Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 25, 2025 - Jim Fetzer

18:34

"Hollywood's Hantavirus" - Dr. Sam Bailey

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	In recent weeks, we have received many requests to comment on the death of Jean Hackman's wife, Betsy Arakawa.
	The couple were both found dead in their Santa Fe home last month, and the news coverage has been featuring the word Hantavirus.
	While we are used to hearing about influenza viruses, coronaviruses, the measles virus and so on, Hantavirus has not had much attention until recently.
	Those who know the fatal flaws of the virus model have already guessed that Hantavirus is not what it seems.
	However, why is it being mentioned in the corporate media at this time?
	And what actually killed Betsy Arakawa?
	In this video we examine the disease that was allegedly first recognised during the Korean War and the foundational 1978 paper that purported to isolate a virus.
	There are some interesting twists in this media fear fest, and it is all propped up by virological pseudoscience that resembles a Hollywood screenplay.
	Music playing.
	The cause of death for Ms. Betsy Hackman, aged 65 years, is Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome.
	The manner of death is natural.
	Autopsy examination and full-body post-mortem CT demonstrated no findings of trauma internally or externally, with microscopic findings consistent with Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome.
	Laboratory testing was positive for Hantavirus at a clinical lab, with required confirmation testing positive at Scientific Laboratories Division.
	Testing for COVID-19, influenza, and other common respiratory viruses was negative.
	According to Wikipedia, in the final months of his life, Gene Hackman's neighbors in Santa Fe, New Mexico noticed that his health appeared to be declining, and he and Betsy Arakawa ceased communicating with family and friends.
	Arakawa was last seen alive at a CVS pharmacy on February 11, 2025, and returned to their gated community at 5.15pm.
	Arakawa died in their home a short time later from Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome.
	Hackman did not seek help.
	Authorities believed he was unable to comprehend her death due to his Alzheimer's.
	Hackman died in the home around February 18, at which point his pacemaker recorded an abnormal rhythm.
	He died from severe heart disease, complicated by advanced Alzheimer's disease and kidney disease.
	Gene Hackman was 95 years old at the time of his death.
	And from what we know, had been in declining health for some time.
	While a foul play cannot be ruled out, it is entirely plausible that he died of old age and his underlying conditions.
	However, Betsy Arakawa's passing was unexpected at the age of 65, and thus the circumstances surrounding her death have raised many questions.
	The Hackman estate is reported to be worth $80 million, and Arakawa was made the sole beneficiary in 1995.
	Furthermore, if they died within 90 days of each other, all of Arakawa's assets would go to charity.
	Hackman had three biological children with his first wife, Faye Maltese, but none were mentioned in his will.
	It was recently stated in TMZ that Andrew M. Katzenstein, a prominent California trust and estate attorney, had reportedly been hired by Gene's son, Chris, who's the oldest sibling, indicating he may challenge the will.
	All in all, fairly typical happenings in a family whenever money is involved.
	Now we get to the claim that a hantavirus attacked and killed Betsy Arakawa.
	For what that is supposed to look like, here is an account from Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, an infectious disease expert, who was asked to comment on the case.
	That said, a hantavirus can cause a flu-like illness and often it's confused by doctors or diagnosed as a flu or flu-like syndrome.
	People can have headaches, people can have fever, cough, chest congestion.
	Again, it's very rare, so it's not something that someone would necessarily be concerned about.
	So, we have a frequently encountered issue with most of these alleged viral illnesses.
	The symptoms and signs are said to be non-specific.
	Those of you that have been following us for a long time will know that we exposed this problem with COVID-19 in 2020.
	For example, my video, What is a COVID-19 Case?
	Banned by YouTube after exceeded 100,000 views, outlined how cases were created without the need for any symptoms or signs.
	Continuing with this theme, a 2023 paper published in Frontiers in Microbiology stated that with Hantavirus, the clinical presentations of the disease Ah, the world of virology, where the imagined entities can either spread across the world with the greatest of ease or stay confined to certain areas.
	We have covered this nonsense previously, including in our book, The Final Pandemic, through the subchapter, Fear-inducing Viruses Like Ebola That Never Arrive.
	The CDC state that hantavirus can cause hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome and hantavirus pulmonary syndrome.
	The latter is what allegedly killed Betsy Arakawa.
	The key feature of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome is said to be acute respiratory distress syndrome, or ARDS.
	However, as per the name, this is a syndrome that encompasses the picture of widespread inflammation and fluid on the lungs.
	Among other things, it is a complication of pneumonia, trauma, and different forms of inflammation.
	So if someone was suspected of having Hantavirus or just suspected of having a severe pneumonia, I mean, it's really very similar to having a severe pneumonia.
	Taking into account such a non-specific picture, Wikipedia makes the interesting declaration that the Moving right along from that non sequitur, the next sentence reads...
	Infection can be confirmed through detection of hantavirus nucleic acid, proteins, or hantavirus-specific antibodies.
	There is a single reference and it is a paper featured in the journal Viruses in 2023.
	However, this is simply a review article which states that hantavirus infections can be diagnosed by, quote, the detection of the nucleic acid, proteins, and or antibodies specific to the associated hantavirus.
	Such a claim would imply that hantaviruses were found in nature at some point and then characterised to determine their composition, followed by the development of tests to detect them.
	Not bloody likely!
	So let's have a look at the foundational papers for the virologist's claims.
	The first time that an alleged Hantavirus was, quote, isolated was said to be in 1978.
	The paper appeared in the Journal of Infectious Diseases and was titled Isolation of the Etiologic Agent of Korean Hemorrhagic Fever.
	It states, Epidemic hemorrhagic fever was recognized for the first time in Korea in 1951 among soldiers of the United Nations.
	The paper then reports that an antigen detected in mice lungs in 1976 reacted with blood samples from patients with hemorrhagic fever.
	Now comes the bold claim that we present here the first evidence that this antigen is produced by a replicating microbe.
	So how did they go from A to Z?
	Well first they caught some Korean rodents in traps set near the 38th parallel north.
	North Korean and South Korean soldiers stand here every single day and stare at each other.
	The South Korean soldiers are right behind me.
	And then you can see that concrete building.
	That's where North Korean tourists can come to visit the DMZ.
	And apparently a lot of Chinese actually come through the North Korean side as well.
	And then there's that soldier.
	He stands there every single day, but the South Koreans and the Americans don't know his name, so they just refer to him as Bob.
	The political preferences of the trapped rodents were unknown, but they were transported to Seoul, gassed with chloroform, ground up and mixed with bovine plasma extract for attempts at viral isolation.
	Next, they state that all experimental and diagnostic work was done with lung tissue originating from four naturally infected field mice.
	Note that this employs a begging the question fallacy in that they have already inferred that an infectious agent exists and is responsible for the purported disease.
	If you would like a detailed explanation of this problem and why it is a fatal flaw for the virologist's evidence, then please read my husband Mark's essay, Virology's Event Horizon.
	Back to the 1978 study, which states that, for titration of the infectious agent, 10% rodent lung suspensions were prepared in bovine albumin and then clarified at 2000G for 20 minutes.
	The supernatant was used to inoculate cell cultures and animals.
	Don't take your eye off the ball here.
	First, what has been clarified by the centrifugation?
	And second, they have used the word infectious after sneaking in the word infected earlier.
	The authors then developed fluorescent antibody tests that reacted with both the lung tissue of the rodents as well as blood samples from humans recovering from hemorrhagic fever.
	They decide that they are detecting a specific antigen and that is evidence of an infectious agent.
	However, there are multiple problems here.
	First, even if there is a specific antigen, its provenance has not been established.
	This is the same issue as the controversial spike protein in recent years.
	Yes, it has been detected in mammalian and avian tissue culture experiments for decades, but no, it is not evidence that it comes from a virus.
	Second, antibody tests do not provide a simple yes-no presence or absence result.
	They are titers, and someone must set an arbitrary level for a, quote, positive result.
	In this case, the made-up criterion appears in the last paragraph of the methods section, where they claim that relative antibody titer levels can be used to make the diagnosis.
	We have covered the problem of antibody titers several times, and you can also watch my video, Is Immunity Real?, for more details.
	Additionally, whatever an antibody assay purports to do, in itself it cannot provide evidence for viruses.
	It involves circular reasoning through antibodies equals infection.
	In fact, certain antibody levels equals infection.
	Unlike many virology papers, the word controls does feature once.
	They state Controls for the various antibody techniques included sections of lung tissue from normal mice and sera from persons never resident in Korea or other regions where KHF-like disease is known to occur.
	This is a deceptive use of the word controls because no independent variable has been established.
	They have decided in advance what constitutes a quote infected mouse and a quote normal mouse.
	Likewise with the blood samples taken from humans.
	Once again, for those of you wanting more details, Virology's Event Horizon formally outlines why the virologists cannot perform controls with the methodologies they employ.
	If they are claiming that a virus exists, the particles must be found first and then used as the independent variable in subsequent experiments.
	So, Table 3 in the paper is completely misleading because it states, Once again, it has nothing to do with sickness.
	The rodents are healthy, and it is asserted that they are, quote, The isolation of the alleged virus also fell to pieces when they attempted to culture it.
	The authors conceded that, Primary cell cultures prepared from rhesus monkey, kidney, duck, and chicken embryo, rat liver, and human embryonic liver also failed to develop cytopathic effects when inoculated with infectious mouse lung suspension.
	So even with their fatally flawed cell culture technique that cannot be controlled, How was it possible to conclude that an agent, later called a virus, was present?
	This involves resorting to an unfalsifiable paradigm, as we have previously outlined.
	Welcome to the world of virology, where cytopathic effects could mean a, a virus, or b, something else, and no cytopathic effects could mean a, no virus, or b, a hidden virus.
	In the conclusion to the 1978 paper, it states, These observations, although definitely preliminary, provide substantial evidence that the etiologic agent of KHF has been isolated from the wild rodent.
	This is exemplary of the virologist's massacre of scientific terms.
	They are claiming that mixing ground-up rat organs with cow's blood qualifies as the isolation of something.
	In their conclusion, they refer to it as an agent and a pathogen.
	Predictably, over time, this has become a virus.
	For example, Wikipedia states, in 1978, the virus was isolated for the first time and named Hantan virus after the river.
	So now we are all the way back to the claim that hantavirus infections can be diagnosed by, quote, the detection of the nucleic acids, proteins, and or antibodies specific to the associated hantavirus.
	They did not find a virus in 1978, and neither has anyone else since then.
	What has been built up with regard to first antibodies and subsequently genetic sequences and proteins relies on this foundational fraud.
	It is the same story we have seen with all alleged viruses.
	No virus is ever discovered and then studied.
	Instead, they are fallaciously declared to exist in advance and all findings are made to fit the imaginary model.
	They've done studies, you know, 60% of the time.
	It works every time.
	Yes, specific genetic sequences and proteins can be found in some rodents and humans.
	And yes, these may vary over time and in different states of health.
	But that is not evidence of a virus.
	Invention of a test does not require a virus or make one real.
	People may ask, well, what about the CDC's images of antiviruses?
	The image caption states, If they were honest, the caption would state, For there is nowhere that these were shown to be replication-competent parasites and the cause of any disease.
	In any case, the problems with imaging go deeper than this, and you can watch my video Electron Microscopy and Unidentified Viral Objects for more on this issue.
	In the modern era, a fanciful story now exists that rodents are quote, asymptomatically infected with hantaviruses and can pass these on to humans to cause a fatal disease.
	You would have thought that the rat-infested sewers in cities of old would have plagued the populations with this problem.
	No, we are told that it is an emerging disease and the risk is increasing with climate change.
	That's right, Wikipedia even featured these comical diagrams to show how that is supposed to work.
	music
	So, do we think there was anything suspicious about Betsy Arakawa's death?
	Whatever happened, the establishment will be happy to use her celebrity status to gain attention for another alleged virus.
	We have written in both Virusmania and the final pandemic that there is nothing like a celebrity case to get the public thinking and worried about a non-existent virus.
	Almost immediately after the incident, the Wikipedia's Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome page stated under the Notable Cases section, In February 2025, Betsy Arakawa, wife of actor Jean Hackman, died from the illness.
	As I have outlined, the hantavirus tests are not detecting a virus, so it was something else that killed her.
	In fact, it sounds more like a sudden death, something we've seen a lot of in recent years, so they might want to investigate what other products she was taking from the local pharmacy.
	As always, it comes down to the same problems with regard to why people get sick.
	Either one or a combination of environmental poisoning, pharmaceuticals, contaminated food and water, poor hygiene, nutritional depletion, and various compromises to living conditions, including psychological stress.
	Heed the words of investigative reporter John Rappaport that the virus is a cover story.
	The Hackman Arakawa news coverage has been shameless fear porn.
	Time to dismiss the viral delusion, ignore the Hollywood hype, and get on with discovering the real causes of illness.
	I'll see you again soon, and in the meantime, please look at the free resources that my husband Mark and I provide at DrSamBailey.com to help on the journey to true health.
	If you enjoyed this video...

▲