Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 18, 2024 - Jim Fetzer

02:16:24

Bio-labs, Anthrax, and Gain of Fiction featuring Dr Mark Bailey & Steve Falconer

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In nearly all cases with modern health systems, you're waiting months for appointments only to spend a mere 10 minutes with a doctor who quickly hands out a generic diagnosis that is likely rooted in a total misunderstanding of health and causes, and then you're offered a one-size-fits-all medication or invasive treatments with unpleasant side effects.
	If this sounds all too familiar, consider a different approach with the new biology clinic founded by Dr. Tom Cowan, respected natural health doctor, author, and speaker.
	Dr. Cowan's holistic perspective on health and wellness and a deep understanding of the true nature of health and disease sets this clinic apart.
	With the new biology clinic, it's not about quick fixes and suppressing symptoms.
	The practitioners take time to understand your unique story, recognizing that health is unique to the individual and that illnesses have a variety of causes, physically and metaphysically.
	Members of the New Biology Clinic enjoy a flat monthly fee that includes a range of valuable services like health consults as needed, practitioner-led live streams on diverse health topics, access to a members-only resource library, and multiple live group sessions every month.
	These sessions cover fitness, breathing integration, biofield tuning, guided meditation, EFT tapping, and much more.
	Unlike traditional healthcare systems that thrive on frequent visits, prescriptions, treatments, and suppressing symptoms, the New Biology Clinic's motivation is to make you healthy and keep you that way.
	Visit NewBiologyClinic.com to learn more and use code TheWayForward for $50 off your account activation.
	If you're a member of The Way Forward, email hello at TheWayForward.com to receive $150 off your account activation.
	Your journey to genuine healing begins here.
	Before diving into this episode, I highly, highly recommend checking out episode 66 where I also featured Dr. Mark Bailey and Steve Falconer discussing Steve's second part of his film adaptation, his film series adaptation of Mark's paper, A Farewell to Virology.
	In this episode, we just continue on and discuss Steve's third Part in the three-part series of the film adaptation of A Farewell to Virology and focus largely on metagenomics and just viral genomes in general and also gain of function.
	So again, definitely check out episode 66 if you haven't yet before listening to this one, otherwise you're going to be missing some important context.
	And for those of you who have listened to episode 66,
	You may be wondering why I'm continuing to discuss this information, but it's information that I believe is extremely important for a number of reasons, which we get into during the episode, especially with respect to the larger health freedom movement focusing largely on gain of function and being fearful of that and just general sentiments of fear surrounding what's going on in these labs.
	I think if you listen to this episode and then also read Mark's paper or watch Steve's film, you will be pleasantly surprised that there's nothing to be fearful of, let's say.
	So, this episode's pretty long.
	I'm going to keep this intro super short.
	Again, check out episode 66 if you haven't yet before listening to this one and enjoy my conversation with Mark Bailey and Steve Falconer.
	Thank you.
	Gentlemen, thanks again for joining me.
	Just before we click record, we were in the middle of a pretty good conversation surrounding so-called biological weapons, and we're just talking about things like anthrax, and it kind of relates to what's covered in Part 3 of A Farewell to Virology, at the least, relating to gain-of-function and this idea that there are biological agents that are pathogenic that are being manipulated in a lab, etc., etc.
	So, Steve, if you could just recount what you were talking about on anthrax.
	Let's let's pick up there because a lot of people bring that up to me too on being fearful that there is a like biological agents that are non quote viral that they're you know developing in labs to release on the population.
	Yeah, that's right.
	There were several doctors, and you can read about them in The Poison Needle, what was her name, the woman who did that book, and Charles Littlefield.
	What was her name?
	It doesn't matter, but there were doctors.
	Yeah, sorry, Eleanor McBean.
	There were doctors called Dr. Waite, Dr. Frazier, and Dr. Thomas C. Powell out of California.
	I think Frazier was Canadian.
	And Dr. Snow and Patton Coffer was a little different, but they did.
	They did thousands of injections into their blood, up the nose, eating, atomized in the eyes.
	Pfeifers, bacillus, anthrax, you name it, like all these alleged pathogenic bacteria.
	And they never got sick.
	There were experiments in Denmark, as we were just talking about, where they were having people inhale black mold, which you're told you have a mold problem in your kitchen.
	Well, the mold's actually eating whatever's in your, you know, whatever's dirt's in your kitchen.
	Nobody ever has gotten sick.
	Not a single one of them ever.
	And that's one of the things you hear a lot in this argument.
	Okay, the viruses aren't real.
	But the bacteria, they'll get you, you know, it's like, no, the anthrax, you know, like I just said, if you leave a potato salad and a hot dog out in the garden in the summer heat for two weeks, the breakdown is poisonous.
	That's what those bacteria are doing.
	But if you isolate the bacteria, as these doctors did thousands of times, and they were doing it in lectures, even in their students, And they're, you know, they were doing this.
	Nobody ever got sick.
	It's the poison that they're eating.
	This is gangrene.
	When your tissue dies internally, the reason they cut off your ankle when your foot has gangrene is bacteria in there.
	It's because the dead tissue will go around your blood and that will poison the rest of your body.
	It's not the bacteria.
	They're just there to eat the damaged dead tissue.
	Right?
	So, and this is a lot of thing that gets confused.
	There's no proof of a pathogenic bacteria ever that I've seen.
	Have you seen any proof of that, Mark?
	No, definitely not.
	And as you know, we look at the foundational studies that they publish.
	And I think if they had one that shows that bacteria or any microbe had the capacity to attack healthy tissue and cause disease, then they'd show it to us.
	But they don't.
	So I think it's a dead giveaway.
	We also know too, so Sam and I have done a number of videos on gain of function, bioweapons, etc.
	And I know actually, that's why Alec invited us to the end of COVID.
	And because He said to us before the event, look, for so many people, they understand that there's problems with germ theory, there's problems with virology and the existence of viruses, they get that.
	But the whole bioweapons thing and gain of function, Keeps people on this playing field and they think that there must be something there.
	If there are quote biolabs or emails from Fauci or patents etc or all these headlines or Rand Paul on the circuit telling everyone that there are bioweapons in play.
	Yeah it's a real problem basically that we have to keep dealing with and but I think as I say our research has been pretty deep into this area.
	And what fascinated me was the historical accounts.
	And really, I mean, and this follows on exactly from what Steve's just been talking about.
	The most advanced, quote, bioweapons that were developed, which were quite effective, but they weren't actually, quote, bioweapons anyway, was just killing an animal and putting it in an enemy's water supply.
	And it was nothing to do with the bacteria and other microbes that got into the water.
	But as Steve says, everything to do with broken down rotten flesh and basically poisons.
	The water source with high concentrations of nitrates and protein breakdown compounds.
	And, I mean, we know in general not to touch that kind of stuff in nature because it has a peculiar smell usually.
	Yeah, you wouldn't go eat a carcass off the road of a dead squirrel that's been sitting there for three weeks.
	Like, you just wouldn't do it, you know.
	Didn't you say, Mark, they used to shoot them on catapults into the castles, weren't they?
	Weren't they shooting dead animals up into each other's castles in warfare?
	Yeah, well they tried that as well, but I think most effective was when you had a castle or a fortified city which relied on a river or a well, and the enemy worked out ways to put rotten material into those water sources, and then everyone got incredibly sick.
	But nothing to do with germ theory, everything to do with, you know, breakdown of biological material.
	Now, but what's interesting too is that we really searched for, you know, working, quote, bioweapons.
	And we thought if the US, the Germany, the Russians, And the British all had these programs running.
	Where were the products that came out of them?
	And they didn't really have anything.
	And you can see that because despite various documents supposedly that have been unclassified to us, you know, talking about dropping anthrax on Europe, et cetera, they never did it.
	And so it remains the boogeyman, basically.
	That everyone's scared of.
	And I think anthrax is really important because, you know, in the US we had the so-called anthrax attacks a couple of decades ago.
	And, you know, on first glance you think, well, you know, did they just concentrate anthrax spores, put them in envelopes and that actually killed people?
	The more we thought about that, the more preposterous that story is, because there's no experimental stuff which has really shown that.
	There's no natural route of transmission, animal studies, where you could say, yep, that would definitely kill them instantly or very quickly.
	So it makes us think, was that there may have been anthrax, obviously, in those envelopes, but I suspect there was something else as well.
	And I suspect that something else was a chemical weapon.
	And you need such minute quantities of chemical weapons to kill people.
	And I suspect that's probably what happened there.
	And then, of course, it gets blamed on anthrax, because like the virus boogeyman, it suits the various people that run these narratives to have this perpetual threat of biological weapons, which simply don't exist.
	Like, you know, a lot of this comes from the old stories about, it's actually turned out to be arsenic, but they were like, they were given the Indian small blankets infected with smallpox, right?
	And oh, down river, they were getting sick.
	Well, it turns out the fur traders back then, they were treating all their furs with arsenic.
	That's what they were using as fur preservation and they were dumping it in the river afterwards and then everyone, all the Indians swimming downstream.
	It happened in China as well.
	They were getting sick, but it's because they were dumping arsenic.
	There was a story where a Native American jumped on a fur trading steamboat up the Mississippi River and came down with the smallpox and you're like, yeah, you have arsenic poisoning.
	They were just throwing it in the river.
	It used to be in the wallpaper, too, in the green wallpaper, you know, so a lot of this stuff gets attributed.
	The small pox would be you poisoned, and your skin would be one route of removal, an emergency route.
	You know, if there's any toxins you can't get out from vomiting, snotting, diarrhea, sweating, your skin would be the last eruption to happen.
	Especially if you took it in through the skin, that would be the obvious removal route is where it came in.
	You know, if you're swimming in a river full of arsenic, it would come out.
	So a lot of these stories are like old wives tales almost, you know, and it carries on to this day.
	These also help perpetuate this germ theory.
	Right.
	Because there are other explanations, but we never hear about them.
	Right.
	And I think with Native Americans, too, something that I always think back on is how it was well established that the U.S.
	government was trying to take away their food supply and just scare the shit out of them altogether.
	I mean, that intense, perpetual fear itself and starvation will lead to death and then it's a perfect excuse to say no no no it was that we brought diseases over that they've not been exposed to before and that's the reason because they didn't have quote immunity and that's why they ended up dying it's i mean it's it's a perfect ruse for what actually happened And you know what?
	They could have, like, they know they can make arsenic from apple seeds or other berries or puffer fish.
	I think you call it a mycotoxin.
	I'm not sure what that's called, but you could spike blankets with arsenic.
	And then if a sweaty Indian starts sweating in the arsenic, you would poison them.
	But it's not smallpox.
	Smallpox is the body removing arsenic poisoning or some other poisoning event, right?
	So you can't spike a blanket with smallpox because no such thing as a smallpox virus or bacteria has ever been proven to exist.
	You could poison blankets and pass them out and cause a smallpox pandemic, certainly.
	Yeah, and here's the thing that we find about stories such as what happened to Native American Indians in North America, or what happened in South America with alleged smallpox blankets, is people say, well explain this then.
	And we just reply, explain what?
	Because you haven't produced any evidence.
	Like this New York Times article in 2010, Doesn't cite any references either.
	It just talks about, you know, it just cites history books, which don't cite references either.
	So it's a really curious thing that we have this mythology that's been built up.
	And if people don't believe that, I always say, just look at the COVID-19 page on Wikipedia and see what it says.
	And if you want to see just a whole lot of stories that have no basis, you know, they have no basis in reality, and this is in our own lifetimes, we can actually check this stuff.
	So yeah, it's curious that people are clinging on to things like these stories that they've been told in high school or...
	In a New York Times article in the modern period, there is simply no evidence.
	And we know that if, as I always say, if this was a slam dunk, if it was so contagious, these microbes or biological agents, they'd just do a paper and show it to us.
	And we know it's a joke because even the gain-of-function papers coming out of You know, Ron Fauci's lab or Ralph Baric's lab, etc., are a complete joke.
	They don't show a bioweapon.
	They don't show anything that's contagious.
	And people get all excited going, wow, look at these genetic sequences or look at the way they pulverized ferrets' noses and stuck it up other ferrets' noses and created some new sequences.
	That's not a bioweapon, it's just animal cruelty and wasted time stuff.
	So yeah, I think it's always important to tease out the mythology, which is essentially what most of it is, from reality.
	And if they had this kind of stuff, they'd show it to us.
	Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, in one of your videos on gain of function, you highlight the fact that In one of the primary references or documents or books that people reference related to gain-of-function research, it doesn't reference any paper.
	It itself references another book that is just based in conjecture and ideas.
	Correct.
	And we're told, Alec, that it's all top secret and was classified, so we can't see the documents apparently.
	So this is the ridiculous thing.
	It's like this unfalsifiable story where they say, oh, the reason that you don't know about it is because these are all contained in classified documents.
	And the other story is, is that they had these facilities in the Soviet Union, which created all sorts of bioweapons.
	There was a fire or the communists decided to destroy all the records, etc.
	And again, we're just left with these stories.
	And in our latest book, The Final Pandemic, we talk about a couple of examples of so-called laboratory workers who got killed while experimenting with Ebola.
	And it's totally ridiculous because, you know, apparently at these secret Russian labs, some female scientist was doing an experiment and then, well, something happened to them and then they were dead.
	And we don't have any more information, but there you go.
	We're expected to believe that that was the cause of death was a, quote, virus, et cetera.
	And we just point out, this is all the information they're giving you.
	You've got nothing.
	And to claim that that proves that there are bioweapons are ridiculous.
	We know from the Jeffrey Platt case in Porton Down, the British facility, they said he was a lab worker who came down while working on Ebola in the 1970s.
	No.
	If you look at the videos we've done on this, we go through his medical records, which they actually provided, and he didn't even, he didn't have a haemorrhage or anything.
	He didn't show any of the features of this alleged deadly haemorrhagic virus.
	He got a fever.
	I can tell people you do not want to be injected with interferon in any circumstance.
	what they did to him with the quote therapy, they started injecting him with interferon around the clock and then he started getting sick.
	I can tell people you do not want to be injected with interferon in any circumstance.
	I used to work in a hospital where that was sometimes done.
	It's incredibly toxic and your body will have severe reactions to it.
	So again, these are the examples that are put forward.
	And when we actually analyze the information we have, we can see these are not contagious entities.
	They're not bioweapons, etc.
	And yeah, and like you say Alex, so much of it just falls back to people citing books which basically don't have any references.
	They just claim that there are these fire weapons facilities.
	Right.
	So yeah, go ahead, Steve.
	Go ahead.
	Well, I was going to say, you know, one of the problems we're having right now, we talked about Dr. David Martin last time a lot.
	So he did like a really great body of research and Mark did my favorite analogy on this at all.
	He said, you can patent a magic flying carpet.
	And you can get government granting from the Department of Defense and the CIA and whoever who's like, you know what would be great?
	If we had silent flying carpets, we could sneak in just like, you know, just like they allegedly did in Israel.
	They came in on hang gliders.
	If we had these stealth weapons, and they'll give you a million dollars, the government, the DOD, they'll give you all the money to do it, it doesn't mean you made a flying carpet.
	And I showed in our film in part three, I showed a patent for a Chinese guy who patented a flying carpet.
	Now, does it exist?
	No.
	So, and David Martin went through all these patents for bioweapons and biological this and that and that, right?
	And they are real.
	The patents are correct.
	But in our quote, as Mark said, in the Dr. David Martin, he wrote the Fauci COVID-19 dossier in 2021.
	This is where the health freedom people are still running with this.
	In the first paragraph, He ended it and said, throughout this document, use of terms commonly accepted in medical and scientific literature do not imply acceptance of the dogma they represent.
	In other words, he said, I'm not saying this shit is true.
	I'm just saying here's all the experiments.
	But everyone else, as Mark pointed out in his paper, just seemed to ignore that.
	So just because you're getting funding, which of course, if you're getting funding for gain-of-function research, you've got to give them something, right?
	And what's going on in these labs, they've had the sick ferrets next to the healthy ferrets with a fan blowing their right in a cage next to each other.
	They never got sick.
	As we're told, a virus comes through the air, right?
	You're not standing six feet apart from someone because they're going to inject you with their rotten kidneys or liver or intestines.
	It's the breath.
	It never happened.
	The only way, like Mark just said and Sam had done in her video, they have to kill this sick ferret, mash up his brains, take a PCR test and make a sequence they're looking for out of the genetic material in his brains, inject it into a neonatal, like, genetically modified baby rat who's two days old, They have to inject it into their brain, even most of the time.
	They don't even get sick from that, which you'd think it would kill them, but it doesn't even anyway.
	Then they kill that little baby mouse who doesn't even have hair, like a little pink thing.
	And then they test the brain mash and they're like, oh my god, we found this same sequence.
	And you're like, yeah, you just injected that into him.
	You didn't even find the whole sequence, right?
	That's what they're doing, and because that's what they have to do to get the money from the DOD or whoever's funding them, you can't come back to them and say, yep, we've been blowing air from one ferret to another for 20 years now, and we can't get them sick.
	Your money will stop.
	Right.
	So they cheat, right?
	This is what they're doing.
	Nothing has ever happened in this lab that would represent what they're telling you would naturally happen.
	And when you when you look at these experiments, it really is absurd, absurd to think that that represents anything happening in reality.
	And still, we have, you know, a number of people who consider themselves the leaders of the freedom movement, who are parroting this idea that there is a lab made virus and that we need to defend against future gain of function experiments, and all the attention is there.
	And I don't know.
	This is a pretty broad question that I don't know if we have an answer to, but I'd love to hear your thoughts.
	What is it about the freedom movement and these leaders in the freedom movement that they continue to perpetuate this narrative and they refuse to look at some of the things that we share, or they're aware of some of the things that we share and they still perpetuate the gain-of-function narrative?
	Yeah, Alec, it's always hard to speak to motivations of other people and we can only speculate.
	But I think, yeah, we're seeing an interesting time, aren't we?
	Because there are members of the freedom community who are now saying, oh, yeah, there was no pandemic, definitely no pandemic.
	Which is what we've been saying for four years.
	And it's interesting because they very rarely, or never, reference our work or point out that we'd work this out in 2020.
	We're already telling the world there's no pandemic, the PCR is not detecting a virus, this is not a novel illness, there's nothing happening basically, there's no new biological event.
	There may be other things happening on a We're not denying all those things affect the public, but there was no new biological event that was happening.
	So I think many people in the freedom community are realizing that now, that it was a complete scam.
	Some are looking for a backdoor by You know, saying, of course, there was no pandemic.
	But, you know, but I think we can't throw away virology completely.
	It's still got some good parts to it, which is interesting.
	And then we've got people doubling down on this whole lab leak nonsense.
	And, you know, we've always been pointing out that the lab leak story was dropped early on to the public.
	It's been promoted heavily.
	In fact, I believe it predated Hi Sharon, real quick Mark, just a little anecdote.
	I've added this to my presentations anytime I speak on this now.
	I did a custom Google search from December 2019 through May of 2020.
	I typed in Gain of Function, I typed in Wuhan Institute of Virology, I typed in several of these keywords and there were countless mainstream news sources openly talking about the idea that SARS-CoV-2 might have come from a lab
	That talking about how we need to safeguard these these experiments and that we should stop these experiments etc etc so this this idea wasn't quote censored it was seeded amongst the population and then censored thereafter to sort of create this effect that oh they they don't want to let the truth out this is actually the truth Absolutely.
	And, you know, part three of A Farewell to Virology deals with this because essentially we were presented with two narratives that were permitted.
	One was the zoonotic origins, you know, from the pangolin and the bat and the monkey and the bat cave and the salamander and all of the animals that were somehow involved in bringing a pandemic.
	The civet cat.
	The civet cat as well.
	They kept changing it up, yeah.
	And so we were told it's either zoonotic in origin or it comes from a lab.
	They were the two permitted narratives.
	And obviously those of us who said there's no pandemic, there's no virus, got shut down off the major platforms extremely quickly.
	And that was not a narrative that was reported ever.
	by any of the mainstream sources.
	So it's clearly, yeah, it's a permitted narrative and you get to choose between the two of them.
	And I think a lot of people in the freedom community have been suckered into that.
	They don't realize that this is the two options they've been given.
	So, and yeah, I think a quick mention on the zoonotic stuff, Alec, because as you say, if you start searching for when these words gain traction, for us, we dated zoonotic back to the mid 1990s. we dated zoonotic back to the mid 1990s.
	With the release of the movie Outbreak in particular, and zoonotic and zoonosis were not words that were commonly appearing up to that point in time, and then their use exploded basically.
	And hey, presto, we start seeing things like SARS-1, bird flu, you know, swine flu, etc.
	all start becoming popular.
	And then of course, COVID-19.
	So I think again, it was deliberately introduced as part of a build up, a fear campaign.
	And of course, let's not forget the 1980s when We had a story about, you know, something must have happened in Africa between a person and a monkey.
	And now we've got HIV coming out.
	Again, it's this crazy zoonotic stuff.
	And I know that they say, oh, that's not the origins of HIV.
	Now that Saying something different, but at the time that was the way it was sold to us.
	You know, again, the synodic thing.
	So yeah, all of these things which have been placed into the public imagination over several decades, and as you know, Virus Mania documents this and talks about how You know, it was incredible that Torsten and Klaus recognized this in the early 2000s.
	They said this is going to get out of control.
	They're going to make pandemics just get bigger and bigger and involve more and more people with more and more.
	Ridiculous stories, etc.
	And I think that was really prescient, but they were, you know, some of the early investigators who recognized what was happening in the 1990s as we entered this phase.
	So, yeah, but coming back to your question about, you know, why People are promoting these narratives in the freedom community.
	I think some of it's probably pride.
	The fact that they've taken several years to work out that it was a completely fake pandemic.
	And so now they're clinging on to this gain function stuff.
	And it's a bit of a contradiction because you think they, you know, sometimes they'll say, you know, this is no different than the flu or a cold.
	This is ridiculous.
	Why did they shut down the world?
	But it was a bioweapon.
	I mean, what a bioweapon that kills people who are aged around 81 and tend to have comorbidities doesn't really affect the rest of the population.
	I mean, it's really unclear what kind of bioweapon they think it is.
	But then, of course, they may, some of them come back and say, well, they were just practicing and they can make much.
	And this is like, this is possibly the most dangerous belief that we'll see because It's basically opening the door to extremely severe government and, you know, worldwide globalist activity in the future is by saying, well, COVID was the result of a lab leak, and they can make stuff that's way worse, like Ebola, etc.
	I mean, this just plays straight into the hands of the biosecurity surveillance state where, you know, if they're saying, we'll lock you up in your homes for cold and flu symptoms, imagine what they'll do if they say that disease X is here and it's way worse.
	It's 10 times worse than COVID.
	They will be doing, or they will be using that as an excuse to do the most severe kind of things against the population you can imagine.
	And I'm not sure at that point, What these people in the freedom community who promote this kind of stuff will have to say, because if they genuinely believe that these bioweapons could be this dangerous, then what will their response be?
	They seem to think that we need more regulations and we need... but we always put it back to them, well who do you think will do that?
	Like you?
	Like no, they want to...
	They'll give that power to the CDC and the WHO and the military.
	This won't be considered to be a civilian matter.
	But as I say, Alec, it all comes back to speculation, doesn't it?
	About why we promote certain narratives.
	And all we can do is just continue to, you know, Speak about the facts and show people where the factual material lies.
	Because I think, you know, once people get it, they move off that plantation and the fear disappears completely and they move into a much better paradigm.
	I think, real quick, for the people who buy into this, that are in the freedom movement, just the general population of quote freedom-oriented people, it's just too hard to wrap your head around In the overwhelming majority of cases, and I mean the overwhelming majority of cases, symptoms of illness are a result of things that are happening in your own life that are almost entirely in your control.
	And I think that level of personal responsibility and self-ownership is a little bit too scary for a lot of people.
	So when it comes to COVID, they like to believe in this idea that there's something being created in a lab because then they can push responsibility onto someone else for why their life is the way that it is, why their health is the way that it is.
	And I think also accepting that Much of what happened over the last four years, as I see it, was a product of the human psyche.
	Also requires that people take a real hard look at their own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs.
	And that is also something, because we're so rooted in materialism, that people can't wrap their heads around.
	That there's these metaphysical underpinnings to much of what happened over the last four and a half years.
	But that's my thoughts on that too.
	Yeah, completely.
	As Mark said, we talked about this, we touched on it last time, Disease X, the World Economic Forum on January 17th, they had the Disease X drill, and they said that it was a long-term strategy for climate, nature, and energy in partnership With the Collaborative Surveillance Initiative, right?
	So, nothing to do with the virus or anything.
	They're saying this is to put in control mechanisms.
	Another thing is, Mark, a lot of the health freedom movement are doctors, quite a lot of them, Peter McCullough, or they're listening to doctors.
	Now, as Mark talked with Tom Cowan, which we put at the end of our movie, If these guys come out and say what we're saying right now, they're fired, right, Mark?
	If you came out and said this while you were practicing, you're done.
	And a lot of them have books and a lot of them are selling ivermectin and medicines.
	They have little side, you know, pharma deals going on.
	So even if they know that what we're saying is true, and I think some have been in contact with Mark privately, they can't come out and say this.
	Either their ego, their pride, or they're done.
	And you know, so now they have to double down their left, their left foot.
	If they don't have the pardon my French, if they don't have the balls to fess up, they have no choice and they have to double down and get more and more ridiculous.
	You know, they're gonna have to come up with more ridiculous stuff.
	Because these people are either stupid, which they're not.
	Or they have some other incentive and unfortunately humans can be cowardice.
	We protect ourselves.
	Humans self-protect.
	You all protect your family.
	And if cowardice is involved and you have to do something else against, you know, your natural will, they're going to do that.
	That's why they can't come out and say it.
	So for them, it's easier to double down than to man up.
	Right.
	Right?
	I mean basically, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, and I think you touched on something there too, Steve, which is important.
	And that's that some people did say that there was a pandemic, but they didn't like what the government or other people were doing.
	And they said, I've got the way to manage this pandemic, but it all came back to pandemic, which didn't exist.
	So I think that those ones who came out and said, look, don't take the vaccine, but take my treatment protocol.
	It's not looking too good now because as we asked them in 2020, what exactly are you treating?
	Because the WHO says that the case definition is just the result of a molecular detection assay.
	It doesn't say anything about symptoms or signs or a new disease.
	It just talks about Sequences, you know, whether they're detected by the PCR or some protein fragments detected by rapid antigen tests.
	So it was unclear to us what they thought they were treating.
	And I think also there were those studies.
	There was one that came out of Australia claiming that Ivermectin was an antiviral and they got all excited in the freedom community and said, wow, look at this.
	Why is this being suppressed?
	And again, I don't know, maybe they just didn't understand what the paper said.
	The paper never identified a contagious entity or virus.
	It simply looked at quantification.
	of RNA in a cell culture mixture and claimed that if you bombed the mixture with ivermectin in huge quantities, you'd get less RNA.
	And they said, well, that RNA represents a virus.
	I mean, this is literally it.
	And the rest of us are looking at it going, Do you not know about virology's claims about isolation and contagion, etc., that it's all made up?
	There's no basis to this.
	And if you read the methodology of that paper, you'll clearly see it.
	But I think that all gets conveniently ignored and they just look at the headline and say, look at that, ivermectin works.
	And I mean, speaking of ivermectin, I mean, it's just out of control.
	I know this might be getting slightly off our topic here, but I'm seeing all sorts of claims now that it's curing cancer.
	That everybody needs to take it because we've got parasites and all this kind of nonsense.
	And I'm like, please just look up what ivermectin is.
	It's a synthetic chemical.
	Your body is not deficient in ivermectin like any pharmaceutical.
	It's not a, it's not going to take care of any underlying problem, which made you sick in the first place.
	Um, which you guys know a lot about.
	So yeah, it's, and I think, but like Alec suggested, Is it the psychological problem that people have where they just can't take responsibility and say, I've probably made an error with my lifestyle?
	Now, people will say, well, hang on a minute.
	I can't control what's in the water and what's in the air and all this kind of stuff.
	Well, you can actually, you can mitigate against those things.
	I mean, We don't drink water that comes from a city supply.
	We get our own water.
	We don't live in a dirty city.
	We don't have too many dirty cities in our small country, but I choose not to live in a metropolis in China with 20 million people because I know that that's a terrible place to live in terms of air quality, etc.
	Claiming that you can't control any of these things.
	Of course, there are some things like I can't control some of the chemicals that have crept into the environment and they're everywhere now.
	We can't really get away from them.
	I can't control everything about the air quality, etc.
	But man, we've done so much for our family in the last few years even.
	You know, everything from cleaning out the pantry, realising that we shouldn't have had a lot of those foods in there because we don't really know what they are.
	Through to sourcing our own food as much as we can, mixing with people who are positive and like-minded, etc.
	All of those things you can do.
	But there's this seduction that humans seem to fall into of saying, somebody else did this and now I'm going to have to take a pharmaceutical to remedy the situation.
	And for some reason that remains, yeah, incredibly attractive.
	And I can tell you from my days as a physician in the medical system is that when people came in, sometimes I'd just, you know, they'd tell me about the problem, why they'd turned up in my clinic.
	And I'd just say to them, I don't think there's anything we can do, which was being honest.
	And they'd get really disappointed because they wanted to see doctors who got out the prescription pad and said, I have just the chemical for you.
	Take this one three times a day for six weeks and you'll be fixed.
	And unfortunately, you know, I know that used to happen to me, that patients would get annoyed because I wouldn't prescribe something.
	And they'd simply just go to another doctor later in the day and get a prescription and complain what was wrong with that first doctor.
	He didn't know what he was doing.
	So yeah, it's a real problem we face with people just not accepting that maybe the reason they got sick is something to do with their own actions.
	Or even like you said, the mental, because I just saw Daniel Reuters talking with Tom Cowan.
	Daniel apparently found a study where there was a couple people, they told them, they exposed them to someone with like a flu virus, like gave them like flu fluid.
	And like that night, the guy got like flu symptoms.
	And then in the morning, they told the guy like, haha, we got you.
	We didn't expose you to anything.
	And within one hour, the guy got better.
	Yeah.
	I just interviewed Daniel and he covered that too.
	He also covered another one like, he covered several.
	There was one where he covered like a laughing outbreak that happened in, in Africa.
	And we talked about that one on that episode.
	It was, it's just, when you, when you, when you see the, um, absurdity of this going back to ivermectin specifically like ivermectin works because it stops the quote virus from replicating well if we're applying what we see in vitro based in the cell culture pseudoscientific isolation process to the human body which is a huge leap with a lot of assumptions right but let's let's assume that that is what's happening on a cellular level
	then if anything what a quote virus is is the byproduct of a cell after it's been poisoned and starved so the body's doing exactly what it's designed to do to get that to remediate that poisoning and starvation so why would you want to stop the body from doing that So, when you're taking something like Ivermectin, it is, quote, stopping the virus from replicating.
	That just means that it's stopping the cell from doing what it's supposed to do after it's been poisoned and or starved.
	So, the whole premise behind how Ivermectin works is entirely flawed.
	And yeah, I did a film called Ivermectin Foe, where I went into the enzyme, it shuts down.
	And that's another one of the cons we get.
	When you have a fever and a runny nose and vomiting and diarrhea, your body is trying to remove toxins.
	Just like when you have a headache.
	You can take aspirin.
	It doesn't get rid of the reason you have a headache.
	It just makes you stop feeling the headache, right?
	That's two totally different things.
	Yes, ivermectin might have a mechanism with the enzymes that stops you from removing toxins.
	Doesn't mean it cured you of anything.
	It just means now what is your body going to do with those toxins?
	Are they going to magically evaporate into the ether?
	Or do you think later you're going to have trouble?
	And what are you going to do the next time your body tries to remove it?
	You'll go, ivermectin worked last time, I'm going to take it again.
	And then three years later you got cancer and don't know why you did it, you know?
	And getting back to what we said with the mental, now, if they could make a guy get the flu by telling him they just wiped some boogers in him, imagine when the mass media tells you every day, 20 hours a day, that this deadly virus is going around.
	Do you think that might have made people sick?
	And as we covered in part one in the end of COVID, The cities that they picked to claim this happened already had excess mortality for known other reasons for the last 10 years.
	They could have taken those numbers any year in 2014, 13, 12.
	They would have got the same numbers.
	There was no proof that anyone extra was dying of anything weird or special.
	They already knew those cities in advance because they knew they were suffering mortality.
	Then the media told everyone they're sick.
	How many people did you meet?
	I've had the flu before, but this is different.
	This is the worst flu I've ever had.
	That's one of the main sticking points.
	You sit there with a score pad going, this flu is a six, this one's an eight.
	They told you you had it and then you got it.
	Dude, this is one of the main sticking points in the freedom community is that you can't tell me that that was the same or was not a man-made virus because I had symptoms like I've never had before.
	I'm like, just because you had effects does not mean that that is proof of the cause.
	Again, that's an affirming a consequent logical fallacy.
	With circular reasoning baked in because it's based in a totally unproven paradigm.
	Dare I say disproven paradigm at this point.
	But the point is like people again overlook the mechanisms of the human mind and our ability to manifest real symptoms related to the placebo nocebo effect or psychosomatics or something like that.
	And also, by the way, because now we have the numbers, the excess mortality rate over the normal 7.6 per thousand, every year, 7.6 people on average per thousand die from whatever falling out of bed.
	We have the numbers.
	They were lower than the last 50 years.
	There were only a couple of years earlier, you know, 2018 had a much higher one and they've been lower after the 2021 because the jabs came out were a little bit higher.
	There was nothing out of the ordinary worldwide going on.
	Now, if you had a pandemic, besides stepping over bodies in the street, which no one was, you would think that one went from 7.6 to at least 7.9, 8.1.
	But it was actually 9.5 back in 1952 and much higher and higher.
	So now we have the numbers.
	So anyone who says, no, no, people were getting sick.
	You're like, people always get sick, but nobody was dying.
	How did you have a deadly pandemic if the worldwide mortality rates are lower than the last 40 years?
	Like, how?
	Right.
	Yeah, everyone gets sick every year.
	People always get sick.
	They will get sick.
	It doesn't mean there's a deadly virus on the loose.
	It's the media and maybe more people got sick.
	Because maybe the media did, like you said, mentally scare the shit out of people.
	It didn't scare them enough to kill them or we would have seen a huge spike in mortality in 2020.
	It's not there.
	It's not there.
	Well, you know, one thing that's quite exciting about the statistics coming out is that Sam's been asked to write a foreword for a French book that was published in 2022 exposing the COVID scam.
	And this was written by a statistician who took all of the official numbers You know, numbers of tests, numbers of cases, excess mortality, etc.
	and did a proper analysis and came to exactly the same conclusion of what Steve's talking about, saying that this was nothing.
	Nothing happened in 2020.
	It's impossible.
	So he focuses on France, but looks outside into the rest of Europe as well.
	But it gets more exciting.
	Because this guy starts off as a statistician and then he starts looking at the models they use for pandemics and so-called contagious diseases and then he realizes there is a problem.
	This has never been seen in history.
	There's no such thing.
	He starts looking back 70 years of data in France, starts looking at influenza, etc., starts looking at the patterns, going, this is not an infectious disease just by looking at the statistics.
	Then he starts to look into germ theory and virology and goes, holy moly.
	They've got a problem here.
	So isn't this fascinating that people are coming around and they're not, you know, to us, you know, because of our backgrounds in biological sciences, we thought we'll just go to the foundational papers that came out of Wuhan, you know, straight to Fan Wu, what was actually published.
	And we think that makes sense.
	But I'm really liking this idea that other people Looking at the world, you know, they don't see the world in exactly the same way.
	We all look at it different ways.
	And I think this is really fascinating because initially Sam wasn't sure about doing the forward because she said, well, we kind of just cut to the chase and just look at the biology and foundational papers.
	Yours is heavily into statistics and case definition, you know, cases, et cetera, and stuff.
	And, um, but this author knows that he knows that it's, it's all based and the stats, the figures have nothing to do with biological reality.
	And he worked that out just by looking at the numbers.
	So yes, I think exciting times and, uh, I think it's inevitable.
	People have to deal with this whole thing about germ theory and contagion.
	I think Daniel Reuters' book is really important.
	This is the first time we've had such a documentation, if you like, of all of these contagion studies.
	And it should be compulsory reading for any doctor who's claiming that there are contagious diseases to see exactly what you guys are talking about.
	There are psychological factors.
	There are lifestyle factors.
	There have been studies where people think they're going to get sick and they do get sick.
	And then they're told that they weren't exposed to anything and then they get well again.
	I mean, it's crazy.
	All this kind of stuff that's coming out.
	And, uh, I think we're, um, to me, this is a really exciting time.
	And I think the momentum is absolutely enormous.
	And I think here's the other dead giveaway with why this is the crucial issue.
	It's nowhere in the mainstream media.
	They won't touch it.
	They're aware of it.
	I know that because I've seen some emails in circulation.
	They know about Novirus.
	They know about the people contesting all of germ theory.
	Have you noticed they don't mention it at all?
	That, funnily enough, our critics are only within the so-called freak community, which is quite unusual.
	You'd think if it was really outrageous, we'd have the mainstream media all over us.
	And to date, they're not touching it.
	And I'm just interested to see how they're going to handle this.
	Because obviously, we've built up now millions of words amongst all of us researchers and who are working on this, you know, full time basically.
	And it's a bit of a problem because in 2020, when the mainstream went after Sam, she only had half a dozen videos, you know, she just started talking on YouTube.
	And we were new to this.
	Now they've got books, essays, you know, events like the end of COVID.
	It's got way too big for them just to quietly dismiss.
	So yeah, I think the media I don't pay much attention to the media, apart from what they don't talk about, because that's the giveaway of what they don't want people to know.
	Right.
	So well said.
	So we went off on quite a few tangents there, but it was all related topics.
	So now finally, let's discuss what's covered in A Farewell to Virology Part 3.
	I know we touched on it a little bit throughout this interview already, but just some of the larger concepts and we'll dive in from there.
	Well, a lot of it was about the gain of function BS and all that.
	But one of the points I brought up to Mark actually in an email exchange, right?
	A virology paper, it's a scientific virology study, right?
	They're usually 11 to 14 pages, something like this, sometimes shorter.
	The methodology section, which is the scientific experiment the paper's supposed to be talking about, is like a half to two pages long.
	But it's a paper on a scientific experiment, We wouldn't have to be sending Freedom of Information requests if they told us what they did.
	Like, why would Christine Massey be sending these if they just said what they do?
	And they never do.
	Imagine you go on, like, online to make a recipe and it's six pages about, my grandma made this cake and it's the greatest and my aunt did it and you're like, well, what's in it?
	They don't tell you what temperature to put the oven in.
	They don't tell you how much of each ingredient.
	There's some flour, cake sugar, but Doesn't tell you anything about it, how they cooked it.
	And then you write them and you're like, how did you, like, how much of this did you put in?
	How long did you cook it?
	What was the oven temperature?
	And they write back and go, that was already done in a previous recipe back in 1990.
	And then you go back to that, and they didn't tell you either.
	And that was done in 1942 in a cake.
	How could a paper that's supposed to be about a scientific experiment not have anything about the scientific experiment in it?
	That should be your first clue, this is all BS.
	Or they have the methods laid out in a supplemental paper that you have to request for sometimes, or you have to go digging for, or even if they do that, when you read that supplemental paper with the methods section in it, it still emits crucial information like how much I know you covered this in a Farewell to Virology, the paper, and I think you did.
	and antibiotics they delivered, like what concentration they delivered to sometimes the actual cell culture itself.
	And then in almost every single example I've seen, Mark, I know you covered this in A Farewell to Virology, the paper, and I think you did, you covered this as well, Steve, how they don't let you know how much they, what concentration they gave to the mock infected culture, which is what concentration they gave to the mock infected culture, which is a huge, huge, huge Exactly.
	And there's a deeper problem too.
	I mean, I've just written a paper, Virology's Event Horizon, documenting why they can't do a control experiment.
	Because A, they can't find viral particles directly in the samples.
	So B, they can't remove those particles to then run a control experiment, which is the requirement.
	So it's interesting anyway, but we love to put the question to them because we know they can't answer it.
	And that's what Christine's worked out.
	They simply can't answer her questions, so they do these roundabout responses and say, like Steve says, they say, oh, wasn't that virus isolated in 1952?
	And send a bogus reference that we've already looked at before.
	So part three of my essay, which Steve made into part three of the film, looks at the preposterous situation that we had with the UK Health Security Agency.
	When they were asked to show the proof of SARS-CoV-2 by one of Christine's colleagues and the response was it looked like it had been written by someone who was at high school maybe or just out of high school and they sent a computer-generated image Which had no information at all about what it was, where it came from, and they literally said, oh, here's a picture.
	Is that okay?
	That's SARS-CoV-2.
	And I mean, I had to put that image in the essay because we had to show the public what they are claiming as proof of viruses with these computer-generated images.
	It was literally like a watercolor, like a little kid could have done it.
	It was like a watercolor, but it was just like, come on.
	It'd be different if this was like some random agency.
	We're talking about like one of the primary agencies that is making a claim surrounding there being an infectious agent existing that is spreading around.
	It's a UK health security agency.
	It's like the CDC in the United States.
	Exactly.
	That's what I'm saying.
	This isn't some random agency.
	This is like one of the primary agencies saying, making all these claims surrounding a pandemic, and they give you a watercolor picture.
	Well, the worst is like two years before, they said on their website, we've downgraded COVID-19 from a highly contained, deadly, infectious disease or whatever to not.
	Yeah.
	Then when they got the Freedom of Information Act, they wrote another letter saying, this is a matter of world global security and national security.
	We can't tell you what it is because if we tell you how we do a cell culture, other third parties could get information to make a deadly bioweapon.
	You're like, what?
	You just said it wasn't.
	Two years ago, you said it's not a deadly fucking anything.
	Now it's like, because they're just lying.
	Because what, you can't tell us how you've been doing cell cultures for 200 years?
	Like, come on.
	It's crazy.
	This was one of the most shocking things that I've ever seen.
	And I actually, I sent it to my co-author from the COVID-19 forward, Dr. John Bevan-Smith, and he was truly astounded.
	Like to him, this obviously represented the highest levels of fraud that were going on, where these agencies, which were supposedly charged with serving the public and providing them with all this crucial information, could not even tell us how What the methodology was, and this was even worse, Alec, in terms of there was no supplementary material available that was useful.
	And they would just put a direct question, you know, in the form of, can you just tell us what you did in this experiment where you claim that you found SARS-CoV-2?
	And they couldn't do it.
	And like Steve says, when they said that this is a matter of national security, they cited, you know, some sort of act suggesting that, you know, this could be The threat of bioterrorism.
	I mean, here again is the classic narrative being introduced, which is not based in reality.
	It's just the boogeyman basically saying that the reason we can't know about what happens when they do their cell culture experiments is that if that information gets out, You know, who knows what could happen?
	Which, as you know, is ridiculous because there are... Saddam Hussein will make weapons of mass destruction!
	And you think about all these technicians around the world who work in virology labs.
	What?
	They all need security clearances now and they're not allowed to publish in The Lancet what their methodology was because of, you know, quote, bioterrorism, etc.
	I mean, it was so crazy and so inconsistent that, yeah, and then as Steve mentioned, we had Maggie Thropp, the British politician, we had to put that in as well because of the totally confused response about what Cox postulates were and what isolation was.
	And funnily enough, referring to a study that Andy Kaufman and others have previously covered, and Sam's covered it in her videos, which is one of the most fraudulent studies ever regarding, well, I mean, they're all fraudulent because of the dubious methodologies, but this one was clearly just cheating and putting in bogus results, etc.
	That was one of the references, you know.
	Oh, one of them was Na Zhu.
	Remember last time I couldn't come up with the third Chinese guy's name?
	There was Peng Zhao and Fan Wu.
	I couldn't remember the third.
	One was Na Zhu.
	The other one was Andrew MacArthur.
	He was like an associate professor of biochemistry at McMaster's University.
	They only had two samples from people who were allegedly PCR tested positive.
	And they said, oh, we couldn't do any, we couldn't do controls because we didn't have any other samples.
	You're like, you've got a university with thousands of people walking around.
	You couldn't find two people who were healthy to get like a booger swab.
	Like, come on.
	It was crazy.
	And then she said also, she said, uh, we don't have to follow Koch's postulates because, you know, that's impossible and you can't use that, that.
	And then in the next sentence, she said, but it did fulfill Koch's postulates.
	Like you just said, like one sentence ago, you don't need to fulfill it.
	It was the craziest response ever.
	You know, this woman's crazy.
	Yeah, coming back to the paper Alec, the other thing which Steve had a lot of fun with was this little mountain dog story that came out of Wuhan.
	Now look, in the paper I don't know, I say I don't know what the motivation with the little mountain dog was.
	maybe this person genuinely believes that they're crusading to find and identify pathogenic viruses.
	But to me, it was so, it smacked of a gaslight because this is in communist China.
	So if Steve and I can work out who this person was pretty quickly, I mean, I think the Chinese state would know who they were a lot quicker.
	And I mean, even a couple of years later, it was, you know, as I report, this was divulged in the mainstream media, like the organization that this person worked for, etc.
	Yeah, New York Times said she worked for Vision Medicals in Jingzhou.
	Can you recount what the Little Mountain Dog story is for those who are listening and watching just briefly?
	Yeah, so Little Mountain Dog was, you know, working in a laboratory which did metagenomics.
	And not just ordinary metagenomics, Alex.
	This is like, you know, you're trawling basically the city for genetic material.
	So you're getting all of the snot coming into your lab and you're just running multiple samples and seeing sequencing, just blindly sequencing up to see what you can find.
	And then you use your, you know, your They've probably got something more powerful than the computers we're on.
	They've got some sophisticated power there.
	And they just do metagenomics like there's no tomorrow, basically.
	And they see what sequences they can find in all of their samples.
	And They seem to have some sort of alert that comes up on the screen which says, Danger!
	Danger!
	You know, this seems to match previous sequences that belong to pathogenic viruses and what they claimed, what Little Mountain Dog claimed, was that, you know, they found something that looked like SARS-1 and, you know, it had that kind of profile and it looked like a couple of previous genomes that had been deposited on the data bank
	And, you know, it's so strange because there's just this complete disconnect from biological reality.
	They're not asking questions about, well, who are the patients where this came from, anything like that.
	It's just purely sequence focused.
	And, you know, this is why in the essay I talk about metagenomics as being virology's final gasp, because they've got nothing left.
	I mean, we can see everything From the animal experiments to the isolation, the antibodies, all of this stuff's just been shown to be completely false.
	But the metagenomics is being used wholesale now to claim that they're identifying new viruses, just de novo.
	So, and the way it's made out is that, you know, China's trying to suppress the information getting out and there's a controversy, etc.
	And Little Mountain Dog is just, all Little Mountain Dog wants is to stop the pandemic in its tracks.
	And, you know, I don't even know why the words like that are coming up, because you'd think this is so early on.
	Why would they think?
	It was like a fake whistleblower blog almost.
	The other funny thing she admitted, she said we were too busy so we didn't have time to run a full genome.
	And as we talked about last time, if you got a 90% match to a cat, Or an ant or a dog, you know?
	She's like, we didn't even run the full genome and we got an 89% match to this.
	And you're like, well, how can you say it's this if you didn't even run the full genome?
	Like 10% is a lot, you know what I mean?
	And then she's hiding like, oh, they don't know who I am.
	And you're like, of course they do.
	And then she's like, my emotions were running high.
	It's all just like emotional.
	It's I'm with Mark like this.
	To me, this story just stinks like gaslighting all the way.
	It's like they needed to put out a scapegoat story.
	This just totally looks and the fact that it even got picked up by the New York Times.
	How did a little blog, like a little Chinese blog, written in English for starters, not Chinese.
	It's written in English.
	It's called Little Mountain Dog.
	Like that is such a little... Yeah, Little Windjore.
	Little Windjore Mountain.
	It's not even written in Chinese.
	So you're like, why is this blog written in English?
	And then the New York Times... Well, there was an original Chinese version.
	Oh, was there?
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	But how did the New York...
	Yeah, but exactly.
	I mean, it's just so suspicious, the whole thing.
	But I think it was worth highlighting for a number of reasons.
	One was this preposterous process where, as Steve says, in the middle of it, or near the end, Little Mountain Dog's even saying, we don't even know if this thing fulfills Cox postulates or if it's a pathogen.
	But man, it looks like it could be something just based on the sequences that we found in these mixed samples.
	So that's odd.
	And also the fact that it seems to be this ridiculously early narrative that the pandemic's about to happen.
	Why would they be thinking like that when there's no blip on the radar?
	At this point, they're talking about 41 cases of atypical pneumonia Which atypical doesn't mean that it was a new type of pneumonia.
	It just means that people in a city with a whole lot of pollution in China who get pneumonia relentlessly.
	It's one of the worst things over there.
	So there was nothing new with that.
	So there was no reason for them to believe that anything was about to happen.
	But, you know, this.
	And they admitted in the paper, she wrote this.
	This doesn't mean this pneumonia is caused by they said it right in her.
	I mean, this pneumonia is caused by a virus.
	What's really important about this paper is Christian Drosten, who made the PCR test for COVID eventually, he didn't just use sequences from Fan Wu's.
	He used them from Fan Wu's off GenBank, right?
	And Little Windsor Mountain Dogs.
	Where'd she put hers?
	No, GISAID and GenBank.
	She put hers on GISAID, right?
	So Drosten actually made the PCR test out of a combination of Fan Wu's and hers labs, allegedly.
	So it is really important because her sequences were part, right, of all this scam, like the PCR scam.
	So it's very important, and also smells.
	Yeah, it was one of the six sequences.
	Drosten had about half a dozen that he used, and the so-called little mountain dog sequence was in there and seemed to provide this convenient story.
	The other story I mentioned there, and we get into more detail with this in our new book, The Final Pandemic, is the story of the Chinese ophthalmologist, Dr. Li.
	You know, the 30 something year old ophthalmologist and he was trying to blow the whistle.
	And, you know, it was so hard to get information out of China at that time that there were feature articles in the United States and mainstream publications.
	Like, again, I'm like, can't you see the problem here?
	The people in the freedom community who think this is a cover up.
	They're telling you in the mainstream that there's a cover-up going on, which means that it's not a cover-up.
	They just want you to think that.
	So the whole story of a 30-something-year-old doctor who apparently was otherwise had no previous medical experience... 33, but no coincidence there, Freemason Lover.
	And somehow he just drops dead, you know, wireless warning people that there's a deadly coronavirus that could break out and get around the world.
	Again, it was another one of these absolutely ridiculous stories.
	And I point out, go and have a look at Wikipedia.
	Why is there such an elaborate article about this guy?
	It's just huge, you know, praising him and saying how wonderful he was for trying to get the message out.
	But then we hit the same problem with allegedly the Chinese were trying to cover it up.
	But then we've got statements from the Chinese CDC saying that Dr. Li was a hero and we should really help these whistleblowers, etc.
	And that's appearing in communist Chinese state-owned media, this kind of stuff.
	What was her name, Dr. Ai?
	There was another woman, is it Dr. Ai?
	There was another woman, she got the reports and she was like, oh my God, and she blew the whistle and the hospital and the government, luckily they reprimanded her saying, shut up, you're causing unnecessary panic.
	Ironically, In this case, the government and the hospital were right.
	They were like, shut up, you're talking nonsense, which is weird, isn't it?
	And then the Freedom Movement takes it as like, they're trying to shut her up because it's a cover-up, and you're like, actually, the government and hospital were correct.
	You're freaking everyone out for no freaking reason because you checked on a report, COVID, you know, SARS coronavirus, but actually they were correct to shut her up, right?
	If you're enjoying this episode, please consider sharing it with at least one friend or family member who you think could benefit from hearing it.
	You help us grow and reach more people by sharing it with those around you.
	Also, be sure to head to the show notes to check out our membership offerings, membership marketplace, and more.
	We all know that Big Ag is poisoning our food supply, and Big Pharma's so-called medicine is straight-up poison.
	What most people aren't aware of, though, is that most supplements are also filled with artificial sweeteners, dyes, GMOs, glyphosate, and a host of other toxic ingredients, even many of the more natural supplements.
	My good buddy James Benefico dedicated his life to crafting the world's cleanest, most nutritious organic supplements after a pre-workout energy drink caused heart palpitations so severe that he almost landed up in the ER.
	Organic Muscle was born revolutionizing sports nutrition by using exclusively non-GMO ingredients from USDA organic farms.
	Since then, tens of thousands of people, including myself, have leveled up their fitness and their health with Organic Muscle's award-winning natural pre-workout.
	There's no jitters, no heart palpitations, no itchy skin, just nourishing organic food and herb-based ingredients for clean, sustained energy, strength, endurance, and recovery.
	Numerous studies have shown that Tonka Ali is the most effective herb in the world for naturally boosting testosterone levels.
	We know that testosterone levels are depleting all over the world because of what's put in the food supply, what we're exposed to.
	Organic Muscle has the world's first fully organic Tonka Ali supplement.
	I only support and promote things that I actually use and I can say I legitimately use Organic Muscle products.
	Use code FORWARD15 at checkout for 15% off at OrganicMuscle.com Are you getting enough magnesium in your diet?
	If you live in the modern world, it's pretty likely that you aren't.
	Because our soil, food, and water supply are deficient in magnesium, many of us are as well.
	Magnesium is one of the most essential electrolytes of the body.
	It plays a crucial role in cellular hydration, muscle and brain function, the electrical functions of our body, energy production, and sleep.
	Magnesium Breakthrough from BioOptimizers is the best magnesium supplement on the market.
	Where most magnesium supplements provide maybe two forms of magnesium, Magnesium Breakthrough from BioOptimizers contains seven different forms of magnesium and is made from all natural ingredients to deliver optimal magnesium levels to the body.
	And, unlike many synthetic magnesium supplements, Magnesium Breakthrough is free from additives, fillers, and artificial ingredients.
	It is formulated using ingredients of the highest quality including cofactors to multiply the delivery of magnesium to every cell in your body and absorb at a very high rate.
	In our household, with two young kids running around, for my wife and I, sleep is probably the biggest concern.
	And we both notice a huge difference in our quality of sleep when we're taking magnesium breakthrough regularly.
	There's a reason that it's BioOptimizer's best-selling product, and that speaks volumes because they have a ton of amazing products in their store.
	Nurture your mind and body with this all-natural, full-spectrum magnesium supplement.
	Simply go to biooptimizers.com forward slash Alec and use promo code Alec10 during checkout to save 10%.
	And if you subscribe, not only will you get amazing discounts and free gifts, you'll make sure your monthly supply is guaranteed.
	The way it was written was ridiculous.
	Remember, she's going through the report, apparently from the lab, and she circles SARS, you know.
	Somehow she needs to circle that on the report.
	And you're like, what?
	What's this got to do with anything?
	And this is being reported in the mainstream media, you know.
	And again, this is really early on.
	Now it's official!
	They needed to get these narratives out there, and that's why I use those examples to say to people, you know, to tell the public, if you think that this is some sort of cover-up, why is it appearing on the Chinese CDC official announcement?
	Why is it appearing in China Daily, the state-owned media platform that all of the Chinese people get to see?
	Like, what kind of cover-up is that?
	Well, it provides the perfect fallback as people are waking up to the mainstream narrative for people to then fall into this false dilemma that is the other option, that it was a man-made virus that was created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the whole thing around surrounding that it was a man-made virus that was created in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the whole thing around surrounding EcoHealth Alliance and Ralph Baric
	It's the perfect, perfect fallback narrative to then perpetuate the germ paradigm, especially with the understanding that, as you cover in part three, the metagenomics piece is like the new linchpin for virology.
	Because I've even had this happen on Twitter and elsewhere, where virologists and molecular biologists will fully acknowledge that there are many issues with the cell culture isolation technique and many issues with electron microscopy and several other, quote, lines of evidence with respect to virology.
	But the one thing that they continually state is foolproof and is the ultimate proof of pathogenic viruses is viral genomes and these sequences that they're in the world.
	They say, can't possibly be coming from anywhere else except for a virus.
	And the one example that I want to share, and I want to have you guys sort of get into this topic after I say this, a lot of people Ask me, especially in 2023 and 2024, as people are getting tired of hearing about COVID stuff, of which I totally am too, why it's still important to tackle the no-virus topic and to really encourage people to explore the terrain paradigm.
	And I always give the example, imagine that chickens start getting sick on this farm, right?
	And they take the genetic material from these chickens and they already have the presupposition that it's a viral illness, take the genetic material off to be tested.
	This check these chickens test quote negative for quote known viral illnesses.
	So they then already again have this presupposition that it must be a viral illness.
	So they send that genetic material off to the lab to be sequenced.
	They quote discover a new sequence of a quote new virus or a variant of a another type of virus that is more quote pathogenic.
	And then they distribute that data to labs across the world.
	who then when chickens start presenting as sick in those areas, they start testing them with this additional quote, new quote, viral illness.
	And then we have a quote, pandemic on our hands, and they start calling chicken populations all across the world.
	And then they start quote, finding these sequences in human beings as well.
	Then it's, oh my God, this disease is not only spreading amongst chickens, it's also spreading in human beings now.
	And that is the problem that is a real problem.
	Real-world scenario that is totally in the realm of possibilities, especially as the alternative side is now latching on to this idea of man-made viruses and still holding the foundational beliefs to be true when they're totally unproven and some parts of them disproven.
	So that's the reason.
	It's just happened a few times in the last two years.
	Exactly.
	They've just culled like thousands of chickens.
	This is part of food control as well.
	The other danger here is like, and Mark, I think Mark should talk about like, if anyone listening is like, what the hell is the difference between, you know, metagenomic sequencing and like cell culturing?
	Here's the real danger is, The cell culture was at least supposed to be a way to prove that there is like a virus particle in there and stuff like that.
	Now, this is also where Zoonotic comes in.
	The reason they say, oh, well, it must have jumped from a bat or a monkey to a person is because they used a bat and monkey tissue in the culture before.
	To make the sequence.
	They got the sequence out of bat or a monkey or a civet cat or something.
	So they're like, oh my god, you have a monkey virus AIDS because you have the same sequence as the monkey.
	And you're like, yeah, because you use the monkey Vero E6 cell in there.
	But now they're saying we don't even need to prove there's a virus in there at all.
	Viruses are real.
	We don't need to prove it.
	So now let's say we want to make a cancer vaccine.
	So we're going to prove cancer is a virus.
	So we're going to take a guy with cancer and just take his cancer cells and just rearrange a genome.
	Or diarrhea is a virus.
	It's not actually you dispelling toxins.
	We'll take some guy's diarrhea Well, rearrange all the genetic shit and diarrhea.
	And there it is.
	And if your diarrhea matches any of the stuff in his diarrhea, you've got the diarrhea virus.
	Common cold, right?
	Like fever.
	You could make a fever virus.
	You could make any virus you want.
	That's the danger of where this is going.
	How many vaccines can they make?
	If they can blame everything, they'll make a car crash virus if they can make any money off of it.
	You know, they're like, we took a guy who was in a car crash and we took his genetic material and now you and yours match.
	So you see, so we're trying to say to them, you got to prove to us your old methodology, even prove there was a virus and it doesn't.
	And they know we're onto them.
	You see what I mean?
	So like Mark's paper saying, virology's last gasp is they know that we know that there are things BS.
	So what they're doing now is saying, we're not even going to show you that.
	We're just going to go to this new computer-driven technology that has nothing to do with reality.
	Right, Mark?
	And Mark, do you want to explain, like, really what is, you know, contigs and, you know, next generation?
	Like, if you want to explain what it is for people who don't know.
	Yeah, well I think it's important to make the distinction between doing genomics on an organism that you know exists and have isolated.
	So we could take Alec, for example, and take a blood sample, or a tissue sample of him, and then get one of the cells and extract that material from the cell.
	And then sequence and see what kind of sequences Alec contains.
	Now, in that case, we'd be pretty confident that those sequences came from Alec, that they were inside his tissue.
	Metagenomics, on the other hand, just takes crude samples from the environment, and that could be anything from soil to snot To poo, to sewer water, to something off your apple.
	And you don't, with metagenomics, there's no attempt to isolate an organism or, you know, work out the provenance in the first case about where the sequences come from.
	So it's just sequencing whatever you can find in that crude material.
	Now the process It does have some utility if you have already identified the organisms.
	So, say you were looking at a soil sample and you wanted to see if there was E. coli or Staphylococcus species in there and you'd already taken those bacteria previously and worked out their sequencing and they seem to have some unique sequences that you can identify.
	Then the metagenomics could be okay because you could say, well, our metagenomics found that we had Staph in there and Strep and E.coli.
	But the difference too is that you could then take those samples and see what you could culture up to see.
	But I understand in that situation, metagenomics might be quite useful.
	But with virology, it's a different story because the entities were never shown to exist in the first place.
	So what they've done, though, is just created these genetic databanks, which contain what they say are sequences for coronaviruses and influenza viruses and adenoviruses and herpes, etc.
	So they have been created on this database.
	And it's really difficult, actually, because I've had a couple of debates with genomics experts.
	And I don't doubt that they know a lot about the sequencing process and the technology.
	They've got lots of lab time.
	They really don't seem to get the provenance issue and they don't seem to care about where the evidence came from.
	So you can't even direct them.
	On the provenance issue, let me just say that in layman's terms because there might be people who don't know what he means by provenance issue, is that this RNA and or DNA in some cases for other viruses, but these nucleic acids, this genetic material, we don't know where it actually is coming from.
	There's no proof that it is coming from these alleged particles.
	It's RNA and DNA of unknown origin, essentially.
	Correct.
	And I mean, Sam and I and other investigators have gone back to all of the original papers and they don't show the existence of anything that meets the description of a virus.
	So they just have these cell cultures and these genetic sequences are produced in these cell cultures.
	Now, we're not saying that the sequence, I'm not saying the sequences are not produced.
	And the thing is, what's really fascinating is that Barbara McClintock's work in the 1960s is a great example where she showed that you could start with material in a test tube with cell lines and apply different stresses to them like they do during the virology cell culture process And different sequences would appear that were not there at the start.
	And I'm not talking about just RNA, I'm talking about DNA as well.
	So this idea that the DNA was fixed and the cell was not true either.
	She could do things quite easily to create new sequences and it's quite exciting really because it means that You know, even our own genomes are probably dynamic and they are responsive to the environment.
	They're not this fixed card that you get at birth and then that's it.
	You're doomed or whatever if you've got the wrong ones.
	It's this kind of misconception.
	But so, yeah, coming back to this issue is that none of the papers in virology ever showed sequences coming from viral particles.
	So, you know, they take chick embryos and apply various stresses to them and say, well, look at this, you know, we found some RNA sequences in there.
	That must be a virus.
	Now, that's not science.
	All you can say is that your cell culture soup, when you stressed it, produced some different sequences.
	Now, clearly, even the virologists will admit they must have come out of the cell because they say that, you know, the virus particle, that's the only way it works.
	It has to come out of the cell because it doesn't have its own capacity.
	So, in a sense, it's almost like Dove admitted that there's no way for them to check whether those sequences could come from a viral particle.
	All they can say is that they came from trick embryo soup or monkey kidney cell soup, all of these things.
	But yeah, I think it's a real problem now because all of those sequences that have been put on the database should be taken off.
	And it's obviously not going to happen.
	This is the issue, though.
	This is the issue, though.
	This is the issue like how with respect to the gain of function research, like a book will reference another book, will reference another book, and you go back to the original source document and you're like, this was never clearly established.
	This is the issue, like how with respect to the gain of function research, they like a book will reference another book will reference another book.
	And you go back to the original source document and you're like there this was never clearly established.
	But what they've done with virology, and it's so clever, and we can speculate all day on whether it was intentional or not.
	But what they've done with virology and it's so clever and we can speculate all day on whether it was intentional or not.
	That's another story.
	That's that's another story.
	But what they've done is that SARS-CoV-2 was based off of or templated against another genome.
	Which was, again, templated against another genome, which was templated against another genome dating all the way back.
	And none of these genomes have ever been established to come from a pathogenic particle, an obligate intercellular parasite, whatever the definition is for a virus.
	Point being that it's all just a big facade that was built upon itself with multiple totally unproven lines of evidence.
	And what really was stunning, Alec, was when I started with Fan Wu's creation and then thought, I'll just keep following the trail and see where it goes, because it goes deep, you know, in terms of it's all fake. because it goes deep, you know, in terms of it's But it's like studying, you know, Harry Potter and learning the family trees.
	There's quite an extensive family tree that's been built up.
	And if you go back through it, you try and get to the origin.
	Now, what happened with that was that I came back to papers in the mid-1980s, around 1982 to 1984, when they were trying to sequence the first, quote, coronaviruses, and that's where I found Absolute fraud.
	There's no other way to describe it because these investigators said that they purified variants and they referenced another paper and so I got that paper and there was nowhere in it where they didn't even have electron microscopy.
	They just said that they had purified variants.
	Usually you'd think they'd attempt to give you a picture or something and we know that there are limitations of electron microscopy.
	We won't get into that here.
	But anyway, no pictures, no indication that they had found an infectious or replicating particle.
	All they had was these check embryos that they were running experiments on, and they were adding material that they said At the start, they asserted at the start of the experiment contained a, quote, virus, a coronavirus.
	And then they sequenced up their mixture.
	And that, in 1984, was the first, quote, coronavirus genome that became the backbone for many creations after that.
	And this is the sort of thing that the entire broad is built upon, which is why, you know, I had that subchapter calling it turtles all the way down, because you start with Van Woo and you just, there's nothing, nothing there, but one fictional genome after the other.
	Now, I think.
	Wouldn't the medical industry and the virologists be interested in what I just showed them?
	That the first paper is fraud.
	They did not purify anything.
	They just said that they did.
	I find this kind of thing absolutely astounding.
	But it just repeats, doesn't it?
	It was like when Gallo got in front of the camera and said that they'd found HIV, when they hadn't.
	That was just a pure story that he decided to tell the camera.
	And this just has perpetuated.
	This is the story of virology, where they never ever discover a virus, and all that we're left with is genetic sequences now on a database.
	And these Experts, you know, who just look at genetics all day, think that they can find the answers about COVID by looking at GenBank and GSAID.
	And I don't know, us three, we just look at it and go, can't you see the problem here?
	Apparently they don't because they go, come on guys, we found this thing 18 million times.
	How can that be safe?
	Because they made it.
	One of the other weird things is like, we keep saying they don't know where this came from.
	I don't think that's a good way to say it.
	They don't know what it came from.
	They know it came out of your boogers, right?
	So we know where it came from, your snot sample.
	However, like we said, there's pollen, there's human lung tissue, there's a lot of stuff in your boogers.
	And then when they culture it, if they do do that, then they're putting it on a monkey kidney cell and then they add some blood from an aborted calf fetus to keep it alive for a while to grow it.
	So it's not that they don't know where it came from.
	It came from your boogers and, you know, in a monkey tissue or whatever they grew it on.
	They just don't know what's in it because there's a lot of things in all the sources where it came from.
	And that's what people don't understand is they're taking like, we don't even know how many, at least 12, maybe more sources.
	All you have is ACGT and DNA and ACGU and RNA.
	They're choppy.
	So that's how you can have a 90% genetic match to a cat.
	Because you only have A-C-G-T.
	That's it.
	It's A-A-A-G-G-G-C-A.
	I think the T's and U's go together.
	I'm not an expert.
	You're right.
	So there's just strands of like, how many A's, G's, T's, these sequences.
	So it's the same four shit.
	So it's like, once you chop four things into 56 million pieces, you have like, that's the provenance problem.
	You have no idea what came from the pollen, what came from your lungs, what came from whatever Food you inhale, whatever's in your boogers, I don't even know.
	What came from the monkey tissue?
	What came from, did you add milk?
	Did you add calf serum?
	Because they're all made of the same four things.
	And if you cut them, all the A-A-A-A-A-G-G-G-C-T into A-G-G, then you can't.
	You can put them together the way you want.
	Then you also have the problem that, and I think I pulled this up last time, I may not have though, that by the scientific community's own admission, they've not fully sequenced the human genome.
	And then you present the problem that Mark brought up here, that RNA and DNA appear to be somewhat dynamic and not fixed and you throw all those factors in and I think this is almost futile to what they're attempting to do.
	It's just, it's absurd.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And I think the people have got to understand that it's not, you can't just create databases and say, we've found X, Y, and Z and these are the genetic sequences, etc.
	But the problem is, Alec, is that this is what's happened.
	I've created this false paradigm and now we have People, even in the freedom community, who instead of actually just looking at pivotal papers or doing what Daniel Reuters did and looking at contagion studies, they go straight to the database and go, well, look at this.
	There seems to be some HIV sequences in there.
	This looks like it's manmade.
	And we just say to them, well, What do you mean HIV sequences?
	If you go back to the original papers, you know, if you look at things like GP120, the glycoprotein 120, there's nothing peculiar about that.
	You'll find that in everyone.
	Maybe its quantities might differ depending on the condition of the body, might go up or down.
	But there's no experiment in the world that's shown that GP120 is unique to HIV.
	So same with all of the claimed coronavirus proteins, like the spike protein, because there's plenty of confusion about that.
	Do spike proteins exist?
	Sure.
	They're found in cellular experiments.
	You do a Vero E6 cell culture experiment and the tissue breaks down, And you sequence the genetic material and proteins as well, the amino acids, and you'll find what they call, quote, spike proteins.
	Now, it doesn't have anything to do with a virus whatsoever.
	But then, unfortunately, we have people around the world now, in the freedom community, they love the spike protein.
	That's like, to them, that's the smoking gun.
	And A lot of people selling spike protein shedding detoxes too.
	Lots of people selling that.
	It's just crazy.
	And you say, look, these spike proteins have been around in their cell culture experiments forever.
	And probably spike proteins as a class of proteins you'll find in the body sometimes, potentially when tissue breaks down, etc.
	Nothing special about that.
	But I think From what I've seen, some people in the freedom community seem to think it's a brand new thing, and then, like we talked about earlier, they're looking at patents, going, oh my goodness, they were patenting this stuff 20 years ago, they were clearly planning it, etc.
	No, if you look back, there's open source documents, You know, in the late 80s, 1990, just showing spike protein experiments related to mammalian cell lines like VRE6, etc.
	So, yeah, we've got There's just so much to unpack, but I think the metagenomics is really difficult because I think people are just confused by the technological elements.
	And I mean, my goodness, if you look into it, it is complicated technology, but that's got nothing to do with biological reality.
	All you have to understand, like, you know, in my essay, we talk about this and Steve emphasizes it in the movie.
	What they do in the dry lab, in their computers, that can be complete fantasy.
	We keep going, bring us back to the wet lab and show us what you did, because it's clear that that's where you have nothing.
	The whole process is fraudulent from the start, but for some reason, people want to start in the dry lab and they just ignore what happened in the wet lab.
	Well, I mean, the proteins are funny.
	It's not that they can't find proteins.
	The joke to me, anyway, is they claim the virus, they can't isolate it because it's too small.
	It's the same size as every other particle in there.
	And it's 100 or 150 nanometers wide, but the spike on it.
	That's 9 to 12 nanometers.
	Like a virus particle, that's 0.0000012 of a millimeter.
	Go get your ruler out, look at a millimeter, and then divide that by 0.000012.
	That's the virus particle, allegedly.
	And then the spike protein's 9 to 12 nanometers, so it's one-tenth the size.
	Yeah.
	And on that, so that's imaginary.
	On that, then you got your fur and cleavage site, which is even like one twelfth of that.
	And then you got this S-whatever other thing, and then it binds to your ACE2 receptor.
	As far as I know, cellular receptors are also theoretical.
	But, I'm like, if you can't isolate this, and you can't isolate the little dot on it, then how can you tell me the little dot on the little dot on the thing?
	I'm not saying you can't detect a protein chemically, I'm just saying, how do you know that's a spike protein and not just some protein, right?
	Like, if you can tell me what that is, then surely you can tell me what it's stuck to.
	Well, in one of the papers too, correct me if I'm wrong, they weren't able to get the characteristic spikes with the cytopathic effect.
	And so what they did is they went back and they added trypsin, which breaks down proteins.
	That was the Australian one.
	Who did that one, Mark?
	I can't remember who did it.
	That was Cali A.L.
	and yeah, they did their little experiment with the cell cultures and they decided that there was nothing in there that had the classic corona appearance and so they decided to add trypsin to Which, I mean, look, the virologists, they say this is a valid technique, but I think the rest of us are looking at it and saying it's pretty dubious because how is that little thing supposed to get around if it's got this huge coat on it most of the time?
	It can't, you know, it can't move.
	And then you have to give it an enzyme to break it up.
	But, you know, I think the other important thing, and this was relevant to the Calais paper that came out of Australia, was People, as I say, they'll say to us, guys, you know, they've found this thing 18 million times.
	Are you denying this?
	Well, people have got to understand too, when you go on fishing trips for genetic material, it depends how you design your protocols.
	And what became apparent to me when I did that research for A Farewell to Virology and the lead up to it, was that some of their protocols are obscene because they in advance they decide what sequences they're quote looking for and then they'll use PCR amplification to see if they can find those sequences and sometimes they were doing ridiculous cycle runs like 40 rounds of PCR.
	Now we know at about 34 rounds If it's positive at 34, that indicates that your original sample had one molecule.
	Now this is hard, even for those of us who have looked into this, to imagine what that means.
	In a sample, one molecule.
	It's infinitely small.
	Beyond 34, if you get a positive at that point, you're basically dealing with artifact, because statistically it's almost impossible that the material existed in the original sample.
	So it's the PCR protocol that's creating the appearance of the genome.
	And this is how it works.
	When you are testing a sample for, quote, SARS-CoV-2 virus, You use this particular kit that you've purchased from somewhere, which has the PCR primers ready to amplify.
	And I worked out from some of the papers I looked at that some of them were really stupid, and this involves some of the gain-of-function ones.
	They would do a round of 35 First round, and then do another round of 35.
	So we're talking 70 cycles now, and then they're claiming that that identified the genome.
	And I just looked at it and said, this is pseudoscience.
	I mean, there's no way, your PCR protocol itself is just generating the, and if you listen to people like Stephen Buston, he'll tell you that this is ridiculous.
	You know, these world experts in PCR.
	But he doesn't seem to comment when it comes to what the virologists do in their labs.
	They're clearly doing these processes which are illegitimate.
	But yeah, I think that Calais paper, we featured that a few times because The other thing was the electron microscopy images which claimed to show that they found purified viruses and you're just looking at this mess basically.
	It's got all sorts of things in there and you're like, how did they know that's a virus?
	There's no way to characterize what it was.
	All you can do is kind of work out how big it is you know, with their little bar there that indicates the nanometer scale.
	But apart from that, you'd just say, no, it's a cell culture with some breaking down components.
	That's all we can say.
	Right.
	Some shit in there.
	And you're like, when Mark says a molecular detection test for people listening, what's that?
	That's your PCR.
	Imagine that you have a test that can detect one, take some flour out of your bag, you know, you're gonna bake and you got flour, one little, like a half of a powder of flour, right?
	The most flour you could, imagine you got a test that can only detect that that's flour, just that little dot.
	Can it tell you that it's in a pasta?
	Can it tell you that it's in a spaghetti?
	In a cake?
	You know what I mean?
	People don't understand.
	They're like, I took a PCR test and I got COVID-19.
	And you're like, it can't look for COVID-19 because it's only looking for a little grain of flour that they claim is part of COVID-19.
	That's a point of emphasis.
	They claim that this little snippet here, this little fragment, is a part of a virus.
	Yeah, if I stuck a hamburger in front of you and said, that's a pasta, you'd be like, get out of here.
	That's a hamburger, it's not pasta.
	And I'd be like, why?
	They each have a grain of flour in the bread and the pasta, the same flour.
	This test can't look for that.
	Go ahead, Mark.
	And this is how they've done bogus contagious studies with animals.
	Because, you know, people used to send us stuff saying, well, didn't this show transmission of a virus with the ferrets?
	No, it showed transmission of RNA sequences, which would not be unusual.
	If you and I were in a room together for long enough, we're both breathing out and breathing in, and there's going to be exchange of material.
	It just happens.
	It just happens, you know.
	And so to claim that these, and I've seen this before in even studies for things like tobacco mosaic virus, is that they don't show transmission of any infectious agent whatsoever.
	What they show is transmission of genetic material, but like Steve's saying, so what?
	You find a little bit of genetic material in your snot or in your poo or whatever, Doesn't mean it's doing anything.
	And I mean, Carey Mullis was at pains to explain this to people when he, you know, when people started misusing or misinterpreting the PCR.
	He said, look, if you go looking for stuff, you'll find it.
	And he said, it doesn't mean that it's significant or has anything to do with why the disease appeared in a patient.
	So Yeah, but the genetic stuff is really, unfortunately, it's captivated people.
	And as we say, particularly in the freedom community, they're so focused on genetic sequences without really appreciating what is the biological role and significance.
	What's really cool, though, is I think people are starting to wake up, like you said, Mark, and I know you share the same sentiment, Steve.
	I mean, I spoke at an event that I put on called Confluence, and there's this lady there who's documented over the last three years the phenomenon where people who are unvaccinated are around vaccinated people and they start having weird symptoms occur.
	I want to be clear here, I don't deny that that phenomenon may be a thing, but again, there's this presupposition that it's spike proteins shedding from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated people.
	And what was incredible is towards the tail end of my talk, And I always clarify this, and I want to clarify this again because people will mischaracterize what I'm trying to say, is that there are other plausible explanations for the phenomenon of two or more people getting sick in the same space, many of which are metaphysical phenomenon that we have not explored whatsoever.
	Like, I fully understand that this has not been thoroughly explored, but it's just some ideas.
	But nonetheless, I shared other possible explanations for that phenomenon, especially with respect to women syncing up on their menstrual cycles.
	That's a pretty well-established phenomenon.
	And because women sync up on their menstrual cycles, I hypothesize that women's electromagnetic fields that surround their bodies are much more sensitive to the fields of other people, especially other women.
	So when they're around other women, Who may have received these novel poisons, you could say, via the injections.
	I'm not talking about, obviously, the completely pseudoscientific idea of a virus, but this new poison via injection that they may possibly be putting out a messy signal.
	And then those women may be picking up on that messy signal and saying, oh, I need to detoxify.
	What's one of the primary ways that women detoxify?
	Through their menstrual cycle.
	So they immediately have that menstrual cycle happen in that moment to detoxify because the signals around them are messy and alerting them of something.
	But the point being that this is just an idea.
	This is totally just an idea.
	It's one of many possible explanations for that phenomenon.
	Psychosomatics, there's seasonal changes, so many other things.
	But point being, this girl came up to me who's been documenting these cases, and she's been so afraid that unvaccinated people are having spike protein shed onto them.
	And she's been like in this perpetual state of fear and telling people that they're not safe if they're unvaccinated.
	And she came up to me crying after my talk and she was like, oh my God, I feel like a weight was just lifted off my shoulders.
	So there isn't anything physically being passed by the vaccinated people.
	So the unvaccinated people aren't permanently damaged.
	They don't need to be afraid of being around unvaccinated people.
	I'm like, yeah, you got it.
	You totally got it.
	And it's like, it's moments like this.
	I'm like, oh my God, there are still people waking up to these things.
	And we're still doing really important work by continuing to share these messages.
	I think as STDs is another one.
	Once you realize that there's other explanations for what we call STDs, how much fear is young guys in your life?
	You know, Mark, you're me.
	When we were all younger, how much fear in your life went around like catching STDs when we were all younger and swelling our oats and stuff?
	Imagine if you knew this now, you know, yeah, it's the same, it's all more divide and conquer, more fear, this, that, and we ended our film actually with a great talk Mark and Tom had.
	Tom had an anecdote about, you know, imagine a young kid goes in his mother's drawer and finds his adoption papers and oh, Oh my God, it turns out I'm adopted and then he confronts his parents and the mother says, yeah, we were going to tell you, we just were waiting for the right time.
	Then he goes to his best friend and he goes, you know what?
	It turns out I'm adopted.
	And his friend goes, well, who are your real parents?
	And he goes, I don't know.
	I might never know.
	I just know.
	And he goes, well, until you can tell me who they are, I won't believe you're adopted.
	That's how Tom put it.
	You know, and it's the same with this.
	Everyone's like, well, if it's not this, what is it?
	And we're like, there are actually, there is no placebo.
	There are bioresonance.
	There's pheromones.
	Fish, we know, trigger each other.
	Trees shed.
	There's a regional.
	There actually are a lot of scientific studies that do explain this.
	Actually, they're not as well funded, but they are out there.
	Now we've got water residents and we're looking at all kinds of weird stuff.
	So, you know, it's a logical fallacy to say, well, if you can't tell me what is making me sick, then I'm just going to pretend it's an invisible particle that's never been proven.
	It's not our job to tell you what's making you sick.
	There are lots of things that could be making you sick.
	It's you have the only, you don't go into court, you're not Guilty.
	The maximum law, the burden of proof lies on the individual bringing proof.
	Yes!
	You're the one saying it's an invisible particle making us sick.
	Prove it!
	Right.
	It's not up to me to say, well, if I can't tell you what it is doing, then that makes that invisible particle real.
	That's not how reality works.
	Right.
	That's how the freedom, health freedom movement and the vaccine and big pharma industry work.
	They're making a living off you not having a logical, rational brain.
	Period.
	And the more they can keep your brain stupid and not thinking rationally and logically, the more they can sucker you into taking medicine and injections and all that.
	The flu's not killing six million people a year.
	Flu medication is.
	Right.
	Period.
	I think, too, the spike protein shedding narrative comes back to something that the mainstream would be happy with.
	Because, again, what are they saying?
	That a protein comes off one person and affects another.
	So this is the same bogus theory as the prion hypothesis.
	And we know that's been completely debunked because it was never shown to be a thing.
	You know, mad cow disease was the classic example, but there was no demonstration through natural transmission routes that anything was contagious or could affect other animals.
	The model involved taking samples from one animal and directing it into the brains of other animals and then saying, hey, look at this, a plaque formed, when all you can say is that you induced a inflammatory reaction.
	and cause the animal to become unwell through that mechanism.
	So again, it's like, I think that people, because I don't even know, like the origins, I haven't fully investigated that the origins of that story, because some of these other stories, That we talk about in A Farewell to Virology, obviously, and we've covered some of this.
	We went back and found the origins.
	What was the first time this story ever appeared?
	And with the spike protein, I think that would be an interesting investigation with the spike protein shedding story.
	Who actually released that one?
	And was it another gaslight to keep people on the plantation?
	Because, yeah, we deal with the same Alec.
	We get angry people when Sam and I go through videos explaining why infectious proteins can't be a thing and have never been shown in any animal model or human.
	And people go, yeah, yeah, but I was, I was around someone that got vaccinated and I was so sick the next day and something definitely happened to me.
	I mean, obviously that's not a scientific study or.
	or any evidence but people are convinced that something happens and like you we say look we're not saying that there's no influence that people have on each other but it's really important that we tease out the difference because if contagion in the modern word means via microbes or proteins like prions
	Now, if that's the case, if that's real, then everything that the pharmaceutical industry and the governments etc are doing, they will say are justified because they'll say we need to do these things, we need to get anything from face masks to sanitizers to lockdowns to vaccines are all based on the contagion mechanism being through
	Quote viruses, bacteria, fungi sometimes, or prions in the case of the bogus mad cow disease.
	So I think it's really important that we tell them you don't want to be putting that narrative because you'll get what we've just had even worse basically.
	And definitely we should make it clear we're not saying that people don't influence others.
	And I think Daniel Reuters' new book Can You Catch a Cold?
	talks about these things as well.
	How the conditions of these human transmission experiments, the expectations of people, influenced how people manifested symptoms.
	And I'm not saying, this is not saying it's in your head or anything like that.
	It's saying that there are other important factors and we have to get away from this contagion model.
	Yeah.
	Well, the weird thing, though, even as he acknowledges, in all the other transmission experiments, like the Spanish flu and all that, you know, Pfeiffer's bacillus, they were told, you're going to be in contact with these people, and still nobody got sick.
	So even when it does happen, it's not the norm.
	Right.
	It's such a, right?
	Nobody got sick in those Spanish flu experiments and many others when they thought they should.
	So even the mental nocebo or whatever you, you know, bioresonance, that's not the norm.
	It's the exception in these experiments.
	Way a minority, way a minority.
	And I want to emphasize again, completely agree with you, Steve, and I want to emphasize again that I am not claiming that all of these things can be attributed to the idea that women sync up on their menstrual cycles.
	The point being that is that there are so many other plausible explanations for these various phenomena that many of which we have are well established like shared exposure to toxins, shared exposure to non-native electromagnetic fields, shared malnutrition, shared emotional issues, a unique combination of all those things.
	But then also this whole other separate category of things that we have not adequately explored because we've been so myopically focused on this unproven idea.
	All of the funding goes there.
	All of the attention is there.
	They're doubling down on that.
	And that's why we haven't explored these other things.
	And people ask, too, why is it even relevant if viruses don't exist or not?
	Because either way, I'm not going to get the vaccine.
	I'm like, well, because you're coming from a flawed presupposition surrounding how the human body works.
	And even all the, quote, alternative and natural health credential agencies and institutions are coming from that flawed presupposition as well.
	So this is necessary for us to get to a true understanding of how the human body works.
	And there's just some incredible new paradigms of health on the horizon once we do that.
	And I think it's, yeah, you're totally right, Alec.
	And it's more important because guess what?
	We won't be funding any of this because we aren't the one.
	Have you ever given money to a scientific experiment?
	No.
	It's Big Pharma who's funding it because they profit from it, and the government is funding it because they want military weapons or whatever.
	We're never going to fund any of this, so it's more important you figure this out yourself, because they aren't going to do it ever, because there's no money in finding out you're making yourself sick.
	So if you don't get it yourself, they're never going to tell you.
	We might tell you, you know what I mean?
	So that's why it's even more important because if you're walking around wearing masks and not seeing your grandma and not going to birthday parties and standing six feet apart and won't let your cousin come to your party because they're not vaxxed and all that crap, you're having a miserable time.
	You're wasting your time and energy.
	You're afraid of the boogeyman.
	That's cool until you're five years old.
	Then your parents tell you there's no boogeyman under the bed, and then it's time to get over it.
	There's no Tooth Fairy.
	There's no Santa Claus.
	Sorry, kids.
	Spoiler alert if you're kids watching.
	Go ahead, Mark.
	You got something to say on it.
	Yeah, I think Alec hit it on the head there and gets to the most important reason.
	And I think it's the fear has got to go of, you know, if we look at what happened in 2020, people were scared.
	They really were.
	That's why they went along with it.
	That's why they got incredibly angry with those of us who weren't going along with that.
	You know, they weren't analyzing scientific papers and trying to work out what was going on.
	They were just really terrified that there was something going around.
	And even the people who Didn't take the jab and accept any of the mainstream protocols etc.
	A lot of them were still scared and I think that manifested too with these other narratives like gain of function and spike protein shedding etc.
	Is that they're all based in these fear narratives and I think those of us who are not scared just do so much better like People said, well, what happened to you guys?
	Did you get COVID?
	No, there is no COVID.
	So we didn't get it.
	Well, did you get sick?
	No, we didn't.
	Are you worried about, you know, people say to us, are you worried about your kids getting hugged by people who have had the vaccine?
	I'm like, no, I'm not worried about that.
	It's all of these things and they don't realize they're buying into such a fear-based paradigm.
	And I think the best thing we can do is continue to Um, allay those fears.
	And I think, um, I got to say Steve did a marvelous job when he pivoted his channel back in 2020, because people could honestly just laugh.
	And, you know, Sam was very much the same with her videos.
	She said, this is, we've got to make it a little bit light as well so that people can see.
	Just how ridiculous this is.
	Yeah, Steve's comedic spirit and elements that he adds to his videos, like especially making it seem so impossibly dumb and simple through comedy.
	That's what Steve is so good at.
	I'm not trying to be funny.
	I just find it so dumb that I can't.
	When I'm doing the voice, I mean, you know, I made Mark's film, which is like pretty serious.
	I'm just trying to read the sentence and get through it without laughing.
	And when I laugh, I'm like, fuck it, just leave it in because it is so dumb.
	Once you know what's going on, that's the beautiful thing.
	Once you know what's going on, it's so dumb that if you're not laughing at it, you're mentally ill.
	You have to laugh at this.
	It's stupid.
	Isn't it dumb?
	I mean, it's so dumb.
	And once you get it, you're liberated.
	Would you like to be like us?
	Or would you like to be like G?
	I mean, come on, liberate yourself, people.
	Get liberated.
	It's so liberating to not be afraid of shit all the time.
	And this is the last thing on earth to be afraid of.
	And that's why Steve, when you said to me, you know, can I make a farewell into a, at first you thought it was going to be a film.
	And I said, I think it's going to be more than a film because Sam looked at it and said, there's no way I'm making that into a video.
	That's like six and a half hours or seven hours.
	But.
	Interestingly, Steve, people loved the film, but I got the occasional critic and said, why did you let Steve Faulkner take your serious piece of, you know, refutation and virology and turn it into a documentary with comedic elements, etc.
	And I said, well, you know, What do you think?
	That I went to Disney and they turned me down?
	I mean, who can we go to with this stuff?
	It's the same comment I get when people ask me, well, if your essay is so good, why didn't the journals publish it?
	And you're like, oh my goodness.
	Have they even looked into, you know, back in the 90s, I've looked at the papers that were rejected from the mainstream journals that the Perth Group wrote, and they are so beautifully written and so serious, they're not being comedic or anything, and they were told, no, this is not up to scratch, or this is irrelevant, etc.
	I mean, there's no way that we can go to the mainstream with any of this material.
	Never!
	And to me, your paper is If you want to be serious, go read your paper.
	That's to me, for doctors, scientists, and virologists.
	My film version of this was, I'm trying to reach regular people who are never going to sit through a serious paper like that.
	There's a reason Mark calls his the Expert Edition.
	Maybe you should throw, at the end of yours, Steve, the Comedic Edition.
	Yeah, mine's the Normie edition.
	Yeah.
	But yeah, who's offering else to do it?
	And like, by the way, have they never seen your wife's videos?
	They're hilarious.
	Yeah, they're so funny.
	She's even more screwy than me, man.
	She's funnier than I am.
	Like, Sam's... I gotta say, you'll laugh, Steve, and I might have to tell you in private the title that Sam actually wanted to put on my essay.
	I was like, no, I can't do that.
	And she was going, go on, do it.
	And we did a compromise.
	It was always going to be a farewell to virology.
	It was just that Sam said, you need to add something after that.
	And she wanted to put something in there.
	And I said, what is this for?
	And she said, you know, just to stick it to them.
	That's great.
	You guys complement each other so well.
	It's perfect.
	I know, you know, cause when Tom said to me that him and Sam should do a show and I was like, oh my goodness, Tom and Sam doing a show.
	That would be hilarious, but I don't know that they would be able to get anything done cause it'd just be perpetual jokes.
	And especially cause Tom is so tired of talking about this at this point.
	It'd be hilarious.
	That's why Mark never gets attacked.
	They attack Tom and Sam because they're like goofy.
	Right.
	Mark doesn't get attacked because Mark and Andy don't fuck around like they're too hardcore, you know, so these guys don't ever mess with him.
	Andy does in private though.
	I'm really good friends with Andy.
	I know in private he's screwy and Mark is too in private.
	Like when we email each other it's screwy as hell, but his public persona, that's why they don't mess with him because he's not fucking around.
	Right.
	You know, so that's why he's getting the criticism.
	They're looking for one reason to get him.
	They're like, there, we got it.
	He worked with Steve Falconer who makes jokes.
	That's what we got on him.
	This can't be serious because the guy who made his movie tells jokes in it.
	Yeah, I know.
	You know, like, get out of here.
	Yeah, we realized that long ago that, um, you know, our critics tend to attack one of Sam's short videos, like 15, 20 minute videos that she does, because she's not trying to overwhelm the audience with technical knowledge and, you know, how deep we've gone into virology.
	She's trying to communicate with people to get them to look at the stuff and it's worked like You know, she's brought so many people into this, and someone contacted us who had followed the Perth group, you know, from the early days in the 1990s.
	And when Sam released, you know, her three-part series, The Ying and Yang of HIV, They contacted us and said, I think Sam has got the audience 10,000 times bigger in one video than all of what they did back in the 90s and early 2000s.
	And I think that's what's important is that you don't always just have to go out and hit them with technical stuff.
	You have to make it in a way that the audience feels that it's accessible.
	And Steve, you've done exactly the same by taking very dry material involving virology papers and making people laugh.
	And I remember the first time seeing you do the cell culture process with a blender in your fist and some strawberries.
	And I thought, this is actually great.
	Yeah, this is really good.
	And I was laughing.
	You know, and I could read these, um, you know, hundred page documents, which are very dry.
	And I thought, yeah, Mr. Felton has summed it up there with the blender.
	That was the strawberries in a blend.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And like, you know, uh, I mean, Danny Rancourt, right.
	He's, he's a real scientist as far as I know.
	He's, he's great.
	He put us, he put our movie on Twitter and said like, you need to be watching this, you know, like, so if a scientist like Danny Rancourt saying, Hey, I used to be in this camp, now I'm starting to think twice about it from our film.
	Well, it can't be that damn goofy.
	Right.
	Because this guy, he's a real scientist.
	In all seriousness, even with the jokes, the jokes make it so much better, but the first two that I watched, I haven't watched the third one yet, but they're incredible.
	They're incredible films.
	Part 3 is just as funny, actually, because we're really taking the piss out of a lot of it.
	However, it's also, like all the movies, because the information is so damaging to them, They're bitter.
	They're funny, but really when they're not funny, actually, like they're pretty damn serious.
	You're all done.
	You're like, what did I just watch?
	The implications of what you're sharing are really serious, but it is still funny.
	You like all their evidence.
	I think I think at this point we should probably wrap up because we've been going almost two and a half hours.
	So, yeah, I'll share the part three in the show notes.
	And of course, Please order a copy of both Daniel Roitas's new book and Mark and Sam's new book.
	They're both incredible.
	And I think at this point, a farewell to virology, the paper has been read now just off your website over 250,000 times and not one serious rebuttal.
	Correct me if I'm wrong on that, Mark.
	Yeah, no, we haven't seen any serious refutation.
	We've just had silly comments, you know, like one-liners, people dropping a message on Sam's website saying, I could refute your husband's essay in my sleep.
	And we're like, well, pick a paragraph and see how you go.
	And I think what's really exciting, Alec, is that it's been translated into many languages now.
	So we had, soon after publication, We had people in France, Spain, Japan, etc.
	all volunteering to do translations.
	I don't know how many copies have gone out in that way.
	There are other websites.
	I made it freely available so that people could upload it onto their websites.
	It's appearing on other websites.
	It's really out there, which is great.
	And, you know, you compare it to the metrics of something like the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet.
	And I think some of those virologists are probably looking at my paper going, I wish I could get that kind of traction.
	Yeah.
	And I mean, you too, Alec, like what you and Mark and Sam have done and Cohen and Kaufman, and I don't want to toot my own horn, but like, I follow, you know, I see comments going around on social media and here and there.
	We don't even understand the change we've affected.
	The damage we have done is way more massive than you can ever believe.
	You know, I don't believe it's even 250,000.
	Like, the damage he and Sam have done is in the millions and millions of people.
	Yourself, you know, all of us.
	There were about, I don't know, 12 or 20 of us back when it started.
	I was one of the earlier ones.
	But it's not like no one's ever heard of this now.
	No, it's like, I mean, you wouldn't believe the number of so I consider myself a young one.
	I'm 31.
	You wouldn't believe the number of 22 to 26 year old accounts on Instagram who have a significant following that are talking about this now, too.
	It's really, really cool to see.
	Yeah, even if they believe it or not, they've heard of it, which is the first step.
	But also people who are proficient in explaining it.
	There's several, like Jacob Diaz, who is one of the hosts in The End of COVID.
	He's 25 years old, and his level of knowledge on this topic is incredible, and he's doing a tremendous job educating people on Instagram.
	And there's several other ones younger than him who have a substantial following on Instagram who are also educating on this topic.
	It's growing, like, it's spreading like wildfire.
	It's going viral, you could say.
	That's a bad name.
	And that's a good sign because, not to put down younger people, but the schooling, the education system, if you've noticed when you talk to normal 20-year-olds, they aren't able to explain what they mean like our generation was.
	If you know what I mean.
	Yacob Diaz, I did a talk with him on endocovid, he's like, listen, what am I here for?
	Ivermectin.
	But you know, normal 20 to 25 year olds you meet, they aren't able to express things.
	It's all emoji land and all that.
	So the fact that they are is showing that we're explaining it simple enough where they can run with it and feel confident to explain it, which means we did our job correctly as the elders passing the torch, you know?
	So I think that's hats off to all of us like for that happening.
	Totally agree.
	Yeah, look, I think we're in a fantastic position.
	It's been helped by, you know, the films that Steve has made, the events that Alex put on, the coordination, the work that Sam and I and others have put out.
	It's all there now and it can't be put back.
	And it's a real problem for them.
	And as I say, when this hits the mainstream, who knows what's going to happen?
	Because what we tend to find, like say here in New Zealand, when Sam hits the front page and they say that she's the worst doctor of all time or whatever they say, you know, that she's a public health danger, all this kind of stuff.
	It just drives people to come and see what we do, because some people have said that they make Sam to be so bad that they think, oh my goodness, this must be juicy.
	I'm going to go and see what she says.
	And they come to the website and just start watching videos and go, this is really interesting.
	She makes the case really, really carefully.
	And we've had people who have said that they have been told That she is a complete disgrace to medicine, all this kind of stuff, you know, and they've dismissed, you know, they haven't looked for a few years and just recently they've started having a look and have come on board.
	So that's, that's really cool.
	And I think that's why the mainstream have got a problem now with how they are going to deal with this, because if they run headlines saying, oh, there's people that say viruses aren't real, people will be like, what?
	Really interesting!
	Can I have a look?
	Who are these crazy people?
	And, you know, when they come over and find that there are entire books, entire essays, entire events like the end of COVID, they'll say, oh my goodness, this is not some flash in the pan.
	And they'll also see where we've come from, you know, the Stephan Lankers and the Perth Groups and the Kevin Corbetts and all the people that were lonely voices.
	Really, for decades with hardly anyone listening.
	So yeah, it's a real privilege to be part of this and I think we can just be so thankful that what looked like a terrible thing happening to the world in 2020 has really been this blessing and we've got this fantastic awakening going on.
	Amen.
	So well said.
	Gentlemen, thank you so much again for joining me, and for those who are watching and listening, please be sure to check out part three of Steve's film and also check out A Farewell to Virology, the paper.
	Thanks.

▲