Summary
➡ The text details a proposed methodology for questioning and debunking common beliefs in virology, urging podcasters and interviewers to critically engage with their guests. The writer suggests a conversation on five principles of Germ Theory, scrutinizing their validity in the light of scientific evidence, and challenging their widespread acceptance as a means to expose misinformation.
➡ The text urges the receiver to participate in a conversation centered around medicine, virology, and vaccines, aimed at revealing the truth about these disciplines. The sender says this would help the receiver sway potential supporters and would be paramount to understanding the foundations of the biosecurity state. Further, the sender mentions the importance of such a conversation in a truth- and freedom-based movement and asserts that understanding science shouldn’t be avoided or seen as difficult.
Transcript
But like often something came up this week and I decided that I needed to comment on this first because I think it’s a very important issue. It’s obviously something that we’ve talked about before, but I wanted to highlight this once again. So the issue I’m talking about is there was a oh, before I get into that, this Saturday at Whitson Hall in Glenmore, Pennsylvania. I think that’s part of something called Camp Hill Sultane.
I will be speaking at a live event. It’s a workshop starting at nine until 233. I’m not sure the contact information, but maybe somebody tricia can put it in the chat. So hope to see as many people as possible there. And if you do come, please introduce yourself and say hello. So, before I get into the fun gardening stuff, recently there was an interview on a show called man in America, where I’ve been on twice.
Probably some of you have seen that. And I thought I had very good conversation with the host, and in particular, I thought that he had a pretty good grasp of the problems of virology. And then to a little bit my surprise, I hear of an interview he did with Peter McCulloch. And I must admit I didn’t watch the whole thing, of course, because I almost never do, but I watched some of it.
And I must say I was shocked when I saw it. And I’ll tell you why, but our friends Mark Bailey and Kevin Corbett actually did a whole show on the Sam Bailey website. And hopefully somebody can put a link to this where they actually went through everything that McCullough said about the quote no virus position and showed how a combination of just plain false and disingenuous he was throughout all his answers.
So if anybody wants to understand the facts of what he was saying and what the facts really are, I’m not going to go into that today. They did a perfectly fine, brilliant job, as Mark and Kevin always do. So there’s no doubt about the science. But I have a whole other issue I want to highlight, so I’m going to play two very short clips and then I will tell you what I want to highlight.
Yeah, I can tell you I’m one of the most peer reviewed published doctors in the world, in my field, and one of the most. But I just wanted to say I want you to pay particular attention to the interviewer because that’s a lot of what I want to highlight. Peer reviewed, published in COVID in history. So there are no peer reviewed papers that are evidence based that state that the virus doesn’t exist.
So I thought I would play it all, but I’ll stop. So that’s obviously incorrect. And it’s a good thing that Kevin was part of it because he actually was able to show a number of peer reviewed papers over the last 40 years that refuted the viral hypothesis. So Dr. McCullough either is unaware or he is lying. And as I always say, it’s not my intention to question motives.
So either one of those is the same as far as I’m concerned. So it’s almost kind of a layperson’s. I don’t know, I guess it’s a saw or it’s some type of useful axiom. Do you know where I think it came from, the whole idea? The virus doesn’t exist? It came from some type of contractor or laborer in Alberta. And he made a city council presentation that people shouldn’t have to wear masks and do all these things because the virus doesn’t exist.
And the city council didn’t have any scientific backup and they said, well, I guess you’re right, we can’t find anything. And so they somehow got out of wearing masks wherever this guy was, and people cheered him. He was great. All right, well, I’ll just okay, so you can watch their response. It’s obviously complete nonsense what he just said, but that’s not the reason I want to highlight this and then I want to go to the next short clip, if only he’d take the time to read it and fully understand it.
So the virus exists. It cultures and standard viral cultures. It’s been isolated. It’s clearly been isolated because the Chinese isolate it and they make a vaccine out of it called the sinovac coronavirus virus. You can see the virus under electron microscopy. Those papers have been published. These are all cited on my substac courageous discourse. Anybody wants to look at it? Well, I’m in here. Okay. Don’t think I need to share this anymore right now.
So I’m going to get out of the sharing. And there I am. I’ll get back to that in a minute. So what do I have to add to this? They do again, a perfectly good job of dissecting the errors and nonsense. But the issue that I want to bring up, which I consider to be a very important and actually crucial issue in this whole quest that we’re on, is we need to have a situation where the people who are doing the interviews.
Whether know this fellow Derek Bros or all or Russell Brand or whoever is interviewing these people actually needs to question them and not let people like Peter McCullough use their forum as essentially a propaganda device or forum. Now, obviously they have the choice. They can choose to say nothing and question nobody. Although I would point out that when I was on this man in America show at every time I made a claim or statement that was of any importance, I asked him to.
Did he agree? Did he have any challenge or is there anything unclear about what I just said? And I would allow him to challenge or respond in any way that he saw fit. Typically he didn’t. And then for some reason with this interview dr. McCullough makes these outrageous claims which he doesn’t say anything and in fact nods happily in agreement. Now, one could say, well, his business model is to get famous people or people who will attract attention so that he can increase his business and ratings.
And that may be so. But again, this is a choice. And if the choice is to not question or challenge anybody then certainly there’s no reason to say you’re a journalist or even a seeker after the truth of the issue. Now, there’s a lot of excuses that people can give as to why they don’t do this. They could say that that would hurt their ratings, which they don’t usually say or the person has done a lot of good in other ways, so why should I try to challenge them? And I would only point out, as we pointed out many times that the existence of the virus or as I say, the disproven viral hypothesis or disproven germ theory is at the foundation of the tyranny, the biosecurity state tyranny that we’re all fighting against, supposedly.
So if you think you’re part of that fight it seems like that would be an appropriate and actually necessary area for you to question. Now, the next thing you could say as an excuse is well, I’m not a scientist. I don’t know how to question this guy. He’s a medical doctor and supposedly one of the most published people ever which of course isn’t the issue. We’re not interested in who’s had more published papers or not.
We’re interested in facts and reason and papers that demonstrate one thing or another or fail to not how many of these ridiculous papers were published. In fact, I would almost say that works against you because the whole peer reviewed system is basically corrupt and a fraud itself. So that’s no argument for the validity or the veracity of anything. And so I thought I would help him and any other future research interviewer podcaster out by pointing out that with a modicum of interest and common sense you can actually question any of these people and do it in a way that will reveal what’s really happening.
Now, with the first clip is the fact that there has never been a peer reviewed paper refuting the viral hypothesis. I would admit that that’s something that you would have to know a little bit about the facts, and maybe you don’t because you haven’t looked into it, so you wouldn’t know right off the top of your head at that point. That that’s obvious nonsense. So maybe I’ll give you a pass on that.
But after we went over isolation over and over again. So here’s how you do it. So I’m actually giving you the strategy. All you people who do podcasts and interviews and question these so called truth and freedom leaders, here is a blueprint of how you do it. It goes something like this peter McCullough says, of course the virus has been isolated. So then you say, Yo, Peter, can you give us a definition of what isolation is? He either can or he can’t.
I suspect he would come up with something at that point, using just your common sense and hopefully grasp of the English language. You could say either, that doesn’t sound like isolation to me, which is clearly the separation of one thing from all other things. That sounds like something completely different, and then let him respond. My guess is he probably actually doesn’t know what virologists are calling isolation, partly because the virologists don’t know, but let’s say he does.
So he says, well, they isolated it in a cell culture at that point. It’s very simple. You say, Peter, walk us through the steps of how they did this isolation. Now, again, my guess is, and this is just a guess he doesn’t actually know. And if it was me, I would let him hang out there for a while and fumble around trying to make excuses for himself of why he claims these viruses have been isolated.
Yet he cannot tell you the steps of doing a viral culture and what they’re looking for to show isolation. If he does know the steps, you can easily then say, that doesn’t sound like the definition that we agreed on, which is the separation of one thing from all other things, as would be required by anybody to be able to further characterize and study the thing. That’s what we do with hammers and frogs, et cetera.
We’ve been through that. And at that point you will discover that he either doesn’t know the definition of isolation, he doesn’t know how they do it, or he will refer to, well, that’s in the virology textbooks, or I’m not a virologist, so I can’t do that. And it will be clearly apparent to you and your listeners that he simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That is important information to get to your listeners.
If your goal is to inform your listeners about the truth of this issue and the underlying basis of this entire biosecurity scam, if that’s not your agenda, if that’s not your goal, then obviously you wouldn’t do this and you would allow him to use your platform as a propaganda device. That’s very simple. You don’t need to know anything about virology. All you need is a little bit of common sense and to think about for five minutes what isolation of something is and why it’s crucial in anybody’s understanding what the thing is made of or what its parts are.
And so if he goes on about we have the antigen, how can you possibly Peter have an antigen of something that you’ve never properly isolated? And of course he will have no answer to that. Now, why is this important? Or you could say another response to this to me would be, well, Colin, that’s your job. What are you and Bailey and Corbett and Kaufman and all know? Why don’t you respond? The answer is very simple because they won’t engage with us.
They won’t hear our arguments, they won’t read our papers and they won’t engage with us in the kind of conversation that would settle it. Therefore, our only recourse to expose the fraud and the nonsense that they’re pushing is for other people like interviewers and podcasters to do it for us. But having said that, let me try one more time to say I would engage with Peter McCullough in a conversation that I think would go a long way towards settling this issue.
And so here is my proposal, which I’ve offered for months and offered through the channels of CHD and many other channels to try to get this conversation to happen. So let me restate it once again. So the challenge is we would have a conversation, one could call it a debate and the participants would be Peter McCullough. And since he is a vocal opponent or promoter of the viral hypothesis and any other person that he chooses could be Malone or Cole or Lyonsweiler, anybody he wants.
And on the other side we would have Andy and Mark. Now just let me be clear here. I haven’t asked Andy and Mark again whether they would do this. So I would have to recruit them and maybe they would and maybe they wouldn’t, but I think they probably would. And if they can’t, we can find somebody else. The moderators of this would be Bobby Kennedy and myself. And there’s a few reasons for this.
One is the moderator is going to have to keep people to the topic and so they’re going to have to know enough about the topic to be able to keep people to the topic. The conversation would be systematic, fair, it would be logical and based on the science. And hopefully with each step we would come to clear agreements of whether the science proved that particular topic or not.
And again, these are based on the five principles of Germ Theory, or Virology, which I’ve gone over a number of times and I’ll go over them quickly. The first thing we would tackle and again we would send them the two articles. One, the Farewell to Virology by Mark, and the other, HIV A virus like none other by the Perth group. And that would be the papers that we would provide a week ahead of time, and we would ask them for the two best papers on each of the following five subjects.
The first would be not about virology, just the fact of do sick people or animals make well people or animals sick. This is not virology. This is about contagion. We have presented many papers showing that’s not the case. We would like two well done, controlled scientific papers showing that it is the case. We can’t find them. We will go over those papers during this conversation and conclude amongst ourselves, hopefully, we all six would agree that there either is or there isn’t evidence for contagion, which again, has nothing to do with viruses.
It’s simply contagion. And just to be clear, the last rebuttal or response to this question that I asked by Baldwin, he sends me three papers on this first subject, none of which actually included any sick people or animals. So it would be easy to conclude that those papers did not meet the requirements. So hopefully we would all see that. And as I said, if there’s no contagion, if sick people or animals don’t make well people or animals sick, you could say that that’s the end of the conversation.
And we don’t need to go forward because we’ve actually disproven the viral hypothesis. But we would go forward. And the next one, we would do the filterable agent. That’s the part of the biological fluids of sick people that is meant to contain the virus. And we would see if there’s any paper in the scientific literature that shows that the filterable part of somebody who’s sick with a, quote, viral infection actually makes a well animal or person sick when exposed in the normal way with proper controls.
And again, we don’t see that paper. We think it doesn’t exist. You show us the two best papers because we can’t find them. We’ll go over the papers and decide amongst ourselves. The third would be isolation. We would come up with the working definition, which is from the dictionary, and then we would investigate the two papers that Virologist or McCullough presents that demonstrate this isolation, the separation of this virus and having it in pure form, the separation from all other things, which, as we know, has never been done.
These all have then disproven the viral hypothesis, but we would agree to keep going. And we would tackle the electron microscope information and we would ask for a paper proving that em photos of these particles actually are from replication competent infectious protein coded DNA or RNA interior particles that we commonly call viruses, because it turns out that’s not the case. And then the final one is we would tackle the genome and ask the question, have we proven, because we’ve never actually isolated this particle, how did we prove that the DNA or RNA actually came from the particle? So that would be how we would structure it and I think at the end of that we would have a clear picture of whether we are correct, which we are, that this is a disproven hypothesis and we all should act accordingly based on that knowledge.
So that should be very clear. That is a challenge that I put out to Dr. McCullough and Bobby Kennedy to participate in this. And I just want to say for a minute here, what would be the reasons for Kennedy to do this conversation? Because up till now he has not wanted to participate, as far as I can tell, or sign the viral challenge, even though that doesn’t say that he believes one way or another.
It just says that he would like to see the science done. So there’s a number of reasons why I think this is crucial, that he be personally involved in this conversation, as well as Peter McCullough and somebody else they choose. So Kennedy has said that he wants to let the science speak and he wants to get the truth of medicine and virology and vaccines out into the open.
And this is exactly what this conversation would do. And we would be looking for the truth. And in fact, there shouldn’t need to be any other reason for doing this. This would simply be an exercise in finding out what the truth of virology is. So that should be reason enough. The second is there’s probably tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people who would actually tune into such a conversation, and many of them are people who could be supporters of you, but are not.
Now, partly based on your inability or unwillingness to tackle this issue. So this would give you a chance to speak to them and prove to them that in fact, you are willing to be aware of this issue, knowledgeable about this issue, and make up your own mind and not hide under the COVID of this is something for the scientists, because that’s exactly what Fauci says. Let the experts choose.
Well, we have experts on both sides. They say different things. It’s up to everybody’s logic and common sense to choose for themselves, including you. You’re perfectly capable of doing this, so be part of it and choose for yourself. And by the way, I don’t accept the reason that there’s not enough time. We all have time to do this. This is the underpinning the scientific basis of vaccines, the biosecurity state and the biomedical tyranny that we’ve all been exposed to for decades.
But particularly in the last three years, I cannot imagine anything more important than understanding whether the whole thing is based on a fraud. The third one is I don’t think you’re an innocent bystander in this. You’ve actually interviewed many people who talk about lab leaks, which is another version of the viral hypothesis. There can’t be a lab leaked virus if there’s no virus to manipulate or gain its function in the first place.
So that’s obviously part of this, and you’ve written a book about this, so it’s about time that you know the actual science. And again, this is the fourth reason, is this is the key to the biosecurity state. There’s no reason why every person interested in truth and freedom doesn’t absolutely understand this issue. And the final reason, although there are probably many more, is that I don’t see how a movement based on understanding the science and letting the science speak can succeed if the leadership of the movement is not willing to engage in understanding the science and really dissecting the science of viruses at the foundation.
This is the core issue of what we’ve been through. I say that over and over again. There is no reason to not get involved in this. It is simply a time to tackle this. There is no reason that nobody doesn’t have enough time or doesn’t have enough interest, or it’s too hard to understand. It’s not hard to understand. It doesn’t take that much time. We’re not asking for anybody to agree before this conversation.
We’re asking, or I’m asking you, to participate in a conversation that will settle this in the eyes of everybody watching. That is the hope. So I think I’ve said enough about that, and I await your response. And as soon as I hear positive response to this proposed conversation, I will get Andy and Mark on board, if they’re willing, or find somebody in their stead, which I don’t think I’ll need to do.
And we’ll set up a fair and balanced and productive conversation. .
Author
