All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 5, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
18:28
Unmasking the Viral Paradigm - Part 2 - Dr Sam Bailey Dec 03, 2024
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
In mid-2024, the legendary Vera Shariv of the Alliance for Human Research Protection sent a request.
She asked if my husband Mark and I would write an essay concerning the perversion of science for her companion book to the documentary Never Again is Now Global.
The task for our chapter was to unmask the viral paradigm and bid farewell to virology, a non-technical language, But with citations to scientific reports.
We are pleased to present the essay here for the first time in the public domain.
Unmasking the Viral Paradigm by Drs. Mark and Samantha Bailey Part 2
Viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are nothing more than phantom constructs existing only in imaginations and computer simulations.
In this paradigm, cases of invented diseases like COVID-19 are nothing more than the detection of selected genetic sequences and proteins purported to be viral.
Dr. Mark Bailey, a farewell to virology.
In our experience, many lay people we encountered realized that COVID-19 was a scam, or at least an event of no more significance than seasonal influenza.
They did not feel the need to investigate the matter any more deeply because in their own communities there was clearly no deadly pandemic to be concerned about.
The barrage of government press conferences and fear-based narratives across media platforms clearly did not reflect what was happening on the ground.
For example, this was confirmed by the research of Dr. Denny Rancor, who demonstrated that the only excess mortality that was seen related to the COVID-19 measures and the vaccine rollout Unfortunately, there was an almost unreserved acceptance of the COVID narrative amongst the so-called scientists and, apparently, almost the entire medical establishment and workforce.
When we expressed our concerns to other doctors about why the pandemic had no basis, they often pointed to the supposed virological evidence to dismiss such notions.
It would typically be in the form of a publication that claimed to quote isolate SARS-CoV-2 In the paper's title at least, or the alleged virus genome databanks housed on websites such as GSAID. They have not been willing to consider the possibility there may be fatal flaws in the entire virus model and that the methods used to produce the data do not qualify as scientific.
Lending support to this, Verisha Rav shared an observation that outlined this commonly encountered resistance to critically examine the foundational evidence.
Medical doctors who have been indoctrinated to accept virology as the cornerstone of medical practice are loathe to consider the possibility that it may be akin to a faith-based catechism.
If we have learned anything about who are the most susceptible to accept without question the directives issued by authorities, it is those with the highest university pedigrees.
By contrast, the blue-collar working-class people scoff at the COVID narrative as that hoax.
While there are millions of SARS-CoV-2 genomes deposited in the databanks at sites like GSAID, the pseudoscience of the entire paradigm can be illustrated by examining just one.
This is not a casual claim.
It is a claim made following years of investigation into the history of virology and its methodologies, both of which rely on the prior assumption that viruses have always existed.
Instead of genuinely attempting to falsify the hypothesis as the scientific method requires, we have instead witnessed the unscientific practice of moulding all subsequent observations to fit the model.
As Mark wrote in A Farewell to Virology, one of the pivotal issues with virology was that it invented itself as a field before establishing if virus has actually existed.
It has been trying to justify itself since its inception.
In this instance, a virus particle was not observed first and subsequently viral theory and pathology developed.
The extant presupposition of the time was that a very small germ particle existed that may explain contagion.
What came thereafter arose to fulfill the presuppositional premise.
In his treatise outlining a formal refutation of the virus model, Mark predicted that virology's final stand would be genomics.
While many of the lay public can now see straight through the scam of COVID and the wider pandemic industry, unfortunately, the imagined high science of genomics looks set to perpetuate the failed hypothesis that viruses exist for some time yet.
The paradigm and its supposed experts provide the false fuel in the form of virus genomes for the medico-pharmaceutical industry as well as the government agencies and their enforcers.
The reason we can examine just one paper that alleged to isolate SARS-CoV-2 and decipher its genome is that when it comes to scientific evidence, the virologists are now on their final gasp.
The 20th century was marked with a series of failures for the virus model, and they have nothing left to fall back on.
For example, in the 1930s, with the advent of the electron microscope, it became apparent that the imagined viruses could not be found within the tissues of those said to have virus.
This resulted in the development of the indirect cell culture technique in the 1940s and 50s, where specimens from diseased organisms were added to typically abnormal cell lines in the laboratory.
If the cells broke down under the microscope, it was then declared that viruses were the cause.
However, the cells can also be shown to break down without the addition of any specimen.
That is, the procedure itself can cause the same effects.
There is also an overriding flaw in the technique in that it cannot establish whether the hypothesized viruses even exist in nature.
In effect, the virologists cannot identify an independent variable in their experiments.
They can only continue to imagine there is one.
By the 1980s, the biotechnology industry was gaining traction and the virologists moved away from their traditional experimental techniques to embrace molecular detection technologies.
This coincided with the onset of the HIV era and the widespread use of antibody tests.
The fact remains that no HIV particles were ever physically isolated and characterized from an alleged human case.
Instead, the antibody tests were used as supposed laboratory and epidemiological evidence for the spread of a virus.
The farcical nature of these, quote, virus-specific antibodies has been exposed numerous times, including in 2020 when a COVID-19 vaccine candidate caused all 168 recipients to develop positive HIV antibody tests.
They were then declared false positive results, of course, in order to keep the HIV equals AIDS industry intact.
In 1996, a significant paper on this timeline was published.
Sequence-based identification of microbial pathogens, a reconsideration of Cox postulates.
It marked a further move away from experimental virology and natural biology into further dependence on molecular techniques.
That is, another move away from attempting to find actual viruses and into a paradigm of using the detection of genetic sequences as surrogate evidence instead.
Since the turn of the century, we have witnessed an exponential increase in the use of genomics and the virologists have been one of the major beneficiaries.
It is apparent that one of the warnings in the 1996 paper However, with only amplified sequence available, the biological role or even existence of these inferred microorganisms remains unclear.
This is of vital import because no definitive evidence for any virus was produced last century.
The virologists started the 19th century with the assumption that viruses existed and their monumental scientific failures, some of which have just been outlined, meant that they started the 20th century in the same position.
The only difference was the claim that biotechnological developments, including genomics, We're now the mainstay of studying their imagined viruses, a position further removed from demonstrating viruses actually exist.
This may seem like a lengthy lead-in to the analysis of one of the foundational papers in 2020 that formed the basis for the declaration of a novel coronavirus, but it serves an important purpose.
The fact remains that viruses, as defined by the virologists, remain hypothetical constructs.
The COVID story exposes why there is no need for any virus to explain this chain of events.
There was no evidence for a new disease called COVID-19.
The case definition was nonsensical, and the test that defined the cases was clearly farcical in clinical use.
On face value, it may appear that such an ill-defined entity as COVID would mean it would be difficult to fake one virus as the cause of everything.
However, an understanding of the virologists' methods and the claimed permitted vagaries of how these imagined particles behave made the task fairly easy.
On the 3rd of February 2020, the team of Fan Wu published A New Coronavirus Associated with Human Respiratory Disease in China in Nature.
Their claim that they had found a new coronavirus rested on a single case.
A 41-year-old man admitted to the Central Hospital of Wuhan in late December 2019. His clinical presentation, as described, was entirely consistent with pneumonia, a common problem in Wuhan as already outlined in Part 1. It is unclear why the authors thought the man had a new disease or a unique cause,
but they stated, to investigate the possible etiological agents associated with this disease, we collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and performed deep metatranscriptomic sequencing.
Note how they call it this disease instead of pneumonia.
Deep metatranscriptomic sequencing means they went on a fishing trip and sought to identify all of the RNA sequences in the man's lung fluid.
The process has no capacity to determine where the RNA originally came from or the relevance of its presence.
Possible origins of the RNA in these specimens include the patient's own cells, any of the millions of microbes that are found in the lungs, in sickness and health, and from inhaled environmental sources.
The presence of RNAs may relate to cellular expression or they may simply be passengers in the air filtration system that have nothing to do with the patient's condition.
It is only in the paradigm of virology that it has been decided in advance that some of the RNA or DNA can equate to proof of a virus.
Fan Wu's sequencing process started with the detection of millions of short RNA sequences present in the lung fluid.
After this, the natural world was left behind and the pipeline moved in silico, that is, into a computer, using probability algorithms to find potentially overlapping sequences and create longer runs.
The largest of these assemblies was lined up as a proposed This construct was then designated as WH-Human-1 Coronavirus, later to be called SARS-CoV-2.
It should be noted that this is the point in the paper where the authors commit an act of literary legitimacy, and the word virus appears without having demonstrated that one actually exists.
So how did they know this was the genome of a new virus?
They compared it to two other alleged coronavirus genomes on the genetic databanks, And found similarities, including a quote, nucleotide identity of 89.1% to one of them.
However, these two previous quote, genomes were also hypothetical computer entities put together through similar processes.
These are not viruses.
They are stitched together genetic sequences of unknown origin and significance found in crude biological mixtures.
In our research we have followed the trail of coronavirus genomes back to the original ones that were first published in the 1980s.
Here we found the foundational fraud of the phylogenetic tree that has been put forward as the supposed evidence for the coronavirus family tree.
In not one of these experiments did they physically isolate or show that any of their samples contained anything that met the definition of a virus.
Fan Wu et al, like all of the virus hunters before them, made the assumption that viruses were in the man's lung fluid.
The sequencing technology may look impressive, but the underlying fatal flaws in the methodology remain.
As Dr. David Rasnick explained in the documentary series, The Viral Delusion, the claim of Fan Wu's team was detached from any notion of sound science.
They can look at all the RNA, all the DNA, sequence it, amplify it, trillions of folders, all this technology driven, not science driven.
They came up with a sequence and then they decided that they had discovered this virus, even though they never touched the virus at all, and they said that was the cause of this guy's pneumonia.
A sticking point for many adhering to the virus model is the finding of millions of these alleged virus genomes in gene banks around the world.
All slightly different, for which the concept of variance can be employed as required.
However, this simply represents the same process being repeated, and the approximate reproducibility of the results does not mean that it is evidence for viruses.
It is not even crucial if the hypothetical genetic models are eventually shown to exist in nature.
For not one of these millions of genomes has been shown to relate to a contagious disease and be the cause of illness, let alone come from inside their imagined viral particles.
Therein lies the story of virology, a long-standing tradition of pseudoscientific practices that cannot escape the fact that the originally hypothesized particles remain nothing more than that imagined.
The evidence that refutes the virus model is overwhelming.
Viruses are not a scientific concept.
But rather, a belief system.
It is beyond the scope of the present essay to outline all of the specific refutations of virology, but there are many written sources the reader can refer to, including our other publications, as well as Dr. Stefan Lenker, Viralige, and the Perth Group.
In line with our other work, the aim of this essay is to help allay fears about deadly viruses by showing that such fears are completely unwarranted.
Ironically, the only point that Tedros got right during the opening ceremonies of COVID-19 was when he said...
We have never before seen a pandemic sparked by a coronavirus.
Never will we ever see one.
It is time to let go of a failed and false model that has been deceptively used to bring the world to its knees.
Humanity deserves much better.
Letting go of the virus belief is one of the most powerful actions to defend against such further deception and bring about a better understanding of true health.
▲
Export Selection