All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 22, 2026 - Jim Fetzer
01:05:10
David Knight with Drs Mark & Sam Bailey on the Fraud of Virology! Jan. 16, 2026
|

Time Text
Debanking Awakening 00:09:11
Because of schedules and things like that, since before Christmas.
And I know everybody is very interested to see what he has to say about trends coming up in 2026, a very volatile year.
You're not going to want to miss this.
So stay with us.
We'll be right back.
Well, joining us now are Drs. Mark and Sam Bailey, Sam short for Samantha.
And you can find their website at drsambailey.com.
They put in her name because although they're both doctors, she was on TV in New Zealand and she started asking some uncomfortable questions of the establishment.
And so I had them on about a year ago and we were talking about their book at the time was The Final Pandemic.
And they were pointing out, they were questioning all of virology, which is what they've done.
That's got them in a lot of trouble in New Zealand.
And so I want to get caught up as to what's happening in New Zealand.
And I'd like to get their comments on what's happening in America as the pharmaceutical industry is getting pretty desperate to defend vaccines.
And so we're starting to get these narratives about measles epidemics.
And I know that they're skeptical of that, as I am as well.
So thank you for joining us, doctors Mark and Sam Bailey.
Thank you.
Good to have you back.
Thank you, David.
Pleasure to be here.
And yeah, I think you're quite right.
Sam in particular has been in some more hot water here in New Zealand.
And last year, she unexpectedly had her bank accounts frozen.
Really?
And yes, and then we had the authorities trying to seize some of our family assets because apparently Sam owes them money for COVID crimes.
She's even been charged here in New Zealand with COVID-19.
Apparently, that's a charge that they can bring against you.
And anyway.
Well, they use it to lock everybody down, so I guess they could use it to lock you up.
So they actually have a charge called COVID-19.
What does that involve?
It's for them in the medical world.
When they had their fake kind of kangaroo court tribunal about me, that's what they charged me with was COVID-19.
And so, yeah, but they said they are, I owe a lot of money because of my thought crimes.
And yeah, and they debanked me.
And that took, I had to go into court to fight it.
And that was quite full on last year.
Yeah, it was just, it was really disruptive for several months, David.
But Sam had a good result.
She took them into the high court and it was ruled as unlawful.
They're still going after these crazy COVID fines, but they've been told, no, you're not allowed to do what they did in making this attempt to seize bank accounts, etc.
So yeah, but it's just like you say, this is what happens when doctors like us who were once in the establishment and Sam was a real golden girl.
Like you say, she was on network television and a real favorite.
And then come early 2020, she questioned the COVID narrative and said, look, I don't think there's a pandemic at all.
And that led to this.
So, yeah, and like you say, we put out the final pandemic.
That was actually now, was that 2024?
Yeah.
We put that out.
Yeah, it's a couple of years since we put that out.
And you got a new book.
You've got a new book that you just put out.
Tell us a little bit about that.
Well, I guess it's an older new book.
It's the book version of my essay, A Farewell to Virology.
Now, I wrote this in 2022 because I felt there wasn't a standalone piece, a treatise, refuting the entire virus model, all of virology.
So I wrote this essay.
It's about 29,000 words, and it's pretty dry.
And Sam said there's no way, there's no way I could ever make that into a video production.
And she didn't, although filmmaker Steve Faulkner did make it into a three-part documentary eventually.
But we had such positive feedback and we'd reached the point where the PDF had been downloaded about a quarter of a million times.
And we were surprised because it's a very dry technical paper, you know, refuting the virus model.
And we decided last year, why don't we put it out as a book?
And I included a couple of bonus essays that I've written since that time.
And that's sold really, really well.
It's really thrilling, David, to see this, that we think, you know, not so long ago, people, you know, weren't questioning this stuff on a widespread scale.
Nowadays, this is coming up all the time.
And people are not only questioning vaccines and pandemics, but also the entire virus model.
So it's been really positive for us to see that there's a big appetite out there for this work.
And we're seeing people now in conversation say, yeah, well, I don't believe in vaccines.
And then you'll hear someone say to them, well, I don't think that viruses are, you know, there's sufficient evidence for them either.
So, yeah, we see this is the whole thing.
The silver lining with the COVID fraud is that it has inadvertently woken people up and they've gone deeper and deeper into looking into these things.
That's right.
We talked about that last time.
And, you know, it's kind of interesting.
It's what we say about government all the time.
You know, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.
And we could say the same thing about virology, right?
You say, this might be pretty dry reading, but after what happened five years ago, I think people need to say, you know, this is something I need to know about.
I need to interest myself in this because this was used to lock down the world.
And if it's going to be used in lockdown in the world, we need to know a little bit about it.
You know, when you're talking about getting...
Yes, go ahead.
Oh, sorry.
No, I was just going to say, exactly.
I just, it's so important.
And I think when people, when people, you can't, we can't cold call people and say, look into this.
It has to come from the individual.
But I think it's really started with there's been a complete lack of trust in the medical system since after what's happened.
People have now are distrusting vaccines.
And the next question that falls to people, well, do these things even exist?
What are they doing to us?
And that in itself, that question, when you answer it, is so empowering because it changes your entire way of seeing health and how to be well.
And it's a really positive step.
And we see it.
There's a great awakening going on.
Yes, yes.
Well, you know, that is, and I've said this for the longest time, you know, whether we're talking about the Green New Deal or whatever, you know, it's like, show me your data.
I was with a group that had to sue to try to get Michael Mann's data as part of the climate gate thing that happened with East Anglia.
And he fought so hard to keep his data secret.
Well, that's kind of suspicious.
I don't think somebody would do that if it was all up and above board.
And so that really kind of feeds your skepticism.
And, you know, if it's true, you don't need to hide it.
And so I think that's the key thing about a lot of this stuff.
People saw this throughout the virus stuff.
And we saw the heavy hand of censorship.
And as you're talking about before, debanking people and that type of thing.
I got debanked in May of 2021, five months after we started this show.
And at that point in time, PayPal was where I got pretty much all the contributions that we got was through PayPal.
So that was a really big deal when we got cut off in the one place.
So now we've made sure that we've got a lot of different places where people can support the show.
But I just saw that they've admitted that most of these debank orders are the debanking is being driven by government, not by the corporations, just like we saw with the censorship.
For the longest time, we said this censorship is coming from the government.
We can tell because of the pattern in it.
And then they admitted it.
We got the documents and you could see that it was actually coming from the government.
Same thing true of the debanking as well, as we would all suspect.
So, yeah, it's let's talk a little bit about measles, though, because we've had here in the United States, before we had Trump going to war with the world and changing the subjects every other day, they were starting to push back against some of the minor changes that are being made at HHS by RFK Jr.
I'm glad to see some of these changes.
They've reduced the, I don't know if you're familiar with what's going on in the U.S., but they've reduced the vaccine count that they recommend that they're really virtually mandating for children by the pressures that were put on to pediatricians that would offer both carrots and sticks to make sure that they would get the kids vaccinated.
Outbreaks and Misdiagnosis 00:15:26
And so there were penalties associated with the reimbursements they would get from the insurance companies and things like that.
So they have pulled back some of these.
And we go back and look at the vaccine schedule.
I was really surprised to see how many times they would repeat these vaccines.
Some of them were given four and five times during childhood.
And so they've pulled back the frequency and the number of vaccines that are recommended.
And they've also pulled it back to say there's not going to be any penalty if you don't follow the recommendations.
So that's positive stuff, but that's really got the vaccine industry fired up.
So they were coming back with measles.
And so I went to the CDC and I thought it was kind of interesting to see how many cases they had and how many so-called outbreaks that they'd had because they put a lot on this South Carolina and there was another one in Georgia, but South Carolina they were really focused on just a couple of months ago.
And they were giving us narratives saying that, you know, had 100 kids or whatever.
And I said, yeah, but you notice that they're not saying anybody is hospitalized and nobody has died.
Even though we had in Texas, I think it was in 2024, they had two cases that they claimed had been fatal.
When Children's Self-Defense went and investigated, they found that that was not the cause of death of these.
So that's been disputed and I think very effectively disputed.
But they never even claimed that anybody died or was hospitalized out of these cases in South Carolina and Georgia.
And I thought it was kind of interesting, Mark and Sam, that when they define an outbreak, that is more than three cases that are connected.
And so they said that 69% of the cases in 2024 were outbreaks.
But then that meant that 31% of the cases were not.
And so it's like, that's kind of strange.
If they're telling us that this is the most contagious virus out there, how is it that you're getting all these situations where you have one person or two people that have it and nobody else has it?
And so that raises a question, I think, in my mind at least.
What would you tell the audience?
I know we talked about this last time you were on.
We talked about measles, but kind of give us a refresher course about your position about measles and what you think is going on here, because a lot of people have had an experience with it where most of us in the U.S. had measles at my age.
And so the question is, you know, why did a lot of us have measles back then?
Why is it so many fewer right now?
Why did it appear like it was something that was being passed on to people?
You want to speak to that?
Yeah, sure.
And David, this comes down to the narrative that the media present.
And it's a complicated thing because, like you say, people will contact us and say, Hey, there's an outbreak in this city in the United States, and they're all unvaccinated kids, and some of them are really sick.
And you have to really peg things back to the whole historical aspects of measles and the basic science.
So, like you, we would say, first of all, investigate what do they mean by an outbreak.
And we find that these days there might be two cases, and they're splashing that in the headlines saying outbreak.
Now, this is something historically that would have never made national news, let alone caused a murmur in the local community.
Nobody calls that an outbreak, but they've changed the language, they've changed the definitions.
Then we have the issue with what is a case.
Now, historically, they didn't have any tests, any laboratory tests, so it was all done clinically.
You know, so a kid would present with a rash and a fever, and it was up to the doctor to decide what that was.
Now, Sam and I used to be in the system and we were trained up in that system, and they'll tell you all of these things: like, oh, no, a doctor knows measles because there's coplix spot this coplick spots in the mouth, the special sign that you'll see, all this kind of stuff.
And then you look into the research and you find out that these case definitions are so woolly.
You know, most of them don't have these special features.
The rashes all look very similar.
How do you distinguish between hand, foot, and mouth, you know, measles, chicken pox, monkeypox, smallpox?
They're all just degrees, they're all just similar presentations: coughs, fevers, runny noses, and rashes.
A lot of it comes down to what the doctor decides.
Then we have this problem of whether the child has been vaccinated or not.
So, a lot of the time, the child's been vaccinated, you're not allowed to make the diagnosis.
You know, you have to look at something else because that doesn't look good.
And at other times, there's a special message that goes out to the medical community, and there may be incentives to report the cases.
You know, you need to suddenly start reporting.
So, we have to think that these are often artificial situations that we're seeing.
Nothing is actually changing in the community, but it's the way it's being presented, the way it's being tested, the way things are being looked for.
So, yeah, we know historically, like you say, that many of us last century were given the diagnosis of measles.
By definition, it was a very mild condition, and a lot of kids used to celebrate getting it because it meant that they got the week off school because of this crazy notion that people thought it was a contagious entity.
So, for a child, it was a pretty exciting time.
You got the measles, it was a guaranteed week or two off school while you had the rash, etc.
So, But these days, as you know, we're being presented with the story that the measles is deadly.
It's so, oh my goodness, imagine if your child got that.
And we're not actually seeing cases or claimed cases where children are dying outside of these very small number of events and incidents where on deeper inspection, on actual looking at the medical records, we find out that these kids were sick for other reasons.
And someone happened to label them or said that they had a co-infection in quotes with measles at the time.
And then the media pick up on it and say, you know, child with measles dies.
But, you know, it's clear to us when you look at the medical records that the child was sick for other reasons.
That's what happened in Texas with Dr. Brian Hooker and others.
Yeah, I agree.
Yeah.
And so there is, as you point out, sometimes there's an incentive to not report it as measles.
Sometimes there's an incentive to report it as measles.
And it's very similar to what we saw with COVID.
The government, the federal government, was giving a bonus to doctors if they would do a clinical diagnosis, point at somebody, say he's got COVID.
And so you get a, I think it was $13,000, if I remember correctly.
And then towards August of 2020, you had the American Hospital Association say, wait a minute, you're telling us now that you need some kind of a PCR diagnosis that's here?
You told us at the beginning those didn't work and you didn't have enough of them.
And you told us just to do a clinical diagnosis and now you're not paying up.
So that kind of blew the cover because there's no honor among thieves, I guess.
And so people would start to see things like that happening.
And we realize now that that's not just limited to COVID.
This is the type of thing they've been running for quite some time, isn't it?
Yeah, definitely.
And I think what is also interesting is, you know, what Mark was saying with the classification: a serious pathogen, you only need one case for it to be defined as an outbreak.
So that's what happened.
We saw in COVID in New Zealand where there was one case and the whole nation went into lockdown.
Just to be clear, when Sam says pathogen, that's in quotes.
We don't want people to think that.
That's not their terms.
Yeah, yeah.
Pathogenic is a word, you know, means disease causing.
Pathogen, they took this term last century and made it up and said, oh, that's microbes, you know, bacteria and invisible or imaginary viruses.
But as Sam says, in their system, they will say that you can have one case.
And if it's a serious one, they say that's an outbreak.
We now have an outbreak, folks.
And yeah, in countries like New Zealand, they'll shut down the entire country.
That's what happens.
Oh, it's crazy.
And I think that's one of the key things that many of us don't realize is they haven't really done real science.
I'm sure you addressed that in your farewell to virology.
They didn't do real science to isolate a particular thing, like a virus or something, and then correlate that to the illness to say, well, we got this thing that we find in the people who are sick and we don't find it in the people who are well.
And if we take that and transfer it to the people who are well, they get sick.
That's what everybody thinks is happening, but that's not what's happening, right?
Yeah.
David, there is a hidden history behind measles.
And when Sam and I trained as doctors, they didn't tell us about this.
And they presented very selective information.
And they said that there was some monkey experiments that were done early last century that proved that measles was highly contagious.
Now, that was very disingenuous because when we actually dug into the history, and I've got a note here, researchers like Daniel Reuters, our Australian colleague, have done magnificent work digging up all of these old studies.
There were a whole lot of studies in the 1800s, and people would be shocked if they knew what they actually did, because you'd never get the stuff approved these days past the ethics committees.
They were taking children, even young ones, like babies, and trying to give them measles.
They were doing everything they could.
So, a doctor would, researcher would locate a case of a kid that was unwell with what was said to be measles.
They'd quickly take snot and tears and even blood from these kids, and then they'd go and try and infect other kids.
Now, often they'd just squirt it straight up their nose or expose their eyes or just put it on their skin.
Sometimes they would actually make wounds to their bodies and introduce this material, this disease material.
They would also inject it straight into other children.
So, they'd take blood from one child said to have measles, inject it into another.
All failures didn't work.
All they could induce were these local kind of reactions.
And they said, because they were so obsessed of showing that there was some sort of contagious element, they said, oh, maybe our techniques are insufficient.
There were even techniques where they, then they brought monkeys in and they exposed them to sick humans and the monkeys didn't get sick.
So, eventually, they resorted to taking blood from people said to have measles and injected it into these monkeys, these rhesus monkeys and other small monkeys.
Some, not all, some of the monkeys developed a little bit of a rash around the injection site and a fever.
And then they said, Well, that proves it.
There was a study 1911, Anderson and Goldberger, and this is the one they'll cite of saying, Well, that's when they showed it was contagious.
Now, the rest of us looking at this are saying, This is outrageous because the WHO and the CDC, they say that measles is an airborne disease.
It's transmitted via aerosol, and that just being in the same room with someone is enough to cause you to come down with the case of the measles.
Clearly, the research never showed that.
They had to do these preposterous experiments where they injected animals with human blood.
And we know, David, that that will cause a reaction because, and even the human experiments they did, sometimes you'll get a reaction because the blood is not cross-matched appropriately.
So, you don't need a virus to cause these increases in temperature.
And none of them recreated the same illness, the classic illness.
So, completely, this is all hidden.
Well, they did the same type of thing.
I learned this from you.
They did the same type of thing like from 1940-something and 1980-something, the UK cold house, where they were doing everything they could to transmit colds to people and failed in the same way that you're talking about what they did in the 1800s.
Sam has a great video on the common cold unit that people can watch.
And really amazing.
Yeah, this is where they invented coronaviruses, David.
This is where it comes from.
In humans, because they said, Yeah, we don't really know what's going on here, but we think it must be viruses.
40 years they operate this facility In England, and out of it comes nothing but virology mythology, where they said that they found about a couple of hundred viruses that seem to cause common colds.
And again, we looked at those experiments and we were shocked because the vast majority of them completely failed.
And importantly, Daniel Reuters has gone further with his book, Can You Catch a Cold, where he documents hundreds and hundreds of these human transmission attempts with flus and colds, and they fail.
You know, the mode is that most of the experiments completely fail.
And this is like extreme.
This is people coughing in other people's faces, living in the same room for several days at a time, and just this complete inability to make the other person sick.
And transference of body fluids, like you know, mucus and things like that as well, right?
But it seems like, you know, they come up with the name coronavirus.
Maybe it was based on circular logic.
Virology.
Maybe that was it.
I don't know.
But yeah, well, the story there is, yeah, it's just incredible because, yeah, the coronavirus stuff just pops up all the time.
But essentially, it was an exercise where a virologist gave a tissue sample to an electron microscopist, June Almeida, in the 1960s, and said, basically, said to her, There's a virus in there.
Can you find it?
And she just pointed to something and said, I think that's it.
And then forevermore.
It's what it is.
If people see this, they say that's the coronavirus or a coronavirus.
Yeah.
Point and declare, we call it.
Vaccine Trials Controversy 00:15:34
That kind of reminds me of the etymology of the term computer bug.
You know, they had a woman who had a malfunctioning machine.
They opened it up.
There was a bug in there.
She goes, yeah, that was it.
It was a bug.
And so after that, we all talk about having bugs inside the software.
But kind of that same sort of thing.
You know, we got an inkling of this as everybody was talking about rushing this vaccine into deployment.
And I guess that's a good word since it was kind of a military operation.
And so they were talking about, we got to speed this up.
He had a lot of true believers out there and said, I'll volunteer.
You know, let me have this vaccine and then you can expose me to it.
We can short-circuit this because the way they would do the testing, that was kind of a harbinger of all this stuff.
The fact is that they don't expose people to the disease that you're supposed to, that this is supposed to prevent, right?
So when somebody is getting a therapeutic, they take somebody who's already sick with the condition and they give them this therapeutic and they have a control.
So they have people who get a placebo and people get the new treatment.
And they look to see, first of all, the first phase is, does it kill people?
So they have just a very small group of people to check to see if there's really obvious immediate damage that's done.
And then if it clears that hurdle, then they start with the phase two and phase three tests where they start to get people that already have this condition to see if it makes a little bit of a change with them.
And they look at the efficacy of it based on the difference between the control group and the people who got the drug.
But they say with a vaccine, we can't do that.
It'd be unethical to, if this stuff doesn't work, it'd be unethical to give this disease to somebody, except that's what they were doing in the cold house.
That's what they were doing in these other virology experiments you're talking about in the 1800s.
And so in a sense, if they were to do that, they call that a challenge test.
If they were to do that, it would put, it would show people that there was nothing there in the first place, I think.
That's maybe another reason they don't do that, because there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of ethics in terms of preventing them from doing a lot of other things.
So it may be that they're just trying to hide a cover for virology.
I don't know.
What do you think?
Definitely.
Yeah.
Yeah, David, it's really interesting you mentioned that because Sam and I both used to work in clinical trials.
And these were in big fun, big pharma-sponsored human trials.
We were in the dark side, David.
We were trained up in that craft.
Now, one thing that really struck us when we were involved in that work, and you'll see that in some of our presentations, like recently Sam did one on vitamin K injections in the newborn.
And that is this numbers needed to treat them.
Where they're saying, oh, we can't do the trial because the numbers need, well, they don't say that, they'll say because the size of the trial would need to be so big.
And you're like thinking to yourself, why would you need a trial that size for something that's supposedly really effective?
You know, because they're saying we need like 200,000 people in the trial to show that it's effective.
You know that at that point, it's absolute ridiculousness because the numbers needed to treat, even on their own terms.
Maybe explain what that means.
Yeah, so that's the numbers you would need to give a therapy to to prevent one event, not to save a life.
And it's whichever event you choose.
So the event might be sneezing.
So you might say, well, we've got this new therapeutic and the numbers needed to treat 900 and it will prevent one sneeze.
So clearly, telling a person, hey, I've got this treatment that prevents sneezing, a person might say, oh, great, I'll take that treatment.
If you told them 900 people need to take this medication and one will get the benefit, which is not sneezing, 899 will not get the benefit and they'll be exposed to all of the potential adverse effects of that medication.
And they won't tell you those because they might not have looked at them all.
So this is the preposterousness.
And like you say, they'll just say, oh, we can't do the trials because of this reason and that reason.
And that should be a red flag to people right away as to the fact that this is not an effective treatment.
And all the only way it can work is through manipulation of the narrative.
And it's a big thing.
And it's what pharmaceutical companies really rely on these days.
And with vaccines, you know, which we're talking about here a lot, the narrative is completely fraudulent, where they're mixing all sorts of things of mortality rates and incidents and who's vaccinated and who's not.
All of these things.
They manipulate the statistics.
It's outright fraud.
I mean, Sam and I have exposed this stuff in some of our presentations, looking at the CDC's own data and what they classify as vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
And they will do things like they'll classify someone as unvaccinated if the person knows that they've been vaccinated but couldn't remember the date of the vaccination.
In the CDC's world, that goes into the unvaccinated category.
Now, that's preposterous.
The person clearly has been vaccinated.
And it's just manipulating the statistics to produce a certain narrative.
In the case of measles, too, when I remember back, I used to work as a GPP for a while, general practitioner.
I remember seeing the only patients I ever saw with a true measles type rash, you know, the really classic looking one, they were all drug reactions.
There were people that had had antibiotics and then a week later they developed this classic measles rash, you know, and that was the only ones I ever saw.
And I just, and it's funny how, again, this is all crafted.
If I'd said that there wasn't, I hadn't asked about the drug history, I would have called it measles and classified it.
And you realize how much this problem keeps popping up, doesn't it?
With the.
Absolutely.
And some of them are vaccine reactions as well.
But of course, if you've had the vaccine, you're not supposed to have the disease.
And I know that critics will say yes, but they have tests to differentiate that stuff, you know, antibody assays and stuff.
But we've looked into all of these assays.
They're dubious in themselves on their own terms.
So all of it is, yeah, to protect this narrative.
And but what I think is really positive, David, is that clearly people, you know, got wised up to the COVID-19 narrative and went off that one.
So now we see them relaunching other narratives.
Because measles is not even familiar to people anymore.
Because one thing Sam and I point out is that by the 1980s, when we were kids, most people, infectious diseases, in quotes, weren't even a thing.
And so many people were turning away from vaccines and could not see the need for them.
Kids had generally got really, really healthy.
Childhood mortality had fallen away to almost nothing.
And then, of course, they had to relaunch things in the 1990s with these fear campaigns that suddenly these diseases like chickenpox and measles, which were joke illnesses to the physicians of old who were often dealing with much more serious problems, suddenly the narrative changed.
And we were told that these are incredibly serious diseases and all children need to be vaccinated.
And that's why we saw the massive increase in the childhood vaccination schedule from the 1990s through to the present day.
That's insane.
As you've noted, it's.
What are the numbers of vaccines that they've set up in New Zealand for kids?
You know, from like birth to, let's say, I guess this was 16 or something like that.
They've got like 72 here, was what it was just recent until just recently.
What do you have in New Zealand?
Yeah, that's a really good question.
I'm not actually sure of the 100%.
Yeah, ours is not far off.
We don't have quite the same number, but it's up there.
And the big change has been, as I say, the increase since the 1990s.
You know, back then, in the 80s and 70s and 80s, there were only a handful that kids would be given and not many shots.
But like the United States, the number of shots went up and up and up.
And then it started including things like hepatitis, which even on their own terms, kids are not supposed to get.
And up to this point today, where, like you say, a child might get almost 80 shots by the time they're a teenager in a country like the United States.
Now, I think there have been some positive moves to try and reduce the number of recommended vaccines on the schedule, but we have to keep in mind they're all fraudulent.
None of them are required.
So we need more.
And some people are saying, well, you know, RFK Jr. is doing his work.
He's in there.
Hard for us to know how that's going to pan out because obviously people can still get all of these vaccines.
And when they take their children to the doctor, most doctors are still in that mode of thinking where they think all vaccines are required and that you give as many as you can, etc.
So whether that pans out with any positive influence, I'm not sure.
We can see on the ground what is positive is that more people are turning away from vaccines at the moment than going in the other direction.
So countries like New Zealand, it's definitely dropped off and a lot of parents now are saying no to the vaccination schedule.
Good, good.
And is there a lot of pressure on parents?
What is the situation with parental consent there in New Zealand?
It's not.
So we don't have the same situation like California has where children are required to have all the childhood vaccinations in order to go to school and things.
There isn't sort of mandatory things like that in place.
But in saying that, if you go to a university, like a college, and you go into particularly a health-related career, you're expected to have all of the vaccines plus.
So Mark has a funny story where he nearly didn't become a doctor because he was very on the cusp of not taking yeah I got identified as a medical student.
It's red flagged.
I hadn't had all the jabs and I was so close not to having them and unfortunately, I was gaslit by some of the physicians in the hospital where I was working and when I raised a few concerns they said, oh no, this is, it's all discredited anti-vaxxer.
And they said, don't even bother looking at that stuff because yeah it's, there's been a lot of analysis etc.
And yeah, so I came close to not having many of the vaccines when I was as a medical student but unfortunately yeah, that pressure of they said I couldn't progress basically into clinical medicine and unfortunately I had a few of the vaccines back then, but luckily, no adverse events.
It's kind of a loyalty test, isn't it?
You know, are you loyal to pharma?
If not, we can't put you in the medical field.
If you're going to question what pharma is doing it's.
It's kind of interesting how they focus on medical students like that, and doctors and nurses.
Yeah exactly it's, it's opticians, it's every, every physios across the board.
You know, and you're right, it totally is.
It's this test and you realize, I didn't kind of appreciate it until what happened in after 2020, where when you start questioning germ, questioning vaccines is standing on a lot landmine, but questioning germ theory is like you cannot be in the club if you think like this that's it's, it's real.
You'll be ostracized yeah and, and they don't want any discussion about it.
Um that's, that was.
What was terrible was our training in the medical system about vaccines was essentially based around how many vaccines kids should have, like you know, memorizing the schedule and how to deal with uh, so-called anti-vaxxers.
And they were presented as you know, these deluded people who had uh, who were making money out of.
I don't know how you make money being an anti-vaxxer.
Yeah, we know how you make money selling vaccines, but to tell people not to buy it, there's no money in that, really.
Yeah well, while Sam's bank accounts were being frozen, we were looking at Pfizer going, my goodness, they made a hundred billion out of that one and we couldn't quite work out how the money is in being against the vaccines.
But we were told that.
It was what we were told, david.
We were told that these um, anti-vaccine people uh, sophisticated operators who you know make a lot of money.
And and it was.
We didn't even look back then at the science.
They didn't say to us, well, here's the figures, or here's the original papers.
They didn't want you looking at that.
So essentially, and we found out since then that the, the medical schools, the academia, the scientific journals are largely controlled by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment.
It's in their interest to train the doctors up, and Peter Gotce has you know, his book deadly medicines and organized crime really exposes this.
It's redundant, probably.
Yeah, the narratives, the narratives are set by the industry.
So there'll be these catchphrases, safe and effective is one that came out of the thalidomide era.
And they'll have all of these things that doctors go around saying.
And the doctors think that this comes from honest, hardworking doctors.
And the origins of these catchphrases go back to the pharmaceutical industry and their marketing gurus.
And unfortunately, it permeates the whole medical world to the point where it's just taken for granted and believed.
Do you know, really quickly, I can't remember if I told you this last time, David, but I remember so vividly.
I graduated in 2005 from medical school.
And so around 2003, I think it was, we had our pediatric rotation and they spent a morning with us teaching us how to deal with anti-vaxes.
That was the whole thing.
And they said, I remember it because I was, I mean, I was staunchly pro-vaccine at this point.
And that they would say, they'll come at you and they'll have lots of paperwork.
And don't worry about looking at any of it.
What you need to focus on is that they've refuted all this, that this has all been, it's nonsense what they're telling you.
They're in a cult and this is what they believe.
And you have to kind of talk them out of it.
And it was this really patronizing kind of talk down.
Summer 2020 Vaccine Psychology 00:00:54
I'm like, oh, yes, doctors, we know best.
And now I think, oh, my gosh, they're just training you up to what this is a really evil kind of, and I don't know if that's still going, but that's definitely what I had.
Well, I remember this is important.
I remember in the summer of 2020 when they were talking about rolling out this vaccine.
And they had already wargamed how they were going to psychologically manipulate people.
Yale had done a study and they had about a dozen different categories of things that they could use.
And they'd actually done double-blind testing, unlike the vaccines.
So they actually tested the psychological stuff in the way that you would think that they would test a drug or something.
Magic Bullet Theory 00:06:45
But they had a control group that didn't get the narrative and then somebody else that they would use that argument on to see if it was effective.
And it was all the kind of stuff like, you know, you need to do this for your neighbor.
This is like the moonshot.
You need to trust science.
And all the narratives that we were sold, those were all tested with focus groups and with control groups.
And that part of it was very scientific.
That was the only part that really had any science with it, was the behavioral science.
And it's kind of interesting because they create this kind of this science fiction world with viruses and all the rest of the stuff.
And it is an interesting and very complete universe.
But of course, J.R.R. Tolkien did that with Lord of the Rings.
He had a very intricate universe that he'd created, but it was all fake.
So just because it's intricate doesn't mean that it's true.
And a good science fiction is when you don't have logical gaps in the universe that you've created, right?
And that was what I was seeing in 2020.
When I'm watching this closely, it's like, well, wait a minute.
What they're telling you doesn't make any sense at all.
For example, the stuff that your mask doesn't protect you, other people's masks protects you, all that kind of stuff, which has been the long-term narrative for the vaccine.
And that was a tip as to where they were going with the vaccine.
But, you know, that type of stuff, they had all these different things that were just illogical that they were telling people that made absolutely no sense, even if you believed the virology.
What they were telling people didn't make any sense.
It didn't hang together.
No, and that astounded us too, David.
In New Zealand, we had these really peculiar things.
Like the government introduced this level system and this traffic light system.
And they said, hey, look, when there's heaps of cases out there, we're going to shut down the whole country.
It goes into red light, et cetera.
And then when there are not many cases, we can open things up again.
You know, this is during the COVID era.
And then they just did the complete opposite in front of everyone.
So we have no cases.
We literally had no cases, even on their terms.
And they shut New Zealand down and said, you can't leave your house.
And then later on in 2022, when they allowed the rat test, the rapid antigen test to flood out there, of course, people just started testing at home and the number of cases went through the roof.
And then they just said, oh, it's time to open up.
It was completely illogical.
It made no sense on their own traffic light level system.
And Sam and I, of course, had refuted the entire notion that there was a SARS-CoV-2 virus or that COVID-19 represented some sort of new illness.
It was all circular reasoning.
But aside from that, we thought the people who bought into the narrative, surely at this point, they're going, this makes no sense.
But for the people who really buy into the narrative, I think they just take the bits that suit them and discard the bits that don't suit them.
That's right.
And that's a wider problem.
I don't know how it was in New Zealand, but here, you know, if you went to a restaurant, for example, you had to wear a mask in order to be seated at a table.
But once you got seated at the table, you could take the mask off.
And then if you need to get up to go to the bathroom, you could walk through the restaurant without a mask on.
It was all okay.
And it's like, wait a minute, this doesn't make any sense.
And I had a couple of, I knew I wasn't going to get anywhere if it was a chain, but I went to places that were locally owned and I said, I want to speak to the owner.
And I talked to him, and they said, yeah, we know it doesn't make any sense, but you got to do it.
And it's like, no, you're still on the rope that's going to hang here.
This is crazy.
And it was that kind of crazy stuff.
And yet, the reality is that people were going along with it, whether they believed it or not.
I don't know if other people believed it or they disbelieved it, but I know they complied with it.
And, you know, it's just, to me, that was the worst kind of insanity.
Now, we haven't had any kind of review or anything.
They didn't even pretend to have a review here in the United States.
There has been a pretend review, a pretend inquiry in the UK.
And you've got one going in New Zealand as well, right?
You got a couple of them.
And these are typically going to be a whitewash.
Is that the situation that's going on in New Zealand, I guess?
Yeah, they make it out like something's actually happening.
Nothing's happening.
It's just to placate the masses that there was some, oh, let's find a, oh, this could have been done.
You know, maybe we should have locked down harder earlier.
Maybe that should have been what happened.
Yeah, it's an absolute gaslight, David.
And it's really disappointing to see people buying into this stuff.
And obviously, the government run these so-called inquiries.
They appoint people they say are independent, but of course, there are these people that already go along with the establishment narrative, etc.
So here in New Zealand, to give you an idea of what a joke it was, the people that propagated the scam, so the big names like the Director General of Health and Jacinda Ardern, the Minister of Health, and the Prime Minister at that time, Ardern, all of them were excused at the last minute.
They didn't have to answer any questions because the public had a lot of questions for them.
But suddenly at the last minute, they announced, no, they don't have to say anything.
They were running the scam, but that's nothing to do.
Yeah, it was really bizarre.
And then you had, it's really sad to see because you had these groups going to the inquiry and presenting serious information, which was quickly dismissed because the government would then just counter it with their quote expert who would say, oh, no, that's not correct.
I can't get into the details why that's not correct, but because I'm an expert, I just know this stuff.
So, yeah, complete waste of time.
But I mean, countries like New Zealand and the UK, they love this sort of thing, you know, their royal inquiries or their national inquiries and stuff.
We do that occasionally.
We'll have a exercise.
We'll have congressional committees that look into something like Benghazi and they just go back and forth.
Nothing ever comes of it.
We had the Warren Commission when JFK was assassinated.
What we got out of that was this magic bullet theory.
So maybe that's why the public is not pressing for this, or it might just be apathy, which is kind of what I'm thinking it is.
I'm thinking it's not so much, you know, we've tried this before and it never tells the truth.
It's not that kind of cynicism.
I think it's really apathy from the American public.
Diseases Build Up From Within 00:04:53
And that's the thing that really concerns me.
We didn't even try to get any answers here in America.
But in some ways, I sympathize because everyone is saturated with constant fear and drama and war and whatever.
I mean, it's just, it's overwhelming.
And I mean, the things I take that are really positive, like we talked about earlier, was just that people are, people, many, many people are regretting that they ever took the vaccine.
They're not willing to be tricked again.
There's this huge distrust within the medical system.
People are fearful of it and don't want to kind of be involved with it.
And it's questioning all sorts of other things like virology.
And I think it's that is the great thing about it is we have to take the positives.
And everything comes from the people.
It can't come from, I mean, the government is just so, it's all, as you know, it's just so controlled.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
And yeah, and that's why we really focus, David, as you know, with our publications is to get people to the point where they can see, oh, this contagion is not what I've been told because look at this influenza, the Spanish flu experiments, they didn't work.
Look at the measles.
They never ever showed it was contagious despite these things.
Common colds didn't work in their 40-year history of trying these experiments.
And once you get people to see that stuff, they can't unsee it.
So they don't need to then go back through and repeat the process because one of the worst things you'll see is people getting into arguments about face masks, for instance.
And if they can see that there's no contagion in the first place, the face mask has nothing to do with that whole world.
That's right.
Face masks, they do have uses.
So for people that work in industry where there's particulate matter in the factories or environment, it's really important.
But face masks are not, they should not be a discussion within.
Yeah, and that was one of the things we were talking about at the time.
You know, they're saying, okay, virus particles are this size.
And if you look at the size of the filter, it's like it's not going to work for that.
They even put it on the side of the box.
You know, it's not going to protect you against any virus.
And yet it was mandated for this kind of stuff.
That's what I was saying about talking about when I said if you create a science fiction world, you've got to have some consistent rules within it.
So don't tell me that you got this tiny particle and tell me that I've got a, it's like saying that you're going to keep mosquitoes out by using a chain link fence.
It isn't going to work.
Totally.
And that's what we think is we call them distraction narratives because they're downstream from the key issues.
And we always say to people, go upstream.
Like, is contagion a thing?
And it's the same with vaccination.
Now, we know that there are some researchers who focus on the epidemiology of vaccines.
And that's fine because they often show they can refute vaccines that way.
But we also encourage people to go upstream and say the epidemiology doesn't even matter because the foundational science fails.
And not just on one, but on everything, on all of virology, on all of the bacterial so-called infections.
None of them show that there are microbes that cause disease.
Now, you do get some microbes that increase in numbers during certain diseases, like pneumonia, et cetera.
But that's not, there's no experiment that ever showed that they cause the disease.
It may be a consequence, in other words, right?
A consequence of the disease, an effect of the disease, and not the cause.
Totally.
And once people get this, that they can see, oh my goodness, the germ theory is wrong.
It should never have been called a theory.
It was a hypothesis.
And the hypothesis was refuted over and over again.
The experiments kept on failing.
And they just had to keep making up these new narratives to keep people in this mode.
And once people see it, as I say, they don't even worry about these downstream arguments.
And straight away, they say, well, that's fine because it doesn't bother me.
And, you know, it's giving people that knowledge not to be afraid because, you know, it's one thing for people to realize that vaccines aren't useful, but it's way more beneficial for themselves and their family to know, hey, you're not going to, you're not going to catch diseases.
Diseases build up from within.
Fraud Right in Front of Us 00:04:41
Other people are not going to make you sick in the sense that they're going to give you some sort of infectious microbe.
And once that way of thinking disappears, we find that people are just, they're free, basically.
They've left that cage.
The other thing, just touching on what you were saying before about masks and things, what really woke me up in a way in 2020 was when you see that the fraud is right in front of you.
So the fraud, what I saw strongly when really started to question things was the tests and that the tests themselves, when the PCR tests were being used, would say these are not diagnostic.
And I thought, how can this be?
And that's before you even go upstream, like Mark says, and you go, oh my gosh, there's no such thing as SARS-CoV-2 doesn't even exist.
When you can see it with open eyes and go, oh my gosh, it's right in my face here.
On the mask packets, it says that these won't work.
And yet people are walking around with them.
And you think, how can this be?
And that following that road will eventually lead you to freedom of going, I don't need to be part, I don't need to partake in these rituals anymore.
It truly was a bad science fiction movie, wasn't it?
And I remember there was a head of state in maybe it was Africa or something where he tested some fruit and he got a positive test on it.
But I had an EMS listener who has worked in the field for decades and he was very skeptical about all this stuff.
And he had somebody open up one of these packages and run it straight through without touching anything else and got a positive.
So you look at all this stuff.
And again, the guy who developed it said you can't use this for diagnostic purposes.
Kerry Mullis said that.
And so knowing all that stuff, I got to say, it was still, you have it been in the back of your mind.
It's like, well, you know, you hear all this stuff.
And, you know, I was absolutely convinced because of the war game, the germ games that they've been doing.
The first one two months before 9-11, Dark Winter.
I knew what that was.
I'd been tipped off by somebody.
He said, they're talking about Dark Winter 2.
And you know what that was about?
And he's like, yeah, I do.
And so be careful, watch out for this.
And then it came out.
It was exactly what they had practiced for 20 years.
The first one just two months before 9-11.
And so I knew it was a hoax, but you still have in the back of your mind, you know, what if, you know, there's this little thing.
But if you understand what you're telling people, then it is the final pandemic and you don't have to worry about it anymore.
The truth sets you free, doesn't it?
Yeah, exactly.
And I think it's getting people into that mindset, like Sam says, of just not participating in the rituals.
You just, you completely get out of it.
And people say, well, you need to take a test.
And you say, well, no, I don't.
There's no need for me to do that because it's not a diagnostic test.
Or people will say, well, you need to wear a mask.
And you say, well, why?
I'm not on a building site.
I'm not breathing in dust.
So that's not a thing.
It's yeah, it's getting them well and truly out of that.
And yeah, as you say, these exercises they were doing, they date right back in those decades leading up.
And obviously, in the 2010s, these tabletop exercises started becoming more common.
And, you know, right up until COVID time.
And in the final pandemic in our book, we also exposed that they were in the late 2010s, so around 2017, 2018, suddenly the whole anti-vaxxer thing becomes big in their white papers and they start talking about how to this problem with anti-vaxxers and how they're going to combat it and all this kind of stuff.
Because what was interesting was that these organizations who are linked up to globalist organizations, pharmaceutical industry, the medical establishment, none of them were really talking about this until that two years before COVID.
And clearly they had anticipated that there was going to be a rise in anti-vaccine sentiment.
But one thing that was interesting was that they didn't anticipate the rise in people who could see straight through germ theory and virology.
And they didn't see, it was people like Sam that they didn't see coming because, you know, she's a network TV doctor, you know, presenting generally mainstream stuff.
Best Place to Find Sam 00:02:25
And then suddenly.
Way off script.
The COVID narrative is so preposterous that people like us said, well, hang on a minute, we need to say something here.
And of course, the whole house of cards came down with, you know, these alleged pandemics.
Well, I really do appreciate and admire your integrity.
Sam, you're the only person I know that's lost two careers over this.
Not only on TV, but in terms of medicine as well, the way they've come after you and punitively come after you as well.
And so I really do appreciate your integrity, sticking to the truth.
It is so important what you're doing.
Tell people, again, is the website the best place for people to find you?
And can they get your books there at the website?
Is that the best place?
Yeah, thank you, David.
Yeah, please.
It's because, you know, we do the censorship dance too, like you do.
It's always just especially Substack's been tricky.
So, no, the best place to find us is always the website, drsambailey.com.
And you can, there's a tab there which has got all of our books.
And you can download Mark's latest one for free or buy it if you wish to.
That's all good.
It's we just wish to spread that information and hopefully reduce people's fear in the process.
So, yeah.
And people, there's a search bar on the website.
So people can just, because we've covered hundreds and hundreds of topics, because people will say, hey, what about rabies, etc.?
So we've got a search bar there and people can just type in these terms and hopefully we've covered it already.
Yeah.
There's a lot of information.
Yes.
Yes.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
I'm also on YouTube, but I'm hanging on by a thread there.
And yeah, just so you know, but there's Substack and also I'm on Telegram and Instagram in a little way.
Um, yeah, so just if you and people can find you at dr sambailey, that's d-r-s-a-m bailey b-a-i-l-e-y.com, right?
That's a boy store they can find.
Go directly there, and then you don't have any people in between trying to hide you, and that's what the search engines have become.
Appreciation Amidst Desperation 00:07:00
They become not a tool to find things, but a tool to hide things, especially people like Dr. Bailey.
And so, I really do appreciate what you're doing.
I know that it's cost you a great deal.
You didn't become billionaires like the people at Pfizer and Moderna.
Instead, just the opposite, and you've continued to push the truth out there to help people.
I really do appreciate that.
Can't tell you how much I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Thank you, David.
Thank you for what you're doing.
Appreciate it.
Have a good day.
Well, I want to give you a little bit of an appendix here to this interview because after we stopped the interview, they were still on the line and we talked a little bit about what they've been going through.
And they had a fascinating story that you've got to hear.
So, here's what they had to say: You tried to come to the United States, and what happened when you tried to make the trip?
So, in June of last year, I was trying to buy some stationery from the shop, and what happened was none of my cards would work.
And I was like, This is really weird because I just paid off my credit card.
And so, I went to the bank, and then the bank teller wrote on a piece of paper and said, Have you recently been made bankrupt?
And she slid it to me, and I was like, What?
No, like I would know something like this, wouldn't I?
And she's like, Yeah, yeah, definitely.
And then she went away and she's on lots of different phone calls.
And then she comes back to me and shows me this website, which is for in New Zealand, it's the insolvency website.
And my name is on there.
And three days earlier, a high court had declared me bankrupt because of this money from the medical council that they say I owe the $170,000, $160,000.
Yeah, so just to be clear, it wasn't because Sam was insolvent or bankrupt, it was just because she'd never paid the medical quote authorities their COVID fines, which you know were $160,000 or something.
And they did all this stuff in secret.
So it's like a bank robbery, except the banker is the one passing you the note to say we took all your money.
It was insane, honestly, David, like when it happened, because it caused such a shock.
And then from there, because we were supposed to be going to the States for this trip, and you're not allowed to technically travel overseas without permission, you know, because they think you're going to abscond with money or something.
And so I thought, oh, no, I'm not going to be able to go to the States.
And this is something I was just so looking forward to.
And anyway, we fought it in the courts, went to the High Court two weeks before we were due to go to the States because they hadn't done their due process.
They'd never told me.
They'd never served me with any, I had no information whatsoever that this had been going on behind the scenes.
So I, but the judge reserved the decision.
So I didn't know whether I'd be able to travel.
And anyway, I just, I believe in God and I went, we flew up and Mark and I split up our gear.
So because Mark was speaking at this conference and so I was like, I was supposed to, Mark had the laptop and I had the car keys and some New Zealand money in case they said no.
And then we went through the, you know, the smart things gates and then it did the green tick.
And I basically, I just broke down crying because I finally knew that I could go.
And we hadn't been, the last time we'd been to the States was in 2016.
And for us, this is such a huge thing because it was meeting all these people that we've been working with since COVID.
And I've always wanted to meet.
And now I knew I could give them people hugs and like actually talk.
And it was just such an amazing, we had such a wonderful time.
So, and then when we came back, I got the news that the bankruptcy had been annulled.
So it was just an amazing time.
Yeah, so the judge ruled that it was unlawful, the actions that they'd taken trying to seize bank accounts, et cetera.
They're still actively going after saying that Sam has to pay these COVID fines.
Even though the judges ruled it unlawful, they're still coming after you?
Well, he ruled the process that they took as unlawful, not the underlying claim that Sam needs to pay these COVID fines.
But it is preposterous.
And many doctors in New Zealand are starting to challenge this stuff now.
They're just saying, look, this is outrageous.
Why are we getting six-figure fines for questioning something?
There's no patient has ever come forward to say they were harmed.
They can't find anyone in the entire nation who got harmed by anything that Sam said or that any of the other doctors said who were practicing at the time.
But this is the world we're living in where they are trying to scare.
We think it's a good sign that this is how desperate it's become, that you have to give doctors six-figure fines if they don't agree with the narrative.
And I think that's the problem.
It shows desperation, doesn't it?
Shows desperation.
That's all they've got now is these financial penalties.
They know that they can't stop people from speaking out.
And yeah, so that's, I think, we have to see the positive side of things.
And it was quite satisfying when the judge ruled in Sam's favor and told them it was unlawful what they were doing.
And it makes you much more resilient, like you said, David, like, I think in terms of realizing, okay, this is all they've got.
Like, they tried to get me to sign a gag order way back in September 2020.
And I wouldn't, you know, and I'll never, I'm so pleased.
Every step I've taken, it's been an empowering thing.
And I feel great that this is all they've got.
Like, they're still worried about me, little me.
I'm not, you know, an aggressive person, but it's like, this is a threat.
That's right.
Well, one person who is determined to tell the truth, that's the key thing that they can't handle.
And of course, it's not science either if you can't handle skepticism.
You know, science only advances when somebody questions a narrative.
And they should never be in fear of trying to explain themselves and what they're doing.
Then it obviously isn't science.
It's not based on data and the scientific method.
That's what I've said all along about so many of these different frauds.
We see this type of thing happening over and over again.
But it really underscores, I think, the fact that you kind of see this as a ministry.
You see this as a way of helping people.
And that is really your heart and your motivation.
And I really appreciate that.
Thank you so much for doing that.
Really do appreciate that.
Thank you, both of you.
Doctors Mark and Sam Bailey.
God bless.
Thank you.
Thank you, David.
Thank you, David.
Thank you.
Well, we'll fit that in somehow.
That was too important to let go.
Yeah, absolutely.
So, yeah, I got the same thing when they came after me.
Export Selection