All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 25, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
56:20
Dr. Mark Bailey - Do Viruses Exist?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Every single time that we have gone into one of these areas and taken all of their pivotal papers as evidence, they come up blank.
and it's clear that they did not show that the virus model is valid. - Hello, and welcome to another engaging episode of Shock Callers.
I am Carrie Bigford, Outreach Director with Texans for Vaccine Choice.
And today we have an incredible guest, Dr. Mark Bailey.
And he's going to be talking to us about a controversial subject about the existence of viruses.
He's come with lots of information, so please keep an open mind.
And keep in mind that TFEC is presenting this to allow our critical thinking audience to decide for themselves where they sit upon this issue.
We are not taking one stance one way or the other, but we are allowing you, our critically thinking and intelligent listeners, to hear this valid perspective and consider it for yourself.
Without further ado, we have Dr. Mark Bailey.
He has all kinds of fancy letters, including MBCHB, PGDIP, MSM, but mainly he is a microbiology, medical industry, and health researcher who has worked in medical practice, including clinical trials, for two decades.
In 2020, with the onset of the COVID era, he began an extensive investigation into the legitimacy of the claimed pandemic.
And the virus model itself.
He subsequently became one of virology's most prominent critics.
Him and his wife, Dr. Sam Bailey, the couple have made their extensive collection of medical and health information freely available and for free through their website, drsambailey.com.
That's drsambailey.com.
So after you hear his phenomenal information today, please feel free to check out his website and explore the depth and breadth of his research.
Without further ado, Dr. Mark Bailey, thank you so much for joining us on Shot Callers today.
Well, Carrie, thank you so much for this invitation.
And it was interesting in your introduction there because you introduced it as a controversial topic.
And I was talking to my wife, Dr. Sam Bailey, last night about this.
And I said that the word controversial is so interesting because...
For us, it's not controversial.
It's just pure logic and scientific information.
But it is so interesting.
It has become that way.
But you and your audience will be aware of this anyway because so many people consider vaccines to be, oh, well, people just don't know one way or the other when, in fact, there is actually extremely good information out there refuting the use of vaccines completely.
So, yeah, like for many of your viewers who will think that, well, this is pretty straightforward for us, it's the same because we've spent so long researching this that the whole issue of viruses and so-called germs and pathogens is not really that controversial.
It's pretty straightforward and it's just a matter of showing people that there's no evidence for these things and there never was.
Yeah, I think the controversy is more bucking the cultural conditioning around the acceptance of virology in the same way that our movement is bogged down by the cultural conditioning of vaccines being claimed as safe and effective, even though there's actually very little research that backs up either of those statements.
The controversy is in the cultural conditioning.
People are, they believe that it's that way, and the same thing with virology, so I'm excited to have this opportunity to allow this perspective to have a fair play and explanatory sense.
Absolutely agree with that.
And it's been interesting because I know there's been at least one, you know, vaccine information group that my wife, Sam, has talked to.
And it caused a problem where somebody actually resigned or pulled out of the group because they did not want to hear about the critiques of germ theory and virology.
So it was interesting for us that they were certainly prepared to, you know...
Question the whole use of vaccines, which, as you say, is quite a big thing in society at the moment.
But they weren't prepared to go a little bit further.
And we do encounter that as well, where vaccine critics are not happy to listen to what we have to say.
And it's just a case of just opening one more door.
Yeah, the cognitive dissonance and the unwillingness to be open are big barriers for outreach for us at TFVC. Because in order to reach someone, they have to be willing to be reached.
And it makes me sad to think that another person in a medical liberty organization that wasn't TFVC would be unwilling to hear a differing perspective because it's in hearing differing perspectives that we all learn and grow and come to a deeper understanding of the truth.
So with that, How would you describe the idea that viruses do not exist to someone who is a true novice to this idea?
Yeah, well, first of all, I just encourage people to say, I ask them, what did they do to check, verify for themselves whether the whole idea that viruses exist is true?
And for many things, people in life are able to check things.
Like if you tell them that there's a new brand of detergent out there and it works really well, and people can check that because they can purchase the detergent.
They can see how it performs for themselves.
They can do all these things.
But when it comes to the virus model, most people have to admit that they never looked into it and they're taking other people's words for it.
They are repeating what other people were saying.
And we were once like that too.
Look, I was a clinical doctor for 16 years.
I fully trained up in virology and microbiology and medicine and, And we were just repeating what the textbook said and what the other doctors and microbiologists were saying.
It wasn't until we took a look beneath the surface that we were totally shocked.
Now, in some ways, this story starts in the 1800s.
And as many people are aware...
That was really the time, the century, when the whole idea of germs came about, that there were these little bugs that were causing specific diseases and there was a specific cure to that in the form of a vaccine, a preventative cure.
But if we actually look back to what took place at that time, it's pretty shaky, the whole entire thing.
So, first of all, we had the generation of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, who rose to prominence in the late 1800s.
And something that was really important was the formulation of Koch's postulates in the 1880s.
Now, these postulates are actually very logical.
It's just a four-step process of showing that a germ, back then bacteria or fungal cells, Were capable of causing disease in hosts such as humans, animals and plants.
So what they did was a series of experiments with things like anthrax and tuberculosis, etc.
And if you read an encyclopedia or go on to Wikipedia or the mainstream sources, they all tell you that, oh yeah, Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur, they prove that germs cause disease.
Well, no, they didn't.
And what is shocking is that with regard to Robert Koch, he was said to have won a Nobel Prize for showing or helping show the germ theory of disease.
If you go back to his experiments, as we did, and they're not actually available in English.
So first of all, you have to get them translated from the original German, which is very unusual because you think these are the pivotal papers claiming that germs cause disease.
And they never showed that bacteria by themselves are capable of pathogenic or disease-causing behaviours.
So the famous Cox postulates, yes, it's scientific, yes, it's logical.
It has never been satisfied in history, ever.
And people will tell you it does, and they'll look up Google or whatever.
But you need to go back to the actual experiments, whether it was in the 1880s or in the modern day.
And universally, you can show that they're not scientific.
They did not follow the scientific method.
Most of the time, they're uncontrolled.
So they didn't control for the variables that they were using.
And so the whole thing was unestablished.
Similar with Louis Pasteur, the famous Louis Pasteur inventor of so many vaccines.
They went back and...
It was around the 1970s where his workbooks were finally disclosed to the public because he didn't want them to be ever shown to the public.
When they were shown to the public, it became apparent that Pasteur had lied.
His vaccines had not worked.
His whole models about what was causing disease had not worked.
And, in fact, he was actually causing more harm to his test subjects, largely animals, back in the day than helping them.
That gives you some kind of basis to the wider considerations here.
And it sounds familiar, very familiar to the story of vaccine science.
And it's hard for me to say it without quotes because it's poorly designed, not scientific method.
And when you actually read the data, it doesn't support what they say in the summary ever.
Absolutely.
So we have this problem that the grandfathers of germ theory, Koch and Pasteur, et cetera, never showed that germs were actually, in quotes, were causing these diseases.
And then, of course, sometimes back then they would be looking at a disease.
Now, I'm not saying that bacteria and fungi are not associated with disease.
That's a different...
What we're talking about is that they are contagious, that they're passing around between people and causing the disease.
That's the thing that hasn't been shown.
Now, with some of these alleged specific diseases, like tuberculosis and anthrax, etc., they would find a particular bacterial species associated with the disease.
But sometimes they couldn't.
So there were conditions such as smallpox and measles, herpes, etc.
Now, this is a very complicated subject and we won't get into it here, but there's actually problems about whether they are specific diseases because they don't seem to be.
There's just variations of different body conditions.
But for the purposes of what's important here is that they couldn't find bacteria associated regularly with these particular conditions.
So they came up with the concept in the late 1800s of virus.
Now, at that time, virus didn't mean what people would think it means these days.
At that time, it simply meant some sort of poison.
And they said, look, we've looked at the samples under the light microscope.
We can't see anything.
Can't see the bacteria here.
So there must be something else.
And they were so obsessed with the germ theory of disease.
That they said it must be some sort of entity that's submicroscopic, so beneath the powers of a light microscope to define.
And they coined this name virus.
And over time, in the early 1900s, it had various conceptions.
Like for a while it was considered a contagious fluid.
Then it became an infectious protein model.
And it wasn't until around the middle of last century.
That they came up with the more modern definition, which is this tiny little particle with a protonaceous coat and genetic material on the inside, and that it is an intracellular parasite, meaning that it goes into a cell, like a human cell or an animal cell, and causes chaos by creating lots of copies of itself and then passing on to other people through a contagious process and causing disease.
For reasons we can get into, there's absolutely no evidence that that's what's taking place.
But what is important with this first part of the story is that viruses were imagined and then after that everything came about trying to match all of the observations to the model.
So they weren't discovered and that's what people often find very surprising.
So this is not like bacteria.
Where they took samples from people and nature, etc., and found these microbes.
That never happened with the whole virus model.
They didn't go out and find them.
They still can't to this day.
So you can't go take a blood sample from a person and find viruses in there.
That never happens.
Instead, they have a series of pseudoscientific processes, cell cultures, antibodies, genomics.
PCR, electron microscopy, etc., which is all built up around this supposed model.
But every single time that we have gone into one of these areas and taken all of their pivotal papers as evidence, they come up blank.
And it's clear that they did not show that the virus model is valid.
That again echoes.
It's like deja vu listening to you talk about the shortcomings in the scientific literature.
They exist, the entire canon of vaccinology.
When you go back, they've never proven what they said they would prove.
They've never demonstrated a reduction in disease.
They've never shown them to be more beneficial than the risk.
When you actually read the data, it's never in the summaries.
It's not in the policies created through those and the three-letter agencies that enforce those ideas.
It's very familiar hearing you talk about those shortcomings.
You mentioned a lot the scientific method.
Not all of our listeners are aware of what that means and why it's so important.
So could you elaborate a little bit more about what that is and why it's so important to creating solid scientific research?
Sure.
Well, it's so important in the business of learning about the world to establish facts.
And there are various ways to do that.
Now, we have different ways of obtaining knowledge.
Some of it is through pure logic, so we don't need to go out and do experiments.
But some of it, some of the knowledge we gain...
Is through the empirical method.
So that's using our observations.
And we always have to accept that that's limited to the senses that we have.
So what we can see, what we can feel, what we can taste, what we can hear, etc.
And that's when the empirical method is what we use.
So with the scientific method, this is a process of establishing facts through those empirical means.
But it's very important whenever we do science is to make sure that we are able to control the experiments and therefore know that we are dealing with that the observations that we are witnessing are specific to a certain variable that we are able to manipulate.
So in the case of many of these scientific experiments...
We have an independent variable.
So that's the thing that we can control.
And in the case of microbiology, that would be like the bacterial cells or the fungal cells.
And then we have a dependent variable.
So that's like the observation.
So do we see them attacking other tissue?
Or do we see them causing a specific disease like tuberculosis, etc.?
Now, the whole thing with virology completely comes to pieces because there's no independent variable.
They can't go out and find the particles as described, get them by themselves, and then use them in an experiment to record the dependent variable.
So people find this hard to believe, but as it stands, virology...
Cannot be considered a scientific pursuit because of the complete lack of the independent variable and the fact that all of their experiments, like the animal experiments, the genomics, the PCR, etc., so-called diagnostics, it's none of it scientific because there's absolutely no way to control these experiments and no independent variable.
So just to confirm to people, again, what I said, Near the start.
They did not go out and find these things.
They did not take sick people, take blood samples and sputum samples, etc., and find these so-called viruses.
That never happened.
Instead, they've resorted to a whole series of pseudoscientific processes to say that, oh, the virus model is valid because we have these cell culture experiments or we have these antibody results, etc.
But, yeah.
No controls, not scientific.
Again, I can tell I'm going to say this again and again.
This is so deja vu because you're describing the importance of having an independent variable.
There isn't an independent variable or a control group in vaccine safety science either.
They're tested either against a known toxic compound or they're tested against a previously approved vaccine.
But there's no inert placebo in any vaccine trial.
With the exception of the, you know, Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19.
They used a saline placebo.
It's the first one in decades.
But without that independent variable, right, without that control group, you don't have a clean study.
Correct.
And exactly the analogy here is that the so-called gold standard for discovering viruses, and this was developed in the 1940s and the 1950s, is the cell culture technique.
So this is when they take a cell line in a laboratory and they have to add various things, antibiotics and antifungals, etc.
Fetal bovine serum usually, plus or minus other constituents.
And then they add the sample.
But the sample that they're adding is something like sputum.
Now, sputum is a mixture of hundreds and thousands of different things.
I mean, you've got all sorts of...
You know, microbial species in there, you've got human cells in there, you've got whatever the person inhaled recently, could be pollen, dust, other toxins, etc.
And then they mix that sputum sample with the cell culture line and they say, look at that, the cell culture line died.
And then they tell you, oh, we did a mock infection or a control infection.
And to that one, we didn't add any sample.
We just did the cell culture line and added, you know, the fetal bovine serum, etc.
And you're looking at it going, like you mentioned, with the vaccine studies, but that's not a proper control.
Right.
How could you possibly tell?
What's the independent variable?
Right.
Yeah, there's too many things in it.
And it is exactly the same.
So with this, you can look at it and say, well, there's a number of reasons why that cell culture might break down.
And they'll claim that that's caused by a vaccine because they're still adding antibiotics.
They're still adding all of these other things, which, you know, they're starving the cells, et cetera.
And yeah, similar problem with the vaccine studies where...
You know, I think like with Gardazil, when they were not using an inert comparison, they were using toxic chemicals.
Yep, they were using amorphous aluminum hydroxy sulfate, which is a known neuro and cytotoxin.
Absolutely.
Now you can't inject...
We know that injecting aluminium into people is an extremely bad idea and it will cause side effects.
But then they can say, well, you know, the side effects were comparable in the two groups and stuff.
Yeah, and a similar problem in virology with the so-called control experiments they do.
There's no way to identify what actually caused the experimental result because they're mixing up too many variables.
Yeah.
The parallels are shocking here when you talk about it.
I'm like, oh my gosh.
I'm more familiar with this than I had realized because what you're describing is exactly what we've been dealing with in the medical liberty movement all this time.
It's helping people understand the importance of these differences and how it's tainted from the beginning.
Everything produced from that idea is questionable because it wasn't properly studied in the first place.
Yeah.
One of the things that I hear when people are considering this idea of no virus is because it really does, in the same way that considering the idea that vaccines are maybe not as safe or maybe not as effective as they've been blasted through all media for decades now, questioning the very existence of a virus, it really sets up people's resistance.
And the number one thing I hear as pushback, and I'm sure you hear it all the time, is the observable contagion aspect.
How do you explain, if there's no viruses, the idea that people who've been in close contact come down with similar or identical symptoms to something, and then it passes?
How does that get explained, if it's not a virus?
Yeah, this is certainly one we encounter all the time.
I would imagine so.
Yeah, yeah, and we have so much information on this, and on our website, Sam's made specific videos about things such as measles.
You know, smallpox, herpes, etc.
And what we tend to do is, one thing we do is go back to the pivotal studies.
And what's amazing is that they tell you that these conditions are incredibly contagious, incredibly infectious.
You'll hear that they'll claim that if you're in the room with someone with chickenpox, that everybody in the room who's in there for 20 seconds could potentially, quote, catch the disease.
This is simply not true.
They tried that, like, over the last century.
They've tried all of these contagion studies.
They don't work.
So things like chickenpox and measles were never shown to transmit by bringing people into contact with each other and potentially kissing or coughing and exchanging fluids, etc.
Nothing happens.
That fails universally in their experiments.
So what they did is they resorted to other unnatural exposure routes.
So one of them were things like chickenpox and measles was to find a child who had the so-called specific disease and they might have some lesions on their skin, some vesicles.
They would stick a needle in and extract that fluid and then inject it directly into another child or into a monkey.
That was a smallpox vaccine.
Then they'd say, well, this other child developed a skin reaction, so therefore it's contagious.
And you think, what?
That's not a natural exposure route.
And it did not replicate the condition because they've just got a skin reaction.
And they're saying that the skin reaction looked similar to the child that had the chickenpox or the measles.
But again, that's not a valid model because nobody in nature gets injected with fluids from another person.
And there are so many problems with that.
Again, too many variables.
It's like a blood transfusion.
You can't have an unmatched blood transfusion that could kill a person.
And it's not because there's viruses or germs.
It's simply because the proteins from another person may be recognized as foreign or unwanted by your body, and you'll have a very serious reaction.
So these sort of experiments they did do not show transmission at all.
Now, the other thing is, There's a great book out.
It was published by our Australian friend Daniel Reuters last year.
It's called Can You Catch a Cold?
It is the biggest treatise ever dealing with alleged contagious conditions, particularly focused on colds and flus.
And Daniel has systematically gone through over 200 of the published studies.
That have appeared in the scientific literature since the early 1900s.
And he's done a scientific analysis of the entire thing.
And the mode, i.e.
the most common result for all of these experiments, is no transmission whatsoever.
And they were doing extreme things, like getting people to cough all over each other.
They were taking mucus from one person and sticking it in the throats of others.
They were injecting sometimes blood into other people to see if that would replicate the condition.
And it's a failure.
This just doesn't happen.
So there is no experimental evidence backing that stuff up.
And, yeah, we're left with people's anecdotal stories of things like, well, I remember in 1962 when my entire class came down with chickenpox.
And we're like, well, that should have been written up or recorded because it does not appear in scientific literature.
Nothing like that ever appears there.
And I could easily counter with the story of when I was 10 or 11 years old, I was diagnosed with chickenpox and I was in a household of six and not one of my siblings became unwell or got sick.
I was in a class of about 29 or 30 students, not one other person.
As far as I'm aware, nobody else in the school got sick.
The family physician was adamant that that's what I had, but for some reason, nobody else picked it up.
So you can see the anecdotal stories are not useful.
We have to go to the scientific literature, and the scientific literature shows that this notion of contagion is false.
And if people say, well, I looked up Wikipedia and it said that...
The transmission of chickenpox was established in this year and they'll cite a paper.
What you have to do is go to that paper and look at the methodology and you'll see that it was not a natural exposure method.
Universally, it will be some bogus thing like injecting fluids straight into a person.
Or taking these ridiculous mixtures and pouring it into monkeys' lungs.
So for instance, they do this kind of thing with the alleged SARS-CoV-2 and they did it back in 2003 with SARS-1.
So they claimed that there were coronaviruses causing these conditions.
And what they did is they took mixtures of biological goop and...
Injected huge volumes directly into monkeys' lungs.
Okay, so whenever you do that, you're going to get a pneumonitis.
That's just normal because lungs are not designed to have fluid directly.
Again, they did no controls.
They didn't put a comparable mixture into other monkeys' lungs to see if that would cause a reaction minus the alleged virus, etc.
So these are the sorts of experiments we have in the literature, and this is what they're claiming.
It proves the contagious element.
So, yeah, I just encourage people to get beyond the anecdotal stories and look at the actual evidence and also consider that people do get sick in clusters, but there are different reasons for that.
And an obvious example would be that we all go out to a restaurant and...
Everyone at the table decides to order the chicken curry and next day everybody's got diarrhoea and vomiting.
Now, we don't say that those people all infected each other.
What happened is they got toxic food, food that was not properly handled or prepared.
It has nothing to do with, quote, germs.
They might be present because the food's, you know, broken down or not fit for human consumption.
But that's an example where you'd say, Well, all of those people shared the same table at the same time.
And by the next day, they were all sick.
So that's why you see clusters of illness.
And there are many, many factors.
And many of us that have done this research have put forward reasons for why people get sick in clusters.
So sometimes it can be something simple like that.
You track it down to some bad food.
And other times it's more difficult.
Like you get a household.
That gets sick in the middle of winter, and it can be tricky to work out exactly what happened, but you have to keep in mind that that household has the same water source, they are eating the same food, they're under the same psychological stresses, their house may have mould problems, which is causing release of toxic chemicals into the air.
There are all sorts of things why people might get sick in clusters.
Yeah, even though it's anecdotal, it's hard to move past that anecdotal because I haven't met a human ever that hasn't had the anecdotal experience of what would appear to be contagion of being around someone, you know, like in families.
I have children.
I don't know if you have children, but I have children.
And so they come home from school after being around all the kids and they have something and then you're caring for them and then you come down with something similar.
So if it's not a viral contagion...
Like, what do you propose is happening, like, in that scenario?
Like, let's say I send my two-year-old to school, and they come home with a snotty nose and a chesty cough, and then I am washing my hands and taking care of them, and they're eating maybe different foods than I am.
But it is the same water source, and then I come down with something, and then the next week my husband comes down with something.
Like, what's the proposed idea if it's not a virus?
It's so interesting, Carrie, because going back a decade when my wife Sam and I both believed in germ theory and contagion, we had the same issue.
Right.
It's a barrier.
Yeah.
Our kids are all homeschooled now.
We don't send them to school at all.
But I know what you mean, that they would go to the kindergarten and seemingly pick something up and then they'd come home and I'd be thinking, oh my goodness, they're bringing something into our house.
us now we're all going to get sick and it wasn't until we actually did the research into the nature of contagion and whether there are infectious entities do you know that completely passed and we got to the point where our kids might have a runny nose etc and And they would want to come and give you a kiss or a cuddle.
And you'd be completely okay with it because you no longer believed in this concept of contagion.
And it was incredible.
It was almost like overnight for us that we never, ever got sick in that fashion anymore.
But, yeah, there are definitely things at play.
Now, what we need to know here is that how they change the definition of words.
So contagion today has been deceptively changed to mean something else.
Nowadays, it means the transmission of disease via microbes or via so-called germs.
That is not the original definition of contagion if we go back a few hundred years.
The original definition comes from, I think it derives from Latin, but it means a corrupting or bad influence.
And it's been known for a long time that when we're around people, we can definitely be affected by them.
And it comes down, it can be anything.
Like sometimes you can be around someone who keeps saying something or doing something and you get a headache.
Now, that's not because they've passed on a contagious germ.
It's just because of their presence.
It's, in the old terms, a corrupting presence.
So there are definite things that can happen when we're around other people and we can be influenced by them in many different ways.
People have put forward, like I say, our friend Daniel Reuters, who wrote Can You Catch a Cold?
In his book, he actually outlines some of the reasons why this might be so.
So I'd encourage people to look at his work.
His website is humanly.com, and there's lots of free resources there.
And his book, Can You Catch a Cold?, is unbelievably good.
I would suggest to people taking a look at some of the theories as to why we get sick when we're around other people.
Interestingly, Daniel uncovered studies where they just told people that you're coming into contact with someone who's sick and you may well get sick.
And the person would sometimes, within hours, report that they indeed were coming down with the same illness.
And then they disclosed to the person, That person wasn't actually sick.
We just wanted to see what your reaction was.
And within half an hour, symptoms would resolve.
So it's incredible, isn't it, that we all like to think of ourselves as not psychologically influenced by things in that way.
But Daniel's work clearly shows that many times that does happen.
That's simply the environment we're in.
It causes us to experience certain perceptions, and sometimes that manifests as what we would call illness.
In social psychology, there's a lot of research about that too, about almost the contagion of emotional states and the contagion of energetic states.
And there's a whole field of studying in energy medicine, of watching how someone's bioelectric aura, because all humans are bioelectric, we create our own energy field.
How that influences and can change someone else's energetic aura.
So I could see how this would be another exchange of something from a complex organism like us that we're not observing with our eyes that's still happening that could not be, you know, from a virus.
But I mean, yeah, that contagion, that anecdotal experience of having that is my biggest barrier when I'm talking to people about this idea.
But I like your What are some of the top theories from the gentleman who wrote the How to Catch a Cold book?
Do you have the top one or two that you know, just so our listeners can hear it now before they read the book?
About what causes...
Yeah, about what can explain that appearance of contagion.
You need to know the specifics of each case.
In Daniel's book, he talks about in Japan, last century.
There was a town that there was this outbreak of what they thought was a contagious disease.
And, you know, people seemingly came into contact with others and then they were trying to work out the quote incubation phase and all this kind of thing and coming up with their various theories.
In the end, it turned out that they were poisoned, that there'd been a toxic spell and that one by one they were getting poisoned.
So that was specific in that case was there was a poison just slowly, you know, affecting the community.
Other times he talks about, I can't remember if it was in an African country.
There was an outbreak of laughing at a girl's school.
And one by one, the girls got into uncontrollable laughter to the point where they couldn't be in the classroom and had to go home.
But then another girl would start laughing uncontrollably.
Again, they thought that something was passing around, infecting these girls.
And that was clearly some sort of psychological thing where when we're around people who start laughing or looking like they're amused, sometimes we find it hard not to join in.
So in that sense, it's infectious.
So that's another example.
And many times, as I say, just the expectation.
Just around the end of World War II, they set up a common cold unit that not many people know about in the United Kingdom.
And that operated for around 40 years.
And they did all sorts of experiments on people because they basically failed to transmit the common cold.
The whole idea of the unit was that they were going to work out Why colds, quote, transmitted and whether they could invent a vaccine for the common cold, all this kind of stuff.
40 years and they basically came up with absolutely nothing apart from they said they discovered 200 viruses, which obviously we would contest that they didn't.
But anyway, some of the experiments they did just involved putting people into a dark room and making coughing sounds and then spraying water onto their face.
And because of the expectation that they had just been exposed to something, quote, infectious, some of the people within hours would develop runny noses, sore throats, etc., when they had simply been sprayed with water.
So, again, an example there of an expectation of what was going to happen, that they thought that they had been exposed to something potentially dangerous.
So, yeah, it's really, on that account, it's really...
And unfortunately, yeah, we do get people contact us and say, oh, but in 1978, I was in this, and it's so vague, the information, that you're like, well, we can't really comment because nobody took any samples, nobody recorded anything, nobody wrote down any data for us.
So, yeah, and the anecdotal stuff, unfortunately, we're all heavily swayed by it.
And I'm aware of this from my own medical practice because...
And when I was working in the system, in my clinics, I thought I was writing a lot of prescriptions every day.
And the work I did extensively was musculoskeletal, so I dealt with a lot of pain problems that people had.
And I estimated how many prescriptions a day I was writing because I thought, this is taking up so much of my time.
And I just did an audit over one week of my clinics.
And I was writing...
Far fewer than I thought.
I thought I was writing 20 a day.
It turned out I was writing about four a day.
But if you would have asked me today, I would have said 20 a day.
But because I did an audit on myself and actually wrote down the data, I can say, no, it was about four a day.
So, yeah, a lot of problems with these anecdotal stories.
Yeah, it sounds like what you're describing reminds me of the research behind the placebo effect.
There was a doctor who thought he had more morphine, and his nurse told him he did, but he didn't, and so he injected these patients after war, you know, with what they thought was morphine.
They both believed it was, and it worked, but then they found out after the fact that it wasn't, and that was the birth of the placebo effect, and it demonstrated the power of the mind and the power of...
Us to be kind of impressed upon an endpoint.
So it sounds like you're describing the placebo effect is, you know, you weren't given a drug, but you're having the reactions of a drug.
And it sounds like the power of suggestion that you are getting a cold or having an infection of some kind that that could suggest to you and manifest those symptoms all on its own, separate from any external impetus.
Is that what you're describing?
Totally, yeah.
And, you know, we have that in some ways, I think, with regard to the whole vaccine thing.
The placebo effect is almost protective because I think if the population knew what they were being injected with, you know, being injected with 850 micrograms of aluminium or in the old days, thimerizole.
Thimerizole still available in flu vaccines.
Yeah, yeah.
Got to be good for you.
All of these things.
Because occasionally you talk to people and they're not really aware of the problems with vaccines and they might say to you, yeah, I felt really terrible for about 48 hours afterwards and I felt like I had the flu and stuff.
And you actually think to yourself, my goodness, if they actually knew what they were injected with, I think their reaction would be far worse than that.
But because they think that they've been injected with something that's going to be beneficial, I'm sure it mitigates.
The effect and, you know, they get a reaction that's...
Far, you know, less severe than if you said to them, well, no wonder you feel sick because this is what you've actually been injected with.
And I know it's a problem, you know, when people wake up and think back to, oh, my goodness, what have I injected myself with over the last few decades, or particularly their children, you know, and they start looking at their children differently and saying, well, maybe that's because of this and et cetera.
So, yeah, our perceptions are so important.
I would just say for people just to be so careful with their anecdotal stories and to see whether it stacks up scientifically.
Yeah, I mean, we definitely deal with our own issues of anecdotal because we have millions upon millions of parents and individuals who describe getting a vaccine and that we're being the same again, right?
Most likely because of the toxicity, because you are correct.
I love to be that person to let people know what's included in the vaccines.
I have an entire career of teaching people what is in the vaccines, what are the pitfalls of the system itself, and how does that affect you as a potential or real recipient?
And I run into lots of cognitive dissonance of people who are deeply resistant.
Even when I show them from the manufacturer website themselves, these are the ingredients, these are the excipients.
This is the process of extracting those ingredients.
You know, this is how you get bovine fetal serum.
This is how you get WI38 diploid cells and MRC5 diploid cells.
This is the process of that.
They have a natural resistance because of that cultural conditioning, the same around virology.
It's so embedded into our societal fabric to accept these without question that even presenting a well-founded, well-researched question, an answer to that, a solution to that question, it can be very challenging to get people to accept it.
And so I'm glad that you're here sharing all of this because these viewpoints need to be explored.
Before they're just out of hand dismissed.
Yeah, and I'd just like to say to the audience that this is not a casual claim that we've made or that other critics of virology have made.
This is only after years and years of research and collaborating with other individuals and groups around the world.
And, you know, for instance, in 2022, I published a 29,000-word essay, which I gave to the public for free, and it's been looked at just on our website alone almost 300,000 times and has gone around the world and been translated into different languages.
It's really got around, and that is a formal critique of the entire virus model.
So we're not just looking at one or two inconsistencies and going, uh-huh, we've got them because that doesn't add up.
We're looking at everything.
We're looking at all, and we take the very best evidence that they've got.
We don't take their worst evidence and say, We'll straw man this whole thing.
We take their pivotal studies, so their studies which say that this is the gold standard or this is the day that we discovered SARS-CoV-2.
We take their number one publications, the ones that everyone else is citing, and we critique them.
So, yeah, and until people have really looked at it, you know, it's almost amusing because...
We've done this professionally for so long and published books on the subject, but we get the same.
You can be in a conversation with a person who within 30 seconds is going, you're wrong because they discovered this or they discovered that or you're wrong because I used to work in a laboratory and I know these techniques and stuff.
Unfortunately, it's usually...
People are just unaware of it.
And what's been really nice is when somebody contacts us and says, look, I heard about you guys.
I thought you were cranks.
And I downloaded Mark's essay and I read it over a weekend and I was getting prepared to write a refutation.
And I got to the end of it and I was just absolutely stunned.
I cannot believe the whole virus model.
It depends on the published literature, which does not support it at all.
The whole thing just falls apart.
We have that exact same experience here at TAPC when people actually read what we've sent them and actually listen to what we're saying.
They always have a very emotional reaction.
you probably experienced it too, because it's, it's very worldview shattering, which can be challenging for someone to accept, but it causes them to rethink the lens they're using to look at this situation because the information is all there in front of you.
And everyone's just been repeating truths that they were told from the generation before that were also not verified.
And so it just becomes this, you know, canon of mythology almost.
And I think too, the...
Research we've done into germ theory and pathogens and virology, it actually dovetails beautifully with all the people who before us have looked into the so-called science of vaccines, etc.
Which is always strange to us when we get resistance from some of the individuals and groups because we're actually saying, look, our work dovetails with yours.
The reason the vaccines don't work is because the foundational problems of germ theory and virology, and that's why everything else downstream from it doesn't add up either.
So, you know, we feel the same.
Like, we recommend books like Dissolving Illusions to people.
Excellent book.
Yeah, I don't know how you would get to the end of that book and still be thinking about using vaccines.
But we know that, you know, someone like Susan Humphreys who, you know, we recommend her book and we've interviewed Roman and get along with him fine, but we know someone like Susan's quite resistant to the sort of work that we do.
And we're sort of extending an olive branch and saying, no, no, no, it dovetails beautifully.
But I think there's that...
There are differences, obviously, because some people who are satisfied that vaccine, quote, science is complete nonsense, that they're not safe, they're not effective, might still have other beliefs like things are contagious or germs do cause disease and that you have to do these measures to protect yourself against it.
So, yeah, I can understand why there are differences in the worldview, but I think we should always emphasize that they do dovetail.
The reason that both groups are consistent with each other is evident from, I think, our research, which goes upstream and looks at the foundational science.
And also some of the...
Establishment, for lack of a better word.
Some of the same tools of obfuscation are the same.
They changed the definition of virus over time.
They changed the definition of contagion over time.
They've changed the definition of vaccine multiple times to fit whatever they were saying at the time because the original definition didn't pan out because that's not at all what happened in reality.
And so they changed it and shifted it over time.
And so the definition from where it began to where it sits now is unrecognizable.
But the word is the same.
And so the memory of people having that word in the common canon is the same, and it does.
It psychologically creates this theme of continuity where maybe it doesn't belong to exist, right?
Look, I cannot emphasize enough to our audience how this changing of definitions is being used to manipulate entire populations.
Absolutely.
And we keep seeing it over and over again.
2024, so start of last year, we published our latest book called The Final Pandemic.
While we were researching that book, our first chapter, we wanted to cover the concept of allopathic medicine.
So that's the mainstream medical system that people are aware of.
It's been prominent for about 100 years now, known as cut, poison, burn, basically, for surgery.
Drugs and chemicals and radiation and put forward as the best, you know, or most powerful form of medicine.
That was what we were trained up in and have abandoned and gone into more naturopathic stuff now.
But while we were researching that book, they changed the meaning of allopathy.
And it basically went from admitting what it was, which was suppressing symptoms, cutting things out or giving things that suppress symptoms.
And they changed the definition in 2022 to evidenced-based.
They added that into the definition.
That is completely inappropriate.
It does not mean because it's mainstream and allopathic that it's evidence-based, but you can see people looking up the definition and go, oh, okay, cool, this means that they've already established the evidence for it.
So complete nonsense.
Another word that has tricked people massively is the virologist's use of the word isolation.
It was interesting.
So 2020 was when we first went public saying to people that there's no evidence for the existence of SARS-CoV-2 as an infectious particle.
And in fact, there's no evidence for any viruses.
And people would send us a paper with the title Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in the title.
And they would say, but that...
They isolated it here.
Now, I think people have in their mind a vision that those scientists went out and took samples or did an experiment in the lab and they physically got these particles and isolated.
Because most people, if you ask them what isolation means, you know, they told us in 2020, you have to isolate from each other.
Now, in that setting...
They knew exactly what it meant.
It meant that you're not allowed to come into contact with other people.
You had to be by yourself without others.
Now, in virology, they changed the definition because they did originally, 100 years ago, they did try and physically isolate these particles, so separate out particles that they said were viruses, but they couldn't do it.
So around the middle of last century, they simply just changed the definition.
And they said that if we observe certain things in a test tube or in a test well, like the cells breaking down, that's isolation.
And you're looking at it going, what?
But you've added more things.
You haven't taken things out and separated them.
You haven't purified anything and physically isolated.
None of that went on at all.
They simply, because they couldn't find viruses, they just came up with a new definition.
Of isolation.
So you'll hear a virologist say things like, you know, Sam's used them before in her presentations.
And they'll say things like, an isolate is a virus that we've isolated.
That term means nothing because they've twisted the whole meaning.
We have the same thing, again, the same thing in vaccine science.
And for those of us that are listening, I really hope you're taking notes about where you can get more information.
You can get more information about Dr. Bailey and his wife's work at drsambailey.com.
You can read more about the idea of contagion through the book How to Catch a Cold.
And I encourage you to watch this podcast with thoughtfulness and an open mind and to consider the idea.
The same way that you considered the idea of whether vaccines were safe and effective, to consider the existence of viruses as a true identifiable separate entity as well.
In our next episode with Dr. Bailey, we're going to be diving more into his journey with the COVID-19 pandemic and everything that happened there as that created a big spark for him.
But first, I wanted to give you guys this part one foundational piece to be introduced to the idea that viruses perhaps do not exist as we thought that they did or were told that they did.
And so I want to...
Thank Dr. Mark Bailey for making himself available today to talk about these foundational pieces.
And I'm very much looking forward to our next episode in which we can dive deeper into the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic lockdown nonsense that we experienced globally to have his insight on that.
And I thank you all so much for keeping an open mind and an open heart and being willing to be a critical thinker.
Thank you so much, Dr. Bailey, for joining us today.
Thank you, Carrie.
And just one small correction.
Daniel Reuter's book is called Can You Catch a Cold?
Oh, Can You Catch a Cold?
Sorry.
Yeah, I know.
My apologies.
It's one of those tricky titles, yeah.
And for Sam and I, our latest book is The Final Pandemic, and it covers some of the similar, there's quite a bit of crossover between those two books with our colleague, Daniel.
So thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
Thank you for listening to the Shot Callers podcast.
Please, if you found value in this content, rate us and share the podcast with a friend.
It's a great way to get the message out and to empower everyone to make informed decisions.
▲
Export Selection