The Viral Delusion Pt 1

Video Transcript:

In February, I took a trip to California and on the West Coast Airports in California, I saw people wearing masks and I said, this has to be serious. I've never seen this before. And that's when I just started saying, okay, let's figure out what's going on. I'm going to start at the very beginning. I'm going to look at the papers that discovered the virus and take it wherever it leads me. And I never expected to find that those papers didn't actually show any virus. I was really surprised that the experimental techniques that they were using, it couldn't possibly show a new organism. It was totally the wrong experiment to do. At first, I was just confused. I'm like, I must be missing something because why would it be so far off? It was just shocking and I had to really talk to other people and look at their work and look at the historical context before I could fully appreciate what was going on. As any virus to show that it exists, you need to separate it entirely from any biological material. And the most important studies claiming that they have proven SARS-CoV-2, they haven't purified the particles without purification and finally isolation. You cannot say that you have found a virus. When somebody says, if a virologist says, we have isolated a virus, I thought as does everybody that they took 100 people or 500 people who are sick in the same way. They have runny nose or a cough or pneumonia. And then you do steps like you take their secretions, you then macerate it and then you filter it and then you centrifuge it and then you have a band that has just those viruses. That's what everybody thinks they did and then you tell people the steps so some other lab could repeat the steps. That's how you do it in science. And then everybody says, yes, this thing that we have is pure SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. That's what every human being understands by the word isolation. And that's what every doctor and human being thinks happened in this case. Right? Except it didn't happen once. This is the story of a group of doctors and scientists who are challenging to very heart and the scientific foundation that formed and then it. They are a kind of class, scientific dissidents, winning up crucial flaws in the very experiments that claim to have discovered SARS-CoV-2 and they are profoundly at odds with medical authorities. Yet, they are part of a long tradition of doctors, journalists and scientists who have spoken out against the validity of the experiments used to show that one particular disease or another was caused by a newfound virus that lived time and time again, and written out medical history. It's a scientific fight that goes back more than 100 years. Starting with the debate between two chemists, Louis Pasteur and Antoine Pichon. But its modern incarnation began as a disagreement in 1985 between on the ground AIDS researchers and none other than a young medical bureaucrat named Antoine Fauci. It was declared on April 8th, 1984 before any scientist or anybody else in the world knew there was it. AIDS with a couple of AIDS contagious infectious disease, nobody in the world, no scientific paper was published or anything about it. It was just declared on that day and it became government policy and it still government policy to this day. That set the stage. Not only that, it set the stage with having a disease with a virus that has never been obtained from a human being. It's HIV thing, the only place that I know of that exists is in the laboratory. Nobody has ever published obtaining or isolating or even seeing HIV in a human being. The young Fauci had thrust into the mainstream the ideas of cancer researcher Robert Gallo that a particle he had claimed to have discovered the HIV virus was the cause of AIDS. That this virus could be sexually transmitted and thus AIDS was at the very edge of becoming a new global plague. While much of the world rushed to congratulate the NIH, a small group of doctors and scientists pointed out that the declaration had no serious scientific backing and that the so-called HIV virus had in reality never even been proven to exist. I was here at Liberty San Francisco, I had my little biotech companies. I wanted to work on this, like everybody else in the Bay Area wanted to work on AIDS, we wanted to put our skills to work to try to cure it, be heroes, be caret on people's shoulders, like all the young scientists. We talked about AIDS from the very beginning when it popped up in the 80s even before it had a name. The hair it was in 84, you know, a hot, a virus and everything. I'm a chemist, I'm going to make inhibitors and kill this retrovirus. The other people working here and there and then by 87 I've been starting to question this stuff 85. But between 85 and 87 I started talking about the problems with this whole notion that AIDS is contagious because of a transmissible infectious agent, all those anomalies, you know. The first thing that made me suspicious back I think it was 84, 85, 85 for sure about this HIV business. How does this virus know that you're gay and I'm supposed to cause Camposis Sarcoma in you and not in these IV drug using white men? I give them TB or something like that, you know. I mean that was one of my first my first suspicions, you know. And also how does that, how does that little virus know not across the street, you know, like in the Castro area, stay living here where the gay guys are, you know, where they have all these AIDS diseases, but then go over here in this other part of town. It's a virus that knows your zip code or your gay or straight water black or whether you're a richer poor. That's one of the first things that those discrepancies was back by 1987 I realized this whole whole shoot match was contagious, sexually transmitted HIV was not terrible. In fact, it was crap. The debate quickly blew up when the leading virologist in the US, Peter Jusberg, accepted the government's claim that what was pictured under the microscope was a so-called virus, but published a paper explaining in 19 clear points why this particle could not be the cause of AIDS. The storm to begin with is storm when you die from it is storm when you suffer from it. There's no report in the literature describing the virus ever to be active in a patient. It was a silent war waged behind the scenes as the debate shot through the scientific community. The critics were soon joined by Kerry Mullis, the Nobel Prize winning inventor of the PCR process. At some point we needed to re-up our grant from the NIH to work on that and I had to write it. The first line of that was HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. I wrote that and then I said, well, I need a paper, some kind of scientific paper, to reference that statement because when you make a scientific statement like that's like a fact. You need to say, here's how come I know that. You put a little one if it's the first statement you've made and then you've done it at the bottom of the paper, you have a one and you say, here's a paper by somebody that describes why that statement is true. So I said, well, let me think about what is that paper? Who do I go to for that? I looked around and I asked a couple of ourologists that come to me and they said, no, you don't have to reference. I said, I have to reference that because I don't know where that came from. How do I know that? And it turned out that nobody knew it. There wasn't a scientific reference, like a paper that somebody had submitted with like experimental data in it and like logical discussion and said, here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. There was nothing left there, like nothing. Melissa insisted his technique was being misused to claim it could find viruses and diagnose disease when it could do neither. The AR is separate from that. It's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That's why it's, it doesn't tell you that you're sick and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that. Melissa became Fauci's most prominent critic and soon was joined by numerous other leading scientists, but it was a debate that was kept almost entirely out of the media. To say that Anthony Fauci controls the media is a real understatement. Here's a story Peter Duceville used to tell. Peter was going to be on one of the talk shows, I don't know if it was CNN or if it was one of the big, I think it was actually one of the networks and they were just new, straightforward journalism. Oh, Dr. Duceburg, you are an esteemed retrovirologist. Why don't you think HIV is the cause of AIDS? Why everybody just agrees with you, you know, but what do you have to say? So they flew into New York, flew into New York. He was in his hotel room on and about to go downstairs to get picked up by the car and phone rings. Oh, sorry Dr. Duceburg, we have to cancel the interview. And he says he literally turned on the TV at the point of time and Tony Fauci was sitting there talking about the latest numbers and the latest scare and how. So they must have had such a surveillance capacity even then. And or spies and moles and all this kind of stuff so they knew. They absolutely knew when somebody was going to interview. Peter Duceburg. The argument came to its most devastating culmination over Fauci's prescription that those who had tested positive for the HIV virus using Kerry Mullis's PCR test should take a repurposed chemotherapy drug known as AZT to state their lives. While Fauci's detractors argued that the drug was unknown and extraordinarily deadly poison, which was killing the very people who thought they were saving themselves. It was an argument over a new disease, but not a new argument. Thirty years earlier, a number of prominent doctors had spoken out forcefully that polio 2 had been wildly misdiagnosed and that the devastation of childhood paralysis was much more likely due to the introduction of new insecticides than to the sudden and capricious rise of a new virus. They too were silenced by a growing medical bureaucracy had quoted at NIH under the influence of the now dominant post-World War II pharmaceutical companies. Even earlier, a silent war had been waged in the medical community over smallpox, which had come to a head when the very doctor who had been selected to write the encyclopedia Britannica entry for smallpox vaccination. Set about to look at the research and found to his shock that vaccinations had clearly not been the reason smallpox had declined. Though considered the most prominent British doctor of his day, his entry was deleted, his career attacked, and his research written out of orthodox medical history. The thrust of these doctors and scientists' arguments is that a number of profoundly unscientific experiments had emerged, which were being used to place the blame for disease on the concept of tiny, unseeable entities named viruses, which could not in reality be found in sick patients. In the real causes of disease, such as smallpox, polio, and AIDS, were industrial contaminants, toxins that emerged from poor living conditions, malnutrition, and new pharmaceutical products that were destroying the body in untold new ways. Yet despite their efforts, a rapidly growing edifice of bureaucracy was forming, built on the foundation of virus theory. Any idea of viruses as the cause of disease, permeating the culture so profoundly, that slowly, most doctors came to believe in it. The debate has re-emerged today, as a growing group of doctors and scientists are speaking out against the experiments that form the justification for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Their argument is that while thousands of experiments have been done regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus, they are built on an unscientific foundation that is, in reality, pseudoscience. Today, medical authorities have placed barologies center-stage in claiming it has the answers to human sickness, and that the rapidly-meantating deadly SARS-CoV-2 virus must be controlled through urgently necessary population-wide medical experiments, and the rewriting of the world's long-standing social contracts. But the argument of their detractors is that this story has become transparent and false, that the experiments to justify these extraordinary actions, when looked at closely, are unscientific and contradictory, have not prevented, but caused death, disease, and mayhem on an enormous skip, and must be brought to an immediate end before more devastation ensues. The argument from the mainstream views is well known, but the arguments of its detractors have once again been almost entirely silenced. This is their story. We all remember when the pandemic began, on the pronouncements that a new deadly and highly transmissible virus had been found. The claims were based on a single paper out of a laboratory in Wuhan, but while much of the world set into panic, a number of doctors and scientists were examining this paper, and the subsequent in detail. Here is what they found. The first thing I did, I actually went to look for the first Chinese study from the CDC, the Chinese Center for Disease Control, published under the name Zoo and others, which was the first supposed isolation of the SARS-CoV-2, and of course immediately found incredible discrepancies and a methodology that didn't isolate anything. They found some people with atypical pneumonia, which is not uncommon. Every year we see lots of atypical pneumonia. That's what we often call the flu or a virus, because we don't really know what's causing it, but everyone during the sea does. So I was like, well, they see a few cases of atypical pneumonia, that's not unusual. They had some commonality that they were all at this outdoor food market, which didn't have the best sanitary condition. I'm like, if people got sick from there, I would think some kind of food poisoning, but they never even came up with that idea. They said, oh, it must be something like SARS, and it was just why would they come to that conclusion? And then this was also the weird thing, because if you really do have a new disease, right? You would want to take a good sample of cases to study, like a thousand people, or at least a hundred. They had less than 10. Why would they only study such a tiny number of people? I think they only actually took samples for these tissue culture experiments from three patients. And then all of a sudden they were assuming it's like some deadly virus plague. So-called isolation or discovery of this virus. It's done in a single individual, a single human being. All right. There were 44 cases of pneumonia in December, I guess it was, of 2019. The World Health Organization office there in China cataloged these 44 people of pneumonia that they had no explanation for. And this is in the country that has about a million pneumonia every year. All right. What is so important about 44 cases, like they don't know what's causing it? Lots of things can cause pneumonia. Chemicals can. That malnutrition can. Drugs can. Being old can. Being in a hospital can. Chronic diseases. I mean, there's all kinds of things that cause pneumonia. And with this one guy, I guess, now they have this one guy in the country of over a billion people. So essentially what I found was that they were taking the liquid from patients. They were maybe sent for fuging them or filtering them. But I made a calculation of that in the 15 micrograms that they were using for to do the test. They were still like about 30 billion particles, various like particles, of which 85 to 95% of human origin, human genetic origin. And they would take this very heterogeneous material and put it into a culture. And then they would say that that was the isolated virus, which of course they make any sense. They're taking samples from the patient to try to find a virus, but they don't look in that fluid from the patient for the virus. Michael, well, why not? That's the source of it. Instead, I see they mix it in the spharn cell culture, monkey cells. Like, why would they do that? It doesn't make any sense at all. They basically took, combined the worth of virus and isolation together and created a new definition for that term. And this is why it's so confusing. So only the scientists or doctors who actually take the time to read the paper and read the methods are going to understand that there's no isolation going on. Everyone else who just reads the title of the paper, they'll just just, oh, well, yeah, they said it right here. They said isolated. They don't actually isolate viruses. They just say that they isolate viruses. Back, you know, if you think of something like a bacterial species, and it is possible to isolate bacteria as in just get the bacterial cells, separate them out from everything else, and then analyze them, work out what their composition is, their genetics, their structure, work out what the bacteria, how they behave, what they can do. And I think most people think that with viruses, they're doing the same thing, except that with viruses, when they use the word isolation, it doesn't mean that they're physically separated and purified the particles. It means something totally different. So that's the first deception. So the question is, why don't they do it? Why don't they show us this virus from a sick person, not only in a hundred people, but in one person? I mean, so I don't know the answer to that, but what they say is, well, there's not enough of these virus particles in a sick person to find them, which is odd, because if there's not enough viruses in a sick person to find them, what's the theory that they're going to make us all sick and kill us all? So that's obviously ridiculous. In the barology papers that form the foundation of the pandemic, indeed, the term isolation is used in an entirely different way from its ordinary usage. What the papers mean by the term isolation is that the nasal or throat swab has been isolated from the patient, not that the virus itself has been isolated from the nasal swab. Not isolating the hypothetical virus. These doctors and scientists argue that no independent variable can be properly studied or characterized. It is the first step in what is considered the bedrock of both the scientific method and the founding principles of microbiology known as Cox postulates. Through FOIA requests, an activist named Christine Massey has received confirmation from more than 150 government institutions, including the CDC and NIH, that they have no record of a virus named SARS-CoV-2 ever having been isolated directly from a patient. Instead, these institutions point to scientific papers which use three methods for claiming they have discovered the existence of the virus without ever having isolated a virus itself. The first of these is known as the cytopatic effect. People have sent me in this past year, let me just take a guess, 50 papers called the isolation of SARS-CoV-2, now maybe 48, but it's a lot. And both the normal virology community and the sort of alternative community sends me paper after paper saying, here's how they isolated, here's a paper showing the isolation of this virus. Every single one did it the exact same way. They take snot and they notculate it onto tissue culture, usually monkey kidney cells which are called verosauce. And put it in this recipe of the toxic cell culture with, you know, toxic antibiotics, and they usually use ones that are specifically toxic to the type of cells in the culture. So when they use kidney cells, they use antibiotics like streptomycin, gentomycin, and anphotyrus and B which are all specifically toxic to the kidneys. They starve the culture and then they add other virology materials like bovine, calf serum, like a fetal bovine serum, rather like from, you know, calves in the womb, their blood. And they can show these, what they call, cytopathic effects which is damage to the cells from this every single time and then when cells are damaged they make particles like exosomes and apoptotic bodies and other types of particles that don't even have names. And they can just point to whatever particle they want and say there's the virus. So it's very convenient. It just doesn't come close to proving what they say it does. The way that they prove, in verse of commerce, SARS-CoV-2 exists is through stressing cells in cell cultures, er, verosel cultures. They stress them with antibiotics, all sorts of mechanisms, and then they see things as a bird or they see cilia on the cells stop beating. And so they interpret those as virally caused, yeah, or as virus is budding or as the cilia on the cells, the human cells, they stop beating so the cell must have died. But it could be due to all sorts of things. Very, very uncontrolled experiments, one shot experiments. The cytopathetic effects are just non-specific effects that occur in a test tube when you put various cell cultures and then they usually start with a cell culture line which is highly abnormal. So you don't start with a healthy cell line because they find that they don't seem to do very much in the test tube. So typically they take something weird like a vero which is a monkey kidney cell. And it's an abnormal one so it's got chromosomal abnormalities. And then you use that kind of cell for your experiment because these cell lines are highly reactive, meaning that they have a hyperpensity to die and break up in a test tube and produce various exosomes and things that the virologists are looking for. So in this regard they say that all of those effects are due to the presence of a disease causing virus. But the problem with that is that you can get the same effects by putting other things in the test tube with the cell culture so you don't need to put a virus in there. It's just the process itself which stresses the cells and causes them to break down. So that's what John and I call the double deception. Firstly, saying that they've isolated a virus when they haven't. And secondly, attributing effects that we can see anyway without the presence of a virus that's saying that it's specifically tour virus. And this is the basis of modern biology basically and that's. It's simply fraudulent. It simply doesn't establish a that there's a virus and b that it's able to cause disease. So here's a article that was in viruses May 2020. They're talking about now they have a better name for just debris coming from the breakdown of our tissues. They call it extracellular vesicles and exosomes. But that means when we get poisoned or sick, then we break down into these particles. And the question of this article was can we tell the difference between this breakdown versus something coming from outside? Right? So he says, quote, however to date a reliable method that can guarantee a separation from extracellular vesicles and exosomes from viruses, quote, does not exist. We can't tell the difference. And essentially what that means is all of these genetic pieces that we're calling viruses are just the breaking down of our own tissue. If they really were going to do some kind of tissue culture experiment for something that caused pneumonia, why wouldn't they put it into lung cells, human lung cell culture? That's what it's supposedly effects. One group did it on a various human cell lines and none of them grew. And so the conclusion should have been this SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn't affect human tissue. Okay, thank you very much. Let's move on. You just proved it. That's what they did. And that's what they found. But they came to the conclusion. They don't say. They just say it worked better with veerosomes. Now here's the interesting thing. It worked better with veerosomes, which are kidney cells instead of human lung cells, because the antibiotic that they used to sterilize it happens to be particularly poisonous to kidney tissue as opposed to lung tissue. So it's not surprising that the kidney tissue broke down better than the lung tissue. If they used an antibiotic that was specifically toxic to the lungs, they would probably have found out that it does grow on human lung cell. And again, when you hear this, you think, no, it can't be that stupid. And I don't actually know what to say to that for most people. All I can tell you is that's what they did. That's the conclusion they came to. Rita papers, you'll see that they have disproven themselves with their own writing, right? Of course, you realize they are completely anti-scientific because they are not questioning the base, the historical base, and what they are doing. It's just a belief system. They are doing it in faith and they came up with the conclusion. It's easy to check this. Very easy. You see only the work with structures, from cell cultures, and never ever were able to visualize something in a blood, from your mouth, from urine, from sperm, from all other kind of liquid or tissue in the body. Never ever. Absolutely can tell you after a year of looking, there has not been one case in the published literature where a virologist or a scientist took somebody with sick, did the normal isolation procedures, and said, here is this virus. To prove the point, Stefan Lanka conducted the same experiment without adding any material to a monkey kidney cell culture, along with the antibiotics used in the SARS-CoV-2 experiments. His results were the same. Even without adding any so-called viral material, he was able to see the cytopathic effects in the cell culture. I spoke with a number of virologists in making this documentary. None would appear on camera, except for Stefan Lanka. But when pressed about the issue of isolation, all of them tried to move the conversation, to the two other ways that the scientific papers have claimed proof of the existence of SARS-CoV-2, the electron photographs, and the genomics. For all sorts of pictures, you know, sick, purported to be of this virus, and they were put out by the government and other sources that have published in magazines, newspapers, and they're floating all around. So many of these images were just completely made up in artist's rendering. And I'm like, what the heck is this? You know, why are they trying to pass the soft people thought these things were real? And then I saw the pictures in the paper, in the shoe paper, and they show these images where like cells, like from the monkey kidney culture, and then these all different kinds of little particles, and then they just put a little arrow next to a particle, they like the way it looks, and they say, oh, there it is, that's the virus. And I'm like, what the heck is that? How could they recognize it? You know, just by sight, they have so many sources of particles in this toxic cell culture soup. Vyresosomes are particles that all cells make. They come off the membrane. The same exact way that they say virus particles do, and they are the same exact size and shape as they say virus particles are, and they are made of the same thing that they say viral particles are, which is they have a membrane with proteins on it, and they have genetic material inside. And the genetic material is of a variety of the same exact types that they say viruses have, which include, you know, DNA, double stranded, single stranded, mitochondrial DNA, RNA, microRNA. All those things are reported to be in both exosomes and viruses. So I said to myself, they created a recipe in the cell culture to make exosomes because they added antibiotics. If you look up studies, you'll find that antibiotics can do exosomes. So they're creating exosomes, and they're showing particles that look like exosomes. So how do they know they're not? There's no chemical test that they did. They couldn't because they didn't identify anything first to develop a chemical test, right? So they're just going by sight. And you know, you just, the thing is you can't tell the difference of any of these things by sight. They're just made up. And I realized that I'm like, this is not scientific at all. They show a picture, you know, of cells and various particles, and there's just an arrow to these nondescript round particles that they just say, oh, those are the virus, even though there's nothing distinct about them at all. And they don't even have this by protein noms that are characteristic on these images in this paper. So they're basically just showing particles of dying cells and saying, these ones, they're the corona viruses. But they have no proof. They didn't purify any particles directly from the patient. They didn't do any chemical analysis. Everybody thinks you see pictures of viruses from sick people. I thought that. And then somebody asked me, can you show me a study that shows that? Well, I don't really know. Well, I think everybody thinks, let's take one example. The first paper from Australia that isolated and has a picture of a SARS-CoV-2 virus outside of China. So that's what people see. They see this particle with spiky things off the side, which are the spike proteins, little dots. And they say, that's the SARS-CoV-2 virus. And that's all most people and most doctors know. There's the virus. How did they get that? They took fluid from one person, mixed it with their amniotic fluid in bovine serum and horse serum and amphotericin B and genomicin and put it in a monkey kidney cell and it broke down. And then they got these particles. And that's what their picture. But interestingly, when you read how they did it and I'll read it and explain it, they say, quote, electron micrographs of section Vero cells showed cytoplasmic membrane biophysicals containing coronavirus particles, C-box 5B. Having several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trips into the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology. Now let's dissect this a little. Virion means an individual virus. So they did the Vero cells, that's the kidney tissue. They found membrane biophysicals. They found budding out of the cell. They found these little pieces of particles of genetic material. That's like when you block the house, you occasionally get pieces of paper sticking to the walls. That doesn't show whether they're going out or going in or they're just breaking down. So you see them stuck together. They're going to be in coronavirus particles. There are several attempts and they didn't look like the ones with the spike protein. So they didn't find anything that looked like a coronavirus. And then they added trips into the medium. Tripsin is a pancreatic enzyme, protein digesting enzyme, that then ate away the outside of the protein coating on the virus. And then low in behold, it looked like it had spikes on it. And so that's the coronavirus. And there's a lot of analogies one could make. The one I came up with was it's like you have a box of wood. And you say, I think there's wood shaped like stars in that box. And you look through it and you don't see it. So you call your carpenter friend and he cuts out the edges of the bottom of the wood. And he say, see, there's the star. And post people would say, wait a minute, that's nuts. Because obviously there wasn't anything that looked like that until you put something that digested the outside to make it look like it has spikes on it. And then they also say that they characterized the viral sequence. But they didn't characterize the viral sequence. They made a computer model of a theoretical genome sequence of a theoretical virus. So then they did this massive, what I call a drag net for all of the RNA. They found a determined find of virus as a cost for this guy. So they did this drag net for all of this RNA. Millions of those trans RNA in this person using technology is called metatranscript homics. And one of these gene things is technology driven stuff. Or they can look at all the RNA, all the DNA sequence that amplify it, trillions of whole of the all this technology technology driven, not science driven. So I got this person's lung sample of his lung. They do all this stuff. That was fancy equipment. They used zero down the gallopies signals. They didn't have a computer. It stitches all these little signals. These little fragments are in a together out of millions of millions of billions of these things. All right. And they came up with a sequence. And then they decided that they had discovered this virus, even though they never touched the virus at all. And they said that was the cause of this guy's pneumonia. So they take this, as I said, this unpurified mass. So they end up with this fat of literally billions of pieces of genetic material in this stew. Right? So that's the cell culture. So they have all this broken down genetic material. Now you would then think, because this is called an unbiased genome calculation, sequencing. That they look in that brew and say, which is the, you know, what genome do we see? But they actually don't see anything like that. What they do is they don't see a whole genome. So they chop it up into little bits. So some of them are 2,000-based pairs, some are 10,000, some are six, some of them are whatever. And so they chop it up into little bits of, say, 10 or 20 or, I'm not sure the exact number of possibilities, but little pieces of nucleotides. So then you say, now, computer, arrange that into a full genome. They did not do sequencing. They did assembling, assembling. Sequencing is a totally different thing. You don't snip it up. You start with what you assume is an intact genome, an intact strand of RNA or DNA and something. You don't snip it up. You don't do this metatranspomic stuff from millions of things. You take what you've got there and you do what's originally called sanger sequencing, which you start with a whole thing and you just snip off the nucleotides one at a time. And then you list it as sequencing. All right? Then that's how they do the sequencing for that mouse genome, for the human genome. That's sequencing where you get the authentic, not random, not scrambled, but you get the authentic sequence as it is intact. Remember with the SARS, they have all these little bits and pieces RNA and they stitch them together and to try to get a complete sequence. That's what they do. And you don't know where it's coming from. They just know what it all look like. And they keep going with this next generation sequencing where they can play around a bit, you know, because next generation sequencing is a kind of a, they call it ambias, meaning they sequence anything that is there, you know, the story billion particles, the sequence, all of it. By doing that, they can still have a leeway where they can say you, they can, you know, play around and claim that there's some kind of virus. What they are doing with the genetic material, as they never were able to isolate a piece, even not the whole piece in case of coronavirus, 30,000 building blocks called nucleotides. Never ever. Even its standard technique seems decays to show that you have a long nucleot acid present then you pick it up, you sequence it and you repeat it, you repeat it, you always came up with the same thing. They never were able to. What they are doing, they use very fort sequences which they found in their dying cells and add them up mentally. And then at the end you have a mental construct which has no base in reality, no base. This is called, as they say, this is an Ensilico Gino. Ensilico means in the computer. So it's a theoretical genome that only exists. It doesn't exist anywhere in the sample. There is no, there is no 30,000 sequence that's a viral genome. There is no such sequence like that in the mixture. Done. So that's the basis of saying this quote, virus with this genome does not exist in the biology. It doesn't exist in the sample. It is created by the computer. That's what we call an Ensilico Gino. They shared that sequence of RNA around the world. Other people around the world, now you look at the look for it. So now they are starting to, everybody else is getting samples from people and then coming up with their own little sequence of a coronavirus. And I think it was just past December or something like that. There is this database in Germany that had already cataloged 400,000 different unique sequences of SARS-CoV-2. 400,000 of these things. And not one of them had actually ever gotten a virus. They all do the same thing as a metatranscript. They teach together all this RNA the reason they have so many of these things, they don't have the virus. So what's really happening when they actually have two billion different sequences of this virus? What's really, can you explain to people, what does that really mean? Oh, just means that precisely because there isn't a real virus, a real organism, because if there were a real organism, you'd be bound by it. You can't invent one. It's there. You call it, it's a call. You can produce two million different decolies. Because everybody would say, that's the color, that's whatever you do different, it's not the color. But since there is no virus, real virus, anybody can set up their own version of it with no limitation. There's no gold standard, as you say, right? So everybody can take the sequence, change a couple of letters and produce a different sequence. And they say, oh, this is the sequence that we did in Rome, or this is the sequence that we did in New York, this is the sequence that we did in London, that we did in India. That's how variants are born. But the thing is, variants, I also published an article on variants, is so ridiculous that I actually developed the concept of the ridiculous science, the scientific ridiculous, because it's such a ridiculous story that it's unbelievable. And no one ever says, you know, the king is naked, no one says it. There are analysis raises a thousand questions. If there is no proof that anyone ever isolated a virus, nor photographed a virus, nor sequence a virus, how did they make a test for it? Why did people get sick? Was this a conspiracy or just a broken intellectual parader? The doctors and scientists argue that understanding the test is the key to unlocking the story. The test that was used to label the public as having COVID, without ever having been validated, to prove it could do that. The alleged epidemic was caused by the spreading of the test. You know, the German, Drossen, paper, where they actually built the first swab test to test for the SARS-CoV-2, where they themselves, that was published at the end of February, and they themselves said that, you know, they created this swab test without even having an actual virus available. And so it was created on a sequence sent to them by the Chinese. SARS-CoV-2, the virus, so-called, the so-called virus that's never been purified or properly isolated, has been identified through PCR testing. And it's a fraudulent medical diagnostic. It was never invented to be a medical diagnostic. The PCR cannot detect infection. It cannot detect the presence of the virus. We falsified the PCR test in a huge paper in December 2020, but the authorities have chosen not to ignore that. The scientific authorities have chosen to ignore it. They can read how Peter Borgher, molecular biologist, deconstructed with 21 other scientists, the whole of the PCR test. It should have been immediately withdrawn when our paper was published. The Eurus Sverlands refused to withdraw the original paper. The Eurus Sverlands refused to withdraw the original paper. Because this isn't about the science, COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 is nothing to do with science. Otherwise it would have all been debunked months ago. There is no virus there. The CDC admitted last December that they don't have any SARS-CoV-2 to compare with the PCR test to see if that's what it's actually detecting. So there's not even any way to calculate an error rate. When people talk in the news about false positives and stuff, no one knows the false positive rate. You can't calculate it because there's nothing to compare it to because there's no virus. So what you have here is basically a roulette wheel. Even the WHO realizes that the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is really riddled with false positives. And from my perspective, it can't be relied on at all. You don't know what a true positive is. What these PCR testers know I didn't know. So they're all false positives. All positives and false positives with PCR test. They're totally useless. The test is a polymerase chain reaction test. It's a test for bits of genetic material that were told our SARS-CoV-2. What's wrong with that is that they assumed it exists through a computer model, a sequence that was modeled, not a live derivative sequence derived from a live isolate. You have to have a reference standard, for example. And like I said, the CDC doesn't even have any authentic SARS-CoV-2 to validate the PCR test. Now when you've got a PCR test, you, everybody knows you've got amplification cycles, right? The more times you run the test, the more cycles you do, the more likelihood of more probability there is a positive outcome, positive test result. And the tests they are using, they are extremely unbelievable, far away from any biochemical reason. They are using 45 cycles. I mean, that's another argument. It's completely out of prison. With 30 cycles already, the PCR always starts to be 30 to produce all kinds of genetic material, means to give a positive result. The test ends and uses, they've got old with every cycle heated up, cooled down, so they are not specific. They just produce, even without a given DNA, they just produce genetic material, giving a positive result. So therefore, you can test everything and everybody positive, even the most pure water or vodka. And they're basically just saying, hey, healthy people, take this test, right? So we can label you as a case because we're using that to drive all the policies. It's been like fishing, you know? And that's what it is. All this testing and screening, all this, you know, PhDs, all the rest of it, you know, it's a drag net for generating markets for drug companies. So what we say happening is when they do their genomic sequencing, sometimes you detect slightly different sequences from previous and someone could just declare that, wow, that looks like a new variant. And the most recent one was, you know, Omicron at the moment and that's, I mean, clearly this was just a way to create more cases because what they said was that previously you would have a PCR that would look at two or three specific selected nucleotide sequences. And with Omicron, they said that the S-Gene or the spike protein sequence was mutated. So that the existing PCRs were not detecting that particular sequence anymore. So essentially what was previously a negative test is now a positive test. I mean, this is how crazy it's getting. So previously you'd have three of the or two or three of the selected sequences would be called positive where is now you don't need one of those sequences to be positive. And they say, well, that's because of Omicron. So it's totally up to you. I've never seen anything like it where a previous positive test becomes negative, but then you call it positive because you say that it's because there's a new variant. And that's why we saw an explosion as predicted in the number of the parent cases. So at no time did they take a group of people who were said to have the Omicron variant, they didn't study those people to see if they were actually unwell or what happened to them over a course of time. They didn't none of that. There's no clinical work going on. There was simply a declaration that we've detected a slightly different genetic sequence and a hay presto when other places around the world started checking for this genetic sequence. They start finding it too. But at the beginning you don't need the presence of a virus to do that. These genetic sequences can be found anywhere once you start looking for them. I'm very interested in recent developments in medicine. So for instance, I've been following the debate about facts. Recently I've been following the debate about COVID-19, trying to figure out what is scientifically valid, what is not, how do the social... Powers that shape science interact to produce facts. What I've been observing was that we run the danger of going into another scientific mythology without great caution. That's my opinion. Because if you look at what happened was you have initially you have some strange infectiology, some people dying, some this, some that, but without that PCR test that was developed. You would never have been able to say there is a new coronavirus. Like let's imagine a time 20 years ago or 40 years ago where you didn't have the test. All you have to go by was patients who go to hospital, patients who are severely ill and patients who die. If you use those indicators, at least in Germany, you would have never seen any exceptional wave of any infection, because there was none. Hospitals were not more fuller emptied than they were during the time of winter infections. You had not more people dying. You would not have known anything. So part of that corona crisis is actually a testing spree and a production of public anxiety due to testings. So what we are doing is we are producing probably highly irrelevant information by calling people sick who simply have some DNA scrap around. And this testing spree that went on has never been questioned. There were scientists who questioned that, but they have been silenced in the media, at least in Germany very quickly. So they don't get media coverage, they don't get outlets, they mostly keep silent because they are bored away or they are just frustrated because nobody listens to them. Probably publicly most people know me as the other half of Dr. Sam Bailey. So I ate prior, it was clear that most people wanted to, April 2020, and most people wanted to know what was going on with this alleged new disease sweeping across the world. So Sam started making some videos about COVID, the virology, PCR, the excess mortality and the issues that people wanted to know about and who online stuff just really took off. And as I have said, COVID-2 has been isolated. In short, no, not by the rigorous definition. Unfortunately in the modern era, isolation does not mean the purport of virus particles have been fully separated and purified. Many people send me links to papers claiming to have isolated SARS-CoV-2, most of which I have already read. In fact our virus media team have contacted many of these authors to clarify what they actually did. And then shown previously on direct questioning, none of the authors of these so-called isolation papers claimed that they had a purified sample. Even Michael Law from the Robert Cochons to check wrote in an email that we received on September 4, 2020, I'm not aware of a paper which purified isolated SARS-CoV-2. And then sort of by mid 2020, we realized that once you start to question the narrative and start to get a bit of attention, various authorities and other organisations start to come down pretty heavily and start to allege that you're spreading misinformation or that you're completely wrong with what you're talking about. And that was Sam's experience by mid to late 2020 was that the censorship started and what we felt was that the closer we got to the truth, the more the censorship ramped up. And in some ways that drove us to keep pushing and pushing and to find out exactly what was going on with this whole COVID-19 story. It all happened really quickly with a video that Sam released related to why case numbers were suddenly going up here in New Zealand and just explaining that the PCR was not a diagnostic tool for infections and that if you just start running these tests out into the population, you will find cases. And we've seen that around the world the more you test, the more cases start appearing. With coronavirus in fall swing in 2020, PCR or the polymerase chain reaction became a household name. As many of you know, the inventor of the PCR was the late Carrie Mellus, but what was this background and why did they come into conflict with much of the medical and scientific establishment? The video obviously got a lot of attention and spread around both New Zealand and the world pretty quickly. And within a week there was these fact checking articles which we know, you know, I completely fraudulent, they're often funded by the social media platforms themselves or pharmaceutical companies. There were smear articles in the media coordinated smear articles. There was Sam's first contact with the medical authorities here, basically alleging that she was causing problems for public health and was spreading misinformation. And there was also problems at her workplace where she was basically blocked from returning to one of her work sites indefinitely. But to this day, certainly with the media, they're unable to specify what it is because they don't want to get into the details because they know it will just simply embarrass them. So for them, it's easier just to label various people as spreading misinformation without actually talking about the details of the material. And also with the medical authorities themselves, Sam's lawyer has requested that they specify exactly what the missing information is so that we can, you know, respond to it, but they've been unable to ever do that as well. To be frank, the most censorship I have faced has come from within New Zealand. Up until last year I was a TV presenter and one of the major networks, but that came to an abrupt end. When I stated I wouldn't get a COVID-19 vaccine in one of my YouTube videos and no, I'm still definitely not getting the vaccine. As you know, despite the promoted diversity and inclusivity themes in the current epoch, it is completely the opposite in reality. If you question something about COVID-19 or the vaccines, then they don't even want you included in the conversation at all. And I can tell you from my heart, this sort of cancel culture doesn't phase me. In fact, it shows me the path and keeps me connected to my work. It's really interesting because every doctor and scientist we've reached out to has not agreed to come on one of Sam's videos or have a chat over the phone. We've had a couple who have engaged in a few emails going back and forth, but when it comes down to doing something publicly, they are not interested. And I think it is a major problem because many of us and I know people like Andy Kaufman is the same, would be happy to do like an open forum of discussing the different interpretations of the science. But I think that the establishment biologist and general are not interested because at the moment they are getting it all their own way in terms of the media coverage, the politicians and health organisations legitimising everything that they do. With nearly all criticism silenced by medical institutions and ignored by the mainstream media, the so-called test was rolled out around the world, diagnosing millions of citizens as alleged carriers of the alleged virus. The stakes of this diagnosis were tremendous. If sick patients were suffering from a deadly virus, that could theoretically have justified putting them on experimental doses of supposedly anti-viral drugs, with potentially deadly consequences of their own, which work by destroying the body's DNA. However, if the patients were actually sick for any other reason at all, those same drugs would needlessly be attacking their bodies when they were already sick, in many cases, killing them. In fact, the very first patient to ever have died with a COVID diagnosis appears to have died due to the misdiagnosis itself. In the original three patients from Wuhan, who were studied, and upon whom the scientific foundation of the entire pandemic was built, all three had a cough and a fever, but two of them got better on their own. The single patient in Wuhan who died also had had a cough, but his doctor had feared this disease was a new form of SARS, and thus had placed him on a ventilator. It was later shown that ventilators are so invasive, 90% of patients placed on them do not survive. Indeed, the scientists and doctors point out that without a valid test, sick patients were mislabeled as having COVID, and accordingly were mistreated with a host of experimental protocols set top down from medical authorities that resulted in death and disease on a massive and extraordinarily dangerous scale. What I found out when the whole thing started, I looked at the therapy, and I found that they gave therapy to these patients, which were all immunosuppressive. They started with high doses of prednisolone, with high doses of interferon, and looking at some made drugs, and all of these drugs, they tried to treat COVID-19. They're severe immunosuppressive, and the WHO made huge studies like the recovery, the discovery, and the solidarity study in which they investigated also these high doses of hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine is in a low dose, as we use it in rheumatologic infectious diseases, is used with agent, and it's cheap, and it's not so toxic, but in the doses they prescribed it in the WHO studies, like in the recovery study, which was done in England, in London, they gave huge doses like 10 grams up to 9 grams in 10 days, and then you were in a range of a very toxic problem, because the hydroxychloroquine has the problem that it does, a heart-fipped relation, which means that you're dead. What they started doing is people who were wide awake, walking and talking, fully conscious, and can breathe by having some distress, they were putting those people in ventilators. Here's my question, where are they? Where are the ventilators? And in order to do that, they had to first sedate them, in other words, give them anesthesia like for surgery, and then paralyze them. Because you tested COVID-19 positive, you were infectious, you get separated, you get intubated, because the personal fears that they get infected, that's why COVID-19 patients get the intubation. And the intubation is always a serious procedure for the patient, because, especially in older patients, there's a problem for them, it's much better to give them just a mask, but the intensive care, personal fears that they get infected by these procedures, that's why they prefer to do an intubation, which is bad for the patients. They had a published case series where they had almost 90 percent death people in ventilator, they're basically killing them with the ventilator. Critical care doctors say many patients placed on these machines don't survive. The outcome for a patient who has to be ventilated, if they have COVID-19, is horrific. Chinese researchers studying critically ill patients on ventilators in Wuhan found in a group of 32, only one person survived. In other states, like Florida, where they weren't using ventilators, they didn't have any access deaths at all. There was an excess mortality in Europe, in Italy it started, and then in France, in England, and Belgium, which is very interesting, because Belgium has a border to Germany, but the excess mortality stopped at this border. That means there must something else be than a virus. The virus would go across the border, but the treatment stopped on the border, because in Germany, we didn't do this WHO studies. I don't know why, but we didn't do it here. We added this high dose of toxic roller queen, which we used in Belgium. And they had also this peak of excess mortality only in one week in April. And that's a very clear symptom of a yet for genic problem, and not of a virus problem. But this excess mortality has caused a lot of fear in everywhere, because they showed an intensive care unit with patients lying on their belly and getting intubated, and then they showed the pictures of a lot of coffins, jaregan, and coffins. And these are all things who make a lot of fear among the people, and these pictures are in the head of most of the people still. And that's why they all think it works. Fear drives the whole thing. Fear is the guilt. We have this messaging that was really sinister, that went through all TV radio, papers, magazines, billboards everywhere, and also not just the mainstream media, but also alternative media and social media. So everywhere on social media, it penetrated everywhere. The government in the UK has got this unit called the Behavioral Insight Team, which is full of sci-op people doing this advertising, working out ways to frighten the population. And they've even released the minutes of their meetings, which show that we've got to make the population even more frightened, so that they'll take the test, even more frightened that they'll take the vaccines. Fear is the key to the holdest, and fear takes hold, and it drives your behaviour. And when your behaviour is fear driven, it's not rational, it's not logical. This is why the fast-tracked tests and drugs onto the market, because the fear has guided public policy. And all the normal, in science, with medical science, we call precautionary principles, these are very important guiding principles that stop drugs and interventions getting on the market too quickly. And all those principles have been put on hold, all these tests and drugs have been fast-tracked, and these vaccines have been fast-tracked. Normally, if you had a health crisis with a new illness, you would have a definition of the case, which would be like, what are the symptoms that are unique and distinct that set this apart? And then what you do is you would send everyone who died of that disease for autopsy, their body. And when the autopsy's are done, that's the chance to really find some way to diagnose this particular illness and separate it from others. The clinical symptoms of COVID-19 is indistinguishable from the normal flu. Clinically, you cannot distinguish clinically the flu from COVID-19. It has the same symptoms. It gets fever, you have cough, you have this, cheers, Gita Schmerz, and I'll call it, in the muscles. So you can't distinguish it clinically. Even with this radiology, you can only distinguish it by the test. That means if you test for COVID-19, you diagnose COVID-19. If you test for influenza, you diagnose influenza. You see that the influenza is almost gone. Instead, now we have COVID-19. That means nobody diagnosed influenza anymore. You don't check for influenza with PCR, but you only check for COVID-19. Public health law dictates that if you have a health emergency, everybody should be autopsy. Now that didn't happen at all during this pandemic. They reversed the policy suddenly for no apparent reason. So we don't have this. So there are no series. We would have tens of thousands of autopsy, and it would be very easy from that you find some characteristic that every person with this disease has this characteristic, and you at least after they die, you can tell who has it. And that's a good start. And that just was never done. You had some small case series that were published, but they're so small. You can't really make any generalizations. And what they found in those autopsy was nothing new. They found typical findings of bacterial pneumonia, which included blood clots and alveolar damage. So there is nothing distinctive to identify this alleged illness versus any other atypical pneumonia like the flu. I had to talk with my intensive care leader here in KU and asked him, is it possible that you have some influenza patients suffering from pneumonia on your watch? And he said, well, maybe, and asked me, are you still checking for influenza? Or are you only checking for COVID-19? And then he said, no, we were checking for COVID-19. How do you know that's not influenza? So there's no different differential diagnostic anymore. So you are only checking for COVID-19. So everything is COVID-19, and it's very possible that on the intensive stations, many patients who are indeed suffering from influenza, and I asked him, would you treat an influenza with Xameter Zone? And he said, no, of course not, because you get severe bacterial super infections afterwards and severe diseases. So I'm afraid that we still have this misleading test, who disguises everybody as a COVID-19 patient that gets this treatment. Xameter Zone, yes. And that could be the long COVID, what you say, long COVID. If you treat influenza with Xameter Zone, and that's counterproductive as well, they get severe disease, if they survive it. Is there a new sickness that emberged that... With people getting sick in a new way, is it just a relatling of... In general, I think so. I think generally that people have gotten sick of pathology that has always been there. Bilateral interstitial pneumonia has always been there. Pulmonary... From Wemboly pulmonary, I don't know. I know the word in English, but when your veins get blocked by clots, you know, blood clots, it's always been there, it's been studied since the last 200 years. So there's nothing new, is usual pathologies that have been given a different name. Thanks to the connection to the SARS-CoV-2. In general, we're talking about, you know, pneumonia, flu, respiratory diseases that were always there, and that just got a different name. Generic symptoms of COVID-19 are not a separate disease entity. They are not. COVID-19 is a made-up disease. It's a confected disease. It hinges on the PCR test. In COVID-19, that's not a new disease that we are talking about. It's a pneumonia. That's not a new disease. And that was my first question. How they come... Um... Asking for a new virus because of some Chinese people who got... Who died from pneumonia, that's no reason to look for new virus. That's why I believe that they had this test already there. COVID-19 is repackaged COPD, repackaged renal disease, repackaged anything. It's filmed, frame that's put around pre-existing disease. But one of another, another element, which I reported... I'm actually about to publish a book in Italian, maybe I'll translate it into English, where all these things will be reported. China actually started the application of the vaccine... Manatelli vaccine law, December 1st, 2019. They imposed six vaccinations onto the population. And where did they start applying it? The one. Because one is the capital of virology and vaccinology in China. So, while at the beginning, you remember those pictures where people were falling on the streets. If you get six vaccinations, all at once, maybe after 20 minutes that you leave the vaccination hub, you could actually fall down. And this is something that nobody ever mentions. But that is, I think, something that has a lot to do with these dates, you know, in one. Plus, plus, the pollution, because both one and Bergamon-Brescia in Italy are among the most polluted areas in the world. Bergamon-Brescia, which were the center of COVID explosion in Longberg, Italy. Longberg is the highest level of pollution in general. But also, Bergamon-Brescia at the Italian record of flu vaccination, they did 185,000 vaccinations in the two provinces in the two, three months before COVID. Plus, 80,000 end-time meningococcus vaccination. The two things together can explain a lot. Not to mention one other thing that nobody mentioned. There's 72,000 articles. If you go on PubMed and digit, drag-induced pneumonia. You get 72,000 articles. And in this article, you find that all the mean drugs, anti-inflammatory drugs, like ibuprofen, aspirin and so forth, all these anti-inflammatory drugs, no steroid and NSAID, right? No steroid and inflammatory drugs. Statins, Omnioprazole, which most people take for, you know, stomach acidity, cardiovascular drugs. And even monoclonal antibodies that are now proposed as a cure for COVID, they cause pneumonia like COVID. Now, since most of the people were affected by COVID, were 80, to 84, and they had been taken two, three, five, ten drugs for the last ten years, what can you expect? I mean, they're all ready to, you know, then you do two vaccinations. In an area very polluted, is it strange that you get a pneumonia? No, it's not strange. The real problem is that, whereas before the pneumonia, you would stay at home, you'd rest for a couple of weeks, take something. Now you're brought into hospital, and as soon as you had the respiratory difficulty, you were intubated and essentially killed. How could this happen that they could have a, a, a, a justice, no good, with therapies that are against what doctors know? How does that, how does that happen? Well, again, Hello, the money trail. It didn't happen overnight. The thing that we're experiencing right now, the decades in the making, decades in the making. And we're paying the price for it now. They tried it with a bird flu. They tried it with a swine flu, but they made not enough pressure, so the population didn't get it. They didn't take the tummy flu, they didn't take the vaccination for swine flu, because there was not enough fear, not enough pressure. In the bird flu, they tried to communicate that the bird flu could be transmitted to the humans, that's how they created also some fear. We are, however, very concerned about avian flu in Asia. There are more pigs, people, and po