SARS-CoV-2 - Bailey, Cowan, Kaufman respond to Cole, McCullough and Malone

Video Transcript:

Hello everyone and welcome to Streetup D versus the other doctors including doctors Tom Cowan, Andrew Kaufman and Dr. Mark Bailey. Now, Dr. Bailey, word has it that Samantha had some more important things to tend to. Yes, sorry about that, Joe. We were hoping to both attend today and we're delighted, but it's school holidays here. So we got the whole team at home, including our eight month baby. So one of us had to stay upstairs and keep an eye on the troops. But yeah, I'm not quite as pretty as Sam, but hopefully I can do an equal job on dismantling the biology for you. I'm totally fine with it. It's just the viewers on iconic man. These guys are a wild, so when it comes to their science. So I'm sure they'll be understanding as well. But right now there's a war on science. And one of the things that I feel like is I'll actually have to harbor a hotel in Mexico. And I saw a sign a little artwork by John Lennon and it said, the more I see the less I know for sure. And that's how I feel right now to start off. I just play you a little segment from great scientists around the world have concluded for your control studies that not only COVID-19, but viruses in general have never been isolated following a correct and proper scientific method. And I've never been proven to be contagious. Can you please speak on this? I disagree strongly. The biology here is well established. We have observed the agent. We have cultivated the agent. We have used the agent in infectious animal models. I'm not sure where this discussion thread comes from. Viruses are real. They can be easily demonstrated. They can be cultivated in the laboratory. They can be stored. They can be passage. They meet all the criteria of coaxed postulates. There is the issue that it's difficult to reproduce the human disease in various animal models. And so sometimes that's considered to fail to meet coaxed postulates. But in my experience and out of many, many colleagues, this is a isolated virus. It can be reproduced in the laboratory to high titers. It can be purified. And it can be used to infect cells and animals. That response got a lot of people really pissed off and they demanded that doctors cow in, and even Samantha Bailey. Come on, which we're happy to have you, Mark. Dr. Kown, I'm sure you have a lot to say about that response. I have a drawer in my kitchen and it has a bunch of silverware and it has a corkscrew and a knife and a spoon. And a bunch of other things and it has one cork top in it, the kind you put on olive oil and other things. If anybody who's actually thinking about this would say, can you isolate the cork top from the drawer and find out what it's made of, what is composed of, and what it does. Every single human being would say, okay, they would go in the drawer, they would take only the cork top out, and then they would do analysis of the chemistry and find out what it does. By everybody's definition who speaks English, that is the definition of isolation. And that has never been done for any virus. Number one, we know that there is no particle. Remember, we're talking about a thing called a virus. It's not an idea, it's not a conception, it's not a emotion, it's not a thought, it's an actual particle. So we know that no particle has ever been found in any fluid of any sick person. Everybody agrees with that. So what they do is the equivalent of taking the drawer and throwing it in a big box with other spoons and corks, etc. And they call that isolation because they've isolated the cork from the original drawer. Now, here's what he means when he says they isolated it. They took fluid from somebody who allegedly has a disease like COVID or measles or chickenpox or something. They minimally filter it or centrifugely. They immediately then mix it with a culture which has other particles and genetic material. In COVID case, they mix it with green monkey kidney cells. Then they put antibiotics which are specifically toxic to the kidney, meaning amphotericin and genomicin. Then they withdraw the nutrients, they add fetal calf serum, also a source of identical particles and genetic material. And then they see what happens and what happens is the monkey kidney tissue breaks down into thousands of little particles. And they say that is the isolation of the virus. That is the only way they have isolated viruses. And that is a English language and scientific fraud period. Because we now know that the breakdown of the tissue happens with nothing from the COVID patient or the measles patient or the chickenpox added. It's simply a result of starving and poisoning kidney cells and then showing that they break down. We have proof from Ender's paper, we have proof from Stefan Lankus work, etc. Now, the next thing they do is they show you pictures of these particles and they say, see that SARS-CoV-2 or measles, etc. We know that you cannot tell in an electron microscope whether that's just the breakdown particles from kidney cells or some so-called exogenous virus. In other words, all these particles that they are claiming are isolated viruses are just the breakdown of the kidney tissue or the fetal calf serum or whatever tissue they are growing it on. And then finally, they sequence this, actually they don't frequency it because they never have a genome to start with. And if you don't have a genome to start with, you can't sequence it. So they do what's called alignment, which is cutting all these little pieces together of them. And they have no idea whether the pieces come from a so-called virus or from the kidney tissue or fetal calf serum or something else in the snot of the person. And they piece it together, they in their mind mentally come up with a sequence which they then erroneously call the genome of the virus. Every time they do it, they get a different result, which is why there is approximately, Andy might know this, or the night, 5 million or 400,000 or 2 million different sequences because every time you do the experiment, you get a different sequence. So anybody who says that's proper isolation simply has not familiarized themselves with either what they do or with the English language. Now, good doctors, before anyone else responds, let me play you the other clip to it because the clip that you guys saw probably was on rumble, I believe, but I don't think you guys saw this part. I can tell you clinically it's different than the flu people making this argument says well, it's just misdiagnosis of influenza. I think it's a very different clinical syndrome, the X-ray and CT patterns are distinct, the thrombotic aspect of the illness, the laboratory pattern. It's distinct from influenza. SARS-CoV-2 is a real virus. I don't know if you guys are familiar with Dr. Tom Cowan, Stefan Lanka, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, but these are three medical doctors that are talking about this kind of stuff. And they argue why can't we isolate the virus through a density gradient centrifuge versus the way they're doing it now because they're putting all this other stuff in there, long into decay. And I think Stefan Lanka was able to isolate something that looks like COVID with yeast. So that's a big thing that people have been talking about. If they're producing something that has virus-like characteristics from yeast, it's likely to be a budded form or an exosome. In terms of density gradient, you need a lot of virus to pull a density gradient. And the way that's typically done is you culture the virus for a long period of time, often in roller bottles, collect very small volumes of fluid. You may pass it through a filtration system to further concentrate the virus and then put it on your gradient, whether it's a step gradient or a continuous gradient and pull the band. That requires a heck of a lot of virus. That is absolutely not how you isolate a primary variant sample. The reason why you have to do it in the presence of the drugs is because you have the problem of contamination with microplasma, bacteria, etc. from primary clinical samples. And so you have to impose stringent criteria that will keep those things from overgrowing the cell layer while you're trying to grow out the virus and passage it. I don't wish to cast shade on my fellow colleagues. I don't know what their background is, but these are classic virology, isolation methods and techniques. There's nothing idiosyncratic here and to isolate a virus by density gradient. Basically, you would require somebody to be incredibly virulent, just shedding very, very large amounts of virus and you would have to have a body fluid that has that large amount of virus. And even then, I don't think it'd be possible. You would have loved to be in my seat at that moment. Dr. Kaufman, how would you have responded to what Dr. Malone said at that point? Let me start off by saying that creating the appearance of a scary deadly virus is a major tool in the tool book of the globalist empire, like the people behind the world economic forum and agenda 2030 and other things like that. So they want to make sure that even the people who maybe think it was been exaggerated or that they're concerned with health freedom, that they never spread this truth that there are no disease causing viruses because then they won't be able to run this program again with the next scary, you know, pandemic situation. But also like it's important, so none of these responses really either they responded with something that was just simply not true, like that the virus has been purified that Dr. Malone said that's simply not true. Or they divert away from the actual subject and part of that is because you didn't really ask a well constructed question. Like you didn't really know what Dr. Lanka did in his experiments, so you describe something that they didn't understand correctly, like what he did is he ran the virus isolation experiment without a virus and produce sideopathic effects, which is the proof of the virus's presence and the body fluid. So how can you get the same result if there's no virus if the virus is the cause of the result that the result is the proof of a virus. So, you know, the question would be, hey, buy those standard isolation procedures that you describe. Can you explain how that proves there's a virus in the person or can you address why they don't do control experiments isn't a control experiment a necessary part of a scientific experiment. But then he just the answer is kind of led. So first of all the leading answer was of course it's well established. Yes, I believe there are viruses. I believe this virus is real. Now that doesn't mean anything scientifically, right, because we can point to people who think they're real and people who don't think they're real. It's meaningless. It's giving away your opinion to someone else or just saying this is my opinion. I just stated outright, but I have nothing to back it up. Now with Dr. McCalla, he gave clinical evidence. So he said he thinks people have a different pattern of disease with the flu this year compared to the years or whatever you want to call it a respiratory acute syndrome. But he didn't that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't tell you what causing it. So let's say he did notice something different clinically. How do you know that's not a different flu virus if you believe in flu viruses? How do you know it's not a different toxin, maybe a new food trend, maybe a new plastic used in consumer goods. You know, there's no way to know what causes it by observing what you see clinically. So that's not an argument that you can speak to this issue. Now what Dr. Malone said there at the end about there's not enough material that you'd have to have someone with the real large viral shedding. Well, that that just kind of doesn't make sense. There's not enough material to show the thing is a real thing. You know, how could that not be like if there's not enough in one person, couldn't you just get it from a group of people so that it's concentrated. You know, and this thing about having to culture it that that also doesn't make sense because if there's not enough of the virus particles in a person, how is it making them sick? And also how could it spread to someone else because if it goes through some body excretion, it's going to be diluted. So you have if you have a very little to begin with, not even enough to purify, it's sort of like how are you going to have enough to spread the illness or how are you going to enough to spread to throughout your lungs to make you sick. Or all the other organs they say that it affects right they say it affects your old factory, your sensory nerves right your your taste and smell. It can affect your kidney, it can affect your blood system. How's it going to spread and cause all that damage if there's not even enough of it to like show under an electron microscope, which shows things that are nanometers in size. It just doesn't really add up like the reason they use the isolation procedure that they use now is because they couldn't actually show these things are real. So they had to fudge it and then it just caught on because it was convenient and it made tons of money and it made people's careers. And these guys none of they asked about the credentials, but none of them are virologists either, you know, Dr. Malone, he contributed to inventing this vaccine technology. That's pretty much what's being used to harm and kill people right now. So, you know, you have to think about that. I don't know if that was his intention, but that's how the technology is being used at present. Can I just ask something here, you know, the question to ask him is so, so if you're saying you have to culture the virus and you go into viral theory, which is you have this so called particle that goes and uses your lungs as a culture, right? That's what they say. Why isn't your lungs a culture? Why why do you have to culture it in a petri dish or a roller to right? And the answer is there's no sense in that at all. We, according to conventional viral theory, are a culture medium. That's the whole point. And nobody asks him, well, if you want to culture it, why isn't your lung the culture? Now, the other thing I thought of and maybe Mark or Andy can help me with this. I don't know how much virus you need. You would need to see or need to have in order to see a band. But let's say it's the droplets of a tent of a pinhead, right? That's a guess. But it's a small amount. Now, they tell us that viruses do their damage by mechanical disruption of the cells. It's not like arsenic where it's chemical. So let's say it was a pinhead. You could see a pinhead on an ultra-saturfuge band. So there's a, the amount of virus state, let's say, is a pinhead. Now, if you just removed a pinhead amount of your lungs, you know what happened? Nothing. If you removed a baseball size amount of your lungs, you have a bad day and then you recover. There is no thrust away that a particle that you cannot see in a band on an electron microscope that does its damage mechanically by bursting cells could possibly cause illness. It's nonsense. And that's where I think there's some confusion with around the different techniques that are used. Like the electron microscope can't tell you too much about the biological role of the particles, which is currently what they're doing. They're taking these pictures and saying, well, that's a virus. But there's no way from the picture that they can demonstrate that that virus has a particular biological property. All they can do is talk about the morphology back in the day with the purified particles. You then perform your biological experiments. So then you're trying and fix something. But it was very, again, very specific. You had to have purified particles. You couldn't do it with the cell culture, which contained all sorts of other material, antibiotics, et cetera, various cell line types. You had to have the absolute purified particles. And not only that, you had to perform control experiments. So you had to take a comparative control, go to another human or animal, take some samples, and show that you could not get the same results that you couldn't get these same particles. And once they were purified, you wouldn't get the same biochemical results when you start doing the analysis. And at that point, once you've done all this, you try and infect a new animal or host and see if you can replicate the process all over again. But we all know that they're not even close to establishing these properties. So we can conclude that there is absolutely no evidence of SARS-CoV-2, just as there is absolutely no evidence of any other pathogenic particles that behave like viruses. Dr. Kaufman, in hindsight, you're right. I should have asked certain questions differently, especially about the controlled group. Why wasn't there in any of the isolation processes. But do you guys generally think that these doctors have bad intentions, though, because I think that personally, when I look at the people in my neck and the woods, even my neighbors and some of my clients have been saying, wow, you're not crazy after all. I saw Robin Malone on Joe Rogan. So for those reasons, I actually think that these people have done some good for our movement. But I understand from your perspective that if the basis, the core base of the argument is that this virus hasn't been isolated, so it doesn't exist. And these guys are perpetuating the lie here. I can see from your standpoint why that's not a good thing. But overall, if the end game is for us to win, isn't it a good thing that they're waking up humanity? Well, Joe, first of all, I don't think ill of anyone who is trying to talk about health freedom, freedom in general, ability to make your own choices about these things. And of course, it's also very positive when people are telling at least some of the truths about the toxicity and danger of the injectable vaccine products. And maybe there is some good to come out of some of these things, but I would also say, like if you only think something is worth looking into because you see it on Joe Rogan, then there's really a deeper problem that we should be talking about, which is how do you learn information? Where do you get it from? How do you know if it's reliable? What are the other forces that are out there putting out information? Because I don't see Joe Rogan as being a person who's very motivated to get the full truth out there. I think he has other agendas. He's concerned with his own popularity. He's a comedian is where he comes from. And he has done some great interviews and given some genuine people platforms. But if I want to learn about something that's not the first place I go, it's much better to go to a book or an article or something that is a little bit more vetted, although nothing is perfect and you have to be skeptical about everything. But there are a number of different stumbling block like everybody who first starts to wake up and sees some of the truth that's going on in the world. They can't just kind of look and let everything that they've ever known collapse all at once. It's like a stepwise process, right, like going down the rabbit hole. And so at first you see one thing and you might say, oh well, look, in this situation, this is the health industry, gone, run a mock like they're just so greedy and they're trying to push things. And the politicians are going along with it and not realize that actually it's a much deeper than that. It's the entire healthcare system. And then, you know, it's much deeper than that. It's much of the medical science. Then it's much deeper than that. It's actually the main theories and biology. And then it's much deeper than that. It's material is, you know, it's like people need time and they have to make a decision if they want to keep pursuing the truth at deeper and deeper levels. And many people are at the beginning of this journey. And there are many barriers that prevent people from going deeper. Like one big thing that we have all confronted on this panel in some way, including you, Joe, is that we are physicians professionally, right? And all we have become aware of this information that comes from medicine that we're actually expected to repeat and pay homage to is completely false. And then that disrupts our lives in personal ways, right? It disrupts your family, your livelihood, your profession, your self perception. And these things are very difficult to challenge. So I respect that people are where they're at on their path. And some people are more willing to take risks and make transformative changes in their life in others. And we have to respect everyone where there's at. But in order to really face the future and to have optimistic and well-being and health and harmony for the future of men and women, we need to pursue this truth. You know, if we don't understand that these things don't actually make people sick and aren't dangerous and learn what really is, what really does lead to disease, then how are we ever going to be fully healthy and vital enough to think and do for ourselves? Can I comment on that too? Please, good doctor. So the first thing is I try to make a habit of never questioning other people's motives. Unless they tell me, Tom, the reason I did this was to make people sick. And then I would ask them, can I tell people that that's why you did it? And if they say yes, then I would say it. And if they say no, I wouldn't. So I don't know what their motive is and it's not for me to say. The second thing is the thing that really bugs me about this whole thing is, and the reason I'm saying this is this is I would say a philosophy of learning, which I have tried to commit myself to and make mistake after mistake after mistake. But when I hear something that is different and in this case would be the end of the whole COVID thing, right? There's no virus, everything falls apart. So if I'm a leader in the freedom or the anti-vax community, and by the way, I know all the leaders personally for years, I've known them all. They call me on the phone and say, Tom, I hear you're saying there's no virus. I'm going to question you until I understand the reasoning, the logic, and the science of how you came to that. And I'm going to keep going and you're going to check me so that the end of this half an hour, hour, two hours, you know that I know the logic and the reasoning and the science. That doesn't mean I believe it. But I know the argument. I do get as many says it's good to drink urine. I sit them down and I say, how did you come to that? And then I ask them to check me so that I can say it. They know I know what the argument is. Right? That's how you learn things. Now that doesn't mean I agree or believe it. But I know. And in this case, since this would be the end of the story, that's exactly what I would have done two years ago. You know how many people did that? None. Nobody called me and said, Tom, I want to understand your argument. None of the so-called leaders. Instead, they say all kinds of things, but it's very clear like these three that they don't understand the argument. Period. That's the problem. So I try not to go into something like this and not understand the issues. That's not how you learn anything. And that's what happened here. Okay. I've been thinking about this for a while. When it comes to the isolation arguments. I'm with you guys. Okay. It just doesn't make sense to me how you can mix in monkey kidney cells and a bunch of antibiotics and ran them other ingredients and say, aha, we've isolated this thing. That doesn't make sense to me. However, there are people that are asking, for example, Dr. Tina Moore, she's asking, how does your theory explain herpes lesions, microcephally and newborns from Zika and doctor men of brain damage and newborns from subtle medle virus? I guess things like that confuse people. Yeah. Well, she's jumping to an assertion there, though, because identifying a clinical problem or a disease and then jumping to the conclusion that it's because of a virus that's not valid at all. And if we look at things like herpes will start with that one. I mean, again, we have the same issue. We've all looked back through the original papers and said, where is the virus? And we can't find it. I mean, what we can find is that there's a clinical picture. There's vesicles. You can get fluid out of the vesicles. And from this fluid, you can detect various fragments of DNA and RNA and proteins. And then someone else has come along and said, well, that must be a virus without any proof whatsoever that there's a particle that's replicating and causing the infection. So I think it is a major problem. And I think it's an indoctrination that we've seen with all of these illnesses that are blamed on viruses. And I mean, probably the classic one for people to try and get to terms with is influenza, which is obviously blamed on a virus. But we know that for a hundred years, they've tried to demonstrate transmission of this alleged particle and it's failed 100% of the time. So I think perhaps when you're dealing with people who say, well, what about this condition and what about that condition? And that's caused by a virus. You really have to know where to start with them and starting with technical, biological papers, which are trying to demonstrate the isolation of a virus. It might not be the best thing for that person. It might be starting somewhere a little bit more basic and saying, well, you know, was it ever demonstrated in a clinical experiment that this thing was transmissible. And often that's where they see that the first light might go off. So yeah, I mean, I agree with it's difficult. We've got a problem trying to convince even our own colleagues that these pathogenic viruses don't exist. And I think we're all working towards finding the best way to do that. But yeah, it is what you've just described. Those questions there are probably one of the most common things that we all get emailed about. And ask questions about is what about this? What about rabies? What about smallpox? And we're trying to explain to people that every time we do the same thing. We go back to the original papers. We say, where is the virus? What experiments that they do? And every single time. I don't know how many Andy and Tom have got through, but Sam and I have got through dozens now, including recently tobacco mosaic virus, which was, you know, supposedly the original virus, scubb it. And every time we find the papers don't prove that there's a virus at all. And I think there's just just a comment on what you said about isolation. I mean, it's, and we touched on this earlier, but it's worth going over again. In biology, isolation has no meaning whatsoever. And even the virologists will admit this. I remember in 2020 watching a presentation by Vincent Rackenjello, a prominent virologist. And he admitted in the presentation that his own textbook did not have a clear definition of what isolation was. And he proceeded to say, and isolate is a virus that we have isolated. And I mean, if you can see, if you can see the problems with that, you can see the problems of virology to them, you know, isolation of a virus might mean taking a sample from someone like they used to do in the common cold unit in the 60s. And they take a sample from someone's nose and say, we've isolated a virus to other people that might mean witnessing side of pathica effects and a test tube. They say, well, there it is. We've isolated it to other people. It's detecting genetic fragments and saying that's evidence. We've isolated the virus. And that's now why we've got these 10 million plus genomes of SARS-CoV-2, which are all called isolates. But as we know, in the physical sense, it doesn't mean that the particle, the virus actually exists. I don't need to be a know-it-all here, but can I make a comment here? Because there's two principles that work behind that question. One, and we get this a lot. If people or animals have the same symptoms, then it must be a virus. Right? They all have herpes, so it must be a virus. And it seems to be transmissible. Now, if you have a bunch of rats down your basement and somebody puts rat poison and you didn't know it, and then one rat after another dies and they all bleed to death, that's the same illness. It seems to be transmitted unless you're willing to say rat poison is a virus. I don't think that's a virus. So the idea, the principle that one animal or one person after another gets sick, that proves it's a virus or the same symptoms is just not true. The other one is you don't have to know what does cause something to know that something doesn't cause. Right? For instance, I don't actually know what causes clouds and rain. But if somebody said it's elephants pissing in the sky, I can go up there and look and find out that it's not true, and I still don't know what causes rain. No, it's not elephants pissing in the sky. So like Mark said, chickenpox, purfies, Zika, we've looked for the virus. It's not there. End of story. Just because they have the same symptoms proves nothing. We don't maybe know why they get those things, but you know, we can, but you'll never figure that out until you agree and know there is no evidence for the virus. Now I haven't feeling Dr. Caltham is going to chew me out for this question. But listen, I'm just asking a question. Okay, it's still legal, right? Does something always have to be isolated for for to exist? For example, I choose to believe in God. There are way too many things that happen in my life that makes me believe that there's something else out there than whatever I'm seeing and feeling here. But I've never met the man or woman and never been able to isolate it. I have no proof that there is God. I just know. For all the people who are saying, look, man, I understand that this thing has not been isolated, but I got sick from something. And it wasn't a flu because now I can't taste or smell for over a year. So I guess that's the part where I'm like, okay, maybe there is something going around. I don't know what it is. I don't know if it's, in fact, I could just say 5G. I don't know if it's some radiation. I don't know if some poison they're putting in the water or the food. I don't know what the hell it is, but it's very confusing. Do you not believe that there's something that's going around? It just comes down to the evidence. Where's your evidence that people are experiencing something different? Do you have, is there a study? Is there a cohort? Is there a public health agency? Where's the evidence? Let's say that you find out that a hospital in your city has increased admissions suddenly one month, respiratory distress, okay, like doubles or goes up 50%. Then you find that all the patients that go to that hospital come from this geographic area. And then you go and look on the Verizon website and you find out that one week before the hospital admission rates went up, their 5G was turned on in that neighborhood. Now you have now a hypothesis with some preliminary evidence that first of all I recognize in unusual increase in a certain kind of disease. And then I found a possible cause where there's a temporal relationship. And then you can draw some conclusions. But you know, people always lost the sense of smell and taste when they had seasonal illnesses like colds and flu. It's well documented in all the medical literature. In one website I looked at pre COVID website, it was in ear, nose and throat practice. They said it occurs in up to 20% of the population every year associated with viral illnesses. So how do we know that that's something new? Where's the numbers that compare it to previous years? Is it 30% since the pandemic? And then if if there really was a problem with a sense of smell, the first thing I would think about is masks because people never wore masks before. Now they're wearing masks all the time. And masks are made of synthetic fibers. They've been found to have contaminants. You're breathing it in. It goes right up your nose. So that, you know, I would think something like that would, would could be the explanation. If if I found that, oh, the, you know, prevalence or incidents of this condition went way up and it's there's definitely something different about it. We can we can test that and say that it's different from another thing either through statistical analysis or, you know, some other kind of evidence because all of this just boils down to evidence. What you said about isolation is not really a fair comparison because you believe in God and you use that word, but you don't believe in a virus. You, you know, we're talking about like if you let's say that you believed in God and God told you to tell other people to, you know, give away their coats in the winter and put themself at risk of frostbite. Right. Right. Would they be compelled to do it because you believe in God? No, of course not. Right. But this situation we're talking about people's false belief in a virus is allowing people to take away rights from others, even individual men and women are taking away rights from others. It's not the government's acting directly. They're just encouraging it. But mostly it's our brothers and sisters are infringing because of this belief, if you will, that's not based in actual fact like in science for something to become factual or true. There is has to be a basis of proof. Now, whether that standard of proof has to be isolation in the true sense of the word or not, we can debate that. But what you would need to do is say, hey, this experiment was done and here's the how I think this proves it. And then I'd say, oh, that's a good idea. I agree or no, I don't agree because of this reason. Right. And that's always a good discussion to have. That's how you learn new information. And if someone did have an explanation of how an experiment that was done and repeated actually proved the existence of this or that thing, I would take it seriously. Well, you weren't that hard on me and that one. So thank you for that. Hey, wait. There's a as far as what some of the doctors have seen on the microscope for these vaccines. Can I just play that part real quick? Have any of the doctors looked at the vaccine under a microscope? And is there any truth that there are graphene oxide within them? There's a wonderful patent called 060606. This is by the Bill and will indicates foundation. And this is to connect your biometric data to cryptocurrency. How do you suppose they're going to get your biometric data from graphene oxide, which is a poison that's in all the shots. And it conducts electricity. Now, I don't know if you know this doctor Karen Mede, I think she's based off in Arizona somewhere. And she had this viral video that appeared second vial of Moderna in the Georgia area. These are organisms, their parasites. They are water parasites. And I, you know, looked into what these could be. And one of the names is Hydra Volgaris. They love this organism because it's considered to be an immortal organism in the lab because it continuously produces stem cells. And so transhumanists want to be immortal. All of them have synthetic kind of structures in them that look like a superconducting material. And this is just the edge of the cover slip I was showing the colored particulates everything moved very fast the edge and then you see the aggregation of these particulates. And they start to form structures as time went on. Talk to me, Dr. Cole. All right. Yes, I've examined many of them. All I see are lipid nanoparticles. These were ramped up very quickly. If you look at good drug manufacturing, it takes years to dial in a process. So is there debris within a lot of these shots? Did Japan reject 2 million, almost 2 million vials of Moderna? Yes, they did. Cascot material, metal material, glass material, you bet they're going to be particles in it. The little hydras that she saw on the bottom of oak leaves, there's something called a stellate trichome. That that wasn't a hydra that was contamination in her room from a pollen or a dust. What I have seen so far and all the samples I have examined have been lipid nanoparticles. I think the graphene is a red herring. You're certainly going to get if it's there, it's a small dose. What matters is we have a lipid nanoparticle that is irritating and inflammatory. And we have an mRNA sequence that synthetic and persists and produces a spike that can cause toxicity. That's all that we really need to focus on is the shots in many people cause a lot of damage. All these other red herring things, is it fun to look at? Certainly. Do we need to, you know, any penny this guy is falling? No, we don't need to do things like that because they take the focus off what really matters. At the end of the day, these are products that cause a lot of clinical harm and should have been pulled off the market long ago. Dr. Mark, can you share with us if there's any validity to some of these findings? I'd have to say on that one that Ryan Cole may be partially right with some of his analysis there. Yeah, we've got, so we've got about four teams in our small country here in New Zealand looking at the Pfizer product under the microscope and we've found a lot of interesting things. I would agree with Dr. Cole that a lot of the things we're seeing do seem to be related to lipid nanoparticle complexes. And some of that in vitro, in vitro formations, we've seen absolutely enormous, like bigger than red blood cells, which raises the possibility that if they formed in the circulation, they would be blocking up capillaries and potentially settling in various end organs in the body. Yeah, with regards to the parasites, we've actually got another follow up video coming out next week that our microbiologist and colloidal chemistry expert Rob and Waikling, he's done another presentation, which we'll release next week. And he'll have an explanation as to why we think the parasite hypothesis is incorrect that we're actually seeing something else in the samples. So yeah, I mean, there's with regards to the graphene oxide, I thought, well, Dr. Cole was not worried about small amounts going on. I'm not sure what amounts he thinks to save because the body's got no way of clearing graphene oxide. I think we've got some other issues to heavy metals going on here where there's sequester somewhere in the body and the body has no elimination mechanism. When he said, wow, I mean, you might just be getting a little bit of graphene oxide. I don't think that's good advice, not that he's advising people to get the shot, obviously. But from what our guys here have seen, they are pretty convinced that there must be graphene oxide. And at least the Pfizer product based on the complexes that are being seen under the microscope, and they've confirmed that there's high spikes of carbon and oxygen suggesting that there is graphene complexes. Within the bio, so nice, like in the long run, what kind of awful effects they're going to have. I think some of them will be completely unpredictable. Because when you start getting into what some doctors found under the microscope, that's what everyone starts yelling at you that you're a conspiracy theorist and it gets really annoying really fast. So grateful to have the opportunity to ask you guys, but Dr. Kown or Calthman, anything that you've heard, there are some important things here because. You know, what we're really been talking about so far is that we're criticizing science that's done poorly and has been misinterpreted. And we don't want to be guilty of doing the same thing. So we have to also look at this in a very rigorous way. And let me tell you, first of all, that trying to figure out what's in a substance, you know, that's all some synthetic things that you don't know what they could be. And it's a difficult, scientific problem. Like this is not easy to figure out what could be in there when, you know, in terms of undisclosed ingredients. And we really would need an army of researchers collaborating and looking at it in a number of different ways, you know, through assays, through imaging and through most importantly, I think analytical chemistry. And we need to collaborate and combine this data in order to really know these things conclusively. And it is very easy to misinterpret things of people who are not very experienced and, you know, always checking themselves that there could be contamination, there could be misinterpretation. For example, some of the rectilinear structures that have been shown in the images that are said to be, you know, circuitry of some kind. Adam Bigelsen sent me some microscopy video that showed salt crystals, just, you know, sodium chloride in a typical saline solution that dehydrated that looked identical in structure and morphology to those other images. So you need something more conclusive, even the ramen spectroscopy that Mark mentioned, which is, I think, the best evidence for graphene so far from the Kinta column a group. It's not really the gold standard of identifying that material. It only tells you the elemental composition. It's not confirmatory. You know, there are standards in industry for raw product identification like, you know, graphene is used in not just in research, but it's starting to have some industrial applications. So there should be, you know, a standard test that tells you absolutely nothing else can give you a positive test except graphene and here you do this test and then you say, that's it. And then you have a definitive answer. So, you know, it's, it's a very challenging issue. And I think a lot of the things have been reported have been misinterpretations. But the takeaway message really is it doesn't matter because we can see from the clinical observations that it is very toxic. And we can see that some lots are way more toxic orders of magnitude higher than others. So even if we identify some ingredients, I suspect that there are different ingredients in different production runs, not not just different amounts of things because when you look at it by lot, you don't see a dose response type of relationship. So if you see a blank or a loaded, you know, chamber, basically. So perhaps the way we would truly know is maybe in the future when there is testimony from executives at these pharmaceutical companies, you know, that they confess rather than get hanged, you know, or something like that. And then they'll tell us the truth about what's in there and we'll know for sure then. And I hope that I could live to that day when we when we witnessed that. Dr. Dr. Count, you were the first one to really bring to the forefront this concept of the 5G radiation and how it could really be hurting people and. Call some of these symptoms of we're seeing for the people who are alleging that they have this virus, but. Do you still stand by that that 5G is one of the major causes of what we're seeing for first of all, let me say something about Andy and Mark are. Very, very smart and very clear and very scientific about this, but I would also contend that. The three of us and a few other people should not be the ones who are trying to know what's in a vaccine right that's not really our job we like we're just a bunch of guys, you know, with no equipment and. No, I don't know anything about this so I've got power tools. I have power tools. Yeah, I mean this should be right the government or somebody like the companies they shouldn't they should be the ones who have this information why is it us. It's far as you know 5G the whole thing is if I had to do it over again, first of all, there is no new illness but 5G is also you know electro magnetic fields are our toxins just like a lot of things so like we said there's a lot of different things that are poisoning people and electromagnetic fields are one of them. But really the main thing is to focus on you don't need to know what the problem is you just know right now the entire focus should be there's no virus none of this should have happened we don't need to do all these things there's no science behind virality and then we can actually do clear and formal and productive studies to find out what is causing people to get sick. And I'm all for that and whatever we find that's fine with me. I know but when people like you or others suggest that we get deleted or we get punished in some way you know one of my audience is asking do the shields that are being sold to protect us from 5G there are a ton of these guys saying buy this suits or buy this product and it could protect you. Have you found anything to be legit nothing that passes the scientific smell test. What does that mean? It means we need we need an actual science of quality and a science of life. I can tell you some people who are doing that we did and in I did a whole true healing conference and we we look for people who are measuring bio photon emission and measuring sound and measuring you know how water structures itself this is actual science not killing things staining things poisoning living things shooting electron beans. And we need to do that kind of science for shielding electromagnetic fields toxins in the water wearing mass emotions everything because otherwise we're just flying blind. I think that's a great answer Tom you know and also I just want to emphasize the the simple as possible solution is you know turn off your Wi-Fi don't don't use a smart meter. You know like try to live away from 5G if it's coming to your town see there are people have been successful at getting their city councils to answer their contracts you know I mean but we don't really know we need to have real. So we need to have real science that tells us you know people are healthier or they're more resistant when they use these things. Yeah we don't know and we should admit we don't know and we should I think the three of us are hoping we're at the start and helping push to an actual scientific era of life where people study reality instead and the reality of how do you study a living thing. And I can tell you the first staff is not killing you. Gentlemen I know I was 30 minutes late for you and I pause for the people watching this I asked these the doctors here to please be on time 5 p.m. Eastern time USA time and I was the one that was late because I'm in Mexico right now I couldn't believe it but anyways can I just raise one more topic and one quick question at the end. I don't know what to make of this this is the talk of the town right now and I know if you guys going to laugh at this or this is something that we actually need to consider that's worthy of our energy attention but let me just play you a clip of this okay. When I say that they have lied to you about everything in relationship to COVID. They've even lied about the viral part of COVID my entire stance for the last year and a half has been to educate warn people about hospital protocols because of a drug called rim desive here the kidney failure caused by rim desive here is the number one organ targeted by king cobra venom they've known since 2005 if you inject a mouse with cobra venom you inject it like they're doing with rim desive and you're in your veins it actually causes a side of kind storm in the lungs of all of the animals I am convinced that COVID-19 is not a respiratory virus of any kind it is actually venom poisoning and they're using I believe synthesized peptides and proteins from venom of snakes and they're administering them and targeting them to certain people now the amazing thing about these 19 toxins found in cobra venom they're specifically sequence to target specific organs. Like the pancreas in the diabetic like the heart and a heart disease patient like deliver in a hepatitis patient can you think of anything more evil than in venom eating the entire world with snake venom and then injecting snake venom into your veins. Is this man crazy or is there any truth to what he's saying because one of the things that's interesting is that homeboy saying that there is no virus but there is cobra 19 venom now. So I don't know if you guys have a chance to check out that doctor runner it came out two days ago got over a million views on rumble on leave you guys give your shit about things like that but it means that a lot of people are paying attention to what doctor artists say can I get your thoughts on it. Yeah well when you something was up because Sam woke up and there was like a hundred emails about snake venom so that was probably our first warning sign that this maybe wasn't that legitimate I mean I think there's a number of problems here. Yeah well it's fine that doctor artist agrees that there's not a virus or respiratory virus passing around which I think we'd all agree with. I'm not sure why he needed to bring in snake venom with remdesivir I mean like all of the antivirals there's a highly toxic medications obviously his theory seems to revolve around that people need to be injected with the snake venom although I think there might have been some mention of it being in the water supply. I realized how they've been spreading this. I mean putting it in the water supply is not going to do anything because most people are not going to notice any effects by swallowing such proteins they might do anything. You need to have them injected directly into your body so I'm not sure how he proposes that everybody would be affected by it if it requires every single person to be injected with this alleged snake venom so I don't quite see how that works. And I mean the other thing is that I think people take their eyes off the foundational fraud that we've been witnessing for the last two years plus and that's the definition of COVID-19. If you check the WHO or your local health or they also pretty much the same thing that there's no specific signs or symptoms or confirmatory investigations that we can do it all comes down to a PCR process results or a lateral flow test sometimes. And so it's a meaningless clinical entity. It's just a complete case themic fabricated with these tests which have no capacity to diagnose a clinical illness in the way that they're being used. So I think people what's been hard in the last couple of years has been bringing people's attention back to the basics. I'm highly skeptical that Dr. Ardus has got anything good here and when someone sent me the link for the video I couldn't find any references and I think we're all three of us have talked about this today. We need to see like a scientific paper some sort of evidential proof and we're not talking about patents or speculation or people making assertions in various videos. Because we actually want to see the evidence. Dr. Kaufman, I'm assuming you're not going to jump on the opportunity to buy Dr. Ardus's anti-bendom for 10% off anytime soon. Is he really selling that? Oh, where do I want to? Yeah. But if you jump on it now you can get 10% off. That's the fact. I'm not making the show up. That's pretty incredible. You know, I do. I like a man of Ulmer's response to this thing because she covered everything that Mark said, which I think we all agree with. You need to watch her commentary. So now it's snake venom now. COVID is snake venom guys. Yeah. Oh, but actually what they should be funny is there's no fucking COVID. There's no fucking COVID. There's no changes in disease stats. There's no new disease. There's nothing. It's a pandemic of testing. It's a testing pandemic. Because if you just stop and think for one minute you would realize that, you know, not only is it there no evidence and it's all, you know, just a story. But think about what the mainstream media, how they would talk about us if we started saying that COVID was caused by King Cobra venom. We would look even more ridiculous than they try to portray us now and it almost seems like a setup for that kind of a PR stunt. Tom, I don't know if you've watched that segment until I just played a few, but what's your thought process like at this point? The same as Mark and Andy and, you know, I have a guy who does research for me and we're trying to see if there's any evidence that there's any homology between the sequences and and red evidence. As far as I can tell there isn't. It's the same. You know, you have to see the evidence. You have to see the science. There was no evidence, no science, no studies, no sequences, no homology, no mechanism. And I want 20% off from that. You know, you know, what's thing that's interesting is I did, I did look at a review article on King Cobra toxicity or you know, bites and interestingly, the anti venom for that particular snake venom is not very effective. So I don't know if you would want to I'd recommend put put benton, I clay on the snake bite as quickly as possible. One of the gentlemen is asking with so much information out there regarding the jab, the virus, the quote unquote virus, the new world order, the financial situation, communism. If the doctors could only tell their closest friends and families to worry about one thing, what would that thing be? To be honest, I think the whole COVID narrative has been a distraction. And I mean, Andy and Tom are aware as well. While we're battling away, dealing with the bad science and pointing out to people that there is no virus, we're also aware that the world is being changed rapidly at the moment and making some huge moves about resetting our financial system, about resetting what it means to have civil rights even. So for most people, I would say just turn off the news and don't worry about fake viruses and fake transmission of things that can't affect you. And just have a look at the more fundamental things like getting out of the financial system, which is going to close in on you pretty soon. And working out ways to be self-sufficient, like what would you do if you couldn't get food at supermarket? What would you do if certain things that you buy now are no longer going to be available? So that would be my advice is to not get bogged down into all of the science and the complicated stuff and just focus on the absolute fundamentals. We do that here with our family. We just say, well, you know, we've got to look after our kids. That's the most important thing. And try and keep your eyes on the important stuff and not get too distracted. Dr. Kay? Well, I think Mark and I are definitely kindred spirits. You know, we're kind of really living in parallel. It's too bad. We're not closer together. I would look at it this way that the most important thing to worry about is that the world leaders are working towards completely taking away your freedom and making you into some kind of slave to their system. But the thing that I would pay attention to is the digital surveillance system. And I would think very carefully about every time you interact with any system. So this kind of covers actually many of the things Mark was talking about because when you interact with the commerce system, the financial system, the health system. And all these systems now are wanting to get your information and wanting to surveil you and essentially spine everything you do. And the more that you participate with that, that's how you're going to end up losing the first your freedom and be sort of subsumed into the system. And this goes back to the early writings of technology from around 100 years ago. And you could see that everything that's going on now fits within that structure, right, of essentially, you know, social engineering. And the fact that we're not just talking about the technology, but the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and the technology that we're talking about, and we're talking about the technology that we're talking about, and the advantage of ferrying is that, and we're talking about cell phones, and we're talking about the technology that we're talking about, and we're talking about that, and part of the way we are going to operate things based on demotiv and cultural heritage, and all that, to make sure that we're talking about the technology that we're talking about, via health insurance in an environment that we're talking about, the technology that we're talking about is functional impact, and to be able to have too much experience. That's just crazy. really just kind of monitoring ourselves because that's the vehicle which all the things that we're concerned about are going to come. But don't devote all your time to worrying about that. Instead do what Mark said, which is learn how to do things for yourself. Prepare to live a much more natural life. You can feel confident that if you just start to get back to that way of life, you will find many unexpected rewards and you'll certainly be prepared to deal with any kind of future in a positive way. I'm feeling Tom's going to say, grow garden. Dr. Tom Cowan's garden. That's your IG, right? Oh, I would say you go ahead and say that. No. I certainly agree with both Mark and Andy, but to me it's eight. In some ways there's nothing to worry about. All you have to do is commit to searching and seeking for the truth no matter where it leads. And if you do that, you'll probably be fine. Thank you, gentlemen, for all your time here. Can we just go around plugging your website so if people want to find out more about what you have to say? Absolutely. Find out more about me at Andrew Kaufman MD dot com true medicine university dot com and terrain the film dot com. Well terrain is not RC on iconic. It's awesome. Oh, that's right. Yes, terrain on iconic. I almost forgot. I see now the logo there. Absolutely. I love everything about it except for the part where you almost got arrested. Oh my God. That's really painful to watch that. Oh, that part, man. It just got me really upset. And yeah, if you haven't checked it out already, check out terrain on iconic Tom. What's your best website here? I think it's a doctor. I haven't actually seen it. So I don't really know. But doctor Tom palin dot com and doctor Collins garden dot com. Those are the two. Yes, yes. And check out his book Breaking the Spell. I wish I read that long ago. I actually read the book after that interview with Malone and McCullough. I wish I read it before. So my false. But for the people who haven't checked it out, it's $5. You can just download it. Download the ebook comes right to your phone and amazing information. Mark, please tell us what's the best way we could find you. Yeah, well, we're it's all on Sam's platforms that keeps household busy enough. So there's who website doctor Sam Bailey dot com. Doctors gentlemen, thank you so much for hanging out with us. Stay tuned for the next series of doctors. We'll get some other doctors on board and debate some wild topics. So thank you guys. Thank you for joining. You should you should change the name to doctors gone wild.