All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 25, 2025 - Jim Fetzer
58:07
Dr. Mark Bailey - Do Viruses Exist? - PART 2
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
You know, we looked at Australia and their police were opening fire on their own populations with rubber bullets and gassing them and stuff.
And we were horrified because that was, apart from one incident in New Zealand, that virtually never happened here.
Thank you so much for joining us for another episode of Shot Callers.
My name is Carrie Bigford and I am the Outreach Director with Texans for Vaccine Choice.
And we are back with Dr. Mark Bailey, who is a vocal proponent or vocal opponent of the virus theory and is here to share more of his wisdom with us.
Dr. Mark Bailey, for those that are joining us for the first time.
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 even the virus model itself.
He subsequently became one of virology's most prominent critics.
With his wife, Dr. Sam Bailey, the couple have made their extensive collection of medical and health information freely available through their website, drsambailey.com.
I encourage you to do more research on your own.
And without further ado, I am very excited to welcome back into the studio Dr. Mark Bailey.
Thank you so much for joining us again today.
Thank you so much for having me back, Carrie.
I really enjoyed that first discussion, so keen to get into it again today.
Me too.
For those of you that didn't watch that first one, I encourage you to go back and watch that first episode, as it does have a lot of foundational pieces behind the theory that viruses do not exist to begin with, that will help you more fully understand the information that we're going to go over next, which is how the theory of no viruses interplays with the COVID-19 pandemic era.
So, on that note...
What led you to really begin to research whether viruses existed?
I know that it was the COVID pandemic, but what sparked that for you, Dr. Bailey?
My medical practice in 2016 and at that stage I had seen enough of allopathic medicine to know that I didn't want to be part of it anymore.
I was really concerned with the amount of damage that the medical system was doing to the population and even worse I felt like a lot of the individuals and groups within the medical system who were making the most money And getting the most rewards were actually doing the most amount of damage.
And it was the people that were trying to help and do the best for their communities that were getting shut down.
And yeah, so by 2016, I'd been in the system for two decades and I decided that was it.
I got out.
My wife, Sam, I asked her at that time to get out of the system as well, but she's six years younger, so she was at an earlier stage of her career.
And she wanted to stay in the system and see if she could make improvements from the inside.
And she even became a...
TV presenter in New Zealand.
So I'm sure the network TV regrets doing that now because of what happened.
But they put her on.
She became a very, very popular medical presenter on television.
And then she decided also to start up her own YouTube channel.
And that was at the end of 2019. Around, obviously, December 2019, January 2020, we start hearing these rumours of something happening in China, Wuhan, there's some sort of possible coronavirus they're talking about or outbreak going on,
and we're seeing all these strange images of people being shut in buildings and they're spraying chemicals out of trucks as they go down the street, people in hazmat suits, and it all looks pretty crazy.
And by early 2020, so Sam starts just, you know, talking in her videos about common medical issues and starts building up a following pretty quick from scratch.
And before long, people start asking her, what is this whole thing going on in Wuhan?
And she asked me, and I'd been happily out of things for four years at this stage, had nothing to do with medicine anymore.
And she got inundated with all these questions about what was going on.
So she said to me, can you help me start researching these topics?
Because I don't really know about virology and pandemics, etc.
And of course, so I start doing that.
In March, we get the WHO announcing that there's a, quote, pandemic.
And both Sam and I are going, what are you talking about?
There's nothing happening apart from these farcical stories that you can quickly find they can't back up with proper evidence or, you know, the complete overreactions or media hype to what's actually going on.
And then shortly afterwards, New Zealand, where we live.
Goes into this crazy lockdown, one of the most severe in the world, where you're not supposed to do anything.
You're not allowed to move, can't leave, etc.
You're only allowed to buy what they deem are essential things like food.
Everything else is off limits now.
And we, at that point, like the eve of the lockdown, we started asking our neighbours and friends, are you going to go along with this?
Because this is farcical.
This is clearly what they're talking about.
There is no evidence that we're in this health crisis or this emergency.
And we were stunned because 99% of people said, yep, it's all legitimate and stuff.
And we realized quickly why that was.
They were scared.
They had heard these stories that there's this deadly virus that people in China are walking around and dropping dead.
They're showing us images of people lying on the pavement, seemingly dropped.
Dead suddenly.
Overrun hospitals, people in body bags.
And people are panicking.
And I'm talking to doctors who work in the local hospitals and saying, well, what are things like?
And they say, well, you know, just normal, but we're getting ready for the wave.
And we're like, what wave?
There's no, you know, look around the community.
There's nothing happening.
So, yeah, despite the fact that...
You know, places like New Zealand and many countries in the world, we're in this crazy lockdown situation, but clearly nothing out of the ordinary is happening, apart from a fear campaign, apart from complete nonsense coming out of the mainstream media, stories from northern Italy and China saying, oh my goodness, it's out of control and everyone's dying and stuff.
You know, a lot of stuff which would later be shown to be false.
You know, I said to Sam, this is so much fraud.
There has to be, you know, what is the depths?
How deep does this go?
So we started getting the official reports from the WHO, one of the first ones that came out in early 2020 about the situation in Wuhan.
And I read the entire document and I said to Sam, there is no evidence in here that a virus exists.
Absolutely nothing.
These are just, you know, opinions.
You know, consensus reports, etc.
I said there's nothing in here that points to evidence for a virus.
Then we discovered the book Virus Mania, and Sam subsequently, later that year, she actually became a co-author for the next edition of that book, but at that stage it was new to us, and by April I sat Sam down and said, I've looked at enough virology now to know that this is so bad in terms of the...
You know, the lack of evidence, the lack of scientific methods that they've used that I don't think, obviously SARS-CoV-2 doesn't exist.
And I said, I don't think any viruses, including HIV, exist, looking at the research that's been done before.
So that was really the precipitant, was this crazy situation in early 2020, coinciding with Sam launching her YouTube channel, which...
That went crazy.
Like at one point she was getting, I think at peak she was getting 5,000 subscribers a day were joining her channel before we got hit with the censorship algorithms and they shut down because the moment she started telling people that there's no virus, that they are going to bring out a vaccine eventually that is completely bogus, that you shouldn't take, obviously then we hit the censorship algorithms.
She's still got over 300,000 subscribers, but there's very little we can actually publish of our material on YouTube.
We have the same issue with our YouTube channel for even our podcast.
And we knew, Carrie, that was one of the things.
We knew every time we got close to the target, the video would get struck down, sometimes within minutes.
So we found that there was the big things.
One was...
If you talked about their diagnostics, like PCR not being appropriate, that would get hit pretty hard, but sometimes you could slip it through.
If you mentioned vaccines in a negative light, that was sure to trigger a landmine.
And then we found, but for us, the worst one in terms of censorship, which got us completely off things like Facebook and stuff.
they can't even post our links, was saying that there's no evidence for the existence of SARS-CoV-2.
So if we tried to upload a video, sometimes that would last about five or six minutes.
And obviously the AI can pick up what words would be.
Yeah, they're scanning for words.
Yep.
And the videos, we were getting strikes within minutes, basically, for just going through virology papers and explaining why there was no evidence for SARS-CoV-2.
So in 2020, that just kept...
Giving us motivation that we were on the right track.
And we thought, why is this such a problem that you're not allowed to criticise vaccines and you're not allowed to criticise germ theory and virology?
And we said, all right, well, that's where we'll obviously focus.
You know, like we talked about in the first episode I did with you, for many people they focus on the so-called vaccine science.
We went upstream and stayed focused on the whole idea of viruses and germs and the validity of things like the PCR, et cetera, and diagnostics.
And, yeah, so that's how we...
We really got into it, and within a short time, as I say, Sam became a co-author of the best-selling book, Virusmania, with her German co-authors, Torsten and Klaus, and the late Stefano Scoglio.
We were rapidly immersed into this.
And when we first got into this in 2020, the no virus people were very obscure.
There weren't many prominent critics out there.
There was the Perth Group in Australia who had written extensive amounts of critiques of the HIV model.
And originally they were published in the scientific literature before they got shut down.
And so there were a few groups around like that.
But there really weren't that many prominent individuals talking about it.
And within a very short time, we found ourselves at the tip of the spear and people were really looking to us to critique all of this information coming out about COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2.
Yeah, that's an incredible story.
It must have been shocking to have done this research and come to this conclusion.
After all those years of automatic buy-in, and especially have it being so counter to the generally accepted narrative that not only are there viruses, but that this escaped because of gain-of-function research that enhanced a virus.
So how do you put that together?
Because like my country, America, I know you're in New Zealand.
We did a four-year, you know, the government, so there's a caveat for you.
The government investigated itself and determined...
Yes, I know we can laugh about that.
And they determined that the COVID virus came out of a Wuhan lab leak where they were doing gain-of-function research on this virus.
But if there's no virus, what happened?
We have done whole presentations on this because it's keeping people on the plantation, basically.
As you know, they need narratives.
Just like contagion's a barrier, this is the other barrier I come up with.
Totally.
And they know this and they have various narratives that they try and whatever works to keep people going.
So the whole gain of function within the no virus community, we call it gain of fiction because there's nothing to be gained with this stuff.
And yeah, I've written papers on this as well that people can download from our website, drsambailey.com.
I've written about the whole lab leak theory and how that was actually put into play in January 2020. So there were articles being published then saying that, oh, this is a lab leak and stuff, and then they pretended that, oh, we've got to suppress that story, even though it's been seen 1.6 million times, you know.
And, yeah, I document it right back to the very start of why it can't possibly be true.
So, yeah, so what we do for looking into these so-called gain-of-function claims, and this includes things like these historical, famous kind of incidents, you know, these so-called cover-ups like the smallpox, you know, accident in Communists.
We've got a whole video on this going back through the evidence and showing people that most of it's hearsay.
You can't get details about what actually happened and there are plenty of other reasons for why people might have got sick in that area that have nothing to do with alleged viruses.
The other thing we do is when they publish a paper, so there have been a few papers and one that caused, you know, this fake kind of controversy was the Ron Fuchier paper that said that they had, you know, created a more deadly version of the influenza virus.
Now that paper was, don't quote me on this, but it was around 2011. We mentioned it in one of our videos anyway.
If you look at that paper and, you know, you read the headline or read the commentaries that people have done about it and it's all this, oh my goodness, they took an influenza virus and they made it more transmissible and more deadly, etc.
The experiment was just complete garbage.
They were basically putting samples, which they said contained viruses, up ferrets' noses.
And then they would kill the ferret, grind it up and take another sample from it and then stick it up another ferret's nose and grind that ferret up and then inject that into another ferret and keep repeating the process over and over again, these nonsensical, just cruel experiments that they do.
And then at the end of the experiment, they claimed that, well, look, we detected some new genetic sequences and some new proteins and therefore we've modified the, quote, virus.
And we just go back to her and say, hang on a minute, but they didn't show a virus at the start of the experiment, so they can't show one at the finish.
It's just repeating.
And injecting ground-up ferrets bound to have its own consequences.
Totally.
Yeah, this is not anything that's going to happen in nature.
And then after they've done this ferret grinding up business multiple times, they take some of this muck and then they introduce it by, you know, what we talked about in episode one.
Pouring this mixture straight into the lungs of an animal like a monkey and going, wow, it made the monkey really sick.
So obviously we've created an incredibly deadly virus here.
So this is the kind of basis.
So when people talk about gain-of-function or biolabs or the weaponization of these things, you actually have to go back to the publications and see what they actually say.
And if you look at the methodology, it quickly becomes apparent that there's no evidence that there's something that would transmit via the air or any other way and cause sickness in us or anything else in a natural setting.
You just can't extrapolate the findings.
I know.
And people will say things like, well, what happens in these biolabs and dah, dah, dah.
Yep.
We're aware of, we've traced like the grants that come from, um, you know, all of those things.
Totally.
Yeah.
We've followed, we've followed all of these pathways and looked at where the money goes and stuff.
And people say, well, why were they getting so much money?
Well, it could be anything from that they actually legitimately think that these are what the experiments show, because I know most virologists do believe that what they're doing is valid.
Most vaccinologists believe that what they're doing is valid also.
Absolutely, yeah.
And then you get other, it could just be money laundering.
It's like, you know, people back in the day thought that Bernie Madoff was running a successful hedge fund.
And where did the money go?
Went somewhere else.
Disappeared.
So there's all sorts of reasons why, you know, the biolab story doesn't add up.
But primarily for us, we focus on going back to the pivotal studies.
Which cause all the controversy and just showing people that if you think these methodologies are valid, then there's not much we can do because clearly they're unscientific and there's no basis to this entire story.
Because the vast majority of times we just see people saying things like, oh, but yeah, but the United States is up to dodgy things and Fort Detrick.
And we just say, well, what are they up to?
Oh, they're playing with pathogens and bioweapons.
Well, can you provide us any evidence whatsoever?
Because we'll look at the papers if you can show us that, but hearsay is not evidence.
Or people will say, oh, here's a photo of the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and look, they've got a dodgy freezer, and they've got 1,500 viruses in there.
And you're looking at the picture going, that picture's not evidence of viruses.
It's just a lab technician opening a freezer with samples.
That doesn't qualify as evidence that viruses exist.
Yeah, that could be samples of anything.
I encourage our audience to really go to their website, DrSamBailey.com, and watch some of their videos.
When I was watching the videos in preparation for this time today, and thank you for providing those.
It was wonderful to be able to do some background research more in depth.
There was a recurring theme.
Of using the viruses in the method of control.
And as I thought about that, I could see everyone's focused on like H5N1 right now, the avian bird flu, and then it was SARS-CoV-2, and then it was SARS-CoV-1, and then it was MERS. But the medical industrial complex has absolutely been using either the real or perceived existence of viruses as a control mechanism to get people to behave in a certain way.
All different types of behaviors are modified through this idea of these viral pathogens coming down that we have to be afraid of this invisible invader.
Could you elaborate more about that as a tool?
Yeah, well, we call it the virus is the cover story, basically, that something else is going on and they need a scapegoat to distract people.
And, look, there are various reasons for what happened, you know, why they staged COVID-19.
A lot of it has to do with late 2019 when there seemed to be an imminent financial collapse coming.
And, of course, after the big financial collapse around 2008. Nothing was fixed.
Basically, the system is exactly how it was.
The smoke and mirrors band-aid.
Credit expansion got worse than ever, and they have all sorts of terms like quantitative easing and stuff, but it's the same old, same old, that the monetary system is out of control, and it's not good for the public.
So clearly leading up to that point, they needed to distract people, and then we saw it subsequently that everything now, Cost of living increases around the world is being blamed on the, quote, pandemic.
They're not saying that in countries like New Zealand they've doubled the money supply, which is why we've got rampant inflation going on.
They blame it and say, well, there was nothing we could do about this natural disaster, COVID-19, et cetera.
So it's a very...
Convenient scapegoat.
Now, it's not like everyone's in on it because some people then say, well, how would you get millions of people to go along with it?
No, you don't.
99% of doctors don't know anything about virology.
That's just the fact of the matter, maybe a higher proportion than that.
So they don't know.
They just hear what's in the media and what other people are saying.
Most people in the public, if they hear something from a government official or a scientist, I mean, nowadays people are getting more sceptical of that, which is good.
But a lot of the time they just make a press announcement and that's enough to get people to be convinced that, oh, this is the reason why it's happening.
This is the reason why things are not good in our country is because we've got this pandemic.
Now, the pandemic industry, it serves so many vested interests that it's incredible.
And I think people, most people underestimate the size of the medical pharmaceutical industry.
I don't.
You probably don't, but many do.
I mean, we are talking about more than 10% of world GDP. So by itself, it is pretty much the biggest industry.
The very biggest industry in the world in terms of pure monetary numbers is the health insurance industry.
I think it's gone to about $6 trillion last year.
So we're talking trillion-dollar industries here.
Now, when you've got an industry that size and you've got narratives that are making money, People don't want to change them.
They have a vested interest.
That theory you'd said about the COVID-19 pandemic being introduced as a cover-up for the failure of the fiat money system, you're not the first guest I've had on Shot Callers who has made that same proposition.
I interviewed Ed Dowd, who was a, you know, formal financial actuary, and he was doing the data, you know, counting the numbers on the fallout from the COVID-19 vaccine campaign, all of the injuries and deaths and excess mortality that's resulted of it.
And when I asked him the same question, I asked you, why did they do this?
His response was identical to yours, that it was a way to cover up the death of the fiat money system and to provide cover for a change and shift in order.
You know, without having a total collapse be obvious.
Yeah, absolutely.
And I had friends who are not medical and not scientific-based.
They don't look into vaccines, etc.
But they knew in March 2020 that COVID was a fraud because they studied the markets and could see all the opportunities that were being created, particularly for the insiders.
And people were absolutely...
The one thing that happened during COVID that most people didn't realise was these wealth transfers that went from the public to...
It's the largest wealth transfer in history.
It is, yeah.
It's the largest wealth transfer in history.
A little bit about how the financial system works and how governments operate and how these corporations that basically run the world, they're experts at transferring wealth to themselves.
And the public was just fleeced and is now facing these terrible cost of living.
But yeah, another thing, and your audience will be particularly interested in this, the pharmaceutical industry in the early 2000s, they were aware that their model was failing, that there were no new products really coming onto the market that were going to sustain the entire industry like it had before.
There was a report published by PricewaterhouseCoopers around 2007, I think.
And it basically said to the pharmaceutical industry, if you want to keep going, there's only one way to do it, and it's through vaccines.
And you have to basically get vaccines into everybody, like not just kids on the childhood vaccination schedule.
You need to get them into adults and you need to have regular subscribers.
So you can't just have these one-off, they take one or two and that's it.
And they wanted to expand it into all sorts of things.
So, you know, these bogus things, vaccines are bogus anyway, but, you know, expanding into things like, oh, these will help prevent you from getting other psychiatric problems or they'll prevent you from getting these other...
Obesity vaccines.
All sorts of things, addiction, vaccines, yep, crazy kind of stuff.
But they were advising the industry, basically, and the other thing they said is that you're not going to succeed, probably, in getting people to pay for these products because they won't see the benefits of them because they're smart enough to decide whether they should spend their money on these products.
They said that you've got to get governments and third parties to pay for them.
And, I mean, we just saw that in the COVID era where we had countries like New Zealand.
We have 5 million people or so here.
The government went out and bought 30 million COVID shots.
You know, nobody's consulted about this in the public.
Like, nobody said, yeah, I agree to buy these shots and stuff.
So these massive transfers of wealth from the public to the pharmaceutical industry.
But with the whole virus and infectious disease model, it doesn't end there because it's not just vaccines.
It's antibiotics.
Antivirals, in quotes, medications.
That's not what they do, the anti-metabolic drugs, but they call them antivirals.
There's the face mask industry.
There's the hand sanitiser industry.
There's all of the legal people that get involved in this.
There's all of these vested interests that have become part of what we call the pandemic industry.
And for a lot of people, they get a lot of money out of it.
But for the majority, the pandemic industry is extremely harmful on, as you know, so many different accounts, whether it's financial, social, employment, psychological, et cetera.
It's so damaging.
But you have to remember that the vested interests really want to keep this model going.
And a lot of the model...
It relies on people believing in viruses and being scared of viruses and being in a position where they feel that they have got to give up their rights and their health decisions to someone else.
Yeah, for the illusion of safety.
We encounter that a lot in the medical liberty movement.
People who are afraid because they've been told to fear measles their entire lives.
They've been told to fear polio their entire lives.
Literature, sometimes even exemption forms in other states, not Texas.
Texas doesn't say that, but other exemptions in other states will start out with the sentence, vaccine's the greatest invention in the last 100 years of medicine, and they saved billions of lives worldwide.
And that's the opening sentence.
And so that's an example of the depth of the narrative and the depth of the cultural conditioning.
The depth of trying to get you to comply without critical thought or doing your own research, which is my always go-to response to anyone.
Do your own research.
Discover for yourself where the information is.
There's nothing more convicting than seeing it for yourself.
It's amazing, Carrie, that sentence that you used about vaccines being the greatest benefit, etc.
I have seen it as the opening sentence of an exemption form.
Do you know that Sam has used that claim because it came...
It comes from the CDC, I think, originally.
But we love that one because we always say at the end of the sentence, citation required.
Because when you go looking for the evidence, there is absolutely none.
There is no evidence.
Absolutely none.
I have hunted for years, just like you, and have not found a single shred of evidence to support that claim.
All we could find was that it goes back to a modelling study.
And the modelling study is so bizarre that it just assumes that vaccines are beneficial.
So the model starts with, yeah, vaccines are beneficial.
And then they plug it into their program and say, this is how many lives we've saved and this is how many illnesses we've presented.
And you're like going, but that's just tautological.
You've just started with that false premise and then it continues through your modelling.
Yeah, I mean, this is exactly what we find.
And what you found is exactly what we found when they say something like, you know, this is the most contagious virus or this virus has killed X number of people.
And we just say, well, where's the citation?
And then if there is a citation, we follow that one.
And if that one's got a citation, we follow that one.
And we go back and back and back.
And often we get back to an original article.
And people will be interested to know, I mean, with regard to, So doing that technique of when you keep going back through the citations.
So with the alleged existence of SARS-CoV-2.
Now, of course, everyone's aware these days that they have variants and they, you know, look at the genomes, et cetera, and they put them on the data banks like GSAID, et cetera.
And people say, well, that's the evidence that they are tracking and tracing these viruses because they keep finding these genetic sequences.
But what they don't realize is that these sequences are just built up on other sequences that they found previously.
And then someone comes out and says, oh, I found a similar sequence in my mixture, so it must be the same quote virus.
So what I did when I wrote my essay, A Farewell to Virology, is I went back.
Through the database, back and back and back to as far back as it would go.
And it ended up in the 1980s, so around 1982 to 1984. And that was when they put the first, quote, coronavirus on record on the genetic databank.
And I thought, well, this is interesting.
It doesn't go back any further than this.
This is it.
So I'm going to have a look at these papers, these pivotal papers.
I read these papers and they make the claim that they purified variants.
Now, for the audience, the variants are supposed to be the individual particles in the virus model, so the little submicroscopic particle with the protein-type coat and the genetic material.
So they said in this paper that they had purified these particles, and I thought, well, that's interesting because in the modern era, very few virologists even claim to purify.
Have attempted to purify any particles.
And then I had a look at the paper.
They had not purified anything.
They provided no confirmatory electron microscopy.
They provided no evidence that they did a control experiment.
They just had samples and were using an avian model where they said that there were viruses in there and then started detecting the genetic sequences.
But those genetic sequences were not shown to come from a virus.
But next thing you know, they put them onto the database in the 1980s.
And then since that time, everything leading up to SARS-CoV-2 has been based on those anti-scientific experiments from the 1980s.
So when you get this argument that we get so many times, well, how could they be wrong 20 million times when they keep finding SARS-CoV-2 around the world?
That this all stems from these pseudoscientific practices from the 1980s where they're just calling out bingo when they've got a mixture and they're detecting these genetic sequences or proteins.
Now, people will ask us, well, where do these sequences come from if they're not coming from a virus?
And you just have to look at the experiment and say, well, it could be from...
The mammalian cell lines.
It could be from the avian cell lines.
It could be from other microbes that are in the mixture.
It could be sequences that are expressed by cells that are under stress.
So we know that from the 1960s that the DNA, even the DNA, not just the RNA, but the DNA in cells like ours is not fixed.
It can change.
If the cells are under particular conditions, so you get the appearance of these new sequences.
So there are plenty of reasons why you will detect genetic sequences and proteins, but that is not evidence of viruses.
You have to go back to the original experiments.
Now, it's different when you've got a human cell.
Like, I could take a sample of blood from you and find some of your human cells in there.
I could get the cell by itself so that there's nothing else, and we could extract the genetic material and say, well, this is the material that came from you, belongs to you.
We can do it with bacteria.
We could take, say, E. coli, a common bacterium.
We could get it by itself, purify it, and then look at its genetic sequences.
We can do all these things.
Now, that's showing the provenance of the genetic sequences.
That's never been done in the history of virology.
They just assume that these sequences must be coming from these invisible particles, and that's the basis.
I called it turtles all the way down in my essay.
That's another great book.
Yeah, that is.
That's another great book.
Do you know that book came out after I'd written that essay, so if they borrowed it from me, I don't mind.
That's all right.
Hearing you talk about...
The way that genetics can change, it reminds me of another whole canon of research called epigenetics, which is the idea that certain genes can switch on and off based upon environmental factors.
And, you know, especially with the lens of trauma work or, you know, CPTSD trauma, things like that, you can actually change the way your cells react in which genes are coded on or off based on healing or changing those things.
And so hearing that that was the basis, For this virus, when there's already so many other known and accepted factors that influence the genetic expression, is very curious to me that that would be the basis.
Yeah, and it's, you know, not just genetic.
The sole provided explanation.
Yeah, and it's not just the genetic sequences, it's the proteins as well.
So, you know, in the SARS-CoV-2 COVID era, there was all this hype about spike protein, etc.
And people said, wow.
Yeah.
And look.
Now, there's nothing that interesting about this whole spike protein business because they were described, that's just a protein sequence that is found in these mixtures.
So you can go back to experiments in 1990, it was one of the first ones I found, where they had a bovine cell line and it was breaking down in an experiment and they detected.
This thing they decided to call a spike protein.
And they sequenced it.
They came up with both the genetic sequence and the amino acid sequence for the protein.
And it was falsely attributed to coronavirus.
So there's a lot of confusion too because people say to us, well, if you say there's no SARS-CoV-2, do you say there's no spike protein?
And the response is no spike proteins, it's just a class of proteins that have been discovered in avian and mammalian cell lines, and they may relate to breakdown of the tissue or some other cellular role, but nothing to do with the virus.
It's interesting hearing you talk about the spike protein because the mRNA vaccines, you know, my understanding of the mechanism of function of the mRNA vaccines is that it codes your cells to create the spike protein and it's the accumulation of that spike protein and the ceaseless nature of that process because it doesn't stop because they never, that should have been something they reached before that they didn't.
And so what are your thoughts on that, on the spike protein?
Because there's definitely a toxicity effect from the protein itself.
Being cytotoxic and killing the cells.
I mean, what are your thoughts on that?
This is a really difficult area because of the paucity of experimental evidence.
So there's no doubt that those shots are toxic, but there could be a number of reasons for that.
And it doesn't necessarily have to...
Relate to expression of the spike protein.
So, for instance, the lipid nanoparticles themselves, they're not welcome in your body.
The other constituents, like that mRNA that they created, the problem with it is if you've got natural RNA, mRNA breaks down very quickly.
It does.
So if you inject it into your body, it would just break down basically.
They created a synthetic version which resists breakdown and it can persist for weeks and weeks and weeks.
Now, even if that was not causing your cells to express a spike protein, you've got this problem of a molecule that's not breaking down and it's not wanted by your body.
So it's going to set up inflammatory reactions and that in itself could be consistent with what we've seen with all the myocarditis and clots and strokes, etc.
Is that it's just getting stuck in the body and causing inflammation and blocking up blood vessels.
So, yeah, there's plenty of reasons why it might be causing problems.
The difficulty is how to do an experiment where we could take a person and see if the spike protein is being expressed because, as far as I know, the only technique they have is to create A labelled antibody and take some tissue and apply the antibody to see if they can detect, quote, spike protein, you know, in that mixture.
Now, that's problematic because it's a bit of an indirect, well, it is an indirect technique, and if anyone wants, this is a deep dive into antibodies, but we have videos on this, and Mike Stone's virology is probably the biggest compedium of...
Information about why antibodies are not valid.
He's got probably about 10 articles on this now.
But yeah, you've got this issue of how do you show in a living person whether they are expressing spike protein.
It's extremely difficult to show that.
And as I say, all of the techniques I've seen are indirect ones.
And I know there was Arnie Burkhardt, the pathologist in Germany.
I think he's passed away now, but he had...
He developed or had someone develop an antibody stain for his pathology specimens.
And yeah, he said that the spike protein was appearing in lots of different tissues around the body.
So that is possible.
Wasn't there just a nature study that was introduced in the last couple of days that talked about not the spike point necessarily, but the liquid nanoparticle delivery system of the mRNA itself was toxic.
They had tracked it through mice and it was accumulating in different organ systems.
Causing severe degradation of the organism and all other kinds of things.
I mean, yeah, I see what you're saying about it not just being the spike.
That was known about in 2020. Pfizer actually did a study in Japan in rodents and they found that, yeah, the thing was going all over the body.
It was concentrating in areas like the ovaries and places.
So, yeah, I mean, that thing, as I say, you don't want these things in your body.
But for us, we always go upstream and say that, The whole idea that the virus exists or that there's some sort of contagion or that it could help you is completely wrong.
So for us, we don't even need to look at...
I understand, like, for people that have...
For the injured.
For the injured, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, because we have to recover them as best we can.
Yep, their problems.
And for Sam and I, we don't focus on that area because we're upstream from that and telling people you never take...
Ever.
You never take vaccines.
They can't possibly help you.
And it doesn't matter.
You don't even need to look at whatever study that they're trying to show you about whether it's, quote, safe and effective.
We just say, go upstream.
There's no evidence that it could possibly work in the first place.
So knowing that you're in New Zealand where...
I don't know how true they are because videos can be faked, but I remember seeing videos of people being chased down and forced vaccinated by groups of health workers and people being locked down.
How did you survive without having to take a COVID vaccine and not be rounded up in a camp somewhere?
Didn't New Zealand also have camps, quarantine camps?
It was not actually that bad, and I know every country had their crazy stuff.
Oh, 100%.
You know, we looked at Australia and their police were opening fire on their own populations with rubber bullets and gassing them and stuff.
And we were horrified because that was, apart from one incident in New Zealand, that virtually never happened here.
They didn't get that violent most of the time.
There was these ridiculous quarantine facilities in...
2020, maybe extending into 2021, when people were coming into New Zealand and they'd get forced into these hotel facilities, usually for two weeks, where they couldn't communicate with anyone, basically.
But no, there was nothing.
There was no forced jabs and there were mandates.
So doctors, nurses, healthcare workers, teachers.
We're all mandated.
So they basically, if they didn't take the jabs, they lost their jobs.
For a lot of us, we actually worked out that what they were doing was not lawful.
So we just stood up to it.
And some people worked out that they didn't lose their jobs.
There were plenty of people that were working in areas which had apparent mandates.
But if you actually know what the word mandate means, it means that there has to be an agreement.
It doesn't mean that...
You're bound to do it.
So a lot of people pointed that out and said, well, I'm not agreeing to it.
So we even had, like, one of our friends was running a restaurant and was told, you have to, you know, inoculate your staff, you have to put up signs, face masks, all this kind of stuff.
They didn't do any of it and just continued operating as normal.
The local government tried to fine them $60,000 and they just said, well, look, These are mandates.
This is not law.
We don't have to do it.
And they didn't end up paying any of those.
So, yeah, there were definitely ways to get around it.
Like my family, like my wider family, we ignored lots of the so-called rules that they were coming up with in their press conferences because it was crazy here.
Yeah, and our own governments admitted that they made up most of them.
I mean, that they just created it and probably just...
A staff meeting somewhere.
So, yeah, it was, although, yeah, it probably looked pretty crazy for our family.
It was more just disturbing watching other people's behavior for the people that were going along with it.
And sometimes I would go into a shop and people would start yelling at you because you didn't have a face mask on and you'd just explain why I don't have to wear one.
But if you guys want to wear one, that's up to you.
But, yeah, it caused, and again, it comes back to this, you know, what disturbs us most is that.
Why do people behave that way?
And it's because they believe that there's a virus.
Yeah, they're frightened of the invisible invader.
And there was the trillion-dollar propaganda industry, at least in the United States alone, to make you afraid.
You know, the case ticker counts, which had never been done before, the complete disregard of infection to fatality rate, which was always the gold standard for figuring out how worried you needed to be about something from a public health standard.
And that was completely gone.
It was all about case counts and no outcomes, just case counts, you know, from far too many rounds of the PCR, which wasn't valid in the first place and like house of cards scenario, but lots of fear.
Totally.
And we take it to the next level because you'll see people say, oh yeah, the PCR is not valid because they did more than 40 cycles or there's false positives, etc.
That's not even valid.
And I mean, we've done extensive essays going into this showing why it's not a problem with false positives.
It's that there's nothing.
It doesn't exist.
The whole disease doesn't exist.
There can't be false positives.
There can only be a complete scam.
I mean, you could say all of them are false positives, but then it's not the right term because as soon as you start using terminology like false positives, people think, well, there must be some true positives, even if it's very low numbers, whereas, you know, we took it to the next level and said that there's no SARS-CoV-2.
So the sequences, you know, the Cormund-Drosten protocol that came out, January 2020 was, you know, simply based on this bogus experiment that they were doing in the Wuhan labs of, like I talked about earlier, going back to the 1980s.
They just said that we detected these bits of genetic sequences and that's a virus.
And if we detect those genetic sequences, therefore you've got the virus and you've got COVID-19.
No, nothing to do with science.
Nothing was ever clinically validated.
And the PCR is a problem in itself about whether it can even be a diagnostic tool.
The maker of the PCR test said it wasn't a diagnostic tool.
And that's completely correct because you could, say you went into a room where they were playing with different genetic sequences and you just inhaled some up your nose and then half an hour later they do a PCR test and then they go, oh, we've detected these sequences.
They're not doing anything up your nose.
Your nose just trapped them.
Like, you know, you can find genetic sequences for pollen up your nose.
But you don't say that you've been attacked by pollen or that you've got pollen disease now just because the genetic sequences were detected.
But that's essentially what they're doing.
We've got a chapter in our new book about whooping cough because we actually write and explain how PCR basically, whooping cough, unraveled the entire PCR diagnostics.
And you can see in the literature why they're trying to cover it all up because the problem is that you go around and you can detect border teller pertussis in just about everybody.
But you know what they're saying?
That they're asymptomatic transmitters now, that they've got the border teller and they're going to pass it on to someone if you're not careful.
So none of it makes sense and it's why the PCR is...
You know, it's not a diagnostic tool.
It can't tell you that the sequences that I've detected are going to make you sick.
So knowing, knowing what you know, and knowing also that the powers that be continue to threaten us with new pandemics, disease, ex-pandemics, you know, H5N1's coming, the plague is coming, whatever's coming.
How do you recommend someone kind of keep their calm, keep their center in this era of pandemic fear?
How do they stay healthy and keep going?
Yeah, you have to ignore all of this stuff that comes from the governments and the mainstream media.
And if you're reading a headline or hearing something and your initial reaction is fear, you know that something's gone wrong.
You shouldn't be feeling that way at all.
So, yeah, the best way is just to come to terms with the fact that other people are not going to make you sick and you're not going to make other people sick in the sense of this whole bogus notion of, you know, contagious germs, etc.
It's just not a thing.
It's not supported by the scientific literature.
These are just, you know, psychological fear campaigns to get people to comply.
And the more people that just ignore this crazy stuff, the better.
So I think, you know, we certainly found it useful during the COVID era.
If you went into a place and only 20% of people were wearing face masks.
Suddenly, that 20% would start taking off their face masks because they felt like, oh, actually, maybe I don't need to wear them.
It's not good if you go somewhere and you're the only one, you know, who's not wearing the face mask or not doing ridiculous social distancing rituals and stuff.
So we just need more people just to ignore the complete nonsense.
And that is their worst fear.
That's why they hate it so much when we just ignore it and they say there's a pandemic and the population goes, well, I don't see it, so I'm not going along with it.
But, yeah, people do have to come on their own terms.
They have to feel comfortable with it.
So, I mean, we can't really help people if they really believe that there are deadly viruses or that there's gain of function and all this kind of stuff because if people cannot get beyond that fear.
Then it's very difficult to operate calmly and rationally in day-to-day life when you're being exposed to this stuff.
But having the knowledge that you don't need medications, you don't need vaccines, you don't need to wear face masks, none of this is a thing, I think, is the most powerful weapons that people can have.
It's definitely a perspective worth pursuing, and I encourage all of our listeners to...
Do their own research to dive deep into these topics the same way you do other topics to discover where you're at.
When you come up with barriers and obstacles, look at those barriers and obstacles and kind of look at through both lenses to see which makes sense for you.
And don't be scared because you've come against barriers.
Sometimes that's just another problem to solve and another way to consider the issue.
Dr. Bailey, if you could please remind us of the best sources that people can go to, to deepen their understanding of this topic, I'll let you go ahead and do that.
Yeah, so everything can be found at our website, drsambailey.com.
So there's hundreds of videos and articles, essays.
You can look up the search bar.
So if you want to look up chickenpox or HIV or COVID, you'll find dozens and dozens of resources.
We have four books out as well, and there are summaries for what they cover.
But yeah, and also...
We do, you know, Sam does the 15-20 minute videos often to make these subjects easier to understand.
But on our website, you can also download our technical papers.
So for those wanting to take a really deep dive, you can have a look at the technical papers with all of the scientific references that back everything up.
And I love that nothing on your website is on a paywall, but...
As I work for a nonprofit, I also know that all of this work requires funding.
Is there some way that listeners could go and help support your guys' research efforts should they choose to?
Yeah, well, like you say, all of the videos and articles are pretty much out for free.
The one thing we do have behind a paywall is our question and answers session.
So we do a couple of those a month for our paid subscribers and we take questions from the public and answer those over about an hour or so.
But otherwise, yeah, you can join up on the website if people want to do that or through Sam's Substack.
And the other way to support us is really with the books.
So as I say, we have four books that are available on the website and they really help us as well.
The books are great for getting, as you know, for getting this information to new people because people put the books down on a coffee table and someone picks it up and that's the beginning.
And they can't be deleted by the censorship industrial complex.
Totally.
I think people underestimate how important getting the physical books out there is.
Yeah, and I think of books like, you know, Dissolving Illusions, which we've talked about, and we got a copy of that years ago.
My copy's been to family members.
It's been to the neighbors.
It's been to the neighbor's daughter.
You know, it really gets around, and the print books are really important.
Yeah.
So here you go, our wonderful audience.
Please take a moment to, or many moments really, and dive deep into this topic, this different perspective on the existence of viruses.
TFEC isn't taking a position one way or another, but we are always here to provide information for you, our critical thinking audiences, to dive deep and deepen your understanding of the world around you.
I want to thank Dr. Mark Bailey again for taking the time out of what I can imagine to be a very busy schedule to come on our podcast all the way from New Zealand.
To share with us his vital work that he's been doing in the world.
Thank you so very much for your time, your energy, and your efforts towards humanity's goals.
Thank you.
Well, thank you so much, Carrie.
It's been a pleasure to talk to your organization.
And I'm sure you'll be, usually what happens is that a lot of questions will come your way.
I'm sure I'll be reaching out with comment questions.
I'd be happy to come back on, too, if there are any particular questions that keep coming up over and over.
I may take you up on that offer because they are way above my pay grade to answer those questions.
But I really, I appreciate this so tremendously.
And for our audience out there, I encourage you to consider the seriousness of his proposals, even though they're counter narrative to what we're taught, to be open minded and be willing to look at the research on its face beyond the narrative that you're told about it.
Thank you so much for joining us for another episode of Shot Callers.
I am Carrie Bigford, Outreach Director with Texans for Vaccine Choice, and I'm looking forward to seeing you on our next episode.
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.
Until next time, never forget...
▲
Export Selection