, and because they've been previously deposited On a data bank, fraudulently claiming that they're viruses, everyone else that finds them around the world now claims that they've found the virus too.
And it's very frustrating because it seems that so few of us can look at it and say, well, let's go back to the original experiment, the original deposit that was made on the genetic data bank, whether it was HIV or SARS-CoV-2 or anything else.
And we look at those original experiments and we say, well, that's not proof of a viral entity.
And the stuff obviously just spins out of control.
So we just simply have to dispose with that.
It's a folly, basically.
It's a folly that the virus doesn't exist.
And I think it does detract for the important work at hand that people have been hospitalized and died of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
And now they are being injured, developing disabilities and dying with the vaccine.
Well again it's disappointing to see Peter conflating issues here and none of us deny that the vaccines are causing immense harm but he misses the point that we've been active on this since early 2020 and we warned the public not to take the coming you know in the pipeline COVID shots because we were arguing from upstream showing people that COVID-19 was
A fictional invention by the WHO had a ridiculous case definition.
It is not a folly to focus on the epistemology of virology to show that it is false.
And people like myself were at the forefront of warning people about the vaccines.
I was on one of the videos, two of the videos that Oracle Films released in December 2020 and in January 2021.
It's false to say that we are not warning people or we're not interested in the vaccine damage or we didn't attend to that at all.
We were right there at the beginning of this, warning people not to take them.
But we were also saying to people that the basis of the vaccines, the virological basis, was wrong.
There is no proof of a virus and that therefore anything marketed to intervene there, like a vaccine, is going to be harmful because there is no biological basis to it.
And this is where he is wrong to mislabel us in this way and to say that we are a folly and that we weren't interested in vaccine damage and people who've been hurt by these things.
What we're also interested in, which he completely ignores, is the mislabeling of people with diagnoses like COVID and SARS-CoV-2, which are clearly fraudulent and false.
And this is where he is wrong in not uncovering this or not wanting others to uncover it and he is wrong to accept these diagnoses and these in vitro diagnostics on face value.
He's misleading people by doing this himself.
He's grossly misleading people as a cardiologist and I hope he considers this If he hears this video and he hears what we're saying, because he does need to do this, as do other so-called heroes of the Truth and Freedom Movement, who basically accept the fraudulent basis of virology and the so-called in vitro diagnostics that go with it.
Yeah, and again I'd just like to emphasize that As Kevin says, I mean, we were warning people from early 2020 and mid-2020 that they were going to bring out a vaccine.
I mean, Event 201 told us what they were doing.
They said that there was going to be a novel coronavirus.
And if people read through their report, it ended with an apparent endemic coronavirus.
So I mean, That we already could see that the virology, the PCR, the clinical syndrome was based on fraud.
And we were pointing that out to people very early on.
And I think it's disingenuous for Peter to say that we're distracting from it.
I mean, we could easily claim it's vice versa, that all of these people that started criticizing things in 2021 were distracting from what we'd already done.
Which was tell people that the science behind this alleged pandemic was false, and we could show that based on their so-called virus isolation, based on their PCR and antigen tests, based on the foundational definition of what they were calling COVID.
But yeah, so it's really disappointing that he thinks this is a folly because the impact, I mean we're not talking about just SARS-CoV-2 here, we're talking about HIV, we're talking about every alleged virus that they've ever come up with.
If they're shown not to exist, this is the collapse of half of the medico-pharmaceutical system.
This is the collapse of childhood vaccination schedules.
The impacts are just incredible.
And I mean, strangely, I guess for us is that we already live in a world where to us, we don't pay attention to the virology, apart from when we critique it for other people.
And for instance, I can tell you that when I was a practicing doctor, if someone came to my clinic and they said that this person had tested positive for HIV, that would terrify me.
I'd think, oh my goodness, this is the death sentence for this person.
And nowadays, it's completely different because when Uh, you're dealing with someone that's had one of these tests.
You simply say to them, well, the best thing to do is not repeat the test because it's not a valid diagnostic tool.
So ignore that and actually talk to us about whether you're unwell or not, and we'll take it from there.
And that's how you improve people's health.
We're living in this paradigm now where the virologists have cooked up A century of nonsense, and the impact is getting more and more serious.
And books like my wife Sam's Virus Mania point this out, that these so-called infectious disease pandemics are just getting bigger and bigger, basically, until we had this ridiculous COVID-19 production which engulfed the entire planet.
And as Kevin and I and many of our colleagues have shown, if we go back to the foundational science, there is no pandemic.
There is no infectious diseases.
It's not how people get sick.
There are no entities called viruses being replication-competent infectious particles.
None of this has ever been shown to exist.
And essentially, what we have with things like COVID-19 is a marketing campaign, a psychological operation.
It's not backed up by medical science.
And we need more doctors and health professionals to realize that The whole thing is a fraud.
It's not bits and pieces, as Kevin says.
It's not contesting one vaccine or contesting some epidemiology.
It's pointing out that the whole thing is rotten to the core.
And I mean, just just to close up, I don't want this presentation to look like a beat up session on Peter McCulloch.
And for a long time, we have not said anything about what Peter's done, because we've been Very much in support of his fantastic work, warning people not to go along with the nonsense and not to take these toxic shots, etc.
But it's difficult for us when members of the health freedom community stray into these areas, which we have a lot of experience with and our colleagues have a great deal of experience with as well.
And if we see people making fraudulent claims, then we'll point it out.
I think that this is a sifting exercise that's going on and has all sorts of ramifications.
And it's basically about preserving the pharmaceutical industry and the diagnostics associated by technology industry that goes along with it and bolstering both bolstering those industries From within the truth and freedom movement, which is just totally contradictory when you think about it.
Because if it's about truth and freedom, it's about exposing the frauds and the fallacies and the inconsistencies.
And you can't just stop with the vaccines.
Can't just stay with criticizing the vaccines.
It's got to go further to look at the underlying epistemology, which is the virology.
And that's the logical way to focus back upstream to the source of the damage.
And the source of the damage with the vaccines isn't just the safety of the vaccines and whether they've been tested thoroughly and the ingredients and the adjuvants.
It's back further to the underpinning virology, which is flawed and wrong and totally toxic and unscientific.
As many of us have shown in depth repeatedly over the last 40 years, and until that change is accepted, then the toxicity and the vaccine damage will continue ad nauseum year on year.
Because unless you go upstream to the source, You can't stop the downstream damage.
And unfortunately, I see little evidence of this.
But I see a widespread understanding about many of these arguments.
Enough to create dissent and to enable people to come away from the mainstream messages.
To create dissonance.
And this is what makes our arguments very dangerous.
▲
Export Selection