Wonderful to see you all. Welcome, Michelle, from Canberra.
So I'm, if you're, if this is new,
if you're new, please introduce yourself.
I'll also say that a bit later,
but lovely to, lovely to have you all here,
survive the weekend, although in the UK it's now,
what is it, 8pm? 9pm?
9pm, yeah.
Excellent. Hello, Stephen.
Hi.
Thank you, Mark, for coming.
Yeah, no problem. Thank you for the invite.
Nine o'clock in the morning there, is it?
Yeah, it is. Yep. Just, we've got three kids,
so I've just sorted them all out and Sam's got them nice and quiet.
So hopefully you won't hear too much noise in the background.
Yeah, thank you.
Charles, are you there?
We lost Charles, have we?
No, no, he's back. He's back.
He says the wrong thing.
All right.
Well, we've had no news in Australia.
Australia hasn't sunk into the water yet.
But Sky News, the world, according to Rowan Dean,
Rowan is the editor of The Spectator in Australia,
is doing some pretty powerful stuff on mainstream
media that is absolutely hammering
hammering the government narrative.
So I'm wondering how to get a summary of that.
Mark Bailey, I don't know if you get the world,
according to Rowan Dean, in New Zealand.
Probably don't. It's probably it's probably censored by Queen
Jacinda.
Yeah, it's not something I'm familiar with, but
I mean, here in New Zealand, if you're on a VPN, you can access anything.
All right. Well, I'll bring that to everyone's attention because Rowan,
it's very heartwarming to see what he's saying on the Murdoch,
you know, on the Murdoch Sky News.
So, you know, whilst
mainstream media won't say it, Rowan certainly does.
All right, let's get into it, everybody.
Welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics.
I'm Charles Curvesse. In Australia, I'm Australia's passion provocateur.
This is a place of passion.
And Stephen Frost started this group to
enable a place for people to fight for, to discuss, to speak truth.
To fight for freedom, fight for justice, to fight against breaches of the
Nuremberg Code that have been apparent to all in sundry.
We have lots of professions here, Mark.
You've probably been here over the journey, but we've got doctors and lawyers
and journalists. I used to be a lawyer, but now I'm a legal strategist.
Engineers, writers, researchers, nurses, dentists,
investors, financiers, plenty of troublemakers here, Mark, as well.
Like you and Sam, you know, people,
plenty of people on this group get criticised by others for not complying
with, not complying with what the government says.
We're here in a true spirit of science and discovery.
And, Mark, your topic is really one that I'm delighted to have it
because it's a great practice area for all of us to listen to people
and explore why people believe different things to each other.
That's what science is about.
Most of us understand we're here in World War Three.
We go for two and a half hours, Mark.
I hope we can have you. We stop at two and a half hours.
But if you have to go earlier, we understand.
You present as long as you like, and then we'll have Q&A and discussion.
And then at the two and a half hour, Mark,
and we will stop sharp five minutes before that,
because I have to do another presentation at nine thirty this morning.
And then we go to a telegram group, a video telegram group,
which is less structured.
Everyone is welcome to do that.
There's no censorship, but there's proper moderation.
And some people think that if they're not allowed to talk
whenever they want to talk, that's censorship.
No, it's not. It's moderation.
So just be aware of that.
Free speech is crucial on this platform.
And being, you know, the the this this discussion group helps you
to explore what you actually believe about the issues that Mark
and all of our wonderful presenters are going to be sharing with you.
So check into your beliefs, you know, and then you say, I'm offended
because Mark says something or a speaker says something
is contrary to my beliefs. Good. That's what science is about.
We come from love, love, not fear.
If you come from fear, your capability is so diminished.
And that's why I have a passion for blockade, too,
because passion comes from your soul and love comes from your soul.
And when you do what you love doing, life changes.
And I'm absolutely satisfied, Mark, that you, Mark Bailey, Mark Dye.
We're not talking about Mark today, Mark.
It means Mark Bailey, OK?
But you and Sam are both are both two wonderful practitioners
who are passionate about what you're doing and showing enormous courage.
And that's the other that's the other element I wish to bring to your attention.
That passion, when you're passionate about something,
it's the source of your courage and the word courage.
The etymology of courage comes from the French word,
cour, from a Latin core meaning heart.
So when you come from your heart space, that gives you
that's the source of your courage to fight the fear.
If there's no fear, you don't need courage.
And so this group twice a week comes together.
And this encourages us to speak what's true for us.
And, you know, and we encourage Stephen to keep fighting the fight.
We encourage each other to keep fighting the fight and not be squashed by fear.
So welcome. If you are first, if this is your first time,
please introduce yourself, please put your proper name on the description of you.
And we'll listen to Mark.
And then at the end of that, we do a Q&A with put your hands up
on the reactions tab at the bottom of the screen and put
and keep sharing the wonderful information in the chat.
So Mark Bailey, Dr. Mark Bailey from New Zealand.
Who's by the way, I think has lived in Melbourne,
the lockdown capital of the world.
But, golly, gosh, I think New Zealand is the is the
totalitarian center of the world, almost with Queen Jacinda.
So Mark Bailey, over to you and welcome.
Well, thank you, Charles.
And also thank you to Stephen Frost for the invitation to talk today.
This is my first time as part of this group,
and I'm not sure of your usual format.
So what I will do is just do some open introductory
comments, and I'm really happy to take questions and do some answers today,
because what I find with this topic of viral existence
is that most of you probably see that there are problems
with the virus hypothesis, that there may be one or two sticking points
which still convince people that the viral theory is correct.
And there's been a number of people in the health freedom community
that we've communicated with over the last couple of years,
who often there is there's just one thing that has kept them
from coming into the camp, if you like, to realize that
the virus theory is completely broken.
So, as I say, I'm really happy to to address questions
because I'm sure there will be a lot of them.
So my background, I trained as a conventional doctor
here in New Zealand and graduated in 1999 as a medical student.
I had the speed wobbles with whether or not I was going to be an allopathic doctor.
I became aware of material that we weren't supposed to read.
We were not encouraged to read at medical school from practitioners
who had been through the medical system and then rejected it completely
with regards to germ theory and vaccinations in particular.
I was actually one of the last students in my year
that wasn't fully vaccinated, going into clinical work.
And I almost didn't get vaccinated.
But in order to complete my medical training, I had to,
unfortunately, submit to getting the Jabs
when I was probably about 19 or 20 years old.
But that was kind of my first experience of something
where I thought this just doesn't seem quite right.
The personal choice seemed to be violated.
But we were told that if we didn't do this, we were putting our patients at risk,
et cetera, even if it wasn't putting ourselves at risk.
I worked for a couple of years full time in the medical system
and then actually became a professional athlete for five years doing duathlon,
which is similar to triathlon, but in the run bike run format.
And absolutely loved that five years of learning the limits
of what my body could do and became one of the fittest individuals on the planet.
It was also interesting to me during that time, I kept my medical license
and was practicing a couple of days a week.
But it also struck me around that time that the pharmaceuticals
and surgical interventions we were doing on our patients
were not something that I would be willing to undergo.
And certainly none of the medications I would take put into my body
and many of the procedures I was witnessing, there's no way
I would subject myself to them either.
So, again, that was a little bit of a crisis point for me,
realizing that I just kind of was not
there was not a comfortable fit within the medical system.
I had lost faith in it.
But in 2007, came back into the system and trained extensively
in musculoskeletal medicine, where I felt we were doing the least amount of harm
to patients. We were very much conservative, conservative
treatment based in the US.
It's called physiatry, I believe, is the equivalent to what I was doing.
And but increasingly over the next eight or nine years, I got
into a lot of conflicts with colleagues, particularly
orthopedic surgeons who I used to work with, who I could clearly see
were doing procedures that had no basis in evidence.
And yet they were saying that they were getting great results,
which clearly wasn't the reality.
And that was my first introduction into actually analyzing scientific
literature to see where the evidence lay.
And probably orthopedics for me was the first scandal,
if you like, realizing that potentially 80, 90 percent
plus of the surgery they were doing had absolutely no basis
in scientific evidence.
And when I used to call up the surgeons on this,
like the first chat I had to one was actually a friend of mine
who was doing a lot of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.
I pointed out to him that there was no randomized control study
ever in history that had established that the procedure was useful.
And yet here in New Zealand, they were being done by the thousands
and around the world.
Not only that, they were often funded by insurers and national health schemes.
And I looked up some of the national protocols here in New Zealand
and found out that they had no evidence at all.
It was all expert opinion.
And then that led me to look into other procedures
and other fields, including cardiology.
And what I established pretty quickly and was disgusted with
was that a large amount of what takes place in medicine
is just based on expert opinion.
That's the level of evidence they operate at,
which is basically no evidence at all.
It's just self-interest groups making money in a living
out of procedures that have no basis in science.
So by this stage, I was pretty disenchanted with medicine.
And in 2016, I'd had enough.
I turned 40 that year and decided that I'd get out of the medical system.
Now, my wife, Sam, she's six years younger.
And I at the time, I told her in 2016,
I think you should get out of the system, too.
I think the whole thing is going to collapse.
I think it's going to turn bad.
But she had a research job that she really loved.
A lot of patients were absolutely adored her.
And she's one of those rare doctors that in her entire
practicing career had never had a complaint from any patient, not once.
And obviously, later on, the authorities went after her,
but it was none of her patients.
They were all completely happy with her.
But anyway, she elected to keep going in medicine.
And she did a couple of different things, including
research clinical trials, which I'd also been involved with for a couple of years.
And then we got to end of 2019.
And by that stage, I was so out of medicine that I didn't look at anything.
I still had some colleagues in medicine that I talked to every now and then
and catch up on what was going on.
But personally, I had nothing to do with medicine at all.
And then in late 2019, we start hearing
rumors that there's something happening in Wuhan.
People are dropping dead in the streets.
Then we hear that there's a new coronavirus apparently on the loose.
And around that time, Sam had just started her YouTube channel
and was mostly talking about mainstream medical matters
and quickly picked up a huge following.
She was picking up at one stage thousands of subscribers per day.
And when when we noticed in early 2020
that things just didn't add up with the stories coming out of Wuhan,
she decided to pivot with their channel and start communicating information
about this COVID-19 situation to the rest of the world.
So one of the first things we did in early 2020
was read the WHO report on the COVID-19 situation.
And again, what struck me was when I read that report, there was nowhere in it.
There was no scientific publications that showed me that a virus existed
or that there was any contagion, that there was anything passing around
between people. It was all complete speculation.
The references that were given did not back up any of the speculations
that they had made in their report.
And this led us on the pathway.
To what we basically currently do, which is look into the existence of viruses,
the concept of germ theory, the concept of contagion.
And it led us to our current position, which is that not only do viruses not exist,
but the whole concept of contagion is completely fallacious.
And there's not one scrap of scientific evidence that you can find,
which would show that transmission of microbes between humans
actually occurs and causes disease.
So what I guess what influenced us early on too in 2020
was the work of the Perth Group.
And we obviously, as medical students and doctors, were not
certainly not shown that there were theories which contradicted mainstream
beliefs about alleged viruses such as HIV.
And what impressed us with the Perth Group was how they systematically
went through publications one by one and just explained why they didn't
follow the scientific method and why the claims, whether it was in the abstract
or the headlines, simply did not match, you know, what the actual methodology
of the paper showed.
And we quickly learned that that was what we needed to do with virology
and contagion and germ theory in general was going back through the trails.
So we start with the CDC and or some organisation, some the WHO, any of them.
And we look at their references and follow the scientific trail right back to
the start, which sometimes if it's something like alleged coronaviruses,
most of it goes back to about the middle and last century.
If we look at older alleged viruses such as tobacco and mosaic virus, the literature
goes back to the late 1800s.
And in every case, and we've done this with dozens and dozens of viruses now,
following the trail right back to the start, we can see that at no point did any
of them establish something that meets the description of a virus.
So at this point, we should probably explain what a virus actually is, because
what is intriguing is that when I ask doctors to describe what a virus is, you
get a mumbo jumbo response from many of them, unfortunately, and they don't
actually specify exactly what they're talking about.
So a virus by definition, and I'm talking about the modern definition, is a tiny,
tiny particle, you know, in the order of 100 nanometers around that kind of size
for ones like the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, a proteinaceous shell within which
is a genome that not only encodes its protein shell, but encodes all of the
genetic information that the alleged virus needs.
It's supposed to be an obligate intracellular parasite, so it needs to go
inside a cell to be able to replicate.
It's infectious.
It can pass between hosts.
And not only that, but it's disease causing.
So it's not just associated with the process.
It has to actually be the pathogenic factor, the factor that causes that disease.
So how did we get here?
Well, initially in the 1800s, there was a mistaken belief that bacteria and
fungi were causing disease.
And from that, and we can talk about that as to why that's false as well.
But in any case, in many of the cases, so they'd have things like TB and other
diseases, in which case they would be able to actually isolate, we're talking
about properly isolate a microbe.
So in the case of TB, that gets someone to cough up the specimen, they'd find
the bacilli directly in the sputum.
There'd be no problems with that.
Then they could culture it, see that it could replicate, see that it was a
living entity, et cetera.
So the problem was with a lot of illness they were seeing, they couldn't find any
particular bacteria associated with the illness.
So what happened in the 1800s was that the investigators imagined that there
was some other contagious element going on, something that couldn't be seen,
something that was smaller than what the capabilities of the light microscope.
So initially, if you look in the 1800s, they just, sorry, just get some water.
So if you look in the 1800s, initially, what they talk about is a fluid
contagium or a fluid contagiosum.
So they're alleging that there's some kind of substance which is transmitting
between hosts and causing disease.
Then in the early 1900s, they start talking about an infectious protein.
So they've gone off the idea of an actual fluid and now they're saying it's a
rogue protein that is passing around and somehow able to replicate in the body.
Then by the mid 1900s, we get the current model, which is the rogue genetic code
model, which is the description of the virus, which I just described a bit earlier.
And that's the one they've basically run with since the 1950s.
The problem along the way, right from the start, so if you look right back to the
first alleged discovery of a virus, which was the tobacco mosaic virus, was that you
can read that paper and it may impress some people and it may sound like something
was transmitting between the plants, but there's so many problems with it.
I mean, I can't even believe that this is the basis of the virological model.
For a start in the TMV paper, Ivernosky never showed that anything could pass
between plants in a natural setting.
So he had disease plants with tobacco mosaic virus disease, allegedly.
And he would put them next to other plants, healthy plants, and nothing would happen.
So then he worked out what you had to do was grind up the leaves of sick plants and
then either rough up the leaves of another plant or inject the material directly into
the other plant and expose them to the fluid, to this this mixture from the sick plant.
So, I mean, that's problematic for a start because that that's not actually
contagion. That's taking something directly from a sick entity and putting it inside
another sick entity, which makes no sense whatsoever.
I mean, it would be like taking if one of us was poisoned with arsenic, it would be
like taking a lesion from our body where the arsenic is trying to come out and taking
that sample and then injecting it into someone else and going, oh, there we go.
It's made them sick. Therefore, it's a contagious element.
That's not contagion because by definition, contagion is supposed to be infectious.
It's supposed to come from a microbe.
So direct inoculation is not contagion.
So that's a very important point.
The second point was, and this is pervasive now throughout the entire literature in
virology, is that Ivanovsky didn't do any controlled experiments.
He didn't just take plants which were alleged not to have tobacco mosaic virus and
grind them up and do the same thing, which was, you know, injecting it directly into
other plants. So there was nothing scientific about his experiment.
It was simply a descriptive observation that he made without showing through the
scientific method that there was anything transmitting.
So then as we move through last century and the virologists realised that they were
having problems because every time they did do a control experiment, it showed that
there was nothing different between the experimental arm and the control arm.
So what I'm saying here is that if you took a entity which you said had a viral
disease, whether it's a human or an animal or plant, and then you took another
comparable entity and compared the two by taking tissue samples from them, you couldn't
really find anything different between the two of them.
So that was their first problem because they were really hoping that you'd find
something different between the two lots of tissue.
And of course, when the electron microscope was invented around 1933, they thought they
were going to solve this problem and they thought that we've got it now because we'll
get someone with measles or mumps or any of these other alleged viral diseases and
we'll take samples from them and we'll be able to find these particles directly
inside the tissue sample.
But of course, we now know that that didn't happen.
They couldn't find viral particles in any sick entity.
So once again, the hypothesis had refuted itself.
To get around that problem, you'll probably know of John Enders and his famous 1950s
experiments with the measles.
So for 20 years, they tried their best to find viral particles directly in tissues
and it completely failed.
So then John Enders worked out in the 1950s that you could take various cell culture
lines, often not human or not cell culture lines that were actually supposed to be
infected by the alleged virus.
But you could take things like monkey kidney cells or abnormal cancer cells, etc.
And you could put samples from a human, say, like snot or lung fluid.
And by doing a cell culture, you could show apparently that there were viral particles
coming out of the cell.
But once again, Enders completely failed to do any control experiments.
He didn't just do one experimental arm where he took a sample from someone with
measles and mixed it with a cell culture.
What he should have done was do an equivalent experiment where he took a sample from a
well person or someone with another type of disease and mix it with a cell culture
and see if he got the same results.
But the other virologists since that time, so for 70 years, they've simply repeated
this process and not one of them has done valid control experiments.
So wait a minute, people say, but I've read these papers and they say that they do
do control experiments.
Well, the problem with their control experiments is they're completely invalid.
So to their control arms, and this is not just with cell culturing and aka isolation
attempts. This is with genomics, antibody studies, everything they do within the
paradigm of virology.
Not one of them does a valid control experiment.
So what you'll see is you might read, say, June 2020, Jennifer Harcourt, AL, CDC.
They say we've isolated SARS-CoV-2, here's our cell culture, here's our genomics
result, etc.
But they say that they did a mock infection, but the mock infection is not a valid
control because all they've added is culture media.
They haven't added a tissue sample from a human.
So you can't you can't compare the two with a control experiment.
You need to alter one variable at a time.
And in this case, so you need an independent variable.
In this case, it should be the alleged virus that should be the only thing that
changes between the two experiments.
But you can already see if you've got your first experiment where you're adding a
whole lot of muck, a whole lot of biological material from a human being, from a lung
sample, etc., or a nasal swab, you can't compare that to a cell culture that doesn't
contain any of that added material.
So this is where the work of Christine Massey has been really, really important
because Christine has written and her colleagues have written to these entities like
the CDC and all of these organizations around the world and said, why don't you simply
tell us what you did in your control experiment?
And every time it's the same, either they disclose that they did an invalid experiment
where they didn't have comparable controls, or unusually now we're starting to see some
institutions refuse to even tell us what they did in their control experiment, which is
completely bizarre.
So, for instance, the United Kingdom Health Security Agency refused to disclose exactly
what the control experiment was on the basis of national security.
That was the excuse that they gave.
So, I mean, you can see that they are completely covering up now the anti-science of
what's been going on.
And I mean, I think they've painted themselves into a corner, basically.
So, yeah, and I'll briefly talk about genomics because that seems to be something that
completely fools most people.
People say, OK, look, there seems to be some problems with their cell cultures and
isolation experiments, etc.
But how on earth did they find the SARS-CoV-2 genome 13 million times all around the
world, which has been deposited on websites like GSate, etc.?
Well, the problem with those 13 million deposits is that, again, they're just repeating
the same uncontrolled techniques that the first one did.
So, if you've got an invalid technique at step one, it doesn't matter how many times
you do it. You're just going around the same track again and again and again.
And I think it's also a misunderstanding of what is actually being sequenced.
I mean, nothing is being sequenced end to end.
So, SARS-CoV-2 is supposed to be 30,000 nucleotides in length as the complete genome,
but nobody's ever seen that genome.
It's not been shown to exist.
It only exists in computer models that have been put together.
So, I think that's another point where people get confused is that they think that this
is an end to end sequencing operation every time.
And how could they keep finding the same thing over and over again?
So, and the other problem with it, too, is that it doesn't even matter.
I mean, I pointed this out multiple times.
I don't... If you find the sequence in nature, even if it was shown to exist and it's
complete length, it doesn't mean that you've got a virus.
It doesn't mean that you've got a clinical disease like COVID-19.
You'd have to do other things to establish that.
So, yeah, this is, I don't know, I guess that's a 30 minute summary of maybe how we
got here. But I'd be happy to start answering some questions because it looks like
we've got a few coming in already.
So, maybe if we start with Gary.
No, Mark. I'll moderate it.
I'll keep this mob under control for you so that you can enjoy yourself.
And the other thing I forget to say to our guests is if you need to go to the toilet
for a moment, please say, you know, drinking all that water to be healthy.
You say, I've got to go out and do that.
Don't... I also, I've been a triathlete for 35 years, not due atlons, but I've done the
Ironman and many half Ironman.
So well done on being fit and healthy.
And indeed, this whole question of health is an interesting one, everybody, to to
explore what that really means.
I love, Mark, that you and Sam have have dedicated your life to say, what does it
actually mean to reach the peak of health?
And I did a speech on Saturday, 200 Lions Clubs members and looking at many fit and
healthy people here versus unhealthy people.
And you just look at the energy in people's eyes.
I look at the energy in you and the courage that you have shown in your journey and your
willingness to question. So before Stephen starts, my question to you is, did your
parents go nuts with the questions you were asking of them and not accepting the status
quo?
Do you mean recently?
When you were a kid, when you were a kid, were you willing to accept, willing to
question the status quo, which is what you did when you went into medicine?
Probably like my earlier teachers would have described me as the dream student
because, you know, I was winning scholarships and they would just sit the exam
papers and and I would get A pluses and stuff.
But to be honest, I wasn't really when I was younger, like up until my teens, I wasn't
really questioning things.
So, you know, both Sam and I, we were Golden Boy and Golden Girl.
We used to be feature on magazine covers.
Sam was obviously on TV for a while as a presenter.
But we found out once you go against the mainstream beliefs, they treat you as as
you know, an absolute rogue basically.
Many people on this call, Mark, have questioned the narrative and they have had
that experience and they get excluded as as we know.
So one of the interesting factors for all of us to understand is that whilst you
might not get on the mainstream media, less than 30 percent of people actually follow
the mainstream media.
That's why the mainstream media is all losing money.
So we think it's dominating the airwaves.
And that's that's not true.
That'd be an interesting piece of research.
All right, Stephen Frost, I love that you're wearing your Wales rugby top.
Obviously, you want to you want to intimidate this New Zealander here from the
All Blacks. So, Stephen, so Mark, the way this goes, Stephen asks the first series of
questions as the founder of the group.
And then we'll go to Gary Finkelstein and on we go.
Yeah, so thank you, Mark.
That was a really terrific summary.
And I noticed that you took great care with your words, as George Orwell, no less,
recommended people should do, but predicted that they wouldn't, that language would be
torn away from them so they couldn't express their ideas.
I just wanted to ask you.
So obviously, you you are of the view that there's no virus.
So I am not aware of all the arguments that go towards coming to that conclusion.
But I do know as a medical doctor that there is a huge possibility that there was no
such thing as Covid-19, that it was a failure of diagnosis.
That's if you accept that there's a virus, which increasingly I'm I'm coming to
conclusion needs to be questioned, but maybe not questioning all viruses just now.
But I'm prepared to be persuaded about that.
But so is there such a thing as Covid-19?
In my view, it was never properly diagnosed.
You don't diagnose a viral illness with a test.
It's never been done before.
Kerry Mullis, the inventor of the PCR technique, said my his test, the test, which is based
on his technique, which he won the Nobel Prize, that it was never to be used for the
diagnosis of a viral illness.
And that's exactly what they did do.
But even if you put that aside, they were trying to diagnose, as you know, clinically.
And so the governments around the world were saying, oh, loss of taste, loss of smell and
suggesting that this pathognomonic for Covid-19.
And I was saying to myself initially, from the beginning, that no, it was no, there was
no symptom which was pathognomonic for Covid-19.
I just wonder whether you could talk about that.
Yeah, and this is something I can't believe that doctors around the world went along with.
And even today, doctors in the health freedom community who still talk about Covid-19 as
an entity, there's no it, it's nothing.
Because what happened was, if you look at the definition of Covid-19 from the WHO,
and this was known in 2020, this is not something new.
The confirmed case is simply the result of a molecular detection test.
So the PCR was mainly in use early on.
And now, obviously, the lateral flow or the rapid antigen tests are in use as well.
But there are no symptoms or signs that are required.
So this is, and I have problems with disease entities.
I've moved off that model.
That's how I used to work when I was a doctor and make these diagnoses and stuff.
That's a separate issue.
But even within this model, where you accept that there are disease entities,
yeah, as we all know, we had a list of symptoms and signs that we'd need to
fulfill and then the test would be the confirmatory process that we do.
So by mid 2020, the Cochrane Collaboration published a paper that I don't know why
everyone was ignoring because they did a systematic review of every study that was available
and concluded that there were no symptoms or signs that could rule in or rule out COVID-19.
So people should have said, well, that's a problem, because if they're saying it's a disease,
there should be some sort of symptoms or signs.
And instead, what we were left with was the circular reasoning where the cases were 100%
based on PCR or lateral flow tests.
Now, if people can't see the problem with that, they shouldn't be using tests at all,
because what it did was it basically said that those molecular detection tests have 100%
specificity and 100% sensitivity and that they, not only that, but the sensitivity and specificity
is of a diagnostic category, not of anything else.
So I mean, this is completely obscene.
It goes against everything we know about how tests in the past were validated clinically.
And I was really disappointed that PCR experts like Stephen Buston had written the
MIQI guidelines, which had clearly said that there are two types of sensitivity and specificity
with PCR.
One is the analytical side of things, which is all that Drosten and Co worked out in January 2020.
Their paper has nothing to do with diagnosing anything.
It's just an analytical sensitivity and specificity protocol or their tests in quotes
to pick up particular sequences.
But the sequences themselves were never the provenance of them is not known, the significance
of them is not known.
It was all just stuff that was placed on GenBank and given the label SARS-CoV-2,
and that's the whole thing.
That's the whole basis to this fraud.
There's really nothing to it.
And I think it's worth spending some time on this issue because it's a huge misunderstanding
and we still have to this day, I've even had family members tell me that they got it, you
know, and I said, what do you mean you got it?
They said the COVID.
And they said, how do you know?
And they said, I felt terrible for three days.
I did a rapid antigen test and it's positive.
And it's really frustrating because we've written articles about this.
We've done videos on it.
When those tests arrived in New Zealand, I wrote to the distributor and said,
what is this diagnose?
And where do I find the clinical validation studies?
And they couldn't give me anything.
All they had was the packet insert, which piggybacked their tests on other tests like
the PCR, which had never had any clinical validation either.
So, yes, Stephen, I would say that it's a fictional entity.
It doesn't exist.
There's no COVID-19 is not a thing.
It doesn't matter if people say in 2020 that they saw, you know, some new pattern or they
were treating pneumonia that seemed a bit different.
It's completely there's no scientific evidence that they were dealing with a new virus.
And there was no way to say to classify this condition outside of the circular reasoning
molecular detection test.
So, yeah, does that and nothing's changed to this day.
But you're the first medical doctor who agrees with me.
So I've been I felt like a whistleblower in my own group, except there are one or two,
well, there are a few who believe there's no virus.
But I realized that even if you don't go down that route, you know, denying the virus or
saying there is no virus, which is perfectly possible in my view, then as a doctor, all
doctors in the world should have known that there was no such thing as COVID-19.
So it was a massive fraud from beginning to end and it should have been exposed at the
medical level.
Yeah.
And the other thing was, and Sam and her co-authors have written about this in Virus Mania,
because they warned for two decades that this was coming in Virus Mania.
They said these fake pandemics are getting bigger and bigger.
And eventually they'll just engulf the world because with SARS-1 back in 2003, the problem
and quotes that they had was that they did actually have a specific clinical criteria
that had to be fulfilled.
So the temperature was supposed to be over 38.4.
There were supposed to be changes, patchy changes on chest X-ray.
The person was actually supposed to be pretty sick.
And that's why there were hardly any cases because nobody, there was very few people
were fulfilling those criteria.
They were actually really sick people.
And as you know, the clinical condition SARS, that's real and that's a serious problem,
but it's not caused by a fictional virus.
So in SARS-1, they said it was SARS-CoV-1 and now they're saying it's SARS-CoV-2.
But SARS itself is, that's not what causes it.
You get other causes, other injuries to people and problems.
But yeah, what they basically did with COVID is that they made the case definition so ludicrous
that wherever they took the PCR, they got cases.
And this was pointed out by some of Sam's co-authors too, back in early 2020.
They did an analysis and said the number of cases is dependent on the number of PCR tests
that you're doing at the time.
So when they were saying that cases had gone up by fourfold in Germany, that's because
they were doing four times the number of tests.
And wherever you go, you'll find it, but it has nothing to do with actual illness.
Right.
So no COVID in Yemen when they can't afford the tests.
But they were actually diagnosing COVID-19 in the UK without tests and they were encouraged
to do so.
In my view, at the time, I thought that that was to increase the number of cases of COVID-19,
cases of COVID-19, which of course they needed to turn into deaths, which were due to COVID-19.
Or, well, they were saying that they were due to COVID-19, but essentially they were
with COVID-19, except there was no such thing as COVID-19.
And so the whole thing is just a massive, and doctors should have known what was going
on and they should have known that all the measures and the injections later, of course,
were violations of the Nuremberg Code.
It was human medical experimentation, just the social distancing was that.
And as I've said on this group many times, on the 2nd of June 1948, seven doctors were
hanged in Germany, having been found guilty of human medical experimentation.
And here we are again.
Crazy.
I just wanted to ask you, Mark.
So, yes, so there's no virus, there's no such thing as COVID-19.
In the vaccines, is it, you know, would you, oh, sorry, the injections, is there a spike
protein or do you think there's a possibility that that's been planted there by the criminals?
And is there mRNA?
And again, has that been planted there by the criminals?
And I'll just do the questions and then.
So I wanted to ask you, is a pandemic possible in the sense that, you know, if you accept
that viruses exist, that when they, that they never mutate to more pathogenic viruses, even
in the world of virology, they don't, they always mutate to less, sorry, less pathogenic,
but more transmissible.
They were arguing the opposite in December 2021 in this country, in the UK.
And I'll repeat this one, you need.
So has genomics been invented or at least come into prominence
to corrupt the world of virology and genomics, is genomics actually corrupt?
And so was virology, what they call virology now was that split off from microbiology
with evil intent.
And so those questions, I can repeat them when you need it.
So in the injections, do you believe that there's such a thing as a spike protein and the mRNA?
Yeah, sorry.
And I'll just answer one more question because Stephen, we need to be careful with language
as we know.
And when you say like me, you know, you think COVID-19 is a fictitious entity, but we should
say it is an entity because within epidemiology, a case is whatever you define it as.
So if they say, if the WHO say that a case is a result of a molecular detection technique,
you and I can't deny that they've just created a case.
What we're saying is that it's pointless, a pointless exercise because it's not
a clinical condition.
But epidemiology could have been created to commit this fraud.
Yeah, so like an epidemiologist could create a case definition that anyone like you and I who
deny that COVID-19 is a clinical condition is a case of blah, blah, something nasty.
They could go around and say, well, we found a million of these cases recently.
So yeah, just to be clear.
Yes, I thought people would realize that.
Yes, I understand that.
Yeah.
Because people will say to us, I mean, the worst you get is people send you
you know, one of these websites like from Johns Hopkins saying, well, what are these
20 million cases?
What are they?
And we'll just say, well, they're meaningless because yes, they are cases,
but they're not cases of disease.
They're simply cases of an epidemiological invention.
A lot of the cases in inverted commas, the people were asymptomatic and they were just
sorry, they were PCR positive or lateral flow test positive.
But yeah, I mean, you can understand why people get confused because sometimes if you're arguing
a specific line, it's difficult to remember you're arguing that line and then you make
mistake in the wording.
I don't know whether you've found that.
Yeah, for sure.
And this is not medicine because of the influence of based on interest in the pharmaceutical
industry, the experts at creating cases like, you know, hypercholesterolemia would be another
example of something non related to viruses where essentially they just manufacture a
condition and you go in and have a blood test and you don't have a disease and you're not
unwell.
But the GP says, oh, I've looked up the guidelines and it looks like you've got a disease and
you need to be on a statin, etc.
So yeah, this manufacturing of cases is nothing new.
But yeah, we should just be crystal clear with our language that we're not denying the
concept of cases.
We're just saying that it's preposterous to create cases.
And as we know, if you have a very narrow criteria for cases, you will find none.
And if you have a wide criteria, you'll find as many as you want.
What they call COVID-19, do you agree that that was what was previously called the common
cold, influenza, pneumonia, those three, and then you've got all the other respiratory
illnesses which allegedly are due to viruses?
No, well, it's worse than that because when we used to diagnose influenza, we expected
the temperature to be above 38 degrees.
We expected there to be symptoms.
So no, it's far worse than that.
I mean, it's encapsulated all of those things.
And we know that, you know, I think in Australia is a good example where traditionally they
had about 2000 deaths a year attributed to influenza.
And in 2020, 2021, that basically went to zero.
So, yeah, we know there's a lot of reclassifications, but I would contest that it's even worse than
that.
It's encompassed just about anything, including mostly asymptomatic people.
Yeah.
So, Mark, so the way I knew that something was terribly wrong was in March 2020 and could
have been February 22, I can't quite identify the time, but I immediately when there was a
first, I remembered the swine flu so-called pandemic.
And I also knew that that swine flu pandemic, which wasn't a pandemic, was exposed as a
fraud at the Council of Europe investigation into that so-called pandemic.
And still, all the mainstream press all over the world went along with this narrative,
not mentioning swine flu once, any of them.
Yeah, well, completely.
If you look at the previous fake pandemics like SARS-1, bird flu, swine flu, HIV, none
of them had the global reach.
And I think it's been engineered over time, but I can't speak as to exactly how that was
done.
But it's just what I think's happened is that progressively, yes, it's become more
and more coordinated to the point we have now where big tech pushes forward a narrative,
the major news corporations push forward a narrative and try and bring everyone into
the same thing.
Sure.
What do you think about genomics?
Do you think that it's possible that it was kind of brought into prominence to
corrupt the world of virology totally?
Or do you think that virology was split off from microbiology for that goal?
Yeah, well, in my essay I wrote recently refuting the virus hypothesis, I suggested that
metagenomics itself will be virology's last gasp.
It'll be the last attempt to try and legitimize the existence of viruses.
I mean, I don't personally, I don't have a huge problem with genomics if it's limited
to the experimental setting, to research, etc.
I think it has virtually no role in clinical medicine.
It's not useful whatsoever.
And it's this mistaken model that people have that you can somehow get a fingerprint of
an individual and work out what's going on with them.
But again, with regards to there is legitimate genomics in the sense that if you are looking
at an entity like a bacterial cell that you can actually work out where the genetic material
came from, that's fine.
With virology, the process has been completely misused because they never established that
the sequences come from inside the virus particle.
And that's something people just constantly forget.
You get into arguments with people about this, and you just say to them, can you just show me
the step where it was shown that the viral material came from inside the viral particle,
you know, the viral code, the genetic material.
And with a human being, we have no problem because we can take a blood sample or a tissue
sample and we know exactly where that material has come from.
With bacteria and fungi, the same thing.
We can isolate the samples.
We can see exactly where the genetic material came from.
With this whole thing about inventing viruses, they simply never do that.
There's no step in the process to say this is where the material came from or that it
relates to some sort of disease process.
Yeah, I think genomics is being used now to sustain virology, basically, because they're
experimental.
The true kind of stuff that happens in the wet lab, you might call it, has completely failed
with their clinical experiments.
So now it's become based in the dry lab, which is, you know, on computer simulations, etc.
And if you look at what happened with SARS-CoV-2, if you look back to Fan Wu's original paper,
the alleged first time that they found this quote virus, there was nothing basically but
a computer simulation.
The experiment ended when they took their clinical sample, which was a lung fluid sample,
and just sequenced all of the RNA in the sample.
They didn't know where it came from.
They just sequenced everything.
And used a computer simulation to put together what they said was a genome, which was templated
up against another genome, which had been created in a similar way all the way back to the 1980s.
And in my recent paper, I demonstrate the trail back to the original quote coronavirus genomes,
which shows that not one step of the way do they actually show that there's a virus at all.
They just continuously reinvent things with tissue culture experiments and samples that
they take from nature and say that this is the virus based on their sequences.
So, yeah, I think there is, I think we are seeing a complete misuse of genomics, and it's a
multi-billion dollar industry now.
And I would just challenge people to say, what benefit does it bring humanity?
None.
There's nothing to it.
But you could say the same thing about large sections of technology as well,
well, particularly when they're not, when nobody understands, well, very few people
understand the technology which they're using.
Anyway, I won't go on.
Charles, that's fine.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Stephen.
And as I say, well done for wearing that is your Wales top, I presume, for rugby.
So, Mark, we go on to the series of questions.
We've got lots of hands up and you generated some great questions.
And dialogue, don't worry about the chat.
People who want to ask questions will ask those questions.
If there's anything crucial in the chat, I'll bring it to your attention.
But save the chat on your computer, of course, Mark, because there's some wonderful resources,
perhaps perspectives we would recommend, and also lots of compliments to you.
Charles, I wasn't wearing the Wales rugby shirt to annoy Mark or you.
I love it.
I love the red.
I'm biased towards red.
All right.
Gary Finkelstein, you're first, then Gerry Waters.
Yeah.
Hi there.
I've got two questions.
The one is a very basic one.
I was an earlier, an early, I'm going to say follower of Sam, and I was wondering what's
happened to her.
Obviously, she was taken off air.
I'm assuming and hoping everything's good.
That's just clearly very interesting.
My other question is about a meeting I had with, the pleasure of meeting Luke Montaigne,
about two years ago now.
I should say that I'm an, actually, I'm not a doctor.
I've been studying excess mortality, a lot of excess mortality in 2020.
Also in 2021, but the age shape of a change.
But anyway, my question is, and that's what I'll try to articulate because I'm not a doctor.
Luke Montaigne explained to me that he was observing through sequencing.
I mean, he didn't say that the virus has been fully isolated, just to be clear.
But he did observe, if you like, a pattern recognition where he observed
sequences that were common in the HIV virus to what was being proposed as the coronavirus
underlying COVID-19.
What he said to me was that, and I think he's actually gone, he went public on it before he
died, that the odds of that happening in nature were like one in a million or something.
But that seems at odds with what you're saying, that there's no virus at all, or have I completely
misunderstood?
Yeah, no, there's some great questions and we can answer those for sure.
And yeah, firstly, thanks for your inquiry about Sam.
Yeah, the authorities here are still attempting to prosecute her, then get her into court.
But what we did, they even tried to prosecute me earlier this year, even though I'd been out of
medicine for six years.
And I think it's an indication of how much they fear doctors speaking out.
And I think of all of the groups of people, they come after us the hardest.
So I was actually surprised that they came after me, given that I haven't had a license for six
years.
I thought I was completely out of it.
But apparently, because I was a doctor at some stage, they think they can come after us
legally.
So what we did here was we used...
Mark, can I ask you, what's the basis for them coming after you?
Alleged basis?
So they tried to allege that I had breached the medical council guidelines about their
recommendations.
In New Zealand, it's like everywhere.
Basically, they say that doctors have to recommend the COVID-19 injections.
Otherwise, they're in breach of best practice or whatever.
But obviously, I'm not even in...
Not if you're not registered, surely.
Well, the thing was, I hadn't practiced for six years, but I was still on the public register
because they leave you on that for life.
I made sure I came off for that reason.
Yeah, yeah.
I know.
And I know Kevin Corbett did the same on the nursing register.
Unfortunately, Kevin, we didn't know Kevin in 2020.
We knew of him.
But yeah, I realized he told us later that that's the reason he'd got himself off the
nursing register as well to escape any potential prosecution.
But so with Sam, they've tried multiple charges against her, everything from practicing without
a license because she makes videos after she let her practicing certificate lapse.
That was just a complete joke.
They have tried public risk.
They have tried bringing disrepute to the profession, which hopefully we're doing.
That's what we're aiming to do.
All sorts of things.
But to cut to the chase, we gave up on the legal process, which is a complete sham.
And we issued the medical council with equity notices, which is a form of liability notice,
saying that we'll personally go after them, the individuals.
For a huge amount of money and because equity is similar to common law.
But anyway, within 24 hours of my notice arriving at the medical council, I was taken off.
They completely left me.
They took me off the public register and never tried anything against me.
With Sam, they've kept her on the register, but so far they haven't been able to get her
into court.
So they keep trying as far as we can see, but not getting anywhere.
So that's where we're at.
So no, we're great, though.
We're really happy.
Family's safe and everything's going well for us on the home front.
The videos were very interesting.
I'll say that's for sure.
I remember them.
What's the view of her videos?
She's absolutely spot on as a doctor.
Yeah, well, Sam, it's funny because, as I say, she's one of those rare doctors.
That's never had a patient complaint.
She practiced for 16 years of clinical medicine.
I've never had one.
Amazing, isn't it?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And most people struggle to these days because of how the nature of the system.
It's pretty hard to do.
So yeah, getting on to look Montaña and HIV sequences.
This is what tricks people because they think that when they start talking about probabilities
of these sequences being found in nature, etc., what they're being misled with is that
they're basing that on GenBank designations.
So HIV sequences have been placed on GenBank when, in fact, there's no evidence that an
HIV particle exists or certainly not a pathogenic one.
And the other thing to keep in mind with HIV is that unlike even within the viral paradigm,
HIV is ridiculous.
The sequences are permitted to vary by 30 to 40 percent.
Can you imagine that?
I mean, the difference between us and a chimp that we share about 98 percent of our genetic
material and yet look how different we are from a chimp.
HIV, even within HIV, is supposed to be a particle that's exactly the same almost,
but the sequences are allowed to vary by up to 40 percent.
I mean, that makes no sense.
That's like the difference between us and a worm.
And yet they're all counted as HIV sequences.
I don't know why people go along with this kind of stuff.
It makes zero sense whatsoever.
So when Montaña says things like, well, these sequences that seem to be appearing in SARS-CoV-2,
if that's what he said, seem to be similar to HIV sequences,
and there's a very low chance that that would happen in nature.
I mean, it's all based on the faulty premise that the sequences were shown to come from
a particle called HIV in the first place.
And you have the same problem with, I think it's like GP120 and other proteins that are
supposedly specific to HIV.
That's never been shown.
There's no... I know that appears in textbooks and what they'll teach you about so-called HIV,
but there's no paper you can go to on the planet which shows you
that these glycoproteins come from the NHIV particle that doesn't exist.
So yeah, there's actually...
I can't think of the name of the paper, but it was written by
Eleni Papadopoulos in 1990 specifically addressing a similar question that came from Peter Duesberg
because as you probably know, Duesberg suggested that the HIV particle exists,
but that it's a harmless passenger retrovirus and that it doesn't cause disease,
it doesn't cause AIDS.
But Eleni did a very good response to Peter basically saying, well, where is the...
where can we find the paper that shows that those sequences you're talking about are specific
because they're not specific at all.
So does that answer your question, Gary?
It's... I think we see this all the time.
Yeah, people say to us, but look, it's HIV sequences and that,
but you have to go back and say they're not HIV sequences in the sense of
they were never shown to relate to a pathogenic particle.
Yeah, all right. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Thanks.
All right, Jerry.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yeah.
I had an echo earlier on.
That was me just coming in, both of me coming in.
Hi Mark, very, very welcome to...
Well, I suppose, welcome to this hemisphere.
I imagine most of us are from the Northern Hemisphere.
Are we? Charles, would correct me on that perhaps.
Most of the world's population, 90% of the world's population is the Northern Hemisphere.
So that makes it fairly safe, doesn't it?
As I always do, I find it necessary to fill people in, people like you, in on who I am.
I'm Dr. Gerry Waters. I'm a GP. I qualified in 1977.
And I have spent the best part of the last 40 years as a GP.
I was struck off the... Well, I was suspended from the Medical Council 19 months ago,
from the Medical Council for refusing to go along with the COVID hoax.
I refused to accept the pathogenicity.
And here, Steve was saying, he hasn't come across a doctor that agrees with him.
Pretty much every time I spoke on this Zoom, I've agreed with Steve.
And so I don't know where he's not been listening to me.
But I believe that there is a virus.
I happen to subscribe to the concept that there is an infective entity.
Call it what you like. I don't care whether it's called a virus, whether it's...
Whatever it is.
But my 40 years in general practice have taught me.
I've been through 40 winters.
I've been through 40 people coming in with sniffles and snots and coughs.
I've gone home and a day later developed those sniffles and snots,
snotty nose and running nose and that.
And my wife and kids have gotten them.
I can think of no other.
You can tell me it's environmental.
You can tell me it's dietary.
You can tell me what you like.
But I can think of no other entity that would account for those sequences.
That I personally have experienced over a 40 year period.
Again, over that 40 year period, every year I've had, I've seen a hundred,
maybe a couple of hundred people who came in with viral,
what I consider to be classical viral infections.
I generally didn't treat them.
And if there was some symptoms in their chest, I always listened to the chest.
Always listened to the chest.
Look at the ears. Look at the eye.
Look into the throat.
And if there were symptoms down there, I would perhaps give a steroid or some,
you know, what has now been replaced by ivermectin as an anti-inflammatory.
But and over a 40 year period, like you, I never had a complaint about my treatment.
Now, I have had complaints from people,
but generally it was because people tried to get into my practice.
It was generally people trying to get into my practice and I refused them.
And they got upset and reported that I wasn't nice enough to them when I was telling them
I wasn't taking them in.
But, you know, so I have I've been subjected because there again,
if you're 40 years in the business, a couple of things happen.
You probably get a little bit more cranky as you go along.
And perhaps you're not quite as diplomatic as you were,
as I would have been over the first 20 years.
But no, sorry, I thought originally, Mark, that you were a co-author on Virus Mania.
I now see that you're not.
So I suppose I can't really tackle you on the things that I found that I disagree with
in that book, but I will tackle you on the things that you brought up.
You were talking about the viruses within plants.
And you said about people being grind grinding them up and rubbing them together.
And and are injected directly into the plant.
That, of course, you know, you know, your argument there saying, well, that's not an infection.
Well, that blows malaria, dendrofever, white nile fever, rabies right out of the water.
They don't exist as as infections or as you know, because they do,
because in all of those cases, they're injected in.
And they're injected not only are they injected in, but oftentimes they need another vector.
Sometimes you need a little protozoan or you need a little
some other organism to carry them into your body.
So your argument about the.
The plants being ground up and rubbed together that doesn't wash.
Would you care to comment on that?
Yeah, well, Jerry, you're conflating so many things here, but I can unpack.
And I'm happy to comment on virus mania because it was co authored by my wife.
So I pretty much know every paragraph of the book pretty well.
The what you're talking about here is you're talking about clusters of illness,
of people getting sick together, which does not require a contagious entity.
If we're talking about contagion, that that's a very specific thing.
It's a microbe that's transmitting between organisms and allegedly causing disease.
So in order to show that hypothesis is true, you'd have to do clinical experiments.
Now, I don't know if you can show me an experiment in history, which has ever demonstrated
that phenomenon because I've looked at hundreds of them and every single one has failed.
You may be aware of the Rosena experiments, which were done in World War One,
where they tried to transmit the Spanish flu and had a 100% failure rate.
And that was not just doing light techniques.
That was taking snot from people, giving it to other people to swallow.
It was people who were sick, coughing and other people's faces.
It was taking muck from people who had the Spanish flu and injecting it directly into other people.
They couldn't get one case of human to human transmission.
They tried it with horses as well.
That didn't work.
But that was a very specific case.
They tried to repeat that in subsequent years with influenza and couldn't get one example
of human to human transmission.
This is not peculiar to the flu.
This is across the board with every single alleged viral and bacterial infection that
they can simply not demonstrate in a clinical study that one animal or human can have a
virus.
With tobacco mosaic virus, that's not an example.
I gave the example earlier.
It would be like someone is poisoned with a substance such as arsenic and then they break
out in a skin rash and form vesicles as the body tries to eject the arsenic from their
system.
You take a sample of fluid from that vesicle and inject it into the body.
That's not evidence of contagion.
That's just evidence of a toxin that you've taken from one area or person and injected
it into another.
That was similar to how they showed in quotes transmission of things such as measles and
chickenpox.
They did exactly the same thing.
They took samples of fluid from sick people and then injected it into either children
or other non-human primates and then observed skin reactions in them and said that, well,
there you go.
That's evidence of contagion when it's not at all.
I mean, even taking...
I mean, you'd know this, Gerry.
If I took some blood from my veins, even though I'm not sick, and injected it into you, it
could cause one heck of a reaction.
I mean, worst case scenario, it could kill you, but that's not an example of contagion.
Again, it's just an example of injecting foreign biological material.
That's right.
Exactly.
So you're saying that when you're taking a sample of fluid from a person, you're injecting
it into the body.
So are you saying that when malaria is transferred by means of a mosquito, that it's purely and
simply due to the poison, the toxin, rather than the protozoa that's actually transferred
from one person to another?
Or the same thing with Degu fever.
Or take something like rabies.
That's injected into you.
That again is a virus.
Wait, look, we can get bogged down.
You asked, am I familiar with studies?
No, I'm not.
I've been too busy as a GP, actually working on the front line, looking after patients
over a 40-year period.
I've actually taken two holidays in that 40-year period.
One of those is to spend six weeks in New Zealand as it happens.
And the reason I did that is because I actually love doing what I do.
But overall, no, I haven't got the studies, partly because I don't believe studies.
And having seen what went on with COVID in the last year, I think I've been very, very
right to go on my gut instinct and my feelings and my basic medical education, rather than
go on the experts.
In the book, it says that in your wife's book, that not to go on experts.
That the idea of...
It's under the concept...
Charles, could you move to Alex Bailey?
Oh, yeah, okay.
What?
It's okay.
There was someone making a noise there.
Yeah.
What is it?
It says it, nullitus in verba, which essentially means don't trust what someone says.
And I go by what it says in, in effect, your wife's book.
I don't go on what people say.
I am quite happy to trust my 40 winters and the 250 or 300,000 people that I have seen.
And I've got to admit, it fits with...
You see, you dismissed the idea of contagion.
Yes, I would believe that within an area, say in Selbridge or out, you know, Dublin West,
that there would be what I would consider an epidemic of a viral infection.
And it fits.
It fits with my idea, my original education of the virus.
And, you know, it just fits.
Getting back to Stephen's point, where Stephen was saying about the idea of, you know,
whether in fact the sort of diagnosis of viruses are real, you got to admit that before
the microscope was invented, or before the microscope was used on looking at infections,
bacteria didn't exist.
What I'm saying is, and I would propose that perhaps we just haven't got an instrument
to show up these viruses.
I don't know if they exist or not.
But how they spread among within a community fits my picture.
Now, as I say, there may well be an instrument that would be invented.
It's arrogant of us to think that we were there yet, that in effect we have all the
knowledge and all the instruments to demonstrate things.
I would postulate that there is some infective agent.
I don't care what you call it.
You know, but I know that Dolores Cahill, and Dolores Cahill is
a an immunologist that I like, trust in a highly intelligent person.
She tells me that they have identified viruses, that they have an effect, particularly fish
viruses.
And there are viruses, viruses do exist, according to Dolores Cahill.
I personally have never looked down, I haven't looked down a microscope in
dozens of years, and I haven't looked down, I've never looked into or looked at the screen
of an electron microscope.
So I can't say no, but I will stick with my experience.
So you say it fits your picture, but that doesn't mean to say that it is actually these
viruses are the cause of viral illnesses.
If viral illnesses.
Yeah, but you're using your word.
I'm saying you get a group of symptoms and signs, and they seem to spread from person
to person.
And I say I can only use my 40 years experience, my 40 winters, but, you know, the 200, 250,
300,000 people that I've seen that it fits with that.
You know, as I say, somebody coughs, sneezes, spits on me.
I go home a day or two later.
I start exhibiting similar symptoms.
Oh, yeah, you sure.
That's my imagination.
But, you know, I don't tell my wife, I don't tell my kids.
The next thing they're coming around and say, hey, Dad, I've got that.
Whatever you brought home on Saturday, you know, like I'm sorry, but that's the way it
fits with me.
Now, I don't as for the COVID, I've said and I was struck off because I said this, the
pathogenicity of whatever that was called a virus.
I don't care what you call it.
A coronavirus.
The pathogenicity was lied into existence.
It was lied into existence using a totally false, dishonest PCR test.
And it was lied into existence to cause panic within the people to facilitate the use of a
cull, a messenger RNA vaccine and the totalitarian control of...
Okay, Jerry, Jerry, stop.
Stop.
Jerry, otherwise, we'll hear you for half an hour.
We've been going for 15 minutes so far.
Let's give Mark an answer.
I think there's a lot of questions, but you've expressed excellent views.
So, Mark, first over to you.
Yeah, I mean, we've just we've just spilled out into so many different topics here.
And I can maybe suggest to Jerry that if you go to our website, you can see we've actually
made videos on many of these topics.
Getting into things like rabies is no, no, no.
That's a minor part of what we've done during.
If you go to our website, you'll see there's hundreds of videos and articles that we've
covered much of the material that you're asking about here.
So again, with something like rabies, you do not need a virus to explain what rabies is.
It's a recapital, I guess.
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.
It doesn't matter what the clinical picture is.
It does not require a virus.
You can watch Sam's video about rabies, which should probably be the quickest way to get to
the bottom of that.
But what I was stunned with Jerry there was that you should have noticed that I don't
listen to experts.
I did my own research.
So the virologists have made a whole lot of claims, as have the infectious diseases specialists.
I went and had a look at the sources that they cite in their textbooks, in the WHO
documents, in the CDC.
And the methodology of the papers does not back up their claims of things such as contagion.
There's no demonstration of contagion with any disease, as you're talking about.
So I'm not sure why you've got a problem with the fact that the studies, the experimental
studies, cannot back up the claims that you're making, that anything is transmitting between
people.
So if you take things like scurvy and pellagra, they were also thought to be infectious diseases
because of man's imagination and thinking that everything seems to be passing around.
So both of those, where people used to be put into isolation when they had those conditions,
rather than simply given vitamins to completely correct it.
That's hundreds of years ago.
You go back hundreds of years when there were no microscopes.
They had no idea.
When you go back to scurvy and that, literally they had no idea what causes any disease.
The great plague of London was supposedly, what was it, a myasoma or whatever it was.
It was conducted through the air.
To go back to quote those things, I think is, well, not legit.
No, I think you're actually incorrect again because pellagra was described centuries ago.
But unfortunately, the Western world ignored the literature.
It was described as a dietary deficiency.
There were patterns that were recognized a long, long time ago, well before modern medicine.
And yet, unfortunately, it wasn't until last century that they worked out that pellagra
was a vitamin problem.
So no, that's not true.
They often knew far more than we thought.
But I think you're hanging on to the viral hypothesis when their own experiments have
refuted themselves.
And I'm not sure how you can hold tenable scientific evidence that has no controls
and that has refuted itself over and over again.
And I'm not talking about just contagion experiments.
We're talking about genomics, cell cultures, PCR, antibodies.
None of it's been done with valid control.
None of it followed the scientific method.
And that's what we're looking at.
We're not relying on opinions of experts or anything like that.
We're actually just looking at the scientific evidence.
Of course you are.
You're very good.
Jerry, Jerry, that's already nearly 20 minutes.
So enough.
Thank you.
It's a legitimate argument by the same token.
Well, it's a great argument.
Everybody please understand this is a very...
I've been facilitating groups for 29 years.
Stephen has created a space where we're not trying to convince each other of anything.
Jerry's expressed a view.
Mark's expressed a view.
We listen to these views.
You don't have to come out a winner.
You know, stop this model.
If two people disagree, one has to win, one has to lose.
It's not so.
Very rarely in life is it black and white.
And so listen to the conversation.
Make your choice, Jerry.
And thank you.
Anna is next from...
In fact, I forgot which state, Anna, of the US.
Thank you so much, Mark.
I think that one of the problems that scientists and doctors are having
is to understand that there are alternative explanations to what is going on.
We know that there's a correlation to 5G, to heavy metals, to...
In the shots now we're seeing...
Sasha Latipova just brought out that the Department of Defense
is really in charge of the entire operation
and that there's a lot of resistance, particularly in the freedom fighters,
against, number one, the virus delusion theory,
and then also the microtechnology theory,
and then also anything that really challenges the usual paradigm.
But fact is, is that exactly what you started your talk with, Mark,
that you looked into the studies and you can find the fraud
in cardiovascular disease, arteriosclerosis, all of that.
That is the Rockefeller medicine science model
that has enslaved scientists, universities, medical journals.
They own them, not enslaved, they own them.
And that much of what we know as clinicians has been fraud.
It's false.
And to get to the point of really being open-minded
and to say there is such a huge nefarious thing going on in this world,
a deception on a global scale that has deceived so many people,
including doctors and scientists, your methodology
and your meticulous approach in the PDF that you brought down
to take every single argument and to document that
has been phenomenal.
And I just want to say thank you for that.
And the flak that you've been getting from all sides has been tremendous.
But I think it all fits together now with some of us scientists
who are looking at the vase, who are looking at the nanotechnology,
who are looking at 5G, at the weaponization
against the population of this planet and using psychological warfare
through disinformation through that.
So my comment is just I want to thank you for that.
I do want to ask you in regards to the nanotechnology
that I know that Sam has also brought forward and the heavy metals
because you know that some of the symptoms of the previous pandemics
were caused by, for example, spreading arsenic and apple orchards.
And these heavy metals is the same thing that is being used in all vaccines.
Every single one of them has nano contamination of iron oxide,
titanium, tungsten, et cetera, just like the ones that are COVID-19.
And that weapons experts are telling us that that's all you need as an antenna
to affect a body, to kill it, to infect it with any type of symptoms
that look like an infectious disease but are not.
Could you comment on the part of the micro technology
and the nano contaminations, quote unquote, that are found in all vaccines
and that are actually causing the pandemics worldwide?
So Mark, before you start, Anna, can you just check,
as you were talking, there's a lot of static.
I think it's possibly from your microphone.
Just say a few words now.
Can you hear me? Okay.
Yes, there's the static from your microphone.
Okay, at least we've identified that, everybody.
That's the only issue.
No worries.
We can hear you loud and clear.
It's just a lot of static.
All right, Mark, over to you.
Well, thank you, Anna, for those lovely words.
Yeah, and just to touch on to what you mentioned about contamination environment.
And yeah, this is a problem.
And why are we trying to expose this fake virus theory?
Because what's happening is that over and over again,
there are things that happen, environmental contaminations,
which are then blamed conveniently on viruses that nobody can find.
So the classic example, yeah, was polio.
When the Western world was poisoned in the last century with lead arsenate and DDT.
And a whole lot of people got neurological symptoms and paralyzed,
and they invented the virus model to cover up that.
And then miraculously, in countries like ours, Australia and UK, America,
polio disappeared when DDT and these other pesticides were basically taken off the market.
And then polio appeared in the third world because they started exporting
these toxic chemicals to the third world, which they still do today.
Some of the chemicals going to the third world are not even consistent with what's on the label
because they know that they won't take them basically,
but they still need a product that appears like it's killing weeds or killing insects.
So some of them still contain some of these absolutely diabolical compounds.
And I suspect in these countries in Africa, a lot of these hemorrhagic fevers and other illnesses
we're seeing are simply contamination in their environment, being blamed on zoonotic viruses,
they call them, just jumping out of the jungle and affecting people.
But the theory is completely wrong because none of these alleged diseases ever get into
the first world, basically.
So yeah, I think it's a really important thing what you said, is that often it is
basically contamination in our environment, which is being covered up.
And it started with the Rockefellers and other institutions.
With regard to the microtech, yeah, it's a tough one.
So we've got teams in New Zealand that have done analyses of the vaccine contents
and it's hard to know exactly what's in them.
I've, most of the time we don't actually deal with that issue because we deal with the upstream
issue, which is that we don't believe that there's any evidence whatsoever that there
is pathogens, whether they're viruses and quotes or bacteria or any other microbes.
So to us, it's more important showing people that there's no need to get an injection in
the first place for anything, whether it's tetanus or rabies or any of the above.
Because again, we've looked into all of these and there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever
that having these injections has any benefit to the recipients.
So yeah, I don't know, the microtech stuff, the nanotech stuff, I mean, I'm sure they're
working on it, but it's difficult to know for me. I can't really comment on the extent to
how well developed it is and how much it's been distributed. I would say, don't buy into these
fear narratives. That's one thing that has concerned us with a lot of the freedom community
is that even when they come to grips with the fact that COVID has been a scam,
but then people start getting worried that there are other things going on, which are going to
cause major problems, whether it's release of some sort of nanotech or whatever. I personally think
the body is incredibly robust. And if you're leading a life of best nutrition, best habits,
a spiritual connection, all those sorts of things, you've got every chance of being well.
And if we can just help people understand that, I think we'll all be in a much better place. But
yeah, it's not the nanotech stuff is not something we've done a couple of
articles and videos on it, but it's not something we've spent a lot of time looking into.
All right, Mark, thank you. And Mark, Anna did a wonderful presentation to us a couple of weeks
ago. I'll send you the link to her presentation. And did a wonderful traversing of a wide range
of health modalities and learning modalities that I think you would thoroughly enjoy. And Anna,
I honor your willingness to go broadly. I was raised that way to go broadly. And the one question
that we're not addressing is, hey, it's something external that's made us sick. Well, Mark, you just
keep saying I just bring it to people's attention. If you're not healthy, you're not going to be
particularly well. And I was raised at an early age that when you're getting stuff out of your
body, that's a wonderful elimination process. But we want to stop the elimination.
Yeah. And Charles, I just have to say, I mean, Sam and I, we're a living example with our family
of we have nothing to do with the allopathic medical system. Like our kids are not registered
for anything. They're not vaccinated. One of our three kids in the last decade,
one of them has basically had a pharmaceutical, which was five days of antibiotics. And that was
10 years ago. And we regret that now. That was a mistake. But within our family, I mean,
we're a family of five, we are incredibly healthy. And as I say, nobody's registered with a GP.
Nobody gets vaccinations. Nobody takes a pharmacy. I don't think I've had
pharmaceutical in my product for at least three years that would include paracetamol,
aspirin. I don't take any of that stuff. You simply we have basically rejected all of the training
that we received in allopathic medicine. And I guess people try and say we're naturopaths. Now
we're happy to be I'm honestly, I think it's far more powerful in terms of leading to
absolute perfect health compared to anything the allopathic medicine medical system has to offer.
And unfortunately, I have family members who still buy into these medical models and their kids are
sick. Their kids have got these inflammatory conditions. They're constantly having antibiotics
and all this sort of thing. And it's, yeah, it's, as I say, I think the best all of us can do
in this sort of movement we're part of is to show that it is possible to be incredibly healthy and
live without fear, and not listen to these nonsense coming from public health officials
and the WHO and CDC, etc.
Well said, Mark. Well, you'll see Ray Zipsa-Locker. Wonderful Latin maxim used by lawyers.
The facts speak for themselves. And I'm 70 this week. I have five children. I don't have a doctor.
I've never been to hospital except for a vasectomy and a reversal of vasectomy.
And if you live life as Mark says, and if you live as he's done, and if you live life as I've done,
and I know very few people who have done that, you don't get sick. And if you do get sick,
you stop for three days and you're back as good as normal, rather than this allopathic model that
you have to put some poison into your body. So let's not go there. But this forum, you see,
you come to this forum to learn new ways to be healthy. Do you want to be healthy? If you don't
want to be healthy, don't come to this forum. And if you're provoked by conversations about
getting healthy, good. Be provoked because 60 plus percent of Americans, Australians,
English, I don't know about New Zealanders, probably, over 60% of the populations are
overweight or obese. How the hell can you cleanse complain about being unhealthy?
Randy Stewart, over to you. That's great, Charles. Thank you. Yeah, I was up until
I wasn't going to preface this with with this comment until you were talking about that. But
up until 2018, I followed the standard standard American diet and the protocols and the
the advice on how to be healthy. But I wasn't healthy and I was way overweight. And I had all
the chronic diseases of old age. I was only 61 that I felt 10 or 15 years older. Four years later,
now, after learning about health and the microbiome and all the different things,
removing the toxins, giving yourself the good nutrition, all of that. I'm 120 pounds lighter.
Yes. And instead of 65, I feel like I'm 35. And I act like I'm 35. Now, why do you change your name
to Randy? Does that have something to do with it? Randy, your microphone's very low or I don't know
whether it's something on. Yes, sometimes this mic will do that on me. That's better. That's better.
Just if you got a bit closer. I just got it closer to my mouth. So I will speak up too. So
to make sure. So anyway, and thank you, Dr. Bailey, for being willing to question. I know
many doctors who have questioned. It doesn't necessarily mean we have all the answers. I know
I don't. People always want to know, well, if you're telling me everything, it's not. What is it?
One of the things that I've thought about and I want to get your comment on it is,
if you know who Karen Kingston is, she's spoken often about a presentation by Dr. James Giordano
that was given at Georgetown University in 2017 about how militaries around the world have been
working on psychological operations to trigger pandemics for decades.
So at some point in place and time, an outbreak is triggered by a poison, an EMF, a sound waveform
weapon, or even a pathogen that makes people sick but has limited spread. Then this is coupled with
a narrative that triggers hypochondria response and propagates fear and panic in the general
population. One example of this would be the anthrax scare in the US after 9-11.
Even that was one of the examples Dr. Giordano gave because he said even his organization,
that was one of the ones where they had a spill of some equal or sweet and low or something like
that in the mail room and they had to lock down their facility because they thought it was
anthrax powder. So when Omicon, I call it Omicon, was identified all of a sudden,
all cases of C-19 were all of a sudden Omicon. It was seemingly a badge of honor to get sick
and announce that you knew you had Omicon. So like I said, people want to know if there's no virus
and I'm on the fence but I'm starting to lean more into your camp of saying okay,
in this case anyway, I don't think there's a specific virus but whether there's any viruses
or not, at all or not, I'm still out on that but I'm researching it and I will follow your website
too to get more information on that. But if it isn't that, obviously they want to know what am I
sick from? And I think it's this Psyop type of situation driven by all these regular illnesses
that have been relabeled as this single one new disease which SARS-CoV-2 is a
new, a novel disease. How can you call something that's too novel? I don't know. I never got that.
But then they enhance the adverse events and the deaths and stuff like that by deadly hospital
protocols. None of the protocols that were authorized for this were ones that got people
better and they created organ failure symptoms and they withheld nutrition to create malnutrition
which obviously we believe drives disease processes. So boil it down to what my question is,
what do you think of this as possibility of being some huge psychological operation
driven by those that would be one possible candidate would be World Economic Forum,
the Great Reset, stuff like that. Maybe it's them, maybe it's a group of other people, I don't know.
But what do you think about that? Is it being a psychological operation to drive people to
relabel everything that's one disease and now everyone's in a panic? What can we do?
Save us all now. Yeah, well it's definitely possible to create the illusion of a pandemic and
Sam actually did a good video called How to Create an Epidemic and it goes over some of the
psychological factors that are involved when the population is under the illusion that something's
happening. And one of the examples she used was the famous incident in the United States where
people thought their windscreens were getting pits, you know, little divots out of them. And
basically it became a national news story and everybody started focusing on their windscreens
and there was this absolute epidemic of, you know, problems with people's windscreens.
They had investigative committees looking into it, people started panicking that there was some
nuclear fallout, that the Russians had done something. All sorts of hypotheses were being
put forward before they realized it was just a normal phenomenon. There was nothing unusual
about it, the same thing could be found all around the world. So yeah, you do definitely,
and I think what happens in the COVID situation was they did some very careful product placement
at the start of people just dropping dead in the street or falling, collapsing, you know. We didn't
know exactly where it was or why those people were collapsing but we were being told that it
was a deadly new virus, you know, etc. So the idea was planted. Because I found that what was
interesting was with the whole lab leak hypothesis and the Wuhan Institute of Virology and people
saying it's a big cover-up, not the case. This was in the mainstream media in early 2020 and
we could see these stories in the Daily Mail and other publications which were being viewed by
millions of people. So these ideas were being created in people's minds that, you know,
potentially this pathogen, in quotes, had escaped from the lab. And I think it does. It creates a
psychological illusion basically that there's something going on that's not. Like you can
imagine if you didn't have, if you were living in a log cabin and didn't see all of that news
coming out of Wuhan in early 2020, you'd walk around as though nothing was unusual because
nothing was unusual. I mean that's what we found amazing when New Zealand went into one of the
severest lockdowns in the world in March 2020. People were basically shut in their homes,
couldn't do anything. And we would just go outside and speak to neighbours going,
there's nothing going on. And they'd go, oh, there's a pandemic, da da da da. And we'd go,
where? Who do you know that's sick? And they'd go, oh, you know, people are dropping dead in
Italy and Wuhan and da da da da. And we'd say to them, have you, do you know anyone? Has anyone
around the world that you know contacted you and said that there's some terrible thing happening
in this city? Because everyone we talked to says the same thing. They say that the local hospitals
are not full. They say that they don't know anyone. That's unwell. And yet if you tuned into the
internet or the TV, there was just total chaos everywhere. You know, case numbers going through
the roof. So yeah, no, I think you're correct. I think these are largely psychological constructs
which have absolutely no basis in reality. And as we talked about earlier, there was no new condition.
You can basically see that in the scientific literature. The definition of COVID-19 is nothing
apart from the PCR results. So yeah, I mean, is that sort of what you mean?
That's what I mean, yeah. And I guess the follow-up would be what would be some way to
trigger them, you know, the old hypnotized routine. When I snap my fingers, you'll wake up.
What can we use to snap our fingers that wakes the most people up?
Well, I think the best way is just to show like what you've done. You're a demonstration of what
it takes to restore health and be healthy. I mean, I think your case alone is an inspiration to
people. And Sam and I try and do the same. We try and show that you don't need to live with fear and
panic. And I mean, the reasons people get sick is actually really simple. It comes down to either
they're eating too much rubbish, they're not eating enough good stuff and getting nutrients,
they're not doing enough exercise, or they're being poisoned in some way, like whether intentionally
with, you know, drugs or cigarettes, or some environmental toxins such as DDT.
So the other kind of physical things, once you take care of those four things,
you should be in pretty good stead. And the other realm, of course, is the psychological and spiritual
realm. If people are incredibly unhappy, and a lot of people are, they don't like their work,
like their family situation, then that will manifest eventually as physical illness as well.
So I mean, I think the principles of health are actually incredibly simple. And that's why I said,
you don't want to listen to public health officials and the CDC, WHO, etc., who all make it
sound so complicated. They sound like you need teams around the world working out what's going
on and where the latest diseases are coming from. It's all complete nonsense.
Just listen to me.
All right, Randy, we've got to keep moving because we're finishing in half an hour.
Mark, are you okay? You don't need to go to the toilet. Are you okay for the next half hour?
Do you want to take a break?
I'm glad to hear that.
All right. So, Randy, I've just had an idea. How do you wake them up? The immediate picture
that came into my mind was Peter and Gordon's wonderful song about Lady Godiva. We need
naked men and women on horseback riding down the street. That'll wake people up. All right.
All right. Leo.
Leo's our primate expert in Borneo, Mark. Just thought you'd like to know that.
It's 6am here. Mark, thank you very much. It was very nice to hear your words. And you might have
already answered my question by mentioning the monumentally suspicious molecular number of a
medal a couple of times there. But I work with wild primates and a lot of other animals, and I
have never seen a war or a veruca on any of them until we bring them into captivity. And following
quite closely the whole debate about the existence of viruses and everything that's going on, I
wondered if you might have an explanation as to what perhaps one of the more visual or obvious
supposedly viral contagious diseases or manifestations might be causing it if not
viral. And again, as I say, I think you might have already answered it. But lovely to hear you speak,
Brent. Yeah, thanks. It's actually we should, if I could, Leo, it would be interesting to get in
touch with you because Sam wanted to do a video on HPV because it is something that we get asked
about a lot. And it is so prevalent, of course, in humans that virtually every human will experience
what they are told is a wart or a veruca or some other lesion on their body. Yeah, I mean,
essentially, like most things, it's the body attempting to heal itself. And with the HPV,
we've got to remember, there's two different things here. There are warts and verucae,
which are real, we can obviously see them. And then there's HPV, which I think is the fictitious
entity, which is being blamed on causing these reactions. So what HPV comes down to in a nutshell
is essentially, again, they never showed that there was a replication component particle
that they could take and infect other things. All they found was that they had abnormal tissue.
And if they took, did genetic sequencing from that tissue, they could find
various what they said were the HPV genomes complete. And you'll see, you know, there's
different HPVs, they'll have numbers associated to them, which are allegedly the different variants
of HPV. But again, like all of the other alleged viruses like SARS-CoV-2, they are just simply
constructs that have been put together. So bits of genetic sequences that have been found
in tissue coming from humans and sometimes other animals. But yeah, again, we get to the fundamental
problem with HPV. Did they ever show that there's a particle that fulfills the description of a
virus? No. Are there clinical entities? Yes. But the two of them just don't match up. But
I have to be honest, I haven't done a really, really deep dive into HPV just yet. So give us,
hopefully this year sometime, we'll have a video out and we'll do a much deeper dive into this.
But yeah, I'd actually, if Charles or Stephen could just put me in touch with you just by email.
Mark, if you could remember to email me, I will loop in them, Leo.
Yeah, yeah, because I think that the observation... I'm part of your wife's subscribe star and actually
Watson, Veruca or Korn's are also well documented as a side effect of arsenic poisoning.
So I'll drop your wife a line and yeah, that'd be great to talk. I've got a chat that would be
very interested to speak to you. Thanks for your time, friend. Yeah, that would be fantastic.
Very interesting. My first contact with Leo, he told me that there'd been no pandemic in the chimps,
which he was most interested in. Oh no, sorry, the orangutan. Orangutan. Orangutan. Yeah,
I'm orangutan, but it's primates worldwide. There has been zero health impacts. And he would have
expected if there was a viral illness, you know, a pandemic caused by a viral illness, that that
would have gone into the primate population. I don't know how he expected that, but anyway.
Because the other thing, Leo, was yeah, with the arsenic connection and the chemical toxicity
connection, we're also looking into that with regards to smallpox, because it seems to be
that many of these conditions which have been blamed on contagion and viruses, etc.,
you know, even anthrax, smallpox, potentially HPV, seem to relate more closely to chemical toxicity.
And that may be why in the wild, in your animals, you're not seeing some of these lesions, but then
when they come into contact with humans, because of some chemical we're exposing them to, they start
getting the lesions. But yeah, to me, the whole mechanism of warts is the body trying to warts
something off and protect. It's similar to the mechanisms of cancer, vesicles, tonsils that
become exudative. They're all mechanisms where the body is trying to eliminate something.
It's there's something in there. And yeah, it's a really interesting topic. So yeah,
no, if you could get in touch, that'd be appreciated. Thanks for your time, brother.
Well done, Leo. Thank you, Leo. And Sanjoy. Hi. Mark, thanks for your presentation and all that
everyone on the No Virus team has done. It's convinced me that I was fairly convinced that
COVID was fake. And now I'm convinced that all viruses are fake. But I still wonder about bacteria,
because they seem to be in a different category. You can, as you said, you can see them in a
microscope, you can probably crystallize it and you can sequence them. What's your view on bacteria
and bacterial illnesses? Same as viruses, it's all fake, or maybe the bacteria cleanup. I'm
just curious if it's in a different category. Yeah, well, correct. None of us deny that
bacteria exist. They do. And we can see them and we can see them replicate, we can isolate them
and cultures, we can characterize them and sequence their genetic codes, etc. So no problem
there. But yeah, I think the no bacteria that I've ever investigated can be shown to be
pathogenic. So we went right back to Cox studies with tuberculosis, and where he claimed that the
bacilli were passing between animals. But all he showed was that if you kept animals in cages for
long enough, and probably under stressful enough conditions that they would develop tuberculosis,
you know, clinically. He didn't show that you could bring animals into contact with each other
for, you know, a couple of days, and then that also gets sick. That never happened. You had to
keep them living together under the same conditions. And I think that's what was mistaken. You know,
TB was alleged to be a contagious condition. And, and they said, you know, you have to live in the
household with someone for six weeks or something, because it's only a little bit contagious. But I
think what they're missing there is that the reason it's not contagious at all, you have to be in that
household for six weeks to experience those conditions, like those same environmental
conditions. So whether it's dampness, mold, poor nutrients, you know, the building's too cold,
all that sort of stuff, which ends up causing damage to your own lungs. And then you'll get
tuberculosis, basically. But the bacteria themselves, like if we did a supersensitive study
on you today, got you to cough up something, no doubt we'd find all sorts of things. We might find
some micro bacterium, we might find some pertussis in there, we'd find all sorts of things, but in my
tiny, tiny quantities, and they're not going, they're not going to do anything. But if you
became malnourished or got hypothermia, did some trauma to your lungs in one way or another,
the tissue is going to die, basically. And as it dies, the bacteria that are there will do what
they do as cleanup crews, and they'll proliferate. And unfortunately, mainstream medicine will
mistake that as an infection. And they'll think that the bugs have got inside you somehow and
attacked your tissue. But there's no evidence in the world, in any study, that bacteria will
attack healthy tissue in that way, something has to go wrong first. And we're in this marvellous,
you know, harmony, basically, with all the microbes that are around us, which simply
do their job. Now, there are instances when if you had a part of your body that was massively damaged,
and you had huge destruction of tissue, and it was being broken down, then some of the byproducts
from the microbes will become toxic to you. And that could eventually lead to serious illness
and death, obviously. But again, it was not precipitated, it was the bacteria themselves
are not pathogens. But if you look at, because the animal studies in this area are fascinating as
well. And I didn't know this when I was practicing as a doctor at medical school. But if you take
pure cultures of even things like cholera, which is supposed to cause disease, we take a pure culture,
without any other contaminants in it, and you give that to people to drink, they won't get sick,
it doesn't happen. If you give them dirty water, that does have some of the same bacteria in that
sample, you will get sick, but it's not from the bacteria, it's from the toxins that are in the
water. But again, what's happened with germ theory is that everything has been blamed on the microbes.
And even with things like TB, when they've tried to transmit it between animals, it doesn't work.
So what they've resorted to is these most bizarre studies, where they'll get huge doses
of mycobacterium, and put it in a nebulizer, and put it over an animal's face so they can't
breathe anything else, and then force nebulize them for like 15 or 20 minutes.
And then they notice that it causes damage inside their lungs when they do an autopsy
six weeks later, and claim that that's an infectious disease. And you think, well,
I've never seen a cow walking in a paddock and suddenly get forced nebulized for 15 or 20 minutes.
You know, it's supposedly, it's supposed to just come into contact with other cows and pick up these
diseases, which clearly doesn't happen. Something has to go wrong for the animal first, and then
it gets the proliferation. Because, you know, one interesting thing I've done some work on is
whooping cough, because, as you know, it's alleged to be caused by Borditalipetussis.
And I went back to Bordeaux's original study, and all that happened was he had kids who had
whooping cough, and he found that when they coughed up sputum, this was just over 100 years ago,
he was able to isolate Borditalipetussis. But again, they mistook causation with association.
And I see that problem now, where if you go and take sputum samples from people,
you can just about, about 60%, 50% of the time, you'll find Borditalia. And yet the person is
completely asymptomatic. And it's just because the PCR is so sensitive now that we can detect very
small amounts of Borditalia, compared to in the past, where we had to get a sputum sample
and culture it up and actually try and grow the bacteria, which was much harder to do. So,
yeah, I think that's a really fascinating area. And I think, again, it comes back to the fact that
germ theory should never have been called a theory, it should have been called the hypothesis.
And bacteria are in the same boat, they're not pathogens.
Thanks, that's very informative.
Thank you, Sons, very excellent question. Just before we get to Shimon, Angela, and Claire,
Claire, I'm doubtful we'll get to you. Mark Warner asked the question, what about the alleged
smallpox devastation of North American Indians? Is it that the idea that, hey,
white man came smallpox, the decimative? This is a fascinating one. And sometimes there's a
microbiologist who still agrees to talk to Sam and I, he's semi-retired, and he sort of sits on the
fence a bit with the whole pathogen thing. And he brought that up once to me and said, because I
had him on the back foot, we were talking about all of the scientific evidence with regard to
showing the concept of contagion. And then he brought that very example up. He said that, and
I said, what scientific paper are you referring to? And he just looked completely blank. And I said,
can I see some sort of documentation of what took place? And he went away for a week and came back
and said he admitted that it was just basically mythology that had been repeated over and over
again. And if you actually look at what happened in South America, I mean, basically, the natives
were completely just exterminated by the conquistadors. It didn't require any smallpox.
They were basically taking all their food off them. They were turning them into slaves. They
were forcing them off their land. They were making them adapt ways of life that they weren't familiar
with. They were putting them under all sorts of stress they'd never been exposed to. And possibly
as well with regard to the whole blanket theory, again, it may have been a chemical poison. I mean,
the thing was that chemical poisons have been known about since the Roman times. I mean, that
was such a common way to kill people or poison water supplies. And certainly when the Spanish
went into South America, they would have known about poisons as well. So another possibility with
the blanket story was that the blankets were simply contaminated with something else. Because
the story of how the smallpox got there is also a bit strange because it would have been a six-week
journey. So how were the Spanish traveling overseas for six weeks while they had smallpox,
which was supposed to be a fatal condition? And wouldn't they have all been dying on the
ship on the way over? So yeah, I think that comes down to the same thing. Where is the actual
scientific evidence that this took place? As far as I can see, it's mythology. And the other problem
is smallpox has the same issue, is that there's no study on Earth which shows that they isolated
a particle that's got any infectious capabilities. Beautiful. Thank you. Thank you, Mark. I love it.
I love being and having our pre-existing models question like that microbiologist who sits on
the fence. I'd like a picture of that, please. Shimon, next. Thank you. First, thanks, Mark,
for your great presentation. Happy to meet you in person. We have a mutual friend, Tom Cowan.
So I'm not a medical doctor, I'm just a researcher. I bring science to the equation, so do you. And
you're one of the few doctors to do that. So well done to you and to your wife.
I want to start by saying that... Shimon, can I say to Mark, Shimon's in Israel, Mark.
Yeah, I forgot to mention that. So I did also some study into history. And I studied with
Jenner and Pasteur. And I found two things about Pasteur. First of all, he was a 32-degree,
32nd-degree Freemason. By the way, James Giordano and Anthony Fauci are both Jesuits.
Just a comment, I'm not going to get into this now. And basically, Pasteur invented a disease
called rabies, which does not exist. There is no such disease, let alone it's not viral. Anthrax
are bacteria that do exist, but they don't cause anything. He just invented two narratives. And he
actually killed some ten boys during his attempts to develop a vaccine against rabies. By the way,
dogs who get rabies are either starved or poisoned. And as Mark explained so well,
this is the theology of most diseases. You're either not malnourished or you're poisoned,
right? This will kill you eventually. And then I came across the Spanish flu. And
not only was it not contagious, it was not viral because we know what caused it. And I will paste
a link again to my research and video. So I was doing videos, Mark, as well. I saw a few of yours
and your wife. I'm rather unwell because I did get sick. Sorry, now this is something else. This is
not the right thing. So what happened in the Spanish flu was that the Rockefeller Institute
of Medical Research just prepared millions of doses of some toxin. It was allegedly an
anti-menagitis serum. And then it wasn't even World War I because it was American soldiers on US soil
that were about to be sent to Europe for the dying stages of World War I. And they were the ones
got injected with this first and then they sent it all over the world and then, voila,
the Spanish flu. And then Anthony Fauci came up with this fabricated story of some frozen bodies
in the permafrost of Alaska. I will find the link again to my research and video so I will not take
too much of your time. So this was a completely invented viral disease, but it was a premeditated
genocide. By the way, their reaction to the deaths that occurred, the millions of deaths that
occurred during this genocide was to ask people to look up and to wear masks or face prison time.
So they were blaming the victims for spreading the disease. This was the Spanish flu.
The reason the Spanish flu ended was that they simply at a certain point
stopped injecting people with these toxins and they waited until 2021 to resume this practice.
Now I would like to say that there are parasites and parasites are known to be infectious, but
even then, and some bacteria, the nice thing about bacteria is when you kiss somebody or
you can kiss your dog for all I care, there is a mutual exchange of bacteria,
but there is no mutual exchange of disease. So bacteria do not cause disease unless,
and this is, I mean, these people were obsessed with trying to weaponize bacteria.
And I can show you this paper from Nature is discussing the weaponization of bacteria.
So they can take bacteria and put plasmids in them that cause the production of some toxic
protein and then they can spray them on you. And the bacteria will initially produce this
in situ. This is what the paper is saying, toxic protein. And this could kill people,
but bacteria in the wild are different from bacteria in the lab and then they will eventually
die out and the disease will die out, but still they could try to attempt that.
And the nanotechnology, so they are so obsessed. So, Mark, I'm involved in international groups,
including groups in Australia and New Zealand, and we found amazing things that there are
synthetic organisms, right, not biological ones, that do carry toxins and they can even
propagate and move through the skin by skin contact and infect people. So these people are
obsessed with creating infection where no infection normally exists in nature. So I wanted to
congratulate you on your excellent words, Mark, and I would personally like to stay in touch with
you. Thank you. Email me, Shimon, and I'll put you in touch with Mark. Thank you. Yeah.
So, Shimon, Carla put the link to your video into the chat for you, Mark.
Okay, thank you. Ah, thank you.
Thank you, Carla. And Mark, I also send you the Vera Sharaev. She did a wonderful
story to us in March this year of that whole story that Shimon also talks about.
Actually, Charles, just one correction. Vera heard the story from me. So I hope that when
she presented this, she gave me credit. If not, never mind. Claim the credit. No, that's very
good. So anyway, thank you, Shimon. That's so powerful, that idea, that this model. So
wonderful, wonderful, and full credit to you because it was a compelling story. I can't remember if she
mentioned your name, but it was so powerful what she told us. So thank you. Angela, and then I'm
afraid, Claire, we're going to run out of time unless you are super quick. So, Angela, you go,
then Claire, then Stephen, and we'll finish at 9.30 because I've got to get on to my next speech.
There's a couple of things, actually. Firstly, thank you to Mark and also to Sam, because
actually I discovered Sam very early on in the pandemic and found a lot of her things that she
put out very useful. Secondly, I'd like to say I know people have found this all quite contentious,
and I'd just like to say from personal experience, it's taken me a really long time to get past the
this doesn't make sense, doesn't make sense, doesn't make sense. I was really lucky that I
didn't actually end up vaccinating any of my children and had them all at home and not one
of them ever had any kind of medical intervention or medical pharmaceuticals at all. But that was
kind of more by luck, and I still had in my head the whole, you know, viruses and danger and
everything else. So I can think that the reason a lot of people still find it contentious, and I'd
imagine even more so for somebody who's been in mainstream medicine for a long time, would be
that's been so much part of their life and so much part of their understanding of everything, and it
involves such a complete 180 degrees, everything that you ever believed existed doesn't exist,
and the whole world is different, and that is just so difficult, I think, to come to terms with.
It's all very complicated. My question, I think, is Dr Mark, have you looked at or talked to or
come across Dr Zach Bush and the work that he's done? Because again, I found that's been very
interesting, and his kind of work on the microbiome and viruses and how bacteria and
how trees communicate with each other, and I'm not a scientist, so I'm not explaining this very
well, but just the positive benefits of it and how actually viruses or bacteria or the kind of
microbiome and the exchange between humans would be the same as between trees, and it's explaining
actually the dangers in the environment. He had a really kind of good explanation for what caused
people to have their symptoms that were seen in the pandemic, and I think it was kind of linked
into environmental atmospheric pollutants and 5G. He's really into kind of glyphs, anyway,
have you come across his work? Have you spoken to him? And I think it's something that if we've
been talking about this, I don't think we've had him on, might be something that would be very
interesting because he is fascinating on this whole topic. Yes, we do know Zach Bush, and
his work on glyphosate and poisoning has been absolutely fantastic, and I think he's raised
great awareness. Where we would depart from his way of thinking is with the entities of things
like viromes and viruses, and I think from what I know of Zach, he says that viruses exist, but most
of the time they don't cause the majority of people any problems. My problem with that definition is
that the virus, the word derives from poison, and the whole concept of virology was about showing
these pathogenic particles. It wasn't about showing physicals or exosomes that were communicating, so
I think that would be a departure from the virological umbrella, and it can also confuse
things because people think, okay, so we've got viruses everywhere now, and sometimes they'll get
me, and sometimes they won't. So, yeah, that's definitely a major difference between our school
of thought and his. Sam reached out to Zach quite a long time ago and suggested that they have a
conversation, a public one, lighthearted, just to talk about the slightly different points of view
about what constitutes a virus. Unfortunately, Zach came back and didn't agree to it, so
yeah, that's fine, but yeah, we have tried.
Okay, it's interesting anyway, but yeah, thank you very much for everything you're doing.
Yeah, thank you. Well done, Al, actually. I'm a fan of Zach Bush, and it's a great
point on the intersection of different points of view. Claire, quick question,
because we are going to finish at 9.28 Melbourne time. Yep, so Claire Payne, medical journalist
based in Australia but with family in the UK. So, forgive me, I got onto this half an hour late.
You may have already covered this, Mark. Thank you for your presentation. So, what about
rat test, lateral flow tests? So, when we were in the UK... That's all done, Claire.
Sorry, that's all done. Okay, so what I'm saying, okay, that's all done, watch the recording. Then
the other thing was, this is for Stephen. So, what's needed here? When you suddenly find we're
being... What Angela said, I agreed with completely. Once you find out we're being farmed by a big
farmer, you wonder, have we been farmed all along by all these different glycothate, phosphate
making companies, etc.? We need... And you don't know what to believe anymore. We need a virologist
to answer this and the last talk. I know one in Sheffield who is on our side. Would it be
possible to invite a virologist to... Absolutely. The answer is yes, absolutely. Great idea. Love to
have a virologist here. That's an excellent question. We have Kevin Corbett here as well.
And by the way, we do have to give credit to Kevin Corbett. It looks like a 40-year-old and
you told us on Wednesday last week, Kevin, that you're 67. So, well done to you for
staying in shape, although some people tell me that round is a shape. So, Claire, can you
send to Stephen the name of that virologist? Claire, how do you know that he would say yes?
She may not, but she is on our side. She's, you know, she's a... She still may not, because I was
working with a lot of virologists on the previous incarnation of this group and...
Right. She's on the heart group. She may say no, but you know, we can only try, can't we?
I especially have Mark here or Kevin's here. So, Stephen, we are finishing in two minutes. Mark?
Sure. So, I just wanted to ask Mark one question. Does smallpox exist in your mind,
Mark? I just wonder. I don't know now. I'm prepared to question everything. Well, I've said this before.
We need to look at all these so-called vaccinations. All the medications need to be
looked at again, because we can't trust big pharma. They've shown that they're not trustworthy.
So, why on earth would you trust anything from them? Yeah, well, smallpox is not a disease entity,
no. It's a clinical condition that people get and where they are toxic in some way,
and the skin tries to get rid of fluid through its physicals. So, if you actually look back,
there's no way to distinguish monkeypox, chickenpox, smallpox. They're all just
degrees of severity, basically, smallpox. So, smallpox is baricella major from memory,
and then chickenpox is baricella minor, is that right? Yeah, but again, when they say that,
all they're doing is getting slightly different genetic sequences from the fluids. But essentially,
all of those conditions are just the skin trying to detoxify. And that's why we never saw, basically,
smallpox in places like New Zealand. It was so rare because the people here have just been
too healthy. You only saw it in the third world and in cities which were completely destitute,
they were just getting what we would have called chickenpox in our city. But, you know, for them,
they were getting such a severe reaction. So, no, I would say in short that no, it's not a disease
entity. And there was Montague Leveson wrote papers about this as far back as 1911, saying
that it's a complete farce, that Paster and Co were misleading people, that smallpox was not an entity.
Well, all right, very good, everybody. Mark, would you like some, thank you.
Will you like some final words? And you really, it's been wonderful listening to you. And I love,
I love your non-passionate style, you know, that you just go, hey, here's the facts,
stick to the facts. And it's one of, don't listen to experts, find the facts. I'm a big fan of Buck
Minster Fuller, and you've done what Buck Minster Fuller recommends and go and do your own research.
So you have done that in spades and you and Sam have both done that. And great commendation to
you and for your courage. Any final words, Mark, before we say, and the telegram, the video telegram
chat is on, the link is in the chat. Mark, save the chat for yourself. There's lots of
compliments to you. Mark, anything you want to say before we go?
Mark No, I'd just like to thank you, Charles, and also Stephen for inviting me to speak.
It's great because as you probably know, we get a lot of hostility. And there's a lot of people in
the health freedom community, who now refuse to talk to us. And the level of interaction we've
had with them, unfortunately, is really disappointing. They don't want to address
what we're addressing. And I think I just have to say that-
to not want to talk to you, crazy. Mark, would Sam speak to us? Would she come and present to us?
Mark I could talk to her. Her schedule is really full on. And our youngest child is just past a
year old. So doing kind of these two and a half hour things can be quite difficult. She tends to
just do shorter ones. So I can have a chat to her. Yeah.
Stephen If she chose to do an hour, then we could
amuse ourselves for the other hour and a half. But you know, if she could do two hours,
that'd be good. Or one and a half hours. Mark Yeah, otherwise-
Stephen Half an hour works.
Mark Yeah, I'm always happy to come back on again anytime as well to answer questions.
Because usually what I find is that at the end of it, there's a whole lot of unanswered questions.
Stephen Sure. Well, you're very welcome to come to all the meetings from that one. You were
welcome before, but we didn't. I didn't have your email address or not the correct one anyway.
But Charles, could you add Mark to the invitation?
Charles They will. Yep.
Mark Yep. All right, everybody. Thank you for being here. Warner, good to see you as well.
Alpha Omega, Truthsayer, everybody. Go over to the Telegram group if you've got time. Mark Bailey,
thank you. A round of applause. Great job.
A very good. Thank you, Mark. You were brilliant.
Mark Brilliant. Great. Thank you.