INTERVIEW The Final Pandemic: An Antidote to Medical Tyranny | The David Knight Show

Well, the science is settled. We’ve heard that so many times, right? That’s kind of the refuge of a scoundrel. As I’ve said so many times, science is never settled. The only way that science is advances is if people question some of the long held assumptions. And so that’s what we’re going to do today. You know, when somebody tells you something like a good math teacher, they should show you the work. They should especially show you the data. If they don’t do that, you ought to get ever more skeptical about this. And after four years of this nonsense, the masks and the lockdowns and the six foot distancing and then the vaccines that weren’t tested, if you’re not skeptical about this stuff right now, this show is not for you.

But I think most of you who watch this show are. And so I wanted to cover the book. This is, we have a couple of doctors from New Zealand. The book is the final pandemic, an antidote to medical tyranny. And it really is the antidote to medical tyranny. We want, however, to make sure that we have answered the questions and the objections, and that’s why I wanted to get them on. That’s a very thorough book. My guests are Doctor Mark Bailey and Doctor Samantha Bailey. They are married. Both of them are physicians in New Zealand. So thank you for joining us.

Thank you. Thank you. And of course, let me go to the website as well. It’s Doctor Sam, drsambailey.com. and so that’s where you can find more information. You can find the book everywhere. But thank you for joining us. And it is fascinating. I haven’t been able to read the entire book, but I’ve read a great deal of it. You’ve done another book that was 400 pages long, had 1400 references. This one’s about 180 pages long. And it’s got, so I get it wrote down here, 444 references. So you document stuff very well. People can do their own research.

It’s a great beginning point for somebody if they want to question the foundation of what has happened to us for the last four years. But let’s begin by letting you give us a little bit of your background as physicians. What caused you to question something that most people say is non questionable orthodoxy? Well, thank you, David, for that really great introduction to introduce this topic. And as you mentioned, Sam and I were both conventionally trained doctors. I graduated in 1999, one of the last doctors to graduate from the last century, and was in the medical system for two decades now.

During that time, there were definitely speed bumps for me. I questioned what we were doing a lot of the time. Many of the things we did with regard to pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and surgery were not things that I would do to myself or to my family. So there was always that uneasy relationship. Now, despite having an established career in medicine, I decided to leave in 2016. I hated the structure of the medical system, was having increasing amounts of conflict with other practitioners within the system because of disagreements about what we were doing and decided to completely get out of it.

Now, the best thing to come out of my medical career was meeting my wife Sam next to me here. So we met in 2007 when we were both hospital doctors, and we worked in all kinds of specialties, including clinical trials. So we were research physicians, supervising first time human dosing of new pharmaceuticals, and spent quite a few years getting to grips with how the biotech industry worked and how the pharmaceutical industry worked and how they funded studies and how they got new products to market. So that was a fascinating insight for both of us. Now, in 2016, I was so done with medicine that I said to Sam, I think you’ve got to get out, because I really believe it’s going to get worse.

And Sam said, yeah, it’s pretty bad, but I. She had some work that she was enjoying, and I’ll hand over to Sam before we get to 2020. And what happened? I’ll hand over to Sam. Okay. Yeah. So basically, I was still working in clinical trials, and I had great patience, and I loved the work, and I wasn’t ready to kind of leave. And anyway, and then I formed my own business, which was like an online doctor business. And this was kind of the first of its kind in New Zealand before all this became normal. And by chance, I got kind of invited to become a tv presenter on a health show, like in a mainstream network in New Zealand.

So I did that, and I really loved it. And one of my friends suggested that I should start my own YouTube channel. So I did that at the kind of end of 2019, going into 2020. And then this is the real start of my awakening, when you actually hit the kind of wall of what you’re allowed to do. And so people were asking about coronavirus and what, you know, what it means, and I didn’t know, and I would. I’d hunkered down with Mark and we’d kind of research and answer a lot of these questions. And we came across this book, virus mania, which was a huge shift in everything that I once thought to believe.

And it was actually Mark who sat me down because he read the book first. And, yeah, yeah, it was one of those situations, David, where I’d been out of medicine for four years when this whole Covid thing started. And I wanted to stay out, as Sam says, she started this YouTube channel. And by January 2020, people are saying, what’s this rumor coming out of Wuhan? Can you talk about it? Can you talk about these things? And I started researching, and the first thing I looked at was the World Health Organization documents. And I said to Sam, there’s nothing here.

These are just so called expert opinions. They refer to some protocols. They refer to historical events. I can’t find the foundational science behind what they’re talking about here. Then around February, we start seeing publications claiming that they’ve found this novel virus and it’s causing a new disease. Now, Sam and I, as clinicians looked at these papers and said, what new disease? This is pneumonia. This is all of the same things we’ve seen before. There’s nothing special about these patients. And then people would say, well, look at the CT scans. And we’d say, yep, those lungs. That’s generic kind of findings for people with pneumonia.

This place, Wuhan, is obviously highly polluted. There’s plenty of reasons why people are going to get sick there, and we don’t see anything novel going on here. So that lead, as Sam says, to the discovery of virus mania. Sam subsequently became a co author of that book. But at that time, it was new to us and we started looking into biology. And I, we just couldn’t believe it because there were two things that were apparent. One was that when we were at medical school and working as doctors, the wool had been pulled over our eyes. We had not been shown all of the failed experiments that had taken place over a century.

And also, we didn’t realize that people had been trying to get this information out for years. So we had the Perth group in Australia. We had doctor Stefan Lanker, David Crowe, other people, Carrie Mullis, who had various views. But one of them was that there were major problems with aspects of virology. So we discovered this, and our audience just kept saying, go deeper. Go deeper. And so before long, in 2020, we found that we were at the tip of the spear with Andy Kaufman and Tom Cowan and Mike Stone, Christine Massey and all of these other great individuals that decided in 2020 that they’d dedicate their time researching these issues.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It is amazing. I came at it from a different angle, which we, my audience is familiar with, came at it from dark winter and the germ games. And things like that. And when they started doing this and there wasn’t really anybody dying, and they declare a pandemic, like, wait a minute, this is not even an epidemic. So it truly has been an amazing thing to see how they were able to pull this off and how long it lasted. But I want to get to the root of the cause, and that really is the pandemic.

And when we’re talking about a pandemic, we’re really talking about, it’s not so much even really the existence of a virus or a germ, but it’s about being able to prove that this is being transmitted, that you’ve isolated this, that it’s able to transmit it as a contagion, that it can make people sick, that it can replicate that type of thing. Talk a little bit about what the problems are with that. Yeah, well, I guess contagion studies itself are one of the best first windows to get into, because it opens people’s minds, because you don’t know.

Well, most people don’t know that. There have been major studies that have been done in the past exposing the problem with contagion. And the best example, I always. Because this is what really woke me up was the Rosinar experiments that were done in the states where they had a group. This is during the spanish flu time, so the Spanish 1918. Yeah. The gold standard of all the pandemics. That’s one that everybody wants to talk about. Yeah. And we’ve actually made quite a few videos on these subjects because I think it’s really important to unravel because there’s lots of things going on.

But what people understood so with these Rosenau experiments was that they had a group of about 50 patients that were prisoners who, on a condition of getting out of prison early, they could partake in this study, which was to be around extremely sick spanish flu patients. And these are usually young men and at the height of their illness, and then they had to basically cough in their faces, take mucus secretions from their nose and eyes, and rub it in the. In the prisoners eyes. These healthy volunteers, they took samples, blood samples. They did everything you can imagine to try and make these prisoners, these healthy prisoners, sick.

And none of them got sick. And they’ve repeated. These experiments were repeated, and again, they could never transmit the so called illness. And we have to remember here, David, these were allegedly the most infectious diseases that humanity has ever seen that gets put into the experiments. No transmission. And then these. From there, we looked into everything. So there are two different things to consider. One is the microbes that we can see, so bacteria, fungal cells, etcetera. And the other is these imagined ones, which are the viruses. And they have tried transmission studies with all of these things, and it is just astounding how the evidence relies on things.

Take polio, for instance. That was a case of taking diseased tissue from a dead child and mashing it up some spinal cord tissue and injecting it into monkeys brains. And if it killed them or gave them paralysis, they would conclude, well, that’s evidence of transmission. Completely nonsensical, no control experiment. And we all know that injecting foreign material directly into an animal’s brain is likely to cause a massive reaction and possible death through the things like the measles and chicken pox. Now, we’re all told that you’re in the same room as someone. You’re going to pick it up, or someone’s going to pick it up.

It can travel through the air over distance, etcetera. This has never been shown in a scientific study. Instead, what they refer to, and everyone relies on this. The CDC, Wikipedia, the textbooks, wherever you look, the medical schools, what they rely on are studies like with the measles and chicken pox. They will take a fluid from a diseased human. So, you know, they have the skin rash and the fluid build up. Take some of that fluid, inject it into an animal, and then if that animal gets a rash, declare that that shows contagion. Complete nonsense. Because these are not natural roots and these are not controlled studies.

And also, with regard to the germ theory, there’s no independent variable. So they haven’t shown that they found a germ that by itself could cause all of these problems. And people will be astounded. I mean, this is everything. This is things like gonorrhea, the so called sexually transmitted infections. We’ve made presentations about this. Sam’s done videos about how these things have not been shown to transmit via natural roots in settings that you would see in nature. It really is an incredible state of affairs. And the problem is that everyone comes at you with the anecdotal stories and says, well, explain this.

And we’ve spent a lot of time saying, well, that’s not a scientific study, it’s an anecdotal story, because we go to the scientific studies, which shows something quite different. Yeah, in the forward of your book, you talk about four different things, circular. Well, kind of explain that. The logical fallacies of this before we talk about some of the anecdotal stuff, because I do want to come back to the measles things. That’s really the obstacle. Things like that, I guess, are the obstacle that we in the general population have in terms of leaving this paradigm. But talk first about what you have in the forward, about the four key errors that are there when they’re trying to present this as a pandemic.

Well, I think so. Are you talking about the forward retinal, the circular logic? Yeah, the circular logic, the isolating something instead of having an isolate, having some kind of a computer sequence that they kind of guessed at the PCR test, things like that. Yeah. In his excellent forward, Professor Tim Noakes basically summarizes what us and other researchers have been exposing over many years now. And this is the fact that the techniques of virology are not adequate enough to show what they are claiming. So what they are claiming is that the definition of virus, for one, has changed so many times and they continue to change it.

Oh, yeah, they changed it just before the so called pandemic. They changed it significantly. Well, they changed the definition of pandemic, the definition of virus, definition, pandemic, the definition of vaccine. They all changed right before. That’s nothing suspicious at all. Right. No, and the word virus is so ethereal that even the virologists don’t seem to know what it means half the time. And I suspect if you asked many doctors or scientists what it actually means, they wouldn’t know because we actually spent ages researching this stuff, and you find documents all over the place which talk about all these different things.

So, but essentially what people imagine is that there is a particle, an infectious particle, tiny little thing that you can only see within an electron microscope, and that somehow the virologists have been isolating this. And when we say isolating, most people will think physically isolating, not changing the definition of isolation, and then using these particles to do an experiment, using it as an independent variable. So, for instance, we could say if you suspect that a bacterial cell like E. Coli, which is found, commonly causes disease, you isolate E. Coli and they do this all the time, and then you run your experiments and see, is it pathogenic? Can it cause disease by itself? Can it attack healthy tissue? So that’s all fine.

The virologists can’t do that because they can’t find the independent variable. When they take diseased tissue and extract it directly, they can’t identify the viruses in there. It doesn’t look any different than tissue. That’s said not to have viruses in general. So instead, they resort to the cell culture technique, which Professor Noakes talks about in his introduction. Now, the problem with this technique is that it’s indirect. They didn’t identify the virus in the first place. So they start conflating things, and instead of finding an independent variable, they look at the results of the experiment, which is the breakdown of tissue in their cell culture, and then say, well, that must have been due to the virus.

But this is a complete circular reasoning, logical fallacy. But I’ve seen the virus. It’s a little spiky ball. It’s on all the articles. Every time they talk about it. We got a little spiky ball there. Sam did a whole video on electron microscopy, because that is an issue in itself about the nature of what you can image, whether it represents living tissue. But here’s the biggest problem with it. Those images appear after the fact, not before. So those little particles that they’re imaging are the result. So they’re the dependent variable in the experiment. They’re not an independent variable that was identified at the start.

Now, this is not permitted in science. You can’t create an independent variable after the fact. You have to start with it because that’s the thing you’re supposed to manipulate. But because they can’t do that with viruses, they get into the circular reasoning. Cell breakdown equals virus. You know, virus equals cell breakdown. And we keep pointing out to them, where is the independent variable? How can we prove that this is what happened? So, yeah, a lot of the introduction is Professor Noakes outlining, summarizing what many of us have pointed out over the years, is that these techniques that they are using, and that’s from everything through to the cell culture, through to the genomics and PCR, et cetera, are invalid because they don’t follow the scientific method.

They are not controlled experiments, and they should never, ever have been permitted to go this far, because what we’re dealing with here is a hypothesis that has been refuted. It is not a theory, because a theory implies that it has been tested and found to withstand all attacks, you know, all falsification, which is simply not the case. But let us. There wasn’t it. Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. Go ahead. Did you want to finish? Yes, certainly. Let us know if there are other aspects, genomics, PCR, et cetera, that you want to discuss, because there are just so many areas to this.

But people need to understand it’s all been built up on the foundational fraud, that a germ theory and contagion was never shown to be valid. And with regard to virology the single biggest issue has been they never found these particles in nature. They were artifacts from experiments. They were imaginings in people’s minds. They were not solid scientific evidence. Yeah, and I want to talk about those other aspects, but I just wanted to interject here with the first one of these logical fallacies in the forward that was written. I forgot Doctor Tim Noakes. Okay. But there was an interesting article, and they made parallels between virology and physics.

And they said, the people who were doing the physicists will tell you that they dont know, and theyre trying to get. So give them more money because theyve got to do more study. The virologist will tell you they know everything. Give them more money. When I look at it, it seems like when you say that theyre inferring the existence of something that they havent actually been able to isolate or measure or directly observe, that it’s very much like what the physicists do with dark matter. I think where they look at it, they see some kind of an effect, and then they create an abstraction, a theory to try to, or hypothesis to try to explain what they’re observing.

But they can’t directly observe that thing. They can’t observe dark matter. They can’t observe directly the virus, and they see the after effects of it, and then they come up with this hypothesis that it exists. Is that right? Would you say that’s correct way of looking at it, or am I wrong? Definitely. And I mean, I’ve had people reach out to me who are theoretical visitors, saying that they realize the problems with virology because it parallels exactly their own experience with theoretical physics. And the trouble is, there’s all these other things that make it real for people.

Like you’ve got PCR tests which make it real for people. You know, the lateral flow or rat tests. People have one of those and they go, oh, well, I’m sick. So this makes it real. They see pictures of it, which are just computer drawings of what a virus is supposed to be, and they think that that makes it real. And this is the problem, is that was it. The Perth group once said that they have the virus. Yeah. Meaning that once they introduce this word into the public’s imagination, it takes a lot to reverse it, because everyone has witnessed people getting sick in clusters.

They have seen what they believe is chicken pox and influenza, etcetera, which are all conditions that the body goes through, no doubt. But the problem is, an explanation was given to them and most people have accepted it. And we have to be honest, David that when we were at medical school and practicing physicians, we believed this, too. And now we can see that it is so incorrect and that there are other explanations for these things. But that’s why one of Sam’s ideas was to systematically deal with every virus that I’ve ever invented. But we realized that this is a big topic.

You know, this would be like going through the Lord of the Rings and writing dossiers for every single character writing about their background. And this is what we have to do. But we’ve sort of covered the main ones, you know, Epstein Barr and measles and influenza, common colds, obviously Covid, all this kind of stuff, HIV, and making videos about every single one to show people that there are other explanations and that the. And people can find that at D R. Sam Bailey. B a I l e y. You didn’t do the silmarillion. You just kind of stayed on Sauron kind of focus on that.

And I think the genius of the PCR test abused by Fauci from AIDS on is that it gives us illusion of objective measurement, which is not there at all. The way they magnify this stuff is absolutely absurd. But I think that’s the real genius, as you point out, the pictures that they create of, you know, the spiky ball and everything. And so they create these pictures, computer animated pictures. They got PCR, which is about as connected, maybe not even as connected to reality as the computer generates stuff. But then talk a little bit about the computer generated genetic sequences that they use, because since they can’t observe this, they create a genetic sequence and they send that around.

Right? Yeah. What we focus a lot on here is the origin and significance of these sequences. And I wrote a paper, a farewell to virology a couple of years ago. It’s about 29,000 words. It carefully lays out the problems of the virological techniques, including a lot of it being dedicated to genomics. And we’ve shown that take something like these coronaviruses, for instance, and they say, well, we’ve been sequencing these, typing them for years. We can go back to our databases, we can trace their evolution through their so called phylogenetic trees, all this kind of stuff. Well, we don’t get distracted with that because, you know, a lot of people will get stuck in the weeds and they’ll go, well, look at this sequence and look at that sequence and look how that’s mutated.

SaM and I just go all very interesting, but show us the source documents here. And what I did in a farewell to virology with alleged coronaviruses was trace back to the original papers where they claimed that they were coming up with the genomes of these entities. Now, I carefully document this. This is around 1982 to 1984. Those papers are complete pseudoscience. There’s no controls in them. They simply have diseased tissue that they’re doing experiments with czech embryos and such tissue, and then they are sequencing the genetic sequences, but at no stage did they find any viruses.

They just assumed, they said, oh, we’ve got tissue breakdown, we’ve got these lesions that are forming. We suspect that there’s a virus in there. We’re going to take sequences. These were mixed tissues, okay? These got all sorts of things in them with the chick embryos and other fluids, etcetera. And they said, well, these sequences, they don’t seem to come from where we expected, so we’ll call them, quote, viral sequences. And they were deposited into a database. Then other people all around the world started doing sequences and said, hey, we’ve found very similar sequences. Therefore, we have also found a the virus.

And the thing is, David, you can do this anywhere. And this is the whole problem now with what we call metagenomics, which is simply taking environmental samples. So this could be the snot up someone’s nose, it could be the sewer. They seem to love taking samples out of the sewer. They do. It could be an orange cow’s milk, it could be cow’s milk, wherever you want to go. And you look for these genetic sequences. Now, the power of PCR to amplify sequences is incredible. So it can find the tiniest amounts. Now. So there are two issues here.

One is, well, where did they come from? Because they never ever showed that there was a virus that contained these sequences. And even if they did show such a particle, where was the evidence that that is the cause of the problem in the organism? Because we know and every scientist who’s involved in genomics should accept this, because it is fact that different sequences can appear when organisms are sick. So when you get sick and have a cold or a flu, your body, your cells, will start expressing different sequences and they will start coming out in your snot and fluids, etcetera.

It doesn’t mean you got attacked from the outside by some microscopic entity. It just means that your body is going through a process where it will produce these sequences. And again, we’ve been very careful with the stuff. We traced back things. So, for instance, the spike protein sequences, which caused a lot of excitement in recent years. Well, these are nothing new. These are just sequences that were described as far back as the eighties, or at least 1990, from our investigations. And you find them in tissue breakdown experiments, you find them in mammals and birds, you will find them in humans, etcetera.

But it doesn’t mean that you’ve found the virus, etcetera, because the same techniques have failed over and over again. They can’t isolate these particles, they can’t use them as an independent variable, etcetera. But yeah, you’ll see, like, I’ve been engaged in debates with genomics experts and stuff, and it’s really difficult because I think they honestly believe this stuff. And you can’t get them to just go back, back to the foundational studies. Where’s the virus? We always say, because it’s simply not there. Yeah, and when you talk about the spike protein, the spike protein that seems to be generated by the mRNA vaccines, what do you make of that? And the fact that it seems to be replicating, is that our first virus, what do you make of that? Yeah, there’s a whole lot of problems here.

One, it’s not sure if it does generate once it’s been injected, because a lot of the experiments are done in vitro in test tubes. So when you do that, you’ve got single cells and you can transfect them, you can put genetic material in there and get them to start producing proteins. So that’s technology that’s been around for a long time. I mean, what would we say is that it’s an inflammatory type product, whatever it does inside the body. I guess for us, David, we always focus upstream and say you don’t ever inject these products because their effects are unpredictable.

Even regular products that they inject in the childhood schedule, the effects are highly unpredictable, even though much, much more is known about what they contain. But you’ll get anything from no reaction to children that are permanently disabled by the injection. So I think, like all things, we don’t focus too much on that, except to tell people, people who think that the spike protein is something new and novel, et cetera, is that it’s not. It’s simply a class of protein that’s been described for many decades now. And yeah, if it does get produced in your body, not a good idea, but that’s, we would emphasize that that’s the same principle.

For every single injectable product in this category, there is no possible health benefit to the recipient. It bypasses the natural route of how we deal with, I guess, foreign material into our bodies. So like every time an injection, you’re just bypassing so many natural routes. And this is the problem. The biggest problem with vaccines is that if you get loaded with aluminium, we can deal with it if we ingest it, because it just passes through our system. But if it’s injected, it doesn’t, it’s sequestered in the bone, in the brain. And that’s the problem with it.

An analogy for people is the reason you can swallow snake venom, but you cannot inject it, because that can be potentially fatal. Whereas most people wouldn’t notice if that swallowed a bit. Wow. Yeah. I didn’t know that about snake venom, but I’m not going to try. I’ll take your word for it. You know, just out of curiosity. Just out of curiosity. I think last I saw, we were over 90 injections that they put into kids in America. I know we’ve got more than any other country. What’s the ballpark figure there in New Zealand for childhood? Yeah, it’s high.

I don’t think we’re quite as high as America. But the worst part in New Zealand is that we have a very high uptake in percentage wise anyway, so that’s the. I think. But it has gone down in saying that people have woken up to so many different vaccines since COVID they’ve started questioning everything. I don’t know. Yeah, I think. I mean, we’re still in the dust, dozens and dozens here. And the one difference is the United States starts right from day dot, whereas in New Zealand they tend to wait a few weeks. Not that either approach is the correct one, but I mean, as we point out in the final pandemic, this is one of the biggest scams in history.

And if you want to expose it, people can simply ask their family doctor, well, what is in these injections? Like? So my child’s coming in. You’re the expert, apparently. Tell me, please, what is contained within these injections that we’re putting in? And also perhaps asking, what is the history of this disease you’re supposedly presenting? Because, I mean, it’s so apparent that most of these things, and there are problems with diagnosis of entities called smallpox and measles, and they’re all just conditions that the body goes through even on their own terms. The work of the team of dissolving illusions.

The charts that have been produced by Greg Beatty and Jordan Henderson are so damning for the whole vaccine story. Some of these diseases were down in mortality by over 99% before the introduction of the vaccine. So what a preposterous situation. I think that was whooping cough, wasn’t it? That was down by 99%, I think, in the book here. Yeah, lots of them were. And yeah, we include some charts from fistrianic and humphreys from dissolving illusions there, which is just superb. And the crazy thing is here, David, is that last century it was so apparent that these so called infectious diseases had all but disappeared.

They were not significant at all. And yet here we are in 2024. The narrative is that they’re worse than ever and we’re being attacked by even more germs now. And you need to have ten times the number of vaccines that your grandparents have. Yeah. When I was going through and looking at the childhood schedule here in the United States, I was surprised, first of all to see how many there were. And then when I saw the schedule, the fact that they’re giving the same vaccine over and over and over again, I thought that was something that was new with the COVID stuff.

I’d never seen that they’re doing something on like a quarterly basis or a six month basis for young kids. Wonder that we have this epidemic, so many epidemics of illness, autism and other things like that when they load it up and it’s simply for profit. Now, in the United States, we’ve had, I think it was children’s health defense. Talk to a physician, a pediatrician, who was explaining the economics of it, and the fact that the insurance companies that actually require a high uptake percentage from the patients, or they would basically destroy the practice financially. Now, in New Zealand, they have.

Government is paying you if you’re a physician, is that correct? And they’re setting all the different policies for how many vaccines, is that correct? Exactly. Well, they have in New Zealand what they call socialist system, where it’s capitation. So the doctors get a three monthly slab of money if they do what the government says. And one of the requirements is a certain uptake of vaccines. And what’s really interesting with it too, is that how they classify whether someone’s been vaccinated or not. So for example, with COVID what people keep getting reminders to say, come in, come in, come in, because it’s to do with their funding and the target they’re supposed to reach.

And so the way to get off that system from the medical practices perspective is to say, we’re going to class you as, what was it? Ineligible. This is why in New Zealand you’ll see these ridiculous statistics and they’ll say, oh, this area of New Zealand had 98% uptake. It’s because many of the people who were not injected said they didn’t want it. And then they’d put ineligible. No, that’s a refusal as how it should have gone down. This is nothing new. We’ve exposed this before with the CDC statistics, with things like tetanus. They will say things like, you’re unvaccinated if you couldn’t remember when your last vaccine was done.

So this is a long term trick that’s been done. And it’s often used to try to make out that vaccines are effective and safe and all this kind of stuff, when the statistics simply do not back that up. The big teller is, and we didn’t know this either until we started researching in 2020, just look up randomized control trials involving vaccines and there are virtually none. And the ones that they do have are so preposterous. Like the follow up is for a week or a month, that’s it. They don’t follow them after that. Or they do crossovers where the people that didn’t get it, then get it so that you can’t see any of the long term effects that might have happened, because otherwise it’s unethical.

And also, there are a couple of randomized control trials that Sam and the team mentioned in virus mania, where they had worse outcomes for the ones that were getting very bad in terms of death rates. But of course, they don’t publish. They do publish, but then they quickly sweep them under the carpet and pretend that it didn’t happen. And you may have got to that chapter of the book where we point out what happened when I. The United States doctor, Paul Thomas, collected his own statistics on childhood vaccines. And he said, guys, major problem here, that all the kids getting vaccines are having far more of these so called autoimmune disorders and allergies, allergies, disruptions in their behavior, etcetera.

And he said, I’ve got. This is one of the biggest data sets ever been collected. What was the response? In the United States? They revoked his medical licence and said they would prosecute him. So, I mean, this is the outrageous situation. And people have to understand that, that if you’re going to see a licensed md, most of them are restricted by legislation in terms of money. Yeah. A, they are incentivized and b, they will be punished severely if they go against the vaccine narrative. Well, and so I really appreciate both of you, you know, putting your career behind you and in a sense, so that you can tell the truth, follow the science wherever it goes.

Let me, let’s get back to the contagion stuff. We definitely all agree on the vaccine thing. I thought it was very interesting when you talked about the UK’s common cold unit. I’d never heard of that. Something that they operated for about 50 years, 1946 to 1990, so about 45 years, 44 years. Tell people about that, what they did at their common cold unit. Well, it was a bit of a holiday park, really. It was a getaway for, involving coronaviruses, apparently. Yeah, the housewives and things that were just a little bit wanted a bit of a holiday.

They could book into the common cold unit, where they were discovering lots of different, you know, trying to find out the cause of the, of the common cold. It was really funny, David, because they did all these attempts, transmission, and I should point out an excellent book, too, here by the australian author Daniel Reuters, just published recently. Can you catch a cold? Because he looks at this stuff in great detail, and he looks at 200 plus transmission studies which really go against this whole contagion model anyway, the common cold unit. So they were convinced that because common colds caused the british population to have so many days off work, that wouldn’t it be great just to get to the bottom of it and work out what caused them and how to stop them, etcetera.

And it became apparent pretty early on that they were not really getting anywhere with, a, trying to work out what exactly caused them, or b, how to prevent them. So instead, what they resorted to was discovering viruses. And this is where everything you’ve heard about adenoviruses, rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, it all stems, or a lot of it, stems from this common cold unit that was operating just after World War two. And what they were doing was basically just people would come in with symptoms of a cold, and the virologist would take a sample of snot from their nose and he would put it in a vial and he would say, I have just isolated a new virus, actually.

And we were looking at it going, well, he said, look, I put it in this file and I put a label on the side, and I’m going to call this one an adenovirus or coronavirus. And they simply did experiments by adding things like ether, et cetera, and saw if it broke down. And on these sort of indirect measures, they said that they were discovering these contagious entities. But, I mean, it was farcical, because for four decades, they basically came up with nothing. Now, keep in mind, they were trying to invent vaccines. And when they closed the unit down, they basically said, look, it’s not possible.

We’ve tried it with these entities, and there’s just nothing doing basically. And it was the same with the pharmaceuticals. They came up with no drugs, etcetera. So we didn’t know about this. I mean, at medical school, they don’t teach you these things. And what they show you is the fake highlights reel, which just shows you all these papers purporting to show, quote, viruses. But when you look at the methodology, all of the problems we’ve just discussed, no isolation of a physical particle, no independent variable in any of their experiments. And many times they found that people, and this is really important, would get the symptoms, if they expected to get the symptoms.

So they were sneezed on by someone and they were told, this person has a cold, and you may now get the cold. And the next day the person would say, yes, my throat is a bit scratchy, or whatever. And then they would say, oh, well, actually, the original person didn’t have a cold, so we’re not sure what’s going. Or they would put inert substances like just saline, just salt water, and drop that up someone’s nose. And, you know, they did attempt to do some. Well, you can’t really call them controls because they still didn’t have an independent variable.

But they tried to. They would put completely inert substances up people’s noses and then say, we’ve just infected you with the virus. Sure enough, within hours, the person’s coming down with what looks like a cold. And then they tell them, oh, no, sorry. Actually, that was just normal saline. And then within hours, everything disappears and they go back to normal. So amazing the psychological effects to see. But in general, these so called highly contagious entities were not shown to be anything of the sort. And most of the time, they really struggled to get sick people to make, well, people unwell.

And perhaps too, I think we should point out some classic examples here of particularly men who have worked in stations around the Arctic Circle and these highly remote areas where they are not in contact with anyone for weeks, months at a time. They also get these cold and flu symptoms. Yeah, well, it’s very cold. That’s what you’re always saying. It was like the temperature. That’s why people called it a cold. George Washington goes out writing by himself in the cold, and he gets very sick, and they bring the doctors in and they basically remove most of his blood and gave him massive amounts of mercury and he died.

That’s the kind of. I said, when we look at all this stuff, it really is talking about the psychosomatic stuff there. The science in this is really mostly behavioral science that we saw throughout all this, but we’ve been told all these years that they can’t find a common cold cure because it keeps mutating. And we heard that same stuff throughout all the COVID stuff. We’ve heard it throughout all the years when they try to sell the flu shot, the same type of thing. And the way that they marketed the COVID pandemic and the way they marketed the vaccine at the beginning was very similar in the United States.

The way they always marketed the annual flu shot, scaring everybody about it and saying, we got a massive number of cases here and you’re going to have to get this because it’s going to minimize how bad this case is going to be for you. Same stuff recycled that they’ve been doing for years and years. Yeah. And I think another important point to bring up is the psychological priming that goes on with things like movies and press release science. So the public has conditioned to expect this is what’s going to happen with a pandemic. And there were so many movies like that that were brought out to kind of, so that when we actually see it, we’re kind of expecting it and go, oh, yes, this is, this is in my memory, there’s something there that, you know, feels really familiar.

And so condition response to that. Yeah. And I think too, not only within the Hollywood and tv sector have they been preparing the public, particularly since the 1990s. That’s when a whole lot, and we were coming off the back of the, you know, the fake HIV epidemic. AIDS is something that’s a real syndrome, but the cause of it is not what they’ve been telling people. And so we had these movies, of course, like Philadelphia, and, you know, they really did scare the public. And then on top of that, we had outbreak and contagion and all these other movies which were massive, massive blockbusters, and they became a almost more popular in 2020 when people started watching them again, thinking that that represented some kind of reality.

And as you say, I mean, they will just make up a story like it’s mutating. So that just simply means that you can take some samples and detect some new genetic sequences and then claim, hey presto, it’s a variant or it’s mutated. But all of these things come back to these unfalsifiable hypotheses. It’s not scientific. Even the whole concept, and I know this really pushes people and it’s taken some unraveling for us as well, given our training and immunology, etcetera, is that we don’t believe in this concept of immunity that they have presented in medical science, because it’s unfalsifiable.

They just say to you, well, why didn’t I get it? So people will look at the human transmission experiments, like the Rosenau ones Sam talked about from the spanish flu erade, and people will say, well, obviously they were immune. That’s why they didn’t get it. How can you prove it? The excuse they’re using? They’re saying, well, we’d say to people, why didn’t we get this entity called Covid? Because we didn’t do any of the face masks or social distancing. We were out and about in the community. We didn’t take any of the products and the vaccines, and yet we didn’t get sick.

Well, people say, you must be immune, and this is just. How could you possibly, how is that a scientific notion? You can’t falsify it. And we’ve done deep dives into the antibodies, for instance, which they try and claim indicate immunity. And that simply is inconsistent because they are not specific. They do not relate to some sort of clinical condition necessarily. And, yeah, so, no, there’s so much unraveling to do. And certainly for us, there appears to be years of work ahead given. And we point this out in the book. Look what we’re up against here. These are billion dollar industries.

These are hundreds of billions of dollars that people are making. And Covid-19 was one of the biggest wealth transfers of all time. It’s one of the all time record holders. The population just got absolutely fleeced. Most people don’t understand how it happened or exactly why it happened, but you could see from 2020 what they were doing, why the population was going to end up poor, and a small number of corporations and vested interests were going to end up with far more resources. Yes, it is so ingrained in our language and our concepts. We talk about something going viral, a video or meme going viral, or we talk about a computer virus.

And there’s just so many different ways that they have put that in there. Course, massive marketing, the drumbeat that we have seen in the last four years of obvious patent lies, but just repeat it over and over again, it’s very effective. But let’s talk. And we mentioned it just briefly. So one last thing I’d like to cover before you go. And we mentioned it, and as you’re talking about the fact that we don’t have an isolation, we don’t have the proper scientific studies, it’s kind of anecdotal, but just a simple, simple case. I know you’ve got an entire video about rabies that you have on your website where you talk about that.

And again, the website is doctor as doctor Sam Bailey, bailey.com. so you got a video about rabies, but let’s talk about something that’s really common, these childhood diseases that kind of began all of these vaccine movements. When I was younger, we didn’t have measles, vaccines and everything, so we would get together and then all of a sudden, you know, red spots start appearing. What is your idea about what is going on with that? That’s the, I think the real, the experiential hurdle that’s difficult for people to get over. Yeah. So I guess with children, they’ve got a very large skin surface area and our skin is the largest organ.

So it’s one of the easiest ways for the body to eliminate toxic buildup, I guess, filth from inside the body. And so rashes are essentially an expression of that. And you often see children have rashes at kind of, you know, the end of a healing crisis because it’s trying to eliminate. We’ve actually made, we made videos on measles and chickenpox parties specifically to address this. Oh, such a common. Yeah, a common thing. But in terms of it, we tend to, as we grow up, we have other ways that are more efficient at removing, you know, build up.

But essentially that’s the. Yeah. And I guess, David, it comes back to what we talked about earlier, is that Sam and I always go to the foundational documents and say, well, where is a controlled study that shows the spread? Because we know about these anecdotal stories. And it’s easy to counter with other anecdotal stories. For instance, when I was about ten or eleven, I was diagnosed with chicken pox. I was in a household of six. No, no one else got sick. None of my classmates got sick. Apparently it’s highly contagious and yet nobody around me seemed to have it or get it, but that’s what the family doctor told us is what I had, so.

And the other thing is, we do not deny that people get sick in clusters. So if you go to a birthday party and afterwards half of the kids break out in a rash, probably the best thing to do is to look at what they were exposed to at the party, because if they were eating things that have colourings, whether they are soft drinks or lollies, etcetera, that’s enough for a child to break out in a rash. If they ingest these synthetic chemicals, that are now put into foods. There are all sorts of factors that Daniel Reuters has outlined in his book can you catch a cold? About clusters of illness that were put down at the time to germs, but later were found to be environmental toxins, psychological influences and nutritional deficiencies.

So a whole lot of. Yeah, it’s. And this is what we find one thing that has really encouraged us, particularly in the last year or so. More and more people around the world are now contacting us, saying, look, we recently had this sickness in our family. Once upon a time, I would have put it down to a germ or a virus, etcetera. This time I put that aside and thought, what did we do? What exactly did we do in the last week? And people are starting to identify things, whether it’s something they ate or whether it’s a place they went to visit and possibly got exposed to some sort of chemical, etcetera.

So that’s what we need to encourage. Not this silly. It’s a germ. Someone else made me sick. We’re no further ahead. Nobody knows anything at that point. We’re stuck in the same silly model. So, yeah, I would encourage people to. If you’re thinking measles, chicken pox, what about these parties, etcetera, please watch Sam’s videos where she does a dive into these topics and exposes the actual science and the actual claims behind these things. Because another thing just really quickly I wanted to bring up is that there was something I didn’t realise with virology and just infectious diseases in general, is that all the assumptions are based on just a couple of papers.

So these scientific papers that were made and everything else, they just constantly cite back to those original studies, because people sometimes say, well, we’ve got new studies now that show that. So it’s the same with, you know, Covid and SARS, cov two. You know, there’s literally thousands and thousands of studies, but the only ones that are important are the original foundational ones. And that’s what we always go to and unpick for people and show how farcical it is, because then everything else follows on from it and people can see that all these are just assertions, these are assumptions, and say, well, those guys did it, so, you know, we’re going to carry on from those assumptions.

Yeah, it is a groupthink is an echo chamber, and as you point out, and you show many examples of it in your book, the fundamental papers are something that they didn’t do science at all. And so. And when you talk about the anecdotal thing made me think of 2009. I was diagnosed with swollen swine flu, had really bad pneumonia, and they diagnosed me with swine flu, but nobody else in the family got it. My wife didn’t get it, nobody got it. So, yeah, it is interesting and I think it’s very important for us to look at it.

And your focus is now on what we can do to make ourselves healthier. Instead of, as you said before, instead of a focus on disease, you’re focused more on health, is that correct? Yeah. And just my biggest focus from the beginning is to reduce people’s fear, because I think fear is the massive driver of illness and people get behaviour, they do crazy things because they think they’re going to get circle. And once you understand that this is a myth, this germs don’t cause disease. It’s so empowering and enlightening and it makes you see the world in a different way.

And that’s my focus, is just to reduce people’s fear and go, you don’t need us. And, I mean, we’re reformed doctors. We’re like, you know, we’re not. I don’t want to be associated with that group anymore, but I’m like, become your own doctor. You know, we want to teach people how to be well so they don’t need us anymore. Yeah. And it is, I mean, for us, David, it was amazing that our health as a family has improved so much since 2020. We always thought we were healthy and we thought, well, we’re trained doctors and we know that this and that, and we didn’t actually.

We missed a huge amount of it. And since that time, we’ve reformed the way we eat, the way we interact as a family, the water that we drink, and nowadays, and spiritually. Spiritually as well, much more connected and much more understanding of this beautiful world that God’s given us, that it has been created in perfection and it’s up to us to make sure that continues rather than ruin it. And one of the big things for us is, and I think all parents should take this message home, is that there’s no such thing as these childhood diseases, there’s just parental neglect.

And I know that sounds harsh and it took us a bit of time to get used to this, but when your children do get sick, you have to reflect. Well, what did I do? You know, I’ve missed something here. And we have found with our own children that they have just got. They’ve thrived more and more as mum and dad have moved out of the old allopathic germ theory paradigm into the paradigm of saying, what can we actually do to make things better? And it has worked. That’s a great note to end on. Yeah. Fear is contagious, isn’t it? That is one thing we can attest to, the psychological fear that is there.

As you talk about connecting spiritually, I’ve been told that is the one phrase that is in the Bible more than anything else. Fear not. So we ended on that. It is the mind killer destroys us. And that’s the thing that we need to push back again, people. The, the website is doctor Sam Bailey, drsambibailey.com dot. The book is the final pandemic and this is the way that we end medical tyranny. It’s the antidote to medical tyranny by doctor Mark Bailey and doctor Samantha Bailey. Thank you so much for joining us. It was great talking to you.

Thank you, David. We’re big fans. It’s been a pleasure. Yeah, thank you, David. Keep doing what you’re doing. Thank you. I appreciate that. And again, their website as well as their books are wealth of information. They lay it out there for you, but they have references to all these other things and videos about the measles parties, things like that. So a great source of information. And we really do need to get to the bottom of this. I’m tired of being jerked around by these people were lying to me and ripping me off and stealing everything that we’ve got.

I think it’s enough. We need to figure out their game and expose it. And that’s a great resource to do it. Thank you so much and thank you all for joining us. Have a good day. Let me tell you, the david knight show you can listen to with your ears. You can even watch it by using your eyes. In fact, if you can hear me, that means you’re listening to the david knight show right now. Yeah. Good job. And you want to know something else? You can find all the links to everywhere to watch or listen to the show@thedavidknightshow.com.

that’s a website.
[tr:tra].

See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.