Dr. Tom Cowan Virology Update + A Few Words On Monkeypox | Jim Fetzer

Today is another Wednesday. Webinar Today looks like August 21, 2024. Thanks for joining me. And I don’t have any particular announcements or anything, so let’s get started. So obviously I didn’t do any webinars for a month and did didn’t have any updates on virology or medicine or any of those subjects. And the good news, I’d say, is there’s a lot more people working on various issues that have to do with virology. Science, medicine, biology, et cetera. People are doing their own experiments, doing their own cell cultures, publishing them, or not publishing them in science journals, but publishing them on various outlets.

Some people are doing their own sequencing things, and also people are just writing about things and finding old research papers. So I thought it would be a good opportunity to just do a little bit of an update on some of the at least new things for me that they’re not like, they’re not like new in virology, but there’s just new things that have come through in the last few weeks, at least for me. And then we’ll do a little bit on Monkeypox and that should do it. Okay. And again, thanks for joining me, and let’s get to it.

So I’m going to share my screen. I think I need to share the sound. Okay. And I think I’m going to have to apologize that I’m not sure all these, I know actually where they came from. I know where this came from. A fellow, I don’t know that I know him personally named Ben from. I think the substac is called usmortality.com. i’m not sure about all these citations, but I think that’s where this has come. And he has really done a pretty deep dive into the whole sequencing thing and shown just how anti scientific it is.

And this comes from something he published recently, which was a freedom of information request from July 16, 2024. And it says request attached. And a subject of our search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. We’ve heard that before. We do not have any responsive records because none of the methods in the request for information have been used for SARS CoV two sequencing. Our sequencing staff have specified that one, and this is the important one, we do not have records on single virion sequencing that ensured the virion was physically isolated from any other genetic material before sequencing, sequencing was only on clinical specimens or unpurified virus isolate material, lysate or supernatant.

We do not have methods to purify a single virion away from all other materials. So I want to put this in context. First of all, virion is just a fancy name for a single virus. So they’re saying that we don’t have a single virus that was physically separated from any other genetic material before sequencing. Therefore, the sequencing was done on specimens like snot or bronchial, alveolar lafage fluid or urine or feces or some other clinical specimen or cell cultures, either the ground up cells or the liquid from the cells. And there they’re saying, this is the CDC.

We don’t have a method to purify a single virion away from all other materials. This is an extremely damning statement for them to make. And again, just to put it in context, if you. You have to think of this, and again, we’ve been over this many times, so this is nothing new, but this is an admission that if you want to know what this pencil is made of, and this is a little bit different because there’s actually a pencil where there isn’t actually a virus. But if you want to know that the. What a component of the pencil is.

And again, there’s another difference with this example. It’s the first one I had here. And these pens are, they say, made of the same thing as the component that you’re looking for from the pencil. Let me emphasize that and say it again. They say that the thing that they’re sequencing, the thing that is, in their minds defining this virus, is a DNA or RNA strand. Then they say these other things have the exact same kind of DNA and RNA strands, exact same kind. Then they say we’ve never, and it is not part of virology to separate this one from these.

It is not separate. It’s not possible to separate a virus, a virion, from the cell culture or the person’s fluid or tissue. We don’t have methods to do that. And since they. The thing you’re looking for, the component of this is the same as this. If you really think about this, how would you ever know that the material you’re looking for came from this and not this? If always in the history of looking for it, you’ve always ground up all these together. They have indistinguishable component, the components you’re looking for, and never once have anybody ever separated them out of and taken the sequence just from the pencil or the virus or the virion, not once.

Because they can’t do that. They don’t have methods to find that. Therefore, using logic and rational thinking and common sense, you have to conclude that nobody has ever actually demonstrated that that sequence came from a virus. Therefore, to use that as proof that the virus exists or even has DNA or RNA is basically a fallacious argument. And anybody who doesn’t see that has a thought problem, because everybody, I think listening absolutely sees that that is true. This statement means that sequencing has never been done for a virus. All it’s been done for is a mixture of the person and whatever other bacteria or fungus is in the person or cell cultures.

So whatever fetal bovine serum and kidney culture cells is in there, we have never actually sequenced a virus. Then they go on to say that these are more complicated, which I don’t think I need to explain, but this is an admission we’ve never sequenced a virus, flat out. So that’s a big deal. And so it’s great that he got that admission. Okay, let’s look at the next one. I don’t know who published this, so I apologize for that. It was apparently from this paper by Jorgen Foe et al. Don’t know the year, so I don’t know anything else about this, but this is a description of the fact that cell cultures are contaminated.

Contaminated with viruses, they say. So in this way. Primary cultures from chickens, there’s a reference. Chimpanzees, dogs, ducks, guinea pigs, hamsters, horses, man rabbits, rats, monkeys, swine, have all been found to yield viruses spontaneously. So what does that mean? That means they’ve taken, they’ve used tissue cultures from all these various animals, right? These are like the monkey kidney cells. So they, they then, without putting any material that could contain a alleged virus into the culture, they are saying that all of these cultures, probably when stressed in the way that they usually do the cell culture experiments, yield what they are calling viruses spontaneously.

In other words, just putting cultures from guinea pigs tissue into a culture, letting it die in the normal way, and you will find viruses, whether it’s from a dog, a chicken, a chimpanzee person, rabbit, monkeys, anything. So if that’s true, which is what they say, then how do you know? So in other words, every tissue is contaminated with a virus. So if you put something from a person or an animal onto a culture and you generate what you’re calling viruses, how do you know whether it was something that grew in the culture? In other words, you put a sample containing a virus on the culture, the virus grew like they say it does, or the tissue just broke down, yielding exactly the same thing which they’re calling viruses.

I would submit that you have no way of knowing that you have no way to distinguish those two, they could say, well, they have certain appearances or whatever, but we all know that these appearances on electron microscopy, we know that if you use certain types of cultures, they will have exactly the same appearance as SARS CoV two and smallpox virus and measles virus, and every other virus that’s been allegedly found, because these are all spontaneous breakdown products of the tissue, spontaneous breakdown products of the tissue yield, no virus added yield, what they call viruses. Therefore, if you’re able to think, you have to conclude that this is an inappropriate technique for finding a virus.

That means since this is the only way that viruses have been isolated, that is found, that is shown to exist, and therefore able to be studied, is through doing cell cultures. We now know that every cell culture is contaminated, meaning it will generate viruses, even if you don’t add any sample that allegedly contains a virus, that tells you that no cell culture has ever isolated a virus, ever, and therefore no virus has ever been isolated, therefore shown to exist, been able to be studied in experiments. That is the only possible conclusion that anybody could draw from this revelation, this observation.

Okay, that was the next one. This one has to do with. We’ve been over this again before. How do you get epidemics? Let’s start with the bottom one. To start, it’s one of those things that’s like the oldest trick in the book. You get an epidemic to start by getting illnesses which have very similar characteristics, so called separate diagnoses, scarlet fever, herpes, shingles, chickenpox, allergic reactions, dermatitis, measles, rubella, impetigo, erythema multiforme. And you call them all chickenpox. And this goes back to what I described from medical school. I distinctly remember sitting in rooms where dermatologists and pediatricians would come in the room and show slideshows of different rashes.

So one was herpes, one was scarlet fever, shingles, chickenpox. And they would have mostly indistinguishable clinical characteristics. They had some fever and they had some mucus, and they had some spots. And then they said, well, you can see, here’s the spots of scarlet fever, and here’s rubella, and here’s impetigo. And I remember sitting there thinking, I don’t really see the difference. Obviously, the horrible ones. You could see that there was a difference, and some of them have more bubbles, and some of them were flat, and some of them were irritated and all that. But then they would tell you that this is not a particularly characteristic reaction.

In other words, there’s many different ways that each of these can manifest. So just because you see one that has blisters doesn’t mean they all do with herpes or chickenpox. So all you do is you lump them all into one and you call all of those monkeypox because there is no gold standard to differentiate the two. And as I’ve also said many times, there are many published studies over the years where they attempted to prove this by showing experienced pediatricians, 10, 20, 30 people with different rashes. And they say blindly which one is which, and they cannot agree, which means they have also no way to tell.

And so they basically just guess. And that’s pretty much what I did in the early part of my practice. People would often come and say, what is this rash? And I knew that I had no way to know it, but I was working in the ER, maybe at the time or sometimes in my private practice, so I just made it up based on what I was told was going around and some gas that I made. I’m not necessarily proud of that, but that was the only way I could see doing it. And when I would ask colleagues in the Erde, how do you know this is this? They always said, there’s no way to know.

So that’s how you get an epidemic. And then how do you get an epidemic to end? When you’ve allegedly eradicated smallpox with a so called vaccine, you just start calling it all these different names, chickenpox, shingles, herpes, et cetera. They did that with polio, and it became acute flaccid paralysis and Guillain barre, etcetera. And when you want the polio epidemic to start, you call all those things polio. When you get a vaccine so called and want it to end, you separate them. And it’s one of those oldest tricks in the book. And so that is seemingly what is going to happen now with monkeypox, which I’ll talk about in a minute.

So that was a new slide, I’m sure we’ve been through this and we’ve heard about it, but this makes it very clear how you do that. This was something interesting. People may want to try this themselves. Friend of ours, Mark Gober, I think you say his name and he actually asked chat GPT, which I wouldn’t even know how to do that, about the polio virus. And maybe how did they know that polio was caused by a virus? And as he says here on the right, the AI starts by answering with consensus science opinions, but can change its view when presented with relevant info and documentation.

So apparently he did that and he wrote a book about this, an end to upside down medicine, which everybody should check out. Here’s eventually what Chat GPT said about the etiology of polio. In 1909, scientists caused paralysis in monkeys by injecting spinal tissue from polio victims, but did not isolate the virus itself. A 2021 CDC response to a FOIA request revealed no records of the polio virus being isolated directly from human samples without other genetic material. This suggests that we do not have direct evidence that the polio virus exists and causes disease. Injecting spinal tissue can cause illness by itself, and control experiments were not done without your prompts.

I would have shared the mainstream view leading to medical information about polio being a contagious virus. So there you go. Apparently, jeep chat GPT is more smarter or better able to learn than most of the freedom doctors. Okay, another one. This, I think, was from an article 1959, I believe. This is similar to the quote from enders. So, and again, I don’t have the paper here, so I don’t think I’ll be able to find it. So if you ask us, whereas the citation, unfortunately, I probably won’t be able to come up with it, but I know that it came from somebody who did have the citation.

I just didn’t write it down. I know it was a woman, by the way, a woman virologist. In addition to the foamy viruses, other agents that are identical to measles virus in terms of their serological relationships, cytopathological effects and range of tissue culture susceptibility have been found in uninoculated cultures. There’s references Ruckel and Brown. In view of these complications, cultures of monkey kidney cannot be considered a suitable tool for the isolation or propagation of measles virus. Even if by careful serological and cytological tests, one identifies an agent grown in monkey kidney as measles virus, there can be no certainty that it did not derive from the cultures themselves.

Here, this virologist is taking this even further. Again, we already know that agents, in other words, particles that are identical to what are being called measles virus in their appearance and cytopathological effects, in other words, their ability to cause CPE, have been found in uninocculated cultures. In other words, if you do the same experiment but don’t inoculate the culture, you get the identical viruses. Here she’s extending this and saying, even when you do serological relationships, in other words, antibody tests or histochemical tests or antigen tests or any other tests, that was available. Looking at the various blood relationships allegedly caused by the virus, they’re identical in uninocculated cultures and the range of tissue culture susceptibility, identical in uninocculated cultures.

So, monkey kidney, the only conclusion you can draw from this is obviously, if you’re able to think as like a scientist, monkey kidney cells are not a suitable tool for the isolation or propagation of measles virus, or, by the way, any other virus. Let me say that again, monkey kidney cells are not a suitable tool for the isolation of a measles virus, and I would say any other virus, because you cannot be certain that it did not derive from the culture itself. So, amazingly, even though this is published in the peer review virology literature, this didn’t seem to change the fact that every measles virus isolated since then has been done, as far as I know.

There may be some exceptions, but basically done on monkey kidney cells. But it would be the same no matter what culture, no matter what tissue culture they use. That’s why I showed the previous slide. Doesn’t matter which animal, which culture, which tissue you take the culture from, they all have the same problem. They spontaneously generate a things that are particles that are called viruses. They will have the same serological and tissue culture susceptibility. Therefore, again, if you don’t have a thought disorder, you will have to say, no virus has ever been isolated because the isolation technique has been disproven and has been disproven since 1959.

So that’s 60 or so years where they still do the disproven technique as the way that they isolate, that is find, that is, demonstrate the existence of these viruses. Imagine that. Imagine how crazy that is, that a disproven technique is to this day, in such an important area of life and medicine and biology, still the only technique to isolate and therefore prove the existence of a virus and therefore be able to study its characteristics. That is kind of a joke, although it’s not funny. Here’s something totally different. I happen to find this. The 14 american cities that have signed a World economic forum pledge that compels them to ban meat, dairy and private car ownership, among other things, by the year 2030.

Not so far away, part of the c 40 climate leadership group. So you see Austin, Boston, maybe they all rhyme with Austin. Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland and San Francisco all have pledged this. Whether they’ll be able to carry this out, we’ll be able to see. And by the way, you could only buy a three new clothing items per person per year, one short haul return flight. So when you try to get the hell out of there, they will not let you do that. And that’s because we’re fighting for our freedom here in the US.

Okay, enough of that. Let’s go on to monkeypox. As probably most of you know, the World Health Organization has announced a monkeypox. I’m not sure I’m going to get this right, either a worldwide pandemic or epidemic. I’m not sure which one. So we’ve been over monkeypox and there’s been many other people who’ve done this, the Bailey’s and Mike Stone. But this got brought to my attention. So obviously those of us in the so called freedom community want to look to our leading authorities to see what do they have to say about monkeypox. So here is probably the leading scientific authority in the so called freedom community.

This is Robert Malone. First off, he says, again, this was sent to me, so I didn’t verify this is from him. If it wasn’t, then I apologize for this, but I have reason to think this is probably accurate. Is there such a thing as monkeypox virus? Sorry to have to say this, but just to be clear, for the trolls and virus denier community, mpox, or monkeypox is a virus. Viruses are actually a thing. They exist. And I am guilty of being a virologist. I have isolated, grown and studied viruses that have infect animals and bacteria. Monkeypox is a DNA virus.

Monkeypox virus has been isolated, cultured and imaged. Really? All right. Now, of course, interestingly, or at least what I’ve heard, he didn’t actually say how it’s been isolated, which is the key. That is the key to this whole thing. And he suggests that he’s done this. So the first thing I did was look for a paper published that he had authored, or at least was a part author that had showed that he participated in the isolation of the monkeypox virus. And I can’t say that I spent hours and hours looking, but I was unable to find any paper that Robert Malone had published that showed the isolation of the monkeypox virus.

That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And I could have missed it. And so if there is one, I would like to see it, but I couldn’t find it. Therefore, I had to go to essentially look in the medical literature and to see if anybody else has isolated the monkeypox virus, therefore shown that it. Exactly. It exists, as he claims now, I would also say this is not a trivial matter, that this scientist, who’s supposedly one of the foremost scientists of the so called freedom community, would say such a thing. And so, as an example, this didn’t come out right.

Exactly. But you can see here is an interview that was done on Robert Kennedy’s podcast with Robert Malone about Monkeypox. So it’s clear that one of the leaders of the worldwide freedom community looks to Robert Malone as an expert on Monkeypox. So this is not a trivial matter. And the title was of the episode should we fear Monkeypox. And Doctor Malone will give us the update. So he is touted as a authority figure on the issue of the existence of Monkeypox. But again, I couldn’t find a paper that he wrote, so I looked for other papers that might go into the isolation of Monkeypox.

Now, I also going to admit that I didn’t listen to the entire podcast. In fact, I didn’t listen to any of it, really. It’s hard for me to do that. So I don’t know what his evidence for the isolation. So I’m just relying on published papers that allegedly isolated monkeypox. But I have a suspicion that in this interview he was not actually asked to defend the isolation procedure. He just stated that monkeypox has been isolated probably many times. In fact, there are many, many, many papers with the title the isolation of the monkeypox virus. So probably he was not asked to defend the scientific validity of those papers.

So we’ll have to do that ourselves. So here is one paper that I found, and this is called the monkeypox virus isolation from a semen sample collected in the early phase of infection in a patient with prolonged seminal viral shedding. And this was published online October 2, 2022. You can see the citation here if you want to find it. It says a Lancet, sorry, the lancet.com infection, September 2022. Now, here the interesting thing. First thing was there was no method section in the body of the paper, so I had to go to the supplementary materials, and there we find the method section.

So now we can see what they did. So where is the isolation? So the first thing they say, here’s the supplement one. The methods. First of all, molecular tests were performed for the diagnosis and monitoring of viral shedding in the urine, skin, semen and plasma. They extracted the DNA allegedly from there. Here we get to the isolation. First of all, they do a PCR on these various tissue samples. Okay, we’re going to get to the PCR in a minute. The viral culture was performed in a standard lab on vero e six. In other words, monkey kidney cells.

I’m sure everybody is surprised to hear that. In other words, they took a skin lesion sample, or semen, was diluted. They mixed it with antibiotics and antimicrobics in the usual way. Amphotericin gentamicin with the serum, with the. Sorry, the semen or the skin lesion. It contained a 2% fetal bovine serum, which is less. They were kept at room temperatures and inoculated on vero e six cells. Those are monkey kidney cells, which we already now know are inappropriate anti scientific ways of isolating a virus because they contain identical particles and have the same serological material. Then they incubated it for an hour and they did some other things.

The inoculum was discarded, replaced with the different fluid containing 2%, plus the antibiotics and antimicrobatics. And then they saw the breakdown of the tissue by light microscope. And then they collected some of the samples and did their studies to evaluate what they call viral replication. Now, here’s where it gets interesting. So they say they do a control. They did it. The kidney cells were inoculated either with fresh medium or with seminal fluid, negative for monkeypox, and they didn’t show any cytopathic effect. So that’s what would throw a lot of people off. And there you can see the pictures.

And then they do some tests. So what does that mean, if they tested? So, in other words, they take semen from somebody who’s sick with a disease they’re calling monkeypox. They mix it with all their usual stuff, the antibiotics, antimicrobatics, a bunch of other chemicals take away the nutrients, and then they see a breakdown of the tissue, which we have already proven can come just from doing those things without any specimen, from any semen or anything else. And then they allege that that proves the virus was there. Then, without going into any details. So they don’t describe.

All they say is a negative control. They used either fresh medium or seminal fluid, negative for monkeypox virus. They don’t tell us whether they used the antimicrobial. They don’t tell us what the medium was. They don’t tell us whether they put different chemicals. They didn’t tell us where they put viral transport medium. They didn’t tell us whether they used antibiotics. They didn’t tell us how many times they changed the culture medium and messed with it, etcetera. They didn’t give any of those details. So we have no idea whether everything was the same except one was from a sick person and one was allegedly from a healthy person.

Now, it is also true that every single time we have investigated whether everything else was the same in the so called mock infection or negative control versus the experimental group, we find that not everything was the same. In other words, they didn’t add the antibiotics because they didn’t need to, because it wasn’t infected, or they have some other excuse, or they didn’t change the medium so as much, or they shook it more, or they didn’t put it at the same temperature. So, in every example that we’ve actually investigated, what they didn’t write down, which there should be required to write this down so that everybody has confidence that they did the exact same thing in the experimental and the control group, because we know from many cases in the historical literature and our own control studies that the tissue breaks down just by doing the techniques of the viral culture.

They didn’t tell us how they do it. Therefore, it’s not a valid control. But let’s just assume for a minute that it is. Let’s assume for a minute, which is highly, highly unlikely to be the case, that they did everything right for the first time, that the only difference was the antimicrobatics, the nutrient solution, the temperatures. Everything else was the same. But one was from a sick person who had a PCR test that was positive, and one was from a well person, semen who had a PCR negative. So what are they actually testing here? They’re testing whether semen from a sick person has a negative effect on a tissue culture versus semen from a well person.

Anybody who thinks this proves that there is a virus, tell me which part of this experiment proved that the difference in the only possible difference between semen from a sick person and semen from a well person, or a skin lesion from a sick person versus a skin leash versus no skin lesion or skill or solution from healthy skin. The only possible difference is that one has a virus and the other doesn’t. That is an unsubstantiated hypothesis, because they never were able. They didn’t even attempt to prove that. In fact, the only way that they would claim they proved that was by doing a PCR test or a PCR process.

So we have to again, talk about what that is. A PCR means. They’re looking at a piece of the so called genetic material and saying that they know two things. One, that this piece of genetic material came from this virus. In order to say that you would have had to have isolated the virus first. Since this is the way they isolate the virus, it’s obvious that they never isolated the virus. Therefore there is no way to show that that segment could have only come from this virus, because, as we found out, it’s mixed with similar genetic material from the host.

So there’s no way to say with any certainty that that segment came from the virus or some other part of the tissue, either the sample or the monkey kidney. And there’s no way to say that it’s unique to that virus, because the virus has never been isolated. So you can see the circular reasoning here, meaning that at no part of this experiment were they studying a virus. The best you can say if in a highly unlikely, if they did everything right, was semen from a sick person is more damaging sometimes than semen from a well person.

That would be the best conclusion you could say from this experiment. If they did everything else the same. We found a number of times where the cytopathic effect happens in three out of ten out of 20 the experiment, and maybe two or one out of 20 in the control. And so the experimental group is positive and the control is negative. They don’t say anything about that in this, so we have no idea what they did. And we can also see that at no point in this experiment did the virus become the independent variable, which would be necessary to say it could only have been the virus that caused this cytopathic effect.

Without that, this is a completely worthless so called isolation paper, leading to the conclusion that this paper claiming isolation, in fact, never isolated the paper. Thus the virus, the monkeypox virus. And so we have to find a different paper that did that. So let’s look at the next paper. So here I found another one, and there are many. Here is the isolation and characterization of monkeypox virus from the first case of monkeypox in China, 2022. Again, we go down to the methods section. How did they isolate this virus, which is the key to showing the existence, the key to doctor Malone’s claiming the virus exists, it’s been isolated and cultured.

What did they do for virus isolation? Clinical specimens, including skin, blister fluid, oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs in blood, were collected six days after symptom onset, sent to the National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention, the chinese CDC. The isolation was performed on, you guess it. Drumroll. Vero cells, monkey kidney cells. The specimens were diluted at a one to five ratio with the culture medium contained 2% fetal bovine serum, modified starvation fluid called modifies Eagle’s medium. The antibiotics streptomycin, penicillin, amphotericin, a toxic substance to monkey kidney cells, which has been shown itself to cause cytopathic effect.

The samples were kept at 25 degrees and inoculated onto vero cells, and then it was supernatant was replaced. Then they observe for cytopathic effect, and then they do PCR, same exact thing over and over and over again. You will never find any other way to do isolation. And as the first part of this hopefully demonstrated for the millionth time or so, this is not isolation. Isolation is the separation of one thing from all other things. And at no point was any virus separated from all other things. At no point was a virion separated, purified, so it could be studied and found out if even it contains genetic material to do a PCR process on.

At no point was that done. This is all pseudoscience. And I think anybody looking at this who can think properly and think accurately will see exactly what we’re talking about and not, and realize this virus has never been isolated, has never been shown to exist. And we’re just going through another example of how to create an epidemic for God knows what reason, but not a good one. Okay, so hopefully that’s today’s primer on virology. And if anybody has any comments, you know, I want to just clarify something about the comments. My hope with having people comment on these things is they actually, if you have something to say about the method I’m talking about, like, if you have reason to believe that these viral cultures on vero cells are an accurate, scientific, logical way of doing viral isolation and proving a virus exists, that’s what I’m looking for in the comments.

I hope that people actually stick to trying to actually engage with, maybe even debate the topic that I’m talking about. Like, if you think that I’m wrong, because it’s obviously possible I’ve been wrong more times than I care to admit, then you should use logic, rational thinking, critical thinking, and hopefully references to demonstrate, prove that the viral culture is an accurate way of determining the existence and the characterization or the first step in the characterization of the virus. That’s what I’m hoping we use this comment section for. I’m happy for people to write other things and just comment on what they’re doing, etcetera.

But that’s the most important for me, use of this interaction to engage with what I’m saying. And then in the last few minutes, I want to touch on another subject which has come to my attention, which is that there has become a sort of division and rancor and criticism within the so called no virus community. And the main part I want to bring up was there was some allegations. And by the way, it’s not like I’ve investigated this or some sort of expert on this. I wanted to just make some comments, but the allegations were by some guy who I never heard of that.

The Baileys particularly. Well, both, but Mark and Sam actually are. The papers that Mark wrote were plagiarized or he took them from somebody, took the research from somebody. And the videos that Sam is putting out, I think, with Mark’s research help, are not their own original material. I mean, they’re looking at studies that other people wrote and putting them together and that they’re basically not, you know, not telling people that this is the work of somebody else. So I think, as far as I know, that is the basic allegation. Now, what can I say about this? You know, I’ve seen, and I think everybody should watch the video that Sam put out describing these allegations and how they’re not true.

And one of the things that I want to weigh in here is about maybe a year and a half or two years ago, because I’ve worked a number of times with Mark. He’s been on my podcast a few times, and I have absolutely looked to mark to help me understand and explain some of the more intricate or difficult scientific points to do with virology and even the larger field of biology. I’d say Mark and Stefan and Andy and Mike Stone have been probably the main people that I’ve looked to to help me understand. And Christine, some of the things that I just struggle with understanding on my own.

So about a year and a half ago, somebody, I don’t remember who, asked me or came to me sort of sheepishly, maybe they wanted to interview me. And they said, well, they had done something, and they wanted an expert on the criticism of virology. And sheepishly, they said, I just want to tell you that we actually asked Mark Bailey to do it and not you, and I hope you’re okay with that. And my response was, if I was doing a show on getting the best person I could find to explain and critique the whole virus paradigm and the germ theory, I would get Mark Bailey instead of me to do it, too.

So don’t worry about it. And that’s how I feel about that. I have had no interaction with them that have in any way caused me to think that they’re not doing anything but a huge service to humanity in really piecing this whole fraud together. They’re writing brilliant pieces, or I think Mark mainly. I’m not sure how much Sam is involved with writing the pieces that Mark and his co author is writing. And I rely on those pieces. I’ve told many, many, many people to read them. I’ve given them to many people to try to refute or debunk their arguments, and nobody has.

So they are an absolutely integral, fundamental part of this whole movement. And any idea that there’s something else going on, I just frankly don’t see it. So that’s the first thing I want to say. Now, the other thing I want to say, which is a little trickier, is, and maybe this can put this in a little bit of a context here. And I’ve had experience with this pretty much my whole life, and it’s really come up in spades in the last four years with the whole Covid stuff. People accuse me of not being a good team player.

Now, interestingly, even on my high school basketball team, they actually had a meeting where I was part of, where they took a vote to see whether they wanted to kick me off the team. I was the only white guy on an all team of all african american guys in suburban Detroit. But I was the best shooter on the team. So they actually voted to keep me, which I enjoyed. And the reason was because I wouldn’t participate in the dance program before that. They all did. It was mostly because I was too embarrassed because I was horrible dancer.

But anyways, so I’ve been accused of this, not being a team player many, many times in my life, starting even in high school. And I remember times with Reiner Fulmig’s group, where I was with Meryl Nass and other people in the so called freedom community, and we were having it out over the virus thing, and I just wouldn’t relent. And they would say, oh, tom, you’re just not a good team player. You know, we’re all in this together. And I would sometimes say, so what’s the name of my team? Like, nobody asked me if I wanted to be on a team, and we didn’t have a name, and I didn’t want to be on their team because I didn’t agree with what they were saying.

I thought it was unscientific and actually naive and actually feeding into the fear narrative and feeding into the absolving the real perpetrators of this problem, which is not because there’s an engineered virus which doesn’t exist or anything else. And I don’t really want to be on that team. And I think the reason I bring this up is we have this idea that if we share something in common, like the idea that viruses have never been shown to exist, therefore magically we’re on the same team and therefore we shouldn’t criticize each other. And I’ve been criticized a lot.

And I’ve come to understand that just because two people share something in common, like a common belief, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re going to get along in everything. And I think it might help if we just understand that we’re just individuals now. Some of us as individuals find common ground and even friendship with other individuals. And that’s sometimes fostered by shared beliefs. In fact, for me it often is. So people who don’t believe in the whole fear narrative and the whole virus story and the whole germ theory and that government is going to save us. And if we just vote for the right person, and if we just get the right person in the CDC, we’ll all be fine.

And if we throw Fauci in jail, we’ll all be fine. But bottom line is people on the same team still fight. And I think that’s okay. It becomes a problem when we think, oh, because we don’t believe there’s in the. That viruses have been ever shown to exist. Sometimes we should all get along. Well, it turns out we don’t necessarily all get along. And some people might even have funny motives and some people might even be in that for purposes which we would rather not include them in our meeting. But all we can do at the end of the day is say what we think, put it out into the world as best we can, as clearly and succinctly and logically and rationally as we can.

We make our case and we let the chips fall where they may. And I hope that that’s what I’ve been doing. I know that’s what the Baileys have been doing and some of the other people. And I think if we do that and we don’t have the expectation that we’re all going to be some somehow magically get along, because that’s not what seems to happen with people. We can just let other people say whatever they want, we can respond and give our point of view and point out things that are not true, which is what happened.

And we can go on from there and in a good way, and not let us let it lose any sleep over it, and we can all feel good about what we’re doing, and I hope that’s what happens out of this. I don’t know that it’s actually true that you have to have a united front in order to win this battle. I think what has to happen is people have to recognize that there are individuals who have come to certain conclusions on their own for their reasons. And hopefully the reasons are, quote, good reasons and valid reasons and they’re willing to speak out as truthfully and clearly about what they discovered and then let the chips fall where they may and not worry so much about who does or doesn’t agree.

You can’t control that anyways. You just say what you think, keep your conscience clear, and try to combat people who spread disinformation about you or the subject. And hopefully that’s what we’re all going to be doing here. And again, I hope in the comments section that that’s what people do, comment on the subject, explain your point of view about the subject, and hopefully we’ll all get along a lot better because of that. So thanks everybody for listening and I welcome your comments and involvement, and I will see you next week. You, our.
[tr:tra].

See more of Jim Fetzer on their Public Channel and the MPN Jim Fetzer channel.