A FAREWELL TO VIROLOGY (PT 3) DR MARK BAILEY / STEVE FALCONER | Jim Fetzer
Summary
Transcript
The canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan, whose work is among the cornerstones of the study of media theory, said, the medium is the message. I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it. We shape our tools, and then our tools shape us. We’ve all heard the claim that it would be impossible for the majority of the medical and scientific community to all be knowingly complicit in deceiving the public with virology’s unscientific methodologies in the COVID-19 fraud.
Agreed. But how long may ignorance be used as a defense? It’s true that the abandonment of the scientific method may be unnoticed or even accidental by lower level participants. Freshly minted virologists are trained to follow the methodologies of their seniors and are unlikely to get far with their chosen career and, of course, funding if they dispute the basis of their laboratory’s work. On 29 January 2020, an apparent chinese virology scientist known as Winjor, Little Mountain dog as you do as a professional, posted a text titled documenting the first experience of discovering a novel coronavirus.
Unlike the tear jerking, passionate story of Old Yeller, it described the impassioned story of an insider determined to get the truth out regarding what happened in Wuhan over the preceding month and who really discovered Wh human one, aka Wh one 2019, later to be renamed SARS CoV two. Of course, it starts to read like a bad Miramax B movie plot. In assorted chinese lab of few told secrets, one little chinese lady dog with one big chinese heart dared to expose an even bigger chinese story, little mountain dog.
Of course, to those of us aware of the deception that has taken place in the COVID-19 Charad, the text is certainly suspicious, as being part of a gaslighting operation. Gaslighting can be both a psychological manipulation of a person, usually over an extended period of time, that causes the person to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator or the act or practice of grossly misleading someone, especially for one’s own advantage.
Despite working in heavily monitored communist China, the author pretends anonymity while making it obvious enough for even the New York Times to discover and publish Jor’s commercial laboratory of employment vision medicals. Or was it purposely leaked to them to keep the virus counternarrative going? Loosely translated to more precise English on December 26, 2019 I just went to work as usual. I first browsed the results of the automatic interpretations of metagenomic next generation sequencing pathogenic microorganisms for that day.
You don’t sound like female chinese virologist. And you don’t sound like a little mountain dog. Anyway, as we covered in detail in parts one and two here, the author describes their laboratory performing metagenomic next generation sequencing on crude bulk sputum samples, lung fluids taken from patients with probable common respiratory or flu pneumonia type symptoms containing dozens of different unknown genetic sources, all chopped up and mixed together into a hodgepodge of 56 million smaller genetic fragment pieces, and then computer reassembled like puzzle pieces into longer genetic sequences simply assembled from the genetic sputum soup taken from the patient.
Then those computerassembled sequences are checked against the database to see if any of those longer computer assembled sequences or computer codes matched any previous database. Computerassembled code sequences entered into the database, all hypothetical and arbitrarily claimed to be from an alleged pathogenic organism. Lo and behold, unexpectedly, it was found that one sample out of all of the automated daily results reported a sensitive pathogen match, a SARS coronavirus matching dozens of small sequences, and there was only one meaningful pathogen in the sample.
They cannot detect an alleged meaningful biological SARS coronavirus pathogen in a sample any more than your Norton antivirus software on your laptop or desktop computer could detect if you somehow infected your computer with alleged HIV or Ebola by not wearing a finger condom when you type. All they really have are a dozen small computer sequence codes they assembled from the genetic material lung fluid hodgepodge from only one of many patients with acute respiratory syndrome that kind of match.
A dozen out of thousands of previous large computer assembled sequence codes they made from the intestines of a bat they murdered years before and entered into the database. Nothing more. Yet this pathogen is most similar to bat SARS like, but not SARS coronavirus, with an overall similarity of about 87% and a similarity to SARS SARS CoV, one of about 81%. The number of sequences in the alignment has increased from dozens to more than 500.
In addition, five contigs have been assembled, which add up to more than 1200 base pairs. At this time. It can basically be confirmed that it is a coronavirus. It is only virologists who can take an existing assembly recipe in the computer database from previous assembled genomes and then assemble tiny parts of normal things found in lung samples that even they don’t claim to be made of viruses into longer segments called contigs that can be computer assembled into larger genomes of hypothetical particles they call viruses that have never been found in the lung sample or nature in the first place.
It’s just grownups still playing childhood Legos for enormous salaries, and they still get angry, like all children, if you dare try to take their toys away from them. This is an incredible leap from various sequences that have been detected in a crude sputum specimen to the report of a pathogen, apparently on the basis that this can be established by a computer program. Not only that, but the computer program has found a SARS coronavirus.
So it is somehow known to be associated with the clinical condition severe acute respiratory syndrome. Waterboarding. Someone can also cause SARS severe acute respiratory syndrome, but it doesn’t prove a virus in the water stop their breathing. Apparently, in such an alleged urgent situation, there was no time to research the literature because of the limited time with other research and development projects, and there was little data at hand or too many categories to find.
So they didn’t go into details of the assembly results to obtain the complete genome. So we’ll just have to trust the science. But several thousand coronavirus genomes were further carpet analyzed and evaluated in terms of similarity coverage and uniform genome distribution, just like Fan Wu’s team did in part two. Throw a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks. And sure enough, got an 89% match to the computer code called bat SL CovZ 45.
And surprise, surprise, little mountain dogs team found finally, the two most similar computer code database genomes to the one they assembled were identified also bat SL CovZC 45 and Bat SL CovZX 21. And just like that, it is confirmed that the virus existed on the basis of comparing some new fictional computer assemblies whose assembly analysis was hurriedly performed until finally a near but not full genome sequence was assembled to other fictional computer assemblies previously submitted in the genetic databases.
Well, if you nearly assemble a human genome into a not full sequence, you can prove a human is actually a cat, since they have a 90% alleged genetic match, nearly 100%. By no coincidence, virologists claim SArs itself came from not only bats, but civet cats, because they build their in silico genomes from pieces and fluids of both of them. And just like that, it was confirmed that the new virus existed on the basis of comparing some new Insilio computer assemblies with other older insilico assemblies previously submitted to genetic databases.
They then go on to describe their next activity of phylogenetic tree analysis and building an evolutionary path for the latest addition to virology’s fictional family tree. As always, there is a complete absence of any appreciation of the fact that a virus must possess an actual physical existence as a discrete particle with specific biological characteristics, including the ability to infect hosts and cause disease. The author simply asserted that the analysis has basically confirmed that there is indeed a virus in the sample of this patient.
Later in the text they at least sound some caution with regard to clinical pathogenicity, but remain convinced of its existence by making the passing comment that whether the pneumonia was caused by this virus, we did not analyze it, nor could we analyze it. The detection of the virus does not mean that the pneumonia was caused by the virus. By December 30 I heard the news that there are quite a number of patients with similar symptoms.
What really made me nervous again was that our friends and businessmen shared the sequence for us to analyze, and when I did, it was indeed the same virus. The first thought in the subconscious is this virus is contagious. It is unclear whether winjour little mountain dog knew that the similar symptoms affecting the patients described in Wuhan were all nonspecific respiratory symptoms, universally common in pneumonia and even flu detoxification, as covered at length in part two.
To this day, COVID-19 is not a legitimately defined clinical condition, as the alleged symptoms are the exact same as pneumonia, flu, and other respiratory ailments. And a quote unquote confirmed COVID case simply refers to the result of a molecular detection process that cannot detect a virus or diagnose a clinical condition. In fact, the World Health Organization themselves stated that confirmed cases are irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.
Unfortunately, little mountain dog confuses the scientific method and facts with personal feelings and emotions. The emotions at this point were both nervous and excited. I was nervous because this unknown virus might be as horrible as SARS, even though before their bogus circular reasoning and methodology procedures, they rightly admitted this is not necessarily SARS or contagious, and the pathogenicity is unknown. But I was excited because we found and confirmed this pathogen early through metagenomic next generation sequencing, computer technology, and quarantine the sick patients so we could possibly kill it in the cradle through prevention and control measures before the virus spreads widely.
This is one of the big dangers of Hollywood mind control programming. Suddenly quarantining, isolating, and scaring the hell out of already highly sick people is as morally justifiable as killing a baby in a cradle for an imaginary greater good of stopping an imaginary virus from spreading widely. Or is this article just another Hollywood movie script? As far as I know, I was the first to discover the sky is really green, even though I had to use in silico computer software simulation to prove it.
It is up to you to decide whether the author truly believed that they were the first to discover SARS CoV two, and that public health experts even have these abilities, just like your doctor usually prescribes Tamiflu machine guns, fear and government bullying for normal seasonal flu symptom treatment, or if this entire text was engineered and purposely leaked as another part or layer of the COVID-19 propaganda. The medium is the message, not the facts.
There was never any virus to spread. The only thing that was spreading around the world, aside from fear, was the fictional WH human one genome and the PCR tests that were calibrated to its sequences. The alleged pandemic could have been stopped in its tracks by the rejection of these tests. Instead, ignorant public health experts bought into virology’s antiscience and have been parties to the COVID-19 fraud ever since.
Little Mountain Dog purportedly wanted it to be known that their laboratory, not fan Wu’s, was the first to discover the virus, following the collection of their Wuhan sample on December 24, 2019 and the subsequent submission to the gisaid database on the 11 January 2020. Given the GISAid a session Id EPI isl 402 one two three was also used in tandem along with Fanwu’s gen Bank submission of WH Human one by Christian Droston’s team to design the fraudulent PCR protocols covered at length in part two, where Droston’s team stated the PCR protocol alignment of Fan Woo’s WH human one was complemented by additional sequences released independently on Gisaid, meaning little mountain dog sequences.
However, as David Rasnick pointed out, they never touched a virus at all. This provides an element of irony to the lab leak hypothesis, a narrative that appeared in the mainstream media as early as January 26, 2020. We turn now to the accusations that China covered up the extent of the virus outbreak early this year. The Trump administration has also linked the virus to a lab in Wuhan. It comes after both President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo linked the virus to a lab in Wuhan without providing evidence.
Have you seen anything at this point that gives you a high degree of confidence that the Wuhan Institute of virology was the origin of this virus? Yes, I have. There’s enormous evidence that that’s where this began. I can tell you that there is a significant amount of evidence that this came from that laboratory in Wuhan. The quote unquote virus was certainly invented in a lab, but it was a computer lab, and the only entity that was intentionally leaked out was a computer simulation.
The results of the simulation were sent around the world as digital code over the Internet, and the resulting PCR primers that were deployed in kits and mass created the cases for the COVID-19 fraud. The Little Mountain Dog story continued when an editorial entitled as the Pandemic Exploded, a researcher saw the danger. China’s leaders kept silent appeared in the Washington Post on the 22 April 2022. They reported that little mountain dog was based in a commercial laboratory, vision Medicals in Guanzhou in southern China.
China. China. China. China. China. China. China. China. China. China and that her story points to a cover up with tragic consequences of historic proportion. A severe danger was concealed until it was too late. The editorial promoted all of the unfounded virological claims at face value as covered in parts one and two, and ironically stated that the episode serves to underscore once again why a serious investigation is needed to get to the bottom of how the pandemic began.
A truly serious investigation of this topic demonstrates that at the bottom of this quote unquote pandemic, there is nothing more than nonsense. Invented by the virologists and promulgated by outlets such as the Washington Post. On August 21 nine, Dr. Montahue R. Leverson wrote, you, here assume smallpox to be a thing, an entity. This blunder is committed by nearly all the followers of the self styled regular school, and it will probably be a new idea to you to be told that neither smallpox nor any other disease is an entity, but is a condition.
On May 19, 2022, Jeffrey Sachs, the chair of the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, coauthored a paper with Neil Harrison entitled a call for an independent inquiry into the origin of the SARS CoV two virus. The publication opened with the following framing of the COVID-19 situation since the identification of the SARS CoV two in Wuhan, China, in January 2020, the origin of the virus has been a topic of intense scientific debate and public speculation.
The two main hypotheses are that the virus emerged from human exposure to an infected animal zoosis, or that it emerged in a research related incident. However, alleging that there are two main hypotheses relies on the acceptance that the identification of SARS CoV two means the particle has both a physical existence and the specific biological properties required to fulfill the definition of a virus that is, a transmissible, replication competent intracellular parasite that causes the alleged novel disease COVID-19 as was covered to exhaustion in both the COVID-19 fraud and War on Humanity by Dr.
Mark Bailey and Dr. John Bevin Smith and parts one and two of this film series. There is no evidence that either the particle or the proposed novel COVID-19 disease even exists, and Fan Wu’s paper identified no such thing as an alleged virus in Wuhan in early 2020. On the other hand, lab league proponents such as Sachs and Harrison start their analysis by wholeheartedly accepting virology’s unestablished premises. In their paper, they went on to cite aspects such as the collection of Sarslike bat Covs from the field and the analysis and manipulation of these viruses, complaining that the precise nature of the experiments that were conducted, including the full array of viruses collected from the field and the subsequent sequencing and manipulation of those viruses, remains unknown.
They obviously do not realize that SARS, like bat Covs, are nothing more than ground up bat intestines claimed to be pathogenic by injecting the muck directly into the brains of neonatal rats, a great reason to stay 6ft apart in the supermarket checkout line in case the zombie behind you injects his dead, rotting intestines into your baby’s brain and gives him COVID. Injecting dead bat intestines into the brains of newborn rats may be a way to secure some funding and impress the uninitiated, but it does not change biological reality.
Such experiments do not establish that their samples contain viruses or have any pathogenic properties in the natural world. If they can’t even make baby rats sick by just exposing them to alleged sick bats without injecting dead, rotting guts into their brains, then there is nothing to worry about. It doesn’t matter what goes on behind closed doors in these labs because they have no viruses to begin with. It’s time to put our thinking caps on.
We are being told that the alleged SARS CoV and SARS CoV, two virus particles, have a unique tiny attachment spike protein on their outer shell, about nine to 12 nm in size, or 0. 2 mm in size, and that on the edge of that this spike protein has a less than nanosize receptor binding domain, or RBD, and that on the edge of that spike protein, it also has a so small it’s more than hypothetical than provable furin cleavage site, which allegedly is a furrin protein enzyme, which makes that spike protein bind to the alleged Ace two receptor on your cell membrane and allow the virus particle to somehow magically get into the host cell to replicate information we’ve talked about the fern cleavage site in different journal articles, but I wanted to give a quick refresher on what it does, why it is so relevant, and why it is at the center of many conversations about COVID origins.
Here on the right we can see a picture of Sarcov two spike protein provided by Hoffman et al. The purple at the top represents the receptor binding domain, or RBd. This area is responsible for binding to the ace two receptor. As its name suggests. The blue area is the S one subunit and the gray the S two subunit. Highlighted in red and marked by arrows are the vital cleavage sites.
The S one s two site is our Rra fur and cleavage site and what we’ll be talking about today. The s one unit of the spike protein is responsible for binding to ace two. However, once this is complete, it needs to allow room for the fusion machinery in the S two subunit. This is accomplished by a protease cleaving at the two sites. Once this is done, the S one subunit is able to shed and make room for the fusion machinery to underline just how important this is.
Any inhibition of the fern cleavage site will result in a massively less infectivity. Any inhibition of the fern cleavage site will result in a massively less infectivity. The reason this one is getting so much attention is because none of SARS CoV two’s immediate relatives have this specific fern cleavage site. Not to mention that the fern cleavage site isn’t just a single point mutation, but rather a seeming insertion of a twelve nucleotide sequence.
But rather a seeming insertion of a twelve nucleotide sequence, that wouldn’t happen to have been inserted by Fan Wu’s computer software, would it? This raises the question about a natural or manmade origin. Well, hang on. If, as covered in part one, virologists like Susie Wiles claim they can’t isolate these alleged 50 to 140 nanometer virus particles and chemically and genetically characterize what they are made of, or observe what they do? How on earth could they know or observe what the even smaller alleged nine to twelve nanometer spike proteins sticking off of these particles are made of, or even do, or even smaller alleged ferrin cleavage enzymes on those spike proteins if they can’t isolate and chemically characterize, or visually observe those? Either.
They can only be observed under electron microscopes, which are still pictures of dead particles doing nothing, not moving pictures of live cells like with light microscopy. If this particle is too small to be seen under a light microscope that observes living movement in action, and these spike looking things on the outside are even smaller. There is no way to look at a still electron microscope picture of a particle that seems to look like this in two dimensions and claim smaller enzymes on those little spikes.
Somehow get this particle into a cell membrane and observe that this particle can do this inside a cell or this afterwards. It’s just a bad wild guess theory. Which is why these poor indoctrinated clowns, when considering the alleged SARS CoV two genome that virologists have preferred, are stuck guessing whether the insertion of the furin cleavage site was the result of natural evolution, or perhaps via a recombination event in an intermediate mammal or a human.
Or was the deliberate introduction of the fear and cleavage site into a sarslike virus as part of a laboratory experiment. Because they can’t see all three exist only in the land of make believe, they would be better advised to look into how it was established that any of the sequences or proteins they are analyzing belong to a pathogenic virus and not just the other normal genetic fragments found in people’s lungs and cell culture tissue that they Frankenstein.
Assemble these computer code virus genomes out of in the first place. You may have heard that a research proposal called Project diffuse laid out a blueprint for the creation of COVID but that other scientists brushed off diffuse because the risky virology took place in the University of North Carolina for DARPA. But university grant funded research by the government is not evidence of viruses. You can get DARPA paid grants to research building them flying carpets.
It doesn’t mean you actually built one for them. Project diffuse diffusing the threat of batborne coronaviruses, which was seeking funding through DARPA’s preempt program. This proposal is full of scientific nonsense and opens by saying our goal is to diffuse the potential for spillover of novel bat origin. Hyzoonotic risk SARS related coronaviruses in Asia? Yes, the old Batcave story involving fictional coronaviruses, which are nothing more than genetic sequences detected in bat poo that was also covered in my SARS one video.
The fallacy doesn’t stop Dashik and Co. From fraudulently claiming that they have published direct evidence of spillover of novel SarSar CoVs into people in Yunan province, China, and viruses are a clear and present danger to our military and to global health security. This all sounds pretty scary, but for $14,209,245, Dashik and his team can apparently diffuse this problem for us. The proposal says they will sequence the spike proteins and reverse engineer them into viruses to infect humanized mice and assess capacity to cause SARS like disease.
While it is possible to engineer a spike protein, as we have seen with the gene encoded vaccines, but they have never been proven to be part of a pathogenic virus. To be clear, it is not being disputed that institutions such as the University of North Carolina have been experimenting with entities such as spike proteins for decades. Some of these sequences have been patented and used in the development of injectable biological agents, recently forced onto many people under the guise of COVID-19 vaccines by Pfizer and Moderna.
Working with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, it was for the purpose of injecting synthetic proteins into people call them synthetic spike proteins, if you like, via the synthetic COVID vaccines. However, none of this research requires the existence of particles that qualify as viruses. Unfortunately, virology’s book of claims has become so convoluted that most readers do not realize that it is largely composed of nonsense. A few days after Sachs and Harrison published their article, the intercept thought they were also on an investigative trail involving the intriguing theory, but not fact of viral engineering.
In their article, Jeffrey Sachs presents evidence of possible but not proven lab origin of COVID-19. For starters, COVID-19 is the name of an alleged new disease, not an alleged virus called SARS CoV two. If the quote unquote evidence is so great, why is it possible and not confirmed? Here’s evidence of the possible intriguing theory that unicorns fly backwards. They reported on a 2016 University of North Carolina Chapel Hill study associated with Ralph the hidden hand barrack, stating the scientists created a new virus using the spike of a bat coronavirus that had been isolated and characterized by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Again, from parts one and two, they admit they have never isolated or chemically characterized that particle alone and apart from everything else in the culture. So how on earth did Ralphie boy’s team isolate and characterize that? Furthermore, when we go to Barrack’s 2016 paper, SARS like Wiv one CoV poised for human emergence, and go to figure one, it exposes the absurd claim that the Wuhan Institute of Virology had purified virions that were allegedly utilized by barricadel.
Subsequently, as they created a new virus, there was no evidence that either lab had anything more than abnormal green monkey kidney cell culture soup. It did have some nice computer drawings with red circles to make it look official. But as usual, their methodology section exposes the same bogus procedures exhaustively covered in parts one and two. They took muck, put it on unstable chromosome vero e six green monkey tissue with the blood serums from aborted baby cow fetuses, destroyed the tissue with antibiotics and antifungal agents, and then made synthetic protein constructions using published sequences based on the alleged SARS CoV computer code constructions assembled from other biological muck soups, again from parts one and two, there is zero evidence barracks original samples from the Wuhan Institute of Virology had any such thing as wild type viruses in them to even clone in the first place.
An alleged chimeric virus is a virus that contains genetic material derived from two or more distinct viruses. And since virus sequences themselves are made out of normal nonviral genetic material found in cultures, making a chimeric quote unquote virus is simply mixing up genetic computer codes from two different culture sources from different genetic material. No viruses required. The lab leak hypothesis is simply another narrative in the COVID-19 era that keeps alive the illusion of the material existence of SARS CoV two in the public’s imagination, as well as the unfounded belief in pathogenic viruses and microbe related contagion in general.
In recent years, the fear based narrative has continued with declarations like the alleged May 2022 monkey pox outbreaks that obviously never happened, or the national emergency incident declared in October 2022 after the alleged detection of polio viruses in London sewers. You know, from those dirty foreigners hanging out down there in the sewers, giving all their polio to sewer treatment plants that are supposed to be purifying contaminants. And in June 2022, the COVID-19 lab leak theory even received backing and a thumbs up from the director general of the World Health Organization Tedros, in support of the phantom disease and pandemic he named and declared, we have therefore made the assessment that COVID-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.
It seems likely there will be more lab leak stories in the future if they continue to capture attention so effectively. You can have all the supply you want. But a good business model requires creating a demand. They don’t make the vaccines because there are viruses. They make up the viruses so they can sell you their vaccines. Just like the baseless little mountain dog story. The Lab League story doesn’t rely on any scientific demonstration of a virus.
It relies simply on the belief that there is a virus. Along the same lines, in November 2020, the Lowe Institute, which describes itself as an australian international policy think tank, published an article with the following introduction in April 2020, Dr. I. Fen, head of the emergency department at Wuhan Central Hospital gave an interview to chinese magazine Ren Wu. She described in great detail how late in December 2019, she had begun receiving numerous patients into the emergency room with flulike symptoms that were resistant to the usual treatments.
She recounted how she broke out in a cold sweat when the first virus report of one of those patients came back. She hastily circled the word SARS coronavirus, screenshotted the report, and sent it to colleagues. Very quickly, her report circulated around the Wuhan medical circles, but instead of mobilizing the hospital and authorities, Dr. AI’s actions saw her reprimanded by the hospital disciplinary committee for spreading rumors and harming stability.
Rather than warning staff and the public, hospital authorities told the staff not to wear personal protective equipment and relayed instructions from the local health protection committee that to avoid causing panic, doctors were prohibited from sharing messages and reports related to the virus. To the credulous, it may sound like an attempt by the chinese authorities to cover up the start of the quote unquote viral pandemic, but those familiar with virology’s nonsense can see straight through the fallacies.
None of this framing requires an actual virus. Hastily circling SARS coronavirus on a virus report is based on nothing more than what Fan Wu’s and other teams have done in their dry lab simulations. Another doctor, Li Wen Liang, hailed by the BBC as a whistleblower, was also reported as being censored by the chinese authorities after he shared Dr. AI’s report. It was claimed that the 33 year old Dr.
Lee, yes, that 33 subsequently died of COVID-19 after he contracted the virus while working at Wuhan Central Hospital. Both Wikipedia and the corporate media’s lavish promotion of the COVID up would be comedic if it wasn’t part of a war against humanity. All of these stories lead back to the same fear narrative involving a contagious and deadly virus. It allows this fraud to be propagated and paves the way for other similar frauds to be carried out in the future, like the World Economic Forum’s Disease X, which is being discussed in a large meeting on January 17, 2024, strangely under the heading of a long term strategy for climate, nature, and energy, not disease, and is being held in partnership with the collaborative Surveillance initiative, just as we covered with Peter Dashik in part two.
Of course, the bogus PCR test will once again be used to propagate this fake test case pandemic, just like COVID. It is astounding that so many of the so called health freedom community do not rightly trust any of the corporate media’s claims about COVID-19 but totally accept the biggest whopper of all, that there even was such a thing as a deadly virus on the loose at all. One of the major fallacies fueling this belief by the health freedom community comes from a 2021 document published by Dr.
David Martin of MCAM International entitled the Fauci COVID-19 dossier. In this document, David Martin listed dozens of patents filed by multiple institutions and companies for various methods of creating alleged recombinant coronaviruses, alleged viral spike proteins, vaccines, viral engineering coronavirus biological weapons, and then the research funding grants provided to these institutions, companies and agencies to carry out this research spanning from 1986 to 2019. Research being the key word here, not actually doing any of these things.
As Dr. Mark Bailey pointed out, you can patent an idea for a magic flying carpet and even get a patent number for it, as has been done in China. You can even get government funding grants to research building one. It doesn’t mean or prove you actually made a magic flying carpet. Martin listed as part of his company’s activities monitoring possible violations of the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the use and war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare the Geneva Protocol 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological and toxin weapons and their destruction.
The BTWC despite the numerous patents involving methods for producing recombinant coronavirus and federal grants to the likes of gain of function specialist Dr. Ralph Barrick and his team at UNC Chapel Hill, there is nothing in any of these documents that contain scientific evidence that viruses exist. Neither government bean counters approving research grants nor patent office staff are the arbiters of biological plausibility or reality and simply carry forward the claims of the virologists.
Dr. Martin’s dossier was no smoking gun for gain of function activities involving pathogenic viruses. Perhaps those thinking it was did not heed Martin’s own opening disclaimer that throughout this document, use of terms commonly accepted in medical and scientific literature do not imply acceptance or rejection of the dogma that they represented. Lord Jonathan Sumpton, former justice of the Supreme Court, said on a BBC radio four interview in 2020 I’m not a scientist, but it is the right and duty of every citizen to look and see what the scientists have said and to analyze it for themselves and to draw common sense conclusions.
We are all perfectly capable of doing that, and there’s no particular reason why the scientific nature of the problem should mean that we have to resign our liberty into the hands of scientists. We all have critical faculties, and it’s rather important in a moment of national panic, that we should maintain them. It was the United Kingdom’s health security agency, UKHSA, that provided one of the strangest responses ever seen with regard to concealing the true nature of the supposed controls in their alleged SARS CoV two isolation and sequencing experiments.
On October 27, 2021, in response to a freedom of information request requesting proof of virus isolation in any of these experiments, they sent and suggested this ridiculous computer generated image as evidence of the SARS CoV two virus. They may just as well have provided their logo as proof that unicorns exist. They didn’t even bother to provide information as to the source of the image or how it was produced, certainly not by an electron micrograph which looks like this.
There, that’s better then. The UK HSA continued to fumble with the science, stating that viruses require a host cell substrate to replicate. Isolation of any virus without any medium, therefore, is not possible. These media and any products added are all sterile and do not contain additional genetic material. We can only speculate as to what the UKHSA think the host cells in their tissue culture medium contain, if not genetic material.
Germ theory claims these particles replicate and leave the host cell to magically fly around the atmosphere, infecting others. They do not claim the host cells themselves fly around the atmosphere carrying viral particles inside of them. That doesn’t look like it’s inside a host cell medium. Neither do those. So why can’t you isolate them alone? Like the ludicrous 37 page CDC response covered exhaustively in part two, the UK HSA response team also seemed to imply that the paper by Nazu ETL, a novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China 2019, provided reassurance that the imagined SARS CoV two virus particle had a physical existence, again pointing black arrows at extracellular vesicles created by starving, poisoning and breaking down tissue cultures in a lab and then artificially destroying the sample.
Even worse, to take a picture does not prove those particles are viruses, nor can magically fly around, replicate, and cause harm to living beings. The UK Health Security Agency had no proof of a virus and as such have implicated themselves by unnecessarily hurting everyone, by instilling fear in them, summarily removing their rights, and coercing them into an unnecessary and harmful treatment, which is morally reprehensible considering the 14,300 COVID vaccine deaths reported on the highly underreported UK yellow card reporting system.
To get this life saving medicine into the arms of the nation at the kind of speed that we’re seeing. We’re relying on the doctors and the nurses and all the staff of our NHS. And it’s thanks to their effort, the most colossal in the history of our national health service, that we have today passed the milestone of 10 million vaccinations in the United Kingdom, including almost 90% of those aged 75 and over in England and every eligible person in a care home.
And with every jab and every day, we have more evidence about the effectiveness of these vaccines. New research from Oxford University suggests the protection provided by the first dose of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine kicks in after three weeks and lasts right the way through to the booster at three months. And research also shows that the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine seems likely to reduce transmission to others. And even if these vaccines cannot make us invulnerable, and no vaccine has ever given 100% protection to everybody, the evidence increasingly shows that our vaccines achieve this crucial objective to reduce death and serious illness from those major strains of COVID that have been subject to research.
A few months later, Dr. Bailey’s colleague requested from the UK HSA full disclosure of the complete methodology of the cell culture experiments and any comparative controls in the Public Health England paper, duration of infectiousness and correlation with RTPCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19 England, January to May 2020. Their paper was only four pages long, plus a reference section. And while it at least describes what they did and mentions supplementary material online, it had one tiny paragraph claiming isolation of infectious virus from respiratory samples cultured from 324 samples taken from 253 people that tested positive for SARS CoV two by RTPCR and inoculating viro e six green monkey kidney tissues, and then waited 14 days for it to break down.
There was zero mention of what they did to those cultures, no footnotes to the reference section. And then they claimed SARS CoV two was confirmed by using antigen antibody enzyme tests and yet still only 41% came back positive. What about the other 191 samples that PCR tested positive? On the UK government website, they downgraded the status of COVID-19 stating, as of the 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease in the U.
K. And yet two years later, on the 25 March, the UK HSA responded with a letter that represented either a conspiracy between the World Health Organization and sovereign nation states not to release the details of the viral culture deception that lies at the heart of the COVID-19 fraud as covered in parts one and two, or a profound ignorance on the part of the UK HSA in describing SARS CoV two as a high hazardous virus two years after they announced it wasn’t, they hid behind an exemption from disclosure under a national security exemption for the purpose of safeguarding national security as disclosure of information would constitute very detailed technical information transferring knowhow, which would directly contravene an explicit request from the WHO to Public Health England in 2020 not to release or make widely available the details of culture amplification of SARS CoV two and disclosure of this would be the detailing of exact methodology utilized in virus amplification for a designated high hazardous virus, which they just said wasn’t requiring containment level three and could pose a threat to national and global biosecurity if provided to an unasertained or unvetted member of the public or agents with ill intent or disclosure of this information would provide a significant know how capability that could in some circumstances be considered a biosecurity threat.
It is unclear why keeping the details of their experimental methodology under wraps is necessary for the UK’s efforts in safeguarding national security. It has been exposed that the virologists are not performing valid control experiments and their claims of isolating viruses have not been established in the scientific literature. Are the authorities worried that if they officially admit as much, there will be a revolt when the wider public realize the crimes that have been carried out on the basis of claims stemming from fraudulent virological experiments? Their official obstruction of the release of this information to the public, citing global biosecurity, is paradoxical given that the alleged high hazard virus cannot be shown to exist.
The asinine responses from the UK HSA were perhaps only topped by Maggie Throut, the parliamentary undersecretary of state for vaccines and public Health. In an email to a fellow MP Rachel Maskell on the 27th June 2022, Thrauup stated that the UK Health Security Agency does not use Coke’s postulates in COVID-19 as they are too limiting, suggesting association more than causation as covered in part one. Coke also dropped his postulates when he discovered asymptomatic carriage.
The Bradford Hill criteria are more commonly used when associating a virus and a disease. Prop then contradicts herself in the very next sentence stating, however, it should be noted that SARS CoV two fulfills Coke’s postulates, as demonstrated in the following paper where animal model has been used. Our results demonstrate that pathogenicity of SARS CoV two in mice, which, together with previous clinical studies one, completely satisfies Coke’s postulates and confirms that SARS CoV two is the pathogen responsible for COVID-19 and this Lego model of the millennium Falcon confirms it is real and not from a fictional Star wars movie.
The 2020 paper throut refers to is the pathogenicity of SARS CoV two in h ace two transgenic mice by Lin Lyn Bowels, which never established that there was a virus in their samples, admitting no statistical methods were used to predetermine sample sizes. The experiments were not randomized and investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment, had no valid control experiments, did not follow Coke’s postulates at all, and exhibited other aspects of fraud.
In May 2020, an article came out of China claiming their results, together with previous clinical studies, completely satisfy Coke’s postulates and confirm that SARS CoV two is the pathogen responsible for COVID-19. Now, their reference to previous studies is actually one study and enters into the circular reasoning loop of virology. The paper they refer to has nothing to do with Coke’s postulates. However, this chinese team provided them with a sample of the alleged novel virus.
Indeed, they reported that the SARS CoV two strain HBO one was provided by W ten. That’s w ten from the China novel coronavirus investigating and research team. Well, I don’t think any of these teams provided direct proof of a novel pathogen, as I covered in my video once upon a time in Wuhan. Anyway, they took WtAn’s mixed culture brew and injected it into the noses of wild and transgenic, that is, genetically modified mice.
For the control group, they injected phosphate buffered saline into their noses. So here we hit the first problem that’s not properly controlled. And they should have injected some control mice with comparable tissue cultures, minus the alleged SARS virus. They reported that they observed slight bristled fur and weight loss only in the transgenic mice. So let’s look at what these clinical manifestations were, and I want to poll the audience.
If you could just shout out, what are the symptoms of COVID-19 well, what are the real ones that are reproduced everywhere? I know that they keep adding more. Right? What? Fever, cough, shortness of breath, good fever, cough, and difficulty breathing. Right. I mean, I know that a lot of symptoms have been attributed to this. We can’t ask mice if they can smell things, but the respiratory symptoms are the main thing, right? This causes a type of pneumonia.
It causes respiratory distress syndrome. Right? So there’s got to be pulmonary symptoms. So shortness of breath, cough, like coughing up stuff, sputum production, something like this, right? And then fever. We all know fever, right? Those are the most common things. They’re taking temperatures of people everywhere for this, right? So we’d expect at least fever. So what symptoms did they actually have? Weight loss and slightly bristled fur. Anyone hear news reports of bristled fur in COVID patients? Weight loss also not a symptom of COVID-19 that’s reported.
It’s a very nonspecific symptom. So once again, the experiment fails on this count that this is not the same symptoms as the disease in question. Wow. The killer virus has taken hold of them. What happened next? Well, not much. None of the mice developed breathing problems or died until they were sliced up for examination. They then claimed to be detecting viral loads in the lungs of the mice.
But wait a minute, this was just using the same PCR protocol to detect the same genetic sequences they had previously poured into their respiratory tracts. No virus required for that result. Then they took samples from the lungs and performed a tissue culture and hey presto. Saw some nanoparticles that they declared was the coronavirus. They say the scale bar in the image is 200 nm. So this corona must be a giant at over twice the usual size of what other virologists are claiming are typical CoV two viruses.
If viruses are supposed to be genetically making identical clones of themselves with a fixed and identifiably set genome while allegedly replicating in cells, how can they end up 100% bigger than themselves and still be an identical replicate? Throut then continued to promote more virological nonsense, claiming that another 2022 study, safety, tolerability and viral kinetics during SARS CoV two human challenge in young adults by Ben Killingley et al demonstrates that the course of COVID-19 disease from the moment a person first encounters SARS CoV two throughout the infection, to the point at which the virus is apparently eliminated.
Hang on, if the body can naturally eliminate these alleged viruses, why bother injecting yourself with toxic, chemical filled vaccines to allegedly force it to do what it already does anyway? At least virus theory agrees these particles are not alive, even if they were. Once again, the paper throut reference simply asserted there was a virus in their samples provided by W tan with zero proof and had no valid controls, not to mention the other unscientific aspects of the study.
In other words, politicians such as Thrauup are parroting virology’s nonsense and thereby subjecting their constituents to an obscene range of unnecessary and sometimes deadly consequences, like the 14,300 reported UK vaccine deaths we even know about, that parroting politicians like Thrauup have on their hands, ignorant or not. And that doesn’t even include the millions of people suffering life debilitating and future fatal diseases caused by being scared or pressured into injecting these pointless vaccines to protect them from something never proven to exist in the first place.
Are you or a loved one suffering from a medical coincidence? At the Kaufman Institute for coincidence, we won’t look into the cause of your heart or other problem, we’ll just fix it. That’s right. We promise to only look at your symptoms. We won’t get all curious looking for causes, because that could get your employer or your doctor into some legal hot water. And nobody wants that. At Kaufman, we understand that coincidence is now the leading cause of death.
If we want to operate at the speed of science, there’s no time for looking for causes. No pesky questions about drugs or vaccines you may have been given. Let’s be honest, we know the cause anyway. It was a coincidence, right? For each new patient, Kaufman’s talented team of doctors strap on their blinders and look directly at the problem area, usually the heart, just like the CDC recommends. Our main campus now treats myocarditis, blood clots, heart arrhythmia, stroke, heart attack, magnetic skin, difficulty breathing, full body blisters and burning convulsions, kidney failure, memory loss, cancer, sudden death, and much, much more.
Schedule your appointment today@kaufmancoincidence. com and receive a doctor’s note with a real sciency sounding explanation to provide to your antivaxx friends, proving to them it was definitely not the vaccine that caused your coincidence, Kaufman. Because coincidences happen pretty much all the time. You, the theoretical chemist, physicist and science writer Sir John Maddox wrote already back in 1988 in his nature magazine article, finding wood among the trees is the reductionist ambition for molecular biology in danger of being thwarted by the volume of data it produces or even by the absorbing interest of its collection? The cost of genomic sequencing has fallen dramatically since 2001, when it was over 5000 U.
S. Dollars per raw megabase, through to 2007, when it was around $500 per megabase, after which it dropped precipitously to just half a penny per megabase by mid 2021. To put that in perspective, sequencing a human’s full genome dropped from $100 million to just under $1,000. Additionally, the emergence of next generation sequencing, or NGS, around 2005 resulted in a massive reduction in the time required to sequence genomes.
As stated in a 2017 biology and medicine paper, the human genome, for example, consists of 3 billion base pairs. The sequencing of the human genome using the Sanger sequencing took almost 15 years, required the cooperation of many laboratories around the world, and costed approximately 100 million U. S. Dollars, whereas the sequencing by NGS sequencers using the four five four genome sequencer FlX took two months and for approximately 100th of the cost and as covered in part two.
Unfortunately, NGs or next generation sequencing are incapable to read the complete DNA sequence of the genome. They are limited to sequence small DNA fragments and generate millions of reads. This limit remains a negative point, especially for genome assembly projects, because it requires high computing resources. It should be pointed out that with regard to virology, a far bigger concern than computing resources is that a process that can be employed for sequencing genetic material of known origin, like human, bacterial and fungal cells, has now morphed into algorithmic assembly of genetic fragments of unknown origin or provenance.
This is the virus hunter’s basis of identifying what they claim are viruses. Computing resources are no longer a problem for the virologists as they mine information from their completely antiscientific wet lab pipeline methodologies involving crude samples and feed. These generated unfiltered reads into their theoretical dry lab pipeline and its in silico computer models. A wet lab is the place where virologists actually work, handle poison, starve, break down and culture this garbage.
And a dry lab is where they computer create and pump out this fictional garbage and release it to the unsuspecting public. It would seem that the combination of massively reduced sequencing cost and shortened sequencing time frames have accelerated the descent of virology into further antiscience, for which humanity is paying a very dear price for nonexistent viruses that are invented at will and used as excuses for spurious interventions and enslavement.
Rather than the scientific method. The blind science worshippers methods are don’t dare ask questions, construct a model based on preconceived ideas, find data that agrees with that model, discard data that does not align with that model, and then shout trust the experts. Sound familiar? As of January 4, 2024, the poor people living on Cyprus seeking medical treatment have been mandated to mask up again against virology’s blunder. COVID worries make masks mandatory in cypriot health facilities.
Rising numbers of COVID-19 and hospitalizations during normal winter flu detox season has led to a mandate for testing and masking in nursing homes hospitals, outpatient clinics, dentists and facilities for vulnerable groups in Cyprus, pretty much where they killed everyone four years ago with remdesivir, Medazalam and lethal vaccine injections. But masks won’t be required as of now on public transport as imaginary viruses don’t have bus cards. Apparently, as covered in parts one and two, a pointless and useless negative rapid or PCR test taken within 48 hours will be mandatory to visit nursing homes, hospitals, outpatient clinics, dentists and any closed facilities taking care of vulnerable groups.
And the rule only applies to anyone over the age of twelve. Anyone under twelve can still go into all of these facilities with no test, because apparently these alleged viruses have become so smart they now know when your 12th birthday is and won’t infect you until you blow out the candles. Cyprus is once again living in virology’s clown world nightmare. It is ironic that a 2019 paper entitled Metagenomic Next Generation sequencing, or MNGs, in clinical microbiology laboratories turned up in the publication critical reviews in microbiology, as the paper claimed that metagenomic next generation sequencing performs well in identifying rare, novel, difficult to detect and coinfected pathogens directly from clinical samples.
So much for being critical. Claiming metagenomic next generation sequencing performs well with regards to identifying novel virus pathogens is meaningless, as they too have fallen into virology’s circular reasoning vortex. Most of the quote unquote novel or new pathogens they listed in their paper were quote unquote viruses derived from the purportedly advantageous culture independent modern technique of metagenomic next generation sequencing. Again, if nobody can culture and physically isolate those alleged virus particles alone and apart from the rest of the genetic muck soup they’re found in, and then chemically and genetically characterize what they’re made of, how can various genetic sequences in environmental samples be claimed to come from them? If you haven’t opened your Christmas present yet, how can you claim something you found in your garbage bag belongs to it? You can’t.
Even the deaf translator knows Bs when she hears it. As covered in part two, the declaration by Fan wu et al. Of a new coronavirus in Wuhan was based entirely on such preferred genetic sequences. Virology’s attempt to pass off this methodology as some proof of virus particles has introduced an unfalsifiable hypothesis that is inconsistent with the scientific method. As Mark said before, you can’t call it germ theory because a theory needs to at least have some kind of basis for it to be plausible.
This thing has been debunked from so many angles. It’s not a theory. I don’t even know what you’d call it. What would you call it? It’s a hypothesis, if anything, and maybe not even that. With regard to the scientific method, something is only supposed to take the title of a theory if it remains unfalsified. So somebody puts forward a falsifiable hypothesis. Otherwise it’s not considered to be an empirical scientific hypothesis.
People are welcome to challenge it with experiments, et cetera. And it only needs to be falsified once. Then it can no longer have the status, well, it can’t proceed to become theory. A lot of what is proclaimed as scientific theory, it’s not true. These are hypotheses that have been falsified at various times. It’s not just on one front that this stuff’s been refuted, it’s on multiple fronts. The specialization and increasing automation of the genomics process is leading to a situation where few people can appreciate the overall picture.
From the clinical assessment of a patient from a doctor, through to the generated nucleotide sequences on a computer screen, the virologists invalidate the virus genome quote unquote process from step one by never establishing that they have a particle that meets the definition of a virus. If you turned on your computer and saw that, would you put a mask on and stand 6ft back from your computer? Well, that’s exactly what you did back in 2020.
They certainly never demonstrate that the computer genome sequences they claim are viral, that they made from assembling dozens of chopped up genetic sources in your boogers come only from inside such an imagined virus particle in those boogers. Why not imagine those same particles came only from any of the other different genetic sources in the lung sputum sample, or only from the rotting tissue cultures they mix them with, or only from the fetal calf blood serum they mix in as well, again, because they are purposely finding data that agrees with their model based on preconceived ideas, and discarding data that does not align with that model.
So they claim that such declarations can be made by consensus decisions, whether the sequences are labeled nonhuman or novel, and by how much they happen to match known viral sequences that were previously deposited on the genetic data banks. However, nature does not obey stories created by mankind. The metagenomics process allows for the de novo invention of such imagined viral sequences, and has allowed virology’s merrygoround to keep spinning into the 21st century due to the inability of virology to fulfill its own postulates for the past century, that is proving the existence of a particle that meets their own definition of a virus, and thus the impossibility to meet experimental postulates like Cokes and rivers.
Its future is almost certainly going to be built entirely around this misuse, or at least misapplication, of metagenomics. One might hope that the recent failure of multiple organizations to prove they are performing valid control experiments indicates that viral pandemics are on their last legs. Scientifically, they can only be propagated for as long as this final fraud is kept hidden from the public. It could be expected in virology’s final gasp, metagenomics will continue to be deceptively sold as a technological advancement conveniently claimed to have rendered the proper scientific proofs obsolete.
However, the follies of such quote unquote technological advancement can usually be exposed with one simple question to check if adhering to the scientific method. For example, in a 2020 paper entitled a comparison of whole genome sequencing of SARS CoV two using amplicon based sequencing, random hexamers, and bait capture, a canadian team including Jalice Nassir and Andrew G. MacArthur claimed that they were comparing various techniques for whole genome sequencing of SARS CoV two from nasal swabs taken from two individuals alleged to have COVID-19 one of the authors, Dr.
Andrew MacArthur, an associate professor of biochemistry and biomedical sciences at McMaster University, Canada, was asked, did you or your colleagues try to assemble, by next generation sequencing, any other virus genome other than SARS CoV two from a SARS CoV two PCR positive sample? After all, as covered in part two, that is how you check to make sure your software isn’t just building whatever you want it to and is actually detecting something unique and special in a sputum sample.
MacArthur’s not so responsible response we did not. Okie Dokie. He was then asked, did you or your colleagues try to extract RNA from healthy controls, healthy persons, or PCR negative samples, or from uninfected supernatance and cells treated the exact same way as alleged infected cells, I. E. Supernatance, but virus free? Again, this is how you scientifically double check that your software can’t just build an alleged virus genome out of the normal, everyday genetic material found in any healthy person’s sputum sample.
MacArthur’s response was we used clinical swabs and did not perform any cell culture. We did not have swabs from healthy controls because apparently we couldn’t find two healthy people walking around the entire university campus to take a few control nasal swabs to double check our own science. But the study included negative controls for amplification libraries, I. E. No sample RNA included. Your computer couldn’t build an RNA virus genome when you didn’t give it any RNA to build it out of.
Say it isn’t so. Indeed, there was only one mention of a quote unquote control in the paper, where it stated a negative control library with no input. SARS CoV two RNA extract was included using arctic amplification. Once again, the lack of a valid control being a human derived sample without the alleged virus places this paper in the extensive archives of virology’s metagenomic nonsense. Ironically, their paper also claimed that COVID-19 is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome.
Coronavirus two SARS CoV two, a novel coronavirus which emerged in December 2019, with the citation being. Drumroll, please. The Peng Zhao et al paper, the fraud of which we’ve just debunked for the last 5 hours in parts one and two of this film. If you are studying biochemistry and biomedical sciences at McMaster University, you might want to consider going to school somewhere else where your professors actually know how to do real science.
But that’s none of my business. And yeah, again, we’re seeing this feature of halfway through, we’re having a conversation here about whether viruses exist. And halfway through their apparent explanations to justify whether viruses exist, they start talking about viruses as though they’ve already been proven to exist. And I’ve been down this road many times before with not only people in the mainstream, but people in the freedom community as well, where they want you to accept the premise that viruses have already been shown to exist.
And then it’s just a question about what they do and what kind of powers they have. And we’re saying, no, we’re not accepting that premise because we’re going back to the foundational studies, and that’s what we look at. So we’ll talk about that in a minute. But I think, Tom, what’s become apparent to me, and I think in 2020, when you and Andy and us and many others, Christine and all of the people that got into this Novira stuff, when we headed down this road, we didn’t go into it with some preconceived narrative or we didn’t have some sort of product that we were getting ready to sell, et cetera, we just said, let’s get into this and keep going until we get to the bottom of it.
And that’s what we did. And when we got to the bottom of it, we announced our findings to the world and said, hey, we agree with the Perth group, with Stefan Lanker, with Kevin Corbett, that this whole thing with virology is incredibly dubious. And we’re looking at the foundational papers, we’re finding out that they’re pseudoscientific. We’re finding out this entity that we all assumed existed being viruses don’t seem to have any evidence for existence.
So that’s what we did. Now, sadly, and this has become much more apparent to me in the last year, is that some people who are proclaiming to be in the freedom community have actually decided they do not want to deal with the virus existence issue because they think it will distract from other issues or that it’s a strategic mistake. So in other words, they’re saying, don’t worry about getting to the factual stuff.
We’ve got other things going on. So I’ve even had it recently, Tom, and it astounds me. Some of this we’ve made public when the other parties have been prepared to be more public about it. Some of it remains in private because it’s been private discussions that I’ve had with people in the freedom community and organizations who have basically admitted they know that what we’re talking about seems to be correct, but they are going to ignore it because they think the public is not ready.
We had this with Dell Bigtree, as you know, and you in particular, with the support of us, have pushed some of these organizations to say, well, let’s get this stuff out in the open. And they’ve come back and know, you guys, total strategic mistake, don’t go there. We’ve got good momentum going on with the antivaccination stuff. There’s no need to get into this viral existence business right now.
So I think people have got to understand that. That some people who say that truth seekers in the freedom community are actually pushing another narrative. And to me that’s no worse than what’s happened since this fraudulent pandemic was pushed on the world in 2020 of people hiding the truth from the public and saying that it’s justified. And I think it’s absolutely not. So, yeah, I’ll just say that I think sometimes even you and I, we’re not naive to it, but we think this is really curious.
Why on earth are they being so resistant to even looking at the basic science with us? And we’ve offered, as you know, we’ve never had anyone basically accept an offer to go through an isolation paper in front of an audience in terms of somebody who’s saying that viruses are real, they have been shown to exist, the isolation is valid, et cetera. And when we say to them, okay, well, let’s go live on air, or come on our platforms, or we’ll go on your platforms, and we’ll walk through one of these papers and talk about, is it scientific? Does it have controls? Does it follow the scientific method? And as you know, you’re all too aware of this.
We don’t have any takers. I think it’s pretty obvious. Yeah. So that’s one aspect of human nature. Is that mark, too? To me, it’s incredibly arrogant to say, I’m going to decide what people are ready to hear or not hear. I don’t think I have that right or ability, and I don’t want it either. I’ll say what I think and here’s why. And let people decide what they think.
And they have their own reasons. I don’t need to. System. Yep. And I think the other aspect of human nature is what’s known as Russell conjugation, which is people think about what would happen if I said that or took that position. And as you and I know, Tom, coming from the medical system, we would know that if you were working in a hospital and were in a journal club or a clinical meeting and just said, you know what? This whole vaccine thing is a complete scam.
None of them work. There’s no evidence behind any of them. What would happen after that for most people is probably they’d end up losing their job, they’d lose their income, they’d be ostracized from the medical community, et cetera. So we have this problem where people who are within the industry or who depend upon it for income are not going to go there, basically because they think about what happens if they do.
And you and I, we happily gave up our medical licenses because we realized that it was no good working in the allopathic system. But for many people, and this extends actually to people who are not medical doctors as well, but maybe they are part of a company that sells supplements that claim to boost the immune system or fight viruses, or maybe they’ve written a book at some stage which talks about viruses and talks about germ theory being valid.
So particularly if they’ve had success down that path, they’re not now going to say, you know what? I got that completely wrong. Yeah, I just thought I’d add those comments because I think sometimes even we make the mistake of thinking, oh, this is interesting. Why won’t they engage with us in a fruitful and open manner? And I think it’s because they’ve already just decided the virus needs to exist and it can’t be any other way.
Yeah. This science process is a process of falsifying claims. It’s not a debate between theories. And here’s an example, which I’m stealing from somebody. But if you’re 18 years old and you somehow rummage through your parents closet and you find adoption papers, you don’t know you were adopted, although you knew that you looked different than your parents, so you had some suspicion. And you find these papers that clearly show you were adopted, and here’s the papers and the sign, and then you go and ask your parents and your mother, and she confirms that you were adopted and they didn’t want to tell you, but they were going to tell you someday, et cetera.
But it’s very clear, so, right, you’ve essentially falsified the claim that you are the biological child of these parents and in other words, you were adopted. So then you go to your best friend, you say, man, I just found out I was adopted. And the friend says, so who are your real parents? You say, I don’t know. I think they’re from China, but I may never know. And he says, well, until you tell me who your real parents are, I’m not going to believe you were adopted.
And that’s ridiculous because you may never know and you don’t need to know. You know that you’re adopted, it’s clear, and you’ve established that claim and you may never find out. And we’ll run into this a lot, I think. So what makes you sick? Or what’s the answer to this? You may not know. It has no relevance to the claim. Yet that’s exactly the same flawed argument put forward by many members of the health freedom movement and mainstream medical community.
It doesn’t matter what really makes you ill. The germ theory of disease has been debunked over and over again for over 100 years, thus demoted to a bad hypothesis at best, and at worst, a foolish folly of confirmation bias being passed off as a trustworthy science. Contrary to the seemingly lost health freedom movement’s beliefs, the heart of the COVID-19 fraud is not based on the pandemic, mismanagement, draconian government overreach and abuse of power, or even the purposeful intent to put in the new digital tracking infrastructure for the great reset.
It is based on virology’s false claims. It is medical fraud. Thus, it is not a strategic mistake to direct our energy towards exposing virology’s fallacies. Otherwise we get more of this nonsense. The CDC ditches the five day COVID isolation, arguing COVID is becoming flulike. What? COVID what? Flu virus defeating solely COVID-19 responses while leaving the other virological nonsense intact opens the doors to any number of viral pandemics in the future, gaining insight into the entire fraud eliminates the unfounded fear of contagion and equips one with a more robust path to enduring real freedom.
Everything is going to be about how do we really know? How do we go from believing to knowing? What’s the process? What is the method? Section? How can we stand on firm scientific grounds? Because I guess we, I think we agree that only the truth will really lead us out of this mess. And at the end of the day, that’s kind of what it’s about. Yeah, I totally agree, Tom.
And I think you and others in the novirus movement are really adamant that if we are going to try and make our communities better, we have to get to the bottom, establish facts, work out truth as close as we can to truth. Anyway, rather than saying, hey, this is strategic, we’re going to go. No excuses. Yeah, so. .
See more of Jim Fetzer on their Public Channel and the MPN Jim Fetzer channel.
